Tie breaker help

[danox 0]

But if the team that wins the tie breaker next week would have lost the tie breaker this week, Team A would never have had to face him, and would have won the championship.

 

it reduces Team A's chance of winning from somewhere around 50 to some where around 33% basically. Enough said.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

so if he scores 105 and x scores 104 and y scores 106 he loses to the y team. who is to say the y teams should even be there playing him in the first place, he IS playing against two teams.

 

 

The tiebreaker says so, genius. Does that need to be bolded, too?

[FSW Mephisto 0]

But if the team that wins the tie breaker next week would have lost the tie breaker this week, Team A would never have had to face him, and would have won the championship.

 

it reduces Team A's chance of winning from somewhere around 50 to some where around 33% basically. Enough said.

 

 

No it doesn't because you can't know who would win, THEY FOCKING TIED!

 

I agree, if you can find a method that you feel fairly addresses the issue in the week the tied game is played - USE IT.

 

The fact that they tied precludes your assumption above because it is, as yet, undetermined "who deserves to advance." It is and forever will be - a mystery.

 

I really shouldn't be this surprised that a majority of people posting here have no ability to use some abstract thinking.

 

Reality: You are determining the outcome of X vs. Y INDEPENDENT of ANYTHING to do with Team A.

 

You don't have to like that methodology, you just have to accept that, as a tiebreaker, it is an INDEPENDENT game. I understand that you guys are "spooked" by the fact that it, in essence, means that Team A doesn't really know who his opponent is - get over it. It doesn't matter unless you are one of those morons who plays "matchups" against your opponent's lineup.

[AnaheimRams 28]

Ok, I'll give it a stab...

 

1. Team A's odd's of winning the finals should be 50/50 since he should only be facing 1 team.

2. His odds in the finals ARE 50/50 if he only has to worry about ONE team, the higher scoring of the two, which he should, because he's assured of finishing no lower than 2nd place. If he knows going in that his score only matters against whoever is higher of the two, he still only has a 50% success rate rate.

 

You're kidding right?

 

simple math...

 

A, X and Y all play... highest score wins.

 

That's 33.33% for each team... including the teams that should have 50% odds... and the team that should have 0% odds.

 

I don't see how any intelligent person could argue that.

[danox 0]

Agreed that you have to find the fairest way to break the tie, but it HAS to be this week's scores or else you are unfairly putting Team A at a disadvantage.

 

I guess everyone has their own "abstract" opinions on what is fair for breaking the tie, but as far as I see it you just push out the decimal points until the tie is broken. You aren't changing the scoring scheme, you're just making it more and more accurate using the same unchanged player stats.

 

This way you are basing it on that weeks performance only. Surely both teams could agree on that.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

LMAO... no they don't have to beat "BOTH TEAM X&Y" you frigging moron.

 

 

LMAO? At what? At the fact you don't focking get it?

 

Rolling eyes? At what?

 

 

You're not that smart, are ya?

[jgcrawfish 232]

No it doesn't because you can't know who would win, THEY FOCKING TIED!

 

I agree, if you can find a method that you feel fairly addresses the issue in the week the tied game is played - USE IT.

 

The fact that they tied precludes your assumption above because it is, as yet, undetermined "who deserves to advance." It is and forever will be - a mystery.

 

I really shouldn't be this surprised that a majority of people posting here have no ability to use some abstract thinking.

 

Reality: You are determining the outcome of X vs. Y INDEPENDENT of ANYTHING to do with Team A.

 

You don't have to like that methodology, you just have to accept that, as a tiebreaker, it is an INDEPENDENT game. I understand that you guys are "spooked" by the fact that it, in essence, means that Team A doesn't really know who his opponent is - get over it. It doesn't matter unless you are one of those morons who plays "matchups" against your opponent's lineup.

 

Mephisto, what they're saying is that it is inherently unfair to leave it a tie. I'm with you on your solution, but acknowledge the unfairness. Let's say last week Team X and Team Y both tied at 102 and 62 on reserves. But if you were to break down to decimal, Team X scored 102.1 and Team Y scored 102.7. Yet your way both advance to the title game/tiebreaker. Team X scores 110, Team Y scores 105 and Team A scores 107. Team A ends up losing to Team X because of it, even though "technically" he should have faced Team Y and defeated him.

 

The point here is that there is no completely fair way to do it. If you allow Team X and Team Y to have an overtime game, you're running the possibility of penalizing Team A. The more I think about it, the more unfair that becomes in my mind, since again Team A has done their part. So I reiterate, I think as commish he should tally the decimal points from last weeks game and whoever comes out on top in that advances to face Team A.

[jgcrawfish 232]

You're kidding right?

 

simple math...

 

A, X and Y all play... highest score wins.

 

That's 33.33% for each team... including the teams that should have 50% odds... and the team that should have 0% odds.

 

I don't see how any intelligent person could argue that.

 

Ok, I've tried to be nice, but you are focking stupid. Team A isn't playing Team X AND Team Y, he's playing only the higher scorer of the two. Whoever has the lowest score of those two is ELIMINATED right then. Then the higher scorers score is applied against Team A, and whoever is higher there wins the championship.

 

 

 

TEAM X___

TEAM Y___] (WINNER)_________

|

TEAM A______________________| __(CHAMPION)__

 

 

 

EDIT: brackets suck on here...

[tubby_mcgee 701]

No he doesn't. He has to outscore the winner of the previous week's game. Using the next week's game doesn't mean he's playing both.

 

The fact that you people are incapable of separating the two as a possible tiebreak scenario is dizzying.

 

 

Okay...Maybe we are all looking at this in a different manner. If so, pardon my last post.

 

In their league, they are OUT OF WEEKS. The end of the season is here.

 

So, THE WAY I INTERPRETED IT, is...

 

This coming week is the SB, so, in THIS particular week, there would be a "behind the scenes" game taking place---between Team X & Team Y. Team A would be "awaiting" the winner....uhh...but no...being there are not more weeks left, Team A needs to play EITHER Team X or Team Y...THAT SAME WEEK. So, he would have to beat both of them.

 

If A scores 100, X scores 90, and Y scores 110, Team A would lose the Championship. BUT.....IF SOMEHOW that playoff game could have been held before "Championship week", he wouldn only have to beat whichever team advanced. Had it been the team that scored only 90 (Team X), he would have won.

 

So...again....IF YOU interpreted it different, I apologize. If not...then I say you are a dummy.

[FlaHawker 24]

we had a tie last weekend and we use decimal scoring--

 

As for the OP I would just flip a coin, no other way to do it to make it fair. Why should the third team have to play against two teams for the title, thats not fair at all to him.

we had one tie this year with decimal scoring as well. As for flipping coin? I would not go for it but then again, no one in this league realized they didn't have adequate tie breaker srategies so I guess they deserve what they get.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

Ok, I've tried to be nice, but you are focking stupid. Team A isn't playing Team X AND Team Y, he's playing only the higher scorer of the two. Whoever has the lowest score of those two is ELIMINATED right then. Then the higher scorers score is applied against Team A, and whoever is higher there wins the championship.

TEAM X___

TEAM Y___] (WINNER)_________

|

TEAM A______________________| __(CHAMPION)__

EDIT: brackets suck on here...

 

But he has to beat BOTH of them in one given week (assuming your above bracket takes place in a single week). That's not fair.

Look at it this way.

Do you think you have a better chance of going 1-0 in a current week, or 2-0?

 

If Team X and Team Y could determine which one advances PRIOR to the game...then great, that's fair (at least for TEAM A). Otherwise Team A is getting focked.

 

And if you still think it makes no difference, think about this:

 

What if were in the championship vs. a good team in your league. Then, the commish says, "hey jgcrawfish, I'm gonna let one more team be in the title game with you. You don't have to beat both of them, you only have to beat the one that scores the most between those two"

 

Would you say "Oh. No problem." ??

 

What if your commish added 10 more teams, and had a bracket set up between them, then you played the winner of that 10-team bracket, all in a single week?

 

Would that be fine, since you only have to beat one team?

[jgcrawfish 232]

Okay...Maybe we are all looking at this in a different manner. If so, pardon my last post.

 

In their league, they are OUT OF WEEKS. The end of the season is here.

 

So, THE WAY I INTERPRETED IT, is...

 

This coming week is the SB, so, in THIS particular week, there would be a "behind the scenes" game taking place---between Team X & Team Y. Team A would be "awaiting" the winner....uhh...but no...being there are not more weeks left, Team A needs to play EITHER Team X or Team Y...THAT SAME WEEK. So, he would have to beat both of them.

 

If A scores 100, X scores 90, and Y scores 110, Team A would lose the Championship. BUT.....IF SOMEHOW that playoff game could have been held before "Championship week", he wouldn only have to beat whichever team advanced. Had it been the team that scored only 90 (Team X), he would have won.

 

So...again....IF YOU interpreted it different, I apologize. If not...then I say you are a dummy.

 

What part of the "lower scoring team is eliminated" part are you not getting??? It's a tie. One team didn't win. Logic says that you apply decimals to resolve, however, were I the guy that was .1 behind, I'd be lobbying for the "overtime" scenario because it gives me one more shot.

[AnaheimRams 28]

Ok, I've tried to be nice, but you are focking stupid. Team A isn't playing Team X AND Team Y, he's playing only the higher scorer of the two. Whoever has the lowest score of those two is ELIMINATED right then. Then the higher scorers score is applied against Team A, and whoever is higher there wins the championship.

TEAM X___

TEAM Y___] (WINNER)_________

|

TEAM A______________________| __(CHAMPION)__

EDIT: brackets suck on here...

 

 

Right... I'm focking stupid because I understand math and logic.

 

Very, very simple question for you.

 

Yes... or no answer.

 

Team A, X and Y all play week 16. Highest score of those three teams wins the championship.

 

Is that a fact?

 

Yes or no.

 

It's a simple question... let's see if you can answer it.

[danox 0]

I think its pretty clear at this point that the two camps, "Team A is getting screwed" and "It doesn't matter to Team A" aren't going to agree on this.

 

 

All I know is, if I were Team A I would go down swinging to prevent a tie breaker game during my superbowl. If you want to let X & Y battle it out during your superbowl week, go for it. 100 seasons from now I would have 50 trophies and you would have 33 ;-)

[tubby_mcgee 701]

What part of the "lower scoring team is eliminated" part are you not getting??? It's a tie. One team didn't win. Logic says that you apply decimals to resolve, however, were I the guy that was .1 behind, I'd be lobbying for the "overtime" scenario because it gives me one more shot.

 

 

Read my POST #91 where I mention a team's chances of going 1-0 in a week, vs. 2-0. And read the part about playing vs. the winner of a 10-man bracket. Reply to that one with some good argument.

[jgcrawfish 232]

But he has to beat BOTH of them in one given week (assuming your above bracket takes place in a single week). That's not fair.

Look at it this way.

Do you think you have a better chance of going 1-0 in a current week, or 2-0?

 

If Team X and Team Y could determine which one advances PRIOR to the game...then great, that's fair (at least for TEAM A). Otherwise Team A is getting focked.

 

GOOD GAWD!!! He's not playing against both their scores...only the highest one. Technically TEAM X and TEAM Y are playing 2 games this week, but TEAM A is only playing 1 game. He doesn't have to beat both their scores BECAUSE THE LOWEST OF THE TEAM X VS TEAM Y IS ELIMIFOCKINATED!!!

 

Scenario #1:

TEAM A = 120

TEAM X = 110

TEAM Y = 105

Result: TEAM X defeats TEAM Y by 110 to 105. TEAM Y is eliminated. TEAM A defeats TEAM X by 120 to 110. TEAM A is the champion and takes home the championship winners pot, TEAM X takes home the championship losers pot.

 

Scenario #2:

TEAM A = 120

TEAM X = 125

TEAM Y = 105

Result: TEAM X defeats TEAM Y by 125 to 105. TEAM Y is eliminated. TEAM X defeats TEAM A by 125 to 120.

 

Scenario #3:

TEAM A = 120

TEAM X = 130

TEAM Y = 125

Result: TEAM X defeats TEAM Y by 130 to 125. TEAM Y is eliminated. TEAM X defeats TEAM A by 130 to 120. TEAM X is the champion and takes home the championship winners, pot, TEAM A takes home the championship losers pot.

 

So, all you "statisticians" out there, if TEAM A is only facing the highest score, what is his chance?

[bozobear 0]

What if were in the championship vs. a good team in your league. Then, the commish says, "hey jgcrawfish, I'm gonna let one more team be in the title game with you. You don't have to beat both of them, you only have to beat the one that scores the most between those two"

 

 

good point.

 

 

here's what i think... how many times in your FF career did you lose in the first round of the playoffs only to outscore everyone else the next week but it didn't matter cause you were out? if you allow the tie breaker to be the following week you're allowing the possibility of someone getting hot that probably wouldn't have been there from the week before. get it? it needs to be settled the week of the tie.

[jgcrawfish 232]

I think its pretty clear at this point that the two camps, "Team A is getting screwed" and "It doesn't matter to Team A" aren't going to agree on this.

All I know is, if I were Team A I would go down swinging to prevent a tie breaker game during my superbowl. If you want to let X & Y battle it out during your superbowl week, go for it. 100 seasons from now I would have 50 trophies and you would have 33 ;-)

 

and I agree with you here...the "overtime" setup is less fair to the one that has earned the most.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

GOOD GAWD!!! He's not playing against both their scores...only the highest one. Technically TEAM X and TEAM Y are playing 2 games this week, but TEAM A is only playing 1 game. He doesn't have to beat both their scores BECAUSE THE LOWEST OF THE TEAM X VS TEAM Y IS ELIMIFOCKINATED!!!

 

Scenario #1:

TEAM A = 120

TEAM X = 110

TEAM Y = 105

Result: TEAM X defeats TEAM Y by 110 to 105. TEAM Y is eliminated. TEAM A defeats TEAM X by 120 to 110. TEAM A is the champion and takes home the championship winners pot, TEAM X takes home the championship losers pot.

 

Scenario #2:

TEAM A = 120

TEAM X = 125

TEAM Y = 105

Result: TEAM X defeats TEAM Y by 125 to 105. TEAM Y is eliminated. TEAM X defeats TEAM A by 125 to 120.

 

Scenario #3:

TEAM A = 120

TEAM X = 130

TEAM Y = 125

Result: TEAM X defeats TEAM Y by 130 to 125. TEAM Y is eliminated. TEAM X defeats TEAM A by 130 to 120. TEAM X is the champion and takes home the championship winners, pot, TEAM A takes home the championship losers pot.

 

So, all you "statisticians" out there, if TEAM A is only facing the highest score, what is his chance?

 

So if you were in the championship, you wouldn't mind playing the winner of a 10-man bracket in a given week? Because you only have to beat 1 other team, according to your math. Don't jump off the focking handle...I just don't see where you are coming from.

[jgcrawfish 232]

What if were in the championship vs. a good team in your league. Then, the commish says, "hey jgcrawfish, I'm gonna let one more team be in the title game with you. You don't have to beat both of them, you only have to beat the one that scores the most between those two"

good point.

here's what i think... how many times in your FF career did you lose in the first round of the playoffs only to outscore everyone else the next week but it didn't matter cause you were out? if you allow the tie breaker to be the following week you're allowing the possibility of someone getting hot that probably wouldn't have been there from the week before. get it? it needs to be settled the week of the tie.

 

not disagreeing with you buddy...one way or another somebody is gonna get screwed...and as i mentioned two times already, i don't think it should be the one who already has his date in the championship game booked. i think it should be settled "last week". however, if that isn't in the rules, it maybe hard to enforce. that's why i said the the commish needs to make a decision on behalf of the league (so long as it does not involve his team I should add) and resolve last weeks tie rather than punish TEAM A by making them face the highest possible scorer.

[AnaheimRams 28]

and I agree with you here...the "overtime" setup is less fair to the one that has earned the most.

 

 

WTF?!?!?!

 

I'm 'focking stupid'... yet you just agreed with me?

 

If, according to you, Team A is only going up against the rightful winner of the semi final tiebreaker, tiebreaker.... How is it unfair?

[tubby_mcgee 701]

GOOD GAWD!!! He's not playing against both their scores...only the highest one.

 

Okay, so let's say EACH and EVERY week of the season, you played vs. 11 teams (in a 12-man league). You didn't have to beat all 11 teams, ONLY the ONE TEAM that scored the most that week.

 

Would you like your chances of having a pretty good record at the end of the year?

[bozobear 0]

not disagreeing with you buddy...one way or another somebody is gonna get screwed...and as i mentioned two times already, i don't think it should be the one who already has his date in the championship game booked. i think it should be settled "last week". however, if that isn't in the rules, it maybe hard to enforce. that's why i said the the commish needs to make a decision on behalf of the league (so long as it does not involve his team I should add) and resolve last weeks tie rather than punish TEAM A by making them face the highest possible scorer.

 

right. just flip a coin already and enjoy the championship game.

[jgcrawfish 232]

So if you were in the championship, you wouldn't mind playing the winner of a 10-man bracket in a given week? Because you only have to beat 1 other team, according to your math. Don't jump off the focking handle...I just don't see where you are coming from.

 

I'm not jumping off anything. If you'll look at my post (#87), I believe I now have said probably 3 times that it's not fair to TEAM A. My "quote" is below.

 

*However, it's only unfair if one of the two teams fails to outscore TEAM A. But I don't think that's a risk that should be taken, I think it should be fixed before this weekend's matchup. It should be fixed "last weekend"

 

The point here is that there is no completely fair way to do it. If you allow Team X and Team Y to have an overtime game, you're running the possibility of penalizing Team A. The more I think about it, the more unfair that becomes in my mind, since again Team A has done their part. So I reiterate, I think as commish he should tally the decimal points from last weeks game and whoever comes out on top in that advances to face Team A.

[bozobear 0]

Okay, so let's say EACH and EVERY week of the season, you played vs. 11 teams (in a 12-man league). You didn't have to beat all 11 teams, ONLY the ONE TEAM that scored the most that week.

 

Would you like your chances of having a pretty good record at the end of the year?

 

 

this couldn't make any more sense.

 

 

brilliant post.

[jgcrawfish 232]

WTF?!?!?!

 

I'm 'focking stupid'... yet you just agreed with me?

 

If, according to you, Team A is only going up against the rightful winner of the semi final tiebreaker, tiebreaker.... How is it unfair?

 

It's unfair only because they didn't have the foresight to plan for this. There should be multiple tiebreakers, however arbitrary they may be (ours uses a bizzare "Defense with fewest yards Against for the game" followed by Rushing Yrds for and Passing Yrds for... ). Its unfair for the two guys who tied because both believe they have justification to go to the title game because the league rules (or in this case the lack thereof) stipulate they get to. In their mind both of them should have a shot and what Mephisto proposed is a reasonable solution.

 

And FWIW, I wasn't agreeing with you, i was agreeing danox. I still think you're stupid for not understanding the difference between the "competing against the highest score" and "competing against both scores"

[jgcrawfish 232]

this couldn't make any more sense.

brilliant post.

 

that happened to me in a head to head league this year, unfortunately I did play the highest scorer every week...

[xbishopx 6]

What if you have the owners of the tied playoff game pick one player on their team for this coming weeks game and whichever of those 2 players scores the most gives that team the win for Week 15? It's essentially a coin flip but gives both teams a different way to control their own destiny so to speak and doesn't guarantee that Team A will be playing the highest or lowest scoring team this week out of those two teams. (At least this will keep things interesting other than a dull coin flip)

 

This way Team A is not screwed by having to outscore 2 teams this week as opposed to 1 team.

 

Obviously FF has a lot to do with luck and the best team doesn't always win but that's what makes it fun. By putting both of those teams in an "OT" game that Team A will have to outscore is truly unfair.

 

Also, the decimal system should not be taken into consideration either, because you may have to look into this for other games in the playoffs and regular season. What if the other playoff game was decided by a small point margin, would that game have been affected? That will just open up a can of worms IMO.

[AnaheimRams 28]

It's unfair only because they didn't have the foresight to plan for this. There should be multiple tiebreakers, however arbitrary they may be (ours uses a bizzare "Defense with fewest yards Against for the game" followed by Rushing Yrds for and Passing Yrds for... ). Its unfair for the two guys who tied because both believe they have justification to go to the title game because the league rules (or in this case the lack thereof) stipulate they get to. In their mind both of them should have a shot and what Mephisto proposed is a reasonable solution.

 

And FWIW, I wasn't agreeing with you, i was agreeing danox. I still think you're stupid for not understanding the difference between the "competing against the highest score" and "competing against both scores"

 

 

One more time:

 

True or false:

 

Three teams play Championship week... highest score wins the Title.

[jgcrawfish 232]

One more time:

 

True or false:

 

Three teams play Championship week... highest score wins the Title.

 

Again, I've said several times, if it's an All or Nothing championship, then your argument is completely relevant. But if it's a split, the bottom line is it's 1 team vs 1 team, highest score.

[AnaheimRams 28]

Again, I've said several times, if it's an All or Nothing championship, then your argument is completely relevant. But if it's a split, the bottom line is it's 1 team vs 1 team, highest score.

 

WTF difference does it make if there's a second place prize?!?!?!?!

 

Team A is playing two teams for the title if there's no second place...

 

yet..

 

Somehow... magically...

 

it becomes a H2H matchup if there's a runner-up prize?

 

How the fock does that work?

 

Also... still... after 4 or 5 times... you have not answered my question.

 

and I'm the stupid one.

[KSB2424 3,148]

I'm not gonna read all this, and whether or not it is mathmatically correct to have 3 teams in the Finals, it doesn't change the fact that it is focking stoopid. HTH

[jgcrawfish 232]

WTF difference does it make if there's a second place prize?!?!?!?!

 

Team A is playing two teams for the title if there's no second place...

 

yet..

 

Somehow... magically...

 

it becomes a H2H matchup if there's a runner-up prize?

 

How the fock does that work?

 

Also... still... after 4 or 5 times... you have not answered my question.

 

and I'm the stupid one.

 

In one league I'm in it's a 75/25 split, of usually around $1000. $250 for the runner up ain't bad. I wouldn't be happy about (at all) about having to beat the highest score of 2 teams, but as long as I'm guaranteed at least that $250, well that's something. I'm probably still fighting it anyway, because again, AS I'VE SAID ABOUT 4 FOCKING TIMES IF YOU WOULD READ, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S FAIR TO TEAM A WHO HAS ALREADY QUALIFIED FOR THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THAT THE PARTICIPANT VYING AGAINST HIM SHOULD BE SETTLED BASED ON LAST WEEK.

 

AND YES, IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THAT FROM ME NOW ABOUT 5 TIMES, THEN YOU ARE DEFINITELY THE STUPID ONE

[tubby_mcgee 701]

What if you have the owners of the tied playoff game pick one player on their team for this coming weeks game and whichever of those 2 players scores the most gives that team the win for Week 15?

 

 

I thought of that too, but I don't like that. What if one guy drafted for depth, etc...or had the 1-12 pick, and the other had the 1-1 pick? If both guys agreed, then it'd be fine of course, but I don't think it'd be fair for the commish to say "this is how we are deciding it"

 

At this point, I think a coin flip is the only way to avoid argument.

[AnaheimRams 28]

In one league I'm in it's a 75/25 split, of usually around $1000. $250 for the runner up ain't bad. I wouldn't be happy about (at all) about having to beat the highest score of 2 teams, but as long as I'm guaranteed at least that $250, well that's something. I'm probably still fighting it anyway, because again, AS I'VE SAID ABOUT 4 FOCKING TIMES IF YOU WOULD READ, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S FAIR TO TEAM A WHO HAS ALREADY QUALIFIED FOR THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THAT THE PARTICIPANT VYING AGAINST HIM SHOULD BE SETTLED BASED ON LAST WEEK.

 

AND YES, IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THAT FROM ME NOW ABOUT 5 TIMES, THEN YOU ARE DEFINITELY THE STUPID ONE

 

 

I give up.

 

You're going in focking circles. You have CLEARY said that there is no effect on team A because he is actually only playing one team.

 

Then you also say that it is unfair to team A.

 

Another question for you...

 

How do you keep an idiot in suspense?

[xbishopx 6]

I thought of that too, but I don't like that. What if one guy drafted for depth, etc...or had the 1-12 pick, and the other had the 1-1 pick? If both guys agreed, then it'd be fine of course, but I don't think it'd be fair for the commish to say "this is how we are deciding it"

 

At this point, I think a coin flip is the only way to avoid argument.

 

It's tough because since there was no other tie breaker decided other than bench scoring, anything can be considered unfair.

 

I figured this method would at least make it "fun" and still really a "coin flip" anyway. If it was last week and someone had Brady he would be screwed or two weeks ago when AD rushed for 3 yards agains S.F. You just never really know and even if you drafted for depth you still have to have someone on your roster that's a stud or one that has emerged as one this year, or a favorable matchup.

 

But agreed, this is for the commish to throw out there and all 3 teams involved have to go with it.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

It's tough because since there was no other tie breaker decided other than bench scoring, anything can be considered unfair.

 

I figured this method would at least make it "fun" and still really a "coin flip" anyway. If it was last week and someone had Brady he would be screwed or two weeks ago when AD rushed for 3 yards agains S.F. You just never really know and even if you drafted for depth you still have to have someone on your roster that's a stud or one that has emerged as one this year, or a favorable matchup.

 

But agreed, this is for the commish to throw out there and all 3 teams involved have to go with it.

 

 

Just two teams would have to agree. Team X and Team Y. He flips the coin tomorrow (Wednesday), then the winner is in the title game with Team A. Right?

[FSW Mephisto 0]

Everyone has such a hard-on to prove FSW Mephisto an idiot, they conveniently fail to acknowledge that I can accept that they believe my suggestion is unfair, but I disagree and all 12 members of my league would also disagree with you.

 

That said, does anyone disagree that the following suggestions in this thread are also rife with "waaaaaaaaaaah, unfairness" -

 

- Bench points. They didn't play and they were put on the bench by owners for a reason. Now, you suddenly want to use people who were not playing in week 15 to suddenly determine the outcome of a critically important playoff game. Toss in injuries, a lack of balance between the two rosters (some teams may have more scoring power personnel than others)... and you have a whole host of factors that serve to the unfair detriment of one owner.

 

- Recalculate the scoring using decimals. Brilliant - that's tantamount to a scoring change mid-season... worse - in the playoffs on a bye... that's fair.

 

- Flip a coin: Who the FOCK wants the outcome of their season determined by something not game related?

 

- Pick the points of your playoff game (combined): Who the FOCK wants the outcome of their season determined by something not game related? Woopdeefrickendoo! I guessed the right number!!! I broke my balls all season for this!!! WOOHOOOOOOOO!!!

 

- Highest scorer on the team? Yeah, I want the guy who owns Tom Brady and NOTHING ELSE to have that advantage going into a game (game against the Jets aside). Our game outcomes are based upon the collective efforts of our starting lineup, not one stud. Sounds fair.

 

- The "Homo Field Advantage." I can list enough reasons why this is so focked up except to say you're a homo if you use it.

 

I guess it just goes along with all of the rest of the lucky things I consider to be FF... I'm lucky I have 11 other owners who aren't such focking loser pussies as to cry "not fair" because the method we choose relies on the outcome of a game and entire lineup and not some focked up stupidassed tiebreaker ideas offered in this thread.

 

Team A isn't playing both teams. His only playing the team that advanced after the tiebreaker.

 

If you feel that bad about it, move the Championship Game to Week 17 and give Team A a bye this week... let team X play team Y in the "overtime" game. Of course, someone on THIS forum will b!tch that it's not fair to team X or team Y (the winner) because "Team A had a week's rest before playing in the Championship." You ass-holes.

[Chasgh 0]

Well, I made the original post and after reading the discussion today I thought Id provide an update. We pretty much ran through most if not all the scenarios discussed in this thread today. We too discussed the fairness of both tied teams playing a tie breaker next week simultaneously as the fantasy bowl is being played. We came to the conclusion as well that it wasnt fair to "Team A" to have to face the team with the highest points between Team X and Y in Week 16. It would be Darwinism or survival of the fittest. All the "retroactive" tie breakers just werent fair either. So late in the day the question was still what is the most fair way to settle this. Finally an idea was suggested that seemed reasonable and we decided to sleep on it before we enact it. Basically team A has earned his way into the Fantasy Bowl. Team X and Y will flip a coin. The winner of the flip goes on to play A in the Fantasy Bowl. However, because X and Y tied, we have agreed that Y will also play "on the side". If X beats A AND Y scores higher than A then both will split the money and consider themselves co champs. If X beats A and Y doesnt then X is the undisputed champ. If A beats both X and Y then A is the undisputed champ. If A beats X but Y outscores A then A is still the champ but Y takes X's runnerup money. The logic for all this is that we have allowed ties all season long. Its just not fair to retroactively break a tie in the playoffs when we didnt do it during the regualar season. So basically X and Y are competing against A in the FAntasy Bowl although only X is the "official" team playing as far as the league is concerned. As I said this is a gentlenmen's agreement between X and Y to share the winnings if both would have beaten A in the Fantasy Bowl. This seems to satisfy everyone except for team Y in the event that X loses to team A and Team Y outscores team A. Team Y basically gets nothing but the runnerup money. Sucks for them but thats the ultimate penalty for not winning outright their semifinal game. I hope that this makes some sense, but after hours of conversation between several people, this seems to be the best solution that we can come up with.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Team A isn't playing both teams. His only playing the team that advanced after the tiebreaker.

 

However the OT scenario is worded, it is inherently unfair to Team A. The chance of one team out of X & Y sh!tting the bed in a given week is higher than the chance of both teams sh!tting the bed. Conversely, the chance of the winner of X vs. Y having a really good game is higher than the chance of either X or Y separately having a good game.

 

What it comes down to is that either way, in Team A's frame of reference, his theoretical "opponent" is getting two chances at a good game, and a second chance at remedying a bad score.

 

With that being said, I agree with you that the other "solutions" you mentioned aren't really fair either. To me, the tie-break should involve the scoring methods already in place, whether it be total TDs scored that week by each team, or something along those lines.