{"id":1807,"date":"2010-11-18T15:43:43","date_gmt":"2010-11-18T20:43:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/qballers.com\/blog\/?p=1807"},"modified":"2010-11-18T16:53:39","modified_gmt":"2010-11-18T21:53:39","slug":"free-agent-controversy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/2010\/11\/18\/free-agent-controversy\/","title":{"rendered":"Free Agent Controversy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Background:<\/strong>
\nBoth OQ and BQP bid $1 on Emmanuel Sanders. \u00c2\u00a0The software awarded him to BQP. \u00c2\u00a0QSN reported this as an error in his “Results of Week 11 Free Agency” post, at which point Sanders was transferred from BQP to OQ. \u00c2\u00a0However, after the transfer was made, BQP appealed the decision with support from SOQ. The original QSN poster has not weighed in on either side since his initial posting.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

OQ take:<\/strong>
\n“1. The way we have always done it – every year my team is 6-5, 5-5, or 5-6 and at the top of the division. Every year I have a similar siutation on the free agency priority issue. Bottomline is that awarding a player is done by record, then head to head. Division does not matter<\/p>\n

2. Ranking by playoff ranking is not valid here. That is an end of the season decision and has no bearing here. Tiebreakers as in the Const are the only relevant guidance”<\/p>\n

SOQ\/BQP take:<\/strong>
\n“The constitution says “Free agents and waiver claims are granted to the lower-ranked team” and then “Division Record only pertains to opponents in the same division.”<\/p>\n

However, in this case, we don’t really need to go to a tiebreaker at all because OQ is the #3 seed in the standings because he is a division winner (he beat FAHQ twice).”<\/p>\n

Summary:<\/strong>
\nThe basic issue is whether or not division standings should be factored into determining standings in relation to tiebreakers. \u00c2\u00a0OQ contends that there are no actual standings until the seeding is finalized at the end of the season. \u00c2\u00a0SOQ contends that even though they are not final standings, the standings can nonetheless be determined at any point in time and therefore should be used in tiebreakers.<\/p>\n

Precedent:<\/strong>
\nThe commissioner weighed in with the following precedent:
\n“”From: [SOQ]
\nDate: Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:13 AM
\nSubject: Waiver Wire Issue
\nTo: [QFL Commissioner]
\nCc: [QFL Comcom]<\/p>\n

Four teams ([BQP], [TENQ], [HEPQ] and [SOQ]) put in a claim for Rudi Johnson last night. The software awarded him to [HEPQ] because he has the fewest points, but the rules state that waiver claims should be awarded based on standings, not total points. All four teams have a record of 1-2. The tiebreaker rules are as follows:<\/p>\n

FOR TIES BETWEEN 3 OR MORE TEAMS, DIVISIONAL TIES ARE ALWAYS BROKEN FIRST.<\/p>\n

HEAD TO HEAD
\nDIVISION RECORD*
\nTOTAL POINTS
\nHIGHEST WEEKLY TOTAL
\nCOIN FLIP<\/p>\n

So it should work like this:
\n1. Break tie between division rivals (BQP and TENQ)
\na. No head to head between them
\nb. Same division record (1-0)
\nc. TENQ has fewer total points, so wins tiebreaker
\n2. Apply head to head tiebreakers between TENQ, HEPQ, SOQ
\na. HEPQ beat SOQ, so can’t be lower than SOQ
\nb. No other head to head matchups
\n3. Apply division record tiebreakers between TENQ, HEPQ, SOQ
\na. TENQ is 1-0 in division so is highest seed
\nb. HEPQ and SOQ are both 0-1 in division
\nc. Since HEPQ beat SOQ head to head, SOQ is lowest seed<\/p>\n

Seeding for four teams:
\n1. BPQ
\n2. TENQ
\n3. HEPQ
\n4. SOQ<\/p>\n

So [SOQ] should get Rudi Johnson, right?”<\/p>\n

The above logic was confirmed. \u00c2\u00a0This seems to be precedent for using division standings for tiebreakers. \u00c2\u00a0Thoughts?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Background: Both OQ and BQP bid $1 on Emmanuel Sanders. \u00c2\u00a0The software awarded him to BQP. \u00c2\u00a0QSN reported this as an error in his “Results of Week 11 Free Agency” post, at which point Sanders was transferred from BQP to OQ. \u00c2\u00a0However, after the transfer was made, BQP appealed the decision with support from SOQ. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":140,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,21,19,20,22,24],"tags":[41,207,187],"class_list":["post-1807","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","category-qfl-deuce","category-qfl-nation-news","category-qfl-prime","category-qfl-thrice","category-rule-changes","tag-bqp","tag-orig","tag-scandal"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1807","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/140"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1807"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1807\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1814,"href":"http:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1807\/revisions\/1814"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}