|
Post by Keith Tucker on Sept 16, 2008 10:19:18 GMT -3
Whats going on with this?? There is no schedule posted and I assume that they start this Thursday night. Would be nice to get a bit of notice for the game times considering its the playoffs and all.
|
|
|
Post by dennis on Sept 16, 2008 10:36:21 GMT -3
Craig sent the email today to the team reps with the decision that you guys will be playing DCMP in the 2/3 match-up -- Hitmen are the 1 seed -- and the first two games of that 2-of-3 semi will start at 815 on the Legion on Thursday night.
|
|
|
Post by Keith Tucker on Sept 16, 2008 12:51:44 GMT -3
So i guess it was decided to go runs for an against to determine the standing rather than the playoff that was first rumored to happen. I think this is the better way to go anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dennis on Sept 16, 2008 23:16:03 GMT -3
Yeah, not a lot of time left so just as well to get it all resolved as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Keith Tucker on Sept 17, 2008 11:46:04 GMT -3
So if thats the case, why are outsiders and sundance playing a tie break game??? Shouldn't this not be runs for and against also?
|
|
|
Post by dennis on Sept 17, 2008 15:00:53 GMT -3
The precedent for not having teams eliminated/relegated via runs for/against was set when you guys requested to play a one game playoff vs Compusult to decide which team went to A and which team went to B when we split the Men's Open into two divisions.
|
|
|
Post by Keith Tucker on Sept 17, 2008 15:23:58 GMT -3
Requested??? We did not request this. This was the format that was given to us. I am not making an issue of the fact that you guys are playing sundance to get in, I am asking why it didn't follow the same format as 1st through 3rd place. IF you want to go down the road of requests being given. We asked for games to be change a week prior to them being played and they were counted against us as defaults last year because the request wasn't granted. This year 2 teams, and I don't think I have to say who, called the day of the games stating they couldn't field teams. But for some reason these weren't counted as defaults, they were rescheduled which had a major turn around to how the current playoff standings sit. One team of which wouldn't have made the playoffs if these defaults counted. This just goes back to the need for an executive, too many inconsistencies in the way situations are handled.
|
|
josh
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by josh on Sept 17, 2008 15:59:34 GMT -3
Regardless of what happened last season (that point is moot, in my opinion), it appears as though things are being run consistently this year. You guys (Redwood) got a one-game playoff earlier this year, and so should Sundance/Outsiders. Having your season end due to runs for/against would be a pretty sh*tty way to go out, especially since all scores are not 100% accurate. Having said that, if every playoff team that finished with the same record had to play off to determine seedings, we could be playing ball into October. I don't see a problem with how this is being handled.
|
|
|
Post by Keith Tucker on Sept 17, 2008 16:08:05 GMT -3
I don't either, I merely asked why it the rest of the teams were not done in the same format, thats all. Then our team was accused of REQUESTING this format so that we could have another chance to make the playoffs, which we did not. We knew where we sat going into the splitting of the divisions. Yes it would be a nutsty way to lose a position, but we excepted the fact that we put ourselves in that situation. No one is disagreeing with that decision, just asking the thought process behind it. Again, if there were an executive then these type of discussions would be taken the wrong way. There has to be consistancy with all the teams.
|
|
|
Post by dennis on Sept 17, 2008 17:15:57 GMT -3
Keith: that was how I understood it happened and I personally didn't have a problem with it, ie your game against CS earlier this year.
Anyway, there was time for that and there's time for our one game playoff and I guess we'll make time for any likewise situation that happens in other divisions.
|
|
|
Post by Keith Tucker on Sept 17, 2008 17:55:46 GMT -3
Well Dennis, I guess what you understood was wrong. Facts should be set straight before starting rumors. I have no disagreement with the playoff game, just asked why it wasn't done for all to achieve standings. But something needs to be looked at next year on the defaulting of games.
|
|
mark
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by mark on Sept 17, 2008 18:48:09 GMT -3
From all the leagues that I have played in, it was common place that a tie-breaker was necessary to determine who made the cut. If their were ties among the top teams, then they used either the teams records against each other or their runs for/against. But for teams that were in a tie for the final playoff berth(s), a tie-breaker game or games were mandatory. It is also the same way in the major leagues...Colorado defeated San Diego in a tie-breaker game to determine who got into the playoffs via the wild card.
|
|
jody
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by jody on Sept 17, 2008 20:08:18 GMT -3
Keith, I wouldn't worry about inconsistencies in tie breakers or defaults. I believe you guys have a player on your roster that played the majority of the year with another team and I don't think I need to name names...should we enforce some rules and not others???
|
|
perry
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by perry on Sept 17, 2008 20:18:39 GMT -3
Keith, you can take 1st if that is going to make REDWOODS year. The reason we went for the plus minus format is because we don't want to be plaing ball in November. As for certian teams (hitmen) being getting games rescheduled when calling the day off saying they couldn't make, you don't have a f%%king clue what you're talking about. We would have accepted the defaults but Don Cherry's wanted to play them. I'd be just as happy to be finish the league to be honest with you. So why don't YOU get your facts straight before coming on here and blowing off. Like Jody said you didn't mine the rules being changed when Trent Hamyln joined Redwood. I guess switching teams when the league is almost done will have to be looked at next year as well along with the defaulting games.
|
|
bds
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by bds on Sept 17, 2008 21:50:32 GMT -3
Before anyone else jumps on Tucker's back here I think all he is trying to say here is that we need an executive or a "Clear Cut"set of rules in place so there are no suprises when it comes down to this.
That's what I read anyways.
As for bringing up Trent's name that has no business in this conversation.
|
|