Other playoff options instead of single elimination

[ironicpirate]

Just wondering if people use other systems instead of single elimination for the playoffs? Three of the last four years we are going to have a bottom seeded team win our league (we have #5 versus #6 playing for the title next week). We're playing for fairly decent money and it just seems with late in the year "happenings" (like weather and teams resting players) - the best (overall) teams aren't winning the title in a lot of leagues. For full disclosure, I was one of the guys who got screwed over this year, but I also won a year I shouldn't have (and I also mentioned at that time it didn't seem right).

 

I've heard about leagues letting the teams on bye be able to use their high score from either the bye week or the week of their first game - Does anyone else do anything different?

[thunderROAD]

We tried to be like NASCAR and figure out some way to reward the top finishing teams with some kind of point advantage. Then it would be the top six teams, out of twelve, who would play a three week cumulative tournament. The bottom six had a losers’ tourney. We could never figure out how to weight the advantage for the teams. Ten points a team seemed reasonable to me. But the thing is with something like this concept, you are just guessing at what the advantage should be to make things fair.

Edited December 17, 2007 by thunderROAD

[Delicious_bass]

Just wondering if people use other systems instead of single elimination for the playoffs? Three of the last four years we are going to have a bottom seeded team win our league (we have #5 versus #6 playing for the title next week). We're playing for fairly decent money and it just seems with late in the year "happenings" (like weather and teams resting players) - the best (overall) teams aren't winning the title in a lot of leagues. For full disclosure, I was one of the guys who got screwed over this year, but I also won a year I shouldn't have (and I also mentioned at that time it didn't seem right).

 

I've heard about leagues letting the teams on bye be able to use their high score from either the bye week or the week of their first game - Does anyone else do anything different?

 

 

We tried to be like NASCAR and figure out some way to reward the top finishing teams with some kind of point advantage. Then it would be the top six teams, out of twelve, who would play a three week cumulative tournament. The bottom six had a losers’ tourney. We could never figure out how to weight the advantage for the teams. Ten points a team seemed reasonable to me. But the thing is with something like this concept, you are just guessing at what the advantage should be to make things fair.

Not trying to be a smart ass, but after reading both of these posts, I wonder why you guys have playoffs at all? It seems you are determined to see the teams that perform well during the season win the money/glory at the end. Why dont you just make the regular season last weeks 1-16 and award the championship to the team with the best record? A playoff(by nature) seems to contradict what you are looking for, no?

[Sgt. Ryan]

Total Points. We do this is one of my locals, and I love it. If you are dominant all year long, you are not penalized if some team get hot, while your QB and Wr is playing through a blizzard.

[ironicpirate]

Not trying to be a smart ass, but after reading both of these posts, I wonder why you guys have playoffs at all? It seems you are determined to see the teams that perform well during the season win the money/glory at the end. Why dont you just make the regular season last weeks 1-16 and award the championship to the team with the best record? A playoff(by nature) seems to contradict what you are looking for, no?

 

I think there are good reasons to have a playoff - for example, to allow the occasional surprise team to win it all; or at least advance a round. We need competition and we don't want the teams that have had at least average years quitting because they realize they can't get one of the first couple playoff spots. But what we see in our league, and what I read on a lot of posts here, is how often the best team (the team ranked 1st, 2nd or maybe even 3rd) doesn't win or gets knocked out in the first round.

 

So I guess what I'm asking does anyone have a system that allows an advantage to the higher seeds that is significant, but not so totally out of whack that a lesser seed couldn't pull of an upset from time to time. Say something the equivalent of a home field advantage in the real game.

Edited December 18, 2007 by ironicpirate

[muck]

Here's a "home field advantage" idea I've been futzing around with ...

 

Six teams make the playoffs; two division winners (seeds 1 & 2), next two best records after tie breakers regardless of division (seeds 3 & 4), next two highest points scored not already in the playoffs (seeds 5 & 6).

 

Week 15 = First Round

Seeds 1 & 2: Highest score from weeks 13, 14 and 15 counts

Seeds 3 & 4: Highest score from weeks 14 & 15 counts

Seeds 5 & 6: Score from only week 15 counts

 

Top Two (or three...or four) scoring teams advance ... I haven't worked out the details ...

 

Then...

 

Week 16 = Super Bowl

If a #1 or #2 Seed, they get the highest score from Weeks 14, 15 and 16

If a #3 or #4 Seed, they get the highest score from Weekds 15 and 16

If a #5 or #6 Seed, they get to only use the score from Week 16

 

Team with the highest score wins the league SB.

 

...this process would award the "head to head" component of the weekly matchups, but not totally eliminate the high scoring team with an unlucky schedule from having a chance to sniff the SB...

[Delicious_bass]

I think there are good reasons to have a playoff - for example, to allow the occasional surprise team to win it all; or at least advance a round. We need competition and we don't want the teams that have had at least average years quitting because they realize they can't get one of the first couple playoff spots. But what we see in our league, and what I read on a lot of posts here, is how often the best team (the team ranked 1st, 2nd or maybe even 3rd) doesn't win or gets knocked out in the first round.

 

So I guess what I'm asking does anyone have a system that allows an advantage to the higher seeds that is significant, but not so totally out of whack that a lesser seed couldn't pull of an upset from time to time. Say something the equivalent of a home field advantage in the real game.

So, you want to keep the playoffs "to allow the occasional surprise team to win it all; or at least advance a round" but you want to make it easier for the better regular season teams to win? Wont adjusting the format in favor of the better teams eliminate the possibility of the occasional surprise team winning? I dont understand what you are looking for here. A playoff is already weighted in favor of the top seeds(unless you seed teams randomly or something). The team with the most wins usually plays the team with the least amount of wins that qualifies for the playoffs. Now you're looking for a system to make it even easier for the #1 seed to beat the #8 seed more consistently? You want the favorites to win but want to preserve the chance for the Cinderella story? I hate to break it to you, but you cant really have it both ways.

 

Sounds to me like you need to do away with the playoffs altogether and award the title/money to the team with the best record and/or (as Sgt Ryan suggests) the team with the most points. Then you are certain the "best team" wins (if regular season record and total points dictates who the best team is in your opinion).

[Ursa Majoris]

I think there are good reasons to have a playoff - for example, to allow the occasional surprise team to win it all; or at least advance a round. We need competition and we don't want the teams that have had at least average years quitting because they realize they can't get one of the first couple playoff spots. But what we see in our league, and what I read on a lot of posts here, is how often the best team (the team ranked 1st, 2nd or maybe even 3rd) doesn't win or gets knocked out in the first round.

 

So I guess what I'm asking does anyone have a system that allows an advantage to the higher seeds that is significant, but not so totally out of whack that a lesser seed couldn't pull of an upset from time to time. Say something the equivalent of a home field advantage in the real game.

Sorry, no offense but this is silly. If these teams are "better" let them prove it in playoffs. Otherwise go to total points through week 16. Don't weight what you think are the better teams unless you consider every result throughout the season based on who was unlucky with injuries, refs calls, weather, etc, etc. Those "better" teams may not be better at all.

[muck]

Another option is "all play" records...

[ironicpirate]

Sorry, no offense but this is silly. If these teams are "better" let them prove it in playoffs. Otherwise go to total points through week 16. Don't weight what you think are the better teams unless you consider every result throughout the season based on who was unlucky with injuries, refs calls, weather, etc, etc. Those "better" teams may not be better at all.

 

First I just want to say I'm not trying to find something better because I'm bitter about my team this season. I sucked this week (the last couple weeks have been rough) - everything went south on me at once and sometimes that happens. I'm just wondering if there is another way?

 

I really don't want to turn this into an argument over what a "better" team is. But I do think you can look at the season records as some kind of guide.

 

We had three teams all finish over 100 points ahead of the other teams. These teams weren't a ref's call or a Phil Dawson goal post bounce better. The number one seed (with Brady, Moss, Braylon Edwards and Willie Parker among others), was a little over 100 points ahead of the number two seed (I was in second). None of those teams are in the SB game. Who do we have in the championship game? The two last teams that snuck in. One actually has a decent enough team, he got a lot of bad draws and didn't have a great record. But as for the other team?

 

We have the possibilty of having to hand over a fairly big check next week to someone with a team that features a starting WR line-up of:

A Randle El, Muhsin Muhammad and Greg Jennings (he does have Lee Evans who he sits most weeks)

O Daniels at TE (okay he's not that bad)

Lendale White and up until yesterday Justin Fargas at RB (middle of the road type RBs)

P Manning

Chargers Def

Matt Stover as a K

 

To me, that team is the definition of mediocre...Jennings has had a breakout year, but he's basically putting out two WR's every week that do nothing. Is there anyone out there that has a team with a worse duo of WRs that is still playing? His K is nothing to write home about. His RBs are okay, but do they really excite anyone? Manning is still a stud, but he's not having an incredible year (I think he's 4th in QB points in our league and well behind Brady and Romo).

 

He got the last playoff spot in a tie breaker where he won a game 37-35 early in the year. If this was a once in a while thing, I think it would be kind of cool. Anyone can win; you have to keep playing! But would people really like the NCAA tourney if every year the Final Four featured seeds 7 vs 9 and 6 vs 11? Do we want to see Boise State beat Oklahoma in a big Bowl every year?

 

Maybe we've just hit one of those streaks as a league. But it is getting harder and harder to get guys to cough up a few hundred bucks to play, when you draft a really good team and you get beat because of some fluky weather conditions (in two cities) or Jessica Simpson shows up at the game wearing your stud QB's jersey. And I only posted the question because it sounds like we're not the only league having this happen.

Edited December 18, 2007 by ironicpirate

[tonorator]

First I just want to say I'm not trying to find something better because I'm bitter about my team this season.

 

To me, that team is the definition of mediocre...Jennings has had a breakout year, but he's basically putting out two WR's every week that do nothing. Is there anyone out there that has a team with a worse duo of WRs that is still playing? His K is nothing to write home about. His RBs are okay, but do they really excite anyone? Manning is still a stud, but he's not having an incredible year (I think he's 4th in QB points in our league and well behind Brady and Romo).

 

 

you are so bitter ...

[wiegie]

But it is getting harder and harder to get guys to cough up a few hundred bucks to play, when you draft a really good team and you get beat because of some fluky weather conditions (in two cities) or Jessica Simpson shows up at the game wearing your stud QB's jersey. And I only posted the question because it sounds like we're not the only league having this happen.

If it is the money that is your concern, make more of the prize money go out to the people that win the regular season. Then just have simple lump-sum payments for playoff victories.

[muck]

If it is the money that is your concern, make more of the prize money go out to the people that win the regular season. Then just have simple lump-sum payments for playoff victories.

 

Leave it to the economist...

 

One thing we do is payout a bit differently in our 10 team league:

40% to SB champ

20% to SB runner up

10% to each of the two division champs

5% to each of the two wildcards

5% to the team with the most points scored and not in the playoffs (Chief Dick has won this three years in a row)

5% to the team with the biggest improvement in total points scored vs. last year

[detlef]

I think skewing the play-offs to the advantage of the the "better" teams is bush. FWIW, in my league, the guys who are typically good win. If you have a great regular season record, and are basically assured of a play-off, you're a fool if you don't look ahead to week 15 and 16 to see if, for instance, your kicker is @ Buff , @NE or something like that. You've got to ditch the guy for somebody who's indoors or playing in the south.

 

On top of that, by giving the two teams with the best records the extra love, have you insured that you've rewarded the two best teams? What about the guy who keeps putting up big weeks but always faces the high scorer for the week. There's always that guy.

 

I digress. I think ouija's idea is the best solution. Kick some jack to the highest point total (not best record because that's no less random than who's hot in the play-offs) and have some money for the SB.

[Purdue Pete]

10 Team League, 8 Playoff teams. $60 buy-in/ $5 weekly points/ $5 per add/Trades are free.

We split our winnings as follows

 

45% Overall points after 16 games ~$720 this year

25% Superbowl (weeks 14,15,16) ~$400

5% for a playoff win. ~$80/win

 

We also have a $50/week for high points.

 

So, IF you are the best team you could end up

with 80% of the kitty.

[The Wolf]

There are plenty of options out there rather than head to head and "risk" a mediocre team winning in the playoffs. But the bottom line is this...if you play in a head to head league, then anything can happen. The phrase "Any Given Sunday" means exactly that. The NFL does not give anything more than a home game to top teams, so that means New England can go 16-0, get a bye...and lose their first playoff game. Does that taint the Super Bowl? Nope. It's "Any Given Sunday" at work. It's always been that way and it should always be that way.

 

I finished 12 - 2 in my local, got the top seed, bye, high scorer by a wide margin...then lost this week to the #6 seed, a guy who was 5 games worse than me in the standings, because my team scored half it's average.

 

I'm not gonna cry...we're a head to head league and will continue to play it as such.

 

Just my

[Piranha-z]

The NFL does not give anything more than a home game to top teams, so that means New England can go 16-0, get a bye...and lose their first playoff game. Does that taint the Super Bowl? Nope. It's "Any Given Sunday" at work. It's always been that way and it should always be that way.

 

 

Well said and I just don't get this thread to be honest. I guess you can set up your league any way you want, ut don't be mad if a "lower grade" team ends up winning it all. He might think he has the best team!!!

[buddahj]

Leave it to the economist...

 

One thing we do is payout a bit differently in our 10 team league:

40% to SB champ

20% to SB runner up

10% to each of the two division champs

5% to each of the two wildcards

5% to the team with the most points scored and not in the playoffs (Chief Dick has won this three years in a row)

5% to the team with the biggest improvement in total points scored vs. last year

i'm not real good @ math, but i don't think this adds up to 100%. where's the other 15% go?

[muck]

...you're also not very good at reading...

 

 

two conference champs at 10% each

two wildcards at 5% each

Edited December 18, 2007 by muck

[buddahj]

two conference champs at 10% each

two wildcards at 5% each

thanks. had a late night.

[wirehairman]

Like Wolf, I went 12-2 and led the scoring by a huge margin in one league. I went one and done in the playoffs, losing to the #8 seed because my team flopped. It's a head-to-head league, and that's how it goes.

 

I will say that taking home 30% of the pot for winning the regular season soothes the hurt, though.

[buddahj]

...you're also not very good at reading...

good burn.

[MTSuper7]

There are three possible solutions that I can think of:

 

1) Institute a payout to the regular season champ. That way if he gets ousted in his first playoff game, at least he got something for his season.

2) Institute a bye week for regular season champ (and runner-up). Getting a free week is a huge advantage.

 

These two items above are both in use in each league I'm in, and I believe they are common practice for a lot of leagues. Giving other advantages is just tinkering too much with what makes fantasy football playoffs so great. Any team can win! I personally love the challenge of negotiating trades and roster moves with weeks 14-16 in my mind, trying to put together the best team I can for that three week stretch. In my opinion, regular season dominance without postseason strategy is worthless. At least part of that strategy has to include looking at how cold weather matchups might affect games (hindsight = 20/20, I know).

 

I did say three possible solutions, didn't I? OK... here's a radical idea for #3:

 

3) After the regular season ends, take your playoff teams based on whatever method you have for determining playoff teams, then reset all playoff team totals to zero fantasy points. Then, for weeks 14 through 16, instead of single elimination matchups, just do total points for those three weeks to determine your winner.

 

I don't necessarily like his idea, as I tend to like the traditional playoff bracket matchups. But this would give all playoff teams a fighting chance, yet probably gives the regular season dominant teams an edge since it is unlikely that they will have three straight weeks of underachievement. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has done something similar to this before.