View Single Post
Old December 4th, 2007, 01:39 PM   #49
Popes
Feeding Frenzy
 
Popes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 1,052
Popes is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preds
I'm majorly against tanking, but rather get into a battle, would prefer we come up with a system to encourage teams to go for the win each and every week of the regular season.
And my apologies for re-hashing the stats. You're right, it's more productive to decide on a fix rather than debate the details of the past problem. However, I felt the need to respond because I could not let the argument that "Brian's the jerk for bringing this up" go unaddressed. That's a really obnoxious claim, in my book.

I also rehashed because we don't even seem to be in agreement that there's a problem. I wanted to illustrate with some numbers how obvious the tanking is in this case:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom
Again, after hearing the Amish and Insects explain themselves I think it is very hard to prove that someone is cheating. There are too many variables to clearly show this unless you start an entire line-up of injured players.
Frank, as far as your lineup goes, if I may put it into legal parlance: there's a good case on each side. Brian lays out a good argument that while each decision is individually plausible, added together, it sure looks bad, especially when you just happen to be one of the two teams vying for the #1 pick. The Jones over Driver selection is really what raises the red flag. You accidentially manually deselected Driver (your normal and arguably best WR) and manually selected Jones (your hands-down worst WR) for the lineup, even though you didn't mean to? That's plausible, sure. However, don't be surprised when people also find it hard to believe. To believe it, we have to give you "credit" for being really inattentive when you submit your starting lineup. On the other hand, each of your moves does individually have a plausible reasoning. I think this would go to the jury and I don't how they'd decide.

Since Joel's case is so clear cut and illustrates the problem being addressed, there's no need for me to spend more time trying to figure out what really happened with your team, hence my focus on Joel's decision.

Last edited by Popes; December 4th, 2007 at 01:49 PM. Reason: grammar/wording
Popes is offline   Reply With Quote