Quantcast
skip navigation
Home News NLL Teams Scores Players Schedule Standings Stats Video Tickets Shops Fantasy Multimedia About NLL Search Results

Standings tiebreakers announced

12/15/2013, 1:30pm EST
By NLL.com

How playoff seeding will be determined according to the standings


The NLL has announced updated tiebreaker scenarios to determine standings and playoff seedings for the 2014 NLL season.

The National Lacrosse League has announced updated tiebreaker scenarios to be used to determine order of finish in the standings and seedings coinciding with the new playoff format for the 2014 NLL season.

Example A-1 (Divisional Seeding – 2 Team Tie):

‘Team A’ and ‘Team B’, both within the same division, each finish with identical 9-9 records.  To determine the order of finish, Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied. Their head to head results are as follows:

‘Team A’        1-2 vs ‘Team B’ (.333)

‘Team B’       2-1 vs ‘Team A’ (.667)                                             

Tiebreaker A resolves the tie. ‘Team B’ has the superior winning percentage, they finish ahead of ‘Team A’.

The order of finish in this scenario is as follows:

1.    Team B

2.    Team A

 

Example A-2 (Divisional Seeding – 2 Team Tie, Identical Head to Head Win %):

‘Team A’ and ‘Team B’, both within the same division, each finish with identical 9-9 records.  To determine the order of finish, Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied. Their head to head results are as follows:

‘Team A’       2-2 vs ‘Team B’ (.500)

‘Team B’       2-2 vs ‘Team A’(.500)                                             

As Tiebreaker A cannot resolve the tie, Tiebreaker B, Division winning percentage, is applied to determine the order of finish. The following is the divisional results of each team:

‘Team A’        7-5 against divisional opponents (.583)

‘Team B’       6-6 against divisional opponents (.500)

Tiebreaker B resolves the tie.  As a result, ‘Team A’ would win the divisional tiebreaker, and would finish first between the two teams.

The order of finish in this scenario is as follows:

1.    Team A

2.    Team B

 

Example A-3 (Divisional Seeding – 2 Team Tie, Identical Head to Head Winning Percentage, Identical Division Winning Percentage):

‘Team A’ and ‘Team B’, both within the same division, each finish with identical 9-9 records.  To determine the order of finish, Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied. Their head to head results are as follows:

‘Team A’        2-2 vs ‘Team B’ (.500)

‘Team B’       2-2 vs ‘Team A’ (.500)                                             

As Tiebreaker A cannot resolve the tie, Tiebreaker B, Division winning percentage, is applied to determine the order of finish. The following is the divisional results of each team:

‘Team A’        6-6 against divisional opponents (.500)

‘Team B’       6-6 against divisional opponents (.500)

As Tiebreaker B cannot resolve the tie, Tiebreaker C, Head to Head goal differential, is applied to determine the order of finish.  The following is the Head to Head goal differential between the teams:

            ‘Team A’        +4 goal differential vs. ‘Team B’ (combined scores = 63-59)

            ‘Team B’       -4 goal differential vs. ‘Team A’ (combined scores = 59-63)

Tiebreaker C resolves the tie.  As a result, ‘Team A’ would win the head to head goal differential tiebreaker, and would finish first between the two teams.

The order of finish in this scenario is as follows:

1.    Team A

2.    Team B

 

Example B-1 (Divisional Seeding – 3+ Team Tie):

‘Team A’, ‘Team B’, and ‘Team C’, who are all in the same division, each finish with identical 9-9 records.  To determine the order of finish, Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied.

‘Team A’        1-2 vs ‘Team B’         3-0 vs ‘Team C’ (.667)

‘Team B’       2-1 vs ‘Team A’         1-2 vs ‘Team C’ (.500)

‘Team C’       0-3 vs ‘Team A’         2-1 vs ‘Team B’ (.333)

Tiebreaker A resolves the three-team tie.

In this scenario, the order of finish between the three teams is as follows:

1.    Team A

2.    Team B

3.    Team C

 

Example B-2 (Divisional Seeding – 3+ Team Tie, One Team with Superior Head to Head Win %):

‘Team A’, ‘Team B’, and ‘Team C’, who are all in the same division, each finish with identical 9-9 records.  To determine the order of finish, Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied.

‘Team A’        3-0 vs ‘Team B’         3-0 vs ‘Team C’ (1.000)

‘Team B’       0-3 vs ‘Team A’         2-2 vs ‘Team C’ (.286)

‘Team C’       0-3 vs ‘Team A’         2-2 vs ‘Team B’ (.286)

As a result of Tiebreaker A, Team A finishes first in the order of finish between the three teams.  ‘Team B’ and ‘Team C’ now revert back to Tiebreaker A to determine their order of finish.  Since both teams finished with a head to head winning percentage of .500, Tiebreaker B, Division winning percentage, is applied to determine their order of finish.

            ‘Team B’        6-6 against divisional opponents (.500)

            ‘Team C’        4-10 against divisional opponents (.286)

Team B wins tiebreaker B, and thus finishes ahead of Team C in the order of finish. 

In this scenario, the order of finish between the three teams is as follows:

1.    Team A

2.    Team B

3.    Team C

 

Example B-3 (Divisional Seeding – 3+ Team Tie, Two Teams with Identical Superior Head to Head Win %):

‘Team A’, ‘Team B’, and ‘Team C’, who are all in the same division, each finish with identical 9-9 records.  To determine the order of finish, Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied.

‘Team A’        1-2 vs ‘Team B’         3-0 vs ‘Team C’ (.667)

‘Team B’       2-1 vs ‘Team A’         2-1 vs ‘Team C’ (.667)

‘Team C’       0-3 vs ‘Team A’         1-2 vs ‘Team B’ (.167)

As a result of Tiebreaker A, Team C finishes last in the order of finish between the three teams.  ‘Team A’ and ‘Team B’ now revert back to Tiebreaker A to determine their order of finish. 

‘Team A’        1-2 vs ‘Team B’ (.333)

‘Team B’       2-1 vs ‘Team A’ (.667)

Since ‘Team B’ has the superior winning percentage in head-to-head games with ‘Team A’, ‘Team B’ finishes above ‘Team  A’ in the order of finish.

In this scenario, the order of finish between the three teams is as follows:

1.    Team B

2.    Team A

3.    Team C

 

Example B-4 (Divisional Seeding – 3+ Team Tie, All Teams with Identical Head to Head Win %):

‘Team A’, ‘Team B’, and ‘Team C’, who are all in the same division, each finish with identical 9-9 records.  To determine the order of finish, Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied. Each team has a head-to-head record of 3-3 (.500 winning percentage) against each other as follows:

‘Team A’       1-2 vs ‘Team B’         2-1 vs ‘Team C’ (.500)

‘Team B’       2-1 vs ‘Team A’         1-2 vs ‘Team C’ (.500)

‘Team C’       1-2 vs ‘Team A’         2-1 vs ‘Team B' (.500)

As Tiebreaker A cannot resolve the tie, Tiebreaker B, Division winning percentage, is applied to determine the order of finish. The following is the divisional winning percentage of each team:

 ‘Team A’        7-5 against divisional opponents (.583)

‘Team B’       7-5 against divisional opponents (.583)

‘Team C’       5-7 against divisional opponents (.417)

As a result, ‘Team C’ places third in the final order of finish between the teams. 

‘Team A’ and ‘Team B’ would then revert back to the first step of the divisional tiebreakers, Tiebreaker A, which is head-to-head winning percentage. 

‘Team A’        1-2 vs ‘Team B’ (.333)

‘Team B’       2-1 vs ‘Team A’ (.667)

 As a result, ‘Team B’ wins the tiebreaker and finishes first in the order of finish.

In this scenario, the order of finish between the three teams is as follows:

1.    Team B

2.    Team A

3.    Team C

 

Example C-1 (Overall Seeding – 2 Team Tie):

‘Team A’ and ‘Team B’, in different divisions, each finish with identical 9-9 records.  To determine the order of finish, Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied. Their head to head results are as follows:

‘Team A’        1-2 vs ‘Team B’ (.333)

‘Team B’       2-1 vs ‘Team A’(.667)                                         

Tiebreaker A resolves the tie.  Since ‘Team B’ has the superior winning percentage, they finish ahead of ‘Team A’. 

The order of finish in this scenario is as follows:

1.    Team B

2.    Team A

 

Example C-2 (Divisional Seeding – 2 Team Tie, Identical Head to Head Win %):

‘Team A’ and ‘Team B’, in different divisions, each finish with identical 9-9 records.  To determine the order of finish, Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied. Their head to head results are as follows:

‘Team A’        2-2 vs ‘Team B’ (.500)

‘Team B’       2-2 vs ‘Team A’(.500)                                             

­

As Tiebreaker A cannot resolve the tie, Tiebreaker B, winning percentage against common opponents played an equal number of times, is applied to determine the order of finish. The following is the teams’ records against opponents played an equal number of times:

‘Team A’        1-1 vs ‘Team C’        0-1 vs ‘Team D’ (.333)

‘Team B’       1-1 vs ‘Team C’        1-0 vs ‘Team D’ (.667

Tiebreaker B resolves the tie.  As a result, ‘Team B’ would win the overall tiebreaker, and would finish first between the two teams.

The order of finish in this scenario is as follows:

1.    Team B

2.    Team A

 

Example C-3a (Overall Seeding, Three Teams):

‘Team A’, ‘Team B’, and ‘Team C’ all finish the regular season with identical 10-8 records. ‘Team A’ and ‘Team B’ are in the East Division, while ‘Team C’ is in the West Division. Divisional tiebreakers are first applied wherever possible. Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied:

            ‘Team A’        2-0 vs ‘Team B’ (1.000)

            ‘Team B’       0-2 vs ‘Team A’ (.000)

 As ‘Team C’ does not have the same record as any other team in their division, they are not included in this step. As a result, ‘Team A’ and ‘Team C’ are each the top seeded tied clubs in their respective divisions. Overall tiebreakers are then applied between ‘Team A’ and ‘Team C’. Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied:

            ‘Team A’        0-1 vs ‘Team C’ (.000)

            ‘Team C’       1-0 vs ‘Team A’ (1.000)

‘Team C’ would win the three-way tiebreaker and would finish first in the order of finish.

In this scenario, the order of finish between the three teams is as follows:

1.    Team C

2.    Team A

3.    Team B

 

Example C-3b (Overall Seeding, Three Teams):

‘Team A’, ‘Team B’, and ‘Team C’ all finish the regular season with identical 10-8 records. ‘Team A’ and ‘Team B’ are in the East Division, while ‘Team C’ is in the West Division. Divisional tiebreakers are first applied wherever possible. Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied:

            ‘Team A’        2-0 vs ‘Team B’ (1.000)

            ‘Team B’       0-2 vs ‘Team A’ (.000)

As ‘Team C’ does not have the same record as any other team in their division, they are not included in this step. As a result, ‘Team A’ and ‘Team C’ are each the top seeded tied clubs in their respective divisions. Overall tiebreakers are then applied between ‘Team A’ and ‘Team C’. Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied:

            ‘Team A’        1-0 vs ‘Team C’ (1.000)

            ‘Team C’       0-1 vs ‘Team A’ (.000)

‘Team A’ would win the three-way tiebreaker and would be seeded first in the order of finish.  Overall tiebreakers are then re-applied between ‘Team C’ and ‘Team B’ to determine which team will be seeded second of the three tied clubs.

            ‘Team B’       0-1 vs ‘Team C’ (.000)

            ‘Team C’       1-0 vs ‘Team B’ (1.000)

‘Team C’ would be seeded above ‘Team B’.

In this scenario, the order of finish between the three teams is as follows:

1.    Team A

2.    Team C

3.    Team B

 

Example C-4 (Overall seeding, 4+ Teams):

‘Team A’, ‘Team B’, ‘Team C’ and ‘Team D’ all finish the regular season with identical 10-8 records. ‘Team A’ and ‘Team B’ are in the East Division, while ‘Team C’ and ‘Team D’ are in the West Division. Divisional tiebreakers are first applied wherever possible. Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied:

            ‘Team A’        2-0 vs ‘Team B’ (1.000)

            ‘Team B’       0-2 vs ‘Team A’ (.000)

            ‘Team C’       2-0 vs ‘Team D’ (1.000)

            ‘Team D’       0-2 vs ‘Team C’ (.000)

As a result, ‘Team A’ and ‘Team C’ are each the top seeded tied clubs in their respective divisions.  Overall tiebreakers are then applied between ‘Team A’ and ‘Team C’. Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied:

            ‘Team A’        0-1 vs ‘Team C’ (.000)

            ‘Team C’       1-0 vs ‘Team A’ (1.000)

‘Team C’ would be seeded first in the order of finish between the four teams.

Overall tiebreakers are then re-applied between ‘Team A’ and ‘Team D’ to determine which team will be seeded second in the order of finish between the four tied clubs. Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is first applied:

            ‘Team A’        0-1 vs ‘Team D’ (.000)

            ‘Team D’       1-0 vs ‘Team A’ (1.000)

As a result, ‘Team D’ would be seeded second in the order of finish between the four teams.

Divisional Tiebreaker A would be the applied to ‘Team A’ and ‘Team B’ to determine their place in the order of finish.  Tiebreaker A, head-to-head winning percentage, is as follows:

            ‘Team A’        2-0 vs ‘Team B’ (1.000)

            ‘Team B’       0-2 vs ‘Team A’ (.000)

‘Team A’ would finish above ‘Team B’ in the order of finish.

In this scenario, the order of finish between the three teams is as follows:

1.    Team C

2.    Team D

3.    Team A

4.    Team B

Recent News

  • NLL Top 50: #41-50

  • 10/21/2014, 8:15pm EDT, By NLL.com
  • IL Indoor counting down the best players in the National Lacrosse League
  • Read More

Popular Articles

Player safety, instant replay & faceoff procedures highlight new regulations

Top prospects: 2015 NLL Draft

10/23/2014, 11:30am EDT
By NLL.com

IL Indoor previews strong draft class, one of the deepest ever, for next year

Rush re-sign Davis, sign Carlson

10/23/2014, 10:30am EDT
By NLL.com

Edmonton inks forward to three-year contract & new goalie to two-year deal

Tag(s): Home  Buffalo Bandits  Philadelphia Wings  Rochester Knighthawks  Toronto Rock  Calgary Roughnecks  Colorado Mammoth  Edmonton Rush  Minnesota Swarm  Vancouver Stealth