detlef Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 As would be expected, there are a lot of threads posting play-off tie-break issues. At first glance, it seems that most of these leagues problems are rooted in the fact that they are broken down into divisions. Thus, you end up with these sticky situations where one guy with a crappy record is getting in over another or, as BeeR's latest issue is, comparing 3 teams and having divisional record as a tie-break when only 2 of the 3 teams are in the same division. Now, I completely understand why the NFL and other sports leagues have them. Regional or traditional rivalries are crucial to generating fan enthusiasm and I imagine, once upon a time, it came down to travel issues. None the less, these typically don't transfer to a league where 1) nobody travels and 2) everyone is basically just friends anyway. So, I'm curious if people just adopt them because they figure they should or for some specific reason. One argument that I'm certain that I'll hear is because of unbalanced schedules. Provided you have more than 8 teams in your league, it is impossible to play everyone the same number of times without scheduling double headers (which I understand is something that you might not want to do). However, why is it any better to play guys in your division twice and guys outside once any more than it is to simply play some guys twice and some guys once without any divisional set up? In many ways, each is just as arbitrary as the other. Honestly, I know that plenty here bristle at posts I make like this because they feel I'm attacking their choice for how they run their league. Honestly though, I'm just curious if I'm truly missing something here. After all, there are some rather apparent advantages to just putting everyone in one group (assuming that you have few enough teams that everyone can play each other at least once). The biggest one being that if you want the top 6 teams to move on, well, there they are. The teams ranked 1-6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 At the risk of pissing you off yet again because of a divergent opinion, leagues do this because it simulates the sport from which the hobby was created. It can also foster competition (and some associated trash talking) because of the divisions. Some FFers actually like that. Hard for you to believe, I know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 At the risk of pissing you off yet again because of a divergent opinion, leagues do this because it simulates the sport from which the hobby was created. It can also foster competition (and some associated trash talking) because of the divisions. Some FFers actually like that. Hard for you to believe, I know... First off, honestly. Get off the cross. You know what. I'm just going to hold out for someone who's not as big a freaking baby as you are to come along and discuss this with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I think Big Baby is right. FF has divisions to mirror the NFL to a degree. Does it make any sense in a ff situation? Probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 First off, honestly. Get off the cross. You know what. I'm just going to hold out for someone who's not as big a freaking baby as you are to come along and discuss this with them. I agree with BB and with that said he and I along with Big John and Gilthorp are in one division in ATAP and it is the strongest division in the league and I wouldnt want it any differently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) First off, honestly. Get off the cross. You know what. I'm just going to hold out for someone who's not as big a freaking baby as you are to come along and discuss this with them. You mean someone who is willing to swing from your sack, like driveby? The fact of the matter is that many, many people view FF very differently than you do. It doesn't make you wrong, and it doesn't make them wrong, either (except in your mind). Edited December 3, 2008 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) I think Big Baby is right. FF has divisions to mirror the NFL to a degree. Does it make any sense in a ff situation? Probably not. I totally understand the mirror thing. In fact, I'm pretty certain that is precisely why many do it. However, there are countless manners in which FF diverges from the real game for the purpose of improved play. For instance, teams do not score points for yardage gained. QBs do not lose points for picks. Kickers do not get extra points for long kicks, and so on. I suppose that's why I'm asking this. I also understand why the NFL does it. I also understand, like you, that doesn't mean it makes sense for FF. Just curious if anyone who's doing it has actually thought much about it. Edited December 3, 2008 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 I agree with BB and with that said he and I along with Big John and Gilthorp are in one division in ATAP and it is the strongest division in the league and I wouldnt want it any differently So I'm to understand that you guys have a long standing league? So your choice to divide into divisions has had the same intended effect as the NFL's? That's cool. Is it a dynasty league? That would make even more sense. See, I've learned in some of these tie-break threads that some leagues re-shuffle the divisions every year. They wouldn't seem to benefit from the same rivalry factor that you guys do. For instance, in your league there's divisional bragging rights that I can't imagine would be there if it was a different set of guys every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I also understand why the NFL does it. I also understand, like you, that doesn't mean it makes sense for FF. Just curious if anyone who's doing it has actually thought much about it. For what it is worth, I've played in a league where all teams compete against each other with no divisions and found it much less enjoyable than the conferences/divisions setup. The divisions engender rivalries, even though it is only a game (a game, that is, with flexible rules to suit the league members). The league keg mentioned went right down to the wire, with all 4 teams in our division being strong. At least 2 of the guys got screwed by being in the division, but the rivalry/comaraderie developed was well worth it in my mind. I've seen the same thing develop in other leagues. If you're playing FF just to study stats, build your best team, and beat others, what you propose is great and works well for you. For a vast number of others, the social aspect of FF is an important component of participation - and to some it's the most important component. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 Keggerz, would you please tell BB that you have explained your reasoning to me and I am now more curious about those leagues that reshuffle the divisions every year? TIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) Like it because (at least in theory over time) it does or should promote rivalries, stuff like "I've swept you 3 years in a row" kind of stuff. Best for long-standing leagues esp local ones and ones where people know each other really well. Having said that, I don't like 3 div's in a 12-team league; 2 is plenty, because it increases the odds of someone winning a div title in a weak division ie not being worthy of a playoff spot. Edited December 3, 2008 by BeeR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 You mean someone who is willing to swing from your sack, like driveby? The fact of the matter is that many, many people view FF very differently than you do. It doesn't make you wrong, and it doesn't make them wrong, either (except in your mind). I've pretty much been agreeing with you 90% of the time if you hadn't noticed, jeez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanCT Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I have divisions to keep more teams in the hunt for the playoff race. The more teams with a realistic chance of making the playoffs, the happier your league will be, and the fairer the competition. Each team plays the other teams in their division twice, so it gives you a chance to get back into contention, and unless your team is absolutely horrendous, you usually have a chance to make the playoffs right up to the last couple weeks of the season. I've been in leagues where there were no divisions, and when you start out slow, or get an injury or two, you end up stuck at the bottom with no realistic chance of jumping the other teams. It's no fun, you lose interest, and before you know it, by week seven, a good handful of teams just stop submitting lineups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I was in a local this year where out of the 12 owners, only about 5 of them have any clue at all. I got stuck in the same division as 3 of them. The last guy with a clue wound up in the other division with all the short bus riders. He coasted to the #1 seed while we all went .500 against each other. It was a completely random draw, but it sucked. As for leagues I commish. . .no divisions. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 Like it because (at least in theory over time) it does or should promote rivalries, stuff like "I've swept you 3 years in a row" kind of stuff. Best for long-standing leagues esp local ones and ones where people know each other really well. Having said that, I don't like 3 div's in a 12-team league; 2 is plenty, because it increases the odds of someone winning a div title in a weak division ie not being worthy of a playoff spot. This makes sense as well (especially the aversion to 3). To be honest, I was contemplating putting guys into divisions for the local I started but two guys dropped out late and we went from 12 to 10. That seemed like too few teams to bother breaking up. However, we've found two more for next year so I was honestly considering it but have reservations as I noted above. It does seem that enough of you guys do like the rivalries it spawns. However, I never found that to be the case. At one point I was in a league that had them and a league that didn't. I had way more fun in the one that didn't but in all fairness, knew the guys better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belushi Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I like it to stimulate rivalries with guys being in the same divisions each year and having to face off. One big league with no divisions kind of lacks character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I've pretty much been agreeing with you 90% of the time if you hadn't noticed, jeez. I'm shooting for at least 97%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I think it comes down to these questions: - How much do you want your league to resemble an actual sports league (NFL)? - How competitive do you want it to be... not only as a whole, but on a weekly basis? - How "fair" do you want it to be? In other words, is making it as fair as possible the most important thing, even at the expense of some of the competition/fun? If the point of having a league is simply to figure out which owner has the best team on draft day, there would be no divisions, no playoffs, no FA/WW, no trades, etc. There would simply be a league where you measure cumulative points from week 1 through week 17. High score wins. However, that would be a bit boring, which is why some of these other league characteristics (formats) have been created... to model more of an actual NFL league. So, assuming you don't want to go with the one-division, no playoff, cumulative high-score wins approach, I think the next best thing is to somehow develop a format that does both... makes things relatively fair, but also generates a certain amount of competition/fun, from week to week as well as season-long. I think balanced schedules are a pretty significant factor, although certainly not flawless. For example, I'm in a couple of leagues this year where one division holds the three or four top-scoring teams for the entire league. Not much can be done about that. But, I still think that scenario is better than one in which teams randomly don't play certain other teams at all, due to no divisions or whatever. Pro's of having divisions: - Balanced schedule - More competition or trash-talking between certain teams, due to being division "rivals." Con's of having divisions: - Playoff scenario is sometimes unclear, or at least hard to agree on what the tie-breakers should be (or in what order). - The best teams don't always make the playoffs if divisions are not equal in strength. I personally think the pro's have more weight than the con's, if the commissioner of said league knows what he/she is doing. Ultimately, due to the length of the NFL season, plus the fact that the NFL has bye weeks, there is no way to ensure that the best teams make the playoffs in any league... unless we go back to the "boring league" scenario. Either you have divisions (and run the risk of one division being significantly stronger than another), or you don't (and ultimately have teams that don't play each other an even amount of times). In my opinion, the competitive nature of leagues where there are divisions outweighs the risk of having divisions that are not dead even, especially if the divisions are set from year to year and do not change regularly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 That said, I'm in leagues with no divisions as well, and I enjoy them too. I think it's mainly because of the fact that those leagues measure total points as the first tie-breaker after record, and I seem to be in the situation, more often than not, where I have more points, but lose out on HTH or division record tie-breakers (especially last year). Overall, though, I think I prefer the division setup just slightly over the non. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 Gopher, adding divisions doesn't mean teams play each other the same amount of times. It simply is a way to define how you determine who plays each other more often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Honestly, I know that plenty here bristle at posts I make like this because they feel I'm attacking their choice for how they run their league. Admitting it is the first step to recovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Detlef wants nothing to do with Hannibal's, got it This league is set up pretty much exactly like the NFL and I love it. I turned my local into this format as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 For what it is worth, I've played in a league where all teams compete against each other with no divisions and found it much less enjoyable than the conferences/divisions setup. The divisions engender rivalries, even though it is only a game (a game, that is, with flexible rules to suit the league members). The league keg mentioned went right down to the wire, with all 4 teams in our division being strong. At least 2 of the guys got screwed by being in the division, but the rivalry/comaraderie developed was well worth it in my mind. I've seen the same thing develop in other leagues. If you're playing FF just to study stats, build your best team, and beat others, what you propose is great and works well for you. For a vast number of others, the social aspect of FF is an important component of participation - and to some it's the most important component. I have divisions to keep more teams in the hunt for the playoff race. The more teams with a realistic chance of making the playoffs, the happier your league will be, and the fairer the competition. Each team plays the other teams in their division twice, so it gives you a chance to get back into contention, and unless your team is absolutely horrendous, you usually have a chance to make the playoffs right up to the last couple weeks of the season. I've been in leagues where there were no divisions, and when you start out slow, or get an injury or two, you end up stuck at the bottom with no realistic chance of jumping the other teams. It's no fun, you lose interest, and before you know it, by week seven, a good handful of teams just stop submitting lineups. I like it to stimulate rivalries with guys being in the same divisions each year and having to face off. One big league with no divisions kind of lacks character. Pretty much agree with all of these. I am in only one league out of 7 this year that has no divisonal setup. I don't really like the league at all and that's just one of the reasons, but I play to win no matter what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Gopher, adding divisions doesn't mean teams play each other the same amount of times. It simply is a way to define how you determine who plays each other more often. Right, but it does determine which teams you play twice, versus only once. It also makes it more critical that you win games within your division (the teams you play twice). So, although it doesn't completely level the playing field, it seems to level it out somewhat. I'm not saying either method is right or wrong. They both have definite flaws, and like I said, benefits as well. I personally prefer divisions SLIGHTLY over not having them... that's all I am saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 Admitting it is the first step to recovery. Admit what, that some of you guys are pussilies? Great, I admit that some of you guys are pussilies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.