Schedule Opponents vs. All-Play

bobsgym13 · Post by **bobsgym13** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:42 am

Just like the luck debate or the deadbeat owner debate, many of us tend to pick a side and fail to give our 'opponent' any validity to their argument - I'm oftentimes just as guilty as the next guy.

I have seen All-Play argued for and I get why and think that any time you can decrease the luck factor without killing the fun I am for it.

All-Play obviously reduces the luck factor but not as much as we give it credit for.

The 2000 election was won without winning the popular vote. Many commented on how ridiculous it was to win though not getting the most votes. The problem is that everyone knew the rules and many decisions were made that would not have been made had the winner been the 'popular' choice.

Bush knew that New York and California were not winnable so few resources were used to pick up votes in those highly populated states. Had raw votes been the goal, millions of potential votes could have been mined in those states instead of tens of thousands in New Hampshire.

In tennis, you can win a match 7-6, 0-6, 7-6 despite losing the game total 18-14. It may seem unfair, but everyone seems to be okay with it. Why? Because they all know the rules going in. There were complaints in my political example because - it's political.

Okay, here is my point:

Sometimes strategic decisions are made, based on scheduled opponents that would not be made in All-Play.

Players with a low standard deviation to their scoring (consistently near their average) are more desirable against a weaker opponent. Doing this may result in sacrificing a few total points for a better chance for victory. The reverse is true for the weaker team.

- Deciding between a big play receiver and a possession receiver.
- Playing Kevin Faulk Sunday or taking a chance on a stud on Monday night that's a GTD.

I will grant its proponents that All-Play reduces the luck factor and I am simply wanting some of you to acknowledge that it would eliminate some strategic decisions to switch to All-Play.

Bob

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:12 am

All-play= fairest
H2H= luck and keeps the participation up
Victory Points= fair compromise

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:28 am

I'll add that I see NO WAY any of these options happen in this event. H2H is here to stay.

[ October 02, 2009, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Just Russ ]

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:39 am

Most have us have probably benefitted and lost due to H2H over the years but the one thing it does, is make every week interesting. The total points aspect was a nice add to cover from that team that just caught the schedule right but if you start to venture towards an all points, or all play format I really feel it takes a bit of the excitement out of the week to week battle for most folks. Guess ya wouldn't have to worry about dead teams anymore though...

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:45 am

Originally posted by BONGIZMO:
Most have us have probably benefitted and lost due to H2H over the years but the one thing it does, is make every week interesting. The total points aspect was a nice add to cover from that team that just caught the schedule right but if you start to venture towards an all points, or all play format I really feel it takes a bit of the excitement out of the week to week battle for most folks. Guess ya wouldn't have to worry about dead teams anymore though... Victory points combines the fun of all play with the common sense of total team strength IMO.

bobsgym13 · Post by **bobsgym13** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:20 am

Originally posted by Just Russ:
All-play= fairest
H2H= luck and keeps the participation up
Victory Points= fair compromise Is it fair that in tennis you can win 7-6, 0-6, 7-6 even though you lost more games than your opponent? I say Yes.

I would argue that all systems are 100% 'fair' if the rules are known and applied.

Fairness has nothing to do with any of this. It is only a matter of how much luck we want to allow.

Bob

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:07 am

Fairness is a huge part of the equation for me. I want a system that rewards skill and preparation over luck.

H2H rewards luck at a far greater proportion to skill IMO.

While the rules are known beforehand, that doesn't necessarily mean they're in the best interest of this game predicated on skill.

If we want to make the rule that whomever is drawn out of the hat first, wins. We could do that to and it is "fair". It also takes skill out of the equation.

Said my peace and going back to my corner.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:12 am

When I say "fairness", I mean what is the fairest mix between luck and skill. IMO that is probably Victory Points.

But again, VP will not happen here so the point is moot.

bobsgym13 · Post by **bobsgym13** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:15 am

"Fairness is a huge part of the equation for me."

"I want a system that rewards skill and preparation over luck."

The second line is all that matters. To be fair is to be impartial and honest and has nothing to do with this debate.

It's like saying that chess is more fair than checkers. Somebody please explain how checkers is not as 'fair'.

I will beat this dead horse ... to death.

Bob

[ October 02, 2009, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Bob Squad ]