no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / Using Points Allowed instead of Points Differential Search Forum | |||||||
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 17 18 > >| | |||||||
Poll: Should we change the tiebreakers for the League and Supercup Divisions and Friendly Cups?,
Poll closed,
votes: 356
|
|||||||
| Poster | Message | ||||||
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-03-25 18:42:15 (ID: 88104) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
bwadders76 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
darkopposum wrote:
person with the best defense in the game and like all 1 star offense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team Today the best offense in the game and like all 1 star defense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team. While the offense would put points on the board I couldn't see the defense keeping enough points off the board against non bot sides to get to a tie breaker. See how you had to add the "against non bot sides" caveat? That's exactly what makes the current system MORE wrong than the suggested one imo. Bot games currently immensely favor offensive teams (passing offensive teams more specifically) while using PA would only very slightly advantage defensive teams. Again totally disagree it favours sides willing to exploit a situation. Which is no different than spotting an exploit in a non bot teams playbook. To me it's completely different. Exploiting another team's playbook means that you outsmarted another human, exploiting bot games means that you're outsmarting a computer, imo the former should be rewarded (and is) but the latter should not. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2013-03-25 19:08:39 (ID: 88107) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Meitheisman wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
darkopposum wrote:
person with the best defense in the game and like all 1 star offense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team Today the best offense in the game and like all 1 star defense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team. While the offense would put points on the board I couldn't see the defense keeping enough points off the board against non bot sides to get to a tie breaker. See how you had to add the "against non bot sides" caveat? That's exactly what makes the current system MORE wrong than the suggested one imo. Bot games currently immensely favor offensive teams (passing offensive teams more specifically) while using PA would only very slightly advantage defensive teams. Again totally disagree it favours sides willing to exploit a situation. Which is no different than spotting an exploit in a non bot teams playbook. To me it's completely different. Exploiting another team's playbook means that you outsmarted another human, exploiting bot games means that you're outsmarting a computer, imo the former should be rewarded (and is) but the latter should not. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one because until all these bot spaces are filled it's going to be a fact of life. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-03-25 19:54:40 (ID: 88118) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
bwadders76 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
darkopposum wrote:
person with the best defense in the game and like all 1 star offense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team Today the best offense in the game and like all 1 star defense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team. While the offense would put points on the board I couldn't see the defense keeping enough points off the board against non bot sides to get to a tie breaker. See how you had to add the "against non bot sides" caveat? That's exactly what makes the current system MORE wrong than the suggested one imo. Bot games currently immensely favor offensive teams (passing offensive teams more specifically) while using PA would only very slightly advantage defensive teams. Again totally disagree it favours sides willing to exploit a situation. Which is no different than spotting an exploit in a non bot teams playbook. To me it's completely different. Exploiting another team's playbook means that you outsmarted another human, exploiting bot games means that you're outsmarting a computer, imo the former should be rewarded (and is) but the latter should not. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one because until all these bot spaces are filled it's going to be a fact of life. The existence of bot is one thing, the impact of bot games on final standings is another and while the first one is inevitable, the second one can certainly change. PS: I made the PO thanks to a Bot game in my league and even though my team is benefiting from it I feel that it's completely unfair on the team missing out. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2013-03-25 20:19:44 (ID: 88129) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Meitheisman wrote:
The existence of bot is one thing, the impact of bot games on final standings is another and while the first one is inevitable, the second one can certainly change. PS: I made the PO thanks to a Bot game in my league and even though my team is benefiting from it I feel that it's completely unfair on the team missing out. Ok lets put another scenario in there to think about. You win this vote and PA is the new tie breaker. You, Wiesengrund (please excuse my spelling if its incorrect) and myself end up in the same SC group with three new teams and ten bots. As I have been at loggerheads with the pair of you since this vote opened you both discuss using MOTY on me and derive a playbook where you run on 1st, 2nd and 3rd downs also adding in any down <35 you go for the FG. The game ends up 3-0 to you. I only have one MOTY and use it against you winning 38-35 in a bit of a shootout. Wiesengrund uses MOTY on me and wins the same as this season 34-21. With all the other games factored in we end up a total of 1 TD apart. That would mean that I would be eliminated because you guys have in effect cheated. Had it remained at PD then that effect is lessened as I would have 13 games to make up the 14 point deficit on Wiesengrund but I would never be able to make up 45 PA. I am not calling you a cheat here but PA does open that window of opportunity as you have more control over things due to the fewer opportunities to concede points. A similar situation can be organised in the league also especially in a tight division. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
holmeboy
|
posted: 2013-03-25 20:25:07 (ID: 88136) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Cba reading the whole thread, but a good D will put points up on the board too...
My record (13-3) last season was due to my D scoring, or putting my O in a position where an all 1* O could score... edit: I just looked at my last SC game and my second stringers scored 28 points from turnovers. So its not inconceivable that a top D could score 49 points say,or at least set the O up for that many. So a top O doesn't necessarily have the advantage. Last edited on 2013-03-25 20:33:06 by holmeboy |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-03-25 20:29:09 (ID: 88137) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Well, IMO the bot games should not count at all in the final standing and in the scenario you came up with head to head should be used... I know Pete said that H2H was impossible to code but he hasn't commented on the idea of doing it manually (and having a Commish do it for him so he doesn't end up with extra work).
|
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2013-03-25 20:30:23 (ID: 88139) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
holmeboy wrote:
Cba reading the whole thread, but a good D will put points up on the board too... My record (13-3) last season was due to my D scoring, or putting my O in a position where an all 1* O could score... lol .... CBA referring to the NFL's collective bargaining agreement, of course ? ...... and not can't be arsed  |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Firenze
|
posted: 2013-03-25 20:32:18 (ID: 88141) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
I haven't read this thread either
 , but it seems that bot teams are the problem.
Therefore the solution should be remove bot teams from Supercup, and have far fewer divisions. If you kept the same number of playoff places, you could have a much better competition. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
holmeboy
|
posted: 2013-03-25 20:35:17 (ID: 88143) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Firenze wrote:
I haven't read this thread either , but it seems that bot teams are the problem.
Therefore the solution should be remove bot teams from Supercup, and have far fewer divisions. If you kept the same number of playoff places, you could have a much better competition. IMO the problem with that is new teams who join during the season would be left out. So if you join just before the season rollover you could end up with an extra 3 draft players and some serious $$$$ to someone who joins a week after you edit: naturally Sh8888 Last edited on 2013-03-25 20:36:37 by holmeboy |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2013-03-25 20:35:33 (ID: 88144) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
Firenze wrote:
I haven't read this thread either , but it seems that bot teams are the problem.
Therefore the solution should be remove bot teams from Supercup, and have far fewer divisions. If you kept the same number of playoff places, you could have a much better competition. I am sorry, this is simply impossible, we need a number of teams that works, even if the number of divisions changes, and without causing byeweeks. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| reply Mark this thread unread | |||||||
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 17 18 > >| | |||||||
| Main / Discussions / Using Points Allowed instead of Points Differential | |||||||
