Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I'm a little surprised this idea has gotten so little support. No one has argued against it much, but not much support either from you or others who I think probably agree with me that skill should matter more than luck. will the masses like it? this is much different that doing blind bidding on draft slots. you are changing a fundamental way the game is played.
Playoff Teams - A Fair System?
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Playoff Teams - A Fair System?
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
Playoff Teams - A Fair System?
Let me remain the lone voice for Power Rankings as standings. A little bit of H2H, a little bit of points, and a little bit of playing everyone every week.
Hello. My name is Lee Scoresby. I come from Texas, like flying hot-air balloons, being eaten by talking polar bears and fantasy football.
Playoff Teams - A Fair System?
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I'm a little surprised this idea has gotten so little support. No one has argued against it much, but not much support either from you or others who I think probably agree with me that skill should matter more than luck. will the masses like it? this is much different that doing blind bidding on draft slots. you are changing a fundamental way the game is played. [/QUOTE]1 - It is easier to understand than slot bidding.
2- I don't think its a fundamental change if you view it as h-2-h against everyone in your lge each week with a winning week overall getting a "W' and a losing week overall getting a "L".
Whether the masses like it or not is the question though. The only argument I could see against it is that everyone is used to tracking one opponent per week rather than all opponents.
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I'm a little surprised this idea has gotten so little support. No one has argued against it much, but not much support either from you or others who I think probably agree with me that skill should matter more than luck. will the masses like it? this is much different that doing blind bidding on draft slots. you are changing a fundamental way the game is played. [/QUOTE]1 - It is easier to understand than slot bidding.
2- I don't think its a fundamental change if you view it as h-2-h against everyone in your lge each week with a winning week overall getting a "W' and a losing week overall getting a "L".
Whether the masses like it or not is the question though. The only argument I could see against it is that everyone is used to tracking one opponent per week rather than all opponents.
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 36423
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:00 pm
Playoff Teams - A Fair System?
Kevin, just a question out loud on your h2h proposal: What are the odds that several teams would have the exact same records, in fact possibly undefeated records, in several leagues? Since every team that finishes in the top seven of that league gets a win each week, isn't it possible for 2 or 3 or even more teams to go through the whole season undefeated or maybe one loss at most? I'm sure you've run the numbers already and that isn't the case, but it sure seems that way to a guy who has never competed in a setup like the one you are proposing.
As for the playoff debate, I certainly never expected all 32 teams that make the playoffs this year to be the top 32 scoring teams. Hitting that on the mark would have been near impossible to achieve. So I realize there may be a few teams out of the Top 32 in scoring who don't make the playoffs. I've already said that a simple wild card format like teams in the top 10 percent overall in scoring who don't make the playoffs earn a wild card berth for 2005 makes sense. Hopefully we'll have 400+ teams next year and all those teams in the Top 40 in overall scoring can feel secure that they will get a shot at the coveted grand prize.
It was a good point by Gordon two weeks ago and it was good for KOQ to bring it up again today. Both times I agree that going forward this will be a good addition to the NFFC and assure us that a top team won't get left behind. But this year with only 16 leagues and everyone agreeing to play under the revised payout structure, I like the one in 32 shot each of you have of winning $100,000 if you can just find a way to make it into the playoffs! Good luck everyone.
As for the playoff debate, I certainly never expected all 32 teams that make the playoffs this year to be the top 32 scoring teams. Hitting that on the mark would have been near impossible to achieve. So I realize there may be a few teams out of the Top 32 in scoring who don't make the playoffs. I've already said that a simple wild card format like teams in the top 10 percent overall in scoring who don't make the playoffs earn a wild card berth for 2005 makes sense. Hopefully we'll have 400+ teams next year and all those teams in the Top 40 in overall scoring can feel secure that they will get a shot at the coveted grand prize.
It was a good point by Gordon two weeks ago and it was good for KOQ to bring it up again today. Both times I agree that going forward this will be a good addition to the NFFC and assure us that a top team won't get left behind. But this year with only 16 leagues and everyone agreeing to play under the revised payout structure, I like the one in 32 shot each of you have of winning $100,000 if you can just find a way to make it into the playoffs! Good luck everyone.
Founder, National Fantasy Football Championship & National Fantasy Baseball Championship
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Playoff Teams - A Fair System?
Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Kevin, just a question out loud on your h2h proposal: What are the odds that several teams would have the exact same records, in fact possibly undefeated records, in several leagues? Since every team that finishes in the top seven of that league gets a win each week, isn't it possible for 2 or 3 or even more teams to go through the whole season undefeated or maybe one loss at most? I'm sure you've run the numbers already and that isn't the case, but it sure seems that way to a guy who has never competed in a setup like the one you are proposing.
Greg, I don't see any reason why league standings would be any different using the modified approach. Even the best teams will have an off week, in fact you could argue that it may be harder to go undefeated because in your "off weak" you won't be able to get lucky and beat a bad team.
Really, I would expect the final standings under a modified h2h to look about the same as a straight h2h. With one exception. The best teams WILL have the best records because everyone plays the same schedule. Tiebreakers, of course could remain the same/ total pts, etc.
Curious to hear your input on moving to a "total points" game as GG and Dyv suggested. While more fair than the current set-up, I think its a less interesting game than getting a W/L each week.
[ November 15, 2004, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Kevin, just a question out loud on your h2h proposal: What are the odds that several teams would have the exact same records, in fact possibly undefeated records, in several leagues? Since every team that finishes in the top seven of that league gets a win each week, isn't it possible for 2 or 3 or even more teams to go through the whole season undefeated or maybe one loss at most? I'm sure you've run the numbers already and that isn't the case, but it sure seems that way to a guy who has never competed in a setup like the one you are proposing.
Greg, I don't see any reason why league standings would be any different using the modified approach. Even the best teams will have an off week, in fact you could argue that it may be harder to go undefeated because in your "off weak" you won't be able to get lucky and beat a bad team.
Really, I would expect the final standings under a modified h2h to look about the same as a straight h2h. With one exception. The best teams WILL have the best records because everyone plays the same schedule. Tiebreakers, of course could remain the same/ total pts, etc.
Curious to hear your input on moving to a "total points" game as GG and Dyv suggested. While more fair than the current set-up, I think its a less interesting game than getting a W/L each week.
[ November 15, 2004, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
Playoff Teams - A Fair System?
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
will the masses like it? this is much different that doing blind bidding on draft slots. you are changing a fundamental way the game is played. Good point, Gordon. It's the same reason why draft bidding will not be a part of the NFFC in 2005--without employing the K.I.S.S. philosophy, this contest will not get to 400+ teams.
will the masses like it? this is much different that doing blind bidding on draft slots. you are changing a fundamental way the game is played. Good point, Gordon. It's the same reason why draft bidding will not be a part of the NFFC in 2005--without employing the K.I.S.S. philosophy, this contest will not get to 400+ teams.
Playoff Teams - A Fair System?
Originally posted by King of Queens:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
will the masses like it? this is much different that doing blind bidding on draft slots. you are changing a fundamental way the game is played. Good point, Gordon. It's the same reason why draft bidding will not be a part of the NFFC in 2005--without employing the K.I.S.S. philosophy, this contest will not get to 400+ teams. [/QUOTE]It is not a fundamental change KOQ, you are missing the point. A modified h2h is simpler, much more fair, and should be far less controversial than random scheduling if the point is in fact to reward the best teams, not the luckiest.
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
will the masses like it? this is much different that doing blind bidding on draft slots. you are changing a fundamental way the game is played. Good point, Gordon. It's the same reason why draft bidding will not be a part of the NFFC in 2005--without employing the K.I.S.S. philosophy, this contest will not get to 400+ teams. [/QUOTE]It is not a fundamental change KOQ, you are missing the point. A modified h2h is simpler, much more fair, and should be far less controversial than random scheduling if the point is in fact to reward the best teams, not the luckiest.
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
Playoff Teams - A Fair System?
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
It is not a fundamental change KOQ, you are missing the point. A modified h2h is simpler, much more fair, and should be far less controversial than random scheduling if the point is in fact to reward the best teams, not the luckiest. Never said it was a fundamental change--just too complicated (I know, not to me or you) for over 50% of the NFFC's members.
Like the bidding for draft slots, it's a great idea. Just won't happen in the immediate future. Once the customer base is built, you might see changes like this.
It is not a fundamental change KOQ, you are missing the point. A modified h2h is simpler, much more fair, and should be far less controversial than random scheduling if the point is in fact to reward the best teams, not the luckiest. Never said it was a fundamental change--just too complicated (I know, not to me or you) for over 50% of the NFFC's members.
Like the bidding for draft slots, it's a great idea. Just won't happen in the immediate future. Once the customer base is built, you might see changes like this.
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 36423
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:00 pm
Playoff Teams - A Fair System?
Kevin, I definitely will not go to a total points setup in the NFFC. Whether you agree with head-to-head competition determining the true league champion or not, there's something special about leaving each week with a win or a loss. That's football. Hell, I don't think the Chicago Bears are a better team than the Green Bay Packers, but in Week 2 at Lambeau Field with me in the crowd, they were. I also don't think Tennessee is a better team than Green Bay, but in Week 5 they DEFINITELY were. Maybe Minnesota is better than Green Bay, but last week without Randy Moss they weren't. Those type of matchups happen in the NFL and they happen in fantasy football.
Over 13 weeks, the best teams will emerge from each league and advance to the playoffs. Adding wild card teams in 2005 to make sure the top scoring teams all make the playoffs will help. Maybe one day changing the h2h setup will help, too. I just don't see the need to change it right now. If anything, I like the all h2h setup better where you have a chance for 13 wins each week as you play every league member EVERY week. But it's just not the same as mano-y-mano.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I like my team against another team each week and leaving with a win or a loss. That's football. And as long as we reward h2h champions and make sure that the top scoring teams all make the playoffs as well, I think our system is fair for everyone. Again, just my two cents, for what it's worth.
Over 13 weeks, the best teams will emerge from each league and advance to the playoffs. Adding wild card teams in 2005 to make sure the top scoring teams all make the playoffs will help. Maybe one day changing the h2h setup will help, too. I just don't see the need to change it right now. If anything, I like the all h2h setup better where you have a chance for 13 wins each week as you play every league member EVERY week. But it's just not the same as mano-y-mano.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I like my team against another team each week and leaving with a win or a loss. That's football. And as long as we reward h2h champions and make sure that the top scoring teams all make the playoffs as well, I think our system is fair for everyone. Again, just my two cents, for what it's worth.
Founder, National Fantasy Football Championship & National Fantasy Baseball Championship
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Playoff Teams - A Fair System?
I know this isn't significant, but I have made several roster moves this year based entirely on my opponent's team. That is, if I have the choice between 2 WR and I feel I'm ahead of my opponent, I'll take the one that HIS QB is throwing to in an attempt to neutralize him (since I feel I have the edge elsewhere). If, on the other hand, I think he's got me and I need to take risk... then I put in my OTHER WR hoping his QB has a bad day and I can gain ground on him.
This isn't a significant amount of points, but it's true that some play their teams differently based on matchup vs. 'pure overall points' - so use all stats with a grain of salt when you run this year's NFFC through any other format.
As far as H2H vs. points vs. All Play vs. Power vs. whatever.
I'm fine with whatever format - there's years where I want my dominant team recognized and there's years where I have loved my lucky team to keep getting lucky.
Dyv
This isn't a significant amount of points, but it's true that some play their teams differently based on matchup vs. 'pure overall points' - so use all stats with a grain of salt when you run this year's NFFC through any other format.
As far as H2H vs. points vs. All Play vs. Power vs. whatever.
I'm fine with whatever format - there's years where I want my dominant team recognized and there's years where I have loved my lucky team to keep getting lucky.
Dyv
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!