week 17 a myth? (1 Viewer)

[zed2283]

We are in discussions to move our championship from week 17 to week 16. As part of the process, I looked up the scoring numbers for the league (13 years worth) and ranked week 17 by average points scored. Here's what I got:

1999 - #2 (i.e. 2nd highest scoring week of the season)

2000 - #2

2001 - #1

2002 - #17

2003 - #2

2004 - #1

2005 - #3

2006 - #1

2007 - #1

2008 - #16

2009 - #4

2010 - #1

2011 - #1

So in 11 out of 13 seasons, week 17 ranked in the top 4 in average scoring for that season. And it was top 2 in 9 of 13. Is that due to small sample size (only two teams)? Is that because the better teams made the playoffs and championship?

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

If you're doing your sample size with just the championship teams then I think you are assessing the data incorrectly.

 

[GroveDiesel]

We are in discussions to move our championship from week 17 to week 16. As part of the process, I looked up the scoring numbers for the league (13 years worth) and ranked week 17 by average points scored. Here's what I got:

1999 - #2 (i.e. 2nd highest scoring week of the season)

2000 - #2

2001 - #1

2002 - #17

2003 - #2

2004 - #1

2005 - #3

2006 - #1

2007 - #1

2008 - #16

2009 - #4

2010 - #1

2011 - #1

So in 11 out of 13 seasons, week 17 ranked in the top 4 in average scoring for that season. And it was top 2 in 9 of 13. Is that due to small sample size (only two teams)? Is that because the better teams made the playoffs and championship?

Probably.The Week 17 thing doesn't seem like as much of an issue lately as most teams seem to be still playing for something Week 17, even if it's just for a better playoff seeding. But it does still happen at times and it just really sucks to lose a fantasy championship because your best player is healthy but sitting out because his team doesn't have anything to play for.

I think this became an issue when the Broncos kept sitting their starters in Week 17 and Terrell Davis owners kept losing fantasy titles. I know we changed to Week 16 when the Terrell Davis owner made it to the Championship 2 years in a row and lost both of them when TD didn't suit up, lol.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2012010108/2011/REG17/lions@packers?icampaign=GC_schedule_rr#menu=highlights&tab=recap

 

[zed2283]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2012010108/2011/REG17/lions@packers?icampaign=GC_schedule_rr#menu=highlights&tab=recap

This game actually cost the #1 seed the championship last year (even though it was the highest scoring week of the year) because he sat Jordy Nelson based on the fact that he and/or A.Rodgers were supposed to sit.

 

[zed2283]

If you're doing your sample size with just the championship teams then I think you are assessing the data incorrectly.

The rest of the week 17 info is not available. But does it matter what the non-championship game teams do in a week 17 discussion?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If you're doing your sample size with just the championship teams then I think you are assessing the data incorrectly.

The rest of the week 17 info is not available. But does it matter what the non-championship game teams do in a week 17 discussion?

You could compare the points scored by the two championship teams to the points those two teams scored during Weeks 11-16 (after the byes). That would get you a pretty good luck at what you're after I think.But you still run the risk of a major player being rested for the title game, which just adds another element of luck.

 

[Warrior]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

 

[Bayhawks]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way? I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

If you're doing your sample size with just the championship teams then I think you are assessing the data incorrectly.

The rest of the week 17 info is not available. But does it matter what the non-championship game teams do in a week 17 discussion?

Well, your OP is sort of confusing, but if you are looking at the scoring for the entire league during the fantasy regular season and then just the scoring of the playoff teams during the weeks they are playing then yes I think that is some pretty lazy stat analysis. I would start with taking the top 15 QBs, top 30 RBs and WRs (Or something like that) and seeing how their average scoring fluctuates through the weeks. I would say look at how week 17 fantasy output as a whole is affected, but I mean there is waiver wire fodder that will pick up the production for the studs being benched so that probably wouldn't be accurate. See how the big boys are affected.

 

[Eminence]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way? I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

What stats do you need? You ride your studs all season and suddenly you don't have them Week 17 with big money on the line. I'm sure you would be upset if you were forced to field a team for a chance to win $600+ but that was the week you couldn't start Aaron Rodgers who was averaging about 3TD a game.

 

[Chazzhawk]

Playing a championship in week 17 can sometimes penalize teams by making them sit some of their best players because they are sitting or their quarterback is sitting. Playing in week 16 usually takes this out of the equation, so why change it?

 

[Bayhawks]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way? I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

What stats do you need? You ride your studs all season and suddenly you don't have them Week 17 with big money on the line. I'm sure you would be upset if you were forced to field a team for a chance to win $600+ but that was the week you couldn't start Aaron Rodgers who was averaging about 3TD a game.

What stats do I need? Maybe something that demonstrates that there is a significant number of players who don't play week 17? Maybe something that shows that scoring in week 17 is way down compared to weeks 1-16. Maybe something that shows some kind of link between teams losing BECAUSE they averaged X amount of points from player A, but got Y points from player B (who they had to start because player A was resting in week 17)? You know, actual EVIDENCE, not stupid comments like "Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy."BTW, I'm sure I would have been REAL upset if I were forced to field a team in week 17 that had Matt Flynn (518 yards, 6 passing TDs, 1 rushing TD) or Carson Palmer (417 yards, 2 pass TD) at QB (both guys were viable options for Rodgers owners: available on the WW later in the season when it became clear that Rodgers would be in a position to sit out week 17).If you just want to draft a team and set your starting line-up once, then ignore that team, then you definitely shouldn't play a week 17 championship game. However, preparing for a player/players to sit week 17 isn't really any different than preparing for the possibility of player injuries.

 

[DoubleG]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way? I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

What stats do you need? You ride your studs all season and suddenly you don't have them Week 17 with big money on the line. I'm sure you would be upset if you were forced to field a team for a chance to win $600+ but that was the week you couldn't start Aaron Rodgers who was averaging about 3TD a game.

What stats do I need? Maybe something that demonstrates that there is a significant number of players who don't play week 17?

Ironically, the fact that it affects a SMALL number of players is exactly the problem. FF players who have drafted stud QBs like Peyton Manning of years past or Aaron Rodgers last year were often left grasping at proverbial straws in their respective championship games as those studs were sat outright or only played small portions of week 17. The irony is doubled when the reason the "stud" was sat was because he had performed so well for his team during the year that they had "earned" that right. So a FF owner who choce a stud who had a big year, loses the very player who likely lead him to the title game in question. Couched in that irony is the fact that it is fairly likely that the player in question is the very reason that FF is IN the championship game in the first place. Holding a championship game on week 17 increases the chance that at least one player on one of the two teams fighting for the championship will be rested. How little or how much is fairly irrelevant - most realize that it does, however. Which is why the practice should only be reserved for leagues that are not "big money" leagues, as it often can be a key factor in deciding a game between to two strong teams - one who finds he is without his best player.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way? I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

The difference is that you can't control for a player getting injured while you CAN control for players missing a game due to sitting in Week 17.Why intentionally introduce another negative variable when there's a simple solution with essentially zero negative consequences?Plus, I'll be honest, it's kind of nice just being able to watch the last week of the season without worrying about my fantasy team.

 

[whatadai]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way? I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

What stats do you need? You ride your studs all season and suddenly you don't have them Week 17 with big money on the line. I'm sure you would be upset if you were forced to field a team for a chance to win $600+ but that was the week you couldn't start Aaron Rodgers who was averaging about 3TD a game.

What stats do I need? Maybe something that demonstrates that there is a significant number of players who don't play week 17? Maybe something that shows that scoring in week 17 is way down compared to weeks 1-16. Maybe something that shows some kind of link between teams losing BECAUSE they averaged X amount of points from player A, but got Y points from player B (who they had to start because player A was resting in week 17)? You know, actual EVIDENCE, not stupid comments like "Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy."BTW, I'm sure I would have been REAL upset if I were forced to field a team in week 17 that had Matt Flynn (518 yards, 6 passing TDs, 1 rushing TD) or Carson Palmer (417 yards, 2 pass TD) at QB (both guys were viable options for Rodgers owners: available on the WW later in the season when it became clear that Rodgers would be in a position to sit out week 17).If you just want to draft a team and set your starting line-up once, then ignore that team, then you definitely shouldn't play a week 17 championship game. However, preparing for a player/players to sit week 17 isn't really any different than preparing for the possibility of player injuries.

Yes, because after 16 weeks of starting Aaron Rodgers...I would love to pick up Matt Flynn on the waiver wire and start him the one week he actually plays. And it was assumed Jordy Nelson would sit out. There doesn't need to be any stats to prove anything...the biggest game is on the line, preventing an owner from using his studs is just stupid. This isn't something that can't be controlled like injuries or bye weeks.

 

[Eminence]

Plus, I'll be honest, it's kind of nice just being able to watch the last week of the season without worrying about my fantasy team.

This.

 

[Underachievers]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way?

I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

What stats do you need? You ride your studs all season and suddenly you don't have them Week 17 with big money on the line. I'm sure you would be upset if you were forced to field a team for a chance to win $600+ but that was the week you couldn't start Aaron Rodgers who was averaging about 3TD a game.

What stats do I need? Maybe something that demonstrates that there is a significant number of players who don't play week 17? Maybe something that shows that scoring in week 17 is way down compared to weeks 1-16. Maybe something that shows some kind of link between teams losing BECAUSE they averaged X amount of points from player A, but got Y points from player B (who they had to start because player A was resting in week 17)? You know, actual EVIDENCE, not stupid comments like "Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy."BTW, I'm sure I would have been REAL upset if I were forced to field a team in week 17 that had Matt Flynn (518 yards, 6 passing TDs, 1 rushing TD) or Carson Palmer (417 yards, 2 pass TD) at QB (both guys were viable options for Rodgers owners: available on the WW later in the season when it became clear that Rodgers would be in a position to sit out week 17).

If you just want to draft a team and set your starting line-up once, then ignore that team, then you definitely shouldn't play a week 17 championship game. However, preparing for a player/players to sit week 17 isn't really any different than preparing for the possibility of player injuries.

12 teams and large rosters here. Both Flynn and Carson were gone on draft day.

Week 17 SB's are nonsense and no amount of stats will change that.

 

[DropKick]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way? I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

Why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone that doesn't do things there way? Because they really don't want to settle the league's championship with the second string? Nothing wrong with his post - don't over think this.Interpretation of the OP's stats are in the eye of the beholder. If Week 17 were "normal", you'd expect a pretty random distribution. It ranked in the top 4 of scoring weeks in 10 of 13 seasons? Doesn't that suggest something unusual is going on?

 

[r3t2]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way? I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

i got lucky one year and won a championship starting such luminaries as patrick hape, jesse chatman, ladell betts, and josh mccown because 4 of my starters sat out week 17. why invest 4 months into your hobby to end up with THAT as your starting lineup? what is there to gain by playing? this is seriously a no-brainer.

 

[FavreCo]

Just make week 17 your league pro bowl pitting each divisions best lineup (factoring in players sitting of course) against each other for $.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

We have played week 17 championship in my main 16-team league ever since its inception.

It does have some negatives. No doubt.

So much so we frequently discuss moving the season to end on week 16.

In the end we don't change because 1) more play time for all the teams with 14 week regular season and 2) "it is what it is" equally.

I like playing the full slate and having to understand and negotiate playoffs using 15-17. But I can certainly see why some leagues avoid it.

 

[Yenrub]

For our league the possibility of players sitting week 17 on 2 teams doesn’t outweigh the extra week of regular season play for all 12 teams. Our league has had a week 17 title game since 1996.

Sure there have been times that a team was missing a stud and it hurt them (I missed Rodgers this past year fortunately it didn’t cost me the title) but we are willing to deal with it.

Once you have been doing it a while you realize that players sitting in week 17 CAN happen and you try to do what you can to have capable backups to fill in if needed. We have 20 man rosters but only start 8 players so we have plenty of bench room.

Like I said I had Rodgers this past year, when the Packers got to 8-0 I knew I had to make sure I had some good back up QB options available to me just in case I made it to my league championship game. I think I was 7-1 at the time so I figured I would make the playoffs. For a while I was had Rodgers, Cutler and Dalton as my QB’s. After Cutler got hurt I picked up Flynn between weeks 11 and 12.

 

[Chazzhawk]

If people want more games, than you pick a few random weeks of the year where you play double headers.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

For our league the possibility of players sitting week 17 on 2 teams doesn’t outweigh the extra week of regular season play for all 12 teams. Our league has had a week 17 title game since 1996.

 

[Bayhawks]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way? I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

i got lucky one year and won a championship starting such luminaries as patrick hape, jesse chatman, ladell betts, and josh mccown because 4 of my starters sat out week 17. why invest 4 months into your hobby to end up with THAT as your starting lineup? what is there to gain by playing? this is seriously a no-brainer.

1-If you won with those guys as replacements, then your opponent was probably facing the same problem, so the playing field was level.2-If you only had those guys as viable replacements, then it would seem that your league either doesn't allow WW/FA pickups, or you're not very good at working the WW.3-What "lucky year" was this? Chatman only played in week 17 ONCE in his career (2007-12 carries for 42 yards, 2 rec for 8 yards, 5 FF points); Betts had 10 carries for 29 yards (2.9 FF points) in week 17 of 2007, McCown didn't play in week 17 in 2007, and Patrick Hape retired after the 2004 season. Maybe you're talking about 2004 (the only season Hape played in week 17)? Hape-6.8 FF points, McCown-3 FF points, Betts-18.3 FF points, Chatman-didn't play. That's a total of 7.9 FF points (2007) or 28.1 FF points (2004) from your QB, 2 RBs and TE.Either you're making stuff up, or your league has FAR WORSE problems (if you were able to win with those 4 guys in your lineup in 2004 or 2007) than having a week 17 championship game.

 

[Bayhawks]

Ironically, the fact that it affects a SMALL number of players is exactly the problem.

FF players who have drafted stud QBs like Peyton Manning of years past or Aaron Rodgers last year were often left grasping at proverbial straws in their respective championship games as those studs were sat outright or only played small portions of week 17.

The irony is doubled when the reason the "stud" was sat was because he had performed so well for his team during the year that they had "earned" that right. So a FF owner who choce a stud who had a big year, loses the very player who likely lead him to the title game in question. Couched in that irony is the fact that it is fairly likely that the player in question is the very reason that FF is IN the championship game in the first place.

Holding a championship game on week 17 increases the chance that at least one player on one of the two teams fighting for the championship will be rested. How little or how much is fairly irrelevant - most realize that it does, however. Which is why the practice should only be reserved for leagues that are not "big money" leagues, as it often can be a key factor in deciding a game between to two strong teams - one who finds he is without his best player.

So, according to the bolded, when the chance that at least one player on the one of the 2 teams fighting for the championship will be rested (how little or how much is irrelevant), than you shouldn't have week 16 championship games either, because there is still a chance (very slight) that one or more players might be rested, and since "how little or how much is fairly irrelevant," why would you have a championship in week 16? Or week 15? There is always the chance (incredibly small chance) that a team will have locked up all they have to play for BEFORE week 17; according to your logic, championship games shouldn't be played if that's possible.

 

[Bayhawks]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way?

I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

What stats do you need? You ride your studs all season and suddenly you don't have them Week 17 with big money on the line. I'm sure you would be upset if you were forced to field a team for a chance to win $600+ but that was the week you couldn't start Aaron Rodgers who was averaging about 3TD a game.

What stats do I need? Maybe something that demonstrates that there is a significant number of players who don't play week 17? Maybe something that shows that scoring in week 17 is way down compared to weeks 1-16. Maybe something that shows some kind of link between teams losing BECAUSE they averaged X amount of points from player A, but got Y points from player B (who they had to start because player A was resting in week 17)? You know, actual EVIDENCE, not stupid comments like "Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy."BTW, I'm sure I would have been REAL upset if I were forced to field a team in week 17 that had Matt Flynn (518 yards, 6 passing TDs, 1 rushing TD) or Carson Palmer (417 yards, 2 pass TD) at QB (both guys were viable options for Rodgers owners: available on the WW later in the season when it became clear that Rodgers would be in a position to sit out week 17).

If you just want to draft a team and set your starting line-up once, then ignore that team, then you definitely shouldn't play a week 17 championship game. However, preparing for a player/players to sit week 17 isn't really any different than preparing for the possibility of player injuries.

12 teams and large rosters here. Both Flynn and Carson were gone on draft day.

Week 17 SB's are nonsense and no amount of stats will change that.

In 12 team MFL leagues, Flynn was undrafted in 95% of their leagues, and Palmer was undrafted in 93% of their leagues. Safe to say they would have been readily available during the season in most leagues last year.OK-I can play this game: week 16 SBs are nonsense, and no amount of stats will change that. Does it being in a post make it true?

 

[kinglochness]

I think you are looking at the wrong issue. It's not a points scored issue. It's a altering the competitive balance issue. I personally wouldn't play in a week 17 championship league because there is a huge mostly unpredictable factor of who will be playing and who will be sitting that week. I'd much rather play the championship in week 16 because there's much less of a chance that a star player (that's been depended on all year) sitting out.

 

[Bayhawks]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way? I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

The difference is that you can't control for a player getting injured while you CAN control for players missing a game due to sitting in Week 17.Why intentionally introduce another negative variable when there's a simple solution with essentially zero negative consequences?

Then why don't you only play in leagues with team-QB, team-RB, team-WR, team-TE, etc? That is a fairly simple solution for eliminated a negative variable which you CAN'T control (injured players). Brady goes down in a game, you automatically get his stats, plus his replacements. You don't lose a game because of something you can't control. Why aren't there people posting (with nothing to support them) that leagues that don't use TEAM-positions are nonsense?

 

[Bayhawks]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way? I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

What stats do you need? You ride your studs all season and suddenly you don't have them Week 17 with big money on the line. I'm sure you would be upset if you were forced to field a team for a chance to win $600+ but that was the week you couldn't start Aaron Rodgers who was averaging about 3TD a game.

What stats do I need? Maybe something that demonstrates that there is a significant number of players who don't play week 17? Maybe something that shows that scoring in week 17 is way down compared to weeks 1-16. Maybe something that shows some kind of link between teams losing BECAUSE they averaged X amount of points from player A, but got Y points from player B (who they had to start because player A was resting in week 17)? You know, actual EVIDENCE, not stupid comments like "Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy."BTW, I'm sure I would have been REAL upset if I were forced to field a team in week 17 that had Matt Flynn (518 yards, 6 passing TDs, 1 rushing TD) or Carson Palmer (417 yards, 2 pass TD) at QB (both guys were viable options for Rodgers owners: available on the WW later in the season when it became clear that Rodgers would be in a position to sit out week 17).If you just want to draft a team and set your starting line-up once, then ignore that team, then you definitely shouldn't play a week 17 championship game. However, preparing for a player/players to sit week 17 isn't really any different than preparing for the possibility of player injuries.

Yes, because after 16 weeks of starting Aaron Rodgers...I would love to pick up Matt Flynn on the waiver wire and start him the one week he actually plays. And it was assumed Jordy Nelson would sit out. There doesn't need to be any stats to prove anything...the biggest game is on the line, preventing an owner from using his studs is just stupid. This isn't something that can't be controlled like injuries or bye weeks.

If you'd had Flynn last year, I'd wager you WOULD have loved the results. This IS something that can't be controlled. No one KNOWS who will/won't sit in week 17, just as no one KNOWS who will get injured (or when). If your league has a week 17 game, you make sure you have bench depth, if it's necessary. It's that simple. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it stupid.

 

[Bayhawks]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way?

I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

Why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone that doesn't do things there way? Because they really don't want to settle the league's championship with the second string? Nothing wrong with his post - don't over think this.

If that's the way you (or they) feel, great. That doesn't mean your (or their) way is the only right way. Suggesting that leagues that don't coincide with your point of view are "crazy" and that commissioner of such leagues are "foolish" is ridiculous, and unnecessary. That is what was wrong with that post-don't over think that.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way?

I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

i got lucky one year and won a championship starting such luminaries as patrick hape, jesse chatman, ladell betts, and josh mccown because 4 of my starters sat out week 17. why invest 4 months into your hobby to end up with THAT as your starting lineup? what is there to gain by playing? this is seriously a no-brainer.

1-If you won with those guys as replacements, then your opponent was probably facing the same problem, so the playing field was level.2-If you only had those guys as viable replacements, then it would seem that your league either doesn't allow WW/FA pickups, or you're not very good at working the WW.

3-What "lucky year" was this? Chatman only played in week 17 ONCE in his career (2007-12 carries for 42 yards, 2 rec for 8 yards, 5 FF points); Betts had 10 carries for 29 yards (2.9 FF points) in week 17 of 2007, McCown didn't play in week 17 in 2007, and Patrick Hape retired after the 2004 season.

Maybe you're talking about 2004 (the only season Hape played in week 17)? Hape-6.8 FF points, McCown-3 FF points, Betts-18.3 FF points, Chatman-didn't play.

That's a total of 7.9 FF points (2007) or 28.1 FF points (2004) from your QB, 2 RBs and TE.

Either you're making stuff up, or your league has FAR WORSE problems (if you were able to win with those 4 guys in your lineup in 2004 or 2007) than having a week 17 championship game.

Holy :curbstomp: batman.

 

[Dez]

I played week 17 championships for all my leagues I run from 1990-2009. From 1990-2005 it didn't seem as much of a problem I ran 3 leagues and all week 17 championships.

In 2007 the guy I played didn't know if Eli Manning was going to play more than a quarter vs NE so he sat him I think he threw 4-5 TD's.

In one of the years the guy who had Rodgers sat him because he didn't know if he would play much vs Arizona and he played entire game I believe with a bunch of TD's while he ended up starting the immortal Keith Null while I had to sit my starter Rivers to start the great David Garrard.

In 2009 I was the #1 scoring team in the regular season but I lost half my starters and scored 14 pts!!!!!!

Finally that was the last straw after 20 years of week 17 championship I finally changed to week 16 for all my leagues starting in 2010.

 

[menobrown]

Playing a championship in week 17 can sometimes penalize teams by making them sit some of their best players because they are sitting or their quarterback is sitting. Playing in week 16 usually takes this out of the equation, so why change it?

For the reason most people play fantasy football, for fun. Losing week 17 means you lose 1/16th of every teams season. Personally I'd never want to be in a league that used the results of week 17 only to determine the league championship. On the other hand I'd be completely open to using week 17 in every league I'm if it was used as part of the equation to determine the champ. For instance I'd have no problem being in league that used total points from weeks 16 and 17, 15-17, etc, etc to determine the champ.

In most of the high stakes leagues the championship round is total points weeks 14-16. I've wanted to include week 17 in that equation since those type of events started but I'm in large minority. So much so I'll never bother to suggest or bring it up again on the message boards of those events. The majority by a large percentage prefer to not include week 17 in any shape or form.

 

[Chazzhawk]

Ironically, the fact that it affects a SMALL number of players is exactly the problem.

FF players who have drafted stud QBs like Peyton Manning of years past or Aaron Rodgers last year were often left grasping at proverbial straws in their respective championship games as those studs were sat outright or only played small portions of week 17.

The irony is doubled when the reason the "stud" was sat was because he had performed so well for his team during the year that they had "earned" that right. So a FF owner who choce a stud who had a big year, loses the very player who likely lead him to the title game in question. Couched in that irony is the fact that it is fairly likely that the player in question is the very reason that FF is IN the championship game in the first place.

Holding a championship game on week 17 increases the chance that at least one player on one of the two teams fighting for the championship will be rested. How little or how much is fairly irrelevant - most realize that it does, however. Which is why the practice should only be reserved for leagues that are not "big money" leagues, as it often can be a key factor in deciding a game between to two strong teams - one who finds he is without his best player.

So, according to the bolded, when the chance that at least one player on the one of the 2 teams fighting for the championship will be rested (how little or how much is irrelevant), than you shouldn't have week 16 championship games either, because there is still a chance (very slight) that one or more players might be rested, and since "how little or how much is fairly irrelevant," why would you have a championship in week 16? Or week 15? There is always the chance (incredibly small chance) that a team will have locked up all they have to play for BEFORE week 17; according to your logic, championship games shouldn't be played if that's possible.

The more you lessen the odds that players could be sat, the better odds you have of the better team winning the title. Lets be honest though no NFL team is going to sit their healthy players for week 16, 17 then most likely a bye before they play their playoff game. That would be a month without game action and players can lose their edge and get rusty.

 

[Bayhawks]

Ironically, the fact that it affects a SMALL number of players is exactly the problem.

FF players who have drafted stud QBs like Peyton Manning of years past or Aaron Rodgers last year were often left grasping at proverbial straws in their respective championship games as those studs were sat outright or only played small portions of week 17.

The irony is doubled when the reason the "stud" was sat was because he had performed so well for his team during the year that they had "earned" that right. So a FF owner who choce a stud who had a big year, loses the very player who likely lead him to the title game in question. Couched in that irony is the fact that it is fairly likely that the player in question is the very reason that FF is IN the championship game in the first place.

Holding a championship game on week 17 increases the chance that at least one player on one of the two teams fighting for the championship will be rested. How little or how much is fairly irrelevant - most realize that it does, however. Which is why the practice should only be reserved for leagues that are not "big money" leagues, as it often can be a key factor in deciding a game between to two strong teams - one who finds he is without his best player.

So, according to the bolded, when the chance that at least one player on the one of the 2 teams fighting for the championship will be rested (how little or how much is irrelevant), than you shouldn't have week 16 championship games either, because there is still a chance (very slight) that one or more players might be rested, and since "how little or how much is fairly irrelevant," why would you have a championship in week 16? Or week 15? There is always the chance (incredibly small chance) that a team will have locked up all they have to play for BEFORE week 17; according to your logic, championship games shouldn't be played if that's possible.

The more you lessen the odds that players could be sat, the better odds you have of the better team winning the title. Lets be honest though no NFL team is going to sit their healthy players for week 16, 17 then most likely a bye before they play their playoff game. That would be a month without game action and players can lose their edge and get rusty.

No NFL team?2007-Colts were 14-0 & had locked up EVERYTHING they could (division, 1st-round bye, HFA through playoffs, #1 seed, etc). Manning played the 1st half of week 16 (only 16 pass attempts, less than 100 yards, no TD) and sat week 17.

So, it's a possibility, and "the more you lessen the odds that players could be sat, the better odds you have of the better team winning the title." So, using the traditional logic for eliminating week 17 games, why don't we eliminate week 16 games, too?

 

[Chazzhawk]

Ironically, the fact that it affects a SMALL number of players is exactly the problem.

FF players who have drafted stud QBs like Peyton Manning of years past or Aaron Rodgers last year were often left grasping at proverbial straws in their respective championship games as those studs were sat outright or only played small portions of week 17.

The irony is doubled when the reason the "stud" was sat was because he had performed so well for his team during the year that they had "earned" that right. So a FF owner who choce a stud who had a big year, loses the very player who likely lead him to the title game in question. Couched in that irony is the fact that it is fairly likely that the player in question is the very reason that FF is IN the championship game in the first place.

Holding a championship game on week 17 increases the chance that at least one player on one of the two teams fighting for the championship will be rested. How little or how much is fairly irrelevant - most realize that it does, however. Which is why the practice should only be reserved for leagues that are not "big money" leagues, as it often can be a key factor in deciding a game between to two strong teams - one who finds he is without his best player.

So, according to the bolded, when the chance that at least one player on the one of the 2 teams fighting for the championship will be rested (how little or how much is irrelevant), than you shouldn't have week 16 championship games either, because there is still a chance (very slight) that one or more players might be rested, and since "how little or how much is fairly irrelevant," why would you have a championship in week 16? Or week 15? There is always the chance (incredibly small chance) that a team will have locked up all they have to play for BEFORE week 17; according to your logic, championship games shouldn't be played if that's possible.

The more you lessen the odds that players could be sat, the better odds you have of the better team winning the title. Lets be honest though no NFL team is going to sit their healthy players for week 16, 17 then most likely a bye before they play their playoff game. That would be a month without game action and players can lose their edge and get rusty.

No NFL team?2007-Colts were 14-0 & had locked up EVERYTHING they could (division, 1st-round bye, HFA through playoffs, #1 seed, etc). Manning played the 1st half of week 16 (only 16 pass attempts, less than 100 yards, no TD) and sat week 17.

So, it's a possibility, and "the more you lessen the odds that players could be sat, the better odds you have of the better team winning the title." So, using the traditional logic for eliminating week 17 games, why don't we eliminate week 16 games, too?

1 team in the history of the league that is what 80 years old. Hell just take the history of fantasy football since the 80's so 1 team in 30 + years. Compared to the number of teams that have rested or only played their starters for a half in last the week of the regular season. The numbers tell you that week 16 is the best week to have the championship round.

 

[Bayhawks]

Ironically, the fact that it affects a SMALL number of players is exactly the problem.

FF players who have drafted stud QBs like Peyton Manning of years past or Aaron Rodgers last year were often left grasping at proverbial straws in their respective championship games as those studs were sat outright or only played small portions of week 17.

The irony is doubled when the reason the "stud" was sat was because he had performed so well for his team during the year that they had "earned" that right. So a FF owner who choce a stud who had a big year, loses the very player who likely lead him to the title game in question. Couched in that irony is the fact that it is fairly likely that the player in question is the very reason that FF is IN the championship game in the first place.

Holding a championship game on week 17 increases the chance that at least one player on one of the two teams fighting for the championship will be rested. How little or how much is fairly irrelevant - most realize that it does, however. Which is why the practice should only be reserved for leagues that are not "big money" leagues, as it often can be a key factor in deciding a game between to two strong teams - one who finds he is without his best player.

So, according to the bolded, when the chance that at least one player on the one of the 2 teams fighting for the championship will be rested (how little or how much is irrelevant), than you shouldn't have week 16 championship games either, because there is still a chance (very slight) that one or more players might be rested, and since "how little or how much is fairly irrelevant," why would you have a championship in week 16? Or week 15? There is always the chance (incredibly small chance) that a team will have locked up all they have to play for BEFORE week 17; according to your logic, championship games shouldn't be played if that's possible.

The more you lessen the odds that players could be sat, the better odds you have of the better team winning the title. Lets be honest though no NFL team is going to sit their healthy players for week 16, 17 then most likely a bye before they play their playoff game. That would be a month without game action and players can lose their edge and get rusty.

No NFL team?2007-Colts were 14-0 & had locked up EVERYTHING they could (division, 1st-round bye, HFA through playoffs, #1 seed, etc). Manning played the 1st half of week 16 (only 16 pass attempts, less than 100 yards, no TD) and sat week 17.

So, it's a possibility, and "the more you lessen the odds that players could be sat, the better odds you have of the better team winning the title." So, using the traditional logic for eliminating week 17 games, why don't we eliminate week 16 games, too?

1 team in the history of the league that is what 80 years old. Hell just take the history of fantasy football since the 80's so 1 team in 30 + years. Compared to the number of teams that have rested or only played their starters for a half in last the week of the regular season. The numbers tell you that week 16 is the best week to have the championship round.

I didn't say "no team," you did. I merely corrected you.You claim "The numbers tell you that week 16 is the best week to have the championship round." What numbers; you have provided one number ("no team"), and that number was wrong. Please provide us with the numbers that show a great deal of players are "rested" in week 17. I'd be willing to bet that number isn't nearly as large as you think it is.

 

[Chazzhawk]

I am not going through all the history of the NFL to find who sat when and who didn't. I have played fantasy football for 10+ years and watched football for 20+. I can only recall one time that a team rested players before the last week of the regular season (The Colts). I can recall several times where players were rested on the last week. Aaron Rodgers last year, Arian Forster didn't play last year, I forget which year but Brady and Hoyer went in and out of the game during the last game, remember a couple years ago when the Bengals sat most of their players and the Jets got into the playoffs by beating them and then beat them in the first round of the playoffs. Not to mention all the possibilities of players sitting but then they don't because the Lions lost to Matt Flynn and the Packers, so people are scrambling to put Turner, Ryan, Jones and White back into their lineups because they now have something to play for against the Bucs.

 

[shadyridr]

We are in discussions to move our championship from week 17 to week 16. As part of the process, I looked up the scoring numbers for the league (13 years worth) and ranked week 17 by average points scored. Here's what I got:1999 - #2 (i.e. 2nd highest scoring week of the season)2000 - #22001 - #12002 - #172003 - #22004 - #12005 - #32006 - #12007 - #12008 - #162009 - #42010 - #12011 - #1So in 11 out of 13 seasons, week 17 ranked in the top 4 in average scoring for that season. And it was top 2 in 9 of 13. Is that due to small sample size (only two teams)? Is that because the better teams made the playoffs and championship?

Your stat analysis has no relevance to the reason people play week 16 championship games

 

[Bayhawks]

I am not going through all the history of the NFL to find who sat when and who didn't. I have played fantasy football for 10+ years and watched football for 20+. I can only recall one time that a team rested players before the last week of the regular season (The Colts). I can recall several times where players were rested on the last week. Aaron Rodgers last year, Arian Forster didn't play last year, I forget which year but Brady and Hoyer went in and out of the game during the last game, remember a couple years ago when the Bengals sat most of their players and the Jets got into the playoffs by beating them and then beat them in the first round of the playoffs. Not to mention all the possibilities of players sitting but then they don't because the Lions lost to Matt Flynn and the Packers, so people are scrambling to put Turner, Ryan, Jones and White back into their lineups because they now have something to play for against the Bucs.

Got it. So you're saying "I believe it happens, but I'm not going to look into it." If that's the case, that's fine. But don't (and I don't know if you do this or not) slam leagues who don't do it your way, insisting that YOUR WAY is the only RIGHT WAY.

 

[Chazzhawk]

I am not going through all the history of the NFL to find who sat when and who didn't. I have played fantasy football for 10+ years and watched football for 20+. I can only recall one time that a team rested players before the last week of the regular season (The Colts). I can recall several times where players were rested on the last week. Aaron Rodgers last year, Arian Forster didn't play last year, I forget which year but Brady and Hoyer went in and out of the game during the last game, remember a couple years ago when the Bengals sat most of their players and the Jets got into the playoffs by beating them and then beat them in the first round of the playoffs. Not to mention all the possibilities of players sitting but then they don't because the Lions lost to Matt Flynn and the Packers, so people are scrambling to put Turner, Ryan, Jones and White back into their lineups because they now have something to play for against the Bucs.

Got it. So you're saying "I believe it happens, but I'm not going to look into it." If that's the case, that's fine. But don't (and I don't know if you do this or not) slam leagues who don't do it your way, insisting that YOUR WAY is the only RIGHT WAY.

No you are just trying to be like a lawyer right now and if I don't show you beyond on a reasonable doubt that it isn't true. I don't have the time to go through that much data or search to see if a site has that much data. If you honestly think that as many players sit for rest in week 15 and 16 compared to week 17, then keep your head in sand and be happy.I am not slamming those leagues at all, if they want to do it that way have at it and be happy, the question was is week 17 a myth and it isn't. Like I said before I don't have the time to look it all up, I watch enough football and seen enough reports about who is resting to know that it happens more often in week 17 as compared to the prior weeks. So it is better to have the championship in week 16, so you don't penalize the teams that rode Rodgers, Foster, and others to the title game and now can't use them, but to each their own.

 

[Bayhawks]

I am not going through all the history of the NFL to find who sat when and who didn't. I have played fantasy football for 10+ years and watched football for 20+. I can only recall one time that a team rested players before the last week of the regular season (The Colts). I can recall several times where players were rested on the last week. Aaron Rodgers last year, Arian Forster didn't play last year, I forget which year but Brady and Hoyer went in and out of the game during the last game, remember a couple years ago when the Bengals sat most of their players and the Jets got into the playoffs by beating them and then beat them in the first round of the playoffs. Not to mention all the possibilities of players sitting but then they don't because the Lions lost to Matt Flynn and the Packers, so people are scrambling to put Turner, Ryan, Jones and White back into their lineups because they now have something to play for against the Bucs.

Got it. So you're saying "I believe it happens, but I'm not going to look into it." If that's the case, that's fine. But don't (and I don't know if you do this or not) slam leagues who don't do it your way, insisting that YOUR WAY is the only RIGHT WAY.

No you are just trying to be like a lawyer right now and if I don't show you beyond on a reasonable doubt that it isn't true. I don't have the time to go through that much data or search to see if a site has that much data. If you honestly think that as many players sit for rest in week 15 and 16 compared to week 17, then keep your head in sand and be happy.I am not slamming those leagues at all, if they want to do it that way have at it and be happy, the question was is week 17 a myth and it isn't. Like I said before I don't have the time to look it all up, I watch enough football and seen enough reports about who is resting to know that it happens more often in week 17 as compared to the prior weeks. So it is better to have the championship in week 16, so you don't penalize the teams that rode Rodgers, Foster, and others to the title game and now can't use them, but to each their own.

This (the bolded) is what YOU BELIEVE. You don't have any info/data that supports that belief, other than what you think you recall happening. And that's fine. But if you're not going to support your belief, don't try to pass it off as a fact.

 

[bonesman]

I think you are looking at the wrong issue. It's not a points scored issue. It's a altering the competitive balance issue. I personally wouldn't play in a week 17 championship league because there is a huge mostly unpredictable factor of who will be playing and who will be sitting that week. I'd much rather play the championship in week 16 because there's much less of a chance that a star player (that's been depended on all year) sitting out.

It's not about how many points are being scored, it's about who's scoring them (guys that haven't been on the field or in a starting lineup all year). It's kinda like if a team made it to the SuperBowl and then played 2nd stringers.

 

[griff321]

Maybe a few teams will sometimes sit starters week 16, but quite a few do it week 17.

The big problem is having trades close a few weeks before the playoffs and then having the WW close the week before the playoffs. I'm in three leagues that do this. I've seen dead teams ransom handcuffs for studs just to mess up a playoff bound team. Then you have teams playing mind games over who's going to start or sit. To me it's just a hassle that I rather not deal with. I'll never be in a league with a week 17 championship game. JMHO

 

[footballnerd]

I am not going through all the history of the NFL to find who sat when and who didn't. I have played fantasy football for 10+ years and watched football for 20+. I can only recall one time that a team rested players before the last week of the regular season (The Colts). I can recall several times where players were rested on the last week. Aaron Rodgers last year, Arian Forster didn't play last year, I forget which year but Brady and Hoyer went in and out of the game during the last game, remember a couple years ago when the Bengals sat most of their players and the Jets got into the playoffs by beating them and then beat them in the first round of the playoffs. Not to mention all the possibilities of players sitting but then they don't because the Lions lost to Matt Flynn and the Packers, so people are scrambling to put Turner, Ryan, Jones and White back into their lineups because they now have something to play for against the Bucs.

Got it. So you're saying "I believe it happens, but I'm not going to look into it." If that's the case, that's fine. But don't (and I don't know if you do this or not) slam leagues who don't do it your way, insisting that YOUR WAY is the only RIGHT WAY.

No you are just trying to be like a lawyer right now and if I don't show you beyond on a reasonable doubt that it isn't true. I don't have the time to go through that much data or search to see if a site has that much data. If you honestly think that as many players sit for rest in week 15 and 16 compared to week 17, then keep your head in sand and be happy.I am not slamming those leagues at all, if they want to do it that way have at it and be happy, the question was is week 17 a myth and it isn't. Like I said before I don't have the time to look it all up, I watch enough football and seen enough reports about who is resting to know that it happens more often in week 17 as compared to the prior weeks. So it is better to have the championship in week 16, so you don't penalize the teams that rode Rodgers, Foster, and others to the title game and now can't use them, but to each their own.

This (the bolded) is what YOU BELIEVE. You don't have any info/data that supports that belief, other than what you think you recall happening. And that's fine. But if you're not going to support your belief, don't try to pass it off as a fact.

where's your stats? why don't you prove to us that teams don't sit players in week 17? That the idea that a team will sit players in week 17 is complete BS.

 

[Bayhawks]

I am not going through all the history of the NFL to find who sat when and who didn't. I have played fantasy football for 10+ years and watched football for 20+. I can only recall one time that a team rested players before the last week of the regular season (The Colts). I can recall several times where players were rested on the last week. Aaron Rodgers last year, Arian Forster didn't play last year, I forget which year but Brady and Hoyer went in and out of the game during the last game, remember a couple years ago when the Bengals sat most of their players and the Jets got into the playoffs by beating them and then beat them in the first round of the playoffs. Not to mention all the possibilities of players sitting but then they don't because the Lions lost to Matt Flynn and the Packers, so people are scrambling to put Turner, Ryan, Jones and White back into their lineups because they now have something to play for against the Bucs.

Got it. So you're saying "I believe it happens, but I'm not going to look into it." If that's the case, that's fine. But don't (and I don't know if you do this or not) slam leagues who don't do it your way, insisting that YOUR WAY is the only RIGHT WAY.

No you are just trying to be like a lawyer right now and if I don't show you beyond on a reasonable doubt that it isn't true. I don't have the time to go through that much data or search to see if a site has that much data. If you honestly think that as many players sit for rest in week 15 and 16 compared to week 17, then keep your head in sand and be happy.I am not slamming those leagues at all, if they want to do it that way have at it and be happy, the question was is week 17 a myth and it isn't. Like I said before I don't have the time to look it all up, I watch enough football and seen enough reports about who is resting to know that it happens more often in week 17 as compared to the prior weeks. So it is better to have the championship in week 16, so you don't penalize the teams that rode Rodgers, Foster, and others to the title game and now can't use them, but to each their own.

This (the bolded) is what YOU BELIEVE. You don't have any info/data that supports that belief, other than what you think you recall happening. And that's fine. But if you're not going to support your belief, don't try to pass it off as a fact.

where's your stats? why don't you prove to us that teams don't sit players in week 17? That the idea that a team will sit players in week 17 is complete BS.

Maybe you should read the entire thread. I'm not the one saying week 16 championship games are garbage, that FF owners that play in leagues with week 16 championship games are "stupid," and that commissioners of leagues that have week 16 championship games are "foolish." The posters who made those statements were against week 17 championship games because, they claim studs are rested. THEY made the unsubstantiated claims. I'm just asking them to substantiate their claims. I didn't throw out my opinion as fact, they did. Why should I have to prove them right/wrong?

 

[Bayhawks]

Maybe a few teams will sometimes sit starters week 16, but quite a few do it week 17.The big problem is having trades close a few weeks before the playoffs and then having the WW close the week before the playoffs. I'm in three leagues that do this. I've seen dead teams ransom handcuffs for studs just to mess up a playoff bound team. Then you have teams playing mind games over who's going to start or sit. To me it's just a hassle that I rather not deal with. I'll never be in a league with a week 17 championship game. JMHO

And that is your prerogative. You haven't said leagues with games in week 17 are crap, or owners who play in those leagues are "stupid" or foolish. You are expressing your opinion, and that's cool. My problem is with those "holier than thou" types who feel obligated to denigrate anyone who participates in a league that doesn't do things their way.

 

[DropKick]

Don't over-think this. Playing championship week in week 17 is crazy. I wouldn't join any league where the commish is so foolish.

Excellent analysis. Wonderful use of stats and anecdotes to prove your point. This post should do wonders in helping settle the debate over week 16/17 championship games. Seriously, why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone (or any league) that doesn't do things there way?

I get the point that you risk not having some players available in week 17, but you run a similar risk that some players won't be available due to injury (at any time). If you play in a league that has its championship in week 17, then you need to be prepared for this possibility, just like you need to be prepared to handle injuries, at any time.

Why do FFers who play in leagues that do not play in week 17 INSIST on deriding anyone that doesn't do things there way? Because they really don't want to settle the league's championship with the second string? Nothing wrong with his post - don't over think this.

If that's the way you (or they) feel, great. That doesn't mean your (or their) way is the only right way. Suggesting that leagues that don't coincide with your point of view are "crazy" and that commissioner of such leagues are "foolish" is ridiculous, and unnecessary. That is what was wrong with that post-don't over think that.

I'm just not politically correct. There IS only one right way.