The 2010 Table - Magic Numbers, Tragic Numbers & Other Numerical Arcana of Dubious Value [R]

Shouldn't it be Colorado at 6 and San Jose at 7 since Colorado has one more point than San Jose?

 

I think RSL's last-minute tie clinches the playoffs for them. They have 48 points and 9th place KC's maximum total is 48, and RSL wins the head-to-head tiebreaker vs. KC. Also, if KC reaches 48 points, then that means that they beat Seattle, which would put Seattle's maximum total also at 48, so that means that the worst RSL can do is a 3-(or more) way tie with KC and Seattle for 7th/8th/9th at 48. RSL wins the 3-way tiebreaker with KC and Seattle.

The only possible way they might not have clinched is if there is some crazy multi-team tie at 48 points involving RSL, KC, Seattle, and one or more other teams in which RSL ends up the odd team out. It would be pretty bizarre and complicated.

 

Just off the top of my head, a three way tiebreak on 48 with rsl and colodaro goes to goal difference.

 

houston is now on the brink with any loss or colorado tie putting them out.

also all teams can now advance by hitting a point total of 49.

 

What really jumps out at me with the updated table is that 40 points will likely not be enough anymore. With just 1 win in 5 Colorado is at 41. With just 1 win in 4 Seattle is at 42. And with just 1 win in 6 San Jose is at 42. I'm thinking the #8 team can end up with 43 or 44 without too much difficulty (note the projected numbers).

That really causes trouble for the teams on the bottom half.

 

As mentioned in my post above (thought more succinctly), if KC wins the rest of their games, Colorado gets 10 points from their remaining games, and RSL loses the rest of their (including a game against Colorado). San Jose and Dallas both win enough to end up above 48 points. Seattle wins all their games except the one against KC.

Four teams will end up tied on 48 points. The table between the teams will be:

Seattle 8 points (split 3 points v. KC, Colorado, 2 points v. RSL)
KCW 8 points (4 points v. Colorado; 1 point v. RSL, 3 points v. Seattle )
Colorado 8 points (4 points v. RSL; 1 point v. KCW, 3 points v. Seattle )
RSL 7 points (1 v. Colorado, 4 points v. KCW, 2 points v. Seattle)

Based on this, (hough MLS rules are not really specific enough), Seattle, KCW, and Colorado would then be compared on their goal difference accross all league games to choose the first team to advance.

Once this was decided, the remaining three teams (including RSL) would then be compared. If KC is the team that has advanced above, then RSL would be knocked .

Though this is just one possibility, it is not the only (but I don't have time to figure this out.

Hence, RSL has not clinched yet clinched.

QED.

 

I have just spent the last half hour trying to figure it out. I am pretty sure now there's no possibility that adances Houston or New England in a mutiway tiebreak. I think I can say this with 95% authority that it does not work.

The following teams are the teams that can catch Colorado (other than Houston or New England):

Philly, Chivas*, Toronto, Chicago. KC.

Apparently none of these teams have had a losing record against KC or New England, without also having a losing record versus Colorado. This would be necessary to catch them.

Though Houston has the h2h versus chivas (6 points) so does Colorado, so it does no good for Houston.

So you were right the first time but with the wrong logic.

 

On one hand, the playoff chase appears to be all but over, unless there is a collapse by one of the lower 3 teams of almost biblical proportions (and a fantastic run at the same time by the Wizards).

On the other hand, the playoffs are going to have 8 very strong teams in them; not a weak sister in the bunch. In fact, ironically enough, the two teams looking the worst at the moment out of the playoff 8 sit at or near the top of the table, i.e., the Crew who have barely nicked a draw out of the last 3 games (and who are maybe experiencing fatigue due to the CCL), and the Galaxy, who are the definition of muddling along, and who even when they win don't look very good (see the DC game).

 

I know the rules fairly well (I understand poins per game average h2h).

My point was that the rules assume one team advances from the h2h as the winner. Then all the remaining teams that did not win the h2h, go into another h2h comparison.

However, in the situation above, three teams are tied, not one team has advanced. My question was whether all teams (including RSL which had clearly lost the h2h comparison) advanced to the goal difference comparison or just the teams that were tied atop the mini table.

I'm pretty sure there's not a rule that we can cite on this.

I do remember the situation was mentioned in Superliga once, where it said that where a winner cannot be advanced, the bottom loser could be eliminated.

If that were the case (for this example), it would still lead to SEA, KCW, and COL going to goal difference league wide. However, the only thing would be that Colorado would definitely be ninth.

 

Here's a summary of one event clinches/elimination (meaning if one result happens, then a team qualifies/is eliminated) or double

RSL qualfies if:
They do not lose every one of their remaining games; OR
KC does not win every one of their remaining

New York qualifies if
they defeat KC*
* as they're guaranteed at least second in the East

Dallas qualifies if they defeat KC.

Chivas is eliminated if they do not run the table (there's no mutiway tiebreaker if they get to 38).

 

Someone with good connections (Sirk?) checked with the league office last year and told us that's the case.

 

no no you're right, you have to advance a winner. the questions are:

a) when the first tiebreak does not advance one winner, but clearly separates "losers", are those "losers" eligible for the secodn tiebreak, since the first tiebreak did not choose a winner; and

b) if the answer to the above is that losers are ineligible. then, are the losers on the first tiebreak grouped together with the losers on the second tiebreak once a winner is advanced.

The rules are not clear on that.

 

I agree this is unclear. In the case you came up with, it is clear (based on experience in these discussions, not based on anything published) that they have to go to the GD tiebreaker, rather than eliminating RSL and starting over with the other 3, but it's not clear if RSL would be eligible to win that tiebreaker if they happened to have the best GD.

It is clear that once you get a single winner of a 4-way tiebreaker, no matter how complicated it was to determine that winner, that you start all over with a 3-way tiebreaker for the remaining teams.

Since the point of this exercise was to find a way that RSL can miss the playoffs, we can stipulate that there is a case that they don't win that 4-way tiebreaker, either because they aren't eligible or because their GD isn't good enough. If KC turns out to be the one with the best GD, they are team #6. The three-way head-to-head to get team #7 is:

COL: 7 pts.
SEA: 5
RSL: 3

So the Rapids are team #7. Then we do 2-way tiebreakers between Seattle and Salt Lake, who tied each other twice, so it goes to GD. Since it is possible that Seattle would have a better GD, it is demonstrated that RSL has not clinched.

 

For more context.

Chivas has lost both games to colorado. They coulld be in a position to take 4 points from chicago compared to colorado's 2. However, for all other teams (tha can catch 38 points) colorado's records versus those teams is better or the same as chivas;s.

 

Obviously, this should say Dallas qualifies if win any of their remaining games.

 

You're not wrong. According to MLS, SportsClubStats, and Playoffstatus.com, NER and HOU are eliminated. If it was just one of the three saying that, I'd agree that there might be some strange chance, but with all three saying that they're eliminated, I think it's safe to say they are out.

However, MLS is saying that RSL has not clinched, while the other two say they have. I wouldn't be surprised if MLS is actually right on this, but that it would require a specific set of results that didn't come up in any of the simulations for the other two websites.

My understanding of the tie-breaker rule is that you can "eliminate" losers, but you don't start over from the beginning with those teams. Ie, in the situation described above, where you have COL / KC / SEA at 8 pts amongst each other and RSL at 7, you advance to step 2 with COL / KC / SEA and leave out RSL since they trailed the other three. From the MLS website:

"The first tiebreaker in a three-way tie is also head-to-head, but it is determined via points-per-game versus the other two teams. If two teams are tied in points-per-game head-to-head, the next tie breaker is goal difference."

It seems to me is that you go on without the team(s) that don't have the highest PPG. In that case, RSL would be "eliminated" from determining placement for the highest position, but they are obviously eligible again when trying to determine the next highest position. In which case, it obviously depends on GD, which we can't really predict.

 

I think you're right, I am going to assume this going farther, thanks for clearing that up.