Tie breaker help

[Vikings4ever 550]

 

If I flip a coin this week to break the tie, aren't I playing the team that "scores the most points the following week?"

 

If I use bench points to break the tie, aren't I playing the team that "scores the most points the following week?"

 

If I use the highest scoring kicker to break the tie, aren't I playing the team that "scores the most points the following week?"

 

No to all of the above. You're playing the team that scored the most points the previous week.

 

No matter how you slice it, team A has to score more points than teams X AND Y to get the championship, whereas they would only have to score more points than X OR Y (depending who won the previous week) if the tiebreaker was determined based purely on this week's game.

[AnaheimRams 28]

 

If I flip a coin this week to break the tie, aren't I playing the team that "scores the most points the following week?"

 

If I use bench points to break the tie, aren't I playing the team that "scores the most points the following week?"

 

If I use the highest scoring kicker to break the tie, aren't I playing the team that "scores the most points the following week?"

 

 

NO!!!

 

I love when this comes up because it proves what a flaming retard Mephisto is.

 

Semi finals:

 

Team A beats Team D and advances.

 

Team B ties Team C and advance to the "tiebreaker" the following week.

 

Therefore... in the final.

 

Whomever scores the most points of A B or C wins the title.

 

That's three teams playing for the championship.

 

It's simple... and it's a logical fact.

 

You are an obtuse moron for ignoring it.

[beercat 5]

Higher seed gets home field advantage, and the tie breaker.

 

That's what you play the regular season for.....to get to the playoffs with the best seeding.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

No to all of the above. You're playing the team that scored the most points the previous week.

 

No matter how you slice it, team A has to score more points than teams X AND Y to get the championship, whereas they would only have to score more points than X OR Y (depending who won the previous week) if the tiebreaker was determined based purely on this week's game.

 

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.

[AnaheimRams 28]

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.

 

 

Yes it does.

 

Three teams advance, highest score wins.

 

Fact.

 

Keep it up though... it's fun to watch.

[jgcrawfish 232]

This really isn't that hard people...it's not fair to Team A to have to play both Team X AND Team Y. However, it really doesn't matter, because he essentially is. What Mephisto is doing is just "preordaining" that regardless of how many points Team X or Team Y score, Team A can only lose to ONE of them, the highest of the two. By virtue of winning his game the previous week, Team A is guaranteed no lower than a 2nd place finish. Here's the practical example:

 

Let's say this league has a 75/25 split on the pot for the Championship. By winning last week, Team A has to be guaranteed to at least get his 25%. So in essense it's a highest score wins between all 3 teams, but regardless of pts scored, Team A finishes at least 2nd to get his share of the pot. If you do a straight up highest score wins, you've negated the victory that Team A posted last week.

[beercat 5]

NO!!!

 

I love when this comes up because it proves what a flaming retard Mephisto is.

 

Semi finals:

 

Team A beats Team D and advances.

 

Team B ties Team C and advance to the "tiebreaker" the following week.

 

Therefore... in the final.

 

Whomever scores the most points of A B or C wins the title.

 

That's three teams playing for the championship.

 

It's simple... and it's a logical fact.

 

You are an obtuse moron for ignoring it.

 

Why should Team A have to beat two teams?

[danox 0]

Assume these Week 16 scores:

 

Team A: 115 points

 

Team X: 100 points

Team Y: 130 points

 

 

Scenario 1:

 

You break the tie of Team X and Y from Week 15's match up. Whatever method you choose to break the tie, you now have either:

 

Championship Game between Team A and Team X

or

Championship Game between Team A and Team Y.

 

Using the above Week 16 scores, Team A would beat Team X for the crown but lose to Team Y. If the tie breaker from Week 15 were broken and it made Team X the winner, A would win the championship. In this scenario, Team A can avoid the higher score of Team Y in Week 16, because Team Y was knocked out in Week 15. Team A has a chance to win the championship with this scenario.

 

Scenario 2:

 

You break the tie using X vs. Y's scores from Week 16. Team Y wins, and A loses to his higher score. Team A can not win using this scenario.

 

 

The league is head to head, its based on luck of matchups. Team A matched up with Team B in week 15 and beat him. Team X and Y's matchup needs to be resolved with the scores from Week 15 or A is put at a disadvantage in the championship.

 

 

This is all a moot point if Team X and Y outscore Team A next week, or Team A outscores both. But if Team A outscores only one of the teams, they are potentially at a disadvantage if it tie is settled based on Week 16's scores.

 

 

You should break this weeks tie by going to decimal point scores for just this matchup.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Why should Team A have to beat two teams?

 

He shouldn't, he already won is matchup the week before. He should be guaranteed at least 2nd place. That is what Mephisto is saying.

[beercat 5]

He shouldn't, he already won is matchup the week before. He should be guaranteed at least 2nd place. That is what Mephisto is saying.

 

To win the Championship he does. Whichever Team X or Y that had the higher seed should be facing Team A in the championship.

[AnaheimRams 28]

He shouldn't, he already won is matchup the week before. He should be guaranteed at least 2nd place. That is what Mephisto is saying.

 

who cares who gets second place?

 

The team that won his game, and the two that tied all play in the championship. Highest score that week wins the title.

 

This is a fact.

 

If it isn't, convince of that.

 

I could care less what the reasoning is for the tied team to be playing the following week,,, or who gets second place. That is totally immaterial.

 

Again...

 

A, X and Y all play week 16... highest score is the champ.

 

Prove that wrong, and I'll change my opinion.

 

Good luck.

[jgcrawfish 232]

To win the Championship he does. Whichever Team X or Y that had the higher seed should be facing Team A in the championship.

 

No, just because somebody was the higher seed doesn't mean they're the more deserving team. Only fair way is highest score in Week 16 between Team X and Team Y goes up against Team A's week 16 score.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

To win the Championship he does. Whichever Team X or Y that had the higher seed should be facing Team A in the championship.

 

That's logical. One team should advance based upon games that were played previously and not for the game played that week.

 

So one argues against my option (one of many) based upon one team advancing based on "OT" being the two teams settling up the following week (and not in the week the game was initially played)... but argues for an option that is based on earlier games (and not in the week the game was initially played).

 

I get it.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

I also think it makes perfect sense to go with bench points... when reality often dictates that some of those players may be hurt, demoted, one team has more players in stronger scoring positions than the other...

 

Makes perfect sense.

[beercat 5]

who cares who gets second place?

 

The team that won his game, and the two that tied all play in the championship. Highest score that week wins the title.

 

This is a fact.

 

If it isn't, convince of that.

 

I could care less what the reasoning is for the tied team to be playing the following week,,, or who gets second place. That is totally immaterial.

 

Again...

 

A, X and Y all play week 16... highest score is the champ.

 

Prove that wrong, and I'll change my opinion.

 

Good luck.

 

Why do you play the regular season? To get the best seeding and home field advantage. Home field advantage should be that you must be beat, not tied beat. Take something that doesn't have overtime (ie. boxing). If you are the champ (#1 seed) you have to be beaten to lose the belt. A tie results in you retaining the belt, hence you are still the champ.

[jgcrawfish 232]

who cares who gets second place?

 

The team that one his game, and the two that tied all play in the championship. Highest score that week wins the title.

 

This is a fact.

 

If it isn't, convince of that.

 

I could care less what the reasoning is for the tied team to be playing the following week,,, or who gets second place. That is totally immaterial.

 

Again...

 

A, X and Y all play week 16... highest score is the champ.

 

Prove that wrong, and I'll change my opinion.

 

Good luck.

 

You're right IF it's a winner take all pot. But if the league rules or agreement specify that it's a split, like 75% for the winner and 25% for the loser, then everybody cares who gets second place. Team A did his job, he beat Team B to get there. He should get HIS part of the pot, win or lose. You simply cannot take away his split because Team X was good enough to beat Team Y, or vice versa. Team A has earned his share, now the other two have to.

 

I swear they need to start requiring an IQ test in order to register for this bored...

[KingofBeer 0]

Bwaahaaahahaaha...mephisto being a retard again!!!!!

 

Hey jerk-off, here's an idea for you to use for the entire regular season next year...it would work great with odd numbers, say 11. Other people in your league play head-to-head against one scheduled opponent each week. You play against the 1 person out of the other 10 in your league who has the highest total for the week. You should do fine...it's fair because everyone only plays one person right?

[beercat 5]

No, just because somebody was the higher seed doesn't mean they're the more deserving team. Only fair way is highest score in Week 16 between Team X and Team Y goes up against Team A's week 16 score.

 

It means they had a better season which should result in a better seeding. It's not that difficult

[AnaheimRams 28]

You're right IF it's a winner take all pot. But if the league rules or agreement specify that it's a split, like 75% for the winner and 25% for the loser, then everybody cares who gets second place. Team A did his job, he beat Team B to get there. He should get HIS part of the pot, win or lose. You simply cannot take away his split because Team X was good enough to beat Team Y, or vice versa. Team A has earned his share, now the other two have to.

 

I swear they need to start requiring an IQ test in order to register for this bored...

 

You still didn't answer me.

 

I'll try again.

 

A, X and Y all play week 16, high score wins the championship.

 

Is that a fact... or not?

 

Can you answer that?

 

And forget the IQ test... maybe they need a reading comprehension test to be on this board.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

Again...

 

A, X and Y all play week 16... highest score is the champ.

 

Prove that wrong, and I'll change my opinion.

 

Good luck.

 

I don't have to. You're essentially correct. You also cannot separate the fact that there are "two games" being played concurrently. One game, between X and Y is the overtime. When that is settled, the team that advances to week 16 (in fantasy terms) is up against team A.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. I only find it humorous that most of the other options, short of flipping a coin, are just as "inherently unfair" as you're claiming my tie-breaking scheme is.

 

Team A is not being treated "unfairly" except in the minds of those who believe you're actually "playing against" a real-life opponent as opposed to the reality that you're just putting up a lineup hoping to get the most amount of points possible from your starters and that your lineup scores most against your fantasy opponent.

[danox 0]

I don't see what the big deal is here. Go back and add up the scores with decimal points and break the tie using this week's scores. Don't use next weeks and don't use past weeks results. All that matters is this matchup between these 2 teams week 15.

 

One of the teams will have done slightly better and fairly win this week by a hair.

 

 

 

You can not have Team face both teams next week because he will have to face 2 potentially higher scores, rather than just one. If you assume fantasy is mostly luck from week to week, then Team A will have a 50% shot at winning against one team, and only 33% chance against 2. I realize you are breaking this week's tie with "OT" next week, but you are still using the week 16 high score to determine the winner out of three teams instead of two. Team 2 is guaranteed at least second, but his chances at first are significantly reduced if you don't settle the tiebreaker this week.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

Why do you play the regular season? To get the best seeding and home field advantage. Home field advantage should be that you must be beat, not tied beat. Take something that doesn't have overtime (ie. boxing). If you are the champ (#1 seed) you have to be beaten to lose the belt. A tie results in you retaining the belt, hence you are still the champ.

 

 

That's brilliant.

[mozzy84 0]

wow

[AnaheimRams 28]

I don't have to. You're essentially correct. You also cannot separate the fact that there are "two games" being played concurrently. One game, between X and Y is the overtime. When that is settled, the team that advances to week 16 (in fantasy terms) is up against team A.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. I only find it humorous that most of the other options, short of flipping a coin, are just as "inherently unfair" as you're claiming my tie-breaking scheme is.

 

Team A is not being treated "unfairly" except in the minds of those who believe you're actually "playing against" a real-life opponent as opposed to the reality that you're just putting up a lineup hoping to get the most amount of points possible from your starters and that your lineup scores most against your fantasy opponent.

 

Just because I think your "OT" system is innane, doesn't mean I'm failing to comprehend it.

 

I understand that the previous weeks game is still being decided, and that team A will only actually end up facing one team's score.

 

However... the end result is that team A... who did his job and WON his semi final game ends up facing two teams in the title game in order to win the championship.

 

That is patently unfair.

 

And WTF does this being "fantasy" have to do with anything? Sure... we're not out there catching balls and making tackles, but the opponents teams are facing... and the scores they are putting up are very real.

 

To say that none of that really matters just because this is a 'fantasy' game is ridiculous to the highest level.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

I don't see what the big deal is here. Go back and add up the scores with decimal points and break the tie using this week's scores. Don't use next weeks and don't use past weeks results. All that matters is this matchup between these 2 teams week 15.

 

Not a bad argument there. The problem that arises is that what if you have decimal scoring and still end up with a tie?

 

Granted, I was lucky in that last year, a playoff tie occurred in the Championship Game, so both teams played again in Week 17 as "overtime."

 

For the record, I have decimal scoring and ended up with a highly improbable tie game in the Mephisto Bowl. Even had a tie game during the regular season this year.

 

I have no desire to break down the scoring into 1/100th points.

 

My scenario may not sit well with people. I had all owners buy into my idea without all of this whining, crying "it's not fair, I'm playing two teams" childish bunk.

 

I would offer yet another suggestion... when your playoffs start, have each team submit a total combine final score of their specific playoff game (before it starts, obviously). The closest to the total combined final score is the winner in the event of a tie. Two teams can't pick the same number, so the earlier submission takes precedence. If there is a tie on both sides of the number, go The Price Is Right and the team closest without going over wins.

 

That settles it in the week it's played.

 

Many don't like the OT the following week method for aforementioned reasons.

 

Many don't like bench points for aforementioned reasons.

 

Many don't like higher-seeding for aforementioned reasons.

 

You have to either flip a coin or come up with some scheme that is relevant to the week in which its played without risking an unfair opportunity between the two teams to tiebreak.

[huskerinct 1]

OMG!!!! You guys are making my freckles hurt. He isn't playing 2 teams. There would be a defining factor played in week 16. After that factor proceeded to produce a winner (from week15) that team would be playing in the championship. Am I wrong?

[jgcrawfish 232]

Just because I think your "OT" system is innane, doesn't mean I'm failing to comprehend it.

 

I understand that the previous weeks game is still being decided, and that team A will only actually end up facing one team's score.

 

However... the end result is that team A... who did his job and WON his semi final game ends up facing two teams in the title game in order to win the championship.

 

That is patently unfair.

 

And WTF does this being "fantasy" have to do with anything? Sure... we're not out there catching balls and making tackles, but the opponents teams are facing... and the scores they are putting up are very real.

 

To say that none of that really matters just because this is a 'fantasy' game is ridiculous to the highest level.

 

But he's not facing two teams, he's only the higher of the two teams. But I also see where you're coming from. If Team A scores 110, Team X scores 120 and Team Y scores 102, but team Y would have won last week on say, decimals, then Team A is getting screwed because he should only have to face Team Y's score of 102.

 

I'm beginning to change my mind slightly on this and say that as commish, you should apply decimal pts on both starter and reserve scores. Decimal starter pts would probably break it, but decimal reserve most likely would after that. There is a part of this overtime scenario that isn't fair to Team A, who obviously did their job to get there.

[KingofBeer 0]

Team A is not being treated "unfairly"

 

WOW you are dense.

 

Why don't you honestly answer these questions. Assume teams A,X, and Y are all equal in talent.

 

1. What should team A's odds of winning the finals be once he wins the semifinals?

2. What are his odds of winning teh finals if he needs to score higher than both teams X and Y?

 

I really want to hear your answer

[FSW Mephisto 0]

But he's not facing two teams, he's only the higher of the two teams. But I also see where you're coming from. If Team A scores 110, Team X scores 120 and Team Y scores 102, but team Y would have won last week on say, decimals, then Team A is getting screwed because he should only have to face Team Y's score of 102.

 

I'm beginning to change my mind slightly on this and say that as commish, you should apply decimal pts on both starter and reserve scores. Decimal starter pts would probably break it, but decimal reserve most likely would after that. There is a part of this overtime scenario that isn't fair to Team A, who obviously did their job to get there.

 

I would like someone to explain for me this "going back and applying decimals" to current scores to determine an outcome.

 

To me, it sounds like changing your scoring system in the playoffs... let me guess, someone believes that's fair, too?

 

Are you saying for instance that if your breakdown is 1/10-yards combined rushing and receiving, go back and make it .1/1-yard combined rushing and receiving?

 

If that's what you're saying, that's focking alarming.

[KingofBeer 0]

crawfish...feel free to answer those two questions as well

[FSW Mephisto 0]

WOW you are dense.

 

Why don't you honestly answer these questions. Assume teams A,X, and Y are all equal in talent.

 

1. What should team A's odds of winning the finals be once he wins the semifinals?

2. What are his odds of winning teh finals if he needs to score higher than both teams X and Y?

 

I really want to hear your answer

 

He doesn't have to beat both X and Y. He only has to beat the winner of the game between X and Y.

 

Also, I don't do odds on fantasy football. I have no idea how any NFL player is going to perform in any given week.

 

Nice try, though.

[AnaheimRams 28]

Let me explain why I have such a problem with this.

 

Working of the assertion that, in it's simplest form, if we use the "OT" tiebreak, team A, X and Y all face off in the title game, highest score wins the championship.

 

I don't think anyone can argue with that.

 

Now... here's my problem.

 

ANY tiebreaking scenario will be in some way unfair to the two team involved. I've head MANY used in different leagues... reserves points, higher average RB score, higher DT score, lower DT score, home field... etc. etc. etc.

 

The problem with any of these is that they use some factor OTHER than what each starting line-up scored. Which one team will see as unfair... pretty much no matter what.

 

While the "OT" system keeps the scoring of the starting lineups as the only determining factor, which is good... all you're doing is basically giving the tied teams a "do-over" at the expense of team A... who did his job and won his game.

 

THAT'S why it is not fair.

 

However it needs to be done, the tie needs to be broken in week 15. If it happens to be 'unfair' to one of the tied teams... you know what... "Too friggin bad, win your game."

 

that's my point.

 

 

One other thing... something we haven't even touched on here... if team A has to face two teams in the title game... and chance he had to make plays based on matchups are out the window since he basically now has two opponents. What if the guy has the two QB's and each of the tied teams has WR from those QB's teams. If team a wants to 'cancel out'... or 'reverse cancel'... he can't do it. Not fair.

 

watch Mephisto freak out now at the mention of canceling out.

[KingofBeer 0]

He doesn't have to beat both X and Y.

 

Oh really??? So what happens if he loses to just one of them?

 

Go ahead and answer the questions...I know you can do it

[FSW Mephisto 0]

Oh really??? So what happens if he loses to just one of them?

 

Go ahead and answer the questions...I know you can do it

 

If he loses to whomever wins the tiebreaker from the previous game, he loses the game. He can't lose to the team that didn't advance.

[mozzy84 0]

He doesn't have to beat both X and Y. He only has to beat the winner of the game between X and Y.

 

 

Nice try, though.

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.

[KingofBeer 0]

WOW you are dense.

 

Why don't you honestly answer these questions. Assume teams A,X, and Y are all equal in talent.

 

1. What should team A's odds of winning the finals be once he wins the semifinals?

2. What are his odds of winning teh finals if he needs to score higher than both teams X and Y?

 

I really want to hear your answer

 

I will answer them myself since I have to go

 

1. Obviously he should have around a 50% chance if the teams are somewhat equal

2. He has to have the high score between 3 equal teams...so his odds are around 33%

 

He should have around 50% but he's getting screwed and only has around 33%.

 

All kidding aside..if you don't understand that you truly are retarded.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

One other thing... something we haven't even touched on here... if team A has to face two teams in the title game... and chance he had to make plays based on matchups are out the window since he basically now has two opponents. What if the guy has the two QB's and each of the tied teams has WR from those QB's teams. If team a wants to 'cancel out'... or 'reverse cancel'... he can't do it. Not fair.

 

I've been cringing at the thought of someone coming up with the notion that any of the teams would use a different starting lineup based upon who his/her opponent is starting.

 

 

You win this thread.

 

Bottom line is this... I acknowledge that people have their perceptions of what is an "unfair" method. The bottom line is, if you want it over based upon what happens in Week 15, then you either flip a coin or come up with a method like I proposed a short time ago - pick a total score for your game (both teams combined) and the closest advances. If one is X number above the total and the other is X number below the total, the one who is closest without going over wins.

 

[mozzy84 0]

I will answer them myself since I have to go

 

1. Obviously he should have around a 50% chance if the teams are somewhat equal

2. He has to have the high score between 3 equal teams...so his odds are around 33%

 

He should have around 50% but he's getting screwed and only has around 33%.

 

All kidding aside..if you don't understand that you truly are retarded.

this needs to be bolded

[jgcrawfish 232]

WOW you are dense.

 

Why don't you honestly answer these questions. Assume teams A,X, and Y are all equal in talent.

 

1. What should team A's odds of winning the finals be once he wins the semifinals?

2. What are his odds of winning teh finals if he needs to score higher than both teams X and Y?

 

I really want to hear your answer

 

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.

 

Here's why this works: Let's say assume the following scores: Team A 100, Team X 105 and Team Y 110. Regardless of who he faced, Team A was going to lose. But, because he won his previous matchup, he loses only to Team Y, and gets whatever his losers share of the pot would be. The only way it's unfair is if he scores in between Team X and Y's scores, then you run into the issue of "is the team he lost to really who he should have been playing in the first place?" but no matter what, he still is guaranteed the losers share at a minimum.

[FSW Mephisto 0]

I will answer them myself since I have to go

 

1. Obviously he should have around a 50% chance if the teams are somewhat equal

2. He has to have the high score between 3 equal teams...so his odds are around 33%

 

He should have around 50% but he's getting screwed and only has around 33%.

 

All kidding aside..if you don't understand that you truly are retarded.

 

I've already explained this to you. If you are unwilling to accept that they are two independent occurrences, you can apply your (flawed) odds.

 

Not only can I accept it, everyone in my league accepted it, too... and really, that's all that matters.

 

Pick your poison.