Tie breaker system CSFL II. Questionable?

[anderson]

Actually if you base it on pts diff then NJ would be in last place with -34, not third. You also expect teams to play intense defense for all 4 quartes. This simply not true in blowout games. NJ scored 16 pts in 4th quarter after the game was cleary over. Saying that you had a better week because you kept your opponent to 28 points and needed squirrel brain shanks let boo behind him with 7 secs remaining for a 90 yard game winning td makes no sense to me.

Based on this, NJ is pretty much screwed for at least the next few weekw because they gave up 72 pts. They can win the next game 80-10 but will still have a high pts against value and thus will be below teams they probably should not be.

[Peyton]

My team always plays defense the whole game, no-matter the score. For teams that don't play defense the whole game then the "Points Against" is just another incentive to do so.

I based those rankings off "Points For" to show how inflated the category is.

Also, I do believe that my team had the better week because we played a better opponent, which is why the score was close and not inflated. Even if we lost (28-27, I would have said that I had a better week than Washington, which allowed 34 points to Philadelphia. In a way, the "Points Against" shows a team's strength of schedule.

[Arod]

We all know when Manning is afraid he has lost, he has reverted to name calling and being classy. Maybe his fingers were shaking as he was typing all of these messages and went as far as locking the thread. To further debunk his flawed logic and laughing stock of the current situation, I am here to provide statistical analysis to prove why Manning is once again wrong and not willing to accept it because his ego is too high.

First off, I agree that the first deciding factor of a tie breaker should indeed be record vs opponent. The only situation that might involve another sort of tie breaker is when the teams in one division end up tieing each other and win 1 game against each other during the season. In this case, having points against to determine the seeding might not be the most logical case.

Lets look at the Week 1 statistics: Total passes thrown
Game 1: Chicago vs Dallas --> 69 total passes
Game 2: Toronto vs New Jersey --> 80 total passes
Game 3: Philly vs Washington --> 78 total passes

Based on this alone, the offensive flow of the game can determine how much your team gives up defensively. If you want to waste the 10 second play clock every time after a completion, obviously your team is going to give up less points in the end because you are giving the opposition less time overall to score offensively. Of course the lowest scoring game was Chicago vs Dallas and the highest scoring game was Toronto vs New Jersey in week 1. If an offense likes to throw deep more often and score quicker then usual, this means they are more likely as a team to give up more points because the opposing team will have more time on the clock to run their own offense compared to usual.

Again Manning stated:
"Arod's Logic: Toronto, Washington, Chicago, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Dallas

New Jersey gave up 72 points, which is more than twice the amount that Dallas gave up, yet Dallas is in last place and New Jersey is in 4th?"

New Jersey would not be in 4th place. They would be in 6th place because they would be -34 in point differential.

Point differential takes in effect both offense and defense which makes it more efficient to represent a tie breaker. I just dont think its right for someone to penalize the offense who looks to strike at a quicker pace which gives them more time on the field defensively which typically ends up giving up more points. We also cant consider "better opponent." Manning has made the schedule to fit the skill levels of the QB against each other. In the end, we all face the same teams and it would be most efficient to use a point differential system rather then points against.

[craig]

Before reading anyone's argument, I kept one thing in mind: how each matchup was determined in the first place (aka QB skill levels). If this is how things are determined in the first place, it must determine how things are handled to be most fair. Strictly using Points Against is leaving out how the schedule was determined in the first place.

Pace of the game was another good argument that I didn't think about. Completely true.

+1 for Point Differential.

[hyoujin]

you guys are arguing nonsensically

we can all agree that if two teams have the same record - the team with the better head to head matchup record moves on to the playoffs or gets the higher seed

IF that record is the same - the second tie breaker won't really matter whether it is based off of point differential or points against - because in the end it would be the point differential or the points against comparison ONLY between those two teams and those two things are correlated

EXAMPLE 1:

Game 1: New Jersey beats Dallas 42-35 (NJ win by 7)
Game 2: Dallas beats New Jersey 42-7 (Dallas wins by 35)

according to Arodӳ suggestion: Dallas moves onto playoffs (35 > 7)
according to Peytonӳ suggestion: Dallas STILL moves onto playoffs because Dallas allowed NJ to score 49 points while NJ allowed Dallas to score 77 points (49 < 77)

notice a similarity? 35 ֠7 = 28 and 77 ֠49 = 28

EXAMPLE 2:

Game 1: New Jersey beats Dallas 70-56 (NJ win by 14)
Game 2: Dallas beats New Jersey 35-28 (Dallas wins by 7)

according to Arodӳ suggestion: NJ moves onto playoffs (14 > 7)
according to Peytonӳ suggestion: NJ STILL moves onto playoffs because NJ allowed Dallas to score 91 points while Dallas allowed NJ to score 98 points (91 < 98)

notice a similarity? 14 ֠7 = 7 and 98 ֠91 = 7

you guys are looking it as an overall against all opponents which it will matter then because of difficulty of the team you face and difference in style

BUT since we are comparing ONLY the matchup tiebreaker between two specific teams you ONLY need to look at the greater margin of win or lesser amount of points allowed between those two specific teams

comprende?

[kc21]

All of these arguments have valid points and make sense, but to be honest this isn't really what this threads about. I wan't to see people saying they are for or against this tie breaking system, for now on I would like to see this thread be getting +1 or -1, not other peoples idea. If you really think this idea isn't the best put a -1 and make your own thread about what makes yours better.

[hyoujin]

you don't need a +1 or -1 this isn't a democracy I just explained how it doesn't matter

[hyoujin]

did you not read the examples? 91 versus 98 IS the total points against 91 is lower than 98 I simply deducted them to show you that it is correlated to the point differential aka it's the same thing when you're comparing 2 teams

[kc21]

Hyoujin baby this one is for you, let me bring this one home. If for example, Brady beats ur team last game of the season. You guys are both tied record wise. If Mannings team has given up less points overall defensively, but doesnt have a better point differential overall in the league and is in closer games compared to brady, by ur logic, Manning will advance based on points against system. Brady advances if you consider both offense and defense, something that isnt considered in points against.

[smoked]

wrong hyoujin you're saying score differential. peyton's idea isn't the score against between the two, it is the TOTAL scores against. that method will only work for two parties, aka you +1'd score differential.

TLR me and hyoujin both +1 score differential