Good points everyone. It seems like this could be something Mike puts up as an amendment in the offseason. Could we get more owners engaged though? I know not everyone uses Redscape. Maybe we could do a google form with a couple of simple questions?

I have been following this topic, but have little to add.

I do not care what division I am in. With last years team, it would have mattered anyway. I like stability, however, and would be glad to keep things the way they are.

schulni wrote:Good points everyone. It seems like this could be something Mike puts up as an amendment in the offseason. Could we get more owners engaged though? I know not everyone uses Redscape. Maybe we could do a google form with a couple of simple questions?

No amendment needed for this. I just need a plan that seems to have good support. I'd be happy to send it out as a survey. Provide multiple plans and ask for a preference ordering... or something like that.

As for Google, we did it last year. I didn't like it as much nor does it make sense to conduct permanent league conversations in two places. As for owners not coming here: They've always been invited, it's not hard to register, and if they don't wish to contribute, so be it.

Nick wasn't suggesting G+, he was suggesting using a form that can be created in Google Sheets.

So we play teams in our divisions a lot less than in regular baseball... 19/162 (11.7%) and 76/162 (46.9%)

We've already discussed an option for increasing it by 50%, which would be 3/21 (14.3%) and (42.9%). The scheduling algorithm is not specified in the constitution (I think I just made it up entirely, in fact), so it's an easy change.

... everyone just tries to build the best team they can, regardless of who is in their division.

I think this is true of baseball teams as well, with the primary exception being taking park factors into account (as opposed to the personnel on divisional rivals).

In our league the only rivalry that appears to have any resonance is people who know each other

We could always try to find opportunities to meet fellow owners... could be fun.

In any case, I think your arguments are more against divisions than against my view of them, unless you posit that there's some other reason to value them. And in fairness, I voted against expanding to 16 (which was a package deal with adding divisions). But as long as we have them, I think they'll feel especially hollow if they're different every year.

Sharur wrote:In any case, I think your arguments are more against divisions than against my view of them, unless you posit that there's some other reason to value them. And in fairness, I voted against expanding to 16 (which was a package deal with adding divisions). But as long as we have them, I think they'll feel especially hollow if they're different every year.

Well, they feel a little hollow now. All they are is a means of disadvantaging some teams--like the second place team in my division. :)

I think the issue with divisions, beyond being stuck with Matt, is this: we can never know how many rebuilding teams there will be in a year. That depends on the owners and on how bad a given draft goes, injuries, etc. If a player is in a division with two rebuilding teams, or even three, how is that fair?

On the other hand, league-wide, that's going to balance out. I think the Top 6 is actually more balanced and more fair.

Sharur wrote:Nick wasn't suggesting G+, he was suggesting using a form that can be created in Google Sheets.

My apologies, Nick. I saw Google and I jumped to conclusions.

Anyway, since you guys are like herding cats, here's a list of what I think I've seen offered:

I. One division with top teams (others ramdom?)
II. Teams [1,5,9,13], [2,6,10,14], etc...
III. Random assignment
IV. Stick with geography & make changes based on player location

There is then a separate question of duration.

A. Annual
B. 2-3 years
C. 4-5 years
D. Permanent

There is a further question of division play.

1. Three games per year, all other 1 per year
2. Keep as is.

My preference lean towards: II.B.2.

If there are some viable options missing, post them. We can format and send this out come amendment time.

The alternative to divisions is to simply have the top 6 teams make it. But that would mean that we would be playing like half the teams once and half the teams twice--so it would be an unbalanced schedule. I think it is fairer to put teams in their own division, where games against divisional opponents are more meaningful and if you do better in those games you have a better chance of winning the division. I like the way we finish the season playing in the division. We might consider having more games within the division to make it more competitive that way. To me it is more interesting and fairer to put four teams together that are playing each other an equal number of times and fighting over one spot than to have 16 teams teams playing significantly different schedules fight over 6 spots.

But those things hold true whether you rotate divisions every year or five years.

Anyway ,I think I would favor annual divisions and play within the division three times . Or else every 2, maybe 3 years and keep it at 2 times within division.

freeman3 wrote:The alternative to divisions is to simply have the top 6 teams make it. But that would mean that we would be playing like half the teams once and half the teams twice--so it would be an unbalanced schedule. I think it is fairer to put teams in their own division, where games against divisional opponents are more meaningful and if you do better in those games you have a better chance of winning the division. I like the way we finish the season playing in the division. We might consider having more games within the division to make it more competitive that way. To me it is more interesting and fairer to put four teams together that are playing each other an equal number of times and fighting over one spot than to have 16 teams teams playing significantly different schedules fight over 6 spots.

But those things hold true whether you rotate divisions every year or five years.

Anyway ,I think I would favor annual divisions and play within the division three times . Or else every 2, maybe 3 years and keep it at 2 times within division.

III.A.1 would be my preference.

That said, I agree with everything Freeman said IF we are determined to keep divisions.

FYI - Divisional play is in the Constitution and would require a 3/5 majority to remove it.

SLOTerp wrote:FYI - Divisional play is in the Constitution and would require a 3/5 majority to remove it.

Given there are only five of us interested, that means three out of us five?

I enjoy the division I'm in. I think the vall Bangers and Bombers are developing a little bit of a rivalry. The Kings Men are usually solid, and I always enjoy playing the Cougars! Give it a little more time, let those rivalries season, and pretty soon we'll have a few Red Sox and Yankee type competitions on our hands.

geojanes wrote:I enjoy the division I'm in. I think the vall Bangers and Bombers are developing a little bit of a rivalry. The Kings Men are usually solid, and I always enjoy playing the Cougars! Give it a little more time, let those rivalries season, and pretty soon we'll have a few Red Sox and Yankee type competitions on our hands.

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

freeman3 wrote:I am quite sure that the E's would much prefer to be out of Matt's division than to have a rivalry with him. We have been doing this for three years...what rivalries have developed? The only rivalry I see in this league is between Nick and Matt--and they 're not in the same division.

1. If you think Nick and Matt are the only rivals, you're wrong. I have strong rivalries with Mike (the Soup are the Washington Nationals to my Baltimore Orioles) and Josh (I'm gonna call him the Tampa Bay Rays).

2. I'm even starting to feel a little rivalry building with Lara, because she didn't go through long years of suffering as I did after joining. I just finished 2 games ahead of Jared in the only division to have 3 teams above .500 (it really is amusing how much Mike sucks), his second year in a row to finish 2nd, so there's potential there.

3. I won't speak for the E's, but let's say Mike suddenly built a year-after-year incredibly strong team (ha!), I'd still want to be in a division with him, so that I could be the one to knock him off his perch.

I am completely happy with geographic divisions as they stand, with minor shuffling as people relocate. Maybe it's not quite as easy for other divisions as it is for the DMV division to host get-togethers, but I hope that someday, we can get everyone in the division together for the auction or maybe for some live baseball action. (Note to Mike: I've trained wolfdog to sniff out the stench of Virginia and "escort" any such guests off property.)

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.

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...