bcb1213 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 34 minutes ago, Whicker said: And the downside to discussing playoffs before voting is....? I can tell you what the downside to your way is. "Well I would vote for reducing the playoff teams but we already voted to reduce the regular season." This discussion is a package deal, like it or not. Personally I think some might like a longer playoff with a shorter regular season scheduele or some might prefer a shorter playoff with a longer scheduele. I'm just trying to leave the most options on the table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 21 minutes ago, Whicker said: #2 OKC vs #7 Hawaii - 8-2 #1 Orlando vs #8 Long Beach - 11-2 #3 Rome vs #6 Ivory Coast - 13-1 #4 Seoul vs #5 Louisiana - 9-3 The first round of our playoffs already do not exist. The games are determined before writeups are sent in. Parity does not exist in this league. We do not have a system of determining randomness for outcomes that differ from expectations. The regular season is well enough time to determine legitimate contenders, cinderella stories, and bad teams. One extra round of playoffs does nothing to alter who the best teams are that year. When was that from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 1 minute ago, bcb1213 said: Personally I think some might like a longer playoff with a shorter regular season scheduele or some might prefer a shorter playoff with a longer scheduele. I'm just trying to leave the most options on the table Same. IMO, the most options are on the table when we're discussion playoffs while the season length can also still be discussed, for the exactly reasons you stated. Rushing the vote and forcing people to think about a playoff reduction only in light of one particular schedule is what's limiting and the entire poit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 1 minute ago, bcb1213 said: When was that from? This past season..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 Just now, Whicker said: This past season..... So you didn't deserve to make the playoffs? Ps I'm not shooting your plan down. I think 4 is way to small. I could live with six Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 21 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: So you didn't deserve to make the playoffs? Ps I'm not shooting your plan down. I think 4 is way to small. I could live with six 6 i think is a good # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted March 16, 2019 Share Posted March 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Whicker said: Prop 35 is fine in terms of the regular season starting in P4. It does not address the concern here which is the number of playoff teams. I am not voting for anything until a proper discussion on the playoffs is had. And you may be listening but I do not feel that, in this instance, my idea was cared about at all. How do you think PR would have felt if Ted had moved on past his player retirement proposal without any discussion at all? How would anyone feel if the idea they had been championing for several MONTHS now was glossed over at the one moment in time where I get to air my thoughts? You all can claim all you want that I am being listened to, but the actions in this thread say otherwise. Every time I brought up playoffs, someone pushed it aside. Then all of a sudden we're calling a vote. Then, when I bring up that we haven't talked, I get a no vote immediately. Uncool. They are two separate proposals 11 and 12. or now 35 or whatever. @TedLavie already stated it was a mistake to open more than one topic at a time as seen earlier in the meetings. We were going to finish the season length discussion and vote tomorrow and then move on to Topic 12 the playoffs. They aren't tied together it has just taken this long to get to the topic of the Playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted March 16, 2019 Share Posted March 16, 2019 44 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: So you didn't deserve to make the playoffs? Ps I'm not shooting your plan down. I think 4 is way to small. I could live with six What team do you think I am? Also keep in mind BDL used to have 18 teams. An 8 team playoff made sense because it was close to that 35-40% number. Now that we've contracted two teams, it only makes sense to contract the playoffs. 50% making the playoffs is not healthy. I'd like to hear a counter argument for why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted March 16, 2019 Share Posted March 16, 2019 29 minutes ago, Whicker said: What team do you think I am? Also keep in mind BDL used to have 18 teams. An 8 team playoff made sense because it was close to that 35-40% number. Now that we've contracted two teams, it only makes sense to contract the playoffs. 50% making the playoffs is not healthy. I'd like to hear a counter argument for why The team that lost in the blow out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted March 16, 2019 Share Posted March 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: The team that lost in the blow out? Connect the dots for me pretty please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD4L Posted March 16, 2019 Share Posted March 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, Whicker said: Connect the dots for me pretty please Yeah clearly he’s looking at a lense we don’t see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted March 16, 2019 Share Posted March 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Whicker said: I'm afraid to really comment on this because it was my team involved and I don't want to sound salty. But Hawaii did not deserve to win that game. They fielded THREE TOTAL CORNERBACKS against a team who's fourth WR is a #1 WR in the NFL. The only reason Hawaii won was because of Cam Newton's injury. That is the only reason. If Newton had been healthy, the score of the game would have equally as lopsided, and the argumentation would have been the same. Hawaii should have missed the playoffs last year. Week 1 they made a major coaching error that cost them a winnable game. IMO, Hawaii should look back at that and say "damn, if I had just done a little thing different, I would have made the playoffs and maybe won a championship!" Hawaii, IMO, is not at all a reason why a 7 seed should make it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted March 16, 2019 Share Posted March 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, Whicker said: Connect the dots for me pretty please Well the basis for you original argument was to eliminate teams 5-8 was that they get blown out and thus don't deserve to be there . A counterargument could be made that you the two seed got blown out so you didn't deserve to be there and he the seven seed did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted March 16, 2019 Share Posted March 16, 2019 "If Newton had not been injured, the result would have been equally lopsided, and the argumentation would be the same" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted March 16, 2019 Share Posted March 16, 2019 Just now, Whicker said: "If Newton had not been injured, the result would have been equally lopsided, and the argumentation would be the same" If he had a fourth healthy corner would it tho? We'll never know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.