2013 Fantasy Disc Golf League

[hipster]

Is anyone else annoyed when they're picking their players that the ratings are all from January, some players aren't listed, and the majority of the players you can pick aren't even playing...

Matt Orum and Jon Perry aren't listed in the players list.

Yes.:|

 

[baileyt1212]

Is anyone else annoyed when they're picking their players that the ratings are all from January, some players aren't listed, and the majority of the players you can pick aren't even playing...

Matt Orum and Jon Perry aren't listed in the players list.

I know it is a bit frusterating, but we are all playing with the same deck.

 

[baileyt1212]

Make your picks for Great Lakes. Only hours left.

 

[baileyt1212]

(Selinski Masters Substitute Scores)

Hi All,
I have been talking with the fine folks at FDG about the issue of the subs scores not counting. They have a rule on the site stating that Subs will only be counted for MPO divisions, which is why we don't see them being counted for this tourney. Now, since this seemed to be over-looked by everyone, including me, I am trying to find a way to make the scoring as fair as possible for everyone and can think of three alternatives.

1a) If the guys at FDG are capable and willing, I propose that we ask them to only count the top 4 picks rather than the 5 that are currently being used. I know it will be a small sacrifice for those who might have picked really well but I think it is the fairest way to correct the issue.

1b) Similar to solution 1a, and only if the guys at FDG are unable and unwilling, I can do the same solution of selecting the top 4 but do it manually in spreadsheet which I will create, and update after each remaining tourney, and post it here each time I have updated it.

2) Do nothing and the people who missed out on scoring because their subs didn't lose out on those scores.

Please let me know what you think, I will proceed with what the majority feel is the right way to go. Remember that this is a fun tournament, and I am trying to run it a fairly for everyone as possible. I feel bad that this issue has occurred, but at this point we need to role with the punches. Once again, thanks for your understanding.

Bailey

 

[apparition]

How many people were affected by the subs issue?

Removing the lowest scorer means a lot to those at the top who are only a couple points different. So doing so doesn't just mean a "small sacrifice", it changes the points completely and provides a disadvantage and advantage to people who budgeted their salaries differently.

Have all the other obvious options been considered? Manually change the picks for those people who were affected to include their subs? Change the rule on the site? I don't know.

In the end, I'll be fine with whatever is decided.

 

[Brall]

1a) If the guys at FDG are capable and willing, I propose that we ask them to only count the top 4 picks rather than the 5 that are currently being used. I know it will be a small sacrifice for those who might have picked really well but I think it is the fairest way to correct the issue.

1b) Similar to solution 1a, and only if the guys at FDG are unable and unwilling, I can do the same solution of selecting the top 4 but do it manually in spreadsheet which I will create, and update after each remaining tourney, and post it here each time I have updated it.

2) Do nothing and the people who missed out on scoring because their subs didn't lose out on those scores.

i vote 1a or 1b

 

[larrod25]

I agree with apparition, I think either manually add their scores or let it stand. Using only the top 4 players is not an even application, as many of us were not affected by the subs issue. Several of us got burned in week 1 because we picked players that were not in the MPO division, this is a little different since all of these players were actually in the correct division. I will be ok with whatever decision is arrived at, but but what about 1C? If you are going to do all of that spreadsheet work, why not just add the subs points so we all have 5?

 

[BgWvDave]

It looks like 4 people will suffer because of the sub rule. Me being one of them and me being the cause of 3 of them. I don't really care either way as it is just a game. But i thought it strange to put an Age protected tournament in the list to begin with and for our entire league to not know that the Sub rule did not apply to this tournament is completely unfair by Nature. It is pure coincedence that so few people were affected by us not being aware of the sub rule. i say throw the tournament out completetly. But again it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other.

 

[apparition]

It looks like 4 people will suffer because of the sub rule. Me being one of them and me being the cause of 3 of them. I don't really care either way as it is just a game. But i thought it strange to put an Age protected tournament in the list to begin with and for our entire league to not know that the Sub rule did not apply to this tournament is completely unfair by Nature. It is pure coincedence that so few people were affected by us not being aware of the sub rule. i say throw the tournament out completetly. But again it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other.

Then maybe four people's scores need to be fixed so this doesn't affect the other 30 people? Bailey, just add the correct points to the four people who need to use their subs and then post the correct standings/final scores here.

 

[baileyt1212]

All good points.

I like the suggestion to manually add the subs scores rather than removing peoples 5th pick. I think that this solution will best represent everyone's expectations about substitute picks prior to the beginning of, and during the "Picks" phase, of the Tourney.

Continue the discussion so I know if there are any problems with this.

 

[baileyt1212]

Then maybe four people's scores need to be fixed so this doesn't affect the other 30 people? Bailey, just add the correct points to the four people who need to use their subs and then post the correct standings/final scores here.

I agree. This is what I am saying in my post above. I would like to get more input and agreement first though

 

[Marksen]

All good points.

I like the suggestion to manually add the subs scores rather than removing peoples 5th pick. I think that this solution will best represent everyone's expectations about substitute picks prior to the beginning of, and during the "Picks" phase, of the Tourney.

Continue the discussion so I know if there are any problems with this.

Best solution so far. ^^
Better to add four subs than removing 26 or so 5th picks.
Removing the entire tournament would be a strange move.

 

[LukeF]

Did the people who needed their subs pick subs rated lower than their lowest pick? Since the sub option was for MPO it didn't limit the subs rating.... I had the lowest rated player and Climo for my sub. Too bad I didn't get any DNF's

 

[BgWvDave]

Then maybe four people's scores need to be fixed so this doesn't affect the other 30 people? Bailey, just add the correct points to the four people who need to use their subs and then post the correct standings/final scores here.

Once again i could care less. but if you throw the whole tournament out it doesn't effect anyone. back to square one.

If baily fixes it manaully will we be able to see the results on the fantasy page or will there be another "Officail" results page that would be posted somewhere else. if it is somehwere else then it becoms convuluted and confusiong. More confusing than not having hte abilty to substitute on tis tournament wich no one knew about.

It's whatever.

 

[apparition]

Once again i could care less. but if you throw the whole tournament out it doesn't effect anyone. back to square one.

If baily fixes it manaully will we be able to see the results on the fantasy page or will there be another "Officail" results page that would be posted somewhere else. if it is somehwere else then it becoms convuluted and confusiong. More confusing than not having hte abilty to substitute on tis tournament wich no one knew about.

It's whatever.

There is literally no legit reason to eliminate the Masters tourney. It would affect everyone. Sounds like you just want this tournament off the books.

 

[BgWvDave]

There is literally no legit reason to eliminate the Masters tourney. It would affect everyone. Sounds like you just want this tournament off the books.

apperently you can't read. There are multiple legitimate reasons. and for the thrid time in the end it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

 

[schimmy]

i vote to just do the scoring manually. that seems to be the most fair.

 

[baileyt1212]

So it sounds like people are generally ok with manually adding the Subs score to the score on FDG. I don't really think that I need to do this in a real manual fashion, I'll just post reminders that so and so's FDG score needs to be increased by X amount. I will do a quick post with everyone's cumulative score and position taking into account these manually calculated numbers after each future tourney.

Sound good; or at least the most fair/optimal?

 

[Menacewarf]

Did the people who needed their subs pick subs rated lower than their lowest pick? Since the sub option was for MPO it didn't limit the subs rating.... I had the lowest rated player and Climo for my sub. Too bad I didn't get any DNF's

I would agree this should be considered.

 

[baileyt1212]

I would agree this should be considered.

I will look into it and see if it even a problem. I'll post when I know.