Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 13:26:24 GMT -5
Rule in Question: 14.1 a. b. d. Regular Season Tie-BreakersCurrently, regular season ties are broken with the following tie-breakers. a. Total average points of reserve players is the first regular season tie-breaker, rounded to one decimal point. Players on a bye are excluded from the calculations. b. Second tie-breaker is team with highest scoring reserve player. d. If game is still tied it is recorded as a tie.
This rule seems unfair to break a tie based on reserves because some teams hoard QB's, who traditionally score more points than other players. Furthermore, some teams choose to not fill all of their roster spots for salary cap reasons, or they simply want to have spots open for furture acquisitions, so they should not be further penalized for having a lean roster. Although, an average is determined, it still is a flawed system because the more players you have, the potential for a higher average. Tie-Breaker Revision: 14.1 a. b. d. Regular Season Tie-BreakersMy rule change proposal is very simple. Whomever is the home team gets the win. Currently, we give a 2 point home advantage to playoff teams, why not give the tie-breaker to the home team in the regular season? It seems to be that this tie-breaker lets everyone know who the tie-breaker will go to before the game starts, and is consistent with the home team advantage rule we have in place for the playoffs. Please take this rule change into consideration for the 2012 season. - Jedi Pugs
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Dec 9, 2011 20:37:11 GMT -5
read
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on Dec 13, 2011 20:10:50 GMT -5
I can barely read.
I on the other hand like the total reserve points. We all have the same opportunity to "hoard" any player at any position. How often do you say... I knew I shoulda started so-n-so, but instead you left him on your bench? Then, in those rare instances of a tie, you get to use your whole team, even the ones left on the bench. I think it should stay the same.
However on that note, I have always thought the home team should get some sort of advantage, be it 1 simple point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2011 20:15:37 GMT -5
Well, I really don't agree that it should stay the same. If you have someone on IR like I do, then that player counts against your average, which ultimately hurt me in the playoff tiebreaker. I know that we have 3 IR spots, but my IR is full, so I couldn't move any more players to IR.
Last season, Tony Romo broke his collarbone and the Cowboys never put him on IR. As a result, I had to carry around an albatross around the whole season, and have him count against me if there was tie. The same would be true for the team that has Peyton Manning. You don't drop those players.
Because we have another rule I don't agree with, which is closing free agency during the playoffs, I got my QB's backup since my QB2 Kolb is hurt. Once again, another player that is an automatic 0 to count against my player average.
If winning fantasy games is about who you pick to play, then you should pick 1 player to be your tiebreaker, and not have your whole roster's average be the deciding point. The current rule is punitive for me more than it is beneficiary.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Dec 22, 2011 4:51:09 GMT -5
Moreno was a luxury signing and it cost you to some extent. You jumped at a chance to benefit from a rule that hurt another owner with 7 guys on IR. Whether the rules change is up in the air but that zero was a calculated risk you chose.
Free agency was voted on and did not receive the minimum number of votes to count.
Any and all rules are up for discussion regardless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2011 22:03:53 GMT -5
What rule are you referring to that I jumped at that hurt another owner? Are you referring to Moreno? Moreno was dropped on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 5:47:47 p.m. ET. I didn't pick up Moreno off the waiver wire until Sun Nov 27 9:18:19 a.m. ET, which means Moreno was available for anyone for about 4 1/2 days. Obviously, no one was really interested in picking up an injured player, but then again maybe everyone else was playing smart by making sure that Moreno didn't hurt them in case they got caught in a tie.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Dec 23, 2011 0:22:04 GMT -5
Yes when I say Moreno I am referring to Moreno.
If there's a better way, we'll do it. So far one person thinks there's a better way.
I cut Moreno because I had way too many guys on IR, you signed him, fine. But you signed him knowing that was a zero for the rest of the year in this situation.
Now you are "complaining" about these unavoidable zeros in your reserves.
Obviously you wouldn't cut Romo but you hardly needed to sign another RB. One that, if I/we thought to increase the IR limits with the roster increases, I would have clearly liked to keep him at $2.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Dec 23, 2011 0:36:07 GMT -5
There is an option on MFL for owners to select a certain number of players at a certain or any position to be counted towards breaking ties.
As far as home team gets the tiebreaker. Problem with that is I don't know if the random MFL schedule always has non-divisional games being played at the same site. In other words the Pugs might always hosts Yoda and therefore Yoda would never win a tied game against the Pugs.
I'm not going to check it out either but you can if you want to push that option.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2011 10:10:37 GMT -5
Yes when I say Moreno I am referring to Moreno. If there's a better way, we'll do it. So far one person thinks there's a better way.I cut Moreno because I had way too many guys on IR, you signed him, fine. But you signed him knowing that was a zero for the rest of the year in this situation. Now you are "complaining" about these unavoidable zeros in your reserves. Obviously you wouldn't cut Romo but you hardly needed to sign another RB. One that, if I/we thought to increase the IR limits with the roster increases, I would have clearly liked to keep him at $2. We only have one person suggesting a different way, yes, that's true, but we also don't have a very regularly interactive group of owners with one another. I'm not complaining because I lost. I am suggesting an alternative and using my own team's plight this year as an example. I posted my suggestion for changing the tiebreaker rule even before I fell victim to it, and now I've expanded on it, since I have a fresh example. I always want to win, but I also think it's great for the league when we have new teams advance in the playoffs because I think the more different owners that experience success, the healthier it is for the league and will help us retain owners who are fully engaged.
|
|
|
Post by The Phantom Menace on Dec 26, 2011 12:49:07 GMT -5
Just my opinion. I think Bench points is and have always been the best way to break a tie. Every league I've been in does it this way. When a game is close I'm always looking at my bench points. It the easiest way to tell if you are going to win or lose.
I vote Bench points. It's the clearest solution.
Thanks, Menace
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2011 17:57:57 GMT -5
Just my opinion. I think Bench points is and have always been the best way to break a tie. Every league I've been in does it this way. When a game is close I'm always looking at my bench points. It the easiest way to tell if you are going to win or lose. I vote Bench points. It's the clearest solution. Thanks, Menace You're wrong.
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on Dec 27, 2011 20:39:12 GMT -5
Do you mean dan moreno>?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2011 22:11:17 GMT -5
|
|