Talk Fantasy Football

Thrud and Albion both used random draw throughout, and then strength of schedule as a tie-breaker. Are there any scoring nerds out there who can tell me if there are any problems with doing this, as it seems a bit random to apply it at the end if it hasn't been used throughout?

Not a criticism of these TOs, obviously, just my maths/OCD head telling me it doesn't quite feel right.

We've been using that system for three years now. Works just fine

IIRC you have to change the settings after doing the draw for round 6 but before calculating final standings after the last game. Been a while since I have used Score though so that might be wrong.

Carrot Crunch also used SoS last year.

Sorry, just to be clear - I know it works, but I'm wondering if it's "fair" just to apply it after round 6.

sann0638 wrote:Sorry, just to be clear - I know it works, but I'm wondering if it's "fair" just to apply it after round 6.

Absolutely. SoS is intended as a tiebreaker and as such there is no real reason to apply it during the event.

I'm very keen on this system of tiebreakers as I think it hits a sweet all the right buttons by rewarding tough games while still keeping lots of players in contention. Probably best to enthuse some more in the morning though. Tired

Is that how it works in chess tournaments, do you know?

No idea.

I was under the impression that chess tournaments use a variation that takes account of current ELO rankings. I might be mistaken though.

can only agree with mr sod, what is a "fair" way of deciding who plays who? overall score yes, not playing someone you have played before yes. touchdowns for? no, touchdown difference? no, cas for? no. etc etc.
there basically as far as i can say is no definitive fair for every team way of saying who gets paired other than basic points and randomise (other than just totally random draw which im not convinced isnt a good idea)

you then have a end of tournament league table if you like. again i dont think any of the tds/cas ways are satisfactory (and thank goodness by the way that the NAFC now no longer schedules by tds scored or whatever it was that led to rounds and rounds of dwarfs v orcs and elfs v zons and never the twain shall meet!)
so to say, well fred and olive both ended on 4/2/0 but olive played a bunch of people who had an average or poor bunch of results whereas fred beat all the other top contenders has to be as good a way as any (although i wouldnt dismiss head to head from that equation in a two way tie where the two have played, for me that would be the best way to decide it, but it is flawed in most circumstances by not applying to teams that havent met obviously)

cheers

1. I like s.o.s. as a system
2. Is it reasonable to apply it after round 6 *if it has not been applied in the previous rounds*?

you have to apply something at that stage, s.o.s seems fairest.
having applied it or not during the rounds doesnt change the fact it seems fairest method overall. imo.
others will have their views

TOs have been using variations in the local tournament scene. Strength of schedule during the tournament and for the final ranking. Or strength of schedule during the tournament and TDs/Cas for the final ranking. If the tournament is not a very large one and includes five or six matches, I think the differences are relatively minor. At that point all the best coaches should have played each other, no matter what the ranking order is. I personally prefer strength of schedule all the way.

sann0638 wrote:Is that how it works in chess tournaments, do you know?

There are a variety of Tie Break Rules in Chess tournaments where "strength of schedule" is a factor or central idea.

Rather than list them all, check this link for a good summary in a Wikipedia article.