Warrior General Games

Just to continue what Sunshine Duck brought up regarding tie breakers among NJ/HHW/PMHD. It's obvious that the Tasmania game played a big role in the current standings. I think this could be avoid if we insert the following into the tie breakers before the overall point scored:

1) conference record, I'm not sure why this is not used by Bort. It's pretty much used in most sports. Having conference record count as a tie breaker will help even out a little of the tough drawings in inter-conference schedule;

2) points differential among the games involving tied teams. In case of a 3 way tie with each team going 1-1 against one another, use the points differential within the 3 games.

Another note, personally I hate to use most points scored as a tie breaker. It really rewards offensive teams and punishes teams that built around a defense. Defense wins championships, one could make a case for least points given up as a tie breaker. It's better to change it to points differential imo.

It's probably a bit late to implement them this season, but I hope Bort and Co can review the tie breaker system and revamp it. The teams scores most is really just a bad tie breaker rule to implement.

Conference record makes far too much sense as the first tie breaker.

CPL not involved, 0 rages

Haliberries involved with trolling: 2 posts later.

@OP good point, but #2 seems to go mostly against what you're saying on "another note" - but I could see the ball control aspect of it as well suggesting defense can play a big part.

Originally posted by Drago
Haliberries involved with trolling: 2 posts later.

@OP good point, but #2 seems to go mostly against what you're saying on "another note" - but I could see the ball control aspect of it as well suggesting defense can play a big part.



I just think point differential (margin of victory) is a better tie breaker than points scored. For example, the old Ravens didn't score a lot of points, but they won a lot of low scoring games by playing tough D, in the current system, they would lose out to a team that put up lots of points but also give up a lot of points. To me, a 9-3 win is just as good as a 48-42 win.

Are we retarded or something? I never understood using points for or against over point differential. Makes 0 sense.

Originally posted by datongw
Just to continue what Sunshine Duck brought up regarding tie breakers among NJ/HHW/PMHD. It's obvious that the Tasmania game played a big role in the current standings. I think this could be avoid if we insert the following into the tie breakers before the overall point scored:

1) conference record, I'm not sure why this is not used by Bort. It's pretty much used in most sports. Having conference record count as a tie breaker will help even out a little of the tough drawings in inter-conference schedule;

2) points differential among the games involving tied teams. In case of a 3 way tie with each team going 1-1 against one another, use the points differential within the 3 games.

Another note, personally I hate to use most points scored as a tie breaker. It really rewards offensive teams and punishes teams that built around a defense. Defense wins championships, one could make a case for least points given up as a tie breaker. It's better to change it to points differential imo.

It's probably a bit late to implement them this season, but I hope Bort and Co can review the tie breaker system and revamp it. The teams scores most is really just a bad tie breaker rule to implement.

datongw for Bort, imo.

Well done.

Originally posted by Iceman16
Are we retarded or something? I never understood using points for or against over point differential. Makes 0 sense.

Or you dont make sense to yourself?


Also Datong nice job bro.

Originally posted by datongw
Originally posted by Drago

Haliberries involved with trolling: 2 posts later.

@OP good point, but #2 seems to go mostly against what you're saying on "another note" - but I could see the ball control aspect of it as well suggesting defense can play a big part.



I just think point differential (margin of victory) is a better tie breaker than points scored. For example, the old Ravens didn't score a lot of points, but they won a lot of low scoring games by playing tough D, in the current system, they would lose out to a team that put up lots of points but also give up a lot of points. To me, a 9-3 win is just as good as a 48-42 win.

No it absolutely is, you're right. I can't argue with that point - was just doing my best to play devils advocate.

edit: the idea is you're more likely to experience a huge variance of points in a 50 point scoring game than a 12 point scoring game though.

Originally posted by youngJP90
Originally posted by Iceman16

Are we retarded or something? I never understood using points for or against over point differential. Makes 0 sense.

Or you dont make sense to yourself?


Also Datong nice job bro.

What are you talking about? I'm agreeing with him you crackbaby.

I approve the OP

qft

Originally posted by tautology
datongw for Bort, imo.

Well done.

I'll take 1% of his cut, in flex

Originally posted by youngJP90
Or you dont make sense to yourself?


Also Datong nice job bro.

Hey, JP, long time no see, how have you been?

Jesus, I've been talking about this for weeks. Playoff seeding is one thing, but if the chips would have fallen differently, this could have determined who stays and who goes in the WL. Points scored is a terrible tiebreaker, but so is total point differential, but the real issue is not only allowing teams to gut like this mid-season, but encouraging it. Right now, the only thing keeping losing teams that plan on gutting at season's end from doing so mid-season is integrity, and we know damn well that most of the people in this game don't have that.