Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Not quite. It would eliminate the extremes. Meaning, if someone outscored everyone else by a HUGE margin one week, total points will continue to reward that person for future weeks. All play would eliminate that.But, it is closer to total points. That I'll give ya.
Yeah, cause this is the same thing.
The closer it is to total points, the better off you are. If all-play takes away some of the stigma associated with total points, go for it.I think fantasy football is more like a round of golf than real football. You're "competing" against others, but it's really about what you do and comparing that to how they do. You can't do anything to stop each other. You're just comparing scores. And if you get a birdie on one hole, that helps you in the overall round. I like total points because it rewards the best teams, and all-play is a step in that direction. Plus you get the added benefit of some trash-talking by comparing records against each other and you can have side bets or whatever.bryhamm said:
Right that makes sense. Because when I get 150 points scored against me in fantasy, it's because my defense really sucked, I guess.
Seriously, cry me a river. Maybe the NFL should go to all play as well. I mean the Steelers put up 26 pts this week and lost, really unfortunate because that should be a enough to win.
I can't see it. There is something to preserving a direct Me Vs. You competition. Just my opinion, but all-play, to me, would be incredibly boring because you effectively would be playing against every player in the league every week, it would diminish those enjoyable/gut wrenching games that you tune in to for the sole point of just wanting to root for or against one particular player that you or your opponent has. I know some people advocate for it but I'm on the other side. I think if I did all-play, and I knew I had a good team that was going to generally put up points, I would set my lineup to account for injuries and byes but other than that, I would basically just be out of sight and non-participating and just show back up in three months and find out who else made the playoffs.i really think this is the way to go
Have you ever been in an All Play league? I'm in one league that awards a win to the top 6 scoring teams and a loss to the bottom 6 scoring teams each week. It's very exciting. Every week plays out until Monday night to see who will finish 6th and get the last win. I understand the One on One competition of matchup play, but that has lost a lot of it's luster as my fantasy football career has matured. There is so much luck in FF and All vs All takes a little bit out and makes sure the right teams are getting wins each week. That said, matchup play is the industry standard and that's not gonna change anytime soon. One way to reduce the scheduling luck is to play in 10 leagues. You'll get lucky in some, unlucky in others, but the variance should even out over time.I can't see it. There is something to preserving a direct Me Vs. You competition. Just my opinion, but all-play, to me, would be incredibly boring because you effectively would be playing against every player in the league every week, it would diminish those enjoyable/gut wrenching games that you tune in to for the sole point of just wanting to root for or against one particular player that you or your opponent has. I know some people advocate for it but I'm on the other side. I think if I did all-play, and I knew I had a good team that was going to generally put up points, I would set my lineup to account for injuries and byes but other than that, I would basically just be out of sight and non-participating and just show back up in three months and find out who else made the playoffs.
That's not really an all-play leagueHave you ever been in an All Play league? I'm in one league that awards a win to the top 6 scoring teams and a loss to the bottom 6 scoring teams each week. It's very exciting. Every week plays out until Monday night to see who will finish 6th and get the last win. I understand the One on One competition of matchup play, but that has lost a lot of it's luster as my fantasy football career has matured. There is so much luck in FF and All vs All takes a little bit out and makes sure the right teams are getting wins each week. That said, matchup play is the industry standard and that's not gonna change anytime soon. One way to reduce the scheduling luck is to play in 10 leagues. You'll get lucky in some, unlucky in others, but the variance should even out over time.I can't see it. There is something to preserving a direct Me Vs. You competition. Just my opinion, but all-play, to me, would be incredibly boring because you effectively would be playing against every player in the league every week, it would diminish those enjoyable/gut wrenching games that you tune in to for the sole point of just wanting to root for or against one particular player that you or your opponent has. I know some people advocate for it but I'm on the other side. I think if I did all-play, and I knew I had a good team that was going to generally put up points, I would set my lineup to account for injuries and byes but other than that, I would basically just be out of sight and non-participating and just show back up in three months and find out who else made the playoffs.
Three times in the last 10 years I have been high scorer in a 14 team league and never won. I have won it all two times during that period being the lowest scoring team that made the playoffs. That is why it is better to be lucky than good in FF.
I was curious about this, as we had one team finish 7th and just out of the playoffs (lost to the 6th-place team by one point in the last game), yet he only scored 9 fewer total points than me (who finished in 2nd). I looked at what the standings would be if we did all-play. Other than a flip-flop of the actual 3 and 4 teams (who were only 1 game apart in the standings and who each had the highest variances, so this kind of makes sense), the final standings would have been exactly the same, except for the 7th-place team.
All-Play Finish All-Play Wininng % Actual Finish Actual Winning %Team A 1 0.709 1 0.769Team B 2 0.658 7 0.462Team C 3 0.624 2 0.769Team D 4 0.573 4 0.615Team E 5 0.556 3 0.692Team F 6 0.530 5 0.538Team G 7 0.496 6 0.538Team H 8 0.479 8 0.462Team I 9 0.239 9 0.154Team J 10 0.137 10 0.000
I would like a link to your leagues if you have them. Also you would need to eliminate your playoffs if you really want points scored in week 2 and 3 to matter for you to win the championship.I hate H2H SCHEDULE LUCK with all my soul!I have been high scorer in one 10 team league 3 straight years and didn't earn a single week 14 bye because of schedule luck.
That is a good point. Why do people want a 2 or 3 week sample to determine the league's champion, yet they are upset a couple of weeks with high variations determining who is in the playoffs?I would like a link to your leagues if you have them. Also you would need to eliminate your playoffs if you really want points scored in week 2 and 3 to matter for you to win the championship.I hate H2H SCHEDULE LUCK with all my soul!I have been high scorer in one 10 team league 3 straight years and didn't earn a single week 14 bye because of schedule luck.
No it's not, but I hadn't heard of this and honestly really like it. With a true all play format, you end up with a ridiculous amount of games. With the above format, you still have just one game per week. You're really (in my 10 team league) only playing against 1 team each week - the 6th highest scoring team....you just don't know who that is.I "reran" my league with that format, and the outcome was much closer in terms of total points to playoff seed, but it still wasn't dead on (which is totally fine). All play takes the head to head out of it, as does total points....while this format still has the head to head feel (I'd imagine), but you just don't know who you're playing head to head against.That's not really an all-play leagueHave you ever been in an All Play league? I'm in one league that awards a win to the top 6 scoring teams and a loss to the bottom 6 scoring teams each week. It's very exciting. Every week plays out until Monday night to see who will finish 6th and get the last win. I understand the One on One competition of matchup play, but that has lost a lot of it's luster as my fantasy football career has matured. There is so much luck in FF and All vs All takes a little bit out and makes sure the right teams are getting wins each week. That said, matchup play is the industry standard and that's not gonna change anytime soon. One way to reduce the scheduling luck is to play in 10 leagues. You'll get lucky in some, unlucky in others, but the variance should even out over time.I can't see it. There is something to preserving a direct Me Vs. You competition. Just my opinion, but all-play, to me, would be incredibly boring because you effectively would be playing against every player in the league every week, it would diminish those enjoyable/gut wrenching games that you tune in to for the sole point of just wanting to root for or against one particular player that you or your opponent has. I know some people advocate for it but I'm on the other side. I think if I did all-play, and I knew I had a good team that was going to generally put up points, I would set my lineup to account for injuries and byes but other than that, I would basically just be out of sight and non-participating and just show back up in three months and find out who else made the playoffs.
All-play isn't total points. If you have a massively huge week, you can't do any better than an 11-0 week, even if you outscore the next-best team by 100 points. So one crazy points week doesn't skew the whole season. You play all other teams in the league head-to-head each week. Top six records make it.
It isn't just about best teams necessarily either. Yes, you get a cheap win as second-worst score if you happen to play guy with worst score. But more than that, it's about fairness. Why should you get to play some guy head-to-head when four of his studs happen to be on a bye, but I have to play him when he's got his full lineup? That's just stupid.
We went through this 2 years ago. I was the first guy on board with the one who brought up the proposal. It passed 9-1 after an extended debate via messages on MFL site. It will come down to fairness vs excitement/tradition. No one in their right mind can argue that H2H is a better indication of FF skill than all play.
While I agree that it's likely the "fairest", it does lose a lot of it's luster when you realize that (in my opinion) it takes away a lot of the excitement of the game. I love sitting down on a Sunday in a H2H league and watching how my players are performing against my opponents' players, it's somewhat easy to keep track of. You lose that completely in a H2H cause you'd have to do it for all the teams at once, which just can't be done while also trying to enjoy the actually NFL game you're watching. That's why I love the simple idea of the top half of the league each week (top 5 scorers in a 10 team, or top 6 in a 12 team) gets a win, and the other half gets a loss. It's simple. You can still follow something, either the 6th best team in a 10 team or the 7th best team in a 12 team league. I understand that who the 6th or 7th best team is can change in an instant, but you have something a bit easier to follow and still have excitement about than trying to wrap your head around every team playing every other team all at once.
You're right, it is a little more exciting to have a true opponent every week. Maybe its the trash talk leading up to the matchup, or maybe it just comes down to the old "mano y mano" effect. I think that's why most people who play fantasy baseball prefer H2H to ROTO style. H2H is simple, clear cut, and mimics the real sports we follow. So if you can accept the randomness of H2H, then suit yourself. But whats the point in striving for the best fantasy team you can have when you know that luck/randomness is still going to play a huge roll in the outcome of a season? Granted, you will never get rid of the luck/randomness factor, but i think All-Play scoring can reduce it without drastically changing the basics and the excitement of Fantasy Football
I like that system. I think that's a good medium
Again, why do all-play or top5/bottom 5, just do total points league if your sooooo worried about this stat known as total points.Total points doesn't take into accout taking a risk because you know you need to score big to win or playing the sure and steady option because you know you just need an average score out of the position to take home that H2H matchup. Both have advantages and disadvantages but I see no reason to ever do a All-Play league.Also to know that you really shouldn't have a playoff as why would you go a whole year of All-Play only to allow the last player that snuck in to take home the championship.
I'm not soooo worried about total points. I really don't like total points, it doesn't tell me anything week to week, just what each team did over the entire course of the season. I don't want a total points scoring system at all, I still would like the week to week "matchups" and wins and loses to be the determining factor. What I don't want is a team to get a "win" scoring 109 points, but another to get a "loss" scoring 175 based solely on the randomness of the weekly matchup generation that the MFL system does for the league back in August.With all the trash talking and pride we have in the league, it can get ruined by the pure chance that we have no control over in a H2H scenario.
Great! Can't wait to hear their input on the question.
) It's all about how the schedule plays out. According to Yahoo, I had the hardest schedule. Sometimes that's just the way it goes.
All play is really it that different than a week to week total points league. It's a step in the right direction but imo total points over the course of a season really determined w the best team is.
Yah I disagree,
No I'm trying to figure a way to reward the best teams, as well and as fair as it may possibly be,
