Post by QC Mike on May 21, 2024 1:43:45 GMT -7
It's hard to reflect on this because a system of 3-points games would not have any ties. If we assume (for comparison) that all ties are worth 1.5 points, then the order would change only slightly at the bottom of the table, with Quad Cities and Revelstoke swapping places.
# | TEAM | POINTS |
1 | BEL | 57.5 |
2 | OXF | 47.5 |
3 | CRE | 41.5 |
4 | BRA | 40.5 |
5 | HOU | 34.0 |
6 | BRO | 30.0 |
7 | CHE | 29.5 |
8 | VIK | 28.5 |
9 | QCQ | 27.0 |
10 | REV | 26.0 |
11 | BON | 23.5 |
12 | COL | 9.5 |
Or, if you like, sorted by Goal Differential, we'd expect the order to be BEL, OXF, CRE, BRO, BRA, QCQ, HOU, CHE, VIK, REV, BON, COL.
Or to put it another way: Bonavista and Cole Harbour always finish 11th and 12th, regardless of system.
That's largely repeating what I asked. Do people feel Revelstoke or Quad Cities had the better team on the season? Who is more deserving of the better lottery odds? Are the wins bigger than the ties/loser points? If people feel that the 9 win team was the better team than the 3 point system better reflects that. If the 7 win team with 5 "other" points is the better squad than the current system is the more descriptive.
If we want to get rid of the imbalance of some games being worth three points while others are worth two, it's the three points for the regulation win. If we don't mind the imbalance than the status quo for awarding points is fine.
The system isn't supposed to differentiate at the extremes. Cream always rises to the top, solids always sink to the bottom. It's more about differentiating in the middle. What I'm asking people to think about is "What do we want to value in our standings?" How can we minimize the use of tie-breakers? If wins are the ultimate end point (and first tie breaker) then as a league we should probably be ensuring there is a winner to every game regardless of the point system to emphasize this.