division winner/playoff seeding

[UrbanatorNation]

Hopefully this makes sense! I'm trying to write up playoff scenarios for the league going into our final week. We use ESPN.

3 teams in one division could all end up 8-5. Everyone will have played an equal number of games against each other, and its set to do H2H record first, then points for. Here's an example of how the final standings could look like:

Team A - 1850 points, 8-5 record
Team B - 1875 points, 8-5 record
Team C - 1900 points, 8-5 record

Team A beat Team C 2-0 in season series
Team A tied Team B 1-1 in season series (Team B would have points tiebreak)
Team B tied Team C 1-1 in season series (Team C would have points tiebreak)

So who wins the division? Team B wins over Team A, but Team B can't jump over Team C right?

Does H2H still work, or would the system go straight to points? Does your division record come into play?

Thanks for the help!

[Hags888]

It is for this kind of reason that I chose "Points For" as the first tiebreaker. For my league, H2H doesn't enter the equation, unless two teams happened to be tied in Points For. On the off-chance two teams are tied in Points For AND H2H, then I just flip a coin to determine the winner.

Good luck.

[bigmck]

Hopefully this makes sense! I'm trying to write up playoff scenarios for the league going into our final week. We use ESPN.

3 teams in one division could all end up 8-5. Everyone will have played an equal number of games against each other, and its set to do H2H record first, then points for. Here's an example of how the final standings could look like:

Team A - 1850 points, 8-5 record
Team B - 1875 points, 8-5 record
Team C - 1900 points, 8-5 record

Team A beat Team C 2-0 in season series
Team A tied Team B 1-1 in season series (Team B would have points tiebreak)
Team B tied Team C 1-1 in season series (Team C would have points tiebreak)

So who wins the division? Team B wins over Team A, but Team B can't jump over Team C right?

Does H2H still work, or would the system go straight to points? Does your division record come into play?

Thanks for the help!

I agree that Total Points should be the first tiebreaker, but in your case take the Division Games and add them up. Team A is 3-1 Team B is 2-2 and Team C is 1-3. There is not problem. Points do not come into play unless games are tied.

[jwill2287]

Hopefully this makes sense! I'm trying to write up playoff scenarios for the league going into our final week. We use ESPN.

3 teams in one division could all end up 8-5. Everyone will have played an equal number of games against each other, and its set to do H2H record first, then points for. Here's an example of how the final standings could look like:

Team A - 1850 points, 8-5 record
Team B - 1875 points, 8-5 record
Team C - 1900 points, 8-5 record

Team A beat Team C 2-0 in season series
Team A tied Team B 1-1 in season series (Team B would have points tiebreak)
Team B tied Team C 1-1 in season series (Team C would have points tiebreak)

So who wins the division? Team B wins over Team A, but Team B can't jump over Team C right?

Does H2H still work, or would the system go straight to points? Does your division record come into play?

Thanks for the help!

I actually setup my league to have intra-division record to be the first tiebreaker and then points for. I think if you have divisions in your league that divisional games should carry some weight and be a major part of the tie-breaking process. I have no problem with the H2H tiebreaker you have though. I firmly believe teams should be rewarded at the end of the year for beating someone else if they happen to have the same record.

[shawngee03]

shouldnt espn do it for you? ive been commish of many leagues and have never been asked by the provider to make a desicion on who makes the playoffs. set up the settings before the season starts and let espn do the math

like i say....a good season for a commish is one where he doesnt have to make a desicion or piss anybody off

[bigmck]

[

I actually setup my league to have intra-division record to be the first tiebreaker and then points for. I think if you have divisions in your league that divisional games should carry some weight and be a major part of the tie-breaking process. I have no problem with the H2H tiebreaker you have though. I firmly believe teams should be rewarded at the end of the year for beating someone else if they happen to have the same record.[/quote]

I am in a league with Intra-Division as the first tie-breaker. The problem is that ESPN doesn't do it right. We have four divisions. Three of the DIvision Winners are 8-4. Two of them have a 5-1 Divison Record and the other has a 4-2 Division Record. The Division Record should have no bearing in a case like this. ESPN put the 4-2 Divison Record below the other two Divisions even thought the 4-2 Division Record scored the most points in the league. == This is why I prefer Total Points.

[jwill2287]

[

I actually setup my league to have intra-division record to be the first tiebreaker and then points for. I think if you have divisions in your league that divisional games should carry some weight and be a major part of the tie-breaking process. I have no problem with the H2H tiebreaker you have though. I firmly believe teams should be rewarded at the end of the year for beating someone else if they happen to have the same record.

I am in a league with Intra-Division as the first tie-breaker. The problem is that ESPN doesn't do it right. We have four divisions. Three of the DIvision Winners are 8-4. Two of them have a 5-1 Divison Record and the other has a 4-2 Division Record. The Division Record should have no bearing in a case like this. ESPN put the 4-2 Divison Record below the other two Divisions even thought the 4-2 Division Record scored the most points in the league. == This is why I prefer Total Points.[/quote]

Actually, ESPN did that correctly. If you have 3 division winners at 8-4 and division record is the first tie-breaker then both of the division winners who finished 5-1 within their division should be ranked ahead of the division winner who was only 4-2 in their division. The division record is the first tie-breaker regardless if the teams are in the same division or not. I like it this way because it puts emphasis on the games between you and the teams in your division and makes it more about specifically winning the game at hand. If you just want points for to be the tie-breaker then I don't see the point in having divisions at all. Just group everyone up in the league and figure out who ends with the best record and then most points. If you have divisions though the divisions and division games need to actually mean something in terms of the standings in my opinion.

[bigmck]

Actually, ESPN did that correctly. If you have 3 division winners at 8-4 and division record is the first tie-breaker then both of the division winners who finished 5-1 within their division should be ranked ahead of the division winner who was only 4-2 in their division. The division record is the first tie-breaker regardless if the teams are in the same division or not. I like it this way because it puts emphasis on the games between you and the teams in your division and makes it more about specifically winning the game at hand. If you just want points for to be the tie-breaker then I don't see the point in having divisions at all. Just group everyone up in the league and figure out who ends with the best record and then most points. If you have divisions though the divisions and division games need to actually mean something in terms of the standings in my opinion.

How can that be correct? You can't compare Division Records when the teams did not play each other. That makes no sense. I can see Intra-Division for breaking ties inside a division, but comparing your Division Record against My Division Record when we did not play any of the same teams makes no sense.
Total Points is the only fair tie-breaker.

[jwill2287]

Actually, ESPN did that correctly. If you have 3 division winners at 8-4 and division record is the first tie-breaker then both of the division winners who finished 5-1 within their division should be ranked ahead of the division winner who was only 4-2 in their division. The division record is the first tie-breaker regardless if the teams are in the same division or not. I like it this way because it puts emphasis on the games between you and the teams in your division and makes it more about specifically winning the game at hand. If you just want points for to be the tie-breaker then I don't see the point in having divisions at all. Just group everyone up in the league and figure out who ends with the best record and then most points. If you have divisions though the divisions and division games need to actually mean something in terms of the standings in my opinion.

How can that be correct? You can't compare Division Records when the teams did not play each other. That makes no sense. I can see Intra-Division for breaking ties inside a division, but comparing your Division Record against My Division Record when we did not play any of the same teams makes no sense.
Total Points is the only fair tie-breaker.

Doesn't matter what division you play in. It's the same concept in the NFL where one of the tie breakers between division leaders who have the same record is conference record. Fantasy football doesn't have conferences but it's the same concept to me. Teams don't play the same conference opponents yet are seeded (at a certain level) according to how they played against the teams in their conference. Your division record and someone else's in a different division may not include the same teams on the schedule, but the setting is to put extra emphasis on winning those games within your division much like winning division and conference games in the NFL have extra emphasis in terms of playoff seeding.

I would like to see a way to make the initial tiebreaker in fantasy football be head to head record with the team(s) you're tied with and then division record and then points for. I'm not sure they'll ever add that tiebreaker, but I believe they should.

[PatriotsGirl]

It makes sense to me.