| 0 |
Subject: RIFC 2009: Regular Season
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Wed, Sep 02, 2009, 10:51
I'm still tinkering with the waiver settings (even culdeus is stumped on one facet - but we'll figure it out.)
However, you may now place a waiver claim on any undrafted player. We will wait until after the final preseason games are played and digested to process these claims. I currently have this set up for noon on Monday.
Following a brief moratorium after claims are processed, free agents may be added. I'm thinking of opening this up at 3pm on Monday - but let me know if there is a reason to delay this until later (since Monday is a holiday).
Even if you don't plan to claim a player, check out the waiver claim facility, and familiarize yourself with it. Note that you must set up a separate priority list for each potential round. If you have questions about this, please ask here and now.
(BTW, I see that there is a comment box for the commissioner. I have no idea what this is about. Anyone know?)
Preseason waiver priorities are in the reverse order of the first round of the draft. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 133 | Nerfherders
ID: 347242717
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 15:18
|
Question: In the case of a three-way (or more) tie by record, is the first tie-breaker, head-to-head, the combined record against the tied teams, or some other elimination system?
I understand the second tie-breaker is points, for 1-6 slots.
It looks like I missed the auto-bid by 1 win, but just wanted to make sure.
|
| 134 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 01:54
|
Looks like the playoff seeding is as follows, as far as I can tell:
1. IAC
2. Bonka
3. Fugazi
4. Short Bus
5. wiggs
6. youngroman
7. SwinganaMiss
8. Smith32
|
| 135 | youngroman
Donor
ID: 02934823
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 07:11
|
I see myself at #8:
1. IAC
2. Bonka
3. Fugazi
4. Short Bus
5. wiggs
6. Smith32
7. SwinganaMiss
8. youngroman
I have the same record as wiggs and Smith32 but since we are 3 teams with the same record, the 2 team tie-breaker does not apply and both scored more points. which puts me at #8. if a 3-team tiebreaker would apply I would be #5. ouch!
|
| 136 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 10:42
|
Youngroman's playoff seedings are correct.
Head-to-head only applies for 2-way ties.
|
| 137 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 11:15
|
I set up the Championship and Consolation brackets.
In the Championship bracket, there is no reseeding. The bracket plays out as laid out, with winners advancing.
In the Consolation bracket, the loser with the best score in week 14 will advance to the next round. There will be reseeding if this would result in the same two teams meeting for the second consecutive week. I don't know why the system is trying to impose a week 17 game for the Consolation bracket, but the Consolation finals will be in week 16.
I have reprioritized the waiver priorities in the order of playoff bracket seeding.
A few reminders about roster additions during the playoffs:
1. Teams in the Consolation bracket MAY NOT add players for the duration of the playoffs.
2. Teams eliminated from the Championship bracket may no longer add players for the duration of the playoffs.
3. Teams still alive in the Championship bracket may not add players at the following positions: QB, RB, WR, Team defense. Players at those positions may be dropped, but then are lost for the duration.
The system will not automatically impose these restrictions. I will monitor them manually, and any illegal roster addition will be reversed.
Good luck, everyone!
|
| 138 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 14:58
|
Guru, there's an option in the league bylaws: Calculate Fantasy Results From: Week 1 through Week 17. I'd assume if you can change that to 1 through 16 it wouldn't try forcing week 17 games. At this point it's probably just something to keep in mind for next season if we return to MFL (which I surely hope we do).
|
| 139 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 14:58
|
RE: tiebreaker
My recollection had been that head-to-head only applied when two teams were tied. If more than two teams were tied, then points were used. This does not matter in the determination of playoff teams in our league, but it does have an impact on the seeding. Apparently, it does have a bearing on determining the playoff teams in at least one of the QLs.
I cannot find any discussion of this in our prior threads, although I need to search more thoroughly. It appears that our stated rules say only the following:Teams with equivalent W/L records are seeded based on head-to-head first, then total points.
Unless I can find a stated change in that rule, or a clarification, then perhaps HTH should be used for ties of more than two teams.
Can anyone shed any light?
|
| 140 | Electroman
ID: 565182111
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 15:12
|
I found this from a July 2004 post about league criteria:
Playoffs
8 teams
Top 6 W/L records are seeded 1-6
Top remaining total points are seeded 7-8
Teams with equivalent W/L records are seeded based on total points
Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round)
|
| 141 | Electroman
ID: 565182111
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 15:13
|
Sorry doesn't mention tie breaker though, just noticed that.
|
| 142 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 15:15
|
I assumed by reading the rules that it was head to head regardless of how many teams were tied. I thought if the head to heads were the same it moved to total points. This doesn't matter to me since it will only change 2 seedings here, but definitely does matter to some other people as it determines whether they make the playoffs or not in a different league. That said, these are basically your leagues and it's ultimately up to you. I'd probably suggest going by what the rules state and use head to head then total points and then make sure it's clear for multiple team ties for next season if you'd prefer it was based off of total points in that scenario.
|
| 143 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 15:27
|
Agreed that if we cannot find any definitive clarification or change, then the rules do provide for HTH regardless of the number of tied teams.
I have a feeling that Fanball would only use HTH if 2 teams were tied. But that wouldn't have necessarily forced our hand in the past.
The only prior season discussion that I've found so far is from 2007, in posts 153 and 157 of this thread. I simply stated that HTH only applied to 2-way ties, but gave no supporting rationale - and I don't seem to have been challenged on that.
|
| 144 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 15:32
|
Here is my tentative decision:
Unless someone can find evidence that we have definitively discussed and resolved this issue in the past (beyond that cited above) , then the stated rules should apply, and HTH should be used as the first tiebreaker, regardless of the number of teams tied.
Since it will have a bearing on the ability of teams to claim players at noon tomorrow, I'm going to make a final decision by 9am tomorrow morning. If anyone has any input to provide, they must speak up before then. Until then, commissioners should probably proceed on the assumption that multiple-team HTH is operative.
|
| 145 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 15:40
|
And based on that, our seeding would be revised as follows:
5. Youngroman
6. Smith32
7. wiggs
8. Swinganamiss
In the HTH games involving YR, Smith32, and Wiggs,
YR was 3-0
Smith32 was 2-2
wiggs was 1-3
Wiggs gets the #7 seed based on more points than Swinganamiss
|
| 146 | wiggs
ID: 33916913
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 15:53
|
From electromans post in 140 is says equivalent records are seeded by total points.
Doesnt that in itself tell you what happens if there is a tie?
|
| 147 | judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 16:00
|
{140} The quote applies to seedings. we are working with standings in this
instance.
So it is different.
|
| 149 | youngroman
Donor
ID: 02934823
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 16:06
|
I looked at the Fanball Rules 2008 and they state:
1. Overall Winning Percentage
2. Head-to-HEAD Games Played (2 teams only)
3. Most Points For, Season To Date
4. Virtual Coin Toss
I guess this is because they only supported 2-way ties.
I am happy with either #5 or #8 as long as I can still win this damn thing. honestly, based on points, I deserve the #8 spot, but I am taking #5 too. looking at the potential opponents, playing against IAC looks to be more favorable for my team. he has lots of ailing bodies going into this week.
|
| 150 | Electroman
ID: 565182111
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 16:12
|
Is that going to be the ruling going forward in RIFC, or are you going to revisit this before next season?
|
| 151 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 16:23
|
[146] - the post in [140] is from 2004. That same section of the rules has since been amended to read:
Playoffs
8 teams
Top 6 W/L records are seeded 1-6
Top remaining total points are seeded 7-8
Teams with equivalent W/L records are seeded based on head-to-head first, then total points
Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round)
So the 2004 "guidance" is no longer relevant.
|
| 152 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 16:27
|
I suspect that I made the 2-team determination in the past based on Fanball's inability to apply HTH to more than 2 teams, and I didn't want to be stuck manually figuring out a 6-team HTH tiebreaker!
But MFL can apply HTH to more than 2-team ties. And I'm pretty sure that was the original intent of our rules.
[150] In any event, whatever I decide this year will be the precedent going forward unless and until it is definitively changed (like next preseason.) I'll plan to raise the issue next year - and hopefully someone will remember if I don't.
|
| 153 | judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 16:30
|
For AAA#1, any ruling will determine IN or OUT for playoffs... We have 3 tied in W/L for 6th place and
the 2 who would be out do not have enough TPF to get either 7th or 8th place.
The MFL computer used our standings criteria to rank them; ie., H2H first then TPF.
From {151} Teams with equivalent W/L records are seeded based on head-to-head first, then total
points
|
| 154 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 16:41
|
Guess I screwed up in the seeding somehow. Think I looked at the wrong team's head to head history. And eek, have to play the 2nd highest scoring team as the #2 seed. I think I'll vote for that pick your opponent thing next time it comes up :D
|
| 155 | SwinganaMiss
ID: 40239148
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 18:01
|
Based on this:
1. Overall Winning Percentage
2. Head-to-HEAD Games Played (2 teams only)
3. Most Points For, Season To Date
4. Virtual Coin Toss
My interpretation was that since there were more than two teams tied, points would determine tiebreaker for these 3. That would give Wiggs seed #5. I wasn't too sure after that whether you'd go back to H2H since there were only two teams left in the tiebreak.
If H2H, then yr=6, Swing=7, and Smith=8.
If points, then Smith=6, Swing=7, yr=8.
Anyway, I second yr's statement. I'm fine w/ whatever resolution.
I don't recall how you pick teams for next year, but this decision could also impact that.
|
| 156 | davepyro
Leader
ID: 017412622
Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 01:17
|
I am one of the managers in AAA#1 that is out under the HTH tiebreaker. What I do not understand is why seeds #7 and #8 are based on Total Points For, and yet the tiebreaker for seed #6 is based on Head To Head matchups? That seems inconsistent. This tiebreaker makes beating certain managers during the year more important than scoring total points. So "schedule luck" is far more important than putting together the best team from week to week by scoring more total points. Seems inconsistent to me. Please see my email in the AAA#1 message thread concerning "schedule luck". It is message #480 dated November 10.
I will go along with whatever decision is rendered, as I trust Guru's judgement and his historical league knowledge and why certain things are how they are. After all it is just football.
|
| 157 | davepyro
Leader
ID: 017412622
Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 01:30
|
Also, I want to let you know that I am in the Pacific Time Zone and must leave for work at 6:38am. I will be unable to delete my waiver requests in the morning. I have submitted my waiver draft list to MFL, but someone must change the draft (or delete my request) if I am excluded from the playoffs. Hopefully, someone can do that.
|
| 158 | holt
ID: 308491916
Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 02:12
|
If you're trying to determine which team had the best season, what better stat to look at than points scored? I can't take head-to-head records in fantasy football seriously at all. Just my opinion. I have no stake in the outcome, but who knows? maybe next year it will affect me.
|
| 159 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 08:53
|
I’m going to officially rule that head-to-head tiebreaker does apply to more than 2-way ties, based on the following rationales:
1. It is consistent with our written rules, and I think this was the original intent of the written rule as well, as there is no mention of such a limitation.
2. If we actually applied the 2-way only HTH tiebreaker in the past, it was presumably for administrative expedience. That is not necessary with the MFL.com software.
3. Our schedules are balanced (all teams face each other twice).
Playoff seedings and waiver priorities will be adjusted to conform with this interpretation.
I am sympathetic to the concept that total points might be the better discriminator. One could make that same point for the entire standings - that we should simply base all standings on points, and do away with W/L matchups entirely. Why should a one point loss fully balance a 40 point win?
But that is the nature of fantasy football. It's not always "fair". Most leagues based their standings solely on W/L records. We decided to allow for the last two playoff spots to be based on points, just to provide a means to catch some teams who might have had bad luck in matchups but who still showed good season-long prowess.
In any event, it's difficult to get to the end of the regular season and then have to decide on interpretation. I'm sorry that we ended up in this position, and especially sorry that one team gets left out of the playoffs based on the decision. But I've made the decision based on my sense of the intent of the stated rule. If we want to change the rule, we can consider that next year.
|
| 160 | youngroman
Donor
ID: 02934823
Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 14:52
|
some time during halftime so I need to write this:
I don't like the official scorer of the Vikings game.
1) Palmer throws to Caldwell. he "catches" it. a second later he gets a hit by Winfield and loses the ball. it is ruled an incompletion.
a) tackle
b) defended pass
c) nothing
2) Palmer throws a long ball. Winfield tries to intercept but can't hold onto it.
a) defended pass
b) nothing
Winfield is a warrior and in his first game back he is already the best man on the field. of course he got credit for nothing on both plays. otherwise I would not complain.
and now a personal message to Mr. Percy Harvin and his coaches:
Percy can play with migraines. he did it earlier in the season and could have done it today. he might have not beed able to learn the gameplan during the week, but do you really need to learn it to return kickoffs or run the usual routes? you see on the field that Favre has only 1 real target to throw to and that is Sidney Rice. Percy is missing.
this are the damn fantasy playoffs!!!
|
| 161 | judy
ID: 5321213
Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 15:28
|
Yeah but Harvin's had them since Weds so they must be pretty bad.
I lost him in AAA...but I do have Rice...
Maybe the stats will get corrected...
|
| 162 | youngroman
Donor
ID: 02934823
Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 15:59
|
I hope that stats will be corrected. I may need every point this week. Leber just did the same as Winfield in case 1) and got credited with the defended pass. I guess the scorer is awake now.
looking at RIFC scoring it looks like IAC will lose really bad. why can't my team be the #8 seed?
Thanks to Reggie Bush I am still in the hunt to win this week. 6 more players to go and only 45pts behind.
and finally:
Dear Vince Young,
simply throw the ball to Nate Washington and do not feed Chris Johnson too much. he does not want to share the rushing load with LenDale White, who sat on my bench all year. Thanks!
|
| 163 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 16:09
|
I'm really glad Wayne has gone missing the past few weeks. Him and Addai picked a good week to not score any TDs, basically a big screw you to Clark from me right now. At least SJax is playing.
Monday night should be exciting at least, my game with Wiggs should be decided then with Warner going against Crabtree, Davis, Arizona D.
|
| 164 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3626821
Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 17:26
|
RE 162: Not so sure about that... my two philly players rank 24th and 29th overall on the season... so I'm still in this one IMHO.
|
| 165 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 17:36
|
In the Consolation bracket, it looks like I failed to switch my team D this week from Seattle (@ Houston) to Tennessee (hosting StL). Careless mistake!
But then again, it is only the Consolation bracket.
|
| 166 | judy
ID: 5321213
Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 18:02
|
Yo Vince, while you're at it, stop tossing the rock to Britt!
Tough matchup for me tonight I have Jints Def going against McNabb and D Jack and the
Bills DST got 21! If it goes as I hope, the Jints D will be in the single digits, but that means
that Don and D Jack need to shine.
|
| 167 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 19:13
|
Seriously, Crayton with a garbage TD with 2 seconds left. Give me a break.
|
| 168 | youngroman
Donor
ID: 02934823
Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 19:28
|
I needed that garbage TD for Romo. I also hoped that Cartwright and his kick returns would score more than Julius Jones. turns out that he did not field kick returns. I hate those Redskins coaches. if you only give him 1 carry all game, let him field those damn kicks.
a bad week to play against Chris Johnson (36.6pts) and Brandon Marshall (32pts). I now need a similar performance by Larry Fitzgerald to have a chance. Mario Manningham just got demoted to #3 receiver and playing in freezing rain won't help his matchup either. so I better get 40+ points out of Larry.
I say: congratulations letterj! you got the maximum out of your offensive stars this week, I only got the maximum out of my defensive stars.
|
| 169 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 21:16
|
Figured Nicks would have a good game if I didn't start him over Crabtree. Good old fantasy football.
|
| 170 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 15, 2009, 08:29
|
Consolation bracket has been adjusted. Top scoring loser of the first round was Yokel. Since I played him in round 1, he must move to the other side of the bracket to face a different team in round 2.
The published bracket looks odd, but the matchups for each round are correct. Bmd faces Yokel in week 2 (15), and Guru faces sR.
|
| 171 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Dec 15, 2009, 22:36
|
This could be the end of my run. Smith32's team just scares me with those RBs.
|
| 172 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 16:13
|
Think my team is done at this point. Studs just didn't do enough.
|
| 174 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 19:15
|
Yup, stick a fork in me. I'd like to thank Cutler for being a steaming pile of poop this season.
|
| 175 | Smith32
ID: 25751421
Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 20:40
|
Wow - check out Bags' lineup. 213 pts (including a goose-egg
from Leonard Little). He also had 93 pts on the bench, with
nothing from Westbrook and Slaton. That's pretty insane.
|
| 176 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 15:44
|
Bonka - Once you are eliminated from the Championship bracket, you are no longer allowed to make add/drops. I reversed your pickup of Harper this afternoon. You are free to reclaim Scott once he clears the lockout period.
|
| 177 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3626821
Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 15:45
|
Reminder from post 137:
2. Teams eliminated from the Championship bracket may no longer add players for the duration of the playoffs.
|
| 178 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3626821
Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 15:45
|
hehe, Guru was already on top of thing.
|
| 179 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 16:03
|
Meh, just wanted to get someone who's going to play for the 3rd place game, not like anybody put in waiver requests :/
|
| 180 | Smith32
ID: 25751421
Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 22:12
|
Add / drop whomever you want - I'm sticking with the guys who
got me here.
Good luck, I_A_C. It is an honor to face off against you for the title.
I know your team is banged up, but you've been hanging tough.
May the best team win.
Happy holidays everyone.
Smith32
|
| 181 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3626821
Thu, Dec 24, 2009, 01:54
|
Smith32: If I lose to your team, I certainly won't feel bad at all. Yours was one of the teams that I originally thought was a real contender, and I know from previous years that your a very good/consistent manager.
Lets have some fun watching games this weekend! I'll be in Foxborough for the Pats game with my wife and a couple friends.
|
| 182 | judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 11:44
|
PLAYOFF LEAGUE
I set up a playoff league for RIFC folks through MFL in which each player gets used once
throughout. I've set it up with 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 PK and 1 DST. As far as I can tell, we
can have as many teams as we want. I set the scoring to match the RIFC set up.
Do we want any IDP's? I was thinking of 1 DL, 1 LB and 1 DB??? Chime in with thoughts. It
might make it too "messy".
If you want an invitation, my email is listed.
|
| 183 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3626821
Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 22:20
|
Congrats to Smith32 on winning the RIFC! Your LBs really were exceptional this week, and mine just didn't show up. Too bad, I'm going to be going into next year yet again w/o an RIFC Championship win.
|
| 184 | Letter_J
ID: 182717
Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 11:03
|
To Smith32, Big Congrats.
To Guru, thank you again for hosting one of the most competitive leagues around.
And to all the other RIFC, thank you for yet another competitive and enjoyable season of fantasy football.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|