Quick Question about Tiebreakers

[Seth]

A friend of mine who is trying out the game for the first time was desperately vying for the fourth and final playoff spot. We started discussing how the game handles tiebreakers when teams have the same record (and IQ).

I informed him that it uses points for, and he was somewhat aghast. He'd assumed that the 21 game schedule was to ensure that each team faced each other an odd number of times (3) for the purpose of using head-to-head matchups as the tiebreaker.

Is there a reason head-to-head record isn't the primary tiebreaker when determining playoff seedings? It seems to work that way for most sports.

-Seth

[TheIceMage]

Lazy. Developer.

[TheIceMage]

I did a bit of research on this and could put in a change to how tiebreakers work. I just don't want it to be as complicated as some sports are. Points For has the virtue of simplicity, and I have the excuse that, well, they're orcs.

Some things I considered include the head-to-head record of the teams involved in the tie, the head-to-head record of those teams against the higher-seeded teams, and using Net Points (points for - points against), both from among those teams involved in the tie and overall, etc. But I thought I'd throw the question back out for discussion here.

[Seth]

I don't think this deserves high priority--it's a minor thing, and Points For works just fine.

But if pressed for an opinion, I like head-to-head matchup a bit better, with Points For as the backup in case of 1-1-1 or 0-0-3 being the teams records against one another.

[TheIceMage]

The scenario that I looked at was three teams tied for the fourth playoff spot, and A beat B 2-1, B beat C 2-1 and C beat A 2-1. Rock-paper-scissors.

[Dizzy]

The reason that I like the Points-For thing is that you, as an Overlord, can, at a glance, see, from the Standings, the tied team that is, prior to Game 21, in the dominant position and what must be done in order to reach the playoffs or to maintain said position. In most cases, though, the conclusion will be foregone: "Let's see, I need to win Game 21, I need that team to lose its game, and I need to score 54 pts more than them, too. Crumbs." You see, Points-For is season-long and teams can differ wildly, depending on the strength-of-schedule, whether opponents had first-string goalies or defensemen in the blue goo, and whether your team relies on scoring or "da beatdown" to win. Aggregate scores of head-to-head matchups between all tied teams would be a more fair comparison. It would also be dead confusing to sort out, both from a programming standpoint and from a what-do-I-need-to-happen-? standpoint, exponentially more so with increasing tied teams for fourth, and even confusinger if several playoff spots are in question. IQ seems to have absolutely no use at all, and could probably go unless it is used for a hidden calculation.

So, in the interest of keeping things simple for everyone, I suggest, if Points-For won't pass muster, that we just go with the difference between Points-For and Points-Against. It works in FIFA, primarily to keep teams like Italy from dickin' around with a 1 - 0 lead for 75 min, and it'll work here. It reduces the pressure on punch-heavy teams from scoring a lot if they can also maintain a strong defense, but it also makes you think twice about easing off against a team full of marshmallows and kittens (good opportunity to score bunches!).

I'm having a hard time visualizing someone who is only "somewhat" aghast.

[TheIceMage]

/like

[Seth]

I can totally appreciate that!

My friend's primary objection to Points For was that we had a team in our league that was managed early on, but the player lost interest in the game and stopped managing them late in the season. If you played them early in the year, the score was reasonable, but if you caught them late, you won 512-0 or so. This led to vastly disparate Points For totals which did not benefit my friends team (he played the absentee team early).

I still think Points For is fine, I'm just raising the alternative argument. To be difficult, I guess.



-Seth

[Dizzy]

A difficult situation needs a hard-as-nails answer. The alternative counterargument to the alternatve argument would be to win more often so you don't get stuck in a tie for fourth.

The countercounterargument to that counterargument would then be to kick Dizzy really hard.

The countercountercounterargument to that countercounterargument would then be something like "hrrnnng", which is clearly a discussion-winning flourish of rhetoric. Most of my arguments tend to end that way.