Tie breaker help

[mozzy84 0]

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

excellent fishing trip

[FSW Mephisto 0]

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.

 

Another great suggestion. And JUST IN CASE that they tie... you can arrange a series of tiebreakers based upon the perceived "importance" of the score.

 

- TDs is most important and first tiebreaker.

- FGs is typically the second important type of score and second tiebreaker.

- PATs can be the third tiebreaker.

 

Excellent choice. It involves only the starting lineup and resolves it in the week the game is played. I'll actually consider amending my current tiebreaker based on your suggestion.

[westlak 1]

I need some help with a tie breaker in our Final Four. We've never had this come up before but two teams are tied and the winner goes to the Fantasy Bowl. Our tiebreaker is reserve points. Both teams have the same number of reserve points and we have no backup tie breaker. Any suggestions on how to break this? What a dilemna!

Our tiebreaker is the highest scoring individual player.

If that's tied its the 2nd highest scoring individual player.

etc., etc., etc.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

Our tiebreaker is the highest scoring individual player.

If that's tied its the 2nd highest scoring individual player.

etc., etc., etc.

 

Faggy.

 

So, a team with a hot stud and a bunch of lesser players would get the win over someone with a nice, balanced, consistently scoring unit.

 

That seems fair.

[donhaas 18]

Faggy.

 

So, a team with a hot stud and a bunch of lesser players would get the win over someone with a nice, balanced, consistently scoring unit.

 

That seems fair.

 

Our tiebreaker is whoever has the most perfectly balanced scoring among our starters

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Another great suggestion. And JUST IN CASE that they tie... you can arrange a series of tiebreakers based upon the perceived "importance" of the score.

 

- TDs is most important and first tiebreaker.

- FGs is typically the second important type of score and second tiebreaker.

- PATs can be the third tiebreaker.

 

Excellent choice. It involves only the starting lineup and resolves it in the week the game is played. I'll actually consider amending my current tiebreaker based on your suggestion.

 

Whatever the tiebreaker might be, to me the bolded part is the most important part. I think you're right on in looking at arranging a series of tiebreakers based upon the perceived "importance" of the score. One thing I might keep in mind is that with FGs and PATs the team concept is reduced down to the kicker on each team, and I'm not a big fan of that - sort of like shootouts in hockey or soccer, where it changes from a team concept to an individual one. However, options are admittedly limited when trying to find a way to involve only the starting lineup and resolve it in the week the game is played. Maybe there's a way to employ total yardage gained by each team? In yardage based leagues, yardage can tend to rank right up there in terms of perceived "importance" of the score.

[0021 0]

I haven't read anything but the first post, but decimal scoring is the answer.

 

Only relies on your starters actual stats, and would show who actually had the better day.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

I haven't read anything but the first post, but decimal scoring is the answer.

 

Sooo....they should go back and redo the season with decimal scoring...errr.....???

 

 

Read more than just the first post.

[KingofBeer 0]

mephisto is a retarded phag

 

nothing more to see here...move along

[KingofBeer 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.

 

didn't biother to read iour post.....but i know team a gets fockeed from 50% to 33%...you're a fockig retard. Shut the fock up.

[KingofBeer 0]

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.

 

it's not 1 team vs 1 team

 

didn't read the thread but I know youre the 2nd dumbest fock in this thread. shut the fick uop you focking retard

 

50% vs 33%

 

shut the fock up

[FSW Mephisto 0]

it's not 1 team vs 1 team

 

didn't read the thread but I know youre the 2nd dumbest fock in this thread. shut the fick uop you focking retard

 

50% vs 33%

 

shut the fock up

 

KingofBeer: No it isn't. One team was eliminated.

 

At this point, I really just want to see how many times I can keep you coming back with the same inane reply. You may think you're cool. You're not. Dance b!tch. Dance to the tune I play for you.

 

[beercat 5]

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?

 

Show me one scenerio in here that Team A can win without beating Team X and Team Y.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

Show me one scenerio in here that Team A can win without beating Team X and Team Y.

 

All scenarios. One of team X and Y doesn't advance once the tiebreaker has been concluded.

 

You're welcome.

[beercat 5]

All scenarios. One of team X and Y doesn't advance once the tiebreaker has been concluded.

 

You're welcome.

 

.....Still waiting on that one scenerio.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

.....Still waiting on that one scenerio.

 

X beats Y in the tiebreaker... X advances to play A.

 

That's one.

 

Y beats X in the tiebreaker... Y advances to play A.

 

That's two.

 

You're welcome.

[KingofBeer 0]

mephisto is a retarded loser....nothing more to see here....move along

[beercat 5]

X beats Y in the tiebreaker... X advances to play A.

 

That's one.

 

Y beats X in the tiebreaker... Y advances to play A.

 

That's two.

 

You're welcome.

 

Show me one scenerio where Team A can win the Championship without scoring more points than both Team X and Team Y. Since apparently you are stuck on the word "beat".

 

Can't be done......

 

I win this thread

[jgcrawfish 232]

Show me one scenerio where Team A can win the Championship without scoring more points than both Team X and Team Y. Since apparently you are stuck on the word "beat".

 

Can't be done......

 

I win this thread

 

I'll do so, right after you show me the scenario where TEAM A, playing either TEAM X or TEAM Y, will win the Championship without scoring more points than that team. Unless your idea is to just give the Championship to TEAM A, he's gonna have to outscore somebody you dumbass...

 

You might want to rethink your "I win this thread " comment now...

[beercat 5]

I'll do so, right after you show me the scenario where TEAM A, playing either TEAM X or TEAM Y, will win the Championship without scoring more points than that team. Unless your idea is to just give the Championship to TEAM A, he's gonna have to outscore somebody you dumbass...

 

You might want to rethink your "I win this thread " comment now...

 

Correct he will have to outscore somebody (singular).....not two teams.....stupid fock

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

I'll do so, right after you show me the scenario where TEAM A, playing either TEAM X or TEAM Y, will win the Championship without scoring more points than that team. Unless your idea is to just give the Championship to TEAM A, he's gonna have to outscore somebody you dumbass...

 

What you say is true, but 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. Thus, the thinking that Team A has to play against "two teams".

[jgcrawfish 232]

Point is he should not have to be playing two teams. He did his part in winning his game....stupid fock

 

You post a message about somebody showing a scenario where he doesn't have to score more than anybody and still will still win the Championship and then call somebody else "stupid fock"...wow...I'm not even sure what that makes you.

 

The point is that he isn't playing two teams stupid fock, just the higher of the two...whichever one of the teams of X and Y which has the lower score is eliminated...the concept really isn't that hard but apparently there needs to be a cat in the hat version for guys like you. THIS ADMITTEDLY ISN'T THE FAIREST COURSE OF ACTION but since there are no rules established here, the idea was to offer possible solutions. However, you and a few others have chosen to be obstinate fockheads.

[beercat 5]

You post a message about somebody showing a scenario where he doesn't have to score more than anybody and still will still win the Championship and then call somebody else "stupid fock"...wow...I'm not even sure what that makes you.

 

You show me where I said that Team A does not have to score more points than anybody. I said that Team A should not have to score more points than two teams to win the championship. You might need to learn how to read too sh!thead.

 

If you and Mephisto can convince Team A of your scenerio, more power to you.

[jgcrawfish 232]

What you say is true, but 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. Thus, the thinking that Team A has to play against "two teams".

 

I understand the thinking, and appreciate the tactfulness as well. There is no right way resolve this. If you go back and apply decimal scoring to last weeks game and it resolves the tie, that's great. However, what if there was one tie earlier in the season that was resolved on reserve points. So the two teams that were involved in that game, call them TEAM C (who won on reserves) and TEAM D go back and look at the decimal scoring for their tie, and it turns out that TEAM D actually won the game on decimals. Not only could that change the result of their game, it could conceivably change the entire standings. There is inherent unfairness both in apply a new rule to future games and applying one posthumously to past games. We know without a doubt the following:

 

TEAM A did is part and is in the championship

TEAM X and TEAM Y tied and both probably believe they deserve a shot at the championship

There are no rules in place to settle it past the first tiebreaker which is reserve points

It is unfair to apply a new rule to the one game last week without applying to all the games of the season

It is unfair make TEAM A have to compete against the higher of two scores in the Championship

[jgcrawfish 232]

You show me where I said that Team A does not have to score more points than anybody. I said that Team A should not have to score more points than two teams to win the championship. You might need to learn how to read to sh!thead.

 

If you and Mephisto can convince Team A of your scenerio, more power to you.

 

You might want to check post 138 (your post) and 139 (where I quoted it) and just for you I'll quote it again...

 

Show me one scenerio where Team A can win the Championship without scoring more points than both Team X and Team Y. Since apparently you are stuck on the word "beat".

 

Can't be done......

 

I win this thread

 

The ironic part is the "you need to learn how to read sh!thead" response you just posted...man, you're getting dumber by the minute. I'm not quite sure how one gets their foot in their mouth AND their head up their ass at the same time but you have accomplished it.

[jgcrawfish 232]

I'm sorry jgcrawfish, you're completely right and I'm obviously a moron

 

or

 

:crickets:

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

I understand the thinking, and appreciate the tactfulness as well. There is no right way resolve this. If you go back and apply decimal scoring to last weeks game and it resolves the tie, that's great. However, what if there was one tie earlier in the season that was resolved on reserve points. So the two teams that were involved in that game, call them TEAM C (who won on reserves) and TEAM D go back and look at the decimal scoring for their tie, and it turns out that TEAM D actually won the game on decimals. Not only could that change the result of their game, it could conceivably change the entire standings. There is inherent unfairness both in apply a new rule to future games and applying one posthumously to past games. We know without a doubt the following:

 

TEAM A did is part and is in the championship

TEAM X and TEAM Y tied and both probably believe they deserve a shot at the championship

There are no rules in place to settle it past the first tiebreaker which is reserve points

It is unfair to apply a new rule to the one game last week without applying to all the games of the season

It is unfair make TEAM A have to compete against the higher of two scores in the Championship

 

Excellent point regarding implementing the decimal scoring system in the playoffs - to me, Teams C & D would then have a legitimate beef.

 

I think that Meph's list of tiebreakers based in perceived "importance" of the score is the way to go. It takes into account games ONLY played that week, and points ONLY accrued by those players that were started.

 

I'm a little surprised though, that there was only one tiebreaker in place. I've never commished a FF league before, but I did commish a regular "Pick'em" against the spread pool. And the one thing I made sure of, right off the bat, was that there would be enough tiebreakers in place to ensure that NO arguments/disputes were possible.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Excellent point regarding implementing the decimal scoring system in the playoffs - to me, Teams C & D would then have a legitimate beef.

 

I think that Meph's list of tiebreakers based in perceived "importance" of the score is the way to go. It takes into account games ONLY played that week, and points ONLY accrued by those players that were started.

 

I'm a little surprised though, that there was only one tiebreaker in place. I've never commished a FF league before, but I did commish a regular "Pick'em" against the spread pool. And the one thing I made sure of, right off the bat, was that there would be enough tiebreakers in place to ensure that NO arguments/disputes were possible.

 

Thanks!

 

jgcrawfish: "You know you're an idiot, right?"

beercat: "I'm making progress. I used to be an azzhole."

[beercat 5]

I'm done arguing with someone that doesn't know the difference between singular(1) and plural(2).

[jgcrawfish 232]

Show me one scenerio where Team A can win the Championship without scoring more points than both Team X and Team Y. Since apparently you are stuck on the word "beat".

 

Can't be done......

 

I win this thread

 

 

I'm done arguing with someone that doesn't know the difference between singular(1) and plural(2).

 

Wow, that's the fastest turn around from an "I win this thread" chest thumping to "I'm done arguing..." slinking away with your tail between your legs. I can clearly see and know the difference between singular and plural (and know that plural also means more than "(2)" fwiw) and I'm also keen enough to know that to have a chance to win TEAM A must outscore someone, which apparently you can't recognize.

[frank 2,305]

I wonder if the discussion in the league will be as long/dumb as this thread.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

I'm a little surprised though, that there was only one tiebreaker in place. I've never commished a FF league before, but I did commish a regular "Pick'em" against the spread pool. And the one thing I made sure of, right off the bat, was that there would be enough tiebreakers in place to ensure that NO arguments/disputes were possible.

 

Strangely, I had never considered that there might be a tie in the post-season, despite the very occasional regular season tie. I had no provisions in place for tiebreaking in the post-season until last year. (League in existence since 1997.)

 

 

The Mephisto Bowl ended in a tie last year and the "overtime game" was played in Week 17.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Strangely, I had never considered that there might be a tie in the post-season, despite the very occasional regular season tie. I had no provisions in place for tiebreaking in the post-season until last year. (League in existence since 1997.)

 

 

The Mephisto Bowl ended in a tie last year and the "overtime game" was played in Week 17.

 

You know it's funny - I just checked the rules of the fantasy league I'm in, and while there are several clear tiebreakers for getting into the playoffs, we have nothing in place for ties that occur in the playoffs.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Luckily ours clearly defines it for both regular season ties and playoff ties...

 

Thanks for all the discussion guys, I haven't that much back and forth since I tried to get into a debate chick's pants in high school...

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Luckily ours clearly defines it for both regular season ties and playoff ties...

 

Thanks for all the discussion guys, I haven't that much back and forth since I tried to get into a debate chick's pants in high school...

 

Were you able to "break her tie"?

[jgcrawfish 232]

Were you able to "break her tie"?

 

Sadly, no. In some debates no means yes, in others no means maybe. In that one, no meant no.

 

(but my wife was in debate, so I made up for the loss)

[KingofBeer 0]

This thread reminded me of the old three door question:

 

You are a contestant in a game show, and the game show host tells you there is a prize behind one of the three doors you face. You have to guess which door to open.

 

But when you make your guess, instead of opening the door you picked, the game show host opens a different door...one that he knows has nothing behind it. So now you're down to two doors. And the game show host says, "I'll let you change your choice, if you want to."

 

And the question is, do you change your guess? Or keep your original choice?

[KingofBeer 0]

Answer: Even though there are only two doors left, it's not 50/50. If you keep your original pick you have a 1/3 chance of winning. If you change to the other door you have a 2/3 chance of winning.

[AnaheimRams 28]

Answer: Even though there are only two doors left, it's not 50/50. If you keep your original pick you have a 1/3 chance of winning. If you change to the other door you have a 2/3 chance of winning.

 

Seems to me that the law of independent trials would make it 50/50.

 

am I missing something?

 

I'm about 15 years removed from my Logic 101 class.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

Seems to me that the law of independent trials would make it 50/50.

 

am I missing something?

 

I'm about 15 years removed from my Logic 101 class.

 

The Monte Hall Problem Explained