AE AE17 Launch & Discussion thread

[Exe Gesis]

On #NoShowGate and ND records....

Why not just not count no-show games in people's records? E.g..

After 6 weeks, Person A has played all 6 games against people who showed up, he won 4 and lost 2. His record is 4-2
Meanwhile, Person B has played 4 games against people who showed up, he won 3 and lost 1. His record is 3-1

So when doing the standings you use the percentage record...

CONFERENCE SHMOE

Division Joe

Person B 3-1 .750 (played 4 valid ND games)
Person A 4-2 .667 (played all 6 valid ND games)
Person C 3-3 .500 (played all 6 valid ND games)
Person D 2-3 .400 (played 5 valid ND games)

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

On #NoShowGate and ND records....

Why not just not count no-show games in people's records? E.g..

After 6 weeks, Person A has played all 6 games against people who showed up, he won 4 and lost 2. His record is 4-2
Meanwhile, Person B has played 4 games against people who showed up, he won 3 and lost 1. His record is 3-1

So when doing the standings you use the percentage record...

CONFERENCE SHMOE

Division Joe

Person B 3-1 .750 (played 4 valid ND games)
Person A 4-2 .667 (played all 6 valid ND games)
Person C 3-3 .500 (played all 6 valid ND games)
Person D 2-3 .400 (played 5 valid ND games)

No way. Poorer tippers are the ones most likely not to turn up, especially later in the season. That’s a huge disadvantage

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Given the stakes one gets for finishing first in ND, I wonder if your position would change were you to lose a tiebreaker for final playoff spot to a guy who was gifted a win because he played a no-show and you didn't.

Again, if a guy can't beat an opponent who has all road teams and you KNOW he has all road teams--that is on you and that is life.

Gifting wins because Player A gets the good fortune to play a no-show while Player B plays live opponents every week is bad form and patently unfair to everyone else in competition in my opinion. Player A is already receiving a greater benefit than Player B will ever get all season.

No show = poor tipping, at least the result is a consequence of a tippers actions (even if that’s a no show).

 

[statsman74]

Flip side is how is it fair to those of us who must play a live player every week?

ND always comes down to tiebreakers come playoff time.

Huge advantage for a fellow competitor who gets almost certainly an automatic win.

I don't believe this is a complaint I would be lodging I reckon'

I would rather play a live player each week, at least that way the result is on merit.

Having scored well (7th for the week in a field of 70) I'd back myself to have got a W last week in normal circumstances.

 

[statsman74]

So , in my opinion, it seems a bit disingenuous to complain about how an "absent" player scored points when most of the rest of the competition doesn't get the benefit of playing an "absent" player to start with.

I've been in the comp a long time, continuously from the 2nd season. I've never missed a week, nor have I ever bitched and moaned to any significant extent in this time. Nor have I ever thrown my toys out of the cot and quit the comp at any point.

I have a right to have a view on the effectiveness of the rules as they stand. I dont expect them to be changed this season, but what it has done is generate a discussion which is perfect in trying to find a solution that is fair to everyone next year.

My personal view, which I am completely entitled to, is that non-tippers should not benefit in any way, shape or form, even if a set of circumstances exist which allow it to happen. I've made my point on what I think the rule should be, and I'll see where it goes from here.

So yeah, it sucks to have others that tip poorly get easy wins by playing against non tippers. But I dont have an issue if they tipped well themselves that round and were more than likely to win anyway against a live opponent.

 

[nobbyiscool]

The fact that the competition has been going as long as it has without such outrage around this rule suggests it's a freak occurrence.

Were there some bad outcomes last week as the result of some non-tippers? Yes, obviously.

Does it warrant people getting as angry as some have been this week? No - you can't possibly create rules to cater for every single possibility. It's just not doable. Sometimes you have to wait for something to happen before you can conceive what the reality of that particular circumstance looks like.

 

[AmericanCrow]

I've been in the comp a long time, continuously from the 2nd season. I've never missed a week, nor have I ever bitched and moaned to any significant extent in this time. Nor have I ever thrown my toys out of the cot and quit the comp at any point.

I have a right to have a view on the effectiveness of the rules as they stand. I dont expect them to be changed this season, but what it has done is generate a discussion which is perfect in trying to find a solution that is fair to everyone next year.

My personal view, which I am completely entitled to, is that non-tippers should not benefit in any way, shape or form, even if a set of circumstances exist which allow it to happen. I've made my point on what I think the rule should be, and I'll see where it goes from here.

So yeah, it sucks to have others that tip poorly get easy wins by playing against non tippers. But I dont have an issue if they tipped well themselves that round and were more than likely to win anyway against a live opponent.

You are right you are entitled to your opinion

I am equally entitled to my opinion that whining cause you lost to absent player strikes me as a bit much.

I stand by my statement that playing an absent player is a HUGE advantage over playing a live person each week.

It's funny, I never noticed your position on behalf of the poor players who previously lost to absent players to start any conversation on what should be done.

Until that is, you were directly affected.

Discussion and requests to look at rules are all valid but don't try to dress this up as anything but you are mad at your result.

You had an advantage most don't receive--and that, in and of itself, is unfair

 

[statsman74]

You're perfectly entitled to an opinion too, but I disagree on some of these points.

I stand by my statement that playing an absent player is a HUGE advantage over playing a live person each week.

While you say I had an advantage, that's not entirely true; I had a theoretical advantage, but an actual disadvantage. There is difference.

It's funny, I never noticed your position on behalf of the poor players who previously lost to absent players to start any conversation on what should be done.

Until that is, you were directly affected.

I'm annoyed about it, sure, I'll accept that. And yes, the fact that it happened to me led to me raising no-show rules is also true - but a bit like having kids, I didnt have a lot of views on parenting until I became one.

I havent really stopped to think about the situation that occurred until I was in the middle of it - as pointed out, no-shows happen from time to time, but my circumstances were a little different to most- I doubt too many have been in the top 10% of tippers for the week and lost to a non-tipper. Woodson would probably know the answer to this one.

Discussion and requests to look at rules are all valid but don't try to dress this up as anything but you are mad at your result.

I know the result will not be changed. I know any amount of unhappiness about from me will not change a thing for this season. Perfectly ok with that. That said, I tend to disappear between NFL seasons from this forum and usually miss all of the discussion around rule changes, so I felt this was a pretty good time to raise the issue, generate discussion (which it did), and see what others thought about the issue. There is no "dressing up" here, I intend on being the competition next year and think this rule can be improved. Now is the perfect time to raise it, and if anyone else raised a similar point when they had a no-show rule that didnt seem equitable happen to them I'd have no issue with it.


This discussion has probably gone far enough, and I raised awareness about the issue which is all I hoped and expected to achieve. (once I was reminded of the rules)

We'll see in the offseason whether the masses think the rule needs to be reconsidered.

 

[statsman74]

The fact that the competition has been going as long as it has without such outrage around this rule suggests it's a freak occurrence.

Were there some bad outcomes last week as the result of some non-tippers? Yes, obviously.

Does it warrant people getting as angry as some have been this week? No - you can't possibly create rules to cater for every single possibility. It's just not doable. Sometimes you have to wait for something to happen before you can conceive what the reality of that particular circumstance looks like.

I reckon "outrage" and "angry" are overstating it. I think the discussion has been fairly civilised actually, even between a Steelers and Browns fan!

 

[Woodson]

Here's the dilemma we have, the unforeseen Weeks 5 & 6 of 18 road winning teams (10, 8) from which 9 of those have occurred in late games, have triggered four results to be forfeited by the four No-shows in question. The dilemma is that both Bucketts (8 winners) & Burninglevitahan (9) scored adequately, above average, >> Eq34th and 14th highest score respectively in Week 5, however in week 6, Statsman74 (5) scored equal 7th whilst Sodapop (4) scored eq57th overall. To award a TIE to each of the opponents of the forfeited no-shows can't fix the problem as the TIES can impact on standings. It's no different to Bipolarbear who scored 11th highest in Week 5 but lost to Sodapop or even Sergio's Realm (2-4) in Week 1, who scored 4th highest but lost to Swannies.

Consider that PaultheOkay claims two have submitted his picks in Week 6 but forgot to press the SAVE button in his only 'oversight' which he feels disappointed in himself.

It's the 'luck of the draw' sometimes that take a hit of such circumstances. Happens in fantasy a lot.. the highest losing score beats at least 5 other winning scores.

Best thing to do is extract the forfeited results from the percentage calculation of Criteria #1. peterbuch74 We'll re-adjust the Standings with an askerisk and recalculate W/L/T percentage it based on one less contest determined. (I'll re-jig the percentage on my ae17clubhouse.com standings from Week 7 onward).

The ND tie-breaker criteria for the ND Standings is:

1. Outright best Win-Loss-Tie (percentage) record <Overall> PRIMARY
2. Best CR score of Week 13 SECONDARY IF REQUIRED
3. Head to head (if applicable)
4. Divisional record Win-Loss-Tie (percentage)
5. Conference record Win-Loss-Tie (percentage)
6. Common opponents
7. CR overall total from Week 12 (countback)

What can BE done NOW is moving CR total to above Conference record to counter NO SHOWS indifference.
**********************************************************************************

1. Outright best Win-Loss-Tie (percentage*) record <Overall> PRIMARY
2. Best CR score of Week 13 SECONDARY IF REQUIRED
3. Head to head (if applicable)
4. Divisional record Win-Loss-Tie (percentage)
5. CR overall total from Week 12 (countback)
6. Conference record Win-Loss-Tie (percentage)
7. Common opponents

*The forfeit results will be extracted from #1 overall criteria meaning it'll be a percentage based on 11 games. Those effected: Bipolarbear, Born again Idiot, Bucketss, Burningleviathan, Nobbyiscool, Peterbuch74, Showbag, Sodapop, Statsman74 and Tomatosauceling.

Currently, Grid Warrior, who is filthy with his peeps, about letting this drag.. claims that Mountain Dew has had issues with a forgotten password, which is being handled between father/son combo. Fletcher is uncontactable at this stage. If Fletcher doesn't submit this week, he'll definitely BE REPLACED. Grid Warrior has been busy with moving homes along with family and to have to try track down a couple AWOL's in recent weeks isn't high on his priorities.

 

[Rack Watts]

Meh, I never expect to win, I'm happy to pay $40 just for all the hard, thankless work that Woodson does. Anything that makes the NFL season more interesting as a Browns fan is worth its weight in platinum.

I love ArmchairEndzone and wish I was involved much earlier.

 

[Exe Gesis]

imo....don't try to appease/please everyone. you can't. have a firm rule, and stick to it.

 

[Woodson]

imo....don't try to appease/please everyone. you can't. have a firm rule, and stick to it.

I took your advice onboard last night and need to find a real balance that doesn't disadvantage anyone. That means each of Kelzi's losses from week 2 will also be discounted as fortified results >> peterbuch74 has been advised by messenger.

I'll be making adjustments on my end from Week 7 standings. PeterBuch74's calculated excel standings will experience issues with asterisks. Getting GIMME wins (after second and subsequent no shows) also adds to the impact to the rest of the division standings.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I took your advice onboard last night and need to find a real balance that doesn't disadvantage anyone. That means each of Kelzi's losses from week 2 will also be discounted as fortified results >> peterbuch74 has been advised messenger.

I'll be making adjustments on my end from Week 7 standings. PeterBuch74's calculated excel standings will experience issues with asterisks. Getting GIMME wins (after second and subsequent no shows) also adds to the impact to the rest of the division standings.

As in, no-shows in ND equal a NON-RESULT? Or auto-loss?

 

[Woodson]

As in, no-shows in ND equal a NON-RESULT? Or auto-loss?

Only for those who don't submit it will definitely COUNT as a LOSS. This will put the clamps on those who pitch high CR on TNF and get it wrong to avoid rest of the weeks games to reflect no-show. Can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to lack of effort / dummy spit. Statsman74's point is well made, not a dummy spit. Born Again Idiot pitched in to say that getting a walk up victory isn't fair either. That point was duly noted in week 6, my thinking in week 5, was that 'road teams fluked it' but when Week 6 smashed us again along with rookies not showing up again, just adds to the decaying issues we're having.

Blacky is the standby replacement for Week 6 for Fletcher if he doesn't submit by 5pm. This gives GW at least 2.5hrs to try and get in touch with Fletcher.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Only for those who don't submit it will definitely COUNT as a LOSS. This will put the clamps on those who pitch high CR on TNF and get it wrong to avoid rest of the weeks games to reflect no-show. Can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to lack of effort / dummy spit. Statsman74's point is well made, not a dummy spit. Born Again Idiot pitched in to say that getting a walk up victory isn't fair either. That point was duly noted in week 5, my thinking was that 'road teams fluked it' but when Week 6 smashed us again along with rookies not showing up again, just adds to the decaying issues.

Agree if it's a truant person. If someone honestly forgot a single time, or swore they entered their picks but didnt save....there are ways to get them a valid score. But truants, yes, discount the ND result.

 

[Woodson]

Agree if it's a truant person. If someone honestly forgot a single time, or swore they entered their picks but didnt save....there are ways to get them a valid score. But truants, yes, discount the ND result.

Happy to green light their road teams default score to CR standings total plus DZE but not count as a ND legible winning score. The fact that we've had four results effected by second time no shows and four weeks of Kelzi's opponent's given a GIMME win doesn't sit well with me. BornAgainIdiot knows that if he claims the Steve Young Division due to the Divisional walk up win over Fletcher, it's a massive advantage over his division opponents, Chism , Striker475 , Sven and shiny_on_top . That's why ruling it as a forfeit result cuts any debate.

 

[statsman74]

imo....don't try to appease/please everyone. you can't. have a firm rule, and stick to it.

Agreed, rules are rules. Offseason changes are fine, not in-season.

 

[Woodson]

Agreed, rules are rules. Offseason changes are fine, not in-season.

I believe this situation requires a systematic result that doesn't disadvantage anyone with already a staggering TEN no-shows inside the first six weeks that could have a substantial impact in the back end stretch of the Final Six weeks. It's not a matter of just your point being raised but the big (flawed) picture that needs to be addressed. Allowing for walk away Wins for the like of Kelzi's week 2-6 opponents is the considerable wake up call for 'consistency required' here at the half way mark. I think it's far to say, that the ND comp has been given a shaken up with weak links fracturing the integrity. Making them a forfeit result that doesn't count as a loss against those who submitted is the correct solution. We continue to learn something from these astounding situations. First time we encountered consecutive weeks of road teams dominating and impacting ND in more ways than one.

I could of let this issue slide / ride, if it was just up to a handful results for the first half season, but it's clearly becoming a glaring issue now because a h2h victory may not be enough to claim the Division when 'gimme victories' are handed out willy nilly!!

The AFL and NFL are notorious to changing interpretations/ alleged rules mid season for many many years now. The AE needs to be pro-active in offering a EVEN opportunity for those who can and will be impacted.

 

[Woodson]

I wish to inform Demonic Ascent and Papa Juggs is that your ND opponents will be ready for the fight this week.

iluvparis , no call up this week as we've got the troopers all on deck.

 

[Exe Gesis]

We continue to learn something from these astounding situations. First time we encountered consecutive weeks of road teams dominating and impacting ND in more ways than one.

Another suggestion -- for 2018 and beyond -- or even now -- instead of the default being all away teams, all no-shows get given a median score (highest weekly score + lowest weekly score / 2 ) .... this would be just for the CR comp, to ensure people don't miss a few games and entirely go awol, keep them in the running.

 

[Woodson]

Another suggestion -- for 2018 and beyond -- or even now -- instead of the default being all away teams, all no-shows get given a median score (highest weekly score + lowest weekly score / 2 ) .... this would be just for the CR comp, to ensure people don't miss a few games and entirely go awol, keep them in the running.

Your suggestion merits an 'option' for the pre-season POLL which is the only way I can really think we can find a more balanced solution.

 

[Woodson]

Have emailed Week 7 selections to JeffDunne just after 5pm

 

[Dirty Bird]

Woodson - replace me

I've lost my passion for this competition the last week with all this drama replacing people randomly and all this debate over noshow outcomes

I couldn't be ****ed tipping properly this week. Only did TNf because of the email update and only did the rest last night as I was heading to bed, and even then, I didn't waste time ordering things with cr.

I just have no passion, and the bs here has lead to me not even bothering with fantasy this week.

Better to replace me now than before the season gets butchered with no shows. Cause I was close to forgetting this week and ding a no show.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Ps. Please don't spam Me with messages.
It'd **** me off and have better chances at burning bridges for a potential future return when things get fixed up.
I don't want to continue any longer this year. Decision final.