+- International Simulation Football League (https://forums.sim-football.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+---- Forum: Suggestion Box (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+----- Forum: Archived Suggestions (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=349)
+----- Thread: Draft Tiebreakers (/showthread.php?tid=15644)
Draft Tiebreakers - goodvsevil1275 - 09-24-2019
For simplicity's sake, I suggest that Head to Head tiebreakers when determining standings order (for drafts and/or playoffs) should be disregarded if the teams in question has an unequal amount of game played between them.
For example, say Team A, Team B, and Team C are tied with the same record. When looking at Head to Head records, their games are uneven:
Team A (2-1) and Team B (1-2) each played 3 against each other games, while Team C (1-1) only played two.
In this case, Head to Head record should be disregarded and we should move on to the next tiebreaker
Draft Tiebreakers - infinitempg - 09-25-2019
Following this, if teams are in different conferences that should be disregarded as well
Unless it hurts the yeti in which case ignore this
Draft Tiebreakers - ADwyer87 - 09-25-2019
(09-24-2019, 11:12 PM)infinitempg Wrote:Following this, if teams are in different conferences that should be disregarded as wellwould you propose another tiebreaker instead? just wondering bc if we disregard both h2h and conference record, like in the situation we just had, we'd only have one tiebreaker left
Unless it hurts the yeti in which case ignore this
Draft Tiebreakers - infinitempg - 09-25-2019
(09-25-2019, 03:53 PM)ADwyer87 Wrote:would you propose another tiebreaker instead? just wondering bc if we disregard both h2h and conference record, like in the situation we just had, we'd only have one tiebreaker left
this is very true actually. i'm gonna take a semi-deep dive real quick so this will be rambly
okay so I loaded up the NFL's official site (which is positively awful on desktop) and I'll use WC tiebreakers. It's important to note that for the "Selection Meeting", the NFL just uses strength of schedule before moving on to divisional/conference tie breakers (i.e. the Wild Card). We don't have SoS I think?
3 or more teams:
Quote:1. Apply division tie breaker to eliminate all but the highest ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. The original seeding within a division upon application of the division tie breaker remains the same for all subsequent applications of the procedure that are necessary to identify the two Wild-Card participants.
2. Head-to-head sweep. (Applicable only if one club has defeated each of the others or if one club has lost to each of the others.)
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
5. Strength of victory.
6. Strength of schedule.
7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
8. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
9. Best net points in conference games.
10. Best net points in all games.
11. Best net touchdowns in all games.
12. Coin toss
When the first Wild-Card team has been identified, the procedure is repeated to name the second Wild-Card, i.e., eliminate all but the highest-ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. In situations where three or more teams from the same division are involved in the procedure, the original seeding of the teams remains the same for subsequent applications of the tie breaker if the top-ranked team in that division qualifies for a Wild-Card berth.
Okay so we don't care about step 1. Let's move on.
Quote:2. Head-to-head sweep. (Applicable only if one club has defeated each of the others or if one club has lost to each of the others.)
In our scenario, this gets passed over since we have a ring of suck (COL beat PHI who beat AUS who beat COL).
Quote:3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
We throw this out because they are in different conferences.
Quote:4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
This is a bust since everyone plays everyone else at least once, so it's just our regular record.
Quote:5. Strength of victory.
6. Strength of schedule.
We don't have metrics for this afaik.
Quote:7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Okay I think we can make a ruling here.
COL was #10 in PF and #9 in PA for a total ranking of 19.
PHI was #7 in PF and #10 in PA for a total ranking of 17.
AUS was #9 in PF and #7 in PA for a total ranking of 16.
By this standard, Austin takes #4 overall. We then start over but with 2 way tie breakers:
Quote:1. Head-to-head, if applicable.
Philly was swept, so they take #2 and Colorado takes #3.
Looking at the rest of the tiebreakers (net points and net touchdowns) - we could use these (heck we do use net points). I don't know if I agree with step 7 above. A suggestion that we could use instead of the strength of schedule or whatever is to tie break based on the team power rankings on the index? I have no idea how the sim calculates that but it is a metric we can use.
i think the biggest problem everyone has right now with the tiebreakers is that it isn't clear how they should be interpreted (though now we have precedent). the recent ruling has us do common game PERCENTAGES, which is how the NFL does it in step 4. While it's weird that teams play each other a different number of times, using the percentages does kind of work, though the NFL does stipulate that it only cares if there's a minimum of 4 games.
The other complication with interpretation is that we don't know if we reset after one team has been un-tiebroken or if we use the one tiebreaker to set all 3. In the recent ruling, we are using one tiebreaker to set all 3, but the NFL has us reset once we've removed a team. From a top-down perspective it changes #2 and #3, and H2H removes COL (2-1 vs PHI + AUS) and then removes PHI (1-0 vs AUS), making our order AUS-PHI-COL. From a bottom-up perspective, it changes #3 and #4 as it removes PHI (1-2 vs COL + AUS) and then COL (0-1 vs AUS), making our order PHI-COL-AUS. But doing it all at once puts us with PHI-AUS-COL.
I'll probably submit a rule proposal for this but I think those are the things that need to be clarified. Can we add the combined rankings and the power rankings to the mix? IDK but it would bolster the tiebreaking methods before we go to coinflips.
Also i probably did something wrong so if someone can double check that'd be great
Draft Tiebreakers - Mavfatha - 10-02-2019
Personally I find this way more complicated compared to the current solution... But we'll have to see what the final rule proposal is
Draft Tiebreakers - ADwyer87 - 10-03-2019
this is kind of confusing yeah. Honestly i can see the reasoning behind removing h2h, but I think removing any tiebreakers with conference is a mistake.