One schedule swap changes 3–4 into 7–0

Start with the two schedules, not just points against

Our eight-team Example League plays a seven-week single round robin. Lanterns have the highest total points but finish 3–4, fifth in the standings. Comets also finish 3–4 but have only 648 points, placing them seventh under the example’s points tiebreaker.

Those matching records conceal different scoring performance. Lanterns beat six possible opponents every week. Comets beat just 13 of their 49 all-play opponents across the season. Swapping them tests how their existing weekly points would fare in each other’s matchup slots.

We use ordinary head-to-head results, no ties or median games, and a top-four playoff cutoff. The standings tiebreaker is total points. Read the original season case for the complete baseline.

Exchange matchup slots and keep points attached to teams

In week one, the original fixtures include Lanterns versus Ravens and Comets versus Otters. Lanterns score 130, Ravens 150, Comets 86 and Otters 80. We move Lanterns into Comets’ slot and Comets into Lanterns’ slot. The new games are Lanterns 130 versus Otters 80, and Comets 86 versus Ravens 150.

Otters lose in both versions, and Ravens win in both. In other weeks, the unselected opponents’ records do change. Keeping the other side of each result matters: a win has to be paired with a loss. Simply changing two teams’ win totals would produce an inconsistent standings table.

Week seven is the special case. Lanterns already play Comets, so swapping their slots leaves the same head-to-head pairing. We keep that fixture unchanged. There is no self-matchup and neither team borrows its opponent’s points.

Lanterns’ seven scores against their new opponents

The four opening losses become wins. Otters score 80 in week one, Owls 110 in week two, Badgers 97 in week three and Ravens 83 in week four. Each falls below Lanterns’ unchanged 130. The final three results remain wins, including the unchanged Comets fixture.

The comparison is especially clear in week four. Lanterns originally face Owls’ 153, the highest score. Comets originally face Ravens’ 83, the lowest score. Exchanging those slots turns Lanterns’ 130-point loss into a win while giving Comets an opponent they cannot beat with 108 points.

The change affects the whole standings table

Lanterns move from fifth to first. Comets fall from seventh to eighth with no wins. Owls and Meteors each lose one win because they now face Lanterns in a matchup where they previously beat Comets. Badgers gain one win when Comets replace Lanterns as their opponent. Foxes, Otters and Ravens keep their original win totals.

There are still 28 games and 28 total wins. The new table redistributes outcomes; it does not create additional victories. The top-four group becomes Lanterns, Ravens, Foxes and Owls, so Meteors move outside the example cutoff.

Notice that Owls, Meteors and Otters all finish 3–4 after the swap. Their points—858, 743 and 718—put them fourth, fifth and sixth respectively. A different tiebreaker or division structure could produce a different qualification result.

Why Lanterns still have six effective wins

All-play only compares points inside each week. Moving matchup slots does not change any points, so every team’s all-play record remains identical. Lanterns still have 42 all-play wins and seven losses, or six effective wins on a seven-week scale.

That final +1.00 is informative. Comets’ schedule is more favourable to Lanterns than the six-win all-play benchmark. Seven wins are one above that benchmark, so the swapped record should not become our replacement measure of what Lanterns “deserved.” It is a particular possible schedule with particularly favourable timing.

The stable all-play result is a useful cross-check. If exchanging slots changes weekly scores or all-play records, the calculation is answering a different question.

A counterfactual can isolate timing, not recreate an alternate season

The swap answers a narrow, verifiable question: what results follow from these fixed points and this changed schedule? It does not model whether a manager would have selected different starters, made different trades or changed strategy against a different opponent.

It also does not replay playoffs. The example stops at regular-season qualification. In a real league, playoff seeding, bracket rules and subsequent scores need their own analysis. Do not turn a changed regular-season rank into an assumed championship.

Try several pairs in the interactive demo. Record the selected pair, check the weekly fixtures and read the results for the affected opponents. Our Calendar Swap methodology explains further assumptions for live Sleeper leagues.