 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 12/9/2009 2:05:28 PM |
 |
Victory points is why
|
|
|
|
| I like the concept, but not the implementation. E.g., you are 6th and get an extra win. 7th and you do not. Perhaps we rethink this for next season. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/1/2009 7:40:24 PM |
|
Playoffs
|
|
|
|
| So who is still alive and who has clinched? Has anyone run through the possible scenarios? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/1/2009 9:36:45 PM |
|
Hey Chris
|
|
|
|
| I am in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/3/2008 5:02:24 PM |
|
Never?
|
|
|
|
| After Keith does some stat corrections I should have 2 more points, making it 62 for the Flayers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/18/2008 6:33:35 PM |
|
Playoff picture
|
|
|
|
Unless I am mistaken, 3 teams (Illuminati, Idiots, Flayers) have clinched playoff spots. Vultures control their own destiny and need 1 point to clinch. Last two spots are up for grabs amongst 6 contenders (Wiseguys, Cellblock, Dutchmen, Drinking Team, Crunchies, Shockers). Ducks may have a mathematical chance if they win out (with bonus), but I have not yet run the numbers. Time Served is out.
This week's games with major playoff implications:
Shockers vs. Dutchmen - Both teams have tough matchups in week 13. Look for the loser here to be in trouble.
Wiseguys vs. Idiots - Wiseguys need to pull off the upset (or at least get a bonus point) and do the job against TS in week 13. Idiots need to keep their #1 seed.
Cellblock vs. Crunchies - Crunchies will most likely be in with a win. Cellblock needs to win to stay in the hunt and probably needs the bonus point.
Drinking Team vs. Time Served - DT needs to win (bonus would help) and hope for a loss by Dutchmen or Wiseguys to be in the driver seat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/4/2008 4:48:53 PM |
|
Victory/Defeat points
|
|
|
|
Just for kicks, I went ahead and recomputed the records using Bob's formula, where an extra win is awarded for finishing in the top six and an extra loss is given for finishing in the bottom six each week.
Here are the results:
Laggards
Flayers 15 3
Vultures 10 8*
Wiseguys 9 9
Cellblock 6 12
Sluggards
Idiots 14 4
Dutchmen 6 12*
Drinking Team 7 11
Time Served 1 17
Dawdlers
Illuminati 14 4
Crunchies 11 7
Shockers 9 9
Whiskey Ducks 6 12
*Note that all win points are the same as they are now, except for Dutchmen and Vultures. I have them tieing for 6th in weeks 4 and 7 (coincidentally both with Wiseguys) and have them losing the IDP tie-break, and hence getting a loss point instead of a win point. Currently, we have 7 victory points being handed out in weeks 4 and 7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/3/2008 11:15:50 PM |
|
Herein lies the problem
|
|
|
|
Here is another hypothetical for your consideration.
T1 is now 15-2. T2 is now 11-5.
Over the last 4 games, T1 goes 2-2 (2 wins, 0 bonus, 2 losses) and T2 goes 7-1 (3 wins, 4 bonus, 1 loss).
T1 is then 17-4 and T2 is then 18-6.
Who has the better record? Who gets the playoff spot?
Solution 1: Total wins
T2 wins 18 vs 17
Solution 2: Wins-losses
T1 wins 13 vs 12
We need to resolve this now. This will happen to 2 or more teams with high probability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/1/2008 6:03:49 PM |
|
Point system and playoffs
|
|
|
|
In our league, what is a better record: 12-3 or 11-2?
The reason I ask is that I don’t think we have addressed this in the rules, and I want to avoid any last-minute controversy when it comes time to determine the playoff teams and seedings.
Perhaps overall record should be determined by (win points) - losses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/1/2008 3:43:39 PM |
|
Trade request
|
|
|
|
| I need a DL. I am offering L.J. Smith (15th rated TE, but Q this week due to a concussion) for an LB who is starting this week and who has some points to show. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/18/2008 11:26:45 PM |
|
Flayers lineup
|
|
|
|
| I made a trade with Whiskey Ducks and cannot set my lineup due to duplicate LaDainians. Unless I change my mind before the early games tomorrow, I am staring Orton at QB and LaDainian at RB. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/24/2008 10:56:03 PM |
|
Add value to regular season?
|
|
|
|
We all know that you can dominate the regular season, yet crap out in the first round of the playoffs. I know we are trying to mimic the real league, but I think we should add some reward for all of the "hard work" of the regular season.
So, consider the following point system:
Division regular season:
1st: +2 points
Runner-up: +1 point
Overall regular season:
1st: +4 points
2nd: +3 points
3rd: +2 points
4th: +1 point
*OR*
(Wins with bonus-Losses)/4 rounded to the nearest int and capped at 0 points on the low end (no minuses). This would allow a perfect team to accrue (26-0)/4=8 points, assuming we have 13 regular season games and the team won every game with bonus. Teams with losing records would be even at 0 bonus points.
Playoffs Championship division:
Win: 3 points
Loss: 1 points
Playoffs Consolation division:
Win: 1 point
Loss: 0 points
With this formula, a dominating team could win as much as 2+4+6=12 points in one season. A very good team could win, say, 2+2/3+3+2=9/10 points. A good team could win 1+1/2+1+1=4/5 points. A fair team could win 0+0+1+1=2 points. A bad team will win at most 2 points.
I believe this would still require 6-8 years for a winner. If it takes less, then the winner is certainly deserving.
--Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/22/2008 3:19:26 PM |
|
Justin Smith
|
|
|
|
| Need scoring. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/8/2008 6:12:50 PM |
|
Time to vote?
|
|
|
|
I have read the last two posts, and I am willing to believe that this was an honest trade. I can see how one might perceive McNabb as fragile, given his recent history.
I did receive a call from the Ducks about a trade, but was not available.
I have voted to approve the trade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/7/2008 9:21:09 PM |
|
I agree with Keith's analysis
|
|
|
|
TE's probably are a wash, and this trade is not at all balanced.
The irony is that Wiseguys had Brady (out for season?) and McNabb before the questionable trade. I have a feeling that now Chris would love to have this trade overturned.
Anyone else care to chime in? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/7/2008 8:21:30 PM |
|
Hold on a sec...
|
|
|
|
Were there not two other players involved in the trade? Looks like Scheffler is a backup while Olsen's stock is rising?
We should have someone do a more in-depth analysis of this trade before calling for a vote, I think. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/2/2008 12:17:55 PM |
|
Flayers are in
|
|
|
|
| Will be ready by 7 EST. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/14/2007 12:27:59 AM |
|
Trade with Idiots
|
|
|
|
| I have 2 Sammy Morris's after the trade with the Idiots (no offense intended). I am starting both of them along with Morency. I tried to bench one of them, but it appears that they must either both start or both stay on the bench. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/4/2007 5:48:28 PM |
|
Need a backup QB
|
|
|
|
I have a few decent "backup" QBs. Let me know if you are interested in Pennington, Green, or Bulger.
I am in need of RBs and WRs.
--Dan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/17/2007 5:53:01 PM |
|
Location?
|
|
|
|
Are we on for Scott's pad? If so, directions?
--Dan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/20/2006 4:05:20 PM |
|
Turkey Vultures Aces High 06 Champions
|
|
|
|
A hearty congratulations to Scott!
Thanks for an enjoyable season. Looking forward to next year.
I will have some few suggestions for rules changes (to make trades and acquistions more fluid) in a later post.
--Dan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/12/2006 9:41:08 AM |
|
Congrats Jamie and Scott
|
|
|
|
| Should be a great final - Dutchmen vs. Vultures. Good luck! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/5/2006 10:58:09 PM |
|
Playoffs
|
|
|
|
So it looks like (the mighty) Flayers vs. Vultures and Dutchmen vs. Ducks?
Bring it on! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/4/2006 3:18:59 PM |
|
Hello out there
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/23/2006 11:55:31 AM |
|
Jason Taylor
|
|
|
|
| Needs 6 points for a TD on an interception runback. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/22/2006 2:55:29 PM |
|
+2 Home team advantage
|
|
|
|
| So are we using this or not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/10/2006 7:09:18 PM |
|
Home team advantage
|
|
|
|
| Thanks Keith. I believe we are scoring +2 for home team advantage (HTA). Thought we had decided not to use HTA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/8/2006 8:46:25 PM |
|
Jason Taylor
|
|
|
|
| Had a TD on an interception. Interception was scored but not the TD. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/2/2006 8:43:00 PM |
|
Double Oops
|
|
|
|
| I put both of my DLs on IR. Did not intend to do so for either. I am starting Jason Taylor and benching Dwight Freeney. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/26/2006 6:35:53 PM |
|
Scoring/Rosters
|
|
|
|
Looks like home field advantage is being included in the scoring. Everyone should check to make sure that their scoring (and their opponents) is accurate and notify the admin (Keith) if there appear to be any issues.
I assume Keith will fix the issue with the Thunderians getting an extra win?
Also, at least a couple of teams have more than the roster limit.
Cheers :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/11/2006 2:26:24 PM |
|
Yes (or should that be "no"?)
|
|
|
|
| Tiebreakers are in the rules. Thunderians get the win. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/21/2006 9:33:34 AM |
|
Nice one
|
|
|
|
| Shouldn't it be the "Pink Baby Unicorns". I think someone in our first year changed their name to this. Very funny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/17/2006 7:05:54 PM |
|
Starting Terry Glenn
|
|
|
|
| Starting Terry Glenn at WR for this evening's game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/9/2006 11:23:36 AM |
|
Count me in
|
|
|
|
| I am in and ready to go. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/14/2005 10:15:39 AM |
|
Week 10 - Dallas Clark
|
|
|
|
| 1 TD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/8/2005 1:46:55 PM |
|
Rules ideas
|
|
|
|
I would like to see another mandatory TE starter and a WR/TE/RB flex position and an individual defensive flex position. Perhaps return yardage points since this is the only offensive yardage category we do not score.
Maybe "continuous" yardage scoring? The thresholds we are now using seem somewhat arbitrary to me (or course, I am biased as I lost last week because my WR got 99 yards instead of 100). Maybe we keep modest bonuses for major milestones (e.g., 100 yards receiving/rushing). How about a defensive team?
BTW, had a guy in my other league lose by 1 via sack points on the Flutie fumble/sack on the last play of MNF. Hilarious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/6/2005 11:47:30 PM |
|
Somewhat bitter response from Flayers
|
|
|
|
I say bag the tiebreaker. Or perhaps we could just do a coin flip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/3/2005 6:55:06 PM |
|
Bad to worse
|
|
|
|
| Nothing like picking up a kicker on bye in FA to replace a kicker on bye. Duh. Still looking to move anyone for anyone better. Horn, Bruce, Plummer, Tiki anyone? How about a kicker on bye? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/2/2005 12:04:13 AM |
|
Tiki on the blocks
|
|
|
|
| Make your best offer. Will take first good offer so act quickly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/25/2005 9:20:47 AM |
|
Flayers lose again
|
|
|
|
| Sigh. I have 2 Jason Elams on my roster and had his score counted twice. My total should be 51 for this week. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/11/2005 5:48:41 PM |
|
Thanks. I did not know that.
|
|
|
|
| Darn. I will be bummed when the Flayers lose their playoff spot because of the total points tie-breaker. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/9/2005 3:46:14 PM |
|
Lineup change
|
|
|
|
| Can't change my lineup. Starting Leftwich over Plummer, but just because I want a player to watch in tonight's matchup. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/7/2005 4:38:53 PM |
|
Need a Kicker
|
|
|
|
| Got outbid in this week's FA and my K, Akers, is out. Will trade quid for any starting kicker. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/24/2005 6:55:17 PM |
|
Hello...hello...is this thing on?
|
|
|
|
| I think the Bengals (aka Illuminati) are going down this week to da Bearsss. BTW, I still have 2 extra Moe Williams (check my roster if you don't belive me) which I will trade for a beer. You can have all 3 for a beer and a pat on the back after the Flayers win this week. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/23/2005 8:30:46 AM |
|
Trade
|
|
|
|
| Hey, I have 3 Moe Williams on my team. I am willing to trade 2 of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/11/2005 4:41:47 PM |
|
Whoooot!
|
|
|
|
Hey, did not see the play, but it appears Jason Taylor got 10 points on one play - sack + 85 yard TD runback.
I think that must be a record. Probably will lose anyway :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/6/2005 5:19:31 PM |
|
RE Faulk
|
|
|
|
| Yep. Took him with my final pick. Thanks for picking up on that one Scott. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/31/2005 4:05:50 PM |
|
Err... Who is eligible for the draft?
|
|
|
|
Must be getting old - don't know how to prepare for the draft and forgot how it went last year. What is the best way to determine the pool of available players?
Looking forward to Saturday!
--Dan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/23/2005 9:05:56 AM |
|
Ready
|
|
|
|
| Let's get it on! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/14/2004 11:12:42 AM |
|
Dang
|
|
|
|
| Good luck in the playoffs Rogues, Slashers, Ducks, and Vultures! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/13/2004 6:47:56 PM |
|
Flayers on the bubble
|
|
|
|
| Looks like the Flayers are out unless the Dutchmen hold off the Rogues or the Slashers rally to beat the Vultures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/8/2004 7:21:37 PM |
|
Standings
|
|
|
|
| Keith, can you fix the standings. Also, although it seems a foregone conclusion, Slashers have not yet clinched. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/3/2004 8:44:42 PM |
|
This league is awesome
|
|
|
|
Wow! 6 out of 10 teams still in the hunt (sorry Incident but you are toast). I am playing Sportsline and Yahoo as well this year and they don't come close to the fun I've had with this dynasty league. Great job Keith and thanks for all of your hard work.
Got a feeling that this might come down to tie-breakers for the final slot(s). Guess I better win at least one since the first tie-breaker is total points.
Good luck to all (except the Incident and Illuminati).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/30/2004 7:26:18 PM |
|
RE: Gotcha
|
|
|
|
Green lettering threw me too. I thought I had clinched a playoff spot until I checked out the rules. Overall records within the division determine the top 2 seeds. Record against other teams in the same division record is irrelevant.
Looks like it will be a very exciting playoff run this year. Any 4 of six teams has a good chance of making the playoffs. The Incident is alive mathematically, but needs a miracle to make the top 4. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/30/2004 6:54:06 PM |
|
Flayers have not clinched
|
|
|
|
According to our rules page:
"The winners of each division, determined by the overall records within the division (and not merely the division record), get the top 2 seeds in the playoffs and home-field advantage in the first round. The two teams with the next best overall W-L records get the final two playoff spots. #4 faces #1, #3 faces #2."
Rogues and Flayers are in the running for the Jaworski division title. Flayers could finish 8-6 and not make the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/17/2004 8:34:21 PM |
|
One more thing and I'm out for now...
|
|
|
|
| Proposing, discussing/arguing, and rejecting/implementing rules changes is very much in line with how the NFL and its owners operate :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/17/2004 8:25:26 PM |
|
Very interesting discussion...
|
|
|
|
Very good arguments on both sides, in my opinion. I do not believe that there is a concerted "movement" to change the rules, and I also do not think that our current system has any serious flaws. On the other hand, I think we need to consider that we might want to have some minor rules changes here and there to increase player movement and overall fun. I would especially like to see more active trading. Up until a few weeks ago the main source of movement on rosters has been via free agency, and usually just to fill a hole due to starters being on Bye. Can anyone name a player picked up on FA that is now a regular starter and top 10 performer? I think player movement is good for the league and it has been fun to see some big trades go down recently.
So perhaps the point here is not how to foster more parity, but how to make movement of players more fluid. Quid, in my opinion, is not working as is. Would you trade Payton or Priest or Dante for 50 quid? 100 quid? Don't know that I would. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/17/2004 11:01:48 AM |
|
I like Don's suggestion
|
|
|
|
I think we should consider making teams drop some players to deepen the talent pool before the draft. 2 QB, 3 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE, 1 K, 1 C, 3 D = 17 keepers (not necessarily in the proportions given) seems reasonable to me and would make the draft day more meaningful and entertaining. Might also foster some more trades during the off-season to prepare for the cut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/15/2004 7:36:02 PM |
|
RE: 2005 Draft Considerations
|
|
|
|
The biggest problem we face (IMHO) is that weaker teams have little chance to improve significantly from one season to the next. Sure, a weak team can dump most of their roster and get early draft picks the next year, but then they are left to draft from mediocre players or unproven rookies.
I propose we get creative and figure out a system whereby the weaker teams get a chance to pick up players from other stronger teams. Sort of like the expansion draft works. Or perhaps we could have a variation on the franchise player idea where we put a limit on the number of players that can be retained.
I know this is a dynasty league and we are supposed to look to the future, but *if* I had a weak team I imagine I would lose interest in having to wait 2-3 years to get competitive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/29/2004 10:29:00 PM |
|
Another trade announcement
|
|
|
|
| Flayers trade T Holt to Ducks for B Leftwich. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/29/2004 4:33:17 PM |
|
By the way
|
|
|
|
I now have the Ram's I Bruce and T Holt. Don't want to keep both of them. Make me a trade offer if you are interested in either.
I know it is hard to trade during the season, but give it some consideration. Jeremy and I had a blast putting that 4-4 trade together via email. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/29/2004 11:59:28 AM |
|
Blockbuster trade
|
|
|
|
The Flayers and the Incident announce the following trade:
Flayers trade Ahman Green, Travis Henry, Antonio Bryant, Artose Pinner
for the Incident's Tiki Barber, Kevan Barlow, Torry Holt, Michael Pittman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/19/2004 9:36:55 AM |
|
Ouch!
|
|
|
|
| Just noticed my next 3 games are against the Slashers (2 in a row) and the Rogues. Looks like the Flayers may soon be 3-6. I would be overjoyed at winning just 1 of 3 so I can get back to .500 when I play the sorry-ass Illuminati in week 10. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/2/2004 1:20:09 PM |
|
Cards/Draft board
|
|
|
|
| I have a draft kit from CBS Sportsline that I'm not using. Not sure what it contains but I will check after work and get back to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/15/2003 5:08:21 PM |
|
How about this...
|
|
|
|
1st place: $200
2nd place: $100
3rd place: $50
4th place: $25
5th place: $125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/13/2003 9:27:10 PM |
|
Good luck to everyone
|
|
|
|
Have a great playoffs.
Signed,
The 2nd best team in the league? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/24/2003 7:11:45 PM |
|
Biskafas are out
|
|
|
|
Barring a miracle (perhaps a broken leg in warmups for Jerevicius and at least 3 sacks from Strahan), the Biskafas will be eliminated from the playoff picture at the end of tonight's game. I would like to let everyone know how much I have enjoyed this season and the new format. I am already looking forward to next season. I will accept offers for Garcia and Gannon after the playoffs are concluded. Kitna is my man for next year.
I have a few suggestions for next season:
1. Get rid of home team advantage. Don't see a reason to add more of a luck factor.
2. How about an online trade system? I tried in vain to solicit a trade in the last week (via email) to replace a hobbled T. Henry but did not get a response. It would be cool if we could propose and answer to a trade through the online system. Perhaps each owner's home page could have a trade function where the owner could easily make proposals and view/approve/reject trade proposals from others.
3. Include +2 points for interceptions from defensive players.
It probably goes without saying, but I expect that all teams already eliminated from the playoffs will do their best to win their remaining games as things are quite tight in both leagues. I certainly will try to win out. Good luck and have fun!
--Dan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/13/2003 6:12:14 PM |
|
Gotta do it randomly
|
|
|
|
| The only fair way to do it is by random selection. It would have been done this way had we had the foresight to realize this at the season's start. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/9/2003 11:46:01 AM |
|
simple ok with me
|
|
|
|
I think if we could hold off on determining the actual matchups so that we can try to incorporate some of the mini playoff idea, that'd be great. And for certain each week 14 matchup should be a non-division game. Other than that, I think it would work just fine.
So my vote is for the "easy" solution for the moment. Though maybe we could discuss this again in the offseason and create a finalized system that allows for the week 14 mini-playoff, the one thing this new plan screws up.
jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/8/2003 4:52:41 PM |
|
Home vs Away ...
|
|
|
|
Jeremy,
Thanks for the great analysis. I am agreeable with the last scenario. How do we get this passed or rejected by game time tomorrow? Keith?
--Dan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/7/2003 4:48:48 PM |
|
Home vs. Away
|
|
|
|
| Keith, we are losing that thread regarding teams with 6 home games vs. teams with 7 home games. I vote that we keep it simple and award the 6-home-game teams 2 extra points at the end of the regular 13-game season. Probably will not make any difference, but we need to have the owner's agree on this before-hand just in case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/3/2003 6:20:00 PM |
|
Tie breaker
|
|
|
|
Not to sound like a whiner, but I have noticed that 5 of the teams have 1 fewer home game than the other 5 teams. Did you know that the result of perhaps 7 games (a whopping 15% of the games played thus far) would have been reversed had the losing team had the home field advantage instead of being the away team?
I am one of those teams with 6 home games. I actually have no problem with this *unless*:
(1) I tie one or more teams in division with total win-loss record
(2) I lose out in the first tie breaker (total points) by less 4 or less points to a team who had 7 home games (and thus got 2 bonus points that my team did not receive).
The way things are going (in both divisions) this is not an improbable event.
My proposed solution: teams with 6 home games get 2 extra points added to their total in the event that a tie-breaker is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/29/2003 10:16:25 PM |
|
Is this a great league or what?
|
|
|
|
I am having a great time being mediocre but still in the hunt (especially since I am 1-7 in my CBS league). Should be an exciting 2nd half! BTW, should I start Shipp based on one good outing or go with the aging Bus I just picked up from the Dogs.
Many thanks to Keith for his efforts. I know how much work he has and continues to put into this site. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/24/2003 9:25:34 PM |
|
Clarification
|
|
|
|
Have not heard back from Jamie yet. I suppose he was under the impression that I was giving up my second pick (not second round like I posted originally). So the trade is as follows (from Jamie's email) unless there is an objection:
"You got a deal, Bettis for Holcombe + next years 2nd pick and 5 quid."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/24/2003 6:06:16 PM |
|
Whoops
|
|
|
|
Thanks Road Kill. I realized my mistake shortly after I agreed to the trade. I have alerted Jamie and have asked that the trade be cancelled or that the draft pick be switched for more quid.
I noticed that the Vultures traded "all" of their draft picks for Portis. Does this mean that they have to give up all of their players for next year and do not get any draft picks next year either. Hmm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/24/2003 2:00:46 PM |
|
Biskafas will ride (if the Bus has gas)
|
|
|
|
Biskafas and Bulldogs have cut a deal. Terms are as follows:
Biskafas get The Bus (J Bettis), hoping to ride him until Ahman and Travis get off back-to-back BYE weeks.
Bulldogs get Robert Holcombe + Biskafa's 2nd round draft pick for next year + 5 quid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 9/3/2003 7:41:49 PM |
|
NC Biskafas Missing Draft Picks
|
|
|
|
18 - JJ Stokes
19 - Frank Wycheck
20 - John Kitna
21 - D. Jolley
22 - Delthea Oneal
23 - Saints Coach
24 - P. Warrick
25 - S. Christie |
|
|
|
|
|
