Twisted Sister wrote:
mattb47 wrote:If they didn't both play 4 games against similar opponents, then it cannot be used. So unless B also played 2 games against that same opponent, they would only have 3 common games and it cannot be used as a tiebreaker.
To put it simply, this is how it would break down:
Team A played X
Team B played X
Team A played Y
Team B played Y
Team A played Z
Team B played Z
Team A played Z again
Team B did not play Z again
You must take them individually like this, act like the last 2 games against team Z aren't the same team, that's how you have to look at it.
Hold on, so you're saying the whole tiebreaker is bust... or do I just exclude games played against team Z. So it would be the best record against teams X and Y.
If I include only one game played against team Z... what on earth do I do if Team A went 1-1 vs team Z... which game would I pick?
The rule you are using states that this is used only when there are 4 common games minimum. There were not 4 common games here. If you want to extend that further by making it only 3 common games minimum then go ahead, but I wouldn't do that in this situation since one team played one of the teams in question twice.
The only possible way I would use this type of rule in this situation is if Team A went 2-0 or 0-2 against team Z, in which case you could just call it a win or a loss in comparing the teams' record against those common opponents. Idealy, however, it is best to have at least 4 common opponents used because 3 games just doesn't quite give you enough to go on.
If it is a division type of league, I think that divisional record is a better indicator than using the "common opponents" argument personally, but if not then I would probably look for something else to use as a tiebreaker.