|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Jun 22, 2014 23:34:10 GMT -6
Great analysis Reds. Maybe luck is just a bigger factor in fantasy sports than anyone here would care to admit. I lost to Angels then beat Cards with the same lineup. Go figure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2014 9:52:18 GMT -6
Great analysis Reds. Maybe luck is just a bigger factor in fantasy sports than anyone here would care to admit. I lost to Angels then beat Cards with the same lineup. Go figure. I do Admit that there is Luck either Good or Bad Luck hehe |
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Jun 23, 2014 10:05:26 GMT -6
The roto ranks will help me sleep at night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Jun 23, 2014 10:20:10 GMT -6
maybe we have had that discussion before but I feel that advantages of playing your division a third time out weighs the disadvantages.
In our current structure the only disavantage that I see is that the winner of the weaker division may end up with a better playoff seat than warranted. But the adavantages would be that the every team in a division would play the same exact teams. Also, more divisional play would help to ensure that the team going to playoffs is actually the best team within that division.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Jun 23, 2014 11:19:52 GMT -6
Yes I was also wondering why teams in weaker divisions would have an advantage playing their own division more. I could see it mattering if we had wildcard spots but we dont.
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets GM(Randy) on Jun 23, 2014 11:25:17 GMT -6
I definitely hear what you're saying and feel that there is validity to your thoughts. Personally I like the way it is currently setup for a few reasons.
First, I like the opportunity to play more teams throughout a season. It's not as random as the default schedule ESPN gives you but it also doesn't feel like you are playing the same people each week.
I also like the fact that it should be harder for teams to repeat and should lead to more parity throughout the league. I feel that we have some quality GMs right now and I like that they feel they can have some hope as they are rebuilding and not just stuck in a division with one dominant dynasty. It makes division winners keep looking for ways to improve while giving the other teams a chance to improve quicker.
With that being said, I am completely in favor of whatever the league decides. Based on the past two years, I would probably be the team that would have benefitted the most with the proposed change as my division has been the weakest. Not that I feel it is staying that way. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Jun 23, 2014 11:36:40 GMT -6
I want to hit the like button on what Indian Mike said 30 times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Jul 22, 2014 13:21:49 GMT -6
I want to hit the like button on what Indian Mike said 30 times. So I'm not the only one who likes the idea of playing every team once and then playing your division a second and third time? I think it just makes the most sense for everyone in the division to play the same teams. That way we don't have to worry about hearing anything about an unfair advantage. If you look at last year standings vs this year's it's not hard to see that the weighted schedule has an affect of some degree in most divisions. |
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets GM(Randy) on Jul 22, 2014 14:45:01 GMT -6
Yes, I feel that the effect is that teams who had an easier schedule last year have been exposed this year when their schedule was tougher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Jul 22, 2014 15:53:53 GMT -6
So isn't that same effect in play on the other end of the spectrum this year. The teams that were weak last season are capitalizing on a softer schedule?
Why not level the playing field? I know I'm not the only one who feels this way because I've heard a few other guys.
So honestly if I wanted an advantage for next year, it would be smart for me to start tanking now so that I could have an easier schedule next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM(Landon) on Jul 22, 2014 19:33:02 GMT -6
I could see a schedule similar to the set up the NFL uses working well, where you play everyone in your division twice. Every team in a division would play another entire division and then the other weeks you are matched up with teams that finished in the same place as you.
Having an odd number of matchups makes having a completely balanced schedule hard, because you will have to play a team 3 times or play another team twice. It would take some tweaking but it would combine how the schedule is set up now which balances out the competition but would still even it out by making sure the teams in one division face the same teams to an extent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Jul 22, 2014 20:29:38 GMT -6
What I'm saying works perfectly w 21 weeks. Play the 15 other teams once, plus the teams in your division twice more (6), =21. Shouldn't be hard to break that up. We could even make it so you pay your division in the beginning, middle and end of the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Jul 23, 2014 7:22:30 GMT -6
What I'm saying works perfectly w 21 weeks. Play the 15 other teams once, plus the teams in your division twice more (6), =21. Shouldn't be hard to break that up. We could even make it so you pay your division in the beginning, middle and end of the season. Genius |
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Nov 4, 2014 18:27:55 GMT -6
What I'm saying works perfectly w 21 weeks. Play the 15 other teams once, plus the teams in your division twice more (6), =21. Shouldn't be hard to break that up. We could even make it so you pay your division in the beginning, middle and end of the season. Since it's the offseason I wanted to poke this back up. You can hate me if you like... |
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Nov 5, 2014 7:10:52 GMT -6
So the goal of 4 divisions is to produce the best team in the division not the one who had the easiest sos.
We need to make it weighted in each division and remove repeat multiples outside your division.
|
|
