Extended season

[audiopile]

My league is on fantrax, points only. The majority wanted to count the extended stats. We didnt even vote, just a discussion. This is just for context, not a suggestion.

[COLT.45]

I do not want me league to be extended. We will see what the Comish says... When they made the announcement that the season would end on May 8th i started streaming lesser quality players to max out my starts for example. I also dropped Hyman who was going to be out till about the 8th but would have stashed him if the league was going to be extended.

[4T2]

Campbell league vote is 6-2 for extending at this time.

I'm surprised since at least half the leagues are over-pacing on skater games by double digits at most positions. Some teams have already maxed out at a couple of slots.

But I'll take it since I'm tied for last in skater GP and have potential returns from 2-3 superstars on the horizon.

[Pengwin7]

I will say... one of the greatest miss-thinkings in communities is that a majority vote should rule.
It should not.

A league could have one or two teams that have set themselves up well based on the current rule assumption (May8) end date.
If the majority of the league realizes "Hey, I might win with more time".... DOES.THAT.MAKE.A.MAJORITY.CHANGE.FAIR?

In the WHL - we have three vote-conditions.
Non-advantaged rule proposal changes - where the rule change doesn't positively or negatively affect any specific team: ex. A draft date... or trade deadline (before season starts)...
Semi-advantaged rule proposal changes - this might require a 2/3rd vote... like changing Goalie Scoring... this could really help/hurt teams that put their greatest assets in their goalies...
Heavy-disadvantaged rule proposal changes - this might require a 75% vote... like changing a draft lottery system... this could really hurt the worst 2-3 teams in the league... if their odds are lightened towards getting the best draft positions.


Changing a league end date... at this point in season... is a heavy-disadvantaged rule proposal change to the league leader (possibly) or those avoiding relegation (possibly) or those inline for the top draft pick next year (possibly). If changing the league end date so much as seriously disadvantages ONE team playing by the rules... I think it must be scrapped. My 2 cents.

If two people voted against it in Campbell... the league end date shouldn't be changed. (The six votes FOR means little, IMO)

[SuperMario]

I run three head to head leagues and we are not extending based on the advantage it could give teams with players on the teams playing late games. Sure they missed those games during the season, but there's a huge difference between that and GAINING all those games in the finals when the other team doesn't get the extra games.

[4T2]

I will say... one of the greatest miss-thinkings in communities is that a majority vote should rule.
It should not.

A league could have one or two teams that have set themselves up well based on the current rule assumption (May8) end date.
If the majority of the league realizes "Hey, I might win with more time".... DOES.THAT.MAKE.A.MAJORITY.CHANGE.FAIR?

In the WHL - we have three vote-conditions.
Non-advantaged rule proposal changes - where the rule change doesn't positively or negatively affect any specific team: ex. A draft date... or trade deadline (before season starts)...
Semi-advantaged rule proposal changes - this might require a 2/3rd vote... like changing Goalie Scoring... this could really help/hurt teams that put their greatest assets in their goalies...
Heavy-disadvantaged rule proposal changes - this might require a 75% vote... like changing a draft lottery system... this could really hurt the worst 2-3 teams in the league... if their odds are lightened towards getting the best draft positions.


Changing a league end date... at this point in season... is a heavy-disadvantaged rule proposal change to the league leader (possibly) or those avoiding relegation (possibly) or those inline for the top draft pick next year (possibly). If changing the league end date so much as seriously disadvantages ONE team playing by the rules... I think it must be scrapped. My 2 cents.

If two people voted against it in Campbell... the league end date shouldn't be changed. (The six votes FOR means little, IMO)

I agree with all the points you've made here Pengwin. I like the conditions you've laid out for the rule proposal changes. It's definitely worth the consideration and I'm sure duntroon will take that into account. So far the two no-votes have been from me (the league leader and last in GP) and a team pacing quite far over in GP but not likely facing relegation or promotion.

I'm interested to see the Stanley vote since you guys elected to keep the 65 GP limit (which I spoke up for in our league as well). I imagine it will be similar to RHRS in that there would be minimal interest in extending the season.

Honestly I can see the arguments to be made on both sides and I'm happy to take whatever outcome is decided. Tough spot to put a commish in though. I love Yahoo and have always defended them in spite of some of their silly decisions. But this is definitely one of the more egregious ones.

[4T2]

I run three head to head leagues and we are not extending based on the advantage it could give teams with players on the teams playing late games. Sure they missed those games during the season, but there's a huge difference between that and GAINING all those games in the finals when the other team doesn't get the extra games.

I don't think they offered it for H2H leagues, I thought it was just roto.

Extending it in H2H leagues wouldn't make any sense at all.

[horrorfan]

Stanley - it's 5-0 so far in favour of keeping it May 8th.

[duntroon68]

All of these thoughts have occurred to me before this, although some, both here and in the league boards, have stated them better than I was thinking them:

A roto league has a GP limit and is intended to count all 56 games played by each team. Teams drafted players with the assumption that they would get all of their games and it’s unfair to chop those games off. Toronto has three late games and that’s three less Matthews or Marner. It doesn’t really matter when the games are played.

Managers have made decisions based upon the current end point. Dropped hurt players. Prioritized certain positions. And others have made poor decisions and an extension bails out some bad playing.

Changing any rule, mid season, that will clearly hurt some managers and help others, should require a very high bar i.e. unanimous or almost unanimous agreement.

If I felt absolutely certain than making a decision would bother me less.

[ericdaoust]

The wrong thing would be for a commissioner to wave the magic want and make a change now. This needed to be discussed beforehand. If no discussion took place don't make any changes unless everyone in the league wants to make a change.

[hockeyrobot]

The wrong thing would be for a commissioner to wave the magic want and make a change now. This needed to be discussed beforehand. If no discussion took place don't make any changes unless everyone in the league wants to make a change.

Bingo.

Patrick only has 2 votes so far so I don't think it'll happen there.

[PenguinHunter]

The wrong thing would be for a commissioner to wave the magic want and make a change now. This needed to be discussed beforehand. If no discussion took place don't make any changes unless everyone in the league wants to make a change.

The key word is 'everyone'. A change of this magnitude can not be used to try and target one team.
One team could be majorly effected in a negative way and it is not fair to that one team.

As P7 mentioned, that one owner could have planned the perfect season.
A rule change could allow for the other teams to catch that one owner.

I am always a believer that mid-season rules should be unanimous if they could effect the outcome at all.
We already had one change this season in the leagues with the games played limit changed.

What if your favourite team was 1st place in the NHL at the end of the 56 game regular season this year.
Then 30 out of the 31 teams decided to vote in favour of of extending the season by 5 more games.
And your team gets scheduled 5 games against Tampa, Carolina, Tampa, Vegas and Colorado.

The team that is in 2nd place gets to play Detroit, Ottawa, Buffalo, Buffalo and Anaheim.

How would you feel about your team dropping from first to third?

[tweetdrivr]

...

How would you feel about your team dropping from first to third?

Bummed but also ok with the fact that the better team won because all their players were able to have their stats counted. On the flip side, if I’m the second place team and I’m sitting there with Matthews and Marner on my roster watching each having say a 4 pt night in a game that doesn’t count and not catching the 1st place team because of an arbitrary date change vs being beaten by the better team I’m going to beyond pissed.

[hockeyrobot]

Bummed but also ok with the fact that the better team won because all their players were able to have their stats counted. On the flip side, if I’m the second place team and I’m sitting there with Matthews and Marner on my roster watching each having say a 4 pt night in a game that doesn’t count and not catching the 1st place team because of an arbitrary date change vs being beaten by the better team I’m going to beyond pissed.

Is it the better team though? When Yahoo was mum for months I wasn't holding onto COVID players thinking "oh I will get their games in eventually". I was adjusting and filling in their games at the time. That is a huge deal in a roto league. When Yahoo announced they wouldn't be changing the end date I adjusted even moreso. Now they have went back on it but for me it's too late.

I've had a spreadsheet tallying out my GP for the last month here lol

[COLT.45]

My league (sig) decided to put it to a vote... presently at 6 to 1 in favour of extending. I am in first and opposed, second place hasnt voted yet but burned through his last 5 moves since the last yahoo announcement. League has made it clear we are going with the majority... so it looks like it will be switched (6/11 teams)

That said, I have been trying to max my forward starts down the stretch but have extra D starts. which forward on my roster would be your cut at this point to pick up a D to get the starts in? By my calculation I will over shoot my combined F starts by 7 man games which equals essentially dropping one of my Bench F's. I have lots of Multi position F so I am not as concerned about position.

I am leaning Konecny

Thoughts?