Improved Ranking System (1 Viewer)

[darryljr]

A friend and I invented a new concept to improve the current ranking system for Fantasy Football. We applied for a patent and were invited to make a presentation at the Fantasy Sports Trade Association last week. It created some excitement amongst a few groups, but we wanted to get more feedback/input. Below is a link with additional info about our concept:

http://ffimprovedrankingsystem.com/

We are huge FF fans but new to the forums. We look forward to your comments/feedback!

D

 

[GregR_2]

I guess if I'm not going to use win-loss record, I would use the all-play record long before I'd go to a system like this. And before I'd go to all-play record I'd play double headers which can go quite a ways towards being more indicative of how your team did vs single games.

If you want some comments on the website meant constructively.... when a site starts out by using exclamation points and making statements that sound like they are trying to convince me how great something is before I even know what it is they are talking about, it pretty much is a signal the product isn't going to stand on it's own merits.

That's the first thing I thought when I read

We have invented a new idea for Fantasy Football that will change the way the game is played and help it evolve to the next level! The buzz this improved ranking system will generate throughout the Fantasy Football arena will drive players to flock in masses to participate.

No one with a discriminating mind is going to believe those claims, especially after they see what it is you're selling. Flock in masses? Come on. If you'd gone with a pitch that providing creative alternatives for the things that frustrate FF players may differentiate a site from others, now that is a realistic possible gain. But the way you're going about pitching it on your website does more to hurt my impression of your system than it does to help it.

 

[darryljr]

Thanks, we appreciate your feedback. However, we feel head to head style of play is what makes the game so much fun. Thats why we kept it as one of the main components.

 

[Pictus Cat]

Interesting system taking into account W/L, TP, and an owners SOS vs. other owners.

It assumes:

1. Owners want less luck/the best man to win

and

2. Owners want a more complicated system

Usually leagues consist of:

a variety of owners with different abilities,

desiring 1st, 2nd, 3rd place

Losing year after year because the best teams keep winning may not be ideal.

You want that lucky clueless guy in the playoffs.

You need that lucky clueless guy in the playoffs.

because deep down in places you don't like to talk about,

that lucky clueless guy lets all the other donors, oops, owners think they have a shot.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Well you've certainly developed a very nice product - having read all of your material I think you have come up with a better rankings system to ensure the best teams make the playoffs.

No offense, but I don't think this is going to "grab the masses" as you expect it to. Most revolutionary ideas that forever change a market niche have a "No Duh!" factor involved. A combination of being so simple yet effectively fixing a problem that when it comes along, people cannot imagine ever having done it another way.

I'm about the biggest fantasy geek I know and I had to concentrate REALLY hard to get through everything on your site to see it's usefulness. I guess what I'm trying to say is that your average fantasy player doesn't really care much about what's fair. Just give him a simple game with simple rules to play with his buddies and he's down.

Does your product solve a problem? Yes.

Is it a problem that the market is DEMANDING be fixed? Nope.

I do wish you the best of luck with it though.

 

[Genester]

Does your product solve a problem? Yes. Is it a problem that the market is DEMANDING be fixed? Nope.

I think this is the key point here. I appreciate the effort you guys have put into this concept. However, I am not sure most leagues are looking for the absolute most objective way to put the most deserving teams into the play-offs. (if they did, they would use all-play or total points or some such mechanism - and this method constitutes the vast minority of leagues out there, the vast majority preferring the straight head-to-head format).I actually find the concept of luck playing into FF attractive. It is the same idea that makes college basketball and, to a lesser extent, the NFL, so enticing - the best team does NOT always win. Was Villanova really better than Georgetown? Was Duke really better than UNLV? Were the Giants really better than the Pats? Perhaps not, but on that given day, they won. For many of us, the thrill of beating that juggernaut team or guiding a mediocre team into the play-offs through skillful management and some luck beats the most objective possible scoring system out there. One other argument I would throw out there is that your system really legitimizes one kind of luck over the other. For example, last season teams that drafted Randy Moss, Tom Brady, & AD came out way ahead of others. Was that because of their absolutely exceptional drafting ability and predictive skills? Or did most simply luck out with these guys? I would argue the latter over the former, in most cases. Your system essentially rewards the folks with these draft picks, because it protects such teams from the vagaries of the weekly variation in points scored. In essence, your system suggests teams that in retrospect pick the best players in the draft should always advance to the play-offs, even though a large element of luck was involved in the draft itself. In this case, it might be better to just freeze the rosters after the draft and play the best ball format.And therein lies the rub. Most serious FF players realize there's a big luck factor involved, and attempt to minimize it by using their skills. Try to eliminate the luck factor altogether, and the game becomes a bit more of an academic exercise that is more predictable, but less exciting (see roto baseball, played at a serious statistical level). Net, some kind of balance between luck and skill is in order, and each league decides on their own how much of a balance they want. It is hard to imagine most leagues preferring all luck or all skill, so they will land somewhere in the middle. I am not certain that's how I see your proposal pan out.Hope this helps, and thank you for pushing an idea out there!

 

[bucknuts30]

For what it's worth, I think your system looks pretty good. I do agree with some of the other posts in that it won't be for everybody, such as people in automated drafts or who are just playing solely for fun. I think your main supporters would be the more competitive, big money leagues. Personally, I would favor this system for our league because with a $200 entry fee, I would prefer that the best teams would have a better chance at making the playoffs. I also like how you're keeping the head to head style as an important factor because, as suggested in some other posts, all play or total points formats may be more objective, but definitely aren't as fun or competitive. I agree that some luck is exciting and keeps things interesting, so I don't think it should be eliminated. After reading about your system, am I right in assuming luck is still involved, just not as much?

 

[darryljr]

Thanks for the great comments and feedback, this is the type of info I was hoping to get. I wanted to respond to the issue of luck factor. Our system is not meant to eliminate the luck factor. However, the purpose was to prevent situations from our data were Csonka's Hammer was regularly playing low scoring opponents on a week to week basis and Da Browns was playing high scoring opponents on a consistent basis. Upsets will still occur and play a major role. This system is not meant for a one game evaluation but situations that occurred consistently on a week to week basis. Each league or website can determine the importance of each component by increasing or decreasing the weights:

W/L Record- 70%

Total Points- 15%

Opponents Weekly Perf.- 15%

If a league wants the luck factor to be important, they can keep W/L Record high. If a league wants to base there standings on the talent level of each team, each component could be at a similar weight.

Hope this helps to clarify some of the responses.

 

[Calm Cool and Collected]

Thanks for the great comments and feedback, this is the type of info I was hoping to get. I wanted to respond to the issue of luck factor. Our system is not meant to eliminate the luck factor. However, the purpose was to prevent situations from our data were Csonka's Hammer was regularly playing low scoring opponents on a week to week basis and Da Browns was playing high scoring opponents on a consistent basis. Upsets will still occur and play a major role. This system is not meant for a one game evaluation but situations that occurred consistently on a week to week basis. Each league or website can determine the importance of each component by increasing or decreasing the weights:W/L Record- 70%Total Points- 15%Opponents Weekly Perf.- 15%If a league wants the luck factor to be important, they can keep W/L Record high. If a league wants to base there standings on the talent level of each team, each component could be at a similar weight. Hope this helps to clarify some of the responses.

I think this would be a really cool addition to league managers as more of a way to rank different teams. For example MFL has "power rank", they added "victory points" (from ant sports i think). This formula would be cool for that. I'm not sure I would want to play in a league that used this system as "the" way to score the league though.