Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Gordon, seriously, do you really think a season-long national contest without head-to-head is appealing? Do you really think it would be fun without some type of win or loss feeling at the end of each football week? Would it really be more fun just accumulating points through 16 or 17 weeks? I can understand you coming up with a better mouse trap when it comes to determining the best team in each league and the best league payout format, but do you really believe that abandoning h2h for total points is the best way to go?
I may be an old, hardened man, but there's just something special about winning or losing each week in football, and fantasy football included. I'll await all your good ideas and the "teams that got screwed this year due to h2h" as you say and more in the coming weeks. But h2h is a must in my book and a must in the NFFC. Greg, I agree 100%. Seems to me three things need to be accomplished. From your comments, perhaps you agree with me:
1) Maintain the W/L on a weekly basis.
2) Eliminate the extreme luck factor of scheduling.
3) Keep it marketable (relatively simple).
I've thrown out one idea which accomplishes the first two objectives. Whether it achieves #3 is an unknown - I think it does, but that could be debated.
An even simpler idea would be that each team who beats the league average score for the week gets a win. Of course its less than ideal since more or less than 7 teams could get a W each week. But it would be a much more fair system for getting the right teams into the playoffs.
[ November 29, 2004, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 36423
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:00 pm
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
I would be interested to see if NFFC members think that playing every team in their league each week is more appealing than h2h against one team. I'm not against your idea, but it is left of norm and I'm not sure everyone would like it as much as straight h2h. I'll await the responses and judge accordingly.
Also, is this better than actually playing every team each week and getting 13 wins or losses each week? That really IS the play-all h2h format.
I hear all the complaints about h2h, but statistically it doesn't look like anyone is "lucking" their way to an NFFC title. But let's throw out some thoughts on this thread for all to see. Thanks for starting it.
Also, is this better than actually playing every team each week and getting 13 wins or losses each week? That really IS the play-all h2h format.
I hear all the complaints about h2h, but statistically it doesn't look like anyone is "lucking" their way to an NFFC title. But let's throw out some thoughts on this thread for all to see. Thanks for starting it.
Founder, National Fantasy Football Championship & National Fantasy Baseball Championship
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
I like the power rankings. Gives equal weighting to the three most popular measures -- H2H, H2H all play, and total points.
And it isn't that obscure, as even Sportsline users are familiar with it.
And it isn't that obscure, as even Sportsline users are familiar with it.
Hello. My name is Lee Scoresby. I come from Texas, like flying hot-air balloons, being eaten by talking polar bears and fantasy football.
-
Route Collectors
- Posts: 3525
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:00 pm
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
Greg
All in all I think you've put on a class event this year. There have been alot of ideas introduced on the MB. Some good - some not so good. Can I persuade you to stick to your gut and keep the H2H the way it is? It will never be a perfect system, but I believe it is the backbone of FF. I'll bet that most owners first experience with FF was H2H based. I'd also bet that it is THE most familiar competition of the FF masses.
The mid season league is a perfect example of why we need H2H. BOOOORING! Nobody cares - nobody talks. Nobody plays anyone so the MB's are dead.
I know there are flaws with H2H - always will be, but there is a certain sense of anticipation that comes with it every week that you can't get any other way. I like looking at the schedule and seeing my opponents stud RB on the road facing the Ravens D, while mine is at home against the Saints. If you play total pts. or against the entire field you lose that "lace em up" feeling.
With that said, I still like the idea of a few wild card spots to assure the top scoring teams a shot at the "prize". That's my opinion, thanks for listening.
RC
All in all I think you've put on a class event this year. There have been alot of ideas introduced on the MB. Some good - some not so good. Can I persuade you to stick to your gut and keep the H2H the way it is? It will never be a perfect system, but I believe it is the backbone of FF. I'll bet that most owners first experience with FF was H2H based. I'd also bet that it is THE most familiar competition of the FF masses.
The mid season league is a perfect example of why we need H2H. BOOOORING! Nobody cares - nobody talks. Nobody plays anyone so the MB's are dead.
I know there are flaws with H2H - always will be, but there is a certain sense of anticipation that comes with it every week that you can't get any other way. I like looking at the schedule and seeing my opponents stud RB on the road facing the Ravens D, while mine is at home against the Saints. If you play total pts. or against the entire field you lose that "lace em up" feeling.
With that said, I still like the idea of a few wild card spots to assure the top scoring teams a shot at the "prize". That's my opinion, thanks for listening.
RC
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
Greg, when you say nobody is 'lucking' their way to an NFFC title I think you're missing the fact that anyone who will win their league but isn't within 100 pts. (my arbitrary number) of the overall points in their league is 'lucking' their way to it.
I don't know how many that number is right now and can update it after tonight's games are finalized, but I'd wager that at least 5-6 league champs will have produced substantially less and will be rewarded based purely on luck. Why not take the top 3 point scorers in each league and have them play paper/rock/scissors for the league champ if it's not truly dependent on roster production? I know I'm being ridiculous here, but ... is it that much different than the 'skill' of the owner in scheduling Priest Holmes when he's going to be injured vs. my bad scheduling hitting him when he's playing the Lions' Defense?
You could institute a strength of schedule factor to combine with record... but it walks down the path of the BCS 'quality win' type thing. Still, there's some merit to pounding someone 190 to 111 counting different than another team getting the same win for going 90-85 isn't there?
The question is this... will you change or are you already determined that this format (but adjusting prize money) is here to stay?
If you're willing to listen to change, then list the top 2 options plus 'stay the same' and submit it to a vote among 'likely participants for next year' and see what happens.
Doing a straw poll on the message boards isn't scientific enough for me... make a statement for the variation with a brief paragraph explaining 'why this might be good' and 'why this might be bad' and make the case pros/cons for people to consider.
Personally? I think a little tinkering and a little bit of doing what makes sense vs. what's 'always been done' would be a lot better for a high stakes contest. If your only defense of keeping something the way it is sounds like 'because it's always been done that way'... well, then nothing can be done
Admit there's a problem and clarify what the problem is... or squash the conversation and let's move on as it is
Dave
I don't know how many that number is right now and can update it after tonight's games are finalized, but I'd wager that at least 5-6 league champs will have produced substantially less and will be rewarded based purely on luck. Why not take the top 3 point scorers in each league and have them play paper/rock/scissors for the league champ if it's not truly dependent on roster production? I know I'm being ridiculous here, but ... is it that much different than the 'skill' of the owner in scheduling Priest Holmes when he's going to be injured vs. my bad scheduling hitting him when he's playing the Lions' Defense?
You could institute a strength of schedule factor to combine with record... but it walks down the path of the BCS 'quality win' type thing. Still, there's some merit to pounding someone 190 to 111 counting different than another team getting the same win for going 90-85 isn't there?
The question is this... will you change or are you already determined that this format (but adjusting prize money) is here to stay?
If you're willing to listen to change, then list the top 2 options plus 'stay the same' and submit it to a vote among 'likely participants for next year' and see what happens.
Doing a straw poll on the message boards isn't scientific enough for me... make a statement for the variation with a brief paragraph explaining 'why this might be good' and 'why this might be bad' and make the case pros/cons for people to consider.
Personally? I think a little tinkering and a little bit of doing what makes sense vs. what's 'always been done' would be a lot better for a high stakes contest. If your only defense of keeping something the way it is sounds like 'because it's always been done that way'... well, then nothing can be done
Admit there's a problem and clarify what the problem is... or squash the conversation and let's move on as it is
Dave
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
is this better than actually playing every team each week and getting 13 wins or losses each week? That really IS the play-all h2h format. The reason I think its better (a modified h2h with one win or loss per week) than all-play is that there is finality each week, one win or loss, which simplifies the standings and makes them look like the familiar head-to-head format. Standings will look like an NFL season, not an NBA season.
The second reason, and more important I think, is that is requires you to field a quality team EVERY week, not just load up on potential injury-replacement players with upside. This is my same argument against using total pts. A team that puts up 140 pts 3 wks in a row is better than a tm that does 220, then 100 and 100.
This is consistent with the sport itself. Who is better, Pittsburgh who comes out every week and beats whichever opponent by 10 points, or a team like Indy who beats bad teams by 45, but loses to a quality opponent by a TD. Which is why total pts in FF is quasi-BS to me. All-play h2h is the same way, it favors teams with blowout totals over consistency.
[ November 29, 2004, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
is this better than actually playing every team each week and getting 13 wins or losses each week? That really IS the play-all h2h format. The reason I think its better (a modified h2h with one win or loss per week) than all-play is that there is finality each week, one win or loss, which simplifies the standings and makes them look like the familiar head-to-head format. Standings will look like an NFL season, not an NBA season.
The second reason, and more important I think, is that is requires you to field a quality team EVERY week, not just load up on potential injury-replacement players with upside. This is my same argument against using total pts. A team that puts up 140 pts 3 wks in a row is better than a tm that does 220, then 100 and 100.
This is consistent with the sport itself. Who is better, Pittsburgh who comes out every week and beats whichever opponent by 10 points, or a team like Indy who beats bad teams by 45, but loses to a quality opponent by a TD. Which is why total pts in FF is quasi-BS to me. All-play h2h is the same way, it favors teams with blowout totals over consistency.
[ November 29, 2004, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
Originally posted by I Cojones:
I like the power rankings. Gives equal weighting to the three most popular measures -- H2H, H2H all play, and total points.
And it isn't that obscure, as even Sportsline users are familiar with it. Good point ICojones! I would agree that it is the best way to determine the best teams.
I however do like the concept of playing EVERYONE every week (like one service currently does), because it truly rewards the best team and awards CONSISTENCY.
I would probably miss "game planning" and getting my guys ready for my opponent that week :rolleyes: , but I am all in favor of anything that eliminates the "luck factor" as much as possible!
I like the power rankings. Gives equal weighting to the three most popular measures -- H2H, H2H all play, and total points.
And it isn't that obscure, as even Sportsline users are familiar with it. Good point ICojones! I would agree that it is the best way to determine the best teams.
I however do like the concept of playing EVERYONE every week (like one service currently does), because it truly rewards the best team and awards CONSISTENCY.
I would probably miss "game planning" and getting my guys ready for my opponent that week :rolleyes: , but I am all in favor of anything that eliminates the "luck factor" as much as possible!
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
Originally posted by BillyWaz:
quote:Originally posted by I Cojones:
I like the power rankings. Gives equal weighting to the three most popular measures -- H2H, H2H all play, and total points.
And it isn't that obscure, as even Sportsline users are familiar with it. Good point ICojones! I would agree that it is the best way to determine the best teams.
I however do like the concept of playing EVERYONE every week (like one service currently does), because it truly rewards the best team and awards CONSISTENCY.
I would probably miss "game planning" and getting my guys ready for my opponent that week :rolleyes: , but I am all in favor of anything that eliminates the "luck factor" as much as possible! [/QUOTE]Problems with Power Rankings.
1) The majority will hate it because you don't know if you've won or lost until the computer does its business.
2) Breaks the #1 rule of acceptance - simplicity
3) using both h2h and all-play h2h double-counts h2h
4) straight h2h component means scheduling luck remains a factor
quote:Originally posted by I Cojones:
I like the power rankings. Gives equal weighting to the three most popular measures -- H2H, H2H all play, and total points.
And it isn't that obscure, as even Sportsline users are familiar with it. Good point ICojones! I would agree that it is the best way to determine the best teams.
I however do like the concept of playing EVERYONE every week (like one service currently does), because it truly rewards the best team and awards CONSISTENCY.
I would probably miss "game planning" and getting my guys ready for my opponent that week :rolleyes: , but I am all in favor of anything that eliminates the "luck factor" as much as possible! [/QUOTE]Problems with Power Rankings.
1) The majority will hate it because you don't know if you've won or lost until the computer does its business.
2) Breaks the #1 rule of acceptance - simplicity
3) using both h2h and all-play h2h double-counts h2h
4) straight h2h component means scheduling luck remains a factor
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 36423
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:00 pm
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
Dyv, I'm keeping the topic open for conversation because I want to improve our playoff format if possible, without confusing the potential customers who are among the 15 million fantasy players out there. That being said, last week I posted that 8 of the 16 league leaders also led their league in total points, four teams had the second most points and three teams had the third most points in their league. That's 15 out of 16, which is why I stated that I don't see any teams "lucking" their way into the $5,000. I am certainly leaning toward h2h again next year unless the data screams that a change is necessary for the NFFC to survive.
So keep the thoughts coming and we'll get it right. And maybe in a year or two, draft spot bidding, all-play h2h and other concepts will make more sense than the current formats. But for now, I'm not convinced a complete overall is needed for 2005.
So keep the thoughts coming and we'll get it right. And maybe in a year or two, draft spot bidding, all-play h2h and other concepts will make more sense than the current formats. But for now, I'm not convinced a complete overall is needed for 2005.
Founder, National Fantasy Football Championship & National Fantasy Baseball Championship
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Best h2h format for 2005 ?
Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Dyv, I'm keeping the topic open for conversation because I want to improve our playoff format if possible, without confusing the potential customers who are among the 15 million fantasy players out there. That being said, last week I posted that 8 of the 16 league leaders also led their league in total points, four teams had the second most points and three teams had the third most points in their league. That's 15 out of 16, which is why I stated that I don't see any teams "lucking" their way into the $5,000. I am certainly leaning toward h2h again next year unless the data screams that a change is necessary for the NFFC to survive.
So keep the thoughts coming and we'll get it right. And maybe in a year or two, draft spot bidding, all-play h2h and other concepts will make more sense than the current formats. But for now, I'm not convinced a complete overall is needed for 2005. Greg, you have to admit there's a problem first and I'm not hearing that. I prefer we play H2H, I agree it's more fun. But that doesn't mean we're scoring it fairly or handling the playoffs correctly.
Let's be honest - the design of fantasy football originally was for a single league to play and H2H was 'acceptable' when stakes were low and it was comraderie at stake.
Now, you've taken that 'game' and made it cost and pay much more AND you've made it a multiple league format (thank you!). Things have changed and the inherent flaws (note on the thread K of Q just posted that the #19 team gets $500 while the #49 team gets $5,000+) appear to be simply swept under the rug and little patch-up rules are being considered ala the BCS to fix things after they occur.
So - let me ask this: Is the current system flawed? What are the apparent flaws? Let's brainstorm on ideas to fix what YOU perceive to be the biggest issues and give us some parameters (i.e. must maintain H2H schedule, cannot make things overly complicated, etc.) I'm willing to help provide thoughts but honestly I don't know the answer to 'fix' it given your desire to leave it largely in a traditional format of H2H.
So, maybe you leave it as it is, throw in some rules to sweep in a few extra teams and move on?
Incidentally, I know this sounds crazy, but what if the guy who is #19 overall would rather be in the consolation pool with a lead towards that $5k than be an also-ran in the $100k prize pool? Does he/she get to choose which pool to enter?
Give us some guidance, Greg
Dave
Dyv, I'm keeping the topic open for conversation because I want to improve our playoff format if possible, without confusing the potential customers who are among the 15 million fantasy players out there. That being said, last week I posted that 8 of the 16 league leaders also led their league in total points, four teams had the second most points and three teams had the third most points in their league. That's 15 out of 16, which is why I stated that I don't see any teams "lucking" their way into the $5,000. I am certainly leaning toward h2h again next year unless the data screams that a change is necessary for the NFFC to survive.
So keep the thoughts coming and we'll get it right. And maybe in a year or two, draft spot bidding, all-play h2h and other concepts will make more sense than the current formats. But for now, I'm not convinced a complete overall is needed for 2005. Greg, you have to admit there's a problem first and I'm not hearing that. I prefer we play H2H, I agree it's more fun. But that doesn't mean we're scoring it fairly or handling the playoffs correctly.
Let's be honest - the design of fantasy football originally was for a single league to play and H2H was 'acceptable' when stakes were low and it was comraderie at stake.
Now, you've taken that 'game' and made it cost and pay much more AND you've made it a multiple league format (thank you!). Things have changed and the inherent flaws (note on the thread K of Q just posted that the #19 team gets $500 while the #49 team gets $5,000+) appear to be simply swept under the rug and little patch-up rules are being considered ala the BCS to fix things after they occur.
So - let me ask this: Is the current system flawed? What are the apparent flaws? Let's brainstorm on ideas to fix what YOU perceive to be the biggest issues and give us some parameters (i.e. must maintain H2H schedule, cannot make things overly complicated, etc.) I'm willing to help provide thoughts but honestly I don't know the answer to 'fix' it given your desire to leave it largely in a traditional format of H2H.
So, maybe you leave it as it is, throw in some rules to sweep in a few extra teams and move on?
Incidentally, I know this sounds crazy, but what if the guy who is #19 overall would rather be in the consolation pool with a lead towards that $5k than be an also-ran in the $100k prize pool? Does he/she get to choose which pool to enter?
Give us some guidance, Greg
Dave
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!