billiv15 wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
So is this simply:
SoS minus the worst record you beat,
It's this one. You remove the entire record of the worst player you beat from your entire SoS. It's a very minor change, but does enough to make a difference. People will understand it, it's simple, and prevents what we want to prevent.
TimmerB123 wrote:
or as Jason originally meant:
SoS of ONLY the players you beat, minus the worst record.
Then you are removing 3 games, and limiting SoS too far. This amounts to who played the best 3 games, not including the quality of the two losses, and removing the lowest win. I'm not opposed to using it, but if we want who you lost to to matter, which I think we do, the simple method above is superior by far. This could be a secondary tie breaker before full SoS after the above if we want it. Its still better than full SoS I believe.
Agreed it is the better of the two. I think if we use this we should add the second method after it, before full SoS.
I even think we should add a few more steps after, even if we don't ever use them. SoS is tied sometimes, and the thought of it coming down to a roll-off makes me ill.
I think after these two, it should THEN go:
# of wins vs opponents with better records
then
# of wins vs opponents with the same record
then
SoS vs opponents you lost to
THEN
roll off
Absolutely no reason not to have extra tie-breakers, even if they rarely (if ever) get used.
Roll off is only when absolutely every other conceivable category is tied.