What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Fantasy Football Implications from MNF Game (2 Viewers)

FYI in the one league I play in where the outcome was genuinely in doubt (Team A was ahead by 10 and had Davis to Team B's Allen), there was some initial discussion about using the two players' Week 18 stats, but then the Davis manager said he wasn't even sure he would have started Davis this week, so they decided to split the pot and use the Week 18 stats only for bragging rights.
 
I'm curious what people would do if the game was played until 5 min left in 4th quarter and the team with1 player in the game was down by 1 or 2 points?
My general standard would be "What was most likely to happen?" but with a wide margin of error. So if it was pretty clear who was going to win, give that team the pot. If there was any legitimate doubt, split it. Maybe if it was somewhere in between, where one team was likely to win but not guaranteed, you split a weighted pot (eg, 75/25).

In the scenario you're describing, it sounds like it could easily have gone either way, so I'd say split it 50/50
this has been my perspective and take from the word go, but it's easy to see SOME of the other perspectives, even if I don't agree with them. Personally, I could never claim a title I KNOW I wouldn't have won.
 
FYI in the one league I play in where the outcome was genuinely in doubt (Team A was ahead by 10 and had Davis to Team B's Allen), there was some initial discussion about using the two players' Week 18 stats, but then the Davis manager said he wasn't even sure he would have started Davis this week, so they decided to split the pot and use the Week 18 stats only for bragging rights.
Wait what? Well was Davis in his starting line up at Buffalo kickoff or not lol
 
FYI in the one league I play in where the outcome was genuinely in doubt (Team A was ahead by 10 and had Davis to Team B's Allen), there was some initial discussion about using the two players' Week 18 stats, but then the Davis manager said he wasn't even sure he would have started Davis this week, so they decided to split the pot and use the Week 18 stats only for bragging rights.
Wait what? Well was Davis in his starting line up at Buffalo kickoff or not lol
Sorry, I meant he's not sure he would have started Davis in Week 18
 
FYI in the one league I play in where the outcome was genuinely in doubt (Team A was ahead by 10 and had Davis to Team B's Allen), there was some initial discussion about using the two players' Week 18 stats, but then the Davis manager said he wasn't even sure he would have started Davis this week, so they decided to split the pot and use the Week 18 stats only for bragging rights.
Wait what? Well was Davis in his starting line up at Buffalo kickoff or not lol
Sorry, I meant he's not sure he would have started Davis in Week 18
Still confused. He doesn't have an option of starting other players in week 18. It is simply using week 18 stats to fill in for w17. Sounds like an excuse to split the pot, he woulda lost I think lol
 
What are the scenarios that would make these teams consider resting their starters? Am I wrong in thinking that even if KC wins that they both have something to play for?
Assuming the Owners pass the vote all 4 teams involved will have plenty to play for with KC winning or losing.

Buffalo can get #2 seed and pull within a half game of KC and get the neutral site game if they make it to LCG vs KC
NE has a playoff berth to play for
Cincy has to try and win regardless or they risk a coin flip and losing homefield for their WC if they play Baltimore
Baltimore has plenty to play for getting a win over Cincy they either end up #6 seed and have a coin flip chance to host or if they end up #5 seed and take on Jax/Tenn winner which is better than playing Cincy in theory.
 
FYI in the one league I play in where the outcome was genuinely in doubt (Team A was ahead by 10 and had Davis to Team B's Allen), there was some initial discussion about using the two players' Week 18 stats, but then the Davis manager said he wasn't even sure he would have started Davis this week, so they decided to split the pot and use the Week 18 stats only for bragging rights.
Wait what? Well was Davis in his starting line up at Buffalo kickoff or not lol
Sorry, I meant he's not sure he would have started Davis in Week 18
Still confused. He doesn't have an option of starting other players in week 18. It is simply using week 18 stats to fill in for w17. Sounds like an excuse to split the pot, he woulda lost I think lol
The projection heading into the game had them within a couple points of each other. If I were in his position, I would have proposed a split, too, for reasons having nothing to do with the players involved
 
Baltimore has plenty to play for getting a win over Cincy they either end up #6 seed and have a coin flip chance to host or if they end up #5 seed and take on Jax/Tenn winner which is better than playing Cincy in theory.
If I am the Ravens I'm trying to get healthy this week and taking by chances next week. And since the Ravens are top notch and telling fibs all week (and don't "tune up" starters in the preseason), I think this is their plan anyway. Oh, they'll try to win but I doubt any of their "slowed" players play, especially in the secondary. Even if healthy they are going to need to scheme coverages as they have no one fast enough to cover any kind of speed.
 
FYI in the one league I play in where the outcome was genuinely in doubt (Team A was ahead by 10 and had Davis to Team B's Allen), there was some initial discussion about using the two players' Week 18 stats, but then the Davis manager said he wasn't even sure he would have started Davis this week, so they decided to split the pot and use the Week 18 stats only for bragging rights.
Wait what? Well was Davis in his starting line up at Buffalo kickoff or not lol
Sorry, I meant he's not sure he would have started Davis in Week 18
Still confused. He doesn't have an option of starting other players in week 18. It is simply using week 18 stats to fill in for w17. Sounds like an excuse to split the pot, he woulda lost I think lol
The projection heading into the game had them within a couple points of each other. If I were in his position, I would have proposed a split, too, for reasons having nothing to do with the players involved
I was in a very similar spot. I was down 16 in a non-PPR standard league with my Josh Allen against his JaMarr Chase (so i am assuming it would be close). A number of options were thrown around but we decided to be Co-Champs and split the combined cash. We figure we can always talk about "that one year"..............
 
In my league we are in the game before the Championship. Team A had 73.3 with Burrow, Diggs, and Mixon left to play. Team B is done with 137.78. Down by 64.48 would be enough to say he is most likely to lose, if going by averages, since Burrow averages 27.14 a game, Diggs 19.55, and Mixon 17.05. The projections showed that Team A would have won barely by a point. We all know that neither tell the full tale of an actual game. Since the game was canceled I suggested that those two and the winner of the other game, Team C, play a three way championship where the highest scorer wins.
What are your guys thoughts on this? My league is split on it.
 
In one league I'm in (redraft-non-ppr), I was only down 9 points with my Burrow/Bass against his Higgins. I proposed to him that we allow those 3 players to accrue stats in week 18 to determine a winner. He declined, and the commish declared him the Champ. All the talk was "let's not concern ourselves with this, since it doesn't matter in light of what happened to DHam". To me, that's ridiculous. I have prayed sincerely for DHam's recovery and am thrilled that he is improving....but the two things are mutually exclusive in my mind. I'm not gonna feel bad requesting a fair outcome by the players on the actual gridiron, particularly after putting in 5 months of work to get there.

*asterisk*
 
In our small, local league I managed to be in the finals AS commissioner with Allen/Diggs/Chase/Higgins going up against no one left.

Only down 57.5 points in a PPR and 6pt. TD league, so I likely "should" have won regardless of how you shake it...

Going straight to a league vote due to the obvious bias, but I'd personally be happy with Week 18 stats for the inability to look forward + another week of fantasy implications.
 
In one league I'm in (redraft-non-ppr), I was only down 9 points with my Burrow/Bass against his Higgins. I proposed to him that we allow those 3 players to accrue stats in week 18 to determine a winner. He declined, and the commish declared him the Champ. All the talk was "let's not concern ourselves with this, since it doesn't matter in light of what happened to DHam". To me, that's ridiculous. I have prayed sincerely for DHam's recovery and am thrilled that he is improving....but the two things are mutually exclusive in my mind. I'm not gonna feel bad requesting a fair outcome by the players on the actual gridiron, particularly after putting in 5 months of work to get there.

*asterisk*
These commish "war stories" are definitely not where I come to read uplifting anecdotes that bolster my hopes for the future of humanity, that's for sure...
 
In our small, local league I managed to be in the finals AS commissioner with Allen/Diggs/Chase/Higgins going up against no one left.

Only down 57.5 points in a PPR and 6pt. TD league, so I likely "should" have won regardless of how you shake it...

Going straight to a league vote due to the obvious bias, but I'd personally be happy with Week 18 stats for the inability to look forward + another week of fantasy implications.
If that is what the other team is open to then fine, but otherwise why is the league voting to potentially undo your loss?
 
Apologies if this has already been discussed (I'm sure it has -- this thread has gotten too long to read through).

How are leagues handling the situation wherein the commissioner is in the championship game and the decision benefits the commissioner?

There are 3 leagues I'm in that are run by the same commissioner. I've been in his leagues since 2008 and he is a good commissioner.

He's in the championship in all three leagues and in two of them he's playing me.

League 1 - I'm down 5 points. He did not have any Bills/Bengals and I had Burrow and Mixon going.
League 2 - I had Burrow, Mixon, Chase and Knox going and was projected to win.
League 3 - I'm not involved, but the projections were going to be close.

The commish decided to use the partial game points from Monday in the final totals to determine champion and winnings. No discussion with the league. No poll. Just a ruling.

League 1 - He'd have lost anyway, so no benefit to him.
League 2 and 3 - Huge benefit to him

As a commissioner myself who is in other championship games, I chose to count Week 18 points. And I did this with the possibility that I could lose a championship. I did not want to win that way (giving zeros to my opponent) and I REALLY did not want the optics of only benefitting me.

It's a tough position to be in, being the commissioner and also in the championship. That's why I think it should've been a discussion. If not between just the two teams involved, then by the whole league. That way a precedent is set and the bylaws could be updated to prevent any future issues.

Am I off base here?

Thanks all.
 
In my league we are in the game before the Championship. Team A had 73.3 with Burrow, Diggs, and Mixon left to play. Team B is done with 137.78. Down by 64.48 would be enough to say he is most likely to lose, if going by averages, since Burrow averages 27.14 a game, Diggs 19.55, and Mixon 17.05. The projections showed that Team A would have won barely by a point. We all know that neither tell the full tale of an actual game. Since the game was canceled I suggested that those two and the winner of the other game, Team C, play a three way championship where the highest scorer wins.
What are your guys thoughts on this? My league is split on it.

A better option would be to have two parallel championship games, each for half the pot, between teams A/C and B/C. Doesn't really seem right to have a straight three way winner takes all on team C tbh as they have to beat two teams instead of one. At least here if they split it 1-1 they get a bit better than overall second place money
 
I'm curious what people would do if the game was played until 5 min left in 4th quarter and the team with1 player in the game was down by 1 or 2 points?
My general standard would be "What was most likely to happen?" but with a wide margin of error. So if it was pretty clear who was going to win, give that team the pot. If there was any legitimate doubt, split it. Maybe if it was somewhere in between, where one team was likely to win but not guaranteed, you split a weighted pot (eg, 75/25).

In the scenario you're describing, it sounds like it could easily have gone either way, so I'd say split it 50/50
this has been my perspective and take from the word go, but it's easy to see SOME of the other perspectives, even if I don't agree with them. Personally, I could never claim a title I KNOW I wouldn't have won.
but you DID win by having more points in Week 17 games.
Would you decline a title if your opponents kicker missed a 19 yd FG?
How about if he got his foot run over by a golf cart just before trying the FG and didn't get to attempt it?
What if the kicker was hurt in warmups after being declared ACTIVE but your opponent only needed 2 points?
What if the power went out in meaningless game at the end of the year and they decided not to play the last 5 minutes?
What if you are up 1 point and your opponent has the MNF QB and he is a surprise inactive and he can't pick up anyone else?

Would you claim the title in any of those circumstance?

Weird stuff happens all the time, I don't see why all the other scenarios are classified as "them the breaks" and this is some protected class occurance

The only thing I KNOW, is how many points were scored by each teams starting lineup.

That being said, I'm all in favor of the two teams coming to an equitable agreement, that is what I would do personally but it shouldn't be forced.
 
In my league we are in the game before the Championship. Team A had 73.3 with Burrow, Diggs, and Mixon left to play. Team B is done with 137.78. Down by 64.48 would be enough to say he is most likely to lose, if going by averages, since Burrow averages 27.14 a game, Diggs 19.55, and Mixon 17.05. The projections showed that Team A would have won barely by a point. We all know that neither tell the full tale of an actual game. Since the game was canceled I suggested that those two and the winner of the other game, Team C, play a three way championship where the highest scorer wins.
What are your guys thoughts on this? My league is split on it.
Kind of unfair to Team C, who now has to defeat two teams instead of one to earn a title. If money is a concern, I'd give them 25 percent of the pot no matter what, as a consolation for winning their half of the bracket.
 
I'm curious what people would do if the game was played until 5 min left in 4th quarter and the team with1 player in the game was down by 1 or 2 points?
My general standard would be "What was most likely to happen?" but with a wide margin of error. So if it was pretty clear who was going to win, give that team the pot. If there was any legitimate doubt, split it. Maybe if it was somewhere in between, where one team was likely to win but not guaranteed, you split a weighted pot (eg, 75/25).

In the scenario you're describing, it sounds like it could easily have gone either way, so I'd say split it 50/50
this has been my perspective and take from the word go, but it's easy to see SOME of the other perspectives, even if I don't agree with them. Personally, I could never claim a title I KNOW I wouldn't have won.
but you DID win by having more points in Week 17 games.
Would you decline a title if your opponents kicker missed a 19 yd FG?
How about if he got his foot run over by a golf cart just before trying the FG and didn't get to attempt it?
What if the kicker was hurt in warmups after being declared ACTIVE but your opponent only needed 2 points?
What if the power went out in meaningless game at the end of the year and they decided not to play the last 5 minutes?
What if you are up 1 point and your opponent has the MNF QB and he is a surprise inactive and he can't pick up anyone else?

Would you claim the title in any of those circumstance?

Weird stuff happens all the time, I don't see why all the other scenarios are classified as "them the breaks" and this is some protected class occurance

The only thing I KNOW, is how many points were scored by each teams starting lineup.

That being said, I'm all in favor of the two teams coming to an equitable agreement, that is what I would do personally but it shouldn't be forced.
I don't think this can be categorized as "weird stuff that happens all the time." The NFL doesn't cancel games all the time, especially after they've started. This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
 
I am fascinated by how 90 percent of the discussion and resolution is about how to chop up the pot. The title seems more like an afterthought, like "bragging rights, cool, whatever."

Not judging, but I wonder if it's always been like this, or is this a newer focus with DFS and the hobby becoming more mainstream? I admit I don't play in leagues with a ton of money on the line, so maybe more people do than I thought. I just always considered the title to be everything, and the pot to be a nice bonus.
 
I don't think this can be categorized as "weird stuff that happens all the time." The NFL doesn't cancel games all the time, especially after they've started. This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
People don't get into car accidents going to the game all the time, kickers don't get hurt in warmups all the time, how do you decide how weird something has to be for the do-over clause to kick in?
 
As Commish of one league, my plan is this:
If the game resumes, simple, use Week #17's stats.
If this game is not played, the players who have stats pending will be awarded points based on Week #18's games.
Exactly what I’m doing. The only dissenter top that point is the guy who stands to gain from ending the season. The guy he’s going against has Allen and Mixon and is only down 8 pts. I don’t know how you can even ***** with a straight face on this decision.
 
I don't think this can be categorized as "weird stuff that happens all the time." The NFL doesn't cancel games all the time, especially after they've started. This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
People don't get into car accidents going to the game all the time, kickers don't get hurt in warmups all the time, how do you decide how weird something has to be for the do-over clause to kick in?
I'd probably start with "the NFL cancelling a game that's already started and choosing not to make it up ever."
 
As Commish of one league, my plan is this:
If the game resumes, simple, use Week #17's stats.
If this game is not played, the players who have stats pending will be awarded points based on Week #18's games.
Exactly what I’m doing. The only dissenter top that point is the guy who stands to gain from ending the season. The guy he’s going against has Allen and Mixon and is only down 8 pts. I don’t know how you can even ***** with a straight face on this decision.
A number of these I read and think, "Wow, someone didn't concede there? Really?"

I was in our Week 17 final. When Pollard was ruled out I dropped him. Yesterday I noticed my opponent picked him up on this week's waivers. Really dude? I guess he was ready to start him against me in the event of a Week 18 do over.

There are two kinds of people in the world. When you hit a deer on the highway, some pull over and say, "Oh my god are you okay?!" The others say, "Can I have that?"
 
This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
From Mike Florio. This is not some appeal to authority, but simply using someone else's words to better articulate the thought.

There’s a saying in the legal profession that bad facts made bad law. In other words, certain circumstances are regarded as sufficiently compelling to tempt judges to ignore the standards that should apply, and to instead twist the law into a pretzel in order to reach a desired result.

Whatever the reason for the cancellation of an NFL game, it takes something very extraordinary. This is where the specific facts of this specific cancellation need to be temporarily set aside, and the rule that already exists needs to be applied, dispassionately and fairly and without any opportunity for a team to lobby and harangue and finagle and ultimately score a short-term win.

And then, if the NFL regards that the current rule as applied doesn’t work the way it should, the rule gets changed.

After the season, not during it.

When you are changing the rules due to a specific set of facts, those facts taint the effort.
 
As Commish of one league, my plan is this:
If the game resumes, simple, use Week #17's stats.
If this game is not played, the players who have stats pending will be awarded points based on Week #18's games.
Exactly what I’m doing. The only dissenter top that point is the guy who stands to gain from ending the season. The guy he’s going against has Allen and Mixon and is only down 8 pts. I don’t know how you can even ***** with a straight face on this decision.
A number of these I read and think, "Wow, someone didn't concede there? Really?"

I was in our Week 17 final. When Pollard was ruled out I dropped him. Yesterday I noticed my opponent picked him up on this week's waivers. Really dude? I guess he was ready to start him against me in the event of a Week 18 do over.

There are two kinds of people in the world. When you hit a deer on the highway, some pull over and say, "Oh my god are you okay?!" The others say, "Can I have that?"
Who talks to a deer?

Seriously, I think he was just being prepared. The Commish should rule that you get that waiver back since you (in good faith) assumed the season would be over. And the other owner shouldn't complain. But you both knew it was a possibility. Did you put in a claim? I wouldn't label them a bad person. He's lacing up and preparing for another game, and Pollard would definitely be someone roster worthy.
Again, the Commish should undo the drop under the circumstances. But if you both had a shot at Pollard, and there was a chance there might be a week 18 game, did he really do something wrong trying to be prepared?
 
Apologies if this has already been discussed (I'm sure it has -- this thread has gotten too long to read through).

How are leagues handling the situation wherein the commissioner is in the championship game and the decision benefits the commissioner?

There are 3 leagues I'm in that are run by the same commissioner. I've been in his leagues since 2008 and he is a good commissioner.

He's in the championship in all three leagues and in two of them he's playing me.

League 1 - I'm down 5 points. He did not have any Bills/Bengals and I had Burrow and Mixon going.
League 2 - I had Burrow, Mixon, Chase and Knox going and was projected to win.
League 3 - I'm not involved, but the projections were going to be close.

The commish decided to use the partial game points from Monday in the final totals to determine champion and winnings. No discussion with the league. No poll. Just a ruling.

League 1 - He'd have lost anyway, so no benefit to him.
League 2 and 3 - Huge benefit to him

As a commissioner myself who is in other championship games, I chose to count Week 18 points. And I did this with the possibility that I could lose a championship. I did not want to win that way (giving zeros to my opponent) and I REALLY did not want the optics of only benefitting me.

It's a tough position to be in, being the commissioner and also in the championship. That's why I think it should've been a discussion. If not between just the two teams involved, then by the whole league. That way a precedent is set and the bylaws could be updated to prevent any future issues.

Am I off base here?

Thanks all.
My opinion seems to be in the minority, but I am of the opinion that your leagues rules should prevail. Specifically, the rule that states where your stats that determine the points come from and the rule that states when it is too late for stat corrections. Basically, did Monday Night's game get stat corrected to zeroes before or after your league deadlines? Before the players get zeroes. After they get that partial quarter worth of stats.

Assuming you have such rules, and don't have a rule specifically for canceled games then I think following the rules is the only option. If everyone hates it, the rules can be changed for future seasons. Again, most posts seem to hate this and think that "fairness" can be achieved by abandoning the rules this time.
 
This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
From Mike Florio. This is not some appeal to authority, but simply using someone else's words to better articulate the thought.

There’s a saying in the legal profession that bad facts made bad law. In other words, certain circumstances are regarded as sufficiently compelling to tempt judges to ignore the standards that should apply, and to instead twist the law into a pretzel in order to reach a desired result.

Whatever the reason for the cancellation of an NFL game, it takes something very extraordinary. This is where the specific facts of this specific cancellation need to be temporarily set aside, and the rule that already exists needs to be applied, dispassionately and fairly and without any opportunity for a team to lobby and harangue and finagle and ultimately score a short-term win.

And then, if the NFL regards that the current rule as applied doesn’t work the way it should, the rule gets changed.

After the season, not during it.

When you are changing the rules due to a specific set of facts, those facts taint the effort.
Good quote. I get what you're saying. I think a fantasy league is different than the NFL. There aren't billions of dollars at stake, nor TV contracts, nor thousands of employees. A fantasy league commissioner should make decisions in the best interests of the league. If there's a unique circumstance, and there's no precedent or rule specific to that circumstance, they should do what they think is best. Or get a different commissioner if you don't trust them, or don't have one at all and let the website's code run the league.

In a billion-dollar business where everyone has high-priced lawyers, the law and rules always win.
In a home, where there's three kids and a mom, mom is the dictator, precedent be damned.
In a fantasy league, where there's a commissioner whose job it is to run the league, they need to be willing to make tough calls if the rules don't provide for something that happens once a century. Just my opinion.
 
In a fantasy league, where there's a commissioner whose job it is to run the league, they need to be willing to make tough calls if the rules don't provide for something that happens once a century. Just my opinion.
Based on the tone of this thread, the tough call is to apply the rules that exist and to avoid the overwhelming calls to "fix it", to "do better". The choice to me is that you can have a friend get cheated out of a championship by circumstances that no one can control, or your commissioner and/or league can cheat a friend out of a championship by changing the rules retroactively so that you can feel like you can be in control of the situation. The tough call is realizing that you cannot.
 
Apologies if this has already been discussed (I'm sure it has -- this thread has gotten too long to read through).

How are leagues handling the situation wherein the commissioner is in the championship game and the decision benefits the commissioner?

There are 3 leagues I'm in that are run by the same commissioner. I've been in his leagues since 2008 and he is a good commissioner.

He's in the championship in all three leagues and in two of them he's playing me.

League 1 - I'm down 5 points. He did not have any Bills/Bengals and I had Burrow and Mixon going.
League 2 - I had Burrow, Mixon, Chase and Knox going and was projected to win.
League 3 - I'm not involved, but the projections were going to be close.

The commish decided to use the partial game points from Monday in the final totals to determine champion and winnings. No discussion with the league. No poll. Just a ruling.

League 1 - He'd have lost anyway, so no benefit to him.
League 2 and 3 - Huge benefit to him

As a commissioner myself who is in other championship games, I chose to count Week 18 points. And I did this with the possibility that I could lose a championship. I did not want to win that way (giving zeros to my opponent) and I REALLY did not want the optics of only benefitting me.

It's a tough position to be in, being the commissioner and also in the championship. That's why I think it should've been a discussion. If not between just the two teams involved, then by the whole league. That way a precedent is set and the bylaws could be updated to prevent any future issues.

Am I off base here?

Thanks all.
No you're spot on, if commish and involved in the championship should seek league consent.

Personally I don't agree with that solution but more importantly it's clearly biased and should not be made unilaterally esp. when involves commish team.
 
My league dodged a bullet. The two championship contenders had zero players from that game going for them. We play 2 2 game matches with the top 4 teams to determine champion. We were in first week of the second set. So we were lucky. I sadly am in the consolation round contending for 3rd place and do not care. 3rd 4th it's all the same. If you ain't winning you're losing. Lucky I feel that way since I had Chase and Burrows.
 
I am fascinated by how 90 percent of the discussion and resolution is about how to chop up the pot. The title seems more like an afterthought, like "bragging rights, cool, whatever."

I just always considered the title to be everything, and the pot to be a nice bonus.
I have also been fascinated by the vast majority of responses. Yes, the money is nice, but it's just the icing on the cake....you play to win the game....at least I do.

In fact, I smiled when I heard what DHam's 1st question was after we awoke: "Did we win the game?"

That's the mentality of a warrior and a winner, and thank God he is doing so well.....but I'm not forfeiting, splitting or conceding anything.
 
Well..... I have a real good Championship Game situation for you all to see and hear....... A real doozy.....

Before the Buff/Cincy game:

Team A has 119.08

Team B
has 122.32

Team B
has no one left. No player in the Buff/Cincy game.
Stays at 122.32 points

Team A has Tyler Boyd left. Boyd scores the TD.
Gets 7.90 points
Goes to 126,98 points.

Now what??????!!!!!

How should this situation be handled if the game is not resumed?????

Update:
We were waiting for the NFL official decision on the Buff/Cincy game before we did anything.

The Other Owner, Team B, then conceded with no problem or issues.
Both of us thought it was the just decision.
We counted Boyd's stats up to that point of the game and Team A gets the win.
We then decided just to spilt the 1st and 2nd place $ evenly because of the crazy unprecedented ending.
 
I don't think what is typical for when a game goes final in FF is applicable in this case. That is to allow a season to move along and bot allow a stat change 6 weeks after the game to change an outcome that has already been moved on from.

That is not the case here for a FF LCG. There is no reason to hurry the decision or close it off. This is the final game and in the middle of a situation that has never happened before. It demands at least looking at options to see what the consensus of your league believes is right for your league.
Aren't we talking about a decision of a large national site? One with (I assume) a team of lawyers telling them they need to abide to their rules?

But even for local leagues I think this is the correct call when there is doubt. Especially when it leaves a bad taste.
Typically that team of lawyers is looking to minimize risk rather than get into the messy business of what is fair and just. I get it. Align to the NFL stats and move on. But at the league level, that isn't a decision. They've effectively chosen to do nothing - which I understand.

In my final this has meant that one team had 9 starters and the other had 7. Struggling with what is fair or just about that.
It's not fair but it is consistent, which IMO is more important.
BTW, I love your "Adventure" avatar!

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.
 
As Commish of one league, my plan is this:
If the game resumes, simple, use Week #17's stats.
If this game is not played, the players who have stats pending will be awarded points based on Week #18's games.
Exactly what I’m doing. The only dissenter top that point is the guy who stands to gain from ending the season. The guy he’s going against has Allen and Mixon and is only down 8 pts. I don’t know how you can even ***** with a straight face on this decision.
A number of these I read and think, "Wow, someone didn't concede there? Really?"

I was in our Week 17 final. When Pollard was ruled out I dropped him. Yesterday I noticed my opponent picked him up on this week's waivers. Really dude? I guess he was ready to start him against me in the event of a Week 18 do over.

There are two kinds of people in the world. When you hit a deer on the highway, some pull over and say, "Oh my god are you okay?!" The others say, "Can I have that?"
Who talks to a deer?

Seriously, I think he was just being prepared. The Commish should rule that you get that waiver back since you (in good faith) assumed the season would be over. And the other owner shouldn't complain. But you both knew it was a possibility. Did you put in a claim? I wouldn't label them a bad person. He's lacing up and preparing for another game, and Pollard would definitely be someone roster worthy.
Again, the Commish should undo the drop under the circumstances. But if you both had a shot at Pollard, and there was a chance there might be a week 18 game, did he really do something wrong trying to be prepared?
Well I'm the commish in this instance. There was never a week 18 on the table in terms of contingency plans. The add was just.. weird on his part. Play to the final whistle I guess? Not sure.
 
In a fantasy league, where there's a commissioner whose job it is to run the league, they need to be willing to make tough calls if the rules don't provide for something that happens once a century. Just my opinion.
Based on the tone of this thread, the tough call is to apply the rules that exist and to avoid the overwhelming calls to "fix it", to "do better". The choice to me is that you can have a friend get cheated out of a championship by circumstances that no one can control, or your commissioner and/or league can cheat a friend out of a championship by changing the rules retroactively so that you can feel like you can be in control of the situation. The tough call is realizing that you cannot.
Letting players play it out on the field (in week 18, or the playoffs) is not cheating anyone out of a championship imo. That's how we're supposed to do it-- have players play and tabulate their stats. Throwing our hands up and saying "Well, them's the breaks. Sorry we didn't think this might happen" is lazy thinking and surrendering to a rule that doesn't fit what actually happened. If someone thinks they were "cheated out of a championship" after their guys scored less than their opponent's guys, when everyone had a chance to score, I think they're just mad they didn't luck into a cheap win. They had to actually earn it, and they didn't. Them's the breaks.
Just my opinion. I get that others might not agree, but I'd sleep just fine at night making that decision. Just like I'm sure you'd do the same. It's cool. I'm lucky that it wasn't an issue in my league so this is just a fun discussion.
 
Letting players play it out on the field (in week 18, or the playoffs) is not cheating anyone out of a championship imo. That's how we're supposed to do it-- have players play and tabulate their stats. Throwing our hands up and saying "Well, them's the breaks. Sorry we didn't think this might happen" is lazy thinking and surrendering to a rule that doesn't fit what actually happened. If someone thinks they were "cheated out of a championship" after their guys scored less than their opponent's guys, when everyone had a chance to score, I think they're just mad they didn't luck into a cheap win. They had to actually earn it, and they didn't. Them's the breaks.
Just my opinion. I get that others might not agree, but I'd sleep just fine at night making that decision. Just like I'm sure you'd do the same. It's cool. I'm lucky that it wasn't an issue in my league so this is just a fun discussion.
Changing the rules in week 18 because the results of week 17 were unsatisfactory to the majority or the man in charge is simply wrong. Under most any circumstances I'd assume you would agree. Saying "but this time is different" is where the issue resides. Sure, it is different, but no matter how different it is it is wrong to believe that a second wrong is going to make a right.

I wouldn't want to luck into such a win, but I certainly wouldn't want to be lobbying a rule change to reverse an unlucky loss. This thread has all kinds of empathy for the guys that were unlucky losers and all kinds of scorn for those that won fair and square under the rules. The mob is rushing to fix this injustice. That is not the tough choice. It is not the better choice. It is not the more thought-out, less "lazy" choice. It just feels like you have done something to be in control.

And yes, I too have the freedom to discuss this in purely academic terms. No decision is going to win or take away money or a title from me or anyone in any league I'm in or have first-hand knowledge. I'd like to believe that my opinion is based solidly on a sense of right and wrong where it would be the same. I'll also tell you that I am more certain today than I was Wednesday. I'm guessing the same is true for you, that my :2cents: on my little soapbox isn't moving the needle. So, while I have enjoyed the discussion, you can have last words as we move on and hopefully enjoy week 18 or whatever you have planned for this weekend. Enjoy!
 
I just hope against hope that neither of the two diabolical new rules are triggered by the results, ie the Bengals beat the Ravens and thus there is no coin toss, and the Bills and Chiefs results this week work out so there won't be a potential neutral championship game venue.
 
In my long running league, I’m in the title game up 55 with no one else to play. My opponent, which happens to be one of my best buds, had Diggs and Burrow left in half PPR.

We had already agreed to a split before week 17, because the title is worth more than the money to us. We got on a call and came to the conclusion that we would just go by what Yahoo decides, but it was under the assumption the game would be replayed.

I didn’t really want to win by what felt like “default” to me. Plus if I were to be honest, if I was in his spot I’d want a chance at winning also. So we decided yesterday that we would use week 18 stats for Burrow and Diggs. It’s certainly not perfect but at the end of the day his guys get a chance to compete and we think it is the best option.
 
I don't think this can be categorized as "weird stuff that happens all the time." The NFL doesn't cancel games all the time, especially after they've started. This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
People don't get into car accidents going to the game all the time, kickers don't get hurt in warmups all the time, how do you decide how weird something has to be for the do-over clause to kick in?
I'd probably start with "the NFL cancelling a game that's already started and choosing not to make it up ever."
Have they now opened a can of worms that will make it easier to suspend and later cancel future games?
 
I don't think this can be categorized as "weird stuff that happens all the time." The NFL doesn't cancel games all the time, especially after they've started. This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
People don't get into car accidents going to the game all the time, kickers don't get hurt in warmups all the time, how do you decide how weird something has to be for the do-over clause to kick in?
I'd probably start with "the NFL cancelling a game that's already started and choosing not to make it up ever."
Have they now opened a can of worms that will make it easier to suspend and later cancel future games?
I don't think so. They didn't cancel with Covid. They did with a person almost dying on the field this late in the season. I don't see any cans of worms from it imo.
 
I don't think this can be categorized as "weird stuff that happens all the time." The NFL doesn't cancel games all the time, especially after they've started. This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
People don't get into car accidents going to the game all the time, kickers don't get hurt in warmups all the time, how do you decide how weird something has to be for the do-over clause to kick in?
I'd probably start with "the NFL cancelling a game that's already started and choosing not to make it up ever."
Have they now opened a can of worms that will make it easier to suspend and later cancel future games?
I don't think so. They didn't cancel with Covid. They did with a person almost dying on the field this late in the season. I don't see any cans of worms from it imo.
They never cancelled past games where players did die or were paralyzed. Just sayin’. Is that the new norm?
 
I don't think this can be categorized as "weird stuff that happens all the time." The NFL doesn't cancel games all the time, especially after they've started. This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
People don't get into car accidents going to the game all the time, kickers don't get hurt in warmups all the time, how do you decide how weird something has to be for the do-over clause to kick in?
I'd probably start with "the NFL cancelling a game that's already started and choosing not to make it up ever."
Have they now opened a can of worms that will make it easier to suspend and later cancel future games?
I don't think so. They didn't cancel with Covid. They did with a person almost dying on the field this late in the season. I don't see any cans of worms from it imo.
They never cancelled past games where players did die or were paralyzed. Just sayin’. Is that the new norm?
No idea. I hope so, but I don't know.
 
I don't think this can be categorized as "weird stuff that happens all the time." The NFL doesn't cancel games all the time, especially after they've started. This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
People don't get into car accidents going to the game all the time, kickers don't get hurt in warmups all the time, how do you decide how weird something has to be for the do-over clause to kick in?
I'd probably start with "the NFL cancelling a game that's already started and choosing not to make it up ever."
Have they now opened a can of worms that will make it easier to suspend and later cancel future games?
I don't think so. They didn't cancel with Covid. They did with a person almost dying on the field this late in the season. I don't see any cans of worms from it imo.
They never cancelled past games where players did die or were paralyzed. Just sayin’. Is that the new norm?
Only 1 player died in nfl game 50 years ago. When people are carted off with neck injuries it's not known if they're paralyzed. This was a very unique circumstance.
 
I don't think this can be categorized as "weird stuff that happens all the time." The NFL doesn't cancel games all the time, especially after they've started. This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
People don't get into car accidents going to the game all the time, kickers don't get hurt in warmups all the time, how do you decide how weird something has to be for the do-over clause to kick in?
I'd probably start with "the NFL cancelling a game that's already started and choosing not to make it up ever."
Have they now opened a can of worms that will make it easier to suspend and later cancel future games?
I don't think so. They didn't cancel with Covid. They did with a person almost dying on the field this late in the season. I don't see any cans of worms from it imo.
They never cancelled past games where players did die or were paralyzed. Just sayin’. Is that the new norm?
No idea. I hope so, but I don't know.
Well, if is the new norm it will be a nightmare for the NFL and the fantasy community. I wouldn’t take up another commissioner job for anything.
 
I don't think this can be categorized as "weird stuff that happens all the time." The NFL doesn't cancel games all the time, especially after they've started. This is a unique circumstance, and requires unique consideration imo.
People don't get into car accidents going to the game all the time, kickers don't get hurt in warmups all the time, how do you decide how weird something has to be for the do-over clause to kick in?
I'd probably start with "the NFL cancelling a game that's already started and choosing not to make it up ever."
Have they now opened a can of worms that will make it easier to suspend and later cancel future games?
I don't think so. They didn't cancel with Covid. They did with a person almost dying on the field this late in the season. I don't see any cans of worms from it imo.
They never cancelled past games where players did die or were paralyzed. Just sayin’. Is that the new norm?
Only 1 player died in nfl game 50 years ago. When people are carted off with neck injuries it's not known if they're paralyzed. This was a very unique circumstance.
When umpire John McSherry died on opening day in 1996 they cancelled the game, so I understand your unique circumstances comment.
 
Sorry, not sorry, but everyone in the world is going to die (Hamlin's life was not cut short, fortunately). This seems kind of like a microcosm of covid to me. Shut down the world because people are dying prematurely. As if it's going to help. I know it was difficult for the Bills' players. But I have had numerous extremely horrible days in my life where it was miserable just to be alive and have to have a brain. I still showed up for work, as hard as it was.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top