NFFC Message Boards

my question about the survey that just want out is:

i didn't see anything on there about whether or not people want a playoff for the 1st and 2nd place prize. i know there has been a ton of discussion about it and just wondering why it wasn't on the survey?

Originally posted by thegambler:
my question about the survey that just want out is:

i didn't see anything on there about whether or not people want a playoff for the 1st and 2nd place prize. i know there has been a ton of discussion about it and just wondering why it wasn't on the survey? The first survey asked if you like the NFFC's 13-week regular season better than an 11-week regular season and 93% wanted a 13-week regular season. That makes it tough to have playoffs in Weeks 12 and 13.

We also asked if you would rather have head-to-head playoff games in Weeks 12 and 13 as you're requesting now and it was 80% no. So we already asked this question.

Just to take it one more step, in the first survey we asked if given a choice in the 12-team format, would you rather have the current NFFC league setup or the WCOFF league setup and it was 86% for the NFFC setup.

So I felt like we asked this question previously to all NFFC members and the responses were pretty strong in favor of our current setup. Asking those same three questions again didn't seem necessary. Am I missing something or am I wrong here?

not the 11 week wcoff setup....i saw a thread about playoffs during the championship week 14-16

Originally posted by thegambler:
not the 11 week wcoff setup....i saw a thread about playoffs during the championship week 14-16 Our current setup has playoffs for 1st and 2nd place teams in Weeks 14-16 if they split h2h and best record during the regular season. The next process is "should we have playoffs in Weeks 14-16 for third place prize money? Would that keep more teams fighting during the regular season if we made 4 or 5 teams fight for that money?

never mind, i was just asking about the proposal i saw KOQ or KJ make about having multiple teams in a playoff during weeks 14-16, not jsut for the 3rd place money.....i don't feel like searching for the thread but you were into it as well, not just KOQ

[ January 19, 2012, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: thegambler ]

Originally posted by thegambler:
never mind, i was just asking about the proposal i saw KOQ or KJ make about having multiple teams in a playoff during weeks 14-16, not jsut for the 3rd place money.....i don't feel like searching for the thread but you were into it as well, not just KOQ I remember this conversation as well -- what happened to this proposal? It seemed like there was significant interest in bringing a 4- or even 6-team playoff for decent money (i.e. more than the entry fee) during Weeks 14-16. 3rd place money provides very little incentive for teams to stay active IMO, but then again, that may just be MO.

Andy is correct: the current survey does not provide for this option.

Are these 2 questions mutually exclusive, and therefore impossible to answer, if one wants to answer "Yes" to #7 and "No" to #8 (or am I misinterpreting, which is entirely possible?)?

7. Would you rather have a playoff format for the NFFC Primetime in Weeks 14-16 where the third, fourth and fifth place seeds are given the chance to battle for third place prize money only? Thus rather than reward third place $700 after Week 13, three teams would battle for that prize money in Weeks 14-16.
-Yes
-No

8. Would you rather have a playoff format for the NFFC Primetime in Weeks 14-16 where only the third and fourth place seeds are given the chance to battle for third place prize money? In this instance two teams would battle for that prize money in Weeks 14-16.
-Yes
-No, pay $700 to the third place winner after Week 13

In other words, if I answer "Yes" to #7, I have no way to answer "No" to #8 without contradicting my #7 answer due to the additional "pay $700 to the third place winner after Week 13" text.


On a related note regarding playoff options... I understand that a limited number of teams per league must be determined for the overall playoffs after week 13 in order to "reset" everyone's points to their season average. And because we obviously don't want to just let every team into the overall playoffs, the number of teams must be limited.

However, what is the rationale for not allowing league playoffs to include more than just the number of teams who made it to the overall playoffs? I mean, why not do both? After week 13, decide which teams get into the overall playoffs, reset their points to their season average and so on, and still pay each of those teams "something" (but not as much as they get now). In that way, their reward for being the best teams in their league for 13 weeks of a 16-week season is (a) they're in the big playoffs for the big money and (b) they get some money for making the playoffs (both the overall and their league).

But for the leagues, either have an entirely separate "playoff", maybe using 4 teams in the 12-team leagues and either the same or maybe 6 teams in the 14-team leagues (or however the Super, Ultimate, Diamond or satellites run their playoffs)? Or just reset their points to season average and carry on with a points-based league playoff? If the teams who made it to the overall playoffs after 13 weeks are really the best teams in their league, then they should have a better than average chance of still winning their league playoffs.

But I'm not sure it makes the most sense to reward ALL league money after just 13 weeks, when in reality, the only reason for the 13-week cutoff is to limit the number of teams vying for the grand prize. And besides, those last 3 weeks might just allow some teams who didn't make the overall playoffs to pull ahead of some who did - and this way, they'd be rewarded for it.

[ January 19, 2012, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Sandman62 ]

I believe what Mike described here is in essence what KOQ and KJ were throwing out there during that previous debate that did garner some support.
I also believe that to be the discussion Gambler is referring to.

Basically in very simplistic form, the Overall Championships and the league playoffs can be mutually exclusive, both set after week 13, both running simultaneously, both having different requirements for making it (best H2H and points along with top 15% for overalls and top 4 or 6 teams for the leagues).

Originally posted by Glenneration X:
I believe what Mike described here is in essence what KOQ and KJ were throwing out there during that previous debate that did garner some support.
I also believe that to be the discussion Gambler is referring to.

Basically in very simplistic form, the Overall Championships and the league playoffs can be mutually exclusive, both set after week 13, both running simultaneously, both having different requirements for making it (best H2H and points along with top 15% for overalls and top 4 or 6 teams for the leagues). This is the thread that you are referring to, which includes KOQ's original proposal.

http://nffcboards.stats.com/cgi-bin/ult ... 007383;p=1

As I stated here, let's look at the data after Week 13. And I did post that in a separate thread. I'll find that link and post that here as well so that we have everything in one spot. From the feedback and the data we had, I thought there was a strong agreement that we did reward the best team in each league this year and the best second place team. With our current setup -- which is already a bit complicated to explain to new members -- we really rewarded the best teams with the most money.

I was proposing in the survey to add more teams to post-season league play for third place money without taking money away from the league champ and the league runner-up, the two teams that dominated for 13 weeks. Again, I thought the feedback was in favor of making sure we reward the best teams rather than just making sure teams don't quit during the regular season.

Here is the data thread.

http://nffcboards.stats.com/cgi-bin/ult ... 1;t=007428