NFFC Message Boards

Tom & Greg,

I like the format as is, but an all-play schedule would be more fair in terms of getting the best teams to the playoffs and reducing the luck factor.

A modified version (to keep it simple, and be better for bragging rights) could be only one win or loss per week based on a winning record for the week, i.e., a 7-6 or better record for the week would be a win; 6-7 or worse for the week would be a loss.

Since I'm sure you've at least considered a standard all-play format, wonder what your thoughts are on the subject ?

[ November 16, 2004, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Why not use the power rankings? They equally weight won/loss record, total points and an all-play schedule.

This way you still have the thrill of head-to-head play and complaints about scheduling and bad luck would be minimized.

Originally posted by I Cojones:
Why not use the power rankings? They equally weight won/loss record, total points and an all-play schedule.

This way you still have the thrill of head-to-head play and complaints about scheduling and bad luck would be minimized. Power rankings would invoke far too much criticism.

One criticism would be that you'd double-count wins and losses since two components would depend on that.

Second, and more importantly, simplicity is probably better from the standpoit of most players. People like to see if they've won or lost definitively, not calculate or have to wait on a complicated formula. Look at how everyone complains about the BCS for evidence of that. With a multi-factor ranking model the problem is always how much do you weight factor A vs factor B vs factor C, and why. And why do you have factors ABC rather than ABCD, or just AB. Power ranking would be hated just like the BCS.

If we want to keep it simple, why don't mwe just use a modified NFL QB Passer Rating system?

The more I think about this, the more I like it (although it seems I am mostly talking to myself thus far).

A standard all-play takes the fun out of trying to beat a certain team each week, but it is obviously much more fair. By modifying the all-play such that the top 7 teams in the league get a win each week and the bottom 7 get a loss, I think it adds back the "fun" of a head-to-head format while improving upon the fairness and skill factor.

To me, this would go much farther in advancing skill over luck than all of the other debates combined (14 vs 12 tms, 1 flex versus 2 flex, draft slot bidding).

This format sucks because you cant figure out how you are doing. I like tuning in to the Sunday and Monday night games knowing exactly who to root for and against to know what I need for a win.

I suggest a format where all the team get Duce Staley and Hines Ward with their first 2 picks.

The all-play standings format has some merit, but I do like the head-to-head mano-y-mano format myself. I really want to analyze the division winners from all 16 leagues when this season is done and see if the best team did when each league title or at least a majority of them. The format we have where we reward the best h2h record and the most points seems fair, but I'm always looking to make things even more fair.

But at the same time, we're trying to grow the NFFC each year, while providing the toughest and fairest competition. All of the ideas are being noted, even during a Monday Night Football game!!!

Originally posted by skipman:
This format sucks because you cant figure out how you are doing. I like tuning in to the Sunday and Monday night games knowing exactly who to root for and against to know what I need for a win.Which is why I suggested a "modified" all-play. If you score high you are certain to get a win, if you score low you're certain to get a loss. If you're about average, log-in to the NFFC site to see who else is on the bubble and which players they have going.

I agree with you to an extent, but looking for some kind of balance between the most fair format and the most fun format.

Originally posted by skipman:
I suggest a format where all the team get Duce Staley and Hines Ward with their first 2 picks.
I assume thats some kind of joke but I don't really get it because it doesn't make any sense ...

[ October 25, 2004, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
The all-play standings format has some merit, but I do like the head-to-head mano-y-mano format myself. I really want to analyze the division winners from all 16 leagues when this season is done and see if the best team did when each league title or at least a majority of them. The format we have where we reward the best h2h record and the most points seems fair, but I'm always looking to make things even more fair.

But at the same time, we're trying to grow the NFFC each year, while providing the toughest and fairest competition. All of the ideas are being noted, even during a Monday Night Football game!!! Yeah Greg, I like it too but it does seem unjust. My main draft team is a VERY lucky 5-2, while my auction league team (which is much better ) is 2-4 going into this week having lost 4 straight close games. Even worse, my auction team had a 4-2 all-play record against every single team that has beat me.

Personally, I don't like the high-score format because it eliminates both the weekly consistency and head-to-head factors. I'd rather see the top 2 records advance, with at least one of those teams advancing based on a modified all-play record.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the fact that the high-score format eliminates the weekly consistency. Remember, we are rewarding the high point total in each league after 13 WEEKS. So it's not like you can have one or two hot weeks and advance to the playoffs based on your high point total. To finish ahead of 13 other teams in your league with the high point total after 13 weeks is an accomplishment worthy of rewarding.

If we advanced two teams based on h2h records -- using two different formats -- I have a feeling we'd still have a few teams that finished with the high point total in their leagues and somehow didn't make the playoffs. Since the final criteria to winning the $100,000 grand prize is total points, that hardly seems fair.

But good points all around and we'll continue to listen to the suggestions to make this fairer.