Spades Playoffs

[Bizzle 0]

COPERNICUS DOESN'T WANT ME POSTING THIS ANYMOREListen people, you can either listen to me or not. I'm right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong.If zimmer wins, TC is the 1 seed, TZ is the 2 seed, and DA is the 3 seed.If zimmer loses, DA is the 1 seed, TC is the 2 seed, and Zimmer is the 4 seed.It's fair, it's correct, and it's logical.End. Of. Frickin. Story.

[copernicus 0]

COPERNICUS DOESN'T WANT ME POSTING THIS ANYMOREListen people, you can either listen to me or not. I'm right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong.If zimmer wins, TC is the 1 seed, TZ is the 2 seed, and DA is the 3 seed.If zimmer loses, DA is the 1 seed, TC is the 2 seed, and Zimmer is the 4 seed.It's fair, it's correct, and it's logical.End. Of. Frickin. Story.

because you are wrong...end of story.

[therrinn 0]

If zimmer wins, TC is the 1 seed, TZ is the 2 seed, and DA is the 3 seed.If zimmer loses, DA is the 1 seed, TC is the 2 seed, and Zimmer is the 4 seed.It's fair, it's correcct, and it's logical.End. Of. Frickin. Story.

Let me explain to you why this is inherently illogical. I'll start off with your interpretation, and then show you why even with your interpretation, your conclusion is still wrong. (all of this is assuming Zim wins tmw) Deciding the number 1 seed Conf record, blah blah, we have a 3-way tie between DA, TC, and TZ. Heads up Tiebreaker - Fine, say you need a sweep, this doesn't get us anywhere.Common Opponents - Depending how you interpret this, either DA wins outright, or DA is eliminated from the number one seed. IMO, since DA holds the lead over both teams individually, DA sweeps this tiebreaker. IF you take the approach of Bizz/Zim, then we look at the subset group of teams that all 3 of us have played. There, DA is eliminated from contention for the number one seed.So then, you return back to the start of the tiebreak process, and TC becomes the number one seed.HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT MAKE TZ THE NUMBER 2 SEED. After you determine the number one seed, you do not take the runner up and make them the number two seed. You then go through the whole process again to get the number 2 seed.Look at record, conference record, you get a tie between TZ and DA. Headsup tiebreaker -> no match playedCommon Opponents tiebreaker -> DA > TC=> DA gets the number two seed.Now I'm not saying I agree with that second interpretation of the 'common opponents tiebreaker', but even if that is the interpretation you go with, you still get1. TC2. DA3. TZas opposed to 1. TC2. TZ3. DA

[zimmer4141 0]

Well, therrinn, by my understanding of your interpretation, you're saying that DA isn't automatically the 2 seed after that. By your logic, they should be put into a H to H tiebreaker with TC, which they would win.I think DA being eliminated by common opponents makes them the 3 seed. I am then the 2 seed, making TC the 1 seed.

[therrinn 0]

Well, therrinn, by my understanding of your interpretation, you're saying that DA isn't automatically the 2 seed after that. By your logic, they should be put into a H to H tiebreaker with TC, which they would win.I think DA being eliminated by common opponents makes them the 3 seed. I am then the 2 seed, making TC the 1 seed.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree then. Its a moot point until a) Sleuthis has some free time to clarify this and/or B) your match tomorrow.

[copernicus 0]

Let me explain to you why this is inherently illogical. I'll start off with your interpretation, and then show you why even with your interpretation, your conclusion is still wrong. (all of this is assuming Zim wins tmw) Deciding the number 1 seed Conf record, blah blah, we have a 3-way tie between DA, TC, and TZ. Heads up Tiebreaker - Fine, say you need a sweep, this doesn't get us anywhere.Common Opponents - Depending how you interpret this, either DA wins outright, or DA is eliminated from the number one seed. IMO, since DA holds the lead over both teams individually, DA sweeps this tiebreaker. IF you take the approach of Bizz/Zim, then we look at the subset group of teams that all 3 of us have played. There, DA is eliminated from contention for the number one seed.So then, you return back to the start of the tiebreak process, and TC becomes the number one seed.HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT MAKE TZ THE NUMBER 2 SEED. After you determine the number one seed, you do not take the runner up and make them the number two seed. You then go through the whole process again to get the number 2 seed.Look at record, conference record, you get a tie between TZ and DA. Headsup tiebreaker -> no match playedCommon Opponents tiebreaker -> DA > TC=> DA gets the number two seed.Now I'm not saying I agree with that second interpretation of the 'common opponents tiebreaker', but even if that is the interpretation you go with, you still get1. TC2. DA3. TZas opposed to 1. TC2. TZ3. DA

I didnt even focus on 2 vs 3...you are clearly right on this. While there is no "conference tiebreaker" in the NFL, and therefore no real analogy, I still maintain a conference tiebreaker for us is closer to division tiebreakers where head to head does not require a sweep.But getting beyond that, once the tie is broken for first in any nfl tiebreaker, you start again with tiebreaker 1 for seeding the remaining teams.

[mcpickl 0]

Let me explain to you why this is inherently illogical. I'll start off with your interpretation, and then show you why even with your interpretation, your conclusion is still wrong. (all of this is assuming Zim wins tmw) Deciding the number 1 seed Conf record, blah blah, we have a 3-way tie between DA, TC, and TZ. Heads up Tiebreaker - Fine, say you need a sweep, this doesn't get us anywhere.Common Opponents - Depending how you interpret this, either DA wins outright, or DA is eliminated from the number one seed. IMO, since DA holds the lead over both teams individually, DA sweeps this tiebreaker. IF you take the approach of Bizz/Zim, then we look at the subset group of teams that all 3 of us have played. There, DA is eliminated from contention for the number one seed.So then, you return back to the start of the tiebreak process, and TC becomes the number one seed.HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT MAKE TZ THE NUMBER 2 SEED. After you determine the number one seed, you do not take the runner up and make them the number two seed. You then go through the whole process again to get the number 2 seed.Look at record, conference record, you get a tie between TZ and DA. Headsup tiebreaker -> no match playedCommon Opponents tiebreaker -> DA > TC=> DA gets the number two seed.Now I'm not saying I agree with that second interpretation of the 'common opponents tiebreaker', but even if that is the interpretation you go with, you still get1. TC2. DA3. TZas opposed to 1. TC2. TZ3. DA

this is pretty much the NFL way. If more than one team is tied for a spot, they use a tiebreaker for more than 2 teams. Head-to head would only qualify if all three(or 4 or 5...however many teams are involved) played each other. Not applicable here. Then you work your way down until you get one winner.The runner up in this scenario does not get the next seed. Now however many teams are left go through the tiebreak procedure again.

[therrinn 0]

The runner up in this scenario does not get the next seed. Now however many teams are left go through the tiebreak procedure again.

Yup. Like I said, Sleuthis will be the one that has to make the decision about how to interpret the 'common opponent' tiebreaker, but I am absolutely certain that the runner up here does not get the number two seed automatically.

[fleung22 1]

I'm SO confused I don't know why it annoys me to see Team Canada shortened to TC. Probably because of the loss. If we won you could call me Sally and I'd probably be cool with it.

[Theraflu 1,035]

I'm SO confused I don't know why it annoys me to see Team Canada shortened to TC. Probably because of the loss. If we won you could call me Sally and I'd probably be cool with it.

haha sally

[copernicus 0]

Since i'll be in Calgary for 10 days starting next week, I will show more respect, Team Canada. And I would never have dreamt of calling any of you Sally...you could kick my a$$ all over the ice.

[fleung22 1]

haha sally

Did I win!?!

[chaosnhavoc 0]

Do what High School Football does, FLIP A COIN!

[Bizzle 0]

Now I'm not saying I agree with that second interpretation of the 'common opponents tiebreaker', but even if that is the interpretation you go with, you still get1. TC2. DA3. TZas opposed to 1. TC2. TZ3. DA

Reading through the NFL rules, this looks correct. Good work therrinn, glad to be proved wrong.Coper's claim that there is no "conference tiebreaker" in the NFL is ridiculous. If New England and Indianapolis tie during the regular season, and they didn't play heads up, how is the tiebreaker done? By the same process as the wild-card tiebreakers are done.

[zimmer4141 0]

I guess it just doesn't make sense to me to use the common opponents to eliminate one from the 3 man tiebreaker, then go back to Head to head to break the tie between the top two, then use a tiebreaker for the other two teams. It's just a weird process, and I guess I'll go with whatever Sleuthis decides.

[copernicus 0]

Hows your headache, Sleuth?

[fleung22 1]

Either way, I do hope we get official word on the standings tonight.I'm way too anxious right now and listening to Bizzle ensures that I will never run an NFL pool or anything like it.

[therrinn 0]

Either way, I do hope we get official word on the standings tonight.I'm way too anxious right now and listening to Bizzle ensures that I will never run an NFL pool or anything like it.

And the headaches from this entire thread were pointless.

[zimmer4141 0]

And the headaches from this entire thread were pointless.

Yup, an 8 outer took care of that quite nicely.

[alf13 0]

Yup, an 8 outer took care of that quite nicely.

10 outer actually..sorry bout that.

[nutzbuster 7]

I'm so confused. lol.what a sick finish. good lord...who'd have thunk it?

[Vatche 0]

looks like bizzle was right

[Bizzle 0]

looks like bizzle was right

Hm.