I am sure an ESEA Admin or some smart person out there can explain. As I review the statistics, I do not know why Head-to-Head is above Rounds Won in the seeding rules. I believe this tie-break formula causes more problems than solutions and is a broken way to determine seeding for TF2.
This may work in CS because of the large amount of teams in each division but with TF2’s smaller divisions a different tie-break order is necessary. As some have mentioned, the current rules regarding tie-breakers and seeding are:
Overall record then by
Head to head record then by
Highest amount of regulation rounds won
Single map playoff if all other tie breaker scenarios are indecisive
Having Head-to-Head above Rounds Won can cause a gridlock between multiple teams. Team’s A, B, C and D can have tied records but qualify and disqualify each other based off head-to-head results. Logic would say to look at Rounds Won at that point but how can you use the secondary tie-breaker unless you satisfy the primary tie-breaker first? The current situation for the 16th open playoff seed is a prime example of this rule breakdown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last remaining match result to determine the Open Division 16th seed is Not Around Bears vs open winners. Let me preface this by saying if open winners defeat NAB, they will automatically qualify for playoffs and all of this is academic. However, if NAB wins the match, the situation is more puzzling to me as 4 teams will be tied with a 9-7 record. The tie-breakers do not lineup perfectly for any team to have a clear advantage over the other 3 teams so who would get the spot?
Should NAB win, here is what I see:
Not Around Bears – 9-7 (49)
Do qualify – H2H win over open winners
Do qualify – Missing H2H with yack me off but have more Rounds Won 49 to 41
Do not qualify – missing H2H with Disney Jam, thus Rounds Won for Disney Jam (51) disqualify NAB (49)
open winners – 9-7 (52)
Do qualify – H2H win over Disney Jam
Do qualify – Missing H2H with yack me off but have more Rounds Won 52+ to 41
Do not qualify – H2H loss to NAB
Disney Jam Thursday – 9-7 (51)
Do not qualify – H2H loss to yack me off
Do not qualify – H2H loss to open winners
Do qualify – Rounds Won (51) over NAB (49) because of missing H2H match
yack me off – 9-7 (41)
Do qualify -- H2H win over Disney Jam
Do not qualify – Missing H2H with NAB, thus Rounds Won for NAB (49) disqualify yack me off (41)
Do not qualify – Missing H2H with open winners, thus Rounds Won for open winners (52) disqualify yack me off (41)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should the above 4 teams finish the season 9-7, you can see the reason why each of those 4 teams can defeat each other in every qualifying scenario. There is no single team that, according to the rules, has a claim to the final spot. In my mind, the only way for a team to advance is being able to satisfy each tie-breaker with every other team. Even 1 exception is not good enough according to the rules.
Unless I am missing a major piece of the puzzle, I do not understand how the current rule-set can justify any of those teams getting the 16th seed should NAB defeat open winners. This doesn't just apply to who get this single spot but I also believe it can effect the seeding for the brackets in every division.
I am sure an ESEA Admin or some smart person out there can explain. As I review the statistics, I do not know why Head-to-Head is above Rounds Won in the seeding rules. I believe this tie-break formula causes more problems than solutions and is a broken way to determine seeding for TF2.
This may work in CS because of the large amount of teams in each division but with TF2’s smaller divisions a different tie-break order is necessary. As some have mentioned, the current rules regarding tie-breakers and seeding are:
[b]Overall record then by
Head to head record then by
Highest amount of regulation rounds won
Single map playoff if all other tie breaker scenarios are indecisive[/b]
Having Head-to-Head above Rounds Won can cause a gridlock between multiple teams. Team’s A, B, C and D can have tied records but qualify and disqualify each other based off head-to-head results. Logic would say to look at Rounds Won at that point but how can you use the secondary tie-breaker unless you satisfy the primary tie-breaker first? The current situation for the 16th open playoff seed is a prime example of this rule breakdown.
[b]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/b]
The last remaining match result to determine the Open Division 16th seed is [url=https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114]Not Around Bears vs open winners[/url]. Let me preface this by saying if open winners defeat NAB, they will automatically qualify for playoffs and all of this is academic. However, if NAB wins the match, the situation is more puzzling to me as 4 teams will be tied with a 9-7 record. The tie-breakers do not lineup perfectly for any team to have a clear advantage over the other 3 teams so who would get the spot?
Should NAB win, here is what I see:
[url=https://play.esea.net/teams/110264]Not Around Bears[/url] – 9-7 (49)
Do qualify – H2H win over open winners
Do qualify – Missing H2H with yack me off but have more Rounds Won 49 to 41
Do not qualify – missing H2H with Disney Jam, thus Rounds Won for Disney Jam (51) disqualify NAB (49)
[url=https://play.esea.net/teams/100912]open winners[/url] – 9-7 (52)
Do qualify – H2H win over Disney Jam
Do qualify – Missing H2H with yack me off but have more Rounds Won 52+ to 41
Do not qualify – H2H loss to NAB
[url=https://play.esea.net/teams/112562]Disney Jam Thursday[/url] – 9-7 (51)
Do not qualify – H2H loss to yack me off
Do not qualify – H2H loss to open winners
Do qualify – Rounds Won (51) over NAB (49) because of missing H2H match
[url=https://play.esea.net/teams/113395]yack me off[/url] – 9-7 (41)
Do qualify -- H2H win over Disney Jam
Do not qualify – Missing H2H with NAB, thus Rounds Won for NAB (49) disqualify yack me off (41)
Do not qualify – Missing H2H with open winners, thus Rounds Won for open winners (52) disqualify yack me off (41)
[b]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/b]
Should the above 4 teams finish the season 9-7, you can see the reason why each of those 4 teams can defeat each other in every qualifying scenario. There is no single team that, according to the rules, has a claim to the final spot. In my mind, the only way for a team to advance is being able to satisfy each tie-breaker with every other team. Even 1 exception is not good enough according to the rules.
Unless I am missing a major piece of the puzzle, I do not understand how the current rule-set can justify any of those teams getting the 16th seed should NAB defeat open winners. This doesn't just apply to who get this single spot but I also believe it can effect the seeding for the brackets in every division.
how do you play viaduct HELP
how do you play viaduct HELP
LETS GO NOT AROUND BEARS!!!
LETS GO NOT AROUND BEARS!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Generally, head-to-head is only applicable if all teams have played each other the same number of times. It's a much better indicator of relative strength in that case, since it eliminates performances against all other teams and only focuses on the teams that are tied with each other. However, if this is not the case, it becomes even worse than rounds won.
If ESEA follows this principle, this scenario, since there is no conclusive head-to-head tiebreaker, would then proceed to rounds won. They've stated the same principle when breaking a four-way tie for three CS:GO Invite LAN spots Season 18, but obviously you should confirm this with Shooter, Killing, or tri.
Generally, head-to-head is only applicable if all teams have played each other the same number of times. It's a much better indicator of relative strength in that case, since it eliminates performances against all other teams and only focuses on the teams that are tied with each other. However, if this is not the case, it becomes even worse than rounds won.
If ESEA follows this principle, this scenario, since there is no conclusive head-to-head tiebreaker, would then proceed to rounds won. They've stated [url=https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=news&d=comments&id=14464#n34]the same principle[/url] when breaking a four-way tie for three CS:GO Invite LAN spots Season 18, but obviously you should confirm this with Shooter, Killing, or tri.
tscGenerally, head-to-head is only applicable if all teams have played each other the same number of times. It's a much better indicator of relative strength in that case, since it eliminates performances against all other teams and only focuses on the teams that are tied with each other. However, if this is not the case, it becomes even worse than rounds won.
If ESEA follows this principle, this scenario, since there is no conclusive head-to-head tiebreaker, would then proceed to rounds won. They've stated the same principle when breaking a four-way tie for three CS:GO Invite LAN spots Season 18, but obviously you should confirm this with Shooter, Killing, or tri.
If the admins go by Rounds Won, then Disney Jam Thursday makes playoffs if NAB wins tonight without dropping 3 rounds. Open winners still decide their own fate, if they win they make it but if they lose 4-3, they will still make it off Rounds Won.
[quote=tsc]Generally, head-to-head is only applicable if all teams have played each other the same number of times. It's a much better indicator of relative strength in that case, since it eliminates performances against all other teams and only focuses on the teams that are tied with each other. However, if this is not the case, it becomes even worse than rounds won.
If ESEA follows this principle, this scenario, since there is no conclusive head-to-head tiebreaker, would then proceed to rounds won. They've stated [url=https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=news&d=comments&id=14464#n34]the same principle[/url] when breaking a four-way tie for three CS:GO Invite LAN spots Season 18, but obviously you should confirm this with Shooter, Killing, or tri.[/quote]
If the admins go by Rounds Won, then Disney Jam Thursday makes playoffs if NAB wins tonight without dropping 3 rounds. Open winners still decide their own fate, if they win they make it but if they lose 4-3, they will still make it off Rounds Won.
https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed
https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed
DirtyMorthttps://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed
That is how the division table sorts teams, but according to the rules, you just lost your head-to-head with NAB, so you should be out. The admins needs to decide who makes the playoffs at this point.
[quote=DirtyMort]https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed[/quote]
That is how the division table sorts teams, but according to the rules, you just lost your head-to-head with NAB, so you should be out. The admins needs to decide who makes the playoffs at this point.
DirtyMorthttps://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed
(ง ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉)ง We'll see.
[quote=DirtyMort]https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed[/quote]
(ง ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉)ง We'll see.
SpaceCadetDirtyMorthttps://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed
That is how the division table sorts teams, but according to the rules, you just lost your head-to-head with NAB, so you should be out. The admins needs to decide who makes the playoffs at this point.
yeah, i was just going by the fact that we were the 16th seed in the standings. I guess we will have to wait and see.
[quote=SpaceCadet][quote=DirtyMort]https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed[/quote]
That is how the division table sorts teams, but according to the rules, you just lost your head-to-head with NAB, so you should be out. The admins needs to decide who makes the playoffs at this point.[/quote]
yeah, i was just going by the fact that we were the 16th seed in the standings. I guess we will have to wait and see.
GO DIFFER DO THE THING HEAL THE TEAM
GO DIFFER DO THE THING HEAL THE TEAM
SpaceCadetDirtyMorthttps://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed
That is how the division table sorts teams, but according to the rules, you just lost your head-to-head with NAB, so you should be out. The admins needs to decide who makes the playoffs at this point.
DJT is 17th, so they're not head to head.
open winners to prove their namesake!!!
[quote=SpaceCadet][quote=DirtyMort]https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed[/quote]
That is how the division table sorts teams, but according to the rules, you just lost your head-to-head with NAB, so you should be out. The admins needs to decide who makes the playoffs at this point.[/quote]
DJT is 17th, so they're not head to head.
open winners to prove their namesake!!!
SpadesSpaceCadetDirtyMorthttps://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed
That is how the division table sorts teams, but according to the rules, you just lost your head-to-head with NAB, so you should be out. The admins needs to decide who makes the playoffs at this point.
DJT is 17th, so they're not head to head.
open winners to prove their namesake!!!
As I said earlier, DJT is 17th because the ESEA webpage sorts the teams based off Records and Rounds Won. However, the rules clearly state a different method of sorting when it comes to playoffs. I think if you actually read anything in the OP you would have understood that as I did try and make it as clear as possible.
[quote=Spades][quote=SpaceCadet][quote=DirtyMort]https://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=5542114
we lost but we got the 3 rounds. It appears as though "open winners" got the 16th playoff seed[/quote]
That is how the division table sorts teams, but according to the rules, you just lost your head-to-head with NAB, so you should be out. The admins needs to decide who makes the playoffs at this point.[/quote]
DJT is 17th, so they're not head to head.
open winners to prove their namesake!!![/quote]
As I said earlier, DJT is 17th because the ESEA webpage sorts the teams based off Records and Rounds Won. However, the rules clearly state a different method of sorting when it comes to playoffs. I think if you actually read anything in the OP you would have understood that as I did try and make it as clear as possible.