Results of NFFC Rules Survey

[Sandman62]

Hey, I get it that the current rules have numeric limits on the number of playoff teams; but the 15% rule does allow for more teams beyond those even. And I'm not whining because any of MY teams were close and I personally feel screwed. But you're right, we're miles apart on agreeing on the definition of "deserve". Yes, the current rules draw a hard line based on a finite number of teams per league. But IMO, a team who is within a very small number of points of that cutoff number of teams is darned near as deserving (and possibly even MORE deserving than some 2nd high scorers in other leagues, who may have trailed their 1st place team by a lot). And seeing we're talking about the OVERALL playoffs - where there's no need to limit the number of teams due to H2H brackets like in a local league - there doesn't seem to be a reason, IMO, to shut out teams who came that close to a points line, especially when that line varies from league to league.

I'm not sure where your "5th or 6th place team" reference is coming from? But if there were 3 or 4 teams within 1-20 points of the 2nd high scorer, and the rest of the league way back, I wouldn't have a problem with them making it into the playoffs either.

Agree to disagree. I'm sure Greg's certainly had his fill of both sides of this and he'll make his decision.

[Don Draper]

First Year there was no safety net
Second year it was 10%. It remained that way for a number of years
Then some people complained that good teams were being left out
The cutoff changed to 15%
And here we are again with people complaining that good teams are still being left out
I imagine it will change to 20%
And then in a few years the complaints will pile up and it will be changed to a nice even 25%

There are number of ways to make the playoffs and IMO if you aren't better than 85% of the teams, you just didn't get it done. Sorry.

[Greg Ambrosius]

There were only two 2nd place Classic points teams that finished outside of the Top 15% and they were 56th and 59th overall. Four 3rd place teams in leagues where the H2H champion knocked them out of the Championship Round had more points than those teams. That's exactly why I'd like a safety net for those 3rd highest points teams, especially in our 14-team format.

[Sandman62]

Four 3rd place teams in leagues where the H2H champion knocked them out of the Championship Round had more points than those teams.

Greg, would you mind sharing how many points behind the 2nd place scoring teams those 3rd place teams were? One of them was in my Classic and was 82.4 back from 2nd, who was just 38.55 back from 1st. So IMO, and with no disrespect meant toward that 3rd high scorer, I do not feel that team "deserved" (or was "worthy") of making the playoffs because he didn't "just miss".

On this point, I agree with CALI. Arbitrarily letting in the 3rd high scorer whenever the H2H winner wasn't among the top 3 could just let in more unworthy teams. That's why I've suggested adding a stipulation that "only when the 3rd high scorer was within x points (or y%) of the 2nd high scorer". That would restrict this additional way of making the playoffs to "just missed" teams only.

I'm curious if these same ratios were present in the Primetime and Online, though I do understand that might be a lot more work for you to do.

[CALI CARTEL]

But IMO, a team who is within a very small number of points of that cutoff number of teams is darned near as deserving

This is covered, you need to be in the Top 15% Overall and you are in. Without expanding the hard line number of qualifiers in each league, this is the only fair way to allow extra teams into the Playoffs -- which is what any change to the number of qualifiers should do first and foremost, is reward strong teams in strong leagues that just missed the Playoffs.

What you are looking for is way more unfair, it'll reward teams who are within reach of the scores of weaker qualifying leagues, it won't help as much in leagues with stronger qualifers.

Lets say you allow anyone within 3% of the 3rd place team in points (this will be around 50 points in a normal league).

Here's example results for 2 leagues with their points...

1. Team A 1900
2. Team B 1850
3. Team C 1800
4. Team D 1740
The 4th place team would need to be within 54 pts (1800 x 3%) to qualify and misses it by 6 points here.

1. Team W 1850
2. Team X 1800
3. Team Y 1760
4. Team Z 1710
This 4th place team qualifies for the playoffs, because he's within 3% of the 1760 (52.8 pts)

Team D outscored Team Z by 30 points, why should Team Z qualify for the playoffs, but not Team D? Just because he finished only 50 points back instead of 60 against a stronger team? No thanks.

[Sandman62]

That's not at all covered! Apples to oranges. The top 15% rule is based on points scored but compared to teams ACROSS leagues. A percentage (or points back) rule WITHIN a league is based on how teams fare in THEIR league.

You're assuming that a 1740 point team in one league is stronger than a 1710 point team in a completely different league. That is not necessarily true. It may be, but not for sure. HOW did that 1740 point team get more points than the 1710 one? It could just be that league was a bit easier to draft and work the waiver wire in, no?

You seem focused on just the overall 15% playoff rule being enough, when in reality, MOST of the teams who make the playoffs do so based on their performance against THEIR league, not against all the other leagues (when there's obvious potential for inherent inequity across leagues). I'm focused on helping the "just missed" teams into the playoffs based on their performance in THEIR league - where MOST of the playoff teams are determined. If all that matters is where teams finished compared to ALL teams across ALL leagues, then why not just have one big league of several hundred teams? Because we draft in a 12 or 14-team league and we compete against THEM for 13 weeks.

[CALI CARTEL]

I just don't get it, some of you aren't gonna be happy until everyone qualifies for the playoffs.

When you win your league, you don't want to go into the Playoffs against 35+% of the rest of the overall teams, it cheapens what you've done to that point.

[Coltsfan]

There might be a more "fair" way than what we are doing now but I really think that it really needs to be easy for folks to understand. Right now the NFFC is basically a "points" competition with an outside chance of someone getting in on record if they don't score in the top 15%. Personally I like the H2H component of the contest as you can build a team throughout the year and perhaps catch a break on a couple of games and still get in. Or this might also help you weather a couple of key injuries and still get in. The points leader may be the most consistent team but may not always be the most powerful team at the end of the year.

Personally I think that Mike's proposal makes a lot of sense and it fair but I think that there is something to be said for consistency in the rules. If I was starting something from scratch then that might be the way to go. But it seems like we are always tinkering with the rules and scoring system here. It would be nice to just keep it the same..... Just my opinion.


Wayne

[BillyWaz]

There might be a more "fair" way than what we are doing now but I really think that it really needs to be easy for folks to understand. Right now the NFFC is basically a "points" competition with an outside chance of someone getting in on record if they don't score in the top 15%. Personally I like the H2H component of the contest as you can build a team throughout the year and perhaps catch a break on a couple of games and still get in. Or this might also help you weather a couple of key injuries and still get in. The points leader may be the most consistent team but may not always be the most powerful team at the end of the year.

Personally I think that Mike's proposal makes a lot of sense and it fair but I think that there is something to be said for consistency in the rules. If I was starting something from scratch then that might be the way to go. But it seems like we are always tinkering with the rules and scoring system here. It would be nice to just keep it the same..... Just my opinion.


Wayne

Agree 100% with Wayne, Gekko, and Cali Cartel.

While I also like how Mike is thinking about this, we DO need a cutoff line, and anything over 15% is charity. Sure, a league where the next team is only 5 points behind (and not in the 15%), it would be nice for them to get in, but how do you word it without being too confusing???

Some out there claim the NFFC is already too "gimmicky" with 3RR and KDS. The FFPC has their "gimmicky" 1.5/TE reception, and adding MORE "gimmicky items" to ANY contest is not a way to build it.

I know the FFPC realizes that.....I hope the NFFC does too.

[Sandman62]

FWIW, I'd already moved on from this. I'm just cautioning that with the direction this is heading, next year there may be new complaints that 3rd place teams 80-100 points behind 2nd made it in - and those complaints may end up louder then the current "just missed" ones.

As for understandable wording... How about an addendum as simple as:
"If the H2H winner is not in the top 3 in scoring, then the 3rd highest scoring team will also make the playoffs as a league wildcard, as long as that team scored within 2% of the 2nd highest scoring team. The intent of wildcards is to ensure as much as possible that all worthy teams make the playoffs."

Or substitute "within 30 points" (or whatever number makes sense) for "within 2%".

Is it niche (or "gimmicky")? Yes, but that doesn't make it bad, IMO - especially once everyone realizes the intent.

Greg, were there any non-H2H winners who made the playoffs but did NOT score in the top 15% overall?