"Home field advantage" in FF playoffs (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I've used HFA in every league I've ever run, dating all the way back to 1996. Depending on scoring format it's between 5-10 points.

Yes, occasionally it means that a lower-scoring team "beats" a higher-scoring one. You know what else it does? Cuts down on the randomness of outcomes, in that the better teams throughout the season have a better chance of finishing in the money.

I continue to be astounded at how many "sharks" in the SP embrace, even advocate, methods of managing FF leagues that effectively serve to maximize this randomness.

It's pathetic, I agree.

By the way, check out all the NCAA March Madness pools, where scoring doubles each round, effectively making it about picking the winner, perhaps the final four, and essentially no value to getting a ton of games right in the early rounds.

I have to assume this was meant sardonically, but actually I've run multiple MM pools for 14 years now, and never once have I used a 1-2-4-8-16-32 scoring system. I think it's stupid for exactly that reason.

Trial and error has taught me the best mix is something like 8-15-25-40-70-100 (depending on whether you award additional points for seeds or upsets).

/steps off soapbox

 

[G5781]

My main league has HFA in the playoffs and the number of points is determined by record. HFA points are calculated as difference in wins doubled, +3. So if a team finished 11-2 vs a scrub 7-6 win team, its an 11 point HFA. If teams have the same record, then there is no HFA.

One year the 6th seed with a 6-7 record, beat higher seed teams by overcoming a 7 pt, 9 pt, and 13 point HFA disadvantage to win the league.

Everybody is on board with the rule which is important.

 

[Jersey35]

Giving 3 pts to the higher seeded team in FF playoffs to "simulate" home field advantage. Yea or Nay? Something that actually gives relevance to seeding would IMO add an interesting wrinkle to the regular season.

But as far as "giving relevance to seedings" goes, a person being the #1 seed and playing against the #6 seed (for instance) has relevance already. As the #1 seed, you should get to avoid having to play the #2 seed in the first week of the FF playoffs anyway. That said, I have played on leagues where we do exactly what you said, and give 3 points to the "home team". It worked out fine because everyone knew the rule going into the season. But really, you're kind of giving someone a double advantage there. They're already playing a lower seed, then you give them a point edge on top of it.

By doing that, you're assuming that the #1 and #2 seeds are the best teams and that the skill falls the further down the seeding going. That's not always the case. In fact, often the best team happens to be peaking at the end of the season as a wildcard. A better system would be to allow the top seed to "pick" which of the teams he/she faced during the playoffs. That way you can avoid having to play the #6 seed that was on a roll, for instance. I wonder if anyone does that?

This is exactly how we do it. Top seed chooses first round opponent. Everyone loves it. Each playoff round is also two weeks, which tends to favor the better, deeper teams, but that's a different topic altogether.

 

[dangerman77]

In my main 16 team league, 8 make the playoffs. Higher seeded team get the difference in seedings in the first two rounds (1st seed gets 7 points against the 8th seed, 2nd gets 5 points against the 7th, etc). Championship is played straight up.

 

[Hoss Style]

Giving 3 pts to the higher seeded team in FF playoffs to "simulate" home field advantage. Yea or Nay? Something that actually gives relevance to seeding would IMO add an interesting wrinkle to the regular season.

But as far as "giving relevance to seedings" goes, a person being the #1 seed and playing against the #6 seed (for instance) has relevance already. As the #1 seed, you should get to avoid having to play the #2 seed in the first week of the FF playoffs anyway. That said, I have played on leagues where we do exactly what you said, and give 3 points to the "home team". It worked out fine because everyone knew the rule going into the season. But really, you're kind of giving someone a double advantage there. They're already playing a lower seed, then you give them a point edge on top of it.

By doing that, you're assuming that the #1 and #2 seeds are the best teams and that the skill falls the further down the seeding going. That's not always the case. In fact, often the best team happens to be peaking at the end of the season as a wildcard. A better system would be to allow the top seed to "pick" which of the teams he/she faced during the playoffs. That way you can avoid having to play the #6 seed that was on a roll, for instance. I wonder if anyone does that?

This is exactly how we do it. Top seed chooses first round opponent. Everyone loves it. Each playoff round is also two weeks, which tends to favor the better, deeper teams, but that's a different topic altogether.

Curious - each playoff round is 2 weeks? I have a friend in a league like that and he hates it. He keeps trying to get it changed. He says either your playoffs have to start so early in the year that it devalues the season OR your SB is in Week 17, which is horrible because many starters are sitting.

Do you have to deal with those issues or do you have a work around for it? I'd be interested to know.

 

[Godsbrother]

Hate the idea. The only Home Field advantage we give is that a tie game in the playoffs goes to the higher seeded team

 

[Digitallinh]

My 10 year keeper league does the following payout structure

25% championship

25% total points

25% first overall record

15% second place playoffs

10% third place playoffs.

 

[hines]

Horrible, horrible idea. Speaking from experience I can assure everyone there is nothing worse than outscoring your opponent and still losing.

well something worse might be outscoring a scrub team by 300 points over the season then going down due to your QB getting injured and their kicker having a huge week in week 15

In my case I outscored the other team during the season but had a worse record. Your scenario is possible, but why have playoffs if you want to try to rig them to produce an outcome you have already predetermined should happen? Just play a full season and and the champ is whoever has the best record or most points or whatever you determine is the best way to crown a champ looking at the entire season.

total points is less fun. I think total points takes away too much of the drama and excitement but straight up head to head takes away too much of rewarding good teams and adds too much randomness. playoffs were always almost an afterthought for us because we knew who had done the best. we've gone to this hybrid system and everyone agrees it's miles better. 6 people are involved, all playing against each other so it's far from rigged to the highest scorer, though they do have an earned advantage. if you lucked into the playoffs by winning a sorry division, you should have to do something special to win the title

 

[steveski]

Hate the idea. The only Home Field advantage we give is that a tie game in the playoffs goes to the higher seeded team

I also don't like the idea at all. The team that does best in the regular season gets to play the easier playoff schedule including a 1st round bye for the top 2 teams. Not sure how much more of an advantage the top teams need?

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Giving 3 pts to the higher seeded team in FF playoffs to "simulate" home field advantage. Yea or Nay? Something that actually gives relevance to seeding would IMO add an interesting wrinkle to the regular season.

But as far as "giving relevance to seedings" goes, a person being the #1 seed and playing against the #6 seed (for instance) has relevance already. As the #1 seed, you should get to avoid having to play the #2 seed in the first week of the FF playoffs anyway. That said, I have played on leagues where we do exactly what you said, and give 3 points to the "home team". It worked out fine because everyone knew the rule going into the season. But really, you're kind of giving someone a double advantage there. They're already playing a lower seed, then you give them a point edge on top of it.

By doing that, you're assuming that the #1 and #2 seeds are the best teams and that the skill falls the further down the seeding going. That's not always the case. In fact, often the best team happens to be peaking at the end of the season as a wildcard. A better system would be to allow the top seed to "pick" which of the teams he/she faced during the playoffs. That way you can avoid having to play the #6 seed that was on a roll, for instance. I wonder if anyone does that?

This is exactly how we do it. Top seed chooses first round opponent. Everyone loves it. Each playoff round is also two weeks, which tends to favor the better, deeper teams, but that's a different topic altogether.

Curious - each playoff round is 2 weeks? I have a friend in a league like that and he hates it. He keeps trying to get it changed. He says either your playoffs have to start so early in the year that it devalues the season OR your SB is in Week 17, which is horrible because many starters are sitting.

Do you have to deal with those issues or do you have a work around for it? I'd be interested to know.

I'm a big proponent of multi-week playoff games but I find it really only works well with 4 playoff teams. Any more than that and you wind up "overlapping" playoff weeks (e.g. WC weeks 13-14, semis weeks 14-15, SB weeks 15-16). I've done that before, and it works logistically, but I've never really warmed to the concept - it just seems like it makes the whole season come down to week 15.

Regular-season doubleheaders makes a nice workaround for a "short regular season", BTW. If you're playing 2 games each week, a 12-week (or even 11-week) regular season suddenly doesn't seem so short.

 

[chinawildman]

I'm curious, for those that are against the idea of offering HFA for teams with better seeding in the playoffs, are you against it because...

1) You don't like the idea of an arbitrary point advantage in a H2H matchup or...

2) You don't think any team should have ANY artificial advantage in H2H period.

BTW I pose the original question with the assumption that there are no bye weeks awarded to top seeds.

 

[steveski]

I'm curious, for those that are against the idea of offering HFA for teams with better seeding in the playoffs, are you against it because...

1) You don't like the idea of an arbitrary point advantage in a H2H matchup or...

2) You don't think any team should have ANY artificial advantage in H2H period.

BTW I pose the original question with the assumption that there are no bye weeks awarded to top seeds.

I've never played in a league with no bye weeks since all my leagues have 6 playoff spots, but if there was no bye week I think I could see it being useful. The teams finishing 1st and 2nd should have a little bit of an advantage, but I don't like the idea of free points. Maybe let them choose their opponents instead? I honestly think allowing 6 teams in and giving the top 2 a bye is the best way of giving them a big advantage yet making them still have to earn the title in a fair way.

 

[Hoss Style]

Regular-season doubleheaders makes a nice workaround for a "short regular season", BTW. If you're playing 2 games each week, a 12-week (or even 11-week) regular season suddenly doesn't seem so short.

Great point. I'd love to find a league like that. This would, indeed, make a shorter season still relevant. Thanks for the response.

 

[Shrek]

We have HFA through the entire season. The home team is allowed to pair two players at the same position. Whichever scores the most points, is inserted into the lineup. The only difference is in the Super Bowl, the team with the best record gets to decide if both teams get to use the HFA rule or neither team since the SB is not really a home game.

Great and unique idea.

 

[Shrek]

My main league has HFA in the playoffs and the number of points is determined by record. HFA points are calculated as difference in wins doubled, +3. So if a team finished 11-2 vs a scrub 7-6 win team, its an 11 point HFA. If teams have the same record, then there is no HFA.

One year the 6th seed with a 6-7 record, beat higher seed teams by overcoming a 7 pt, 9 pt, and 13 point HFA disadvantage to win the league.

Everybody is on board with the rule which is important.

Another great idea. I'm gonna bring some of these up as proposals at our next Rules Committee. Keeps things interesting.