BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Walk Over

Walk Over

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
71584.22 in reply to 71584.21
Date: 2/10/2009 5:20:46 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
2. Team loses by a difference of +75 (instead of +25)


That wont happen, it enriches the winning team too much.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
71584.23 in reply to 71584.22
Date: 2/10/2009 5:59:10 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
The problem with a rule like this is evident in my division. Torooo regularly beats all of us by more than 25 no matter how badly we wish otherwise. A change like this would mean that more often than not 2 teams in my division would lose training each week.

He only failed to win by more than 25 in three league games this season. Without BBB it would have only been once.

Essentially a rule like this would punish most of division because of one exceptional team.


This Post:
00
71584.24 in reply to 71584.23
Date: 2/10/2009 6:00:24 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
We're talking about when there is a walkover.

If this was enacted, Torooo could still whoop on teams all year and it wouldn't affect training.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
71584.25 in reply to 71584.24
Date: 2/10/2009 6:02:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
Gotcha - I misread it to be some sort of proposed blowout rule.

This Post:
00
71584.26 in reply to 71584.18
Date: 2/10/2009 6:53:50 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
Another option might be to change the tiebreaker criteria so that the first tiebreaker is number of forfeits (fewer being better), and then point differential is second.

That might be a bit confusing though unless we displayed it on the standings page and so forth.


Why don't you just do it based on head-to-head record? I realize that would often be a tie, in which case you could then do it based on record within the conference.

Doing it plus/minus points seems really odd to me - is that how they do it in Europe or something?

From: CrazyEye

This Post:
00
71584.27 in reply to 71584.26
Date: 2/10/2009 7:10:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
i don't like the head to head thing, in combination of game shape and enthusiam management where you have often set prioritieson the long run it is fair, but in this case the opponent in that week become to improtant ...

So i believe the point sbetter represent the overall performance in league.

From: dhoff

This Post:
00
71584.28 in reply to 71584.27
Date: 2/10/2009 7:17:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
i don't like the head to head thing, in combination of game shape and enthusiam management where you have often set prioritieson the long run it is fair, but in this case the opponent in that week become to improtant ...

I don't understand this at all. If you beat someone in the head-to-head matchups, particularly if there's a home and home, then you're the better team and deserve the higher seed.

So i believe the point sbetter represent the overall performance in league.

With so little control over a team's performance in garbage time, I think this is a pretty horrible indicator.

From: docend24

This Post:
00
71584.29 in reply to 71584.28
Date: 2/10/2009 8:20:39 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
His point is that schedule would become more important and I agree. Also you sometimes couldn't tell who you would be tied with so the effort in the relevant games would be a problem - it could be decided by luck whether you play strong lineup with solid effort or not by a chance (assuming there is notie if the head-to-head would be 1-1, then points differential from those two games logically comes as second criterium).

Managers with better micromanagement are rewarded by current tiebraker, with head-to-heads they wouldn't.

Despite the problematic garbage time yu have pretty much good control over your score (points for and points against).

From: Heathcoat

This Post:
00
71584.30 in reply to 71584.28
Date: 2/10/2009 10:18:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191

I don't understand this at all. If you beat someone in the head-to-head matchups, particularly if there's a home and home, then you're the better team and deserve the higher seed.


Does this mean that if an 18-4 beats a 20-2 team twice they should get the seed? No, because the overall performance throughout the season of the 20-2 team was better. I know we are talking about tie-breakers, but the logic is the same with points differential, imo.


Last edited by Heathcoat at 2/10/2009 10:21:01 PM

From: dhoff

This Post:
00
71584.31 in reply to 71584.30
Date: 2/10/2009 10:41:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919

I don't understand this at all. If you beat someone in the head-to-head matchups, particularly if there's a home and home, then you're the better team and deserve the higher seed.


Does this mean that if an 18-4 beats a 20-2 team twice they should get the seed? No, because the overall performance throughout the season of the 20-2 team was better. I know we are talking about tie-breakers, but the logic is the same with points differential, imo.


Obviously the answer is no. The most important thing is overall win/loss record. The number of points a team wins by is, frankly, insignificant in my opinion. And I realize that's just my opinion.

If the BBs are going to keep point differential as the tiebreaker, then I think it's pretty important that they implement a "run up the score" option.

From: Heathcoat

This Post:
00
71584.32 in reply to 71584.31
Date: 2/10/2009 10:44:46 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191


If the BBs are going to keep point differential as the tiebreaker, then I think it's pretty important that they implement a "run up the score" option.


100% behind you on this

Advertisement