Concessions and Overtime

[Darkson]

The problem with this is that just getting to OT gives you all the benefits of a tie without really earning one. The NHL does this, and it drives me nuts.

Well, come on. There's a certain merit in the argument that an even score by the end of regulation time qualifies as 'earning' the tie.

Agreed - I've never understood this obsession with having to have a winner - if you're not good enough to win it in regulation time, why do you deserve more?

[mattgslater]

Ooh. Standard overtime rules (no OT unless both coaches want), but an OT loss counts as a tie in the standings (a win is a win). Better? Simpler? Cleaner?

The Overtime Loss, NHL-style. My league used it in our first season with mixed results and it basically comes down to how obligatory OT is and whether there will be an OT period when only one coach wants it. If both coaches' assent be needed, then there's no point in adding the OTL unless you really, really want to encourage overtime play.

I'm trying to balance these two truths.
1) People have real lives and aren't being paid, so shouldn't be forced into OT.
2) Backing out of OT 'cause you think you can't win is unsportsmanlike and should be discouraged.

NHL OT (can't lose): Carrot.
Softened concession, mandatory overtime: Stick.
I'm open to other ideas.

[mattgslater]

I've never understood this obsession with having to have a winner - if you're not good enough to win it in regulation time, why do you deserve more?

'Cause it's football, man. I mean, I'm cool with ties being possible, but this game is all about a struggle to the end, last man standing. It's a very Manichean sport: there's a winner and a loser, there's your guy and the other guy. The coin-toss at the beginning is a metaphor for the whole game. Sure, it could stick end-up in the dirt... but when it happens, it's a surprise.

[Grogmir]

Like any good englishman - I'm happy to play for 2 hours, 12 Hours, Heck even DAYS and a game end in a draw.

If you can't beat em in normal time you haven't won - simples!

[Jural]

The problem with this is that just getting to OT gives you all the benefits of a tie without really earning one. The NHL does this, and it drives me nuts.

Well, come on. There's a certain merit in the argument that an even score by the end of regulation time qualifies as 'earning' the tie.

So for the NHL (National Hockey League in the USA), ties before 2006 were simply a major part of the game. If you could hold your opponent scoreless in OT, you got the point. If not, you didn't. There was no moral victory in losing.

In an 82 game season, I like this approach. As it is, a tired or offensively talented team might just sell out to score in OT, justifying that they have "already earned the tie." Also, this is so much different than playoff hockey, and playoff hockey is the best. So the game became less entertaining!

Ok, now back to Blood Bowl. First- I stated that liked this rule for Blood Bowl. But I do see there being a drawback to the idea, namely that there is no reason for a team to do a risky last stand to keep an opponent out of the end zone! This means you sell out for the ball and if a TD is scored, it is scored.

I think it's a little worse than the standard OT rules with regards to gameplay, but superior in terms of differentiating teams performance in a short season. Overall I like it, but it;s not perfect.

[mattgslater]

Maybe the issue is best resolved by using tiebreakers to incentivize wins over ties, then including OT losses with ties. If my first tiebreaker is raw wins, then wins plus ties, so 6-3 is better than 5-2-2. If I include OT losses as ties, this will slightly incentivize winning in OT, no?

Oooh... here you go.
1) Most Wins
2) Head-to-Head Wins
3) Most Ties/OT Losses
4) Strength of Victory (wins among teams beaten at the time of the win)
5) Fewest Matches (another way to say fewest losses)
6) TV
7) Coin Toss

This way, a tie is unfavorable, and an OT win is a guaranteed tiebreaker against a team that doesn't otherwise produce 2 or more extra wins.

[Jural]

Hmm, So a (W-L-D) 3-8-0 team will win out over a 2-0-9 team? I think that gives too much weight to the win, honestly. At that point, you might as well keep playing until you win.

Your original system is probably the best, or just use straight winning percentage and then use OT losses as the tiebreaker (so a team that goes 4-4-1 with 3 OT losses would beat the team that went 4-4-1 with no OT losses.)

I don't like the strength of schedule you put out either, as there is no need for a strength of schedule in a symettric league. Even in an asymmetric league, the final winning percentage is typically the best measure of schedule strength (why should I be penalized because I played the league champs in week 1 and you played them in week 14?)

[mattgslater]

I'm banking on the symmetry of the league to collapse. My coaches are a bunch of flakes (I'm officially very unhappy with the lot; it's almost enough to put me off BB), and there's no way these guys are going to keep to any consistent schedule: I've had to abandon my fixed schedule and go with a somewhat more open framework. That's the point behind SOV (well, that and the grotesque disparity between our coaches... ). I see your issue with SOV as I have it, though....

And really, is anyone going to go 2-0-9? Have you ever seen that happen? If that did happen, it would be a clear indicator that a coach was either a) gaming for a tie (and hence deserving of the loss), or b) losing overtime consistently. But here in the real world, 3-8 would beat 2-5-4. And I'd say to the 2-5-4 team, "lots of close games there, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades."

I have a big problem with win percentages in games where ties are not very rare, because win percentage encourages playing for the draw, which strikes me as honorable only if you go on for the overtime win. If I don't want to use win percentages, I can't incorporate SOV based on win percentages. If coaches aren't going to play the same number of games (they won't, sadly, no matter what I do), then I can't incorporate SOV based on raw wins at the end of the season.

<sigh> How about this, then?
1) Most Wins
2) Head-to-Head Wins
3) Most Ties/OT Losses
4) Fewest Matches (another way to say fewest losses)
5) Coin Toss

[Wanchor]

Why not just use a point system? 2 or 3 for the win, 1 for an OT loss. a 2-0-9 team has done okay, as I see it. Big deal, they didn't win a lot; all the games were close. I'd take nine ties (in regulation) over one win and eight losses. Isn't that a no-brainer?

[mattgslater]

Yeah, that might be good.

Would this do what I'm looking for?

4 points for a win
1 point for a tie or OT loss

to determine overall rank, and then when comparing any two given teams:
+2 points for a head-to-head win

Tiebreakers go in order listed: most wins, most ties/OTLs. Then go for highest TV. Final tiebreaker is coin toss.

So a 6-6 team (24 pts) would beat a 5-3-4 team (24 pts) unless the 5-3-4 team had beaten the 6-6 team. But a 3-9 team (12 points) would lose to a 2-5-5 team (13 points) unless they'd beaten that team.

[Wanchor]

If that be the way you want to do it, but I think that'll get complicated when looking at the overall ladder.

[mattgslater]

Even better:

Win: 10 points.
Tie or OT loss: 3 points.
3+ TDs: 2 points.
Allowed 0 TDs, won: 2 points.
4+ Casualties*: 1 point.
Suffered 0 Casualties*: 1 point.

*Consider all casualties, including those caused by fouls, inducements, or the crowd.

Divide this score by ten, and drop fractions to calculate score for seeding. If two coaches have the same score, go to tiebreakers: head-to-head, then fewest games, highest (TV+Treasury), and coin-toss, in that order.

So an 8-3-1 (W-L-T) team is 83 points, plus probably 8-15 points for other stuff. A 2-8-2 team is 26 points, plus probably 2-5 points for other stuff. So if 8 teams have played 12 games, then you could get a point spread like this: 102, 94, 89, 80, 67, 46, 38, 31. Divided by 10, that's 10, 9, (8 and 8), 6, 4, (3 and 3). The team with 89 and the team with 80 would have to compare head-to-head to see who's in third and who's in 4th, and the same with the two stragglers. So if you can beat a team, all you have to do is stay in the running to rank above them.