Playoff Seeding Controversy - Need Opinions

[knapplc]

We seed playoffs based on these criteria:

1. Head to Head record
2. Record against individual teams in the league ranked from best to worst
4. Points Scored (highest)
5. Points Against (lowest)
6. Coin Flip
7. Commissioner's choice.

The final playoff spot was between two teams that tied in their head-to-head matchup, so criteria one is out.

Criteria two is where I’m running into a question because we didn't play every team in our league this year. One of these two teams didn’t play the #1 seed, while the other one did. Here’s how it broke down:

Team A
Seed 1 – Did not play
Seed 2 – Win
Seed 3 – Loss, Loss
Seed 4 – Loss
Seed 5 – Loss, Win

Team B
Seed 1 – Loss
Seed 2 – Win
Seed 3 – Win, Loss
Seed 4 – Loss
Seed 5 – Loss, Win

Since both teams didn’t play the top seed I threw that out of the equation. I started with the second seed, where they both won, and used the third seed to determine who got in – Team B, because he won one of their matchups, while Team A lost both matchups.

Team A is questioning the legitimacy of this, since it could be argued (he is stating) that he did not lose to the #1 seed so he has a better record.

This was the first year in our league that we didn’t play every team during the season, and I simply forgot to modify the seedings for this contingency. I’ve made it very clear to Team A’s owner that the rules do not cover this scenario, so I had to use my judgment. I think I made a good decision, but I just wanted to run it by the Cafe to see what you thought.

Was I right to throw out the head-to-head vs. the #1 seed, or was I wrong?

[dream_017]

Send it to the BCS computer

If team B would have won, I think they would have been the automatic choice. My choice would still be team B, they won 3 games against the top 5 seeds to team A's 2 wins. Personally I don't think team A has a leg to stand on in this situation.

BTW, I would change the order of the criteria next year(as long as not all teams play each other) or clearly explain the process you will use if you keep it the same

[Matthias]

You made the right call. Not playing someone is not the same as not losing to them.

[skibrett15]

It's the right call according to your rules, but I never understood how record vs. a high ranked opponent proved your worth. It's easy to catch the top seed on an off week and sneak a win you maybe didn't deserve. I always thought total points is the best (and only) tiebreaker.

[knapplc]

It's the right call according to your rules, but I never understood how record vs. a high ranked opponent proved your worth. It's easy to catch the top seed on an off week and sneak a win you maybe didn't deserve. I always thought total points is the best (and only) tiebreaker.

I completely agree. The only thing is, I've been the top-scoring team in this league over the last three years, and when I've tried to get this rule changed the perception has been that I'm being self-serving. I think it's ridiculous, but that's the rule.

[Flux]

You made the right call

Maybe say to him that you went by winning pct.

he had a .000 winning pct against the #1 seed since he was 0-0
as was team B who was 0-1

He is arguing for the sake of arguing (which i would do myself) and trying to do anything he can to get in.

The sytem you have in place is currently flawed and needs looking into. What would you do if a team was 1-0 vs the #1 seed and the other was 1-1, or even better, 2-0. You have to have equal standing when looking at record or % against opponents.

[knapplc]

I am clearly negligent in not thinking this through ahead of time. I should have reviewed the rules before coming up with this schedule. The league approved using a schedule where we don't play every team (we play two against our division plus seven other games, meaning we don't play one team this season), but after that decision was made I should have been proactive enough to check the rules for possible problems.

I've owned up to dropping the ball on this, but it's clearly not intended to screw anyone.

I doubt this guy will make too big of a fuss about this. He's come in first or second in the league in five of the last eight years. I think he's just giving me a hard time with this, but he does have a point. I should have thought of this sooner, and now I'm in a bit of a pickle.

[BeefSandwiches]

I agree you made the right choice and that Team A is just trying to find a loop hole to get in the playoffs. As Flux said, if you explain it using winning percentage then the debate is over.

BTW - I like #7...just in case the coin lands on its edge.

[knapplc]

I agree you made the right choice and that Team A is just trying to find a loop hole to get in the playoffs. As Flux said, if you explain it using winning percentage then the debate is over.

BTW - I like #7...just in case the coin lands on its edge.

That's exactly why we put that in there.


I've had a couple of emails from Team A's owner and he's just giving me a hard time about this. He's not going to put up a protest. He's the former commissioner, so he knows it can be hard to think of everything.

[J_rob_the_ Baller]

In the future, total points should come ahead of records against other teams, unless you work out a schedule where everyone plays everyone an equal # of times.

In your current situation, I would assume that not playing a team trumps losing to a team.