This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Here is a link to the NFL's tie-breaking procedures. The NFL uses the following language in the situation where more than two teams are tied:
Bentley's league has no such language. You're reading that language into his rules because that's what you are familiar with. There is no two-step process in bentley's league.
Bob Sacamano quit.See ya tomorrow, Homer.
The way this is written, you stop here and resolve everything with total points. There really is a 3 way tie and it makes no sense, the way the rules are written, to resolve the 3 way tie one way and then resolve the remaining part of the tie in a different manner.A,B,C.
Why?What about Tufnel? Haven't seen him or a while.Bob Sacamano quit.
I don't get this. What did I do wrong here?Looks like you got the ol' high hat.
This is not a head to head evaluation. This is winning record among games where 3 or more teams have the same record. Totally different.Because the league rules do not have a 'shower, rinse and repeat', the tie is broken by total points because, by the simple language of the rule, "there are more than two teams in a tie"The way this is written, you stop here and resolve everything with total points. There really is a 3 way tie and it makes no sense, the way the rules are written, to resolve the 3 way tie one way and then resolve the remaining part of the tie in a different manner.A,B,C.
It sounds like you could have resolved this by considering the "head to head" record of the 3 teams as part of step 1, or part (b) of step 1. It sounds like TeamC had a 3-1 record. TeamA has a 1-1 record that we know of and TeamB is sitting on 2 losses. What was the result of the TeamA/TeamB head to head match-up(s)? Assuming A/B split, the rankings would be:
TeamC 3-1
TeamA 2-2
TeamB 1-3
HTH
They are both out and Homer is on the equivalent of FFA methadone. Sadly, The Cleansing seems to be working.Why?What about Tufnel? Haven't seen him or a while.Bob Sacamano quit.
The second part of that was just mentioning how we did it. We considered the "head to head" record of the 3 teams involved if there was a 3 way tie. This is the way the NFL does it in the event of a 3 way tie within a division, which is the kind of tie breakers we were breaking in our league anyway. Also, if all 3 teams played each other twice, it would be applicable as well.http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingproceduresThis is not a head to head evaluation. This is winning record among games where 3 or more teams have the same record. Totally different.Because the league rules do not have a 'shower, rinse and repeat', the tie is broken by total points because, by the simple language of the rule, "there are more than two teams in a tie"The way this is written, you stop here and resolve everything with total points. There really is a 3 way tie and it makes no sense, the way the rules are written, to resolve the 3 way tie one way and then resolve the remaining part of the tie in a different manner.A,B,C.
It sounds like you could have resolved this by considering the "head to head" record of the 3 teams as part of step 1, or part (b) of step 1. It sounds like TeamC had a 3-1 record. TeamA has a 1-1 record that we know of and TeamB is sitting on 2 losses. What was the result of the TeamA/TeamB head to head match-up(s)? Assuming A/B split, the rankings would be:
TeamC 3-1
TeamA 2-2
TeamB 1-3
HTH
Since total points is your tiebreaker, it goes to A and B.
Oh come on.StLB> care package received
BF thought it was something business-related and opened it. He has since asked that I get a PO Box for presents from my other boyfriends.
Scanner down?Oh come on.StLB> care package received
BF thought it was something business-related and opened it. He has since asked that I get a PO Box for presents from my other boyfriends.
On a side note, Mrs. SLB took possession of the family photo's after her Dad died. I was looking through them, since she left them all over my desk, and there is a pic of her in Florida laying out at the age of 21. Good Lord, I forgot just how ridiculous her body was.
I'm talkin' about friendship. I'm talkin' about character. I'm talkin' about - hell. Rudi, I ain't embarrassed to use the word - I'm talkin' about ethics.Ethics or morals?it's a question of ethics
I think you've seen "Podcast" around, no?shuke said:Why?What about Tufnel? Haven't seen him or a while.urbanhack said:Bob Sacamano quit.
some mod,who shall remain nameless, seems to have declared war on tufnel. It's freaking sad.shuke said:Why?What about Tufnel? Haven't seen him or a while.urbanhack said:Bob Sacamano quit.
I don't believe the site owner looks favorably on PG-13 sex/genitalia jokes.
That may be the source of a single banning. This is a vendetta.
it is unexplainableNigel is the most likable person on the innerwebs
Being likable or unlikeable doesn't seem to factor into the frequency or length of timeouts. I think it used to make a difference during the Shick! days.
Ok, I'll say it...This place is worse without Shick! Dunno why some people had such a problem with him, he was always fair imho...and he actually had a sense of humor. Of course, I'm a shell of my former self here, but back in the day it used to be good entertainment...not so much (barring this thread) anymore. Rude, Clayton, wolfie, shick, colin...never had any issues with any of them. I had a few posts deleted and have gotten a timeout or two, but I knew going in the timeout was comming...or at least that I probably deserved one.For everyone that wanted Shick gone, is this better...the faceless mod with no reason or rhyme for timeouts? Hell, at least he'd tell you why.
I thought Shick was a good guy but there were issues back then too. I always thought he was looking over his shoulder to seek Joe's approval and that sometimes resulted in him making bad decisions. In conclusion, I think that having an ombudsman here has really turned things around.
Care to chime in, Pickles?
actually, one of his shticks was always that he didn't have a sense of humor.
I think you're confusing him with Joe.
not really.He mentioned it a lot. Usually blamed it on his being German or something.
Shticks aside, he did...and I have the PM's to prove it.
even so, he did not like Tufnel very much considering the initial permaban.
I just don't understand how anyone can feel this way.Tanner, sure. Truck, absolutely. But everyone loves Tufnel.
what the hell is wrong with these people
Ok...and you don't like me very much. No rhyme or reason for that either.I think Tufnel is funny as hell too, but shick didn't ban him in this case.
pre- or post- WW Tufnel?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I attribute this to the "seeking Joe's approval" thing I mentioned earlier. For an example of a poster Shick actually disliked, see Zippy.
lolwut?
Tufnel isn't currently banned. He's on a 90-day suspension I believe.
whichever one got banned for saying he'd do Chelsea Clintona fine 30 year old women who we should be allowed to want to do it with
Hate the sin, love the sinner.
A salary would help, though.
Correct.:notebook:
Are you asking if they should or if they do? I believe that Joe himself does a fair amount of triage on this site, and it's always puzzled me how a guy with so much on his plate apparently has time to manicure the forums in this way.
MOP and LHUCKS help him out
"Should", it doesn't seem like anyone else has stepped into the "!" role from what I can tell.Agreed. I have one job and one kid and don't sleep much, Joe has two jobs (well, one job and writing Random Shots) and four kids. If it were up to me to moderate this board, it would look like Lord of the Flies in here.
People who use the report function more than, say, once every two years should be permabanned.At least that's what I'd do if I ran this place [/bGP]
:(
