Login

Kid · 12-15-2009, 10:10 AM

QUOTE (BT @ Dec 15 2009, 12:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid @ Dec 14 2009, 11:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>5-6 & 8 advanced.

The screen I am looking at shows 7 over 2 as well, but I guess that wasn't the updated score.

QUOTE Here's my problem, BT, with your position. It seems to be entirely tied to the way your team finished this season.

Kid, I'll say 2 things. one, every single rule change I have suggested is EXACTLY how we do it in every other league I am in. 3, every single rule change won't change the fact I am out of the playoffs, and out of the money, since none of the rule changes will be applied to this year. So unless you are suggesting we are all going to have the same teams that perform the exact same way a year from now, why the fuck would you accuse me of acting only in my self interest? It can't possibly help me this year. I have just as much chance of finishing in 7th place next year and not making the playoffs as I do of winning. I have just as much chance of winning the Super Bowl next year and not making as much money as I could have due to rule changes as anyone else does.

QUOTE These rules were posted 4 or 5 months ago, and I don't recall your complaining. You joked about losing in the first round, but never said anything even then. It's only now that your team has gone out in the first round that you've raised it as a problem.

Yeah, except when I said before Thanksgiving that while I understood we can't change it for this year, the format sucks. Or had my team already lost in the first round on November 20? I find this whole thing fairly offensive. If you want to start throwing around accusations about this, if you are going to accuse me of doing anything other than offering my two cents like everyone else, at least get your facts straight. Everything I have said I would say if I was in last place, because AGAIN, that is how I've done it in every league I've played in. And that is exactly where I could be if and when these changes go through NEXT year. I'm not saying that is how we have to do it, but I should be allowed to offer my opinion, regardless of where I finished or regardless of how my team did in the playoffs.
</div>
Cool your jets. I wasn't accusing you of trying to rig anything to help yourself this year or anything untoward. If that's how it came across, I apologize for that inference, it's not what I meant. What I meant was that I thought you were being reactionary based upon how things went for your team. Yes, you did propose changing the format weeks ago, but all you proposed was dropping down to a 6-team playoff format. That's the kind of moderate change that there appears to be a consensus for. The problem, as I see it, is that while your team was getting bounced in the first round and after your team was bounced, you shifted from that kind of moderate change to a blow-up-the-system change. I think you're being reactionary, that's all.

BT · 12-15-2009, 10:52 AM

QUOTE (Kid @ Dec 15 2009, 08:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 15 2009, 12:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid @ Dec 14 2009, 11:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>5-6 & 8 advanced.

The screen I am looking at shows 7 over 2 as well, but I guess that wasn't the updated score.

QUOTE Here's my problem, BT, with your position. It seems to be entirely tied to the way your team finished this season.

Kid, I'll say 2 things. one, every single rule change I have suggested is EXACTLY how we do it in every other league I am in. 3, every single rule change won't change the fact I am out of the playoffs, and out of the money, since none of the rule changes will be applied to this year. So unless you are suggesting we are all going to have the same teams that perform the exact same way a year from now, why the fuck would you accuse me of acting only in my self interest? It can't possibly help me this year. I have just as much chance of finishing in 7th place next year and not making the playoffs as I do of winning. I have just as much chance of winning the Super Bowl next year and not making as much money as I could have due to rule changes as anyone else does.

QUOTE These rules were posted 4 or 5 months ago, and I don't recall your complaining. You joked about losing in the first round, but never said anything even then. It's only now that your team has gone out in the first round that you've raised it as a problem.

Yeah, except when I said before Thanksgiving that while I understood we can't change it for this year, the format sucks. Or had my team already lost in the first round on November 20? I find this whole thing fairly offensive. If you want to start throwing around accusations about this, if you are going to accuse me of doing anything other than offering my two cents like everyone else, at least get your facts straight. Everything I have said I would say if I was in last place, because AGAIN, that is how I've done it in every league I've played in. And that is exactly where I could be if and when these changes go through NEXT year. I'm not saying that is how we have to do it, but I should be allowed to offer my opinion, regardless of where I finished or regardless of how my team did in the playoffs.
</div>
Cool your jets. I wasn't accusing you of trying to rig anything to help yourself this year or anything untoward. If that's how it came across, I apologize for that inference, it's not what I meant. What I meant was that I thought you were being reactionary based upon how things went for your team. Yes, you did propose changing the format weeks ago, but all you proposed was dropping down to a 6-team playoff format. That's the kind of moderate change that there appears to be a consensus for. The problem, as I see it, is that while your team was getting bounced in the first round and after your team was bounced, you shifted from that kind of moderate change to a blow-up-the-system change. I think you're being reactionary, that's all.
</div>

Again, by definition, if we go to a 6 team playoff (which everyone seems OK with) the first 2 teams HAVE to get a bye. This is not reactionary blow-up-the-system change. This isn't something I've decreed. It's math. Unless I'm missing something, it's literally the ONLY way to implement a 6 team playoff . You can't have 3 teams left after one round of playoffs. You need 4. Or two, I suppose, but I don't think people are calling for only 4 teams in the playoffs.

So the only change I have recommended that isn't fairly universally agreed on is how we pay out. I believe the team that scores the most points deserves money more than the team that makes it through an arbitrary playoff, and I've explained why (you'll notice none of my reasons are "because my team scored the most points"). I will believe this next year, whether my team finishes in first or last in points. You guys might like paying the Super Bowl winner more than the points winner. That's fine, I still think it's less fair, but if I'm in the minority we can keep it the way it is, and I won't bitch and moan about it. Either way, the system will remain exactly as it is. Nothing will be blown up.

Coldneck · 12-15-2009, 11:15 AM

BT, one clarification. If we award money to the team with the most points, what is the point of having a head to head league? I'm in favor of awarding the 1st place team some money, but that is not necessarily the team with the most points. I'm also in favor of a 6 team playoff with the top 2 getting byes.

BT · 12-15-2009, 11:50 AM

QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 15 2009, 09:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>BT, one clarification. If we award money to the team with the most points, what is the point of having a head to head league? I'm in favor of awarding the 1st place team some money, but that is not necessarily the team with the most points. I'm also in favor of a 6 team playoff with the top 2 getting byes.

I'm not saying give everything to the top point getter. In most of my leagues the top point teams share around half the money (we could obviously do less, if that's what people want). You still give money to the super bowl teams as well, which justifies the head to head winners. Again, the reasoning is that we are rewarding the "best" team. That team might not have the best record, as that is determined by luck (in 2 of the other leagues I'm in, I have the most and second most points, and didn't make the playoffs in either league). It will keep teams interested, even if they are out of the playoffs, as the point determination isn't made until the end of the year.

The first place team record wise IS rewarded with a bye, and entry to the playoffs, so they don't need anything extra. The first place team, point wise, MAY be rewarded by getting in the playoffs, or may not. But they almost certainly have the best team, which is why rewarding them seems like a no brainer. Again, in those 2 leagues I'm in, I will still be winning money assuming I stay in first place in points.

Coldneck · 12-15-2009, 11:53 AM

Gotcha. I wasn't aware that you were including the playoffs in the equation for most points. Makes sense and I like it.

Kid · 12-15-2009, 12:29 PM

I am 100% opposed to giving anywhere near half of the money based on the regular season. I think getting a first round bye, and being guaranteed to finish in the top 4 when we pay 3 spots, is more than enough of a reward. If we decided to take a <b>small</b> percentage of money and pay it based on that, I would be OK with that.

The number of instances in which the team with the most points won't finish in the top 2 and receive a first round bye is very small, and I don't think we need to do a lot to protect against that. If anything is needed, then seed the playoffs based upon standing, and give no more than 20% to the top points team (and I think 20% is high since the odds are very good that the top points team will be receiving a first round bye).

As for BT's position that the playoffs are "arbitrary," I completely disagree. Arbitrary playoffs would be if we took all the teams in the league, selected 6 at random, and seeded them randomly. The top 6 teams make the playoffs, and they get seeded based upon success, and the top 2 get first round byes. There's nothing arbitrary about that. We are rewarding regular season success. Does it mean that a high-ranked team could lose to a lower-ranked team? Yes. But that's the way sports work. Any given Sunday includes the playoffs.

BT · 12-15-2009, 02:16 PM

QUOTE The number of instances in which the team with the most points won't finish in the top 2 and receive a first round bye is very small, and I don't think we need to do a lot to protect against that.

Again, I'm in 5 leagues.

Yahoo league: 2nd place team record: 6-7
Home league: 2nd place team record: 8-5, good for THIRD place in his Division
College League: 2nd place team record: That's me, 7-7, no playoffs.
Work League: 1st place team record: 8-5, in playoffs, no bye
Friends league : 1st place team record: that's me, 6-6-1, no playoffs.

In ONE of the 5 leagues I am in, the first place point leader gets a bye. In NONE of the leagues I am in did the top 2 point leaders get a bye. So in my sample size, rather than the chance of the #1 team not getting a bye being remote, it's actually closer to 80 percent.

QUOTE As for BT's position that the playoffs are "arbitrary," I completely disagree. Arbitrary playoffs would be if we took all the teams in the league, selected 6 at random, and seeded them randomly.

How is that any different than what happened in our league? We came within 3 points of having the 5-8 seeds advance. That's not the very definition of arbitrary? How can you possibly argue with the term arbitrary when we were that close to every team with a sub .500 record advancing?

You are a logical guy Kid. How can you possibly not see that my team, no matter how good it was, has absolutely NO control over what the team I was playing that week did? I can't play better defense. I can't switch up plays. Real teams in real league playing real opponents can. But the Bears can't lose a game because the Giants couldn't cover DeSean Jackson on a kick return. My fantasy team can.

liner · 12-15-2009, 02:22 PM

you could have the best regular season team and then have injuries take a couple of star players, of course there's an increased chance at you losing to a lower seed but that's the way it is. i don't think in that case a team should still make close to what the team who wins the championship should get. it's bad luck, yes, but i've found in many cases that depth helps in winning in the post season and while playoffs (and the regular season), have a lot to do with luck, they also have to do with who built the right team to succeed in the regular season and made the pickups to help beyond that. a team stacked with guys whose successful NFL teams help them get more fantasy points, but with nothing behind them, are always an injury or 2 (or coaches who rest players late) away from having no resemblance to the regular season team they were. if you're going through the season and building your team, knowing when and how the playoffs for your league works, you build accordingly to win it all. of course, like i keep saying, luck may take all or some of that away in the end, but that's just how it goes and it can go that way for anyone.

liner · 12-15-2009, 02:31 PM

QUOTE (BT @ Dec 15 2009, 12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>But the Bears can't lose a game because the Giants couldn't cover DeSean Jackson on a kick return. My fantasy team can.

see, i think this is where maybe fundamental ideas about how fantasy football is or should be played are just different. i run a pretty complex (as complex as they can really be), successful, 12 team keeper league that has been going for 9 years now. i call things like this a fuck in the ass from fantasy's "scheduling gods". it happens to 1 or 2 teams almost yearly and it sucks, no doubt, but to me that's just part of the essence of a league. luck plays a big role and it can fuck anyone at any time. sometimes the same person all the time. you try and make the league as close to the NFL as possible with certain things but here's the delineation. on the other side of the token, when you realize there's no way to control what you posted above, any team can still beat any team, just like in the real NFL.

we both realize how unfair the luck aspect can be, you just think something should be done to offset it and i see it as part of fantasy football. again, i really dislike the way our league was set up this year. but i see nothing wrong with having a 6 team playoff where the bonus for having the best record is the 2 byes and let the crapshoot of the rest of the playoffs play out. but that's from my perspective which is different from yours and others

PcB · 12-15-2009, 02:36 PM

Well I was happy about beating BT, but after all of this discussion I feel bad. Like I shouldn't have set a lineup and just rolled over. My bad.

BT · 12-15-2009, 02:46 PM

QUOTE we both realize how unfair the luck aspect can be, you just think something should be done to offset it and i see it as part of fantasy football.

But that is NOT what I'm saying. I completely understand luck is a big part of fantasy football. All I am saying is that it does not seem unreasonable to reward a team for scoring more points during the season as that takes more "skill" and less luck to accomplish. If you guys want to give all of the money to the super bowl winner, fine, knock yourselves out. It's not the end of the world to me. But understand you are rewarding a team that often times accomplishes winning the super bowl by getting lucky. You are essentially rewarding luck.

And if that is how we want to do it, that's fine. Just don't tell me it's not arbitrary, because it is. Sometimes it's not, but usually it is.

I'm simply saying that giving all the money to the super bowl winner does not seem like the best way to reward the owner that put together the best team. That might not be important to you, and again, I totally understand that. If we want to emphasize the super bowl above all else, OK I'm on board. I won't bitch, especially if the majority of owners want it that way. I'll be fine if we don't give the point leader ANY money. If that is how we want to do it.

BT · 12-15-2009, 02:46 PM

QUOTE (PcB @ Dec 15 2009, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well I was happy about beating BT, but after all of this discussion I feel bad. Like I shouldn't have set a lineup and just rolled over. My bad.

You SHOULD be happy. You just shouldn't have made the playoffs. That's all.

Kid · 12-15-2009, 02:57 PM

QUOTE (BT @ Dec 15 2009, 01:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE we both realize how unfair the luck aspect can be, you just think something should be done to offset it and i see it as part of fantasy football.

But that is NOT what I'm saying. I completely understand luck is a big part of fantasy football. All I am saying is that it does not seem unreasonable to reward a team for scoring more points during the season as that takes more "skill" and less luck to accomplish. If you guys want to give all of the money to the super bowl winner, fine, knock yourselves out. It's not the end of the world to me. But understand you are rewarding a team that often times accomplishes winning the super bowl by getting lucky. You are essentially rewarding luck.

And if that is how we want to do it, that's fine. Just don't tell me it's not arbitrary, because it is. Sometimes it's not, but usually it is.

I'm simply saying that giving all the money to the super bowl winner does not seem like the best way to reward the owner that put together the best team. That might not be important to you, and again, I totally understand that. If we want to emphasize the super bowl above all else, OK I'm on board. I won't bitch, especially if the majority of owners want it that way. I'll be fine if we don't give the point leader ANY money. If that is how we want to do it.
</div>
If there was no relationship between regular season success and playoff success, I think you'd have a better point than you do. But again, finish in the top 2, and not only do you get a bye to the final 4, but your playoff seeding is extremely likely to be favorable. There is usually an extremely high correlation between points and wins. That means that a higher seed should be favored to win against a lower seed. Drafting a better team --> more points/better record --> higher seeding --> likely to defeat lower seeded opponent --> more likely to win playoffs. That's how the playoffs aren't arbitrary -- or at least they won't be if we organize them in such a way to give significant advantages based on regular season results. Our playoffs would be no more arbitrary than the NFL's.

Can shit happen? Yes. You keep disregarding the analogy to real sports, but I think it's quite apt. Upsets happen. There are no guarantees.

bz · 12-16-2009, 03:35 PM

Any given Sunday, BT.

cigar · 12-20-2009, 05:05 PM

Well I may have a fuckup that could come back to cost me. I meant to start the Philly defense instead of the Titans today and forgot to hit submit on my changes. Oops.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me