| No. | Name | Rnd1 | Rnd2 | Rnd3 | Rnd4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Edgewood MS | W6, 3.5 | W3, 3.0 | W2, 3.0 | W4, 4.0 |
| 2 | Goshen MS A | W7, 4.0 | W5, 4.0 | L1,1.0 | W6, 4.0 |
| 3 | Goshen MS B | W5, 4.0 | L1, 1.0 | D6, 2.0 | -B-, 4.0 |
| 4 | Goshen MS C | -B-, 4.0 | D6, 2.0 | W7, 3.0 | L1, 0.0 |
| 5 | Bethany Christian MS | L3, 0.0 | L2, 0.0 | -B-, 4.0 | W7, 3.5 |
| 6 | North Side MS | L1, 0.5 | D4, 2.0 | D3, 2.0 | L2, 0.0 |
| 7 | Urey MS | L2, 0.0 | -B-, 4.0 | L4, 1.0 | L5, 0.5 |
Team Tie Breaks
Example
Consider the following outcomes from four rounds with seven teams:
The total points for this example totalled below in the column Pts. We see ties between Goshben MS B and Goshen MS C and between North Side MS and Urey MS. The usual way to determine a the winner of these ties has been to total game points as the tie breaker. However, it has been observed for some time that this is not a very good tie break system because it rewards the teams that faced the poorer opposition. Even worse, it gives 4 tie break points to a team that gets a bye. We have computed this in the column Tbrk2 below, naming it such becausee we will use it as our second tie-breaking metric.
| id | Name | Pts | Tbrk2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Edgewood MS | 4.0 | 13.5 |
| 2 | Goshen MS A | 3.0 | 13.0 |
| 3 | Goshen MS B | 2.5 | 11.0 |
| 4 | Goshen MS C | 2.5 | 9.0 |
| 5 | Bethany Christian MS | 2.0 | 7.5 |
| 6 | North Side MS | 1.0 | 4.5 |
| 7 | Urey MS | 1.0 | 5.5 |
We can see Urey would have finished ahead of North Side, but Urey did not win or draw any match–it lost all its matches by lopsided margins. Meanwhile, North Side had some success over the board, drawing two matches. But Urey piled up games won by getting credit for 4 games won its its round 2 bye.
Our first tie-break metric is the same as the United States Amateur tie break score. To calculate it, you first create an adjusted final score for each team by simply subtracting half a point for each bye that they had.
| id | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| adjusted | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | 0.5 |
Then, for each round we mutliply the games won by the adjusted points of the opponent. This calculations is performed below
| id | Name | Rnd1 | Rnd2 | Rnd3 | Rnd4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Edgewood MS | 3.5 | 6 | 9.0 | 8.00 |
| 2 | Goshen MS A | 2.0 | 6 | 4.0 | 4.00 |
| 3 | Goshen MS B | 6.0 | 4 | 2.0 | – |
| 4 | Goshen MS C | – | 2 | 1.5 | 0.00 |
| 5 | Bethany Christian MS | 0.0 | 0 | – | 1.75 |
| 6 | North Side MS | 2.0 | 4 | 4.0 | 0.00 |
| 7 | Urey MS | 0.0 | – | 2.0 | 0.75 |
For example, if we take a closer look at Edgewood MS above, the adjusted final scores of their opponents was, 1, 2, 3, and 2 for Rounds 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. And their games won were 3.5, 3, 3, and 4 for Rounds 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
Adding up for all rounds these games multpiplied by adjusted total scores of opponents and multipying by 2 gives us our tie-breaking metric. We show this below in the column Tbrk2.
| id | Name | Pts | Tbrk1 | Tbrk2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Edgewood MS | 4.0 | 53.0 | 13.5 |
| 2 | Goshen MS A | 3.0 | 32.0 | 13.0 |
| 3 | Goshen MS B | 2.5 | 24.0 | 11.0 |
| 4 | Goshen MS C | 2.5 | 7.0 | 9.0 |
| 5 | Bethany Christian MS | 2.0 | 3.5 | 7.5 |
| 6 | North Side MS | 1.0 | 20.0 | 4.5 |
| 7 | Urey MS | 1.0 | 5.5 | 5.5 |
USAT gives no weight to byes and games won against opponents who have gone winless. Games won still count in most cases, but games won against good opponents count more than games won against poor opponents. Games won will be our second tie break, and after that will come the usual tie break systems used in individual tournaments. With that said, there is seldom any need to go to a second tie break system.