Playoff seeding change.

[halifax]

ola buds!

After the regular season is complete, we deduct two points for each unplayed game. However sometimes that means that a first seed may end up playing an 8th seed that really isn't an "8th seed" but only got to 8th because he was deducted points.

We are going to give the top 3 finishers the choice to select their first round opponent. (the 4th place coach would play the last coach not chosen)

1st seed would get first choice to play a coach who finished 5th to 8th in the standings. Whoever he selects becomes the 8th seed, 2nd place selects their choice who becomes 7th, and same for 3rd place picking 6th.

We will contact the top three seeds to ask them who they'd like to play.

If the coach doesn't want to pick or just doesn't respond, then we assign them the coach they were supposed to play or the lowest finishing player still available.

EDIT - If a coach plays all 40 games and/or his positioning is unaffected from other coaches moving below him in the standings....then the top seeded coach must play him and could not choose to play someone else.

Example: If the Coach A finished 1st and Coach B had finished 8th before points are deducted, and Coach B is still in 8th after everyone else receives points deducted...then Coach A would have to play him. Coach A would not have the choice to pick someone else.

And of course, if all coaches, played all their games, we would use those standings and top seeds would not be given a choice to select.

[dan_lizhot]

That's cool

[dcicon5148]

In terms of fairness to the lower seeds, being able to hand pick your playoff opponent might be the single worst idea I have ever seen. I had to reread this in order to actually comprehend that you have come up with this idea. Wow

[smozoma]

Any issue with using Pts% (Pts divided by (GP*2)) as a playoff seeding method?

Use Pts-DNP to decide who gets into the playoffs, then figure out the seeding based on Pts%.

[fank009]

Any issue with using Pts% (Pts divided by (GP*2)) as a playoff seeding method?

Use Pts-DNP to decide who gets into the playoffs, then figure out the seeding based on Pts%.

^this

[halifax]

Any issue with using Pts% (Pts divided by (GP*2)) as a playoff seeding method?

Use Pts-DNP to decide who gets into the playoffs, then figure out the seeding based on Pts%.

Hey Smoz thanks. I had considered this but I think it may not work for us. I'll provide an example and you tell me if I've understood you correctly.

If SNES A ended today. Here would be the standings after we deducted points for unplayed games.

1.Oilers – 50 (conference winner)

2.C4outlaws – 42 (conference winner)

3.stheds2000 -36

4.Pond-36

5.Schwartz-22

6.the90Jacket -19

7.Cjgarnet-18

8.Boknowsnhl94 – 14

This scenario would not be fair to Oilers OR Bo as they have the two best winning percentages and they are meeting in the first round. If we went by winning percentages at this point(which is what I believe you've suggested), Boknowsnhl94 would then move to second seed. Also during this reseeding, c4outlaws moves to 5th place.

At this point, C4outlaws (who played all of his games this season) now loses home advantage. We don't feel this would be fair to C4 as we want to reward guys who play all their games.

In our scenario, Oilers has the option to pick his opponent from the bottom 4 guys (which we feel he's earned that right not to have to play Bo in this case if he doesnt want to). Oilers may be fine with playing Bo...and that's okay. Oilers may decline to chose, in which case he would play Bo at that point anyways. Or he can pick another player (either schwartz, the90jacket or cjgarnet) that perhaps he feels he has had better luck against.

And C4Outlaws gets rewarded for playing all of games by having the second seed.

[LA Robbie]

Tough one this. Don't think Halifax has much choice. Something has to be done to punish the guys with DNPs.

I see Dcicon's point though that the top seeds might pick to play someone else in order to avoid the correct seed if he thought it was a better game for him.

I think in the end Halifax's suggestion works best of the 2, for the reason's he's stated

[halifax]

One thing I wanted to add that I forgot to in my original post. If a coach plays all 40 games and/or his positioning is unaffected from other coaches moving below him in the standings....then the top seeded coach must play him and could not choose to play someone else.

Example: If Oilers finished 1st and boknowsnhl94 had finished 8th before points are deducted, and Bo is still in 8th after everyone else receives points deducted...then oilers would have to play him. Oilers would not have the choice to pick someone else.

And of course, if all coaches, played all their games, we would use those standings and top seeds would not be given a choice to select.

[smozoma]

Ah, not used to seeing guys with so many DNPs make the playoffs

ditch 'em! 34+ GP make the playoffs (although I suppose a lot of it is from RWD not being able to play?)

[jer_33]

I agree with the DNP penalties, maybe there should also be a minimum GP amount - particularly against your own division.

[jbalicki10]

I think the seeding for SNES B and SNES C should be top 4 teams play each other. I bet SNES C would beat SNES B.

[PlabaxV2]

I think the seeding for SNES B and SNES C should be top 4 teams play each other. I bet SNES C would beat SNES B.

NO

Edited November 5, 2012 by PlabaxV2

[fenty]

Top four teams in c should go to b same with b going to c and the bottom 4 goes down in each. and i dont see any issue with the top seeds picking there opponnants, its all done in order so its fair.. and if the bottom seed gets a pick then its the last pick, I think there should be a stand in guy playing in place of someone who is never online and has gave up. I could be this person as im always in the lookout to play.