Scoring - Negative Points

MidasMike · Post by **MidasMike** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:49 am

So you guys think a runningback that, during the course of a 20 carry ,100yd game, has a carry that went for -3 yds should be awarded 103 yds in the stat book? No he gets 100 and you get 10 points , not 10.3 Enough said! Sorry Greg for the pains in the asses round here!

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:01 pm

Originally posted by TamuScarecrow:
I think Greg and Tom addressed this issue. But after looking at your rankings in the NFFC and the Gekko leagues, Dyv, I can understand why negative points would bother you. You might want to spend more time looking at the free agent pools and less time argueing over a rule that has already been ruled on. lol, I'm not arguing over a rule that has already been ruled on - I'm fine with the resolution. I just want to be free to ask a question if I want to!

I'm only 70 pts. out of first place in my main event league - hehe, and so far have avoided injuries. In one respect, it's very sad I'm healthy and not scoring... on the other hand, I have a feeling LT and McNair and company will produce some fine numbers eventually

As for the Gekko? I'm 1-1 and about 46 pts. behind you. Hardly a big issue at this point in the season, but if it makes you feel good then I'm happy for you ... lol.

We'll see how the next few months settle out.

Dave

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:05 pm

Originally posted by MidasMike:
So you guys think a runningback that, during the course of a 20 carry ,100yd game, has a carry that went for -3 yds should be awarded 103 yds in the stat book? No he gets 100 and you get 10 points , not 10.3 Enough said! Sorry Greg for the pains in the asses round here! Nope, don't think that at all. Want to guess again what my opinion might be?

Sorry if my having an opinion bothers you.

I beg forgiveness, etc.

D

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:38 pm

Originally posted by Dyv:
I'm not sure if it's your first negative post or not, John - but you seem like your blood pressure is really high for some reason?

It's not 'common sense' to accumulate negative things... that's illogical and stupid. Nobody seeks to accumulate negative things that I know of ?

If someone 2 weeks ago would have asked me if there were any negative points I would have answered only turnovers. I could easily see the yardage being interpreted as a 'positive only' scoring category. Doesn't seem farfetched to me at all.

And, yes, every nuance should reasonably be spelled out - common sense tells me that

Dyv 1) My BP is perect when tested a few weeks ago. 120/80.

2) I never correlated "common sense" to "accumulate negative", so please don't spin my post. And people do accumulate negative things all the time, just watch Jerry, DrPhil or Oprah. LOL.

3) I've never seen a league where the rules state the lowest score is always zero in 20 years, unless, of course, it SAYS SO IN THE RULES!. Don't see it here.

4) Common sense would tell you that it's impossible to list every nuance. Why? Because new ones come up all the time. I guess you've never commished a league with that statement. All that Greg did here was choose a word "accumulate" that has a meaning that by definition, can be used either way. ICO selectively chose one definition (spun by the Webster use of $$ in the definition), (I can spin it by saying that I'm accumulating several negative posts today and have the exact same definition as ICO's) and I pointed out other (get/gather). Google it. You'll see that we quoted the same link. LOL.

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:52 pm

Dyv, it doesn't make me feel good being 50 points out of first place in the Gekko but I did notice who happened to start David Terrell last week.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:57 pm

I had him in a number of places... I'm a Wolverine Alum, short on WR all over the place, good week 1, Chicago putting in a passing offense, etc., etc.

Still, I think the ruling was fine and fair.

Don't have to like the results, but I do trust Greg.

Dave

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 3:00 pm

of course the ruling is fair. this thread is a WASTE of time.

lumpy463 · Post by **lumpy463** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 3:57 pm

Damn!
Gekko and I agree.
I don't believe it.

Lumpy

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:29 am

argh, don't make me agree with Gek..... again.... HELP!!!!

wlfskp · Post by **wlfskp** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:44 am

It has nothing to do with a ruling being fair or unfair...1. there is no ambiguity for a reasonable person. 2. Midas Mike nailed it.... 3) and you can accumulate negative yards...or in life getting in a deeper and deeper hole....after all a hole by its nature is negative.....good luck all sorry for chiming in so late....