Buds Board Keepers League

Guys, I really feel like it would be BS and a major mistake to give out the BBKL championship based on regular season record in the event of a tie.

I have an idea for a tie break: Stats in reserve -> dunno if we add them in and then see, just compare reserves, or allow one swap-out.

Would love to hear some other ideas, and general thoughts. Just to note, I believe it would be a particularly good idea to NOT check the stats before joining this decision.

I dont know I dont think more than half way through that we can make a major decision such as this both gm's knew the rule going into the finals and every other person has had to live with that same ruling throughout the playoffs so I think it remains as is, and you bring it to discussion in the offseason if it bothers you that much.

Topher wroteCOLONI dont know I dont think more than half way through that we can make a major decision such as this both gm's knew the rule going into the finals and every other person has had to live with that same ruling throughout the playoffs so I think it remains as is, and you bring it to discussion in the offseason if it bothers you that much.

Agreed.

As lame as it would be to win the finals based on regular season ranking, I don't see how you could change the rules more than halfway through the finals.

facey wroteCOLONGuys, I really feel like it would be BS and a major mistake to give out the BBKL championship based on regular season record in the event of a tie.

I have an idea for a tie break: Stats in reserve -> dunno if we add them in and then see, just compare reserves, or allow one swap-out.

Would love to hear some other ideas, and general thoughts. Just to note, I believe it would be a particularly good idea to NOT check the stats before joining this decision.

honestly, aside from the fact i see nothing wrong with the championship being decided by the RS record (Scott earned the home advantage), it's uncanny that you think changing the rule for the ongoing playoffs would be legit.

Lesser of two evils IMO... win SC on a silly technicality or find a better solution before that occurs.

facey wroteCOLONLesser of two evils IMO... win SC on a silly technicality or find a better solution before that occurs.

Fuck it, if we tie I'll give Bry the win.. I don't want people to cry over something so fucking ridiculous.

But seriously, if I tie Bry this week who really won? Think about it.

I don't want Bryan to win on a technicality anymore then I want you to... no hidden agendas here, honest motive -> having tie break based on regular season standing is a poor decision, and the potential that the championship between the top east and top west is decided on something other then this LONG week is silly to me.

think about it

That's exactly what I did. No one won, it would have been an EPIC matchup between two deserving teams in the final, yet a decision made w/o full understanding of impact will take away from it; in hindsight this could be the year or a split cup, regardless if I'm alone in expressing this opinion right now, it'll be talked about that way if this occurs.

facey wroteCOLONI don't want Bryan to win on a technicality anymore then I want you to... no hidden agendas here, honest motive -> having tie break based on regular season standing is a poor decision, and the potential that the championship between the top east and top west is decided on something other then this LONG week is silly to me.

Well until its an issue it isn't one. This could end in a tie but do you think it's fair to change the tie break now?

What about GP as a tiebreaker? GWGs has been mentioned as well. But really, if it ended a tie it isn't a technicality.. it's deserving considering my situation and dominance during the regular season!

Regular season should not have a bearing after setting match-ups, that's already a nice advantage.


GP & GWG are both valid tie breaking ideas, so are goals.... or something like checking a 17th stat (short handed points?), or checking the reserves. So far those that have posted don't agree with me, and that's fine. If it really is just me this doesn't sit well with that is fine.


Just a clarification:
Do I think that changing a tie-breaker at this late a stage is a good idea -> No, never said it was.
Do I think it's a better idea then awarding the championship based on regular-season record -> Yes, hence "lesser of two evils".

context provided

The current tie break is a joke, and as you all know I think MIAFR. That said, Scott is down 3 men, if this results in a tie there is every reason to believe Scott deserved it.

change rules for next season.

the tie break is a bit silly but thats the rules for now. scott did well in the season and earned the tie break win if it happens.

this thread is a joke lol. aside from the fact that changing the rules half way into the finals makes no sense, the purpose of the tie break is for home-ice advantage. there needs to be incentive to rank well in the regular season. this is it. and imo i cant really think of a better way to institute home-ice advantage. it is a very fair system.

SuperMario wroteCOLONthis thread is a joke lol. aside from the fact that changing the rules half way into the finals makes no sense, the purpose of the tie break is for home-ice advantage. there needs to be incentive to rank well in the regular season. this is it. and imo i cant really think of a better way to institute home-ice advantage. it is a very fair system.

agree.
Not that it wasn't discussed before in another thread somewhere in the past..

kyuss wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLONthis thread is a joke lol. aside from the fact that changing the rules half way into the finals makes no sense, the purpose of the tie break is for home-ice advantage. there needs to be incentive to rank well in the regular season. this is it. and imo i cant really think of a better way to institute home-ice advantage. it is a very fair system.

agree.
Not that it wasn't discussed before in another thread somewhere in the past..

lol yeah. but bbkl is used to nick randomly clamoring away to change rules to benefit him in some way or another.

Yes... this benefits me how?

facey wroteCOLONYes... this benefits me how?

unless scott/kyle sell their teams, you will never have home ice advantage beyond the first round (best-case scenario) with kareem in your division.

SuperMario wroteCOLON

facey wroteCOLONYes... this benefits me how?

unless scott/kyle sell their teams, you will never have home ice advantage beyond the first round (best-case scenario) with kareem in your division.

You're reaching...

Mike wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON

facey wroteCOLONYes... this benefits me how?

unless scott/kyle sell their teams, you will never have home ice advantage beyond the first round (best-case scenario) with kareem in your division.

You're reaching...

would you like to make a bet in the OTB lounge that Nick will not hold home-ice advantage come Round 2 next year?

btw confirm Mikey: http://bbklhockey.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3279

SuperMario wroteCOLON

Mike wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON

facey wroteCOLONYes... this benefits me how?

unless scott/kyle sell their teams, you will never have home ice advantage beyond the first round (best-case scenario) with kareem in your division.

You're reaching...

would you like to make a bet in the OTB lounge that Nick will not hold home-ice advantage come Round 2 next year?

Let me clarify, you're reaching insomuch that your low opinion of Nick and his motivations are grossly off base.

Mike wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON

Mike wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON

facey wroteCOLONYes... this benefits me how?

unless scott/kyle sell their teams, you will never have home ice advantage beyond the first round (best-case scenario) with kareem in your division.

You're reaching...

would you like to make a bet in the OTB lounge that Nick will not hold home-ice advantage come Round 2 next year?

Let me clarify, you're reaching insomuch that your low opinion of Nick and his motivations are grossly off base.

You so naive lol.