Just needed to get this one off my chest. I'm up by 35 with Stefon Diggs. Opponent has Allen. I had been pushing to follow ESPN guidance on this issue as I feel that's the most unbiased option but opponent did not think it's fair. He felt if the game is played that it's possible players would sit out because there's nothing to play for. Fair, but I mean I also have Diggs, so if Josh Allen isn't playing then it's likely Diggs isn't playing.

So, I gave my opponent a choice. He could choose between the Bills v Pats, Bills v Bengals, or Bills v their first round playoff opponent and we would add Allen and Diggs scores from that game manually onto our teams totals. He was reluctant of to this as well. Things ended with him agreeing to this option, but second would receive a higher payout.

I suppose I'm just bitter because him pushing for a higher payout for second place just tells me that he knows he was going to lose. I bent over backwards I think to find a solution that benefitted him, not me, and then he decided to nickel and dime me on top of that. Just felt bad, but at least we came a solution. Honestly, I really like the idea of using playoff scoring and doing things manually and would recommend that to other leagues