freeman3 wrote:I favor II.A.1. But I suspect Mike's position is more realistic.

I am with the E's that I don't get divisional rivalries too much. But apparently other owners do have such rivalries. If we had to keep divisions permanently I wouldn't mind it if we had the following changes:

(1) 8 teams make the play- offs (no byes)
(2) tiebreaker will be done by category not seeding

I would much prefer the current system. I think I favor Mike getting a sense of where owners are on this and administering a compromise solution by commissioner fiat.

This is a-may-zing! I am again with Freeman. Can't you see the current system must be wrong if he and I can agree?

I would like the tiebreaker to be a bit more complicated though. I'm not a fan of knowing who has it.

SLOTerp wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't know why I don't "feel" it. I don't even know what a fantasy rivalry would look like.

Here you go...

Isn't that more like co-op?

Doctor Fate wrote:

SLOTerp wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't know why I don't "feel" it. I don't even know what a fantasy rivalry would look like.

Here you go...

Isn't that more like co-op?

Who is who?

I think they had a competition for killing Orcs...

freeman3 wrote:I think they had a competition for killing Orcs...

Yes, but it was a cooperative venture. Neither one would allow the other to die. That's not a genuine rivalry.

freeman3 wrote:(1) 8 teams make the play- offs (no byes)

That's 50%!!! What is this, hockey?!?!

Southern Marylander wrote:

freeman3 wrote:(1) 8 teams make the play- offs (no byes)

That's 50%!!! What is this, hockey?!?!

The Stanley Cup playoffs have 16 teams and they are thrilling! So, let's go for 16.

SLOTerp wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't know why I don't "feel" it. I don't even know what a fantasy rivalry would look like.

Here you go...

/thread

My preference is for III.C.1 (random, 4-5, 3x divisional play), but really I just want it to be 3+ years on that front, so I guess I object to "2-3" and "4-5" as buckets.

As for those harping on the tiebreaker... would you be okay with it if it was just best record? In other words, can we at least agree that the team with the better season should get the tiebreaker? Basing it on a category is horrible, and I say this both for theoretical reasons and from personal experience*. And teams should get *some* benefit for superior performance over 21 weeks.

*I'm pretty sure I lost the finals on the tiebreaker to Nick in 2008, having finished with the better record/seed, because it was just based on ERA. I'd love to see someone try to explain why that's a good system.

Sharur wrote:As for those harping on the tiebreaker... would you be okay with it if it was just best record? In other words, can we at least agree that the team with the better season should get the tiebreaker? Basing it on a category is horrible, and I say this both for theoretical reasons and from personal experience*. And teams should get *some* benefit for superior performance over 21 weeks.

*I'm pretty sure I lost the finals on the tiebreaker to Nick in 2008, having finished with the better record/seed, because it was just based on ERA. I'd love to see someone try to explain why that's a good system.

Nope, that was terrible.

A better tie-breaker would look at the week(s) involved league-wide and figure Roto-wins or something.

I'm raising the issue that knowing you have the tie-breaker ahead of time is a distinct edge, maybe too big.

This just popped into my head...

At the start of the playoffs, playoff teams, in order of seeding, select a real team. The tie-breaker belongs to the owner of the real team that wins the most games in that 1 or 2 week period. Maybe re-select for each round of playoffs.

I'm not advocating for this, by the way. Just thinking outside the box.

SLOTerp wrote:This just popped into my head...

At the start of the playoffs, playoff teams, in order of seeding, select a real team. The tie-breaker belongs to the owner of the real team that wins the most games in that 1 or 2 week period. Maybe re-select for each round of playoffs.

I'm not advocating for this, by the way. Just thinking outside the box.

I like it! Obviously, all the money you make as commissioner is well-earned!

Doctor Fate wrote:

SLOTerp wrote:This just popped into my head...

At the start of the playoffs, playoff teams, in order of seeding, select a real team. The tie-breaker belongs to the owner of the real team that wins the most games in that 1 or 2 week period. Maybe re-select for each round of playoffs.

I'm not advocating for this, by the way. Just thinking outside the box.

I like it! Obviously, all the money you make as commissioner is well-earned!

It's about time; we've been overpaying for years.

Interesting idea. I still like best record (not seeding). A non-division winner with a good record gets the tiebreaker over a weak division winner that way. Since head-to-head has some randomness, using best record gives a slight boost to the teams that were consistent. That's an advantage that makes sense to me.

schulni wrote:Interesting idea. I still like best record (not seeding). A non-division winner with a good record gets the tiebreaker over a weak division winner that way. Since head-to-head has some randomness, using best record gives a slight boost to the teams that were consistent. That's an advantage that makes sense to me.

If we go to an imbalanced schedule (play your division opponents 3x), then this would make very little sense as a tie-breaker. As it stands now, it is reasonable--even if I don't prefer it.