Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

A play-off tie breaker idea I've been kicking around


detlef
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, this year I was finally able to get my league to agree upon decimal scoring so this might become a non-issue. However, prior to this year, we had a number of tie games in play-offs over the years. The first few times, we were caught off guard so had to require both teams to submit a line-up the next week and pick every game vs the spread with Monday Night's point total as a secondary tie break. Then, whomever got the most games right would be the finalist.

 

Then we simply started requiring everyone to pick all the games of the week in the semis to be more proactive.

 

My rationale was that I have a fundamental problem with bench points being a good tie break, especially if you can prioritize the order of the players on your bench to settle the tie. Quite simply, some positions score more than others. QBs, for instance, dominate the top 20 of our top scorers for the season. Thus, if one team's best back-up is a QB and another team's is a WR, the second team is at a disadvantage.

 

This is, btw, very much the case in our league. One guy has McNabb and Rodgers as his QBs. I, on the other hand, am totally stacked at WR. Over the course of the season, neither has been an advantage over the other, and it seems like the play-offs would be an odd place for that to begin. Of course, I've always had an issue with the bench tie break, not simply now because of my current situation.

 

So, I'm proposing this solution this year and am curious about everyone's thoughts. Each team submits, in order how they want their bench players used for a tie break. Then, if needed, they are compared vs the top 10 players at that position of that week (if they are among the top 10, then they are included in that average as well). That seems like a nice way to level the playing field.

 

Now, I understand that this could be a bit of a hassle to calculate, but you only need to do the hard part in the event of a tie anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are proposing a solution right now for the upcoming playoffs, which begin in two weeks? :wacko:

 

if this has been an issue over the history of the league, why on earth did you guys wait until now to think about solutions?

 

I don't think you can institue any kind of new rule at this point. You need to go by what was last done when a tie happened (prior precedent), and then make sure you install a new rule next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, this year I was finally able to get my league to agree upon decimal scoring so this might become a non-issue. However, prior to this year, we had a number of tie games in play-offs over the years. The first few times, we were caught off guard so had to require both teams to submit a line-up the next week and pick every game vs the spread with Monday Night's point total as a secondary tie break. Then, whomever got the most games right would be the finalist.

 

Then we simply started requiring everyone to pick all the games of the week in the semis to be more proactive.

 

My rationale was that I have a fundamental problem with bench points being a good tie break, especially if you can prioritize the order of the players on your bench to settle the tie. Quite simply, some positions score more than others. QBs, for instance, dominate the top 20 of our top scorers for the season. Thus, if one team's best back-up is a QB and another team's is a WR, the second team is at a disadvantage.

 

This is, btw, very much the case in our league. One guy has McNabb and Rodgers as his QBs. I, on the other hand, am totally stacked at WR. Over the course of the season, neither has been an advantage over the other, and it seems like the play-offs would be an odd place for that to begin. Of course, I've always had an issue with the bench tie break, not simply now because of my current situation.

 

So, I'm proposing this solution this year and am curious about everyone's thoughts. Each team submits, in order how they want their bench players used for a tie break. Then, if needed, they are compared vs the top 10 players at that position of that week (if they are among the top 10, then they are included in that average as well). That seems like a nice way to level the playing field.

 

Now, I understand that this could be a bit of a hassle to calculate, but you only need to do the hard part in the event of a tie anyway.

they are on your bench for a reason, IMO bench players have no place in deciding who wins a game...if it is for the SB going to total points scored for the year would be a better tie breaker, imo but then again I see no reason why if you are using decimal scoring that if teams tie they just tie and split the pot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are proposing a solution right now for the upcoming playoffs, which begin in two weeks? :wacko:

 

if this has been an issue over the history of the league, why on earth did you guys wait until now to think about solutions?

 

I don't think you can institue any kind of new rule at this point. You need to go by what was last done when a tie happened (prior precedent), and then make sure you install a new rule next year.

It's not really as shocking as you might think. For starters, given the decimal scoring, the likelihood of a tie is very, very small. Because bench scoring has never counted anyway, it's not like anyone is loading up on QBs to give themselves more options to exploit what appears to be the most common tie break system used.

 

So, what I'm proposing is a manner to reward deeper teams in the play-offs. Frankly, it was just an idea that I had the other day and wanted to throw it out. One that, I'm sure will be met with the same knee-jerk reaction I got from you.

 

My league has members who, like you, are averse to any rule changes mid year regardless of whether they make sense or are fair. They'd rather argue some theoretical reason why they would have done something differently (even that likely wouldn't have happened) than agree to something that would improve the league. It's as if that would be a watershed moment and that it would be a precedent for changing how many points we get for passing TDs or something. Me, on the other hand? I'd prefer to look at each instance as it comes up. Would I really have done anything different had I known this rule was going to be in place? If so, I vote against the rule. If not, then I have no problem. Provided, of course, that I like the proposed rule and would have voted in favor of it at the beginning of the season.

 

This would seem like such a case. I'm trying to go into the play-offs with the best team I can. Ideally with the most depth at those positions I am weakest at in terms of starters. In other words, I want to put a team together that is most likely to win me the game outright regardless of the tie-break system. However, I'd just as soon as the tie break mirror actual fantasy football and not bring something else in. From what I can tell, what I'm proposing accomplishes this better than other ideas I've heard.

 

None the less. I'm actually less interested in hearing how you feel about rule changes mid season and more interested in what you think about the tie-break format. Like other leagues, this sort of thing would have to be unanimous to pass. However, if everyone is cool with it, then it should be of no concern to you how many rules we change.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they are on your bench for a reason, IMO bench players have no place in deciding who wins a game...if it is for the SB going to total points scored for the year would be a better tie breaker, imo but then again I see no reason why if you are using decimal scoring that if teams tie they just tie and split the pot

This isn't about the SB. This is about the semis. How does your league deal with ties in the semi-finals? I mean, only one team can advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't about the SB. This is about the semis. How does your league deal with ties in the semi-finals? I mean, only one team can advance.

 

 

Our league uses QBs points as the first tie breaker and then it just goes down the lineup from there if they are tied. Not the best solution but what else could you do? With decimal scoring you should be all set as it is very very hard to tie.

 

IMO I don't like the bench points idea as in my league we have to pay for transactiosn. I would hate to waste money building up my bench in case of a tie. At some ponts in the season there are weeks where my bench gets me zero points because none of the guys are playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This won't work with decimal scoring, but we used to give the higher seed .5 pts as a "home field advantage" before we started using decimals. But now in case of a tie (in playoffs only), the higher seed is awarded the victory. Our league sees it as the reward for being the higher seed. Might not be the fairest way, but it is what we agreed on in our league. We have never had to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our league uses QBs points as the first tie breaker and then it just goes down the lineup from there if they are tied. Not the best solution but what else could you do?

Well, for instance, you could implement a weighted system like I'm proposing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'd rather argue

So there are a lot of Huddler's in your league... :wacko:

 

Decimal scoring is something I'm going to try to institute in all my leagues next year. The chance of a tie with decimal scoring has to be pretty small. You could probably go to something like average (non QB) bench score and make that the tie breaker. It'd almost never be used and keeps it simple (I'm not a big complicated math fan...I went to public school).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My league has members who, like you, are averse to any rule changes mid year regardless of whether they make sense or are fair. They'd rather argue some theoretical reason why they would have done something differently (even that likely wouldn't have happened) than agree to something that would improve the league. It's as if that would be a watershed moment and that it would be a precedent for changing how many points we get for passing TDs or something.

 

None the less. I'm actually less interested in hearing how you feel about rule changes mid season and more interested in what you think about the tie-break format. Like other leagues, this sort of thing would have to be unanimous to pass. However, if everyone is cool with it, then it should be of no concern to you how many rules we change.

 

If all you were looking for was feedback on the tiebreaker, why all the rhetoric on what had been done in the past?

 

Why not just post "This is our tiebreak rule...what do you guys think?" Seems you posted a bunch of worthless reading material if all you were interested in was feedback on the rule itself.

 

And not once did I post that I was averse to a rule-change mid-season if every league member was in agreement. I was more shocked that a league would not have their playoff tiebreakers in-place before the season started.

 

The tie-break format you propose isn't bad, but it puts the fate of your league in the hands of players that are not even on your roster, which seems odd at first glance. If there happens to be snow/bad weather in a lot of cities, and many teams stats drop, and you happen to have an average bench WR who posts decent stats playing in a dome, you are going to get artificially rewarded for his "Top-10" performance. Similarly, if your opponent, by a scheduling fluke, has his back-up QBs playing in warm weather/dome, and your back-up is Trent Edwards playing outdoors in a blizzard in Buffalo, you'd be at a significant disadvantage.

 

I never liked back-ups deciding tiebreakers for this reason. I trade my depth in Weeks 10-13 to put the best starting team in my line-up. I look at their schedules, where they are playing, who they are playing, etc. Once the bye weeks pass, back-ups have very little use, except to fill-in for injuries or to replace a started with a terrible match-up.

 

My point about instilling this rule now: if another team has traded some of its depth to get better, and now is being told that same depth could potentially determine its playoff-fate....seems a slipepry slope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all you were looking for was feedback on the tiebreaker, why all the rhetoric on what had been done in the past?

 

Why not just post "This is our tiebreak rule...what do you guys think?" Seems you posted a bunch of worthless reading material if all you were interested in was feedback on the rule itself.

 

And not once did I post that I was averse to a rule-change mid-season if every league member was in agreement. I was more shocked that a league would not have their playoff tiebreakers in-place before the season started.

 

The tie-break format you propose isn't bad, but it puts the fate of your league in the hands of players that are not even on your roster, which seems odd at first glance. If there happens to be snow/bad weather in a lot of cities, and many teams stats drop, and you happen to have an average bench WR who posts decent stats playing in a dome, you are going to get artificially rewarded for his "Top-10" performance. Similarly, if your opponent, by a scheduling fluke, has his back-up QBs playing in warm weather/dome, and your back-up is Trent Edwards playing outdoors in a blizzard in Buffalo, you'd be at a significant disadvantage.

 

I never liked back-ups deciding tiebreakers for this reason. I trade my depth in Weeks 10-13 to put the best starting team in my line-up. I look at their schedules, where they are playing, who they are playing, etc. Once the bye weeks pass, back-ups have very little use, except to fill-in for injuries or to replace a started with a terrible match-up.

 

My point about instilling this rule now: if another team has traded some of its depth to get better, and now is being told that same depth could potentially determine its playoff-fate....seems a slipepry slope.

You actually did. I said I was simply proposing a new rule and you're entire post was talking about how we shouldn't institute anything new right now. That sort of implies that I shouldn't even be bringing this up.

 

The only reason in bothering to mention the old rule was to illustrate that I've never liked it much.

 

And no, it's not a slippery slope because if a player who'd managed his team in a manner that he feels this would adversely effect could simply vote no. End of that story. Oh, and BTW, even if I knew bench scoring was a factor, I would trade away my depth for better starters in a heartbeat. The last thing I'd want to do is undermine my chances to win outright in favor of having a better chance to win the tie-break.

 

To be honest, what I'm gathering from this thread is that less people than I thought use Bench scoring as a tie break. I thought my league was in the minority for not using it in the past. Further, I'm surprised to see that some just award the higher seed the win in the event of a tie.

 

Just curious. What do you do in your league?

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't about the SB. This is about the semis. How does your league deal with ties in the semi-finals? I mean, only one team can advance.

An advantage of .5 will be given to the home team to determine the winner. Home team is determined as the higher seeded team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious. What do you do in your league?

 

Our tie-break is total points scored through the whole season. The thinking: the best team throughout the entire season is awarded the title. Not sure there aren't better ways, but everyone (in our league,a nyway) has no problem with the idea that the (1) the team that scores the most points through the regular season is likley the best team (best personell and best managed), and thus, (2)n anyone who plays them in a playoff match-up has to beat them to get the crown.

 

We also use 2-place decimal scoring (each yard passed is worth .04 points), so the liklihood of a tie is rare. In fact, we have had just one tie in 18 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An advantage of .5 will be given to the home team to determine the winner. Home team is determined as the higher seeded team.

 

 

Our tie-break is total points scored through the whole season. The thinking: the best team throughout the entire season is awarded the title. Not sure there aren't better ways, but everyone (in our league,a nyway) has no problem with the idea that the (1) the team that scores the most points through the regular season is likley the best team (best personell and best managed), and thus, (2)n anyone who plays them in a playoff match-up has to beat them to get the crown.

 

We also use 2-place decimal scoring (each yard passed is worth .04 points), so the liklihood of a tie is rare. In fact, we have had just one tie in 18 years.

I suppose I feel that the last way I would want a tie decided in the play-offs is to bring up anything that happened in any week other than that one. I understand that the intention is to give the higher seeds the same sort of advantage that real NFL teams get but real NFL teams still need to do something better than the other team on that specific day to advance. At no point do they just award the higher seed the game.

 

None the less, I certainly understand the aversion to bench scoring and that, along with the bit I mentioned above about it rewarding those whose best back up is a QB, has been one of the issues preventing us from using that. None the less, I can't imagine going to a system where one team enters the week knowing he's at an automatic disadvantage. Of course, as has been mentioned, this is not likely to come up now that we've gone to decimals (the same, btw, that swami uses). However, in one league, in just this first year of using decimals, we've had 6 games decided by less than 1 pt and 2 decided by less than 1/10th of a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just did a quick look at five 16 team leagues all play records...that would be a total of 6,600 games played thru 11 weeks and out of those 6,600 games there was a total of 6 ties.

 

edit: all are decimal scoring (two places)

Edited by keggerz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like using bench points either. I absolutely do not believe an owner should be rewarded if he made a bad decision and benched a player that he should have started. So we have attempted to implement a system where the tie can be broken using the players each owner selected to start:

 

FIRST TIE-BREAKER

Head to Head comparison of the top player from each team in each position excluding the kicker (QB, RB, WR, TE, DF). The team with the higher scoring player (in the tied playoff game) in more of the positions WINS the tie-breaker. If no positions are tied it takes 3 to win, if 1 position is tied it takes 2 to win, if 2 positions are tied it only takes 1 to win.

 

SECOND TIE-BREAKER

The team whose kicker scored the most points LOSES the tie-breaker.

 

THIRD TIE-BREAKER

The team whose starting players scored the most actual touchdowns WINS the tie-breaker.

 

FOURTH TIE-BREAKER

Starting lineup “Efficiency Rating” as posted by the MFL website in the “Weekly Results” report for the game in question and the owners involved. The highest efficiency rating WINS the tie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like using bench points either. I absolutely do not believe an owner should be rewarded if he made a bad decision and benched a player that he should have started. So we have attempted to implement a system where the tie can be broken using the players each owner selected to start:

 

FIRST TIE-BREAKER

Head to Head comparison of the top player from each team in each position excluding the kicker (QB, RB, WR, TE, DF). The team with the higher scoring player (in the tied playoff game) in more of the positions WINS the tie-breaker. If no positions are tied it takes 3 to win, if 1 position is tied it takes 2 to win, if 2 positions are tied it only takes 1 to win.

 

SECOND TIE-BREAKER

The team whose kicker scored the most points LOSES the tie-breaker.

 

THIRD TIE-BREAKER

The team whose starting players scored the most actual touchdowns WINS the tie-breaker.

 

FOURTH TIE-BREAKER

Starting lineup “Efficiency Rating” as posted by the MFL website in the “Weekly Results” report for the game in question and the owners involved. The highest efficiency rating WINS the tie.

Well, the first thing is that the guy with the better bench is not being rewarded for making a bad start. Had he started the right player, he wouldn't even be in a tie break. So, it is hardly in his best interest to start the wrong guy.

 

Further, who's to say that his bench players out scored the other because he made bad starts? Maybe he's just loaded. Hell, it was the source of some bragging rights for me last week that, when MFL did the weekly start/bench analysis that I shouldn't have started T Jones because he "only" got me 17.9 pts. and one of my bench players out-scored him. I mean, should I have been pissed that I didn't start Peyton Hillis or just talk smack to my opponent that, not only did I beat his ass but that I did so despite only getting a measly 100+yds and a TD from Jones.

 

I like your bit about excluding the kicker bit. Perhaps more than I like the first tiebreaker you use.

 

Lastly, I would argue that, considering neither team's starters out-performed the other, rewarding the guy who milked those starting line-up points out of the worst team (ie: had the highest efficiency rating) is perhaps not the one that should be rewarded with the win. Of course, if you use decimal scoring, you're almost never going to make the first tie break, let alone the 4th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the first thing is that the guy with the better bench is not being rewarded for making a bad start. Had he started the right player, he wouldn't even be in a tie break. So, it is hardly in his best interest to start the wrong guy.

 

Further, who's to say that his bench players out scored the other because he made bad starts? Maybe he's just loaded. Hell, it was the source of some bragging rights for me last week that, when MFL did the weekly start/bench analysis that I shouldn't have started T Jones because he "only" got me 17.9 pts. and one of my bench players out-scored him. I mean, should I have been pissed that I didn't start Peyton Hillis or just talk smack to my opponent that, not only did I beat his ass but that I did so despite only getting a measly 100+yds and a TD from Jones.

 

I like your bit about excluding the kicker bit. Perhaps more than I like the first tiebreaker you use.

 

Lastly, I would argue that, considering neither team's starters out-performed the other, rewarding the guy who milked those starting line-up points out of the worst team (ie: had the highest efficiency rating) is perhaps not the one that should be rewarded with the win. Of course, if you use decimal scoring, you're almost never going to make the first tie break, let alone the 4th.

 

I agree the efficiency one is a tricky one. I have argued with the league that there are a number of reasons why the efficiency rating is probably not a good tie-breaker. The point I always raise is that a team that has a poor bench is rewarded ... if your team suffered some injuries and you have players on your bench that score zeroes your efficiency rating improves. But I don't fight too hard because we DO have decimal scoring and the likelihood of ever getting to a tie let alone the 4th tie-breaker is pretty slim.

 

Clearly nobody intentionally sits a player on their bench for the purposes of having a strong bench player for tie-breakers. So yes if the owner had made the right call he wouldn't be tied ... but I don't see how a tie-breaker should be implemented the allows him to survive his bad starting decision. Certainly there are cases where owners have depth and leaving the higher scoring player wasn't necessarily a bad decision (seems like I've been doing this all year in my local). Our first tie-breaker is intended to reward the team that had the most balanced performance; i.e. his team performed strongly across all positions and did not rely on the performance of 1 stud.

 

I also like the 2nd tie-breaker ... IMO kicking is where the most luck is involved ... so we account for that by eliminating that position in this tie-breaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the efficiency one is a tricky one. I have argued with the league that there are a number of reasons why the efficiency rating is probably not a good tie-breaker. The point I always raise is that a team that has a poor bench is rewarded ... if your team suffered some injuries and you have players on your bench that score zeroes your efficiency rating improves. But I don't fight too hard because we DO have decimal scoring and the likelihood of ever getting to a tie let alone the 4th tie-breaker is pretty slim.

 

Clearly nobody intentionally sits a player on their bench for the purposes of having a strong bench player for tie-breakers. So yes if the owner had made the right call he wouldn't be tied ... but I don't see how a tie-breaker should be implemented the allows him to survive his bad starting decision. Certainly there are cases where owners have depth and leaving the higher scoring player wasn't necessarily a bad decision (seems like I've been doing this all year in my local). Our first tie-breaker is intended to reward the team that had the most balanced performance; i.e. his team performed strongly across all positions and did not rely on the performance of 1 stud.

 

I also like the 2nd tie-breaker ... IMO kicking is where the most luck is involved ... so we account for that by eliminating that position in this tie-breaker.

Perhaps I either misread your 1st one or you weren't clear enough. I took from it that you go down the list comparing the highest individual scorers and the guy with the highest wins. That wouldn't reward the most balanced team. Perhaps you said that to take away the highest scorer from each team and then compare the total team points. That would seem to make more sense. Is that the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I either misread your 1st one or you weren't clear enough. I took from it that you go down the list comparing the highest individual scorers and the guy with the highest wins. That wouldn't reward the most balanced team. Perhaps you said that to take away the highest scorer from each team and then compare the total team points. That would seem to make more sense. Is that the case?

 

The team with the higher scoring QB gets 1 point

The team with the higher scoring RB gets 1 point

The team with the higher scoring WR gets 1 point

The team with the higher scoring TE gets 1 point

The team with the higher scoring DF gets 1 point

 

Team A

QB - 10

RB1 - 10

RB2 - 50

WR1 - 8

WR2 - 8

WR3 - 15

TE - 5

PK - 3

DF - 5

 

Total score = 114

 

Team B

QB - 15

RB1 - 20

RB2 - 15

WR1 - 20

WR2 - 10

WR3 - 10

TE - 10

PK - 11

DF - 3

 

Total score = 114

 

Team B has the higher scoring QB ... +1 for Team B

Team A has the higher scoring RB ... +1 for Team A

Team B has the higher scoring WR ... +1 for Team B

Team B has the higher scoring TE ... +1 for Team B

Team A has the higher scoring DF .. +1 for Team A

 

Team B wins the tie-breaker 3 - 2 because Team B had a more balanced attack

 

Change the numbers a little bit:

 

Team A

QB - 10

RB1 - 10

RB2 - 50

WR1 - 8

WR2 - 8

WR3 - 15

TE - 5

PK - 3

DF - 5

 

Total score = 114

 

Team B

QB - 15

RB1 - 20

RB2 - 15

WR1 - 20

WR2 - 15

WR3 - 10

TE - 5

PK - 11

DF - 3

 

Total score = 114

 

Team B has the higher scoring QB ... +1 for Team B

Team A has the higher scoring RB ... +1 for Team A

Team B has the higher scoring WR ... +1 for Team B

TEs are the same

Team A has the higher scoring DF .. +1 for Team A

 

Team A and B are still tied.

 

Throw out the kicker scores and Team A wins.

 

 

 

Before we had flex line ups we had a tie-breaker between the two that added the points by position and compared that way: So since both teams started the same format lineup looking at the first example above:

 

Team A

QB - 10

RBs - 60

WRs - 31

TE - 5

PK - 3

DF - 5

 

Team B

QB - 15

RBs - 35

WRs - 40

TE - 10

PK - 11

DF - 3

 

Team B has the higher scoring QB ... +1 to Team B

Team A has the higher scoring RBs ... +1 to Team A

Team B has the higher scoring WRs ... +1 to Team B

Team B has the higher scoring TE .. +1 to Team B

Team A has the higher scoring DF ... +1 to Team A

 

In this case it gives the same results as the first tie breaker ... if team A had one more stronger WR (take 10 points from RB1 and add to WR2) it would have swung the other way ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't about the SB. This is about the semis. How does your league deal with ties in the semi-finals? I mean, only one team can advance.

 

Edit: Sorry I misunderstood the context of the post. Reply deleted.

Edited by tazinib1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simplest rule is the best rule. This is what we do too. Higher seed wins in the event of a tie.

 

This rule would PISS me off. Who cares if he is the higher seed? If I was clawing and scratching the entire year to get a wild card spot then tied, but lost to a HIGHER SEED because of a tie? Sorry but that rule just doesn't fly with me. Not sure how to resolve the playoff tie-breaker but this definitely is not the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in 3 leagues that do the following:

 

Each week there is a HOME team and that team gets to designate any player NOT in his starting lineup as his HOME TOWN ADVANTAGE player. If he picks a QB and his bench QB outscores his starting QB, he gets the benched QB's points. Now only the team that is HOME that week gets this advantage. To break ties in decimal scoring leagues (very rare but they do happen), you pick a tie-breaker player NOT in your lineup (both teams get to do this).

 

I didn't read this entire thread so not sure if this even helps.

Now that's a cool way to work in the advantage for the higher seed. Again, I really can't get on board with just handing them the victory but this is a cool way to address it. Hell, for those who have a problem with the bench, you could give the home team the choice of which starting player he wants to be his "stud" player. QB, Highest scoring RB, Second highest RB, highest scoring WR, second highest WR, Flex, TE, K, or D. In the event of a tie, you compare those two guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information