Since noone wanted to kick it off obviously, I spent a few minutes pointing out what's wrong with the playoffs regulations from my point of view:
When you start playing TUS it's fairly easy for a skilled player to reach a reasonably high rating in his strong schemes and thus gain a nice seasonal rating. Everyone will agree that in your first TUS season it's only possible to reach playoffs through seasonal rating. Maybe you'll make it through seasonal rating in your second season too. But what's gonna happen in your third season? You won't make it. Your seasonal rating won't be as high as those of "new" players and your overall rating won't be as high as those of "veteran" players. So how are you gonna qualify for single playoffs in that season? Except with a 90%+ winning ratio and at least 120 games played, you won't even have a chance.
Well, and the longer TUS is running, the larger this gap will become and the harder it's going to be to qualify for playoffs for the "middle class" (overall rating-wise), even if they play a great season. And honestly, playing a couple of seasons just to reach playoffs ONCE isn't really motivating, especially seeing how some guys who play their first season qualify straight away.
So basically:
1st season - 70 games / 80% wins - qualified per seasonal rating
2nd season - 70 games / 80% wins - qualified per seasonal rating
3rd season - 70 games / 80% wins - not qualified because failed to reach seasonal top4 and absolutely no chance to get into top4 overall
Maybe in your 6th or 7th season you're gonna qualify again, but just maybe - depending on how much overall rating players like Random00 dibz or Dulek will have.
My few cents. :)
I Agree
Whats the solutions?
More playoff places? Less spots for seasonal? 2 seasonal and 6 overalll? If it is all overall then it will discourage new players and PO's each season will be very similar.. FB had this problem.
I think 2 and 6 could be interesting
1 and 3 with clans
8 first seasonals are the best (so evrybody get his chance to be in PO).
Anyway, why would top 4 overall get involved in PO ? It's just non sense.
lol, weird statement there.
Quote from: Abnaxus on May 21, 2010, 11:42 AM
8 first seasonals are the best (so evrybody get his chance to be in PO).
You know, when you play your first season it's easy to get into top 8 seasonal ranking because you have low ratings and gain a lot when you play against guys who have higher ratings (because they've been around for longer than you). But after each season it's harder to reach a high seasonal rating because you won't gain as many points anymore while your ratings are growing.. Best example would be Random00, look at his recent season, he's played just over 70 games with a winning percentage of over 90% and barely made it to the top 20. You get my point? It's nonsense to put top 8 seasonal into playoffs.
Quote from: Abnaxus on May 21, 2010, 11:42 AMAnyway, why would top 4 overall get involved in PO ? It's just non sense.
Yeah well, that's a contradiction. The top overall players are those who have way better qualifications to be put into playoffs because they played a lot more games, are way more consistant (gotta have played several good seasons instead of just one) and they have a f@#!ing hard time "defending" their points because they'd lose a hell lot if they lost to someone with a much lower ranking.
Quote from: Abnaxus on May 21, 2010, 11:42 AM
8 first seasonals are the best (so everybody get his chance to be in PO).
Anyway, why would top 4 overall get involved in PO ? It's just non sense.
Please, just have a look at my stats for season 12 and then look at my seasonal rating. I won like 90% of my games and finished at rank 13 or something. So, I shouldnt qualify for PO?
In every upcoming season now it will be very hard for me to even reach 1000 seasonal points.
There just needs to be some complex system that kicks out high ranked overall players if they just play a bad season.
edit: well, Dark also said the same lol xd
Dudes, when you're good, it's normal to make many more efforts to get in PO:
You must not lose a game, cause you would lose lot of points, and you must win many more games to earn as much points as another who made only 2 games.
Being good is just another world, where everything is harder: so don't take it too seriously, because you wouldn't have any chance.
And this way, newcomers or random players have a chance to go to the PO.
And it's there you should look at Analyser and take the scheme where you earn more points (even if it's your worst).
It's totally normal you can't get in PO if you pick only 1 scheme everytime.
PS: If you're that good, why don't you just enter in the top 4 overall ?
I'd love to hear some solutions.
Some of you already know TUS changed its system like 3-4 times to reach this. It is not perfect but it worked pretty well so far.
The one thing that hasn't been a culture on playing YET, is that high ranked players do not select their opponents. I always hear "I lose a lot of points by 1 game and I gotta win 50 games to gain them back."
The thing is people looks for only an opponent to play league with. The system is designed to decrease noob bashing. Look at this game for instance:
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-27394/
Dulek and dibz both are Elite TTRR players and played with eachother, the result is, Dulek gained 43 points. (40 is the standard point)
The system is designed so that High rank players play with high ranks and so on. But maybe there are not enough players around to pick between?
There was pretty discussion going on about noob bashing ta the start of TUS. System changed to descrese it, and it got successful in a way but we still do not pick an opponent of our own size.
Anyway, an old solution was to increase number of PO spots but that would make PO qualifying less important and maybe nothing major to fight for.
Quote from: Abnaxus on May 21, 2010, 01:22 PM
Dudes, when you're good, it's normal to make many more efforts to get in PO:
You must not lose a game, cause you would lose lot of points, and you must win many more games to earn as much points as another who made only 2 games.
Being good is just another world, where everything is harder: so don't take it too seriously, because you wouldn't have any chance.
I'm good at philosophy but I can't follow you here.
Quote from: Abnaxus on May 21, 2010, 01:22 PMAnd this way, newcomers or random players have a chance to go to the PO.
Isn't this league an allround league and designed so the best players go into playoffs rather than "random players"?
Quote from: Abnaxus on May 21, 2010, 01:22 PMAnd it's there you should look at Analyser and take the scheme where you earn more points (even if it's your worst).
It's totally normal you can't get in PO if you pick only 1 scheme everytime.
That's what almost everyone is doing, especially the "good" players.
Quote from: Abnaxus on May 21, 2010, 01:22 PMPS: If you're that good, why don't you just enter in the top 4 overall ?
That's exactly what I'm talking about, because it would take not one but 3 or 4 seasons to catch up to the current top 4. In that time I'm playing and playing to increase my points so I can eventually make overall playoffs while new players enter playoffs one after another through seasonal rating.
It would be a lot easier to play 1 season serious, then lose all games in the next so you get a good chance for playoffs in the 3rd season again. lol
I remember in FB there was an award for "best handicap", which means most point gain in that season (= TUS seasonal rating). You didn't qualify for playoffs through that, though.
Edit: To make it even more clear.. What I'm saying is that the whole idea to enter playoffs through a seasonal rating is flawed. And by now you can see why.
Quote from: MonkeyIsland on May 21, 2010, 02:09 PM
The one thing that hasn't been a culture on playing YET, is that high ranked players do not select their opponents. I always hear "I lose a lot of points by 1 game and I gotta win 50 games to gain them back."
The thing is people looks for only an opponent to play league with. The system is designed to decrease noob bashing. Look at this game for instance:
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-27394/
In general thats a nice idea, but just tell me some opponent for hysteria. I have to fear losing a lot of points vs everyone lol :/
I just write down some things that a player wanting to qualify for PO should reach:
1. You have to be good at the current season. (being good means for me that win more then 40% of your games vs. players of the same skill level). The problem here is, that you need min. 50 games in a scheme to see what your skill level at a certain scheme is.
2. You shouldnt be able to reach POs with just being good at 1 or 2 schemes. (means you win 85%+ at these schemes and have like 50% winnings in the other schemes)
3. You should be active in the current season (we already have a good mark there with 70 games per season, I think thats fine).
4. The number of PO spots for singles should be 8 or 16, depending on how many players are active (the amount of players who played 70 games or more). At the moment we're having enough players for 16 spots I think. But, then it would be very important to play the PO games a lot faster! I think having a deadline of 1 week should be usually enough for 2 active players to find a date.
just a few thoughts....
Quote from: darKz on May 21, 2010, 02:22 PM
I remember in FB there was an award for "best handicap", which means most point gain in that season (= TUS seasonal rating). You didn't qualify for playoffs through that, though.
You did tho darkz. Thats how i got into playoffs one month. Top 12 overall made it from the regular point system. The handicap was highest 4 in that which is exactly the same as tus seasonal.
Having 16 players in PO's. 12 overall and 4 seasonal would work wonders. But 45 days is too short for this. The season length could be increased to 60 days. This would mean less playoffs less often so easy to get games finished on time as an extra 8 candiates. Also it would make tus more focused on overall points, not seasonal. Overall is the most important in a ladder. The standings could even be displayed overall first, instead of seasonal first.
Quote from: Random00 on May 21, 2010, 04:45 PM
In general thats a nice idea, but just tell me some opponent for hysteria. I have to fear losing a lot of points vs everyone lol :/
4. The number of PO spots for singles should be 8 or 16, depending on how many players are active (the amount of players who played 70 games or more). At the moment we're having enough players for 16 spots I think. But, then it would be very important to play the PO games a lot faster! I think having a deadline of 1 week should be usually enough for 2 active players to find a date.
just a few thoughts....
Same with me and bng. I lost to dibz who is a good bnger and it cost me 56 points even tho he had a gold ranking in it.
Anyway. Read your post about 16 spots just after my post about 16. Increasing the season length would help to get enough games to make the PO's and space out time between each season so more time to finish them. You would have to be very strict on getting games finished on time. I know just the mod who currently works at TuS and did the exact same thing of dealing with playoffs at FB. He did a very good job of it. Didn't you Darkone!? 8)
Quote from: Chicken23 on May 21, 2010, 06:37 PM
Quote from: darKz on May 21, 2010, 02:22 PM
I remember in FB there was an award for "best handicap", which means most point gain in that season (= TUS seasonal rating). You didn't qualify for playoffs through that, though.
You did tho darkz. Thats how i got into playoffs one month. Top 12 overall made it from the regular point system. The handicap was highest 4 in that which is exactly the same as tus seasonal.
Having 16 players in PO's. 12 overall and 4 seasonal would work wonders. But 45 days is too short for this. The season length could be increased to 60 days. This would mean less playoffs less often so easy to get games finished on time as an extra 8 candiates. Also it would make tus more focused on overall points, not seasonal. Overall is the most important in a ladder.The standings could even be displayed overall first, instead of seasonal first.
Agreed, overall is more important then seasonal, and should be displayed first IMO, the guys with the highest overall deserves it! And besides playoffs, this is the main goal of the best players right, to reach the highest overall possible? Atleast in my eyes. Having the biggest overall rating is really worth worming for 8) I also agree with the rest Tom (and Dark/Random) suggests here. Increasing the playoff-spots for overall ranking would be for the better. It could discourage new players like C23 says, but I`m sure its different from individual to individual. If I started in a league as a new player, I`d face the reality; I`m not good enough to be on top of the list yet, I have nothing to do there yet, I`ll have to work my way up by playing a lot over a larger period of time, play the better players and learn by them. Right? ::)
Anyway, the system is not that bad, like MI says, it would work very nicely in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we are not living in one;P The system is starting to get more and more similar to the FB one, and when FB closed, it was widely acknowledged by the veterans of the community that this was the best system of a Worms League so far, so I guess it`s not such a bad thing after all? We have a lot of opportunities though; Wormnet`s increasing activity, the grea amount of number of players in the league and the activity level by the players actually playing, is very very nice. It`s also important to remember that the league is doing great, after all, it`s the first league in 4 years now which haven`t been hacked by some dumb ass(es) :-\ All creds to MI, jeg bøyer meg i støvet ;)
Quote from: Random00 on May 21, 2010, 04:45 PM
Quote from: MonkeyIsland on May 21, 2010, 02:09 PM
The one thing that hasn't been a culture on playing YET, is that high ranked players do not select their opponents. I always hear "I lose a lot of points by 1 game and I gotta win 50 games to gain them back."
The thing is people looks for only an opponent to play league with. The system is designed to decrease noob bashing. Look at this game for instance:
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-27394/
In general thats a nice idea, but just tell me some opponent for hysteria. I have to fear losing a lot of points vs everyone lol :/
I just write down some things that a player wanting to qualify for PO should reach:
1. You have to be good at the current season. (being good means for me that win more then 40% of your games vs. players of the same skill level). The problem here is, that you need min. 50 games in a scheme to see what your skill level at a certain scheme is.
2. You shouldnt be able to reach POs with just being good at 1 or 2 schemes. (means you win 85%+ at these schemes and have like 50% winnings in the other schemes)
3. You should be active in the current season (we already have a good mark there with 70 games per season, I think thats fine).
4. The number of PO spots for singles should be 8 or 16, depending on how many players are active (the amount of players who played 70 games or more). At the moment we're having enough players for 16 spots I think. But, then it would be very important to play the PO games a lot faster! I think having a deadline of 1 week should be usually enough for 2 active players to find a date.
just a few thoughts....
I like most of your ideas :). But I think that we should increase the number of game: If someone can play (let's say 130 game in one season he sure will be able to play playoffs quick). I also like the one week delay time for playoffs. At first people will complain but then the game will be played and for clanner for exemple you won't have to wait to have the best of the best player in each clan for each scheme to play. A clan is not one or two member who are good it's a whole thing if you ask me :). Also with the one week rule you can think of making it more attractive with a counter and an announcement ofr each game played.
PS: Crazy stop spam this forum and spam our a little :D
Hah you know I`m not a spammer, never been, we have rash, agneau, gand, monk and many more for that ;D I did already post though!
Personally I think if you care THAT MUCH about reaching playoffs, just reset your rank every season...
Or spend the time reaching the top 4.
Your choice.
Quote from: Komo on May 28, 2010, 05:54 PM
Personally I think if you care THAT MUCH about reaching playoffs, just reset your rank every season...
Or spend the time reaching the top 4.
Your choice.
We disallowed resetting your rank if it was over 1000 to prevent people from taking an easy route into playoffs on seasonal points.
Also trying to get into the top 4 spots for overall is not easy. Its easier to get into the top 4 seasonal points if your a newcommer. When your overall rank gets into the top 15 its hard to get enough seasonal points for a PO spot, or get into the top 4. Its most likely that 5th overall is a better allrounder and player than the 4th seasonal player! He may have had a better season with a better winning precentage and still miss out on playoffs.
Quote from: Random00 on May 21, 2010, 04:45 PM2. You shouldnt be able to reach POs with just being good at 1 or 2 schemes. (means you win 85%+ at these schemes and have like 50% winnings in the other schemes)
That is actually a really nice thought. The league is all-around after all, so I would love to see what happens if the PO qualifications required 60% winning percentage in each scheme!
Quote from: Komo on May 28, 2010, 05:54 PM
Personally I think if you care THAT MUCH about reaching playoffs, just reset your rank every season...
You cannot reset your rank every season, since we had similar cheap incident in the past, and now you cannot reset if your rank is higher than 1000.
Quote from: Komo on May 28, 2010, 05:54 PM
Or spend the time reaching the top 4.
I think currently Random is the best player around and even he could not manage it in the last season... ;)
Let me sort of sum up the ideas that I love in this topic and I support (and seemingly the majority does):
1. Showing the overall ranks as default. I would put that to a separate link, with no Time Machine in the corner and no pages, just showing all the players based on the overall standings. A link called Ladder maybe, or something else.
2. Increasing the length of the season to 60 days and the number of Play-off participants to 16, with 12 players qualified by the seasonal points and 4 players by the overall.
3. Include the restriction of winning percentage for each scheme, as mentioned above.
4. One week for each round of the PO, with a nice counter. Also, I wouldn't show the PO participants of the current season by default, rather the previous season's PO, and since the counter and the more strict rules would make it sure that the PO finishes within a month, there is no point showing how the next PO would look like, because not enough players meet the requirements until that point anyway, or it's very likely to change.
Quote from: Ray on May 28, 2010, 08:08 PM
2. Increasing the length of the season to 60 days and the number of Play-off participants to 16, with 12 players qualified by the seasonal points and 4 players by the overall.
That's gonna be a temporary solution though, same shit different colour in the long run. :)
I'm not so sure about that, I remember that the season length was changed to 45 days from 60 days because at the beginning of the season, players achieved high ranks and then didn't play, as a result, in the last 2-3 weeks the league was dead basically. Now the reason for that was they reached PO positions and they didn't want to let them go out from their hands.
With this solution, I think both problems get solved.
Yeah but what I'm saying is that with more seasonal playoffs ranks it's going to be the same sooner or later, that people with high overall ratings who deserve playoffs much more are being left out because they can't reach them per seasonal rating. :) And that's IMO the biggest flaw about the current system.
12 overall and 4 seasonal seems better. But doesn't it make the PO in each season kinda with the same people form previous season?
Yes MI, because the best players in this league won't change every 2 months. League playoffs should only include the best players, makes perfect sense to me. They still need to play 70 games and gotta win a lot to keep their position right?
The point about playoffs qualification is not that it's good to always have different players in the POs, it's that you gotta work hard for your spot - chances are still the same for everyone.
Also, as previous seasons have shown, the top 4 seasonal players are very likely to change every season so it's not always the exact same people in the playoffs.
So my final suggestion would be to change the playoff spots to 4 seasonal and 12 overall and sort the league standings by overall rating by default because the seasonal rating really plays just a minor role in comparison. It's still nice to see how much someone improves throughout a season.
Well, I would agree with that, can't really think of anything else to say. :)
Quote from: Ray on May 28, 2010, 08:08 PM
1. Showing the overall ranks as default. I would put that to a separate link, with no Time Machine in the corner and no pages, just showing all the players based on the overall standings. A link called Ladder maybe, or something else.
::)
Quote from: darKz on May 29, 2010, 05:01 AM
Yes MI, because the best players in this league won't change every 2 months. League playoffs should only include the best players, makes perfect sense to me. They still need to play 70 games and gotta win a lot to keep their position right?
The point about playoffs qualification is not that it's good to always have different players in the POs, it's that you gotta work hard for your spot - chances are still the same for everyone.
Also, as previous seasons have shown, the top 4 seasonal players are very likely to change every season so it's not always the exact same people in the playoffs.
So my final suggestion would be to change the playoff spots to 4 seasonal and 12 overall and sort the league standings by overall rating by default because the seasonal rating really plays just a minor role in comparison. It's still nice to see how much someone improves throughout a season.
I agree with this.
But would you want to increase the length of season to 60 days? This would give more time for the playoffs to be completed. Its hard getting 4 clans and 8 singles done. 16 playes will be tough!
hmm 12 to 4 seems to have a big difference. What about 10 to 6?
I don't know about making overall default yet. We had discussed it before, the whole concept of seasons rely on the standings.
I would also go with 12 overall, 4 seasonal, points out the increasing importance of the overall ratings. Besides, don't look at the gap, look at that there is no less spots for seasonal performance. ;)
Quote from: MonkeyIsland on May 29, 2010, 07:14 PM
hmm 12 to 4 seems to have a big difference. What about 10 to 6?
I don't know about making overall default yet. We had discussed it before, the whole concept of seasons rely on the standings.
But when more playoff spots are awarded for overall which should be the case, the concept of seasonal points isnt as important as overall points. The players chasing for seaosnal point placement into the PO's can just click on the seasonal tab. Have overall as default. It really is more important because the league is a ladder.
Can't quote myself enough times...
Just create one more link, called Ladder instead of Standings and that could contain the overall rankings, all of the players, no pages, no time machine. Deal? :)
That would make the most sense, since if it has the biggest importance (which is true IMO) it can be easily placed to a separate page. Ladder would be even a nice name for that, Standings represent current standings, seasonal points.
Quote from: Ray on May 29, 2010, 11:37 PM
Can't quote myself enough times...
Just create one more link, called Ladder instead of Standings and that could contain the overall rankings, all of the players, no pages, no time machine. Deal? :)
That would make the most sense, since if it has the biggest importance (which is true IMO) it can be easily placed to a separate page. Ladder would be even a nice name for that, Standings represent current standings, seasonal points.
i disagree, why have 2 standing pages? It just over complicates the website even more.
Just switch it to overall as primary instead of seasonal, and then u can click on seasonal to view it when u want. Just like i currently do with overall.
How about making a point system that takes into account someone's win percentage and/or their win percentage against higher ranked players which would be different than someone who had a high win % against lower ranked players.
If this is even possible?
Random would be delighted by that. :)
Chicken, that would not complicate the website at all.
Ray, not just Random, but all the other highly skilled players who lose out because they have a few bad games, or veteran wormers who are really good allround who are trying to catch up, even for the average player I think my system would help everyone.
Like for example, If a noob plays a noob, they won't get alot of points, if an average player beats an average player, they will get a decent amount of points, if a highly skilled player beats another highly skilled player, who is say, 50th in the league, they would still get a decent amount of points, but if they lost, they wouldn't lose a ridiculous amount of points.
But I don't even know if a system like this is possible, I am no programmer lol
Quote from: Komo on May 30, 2010, 07:28 AM
Ray, not just Random, but all the other highly skilled players who lose out because they have a few bad games, or veteran wormers who are really good allround who are trying to catch up, even for the average player I think my system would help everyone.
Like for example, If a noob plays a noob, they won't get alot of points, if an average player beats an average player, they will get a decent amount of points, if a highly skilled player beats another highly skilled player, who is say, 50th in the league, they would still get a decent amount of points, but if they lost, they wouldn't lose a ridiculous amount of points.
But I don't even know if a system like this is possible, I am no programmer lol
It's easy to programm a system like that. Things is, it already works like this. You've surely noticed that you're getting less and less points for winning bngs since your rating increases (and represents your skill at the same time). You'll get good points for beating Chicken23 (3rd best bng rating) but only few points for beating someone with 5-30 record.
I think many players still don't realize that rating REPRESENTS YOUR SKILL compared to other players. Someone's rating may not reflect certain skill precisely, that's because we don't have a league in which everybody plays same amount of games against similary skilled (or say similarly rated) players.
Imagine this: komo wins 5 games vs chicken23 and gets 40 points for each win which equals 200 points. His rating is now 1200, fine. Now I play 15 games vs players who can't bng, gain 15 points for each and my rating is 1225. Ratings are telling us I'm better bnger, but we all how true that is :) You see how the amount of games affects the ratings. How can we counterfeit this? We can limit the amount of games each player can play in a season, but that's bad for the league, IMHO. We'll have to live with it.
I like the idea of 16 playoffs spots.
Quote from: Komo on May 30, 2010, 06:41 AM
How about making a point system that takes into account someone's win percentage and/or their win percentage against higher ranked players which would be different than someone who had a high win % against lower ranked players.
If this is even possible?
Possible, of course, lol. I don't know, I haven't thinked much about this. One more thing popped in my mind just now: since players play different amount of games, we can compare
average points per game. (that's would propably be useful only for seasonal standings). That's just an idea, however.
One thing should be changed, IMO. With current 70 games minimun for playoffs, there need to be a lower limit of games with same player per season. Currently the limit is 15, that means someone can qualify for playoffs by playing with only 5 different players. Doesn't make much sense, IMO.
Was this thread good for anything?
Sure, we'll alter PO for the next season :)
Could you please summarize what the changes will be then?
Yea, there was sevral suggestions!
16 places? Or still 8 and six overall and two seaosnal?
16 places.
However still not sure about 10/6 or 12/4.
And how about the winning percentage for each scheme? Reason is, this league is supposed to be all-round, right? So I think those performances are eligible for a PO that include a minimum knowledge of each scheme, like 50%, or maybe more? 55-60% for each scheme and 70% in overall?
50% discussion is good. I've seen it works fine. Because some people simply avoid good players and have a 80% winning percentage while some others play everyone and have lower.
If someone is NOT all rounder, they gain less and less points in a particular scheme and it makes it harder to go up in the standings so that has a same effect.
Actually, no, because that would make it impossible for freshly registered but good players in one scheme to go to the PO. Make a poll about that, please, I believe it would be great to implement.
Agreed. I could potentially have higher than 50% winning ratio in every scheme expect ttrr and wxw. Just because i lack speed in my roping doesnt mean im not a good enough allrounder to make playoffs when im able to be a contender in defaults, bng, hysteria and league style roper + shopper.
The point system works well for the schemes you play. Also MI is correct about 50%. Some players play more games against highly skilled players.
What is the case for clan league playoffs?? I don't think you need to increase the number of places. Still keep it at 2/2? or 3/1? I don't think there is as much of a problem in the clan league as singles because fewer clans playing.
Quote from: Ray on June 13, 2010, 07:20 PM
Actually, no, because that would make it impossible for freshly registered but good players in one scheme to go to the PO. Make a poll about that, please, I believe it would be great to implement.
I don't think thats the case anyway Ray. With the point system if you take a player which is highly good in one scheme but not as good in the majority of schemes then they will be getting 1-1 in almost all their tus games. They'll soon stop getting many points at all as their rating improves for that good scheme of theirs. They will need to have 2-0's to gain enough seasonal points in the first place to make playoffs.
Take komodo for example, his bng rating is awesome for his first season but you'll see from his stats hes prefectly capible of winning ropers, rrs, elites. He hasn't gone with 1-1's all season to get a playoff spot.
Well, yes, I think you guys are right. :)