Playoff System Protest

[renman]

Originally posted by Route C:
[QUOTE]Hey gambler

My name is Jeff Clampitt. I think I have a pretty good rep around here so I'll try to help you out a bit.
I've been around since year one and I can tell you we've experienced a good deal of change...most of which came from suggestions on these boards.
I don't know if I would enjoy your format but I might give it a go on a smaller sample.

Greg has always been compliant with our desires to start private leagues and run them as through the NFFC.

How about initiating a satellite league with a $125 price point to try out your format. It would give us a chance to play it out and decide if we like the "tweek".

I'll commit to being your 1st entrant if you want to get it going.

Don't misunderstand the MB community we have here. Sure it's a little matter of fact but we've probably already discussed in previous years some topics the incoming crowd want to open up again.

Sometimes it's hard to re-hash old stuff but we really are glad you chose this event and I personally hope you play here for years to come. I think the bottom line is everyone has a voice here and if we want to grow we need to respect each persons ideas.

BTW....my own reasons for not gravitating toward your idea is I personally like total points as a measuring stick for the entire season but I will try your format if you set it up.

Welcome to the NFFC This is one of the best posts I have seen on this forum in a long time. This is the kind of culture we need to have here. One that fosters good dialogue that can result in great ideas. I too have been with the NFFC since year one and have seen all kinds of changes and tweeks. Some of which were born or fueled by discussion here on this forum.

I happen to be with Route C in liking the format we have now. I say this even though this format has stung me many times. Even this year I am alone in second place in my league and have no chance of earning a dollar due to a couple really low scoring point weeks earlier in the season that have me behind in total points.

I too am open to an idea like yours that might open up some opportunities for a playoff system as long as the top scoring teams get advantages or get paid with the league prizes. Maybe you pay 1st, 2nd and 3rd the way we do now, but allow a head to head playoff that runs simultaneously with the 3 week total points sprint that could let a different team into the championship playoffs that is peaking at the end of the year. But do this without messing up the league prizes earned via season long excellence.

There is no reason why ideas (good or bad) can't be thrown up at the wall here.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by fflmaster:
I think a very good idea was born in this thread.

Moving the all play to weeks 12 and 13 is a very good idea.

This should help in the terms of dead beat owners and those who want to throw a game.

Something I think Tom and greg should consider. We did have the All Play in Weeks 12 and 13 during the first year of the Primetime and owners didn't like it when all was said and done. Why? Because it made it very difficult for teams to catch the front-runners in h2h record when all they had to do was finish in the top half of their league in points during Weeks 12 and 13. So we moved All Play to Weeks 1 and 2 when everyone had healthy players and no one was coming off bye weeks, etc. I think the All Play has worked just fine in Weeks 1 and 2.

But I'm open to hear what others think on this subject.

[thegambler]

Originally posted by BillyWaz:
You were one of the people who were constantly on the WCOFF boards basically telling people they were completely wrong and that they should BELIEVE Dustin. Well you obviously were wrong about that, and I am guessing your playoff system would not even be close to the majority if polled here.

. see i was going to take a break from this thread until i saw this awesome comment. not exactly sure what me believing dustin and the wcoff would pay has anything to do with this converstaion but since you brought it up i will address it.

what can i say the guy is a good con man. he is a great used car salesmen on the phone. he duped me and several hundred people into thinking he and the wcoff were going to work things out and pay this year. yep he got me.....and several hundred other people.

lets see, i talked to him on the phone a couple of times, either PM'ed or emailed him back and forth several times and he was in my home league the last two years. yeah i can't understand why i thought he was truthfull. by the way i am still owed money from the wcoff.

not really sure what this has to do with my thoughts on a playoff....but thanks for chimming in with another great post.

don't worry i won't give any more advice or opinions on any kind of changes here. just stick with posting about tebow.

[ November 17, 2011, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: thegambler ]

[fflmaster]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by fflmaster:
I think a very good idea was born in this thread.

Moving the all play to weeks 12 and 13 is a very good idea.

This should help in the terms of dead beat owners and those who want to throw a game.

Something I think Tom and greg should consider. We did have the All Play in Weeks 12 and 13 during the first year of the Primetime and owners didn't like it when all was said and done. Why? Because it made it very difficult for teams to catch the front-runners in h2h record when all they had to do was finish in the top half of their league in points during Weeks 12 and 13. So we moved All Play to Weeks 1 and 2 when everyone had healthy players and no one was coming off bye weeks, etc. I think the All Play has worked just fine in Weeks 1 and 2.

But I'm open to hear what others think on this subject. [/QUOTE]sorry, I didn't know originally the all play was week 12 and 13.

I thought since someone suggested the idea and no one said anything it was a good idea.

I hear what your saying about the injuries and trying to catch the leader in H2H.

[Jersey Dawg]

Personally, I'm open to an 11 week season with no "all play" weeks for the 12 team format. If you are going to make it different as compared to the 14 team Classic, then why not be open to this change.

Generally, you will find situations in many leagues where the top 3-4 teams are closely bunched in record and points and then a dropoff to the next group. In cases like that, there is not that much of a difference between the best and the 4th best.

In my Primetime league right now, after 10 weeks, 34 points separate the highest and 4th highest scoring teams. I'm sitting 2nd in points and can finish 2nd in points and not make the playoffs if the team with the 3rd most points earns best record (currently he is tied with another team for best record).

So... I would be open to a 4 team playoff. Maybe $1K each for best record and most points after week 11 and then a playoff for the rest of the prize money.

Just my 2 cents.

Pete

[BillyWaz]

Originally posted by thegambler:
quote:Originally posted by BillyWaz:
You were one of the people who were constantly on the WCOFF boards basically telling people they were completely wrong and that they should BELIEVE Dustin. Well you obviously were wrong about that, and I am guessing your playoff system would not even be close to the majority if polled here.

. see i was going to take a break from this thread until i saw this awesome comment. not exactly sure what me believing dustin and the wcoff would pay has anything to do with this converstaion but since you brought it up i will address it.

what can i say the guy is a good con man. he is a great used car salesmen on the phone. he duped me and several hundred people into thinking he and the wcoff were going to work things out and pay this year. yep he got me.....and several hundred other people.

lets see, i talked to him on the phone a couple of times, either PM'ed or emailed him back and forth several times and he was in my home league the last two years. yeah i can't understand why i thought he was truthfull. by the way i am still owed money from the wcoff.

not really sure what this has to do with my thoughts on a playoff....but thanks for chimming in with another great post.

don't worry i won't give any more advice or opinions on any kind of changes here. just stick with posting about tebow. [/QUOTE]The point is simple.....you were coming off like everyone here was wrong not to see your opinion on a playoff system. Basically the same way you were telling everyone they were wrong about Dustin.

You have a strong personality (which is fine), but it doesn't mean you are always right.

No hard feelings.

[TR]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by fflmaster:
I think a very good idea was born in this thread.

Moving the all play to weeks 12 and 13 is a very good idea.

This should help in the terms of dead beat owners and those who want to throw a game.

Something I think Tom and greg should consider. We did have the All Play in Weeks 12 and 13 during the first year of the Primetime and owners didn't like it when all was said and done. Why? Because it made it very difficult for teams to catch the front-runners in h2h record when all they had to do was finish in the top half of their league in points during Weeks 12 and 13. So we moved All Play to Weeks 1 and 2 when everyone had healthy players and no one was coming off bye weeks, etc. I think the All Play has worked just fine in Weeks 1 and 2.

But I'm open to hear what others think on this subject. [/QUOTE]I would like the All Play in week 12 and 13 if the nffc was able to implement simple program to replace players on bye weeks and/or OUT with player at same position on that team's bench with highest scoring average or something along those lines, so that the abandoned teams could still have chance to finish in top 6

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by TR:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by fflmaster:
I think a very good idea was born in this thread.

Moving the all play to weeks 12 and 13 is a very good idea.

This should help in the terms of dead beat owners and those who want to throw a game.

Something I think Tom and greg should consider. We did have the All Play in Weeks 12 and 13 during the first year of the Primetime and owners didn't like it when all was said and done. Why? Because it made it very difficult for teams to catch the front-runners in h2h record when all they had to do was finish in the top half of their league in points during Weeks 12 and 13. So we moved All Play to Weeks 1 and 2 when everyone had healthy players and no one was coming off bye weeks, etc. I think the All Play has worked just fine in Weeks 1 and 2.

But I'm open to hear what others think on this subject. [/QUOTE]I would like the All Play in week 12 and 13 if the nffc was able to implement simple program to replace players on bye weeks and/or OUT with player at same position on that team's bench with highest scoring average or something along those lines, so that the abandoned teams could still have chance to finish in top 6 [/QUOTE]Think about the legal consequences of a game operator getting involved with setting lineups for teams throughout the season. If we created a program where the NFFC took out an OUT player and inserted someone from their bench there can be major consequences many ways. Let's say our program started a back from that team's reserve squad who failed to score while not starting Kevin Smith, for instance. What consequences would it have on the NFFC? Or let's say we put in Kevin Smith and it cost someone a win from this "uninterested" owner. Is that ideal that the NFFC luckily put in the right player?

It's not our place to set lineups for folks. I understand that it's no fun when owners give up and it could cost teams a win or a loss, but it happens. That's why we reward total points more than h2h records. Maybe there is a better solution that I'm not thinking about, but asking the government (in this case the NFFC) to solve all of our problems isn't always the best solution. I think the Super Committee just proved that. And legally, how does a game operator get involved with setting hundreds of team lineups each week without suffering some type of conflict?? I just don't see it as our place to set lineups for teams in the NFFC or the NFBC.

All Play in Weeks 1 and 2 seems to have worked better than in Weeks 12 and 13. But I'm open to discussion.

[TR]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by TR:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by fflmaster:
I think a very good idea was born in this thread.

Moving the all play to weeks 12 and 13 is a very good idea.

This should help in the terms of dead beat owners and those who want to throw a game.

Something I think Tom and greg should consider. We did have the All Play in Weeks 12 and 13 during the first year of the Primetime and owners didn't like it when all was said and done. Why? Because it made it very difficult for teams to catch the front-runners in h2h record when all they had to do was finish in the top half of their league in points during Weeks 12 and 13. So we moved All Play to Weeks 1 and 2 when everyone had healthy players and no one was coming off bye weeks, etc. I think the All Play has worked just fine in Weeks 1 and 2.

But I'm open to hear what others think on this subject. [/QUOTE]I would like the All Play in week 12 and 13 if the nffc was able to implement simple program to replace players on bye weeks and/or OUT with player at same position on that team's bench with highest scoring average or something along those lines, so that the abandoned teams could still have chance to finish in top 6 [/QUOTE]Think about the legal consequences of a game operator getting involved with setting lineups for teams throughout the season. If we created a program where the NFFC took out an OUT player and inserted someone from their bench there can be major consequences many ways. Let's say our program started a back from that team's reserve squad who failed to score while not starting Kevin Smith, for instance. What consequences would it have on the NFFC? Or let's say we put in Kevin Smith and it cost someone a win from this "uninterested" owner. Is that ideal that the NFFC luckily put in the right player?

It's not our place to set lineups for folks. I understand that it's no fun when owners give up and it could cost teams a win or a loss, but it happens. That's why we reward total points more than h2h records. Maybe there is a better solution that I'm not thinking about, but asking the government (in this case the NFFC) to solve all of our problems isn't always the best solution. I think the Super Committee just proved that. And legally, how does a game operator get involved with setting hundreds of team lineups each week without suffering some type of conflict?? I just don't see it as our place to set lineups for teams in the NFFC or the NFBC.

All Play in Weeks 1 and 2 seems to have worked better than in Weeks 12 and 13. But I'm open to discussion. [/QUOTE]Thought I saw somebody say they had something like this in WCOFF or 1 of the other contests with no problems in earlier thread. I don't see it being a conflict if just inserting active player for somebody on bye...could even compromise and just do it the last month or so. As far as the Kevin Smith example goes...as long as it was a universal rule using player with highest average or total pts from bench then it wouldn't be any more of a consequence than the majority of us who left Kevin Smith on bench by choice. I could totally understand what u're saying if the game operators were having to personally make each bye week substitution...but that wouldn't be the case

[joetreff]

In some instances losing a game can make you more money than winning it.
It's pretty tough for a game operator to make lineup changes when losing your game can be beneficial.