PBL win-loss records get even more interesting

The PBL released their 14th Weekly Report yesterday (I know, I’m not as on-the-ball as usual…. it’s the last week of class before finals, too much to do) and just when I thought the stats couldn’t get any odder…. they did

Montreal now has, at the very end of their game-by-game (p14), two undated home games against Quebec City that are listed as Montreal forfeits, leaving Montreal at 3-15 for the season (Montreal is still 3-13 in the Crez standings, I guess nobody told them)

It’s not that I technically mind Montreal getting forfeits. Although Montreal wasn’t the one cancelling the games, and last I checked it was the league’s responsibility to reschedule them (and they didn’t), the team really shouldn’t have been playing and it’s not like the forfeits affected Montreal’s playoff chances or anything.

No, my issue is simply with the PBL’s lack of consistency.  If you’re going to call the two cancelled games against the Kebs forfeits, then there’s also a game against Detroit and a game against Wilmington which ought to be forfeits, and have never been mentioned by the league.

Actually, I heard on a message board that Wilmington played Detroit in a game added to the season…. so of course Montreal can’t get forfeits because winning by forfeit would put both those teams over their 20 games for the season.

Which I guess is understandable, given Montreal’s financial situation, since the game mattered to Wilmington but not to Montreal.

The Rochester game, added at the last minute and then canceled, is also not listed as a forfeit by Montreal in this week’s Weekly Report.  But on the PBL calendar, it was and still is (as of last check, 7/04/09 @8:50am).   On the other hand, the Weekly Report lists Rochester with a win-by-forfeit against Mid-Michigan (who, I believe, Montreal was meant to replace).

Again, this seems logical – Rochester can’t get wins by forfeit from both canceled games, since they would end up with more than 20 games “played”.

It’s not the logic of the decisions that I’m taking issue with, or even Montreal’s record being made even more pitiful.  It’s simply the the league’s continued lack of consistency.  They promised everyone would play a full schedule, but ever rescheduled 4 of Montreal’s games.  Now, some of those games are forfeits, while others are not.  Which means Montreal’s final record is one of only two teams (the other is Mid-Michigan) whose win-loss record doesn’t reflect a 20 game schedule.

I guess this is the league’s way of saying they don’t expect Montreal back next season…. but nonetheless it isn’t right.  When you make a commitment, you make it to the whole league, not just the successful teams.  Especially when what happened with Team Montreal is largely the league’s fault.

No, the new owner never should have thought he could take over without money, it’s true.  But the league supposedly vets owners, and since they did such a terrible job with the Sasquat’ch ownership, you’d think they’d have been more careful before bringing a folded team back from the dead.  After only a week.  But no, I guess it was just easier to let the team back in, and let the players go unpaid for the rest of the season, than to reschedule a dozen or so games.

~ by mtlbballgirl on April 7, 2009.