tinys_hawks Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 I agree with G&S. Why should I have to beat two teams when they are the ones who couldn't get the job done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 It is NOT fair to the team that won the other semi. Now he has to defeat TWO teams to win the SB instead of 1. But it's more fair to randomly eliminate one of the tied teams? The league created this mess because they didn't use much forethought at all when devising the league. Now it has a conundrum where someone is going to get hosed no matter which method is used to determine the participants of the next round. Since there is no way to break the tie without creating rules after the event, why not just let the tied particpants both go forward to the next round. Their opponent in the next round would have to beat at least one of them anyhow, and since you advocate a random tiebreaking procedure, his odds are 50/50 that he'd catch the higher scoring of the 2 no matter what. Another way to apply it - since there is no tiebreaking procedure in the rules, by rule the tie can't be broken. Therefore both tied participants ought to advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I agree with G&S. Why should I have to beat two teams when they are the ones who couldn't get the job done? You are as much at fault as anyone else. Someone - including you - in your league should have have enough common sense to bring up that some kind of tiebreaker might be needed, and therefore enacted, before the season started. I think you've got to live with what your league rules state - and they do not provide for the tie to be broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinys_hawks Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 .... so I should get screwed cause we need to be fair to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinys_hawks Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 remember I am a clear cut winner, they didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 The first year we had this happen and had failed to set something up ahead of time, we came up with the following solution. Frankly, I don't like it much, but it's better than a coin-flip. Both teams pick all the week's games vs the spread (the spread is locked down as of a specific day). They also pick the monday night score. Then both teams started a line-up for the championship. Then, the team that picks the most games right is the team in the finals. The obvious downside is that it has nothing to do with FF. The up-side is, there's nothing retro-active about it and it's not one-sided. All that said, decimal scoring seems to be pretty fair way to go back and fix it. If the loser complains about the outcome, he's, well, a loser. After all, it is 100% fair. If all of the guys on team A fell just short of the next point threshold and all the guys on team B just barely made theirs, then team A's guys did better. The only way this could be thought of as un-fair is if the guy who realized he'd win using that format proposed it. If the commish is not one of the teams involved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 You are as much at fault as anyone else. Someone - including you - in your league should have have enough common sense to bring up that some kind of tiebreaker might be needed, and therefore enacted, before the season started. I think you've got to live with what your league rules state - and they do not provide for the tie to be broken. I agree with the others here that having both teams advance is the worst possible solution. The argument that "he's as much to blame as the others" is just lame and spiteful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Nothing you can do at this point to break the tie, other than a coin flip. However, depending on what the game determined, there are some solutions you could institue. What would the winner have received...a trip to your championship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 .... so I should get screwed cause we need to be fair to them? How exactly are you getting screwed? You get to play in the next round for the right to either advance or win the championship. The person who would be getting screwed would be the one who doesn't get to play in the next round despite not losing per what the rules in your league state. It's always a good idea to put yourself in the other party's position when deciding what is reasonable & equitable. I'm sure that if you were one of the tied teams with no tiebreaker in place you'd be advocating loudly for your right to play next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinys_hawks Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 Yep and the loser is out a chance to win a lot more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 The argument that "he's as much to blame as the others" is just lame and spiteful. So his only responsibility as a member of the league is to play in the league? Talk about lame... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I haven't read all the posts in the thread... but the rule I use is..."the team with more points on the bench".. in this case...having the better "overall" team can have an advantage... but tie's rarely ever happen... but this rule I feel good about...there are obviously loopholes in this rule as there are in any rule... I mean, I loaded up with 3 defenses for the playoffs (TB, Minny and Seattle)...I have 150+ on reserves every week anyways... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 It is not fair to the other team to face TWO opponents. does it say that in the rules? seriously can you post your rules about making and advancing(seeding) in the playoffs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 But it's more fair to randomly eliminate one of the tied teams? The league created this mess because they didn't use much forethought at all when devising the league. Now it has a conundrum where someone is going to get hosed no matter which method is used to determine the participants of the next round. Since there is no way to break the tie without creating rules after the event, why not just let the tied particpants both go forward to the next round. Their opponent in the next round would have to beat at least one of them anyhow, and since you advocate a random tiebreaking procedure, his odds are 50/50 that he'd catch the higher scoring of the 2 no matter what. Another way to apply it - since there is no tiebreaking procedure in the rules, by rule the tie can't be broken. Therefore both tied participants ought to advance. A more correct intrepretation of the rules would be that neither team in the tie would advance because neither one won their game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Have you considered a dance-off? Or is Puddy one of them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I agree with G&S. Why should I have to beat two teams when they are the ones who couldn't get the job done? will you post your rules? But it's more fair to randomly eliminate one of the tied teams? The league created this mess because they didn't use much forethought at all when devising the league. Now it has a conundrum where someone is going to get hosed no matter which method is used to determine the participants of the next round. Since there is no way to break the tie without creating rules after the event, why not just let the tied particpants both go forward to the next round. Their opponent in the next round would have to beat at least one of them anyhow, and since you advocate a random tiebreaking procedure, his odds are 50/50 that he'd catch the higher scoring of the 2 no matter what. Another way to apply it - since there is no tiebreaking procedure in the rules, by rule the tie can't be broken. Therefore both tied participants ought to advance. unless the rules state that the winning team advances...in that case neither team should advance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 does it say that in the rules? seriously can you post your rules about making and advancing(seeding) in the playoffs One team won his game out right and advanced to the next round Two other teams did not win their games out right ... so NEITHER one loses and they both get a shot at the ultimate prize. No if you are going to be a stickler for the rules then the fact that neither team won should eliminate them both from the playoffs as the rules state that the winning team will advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 A more correct intrepretation of the rules would be that neither team in the tie would advance because neither one won their game. you cant make that assumption without seeing how their rules are worded...but if the word WIN is in the rules then i agree...neither team goes forward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 in this case...having the better "overall" team can have an advantage... I hate the "bench points" tiebreaker, for this reason. Suppose I drafted well, and had a great bench. I then parlayed that great bench by trading them for a stud-filled line-up. Now my starting line-up is great, but my bench is weak. Why should I be penalized for this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 you cant make that assumption without seeing how their rules are worded...but if the word WIN is in the rules then i agree...neither team goes forward Keg is correct. No team moves forward because neither won. Your champion is already crowned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 One team won his game out right and advanced to the next round Two other teams did not win their games out right ... so NEITHER one loses and they both get a shot at the ultimate prize. No if you are going to be a stickler for the rules then the fact that neither team won should eliminate them both from the playoffs as the rules state that the winning team will advance. see i think that is probably how it reads but unless i have missed it I havent seen the rules for this league yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 unless the rules state that the winning team advances...in that case neither team should advance +1 If I were Commish, at the point you are at, I'd give the two teams this option: 1. Neither team advances, since no one won or 2. Flip a coin I'm sure they'd choose the latter, and frankly, its the fairest thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I hate the "bench points" tiebreaker, for this reason. Suppose I drafted well, and had a great bench. I then parlayed that great bench by trading them for a stud-filled line-up. Now my starting line-up is great, but my bench is weak. Why should I be penalized for this? you shouldn't have to worry about this then... your team won't lose if you do this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 see i think that is probably how it reads but unless i have missed it I havent seen the rules for this league yet I don't think many leagues would accept allowing one team to win it all by default because the other two teams tied in a semi. Both tied owners would be pissed. If I were the commissioner I would tell the tied owners that they missed the glaring error in the rules as well so now they have to live with a coin flip. While it is not fair for the other team to face TWO opponents in the SB .. it would be pretty lame for him to win it by forfeit too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 So his only responsibility as a member of the league is to play in the league? Talk about lame... To begin with, I think the biggest problem with FF is that people take it way too seriously. Sure, there's money involved. However, it should be thought of, primarily, as entertainment. The attitude you are taking is a perfect example of losing sight of the intent of this game. If you buy a house and somehow get screwed because you failed to order a proper inspection that would have revealed something the previous owner painted over, then technically, you are as much to blame as the guy who pulled one over on you. Well, at least in the eyes of the law. That said, to the casual observer, unlike the other party, you not guilty of screwing somebody over and thus, "less" guilty. If I was in a league and somebody took the stance you are taking, I would feel more guilty of being in a league with an a-hole than I would feel guilty of not dotting every "i" in terms of tie-breakers in the play-offs. One guy certainly belongs in the finals, and two guys (assuming they're lobbying for your solution) are trying to cheese their way in. After all, as Grits says, the letter of the law could mean neither belongs in the final because neither won their semi-final game. After all, "they're just as guilty as anyone else" for joining a league that did not account for how one can make the finals despite not winning their semi-final game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.