A Contrarian's View (very long)

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:44 pm

Originally posted by Route C:
Maybe you should consider being a little more open minded. It seems you just set yourself up by being too rigid. I respect your opinion but as I've seen in previous threads you seem to be closed minded to any ideas that you're not familiar with. If you put some time into at least considering an idea, you might find that you have something valuable to add to it.RC, the H2H vs other variations argument is an old one and I have heard the pros & cons of both sides many a time. This was a heated debate on the WCOFF boards a year or two ago. I am of the belief that Luck and certain elements of luck (random schedule, etc) are a major and an IMPORTANT part of our hobby. For this reason I do not believe that attempting to completely eliminate Luck and thus random H2H is imperative in determining the "True" champion in a high stakes contest. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize Luck and it's bearing on the outcome of a league, but I believe eliminating the basic H2H element to achieve this goal is too high of a price to pay. I do think that there are certain ways to improve H2H, but I would like to see the basic random aspect of this system left untouched.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 7:40 pm

Originally posted by Todd Zola:
My response to those directing questions to me...

Kidding aside, the point about the meshing of all the individual leagues into a playoff league is a good one. That indeed differentiates it from the normal local or private league. Upon initial consideration though, it does not sway me from my opinion as presented.
Fair enough, Todd. I guess my disclosure would involve 'played too many games and too many leagues, seeking to profit from my experience' - realistically, if anyone needs to pony up $1250 to have fun playing fantasy football then they're missing a lot of opportunity. I'm in this to make some cash with my hobby... pure and simple. I don't need to win it, but if I had the best team and the most points for the year and someone else won it because they drew a more favorable schedule I would be pretty ticked off.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree - there's a certain purity aspect that is appealing to 'what we're all used to' and yet I've simply tried to put myself in different shoes. "Won it all, but had the 7th best team" feels good because of the cash involved but also cheap in a certain way.

Any randomized rules are 'fair enough' from a certain perspective as long as they affect each person the same way going in. The thing I struggle with is - does it HAVE to be that way or is there some way to improve?

Then there's the whole issue of what 'improve' would mean in this context... slippery slope we've been running on for a while here

Dave

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:33 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by UFS:
If you get two unlucky ones in-a-row, then you're due for two lucky ones in-a-row. Of all of the luck evens out over time. So if I had 2 unlucky years in-a-row, I would be chomping at the bit year 3.
sorry "yearly luck" is mutually exclusive. i guess you believe in voodoo, love spells, wicca spells, horoscopes, amulets. [/QUOTE]None of the above. Just Murphy's Law of Fantasy Sports.

[ December 05, 2004, 02:34 AM: Message edited by: UFS ]

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:35 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
Can we get some other folks involved? Thanks.

Camp 1: Luck is present. Teams can/do get a random beatdown due SOLEY to random H2H schedules. This is NOT a problem. It is fate. End result: Beatdowns every year to random owners. Hopefully you're not the unlucky SOB who gets a beatdown 2 years in a row. If you are, deal with it. Just make sure you pony up the $2,500 or whatever the fees are for two years.

Camp 2: Luck is present. Teams can/do get a random beatdown due SOLEY to random H2H schedules. This is a problem. It can be changed. End result: Let the skill owners win out over the lucky owners.

Make-shift camp rosters:

Camp 1:
Zola
Renman
UFS
Nag

Camp 2:
Route C
Gekko
Dyv
KJ Duke How can I be in Camp 1??? Nothing is SOLEY...lol

lichtman · Post by **lichtman** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:11 am

I'm in camp 2. Who's bringing the marshmallows?

Route Collectors · Post by **Route Collectors** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:39 am

Originally posted by Nag':
quote:Originally posted by Route C:
Maybe you should consider being a little more open minded. It seems you just set yourself up by being too rigid. I respect your opinion but as I've seen in previous threads you seem to be closed minded to any ideas that you're not familiar with. If you put some time into at least considering an idea, you might find that you have something valuable to add to it.RC,

but I believe eliminating the basic H2H element to achieve this goal is too high of a price to pay. I do think that there are certain ways to improve H2H, but I would like to see the basic random aspect of this system left untouched. [/QUOTE]Nag

On this point we do agree. You say "certain ways to improve H2H". That's the purpose of my 1st post to you. Not to isolate you but to recognize that if you give it some thought, you could possibly bring a GOOD idea to the table.

On another thread we discussed using a 2 play method that would work like this:

1)Traditional H2H vs. weekly opponent = 1 win or 1 loss.

2)Also play against the league in same week (including your weekly opponent to get an odd # of teams -13) If you go 7-6 or better that week against the league, you get 1 win. If 6-7 or worse 1 loss.

Each week you move 2 games in the standings. Either 2 wins, 2losses, or 1-1.

This still keeps the traditional random aspect of H2H, as well as measuring your team against the entire league each week.

Example) If you lose to team A 185-178 You get a loss. (Tough break) If 178 is 2nd high score that week you would go 12-1 against the field which would = 1 win. It always stinks to lose when you score so high, but now you at least get some recognition in the standings for having a good week.

Nag, I'm not trying to be your enemy. I just want the participants of this event to learn to brainstorm together. Too many times people allow themselves to be pulled into a personal war over a thread idea. This IMO just waters down the collective brain power we have to go forward in FF. Gordon, Dave and I don't always agree, but I think we do a decent job of trying to understand the ideas presented before giving an opinion.

With that said, take a look at the idea above. Once you've had time to consider it, let me know your thoughts. Maybe you have a better idea.

Thanks for your time

RC

[ December 05, 2004, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Route C ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:53 am

Originally posted by Nag':
quote:Originally posted by Route C:
Maybe you should consider being a little more open minded. It seems you just set yourself up by being too rigid. I respect your opinion but as I've seen in previous threads you seem to be closed minded to any ideas that you're not familiar with. If you put some time into at least considering an idea, you might find that you have something valuable to add to it.RC, the H2H vs other variations argument is an old one and I have heard the pros & cons of both sides many a time. This was a heated debate on the WCOFF boards a year or two ago. I am of the belief that Luck and certain elements of luck (random schedule, etc) are a major and an IMPORTANT part of our hobby. For this reason I do not believe that attempting to completely eliminate Luck and thus random H2H is imperative in determining the "True" champion in a high stakes contest. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize Luck and it's bearing on the outcome of a league, but I believe eliminating the basic H2H element to achieve this goal is too high of a price to pay. I do think that there are certain ways to improve H2H, but I would like to see the basic random aspect of this system left untouched. [/QUOTE]Nag, you are a smart man.