Actually not having head to head as the first tie breaker is pretty damn stupid, tbh.
Forum > Suggestions > Change Tiebreakers Entirely
Originally posted by Dub J
Actually not having head to head as the first tie breaker is pretty damn stupid, tbh.
probably wants to manipulate things based on his own team issues I would guess
Actually not having head to head as the first tie breaker is pretty damn stupid, tbh.
probably wants to manipulate things based on his own team issues I would guess
jkid2
offline
offline
bump for swap of head-to-head and conference record and clarification of strength of victory
PING72
offline
offline
I'm not sure.
I get your point and what you want to accomplish...but let's say that there are 3 teams tied for 7-9 place. All lost to the top 6 teams and all defeated the 7 CPU/horrible teams below them....and obviously went 1-1 against the other two teams tied. To be tied, it means they all either won or lost their 1st game...let's say the all won that game. That means that the playoff teams would be decided by their randomized out-of-conference opponent's number of victories.
Granted, this scenario wouldn't happen very often, but I think points allowed would be more fair than letting it be decided by a random schedule generator.
Not to mention that most teams that are tied will have beaten/lost to most of the same teams. So if you are 11-5, should you get more credit for beating a 13-3 team and losing to a 4-12 team than beating the 4-12 team but losing to the 13-3 team? I think a strong argument could be made that losing to a bad team should be held against you more than beating a slightly better team should boost you.
I get your point and what you want to accomplish...but let's say that there are 3 teams tied for 7-9 place. All lost to the top 6 teams and all defeated the 7 CPU/horrible teams below them....and obviously went 1-1 against the other two teams tied. To be tied, it means they all either won or lost their 1st game...let's say the all won that game. That means that the playoff teams would be decided by their randomized out-of-conference opponent's number of victories.
Granted, this scenario wouldn't happen very often, but I think points allowed would be more fair than letting it be decided by a random schedule generator.
Not to mention that most teams that are tied will have beaten/lost to most of the same teams. So if you are 11-5, should you get more credit for beating a 13-3 team and losing to a 4-12 team than beating the 4-12 team but losing to the 13-3 team? I think a strong argument could be made that losing to a bad team should be held against you more than beating a slightly better team should boost you.
OBFuSCaTe
offline
offline
I'd be for this....
1. Head-to-Head -
2. Conference Record -
3. Point differential
4. Strength of Victory
3/4 could swap for all I care.
As for points allowed/scored. Against it. Why should an offensive team get the benefit over a defensive team or vice versa?
1. Head-to-Head -
2. Conference Record -
3. Point differential
4. Strength of Victory
3/4 could swap for all I care.
As for points allowed/scored. Against it. Why should an offensive team get the benefit over a defensive team or vice versa?
Originally posted by OBFuSCaTe
I'd be for this....
1. Head-to-Head -
2. Conference Record -
3. Point differential
4. Strength of Victory
3/4 could swap for all I care.
As for points allowed/scored. Against it. Why should an offensive team get the benefit over a defensive team or vice versa?
because when playing a CPU or complete crap team, the defense usually gives up nothing, but the points the offense racks up can be 300-800 or whatever, so why make a tie breaker based off who racked up the most points against a CPU team
I'd be for this....
1. Head-to-Head -
2. Conference Record -
3. Point differential
4. Strength of Victory
3/4 could swap for all I care.
As for points allowed/scored. Against it. Why should an offensive team get the benefit over a defensive team or vice versa?
because when playing a CPU or complete crap team, the defense usually gives up nothing, but the points the offense racks up can be 300-800 or whatever, so why make a tie breaker based off who racked up the most points against a CPU team
OBFuSCaTe
offline
offline
Originally posted by reddogrw
Originally posted by obfuscate
I'd be for this....
1. Head-to-Head -
2. Conference Record -
3. Point differential
4. Strength of Victory
3/4 could swap for all I care.
As for points allowed/scored. Against it. Why should an offensive team get the benefit over a defensive team or vice versa?
because when playing a CPU or complete crap team, the defense usually gives up nothing, but the points the offense racks up can be 300-800 or whatever, so why make a tie breaker based off who racked up the most points against a CPU team
That's essentially why I said I was against it.... Which is also why I mentioned 3/4 could swap (and probably should in after thought). As for a 4th tiebreaker, differential is about all you can do at that point. Granted a defensive team will never be able to hold an opponent to less then 0 points, making point differential slightly better for offensive teams. But it at least tries to balance things out some more then points scored/against.
Originally posted by obfuscate
I'd be for this....
1. Head-to-Head -
2. Conference Record -
3. Point differential
4. Strength of Victory
3/4 could swap for all I care.
As for points allowed/scored. Against it. Why should an offensive team get the benefit over a defensive team or vice versa?
because when playing a CPU or complete crap team, the defense usually gives up nothing, but the points the offense racks up can be 300-800 or whatever, so why make a tie breaker based off who racked up the most points against a CPU team
That's essentially why I said I was against it.... Which is also why I mentioned 3/4 could swap (and probably should in after thought). As for a 4th tiebreaker, differential is about all you can do at that point. Granted a defensive team will never be able to hold an opponent to less then 0 points, making point differential slightly better for offensive teams. But it at least tries to balance things out some more then points scored/against.
Edited by OBFuSCaTe on Jan 3, 2012 19:14:25
Dub J
offline
offline
The more I think about this the less sense it makes to even bother changing the current format. If team A lost to a stronger non-conference opponent in week 1 yet has the same record as team B (who played a weaker non-conference opponent) odds are team A won the head to head against team B.
Edited by Dub J on Jan 3, 2012 20:07:54
Edited by Dub J on Jan 3, 2012 20:07:18
Edited by Dub J on Jan 3, 2012 19:55:10
Originally posted by Dub J
The more I think about this the less sense it makes to even bother changing the current format. If team A lost to a stronger non-conference opponent in week 1 yet has the same record as team B (who played a weaker non-conference opponent) odds are team A won the head to head against team B.
yeah
the only time any of this comes into play is if the 2 teams tied during the regular season or there is a 3/4/5-way tie for a place in the standings
The more I think about this the less sense it makes to even bother changing the current format. If team A lost to a stronger non-conference opponent in week 1 yet has the same record as team B (who played a weaker non-conference opponent) odds are team A won the head to head against team B.
yeah
the only time any of this comes into play is if the 2 teams tied during the regular season or there is a 3/4/5-way tie for a place in the standings
Dub J
offline
offline
I'm typically very leery of suggestions like this due to the fact there is typically an agenda associated with it. lol
Originally posted by reddogrw
head to head HAS to be the first tie-breaker
Points scored is so skewed in this game as to render it not terribly insightful.
And this would let people put more run out the clock plays in, keep the silly scores down some.
So +1 to the OP
head to head HAS to be the first tie-breaker
Points scored is so skewed in this game as to render it not terribly insightful.
And this would let people put more run out the clock plays in, keep the silly scores down some.
So +1 to the OP
Originally posted by Dub J
wat?
Points against is ahead of points for in the current tie-breaker.
Hmm but it still brings in the CPU issue, since one tends to shut out CPU clubs. In conference ones shouldnt matter, but a team could be sold mid season meaning I played one but you did not. And the cross conference CPU is a confounder as well.
Putting points at the end of the line is probably a sounder way to go. But its definitely a matter of opinion.
wat?
Points against is ahead of points for in the current tie-breaker.
Hmm but it still brings in the CPU issue, since one tends to shut out CPU clubs. In conference ones shouldnt matter, but a team could be sold mid season meaning I played one but you did not. And the cross conference CPU is a confounder as well.
Putting points at the end of the line is probably a sounder way to go. But its definitely a matter of opinion.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
