Isn't the 2 seed more preferable then the 1? (1 Viewer)

[Da Gildz]

Both get automatic bids to the Championship Rd but the 1 seed plays the 4 seed in rd 1. That 4 seed is the 2nd highest scoring team after the 2 seed. The 3 seed is the 2nd best record who could easily be a mediocre squad. I think this is a flaw in the system. I think you're far better off facing the team with 2nd best record over the 2nd highest point scoring team. After all, total Pts is the truest indicator of how good a team really is. Thoughts?

 

[Alex - FFPC]

From our POV, the 1- and 2-seeds are both of equal value. As for the league playoff seedings, the 1-seed will be the higher scoring team than it's 4-seed opponent at least 80% of the time. The 2-seed will be the higher scoring team than it's 3-seed opponent 100% of the time. The 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 matchups are simple, easy to understand and mirrors what most owners are used to in their home leagues.

 

[Da Gildz]

I think the 1 seed if your making it the best record should face off vs the 2nd best record then as the 4 seed. Then let the 2 and 3 seeds who had the most Pts battle it out. I would even suggest making the most total Pts the 1 seed, best record the 2. You're still rewarding the 2 best records and 2 teams with most Pts. Lets be honest it's a H2H format but its biggest prize/championship rd is based solely on Pts scored. Long story short, I want the 1 seed being the best team in the league and only way to do that is Total Pts.

 

[bostonfred]

From our POV, the 1- and 2-seeds are both of equal value. As for the league playoff seedings, the 1-seed will be the higher scoring team than it's 4-seed opponent at least 80% of the time. The 2-seed will be the higher scoring team than it's 3-seed opponent 100% of the time. The 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 matchups are simple, easy to understand and mirrors what most owners are used to in their home leagues.

I was the #1 seed in my league, and played the #4 seed, who outscored me by 9 points on the season. I outscored the #2 and #3 seeds, but tied him 136.3 to 136.3 - which brought us to the tiebreaker, which is total points scored. So I'm not a huge fan of that rule right now.

 

[Alex - FFPC]

From our POV, the 1- and 2-seeds are both of equal value. As for the league playoff seedings, the 1-seed will be the higher scoring team than it's 4-seed opponent at least 80% of the time. The 2-seed will be the higher scoring team than it's 3-seed opponent 100% of the time. The 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 matchups are simple, easy to understand and mirrors what most owners are used to in their home leagues.

I was the #1 seed in my league, and played the #4 seed, who outscored me by 9 points on the season. I outscored the #2 and #3 seeds, but tied him 136.3 to 136.3 - which brought us to the tiebreaker, which is total points scored. So I'm not a huge fan of that rule right now.

Not to pour salt on your wounds, but if your team was outscored by the 4-seed during the regular season, it means you were the 3rd highest scoring team in your league, at best. Which also means that your were very fortunate to even get the 1-seed. I don't see how our format hurt you at all. If anything, it helped you get to the 1-seed and you simply didn't score enough to win in Week 12. That happens but at least you have an automatic ticket to the big dance. Best of luck.

 

[LAbronco]

I'd love it if the FPC would give you your choice of opponents as the #1 seed. WCOFF used to do this, and seems a nice way to reward the #1 seed. Other option is to rearrange seeds by:

Record

Points

Points

Record, or

Points,

Record,

Points,

Record

Since most pts really do reflect the best team over the course of the season. First option is a reflection more of 'what people are used to' than what i personally think would be the fairest priority set, which would be the 2nd option.

 

[Alex - FFPC]

I'd love it if the FPC would give you your choice of opponents as the #1 seed. WCOFF used to do this, and seems a nice way to reward the #1 seed. Other option is to rearrange seeds by:

Record

Points

Points

Record, or

Points,

Record,

Points,

Record

Since most pts really do reflect the best team over the course of the season. First option is a reflection more of 'what people are used to' than what i personally think would be the fairest priority set, which would be the 2nd option.

Giving choice of opponents is not possible, logistically.

Changing seeding based on matchup complicates things too much for our liking. It's much easier to lay out the playoff structure as 1-4 seeds with 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. It's simple and mirrors what most players are used to in their home leagues. Keep in mind guys that we are talking about a contest with close to 6,000 teams in it and growing. We don't want to complicate things for the masses.