People have been wondering about tiebreaks, especially with the playoffs fast approaching. There should have been an explanation posted in the 'Rules' section at the start of the season, but for some reason that was lost. Here's an explanation of several tiebreak scenarios:
In case of ties:
2 way tie: team with head-to-head win takes precedent
3 way tie: team with the best set win ratio takes precendent
Scenarios:
3 Way Tie for 1st [5-2 record] case A
Team A [5-2, 15-4]
Team B [5-2, 15-6]
Team C [5-2, 15-7]
Results:
1st. Team A
2nd. Team B
3rd. Team C
3 way Tie for 1st [5-2 record] case B
Team A [5-2, 15-4]
Team B [5-2, 15-6]
Team C [5-2, 15-6]
Results:
1st. Team A
2nd. (who won between Team B and C)
3rd. (who lost between Team B and C)
This should cover pretty much every possible scenario. Here's a recap for multiple ties (more than two):
Set Totals > Head to head
If you have any other specific questions, post here as a comment and I will answer!
Subscribe via RSS
Comments (37)
McGill, you're still in it!
What if, in a 3-way tie, one team has head-to-head wins over the other two teams? Shouldn't that team be prioritized?
Also, how would you define win ratio? Is it really a "ratio"? or is "Most wins first, then fewest losses"?
Actually, I think this means McGill is officially out.
If McGill and MIT both beat Tufts, McGill and Tufts would both have 2 losses, with McGill edging out in tie breaks. Hope this works out for both of us!
But Tufts would have a better record :(
Would be better to just do it by set wins for all ties, as it doesn't seem right to change it for a three way compared to a 2 way.
By ratio I mean 15-4 > 15-5 in total sets, for example.
You can't have head-to-head comparisons in a 3 way tie by definition.
Example: Team A > Team B > Team C > Team A , if all 3 are tied how can you look at the head-to-head here?
Someone brought up the example what if: Team A > Team B > Team C < Team A , IF this case somehow happens, then Team A would win the tibreak.
I guess to clarify I meant if there is a 3 way tie that CAN"T be determined by head-to-head wins, set wins come into play.
Kuri, if you are 6-2 and Tufts is 6-2, but you beat tufts, you're in! BEAT THEM!!!!! I'm sure MiT will!!!!!
Sorry I forgot to add an example for the ratio thing:
If one team is, say 10-10, and another 9-8
does the 10-10 team win because they have 1 more win?
or the 9-8 because they have a higher winning percentage?
I'm also assuming a potential 4-way tie is worked out the same way as a 3-way tie (this is actually a likelyhood in West 1)
4 way tie would indeed work the same way.
For your first example, can you expand that a little bit? Because in this case, then obviously the head-to-head winner advances. Are you referring to a 3 way tie or something where there are 3 teams that have: 11-9, 10-10, and 9-8 set scores, and determining who would take precedent among the final two?
He's basically asking that, when you're judging it by set wins and losses, are you doing set wins - set losses, or set wins / set losses to determine the winner?
Your example in the OP assumes that they all get 3-0'd in their losses, so they all have the same number of wins. I'm assuming it'd be a 3+ way tie that we're considering this for, since 2 is obvious. The numbers in your example aren't that great, so here are a better set to answer with:
Team A [6-2, 18-6]
Team B [6-2, 19-7]
Team C [6-2, 20-7]
where Team A's win-loss RATIO is the best,
Team B has the same set differential (win-loss) as A, more set wins, but a lower win-loss ratio,
and Team C has the most set wins of the all, as well as the greatest set differential (13 > 12), but still a lower win-loss ratio than A.
Obviously, C > B in this case, but do we consider A to be above C because of their higher win-loss ratio, or do we consider C > A because of C's higher set differential / more set wins. For option one, A>C>B since it's based on ratios. If it's the second option, it would follow that C>B>A, since it goes 13, 12, 12 for set differentials, and B has more wins than A.
Ratio typically means win/losses... O_O
Ratio typically means win/losses
I dunno what goes through that crazy kid's head.
whatever yo guys know what i mean
what he means is that
it's set win - loss, so set differential.
lol? Doesn't matter...we should just win and not worry about tie breakers xD
Forgot to bold that ^^. w/es. problem solved.
This is why I think the tie breaking rules need to be changed: If you look at west division 1. Lets say Purdue loses vs OSU but beats illinois puttting them at 5-3. MSU wins their last 2 matches putting them at 5-3. Wether or not msu or purdue gets to playoffs ends up being determined by if another team can tie with us (that being chicago or northwestern). If one of those teams ends up getting 5-3, it goes by set wins, most likely putting purdue in from the current record. If it goes by match win vs each other, msu gets in no matter what the set wins are. Basically, both of msu's and purdue's team playoff future would be determined by random games between other teams in our division even though they would not get in the playoffs themselves. This is all of course saying that the set win/lose would not change drastically where it is now, which it could.
Doesn't that make more sense? To decide a tiebreak between multiple teams based on each of their overall seasons, rather than a one match from that season?
Everything's hypothetical. Anything could happen... and whoever ends up winning the tiebreak, wins it. And I don't think there's anything wrong with basing the tiebreak on the overall set record.
Right, I'm saying it would be better to do the tie breakers by set win ratio all the time. To me it makes morse sense to judge a team on all their games than just 5 from one match.