|
Post by Doc on Dec 4, 2018 20:43:18 GMT -5
I want to do away with that next season. 10 teams. No divisions. The two best teams deserve to have the only two bye-weeks in the playoffs.
As far as playoff seeding tie-breakers go, right now it's strictly points for. I like it best like that, but am open to switching head-2-head first, points scored second.
|
|
|
Post by steelers1954 on Dec 4, 2018 21:34:18 GMT -5
Having 2 divisions is not the problem. The problem was having 3 loaded teams in 1 division but it worked out in the end. Dan & DirtyBirds had the same record at 9-4 with Dan with more points for. The 2 best teams have the bye week in the 1st round.
As for having the Tie Breaker Head to Head or Points For it should be put up for a vote but lets get the one we have done 1st.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 4, 2018 22:28:29 GMT -5
The problem was having 3 loaded teams in 1 division but it worked out in the end. Dan & DirtyBirds had the same record at 9-4 with Dan with more points for. The 2 best teams have the bye week in the 1st round. Yeah, I know it worked out in the end. However, I was unaware that splitting into divisions had any effect (outside of optics)when we switched it to divisions back in 2014. Just figured record & points for was still the end all. This was the first time (earlier this season)I've noticed it can decide who gets a bye week. I don't like that. Not at all. That's why I originally started this league without divisions; to avoid that type of stuff from happening. I'm extremely negotiable on everything, but not on this one anymore. I can't imagine giving up a first round bye to someone else with a worse record and/or less 'points for' scored on tied records, simply because one team was in a weaker division. Anyone that happens to is going to be extremely pissed off, and rightfully so, especially if they end up losing in the first round. I want to avoid that from happening. Divisions no more. As for having the Tie Breaker Head to Head or Points For it should be put up for a vote but lets get the one we have done 1st. Actually, upon further review, I want 'points for' to be the overall tie-breaker for teams with tied records. No vote needed. That's staying the same. This is not the NFL, and head-2-head matchups aren't the same. Example: Maybe one week you lose because several key players on your team have the same bye week, in a game you would've normally won if not for bye weeks. That's not a factor in the real NFL, so that head-2-head BS is exactly that... BS. I'll be damned to outscore someone and they make the playoffs instead of me because of one lucky type week against me. I don't like or want that either. Nevermind a vote. Scratch that thought. It's gonna remain the same.
|
|
|
Post by steelers1954 on Dec 5, 2018 1:03:23 GMT -5
However, I was unaware that splitting into divisions had any effect (outside of optics)when we switched it to divisions back in 2014. Just figured record & points for was still the end all. This was the first time (earlier this season)I've noticed it can decide who gets a bye week. I don't like that. I'm pretty sure I explained all this to you and how it work before we switched to divisions. I still say having 2 Divisions is not a Problem and I have the facts to back it up. 2014: Teams with 1st round bye - Rockin' the Burgh 10-3 & Deadly Pistols 9-4 2015: Teams with 1st round bye - No Condiments 11-2 & Rockin' the Burgh 9-4 2016: Teams with 1st round bye - The Mighty Whites 9-4 & Dive on the Move 8-5 2017: Teams with 1st round bye - Jeppers 9-4 & DirtyBirds 8-5 2018: Teams with 1st round bye - The Mighty Whites 11-2 & O Say Quon U C 9-4 The 2 best teams have had the 1st round byes since we went to having Divisions,therefore your argument doesn't hold water. I can't imagine giving up a first round bye to someone else with a worse record and/or less 'points for' scored on tied records, simply because one team was in a weaker division. In the case a team getting a 1st bye with a worse record only because they were in a weaker division could be changed by using the Edit Playoff Teams.
|
|
|
Post by packdog on Dec 5, 2018 9:47:11 GMT -5
divisions always represent risk a team with a worse record will get a bye over another team with a better record. it's happening in NFFl with my team. i have one where a 6-7 team is getting a bye cause the whole division is 6-7. i will always vote for no divisions and pts scored as a tiebreaker in standing
|
|
|
Post by packdog on Dec 5, 2018 9:48:39 GMT -5
In the case a team getting a 1st bye with a worse record only because they were in a weaker division could be changed by using the Edit Playoff Teams. then what is even the point of divisions?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 5, 2018 11:02:49 GMT -5
In the case a team getting a 1st bye with a worse record only because they were in a weaker division could be changed by using the Edit Playoff Teams. Imagine telling Beverly or Jeffb; sorry, but I've gotta take that bye week from you now. We'd have a mutiny on our hands. Unless we actually want divisional standings to have a chance in deciding who gets byes (which I certainly don't), I just don't see the point on taking that chance. it's happening in NFFl with my team. i have one where a 6-7 team is getting a bye cause the whole division is 6-7. Well, there's a perfect example, and Jeffb's not too happy about it either. He'll probably be fit to be tied if he loses in the first round now. That's what I'm trying to avoid here. Nobody is ever gonna be happy after having to give up a bye week to a team with a lesser record, and editing the playoff teams runs the risk of pissing off the other person. I just don't see the point.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 5, 2018 11:36:37 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure I explained all this to you and how it work before we switched to divisions. You did, but I overlooked the first round bye-week implications: I wasn't really into the idea of 6 teams making the playoffs, at first. However, after thinking about it like that, it sounds like a good idea. My only problem is splitting into divisions. I don't like the idea of a team with a lesser record, making it into the playoffs over a team with a better record. If you go strictly by the 3 top teams in each division this is how it would have looked like. Dive would have been out even though she had the same record as Craig. You can set the league rules for playoff teams by having the top 2 teams from each division(4 total) then the last 2 teams with the best record for the last 2 playoff spots regardless of division. And in that case the last seed would go to Dive because she scored more points than Craig which is one of the tie breakers. If you set it up just like I've told you there's no way for a team with a lesser record getting into the playoffs.. My only concern at that point was that divisions didn't effect playoff teams. At that point in time I didn't even realize it could still effect first round byes. I thought it was just an aesthetics thing that looked better on the league page, but still had no playoff implications at all. I have no problem with doing it like that. I suppose it's more pleasing to look at it in divisions, but under those settings, there's really no difference in anything. Here's what I failed to notice in your example... Okay I'll use my league from last year as an example because we already have 2 divisions. Division #1: NJC Owls 8-6-0 #2 seed in the playoffs Hazardous Materials 8-6-0 #4 seed in the playoffs Deadly Pistols 8-6-0 #5 seed in the playoffs Divebitch 7-7-0 Division #2: DJango Unchained 10-4-0 #1 seed in the playoffs Texas Pete 9-5-0 #3 seed in the playoffs Monkeying Around 7-7-0 #6 seed in the playoffs Had I caught notice of that in your example, I would've rejected divisions right from the start. This just so happened to be the first season I've noticed that possibility while checking playoff brackets several weeks before the season was completed.
|
|
|
Post by steelers1954 on Dec 5, 2018 12:03:48 GMT -5
No use beating a dead horse your mind is made up & you don't want divisions then fine no Divisions I'm done with this I'm not going to argue over this issue.
|
|
|
Post by steelers1954 on Dec 5, 2018 12:21:20 GMT -5
Well, there's a perfect example, and Jeffb's not too happy about it either. My league had 2 Divisions even before I took over the league. Jeff's played this far longer than any of us he knew the settings or should have know. The goal is getting your team into the Playoffs getting a 1st round bye is just a bonus and it doesn't guarantee you'll make it to the Championship.
|
|
|
Post by steelers1954 on Dec 5, 2018 12:33:35 GMT -5
Had I caught notice of that in your example, In that 2013 season we only had 4 teams that could make the Playoffs therefore there were no 1st round byes. So maybe it wasn't the best example to use. The 4 top teams made it on record & Tie Breaker which was points For.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 5, 2018 13:13:28 GMT -5
My league had 2 Divisions even before I took over the league. Jeff's played this far longer than any of us he knew the settings or should have know. Gotcha. I didn't arrive there until 2013. First time I've noticed it there now that Packdog pointed it out. Looking back on league history, I see it's also happened there once before: 2011- Dream Theatre lost out 1st round bye to jfalconsp That's your league, and if you like divisions that's cool. I've been pretty successful there and love the league. I wouldn't be happy if I lost out on a first round bye that way, but I'm also not gonna tell ya how to run your league; I'm just happy to be a part of it. Personal preference I suppose. I've always been up for voting on everything here, but there are a few things I want a particular way, and I don't want division rule to give a 1st round bye over another team that is more deserving at the CTM league.
|
|
|
Post by steelers1954 on Dec 5, 2018 16:34:16 GMT -5
2011- Dream Theatre lost out 1st round bye to jfalconsp The Standings Tie Breaker was set on Head to Head that maybe why, jfalconsp beat Dream Thearter and got the 1st round bye. This was before I had control of the league. I don't want division rule to give a 1st round bye over another team that is more deserving at the CTM league. You're making a big fuss over something that hasn't even happened. Even if you go no Divisions you could still run into the same problem. For example lets say team A.ends the season at 10-4, Teams B & C both finish with 8-5 records and Team C gets the 1st round bye based on Points For. Team B complains an says they should have the 1st round bye because they beat Team C Head to Head. It's the same thing Jeff is complaining about in the NFFL league because he beat Mr. Lacy Head to Head he feels he should have the 1st round bye. I'm not telling you how to run your league either. But if you think having no Divisions will avoid having an issues about 1st round byes you're mistaken it can happen no matter how you set it up..
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 5, 2018 18:34:11 GMT -5
You're making a big fuss over something that hasn't even happened. Sorry if it appears that way, but not my intention at all. You're my right hand man here, also a great friend outside of FF, and your help here has been invaluable. As far as my vision for what I wanted with this league though, I just cant sign off on that. No hard feelings. The Standings Tie Breaker was set on Head to Head that maybe why, jfalconsp beat Dream Thearter and got the 1st round bye. This was before I had control of the league. Oh, gotcha. Didn't realize those things. Even if you go no Divisions you could still run into the same problem. For example lets say team A.ends the season at 10-4, Teams B & C both finish with 8-5 records and Team C gets the 1st round bye based on Points For. Team B complains an says they should have the 1st round bye because they beat Team C Head to Head. Not so. I've already explained why I don't believe in Head-2-Head matchups deciding tie breakers... This is not the NFL, and head-2-head matchups aren't the same. Example: Maybe one week you lose because several key players on your team have the same bye week, in a game you would've normally won if not for bye weeks. That's not a factor in the real NFL, so that head-2-head BS is exactly that... BS. I'll be damned to outscore someone and they make the playoffs instead of me because of one lucky type week against me. That's why I don't like or want that head-2-head BS determining playoffs. That's just the way it is as far as I feel on these two things. No offense to anyone. I'm always open for allowing votes to determine almost everything, and that won't change. However, I had a vision for this league, and how I wanted to determine who was considered the cream of the crop. Both of those things directly oppose my vision of determining the outcome on who's the best of the best. I'm sticking to my guns on both topics. Let the rules be duly noted to all, so that there is no confusion in the future. It's the same thing Jeff is complaining about in the NFFL league because he beat Mr. Lacy Head to Head he feels he should have the 1st round bye. I don't agree with you on that, but I still love ya. Head-2-Head had nothing to do with Jeffb losing 1st round bye to Packdog. Jeffb still had a better record than Packdog, so head-2-head tie breaker wasn't the difference that handed Packdog 1st round bye week over Jeffb. It was the division rules.
|
|
|
Post by steelers1954 on Dec 5, 2018 19:37:02 GMT -5
Not so. I've already explained why I don't believe in Head-2-Head matchups deciding tie breakers... Quit being so close minded, take off your blinders and listen to what I'm saying. I'm not pushing for Head to Head as the tie breaker. What I was saying is that no matter what you have as the tie breaker someone's going bitch when it doesn't go their way.
|
|