2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

It looks like Tommyknockers, Wiener Dogs, Pea Cocks, RHP and 36 Chambers all have spots in playoffs.

Final spot comes down to Dos Clowns and Moonshiners. If Clowns wins or Moonshiners lose, Clowns are in. In Clowns lose and Moonshiners win, Moonshiners are in.

Good luck guys!!

Gunslingers has clinched pick 1.1 in draft.

Geeks, Mutts, Floyds and Scorpions are all battling it out for pick 1.2.

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

Good luck Clowns....just not too much

Weiners you open to a bribe to throw a game? You got a bye locked up?

my fingers are crossed for a healthy Deebo

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

I like shiny things ;)

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

Looks like this is the playoff seeding

#1 Wiener Dogs 10-4
#2 Pea Cocks 9-5 (3-0 vs other 9-5 teams)
#3 Predators 9-5 (2-2 vs other 9-5 teams, 2537.55 total points tiebreaker over 36 Chambers)
#4 36 Chambers 9-5 (2-2 vs other 9-5 teams, 2465.80 total points)
#5 Tommyknockers 9-5 (0-3 vs other 9-5 teams)
#6 Hell Mutts 6-8 (best remaining all-play record 81-73)

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

Correct, although H2H is first tiebreaker, so RHP has that over 36 Chambers based on 2-2 record vs 1-2 record.

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

Seedings have been updated on MFL

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

Yeah I guess division champ vs wild card doesn't matter when it comes to seeding. However, RHP and 36 Chambers both have 2-2 record among 9-5 teams so it then comes down to total points scored which goes to RHP (2537.55 vs 2465.80)

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

Ah, I missed one of your wins against other 9-5 teams...looks like it still worked out in RHP's favor...thanks Pat

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

I posted in the rules thread on this. IMO a wildcard should never win a tiebreaker over a division winner with the same record. H2H just shouldn’t come in play there. If the wildcard has a better record then fine seed them higher (except for the top 2 seeds), but otherwise the division win should mean more than a regular season H2H.

Further IMO The wildcards should not be allowed to be seeded higher than 3. The op 2 seeds should always go top the 2 division winners with the best record. This is a flaw as it was setup IMO. And yes, it pissed me off when I learned RHP was victimized by this.

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

This same rule was adopted in Frenzy last year: http://predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33017. Half your team was in favor #Laugh&Cry

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

Hmmm… might need to reconsider…

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

I'm with Mike on this one. I'd vote for the change

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

I would actually argue (and have) that WC should be 4-6 seed. Division winners should always be top 3 seeds.

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

The top 2 seeds are most important. I think it’s wrong that a WC can earn a bye over division winner. The 3rd seed division winner is far less important so not as big a deal if seeded 3-6 just allows a WC team with a better record to be seeded a slot higher.

I am just absolutely against a WC earning a bye over a division winner, regardless of record, but especially when the records are the same.

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

What happens when a division is good top to bottom? Should we penalize a team that wins said division, has better all play record or more points scored than top WC team but has one less win? We've been close to this scenario happening. This is my reasoning behind division winners getting top 3 seeds.

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

I'd also propose seeding of WC teams (4-6) based on all play records

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

This rule came about after a couple years of a division winner having .500 record, while WC team had .750 record. Doesn't happen often, especially now that we have mostly very active owners, so maybe not as good a rule anymore?

But I still feel seeding should be based on record, not just winning your division, especially when you are by far best team in a division, and half your wins are over less than stellar division mates...

Take my division...3 of 4 teams are sub .500..If Tommyknockers had finished 7-7, he would have won the division, but would have had worst record of all playoff teams...you are saying he should have gotten #3 seed ahead of two other 9-5 teams?

I can see argument for 1 and 2 seeds, since a bye week is at stake. But for seeds 3-6, not sure it matters where you seed other than which opponent you play. Any given Sunday!!

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

I don't think anyone realized the significant flaw in this format, it's a huge flaw IMO. If Frenzy is worded the same way I'll be putting up a new vote for next season to clarify byes only goes to the top 2 division winners, as potentially giving a bye to a Wild Card just isn't right or the intent (at least as I understood it).

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

This is the rule, voted on in 2007:
http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10502

The majority voted for this option:
Base seedings on record alone (tiebreakers will work same as getting into playoffs)

Mike, you even explained at the time, winning your division would not guarantee seeding 2 or 3.

"FYI, the 2nd option is to change the playoff seedings from 1-4 to be based solely on record. Wheras in the existing format, the 4 seed is ALWAYS the wildcard, even when they have a better record than one of the division winners.

This proposal would allow the wildcard to be seeded anywhere from 2-4, since the 1 seed would obviously have a better record by winning a division.

Basically seeds 2 3 and 4 would look at records. Winning your division would not guarentee you a 2 or 3 seed (no should it). Statistaclly, over 6 seasons in SACD and the Frenzy the 4 seed has knocked out the 1 seed every year. That same 4 seed has had a better record than at least one and often 2 higher seeds.

This proposal is to ensure that the 1 seed is rewarded with facing the team with the worst record."

So apparently you disagree with yourself now that you are a victim of the rule, but its pretty clearly stated this is how the seeding should be.

We can propose to change it in the offseason, but per rules, the seedings are proper.

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

A wise person once said, “I reserve the right to get smarter in the future.”

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

Yes, a lot can change in 14 years..

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

Congrats to John on the win over our RHP. Injuries cost us and we didn't have the horses to hang with you this week... now take the championship!

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

I feel your pain in Frenzy … my #3 seed Burners were no competition even with 3 pint home field advantage and no opposing QB points!!!

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

Guys, I’m late to the party here as I’ve been out of the loop regarding the message boards and I understand the logic put forward in the thread and the way the rules are written, however I whole heartedly disagree with it. A division winner should always get a higher seed than a wildcard team regardless of the strength of the division or the division winners record. To say that the seeding for 3-6 doesn’t matter, is in my mind garbage. It absolutely does matter and yes I am looking at this through my own lens of this year and where my team has gone. Looking at the playoff tree I was the 5th seed and lost to the 4th seed by less than three points in round 1. However, I outscored the 6th seed by 16 points which means I would have advanced to play the #1 seed and not been bounced in the first round. Now, as the points stands for this week, had I played the #1 seed this week, they would need 40 points from their TE to beat me. Which while not impossible is a bit unlikely and If they lost then I’d be playing for the championship.

All this being said, what’s done is done however if this league is meant to be a simulation of the real NFL, the playoff rules should apply as well.

Please let me know if my logic is correct, but I believe it is. Again it is my own neglect for trying to figure out how to get out of Africa for the holidays and settle back in with hockey tournaments and family requirements at home.

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

I'm having the same discussion in another league, but I agree with Miners. We've gone to great lengths to make this as similar to the NFL as possible and this is just another example. People gripe every time an actual NFL wildcard has a better record than a division winner, but no one in the NFL seems very gung ho to change it at the pro level. I say keep it as similar to the NFL as we can.

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

I would support 3 division winners getting Top 3 seeds of the 6 playoff teams.

Re: 2021 SAC'd Playoffs
 

You all know where RHP stands on this (or at least half of RHP), I think it was BS that a WC was granted a bye over a Division winner. Made even worse in that they didn't even have a better record, just a H2H win in a non-divisional game.