i am for 1.5x that should be enough for the upper end team and not to much for the ones that are at the bottom end of the playoffs
gerard sambola
Possible future change in Playoff round
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 36413
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:00 pm
Possible future change in Playoff round
Originally posted by FISHER:
Greg,
Personally I think that the current system is perfectly fine. I would really dislike any change at all going forward.
If the Colts go 16-0 in regular season, and they lose in the 2nd week of playoffs....too bad. Everyone should remember that one of the reasons we haven't increased it beyond 1x your weekly scoring average is because all of the leagues are different and we don't want anyone to gain an unfair advantage by being in a different situation than the other playoff contenders. I'm not saying any league is tougher than the other, but once we've determined the playoff qualifiers we then reward those teams for a job well done in winning either $5,000, $2,500 or $500 and give them their weekly scoring advantage and wish them best of luck in the playoffs. Kind of like rewarding the Indianapolis Colts last year with home field advantage and also wishing Pittsburgh best of luck from the wild card spot.
What Jules has accomplished thus far in the NFFC isn't unprecedented. Team NEW dominated the 2004 NFFC regular season and won $5,000 in his league, but then finished 7th in the playoffs. Should he have received more of an advantage heading into the playoffs? That was the debate in 2004, even though Mike Ward still wouldn't have won the overall title even at 1.5x or 2x (Gekko's team was just too hot in Weeks 14-16). It's happened before and we've discussed this before, but it deserves debate again now.
Again, I'm open for discussions, but we'll see how the post-season plays out. I, for one, still like it at 1x your weekly scoring average, but I also like the dissenting opinions.
Greg,
Personally I think that the current system is perfectly fine. I would really dislike any change at all going forward.
If the Colts go 16-0 in regular season, and they lose in the 2nd week of playoffs....too bad. Everyone should remember that one of the reasons we haven't increased it beyond 1x your weekly scoring average is because all of the leagues are different and we don't want anyone to gain an unfair advantage by being in a different situation than the other playoff contenders. I'm not saying any league is tougher than the other, but once we've determined the playoff qualifiers we then reward those teams for a job well done in winning either $5,000, $2,500 or $500 and give them their weekly scoring advantage and wish them best of luck in the playoffs. Kind of like rewarding the Indianapolis Colts last year with home field advantage and also wishing Pittsburgh best of luck from the wild card spot.
What Jules has accomplished thus far in the NFFC isn't unprecedented. Team NEW dominated the 2004 NFFC regular season and won $5,000 in his league, but then finished 7th in the playoffs. Should he have received more of an advantage heading into the playoffs? That was the debate in 2004, even though Mike Ward still wouldn't have won the overall title even at 1.5x or 2x (Gekko's team was just too hot in Weeks 14-16). It's happened before and we've discussed this before, but it deserves debate again now.
Again, I'm open for discussions, but we'll see how the post-season plays out. I, for one, still like it at 1x your weekly scoring average, but I also like the dissenting opinions.
Founder, National Fantasy Football Championship & National Fantasy Baseball Championship
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
-
D-Day Heroes
- Posts: 875
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:00 pm
Possible future change in Playoff round
...... After further analysis, it is TRUE, that a NFL teams' Record dose come into play during the off season, and somewhat significantly at that. # 1 - Homefeild advantage and # 2 - ( if your that GOOD ) Homefeild advantage with a BYE week. Therefore, upon this Revelation, I do beleive that Regular Season Record Performance should " Impact " the Post season accrdingly..! Thats why what these Boards are for, Shake it up, Shake it out, and make this fantasy League the Best it can Be....!!! I think it was UYT that cme up with a very clever concept, and I would like to here him develope that a little further, maybe with a little help from the STAT-MAN ( Teds Cracked Head ), this might be the way to Go...!!!
" When you are in any contest you should work as if there were - to the very last minute - a chance to lose it. "
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
-
Ted's Cracked Head
- Posts: 2817
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Possible future change in Playoff round
I have already started someting that will be posted when I get home later (about 3am) after a little bit of poker.
My mama says she loves me but she could be jiving too! BB King
Possible future change in Playoff round
Originally posted by D-Day Heroes:
If Your the Best Team all Year, and you run out of Gas coming down the Stretch, Guess what, YOUR NOT THE BEST TEAM...!!! That must suck BTW, when a Nascar Driver leads 249 of 250 laps, and then runs out of gas. Was he the Best Car in the Race..? He Ran out of Gas. Should they " Re-adjust the order of finish, SPOT HIM 1 LAP and " Bump him Up " because he dominated the whole race..? If a heavy weight fighter beats the crap out of his opponent for 14 rounds and gets knocked-out in the 15th, should they award him the Belt because he dominated the fight..? Yeah it sucks to lose in the last lap , or last round, " Especially After Dominating the Event " But That's SPORTS, That's Gambling and that should be Fantasy Sports also...! Leave it as is....IMHO Your analogy is not quite right. The actual analogy would be if you lead 250 laps out of 300 and have lapped the field 3 times, should you have to come back and start out at an even start with everyone else for the last 50 laps.
If Your the Best Team all Year, and you run out of Gas coming down the Stretch, Guess what, YOUR NOT THE BEST TEAM...!!! That must suck BTW, when a Nascar Driver leads 249 of 250 laps, and then runs out of gas. Was he the Best Car in the Race..? He Ran out of Gas. Should they " Re-adjust the order of finish, SPOT HIM 1 LAP and " Bump him Up " because he dominated the whole race..? If a heavy weight fighter beats the crap out of his opponent for 14 rounds and gets knocked-out in the 15th, should they award him the Belt because he dominated the fight..? Yeah it sucks to lose in the last lap , or last round, " Especially After Dominating the Event " But That's SPORTS, That's Gambling and that should be Fantasy Sports also...! Leave it as is....IMHO Your analogy is not quite right. The actual analogy would be if you lead 250 laps out of 300 and have lapped the field 3 times, should you have to come back and start out at an even start with everyone else for the last 50 laps.
Possible future change in Playoff round
Lets see what TCH pulls out for data. Even Greg pointed out GG would have won with x2 points in 2004 (so it's not the end of the world).
I just know if our sorry team make the playoffs (and it might). It seems to me the UYT's (currently 147th and middle of the road in points) should give more than 4 points a week to TCH (currently 17th).
I'm not sure our sorry team deserves a "fresh start".
I just know if our sorry team make the playoffs (and it might). It seems to me the UYT's (currently 147th and middle of the road in points) should give more than 4 points a week to TCH (currently 17th).
I'm not sure our sorry team deserves a "fresh start".
Hakuna Matata!
Possible future change in Playoff round
Originally posted by bmiller:
quote:Originally posted by D-Day Heroes:
If Your the Best Team all Year, and you run out of Gas coming down the Stretch, Guess what, YOUR NOT THE BEST TEAM...!!! That must suck BTW, when a Nascar Driver leads 249 of 250 laps, and then runs out of gas. Was he the Best Car in the Race..? He Ran out of Gas. Should they " Re-adjust the order of finish, SPOT HIM 1 LAP and " Bump him Up " because he dominated the whole race..? If a heavy weight fighter beats the crap out of his opponent for 14 rounds and gets knocked-out in the 15th, should they award him the Belt because he dominated the fight..? Yeah it sucks to lose in the last lap , or last round, " Especially After Dominating the Event " But That's SPORTS, That's Gambling and that should be Fantasy Sports also...! Leave it as is....IMHO Your analogy is not quite right. The actual analogy would be if you lead 250 laps out of 300 and have lapped the field 3 times, should you have to come back and start out at an even start with everyone else for the last 50 laps. [/QUOTE]Actually ... maybe a better analogy is.
To have NASCARS "race for the nextel cup" over less than 1/5th of the season (or 7 races instead of 12). One bad race and your gone! I'm not a NASCAR fan ... but I know enough to think that I would not like the idea of the Champion decided by 7 races (less than a fifth or the season).
Personally ... I'm ok with the x1. I would much prefer to see a better team winning it all unless a team has a great post season like Gekko. If our team beats the top team by 10 points a week to win it all ... it will seem a little cheep (we will take the money ... in case anyone's wondering).
UYT
quote:Originally posted by D-Day Heroes:
If Your the Best Team all Year, and you run out of Gas coming down the Stretch, Guess what, YOUR NOT THE BEST TEAM...!!! That must suck BTW, when a Nascar Driver leads 249 of 250 laps, and then runs out of gas. Was he the Best Car in the Race..? He Ran out of Gas. Should they " Re-adjust the order of finish, SPOT HIM 1 LAP and " Bump him Up " because he dominated the whole race..? If a heavy weight fighter beats the crap out of his opponent for 14 rounds and gets knocked-out in the 15th, should they award him the Belt because he dominated the fight..? Yeah it sucks to lose in the last lap , or last round, " Especially After Dominating the Event " But That's SPORTS, That's Gambling and that should be Fantasy Sports also...! Leave it as is....IMHO Your analogy is not quite right. The actual analogy would be if you lead 250 laps out of 300 and have lapped the field 3 times, should you have to come back and start out at an even start with everyone else for the last 50 laps. [/QUOTE]Actually ... maybe a better analogy is.
To have NASCARS "race for the nextel cup" over less than 1/5th of the season (or 7 races instead of 12). One bad race and your gone! I'm not a NASCAR fan ... but I know enough to think that I would not like the idea of the Champion decided by 7 races (less than a fifth or the season).
Personally ... I'm ok with the x1. I would much prefer to see a better team winning it all unless a team has a great post season like Gekko. If our team beats the top team by 10 points a week to win it all ... it will seem a little cheep (we will take the money ... in case anyone's wondering).
UYT
Hakuna Matata!
Possible future change in Playoff round
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by BubbasHouse:
My vote would be to increase the factor - to 2x or even 3x. I think the point made using Jules as the example is very valid. Clearly the best team after 10 weeks (and possible after 13) - and the best team should have better than 1x average.
i agree with having it increased to 2X [/QUOTE]Originally posted by FISHER:
Greg,
Personally I think that the current system is perfectly fine. I would really dislike any change at all going forward.
If the Colts go 16-0 in regular season, and they lose in the 2nd week of playoffs....too bad. Sorry guys, you are both way off here.
The format to crown a champion is not H2H, so the 16-0 and lose in the playoffs doesn't apply.
Giving a team 2 x's their average is also no good, and here's why.
They didn't earn those points, and therefore don't deserve them. We should all have a starting point based on points earned. Giving some multiple of that is arbitrary. Why not 1.25? or 2.5? or 3?
It's an unearned arbitrary number that has no quantifiable value.
Here's the short version of the long proposal that I made to the WCOFF, and I did the numbers a while back. But trashed them.
The problem right now: Both events take the regular season average POINTS SCORED and reduce them down to 1 weeks value. The problem with that is both leagues award the ultimate winner based on Points scored. So why reduce the value of 13 weeks down to 1 week average? By doing it in it's current form you only give the regular season that makes up 80% of the seasons points 25% of the Champions Total!
Here's the math: 16 weeks/13 week regular season=81%
Championship Round is the 4 weeks: Reg Season Avearge plus 3 Championship weeks.
What's the solution:
Getting to the Championship round (not playoffs) is 50% of the battle. So simply cut the regular season total in half. Enter the Championship Round with 50% of your regular season total and add each week from there.
Does that give the highest scoring teams more than the lower scoring teams from the regular season? YES! and they deserve it. BUT: it doesn't overly compensate OR give arbitrary points out.
EX: Current Leader has:1773
Team #32 has 1440
Team 1 would have:886
Team 32 would have 770
So it would take a BIG jump for the team that finished in the final guaranteed spot to catch the Top Team.
Why is that ok? Because if team 1 has excelled in both the regular season and the Championship Round, then they DESERVE to win it all.
This is the extreme example. All those other teams would not start down 116. They would be closer based on their scores in the regular season.
This would give equal weight to being good in both the Regular Season and Championship Round.
Like I stated earlier in the post, I had numbers for the WCOFF, but trashed them, because no one wanted to hear the word CHANGE. It sends people into panic mode....
Enjoy. I am ready to take the heat...
3'
[ November 20, 2006, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: 3INTBOY/BFDFANTASY.com ]
quote:Originally posted by BubbasHouse:
My vote would be to increase the factor - to 2x or even 3x. I think the point made using Jules as the example is very valid. Clearly the best team after 10 weeks (and possible after 13) - and the best team should have better than 1x average.
i agree with having it increased to 2X [/QUOTE]Originally posted by FISHER:
Greg,
Personally I think that the current system is perfectly fine. I would really dislike any change at all going forward.
If the Colts go 16-0 in regular season, and they lose in the 2nd week of playoffs....too bad. Sorry guys, you are both way off here.
The format to crown a champion is not H2H, so the 16-0 and lose in the playoffs doesn't apply.
Giving a team 2 x's their average is also no good, and here's why.
They didn't earn those points, and therefore don't deserve them. We should all have a starting point based on points earned. Giving some multiple of that is arbitrary. Why not 1.25? or 2.5? or 3?
It's an unearned arbitrary number that has no quantifiable value.
Here's the short version of the long proposal that I made to the WCOFF, and I did the numbers a while back. But trashed them.
The problem right now: Both events take the regular season average POINTS SCORED and reduce them down to 1 weeks value. The problem with that is both leagues award the ultimate winner based on Points scored. So why reduce the value of 13 weeks down to 1 week average? By doing it in it's current form you only give the regular season that makes up 80% of the seasons points 25% of the Champions Total!
Here's the math: 16 weeks/13 week regular season=81%
Championship Round is the 4 weeks: Reg Season Avearge plus 3 Championship weeks.
What's the solution:
Getting to the Championship round (not playoffs) is 50% of the battle. So simply cut the regular season total in half. Enter the Championship Round with 50% of your regular season total and add each week from there.
Does that give the highest scoring teams more than the lower scoring teams from the regular season? YES! and they deserve it. BUT: it doesn't overly compensate OR give arbitrary points out.
EX: Current Leader has:1773
Team #32 has 1440
Team 1 would have:886
Team 32 would have 770
So it would take a BIG jump for the team that finished in the final guaranteed spot to catch the Top Team.
Why is that ok? Because if team 1 has excelled in both the regular season and the Championship Round, then they DESERVE to win it all.
This is the extreme example. All those other teams would not start down 116. They would be closer based on their scores in the regular season.
This would give equal weight to being good in both the Regular Season and Championship Round.
Like I stated earlier in the post, I had numbers for the WCOFF, but trashed them, because no one wanted to hear the word CHANGE. It sends people into panic mode....
Enjoy. I am ready to take the heat...
3'
[ November 20, 2006, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: 3INTBOY/BFDFANTASY.com ]
2009 NFFC Classic 5th Overall
www.BFDFantasyfootball.com
www.blogtalkradio.com/bfdfantasyfootball
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/BFDF ... all?v=wall
www.BFDFantasyfootball.com
www.blogtalkradio.com/bfdfantasyfootball
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/BFDF ... all?v=wall
-
TradeStar28
- Posts: 2169
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:00 pm
Possible future change in Playoff round
Originally posted by 3INTBOY/BFDFANTASY.com:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by BubbasHouse:
My vote would be to increase the factor - to 2x or even 3x. I think the point made using Jules as the example is very valid. Clearly the best team after 10 weeks (and possible after 13) - and the best team should have better than 1x average.
i agree with having it increased to 2X [/QUOTE]Originally posted by FISHER:
Greg,
Personally I think that the current system is perfectly fine. I would really dislike any change at all going forward.
If the Colts go 16-0 in regular season, and they lose in the 2nd week of playoffs....too bad. Sorry guys, you are both way off here.
The format to crown a champion is not H2H, so the 16-0 and lose in the playoffs doesn't apply.
Giving a team 2 x's their average is also no good, and here's why.
They didn't earn those points, and therefore don't deserve them. We should all have a starting point based on points earned. Giving some multiple of that is arbitrary. Why not 1.25? or 2.5? or 3?
It's an unearned arbitrary number that has no quantifiable value.
Here's the short version of the long proposal that I made to the WCOFF, and I did the numbers a while back. But trashed them.
The problem right now: Both events take the regular season average POINTS SCORED and reduce them down to 1 weeks value. The problem with that is both leagues award the ultimate winner based on Points scored. So why reduce the value of 13 weeks down to 1 week average? By doing it in it's current form you only give the regular season that makes up 80% of the seasons points 25% of the Champions Total!
Here's the math: 16 weeks/13 week regular season=81%
Championship Round is the 4 weeks: Reg Season Avearge plus 3 Championship weeks.
What's the solution:
Getting to the Championship round (not playoffs) is 50% of the battle. So simply cut the regular season total in half. Enter the Championship Round with 50% of your regular season total and add each week from there.
Does that give the highest scoring teams more than the lower scoring teams from the regular season? YES! and they deserve it. BUT: it doesn't overly compensate OR give arbitrary points out.
EX: Current Leader has:1773
Team #32 has 1440
Team 1 would have:886
Team 32 would have 770
So it would take a BIG jump for the team that finished in the final guaranteed spot to catch the Top Team.
Why is that ok? Because if team 1 has excelled in both the regular season and the Championship Round, then they DESERVE to win it all.
This is the extreme example. All those other teams would not start down 116. They would be closer based on their scores in the regular season.
This would give equal weight to being good in both the Regular Season and Championship Round.
Like I stated earlier in the post, I had numbers for the WCOFF, but trashed them, because no one wanted to hear the word CHANGE. It sends people into panic mode....
Enjoy. I am ready to take the heat...
3' [/QUOTE]Well, my comparison of a Colts 16-0 means nothing now since MY Cowboys put them to pasture!
Seriously, I was just using the comparison of a team doing well in regular season but doesnt do as well in 3 weeks of playoffs, then they should not win Championship....its all about making it happen during the playoffs.
Greg, you mention home field advantage...Well, that would be covered by the 13 week average points we get prior to championship round.
3INT, the big reason I do not like any multiple used to inflate the leads of better teams during regular season is simple-
In 2006, NFFC had 23 leagues. In those 23 leagues, there could be many factors that influence the overall strength of the top team(s). And usually that boils down to lesser skilled owners as the main factor. Plus you have teams quitting with bad starts which tilts the Free Agency market to the teams who still have a good chance to succeed. LASTLY, we have KDS but that still is somewhat a random process, so why should LT2 team, who got LT2 by luck, have even more of an advantage with bigger multiplier? They already hit the lottery with LT2, so now try to beat us with him in playoffs.
Regular season- play well, get $5000 or $2500 for division. Then get the small home field advantage if you really do well (ie- Jules). Then lets play 3 weeks of football (weeks 14-15-16) and see who the best team is when it counts the most.
[ November 20, 2006, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: FISHER ]
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by BubbasHouse:
My vote would be to increase the factor - to 2x or even 3x. I think the point made using Jules as the example is very valid. Clearly the best team after 10 weeks (and possible after 13) - and the best team should have better than 1x average.
i agree with having it increased to 2X [/QUOTE]Originally posted by FISHER:
Greg,
Personally I think that the current system is perfectly fine. I would really dislike any change at all going forward.
If the Colts go 16-0 in regular season, and they lose in the 2nd week of playoffs....too bad. Sorry guys, you are both way off here.
The format to crown a champion is not H2H, so the 16-0 and lose in the playoffs doesn't apply.
Giving a team 2 x's their average is also no good, and here's why.
They didn't earn those points, and therefore don't deserve them. We should all have a starting point based on points earned. Giving some multiple of that is arbitrary. Why not 1.25? or 2.5? or 3?
It's an unearned arbitrary number that has no quantifiable value.
Here's the short version of the long proposal that I made to the WCOFF, and I did the numbers a while back. But trashed them.
The problem right now: Both events take the regular season average POINTS SCORED and reduce them down to 1 weeks value. The problem with that is both leagues award the ultimate winner based on Points scored. So why reduce the value of 13 weeks down to 1 week average? By doing it in it's current form you only give the regular season that makes up 80% of the seasons points 25% of the Champions Total!
Here's the math: 16 weeks/13 week regular season=81%
Championship Round is the 4 weeks: Reg Season Avearge plus 3 Championship weeks.
What's the solution:
Getting to the Championship round (not playoffs) is 50% of the battle. So simply cut the regular season total in half. Enter the Championship Round with 50% of your regular season total and add each week from there.
Does that give the highest scoring teams more than the lower scoring teams from the regular season? YES! and they deserve it. BUT: it doesn't overly compensate OR give arbitrary points out.
EX: Current Leader has:1773
Team #32 has 1440
Team 1 would have:886
Team 32 would have 770
So it would take a BIG jump for the team that finished in the final guaranteed spot to catch the Top Team.
Why is that ok? Because if team 1 has excelled in both the regular season and the Championship Round, then they DESERVE to win it all.
This is the extreme example. All those other teams would not start down 116. They would be closer based on their scores in the regular season.
This would give equal weight to being good in both the Regular Season and Championship Round.
Like I stated earlier in the post, I had numbers for the WCOFF, but trashed them, because no one wanted to hear the word CHANGE. It sends people into panic mode....
Enjoy. I am ready to take the heat...
3' [/QUOTE]Well, my comparison of a Colts 16-0 means nothing now since MY Cowboys put them to pasture!
Seriously, I was just using the comparison of a team doing well in regular season but doesnt do as well in 3 weeks of playoffs, then they should not win Championship....its all about making it happen during the playoffs.
Greg, you mention home field advantage...Well, that would be covered by the 13 week average points we get prior to championship round.
3INT, the big reason I do not like any multiple used to inflate the leads of better teams during regular season is simple-
In 2006, NFFC had 23 leagues. In those 23 leagues, there could be many factors that influence the overall strength of the top team(s). And usually that boils down to lesser skilled owners as the main factor. Plus you have teams quitting with bad starts which tilts the Free Agency market to the teams who still have a good chance to succeed. LASTLY, we have KDS but that still is somewhat a random process, so why should LT2 team, who got LT2 by luck, have even more of an advantage with bigger multiplier? They already hit the lottery with LT2, so now try to beat us with him in playoffs.
Regular season- play well, get $5000 or $2500 for division. Then get the small home field advantage if you really do well (ie- Jules). Then lets play 3 weeks of football (weeks 14-15-16) and see who the best team is when it counts the most.
[ November 20, 2006, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: FISHER ]
2012 - FI$HER - Flying High Again
Possible future change in Playoff round
To make big events like this flourish you have to have a competitive circumstance that allows for as many people to be competitive as possible and to send as many people into the offseason having had a good experience and a positive taste in their mouths.
If you set up rules that allow for a small handful of teams who had good seasons to dominate and win all the money you will not find it as easy to inspire people to return to the event in masses. I am not saying we should spread all the money our across the event. I am saying formats and prize payouts should just take this point into consideration and find a nice balance.
If you set up rules that allow for a small handful of teams who had good seasons to dominate and win all the money you will not find it as easy to inspire people to return to the event in masses. I am not saying we should spread all the money our across the event. I am saying formats and prize payouts should just take this point into consideration and find a nice balance.