2011/12 Rules/Guidelines

[Steven Dakai]

The team from Maine loses and the team from CT wins. Seems fair to me.

[Chris Martin]

Just read over the rules again (not all the posts so I'm sorry if it's been discussed already), and had a couple questions. Will the bottom 2 teams in the A pool for relegation purposes be decided at finals or before? Also, are A pool finals definitely at 2 different courses or am I reading it wrong?

Thanks!

[Matt DeAngelis]

Bottom two teams in the A pool are sent to the B pool next season. The two teams still compete in the A pool finals.

[Mike Dussault]

Bottom two teams in the A pool are sent to the B pool next season. The two teams still compete in the A pool finals.

Regular season standings or Finals standings?

[Daniel Mack]

This has probably been answered before but what are the exact rules for when 2 or more teams finish undefeated in regards to finals location choice, bracket seedings, etc...?

Still looking for an answer. Anyone know what the tiebreaker is in this scenario?

[Chris Martin]

Bottom two teams in the A pool are sent to the B pool next season. The two teams still compete in the A pool finals.

Regular season standings or Finals standings?

That's exactly what I'm asking.

[Jason Toothy]

This has probably been answered before but what are the exact rules for when 2 or more teams finish undefeated in regards to finals location choice, bracket seedings, etc...?

Still looking for an answer. Anyone know what the tiebreaker is in this scenario?

Tiebreakers are decided by record vs common opponents, but if there are two undefeated teams both would have beaten their common opponents. If there isn't already a tiebreaker in the rules for undefeated teams, then I would propose the team with the higher points differential would be higher seeded. What other statistics could we look at?

[Kelly Conroy]

This has probably been answered before but what are the exact rules for when 2 or more teams finish undefeated in regards to finals location choice, bracket seedings, etc...?

Still looking for an answer. Anyone know what the tiebreaker is in this scenario?

Tiebreakers are decided by record vs common opponents, but if there are two undefeated teams both would have beaten their common opponents. If there isn't already a tiebreaker in the rules for undefeated teams, then I would propose the team with the higher points differential would be higher seeded. What other statistics could we look at?

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the top two B teams from finals advancing to A next year? Tiebreakers won't matter anyway.

[Shawn Mullen]

This has probably been answered before but what are the exact rules for when 2 or more teams finish undefeated in regards to finals location choice, bracket seedings, etc...?

Still looking for an answer. Anyone know what the tiebreaker is in this scenario?

Tiebreakers are decided by record vs common opponents, but if there are two undefeated teams both would have beaten their common opponents. If there isn't already a tiebreaker in the rules for undefeated teams, then I would propose the team with the higher points differential would be higher seeded. What other statistics could we look at?

Just chimin in real quick......you wouldn't be able to use the pts differential because each match played has a different ammnt of pts associated with it. If every match was 16 v 16 then that would be a possibility. Kelly, I think the top seed gets to pick location, so that's what the tie breaker would be all about.

I'm also interested to know if it's how you finish at finals or how you finished in the regular season that sends you up or down. If it's how you finish at finals.....wouldn't that make the regular season matches not mean anything, other than bragging rights of course? But A pool finals this yr is seeded match play, so regular season record is relevent to what seed you get. IDK.

[Jason Toothy]

I think the question here is which B pool team will be top seeded therefore picking the location for the top half B pool finals.

[Jason Toothy]

A points differential ratio would work in the place of just adding the sums of all points, for example:

Team A scored a combined 100 points and allowed a combined 20 points. Their pct of points won out of potential points would be 100 out of 120 or 83.33%.

Team B scored a combined 75 points and allowed a combined 12 points. Their pct of points won would be 75 out of 87 or 86.2%.

That would work if there isn't already another tiebreaker option.

[Daniel Mack]

I don't like the points differential because it wasn't known from the beginning. Setting your matchups to possibly take the most amount of points vs. ensuring the win are two different strategies. I know at first glance it may sound like one in the same but those who doing to matchups for their teams know what I'm saying. I DO like this as a tiebreaker but not when it wasn't taken into account from the beginning.

I think a more fair indicator would be something like winning percentage of teams played against. The undefeated team who defeated 5 teams with a higher combined winning percentage would be a more fair tiebreaker based on the fact that it doesn't matter if it was known from the beginning or not, and would have no bearing on the results. The fact that point differential wasn't a known tiebreaker kind of makes that scenario flawed in my opinion because matchups would have been set differently.

[Jason Toothy]

Opponents' blended record is also a statistic that wasn't known to be a tiebreaker from the beginning. In my opinion, it's even more arbitrary because teams have no control over who their opponents will be. Let's stop dancing around this issue, if Tolland goes undefeated and pHill goes undefeated, let's have a neutral site match to determine the #1 seed. I don't know who wouldn't be in favor of that. (other than Tolland )

[Steven Dakai]

Or you could pick a spot 1/2 way between tolland and moose country.

[Daniel Mack]

Opponents' blended record is also a statistic that wasn't known to be a tiebreaker from the beginning. In my opinion, it's even more arbitrary because teams have no control over who their opponents will be.

Neither were known before the start of the season but unlike the point differential suggestion, the opponent combined winning % option wouldn't have caused any change in strategy. Everyone has already been playing in order to just win the matchup, regardless of by how much. Had the tie-breaker been set to be point differential it would have changed the way matchup strategies were considered. Resting players, getting people playing time, etc....

[Jason Toothy]

Selecting a course equidistant between Tolland and pHill as a finals location would serve to give an advantage to teams that are close to that region in finals (Central Mass teams - take your pick). I would rather we play a neutral course scrimmage to determine which team gets to pick the location of finals.

I know discussing a scenario in which 2 teams go 5-0 is getting a bit ahead of ourselves, but these discussions are better to have now than later. Maybe something we should outline in the rules for next year...

[Matt DeAngelis]

It's the regular season standings that determine the teams that move to A or B, not the results of finals.

[Jason Toothy]

I think a more fair indicator would be something like winning percentage of teams played against. The undefeated team who defeated 5 teams with a higher combined winning percentage would be a more fair tiebreaker based on the fact that it doesn't matter if it was known from the beginning or not, and would have no bearing on the results. The fact that point differential wasn't a known tiebreaker kind of makes that scenario flawed in my opinion because matchups would have been set differently.

Well here's a list of Tolland opponents this season:
Panthorn
BLand2
Maple
Noho
Crane Hill

And pHill's:
Panthorn
BLand2
Maple
Dam Team
Crane Hill...

So under the current proposed solution, what it boils down to is who finishes the season better: Noho or Dam Team... if Dam Team has a better record, pHill gets to pick, if Noho has a better record, Tolland gets to pick finals location.

Seems like a capricious set of circumstances upon which to base such an impactful decision. But I do understand your argument, Dmack.... Just pointing out that all it amounts to is Dam Team's record against Noho's...

But like I said... we're 3-0 right now, so is Tolland. Maybe we should revisit it if we're both 4-0 in a few weeks.

[Todd Lapham]

Bottom two teams in the A pool are sent to the B pool next season. The two teams still compete in the A pool finals.

Regular season standings or Finals standings?

That's exactly what I'm asking.

The bottom two after the regular season move down.

The top two at finals for the B Pool move up.

[Sean Healy]

What incentive does this give the bottom two A pool teams to attend finals?

[Daniel Mack]

I think a more fair indicator would be something like winning percentage of teams played against. The undefeated team who defeated 5 teams with a higher combined winning percentage would be a more fair tiebreaker based on the fact that it doesn't matter if it was known from the beginning or not, and would have no bearing on the results. The fact that point differential wasn't a known tiebreaker kind of makes that scenario flawed in my opinion because matchups would have been set differently.

Well here's a list of Tolland opponents this season:
Panthorn
BLand2
Maple
Noho
Crane Hill

And pHill's:
Panthorn
BLand2
Maple
Dam Team
Crane Hill...

So under the current proposed solution, what it boils down to is who finishes the season better: Noho or Dam Team... if Dam Team has a better record, pHill gets to pick, if Noho has a better record, Tolland gets to pick finals location.

Seems like a capricious set of circumstances upon which to base such an impactful decision. But I do understand your argument, Dmack.... Just pointing out that all it amounts to is Dam Team's record against Noho's...

But like I said... we're 3-0 right now, so is Tolland. Maybe we should revisit it if we're both 4-0 in a few weeks.

I agree with you completely and just wanted to get it hashed out before the last minute. Thanks for doing the research, I honestly hadn't looked into who you played and what their records are. I don't think either tiebreaker scenario is great especially with the small body of work to descern from. And yes, I agree that it's not being c0cky to get this ironed out ahead of time, even though neither team has finished 5-0 yet. I'm not saying I think either of us will finish 5-0 as it would be disrespectful to our future opponents, just that there is the solid possibility and was curious of the rule (which I highly doubt even exists.) I just wanted to make it clear that a tiebreaker that takes into account a factor that could be strategized for is inappropriate when it's being determined post-facto.

[Matt DeAngelis]

It's the regular season standings that determine the teams that move to A or B, not the results of finals.

[Daniel Mack]

It's the regular season standings that determine the teams that move to A or B, not the results of finals.

This question has been answered a half dozen times. How about our tiebreaker dilemma? Who is running this thing anyways?

[Matt DeAngelis]

It's the regular season standings that determine the teams that move to A or B, not the results of finals.

This question has been answered a half dozen times. How about our tiebreaker dilemma? Who is running this thing anyways?

Todd is the commish.

Tiebreaker dilemma? There are still two months of competition!

[Dave Hickson]

I think the default rule would be that all ties are decided by a head to head matchup or what ever the 2 captains decide on.

[Dave Jackson]

pHiLL anit gonna be undefeated.

You can count on that there, boyeee

DMack, you guys will get your pick I'm sure

[Josh Rogers]

Cran? cran... anyone seen Cran?

[Todd Lapham]

It's the regular season standings that determine the teams that move to A or B, not the results of finals.

This question has been answered a half dozen times. How about our tiebreaker dilemma? Who is running this thing anyways?

I think the default rule would be that all ties are decided by a head to head matchup or what ever the 2 captains decide on.

Bingo! Head to Head is the only tie breaker, if that doesn't apply, then it's up to the captains to decide. If they can't agree on something, then you play for it.

[jim tufts]

pHiLL anit gonna be undefeated.
You can count on that there, boyeee
DMack, you guys will get your pick I'm sure

Is it far enough up there that you can eat your food again before it comes out?

[Steven Dakai]

pHiLL anit gonna be undefeated.
You can count on that there, boyeee
DMack, you guys will get your pick I'm sure

Is it far enough up there that you can eat your food again before it comes out?