What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

Rewarding the 1 seed? (1 Viewer)

chasyone

Footballguy
Do most leagues reward the #1 seed by letting them play the lowest remaining seed after the first week of playoffs? In the league I commish we did not reseed after the first week. I was the 1 seed and was set to play the winner of the 3-6 matchup. If the 6 wins I get him and if the 3 wins then I would get the winner of the 4-5 matchup. We did this in past years and when we

switched the format of the league I forgot to put this in the rules.

Should I just keep it as is or reseed next year to reward the 1 seed? Thanks

 
That depends. If your rules don't clearly define which seed plays which, then I would say past experience would be the rule.

If your league has done it this way for 5 years, why would you do any differently?

 
i think an interesting way of reseeding would be based off team with lowest points in the season. rather than on record

cause the 6 seed could have 1700 points and a 4 or 5 have 1500 or whatever.

would seem more fair to give the 1 seed a crack at the lowest point total remaining

 
That depends. If your rules don't clearly define which seed plays which, then I would say past experience would be the rule.

If your league has done it this way for 5 years, why would you do any differently?
In the past we had a dynasty league and we let the 1 seed play the lowest remaining seed after the first week. This year we switched to a redraft but kept some of the same rules. One of those rules was that the 1 seed will play the lowest remaining seed. I forgot to carry that rule over to the new league. I was asking since we didn't let that happen this year should we keep it the same or go back to reseeding.

If we would have had the 1 seed play the lowest remaining seed he would have played the 4 seed and still lost but the other game would have had a different outcome. The 2 seed beat the 4 seed with the help of Jamaal Charles but we would have lost to the 3 seed if we would have reseeded

 
That depends. If your rules don't clearly define which seed plays which, then I would say past experience would be the rule.

If your league has done it this way for 5 years, why would you do any differently?
In the past we had a dynasty league and we let the 1 seed play the lowest remaining seed after the first week. This year we switched to a redraft but kept some of the same rules. One of those rules was that the 1 seed will play the lowest remaining seed. I forgot to carry that rule over to the new league. I was asking since we didn't let that happen this year should we keep it the same or go back to reseeding.

If we would have had the 1 seed play the lowest remaining seed he would have played the 4 seed and still lost but the other game would have had a different outcome. The 2 seed beat the 4 seed with the help of Jamaal Charles but we would have lost to the 3 seed if we would have reseeded
The bolded kind of contradicts itself?

If you have already played the playoffs using a different rule, and you are asking what to do going forward (2014 season) I would put it to a league vote.

If I'm confused and you are asking for playoffs that are currently being played, you have to stick with whatever you started with. Can't change it mid playoffs. Put it to a vote after this season. It sucks, but there is no correct answer.

 
We went to this type of system this year, where 6 teams make the playoffs, the top 2 seeds get byes, then the #1 seed plays the lowest remaining seed after their bye. However, our league has been generating some buzz for a rule change starting next season where the #1 seed would still get their bye, but then, in the 2nd week of the playoffs, the #1 seed would get to choose which of the remaining teams it plays. I like the idea, as it rewards someone for getting the #1 seed. And I know a bye is already a reward, but I've seen many instances where the #1 seed loses right after the bye because they ran into a team that got hot at the end of the season.

 
Best Option - Let the #1 seed choose his/her opponent for one semifinal. Remaining two teams play in the other semi.

Best Alternative - Reseed so #1 plays lowest remaining seed, #2 plays next-lowest.

Default - #1 plays winner of #4 vs #5; #2 plays winner of #3 vs #6.

I don't get why you have a system where the #1 team automatically plays the #3 if #3 wins (which is what they're expected to do). This system favors the #2 seed, who is the only one guaranteed to not play another top 3 seed until the final.

 
I like giving the #1 seed his choice.

That said, with NFL stat adjustments coming out Thursday morning and the first game being Thursday night, I don't like having such a short turn around time if a game result changes things up. Of course the same thing can happen if you give #1 the worst remaining seed, but at least I don't have to get ahold of him and wait for a decision, I can just make the change.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like giving the #1 seed his choice.

That said, with NFL stat adjustments coming out Thursday morning and the first game being Thursday night, I don't like having such a short turn around time if a game result changes things up. Of course the same thing can happen if you give #1 the worst remaining seed, but at least I don't have to get ahold of him and wait for a decision, I can just make the change.
For what it's worth, there are no more Thursday games this season.

 
That depends. If your rules don't clearly define which seed plays which, then I would say past experience would be the rule.

If your league has done it this way for 5 years,

why would you do any differently?
In the past we had a dynasty league and we let the 1 seed play the lowest remaining seed after the first week. This year we switched to a redraft but kept some of the same rules. One of those rules was that the 1 seed will play the lowest remaining seed. I forgot to carry that rule over to the new league

. I was asking since we didn't let that happen this year should we keep it the same or go back to reseeding.

If we would have had the 1 seed play the lowest

remaining seed he would have played the 4 seed and still lost but the other game would have had a different outcome. The 2 seed beat the 4 seed with the help of Jamaal Charles but

we would have lost to the 3 seed if we would have reseeded
The bolded kind of contradicts itself?If you have already played the playoffs using a different rule, and you are asking what to do

going forward (2014 season) I would put it to a league vote.

If I'm confused and you are asking for playoffs

that are currently being played, you have to stick

with whatever you started with. Can't change it mid playoffs. Put it to a vote after this season. It sucks, but there is no correct answer.
League vote next year is prolly the best

 
I like giving the #1 seed his choice.

That said, with NFL stat adjustments coming out Thursday morning and the first game being Thursday night, I don't like having such a short turn around time if a game result changes things up. Of course the same thing can happen if you give #1 the worst remaining seed, but at least I don't have to get ahold of him and wait for a decision, I can just make the change.
For what it's worth, there are no more Thursday games this season.
Yeah but there was this week, and most leagues the #1 see had to play this week.

You can't really go wrong saying the #1 seed just plays the lowest seed in round 2. Though sometimes that 5 or 6 seed is a better team at that time and you would prefer to play the 3 seed.

More often that not though, this way the #1 seed would play the lesser team.

Next best option is to give them their choice.

Would be funny if the NFL let the top seed choose their opponent.

 
Best Option - Let the #1 seed choose his/her opponent for one semifinal. Remaining two teams play in the other semi.

Best Alternative - Reseed so #1 plays lowest remaining seed, #2 plays next-lowest.

Default - #1 plays winner of #4 vs #5; #2 plays winner of #3 vs #6.

I don't get why you have a system where the #1 team automatically plays the #3 if #3 wins

(which is what they're expected to do). This system favors the #2 seed, who is the only one guaranteed to not play another top 3 seed until the final.
Yea it was on MFL. I seen it had the 1 seed playing the winner of 3-6 and I didn't have the rule for the 1 seed to play the lowest remaking seed and realized I couldn't do anything about it. I like your choices and will bring these up at our season ending meeting for changes next season. Thanks

 
We reseed. Its why I hate yahoo leagues. Lost at least two championships because of no reseeding

 
If you really want to reward the 1 seed, forget playing the lowest seed or choosing an opponent. Those are perceived advantages. Give them a REAL advantage that is tangible as a reward for being the 1.

Give them points as a home field advantage. Give them some creative flex (maybe they get to choose two players for one spot and get the points from the one that scores the most). Do something real, not something that falls right squarely into the same old trap of perception and thinking this and reasoning that.

The single worst thing about ff is that the truly important part of the season happens at the same time as the part of the season where things change the most in real life. Teams rest players. Borderline injuries lead to shutting players down. All these things increase the fluke factor. So why build in yet another layer that just feeds that?

 
If you really want to reward the 1 seed, forget playing the lowest seed or choosing an opponent. Those are perceived advantages. Give them a REAL advantage that is tangible as a reward for being the 1.

Give them points as a home field advantage. Give them some creative flex (maybe they get to choose two players for one spot and get the points from the one that scores the most). Do something real, not something that falls right squarely into the same old trap of perception and thinking this and reasoning that.

The single worst thing about ff is that the truly important part of the season happens at the same time as the part of the season where things change the most in real life. Teams rest players. Borderline injuries lead to shutting players down. All these things increase the fluke factor. So why build in yet another layer that just feeds that?
I think the bye we already give them is a far bigger, real, tangible advantage.

 
My oldest dynasty league used to have home and away. Even in the regular season. Home team got an extra flex player.

In the playoffs, same thing.

Super bowl was even where both players used an extra player.

 
If you really want to reward the 1 seed, forget playing the lowest seed or choosing an opponent. Those are perceived advantages. Give them a REAL advantage that is tangible as a reward for being the 1.

Give them points as a home field advantage. Give them some creative flex (maybe they get to choose two players for one spot and get the points from the one that scores the most). Do something real, not something that falls right squarely into the same old trap of perception and thinking this and reasoning that.

The single worst thing about ff is that the truly important part of the season happens at the same time as the part of the season where things change the most in real life. Teams rest players. Borderline injuries lead to shutting players down. All these things increase the fluke factor. So why build in yet another layer that just feeds that?
I think the bye we already give them is a far bigger, real, tangible advantage.
Not every league has a 6-team playoff format. Personally I prefer 4-team playoff systems for anything less than 14-team leagues, in which case I've always awarded a home-field advantage to the 1- and 2-seeds (since there's no bye). My general default preference for HFA is the difference in average PPG scored in the regular season, but I've also just gone with a flat 5- or 10-point head start.

I do agree that with a built-in bye in 6-team playoff formats, there's no real need to provide additional incentives for the top two seeds.

 
We reseed. Its why I hate yahoo leagues. Lost at least two championships because of no reseeding
To be fair, you lost because your opponent scored more points than you. Chances are, there were also time where not reseeding has helped you get a win. It's a game of luck.

The best advantage is to let them choose their opponents or give them a bye. Besides that, reseeding or not reseeding doesn't really do much. A team that is normally good can have terrible matchups or injuries while a team that barely squeaked in has players hitting their stride and has great matchups. I've never seen a league where I thought each team was seeded exactly the same as I thought their strength was currently at come playoff time.

 
We went to this type of system this year, where 6 teams make the playoffs, the top 2 seeds get byes, then the #1 seed plays the lowest remaining seed after their bye. However, our league has been generating some buzz for a rule change starting next season where the #1 seed would still get their bye, but then, in the 2nd week of the playoffs, the #1 seed would get to choose which of the remaining teams it plays. I like the idea, as it rewards someone for getting the #1 seed. And I know a bye is already a reward, but I've seen many instances where the #1 seed loses right after the bye because they ran into a team that got hot at the end of the season.
I've finished first or second in my league many times and have had a bye and then lost to the hot team. :hot:

This year I finished 4th, won my first game and faced the #1 team this week.

Result = A 60 point win for me :pickle: :clap: :thumbup:

 
give the teams with great regular season head starts. if you snuck into the playoffs due to a lucky record, you should have to really earn the title, not just ride a couple hot weeks. have each playoff team start with 25% of their season long point total and play all-play the final two weeks. it's very fair and much more fun than the crapshoot that is head-to-head with no advantage built in

 
If you really want to reward the 1 seed, forget playing the lowest seed or choosing an opponent. Those are perceived advantages. Give them a REAL advantage that is tangible as a reward for being the 1.

Give them points as a home field advantage. Give them some creative flex (maybe they get to choose two players for one spot and get the points from the one that scores the most). Do something real, not something that falls right squarely into the same old trap of perception and thinking this and reasoning that.

The single worst thing about ff is that the truly important part of the season happens at the same time as the part of the season where things change the most in real life. Teams rest players. Borderline injuries lead to shutting players down. All these things increase the fluke factor. So why build in yet another layer that just feeds that?
I think the bye we already give them is a far bigger, real, tangible advantage.
Not every league has a 6-team playoff format. Personally I prefer 4-team playoff systems for anything less than 14-team leagues, in which case I've always awarded a home-field advantage to the 1- and 2-seeds (since there's no bye). My general default preference for HFA is the difference in average PPG scored in the regular season, but I've also just gone with a flat 5- or 10-point head start.

I do agree that with a built-in bye in 6-team playoff formats, there's no real need to provide additional incentives for the top two seeds.
YOu guys either don't make the playoffs much or you are incredibly lucky to never have been on a bye and watch all your players eat everyone's lunch that week...only to get rested the next week.. Or your star player(s) get injured on your bye week, only to be of absolutely no use to you when it matters to you.

That's all I'm saying. We play ff so...let us play...not sit on the sidelines during the most crucial weeks of the year. Let us get what we can out of our players during weeks when the players are actually playing.

If you want to reward teams for their season-long achievements, give them something you can touch (or better yet, count..as in, points FOR your team). Your bye week doesn't help you or Wes Welker one bit when you need him the next week...but wait...he got a concussion THIS week...so sorry Charlie..

Some people (usually the ones who eyeball the cash payouts for 1st,2nd, and 3rd place finishers) often say "well, if you are on bye, you can't get beat so that's great. Ok, if you want to play fantasy's version of the prevent defense and play not to lose instead of playing to win, I guess that's one way to look at it. But if you are one of these people that actually enjoy seeing your players compete when it is most meaningful to you AND them, I'd prefer to take my shot in the critical past of the season and not be forced to read 12 different "worry wart" threads (like I see all over these boards today) about "well what happens if the Bears already know that the Packers ordered sushi instead of the salmon, does that mean Marshall might be rested?" I want none of it. I drafted these guys to play. Let's play them and avoid the entire "woulda, coulda, shoulda" of what might have been had my fantasy team actually played in the fantasty week.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top