# Tie Breakers Hurting Standings?

#### Nellie

##### Hall of Fame
I was looking at my team's league standings and I noticed that our team is behind two others of the same record due to the tie breaker system. In particular, the standing rules for teams of equal records look to number of sets lost (teams are even there), and then to number of games lost. Our team was behind the other two because our team has lost several tie breakers that count as 7 games losses. Doesn't it seem weird that it would be better off for the team to get killed 6-0, 6-0, than to lose 7-6, 7-6.

I know a loss is a loss, but if games do matter, the result seems weird to me. I am not trying to complain - I know we play with the rules as given. I may bring this up to the league director and ask for some type of rule change.

#### Cindysphinx

##### G.O.A.T.
I'm following you, but I guess I don't see any alternatives.

You could look at the bright side and figure that winning set tiebreaks means you are disadvantaging your opponents in the standings. I guess.

#### raiden031

##### Legend
Did you say a tiebreaker is equated to 7 games lost? That is rediculous. I think maybe they should do (wins - losses) because games lost is almost meaningless without the games won.

#### kylebarendrick

##### Professional
Losing a set 7-6 is only marginally worse for your team than losing 6-0 (7 games lost vs. 6 games lost). It's much worse for the other team, though. They lost 6 games in the 7-6 set vs. none in the 6-0 set. Overall that doesn't seem too unreasonable.

My preference, though, would be to make head-to-head the first tiebreaker in determining league standings - or at least the 2nd behind matches won.

#### Pompitus of Love

##### New User
Are you sure Nellie?
Around here, 3rd set super tie-breaks count as 1 set + 1 game lost. Not 7 games (like 6-0, 1-0) but literally adding 1 set to the set lost column and 1 game to the game lost column.
Set tie-breaks count as 1 game lost.

#### spot

##### Hall of Fame
it should be percentage of games won, not number of games lost.

#### JavierLW

##### Hall of Fame
Are you sure Nellie?
Around here, 3rd set super tie-breaks count as 1 set + 1 game lost. Not 7 games (like 6-0, 1-0) but literally adding 1 set to the set lost column and 1 game to the game lost column.
Set tie-breaks count as 1 game lost.
He meant "sets where we lost the tiebreaker", not just the tiebreaker itself.

#### Cindysphinx

##### G.O.A.T.
it should be percentage of games won, not number of games lost.
If it were games won, then the tiebreaker might not break the tie between teams. Most sets end with someone winning six games. So you could have a situation where the top teams rarely drop a set and have the same number of games won over the course of the season.

Games lost, on the other hand, is a very good predictor of how badly you lost when you lost. Teams that frequently lose 4-6 are going to look much better than teams that lose 1-6.

#### spot

##### Hall of Fame
Cindy- whether you lose 1-6 or 4-6 you have still lost six games. Thats why I think PERCENTAGE of games won (or lost) is better. You lose 1-6 you lost 86% of your games. You lose 4-6 you have lost 60% of your games. You lost 6-7 then you lost 53%.