AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting RedZoneClash.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Suggestions / Tiebreakers Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
boyd.fink
|
posted: 2014-11-01 20:04:54 (ID: 1621) Report Abuse |
|
I'm making this suggestion for both this game and RZA:
I think that if Team A and Team B have identical records at the end of the season, and Team A beat Team B in a league matchup, that team A should get playoff priority over Team B, even if Team B had a higher point differential than Team A. This is the first priority in an NFL tiebreaker between two teams. I can understand not implementing the rest of the procedures, as I'm sure that may be extremely difficult, but I think this is one worth considering. Now if Team A and Team B are divisional opponents who split the two league games they played against each other in a season, then it should be combined point differential in head to head matches between the two, followed by the current system of overall point differential. On the other hand, if Team A and Team B did not face each other in a league match during the season, the current system is fine. For what it's worth, I made the playoffs last season as the 6th seed because I won a tiebreaker under the current system (and then got the brakes beaten off of me in the WC round, but that's a different story) , but would not have made it had the system I have suggested been in place. Specifically, my team and another team both finished 11-5, and my team lost its matchup to the other team during the season, but I made the playoffs because of a higher point differential while the other team missed them entirely. Just figured that it should have been the other way around. Last edited on 2014-11-01 20:06:23 by boyd.fink |
|
| Quote Reply | |
|
aquashift
|
posted: 2014-11-02 01:46:47 (ID: 1622) Report Abuse |
|
I read your suggestion, and understand it, but let me ask you:
Why do you think the tie-breaking method employed currently is not as good as your suggestion? In other words, in your example, why do you think you should have lost the chance to go to the playoffs? boyd.fink wrote:
I'm making this suggestion for both this game and RZA: I think that if Team A and Team B have identical records at the end of the season, and Team A beat Team B in a league matchup, that team A should get playoff priority over Team B, even if Team B had a higher point differential than Team A. This is the first priority in an NFL tiebreaker between two teams. I can understand not implementing the rest of the procedures, as I'm sure that may be extremely difficult, but I think this is one worth considering. Now if Team A and Team B are divisional opponents who split the two league games they played against each other in a season, then it should be combined point differential in head to head matches between the two, followed by the current system of overall point differential. On the other hand, if Team A and Team B did not face each other in a league match during the season, the current system is fine. For what it's worth, I made the playoffs last season as the 6th seed because I won a tiebreaker under the current system (and then got the brakes beaten off of me in the WC round, but that's a different story) , but would not have made it had the system I have suggested been in place. Specifically, my team and another team both finished 11-5, and my team lost its matchup to the other team during the season, but I made the playoffs because of a higher point differential while the other team missed them entirely. Just figured that it should have been the other way around. |
|
| Quote Reply | |
| posted: 2014-11-02 10:52:19 (ID: 1624) Report Abuse | |
|
We were getting similar suggestions from time to time. Implementing head to head is much harder than using the current method. This is why we were refusing such requests in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, until we find a way to implement head to head without causing so much load...
|
|
| Quote Reply | |
|
boyd.fink
|
posted: 2014-11-02 21:25:45 (ID: 1629) Report Abuse |
|
aquashift wrote:
I read your suggestion, and understand it, but let me ask you: Why do you think the tie-breaking method employed currently is not as good as your suggestion? In other words, in your example, why do you think you should have lost the chance to go to the playoffs? Because the other team who missed out beat me in the regular season, which, in my opinion, makes them more deserving. In the NFL, that is the first step to a tiebreaker. If team A and team B finish with identical records, and team A defeats team B, then team A gets higher placement. I know it sounds crazy that I would try to suggest something like that that would have not worked in my favor, and that's understandable, but that's just my opinion. Honestly, I feel that both the other team and my deserved to be in the playoffs, but it was impossible for both teams to be there given the standings. But it's also worth mentioning that if the shoe was on the other foot- if I had won the head to head matchup and they had gotten the playoff spot based on point differential- I would feel that I had earned the spot for the same reasons. Last edited on 2014-11-02 21:30:39 by boyd.fink |
|
| Quote Reply | |
|
aquashift
|
posted: 2014-11-03 00:59:42 (ID: 1630) Report Abuse |
|
boyd.fink wrote:
aquashift wrote:
I read your suggestion, and understand it, but let me ask you: Why do you think the tie-breaking method employed currently is not as good as your suggestion? In other words, in your example, why do you think you should have lost the chance to go to the playoffs? Because the other team who missed out beat me in the regular season, which, in my opinion, makes them more deserving. In the NFL, that is the first step to a tiebreaker. If team A and team B finish with identical records, and team A defeats team B, then team A gets higher placement. I know it sounds crazy that I would try to suggest something like that that would have not worked in my favor, and that's understandable, but that's just my opinion. Honestly, I feel that both the other team and my deserved to be in the playoffs, but it was impossible for both teams to be there given the standings. But it's also worth mentioning that if the shoe was on the other foot- if I had won the head to head matchup and they had gotten the playoff spot based on point differential- I would feel that I had earned the spot for the same reasons. Looks like from what Pete said, this has been suggested as a superior ranking method but is too difficult to implement. I suggest more coders be allowed to create and modify the game. |
|
| Quote Reply | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Tiebreakers | |
