Just curious what everyone’s thoughts are to a possible changing of the head-to-head tie-breaker so that total points are considered first, then winning percentage. Of course, this change would only be meaningful in cases where teams play more than two head-to-head matchups.
I bring this up because, obviously, it would have made a big difference in any potential tie-breaker between Saskatchewan and Winnipeg, and could potentially make a big difference in how a potential tie-breaker between Hamilton and Ottawa will play out. Basically, if Ottawa wins this weekend, their follow-up game against Hamilton is not quite as meaningful… under the present tie-breaker that is.
But more important, it would have made for a more interesting second half had Roughriders had an incentive to at least try and close the gap to thirteen points. And it would potentially make a big difference in any future late season game where one team had already won two head-to-head meetings.
I’m with staying with heading to head winning records.
If 2 teams who are scheduled to play 3 games and one team wins the first two, that team has earned the tie breaker and would hate to see them lose it over points differential.
Winning is what counts above all else in pro sports. Wins head to head should count first, regardless of the number of meetings. Tied? Then most wins within own division. When you go down the order and can’t break the tie based on statistical game wins, then have a boxing match between the 2 teams Head Coaches, $10. a ticket for live event and TSN gets broadcast rights. ;D
Is there anything about the league and game that fans actually like?
It seems every week there is something new that someone actually wants changed.
but this is how it works
has won the greater number of games played against all member Clubs of the League, then,
has the higher winning percentage in all games played against all of the other tied Club(s), then,
has scored the higher net aggregate of points (i.e. points scored for less points scored against) in all games played against all of the other tied Club(s), then,
has scored the higher net quotient of points (i.e. points scored for divided by points scored against) in all games played against all of the other tied Club(s), then,
has the higher winning percentage in all games played against all member Clubs of the Division, then,
has scored the higher net aggregate of points in games played against all member Clubs of the Division, then,
has scored the higher quotient of points in games played against all member Clubs of the Division, then,
has scored the higher net aggregate of points in games played against all member Clubs of the League, then,
has scored the higher net quotient of points in games played against all member Clubs of the League, then,
has won a coin toss against the other tied Club.
This is a side-by on the subject of this thread…How many of you remember the old days in the 60’s and early 70’s, when the Western Final was played best 2 out of 3 games and the Eastern Final was 2 game total points?
Total points between the two teams actually serves as the tie-breaker if the two teams play each other only twice. Therefore why should total points not serve as the tie-breaker if the two teams play each other thrice?
For the same reason that total points don’t matter in a best of 3 or best of 5 or best of 7 series in the world series…stanley cup or what ever they call the NBA playoffs
Sounds like people just want change stuff for the sake of change
The tiebreaker doesn’t have to be based on the same criteria as the regular season criteria… there are many leagues that don’t work that way. From a business standpoint, consider this… two teams scheduled to play each other in Week 21 are first and second with records of 12-5 and 11-6 respectively, and have already played each other twice. If they have split the first two games, then it doesn’t matter which tie-breaker we use, the game will have obvious playoff implications either way. And if the 11-6 team has won the first two games, then it will be about an equally-interesting game. But… if the 12-5 team has won the first two, then suddenly the game is meaningless under the current tie-breaker whereas under the proposed tie-breaker the 11-6 team can still win the tie-breaker if it overcomes the combined point difference of the previous head-to-head meetings.
Under that scenario, which version of the tie-breaker will generate higher ratings for the decisive final game? Which tie-breaker will generate higher attendance?
I am not proposing change simply for the sake of change. I am proposing change for the sake of making things more interesting, which logically ought to result in more eyeballs glued to the TV sets and more asses glued to the seats.
No it’s not. The proposal of making the tie-breaker between the two teams total points would have the benefit of making every down count since every point would count in the three games being played between the two teams. There would be no relaxing in the first two games, and even the third game could be meaningful regardless of the result of the first two. Fans PAY for 60 minutes of football, not just 45, 50, 55, 57 or 59. I hate seeing teams going into “victory formation”. That’s cheating the fans. I think non-effort of that sort should be a loss-of-down penalty.
Actually the CFL has a long tradition of two-game total point playoff series. Rupertslander’s suggestion would just extend this total point tradition to the regular season in order to help make late season games more meaningful.
The number 1 problem with this type of tie breaker is not every team plays the other 3 times. Many are just 2 where the number of points scored between them won’t matter.
So if Team A and team B are tied in the standings and have played each other 3 times.
Team A wins game 1 by 2 points, wins game 2 by 2 point and team B wins game 3 by 40 points. Is team B really better team even though they lost more games? This would draw the type of attention the league wouldn’t want plus the players would still have victory formation at the end of the game in this scenario anyways.
Fans pay to watch wins and losses. They won’t get more people in the stands or watching on TV to see if a points differential is reached, unless they’re betting,inwhich they’ll still watch the way it is.
