Schedule Question - Doubleheaders or Nah? (1 Viewer)

[SubDude]

14-team league, two divisions of 7 each. One option is 12 games versus division rivals and 2 games across divisions.

Another possibility is to schedule 5 double-header weeks, giving a total of 19 "games". This would allow 2 games against division rivals and also one game against every other team.
PRO: Everyone plays the same "difficulty of schedule," every team faces every team at least once.
CON: Have to balance double-header weeks, division games, and NFL Bye weeks to ensure fairness of the schedule.
Good weeks for "important" games are those without a BYE week at all: weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 13. Assuming yes to doing double-headers, how would I determine which games to place on those "important" weeks? Is it all more trouble than it's worth, and I should just stick to the first option?

 

[lsutigers]

I'm a fan of doubleheaders. In theory, it eliminates a little of the luck factor (who doesn't hate being the 2nd highest point scorer for the week and losing). Although I know MFL does fall prey to the Apple "shuffle" not being random type issue; everyone in our league plays the same opponent in consecutive weeks.

Not sure which site you host on, but if possible, use a randomizer so you're not having to make those decisions knowingly.

 

[Max Power]

I'm a fan of victory points style leagues. Plenty of different ways to implement them. My personal favorite is one point for head to head win. One point for all teams who beat the league average for the week.... i.e. top 6 teams.

Even if I don't have players playing monday night, the league average number can keep things interesting late into that game.

 

[Gally]

We don't do double headers to balance the schedule but instead do "position weeks". So for those additional weeks after the division games we set up weeks where 1st place vs 2nd place, 3rd v 4th, etc.

It works out really well.

 

[Keith R]

The better one knows one's competitors, the more I favor having just one opponent. I like to focus on the matchup, both on a strategic and a personal level.

I guess as a runnerup option, I would then favor a "play all" format. In a 12 team league, finishing 1st for the week would result in an 11-0 week, finishing 5th would result in going 7-4, etc. If going for purity over rivalry, it's the method that yields the fairest results. Just a bit too impersonal for a league full of known rivals for my taste.

 

[eighsse2]

I prefer single head-to-head. It's just most similar to NFL and I like that. Luck and unluck are what they are, they add some chaos, and that can be fun. I've had my share of unlucky years. It happens.

 

[Gally]

I prefer single head-to-head. It's just most similar to NFL and I like that. Luck and unluck are what they are, they add some chaos, and that can be fun. I've had my share of unlucky years. It happens.

I agree......which is why the "position week" to fill in the balanced schedule is nice. It's a single opponent and it is someone next to you in the standings so you get the feel of having your fate in your own hands a bit. It makes for a mini-playoff feel without the win or go home requirement. If you haven't done something like this I highly suggest trying it out for a year and see what your league thinks.

 

[Galileo]

I like single games myself. Would stink to have an off week with a double header...double jeopardy.