Playoffs??

Well great season guys, congrats to our champ Matt!! One hell of a year for you.

I just want to know how this tie breaker seeding works?
I know it was head to head then points scored and on and on.
But it still doesnt quite make sense.
For example i beat Oshie in our only matchup this year. He finished ahead.
I scored more points for then Gamblers but he finished ahead of me?

Now i def dont deserve to make playoffs, haha not even close. So im not even the tiniest bit upset at me finishing 10th. Im just dont quite understand the format.
Can anyone tell me how ESPN made the decision for last 4 tied teams?

Very good point. I thought with more than Two teams tied and no way to determine by head2head then it went to overall points scored which would put you in 9th

I think because Oshie beat GRG twice they had to put him above. And GRG beat Shore so he would be above. But it is confusing. The reason we voted to accept the ESPN ranking was because we had that 4 way tie and couldn't figure out a way to set the rankings.

I do see that even though you got last in the rankings Jarrett. GRG will have first pick... of course that really sucks for me because I think I have your first pick anyway!

Yea, it goes by points against. The last two teams positions are decided by total points scored against. The lower points against number gets the better pick of the two team.

that's what I think I read, but I'm old and gray now....lol

I have to admit, I still don't understand how the draft picks are determined. I know Greg thinks it is simple, but I clearly haven't been able to understand it yet. Why should the team with lowest points scored against get a better pick? It seems to me that a manager has no control over how many points are scored against them (a lot of it is just dumb luck), and since that is the case, wouldn't the team who had to endure MORE POINTS SCORED AGAINST not deserve a better pick?

Can anybody shed light on this for me?

I think the philosophy behind that choice was that if you couldn't beat teams that weren't scoring against you, then your team isn't good if it couldn't beat low scoring teams.

Wow, I think I said that pretty well and coherent.

Im with Matt on this one too.
How can you draft a defensive team that doesnt let poonts scored against them??
If anybody knows the trick PM me please lol.

To me if you have the least Points For then your team would probably derserve the 1st pick.
I could finish last and score the 3rd most points. Just bad luck.
Whereas if your team cant score at all, then your team probably needs help.

Just to clarify again, I DID NOT start this post cause im upset over where i finished. I derserve to finish where I did and id be the first to say that.

Was just a bit confused as to how it worked still.

Ray is right on why we came up with this I think. And the reason we didn't go with least points for is because you could put in bums to drive your total down. This was the best we could think of to take away any incentive to tank and still get the worst team have first pick. Not perfect but still works I think.

Right i forgot about that John.

How come you said GRG would get 1st pick?
And by the way i did trade my first RD pick to you last year

First pick goes to the team with the lowest points against for the bottom two guys. We thought this would represent the worst team because of what Ray said above.

And still keep everyone trying and hoping for the biggest point totals.

Alright, I think I understand the reasoning behind it now. I don't agree with it to be honest, but hey, that seems to be the way the chickens are roosting these days.

I know it was me that wanted to come up with a way to do this so there would be no desire to lose. I don't think anyone would tank on purpose just for first pick but I was in the position last year of wanting to lose my last week and hated every minute of that matchup. Sucks hoping for your guys to do badly. This way we always want to win and always want to put up the most points possible. But I'm open to a new way if everyone hated this way (although I think it worked pretty good this year, Got the guy with the lowest points first pick and no desire to lose by anyone). Good thing about this pool is we just come up with our best suggestion and vote on it. Did it last year and no reason we can't try a new way.

Another thing that was a concern in the past was people that neglected their team and forgot to change every week. Those people would be rewarded if we went by lowest point total for first pick.

I guess there is no perfect system. And you are right, the fact that the Gamblers technically finished 9th instead of 10th doesn't take away from the fact they had the fewest total points.

Cheers,
Matt

Thank u for clarifying all that John.
I got it now.

Well said John.

Guys, can I bring up another subject about tie breakers?

Last year (a little late I know) Greg and I technically finished split during season. 1-1 against each other. The fact was we tied one week and I beat him the 2nd matchup.

If we had finished with same record at end of year he would have beaten me through a series of tie breakers for best record by total points.

I have a question- suggestions here;

Why don't we allow ties during the season? Over a 15 week period if here are 1 or two ties the head to head factor should settle them easily. The fact that a winner is determind by how many goals scored on a given week seems pretty weak, considering that we have so many ways of scoring points why does goal scoring favor any of the others. I suggest we just let ties remain ties during season and only apply the breakers for playoffs seedlings, playoff wins and losses, and draft rankings.

I have no troubles with that.

Just need to peek in ESPN to see what type of options they have.

I agree. as AC/DC says,


Let there be ties! guitar rift please

Ray

I'm good with this