ou812
Sophomore Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by ou812 on Mar 12, 2009 8:58:45 GMT -6
Our classification size has a dilemma to deal w/ regarding scheduling and tie breakers to determine sectional seeding for playoffs.
We have 18 teams in our section that are of similar size. We will have 2 divisions of 9 teams. Our regular season consists of 7 weeks. Problem #1- not all teams in the same division will play each other. Problem #2 Each week the classification larger and the classification below us each need a game to fill out everyone's schedule. This is truly best for the section, because no one will have a bye or have to play a team that is more than twice their size. However, it really messes up our schedule. The result is that two schools in each division will play 7 divisional games, while the other seven schools will only have 6 divisional games.
This schedule has been set by the section and we can not really do much about it. So, we have been charged w/ devising some tie breakers that we can use to seed our divisions for an 8 team playoff beginning week 8.
The first solution was for the teams w/ 7 divisional games to not count their week 1 opponent. That was asinine, and seems to be no longer and option. Can you imagine playing a team in week one, where the game counts for your team, but not the other?
Has anyone ever had a situation where you had to compare an unequal # of games?
In the past we have used head to head as the first tie breaker. I believe this will stay the first option. Then we go to an option that is called "Quarter Points." A point is awarded to the team that is ahead at the end of each quarter. Only the first three quarters are worth a point. At the end of the game, whomever wins will get 4 additional points for a total of 7 possible points. OT is not worth any points. This is not the greatest system, but it helps to settle ties. This will probably be a part of the procedure.
How the heck are we going to compare teams w/ different # of games? Win % is going to benefit someone (My next project is to do the math.). Is this really a fair way of doing this? Even in the leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA) where this is used to compare teams during the season, they all play the same amount of games a the end. When you are talking about only 7 games, I can't believe that this is going to be fair.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions. If you have had to face this, what did you do? What would you do different if you had to again?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Mar 12, 2009 9:26:39 GMT -6
In Ohio we use the Harbin system but one aspect that would work for you is the divisor system process used in Ohio's Harbin. Note: Before any games are played, the computer assumes that the opponents on each school’s schedule will play a full complement of games and assigns the divisor of 100 (10 weeks times 10 opponents=100). After each week of the season, for each open date that occurs for an opponent that a school has played to date, the computer subtracts the divisor by one. In other words, if week five has just been completed and all five of a school’s opponents have played a full complement of games, then the divisor remains at 100, and second level points are divided by 100. If one opponent on a school’s schedule to date has an open date, then the divisor reduces by one to 99, and second level points are divided by 99, and so on. The second level points are then multiplied by the factor 10 www.ohsaa.org/sports/ft/boys/ftrglt.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 12, 2009 9:38:50 GMT -6
Can you somehow break into 3 divisions of 6? Each school would play 5 divisional games that go towards seeding. Some schools will have one additional game (total 6) and some will have two additional games (total 7). The additional games can count towards tiebreakers after head-head is factored.
You can take the top two from division (6 teams) and then have two wildcards (for a total of the eight teams. The three division winners would be seeds 1-3, second place would be 4-6, and wilcards 7&8. Set it up so that no one from the same division plays in the first round.
|
|
ou812
Sophomore Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by ou812 on Mar 12, 2009 13:14:46 GMT -6
Can you somehow break into 3 divisions of 6? Each school would play 5 divisional games that go towards seeding. Some schools will have one additional game (total 6) and some will have two additional games (total 7). The additional games can count towards tiebreakers after head-head is factored. You can take the top two from division (6 teams) and then have two wildcards (for a total of the eight teams. The three division winners would be seeds 1-3, second place would be 4-6, and wilcards 7&8. Set it up so that no one from the same division plays in the first round. That is exactly how we did it last time that we had three divisions. What I was told by the guys in charge was that crossing over w/ the other classification sizes really "gummed up" the 3 division alignment. |
|
ou812
Sophomore Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by ou812 on Mar 12, 2009 13:58:36 GMT -6
Thanks johnknight, I will check out the link to the ohsaa.
|
|
ou812
Sophomore Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by ou812 on Mar 18, 2009 6:28:45 GMT -6
In Ohio we use the Harbin system but one aspect that would work for you is the divisor system process used in Ohio's Harbin. Note: Before any games are played, the computer assumes that the opponents on each school’s schedule will play a full complement of games and assigns the divisor of 100 (10 weeks times 10 opponents=100). After each week of the season, for each open date that occurs for an opponent that a school has played to date, the computer subtracts the divisor by one. In other words, if week five has just been completed and all five of a school’s opponents have played a full complement of games, then the divisor remains at 100, and second level points are divided by 100. If one opponent on a school’s schedule to date has an open date, then the divisor reduces by one to 99, and second level points are divided by 99, and so on. The second level points are then multiplied by the factor 10 www.ohsaa.org/sports/ft/boys/ftrglt.pdfIs there anyone who would like to weigh in on this system? If you use this do you feel that it is fair? Would you change anything? |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 18, 2009 9:16:42 GMT -6
Our classification size has a dilemma to deal w/ regarding scheduling and tie breakers to determine sectional seeding for playoffs. We have 18 teams in our section that are of similar size. We will have 2 divisions of 9 teams. Our regular season consists of 7 weeks. Problem #1- not all teams in the same division will play each other. Problem #2 Each week the classification larger and the classification below us each need a game to fill out everyone's schedule. This is truly best for the section, because no one will have a bye or have to play a team that is more than twice their size. However, it really messes up our schedule. The result is that two schools in each division will play 7 divisional games, while the other seven schools will only have 6 divisional games. I'm thoroughly confused. Just considering your section (which from your description it seems must all be in the same classif'n), why not have each team in each division play 7 games against the others in the same division, and 1 game against a team in the other div.? Why should your apparently balanced section need to be used to solve a problem of teams in other classif'ns? If they want to get another game (which shouldn't count in standings), why can't that be arranged on an individual basis? 8 team playoff?! From a section of just 18 teams?! There's your trouble right there. The world is playoff mad. Why doesn't your section just add a game or two to your regular season, and then for a championship just play off the top team from each div.? Otherwise you're playing 8 games just to eliminate slightly over half the teams from contention, and then playing 3 rounds of single elimination to award the trophy. Seems more likely to produce a fluke than a legit champion. |
|
ou812
Sophomore Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by ou812 on Mar 18, 2009 14:03:06 GMT -6
Bob Goodman... stop making sense!
Actually, the 8 vs. 4 team playoff was debated and the 8 team playoff won. The argument that put it over the top was that the #5 seed won the Section Championship last year, and I believe they lost in the State 1/4s in OT, so I guess they peeked at the right time. They did have to beat an undefeated team in the Finals to win, so I view them as legit.
All of this is nothing that I can change, believe me I have been trying. Now I am just trying to work with the situation to come up w/ a fair tie-breaker.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 18, 2009 15:36:51 GMT -6
I blame the NHL, where 4 of its 6 teams, and then 8 of 12, got into the Stanley Cup playoffs after a pretty grueling season. And those college basketball conferences where the whole season was to decide the pairings and eliminated nobody.
|
|
|
|
Post by 90rocket on Apr 28, 2014 11:19:59 GMT -6
Has anyone come up with a good tiebreaker system? We have an 18 team league, 3 division format. Top 8 teams make the playoffs. Top 2 from each division make the playoffs, and then any two after that. All division winners host the first playoff game as well as 1 non winner.
Here's the real kicker. Half the teams are playing a team within our section who competes at a larger classification, while the other half will play another team in the league. One team is even traveling to play a team from out of section. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Apr 28, 2014 21:46:58 GMT -6
I blame the NHL, where 4 of its 6 teams, and then 8 of 12, got into the Stanley Cup playoffs after a pretty grueling season. And those college basketball conferences where the whole season was to decide the pairings and eliminated nobody. It was 16 of 24 for a long time as well. if you want a simple method and you can't trade one playoff round for an extra week of season, then make a schedule for a 9 week season, simple round robin, then cut out the last week. It's "unfair" because some teams will dodge good opponents, but it's a long enough season that no team with a real chance should get screwed out of the playoffs. |
|
|
|
Post by 90rocket on Feb 24, 2015 15:49:12 GMT -6
Figured I would give this a bump and hope for the best. We are back to an 18 team league, so we decided to go with 3 six team divisions that are based on geography. Everyone will play 5 division games and 2 crossovers. Top 8 make the playoffs...division winners seeded 1-3, 2nd place in division seeded 4-6, 3rd place seeded 7-8. The problem is that the 2 best teams in the entire league are in the same division, along with arguably the 3rd best team. Last year we used a point method that was based on wins verse quality teams or losses verse quality teams.
The only problem will be that the top 2 teams will very likely play each other in the semi-finals after already competing in the regular season.
Is anyone else in a similar scenario? Should the division winners automatically be given the top 3 seeds?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachg125 on Feb 25, 2015 5:47:33 GMT -6
Yes, division winners should get top seeds.
You could also do 3 points for any win or something instead of doing "quality" wins. That leaves so much room for hell to break loose if you do quality wins.
When you say top two in semis, do you mean top 2 of 18 or top two of division? If they are from the same division, that's how most states' playoffs work.
|
|
|
|
Post by 90rocket on Feb 25, 2015 11:16:01 GMT -6
The reason we did quality point last year was because we had an odd number of teams and some teams had to cross over with a higher classification. The teams that did this gained a few quality points if they lost and more if they won.
The top 8 make the playoffs with the 2nd place team with the most quality points getting the 4th seed. They get a home game, but they also get the top team in the 2nd round. I would rather be the 6th seed and play on the road and hope to play the 2nd overall seed in the semis.
One thing to note...the NBA uses 3 divisions and does not automatically give the division winners the top seeds. Does anyone know why this is the case?
|
|
|
|
Post by 90rocket on Feb 25, 2015 12:54:58 GMT -6
My belief is that the top 8 teams with the most quality points get seeded 1-8 regardless of where they finish. If a 2nd Place team beats 2 division winners and loses to the division champion in their own division, why should they automatically be seeded behind the 2 teams they beat?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Feb 25, 2015 23:26:50 GMT -6
An easy fix is to have the "extra" divisional game be declared a "non-conference" game and thus wouldn't count in the playoff standings. Otherwise it's really messy. Some thoughts:
Win%
If 2 teams are tied: head to head
If they didn't play: head to head win% against common opponents
If still tied: points for divided by points against among common opponents
If still tied: points for divided by points against in all divisional games
If still tied: fewest UR penalties (?)
If 3+ teams are tied:
Use tiebreakers until one of them finds a single top team then restart.
For example, if 5 teams are tied and the first tiebreaker has 3 teams tied at the top, just move on to the second tiebreaker, and so on until a tiebreaker gives you a clear winner, then you start all the way back at the top.
IF they all played each other:
Head to head among tied teams
win% among opponents common to all teams
Points for/points against in games among tied teams
If still tied or if they didn't all play each other
win% among common opponents
points for/points against against common opponents
points for/points against in all divisional games
|
|
|
|
Post by macdiiddy on Feb 27, 2015 23:58:52 GMT -6
Wow too much math for me. I know its foreign for nearly everyone and might sound wrong/dirty. But here in Indiana everyone in the state makes the playoffs. The most complicated problem is which ping pong ball they pull out of a box for sectional seeding.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 28, 2015 0:20:03 GMT -6
I didn't want to do it but I just have to ask- They have you guys figure out your own playoff systems?
|
|
