Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2009 11:35:33 GMT -6
For next season, I propose scheduling 3 double headers in our regular season. The reason being is so we can play everyone in the league. Currently, we play everyone in our division twice, but only 3 teams from the other division. If we set up 3 double header days or 3 multiple matchup days (during non-bye week weeks of course) we could play everyone from the other division once, and we would have a 16 game regular season. I propose to have those double headers during weeks 2, 11, and 12, avoiding bye weeks and the first and last week of the regular season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gregg(Seal Fuckers) on Nov 18, 2009 11:51:38 GMT -6
i like this idea, i was just thinking how i am the worst team and i dont get to play bulls this year lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Fog City Force) on Nov 18, 2009 12:35:57 GMT -6
I'm down with that, I missed out on playing "THe Bulls" this year...LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Gregg(Seal Fuckers) on Nov 18, 2009 13:07:57 GMT -6
james my question is, how do you make this work on espn?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris (RI Irish) on Nov 18, 2009 14:21:49 GMT -6
I don't like double headers. If you have one bad week you could end up with 2 loses...and yes you could also end up with 2 wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gregg(Seal Fuckers) on Nov 18, 2009 16:16:04 GMT -6
I don't like double headers. If you have one bad week you could end up with 2 loses...and yes you could also end up with 2 wins. valid point if you win all your weeks but your double headers you could be 10-6 and its not like any of us would win all your weeks |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2009 17:14:24 GMT -6
What about going to 3 divisions? It doesn't work perfectly in a 12 team league, but it's a little bit better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Fog City Force) on Nov 18, 2009 18:48:30 GMT -6
Phish is right, (3) divisions would mean we'd only need (1) double header, as long as the double header falls on a non bye week.....I'd support it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter (Swamp Dragons) on Nov 18, 2009 19:51:14 GMT -6
My Cheating money league has 3 divisions of 4 teams and week 11 is the double header. I'm not a huge fan because if you have a crappy week your season could be over. I'm not against it because I could use another win against Gregg. And I like to kick Phish's ass!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2009 20:23:45 GMT -6
Well.. with 3 divisions, you wouldn't have to even go with a double header. You could, but I'm not a big fan of it.
You'd play your divisional opponents twice and everybody else once except for one team. Just a thought...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Fog City Force) on Nov 18, 2009 20:33:26 GMT -6
As long as I get the Bulls! (Just breaking your nuts Sean, don't go Postal on us...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2009 20:41:19 GMT -6
I just think that double headers are too much. One or two key injuries at the wrong time, and you're done. It doesn't have to be a season ending injury. One key player like Boldin who gets held out for "one extra week" in addition to a new injury or two would be killer.
If you owned Ronnie Brown and Cedric Benson, you'd be pissed if you had to play a double header this week.
I think the randomness of a single team you don't play would work well enough. Double headers increase the fluke factor too much in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris (RI Irish) on Nov 18, 2009 20:44:13 GMT -6
Brad and I set up the league wanting to be a little different. We like the idea of an AFC and an NFC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2009 23:36:27 GMT -6
I don't think anyone thought it would be an issue when we first started Chris. But since then:
1 - I screwed myself in the draft and in a couple of trades, so my team isn't the most competitive.
2 - Gregg blew up his team
3 - Bulls isn't a powerhouse either
If I was a top scoring team with a MUCH more difficult schedule than an equally productive team... I wouldn't like it either.
I don't think anyone is blaming you or Brad for it. It's not your fault. But the current schedule format plays a huge role in deciding who makes the playoffs and who doesn't.
Chris, the fact that you are 4-6 and I'm 3-7 is beyond me. I started Mike Bell and Louis Rankin for RBs two weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neil (OC Outlaws) on Nov 18, 2009 23:48:34 GMT -6
I don't think anyone thought it would be an issue when we first started Chris. But since then: 1 - I screwed myself in the draft and in a couple of trades, so my team isn't the most competitive. 2 - Gregg blew up his team 3 - Bulls isn't a powerhouse either If I was a top scoring team with a MUCH more difficult schedule than an equally productive team... I wouldn't like it either. I don't think anyone is blaming you or Brad for it. It's not your fault. But the current schedule format plays a huge role in deciding who makes the playoffs and who doesn't. Chris, the fact that you are 4-6 and I'm 3-7 is beyond me. I started Mike Bell and Louis Rankin for RBs two weeks ago. All valid points. I don't play Chris or James. How screwed would I be if I did? LOL. In all seriousness, perhaps we can keep the same format but somehow shuffle the schedule so that its different from year to year. I think, at a minimum we should play each team in the league once per year and I don't know why ESPN doesn't make that happen. Second, I think Brad and Chris do a great job with this league and I can appreciate there reluctance to change. I don't think the current schedule favors anyone (but me)....LOL. Two divisions is just fine. A simpler solution would be to shuffle the divisions every year and eliminate the ESPN factor all together. We could use the draft order generator right before we do our rookie/FA draft. Odds go in one division and evens go in the other. This would keep the same format, but introduce some desired change. What do you all think about this idea?? |
|
