who needs what tonight

[Greg Ambrosius]

Agree. 100% with Doughboys. At the minimum, the rule should be consistant year to year. If next year the season ends on Wednesday and Game 163 is Thursday, it'll be totally different setup. Game 163 is special circumstance and the comparison to it being an extra innings game is silly to me. It's an unscheduled game. It either needs to be involved in its own scoring period EVERY YEAR or be mixed with the final scoring period EVERY YEAR, regardless of what day it falls on.

The rule has been consistent since 2004 and every year that a 163rd game has been played NFBC owners have been allowed to set their starting lineup for that week. I don't think inconsistency is at question here.

[Deadheadz]

Doesn't the MLB always schedule Sunday as the final day of the regular season?

What if game 163 wasn't a tie breaker but a makeup game being played out that was earlier thought unnecessary and/or unable to be played? Then it's really game 162 or actually 94 or whatever game was being made up.

NFBC does it right. They'd run into more problems than would be solved if they did anything different.

[sek729]

Doesn't the MLB always schedule Sunday as the final day of the regular season?

No.. The famous "Game 162" with all the crazy crap between Rays/Yankees/Sox/Orioles was played on Wednesday, September 28th, 2011.

Greg, teams wouldn't have been allowed to set their lineups for a Game 163 that year, they had to set it on Monday, 3 days prior. This "Oh it falls in that same week, so it's consistant", I don't buy at all. It's totally inconsistant because it's an unscheduled game. There should be special circumstances surrounding 163. IMO it should be either included as part of the last week every year (regardless of whether the final game ends on Sunday or Wednesday), or allow teams to set lineups for it ever year, regardless of what day it falls on. It's the "some years you can re-set your lineup, some years you can't" I don't like about Game 163.

[Brock]

It's a fact that games 163 or 164 count as do their stats as regular season stats. How can they possibly be omitted. The issue of what day the season ends on can be dealt with if a rule stating that lineups can be changed after 162 games are played. These are play-in games not playoff games. I lost the lead in my main event and ended up tied for first because of Price's win. Next time this situation arises it might benefit me or anyone else who it hurt this time around. A new scoring period after 162 seems right to me and let the chips fall where they may. As Greg stated I don't want NFBC mandating lineups...that just isn't right.

[sek729]

If we allow a scoring period after 162 fine.. Just do it every year. Even if the season ends on Wednesday.

[JohnP]

If we allow a scoring period after 162 fine.. Just do it every year. Even if the season ends on Wednesday.

Below is the info from last year. I am not taking up the debate on whether the stats should count or not - strictly arguing the case that it shouldn't be a new period for an add-on game. For sure it is indeed "consistency" that the stats count. Tough to argue that it is "consistency" with how this game is handled in terms of the weekly scoring period. For the record -I gained nothing / lost nothing with this game - just don't like the fact that it is a new period and teams were allowed to play players they otherwise wouldn't have been playing for the new daily period.


Final Day Of The NFBC Season: Or Is It?
Postby Greg Ambrosius » Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:01 am

Good luck to everyone as we head into the final day of the NFBC season. It's been a long, tough marathon of a season, but now we're facing the end. However, if there are any tie-breaker games on Thursday those games count in the NFBC standings. Don't blame us because Major League Baseball considers any tie-breaker games as part of the MLB regular season and thus part of the seasonal stats. We're following their official stats and therefore have to count them as part of the NFBC data.