Author |
Topic: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft (Read 4833 times) |
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
  
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #50 on: Aug 16th, 2019, 12:40am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Heyas, fellas! Here, alas, are the three matters, two that regard RULES, that we discussed during the Draft Lottery conference call...
1) Just a further reminder that the weekly schedule of games has changed starting this year. The new schedule offers more flexibility and will allow us to better optimize our schedule of games from year to year relative to NFL bye weeks. To view it, go to the "Schedule" page at the GBRFL site.
Now, rules-related stuff...
2) Regarding tiebreaks, I want to propose a small, but significant tweak to how the post-Week 17, final standings for the season are determined. As things stand, ties in the standings for every week of the season are broken by applying the following methods in the following order: 1) head-to-head record, 2) overall points differential, 3) total points scored, 4) total yardage. We really only end up using #'s 1 and 2. I can only vaguely remember appealing to #3 like once or twice in ALL the years we have been doing this, and I am almost certain we have never deferred to #4.
IN ANY EVENT, in an effort to avoid a championship being determined by points differential (or worse) since teams that play each other Week 17 play each other an even number of times (4) and MOREOVER to lend our extended Week 17 bumper week more weight, especially the Super Bowl game, and give it all more of a playoff feel, I propose an addition to the tiebreaks: the outcome of the Week 17 games! I propose that it be wedged in EITHER at the top as the first tiebreak OR between head-to-head and points differential as the second tiebreak.
3) Last year, we exhibited a healthy restraint and even compassion in the conclusion we reached on the issue of nonparticipation. But, as commissioner trying to direct my energies toward optimizing the health of the league, I think we need to get something in the books. Granted, nonparticipation is just one, albeit significant and potentially very significant, violation, BUT it produces TWO negative effects, neither of which is good for the league. First, it messes up outcomes of individual games, which then affects the standings. Second, it provides a benefit to the violator, who invariably finishes low in the standings, in the form of high draft picks every round the following year, and this is vexing and VERY not good for the INTEGRITY of the league. We need to deal with this and not make it easy on ourselves by turning a blind eye! Here is the thread with at least our message-board discussion of this last year: http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi?board=53;a ction=display;num=1514813199. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE give this some SERIOUS thought! We do not want to walk away from this again. It is not about our feeling bad for anybody and good about ourselves morally by not doing anything. It is about what is best for the league...
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 12th, 2019, 6:36pm by Stegfucius » |
 Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '95, '98, '08, '09, '10, '13, '15, '17, '19
# 22
9X Ultimate Supreme Champion
Posts: 782
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #51 on: Aug 17th, 2019, 10:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
This is a significant tie-breaker rule change that probably will impact championships. Having the first tie-breaker decided by head to head seems more fair and less arbitrary because it counts multiple games. I would put week 17 results after head to head but before points differential but don't have a strong preference and would be ok if week 17 were after points differential in the order.
As for the non-participation penalty, I continue to be opposed to that.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #52 on: Aug 17th, 2019, 9:42pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 17th, 2019, 10:25am, DB wrote:| Having the first tie-breaker decided by head to head seems more fair and less arbitrary because it counts multiple games. I would put week 17 results after head to head but before points differential but don't have a strong preference and would be ok if week 17 were after points differential in the order. |
|
That is the conclusion we too were coming to during the conference call.
Quote:| This is a significant tie-breaker rule change that probably will impact championships. |
|
Well, I did the legwork on this... I do not have access to anything prior to the inauguration of the league website in 1999 (though I have it ALL back in a storage unit in NJ), but from 1999, indeed, if the second tiebreak were the results of Week 17 games, it would have changed the outcomes of two (fairly recent) championships, 2015 and 2012, both of which came down to points differential. I think it is kind of a bummer for someone to win the 1st Place-versus-2nd Place game, the game nominally referred to as the Super Bowl, and then lose the championship (by points differential at least).
Quote:| As for the non-participation penalty, I continue to be opposed to that. |
|
As commissioner, I am just saying that it is uncool that there is a benefit to chronic nonparticipation, one that was, at least in part, reaped to the tune of a championship last year and will continue to benefit said team for years to come.  C'est la vie... But, fool me once, shame on you. Feel me twice, shame on me! And, as it turns out, in acknowledgement of the problem, which came about a hair away from messing up the prior year's championship outcome, we in fact DID agree to an in-season fix (which we did not need to apply or in any case was not applied  ).
I think that perhaps we have become inured to the matter because the rule for sooooo looooong has been SOOOO LIBERAL (three consecutive unsubmitted lineups) as to be an afterthought and the penalty SOOOO HARSH (membership revocation) as to never incline us to want to go there.
Also, I am not saying that our discussion last year was not excellent in many respects, very productive and indeed good for the league inasmuch as it was heartfelt and cautious. BUT, I think we were dealing with some extremely sensitive matters that evoked emotions that skewed the trajectory of the discussion and the results.
Especially if we vote on it and it is an automatic mechanism, I see absolutely nothing wrong with, say, instituting a punitive rule wherein (whatever we agree constitutes) nonparticipation leads to an automatic forfeiture of lottery status and the automatic allotment of draft pick #5 or #10 in the 1st round (or harsher if it has to be deferred to a later year).
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2019, 4:49am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
GBRFLer
Champ - '93, '03, '07, '12, '18, '22
# 54
Posts: 487
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #53 on: Aug 18th, 2019, 5:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Gentlemen - if you would allow, I would like to share my thought on the punitive aspect of the potential rule change.
First, I know I am a big part of the reason we are having this discussion. As I was upfront last year, I would have accepted any consequence handed down from GBRFL. I don't want to appear like I skirted the problem I caused and now want to punish anyone in the future for the same mistake I made. That's not the case at all.
I was in agreement last year and I am in agreement with Steve now - I do think there should be a consequence for non-participation after whatever is decided as reasonable steps to combat this issue. I think it would be only fair to lose your lottery pick/final status for the first round only, and that first round pick becomes the #10 pick. All other owners falling after the determined lottery/overall order simply move up and then the owner in question picks at the end of the first round.
A caveat would be if that owner does NOT participate in the draft the following year and we bring in a new owner. Does that pick status remain the same or does it still drop to #10 in the first round only? Seems like I remember we did make a new owner draft last but I could be confusing things.
Just my opinion on this but again, I do think this is a fair response for the act of non-participation.
|
|
Logged |
She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
I got better. Burn her anyway!
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #55 on: Aug 22nd, 2019, 7:55pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 22nd, 2019, 7:48pm, DirkDiggler wrote:I had something unexpected come up on Sunday the 25th that I can not get out of. It just came up this week. Ok thought I was fine because I had it in my head the draft was Saturday.
I will need to text in my picks. Damn it. |
|
The DRAFT is SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 1st!!! Protections are due THIS Sunday, August 25th...
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #57 on: Aug 22nd, 2019, 8:09pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Well, with that short digression behind us, let's get back to business. The discussion on nonparticipation left off here...
on Aug 18th, 2019, 5:13pm, Drew Rosenhaus wrote:Gentlemen - if you would allow, I would like to share my thought on the punitive aspect of the potential rule change.
First, I know I am a big part of the reason we are having this discussion. As I was upfront last year, I would have accepted any consequence handed down from GBRFL. I don't want to appear like I skirted the problem I caused and now want to punish anyone in the future for the same mistake I made. That's not the case at all.
I was in agreement last year and I am in agreement with Steve now - I do think there should be a consequence for non-participation after whatever is decided as reasonable steps to combat this issue. I think it would be only fair to lose your lottery pick/final status for the first round only, and that first round pick becomes the #10 pick. All other owners falling after the determined lottery/overall order simply move up and then the owner in question picks at the end of the first round.
A caveat would be if that owner does NOT participate in the draft the following year and we bring in a new owner. Does that pick status remain the same or does it still drop to #10 in the first round only? Seems like I remember we did make a new owner draft last but I could be confusing things.
Just my opinion on this but again, I do think this is a fair response for the act of non-participation. |
|
Thoughts?
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #58 on: Aug 31st, 2019, 5:59pm » |
Quote Modify
|
As the 2019 GBRFL Summer Meeting & Draft is upon us tomorrow, I have been meditating on the issue of nonparticipation. I like what Mark and I have proposed above, which we each came up with independent of each other, I might add. Assuming we resolve by vote tomorrow to get something on the books, depending on what we determine constitutes a violation, we would have consider what we would do in the case of multiple violations (in a single season). Point being, this is a complex matter to which I hope everyone devotes some thought heading into tomorrow. Without having devoted any thought to the matter beforehand, we run the risk of a superficial, cumbersome discussion that, yet again, produces no results.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '95, '98, '08, '09, '10, '13, '15, '17, '19
# 22
9X Ultimate Supreme Champion
Posts: 782
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #59 on: Aug 31st, 2019, 7:00pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I have thought about this and continue to see no reason to punish anyone for non-participation. Maybe I missed it, but I did not see anyone state a reason why this is necessary. I can only assume that you feel that 1) guys will not submit lineups and 2) this will disrupt the league in some way.
I see no reason for this because we are all friends or at least friendly and don't want to see anyone punished in what is supposed to be a fun league. Plus, we have a plan in place to make sure that appropriate lineups are in place in the event of non-participation. I will listen to what you guys have to say but that is what I think.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 31st, 2019, 7:02pm by DB » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #60 on: Aug 31st, 2019, 8:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 31st, 2019, 8:38pm, DirkDiggler wrote:| ... the punishment would benefit the others who are in the lottery to a significant extent. I don't think that advantage should be given. |
|
Well, that is not necessarily the case. It depends on how we decide to remedy this. For example, we could make the fifth-place finisher lottery-eligible.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 1st, 2019, 4:28am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #61 on: Sep 1st, 2019, 6:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY...
Au contraire, it is precisely because we are friends and a friendly group that something should be done. Against friends, you want your victory to be on the up and up. Yeah, the league is a "for-fun" league, but we want to be seriously competitive, right? We are not trying to be the softball team at the office picnic where everybody is welcome to play whether or not you can catch, throw or hit, right? You go out golfing with six of your buddies, and you win because they gave you five mulligans. Otherwise, you would have come in fourth. In such a case, either the outing was not competitive and totally for fun or the victory is hollow. We want neither of those to be the case in the GBRFL, right?
Indeed, I think that is the spirit of Mark's being on board with getting a rule in place...
on Aug 31st, 2019, 7:00pm, DB wrote:| I did not see anyone state a reason why this is necessary. |
|
You got to read through the thread from last year, bro, and think back through the discussion we had last year. But, I digress.
on Aug 31st, 2019, 7:00pm, DB wrote:| I can only assume that you feel ... this will disrupt the league in some way. |
|
The GBRFL is a DEEP-keeper league. Our game is not played just over a single season. It is played from season to season and, indeed, over a lifetime of seasons. I love Mark and Frank. I value their friendships, and they are reminders of chapters of my life I fondly remember and do not want to forget. But (DB), their nonparticipation almost royally screwed up the outcome of the 2017 season. We, they, you got lucky... 
BUT, I digress. That is water under the bridge. What is NOT, though, is the result of their nonparticipation, the drafting of Sam Darnold and Baker Mayfield, two players that will provide huge, potential benefit for years to come, maybe as many as fifteen years to come! And, think about that!!! We are not getting younger. Mark and Frank will very well be benefitting either indirectly from the value of those players or directly from the services of those players when most of us will be entering or well into our SIXTIES!!!  Given that that puts many of us at a time in life when it can start being said that we are living on "borrowed time", yeah, that is a "disruption"! In any event, it is uncool and a problem, one that, frankly speaking, particularly screws the guys finishing in the middle/lower middle of the pack.
And, again, I think it is why Mark himself is asking for something to be done. It is not that we should not do something because we are friends. It is that because we are friends, we should do something!!!
Or, more precisely, it is not that we, who are not guilty of nonparticipation, should not do something because we are friends. It is that because we are friends, we who are guilty of nonparticipation should want to do something to make it right!!! I think that is Mark's sentiment.
Last and least, from an administrative perspective, I would like to have a more thorough rule in place because when someone is guilty of not participating, I HEAR IT from some of yous (in fact, in some cases somewhat belying positions now being taken). And, I would like to no longer have to be put in a position of having to make a judgment call (like as regards membership status). I would just like a clear-cut rule to be in the books that all I have to do is enforce. So, this is for me too.
With that said, in that same vein, it is also for those guilty of nonparticipation. No more need to fall on the sword, explain your life away and make a big apology speech... You just suffer the penalty, and we just move on, seamlessly.
Look... We can turn a blind eye to this, but nonparticipation ain't right. Furthermore, we should not think that turning a blind eye is somehow right.
As for nuts and bolts, maybe protection spots are where we should turn to get this solved...
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 1st, 2019, 6:25am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
GBRFLer
Champ - '96, '05
# 11
Bow to the master
Posts: 497
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #62 on: Sep 1st, 2019, 8:47am » |
Quote Modify
|
As one of the named offenders in this category I felt I should chime in. Not beating a dead horse, life is what it is and sometimes gets in the way of things like putting in lineups. While not keeping records, I believe my participation was, although not impeccable, still much better than the previous year.
I do feel that your argument about it impacting championships and draft picks falls a bit short. As we have spoken about before, someone who has their eye on Baker Mayfield (I actually wanted Barkley) would be better served putting in a losing lineup than failing to put in a lineup at all. A perfect record of putting in poor lineups can have a "better" result than failing to put one in for the owner. I arguably lost a championship to you because Pak did not put in a championship round line up. His default lineup would in no way have been the starting lineup that week and that lineup would not have been good enough to win that week. This is the opposite action and result of your example.
If we had the ability to systematically copy and paste our entire lineup in one shot, it would probably result in more participation due to the lack of effort to enter the lineup, but It would make no difference in the results of that week's games. I would argue that it is the quality of the lineup and not the entry of the lineup that makes the biggest difference and because "quality" is subjective, who can say if a default lineup is better or worse prior to the game being played.
Having said all that, I believe there should be some repercussion to lack of participation, but affecting future draft picks goes too far. You are in effect punishing someone in the present for actions of the past. In this case you may be discouraging that owner from active participation in the current year.
If we want to punish non participation, I think removing the automatic lineup function would serve that purpose as it would be a guaranteed loss for the owner. As we all know, any lineup can beat any other on a given week. A default lineup CAN and sometimes IS a better one that would have some thought put into it.
I would also suggest, if an owner fails to put in a lineup, they lose the ability to pick up a free agent in the following week. This punishment is more fitting for the current year.
Just some early morning rambling from your 2020 league champion.
|
|
Logged |
Why don't you just tell me what you want to see.
|
|
|
GM
GBRFLer
# 65
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 259
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #63 on: Sep 1st, 2019, 12:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Thank for throwing me under the bus Frank .
Just kidding. I can't believe that I'm saying this, but I agree with Frank. What's the difference between someone not submitting a lineup and one who is tanking and submitting a bad lineup to get a better draft position (the real nfl also does this).
I'm not sure exactly what the penalty should be, excluding from the lottery seems harsh, but not allowing the person to pick up a free agent the next week doesn't seem like it is enough. If someone doesn't submit a lineup that week, they have already foregone the opportunity to pick up a free agent that week.
I think instituting some sort of penalty system which gets harsher the number of times the rule is violated would be more fair (i.e. first violation, can't pick up a free agent next week, second violation, can't pick up a free agent for the next two weeks, every subsequent violation their draft slot in the next upcoming draft drops by one spot). All of this would be for the given year and it resets each year rather than the violations carrying over to each subsequent year.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '06
# 414
Semper Philosophans
Posts: 593
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #64 on: Sep 1st, 2019, 2:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
A proposal:
The first time an owner fails to submit a lineup, no repercussions. (Mulligan!)
The second time an owner fails to submit a lineup, he cannot make free agent requests for the following week (or, alternatively, if we want more teeth in it, he loses a pro spot).
The third time an owner fails to submit a lineup, his earliest pick in the next draft moves to the back of that round, while his other picks stay as they are.
(And, according to last year's decision, if the second failure to submit a lineup is consecutive with the first, then rather than cascading the lineup is determined by a specified website's rankings for that week.)
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 1st, 2019, 2:37pm by Travistotle » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #65 on: Sep 1st, 2019, 4:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
WOW! I like A LOT of what has been written by the last three respondents! VERY thoughtful and thought-provoking! I am going to contest only these two small points...
on Sep 1st, 2019, 8:47am, Art Vandalay wrote:| I do feel that your argument about it impacting championships and draft picks falls a bit short. As we have spoken about before, someone who has their eye on Baker Mayfield (I actually wanted Barkley) would be better served putting in a losing lineup than failing to put in a lineup at all. A perfect record of putting in poor lineups can have a "better" result than failing to put one in for the owner. |
|
I too thought about this, of course. While it is subjective for sure and detecting tanking vis-à-vis any given weekly lineup would require mindreading,... chronic tanking, tanking over several weeks, is more noticeable and can be addressed as such. At the very least, inasmuch as tanking over time is detectable, actively tanking puts one in the position of having to "own" their tanking and potentially be called out on the carpet for it either officially or at least through ridicule. Tanking by nonparticipation kind of gives the tanker a passive-aggressive out.
Quote:| I arguably lost a championship to you because Pak did not put in a championship round line up. His default lineup would in no way have been the starting lineup that week and that lineup would not have been good enough to win that week. This is the opposite action and result of your example. |
|
Insofar as you are right, isn't that the case in point for my case (though we took care of that aspect of things with our decision last year)?
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #66 on: Sep 9th, 2019, 6:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
Heyas, Guys! I hope yous all have enjoyed the unfolding of Week 1! Moving right along, an IMPORTANT footnote...
on Aug 16th, 2019, 12:40am, Stegfucius wrote:Now, rules-related stuff...
2) Regarding tiebreaks, I want to propose a small, but significant tweak to how the post-Week 17, final standings for the season are determined. As things stand, ties in the standings for every week of the season are broken by applying the following methods in the following order: 1) head-to-head record, 2) overall points differential, 3) overall points scored on offense, 4) overall yardage on offense. We really only end up using #'s 1 and 2. I can only vaguely remember appealing to #3 like once or twice in ALL the years we have been doing this, and I am almost certain we have never deferred to #4.
IN ANY EVENT, in an effort to avoid a championship being determined by points differential (or worse) since teams that play each other Week 17 play each other an even number of times (4) and MOREOVER to lend our extended Week 17 bumper week more weight, especially the Super Bowl game, and give it all more of a playoff feel, I propose an addition to the tiebreaks: the outcome of the Week 17 games! I propose that it be wedged in EITHER at the top as the first tiebreak OR between head-to-head and points differential as the second tiebreak. |
|
This message is, bigger picture, surely out of sequence, but this does need to be memorialized... At the 2019 GBRFL Summer Meeting, by a vote of 6 to 4, we voted to change the SECOND tiebreak for ties in the standings for Week 17 TO the head-to-head outcomes of the Week 17 contests FROM overall points differential. For all other weeks, overall points differential remains the second tiebreak, and for Week 17 it remains in theory the third tiebreak (which could come up in the case of a three-or-more-way tie in the standings).
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 10th, 2019, 3:17am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '95, '98, '08, '09, '10, '13, '15, '17, '19
# 22
9X Ultimate Supreme Champion
Posts: 782
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #67 on: Sep 9th, 2019, 7:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Is the 2nd tie-break rule based on the Week 17 head to head match-up or your Week 17 results? I think that is different.
Hypothetically, let's say that DT and RP are playing each other for the championship. Both teams are 20-7. DT is leading the season series 2-1 going into Week 17. In Week 17, RP beats DT to tie up the season series at 2-2. However, RP loses to the last place team (DB) and DT beats the 3rd place team (DF), so both teams end up 21-8 and each is 1-1 in Week 17.
Does RP win the league because he beat DT in Week 17 or does the fact that they each went 1-1 in Week 17 (total) cancel that out and it then go to the next tie-breaker? I am assuming it is the first one but we should make this clear up front. If I am correct then the rule should not say the result of Week 17 contests, it should say the result of the Week 17 head to head match-up, which is different.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 9th, 2019, 7:48pm by DB » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #68 on: Sep 10th, 2019, 3:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 9th, 2019, 7:44pm, DB wrote:| Does RP win the league because he beat DT in Week 17 or does the fact that they each went 1-1 in Week 17 (total) cancel that out and it then go to the next tie-breaker? I am assuming it is the first one but we should make this clear up front. |
|
Your assumption is correct!  
Quote:| If I am correct then the rule should not say the result of Week 17 contests, it should say the result of the Week 17 head to head match-up, which is different. |
|
True... I actually thought about that, as well, D. Given that I have discussed (elsewhere) and you guys have experienced for years how I have broken ties, my thinking was that the other interpretation was ultimately invalid. The terminology I have used in the past is that I never do tiebreaks according to "mini-standings" (that is to say, breaking off the teams that are tied and then applying the tiebreaks just to that group of teams) even though it may look that way in many instances. It is always head-to-head all the way down first, indeed, even when the default is points differential. (You can find my elaborating on all this on the message board here if you do a search.) ONLY when more than two teams are tied in the standings AND applying the tiebreaks head-to-head cannot break the tie in the standings is points differential appealed to across all the teams tied so as to break the tie. I also thought the other interpretation was contrary to how it was presented and voted on at the Summer Meeting. But, anyway, bottom line, you are right, DB, and it is only proper to be explicit about the matter! 
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 12th, 2019, 2:56am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #69 on: Sep 12th, 2019, 2:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
This needed further clarification. I added what is in bold in the quote below...
on Sep 10th, 2019, 3:15am, Stegfucius wrote:| The terminology I have used in the past is that I never do tiebreaks according to "mini-standings" (that is to say, breaking off the teams that are tied and then applying the tiebreaks just to that group of teams) even though it may look that way in many instances. It is always head-to-head all the way down first, indeed, even when the default is points differential. (You can find my elaborating on all this on the message board here if you do a search.) ONLY when more than two teams are tied in the standings AND applying the tiebreaks head-to-head cannot break the tie in the standings is points differential appealed to across all the teams tied so as to break the tie. |
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #70 on: Sep 12th, 2019, 6:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 10th, 2019, 3:15am, Stegfucius wrote:| ... you guys have experienced for years how I have broken ties, my thinking was that the other interpretation was ultimately invalid. The terminology I have used in the past is that I never do tiebreaks according to "mini-standings" (that is to say, breaking off the teams that are tied and then applying the tiebreaks just to that group of teams) even though it may look that way in many instances. It is always head-to-head all the way down first, indeed, even when the default is points differential. (You can find my elaborating on all this on the message board here if you do a search.) ONLY when more than two teams are tied in the standings AND applying the tiebreaks head-to-head cannot break the tie in the standings is points differential appealed to across all the teams tied so as to break the tie. |
|
Actually, the Week 1 standings provide a great example of the "head-to-head"-centered tiebreaking I employ. All three of Trout, Danny and Warner, respectively, had tiebreak over Pak by points differential. Warner had tiebreak over Trout by head-to-head record. Trout had tiebreak over Danny by points differential. And, Danny had tiebreak over Warner by (the rarely appealed to third tiebreak) total points scored. Given this inability to break the tie in the standings head-to-head, I then appeal to overall points differential, first, and then total points scored, second, which yield the order to be Trout, Danny, Warner. That said, if Warner had scored more points than Danny, he would have jumped to the top of that heap because he would have had head-to-head tiebreak over BOTH Trout (head-to-head record) AND Danny (total points scored), and the order would have been Warner, Trout, Danny. Whew...  Follow? That is how it has been being done all these years...  Over and out... 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
|
Re: 2019 Summer Meeting & Draft
« Reply #71 on: Dec 26th, 2023, 7:35pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Bumping this up to remind us (because, actually, even I forgot about this, and we are just lucky it did not affect any of the subsequent championships (I checked -- PHEW))...
on Aug 16th, 2019, 12:40am, Stegfucius wrote:Now, rules-related stuff...
2) Regarding tiebreaks, I want to propose a small, but significant tweak to how the post-Week 17, final standings for the season are determined. As things stand, ties in the standings for every week of the season are broken by applying the following methods in the following order: 1) head-to-head record, 2) overall points differential, 3) overall points scored on offense, 4) overall yardage on offense. We really only end up using #'s 1 and 2. I can only vaguely remember appealing to #3 like once or twice in ALL the years we have been doing this, and I am almost certain we have never deferred to #4.
IN ANY EVENT, in an effort to avoid a championship being determined by points differential (or worse) since teams that play each other Week 17 play each other an even number of times (4) and MOREOVER to lend our extended Week 17 bumper week more weight, especially the Super Bowl game, and give it all more of a playoff feel, I propose an addition to the tiebreaks: the outcome of the Week 17 games! I propose that it be wedged in EITHER at the top as the first tiebreak OR between head-to-head and points differential as the second tiebreak. |
|
The immediately below was the outcome of that vote... It will very likely be relevant this year...
on Sep 9th, 2019, 6:30am, Stegfucius wrote:Heyas, Guys! I hope yous all have enjoyed the unfolding of Week 1! Moving right along, an IMPORTANT footnote...
This message is, bigger picture, surely out of sequence, but this does need to be memorialized... At the 2019 GBRFL Summer Meeting, by a vote of 6 to 4, we voted to change the SECOND tiebreak for ties in the standings for Week 17 TO the head-to-head outcomes of the Week 17 contests FROM overall points differential. For all other weeks, overall points differential remains the second tiebreak, and for Week 17 it remains in theory the third tiebreak (which could come up in the case of a three-or-more-way tie in the standings). |
|
Obviously, this applies (only) to the last week of the season, which, then, was Week 17 but, now, is Week 18. 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
