theeohiostate Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 We currently have a 12 team local league with three divisions, all 3 divisions winners make the playoffs along with the the next three teams with the best record ( ties goes to most points ). The two best records out of the six , get the bye, assuming they won their divisions. Playoffs start week 15 and the final game is in week 17. I would like to request the championship game be moved to week 16, with the playoffs starting week 14. Other ideas are : Having one division total, Instead of playing head-to-head...play every team each week so the highest scorer each week would essentially go 11-0 that week. Since the essence of the draft is to pick the players that will score the most points for you, it seems pitiful that every year teams with much more point than others are left out of the playoffs. We have no opportunity to play defense in FF, so we are left with an offensive strategy and the head-to-head is all about "the luck of the draw". Any thoughts on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I have been thinking about a way to make a teams defensive score more a part of the game for a while now. We use IDP's in our league and I have often wondered how I could make the points my IDP's score affect the outcome of the game's more directly. About the only thing I can come up with seems like too much work as I think I would have to do it by hand every week. But I was thinking about subtracting the points that my defense scores from the final score of my opponent and vice versa. Right now we only start 3 IDP's. I think we would need to increase that to 5 right off the bat otherwise this process would only affect games that were extremely close. But what we would do is start our players as always then after the game subtract the opposing teams defensive points from our own points to determine our Adjusted Scores and then even use these adjusted scores as our official points scored for total points purposes in Bonuses and Tie-Breakers. The idea is fairly rough right now but I could definitely see it affecting the outcome of quite a few games throughout the year. And in the games it affected the owner could actually say, my defense stopped them or my defense won that one for me. Still working on it but it might work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 JRick - MFL already offers a scoring system that is essentially what you are describing. Your defensive players take away fromyour opponents score, and his do the same. When you look at it, it seems like it would really change things up, but in actuality all you are doing is changing thefinal score, not an outcome of the game. If your offensive players score 50 and your defensive players score 50, currently you have 100 points. If your opponents offensive players score 74 and his defensive players score 25, he would have 100 points. But, if you went with the offense minus defense, you would have 50-25, or 25 points, and your opponent would have 75-50, or 25 points, still a tie, just the final total score is different. It adds an interesting twist to the way scores are figured out but it does not change the outcome of games in a way that I think a lot of people employing thesystem think it does. Basically it comes down to the fact that points added to your score are the exact same as points taken away from your opponents score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 play every team each week so the highest scorer each week would essentially go 11-0 that week.633590[/snapback] I've thought about this before and I really think it's the best way to determine who the best owner was during the year... even better than total points scored. A team that consistently scores pretty high is better than a team that scores very high some weeks and then posts a sub-par total in other weeks.... but that's not really your question. I don't think alot of owners would be willing to totally abandon the head-to-head stuff because it's just so engrained to do it that way, plus real football does it obviously and trash talking is a big part of head-to-head. So maybe a combination of the two would work? You play against everyone else and earn that record for the week.... so the highest scoring team that week would go 11-0 and the lowest would go 0-11. In addition to the "all-play", you play a head-to-head match up with the winner of each individual matchup being awared 11 "victories" (or 20, or 5, or 15 or whatever, depending on how much you want to weigh the all play VS the head-to-head. Think it could work Or, you could alway pay out the high point scorer a small portion of the money.... or possibly pay out a portion to the "all-play" winner as a separate category or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laborer Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 In our 10 team league we just have 1 division but each week we play 2 games. This seems to help off-set the weeks when,for example, the 2nd high scorer comes up against the high scorer by allowing him to go 1-1 that week vs 0-1. Here is how our league finished this year, as you can see high points in most cases prevailed: W-L-T PF PA 20 8 0 / 2262.00 / 1796.00 20 8 0 / 2062.00 / 1678.00 19 9 0 / 2167.00 / 1859.00 19 9 0 / 1975.00 / 1752.50 14 14 0 / 1937.00 / 1745.00 12 16 0 / 1720.00 / 1918.50 12 16 0 / 1638.00 / 1829.50 11 17 0 / 1858.00 / 2016.00 10 18 0 / 1625.00 / 2009.50 3 25 0 / 1419.00 / 2059.00 Top 4 go to the playoffs with the next for battling it out in the prestigious TOILET BOWL. Playoffs are just a single head to head game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 (theeohiostate @ 12/28/04 09:11am)play every team each week so the highest scorer each week would essentially go 11-0 that week. actually had one league that used this method. everyone hated it as part of the fun is the head to head comp and the weekly smack talk it brings. having an overall points league is like trying to slam a cordless phone down when hanging up on someone. Gets the job done but you have no satisfaction from the slam... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 actually had one league that used this method. everyone hated it as part of the fun is the head to head comp and the weekly smack talk it brings. having an overall points league is like trying to slam a cordless phone down when hanging up on someone. Gets the job done but you have no satisfaction from the slam... 633830[/snapback] I agree. The smack-talking with head-to-head competition is what makes our league fun. We have 12 teams too, but only send FOUR teams to the playoffs (three division winners and one wildcard team with the next best record). Playoffs are weeks 15-16. It has worked well for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 (edited) We have 12 teams and are debating moving the superbowl back to week 16 instead of 17.One problem I see though is the way it is now each team plays thier division twice and out of the division once.If we shorten it by 1 game then you dont get to play everyone at least once and it ruins our first tie breaker to get in the playoffs which is head to head..I agree that head to head is the way to go.You need to score points and win every week just like the NFL.Its true you dont have a defense in fantasy football which is why you have to score a lot and put together a team that scores a lot to be competitive.Taking head to head out would kill the fun for me. Edited December 28, 2004 by whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 We have 12 teams and are debating moving the superbowl back to week 16 instead of 17.One problem I see though is the way it is now each team plays thier division twice and out of the division once.If we shorten it by 1 game then you dont get to play everyone at least once and it ruins our first tie breaker to get in the playoffs which is head to head.. 633915[/snapback] A) I don't like head-to-head as the first tie breaker as that allows luck to be too much of a factor because the teams aren't directly effecting the score of the other team. I think total points should be the first tie breaker in FF and nothing can make me change my mind (although I'd consider all-play record ). It sucks when you would be something like 11-2 against an opponent but you happened to play each other on one of the weeks they out-scored you.... it just isn't right. 2) In one of my leagues we use a double header on the last week of the regular season.... you play a division foe and a non-division foe..... very exciting finish to the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 A) I don't like head-to-head as the first tie breaker as that allows luck to be too much of a factor because the teams aren't directly effecting the score of the other team. I think total points should be the first tie breaker in FF and nothing can make me change my mind (although I'd consider all-play record ). It sucks when you would be something like 11-2 against an opponent but you happened to play each other on one of the weeks they out-scored you.... it just isn't right. 633923[/snapback] but what about the one week where that guy goes off for 180 points and never approaches that total again. this could boost his overall points above someone that has been a higher/consisitent scorer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 but what about the one week where that guy goes off for 180 points and never approaches that total again. this could boost his overall points above someone that has been a higher/consisitent scorer... 633961[/snapback] What about the poor slob who played the 180 point producer? Why punish him because he got very unlucky and happened to be the opponent on the one week where that guy went off? Wouldn't it be more fair, and a better indication of the more skilled fantasy owner to see who scored more points over the course of the season? Total points measures the ability for owners to draft a good team, start the right players consistently, and to manage the WW. Head-to-head measure who got lucky on a particular week. I don't like it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 What about the poor slob who played the 180 point producer? Why punish him because he got very unlucky and happened to be the opponent on the one week where that guy went off? Wouldn't it be more fair, and a better indication of the more skilled fantasy owner to see who scored more points over the course of the season? Total points measures the ability for owners to draft a good team, start the right players consistently, and to manage the WW. Head-to-head measure who got lucky on a particular week. I don't like it at all. 633975[/snapback] that's what I'm saying. This guy scored 180 points once and it put him over the guy that consistently scored more. His team wasn't better throughout, just that one week. It works both ways... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 (edited) It works both ways...633990[/snapback] So are you agreeing with me or not Your scenario isn't very likely... Lets assume there is a 14 week regular season and the average score is 90 ppg, which would work out to be 1260 total points for the season. Lets also assume that some team scores 180 points one week and then scores 90 points every other week of the year. That yeilds 1350 points for the year or 6.4 ppg over the average if the team's high score is DOUBLE the average, which is unlikely. I would much rather have a chance to make up the 6.4 ppg with my ability to make starting lineup decissions and WW aquisitions, than to be SOL because I was the unfortunate person who had to play him on the one week he went off. So it doesn't really work both ways. Head-to-head involves luck MUCH, MUCH more than total points. Edited December 28, 2004 by steeler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I don't like the double header week. In my local we switched to 4 divisions of 3 to eliminate the double header week. You still play your TWO division foes twice and everybody once ... with no double header required. There are draw backs to this approach ... you can have a division winner with a poorer record than a wild card but because he is a division winner he gets a better seed ... or worse yet you can have a division winner with a poorer record than a team that did not make the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I don't like the double header week. In my local we switched to 4 divisions of 3 to eliminate the double header week. You still play your TWO division foes twice and everybody once ... with no double header required. There are draw backs to this approach ... you can have a division winner with a poorer record than a wild card but because he is a division winner he gets a better seed ... or worse yet you can have a division winner with a poorer record than a team that did not make the playoffs. 634022[/snapback] You could adjust that so that the divisions are more for scheduling purposes than for playoff purposes, and have the top X number of teams make the playoffs. Basically everything id considered one division for standings purposes, the drawing of divisions is to determine who you get to play twice that year. Or, you could have it so that division winners get into the playoffs as well as x number of wild card teams, then, once those teams are decided re-seed based on record for the playoff teams. That allows the luck of the division draw to play into it while also rewarding the teams that played better over the course of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I don't like the double header week.634022[/snapback] Understandable. However, because we play the double header in the last week of the regular season it gives teams plenty of time to prepare and plan for it, and it keeps more teams alive deeper into the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 You could adjust that so that the divisions are more for scheduling purposes than for playoff purposes, and have the top X number of teams make the playoffs. Basically everything id considered one division for standings purposes, the drawing of divisions is to determine who you get to play twice that year. Or, you could have it so that division winners get into the playoffs as well as x number of wild card teams, then, once those teams are decided re-seed based on record for the playoff teams. That allows the luck of the division draw to play into it while also rewarding the teams that played better over the course of the year. 634031[/snapback] I raised the topic of seeding the playoffs based on overall record and NOT on division winner last year ... didn't go over to well. The predominant response was "that's how it works in the NFL". I believe our owners like the thought that you are always "in it" until you can't catch your division leader ... which, in fact, is a positive. In addition the division winners get more than twice the payout of the wildcards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Understandable. However, because we play the double header in the last week of the regular season it gives teams plenty of time to prepare and plan for it, and it keeps more teams alive deeper into the season. 634033[/snapback] I like double header week when I win 2 ... I hate double header week when I lose 2. The first season we had a double header week was back when there were byes every week so inevitably somebody had one of their studs off. Then when the teams evened up in the NFL we moved our double header week to the first week where there were no byes (week 11, I believe). With 4 divisions of 3 I assure that more teams are "in it" deeper into the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I don't like the double header week. In my local we switched to 4 divisions of 3 to eliminate the double header week. You still play your TWO division foes twice and everybody once ... with no double header required. There are draw backs to this approach ... you can have a division winner with a poorer record than a wild card but because he is a division winner he gets a better seed ... or worse yet you can have a division winner with a poorer record than a team that did not make the playoffs. 634022[/snapback] But that's pretty much how it works in the NFL as well. The Wild Cards can sometimes have better records than the 3rd or 4th seed Division winners. That type of scenario is what actually led to the idea of the Wild Card teams being allowed to join the playoffs. Unfortunately there is no one system that answers all of the questions. But for my money there I prefer the one game per week, head to head approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Agreed Grits, just throwing out options. In my league I started this year, Imade sure the division winners got a decent payout, a little more than their buyin back, while still providing a good amount of money for the Superbowl winner and runner up. I don't care for leagues that don't give some form of payout to the regular season "winners", as the playoff system more than anything emphasizes the luck factor of a head to had schedule by rewarding the team that gets hot at the right time. in fact, my team in the league I mentioned above is the perfect example of that. I squeaked into the playoffs a the #3 seed in my division and got hot at the right time to run off 3 victories and won the league. Theteam that pretty much dominated all season would have beat me the first week of playoffs when he had the bye, and would have crushed everyone this week had I not been able to beat him the week i played him in the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Agreed Grits, just throwing out options. In my league I started this year, Imade sure the division winners got a decent payout, a little more than their buyin back, while still providing a good amount of money for the Superbowl winner and runner up. I don't care for leagues that don't give some form of payout to the regular season "winners", as the playoff system more than anything emphasizes the luck factor of a head to had schedule by rewarding the team that gets hot at the right time. in fact, my team in the league I mentioned above is the perfect example of that. I squeaked into the playoffs a the #3 seed in my division and got hot at the right time to run off 3 victories and won the league. Theteam that pretty much dominated all season would have beat me the first week of playoffs when he had the bye, and would have crushed everyone this week had I not been able to beat him the week i played him in the playoffs. 634045[/snapback] Our division winners get their entry fee back ($60). Wildcard winners get a third of their entry fee back ($20). We payout 3 categories each week at $5 per. Toilet Bowl winner gets $50. Team with highest points against on the season gets $25. I have already proposed a couple of changes on the payouts. I don't believe that the toilet bowl winner or the team that gets the most points against should get a bigger payout than the wildcards. Right now if a wildcard loses in the first round his payout is less than the TB winner and the points against winner (assuming he won no weekly categories). I tried to put in a category to reward the team with the highest points on the season last year but it was a no go. We start the year with $270 in the "winner's kitty" ... this is the money to be split between the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th place finishers. 1st gets 65% of the kitty, 2nd gets 24%, 3rd gets 7% and 4th gets 4%. Any transaction fees left after all scheduled payments is added to the "winner's kitty". This year's winner's kitty was $330 ... which means the SB winners this year gets $214. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Toilet Bowl winner gets $50.634045[/snapback] I don't like this.... why reward craptacular teams with money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Playing the FF Superbowl in week 17 is bad news. Too many players, studs, sit out that week. Even week 16 has that problem, but to less of an extent, like Philly this past weekend. In my BOTH league, we went with the doubleheader, in my local, there was one team we didn't play. I prefer the doubleheader, but like it to be in week 2. Even if you lose both games, the worst you can be is 0-3, and last year that is where I was in my local, but won the superbowl anyway. Besides, in week 2 there are fewer injuries to deal with. Losing a doubleheader late in the season is a killer. When I first played FF, back in 1987 or so, we used point totals only. Was that more fair than head to head? I suppose so, but it wasn't as much fun. I prefer the NFL rules, where being in a tough division is just part of the breaks, while you can also be in a weak division, just like the AFC and NFC this year. The closer the competition is to the NFL and how it works, the better. Trying to make it perfectly fair makes it dull, with the exception of a format like the FFTOC. We award some prize money to the top point scoring team.... that is the extent of parity that I like. We also award money to the year's high score, and do something different in our toilet bowl. The bottom 6 teams make the toilet bowl, but play to win. There is prize money for that, too, so bad luck teams still have a shot at prize money. Since FF is based on the NFL, why try to make it different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I don't like this.... why reward craptacular teams with money? 634056[/snapback] The best of the worst ... keeps them in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Sack Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Why do we have to take the luck out of fantasy football. Luck plays a huge role in every sport. I admit its frustrating, but when you win it is more rewarding. If there was no luck there would be no upsets. Also one mans luck is another mans waiver wire. 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.