|Paul (Bristol) - Sunday 09-17-06 6:46|
|Just noticed that the play-off games don't seem to be included in the coaches' record stats. Is that by accident or design?|
The way things are going for the Nibbers in the play-offs, I'm probably best off having the stats ignored, but on the other hand it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense - no distinction is made between any other games played, so I'm not sure why play-offs should be excluded.
|Allan (Memphis) - Sunday 09-17-06 9:14|
|Yeah, that's by design Paul. The playoff games have just been for "promotion/relegation" but no CP/TP/Bank and also no coaching/team record updates.|
So in general they just serve to determine position and nothing else.
|Willy (Montevideo) - Tuesday 09-19-06 10:18|
|Thank goodness... !|
|Paul (Bristol) - Tuesday 09-19-06 18:14|
|I understand the no CP/TP/Bank, but if the manager's record is supposed to be exactly that, then I don't see that the play-offs are any less a part of the record than, say, the KO games in the AP Cup. Not mightily important I guess, but a bit odd?|
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Wednesday 09-20-06 3:59|
LOL, Willy! :-D
|Andy (Barnsley) - Wednesday 09-20-06 5:21|
|Don't American sports separate records and stats into regular season and postseason? One for the task list, maybe?|
|Carl (Hollywood) - Wednesday 09-20-06 13:27|
|I am streets ahead of Tim then on the winning list :)
"I feel good! DeDe-DeDe-DeDe-Dee"
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Wednesday 09-20-06 17:15|
I though it was "Nana nana nana nah"? And by no means should we change things. Andy and Paul, for goodness sake, shut up!
|Paul (Bristol) - Wednesday 09-20-06 18:46|
|Innocent query: I wonder how much the coaches' records would be changed if post-season was included......?|
|Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 10-08-06 21:23|
|I agree that CP/TP, $, and things of that nature should be out when playing the matches "between seasons," but there would be no harm by including a manager's wins and losses in the overall total. I'd like to see that.|
|Willy (Montevideo) - Thursday 02-28-08 10:06|
|I'll revive this with another question: since the promotion playoffs are meant to distribute teams in the divisions as they deserve it for the next season what if the playoffs are played AFTER ageing? |
Just a thought...
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Thursday 02-28-08 15:01|
I guess that depends on whether they are considered to be played at the end of the season or the beginning of the season. Technically they are played at the end of the season, so aging has to come after, but in real time they are played at the beginning of the next season, so aging should come before. I'm going to split my vote and go for playing them immediately after the Cup before aging, or have aging after the Cup and play them when we usually do. :-)
|Willy (Montevideo) - Thursday 02-28-08 18:48|
|I agree with that 100% Tim! :)|
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Tuesday 03-04-08 15:00|
It has taken me a week to get over the simple shock of that statement, Willy! ;-D
|Willy (Montevideo) - Thursday 03-06-08 2:55|
|Ok Al, if Tim and I agree on something you can just put it in the rules! (I guess Steve gets to type it which means some kind of veto capabilities...)|
|Phil (Missouri) - Friday 03-14-08 23:05|
|I think it's fine the way it is. The games should be played after the Cup, but league placement is always earned or lost based upon performance of the prior season. Therefore, there should be no aging. Otherwise, eight (or nine, if you count the auto promote) teams earned Division I placement in season X, but three earn D-I status in season x + 1. That doesn't seem right.
Also, I will renew my charge that all promotion/relegation wins and losses should count in the all-time totals. Where's the harm?