Fantasy Football Implications from MNF Game (1 Viewer)

[Zow]

Wait until the NFL decides what to do and than figure it out.

This is where we're at in my leagues that I've talked to the commish. Let's get more information.

My take is that if the game isn't replayed, it's just gotta be a tie.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

I offered to concede the final I am in if things don't resume this week. 40 points down with Mixon to play vs his Allen and Davis. The opponent was clearly going to win.

In another league, the scores are basically tied with the guy narrowly behind by 0.something of a point with Tee Higgins in play. His opponent also offered to concede if it isn't resumed, I'd have been less keen to offer it up in that instance but respect the decision either way.

 

[Dacomish]

IF the game doesn't conclude before week 18 starts then I left the decision up to the 2 championship teams and they both were happy to do week 18 as a "do over". Both had lots of shares in Buff/Cincy so it benefits them both equally - I Just set up a H2H game to finish the season.

Yes not ideal, but it is what it is. I let them decide in the end.

 

[wlwiles]

In the finals in the league I commish - my team was done and my opponent had Higgins to go. If Higgins hit his (Yahoo) projection exactly, I would lose by 0.08, so it was as close to 50/50 as could be.

Just calling the current scores final and pretending it's the same thing as if players got injured just feels dirty to me. I'd rather use weekly average, or apply W18 scores retroactively, or replace with highest bench player, just about anything else.

 

[Zow]

In the finals in the league I commish - my team was done and my opponent had Higgins to go. If Higgins hit his (Yahoo) projection exactly, I would lose by 0.08, so it was as close to 50/50 as could be.

Just calling the current scores final and pretending it's the same thing as if players got injured just feels dirty to me. I'd rather use weekly average, or apply W18 scores retroactively, or replace with highest bench player, just about anything else.

I strongly oppose the bold because owners likely made roster moves to deplete the strength of one's bench. I know I did in about every league where I was still alive to cash.

 

[Dwayne Hoover]

If the game is cancelled - all scores stay "as is" and whoever was in the lead is the league champion - it sucks but it would be akin to a player getting hurt early in the game.

I would be plenty pissed if this was the decision made by my commish. If you're going this route then just use scores from Week 16, at least they were all complete games.

To be clear what I'm saying is if the league decides to continue the game then our fantasy game continues. If the league cancels the game, the team in the lead will "win" that week - it really would be akin to a player getting hurt. As far as the money, I leave that up to the teams to decide (I believe the teams in the championship game will split 1st and 2nd place money).

If you were in my league and got pissed at me, I'd tell you to shut the **** up and drop it - things happen. Your solution of counting Week 16 stats for a Week 17 game is just as "bad" imo.

Using Week 18 is also not a great solution, imo. What if the Bengals sit Burrow? How is that fair. There is no solution that will make everyone happy. I find it odd that you would argue one solution is the correct one.

I agree with your assessment here. Its the path that doesn't have the Commish making outside the box changes that have no precedent at all.

You also want to find a rule that will always work should this unfortunate situation ever occur again and for that reason, I really don't think any week 18 scoring is a good one.

 

[Godsbrother]

Just spit-balling, but if this game gets wiped off the books, does it make any sense to give a team its highest-scoring bench players from Week 17, swap them in for any Bills/Bengals players they started, and just live with that?

Tough to do that after the fact, after all I had no way of knowing who would be my highest scoring bench players and neither did my opponent. For example, I'm the commish and have Mike Evans sitting on my bench. I think I would rightfully get a lot of complaints if I subbed Evans for Chase (who was my starter)

 

[mbuehner]

I would try to come up with a non biased way to determine expected points for the players impacted and set a baseline for likely outcome.

IE: based on math player A had a 20% chance to win, player B had 80%. Then walk that process back a little toward 50/50. So in the example above, give player A 30% of the pot.

Why not just use the average points scored per game for this year for those players?

Why play the season at all, just use last years averages.

 

[Wildcat]

I would try to come up with a non biased way to determine expected points for the players impacted and set a baseline for likely outcome.

IE: based on math player A had a 20% chance to win, player B had 80%. Then walk that process back a little toward 50/50. So in the example above, give player A 30% of the pot.

Why not just use the average points scored per game for this year for those players?

Why play the season at all, just use last years averages.

Because that’s not addressing my response to the math that The Duff Man was attempting to use. Did you even read his post or just wanted to be snarky? Try and be helpful or don’t reply. Thanks

 

[efactor]

Just spit-balling, but if this game gets wiped off the books, does it make any sense to give a team its highest-scoring bench players from Week 17, swap them in for any Bills/Bengals players they started, and just live with that?

Tough to do that after the fact, after all I had no way of knowing who would be my highest scoring bench players and neither did my opponent. For example, I'm the commish and have Mike Evans sitting on my bench. I think I would rightfully get a lot of complaints if I subbed Evans for Chase (who was my starter)

Yep

 

[zamboni]

There’s no easy solution that is totally fair, but IMO the closest would be the seasonal average of the player in your lineup. At least it has some correlation to the player you had in your lineup, as opposed to a random collection of players you had no interest starting.

Bench points are a tough way to go - for instance, what if many of these players on benches, particularly in keeper/dynasty leagues, are projects that would not be expected to put up a lot of points?

 

[Zow]

Just spit-balling, but if this game gets wiped off the books, does it make any sense to give a team its highest-scoring bench players from Week 17, swap them in for any Bills/Bengals players they started, and just live with that?

Tough to do that after the fact, after all I had no way of knowing who would be my highest scoring bench players and neither did my opponent. For example, I'm the commish and have Mike Evans sitting on my bench. I think I would rightfully get a lot of complaints if I subbed Evans for Chase (who was my starter)

Yeah, I wouldn't be okay with this. I admit I say this in part because I likely lose my championship game as my opponent had Brady on his bench and he started Burrow.

 

[Zow]

I would try to come up with a non biased way to determine expected points for the players impacted and set a baseline for likely outcome.

IE: based on math player A had a 20% chance to win, player B had 80%. Then walk that process back a little toward 50/50. So in the example above, give player A 30% of the pot.

Why not just use the average points scored per game for this year for those players?

Why play the season at all, just use last years averages.

I think he's making a viable suggestion in a tough situation. I think the player average is a much better solution than using bench players and I think it's also likely better than replaying the game in week 18 as it does the best to remain consistent with week 17 lineup decisions (which is about the best an owner can do to control an outcome).

 

[habsfan]

So many ways, as league commissioners, that we could go, but I'm not that into plugging in season-long averages. In going by FGB standard scoring, Joe Mixon, as an example, gets 12.8 points (season average) when he's put up 8.9 over the last 4 and would have had a tough matchup vs. the Bills? Not that any solution is going to be 100% fair, but that's a tough one to me. I don't think using averages, projections or hypotheticals is a fair way to determine a championship.

Just spit-balling, but if this game gets wiped off the books, does it make any sense to give a team its highest-scoring bench players from Week 17, swap them in for any Bills/Bengals players they started, and just live with that?

This game was obviously cancelled after the game began, but if you found out that Mixon was out with COVID an hour before kickoff with every other game in the books, we have an emergency pickup rule in place (especially for the playoffs) where you could get one of his backups, if available and if you didn't already have Samaje Perine, Trayveon Williams or whoever was active. Our rosters lock once the playoffs start, so this was mostly put in place if you went into the postseason with 2 kickers or 2 QBs and both got hurt before your next game. If you go into the playoffs with only one kicker or QB, then that's on you and you don't get a pickup if he gets hurt. Anyway, under these circumstances, where you're potentially inserting bench players as a solution to this very unique issue, if you started Mixon over Jamaal Williams, you'd be pretty lucky. If you had someone like David Montgomery as your highest-scoring RB on your bench, it would suck, but at least you're going with players on your roster who you would have plugged in if you knew ahead of time Mixon was out. If you chose to go into the playoffs with Josh Allen and no backup, then you get the points he scored before the game was cancelled, that's the risk you took and that's it. Thoughts?

I think it's "a way" to handle this but not any more or less elegant than any of the others. I went into my championship with Josh Allen and no backup. Well I had one but dropped him because it's the last week of the season and I have a healthy Josh Allen. I'm struggling to see how "the risk I took" isn't a pretty arbitrary way of handling it.

 

[mbuehner]

I would try to come up with a non biased way to determine expected points for the players impacted and set a baseline for likely outcome.

IE: based on math player A had a 20% chance to win, player B had 80%. Then walk that process back a little toward 50/50. So in the example above, give player A 30% of the pot.

Why not just use the average points scored per game for this year for those players?

Why play the season at all, just use last years averages.

Because that’s not addressing my response to the math that The Duff Man was attempting to use. Did you even read his post or just wanted to be snarky? Try and be helpful or don’t reply. Thanks

No.

 

[mbuehner]

I would try to come up with a non biased way to determine expected points for the players impacted and set a baseline for likely outcome.

IE: based on math player A had a 20% chance to win, player B had 80%. Then walk that process back a little toward 50/50. So in the example above, give player A 30% of the pot.

Why not just use the average points scored per game for this year for those players?

Why play the season at all, just use last years averages.

I think he's making a viable suggestion in a tough situation. I think the player average is a much better solution than using bench players and I think it's also likely better than replaying the game in week 18 as it does the best to remain consistent with week 17 lineup decisions (which is about the best an owner can do to control an outcome).

Pragmatically, I think its a bad look to arbitrarily decide on a method of choosing the winner in a manner whereby the winner has already been determined. Even if the commishs dont have skin in the game, its still likely to cause some well deserved blowback. I dont see any difference in doing this than just saying the team with the most points at this moment is the winner. Now if this was set in the rules previously, that one thing, but pulling it out of nowhere is problematic imo.
I'm leaning towards using next weeks results. Thats not fair either but at least the winner isnt predetermined.

 

[BassNBrew]

There’s no easy solution that is totally fair, but IMO the closest would be the seasonal average of the player in your lineup. At least it has some correlation to the player you had in your lineup, as opposed to a random collection of players you had no interest starting.

Bench points are a tough way to go - for instance, what if many of these players on benches, particularly in keeper/dynasty leagues, are projects that would not be expected to put up a lot of points?

Not really. Cook is a lot more active now than over the season. Also one may have start Boyd expecting a high scoring game in lieu of someone else. Boyd's season average is 10.5 points, he already had close to 9 points in less than a quarter. Also how would you handle a situation where Josh Allen's backup had been playing? Plenty of people started Minshaw this week.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Yeah, the average suggestions don't work for me at all. Even though it isn't directly doing so, it feels like it's just deciding who gets to win, not creating an opportunity for somebody to win.

We had also discussed just using the scores of players who didn't play this week from next week. Basically Bills and Bengals players scores are used from next week. If they don't play, at least you had a chance.

 

[Winning IS Everything]

There’s no easy solution that is totally fair, but IMO the closest would be the seasonal average of the player in your lineup. At least it has some correlation to the player you had in your lineup, as opposed to a random collection of players you had no interest starting.

Bench points are a tough way to go - for instance, what if many of these players on benches, particularly in keeper/dynasty leagues, are projects that would not be expected to put up a lot of points?

In my league (non PPR) I am down 16 with Josh Allen against my opponents Ja'Marr Chase. We do list three tiebreaker players and we each have a QB and WR listed. My suggestion will be to let him replace Chase with his Tie Break WR and I can replace Allen with my Tie Break QB. Either that or go with Avg PPG for Allen and Chase or just call it co-champions and split the pot and trophy. I Would be ok with any of those scenarios. In the first two I win and the third we split. If we decided to go with current scores and I lose, I would not be as happy, but would still support the decision.

 

[zamboni]

There’s no easy solution that is totally fair, but IMO the closest would be the seasonal average of the player in your lineup. At least it has some correlation to the player you had in your lineup, as opposed to a random collection of players you had no interest starting.

Bench points are a tough way to go - for instance, what if many of these players on benches, particularly in keeper/dynasty leagues, are projects that would not be expected to put up a lot of points?

Not really. Cook is a lot more active now than over the season. Also one may have start Boyd expecting a high scoring game in lieu of someone else. Boyd's season average is 10.5 points, he already had close to 9 points in less than a quarter. Also how would you handle a situation where Josh Allen's backup had been playing? Plenty of people started Minshaw this week.

Absolutely - there’s no simple solution. Even using, say the 4 week average, may not be reflective. To me, still better than projections, which aren’t worth the paper/screens they’re written on.

ETA: I was thinking more of the Allens, Burrows, Chases and Higgins of the world, where there is a full consistent body of work to deal with.

 

[JohnnyU]

If the game is cancelled - all scores stay "as is" and whoever was in the lead is the league champion - it sucks but it would be akin to a player getting hurt early in the game.

I would be plenty pissed if this was the decision made by my commish. If you're going this route then just use scores from Week 16, at least they were all complete games.

To be clear what I'm saying is if the league decides to continue the game then our fantasy game continues. If the league cancels the game, the team in the lead will "win" that week - it really would be akin to a player getting hurt. As far as the money, I leave that up to the teams to decide (I believe the teams in the championship game will split 1st and 2nd place money).

If you were in my league and got pissed at me, I'd tell you to shut the **** up and drop it - things happen. Your solution of counting Week 16 stats for a Week 17 game is just as "bad" imo.

Using Week 18 is also not a great solution, imo. What if the Bengals sit Burrow? How is that fair. There is no solution that will make everyone happy. I find it odd that you would argue one solution is the correct one.

If the game is cancelled I believe the best solution is to combine week 17 and 18, or just use week 18, discussing it quickly with those involved in the title game. If no consensus among them and we need a quick decision, I'll have to make the call. I do have a conflict of interest in one game I commish and I'm in the title game. I was down less than 3 points when the game was suspended and had Allen, Mixon, and Gabe Davis to go and he has no one, so I don't think it's fair I take the loss in the title game because of this. Having to use week 18 is bad enough since I was going to win with 99.99999% certainty. In the other two leagues I commish I'll do something similar.

If the game is just rescheduled this week, then nothing is done, just play the game. If the game is rescheduled for a different week, then I would hope MFL (or your hosting site) would give a solution that would work in that scenario.

 

[wlwiles]

In the finals in the league I commish - my team was done and my opponent had Higgins to go. If Higgins hit his (Yahoo) projection exactly, I would lose by 0.08, so it was as close to 50/50 as could be.

Just calling the current scores final and pretending it's the same thing as if players got injured just feels dirty to me. I'd rather use weekly average, or apply W18 scores retroactively, or replace with highest bench player, just about anything else.

I strongly oppose the bold because owners likely made roster moves to deplete the strength of one's bench. I know I did in about every league where I was still alive to cash.

I hear you. In this instance, in my league, it wouldn't be the case because the next highest bench player for him would be Olave, someone he's had rostered all year long, and someone that my opponent admitted to me before the games that he had toyed with the idea of starting at flex (opting for DJM instead) so by his own admission he'd have been his next man up, and he's played matchups between Olave and DJM all year long really. But yeah in a lot of leagues using the next bench guy might not be a viable solution because of blocking moves like you said. Point taken.

But I as commish don't want to create a "solution" on my own that says we'll use the next bench guy, because subbing in Olave gives me the championship. If the fantasy platform decides that's the solution then it's not from me. But for your reasons stated that's probably not their best solution either.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'd rather use weekly average

See to let this seems a far worse solution. I’m not saying you’re wrong just showing how opinions could be different.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't think it's fair I take the loss in the title game because of this

Nothing is going to be “fair” unless the NFL resumes the game today or tomorrow and fantasy games continue.

Every “solution” is going to be unfair to one team. It seems odd to me that some people can’t see this.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't think it's fair I take the loss in the title game because of this

Nothing is going to be “fair” unless the NFL resumes the game today or tomorrow and fantasy games continue.

Every “solution” is going to be unfair to one team. It seems odd to me that some people can’t see this.

Sorry, but I disagree. If I have Allen, Mixon, and Gabe Davis going and he has no one and I'm down by 3, I don't think I should get the loss.

 

[buckeye35]

I don't think it's fair I take the loss in the title game because of this

Nothing is going to be “fair” unless the NFL resumes the game today or tomorrow and fantasy games continue.

Every “solution” is going to be unfair to one team. It seems odd to me that some people can’t see this.

Sorry, but I disagree. If I have Allen, Mixon, and Gabe Davis going and he has no one and I'm down by 3, I don't think I should get the loss.

Agreed. In your case, it's a no-brainer.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Sorry, but I disagree. If I have Allen, Mixon, and Gabe Davis going and he has no one and I'm down by 3, I don't think I should get the loss.

Yeah, and it'd be absolutely farcical if he tried to claim he deserved to win as well.

 

[efactor]

I don't think it's fair I take the loss in the title game because of this

Nothing is going to be “fair” unless the NFL resumes the game today or tomorrow and fantasy games continue.

Every “solution” is going to be unfair to one team. It seems odd to me that some people can’t see this.

Sorry, but I disagree. If I have Allen, Mixon, and Gabe Davis going and he has no one and I'm down by 3, I don't think I should get the loss.

Agree. You have to use common sense and fairness in situations where one team was virtually assured of winning

 

[Buckna]

In all 4 of my leagues title games there is at least Burrow and some other combo of one or more of Chase, Allen, Diggs, Higgins, or Mixon. None of them are so one-sided as to say clearly one team had the lock on the win.

I’d go with chopping the pot and co-champs in those instances if it was me as no way to know how most of those would have played out but the only one I am involved in is a 3rd place game where I am massively ahead (bounced in the 1st round in 2 of the other 3, rebuilding in the 4th.)

 

[buckeye35]

Good points about the bench players. I was looking at it from my viewpoint, but I hadn't considered those who were able to make roster moves up until this week's game, those in dynasty, etc. In our league, most teams keep the best possible players on their benches to cover in case one of your guys go down, but I realize that is not the case in all leagues. Just trying to hash out different possibilities. Hopefully everything turns out well for Hamlin and the NFL makes it easy on us all.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't think it's fair I take the loss in the title game because of this

Nothing is going to be “fair” unless the NFL resumes the game today or tomorrow and fantasy games continue.

Every “solution” is going to be unfair to one team. It seems odd to me that some people can’t see this.

Sorry, but I disagree. If I have Allen, Mixon, and Gabe Davis going and he has no one and I'm down by 3, I don't think I should get the loss.

In your situation the best solution is for your opponent to concede. Unfortunately that doesn't work in national contests.

 

[smcindoe]

I went into Monday a few points behind but with three players including Burrows against one, so all but a sure thing. Had already made up the ground and then some by the time the game was called.

I trust our commish and I'm a believer in solving tough situations by just going with whatever the league platform does, but man it's going to be tough to take a loss here if they end up just zeroing out the whole game.

 

[MTskibum]

In my main league one opponent has burrow and the other has Allen and they are separated by 0.06 points. The team that is slightly behind has never won before and the team ahead has won the league twice.

 

[titusbramble]

I think in terms of leagues where there's money involved and it's a private league, commish should approach the players and see if they can come to an equitable chop. This ought not to be too hard assuming the players are reasonable, then everyone's happy. This is what we have already done in all my leagues outside of one close spot. Where it's trickier is:

- if it's a public league and it's reliant on the site in question to make a ruling
- if it's a keeper/dynasty league and you've got draft positioning on the line, if you've got a toilet bowl where the winner gets 1.01 and the match is live, you can't have 75% of Bijan and the runner up has 25% like you could with cash. There I think you've got to work out a winner one way or another, at least for the first round - then depending on how close it is you can try to work out who picks first out of the teams in question to try to balance it as much as possible.

 

[crushedspirit]

I don't think it's fair I take the loss in the title game because of this

Nothing is going to be “fair” unless the NFL resumes the game today or tomorrow and fantasy games continue.

Every “solution” is going to be unfair to one team. It seems odd to me that some people can’t see this.

Sorry, but I disagree. If I have Allen, Mixon, and Gabe Davis going and he has no one and I'm down by 3, I don't think I should get the loss.

That scenario yes agreed.

I have Gabe vs Chase, and I'm up by 5, standard scoring. The three scenarios in case of no week 17 Buf/Cin game,

(1) I win since I was up
(2) We agree to a split pot
(3) We replay in week 18 instead

I wouldn't push scenario 1 too much, and be good with 2 or 3. If we replay mind you, I get Henry back next week, so I somehow doubt he wants that.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Tough one.
Possibly take the combined scores of this week AND next week for leagues who 'typically' do not play the final week.

Exactly what I was thinking this morning.

 

[RenegadeRoy]

In both leagues where I'm in the final, we've chopped first/second place money. One was basically 50/50 going into MNF, the other about 65/35, so seemed equitable enough. I only play in private leagues, public cash leagues could get a bit contentious

I was in the ship in one of my leagues. Had a nine point lead and all he had was Singletary.

We agreed this morning to do what you did (combine and split the pot 50/50). We'll let Yahoo determine the "actual" champion whenever that happens.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Those percentages are terrible and based on site projections which are often just wrong.

Yeah, if it were up to me I would probably go with more "eyeball" projections and give a wide margin of error:

Scenario #1: Teams entered MNF tied with Allen and Burrow still to play. Allen is projected to score more, but it could go either way. Split the pot

Scenario #2: Team 1 is up 60 with only their opponent's kicker to play. Give them the whole pot

Scenario #3: Team 1 is up 30 with their opponent's Josh Allen to play. Highly unlikely that Allen scores that much, but still mathematically possible. Give Team 1 75% of the pot.

Maybe you tweak that a little, but you get the idea. Don't pretend you can reach any sort of mathematical precision, because any calculation you come up with will necessarily rely on subjective judgments that will be unfair to someone. Just use common sense and expect everyone to exhibit some grace in the wake of an unprecedented situation.

Obviously, that's very different from a platform that has to decide on a uniform policy across all leagues, including some that are high stakes. Don't envy those guys.

 

[Deepster]

I'm up 25 pts and I have Joe Mixon and Gabe Davis. I'm playing the team with Josh Allen. I'm the commissioner and last night decided (with discussion from the other team) to:

1) If the Week 17 game that's 7-3 gets played to completion, we count the stats and the winner of the game result is Champ.
2) If the Week 17 game is not played, we're taking the prize money, donating it to Hamlin's gofundme and leaving the plaque on the trophy blank this year.

Any other scenario and it's a tainted title for the winner IMO.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I don't think it's fair I take the loss in the title game because of this

Nothing is going to be “fair” unless the NFL resumes the game today or tomorrow and fantasy games continue.

Every “solution” is going to be unfair to one team. It seems odd to me that some people can’t see this.

Sorry, but I disagree. If I have Allen, Mixon, and Gabe Davis going and he has no one and I'm down by 3, I don't think I should get the loss.

That scenario yes agreed.

I have Gabe vs Chase, and I'm up by 5, standard scoring. The three scenarios in case of no week 17 Buf/Cin game,

(1) I win since I was up
(2) We agree to a split pot
(3) We replay in week 18 instead

I wouldn't push scenario 1 too much, and be good with 2 or 3. If we replay mind you, I get Henry back next week, so I somehow doubt he wants that.

Using the standard from my previous post, I would vote to split the pot in that situation. Your opponent was presumably favored, but either outcome was entirely plausible.

IMO getting into Week 18 or league averages or site projections just opens up a whole new can of worms. Guarantee you someone will come out of it with bruised feelings

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I'm up 25 pts and I have Joe Mixon and Gabe Davis. I'm playing the team with Josh Allen. I'm the commissioner and last night decided (with discussion from the other team) to:

1) If the Week 17 game that's 7-3 gets played to completion, we count the stats and the winner of the game result is Champ.
2) If the Week 17 game is not played, we're taking the prize money, donating it to Hamlin's gofundme and leaving the plaque on the trophy blank this year.

Any other scenario and it's a tainted title for the winner IMO.

This sounds totally reasonable. Glad you and your opponent could come to an agreement on it

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't think it's fair I take the loss in the title game because of this

Nothing is going to be “fair” unless the NFL resumes the game today or tomorrow and fantasy games continue.

Every “solution” is going to be unfair to one team. It seems odd to me that some people can’t see this.

I don't think I should get the loss.

Of course you don’t and while I think in that case your opponent should concede in the league I’m a commissioner the results weren’t so clear.
Like I said in any scenario some one is going to get “screwed” but I’ve accepted the fact that this game is mostly luck anyway
.

 

[Pipes]

I'm up 25 pts and I have Joe Mixon and Gabe Davis. I'm playing the team with Josh Allen. I'm the commissioner and last night decided (with discussion from the other team) to:

1) If the Week 17 game that's 7-3 gets played to completion, we count the stats and the winner of the game result is Champ.
2) If the Week 17 game is not played, we're taking the prize money, donating it to Hamlin's gofundme and leaving the plaque on the trophy blank this year.

Any other scenario and it's a tainted title for the winner IMO.

Why leave it blank, why not have co-champions? chop the pot and do whatever you like with the funds.

 

[BassNBrew]

In both leagues where I'm in the final, we've chopped first/second place money. One was basically 50/50 going into MNF, the other about 65/35, so seemed equitable enough. I only play in private leagues, public cash leagues could get a bit contentious

I was in the ship in one of my leagues. Had a nine point lead and all he had was Singletary.

We agreed this morning to do what you did (combine and split the pot 50/50). We'll let Yahoo determine the "actual" champion whenever that happens.

I'm surprised people are already settling on chops before we know if the game is cancelled.

 

[BassNBrew]

Get of my lawn post....

You guys are making decisions faster that I would have had the local fish wrapper in my hands with final box scores to calculate results.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Let me preface this by saying I care more about how Hamlin comes out of this than the results of my fantasy matchups.

That said, I’m in two championship games and if this game isn’t restarted, I will be on the losing end of things in both, one of which I was practically guaranteed to win with who I had left and the small point margin to make up.

I’ve been doing this almost every season since 1991, and this might be what pushes me away entirely. At its core, this is supposed to be fun, and last night just straight up wasn’t fun, it was depressing and vain and felt completely worthless and like a waste of time. Even if they restart it the game and I win championships, honestly who cares?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

surprised people are already settling on chops before we know if the game is cancelled

Yeah, not sure what the big hurry is.

 

[BassNBrew]

surprised people are already settling on chops before we know if the game is cancelled

Yeah, not sure what the big hurry is.

You sir are welcome on my lawn.

 

[BassNBrew]

Let me preface this by saying I care more about how Hamlin comes out of this than the results of my fantasy matchups.

That said, I’m in two championship games and if this game isn’t restarted, I will be on the losing end of things in both, one of which I was practically guaranteed to win with who I had left and the small point margin to make up.

I’ve been doing this almost every season since 1991, and this might be what pushes me away entirely. At its core, this is supposed to be fun, and last night just straight up wasn’t fun, it was depressing and vain and felt completely worthless and like a waste of time. Even if they restart it the game and I win championships, honestly who cares?

Park City Mountain employee dies after being knocked from chairlift

A Park City Mountain employee died Monday after falling 25 feet from one of the chairlifts.

ksltv.com

Understand your opinion here. That said, skiing is a waste of time too. I think we're more impacted because we watched it live.

 

[titusbramble]

In both leagues where I'm in the final, we've chopped first/second place money. One was basically 50/50 going into MNF, the other about 65/35, so seemed equitable enough. I only play in private leagues, public cash leagues could get a bit contentious

I was in the ship in one of my leagues. Had a nine point lead and all he had was Singletary.

We agreed this morning to do what you did (combine and split the pot 50/50). We'll let Yahoo determine the "actual" champion whenever that happens.

I'm surprised people are already settling on chops before we know if the game is cancelled.

The conversations in our leagues basically went:

a) it probably will be cancelled so why wait to start discussing what to do
b) if it isn't, we are not going to get anywhere near a true reflection of how the game would have played out, be it for players understandably not mentally being there, greater player rotation due to a shortened week 17/18 break etc
c) it's all redraft and it's the final week, so no other teams are affected, as such if teams want to agree to a prize money split then that is fine