Modified head-to-head format

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:29 am

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.I like total points , Greg, but it's easy for me to be partial since I'm 2-5 and leading my league in total points. Here's consistency for you, KJ. I've lost as the 3rd highest score in the league to one of the top 2 scores 3 times and lost as the 4th highest score last week. Unlucky schedule, yes, inconsistent, no. To me, high total points and all-play will produce the same result.

Greg, go to the Most Competitive League thread and that will give you an idea as to how many division leaders are leading the point race at the halfway point. I don't have complete league standings but it will help.

wlfskp · Post by **wlfskp** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:05 am

I cannot understand why so many want to tweek things. It works the way it was set up with everybody facing the same luck good or bad. I mean look at us in LV2 we are again second in points yet we have a 3 and 4 record. Some unlucky losses (except week 6 where we stunk up the joint) and some very big wins....50 plus points this week. We face an uncertain future...winning the league probably statistically impossible, but second in points and a playoff berth within 20 points of the leader...very possible. I will leave it as is and roll with what happens....afterall it is a game....with a very nice reward but if I needed the reward to survive I would be more worried about my life than this game.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:34 am

Originally posted by FresnoFanatics2:
I cannot understand why so many want to tweek things. It works the way it was set up with everybody facing the same luck good or bad. You answered your own question, Fresno. Luck.

I prefer more skill and less luck. Why is that so hard to understand?

I guess the guys that want to get lucky are happy with a high luck factor, and the guys that want to win on skill want a lower luck factor.

And, just to put to bed the idea that others have mentioned that some of us want change because we are "complaining", consider this: I am tied for 1st at 5-2 in LV2; under a modified all-play I would be 3-4 and in 10th place. My team has been lucky, but I'd still rather have a system that rewards skill over luck.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:44 am

Originally posted by FresnoFanatics2:
Some unlucky losses (except week 6 where we stunk up the joint) and some very big wins....50 plus points this week. We face an uncertain future...winning the league probably statistically impossible, but second in points and a playoff berth within 20 points of the leader...very possible. Modified LV2 standings + (gain or loss over actual):

Lumpy 5-2 (-)
Fresno 5-2 (+2)
Can Am 5-2 (-)
Phantoms 5-2 (+1)

Texas 4-3 (-1)
Athens 4-3 (-1)
Comware 4-3 (+1)

Zefurs 3-4 (-2)
UFS 3-4 (+1)
Flattops 3-4 (-)

O'Neill 2-5 (-3)
Sunday 2-5 (-)
Maguire 2-5 (+1)
War Ens. 2-5 (+1)

Conclusion YTD:

The luck factor has had a big impact on 3 teams. Fresno should be in position to win, but he is not. Zefurs and O'Neill should be lower tier but are tied for first.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:48 am

Kevin, let's see how the records hold up over 13 weeks. If your team has been "lucky" thus far in head-to-head, it's very possible that over 13 weeks your "luck" will run out and Fresno's "luck" will improve. We'll see.

All of your suggestions are designed to take as much luck out of the equation as possible and I appreciate that. By the end of the regular season we'll have a strong basis to evaluate whether our setup was fair or a farce. And I'm not afraid to make changes if I see they need to be made.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:54 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I'm not afraid to make changes if I see they need to be made. That's one of the reasons why you will succeed.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:23 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Kevin, let's see how the records hold up over 13 weeks. If your team has been "lucky" thus far in head-to-head, it's very possible that over 13 weeks your "luck" will run out and Fresno's "luck" will improve. We'll see.

Agreed Greg, makes sense to see if it evens out as the season unfolds. It could be insignificant but I'm tracking my lges out of curiosity to see how it comes out.

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:15 am

Greg, I exported the overall standings to an Excel spreadsheet and after some sorts, I can tell you that the best record is in the top two in every league except for three of the NY leagues. In two of the three the first place teams standings wise are 3rd in points and the other one is in 5th. Still half of a season left though so it should be fun.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:51 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote: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. [/QUOTE]OK, now I am even more disgusted, not only am I 0-4 against 4 teams which I am 6-3 against in all-play, it looked like I would get some payback this week against the Midwy Bolts with a 0.2 point win. Well, it was just reversed to a 0.8 pt loss, which makes me 3-6 and done for the season barring a miracle.

Greg, back on the subject of evaluating fairness at yr-end ... here is one problem in looking at yr-end stats. Many teams could and probably will begin to throw in the towel now, or soon, being near mathematical elimination. This will end up dropping both their win total and their point totals at year end. This would of course make a yr-end check to see if the "best" teams made the playoffs skewed toward those that were lucky early and thus had reason to fight all year, and away from those that were unlucky and perhaps unfairly eliminated early. Just something to factor into the analysis ...

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:23 pm

UPDATED thru wk 9:
LV2 Modified standings: (actual in parentheses)

1. Lumpy 7-2 (6-3,2nd)
2. Can Am 7-2 (7-2,1st)
3. Phantoms 6-3 (5-4,5th)
4. Comware 6-3 (3-6,10)
5. Fresno 5-4 (4-5,9th)
6. Lindsay 5-4 (6-3,3rd)
7. Flattops 5-4 (5-4,6th)
8. Texas 5-4 (6-3,4th)
9. UFS 4-5 (3-6,11th)
10 Zefurs 3-6 (5-4,8th)
11 Sunday 3-6 (3-6,12)
12 O'Neill 2-7 (5-4,7)
13 Maguire 2-7 (2-7,14)
14 War Ens. 2-7 (3-6,13)

Conclusion YTD:
Lumpy has had the best team, but would finish second if the season ends today. Comware should be in 4th, one game out, but is essentially eliminated. The Zefurs and O'Neill should have been eliminated but remain in the race.