Background:
Both OQ and BQP bid $1 on Emmanuel Sanders. Â The software awarded him to BQP. Â QSN reported this as an error in his “Results of Week 11 Free Agency” post, at which point Sanders was transferred from BQP to OQ. Â However, after the transfer was made, BQP appealed the decision with support from SOQ. The original QSN poster has not weighed in on either side since his initial posting.
OQ take:
“1. The way we have always done it – every year my team is 6-5, 5-5, or 5-6 and at the top of the division. Every year I have a similar siutation on the free agency priority issue. Bottomline is that awarding a player is done by record, then head to head. Division does not matter
2. Ranking by playoff ranking is not valid here. That is an end of the season decision and has no bearing here. Tiebreakers as in the Const are the only relevant guidance”
SOQ/BQP take:
“The constitution says “Free agents and waiver claims are granted to the lower-ranked team” and then “Division Record only pertains to opponents in the same division.”
However, in this case, we don’t really need to go to a tiebreaker at all because OQ is the #3 seed in the standings because he is a division winner (he beat FAHQ twice).”
Summary:
The basic issue is whether or not division standings should be factored into determining standings in relation to tiebreakers. Â OQ contends that there are no actual standings until the seeding is finalized at the end of the season. Â SOQ contends that even though they are not final standings, the standings can nonetheless be determined at any point in time and therefore should be used in tiebreakers.
Precedent:
The commissioner weighed in with the following precedent:
“”From: [SOQ]
Date: Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:13 AM
Subject: Waiver Wire Issue
To: [QFL Commissioner]
Cc: [QFL Comcom]
Four teams ([BQP], [TENQ], [HEPQ] and [SOQ]) put in a claim for Rudi Johnson last night. The software awarded him to [HEPQ] because he has the fewest points, but the rules state that waiver claims should be awarded based on standings, not total points. All four teams have a record of 1-2. The tiebreaker rules are as follows:
FOR TIES BETWEEN 3 OR MORE TEAMS, DIVISIONAL TIES ARE ALWAYS BROKEN FIRST.
HEAD TO HEAD
DIVISION RECORD*
TOTAL POINTS
HIGHEST WEEKLY TOTAL
COIN FLIP
So it should work like this:
1. Break tie between division rivals (BQP and TENQ)
a. No head to head between them
b. Same division record (1-0)
c. TENQ has fewer total points, so wins tiebreaker
2. Apply head to head tiebreakers between TENQ, HEPQ, SOQ
a. HEPQ beat SOQ, so can’t be lower than SOQ
b. No other head to head matchups
3. Apply division record tiebreakers between TENQ, HEPQ, SOQ
a. TENQ is 1-0 in division so is highest seed
b. HEPQ and SOQ are both 0-1 in division
c. Since HEPQ beat SOQ head to head, SOQ is lowest seed
Seeding for four teams:
1. BPQ
2. TENQ
3. HEPQ
4. SOQ
So [SOQ] should get Rudi Johnson, right?”
The above logic was confirmed. Â This seems to be precedent for using division standings for tiebreakers. Â Thoughts?
Shades
The commissioner made the following EXOs in response to this issue:
First EXO: Add Rule 7, Section 1, Note b): In determining the “lower-ranked team” for free agents and waiver claims before the QFL championship tournament, Rules 4 and 7 are both considered. Accordingly, during the regular season, a division leader is ranked higher than any non-division leader with the same record.
Second EXO: Add Rule 7, Section 1, Note c): In determining the “lower-ranked team” for free agents and waiver claims after the QFL championship tournament has started, Rules 4 and 6 are both considered. Accordingly, a team that has an opportunity to finish in a higher place is higher-ranked, irrespective of record, than teams that are competing for lower-place finishes (e.g. a team competing in the third-place game is higher-ranked than a team competing in the seventh-place game). Moreover, in the event that two teams that placed a free agent or waiver claim and are still competing for the same place in the final standings (e.g. both teams still have an opportunity to finish 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc.), the lower-seeded team is the “lower-ranked team.”