Need Ideas for Playoffs (Next Year) (2 Viewers)

[Mr. Know-It-All]

First off let me caveat by saying I finished 3-10 and had a horrible team. However, the league commish asked for my advice on what changes to make for our playoffs (as in 20 years only twice has the "best" team actually won the playoffs). Here is our current structure -

3 four team divisions - each team plays their divisional opponents twice, and 7 of th eother 8 teams once (one team you do not play at all and that is determined randomly). Top three seeds go to the division winners. Next 5 seeds go to - best overall record remaining, best divisional record remaining, head to head, point differential. The problem is that by having 8 teams make it we always have sub-.500 teams that squeak in. This year in our first round, the 10-3, 8-5 and 9-4 teams all fell to inferior teams that had a lucky week. So we are left with a 6-7, and 3 7-6 teams alive in the playoffs.

I have suggested basing playoffs on division winners (if we must keep division) and then overall records - but cut the playoffs to 6 teams. Top two seeds get a bye, the remaining 4 playoff in week 14, Then reseed based on records so the best tema plays the worst and the second best plays the second worst. Hell - I'd even be for cutting it to 4 teams and make the first round of the playoffs last two weeks - then a one week winner take it all for the remaining two teams in week 16 (or even make that a two week playoff game in week 16 and 17).

Does a two week playoff game sound legit? Teams could make roster changes at the end of each week to account for injuries.

Ideas????

 

[rocketsauce]

First off, 8 teams making the playoffs out of 12 teams in the league is absurd. ####, I think 6 is absurd too. You should be rewarded for great regular season performance, not for mediocrity. This isn't the NBA, and I don't want to see multiple .500ish teams getting into the playoffs.

Our setup is very close to your suggested setup. We've used it for years, and I don't like to play any other way:

We have 12 teams, 3 divisions, and play a 12 week regular season. You play all division foes twice each, and 6 other teams randomly generated. At the conclusion of the regular season, the division winners get in (tiebreak is total points first, then head to head, then points against) and the next best record gets in (with same tiebreakers.) We re-seed all 4 teams by record.

We then play Two 2 Week Cumulative Playoff Matchups. Weeks 13 + 14 are the Semi-Finals, with Weeks 15 + 16 being the Championship. I like the 2 week set up as it can help reduce luck a bit and help a team recover from a down week.

We also keep Total Points for all teams through Week 17, and award a payout to the Total Points champ as well.

 

[mquinnjr]

If you are going to have 6 teams make it to the playoffs, make it hard for those 6 teams to get in. One "Super" division, and top 6 records make it, top 2 teams get a first round bye. Tie breaker is points for. It's pretty hard if you're neck and neck with a few teams, forces you to not "kneel" and sit players to seal up a W, etc. It's challenging and I love it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Two divisions.

14-week regular season.

You play every team once, except for three teams you will play twice, from your own division and to be randomly selected.

Four teams make the playoffs: the two division winners and the next two best records.

Total points should always be the first tiebreaker.

 

[Sudoku_in_the_Bathtub]

4 team 3-week playoff (Weeks 14-16)

Teams start with their Regular Season Weekly Avg Week 14 and add on to that to get Super Bowl winner. You can add Consolation Bracket using format if desired.

You can award prizes to Best Regular Season Record/Points as well.

 

[Shutout]

You could try basing qualifiers on points vs. record (I know that seems to be a bit more fair, based on recent and small samples of experience).

You could try doing some all-play weeks vs. H2H in playoffs. I've seen some good things come from that too.

Overall, however, I think the playoffs are a complete and utter lottery ticket. With real NFL teams making so many moves at the end of the year, IR'ing players due to the time left in the season, wanting to see what else they have, sitting players for rest if they are locked in to their position, late season 2nd stringers coming in and making differences that are nowhere near fantasy-relevant for the first 3 months of the season (Bryce Brown/Montel Owens, etc).

We see all that stuff every year and it seems like here in these forums (which should be a very good and reliable sample size), you see A LOT of people making comments about how the "best" team rarely wins. In one of my older leagues, our commish pushed the majority of the prize money to the regular season best record and points champion, openly saying that he is tired of rewarding average teams witht he bulk of the money based on a random lottery. This is a big league and nobody objected.

So, all in all, there are two suggestions but if what you are really looking for is to make it "right", I think in fantasy the "right" thing may be to reward the three months or so instead of the 3 weeks or so because the former is a much better indication of who played the game better.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

One thing to consider is that perhaps you're not properly evaluating who the best team really is come playoff time. I've been playing FF a long time and have seen it over and over and over, where a 7-6 team sneaks into the playoffs and ends up winning it all. And everyone would gripe that the "best" team didn't really win, but is that true? What often happens is a team gets off to a rough start, but as a result of their mediocre (or worse) record, they consistently have higher waiver priority over the better teams that are riding the players they drafted. As the season progresses, these middle of the pack teams are better able to acquire the difference-making free agents that inevitably emerge, and by the time weeks 13 and 14 roll around, even though they may not have the best record, they actually have the team that's best equipped to go on a run through the playoffs.

Another thing to consider is your league goals and dynamics. Your league may prefer to let a bunch of teams in to the playoffs to keep owners interested longer and allow more owners to have fun during the playoffs. As you've seen, this is often going to result in so-called upsets in the playoffs, but in a league full of friends that can actually just add to the fun of rivalries, trash talking, etc. Make sure that, in your efforts to make things more fair, you're not actually removing some of the fun, too.

Anyway, if you still think there's a problem to be fixed, others have it pretty well covered here. First step would be letting fewer teams into the playoffs. After that there are a bunch of different options.

 

[Quibbler]

Playoffs and divisions are designed to make results a bit more random. If you want the "best" team to win more often you need to cut down on both. No divisions, 14 week regular season, top-4 teams get into a 2 week playoff is a format I like. The teams that make the playoffs are generally clearly better than the ones that don't.

Alternatively, if you play for money, you can just accept that the championship will be largely random, but make prizes for total pts scored over the whole season and/or getting into the playoffs. For example in one 12-team league with 4 playoff teams we use:

x = league dues

1st place = 4x

2nd place = 3x

3rd place = 2x

4th place = 1x

highest regular season pts = 2x

Everyone still wants to win the championship, but at least there's a good consolation prize for if you faced some sort of SEA D/ST situation in week 16.

In terms of 2-week playoffs, that sounds reasonable to me. Week 17 is the main problem, but there will only be 2 teams seriously competing by then, so I think you could have the championship game be 2 weeks as well.