|
|
Post by Brad (Texas Hellfire) on Apr 11, 2010 9:10:55 GMT -6
You hit the nail on the head Bill. 3 division champs and a true wild card because everyone will have played everyone else at least once. The team with the best record that doesn't win a division will make the playoffs and play the team with the best record in the league. We would have to make a decision about division foes in the first round of the playoffs. We could do it like baseball does. Or whatever. If we still want 6 teams to make the playoffs, and play everyone at least once (like we should) we could have a doubleheader during week 2 or 3 when there are no bye weeks, most players are healthy, and flukey week 1 (and sometimes week 2) outcomes are avoided for double trouble. I have never played double headers, but I am down to try it out. I am also cool with just the 3 division winners and 1 wildcard format, but either way we will be playing every team each year. I also think it is a good idea to reorganize the divisions every year or every 2 years to maintain parity. What if all four teams in one division ends up sucking ass in a few years? We could end up with a division winner posting like a 5-9 or 6-8 record and that would be stupid, especially if only 4 teams make the playoffs. We could set a caveat that a division shuffle is possible if a single division champ enters the playoffs with a .500 or below record for two years in a row and the shuffle passed by a majority vote of the league. It would trigger another process like the one we just implemented with two year averages and all of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris (RI Irish) on Apr 11, 2010 9:11:37 GMT -6
I want at least 5 teams to make the playoffs. It doesn't make sense to me why the team with the best record would get then get the 6th team in points in its division. To me the best team should then get the best team in the second tier,third tier and fourth tier. The way I had it set up each team was 3 spots apart from each other: 1,4,7,10 2,5,8,11 3,6,9,12 Isn't this way a little more fair? Teams are closer to each other as far as points go then 1 and 6. To me that is a big advantage for the team 1 in points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gregg(Seal Fuckers) on Apr 11, 2010 10:59:51 GMT -6
what about using soccer divison to everything, and giving each divison different amount of playoff spots? Then division would be changing constantly to even it out, with the most consistent teams not being ignored, with to few playoff spots
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Fog City Force) on Apr 11, 2010 11:04:20 GMT -6
Or hockey, we could do a "shoot out" at the end..
|
|
|
|
Post by Gregg(Seal Fuckers) on Apr 11, 2010 11:12:16 GMT -6
i pick the 50 cal
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad (Texas Hellfire) on Apr 11, 2010 12:48:07 GMT -6
I want at least 5 teams to make the playoffs. It doesn't make sense to me why the team with the best record would get then get the 6th team in points in its division. To me the best team should then get the best team in the second tier,third tier and fourth tier. The way I had it set up each team was 3 spots apart from each other: 1,4,7,10 2,5,8,11 3,6,9,12 Isn't this way a little more fair? Teams are closer to each other as far as points go then 1 and 6. To me that is a big advantage for the team 1 in points. Using this method you get a tough division, a medium division and a weak division. Think of splitting the league into 4 tiers via points. Your method takes the top team from each tier and puts them in one division, then the second team and so on. The method I used is the same one used to keep things even in everything from fantasy re-draft to the NCAA basketball tourney. It will keep the total number of points scored by each division very close in the long run. I haven't specifically done the math but I know it bears me out. A 5-team playoff makes very little sense (either a single bye or taking a whole fantasy week to have a "play-in game") but in any case more than 2 weeks for fantasy playoffs. So by advocating that you are advocating playing a double header in week 2 or 3 or skipping a single team every year. I am curious why the insistence on 5 or more teams in the playoffs? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris (RI Irish) on Apr 11, 2010 13:04:13 GMT -6
right now I am sorry for even bringing up the 3 divisions. you guys figure it out and let me know what you decide. I had no idea it was going to be this complicated  . I am now to the point where I think we should just have a random draw to decide things. |
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Fog City Force) on Apr 11, 2010 13:18:19 GMT -6
I want at least 5 teams to make the playoffs. It doesn't make sense to me why the team with the best record would get then get the 6th team in points in its division. To me the best team should then get the best team in the second tier,third tier and fourth tier. The way I had it set up each team was 3 spots apart from each other: 1,4,7,10 2,5,8,11 3,6,9,12 Isn't this way a little more fair? Teams are closer to each other as far as points go then 1 and 6. To me that is a big advantage for the team 1 in points. Using this method you get a tough division, a medium division and a weak division. Think of splitting the league into 4 tiers via points. Your method takes the top team from each tier and puts them in one division, then the second team and so on. The method I used is the same one used to keep things even in everything from fantasy re-draft to the NCAA basketball tourney. It will keep the total number of points scored by each division very close in the long run. I haven't specifically done the math but I know it bears me out. A 5-team playoff makes very little sense (either a single bye or taking a whole fantasy week to have a "play-in game") but in any case more than 2 weeks for fantasy playoffs. So by advocating that you are advocating playing a double header in week 2 or 3 or skipping a single team every year. I am curious why the insistence on 5 or more teams in the playoffs? I agree the playoffs starting in week # 14 allows us to play everyone with no double headers, that was my whole point is it is going to be difficult to set the schedules if you are only playing 7 out of 8 teams outside the division. I tend to agree with the way Brad has set it up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2010 16:57:02 GMT -6
Apologies for the delay. I was out of town for the last 5 days to go to a funeral. No internet, sketchy wireless coverage. I'll keep this short since I haven't finished unpacking yet... My preference is definitely with the 3 divisions idea. Whether there's 4 playoff teams or 6, I'm fine with either. I think I'd prefer 6 teams though. I don't know how a playoff bracket with 5 teams would work. I also like the idea of shuffling the divisions every 2 years. I don't know if it's necessary to do it every year, and we might not even need a "trigger event". If we just did it every 2 years no matter what and used the same formula that was used to do it this time, the divisions would just flow with the league. Using total points over a 2 year period would keep it both fresh and fair IMO. For what it's worth, this would be a good idea to use in the GEDL too.  Finally, I still don't like the idea of double headers. I won't go on and on about it. All I'll say is I've played in a couple of leagues with double headers before, and I didn't like it. Nevermind the injury factor, but since it always sucks when a fluke strikes against your team... it sucks even more when it happens twice in one week. |
|
|
|
Post by Gregg(Seal Fuckers) on Apr 11, 2010 17:34:19 GMT -6
i am of the idea if we rotate it every 2 years, then lets just go with something and stick with it, brads or chris's is fine. Just vote on the method to come up with the divisions, and we stick to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris (RI Irish) on Apr 11, 2010 18:39:28 GMT -6
In a money league I run,we keep the division winners in there same division and redraft everyone else. I don't see the sense in changing divisions every 2 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2010 21:17:25 GMT -6
In a money league I run,we keep the division winners in there same division and redraft everyone else. I don't see the sense in changing divisions every 2 years. So you shuffle the divisions every year? Except for the division winners right? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris (RI Irish) on Apr 11, 2010 21:18:45 GMT -6
Yes sir.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2010 21:49:24 GMT -6
In a money league I run,we keep the division winners in there same division and redraft everyone else. I don't see the sense in changing divisions every 2 years. I'm quoting your post again because I'm confused. Or maybe just really tired. =P You don't see the sense in shuffling the divisions every 2 years in this league, but you shuffle them every year ( albeit with a different approach ) in your money league. Not trying to be difficult, just curious to know why you don't think we should shuffle divisions in this league. Or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris (RI Irish) on Apr 11, 2010 21:51:58 GMT -6
I have no problem with shuffling the divisions. I was trying to say that I didn't understand why shuffle every 2 years. If we are going to shuffle,just do it every year.
|
|
. I am now to the point where I think we should just have a random draw to decide things.