Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
Want to go off the board for 200?...How about a league average eack week? Total up all the points for all teams, divide by 14. Who ever beats it wins! If you don't, you lose. The might not be 7 winners and losers each week, but it should average out. lol, good idea CC!!
Of course I already suggested that in post #1 of this thread. But I will happily split credit with all 300-600 participants if we could get everyone to agree on that or any other h2h idea that dumps random scheduling luck.
[ December 01, 2004, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
Your silence is deafening. I am officially tossing in the towel on my modified h2h idea. Looks like even the leading-edge "skill" guys don't want to play something new. duke - in my opinion there is (was) no way the nffc would have switched the H2H format for any other. at least not this quick. not that it wouldn't be more efficient, but that it might cause them slower growth. not many owners use your structure. it would be a fundamental change in which the game was played...potentially scaring away customers.
now, we should be focusing our time/energy on supplying "band-aids" to the current system.
Your silence is deafening. I am officially tossing in the towel on my modified h2h idea. Looks like even the leading-edge "skill" guys don't want to play something new. duke - in my opinion there is (was) no way the nffc would have switched the H2H format for any other. at least not this quick. not that it wouldn't be more efficient, but that it might cause them slower growth. not many owners use your structure. it would be a fundamental change in which the game was played...potentially scaring away customers.
now, we should be focusing our time/energy on supplying "band-aids" to the current system.
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
duke - in my opinion there is (was) no way the nffc would have switched the H2H format for any other. at least not this quick. not that it wouldn't be more efficient, but that it might cause them slower growth. not many owners use your structure. it would be a fundamental change in which the game was played...potentially scaring away customers.
now, we should be focusing our time/energy on supplying "band-aids" to the current system. Really, I didn't think it was that fundamental of a change. It is basically h2h, with the twist of playing everyone for a single win or loss each week. Pretty simple. But after the non-response on the MB, I think you're right.
Even though it seems like a subtle difference to me, it obviously isn't viewed that way by the majority. So I guess we've got to pack this one up along with slot bidding and just accept that both of these "ideal" (IMO) solutions that reduce the luck quotient just aren't in the cards yet.
Hopefully in a couple of years when the game is oversubscribed Greg can reconsider solutions to make the game better without the concern of having to put marketing first and game play second.
duke - in my opinion there is (was) no way the nffc would have switched the H2H format for any other. at least not this quick. not that it wouldn't be more efficient, but that it might cause them slower growth. not many owners use your structure. it would be a fundamental change in which the game was played...potentially scaring away customers.
now, we should be focusing our time/energy on supplying "band-aids" to the current system. Really, I didn't think it was that fundamental of a change. It is basically h2h, with the twist of playing everyone for a single win or loss each week. Pretty simple. But after the non-response on the MB, I think you're right.
Even though it seems like a subtle difference to me, it obviously isn't viewed that way by the majority. So I guess we've got to pack this one up along with slot bidding and just accept that both of these "ideal" (IMO) solutions that reduce the luck quotient just aren't in the cards yet.
Hopefully in a couple of years when the game is oversubscribed Greg can reconsider solutions to make the game better without the concern of having to put marketing first and game play second.
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
As for the band-aid fixes ... I agree that the league champ. should run alongside the overall champ. playoff; that is an excellent change for next year.
However, I disagree that points is the ultimate dictator of team quality. I think h2h with equal scheduling is much better. Pts is a decent tie-breaker, but for other considerations I wouldn't give it more weight than it has.
Payouts could be shifted a bit, but IMO I've seen that Greg is very good at balancing the variables and coming up with an appropriate payout structure; so I've stayed out of that debate 'cause I don't think I could anything to his analysis.
However, I disagree that points is the ultimate dictator of team quality. I think h2h with equal scheduling is much better. Pts is a decent tie-breaker, but for other considerations I wouldn't give it more weight than it has.
Payouts could be shifted a bit, but IMO I've seen that Greg is very good at balancing the variables and coming up with an appropriate payout structure; so I've stayed out of that debate 'cause I don't think I could anything to his analysis.
-
dgamblnman
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:00 pm
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
Originally posted by UFS:
quote:Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
To play devils advocate, there are leagues that are more competitive than others. Comparing teams across the board without comparing leagues I think is a little unfair. Should there be a "league index" or some other "normalizing" factor to fairly compare acoss leagues be implemented?
I think taking the weekly average is good, I probably would not be opposed to doubling it, tripling it is way too much. There is already the "weak league" advantage built in. Plus, just like in the real world, in the playoffs, teams are on a level playing field with the exception of football, there are first round byes. Then again, we do not play each other in the playoffs. I would have to think that this would be on GG's inefeecient list. LOL.
For example, I have Manning and Brees. Does that make my league worse? [/QUOTE]I was throwing this out there to see the response, I only got one. But you made a great points, total points are not what they are cracked up to be, how many times has someone started teh wrong player b/c of news or match ups? Does it make his team lesser? It's just like H2H, there is some luck involved.
I have an idea, let's hear what you think......
Instead of having only H2H records and totals points, why not do modified standings? What you say.... rank H2H records and rank total points, add the together to get your modified standings....
EX:
League X
Team Record Points Total
(rank) (rank) rank
10 10-1(1) 1298(5) 6
5 9-2(2) 1498(2) 4
2 9-2(2) 1398(3) 5
1 8-3(4) 1598(1) 5
7 4-7(5) 1311(4) 9
Team 5 would be leading the league while 2 and 1 would be tied for first. Would this be an accurate view on the league? There will still need to be tie breakers, but at least you are taking both records and points into account. Would this make everyone happy. I am curious to see the reactions.
quote:Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
To play devils advocate, there are leagues that are more competitive than others. Comparing teams across the board without comparing leagues I think is a little unfair. Should there be a "league index" or some other "normalizing" factor to fairly compare acoss leagues be implemented?
I think taking the weekly average is good, I probably would not be opposed to doubling it, tripling it is way too much. There is already the "weak league" advantage built in. Plus, just like in the real world, in the playoffs, teams are on a level playing field with the exception of football, there are first round byes. Then again, we do not play each other in the playoffs. I would have to think that this would be on GG's inefeecient list. LOL.
For example, I have Manning and Brees. Does that make my league worse? [/QUOTE]I was throwing this out there to see the response, I only got one. But you made a great points, total points are not what they are cracked up to be, how many times has someone started teh wrong player b/c of news or match ups? Does it make his team lesser? It's just like H2H, there is some luck involved.
I have an idea, let's hear what you think......
Instead of having only H2H records and totals points, why not do modified standings? What you say.... rank H2H records and rank total points, add the together to get your modified standings....
EX:
League X
Team Record Points Total
(rank) (rank) rank
10 10-1(1) 1298(5) 6
5 9-2(2) 1498(2) 4
2 9-2(2) 1398(3) 5
1 8-3(4) 1598(1) 5
7 4-7(5) 1311(4) 9
Team 5 would be leading the league while 2 and 1 would be tied for first. Would this be an accurate view on the league? There will still need to be tie breakers, but at least you are taking both records and points into account. Would this make everyone happy. I am curious to see the reactions.