Bronco Billy Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 (edited) You realize the second you make inane arguments like this, you've basically conceded the point at hand because it is obvious you can't prove your point with anything rational. None the less, based on how you tend to act around here, I can completely understand how you would feel "slighted" by having a coin-flip decide something that you were unable to win out-right to begin with. That somehow, you would point to a number of theoretical "reasons" why you deserved the win more. No, it's the thought that a coin flip is inherently fair to both owners and any other ideas are assinine is what is inane, hence the ridiculous argument that I offered in obvious sarcasm that is founded directly on the logic of "fairness' that you used. I was hoping to impress on you how unfair a coin flip was with my over-the-top usage of your coin flip idea, and it obviously worked to perfection. Edited December 17, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 (edited) No, it's the thought that a coin flip is inherently fair to both owners and any other ideas are assinine is what is inane, hence the ridiculous argument that I offered in obvious sarcasm that is founded directly on the logic of "fairness' that you used. I was hoping to impress on you how unfair a coin flip was with my over-the-top usage of your coin flip idea, and it obviously worked to perfection. Actually, there are a number of options that I would think are fair. Just not the one you're in favor of. I think decimal scoring is "fair". Same with which team scored the most TDs (though to a much lesser degree). However, after those, then I'd think you'd need to flip a coin. In fact, one could make a solid argument that most TDs is not as "fair" as the coin flip. If you play in a yardage league then you are skewing the tie-break to reward one style of team over another. However, the problem with retro-actively applying most otherwise "fair" manners in breaking a tie are the potential conflict of issues problems that would arise since it doesn't take a genius to figure out pretty quickly who'd benefit. So, unless you have these in place ahead of time... Mind you, it would take a pretty big whiner to complain about the decimal scoring because all it does is more closely evaluate the teams on the exact same criteria they've been evaluated all season long. So, just because I think your idea is stupid doesn't mean I think all ideas but mine are stupid. It just means I think your idea is stupid. I would think that your self esteem was not so fragile that you'd need that sort of reassurance. Once again, nobody should ever feel "slighted" by losing a coin flip. This was where you took the leap from simply misguided to flat out wrong. This is an argument that you will never win. While I highly, highly advocate other tie-breakers that should be used prior to flipping a coin, assuming they are in place prior to the game, I can really only think of one that would make sense in this regard. That being decimal scoring. Edited December 17, 2007 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 This gave me an idea. How about the two teams that tied submit line-ups against the other finalist. The highest score wins. (make sure you agree on tie breakers first. because that is unfair to the other semifinalist to have to beat TWO teams instead of ONE... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjwbean Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 (edited) Our solution many moons ago when we had a tie. Player A tied in round one with Player B. Player B won coin toss and advanced to play Player C. Player A not left out in cold. If player C beats player B player C moves on. If player B beats player C then you compare Player A to B. Player with most point advances. We now have mutlitple tie breakers in place Edited December 17, 2007 by jjwbean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Our solution many moons ago when we had a tie. Player okay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 At this point you should narrow the choices of "fair" down to 3 to 5, write them on paper and put them in a hat and go with the one pulled. If you debate gonig to bench players or TDs, while that might appear fair on the surface soon the math will be done to figure out which team benefits/wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Our solution many moons ago when we had a tie. Player A tied in round one with Player B. Player B won coin toss and advanced to play Player C. Player A not left out in cold. If player C beats player B player C moves on. If player B beats player C then you compare Player A to B. Player with most point advances. We now have mutlitple tie breakers in place That makes good sense. At least the other guy who didn't tie doesn't get hosed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 That makes good sense. At least the other guy who didn't tie doesn't get hosed. So it's okay to have two teams play against 2 others, but not the third based upon the outcome of a completely random event? I don't get your logic at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjwbean Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 At least Player A does not lose by a random chance. He has a chance to win based on actual game results Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 So it's okay to have two teams play against 2 others, but not the third based upon the outcome of a completely random event? I don't get your logic at all. The logic is this: By having all three teams play (as you have suggested) lowers the chances of the team that won his semi outright from 50/50 to 1 in 3. What's up with that? Why should his odds of winning be affected by the fact that two other guys tied? He won his game. The only players being subjected to random chance are the guys who don't have an unquestioned right to be in the game. Neither won his semi. So, this way, the two "split" the 50/50 chance that their side of the bracket had at winning. Perhaps you didn't read it correctly. But the team that won his semi outright only needs to beat the guy he faced by virtue of the coin-flip as opposed to having to beat both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjwbean Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 You did not read it close enough- assume Team B wins coin flip Team C (not invloved in the tie) advances with a win over Team B Team B advances with a win over Team C AND scoring more than Team A Team A advances only if Team B beats Team C AND A outscores B There is no disadvantage for Team C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Because keg suggested that with some support, and we've all been told that we're stupid (among other things). Try to keep up, would you? I already said I didn't read the whole thing! You could tell from the thread title, a freight train was coming and you couldn't stop it! Any suggestion is pretty stoopid at this point. The reality is that the commish should have had this covered before the first game of the first year the league was put together! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 You did not read it close enough- assume Team B wins coin flipTeam C (not invloved in the tie) advances with a win over Team B Team B advances with a win over Team C AND scoring more than Team A Team A advances only if Team B beats Team C AND A outscores B There is no disadvantage for Team C That's not bad actually - the two tied teams are "competing" again to break the tie, with the caveat that the one that wins the random 50/50 event has to outperform the other side to even make it worthwhile. I could see this working out in the situation that arose as somewhat equitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 I already said I didn't read the whole thing! You could tell from the thread title, a freight train was coming and you couldn't stop it! Any suggestion is pretty stoopid at this point. The reality is that the commish should have had this covered before the first game of the first year the league was put together! I beg to differ. There have actually been a number of fair ones. Just because it's a bad situation doesn't mean that anything goes. The one that you, Billy, and I think a few others seems to be among the most flawed. Simply because it penalizes the one team that actually punched their ticket to the finals. In a four team play-off, you have a 1 in 4 chance of winning it all. If you win your first one, your odds go to 1 in 2. One team did that, two teams didn't. Thus the two teams that didn't should not be given a 1 in 3 chance at the expense of the 3rd teams 50-50 chance. Coin flip and move on preserves that balance of odds. As does the more complex coin-flip version brought to the table late. BTW, I really think the "tie goes to the team with the better record" call that the commish finally went with was lame as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) BTW, I really think the "tie goes to the team with the better record" call that the commish finally went with was lame as well. I agree. It is a horrible solution. Regular season ended in week 13. Everybody starts with a clean slate in the playoffs and it is win or go home. Giving the regular season weight in the playoffs is ludicrous and artificial ... and an especially horrible "after the fact solution" Edited December 18, 2007 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsnottatooma Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) I hate home field advantage in FF. It is purely arbitrary and artifical thing... It's not arbitrary if it is assigned based upon regular season record. I like HFA better as a tiebreaker than how many points your kicker scored or how many points your backup QB had. Edited to add: I agree that it is unfair to assign a rule after the tie already happened and the best way to resolve would've been a coin flip. Edited December 18, 2007 by Itsnottatooma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 What this proves above all else......NEVER HAVE A LEAGUE WITHOUT TIEBREAKERS IN THE PLAYOFFS And even if you do have a league like that, realize it the week before the playoffs at least and figure something out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 [budweiser] dude [/budweiser] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 It's not arbitrary if it is assigned based upon regular season record. I like HFA better as a tiebreaker than how many points your kicker scored or how many points your backup QB had. Edited to add: I agree that it is unfair to assign a rule after the tie already happened and the best way to resolve would've been a coin flip. It IS purely arbitrary. It was decided to give the team with a better regular season record an advantage in the playoffs based on the regular season record. That is bogus. I've seen plenty of years where the team with the best record has the best records because of the fortunate schedule he played ... and you want to compound his fortune by giving him another advantage. Bogus. When you get to the playoffs everybody should be equal and everybody should to earn it (as opposed to be awarded it based on an arbitrary assignment of value based on the regular season, which, BTW is over). HFA is for weak leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Nobody can eat 50 eggs. My boy Luke can do it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobller Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Here is what I have to say about a playoff or superbowl tie.... Play a game of Madden and be done with it. At least if you do lose, you had fun anyway!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 FWIW, I like using the efficiency rating to break ties, MFL figures it automatically but even manually it's easy math. If both owners scored 100 points but 1 owner was 95% efficient and the other was only 90% efficient then the owner at 95% efficiency did a better job of managing his lineup than the owner who was only 90% efficient.\ And afterall, isn't FF all about finding out how we would do if we got to runa team? What better judge of that than the overall ability of an owner to field his best starters from week to week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 WWSMD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LayLow Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Fractional points 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.