NavyBuc,
I didn't invent the rules. Its been that way for 4 years and it was carefully thought out by my predecessor before the final decision was made. I agree with his rational.
It allows for players who can't or don't play all 17 weeks to have a chance. 10 weeks (40 games) was decided by him to be the breaking point and it seems to have worked out fine. It also prevents someone sitting at the top at week 15 to rest on his/her laurels so to speak.
They have to also play either week 16 or 17. I really believe it was well put together by him.
So much so, I wouldn't want to change it without a majority of "qualified" players wanting to do so-but not change it this year.
This is the first "complaint" I can ever remember about this part of the rules.
This year is a perfect example. For the first few weeks players did not know if this would go on for the full year, so some who might have played, didn't (and said so). If you remember when I first took it over, I didn't want to go back and recapture the first two weeks. But I was convinced that because we were awarding the Seasonal champ based on percentage and seeing that there were enough weeks left, no one would really be hurt. As far as I know, no one was-except for awarding the weekly champ for the first 4 weeks. FWIW, of the all the "qualified" to date, only 9 have played all 44 games.
Hope I answered your concerns.
I appreciate your thoughts tho.
