What do you need Monday night?

[kjduke]

Billy, I agree completely that this contest does the best job rewarding regular seasons. In general, my philosophy is I'm going to agree with the system that takes in the largest pool of data to determine the champion.

You're contradicting yourself.

How so? (Just curious, not trying to instigate). Isn't a 13 week sample size a larger pool of data to eliminate teams than a 3 week playoff race?

See above comment.

[chriseibl]

I'm not arguing scoring more points earlier rather than later is more important. I'm arguing that taking points over a larger sample size (13 weeks) is more reflective of how good a team is than taking a team's score over a smaller sample size (3 weeks). Unless you're proposing that teams carry in their total cumulative score from 13 weeks into the playoffs so that you're using 16 weeks of data to determine a champion. That wouldn't bother me... of course... that almost eliminates the playoff system entirely.

Chris, you are arguing that whether you know it or not ... because by saying you don't want the 4th of 5th highest-scoring team after 13 weeks to be able to "get hot" and beat you in the playoffs, you are making a case for eliminating a team from contention that could very well out-score you over the full 16. That is the equal of saying that scoring during those early weeks is more indicative of who is "deserving".

Perhaps I read your proposal wrong. I wouldn't mind if I was outscored over the full 16 weeks and it was the full 16 weeks determining the championship. In that case, add as many "playoff" teams as you want. I'm just worried about the 3 week sprint becoming far more important than the 13 week regular season. The 3 weeks should not be more important than the regular season.

I have no issues with taking all 16 weeks of data and giving every team a chance to have the best cumulative score.

[chriseibl]

I don't see how it contradicts.

The NFFC rewards regular seasons by having a small group of playoff teams. Having a small group of playoff teams means that the larger 13 week pool of data becomes more important than the smaller 3 week pool of data.

The only way to reward larger sample sizes more would be to take cumulative points weeks 1-16.

[kjduke]

I don't see how it contradicts.

The NFFC rewards regular seasons by having a small group of playoff teams. Having a small group of playoff teams means that the larger 13 week pool of data becomes more important than the smaller 3 week pool of data.

The only way to reward larger sample sizes more would be to take cumulative points weeks 1-16.

Chris, this comes down to a balance between deserving and the fun in a competition. I agree a full 16 weeks is most fair, but playoffs are exciting. So, going on the assumption we need playoffs ...

My point is that those #3-4 seeds are often times close to seeds #5-6 after 13 weeks - one week can easily be a 50-pt swing, so why knock out a #5-6 who may be just a few points away when they could easily outscore the #4 seed in another week. By allowing 6 teams in, but eliminating one of the #3-6 seeds in each of first 2 playoff weeks you are going to end up closer to having the best teams win, while keeping the excitement of a playoff.

[chriseibl]

I don't see how it contradicts.

The NFFC rewards regular seasons by having a small group of playoff teams. Having a small group of playoff teams means that the larger 13 week pool of data becomes more important than the smaller 3 week pool of data.

The only way to reward larger sample sizes more would be to take cumulative points weeks 1-16.

Chris, this comes down to a balance between deserving and the fun in a competition. I agree a full 16 weeks is most fair, but playoffs are exciting. So, going on the assumption we need playoffs ...

My point is that those #3-4 seeds are often times close to seeds #5-6 after 13 weeks - one week can easily be a 50-pt swing, so why knock out a #5-6 who may be just a few points away when they could easily outscore the #4 seed in another week. By allowing 6 teams in, but eliminating one each of the #3-6 seeds in each of first 2 playoff weeks you are going to end up closer to having the best teams win, while keeping the excitement of a playoff.

If you do that though, the 1st or 2nd place team still loses any advantage over the 3rd-6th place team because you're giving 5 teams the opportunity to outscore them in a 3 week sprint and placing the vast majority of the season's importance on those 3 weeks.

I think in order for your proposal to achieve the desired effect of still giving the 1st or 2nd place teams and advantage, there would almost have to be a wildcard round in advance of the playoffs. Otherwise, the 1st place team still has to outscore 5 teams over 3 weeks, some of which had far worse regular seasons.

Eliminating a team each week doesnt give the 1st or 2nd place team an advantage over 3rd-6th because you're just eliminating the poorest performing team (i.e. one that wasn't going to be a threat anyways). There would be no difference between eliminating the poorest performing team of all the 1st through 6th place teams because if a 1st place team has the very worst week, it's highly unlikely they would win anyways.

[kjduke]

Correct, so you're allowing the two most deserving teams to advance to the final week along with the top 2 seeds.

I don't understand why you see eliminating the weakest lower seeds after weeks 14 and 15 as less fair than eliminating potentially better teams 2 weeks earlier.

[CALI CARTEL]

Correct, so you're allowing the two most deserving teams to advance to the final week along with the top 2 seeds.

I don't understand why you see eliminating the weakest lower seeds after weeks 14 and 15 as less fair than eliminating potentially better teams 2 weeks earlier.

I can understand this type of set for the stand alone Diamond League, since there is no overall playoff. But there's no way this format can fly in the smaller leagues, there's just too remote of a chance to cash Overall Prizes for those top League teams to take away their League Prizes and open it up to the 3rd/4th/5th/6th place teams. You have to reward the top teams after Week 13, then the Overall is a bonus.

[chriseibl]

Correct, so you're allowing the two most deserving teams to advance to the final week along with the top 2 seeds.

I don't understand why you see eliminating the weakest lower seeds after weeks 14 and 15 as less fair than eliminating potentially better teams 2 weeks earlier.

Your definition of "better" team under the above scenario is strictly a team that performed better over weeks 14 and 15 instead of a team who performed better for 13 weeks (a much larger and more relevant sample size). Certainly you could see how one could disagree with that definition.

Under your scenario, there is really zero benefit to being a 1st or 2nd seed versus a 5th or 6th seed going into the 3 week sprint because ultimately, you need to outscore 5 other teams to win (which over just a 3 week sample size, does NOT mean you were the best team). Just like the 6th place team does.

At least with a head 2 head (which I'm not a fan of) the first or second place team gets some advantage by getting a bye and having one less week of competition. Your scenario gives them zero advantage because they're going against not the winner of a game between lower seeds... but rather you're forced to go up against their "best ball".

[kjduke]

Correct, so you're allowing the two most deserving teams to advance to the final week along with the top 2 seeds.

I don't understand why you see eliminating the weakest lower seeds after weeks 14 and 15 as less fair than eliminating potentially better teams 2 weeks earlier.

I can understand this type of set for the stand alone Diamond League, since there is no overall playoff. But there's no way this format can fly in the smaller leagues, there's just too remote of a chance to cash Overall Prizes for those top League teams to take away their League Prizes and open it up to the 3rd/4th/5th/6th place teams. You have to reward the top teams after Week 13, then the Overall is a bonus.

You could keep a playoff system intact for weeks 14-16, but there's no reason you couldn't award the regular season prize money based on 16 weeks rather than 13.

[kjduke]

Correct, so you're allowing the two most deserving teams to advance to the final week along with the top 2 seeds.

I don't understand why you see eliminating the weakest lower seeds after weeks 14 and 15 as less fair than eliminating potentially better teams 2 weeks earlier.

Your definition of "better" team under the above scenario is strictly a team that performed better over weeks 14 and 15 instead of a team who performed better for 13 weeks (a much larger and more relevant sample size). Certainly you could see how one could disagree with that definition.

Under your scenario, there is really zero benefit to being a 1st or 2nd seed versus a 5th or 6th seed going into the 3 week sprint because ultimately, you need to outscore 5 other teams to win (which over just a 3 week sample size, does NOT mean you were the best team). Just like the 6th place team does.

At least with a head 2 head (which I'm not a fan of) the first or second place team gets some advantage by getting a bye and having one less week of competition. Your scenario gives them zero advantage because they're going against not the winner of a game between lower seeds... but rather you're forced to go up against their "best ball".

If teams carry their regular season avg into the playoffs that is one edge, and not being subject to elimination in those first 2 weeks is another - those combined are a much bigger edge IMO than a 1-week bye in a h2h set-up.

Let me use the Diamond as an example - the #4 seed scored 1830, the #5 and #6 scored 1825 and 1807. With one more week of play, either of those lower seeds could pass the #4 in scoring for the entire season. And if that happens, who is getting screwed more - the #4 who had a weak playoff team and thus gets eliminated quickly under my proposal, or a stronger team that would've been a #5 or #6 seed who thus didn't get a chance to compete under the current structure?