Normally the tie breaker is first head to head, and then lost soul differential. My proposition is that it goes from head to head to strength of schedule, and then lost soul differential.
How is this calculated? You add the points your opponent has each round to the tournament tracker. This will be dynamic, filled in when the total points cell is filled in. Additionally, between the master total points and lost soul differential column, there will be a column for Strength of Schedule. You then add up all of the points of the opponents you faced throughout the tournament and divide it by 3(Y) where Y is the total number of rounds (opponents).
Thus Strength of Schedule=[(X
1+X
2+X
3...)/(3Y)]/Y where X is the total number of points your opponent has and Y is the current round.
Let's look at Nationals 2012 as an example, after, say 7 rounds.
Martin Miller had played against Jonathan Greeson (18), Blake Maust (15), Connor Magras (12), Matt Townsend (15), John Earley (15), Mark Underwood (14), and Rob/Roy (12). If you add up all of these points, you get 101 total points. You then divide that by 3(7), and you get 4.8095248095, and then divide that again by 7 to get 0.68707482993197
The reason you divide by (3Y) and then again by Y is to give the opponent's total win percentage (in this case, 68.7%). It technically isn't necessary though, it's just more information.
Why is Strength of Schedule superior to Lost Soul Differential?Let's keep looking at the same year, same round, as that's the required number of rounds with 65 people to have at least one undefeated person. In this case, however, 4 players were at 6-1. Here are the numbers.
| Player | Total Points | | Opponent's Win Percentage | | Lost Soul Differential |
| Martin Miller | 18 | | 68.7% | | 19 |
| Josh Brinkman | 18 | | 65.3% | | 13 |
| Alex Olijar | 18 | | 57.5% | | 12 |
| Jonathan Greeson | 18 | | 63.9% | | 11 |
Had the tournament ended here, Greeson would have had every right to have a fit. Head to head wasn't sufficient, as Alex hadn't played any of the top cut, and Martin and Josh didn't play. Greeson actually beat Josh and lost to Martin. Under current rules, Martin would take first, Josh second, and Alex third. However, Alex had a comparable easy time in the tournament, avoiding the other three in the top four and playing three with 15 points. Greeson played against two people in the top four, and one with 15. It's no wonder Alex had a better lost soul differential: he had easier opponents!
The ObjectionThe primary argument against strength of schedule is that it's not in your control. It's really not Alex's fault that he didn't play more difficult opponents, that was just the luck of the draw. You do have control over how many souls you rescue in a game, and how many your opponent gets.
However, that argument breaks down because your opponent has just as much control over how many souls the get and how many you get. The caliber of the opponent is really want matters. Against easier opponents, you should be able to have a better lost soul differential. If you have easier opponents, you should win more often. Thus Strength of Schedule is the better tie breaker
A CompromiseNow, if you really want, you could multiply the soul differential by the strength of schedule.
| Player | Total Points | | Adjusted Soul Differential | | Opponent's Win Percentage | | Lost Soul Differential |
| Martin Miller | 18 | | 13.053 | | 68.7% | | 19 |
| Josh Brinkman | 18 | | 8.489 | | 65.3% | | 13 |
| Alex Olijar | 18 | | 6.9 | | 57.5% | | 12 |
| Jonathan Greeson | 18 | | 7.029 | | 63.9% | | 11 |
You'll notice the adjusted soul differential comes up with the exact same standings as the Opponent's Win Percentage. There are a few cases where this would change the standings (most extremely when someone has a negative lost soul differential), but in general I think it's easier if we just stick to strength of schedule.
Too Long; Didn't ReadOlijar is bad.
