Talk Fantasy Football

Hi everyone,

This weekend we noticed that teams in a league get +1 to their roll for both Wins and Ties.

I am positive we missed this rule last season and only awarded the +1 for the Winners.

Can anyone see any pro's/con's for only awarding the +1 to the winners?

Michael

Less cash overall for teams who draw their games. Could lead to attrition issues.

I want the teams to play for a win in every game instead of settling for a tie. The extra 10K would hopefully drive that behaviour more so than the rules as posted.

celticgriffon wrote:I want the teams to play for a win in every game instead of settling for a tie. The extra 10K would hopefully drive that behaviour more so than the rules as posted.

You're not the first person to present this argument and you certainly won't be the last but I've questioned for years what the issue with a tie is for some folks. Why is it made to be a lesser thing? Granted it is by it's nature less than a win, but it is (and should be) equally more than a loss. There are many times in league play that it is actually strategically wiser to play for a tie and not risk the health of your team for a few more points in the standings.

Here's a hypothetical situation; you have two coaches of equal talent playing each other with equal TV teams of the same tier, the dice rolls come out in a perfect balance for both coaches, and assuming both coaches play offense and defense with tactical equality then the game should theoretically end in a 1-1 tie. So if that's how the game is designed then why penalize coaches for it?

Like I said, you're not the first to want a league ran that way so I'm not going to sit here and say that it absolutely shouldn't be done, but I just personally don't get it.

Ultimately I think that you'll find high AG teams and teams with Mutation access will become a standard with ClawPOMBing eventually running rampant for a while. Over time it will likely even back out but hopefully not at the expense of too much league attrition.

Perhaps it is the way our league is structured. We don't have a set weekly schedule.

Our league year is divided into two seasons - early season and late season. Each coach can play each opponent a max of two times during each.

The top two players in terms of league standings get a first round play-off bye. Third and fourth place in league standings also get in.

In addtion, two more teams advance to the play-offs. The teams with the highest win pecentage (after the four point leaders are determined) also get in. But they are required to play a minimum of four games in the early and four games min in the late season.

Thankfully we only have one team in the league (Chaos Dwarves) who can gain the claw/po/mb combo. That coach is me and I doubt I will build anyone that way.

By it's nature, in a way the league will already favour the players who play more games. So I am trying to ensure they do what they can to go for the win.

Thoughts?

An American that doesn't mind ties. I've seen it all now!

Fassbinder75 wrote:An American that doesn't mind ties. I've seen it all now!

I'm sure I could show you some internet sites that would make you regret that statement.

celticgriffon wrote:By it's nature, in a way the league will already favour the players who play more games. So I am trying to ensure they do what they can to go for the win.

If you're basing seedings on win%, aren't they already encouraged to go for a win? Depending on how you count win% a tie will at best be half a win, so I'm not seeing a problem.

That would make tying all your games as good as winning half and losing half, similar to the old 2-1-0 system football use to use. They switched to 3-1-0 in order to encourage winning and risk more for it.

If unequal games are to be played then you could use a point average, with ties being decided by number of games played.

We use a 4 pts (win) 2 pts (tie) and 1 pt (loss) structure.

Fassbinder75 wrote:An American that doesn't mind ties. I've seen it all now!

Hey I helped put that rule into effect ... so make that 2 that don't mind.

Galak - Were there any other reasons other than those cited by burgun824?

celticgriffon wrote:Galak - Were there any other reasons other than those cited by burgun824?

Actually yes.

Turn 5 of the 2nd half ... I'm down 2-1. The extra 10k gives me an extra incentive to take some risks I might not take. That was my main reason for making it have the 10k bonus. I wanted to reward folks to not giving up when behind.

Tom

Fassbinder75 wrote:An American that doesn't mind ties. I've seen it all now!

I too, think a tie is not a bad thing, although the way sports are covered, and some who announce it I can see where you'd get that idea.

Having said that, if you ignore the fact that everyone in North and South America are Americans, and sadly many who live in the US of A do, celticgriffon is Canadian.

EDIT: My bad, you were referring to burgun824. Last I checked TN is in the USA.

Just to check, since you missed one rule. . .
You are aware that the winner may choose to reroll the die to determine winnings?
If you reroll 1, 2, and 3 only, then you average +7.5k more for winning than tying.

According to anecdotal evidence, making money more scarce will bias the league toward higher armor teams.

As was stated, by placing more emphasis on winning, you remove some of the emphasis on not losing. If you are down by one point, why risk your players trying to tie?

You are commissioner, you can do it however you want. I would usually say, "just be aware of the consequences," but that is obviously why you came here.