Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014 Posted November 20, 2015 Maybe , too. Not sure yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014 Posted November 22, 2015 Locking in with over to see if I can extend the streak. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bay 2,003 Posted November 23, 2015 Fitting, the Raiders fuck it up for you. Can't trust these damn teams. You had a good run, man. Nice job. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014 Posted November 23, 2015 I would have lost with literally every team I was considering this week. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted November 23, 2015 Also let's take note for next year, with two strikes we're down to two on week 7 somebody needs to bump this next year as a reminder that we had our champion in week 10 and nobody made it past week 11, I'd be in favor of going to three strikes next year Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted November 23, 2015 I disagree. Week 2 was historically bad for survivor leagues. Better to have it end halfway through the season than have 4 winners at the end of the season. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FartWaffles 1,857 Posted November 23, 2015 I disagree. Week 2 was historically bad for survivor leagues. Better to have it end halfway through the season than have 4 winners at the end of the season. Agreed. Two strikes is plenty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted November 23, 2015 but the end of the season, once you've picked all of the reliable teams, is more fun with this anyway, I think we could also make it interesting even if a lot of people make it all the way through with a creative tiebreaker, I'm thinking lowest combined record of teams picked? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted November 23, 2015 I mean it's an intriguing idea but it's plenty tough as it is. We wouldn't have a tiebreaker because people would try to go bold and half the people would lose by week 4. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted November 23, 2015 I mean it's an intriguing idea but it's plenty tough as it is. We wouldn't have a tiebreaker because people would try to go bold and half the people would lose by week 4. I thought you were concerned about having "4 winners at the end of the season" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted November 24, 2015 I thought you were concerned about having "4 winners at the end of the season" I'm also concerned with trying to hit a tiebreaker with something as insignificant as combined records. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted November 24, 2015 I'm also concerned with trying to hit a tiebreaker with something as insignificant as combined records. I don't see that as entirely insignificant, it'd give the advantage to people who picked worse teams, which seems like something to encourage in this, it was also just one suggestion, I'm sure we could find other good tiebreakers, perhaps using point spreads? anyway, I'd be really surprised if we had multiple people get to the end of the season even with three strikes, so it would probably be irrelevant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
