Millbam5 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I'm in the super bowl this week and while I wouldn't do an even split, I would change what we each receive. Either way there still is a winner for bragging rights no matter if the pot is split. Last year the final 2 went 50/50. This year it's $1500 for 1st and $1000 for second. $2500 pot. We are going to make it $1300 for 1st and $1200 for 2nd. Not a bad idea and there is still something to play for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I'm in the super bowl this week and while I wouldn't do an even split, I would change what we each receive. Either way there still is a winner for bragging rights no matter if the pot is split. Last year the final 2 went 50/50. This year it's$1500 for 1st and $1000 for second. $2500 pot. We are going to make it $1300 for 1st and $1200 for 2nd. Not a bad idea and there is still something to play for. 626032[/snapback] While it may not be wrong to do what you are doing, I don't get it. Especially since the initial discrepancy between the the two prizes is not that great. If winner made 2500 and loser got jack, I totally understand why people would opt for the split option. In your guys initial set up the 500$ swing makes it serious enough to realy pull for your team while making losing acceptable. With the a mere 100$ swing it's not like you will feel the 'sting' of losing or the elation of winning in the SB since it is such a small percentage of the pot. Honestly don't see the difference in what you are proposing and an even split Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Honestly don't see the difference in what you are proposing and an even split 626048[/snapback] And if you are going to have what amounts to an even split, why bother with the playoffs and having a Super Bowl game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osmonaught Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Splits are for @$%#^(ys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I think splits need to be in the league rules. Just my opinion, but when the managers are allowed to skirt SOME rules, and not others, it opens a can of worms. Most leagues have a rule to cover everything, why not this? It just makes more sense to have it covered by rule. If splits are allowed, then say so in the rules. That way, whether or not it's ethical is covered, no arguements. That was my point in the earlier thread. Let the league decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 While it may not be wrong to do what you are doing, I don't get it. Especially since the initial discrepancy between the the two prizes is not that great. If winner made 2500 and loser got jack, I totally understand why people would opt for the split option. In your guys initial set up the 500$ swing makes it serious enough to realy pull for your team while making losing acceptable. With the a mere 100$ swing it's not like you will feel the 'sting' of losing or the elation of winning in the SB since it is such a small percentage of the pot.Honestly don't see the difference in what you are proposing and an even split 626048[/snapback] I completely concur with your astute assessment of this most ludicrous of situations. Why fight all year to get to the Super Bowl just to water down it's importance by equalizing the prize to the competitors. Yes winning gives you bragging rights but as soon as you start to brag the other guys going to say, yeah but I won nearly as much money as you so who cares. When you win the Super Bowl you brag because you have won the biggest prize. What you are suggesting reduces the biggest prize to 2 equal prizes. In the NFL they only give the Lombardi Trophy to the winner of the Super Bowl. If both teams got a Lombardi Trophy and equal money then in essence you will have reduced the Superbowl to nothing more than a victory lap for the Co-champions who will have won their respective championships the week before in their Conference Playoffs. Winning the Super Bowl is all about winnning the Biggest Prize. Have faith in your team and play it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I think splits need to be in the league rules. Just my opinion, but when the managers are allowed to skirt SOME rules, and not others, it opens a can of worms. Most leagues have a rule to cover everything, why not this? It just makes more sense to have it covered by rule. If splits are allowed, then say so in the rules. That way, whether or not it's ethical is covered, no arguements. That was my point in the earlier thread. Let the league decide. 626394[/snapback] You are really being ridiculous. Are you going to dictate how they spend their money once they get it too? Please explain what harm is done to anybody if the owners split the kitty. It is absolutely no different than if you cut a check to the SB winner, per the rules. Then cut a check to the SB loser, per the rules. Then once the owners have their checks they split the money as they previously agreed to. In this case ALL the rules have been followed. The league paid out the money as dictated. Once paid, the league has no more say in how the owners spend their money ... so if they choose to give all or part of it to another owner that is nobody's business. Now as to why the league would get involved in splitting the pot - to prevent somebody from welching on their previous agreement. I see it as a good thing that both owners seal the deal with the league treasurer ... and he can then cut the checks per the new agreed upon allocation (and he can even do it before the superbowl. This prevents one owner from trying to back out on a verbal agreement and splitting the league. I'm glad I'm not in a league with you ... seeing as you insist on taking things to literal extremes. Do you also prevent all side bets during the season because "they aren't in the rules"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 You are really being ridiculous. Are you going to dictate how they spend their money once they get it too? Please explain what harm is done to anybody if the owners split the kitty. It is absolutely no different than if you cut a check to the SB winner, per the rules. Then cut a check to the SB loser, per the rules. Then once the owners have their checks they split the money as they previously agreed to. In this case ALL the rules have been followed. The league paid out the money as dictated. Once paid, the league has no more say in how the owners spend their money ... so if they choose to give all or part of it to another owner that is nobody's business. Now as to why the league would get involved in splitting the pot - to prevent somebody from welching on their previous agreement. I see it as a good thing that both owners seal the deal with the league treasurer ... and he can then cut the checks per the new agreed upon allocation (and he can even do it before the superbowl. This prevents one owner from trying to back out on a verbal agreement and splitting the league. I'm glad I'm not in a league with you ... seeing as you insist on taking things to literal extremes. Do you also prevent all side bets during the season because "they aren't in the rules"? 626438[/snapback] I can't believe you put that stinking poll in your sig line. Where are you from? We need to hash this out in person over a couple of frosty ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 But when is the deal to split the pot made? Is it made once the two teams in the superbowl get there? Is it made between two teams prior to the season? It it made between two teams once they make the playoffs? I know everyone will say, "of course the deal isn't made until the two teams make the superbowl." but can you be always be sure? could it not make trades that seem a little suspect appear a lot more suspect? will some owners wonder if one team might not be helping another during a season by putting in a weaker line up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Grits, first of all, if two teams in my league decided on a split, I would not complain about it, or try to stop it, I just don't like it. You suggest that getting the league treasurer involved in dispensing money based on an agreed split..... see, it starts to get somewhat sticky. Unless, of course, it's an agreed upon thing. If the guys in my local wanted to do it, and add it to the rules, I would go along with it. The rules are there to prevent misunderstandings and agruements. I haven't taken the hard line that you make it seem. I prefer to head off possible probelms, like having fool proof tie breakers, clear waiver wire rules, cover as much as possible with the rules. If splits are cool, then fine, make that allowance, but get it in the rules. Knowing the guys in my local, this is a non issue, their egos would never allow for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major-tom Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 But when is the deal to split the pot made? Is it made once the two teams in the superbowl get there? Is it made between two teams prior to the season? It it made between two teams once they make the playoffs? I know everyone will say, "of course the deal isn't made until the two teams make the superbowl." but can you be always be sure? could it not make trades that seem a little suspect appear a lot more suspect? will some owners wonder if one team might not be helping another during a season by putting in a weaker line up? 626464[/snapback] Great points made here, this type of "deal making" just reeks of dirty play. Even if these lame arrangements are stated in the league rules it doesn't seem right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzarvell Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 That's why we don't play for money anymore. We play for our wives... but we had to ammend the rules because some of the owners didn't like their wives and were throwing games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 WEAK What about the glory??!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Unless my lineup was distinctively stronger than my opponents, I'm taking the split d-amn near every time. Call me a Rosie O'Donnell if you will, but I'll take the guaranteed cash. I take even money in blackjack when I hit one and the dealer's showing an ace. Money in the bank IMO. At the end of the day, my league mates know who won and who didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Gigantes Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 In one of my leagues where I made the superbowl this week, the winner gets $3500 and the loser gets zero. My opponent has the better team. If he offered a split I would suggest he grow a pair. Our matchup: (Think I have a prayer?) standard performance, heavy defense scoring (buffalo 28, 36,29 last three weeks ME Volek Dunn Emmitt Horn Burleson Shockey Kaeding Buffalo HIM CPEP Fred Taylor LT2 Kennisson Chambers Heap Stover Pats (this was my worst draft ever Fred Taylor, Barlow, Coles, AJ, Rogers in the first 5 rounds...that I made it this far is a miracle) But I would still feel dirty accepting a split. That's just not how the game is played. To each their own, I suppose, but to me it betrays the spirit of competitiveness at the heart of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitbull739 Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 What ever happened to Herm Lewis' quote, "You play to win the game!"??? If it is all about the money, then split. What do you care about the integrity of the game? If you have pride in the team that you drafted and rode all year and want to earn your title, then put it all on the line. I would not even think about splitting a pot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 That's why we don't play for money anymore. We play for our wives... but we had to ammend the rules because some of the owners didn't like their wives and were throwing games. 627006[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 In one of my leagues where I made the superbowl this week, the winner gets $3500 and the loser gets zero. My opponent has the better team. If he offered a split I would suggest he grow a pair. Our matchup: (Think I have a prayer?) standard performance, heavy defense scoring (buffalo 28, 36,29 last three weeks ME Volek Dunn Emmitt Horn Burleson Shockey Kaeding Buffalo HIM CPEP Fred Taylor LT2 Kennisson Chambers Heap Stover Pats (this was my worst draft ever Fred Taylor, Barlow, Coles, AJ, Rogers in the first 5 rounds...that I made it this far is a miracle) But I would still feel dirty accepting a split. That's just not how the game is played. To each their own, I suppose, but to me it betrays the spirit of competitiveness at the heart of the game. 627384[/snapback] I commend you on the size of your testicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PA Sire Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 The very fact that this thread exists points to the unseemly nature of splitting the pot. If there is nothing wrong with it, then why ask this community for an endorsement or approval? Because it just ain't right. It like sleeping with your sister. You just don't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Gigantes Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 The very fact that this thread exists points to the unseemly nature of splitting the pot. If there is nothing wrong with it, then why ask this community for an endorsement or approval? Because it just ain't right. It like sleeping with your sister. You just don't do it. 627675[/snapback] Unless she's really really hot, 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.