keggerz Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 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. so what you are saying is that the rules dont matter? you know like say if you wanted to review a non-re-viewable play...like say if a FG was good or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCMB Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I agree with those that don't like using Bench Points as a tie-breaker - it's not about having the best Bench, but the best Starting Line-up!!! I think all leagues should use decimal scoring, and in the unlikely event of a tie - I think my league uses Most TD's by Starters, with Total Yardage by Starters as the tie-breaker after that. Seems pretty fair. But sucks that you don't have this in place to begin with!!! I guess the coin-flip is always fair, or have your ruling committee agree on some kind of "game of skill" involving tonight's game for all the marbles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinys_hawks Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 While it would be lame... I would just have to learn to live with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 While it would be lame... I would just have to learn to live with it. POST YOUR DAMN RULES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 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. umm you might want to go back and re-read the thread...that was me that said that...Grits wants to just add in a coin flip and ignore the rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef 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? I agree here. There are a number of reasons why bench points shouldn't be used. For starters, most leagues I've played in did not have set back-ups so some guys may have an extra WR, others may have an extra QB. Of course, QBs score more points. However, if you've got Brady or Manning, etc. then back-up QB isn't as important. Perhaps you have iffy WRs and, thus, have chosen to carry more depth there. Why should the fact that your opponent has more back up QBs than you matter? Also, what if your starters are so good that you're better off handcuffing them with their back-up rather than using guys who start for other teams. Again, why should you be penalized for this? Because one team's RBs are all so mediocre that he's using quantity/match-up solution as opposed to lining up LT and Addai and keeping Turner and Keith in case. Why should team A be rewarded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinys_hawks Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 Commish is saying that Home field applies here due to that the better team from the year gets home field in playoffs and it gets the nod for having a better year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Commish is saying that Home field applies here due to that the better team from the year gets home field in playoffs and it gets the nod for having a better year. POST YOUR RULES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I agree with those that don't like using Bench Points as a tie-breaker - it's not about having the best Bench, but the best Starting Line-up!!! I think all leagues should use decimal scoring, and in the unlikely event of a tie - I think my league uses Most TD's by Starters, with Total Yardage by Starters as the tie-breaker after that. Seems pretty fair. But sucks that you don't have this in place to begin with!!! I guess the coin-flip is always fair, or have your ruling committee agree on some kind of "game of skill" involving tonight's game for all the marbles. I agree. Using bench points to break ties is very lame. It should not matter how many points you left on the bench as those players are NOT in your starting lineup. And the thought that you are rewarded for making a bad decision, like benching Fred Taylor for Kevin Jones, wins you the game because it bumped up your bench points is revolting. The whole point of FF is to start the best line up to score the most points ... not to build the best depth (although surely having depth helps fight off injuries and bad matchups). To reward a team that has the better depth seems counter to the whole idea of FF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 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. Well, the a-hole thanks you for that comment. However, putting a simple tiebreaking procedure in place is hardly "dotting every i", at least IOAO. This isn't a matter of trying to head off a "FF lawyer", it's making a league workable, which it obviously isn't in its current state. BTW - I also agree that if the rules state that the winner of each round goes forward, then neither of the tied teams go forward. I have the sneaking suspicion that this league's rules consist of little more than scoring, roster size, starting requirements, and number & seeding of playoff teams though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinys_hawks Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 I don't know how to post the rules without typing them completely out. That would take just too long. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinys_hawks Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 The final rule states that the commish has the final say in all matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinys_hawks Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 That really sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 umm you might want to go back and re-read the thread...that was me that said that...Grits wants to just add in a coin flip and ignore the rules Fair enough. However, I don't actually agree with you. I was actually pointing to that as an equally lame solution as saying both should advance. Every single tie-breaker has coin-flip as the last resort so just skipping right to that is not a horrible solution. One, I feel, is vastly superior to either both or neither advancing. Once we get past the "everyone is guilty for being in a horrible league that didn't have the sense to come up with a tie-break" part of the argument, being fair to all parties seems important. The argument against decimal scoring is fair because it is retro active. The coin-flip favors nobody. Either of the two teams could have avoided that rather unsavory manner in settling had they simply won. Thus, neither has grounds to complain. On the other hand, if neither team is allowed to advance despite the fact that they tied 120-120 while the other team won 60-45, that would seem worse. As well, if they both advance and the other team is required to beat not one but two teams, that would also seem worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 The final rule states that the commish has the final say in all matters. Well, then follow the rules. If no other rules addresses this, you are at the mercy of your commish. Deal with it, man up, and win your championship outright instead of hoping someone will just hand it to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 As well, if they both advance and the other team is required to beat not one but two teams, that would also seem worse. Well that's awfully insightful of you, considering that some leagues have their whole season built around this kind of premise. I guess all All-play leagues just suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I agree. Using bench points to break ties is very lame. It should not matter how many points you left on the bench as those players are NOT in your starting lineup. And the thought that you are rewarded for making a bad decision, like benching Fred Taylor for Kevin Jones, wins you the game because it bumped up your bench points is revolting. The whole point of FF is to start the best line up to score the most points ... not to build the best depth (although surely having depth helps fight off injuries and bad matchups). To reward a team that has the better depth seems counter to the whole idea of FF. While I agree that bench scoring should not be used. It is not a reward for making bad starts. After all, had the player started his highest scoring players, he wouldn't be in the tie to begin with. I would imagine the best argument for bench scoring is that if I tie you despite not starting my best line-up and you getting all your match-ups right, my team is better than yours. Once again, I feel there is more wrong than right with that tie-breaker, but not for the reasons you give. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinys_hawks Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 I never said that I didn't want to win it out right and have it handed to me. I just asked how do you guys deal with it so that we can try to incorporate it into our rules for next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 HEADS! no, TAILS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Well that's awfully insightful of you, considering that some leagues have their whole season built around this kind of premise. I guess all All-play leagues just suck. Please, tell me you're not being serious here. There's a huge difference between a league where every single week, everyone plays everyone and a situation where every week has been head to head, one team wins their semi outright and yet is deprived a 50-50 chance to win the championship. I guess I'm just trying to find a solution where nobody feels cheated rather than using this as an excuse to be a d!ck. There's one team who did what he needed to do for a head to head shot at the money and that's the team who won the semi-final game. He deserves no more, no less. Thus, the guys need to step up, be adults about this, and figure out a fair way to put one team and one team only in the finals against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I never said that I didn't want to win it out right and have it handed to me. I just asked how do you guys deal with it so that we can try to incorporate it into our rules for next year. This is ours for playoff games: The tie-breaking system between two teams in any game shall be determined by each team's bench scoring. Each team's 5 highest scoring active bench players shall be compared and there shall be at most one player from any position in the tiebreaking group. The team with the higher cumulative bench scoring will be declared the winner of the playoff game. The highest scoring bench players shall be determined by simple inspection of each team's bench. This is for a 14 team IDP league with complicated decimal scoring. For a team D league, you could go to 3 positions and then a coin flip if it is still tied. Theoretically, the better team wins, either by not starting its best players, where the bench will score better because some of those guys should have started, or by being deeper and carrying more talent overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 While I agree that bench scoring should not be used. It is not a reward for making bad starts. After all, had the player started his highest scoring players, he wouldn't be in the tie to begin with. I would imagine the best argument for bench scoring is that if I tie you despite not starting my best line-up and you getting all your match-ups right, my team is better than yours. Once again, I feel there is more wrong than right with that tie-breaker, but not for the reasons you give. But he made a BAD decision and now as a result of making a BAD decision (to play KJ) the points he left on the bench bails him out. Or how about the team that has 3 defenses on his squad ... say SD, NYJ and TB this week. He can only ever start one defense each week. This week he starts the right defense, TB. His opponent has only 1 defense, NE. They end up tied. Right now in my local SD is the 3rd highest scorer of the week, the Jets 57th. Why should he get to count those points he could NEVER start under any scenario? Or say he started the wrong defense and went with SD. Why should he get credit for having left TB on his bench? Or how about the team that has 3 QBs on his team ... say Tom Brady, Cleo Lemon and Kurt Warner. Starts Tom Brady but gets to reap the rewards of Kurt Warner and Cleo Lemon whom he could NEVER start? No the whole idea of breaking ties with bench points stinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I guess I'm just trying to find a solution where nobody feels cheated rather than using this as an excuse to be a d!ck. Apparently as opposed to me, who is using this an an excuse to be a dick (you can say "dick" here). Thanks again. For being such a self professed fair & balanced person, you sure don't have a very high level of tolerance, do you? And I would argue that there is no feasible solution here where someone wouldn't feel slighted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 No the whole idea of breaking ties with bench points stinks. wow, I actually agree with Grits here... our tiebreaker in my local is before the game you pick two players from your starting line-up that will become your tie-breakers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Flip a coin, the winner advances. The winner and loser of the coin flip split the winnings from here on out. 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.