When we first started, if you recall, I said that I thought head-to-head should be the first tiebreaker, and if the two teams that needed to break a tie happened to have played each other twice and split their two games, then points scored in those two games only should break the tie.

It would be unlikely, I think, that we would need a tiebreaker past that, but if we did it could then be total points scored.

BUT....

After giving it some more thought, and seeing how much of this game is scheduling luck, in that

a) The schedule is unbalanced (some people play the weaker teams twice, some only once)
b) You can't play "defense" (i.e. you have no control over your opponents scores. You could have the second highest score in the league for the week, good enough to beat the 10 other teams, but just happen to be playing the one team that had the higher score)
c) Who plays who in the various bye weeks (Examples: I play a weak team on Culpepper's bye week and still win but would have lost to a stronger team, or lose a close game on Culpepper's bye week that I might have otherwise won, etc. -- There are many scenarios, but you get the idea)

That leads me to to conlcude that while a "head-to-head" game is more fun because of the trash talking opportunities it offers, total points scored is totally objective and really a much better way of gauging the relative strengths of the teams, since it is not subject to the luck factors involved in scheduling that a Won-Lost record is.

So, on that basis, I say leave it the way it is.

We should presume that the team with the higher total score is the better team, or at least the one with the better manager, regardless of the W-L record, which depends to a great extent on the luck of scheduling, who plays who on bye weeks, etc.