Champ and Runner up decided to split winnings (1 Viewer)

[thegenerel]

So an email just went out from the league champ talking trash about winning.

blah blah blah

then he ends it with saying how he and the 2nd place guy decided before the game that they were going to split the final pot total regardless of the outcome.

im torn between caring and not at all. i do not believe there was shady intent, but should they be called out on this? does this strike anyone else as odd?

 

[comfortably numb]

So an email just went out from the league champ talking trash about winning.blah blah blahthen he ends it with saying how he and the 2nd place guy decided before the game that they were going to split the final pot total regardless of the outcome.im torn between caring and not at all. i do not believe there was shady intent, but should they be called out on this? does this strike anyone else as odd?

Calling him out on what?Odd? No, I have done it before.

 

[Peter_Griffin]

The trash talking is strange after they split the pot.

Splitting the pot is not strange and it happens a lot in our big money league as a lot of us go way back.

 

[simmonjm]

So an email just went out from the league champ talking trash about winning.blah blah blahthen he ends it with saying how he and the 2nd place guy decided before the game that they were going to split the final pot total regardless of the outcome.im torn between caring and not at all. i do not believe there was shady intent, but should they be called out on this? does this strike anyone else as odd?

Not at all in our league 1st place gets 1000 and 2nd place gets 500. Pretty much every year the pot is split so both players get 750 and play for bragging rights essentially. This year while in the semi finals i made a deal with my opponent that we would split the winnings because we knew that the next week each of us would win. It worked out my opponent took 1st and I took 3rd each of us earning 650.

 

[thegenerel]

So an email just went out from the league champ talking trash about winning.blah blah blahthen he ends it with saying how he and the 2nd place guy decided before the game that they were going to split the final pot total regardless of the outcome.im torn between caring and not at all. i do not believe there was shady intent, but should they be called out on this? does this strike anyone else as odd?

Calling him out on what?Odd? No, I have done it before.

i dont think its a big deal, but i wouldnt do it. seems too noncompetitive for my liking

 

[WiDDoW_MaKeR]

It was there money anyways... who cares?

 

[Uber]

I did this this year. What would be the problem with it?

 

[thegenerel]

seems odd that they compete for 15 weeks then agree for a tie week 16.

where is the competitive spirit?

its not about the money, but the whole agreement of a tie.

 

[Ladsud]

It would annoy me, if they wanted a more even split of the final pot I would prefer people at least go 55/45. Me personally I would never split any pot in any competitive game.

 

[Eminence]

As long as the Winner of the actual game got more money than the loser...

 

[Jon_Moore]

seems odd that they compete for 15 weeks then agree for a tie week 16.where is the competitive spirit?its not about the money, but the whole agreement of a tie.

I disagree. You still win or lose the game, and you still have the bragging rights. However, it's safer and IMO smarter to take the extra guaranteed money as opposed to risk leaving with less. No matter how good you've been for 15 weeks, anything can happen in any given week. Your guys can suck, and his guys can can combine for 10 TDs. You take the risk/gamble out of it, which is just smarter to me.

 

[FUBAR]

its not about the money, but the whole agreement of a tie.

Assuming they didn't bench their players and agree to not play the game, there's no issue. It's simply a gift of $ from one person to the other.

 

[identikit]

seems odd that they compete for 15 weeks then agree for a tie week 16.

where is the competitive spirit?

its not about the money, but the whole agreement of a tie.

They didn't agree to tie.

 

[One]

I've had this offered to me before and took the deal.

If you're in a league long enough I don't think the money is as meaningful as winning it all so I didn't feel slighted in the least bit.

1st got $800

2nd got $400

...so we split $1200

I figured $600 was good enough for me considering my team was inferior after looking at matchups. So I accepted and still ended up losing. The championship was just as fun and competitive as any other Super Bowl I'd lost. However, if I had a kickass team there's no way I make this deal.

 

[LionsFan78]

seems odd that they compete for 15 weeks then agree for a tie week 16.where is the competitive spirit?its not about the money, but the whole agreement of a tie.

I don't agree with this either. They are not agreeing for a tie score in the game. They are agreeing to evenly split the prize money, regardless of the outcome. There's no reason for them to be "called out on this" as you say.And competitive spirit? One person still wins the title, and has every right to brag.

 

[Uber]

I did this this year. What would be the problem with it?

ETA:The payouts were $600 for 1st, $300 for 2nd. I originally approached him to see if he wanted to take $400 each and play for the $100, but he insisted that we should just chop. I didn't care for my match ups this week, so I said what the hell, and we just played for the "crown." It's a dynasty league, so being a champion is something you can brag about for awhile.

 

[Rovers]

If I were commish, I send out the prize money according to the rule set. If they want to split the pot, let them, but as commish, I send the prize $ out as per the rule set. They can swap spit and checks as they see fit.

 

[gianmarco]

No problem with this at all. Same thing happens in poker tournaments all the time. It makes sense, unless a heavy favorite, to take a chop at the end if big $$ involved so that both go home doing well. Personally, I wouldn't do this for a smaller $$ league where the difference is minimal and I also wouldn't do this unless the winner gets a slightly larger share (55/45 or 60/40), but I see no issue with this whatsoever.

 

[Doug Drinen]

The trash talking is strange after they split the pot.

Agreed.What did he say, "Even though 24 hours ago I was too scared to play against you for any real stakes, I just you!!!!1"? Doesn't really sting. I'm not much of a trash-talker, though, so maybe I just don't get it.I'm also a little surprised by the general consensus that chopping is fine. "It's not about the money" is an argument that could just as easily be used on either side. "It's not about the money" means you don't really care whether you win $X or $Y. If you don't care, then why the need to insure against the possibility of only winning $X?I'm a firm believer that this and almost all questions of this nature should be determined by league culture. If your league thinks it's OK, then it's OK. So, while I wouldn't do it, I don't have a problem with the chop itself. I'm just surprised. I fully expected 90% of the posts in here to be anti-chop.

 

[Da Guru]

Hello....you play to win the game!

In my main league it has not happened in 16 years and I feel safe to say it would NEVER happen. The league is way too competitive. Plus the winner gets 3500 and the loser 1500. So it is a good payday for both.

I personally would never offer or accept a deal like that. It would take away all the fun, and it would make all the moves I have made all season seem worthless.

Play the game and win it or lose it like a man. Not like a coward who is afraid to lose.

 

[Da Guru]

I've had this offered to me before and took the deal.

If you're in a league long enough I don't think the money is as meaningful as winning it all so I didn't feel slighted in the least bit.

1st got $800

2nd got $400

...so we split $1200

I figured $600 was good enough for me considering my team was inferior after looking at matchups. So I accepted and still ended up losing. The championship was just as fun and competitive as any other Super Bowl I'd lost. However, if I had a kickass team there's no way I make this deal.

Good enough..never is.

 

[identikit]

Hello....you play to win the game!In my main league it has not happened in 16 years and I feel safe to say it would NEVER happen. The league is way too competitive. Plus the winner gets 3500 and the loser 1500. So it is a good payday for both.I personally would never offer or accept a deal like that. It would take away all the fun, and it would make all the moves I have made all season seem worthless.Play the game and win it or lose it like a man. Not like a coward who is afraid to lose.

I'm with you on this.I wouldn't offer/accept a deal like this.But if they want to split it, that's their choice.

 

[parasaurolophus]

while I would never offer a chop, I would also never refuse one that was offered to me.

I would be mad enough that I lost, also coming out behind 200 more from where I would have been would just be salt in the wound.

I wouldnt want to say, I should have taken the chop.

 

[omahabrad]

I think it's kind of a sissy move. Why even play for money if your going to split it up with everyone.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Who cares what they do regarding money? As long as they're both trying to win the game and get the bragging rights...the league is getting the title game it deserves.

You have to do what's right for you, of course. But nobody here plays for the money. If you broke down your "winnings" compared to the time you spend...you probably wouldn't even make minimum wage.

 

[Doug Drinen]

You have to do what's right for you, of course. But nobody here plays for the money. If you broke down your "winnings" compared to the time you spend...you probably wouldn't even make minimum wage.

This is exactly why it does NOT make any sense to chop.

 

[Da Guru]

Who cares what they do regarding money? As long as they're both trying to win the game and get the bragging rights...the league is getting the title game it deserves.You have to do what's right for you, of course. But nobody here plays for the money. If you broke down your "winnings" compared to the time you spend...you probably wouldn't even make minimum wage.

That is why Yahoo has "fun" leagues.

 

[mozzy84]

I've had this offered to me before and took the deal. If you're in a league long enough I don't think the money is as meaningful as winning it all so I didn't feel slighted in the least bit.1st got $8002nd got $400...so we split $1200I figured $600 was good enough for me considering my team was inferior after looking at matchups. So I accepted and still ended up losing. The championship was just as fun and competitive as any other Super Bowl I'd lost. However, if I had a kickass team there's no way I make this deal.

see if I am getting 400 either way no way I split, not for 200 bucks, even if I think my team is not as good. If the second place guy gets nothing I could see a split but never a 50/50 split, would have to be at least 70/30 or 60/40. jmo...

 

[tribecalledjeff]

You have to do what's right for you, of course. But nobody here plays for the money. If you broke down your "winnings" compared to the time you spend...you probably wouldn't even make minimum wage.

This is exactly why it does NOT make any sense to chop.

Don't kid yourself - money is a big part of why I play. Sure it's fun as hell and competitive, but I wouldn't be in 5 leagues if they were all free.I have chopped before, when I played in a league that was probably too high stakes for me to start with. If the difference between 1st and 2nd is a significant amount of money for you then a) you probably should be playing in a lower stakes league, and b) you should split.

In the example given above where it was 3500 vs. 1500, I'd chop that in a heartbeat. The chances of losing 2000 because I started the wrong guy are just too great.

Look at it this way. If you chop, you are both given $2500. Would you risk the extra $1000 on one week of fantasy football? If you want to, great. If not, cool. To each their own.

 

[kinghill]

As someone else said this happens in poker tournaments all the time. I have no problem with it, but I would prefer to see the winner come up at least a little bit on top with the $$ winnings. For example Poker Stars forces at least 10 or 20% of the pot to be given to the winner if they decide to make a deal.

I actually offered something like this in my 3rd place game this week. I thought I had no shot to win. Winner of 3rd got $60, loser $0. I said let's each take $20, then winner gets the remaining $20 (so a $40/$20 split). He rejected the offer. Then I beat him 111-78. Still, at the time I offered the deal I thought he would be stupid for accepting it.

 

[Dexter Manley]

I used to be on the "chopping is for sissies" bandwagon, but I've fallen off. Personally I would never offer a chop, and I would reject a chop from most people, but I did agree to chop in 1 super bowl this year. Yes I popped my chop cherry.

It just so happened that this friend wanted to chop last Friday. He had Rhodes who had already played on Thursday night. Out of the 16 people in the league, he's one of only 2 or 3 who I would agree to chop with. Fwiw, had Rhodes scored 4 points instead of 14, I wouldn't have agreed to the chop. I simply determined that chopping was probably about break even EV wise when factoring in Rhodes score.

My friend really wanted to chop - he's pretty conservative with his $$$, I think his wife has him on an allowance. Since the money doesn't matter as much as winning the championship, and it was about breakeven EV, I agreed to chop. I ended up losing the SB which sucked, so the chop worked out well for me.

 

[JamesTheScot]

seems odd that they compete for 15 weeks then agree for a tie week 16.where is the competitive spirit?its not about the money, but the whole agreement of a tie.

They didn't agree to a tie. The one team won the game and was crowned champ by beating the other unless I missed something.What two guys decide to do with their winnings - cause no one else had a stake in it - really isn't any of anyone else's business.The only way you would have a beef would be if one of the teams tanked it on purpose. And even then, unless it affects next year's draft standings, etc., there's probably no effect on anyone else other than those two. But if there's no incentive to tank it, why would either one do that? I don't need money to motivate me to play hard and run my team...I haven't since 1995.Sounds like the two guys with the two best teams realized that a lot of money was riding on dumb luck. I'm all for minimzing risk when money and blind luck are involved.

 

[FUBAR]

the only problem I'd have with this is that it seems to have been taken as a cop-out.

If it's a simple gesture to each other of goodwill, then I think it's kind of cool. Otherwise

 

[Doug Drinen]

Look at it this way. If you chop, you are both given $2500. Would you risk the extra $1000 on one week of fantasy football? If you want to, great. If not, cool. To each their own.

If not, then why get into a league where the rules say that you must*?* - assuming the other guys wants to

 

[Da Guru]

seems odd that they compete for 15 weeks then agree for a tie week 16.

where is the competitive spirit?

its not about the money, but the whole agreement of a tie.

They didn't agree to a tie. The one team won the game and was crowned champ by beating the other unless I missed something.What two guys decide to do with their winnings - cause no one else had a stake in it - really isn't any of anyone else's business.

The only way you would have a beef would be if one of the teams tanked it on purpose. And even then, unless it affects next year's draft standings, etc., there's probably no effect on anyone else other than those two. But if there's no incentive to tank it, why would either one do that? I don't need money to motivate me to play hard and run my team...I haven't since 1995.

Sounds like the two guys with the two best teams realized that a lot of money was riding on dumb luck. I'm all for minimzing risk when money and blind luck are involved.

That is fantasy Football my friend.I had a crappy team in one league for the most part..but I did have Brandon Jacobs and D-Willy and won..so that makes me a Guru of some sort...I guess.

In my main league I had a great team and got knocked out the first playoff game.

 

[AcerFC]

I have no problems with it. Most of the time, the money is split and the winner winds up taking home a little more but splits happen a lot as others have said

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Who cares what they do regarding money? As long as they're both trying to win the game and get the bragging rights...the league is getting the title game it deserves.You have to do what's right for you, of course. But nobody here plays for the money. If you broke down your "winnings" compared to the time you spend...you probably wouldn't even make minimum wage.

That is why Yahoo has "fun" leagues.

No offense, but if your league isn't a "fun" league...you're in the wrong league.

 

[Buckna]

I have no problem with people doing this. However, once you do, you lose all ability to brag about winning the Super Bowl. If you didn't have the stones to let your fantasy team prove it on the field, you don't get to brag about winning it all. Be prepared to be called "gutless," "sissy," etc. (in all good fun, of course.)

 

[JamesTheScot]

I think it's kind of a sissy move. Why even play for money if your going to split it up with everyone.

You're not splitting it up with everyone. You're only splitting it up with your acknowledged equal. The rest of the stepping stones in the league don't have a say in it by virtue of not playing well enough to be there.Don't like to chop? Make the finals and then you can refuse to.

Until then, you're a loser telling a winner what they should do. By definition, who are you to criticize them? If you aren't at the final table, have a seat and ####. Their ability to weigh risk vs. reward may be the very reason they are in the championship and you are not.

All the "you's" in this post are not directed at omahabrad, but to those who aren't in the championships generally.

 

[cubbie5150]

Not a big deal to me... In my 15 year-old redraft league (12 team), winner gets $2,000 & runner-up gets $780. I am playing in the championship week 17 (yeah, I know), and have already decided I will NOT agree to splitting the pot--no balls, no babies, and my opponent even has much better matchups than me. I figure if by some luck I win, I want to be able to crow about it AND have the winner's share...

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You have to do what's right for you, of course. But nobody here plays for the money. If you broke down your "winnings" compared to the time you spend...you probably wouldn't even make minimum wage.

This is exactly why it does NOT make any sense to chop.

I think that's why it makes sense to do whatever you feel like doing, because it doesn't really matter. I have no problem with a person who doesn't want to chop. They made it this far...let's ride it out! But if they do, it doesn't change the competitive spirit of the league or the title game.Personally, if you offered me the money or the title...I'd take the title every time. Some would take the money every time and never win a title. I just think if the actual cash-- the gambling aspect of it-- is the dominating factor, fantasy football is a very inefficient way to maximize that factor. Why waste months of your life and all that research to win a few hundred bucks or a couple grand or whatever? You can do that in an afternoon.

So if it's not about the money, the competitive nature of the game is the most important thing. I have no problem with the two teams splitting the pot. But if one team benched their players to let their buddy win (even in a free league) I'd be furious as an owner. I guess one just seems wrong to me and the other is more "who cares?" To each their own.

 

[Da Guru]

I was just talking to the commish of my main league and telling him about this thread..he went on to tell me we have a "No chop rule" on any and all prize monies. We have 14 teams and give out cash for division winners as well. Eveyone knows how much it is to get in, and are here to win..not split.

I have been in 5 SuperBowls in 16 years and nobody has ever offered me a chop, and I have never even heard it discussed.

This is pretty much a Shark League that costs 500 a team entry. Knowing the guys in this league I can`t think of one person who would even think about offering or accepting a chop. We formed this league as a serious league..over the years we have ousted a couple of teams that we felt did not participate on a week to week basis and weakened the league..we wanted the best FF players we could find.

To each his own though.

 

[brewer]

I like the semi-chop. I.E., in one of my standard $100 leagues, the winner of the Championship game gets $500. I made the final game two years in a row and offered a semi-chop each time... each of us would get $200 and the winner would take the extra $100. I probably wouldn't have thought this way until I started playing a lot of tournament style poker.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Sorry, but I'm fascinated by this thread.

For the choppers, what if all four playoff teams wanted to chop before the semis? Would you consider that if the other three teams wanted to? If not, what's the difference?

 

[JamesTheScot]

seems odd that they compete for 15 weeks then agree for a tie week 16.

where is the competitive spirit?

its not about the money, but the whole agreement of a tie.

They didn't agree to a tie. The one team won the game and was crowned champ by beating the other unless I missed something.What two guys decide to do with their winnings - cause no one else had a stake in it - really isn't any of anyone else's business.

The only way you would have a beef would be if one of the teams tanked it on purpose. And even then, unless it affects next year's draft standings, etc., there's probably no effect on anyone else other than those two. But if there's no incentive to tank it, why would either one do that? I don't need money to motivate me to play hard and run my team...I haven't since 1995.

Sounds like the two guys with the two best teams realized that a lot of money was riding on dumb luck. I'm all for minimzing risk when money and blind luck are involved.

That is fantasy Football my friend.I had a crappy team in one league for the most part..but I did have Brandon Jacobs and D-Willy and won..so that makes me a Guru of some sort...I guess.

In my main league I had a great team and got knocked out the first playoff game.

Playing in a head2head league always injects a huge amount of luck into the equation, especially in the playoffs. You should take that into consideration beforehand when evaluating your team. Your "crappy" team isn't so crappy in a single elimination head2head format, is it? Your "great" team wasn't so great after all in a single elimination head2head format is it?Assessing risk is what chopping the pot is all about. I rarely see someone who says they don't believe in chopping pots maintain that position when the odds swing drastically againt them. No atheists in fox holes, after all. Most all of us will chop the pot, we just differ on where we become willing to.

 

[brewer]

Sorry, but I'm fascinated by this thread.For the choppers, what if all four playoff teams wanted to chop before the semis? Would you consider that if the other three teams wanted to? If not, what's the difference?

It's never been brought up, but I would certainly consider it. I agree, that there is virtually no difference.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Most all of us will chop the pot, we just differ on where we become willing to.

Much like Groucho, I'd never agree to a chop with anyone who was willing to agree to chop with me.

 

[omahabrad]

I think it's kind of a sissy move. Why even play for money if your going to split it up with everyone.

You're not splitting it up with everyone. You're only splitting it up with your acknowledged equal. The rest of the stepping stones in the league don't have a say in it by virtue of not playing well enough to be there.Don't like to chop? Make the finals and then you can refuse to.

Until then, you're a loser telling a winner what they should do. By definition, who are you to criticize them? If you aren't at the final table, have a seat and ####. Their ability to weigh risk vs. reward may be the very reason they are in the championship and you are not.

All the "you's" in this post are not directed at omahabrad, but to those who aren't in the championships generally.

Not telling anyone what to do with their money. Just saying what I think about it. If you're afraid to lose you shouldn't be playing and if you can't afford to lose you're playing in the wrong leagues.

 

[Fullback Fro]

I was offered a chop and had a better team with better matchups this week. I decided against it. I lost.

 

[tribecalledjeff]

Look at it this way. If you chop, you are both given $2500. Would you risk the extra $1000 on one week of fantasy football? If you want to, great. If not, cool. To each their own.

If not, then why get into a league where the rules say that you must*?* - assuming the other guys wants to

I said in my first post that I only chopped because I got into a league that I shouldn't have, meaning that the money was too significant of an amount to risk.It all comes down to risk aversion and what each person is comfortable with.