RolStoppable said:
The rules aren't set in stone (for example, the playoff setup possibly needs to be reduced to less than 16 players eventually), so I am open for suggestions. But as it is, I see the majority of the laid out rules to be as good as they can get, so there aren't going to be many changes. Your idea is not good, because it's going to punish people who do consistently well and show up each and every week of the season. If anything, these should be the people who get rewarded, not the ones who get penalized for their skill and effort. In fact, this is why I set up the rules for the playoffs in favor of these people. They will deserve it, because they will have earned it over the course of 17 weeks. In order to balance your suggestion, I could remove both the worst and the best week of everyone at the end of the season, but this too would affect different people differently and thus distort the results. I'll use the example from my previous post again to show you why your suggestion is a bad idea. After the season is over, one guy's worst week is 7-9 while another guy's worst week is 3-13. You propose to remove these weeks, so one guy loses seven correct picks while the other guy only loses three. The former player may lose a position or two in the overall standings, because the guys who were previously right behind him get less than seven correct picks removed from their total, thus putting them ahead. Imagine how pissed that player would be; he did well all season long, but then loses a couple of spots in the final standings, because of a strange rule that affects players differently. |
Ok. I'm good eitherway really.







