Worst fantasy rule EVER!!!!!!!!!!

[mystykoekaki]

Interesting, sucks to be the loser

[Azrael]

Retarded rule.

[Flux]

i think that rule is just stupid, but if your opponent new it, then more props to him.

I would argue it though

[FatFoot]

I dislike arbitrary reasoning behind any of those decisions. It should be decided based on something real. Or at least something fairly level.

Makes you think, when drafting... it doesn't hurt, if you draft well, to fill any leftover slot with a starting QB that you'll probably never play.

If you tie, you can't really take too much pride in the win, no matter what the tiebreaker. Your roommate is kind of a dork.

[Bowie]

The rule says "Total QB points", not "Starting QB points". It might be a stupid rule, but it is clear at the very least. Because it is so clear, I wouldn't even bother arguing it. It's time to accept the loss and remember to change the rule next year.

[TheRock]

All tiebreaker rules suck. Why QB points and not RB points? Why not TE points? I say leave it a tie. If you can't decisively vanquish your enemy you don't deserve a victory.

[agchris02]

Did your roomate actually know the rule? Or did he just have two qbs on his bench -- that would be more amusing.

(this is why in all my leagues youre required to submit a tiebreak player -- any position, and if its a tie, that player is added in -- if its tied after that, it just stays a tie)

[Kensat30]

Give the guy with 3 QBs and the higher QB points the win. Ties are inevitable in leagues that don't utilize decimal scoring, so this guy had the edge in tie breaker criteria so give him the win. Non-decimal scoring is a much bigger blunder than tie-breaker rules... Very rarely will you have a tie game with decimal scoring.

Bottom line: either by strategy or chance this guy took advantage of the tie breaker criteria and carried more starting QBs than you. If you had had more foresight, you could have taken advantage as well and carried FOUR starting QBs.

I have a league that is deadset on non-decimal scoring and the tie breaker criteria is bench points. I carry 3 starting QBs MINIMUM in that league at all times for several years and have never lost a tie game. At one point a couple years ago, I picked up a FIFTH QB going into the playoffs, and I had a tie game in the fantasy conference championship in week 15... my bench blew his out of the water.
---

The rule is stupid, but it applies to everyone. The rule is unquestionable in intent as well IMO (TOTAL QB points refers to ALL QBs). Maybe if it said "QB points" and didn't add the word TOTAL in there you would have a legit beef. But if you only start 1 QB, why is there a need for the word total? Total refers to every QB on the roster.

This guy took advantage of a stated and unquestionable rule, and he should be declared the winner.

[skibrett15]

thats a bad rule, but he owned you by reading it beforehand.

[maddog60]

It is a bad rule, but like many have pointed out, decimal scoring would fix the need for this rule and still be much more fair.

If anything, I'd think perhaps calculating scores of the best possible lineups would be best. That way, the guy who had the best team performance overall bench + starters would get the win in case of a tie.