Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

Subject: Playoff Rule Change (for next year)? Author: Rats [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: Monday, December 05, 03:32:34pm I'm lobbying to see a different playoff scenario next year just in case a team handles a divisional rival but they tie at the end of the season--and the team that got handled is the team that makes the playoffs. To quote Iggy Pop, "Not Right!" I'm thinking something like this: 1. Head to head (whoever dominated the series goes to the playoffs), and if the tie remains: 2. Wins within the division (since we play our division opponents twice, whoever has the best record within the division would make the playoffs), and if the tie still remains: 3. Wins within the conference (since each team plays each team within their conference, and since the Super Bowl is conference vs. conference, whoever dominates the conference is awarded the playoff birth), and if the tie still remains: 4. Total points (since the team with the most total points obviously has some of the best players, although maybe not the most consistent all-around team) I'd just hate for a divisional team to beat me twice, but I make the playoffs in a tie because of total points. Doesn't seem fair. Total points is important, but win vs. loss is more important in our league it seems. Plus the added divisional and conference competition would do better to create rivalries over the years. A wildcard tie outside of the division is a little trickier since we only play each non-divisional conference team once each year. A head to head win could be a fluke. Maybe total points could determine that, or something like this: 1. Wins within the conference 2. Total points 3. Head to head (although it would probably never come to this) Other than that, the Harbor Rats organization is perfectly happy with the BFL's rules. Enhancements in a deeper/more accurate scoring system will almost always get our vote, however, when the rule committee's ballots are cast each offseason. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Re: Playoff Rule Change (for next year)? Author: commish [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: Wednesday, December 07, 12:28:14pm I understand that argument because it makes it more like the NFL, and it makes it more important to win than to just score a lot of points, but i like points as the tie-breaker, and here's why: It does give the edge to the more consistent team. It gives an edge to Team A that may have lost more close games (perhaps by a terrible overturned touchdown by oh say marcus pollard, or because his QB threw an interception on a hail mary pass or one that bounced right off his receiver's hands, or because 4 of their key players got injured during the game). Meanwhile, maybe Team B got lucky and won a few games by playing teams that didn't change their lineup that week when half their roster had a bye or left joey harrington in at QB when the lions named jeff garcia their starter. Maybe only twice (the 2 times Team A and Team B played, coincidentally), did Team B have more points than Team A. Perhaps Team A's out-of-conference schedule was against more-prepared owners than Team B. Points against is currently set as the second tie-breaker, going to the team with more points against, as a strength of schedule thing (though no, we are not the BCS). Let it be known that the proposed tie-breakers are the 3rd, 4th, and 5th tie-breakers under our current system.

[> Subject: Re: Playoff Rule Change (for next year)? Author: Rats [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: Wednesday, December 07, 02:31:42pm About consistency and total points: The Liberty City Lightning Birds are 4th in total points in the BFL. They are 6-7. A losing record, but 4th in total points. In week 3 they had 205 points (extremely impressive), two weeks later they had 109 points. Almost 100 points less! Then the next week back up to a nice 170. In Week 10, all of 90 points. Two weeks later 155. Who knows if consistency should have a place in determining playoff teams. Even the most consistent teams have that slump or peak here and there. But I myself will take consistent over explosive any day of the week (even Sunday). So I wanna see the teams who can take out their rivals go further than teams who just know how to rack up the points. No offense meant towards Lightbird owenership. They definitely belong in the playoffs at this point. Plus, they've won a Super Bowl. I haven't. So I’m definitely not dismissing such a potentially powerful team. It all comes down to the possibility of a team beating me in each matchup and dominating our division, yet I get to the playoffs in front of them because I had more points. Hey, I'll take what I can get. And that's the problem. Anyone would be a fool to turn down a playoff birth after a season of struggling (and spending) to get there, but I myself don't want to be the team who gets there in that way. It may be a worse feeling that not getting there at all. And it's bound to happen to one of us at some point. It's just mere chance that it hasn't happened yet. I’m not really trying to fight this either. Just bringing it to everyone’s attention. Hell, if everyone votes to keep things the way they are, I’ll have no issue with getting into the playoffs that way. In fact I would be more than happy to.

[> Subject: Re: Playoff Rule Change (for next year)? Author: commish [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: Tuesday, December 13, 10:40:01am i will certainly put it into the list of things to vote on this offseason. i have not received too many suggestions thus far. bring 'em on, folks.

[> Subject: Re: Playoff Rule Change (for next year)? Author: Rats [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: Wednesday, December 14, 01:45:31pm After discussing this with other owners, I want to clear up any confusion. Head-to-head should only apply to Divisional tiebreakers--because we play teams within our division twice. So a 2-0 record against the team you share a win/loss record with would send you into the playoffs. A 1-1 record against them would defer to the next tiebreaker (maybe total points, maybe conference wins). A Wildcard tiebreaker would be determined either through conference wins or total points, not head-to-head. Losing twice to a team you played twice in the same season (yet you make the playoffs over them due to total points) is the problem I see. It hasn't happened yet, but it probably will.

[> Subject: Re: Playoff Rule Change (for next year)? Author: Rats [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: Wednesday, December 14, 02:09:21pm Also, I'd like to see more money go to the Super Bowl champ and less to the runner up and playoff teams. Maybe 80% to the champ, then 10% to the Super Bowl loser, and the last 10% divided amongst the wildcard winners and 3rd place team. Not much for the losers, but this is such a long stressful season. The winner should get more than $650 after we've all sunk over $1100 dollars into this thing. It's just a personal opinion. If I don't make it to the Super Bowl, I wouldn't expect much monetary return to begin with. So maybe: Super Bowl winner: $762 instead of $632 Super Bowl loser: $95 instead of $180 Conference losers: $33 a piece (3.5% a piece, 7% total), instead of $90 and $50 respectively Wildcard losers: $14 a piece (1.5% a piece, 3% total) So if you make the playoffs, you'll get something back, but not much unless you go all the way. I don't know. Something like that. I'm bored at work and it's just an idea.

[> Subject: Re: Playoff Rule Change (for next year)? Author: commsih [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: Friday, December 16, 09:33:03am dude, you are harsh!!!! we already set the 4th place team at just getting the entry fee back, and now you want to put both the 3rd and 4th place teams (2 of the best 25% of a 16-team leage, who worked their asses off all year long) in a financial loss??? there is already a HUMUNGOUS separation between the order of finish, and i strongly believe it should remain that way.

[> [> Subject: Re: Playoff Rule Change (for next year)? Author: Violators [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: Sunday, December 18, 10:00:33am We're right there with you Nate, definitely keep it the same. It's nice to know that if you come in 4th you get a least a little something back.

[> [> Subject: Re: Playoff Rule Change (for next year)? Author: Rats [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: Monday, December 19, 11:14:06am I just think that anyone who gets to the playoffs should get something (to help pay for their free agency moves), and the Super Bowl winner should get more than a little over half of the money we put in. $650 out of $1100 after getting through the whole season and the playoffs? And I don't see the reasoning behind the worst team of the top four getting their money back. And the other loser gets $100? If anything is harsh, that's harsh. Why should there be a $50 separation between losers? If I'm #4 this week, I'll take my $50, but between $50 and $33, neither gives much consolation. And I still owe money due to free agency. So I'm really not breaking even. I don't see the difference there. And who cares who got more points this week? We're still both losers. We should get the same amount. If we can give every playoff team some compensation and the Super Bowl winner what they deserve, I don't see the difference between $33 and $50. And didn't most of us work our asses off all year long? It's not just the top 25% who stressed and toiled all season long. Teams sweated their asses off to make a wildcard spot. I'll say it once more and then shut up and leave it up to you all. I believe the wild card teams should get something back. And the $650 that the Super Bowl winner gets seems paltry to me when looking at the money in the pot. And from the mouth of a playoff loser, no matter how far I got, I'm still a loser, just as big a one as any fellow loser, no matter how many points I scored, and a $15 difference in payout isn't going to give me any comfort. But that's just me. You all can decide what you want and I'm happy to go along with it. I just felt it needed to be brought up for debate.

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Playoff Rule Change (for next year)? Author: Violators [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: Monday, December 19, 02:56:34pm Aaron - I think the concept of everyone who gets to the playoffs getting money back is good but if you're giving more and more to the Superbowl winner and less and less to the wildcard winners what's the point in getting to the wildcard spot. If my team as a wildcard winner is only getting back $33 (or whatever amount we agree on) and I already paid $50 plus whatever I paid out in free agencies, I'm really not getting anything back and believe me, I worked as hard as Jason or Derek to get to the playoffs. And I agree, we all worked our butts off to get where we are today and should the other playoff teams get compensated, yes, I think so, but where do you draw the line as to how much everyone gets back! Should you keep taking from us losers who finally get somewhere? I don't think so. And I really don't think getting $650 back as the superbowl winner is pultry especially if I only paid out $60something to get there! I think I'd be way ahead of the game! I'm not trying to be difficult, I guess I just don't understand. I know knowing that I can get at least part of my entrance fee back by winning 4th place is a big plus for me, starting taking that away and I'm not so sure how much fun this league will be! - Dana

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Playoff Rule Change (for next year)? Author: Rats [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: Monday, December 19, 04:28:48pm Good enough, we're just seeing it from different viewpoints. By the way, my last post wasn't directed towards you guys, I just posted it wrong. I can see where you're coming from, too. And my post was meant to inspire ideas and opinions like yours. I see things my way while having no idea what other people are thinking, so it's good to see what you guys think. Unlike you and me and a few others, most owners don't speak their mind. And they won't question a rule even if they have an opinion on it. Anyway... Personally I'd rather have a t-shirt or a pin or a bobble head or something stupid like that rather than the money. So you can see I'm coming from an odd place. I was just fishing for what other people thought. Hopefully (though doubtful) more people will respond.