Should 2nd Place In Each Conference Be Rewarded With A First Round Bye? (1 Viewer)

[HairyGOATee]

Should 2nd Place In Each Conference Be Rewarded With A First Round Bye?

I ask because, why should 1st and 2nd place get the same reward? Well, obviously, 1st place gets home field advantage, but if the prize is a first round bye, then why is it the same for first and 2nd place?

Personally, I'd expand playoffs on each side to at least 7 teams, that way only 1 team on each side gets a bye. Ideally, you don't even discriminate like that, and make it 8 teams on each side of the bracket.

What do you all think?

 

[wgoldsph]

I think this is a dumb question that nobody is asking.

 

[Dezbelief]

I don't vote in public polls.

 

[Deamon]

Should 2nd Place In Each Conference Be Rewarded With A First Round Bye?

I ask because, why should 1st and 2nd place get the same reward? Well, obviously, 1st place gets home field advantage, but if the prize is a first round bye, then why is it the same for first and 2nd place?

Personally, I'd expand playoffs on each side to at least 7 teams, that way only 1 team on each side gets a bye. Ideally, you don't even discriminate like that, and make it 8 teams on each side of the bracket.

What do you all think?

2 Byes works perfectly IMO.  HFA is a great reward and often 1st and 2nd are pretty close. 

Why should 3rd place get the same reward as 6th place then?  Just blow it all up!

 

 

[JoeSteeler]

I don't vote in public polls.

afraid you will catch something?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

1st seed also gets the advantage of playing the lowest advancing seed...so ts not just HFA.

 

[HairyGOATee]

Another issue is that with the bye system, Week 17 games can mean less to certain teams. Make it a 7 team or 8 team bracket on each side, and week 17 games could start to mean something for those squads. It could also mean something for teams that are on the outside looking in, as more teams would be in the hunt. You have a few bad weeks under the current system and you may just want to tank (something we've seen before), but more teams getting in makes it possible for you to salvage your season and maybe even become a bigger player at the deadline.

Of course, there would be scheduling and TV issues with 8 first round games during the first week of playoffs.

 

[HairyGOATee]

I don't vote in public polls.

Fair enough. I'd rather it be public so people are less tempted to troll.

 

[HairyGOATee]

I think this is a dumb question that nobody is asking.

Chiefs and Pats asked it a while back. My redraft and keeper leagues routinely ask it in the offseason, and in a dynasty league I was in, we actually passed a rule that expanded playoffs from 6 to 7 teams.

 

[-OZ-]

I don't care about the 2nd team getting a bye. But I would like the 7th team to get into the playoffs. 

 

[Interseptopus]

Chiefs and Pats asked it a while back. My redraft and keeper leagues routinely ask it in the offseason, and in a dynasty league I was in, we actually passed a rule that expanded playoffs from 6 to 7 teams.

We all know you're in the worst leagues 

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I don't like playoff byes at all. It's way too much of an advantage, IMO.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

 you may just want to tank (something we've seen before),

link?

 

[Gally]

Another issue is that with the bye system, Week 17 games can mean less to certain teams. Make it a 7 team or 8 team bracket on each side, and week 17 games could start to mean something for those squads. It could also mean something for teams that are on the outside looking in, as more teams would be in the hunt. You have a few bad weeks under the current system and you may just want to tank (something we've seen before), but more teams getting in makes it possible for you to salvage your season and maybe even become a bigger player at the deadline.

Of course, there would be scheduling and TV issues with 8 first round games during the first week of playoffs.

NFL is about the only sport that hasn't had blatant tanking by teams out of the playoffs.  This is not and has not been a concern that I have ever heard discussed with regards to the NFL. 

The reason week 17 games mean less to certain teams has nothing to do with bye weeks.  It has to do with teams already wrapping up their seeding for the playoffs and they have nothing to play for.  So they rest key players to get them ready for the playoffs.  This would not change if bye's were taken away and may even become more prevalent because teams could use week 17 as a bye week if their seeding wouldn't really change regardless of the outcome of that game.  It may do the opposite of your desires. 

 

[Anarchy99]

1st seed also gets the advantage of playing the lowest advancing seed...so ts not just HFA.

Sometimes that may not be an advantage. The top wildcard team could have the 2nd best record in the conference. If that team wins a road game and the other wildcard team loses, then the #1 seed could have to play a team from their division for the 3rd time (or another team with a really good record).

I would not be against keeping the system to determine who makes the playoffs but then seeding the teams based on overall record. I am not a fan of a 12-4 wildcard team facing a slate of all road games while an 8-8 team that plays in a weak division gets a home game.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Sometimes that may not be an advantage. The top wildcard team could have the 2nd best record in the conference. If that team wins a road game and the other wildcard team loses, then the #1 seed could have to play a team from their division for the 3rd time (or another team with a really good record).

I would not be against keeping the system to determine who makes the playoffs but then seeding the teams based on overall record. I am not a fan of a 12-4 wildcard team facing a slate of all road games while an 8-8 team that plays in a weak division gets a home game.

I agree sometimes things don’t seem to work out as far as making sense.....but since the NFL doesn’t play a balanced schedule and you could have several teams with the same record come playoff time, I’m not sure there is a perfect solution....I don’t want to see any more teams make the playoffs.....6 out of 16 seems right...

 

[HairyGOATee]

We all know you're in the worst leagues 

how many teams in your primary league? how many of them make playoffs?

 

[HairyGOATee]

Sometimes that may not be an advantage. The top wildcard team could have the 2nd best record in the conference. If that team wins a road game and the other wildcard team loses, then the #1 seed could have to play a team from their division for the 3rd time (or another team with a really good record).

I would not be against keeping the system to determine who makes the playoffs but then seeding the teams based on overall record. I am not a fan of a 12-4 wildcard team facing a slate of all road games while an 8-8 team that plays in a weak division gets a home game.

That brings up another good point. I want to see the NFL seed the playoffs teams by record regardless of divisions. That way if you have the 2nd highest record in the league, but didn't win your division (I think that's what happened to the Chargers this past season), then you can still get 2nd place and aren't automatically locked into 5th.

 

[HairyGOATee]

2 Byes works perfectly IMO.  HFA is a great reward and often 1st and 2nd are pretty close. 

Why should 3rd place get the same reward as 6th place then?  Just blow it all up!

 

Not sure I follow. 3rd and 6th are already rewarded the same in the sense that they don't get byes, but 3rd place does get a home game in the first round.

 

[Deamon]

Not sure I follow. 3rd and 6th are already rewarded the same in the sense that they don't get byes, but 3rd place does get a home game in the first round.

Right, so you're saying HFA in the case of seed 3 over seed 6 is a reward.  Yet it's not for seed 1 over seed 2?

 

[Deamon]

how many teams in your primary league? how many of them make playoffs?

The majority of leagues is 6 of 12 teams make playoffs.  8 is way too many.  Have seen 4 and don't mind it, but 6 works the best.  If I'd go a tiny bit in either direction from 6 though it would be towards 5, not 7.  7 is too many and makes reg season irrelevant.  Fantasy is all about skill in reg season and luck in the playoffs.  If you expand to 7 teams you're adding more luck and less skill to winning a title.

 

[Ghost Rider]

No, it's fine the way it is. 

And a big "NO" to letting a 7th team in the playoffs.  It's bad enough when an 8-8 team wins a division and gets in, but we don't need an 8-8 or 7-9 wild card team, which we know would eventually happen.  The NFL regular season means a lot and we need to keep it that way. 

 

[HairyGOATee]

The majority of leagues is 6 of 12 teams make playoffs.  8 is way too many.  Have seen 4 and don't mind it, but 6 works the best.  If I'd go a tiny bit in either direction from 6 though it would be towards 5, not 7.  7 is too many and makes reg season irrelevant.  Fantasy is all about skill in reg season and luck in the playoffs.  If you expand to 7 teams you're adding more luck and less skill to winning a title.

depends on the format I guess. I think keeper and dynasty are more skill than redraft, especially if you're playing with competent people.

Last year I played in a 16 team league (0.5 PPR and only 1 starting RB per team), so 8 teams made playoffs and I really liked that. Nobody had a bye week, which I really appreciated.

 

[HairyGOATee]

No, it's fine the way it is. 

And a big "NO" to letting a 7th team in the playoffs.  It's bad enough when an 8-8 team wins a division and gets in, but we don't need an 8-8 or 7-9 wild card team, which we know would eventually happen.  The NFL regular season means a lot and we need to keep it that way. 

But we also know that you can miss the playoffs as an 11-5 team. Add an extra playoff spot and more teams will have something to play for in week 17, which may mean more 9-7 and 10-6 teams in the wild card hunt.

 

[Deamon]

depends on the format I guess. I think keeper and dynasty are more skill than redraft, especially if you're playing with competent people.

Last year I played in a 16 team league (0.5 PPR and only 1 starting RB per team), so 8 teams made playoffs and I really liked that. Nobody had a bye week, which I really appreciated.

Ya 8 of 16 isn't bad.  8 of 12 is pointless in playing, as 8 seeds beat 1 seeds often.  In fantasy I like to do anything you can to reward regular season.  Byes, prizes for winning a division, etc.  The real skill is winning the regular season... you can be the best team and randomly lose to a kicker in a single knock out playoff 8 vs 1 matchup.

 

[HairyGOATee]

I don't like playoff byes at all. It's way too much of an advantage, IMO.

Agreed. You're one win away from the conference championship game then. For teams like the Pats, it just makes it too easy, but of course, almost everything comes easy for them.

 

[Deamon]

Agreed. You're one win away from the conference championship game then. For teams like the Pats, it just makes it too easy, but of course, almost everything comes easy for them.

Ahhh, now I see where this thread is coming from.

 

[HairyGOATee]

Ya 8 of 16 isn't bad.  8 of 12 is pointless in playing, as 8 seeds beat 1 seeds often.  In fantasy I like to do anything you can to reward regular season.  Byes, prizes for winning a division, etc.  The real skill is winning the regular season... you can be the best team and randomly lose to a kicker in a single knock out playoff 8 vs 1 matchup.

Yeah, I always make sure to reward regular season winner in the leagues I have ran in the past. 8 of 12 can suck, yeah, but if it's 8 out of 14, then I can get down with it.

I tried to get a new rule passed in a league I was in where all teams below .500 were automatically eliminated from the prize bracket. That way, if you only had 6 teams at .500 or more, then those were the teams in your playoffs. Likewise, if there were only 5, then you'd have 3 first round byes and 1 first round game. The rationale behind it was that historically the 8 seed in that league had been under .500, while the other 7 were at .500 and above.

 

[HairyGOATee]

Ahhh, now I see where this thread is coming from.

Well, it's not just the Pats, because I've seen it help out several teams before, and currently, the 2nd best record in the conference doesn't even actually get the 2nd bye. It's the 2nd best record among division winners that does. Personally, I'd just give it to the 2 highest records regardless of division.

 

[HairyGOATee]

No, it's fine the way it is. 

And a big "NO" to letting a 7th team in the playoffs.  It's bad enough when an 8-8 team wins a division and gets in, but we don't need an 8-8 or 7-9 wild card team, which we know would eventually happen.  The NFL regular season means a lot and we need to keep it that way. 

Also, does this mean you'd be down with getting rid of the division winner rule, or perhaps placing a modifier on it where it doesn't apply if you finish with a .500 record or worse? In essence, for the division winner rule to apply, then you'd have to FOR SURE have a winning record.

 

[HairyGOATee]

Well, it's not just the Pats, because I've seen it help out several teams before, and currently, the 2nd best record in the conference doesn't even actually get the 2nd bye. It's the 2nd best record among division winners that does. Personally, I'd just give it to the 2 highest records regardless of division.

Also, I'll be honest, I'd like to see more football during the year, lol. A 2 vs 7 match-up should still be competitive, after all, anything can happen on any given Sunday.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Also, does this mean you'd be down with getting rid of the division winner rule, or perhaps placing a modifier on it where it doesn't apply if you finish with a .500 record or worse? In essence, for the division winner rule to apply, then you'd have to FOR SURE have a winning record.

My long-held opinion has been that the playoffs should be seeded based on record, so if you win a crappy division with an 8-8 record, for example, you get seeded accordingly (probably 6th unless it is a weird year where a wild card is 8-8 or worse).   Give the top two division winners the 1 and 2 seeds and the byes, and then the worst two division winners and two wild cards get seeded 3-6 based on record.  

 

[HairyGOATee]

My long-held opinion has been that the playoffs should be seeded based on record, so if you win a crappy division with an 8-8 record, for example, you get seeded accordingly (probably 6th unless it is a weird year where a wild card is 8-8 or worse).   Give the top two division winners the 1 and 2 seeds and the byes, and then the worst two division winners and two wild cards get seeded 3-6 based on record.  

That's a decent compromise I guess. I hope there's a movement to realign divisions or just get rid of them. Maybe 2 per conference would be good. Both would be 8 teams each, and you only play each team in your division once. If you play them at home in year 1, then you play them on the road in year 2. 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Yeah, I always make sure to reward regular season winner in the leagues I have ran in the past. 8 of 12 can suck, yeah, but if it's 8 out of 14, then I can get down with it.

I tried to get a new rule passed in a league I was in where all teams below .500 were automatically eliminated from the prize bracket. That way, if you only had 6 teams at .500 or more, then those were the teams in your playoffs. Likewise, if there were only 5, then you'd have 3 first round byes and 1 first round game. The rationale behind it was that historically the 8 seed in that league had been under .500, while the other 7 were at .500 and above.

12 team league....3 divisions of 4....the three division winners all get in....the next three slots go to the next three teams with the best "all play record"....playoff teams are seeded by "all play record"....

"all play" is really a very under used option in FF....it truly rewards the best teams week in and week out of the season....so we decided to incorporate it into our league and it is possibly the best thing we ever did....

 

[Gally]

how many teams in your primary league? how many of them make playoffs?

The majority of leagues is 6 of 12 teams make playoffs.  8 is way too many.  Have seen 4 and don't mind it, but 6 works the best.  If I'd go a tiny bit in either direction from 6 though it would be towards 5, not 7.  7 is too many and makes reg season irrelevant.  Fantasy is all about skill in reg season and luck in the playoffs.  If you expand to 7 teams you're adding more luck and less skill to winning a title.

14 teams in my main league and nobody makes the playoffs.  We play straight through all 17 weeks with best record overall winning the league.  This generally rewards the best team for the year.  In playoffs for fantasy it is all about luck.  You have your main scorer get injured in the first quarter and score zero points and you are eliminated from the playoffs.  That is bad luck.  Taking the overall record for an entire season does remove some of the luck for the league winner. 

Having 14 teams makes for a nice balanced schedule as well.  You play every team one time (13 weeks) and four "position" weeks.   In those weeks 1st vs 2nd, 3rd vs 4th etc.  They are evenly spaced every 4 weeks. 

 

[Gally]

12 team league....3 divisions of 4....the three division winners all get in....the next three slots go to the next three teams with the best "all play record"....playoff teams are seeded by "all play record"....

"all play" is really a very under used option in FF....it truly rewards the best teams week in and week out of the season....so we decided to incorporate it into our league and it is possibly the best thing we ever did....

Why not just use total points scored?  It will most likely come out the same way as all play (you may have a couple teams move up or down a spot) but it is much easier to know what you have to do to win the tie break.  Total points is always readily available in the standings.  I also think that is the best representation of which team is the best for tie breaker purposes.  The point is to score as many points as possible.  The team that does that should win the tie break. 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Why not just use total points scored?  It will most likely come out the same way as all play (you may have a couple teams move up or down a spot) but it is much easier to know what you have to do to win the tie break.  Total points is always readily available in the standings.  I also think that is the best representation of which team is the best for tie breaker purposes.  The point is to score as many points as possible.  The team that does that should win the tie break. 

we tried to find a balance of keeping the importance of the HTH match ups and divisions...(play all division opponents twice...all non division winners once)....automatically putting the 3 division winners in does this....

balancing that with then actually making sure the best teams actually make the playoffs....all play does that.....

we found that all play really is the best way to determine the overall best team/owners.....total points isn't the end all be all.....you could have more total points then somebody , but they have a better record....etc...

adding in all play.....you essentially are playing (11) games a week.....and if we only went by total points, you could score the second most points in a week in the entire league, but come away with a loss if you happened to play the team that scores the most....at least with all play you come out of that week 10-1.....so adding in the "all play factor" you still have your primary game/matchup that week but you are also playing 10 other teams......quite honestly we feel it is about as close to a perfect league set up that we could find...

but really I think a case could be made that "all play" is what most leagues should just actually go to....all 12 teams in one division and you play 11 games every week.....

 

[Gally]

we tried to find a balance of keeping the importance of the HTH match ups and divisions...(play all division opponents twice...all non division winners once)....automatically putting the 3 division winners in does this....

balancing that with then actually making sure the best teams actually make the playoffs....all play does that.....

we found that all play really is the best way to determine the overall best team/owners.....total points isn't the end all be all.....you could have more total points then somebody , but they have a better record....etc...

adding in all play.....you essentially are playing (11) games a week.....and if we only went by total points, you could score the second most points in a week in the entire league, but come away with a loss if you happened to play the team that scores the most....at least with all play you come out of that week 10-1.....so adding in the "all play factor" you still have your primary game/matchup that week but you are also playing 10 other teams......quite honestly we feel it is about as close to a perfect league set up that we could find...

but really I think a case could be made that "all play" is what most leagues should just actually go to....all 12 teams in one division and you play 11 games every week.....

I understand what all play is but I bet if you did a comparison to total points the all play order and total points order would be 90% the same.  It is virtually the same but is much easier to see where you stand at a glance.  That was my point.  It much simpler to go with total points and it will end up being 90+% (and good enough for the purpose) the same as all play.

When you go with all play you lose the competition factor that football has over fantasy baseball/basketball that are roto style.  Its too many teams to really pay attention to so you end up just watching your players with nothing really to root against because you are playing against every single player.  It kind of loses the head to head excitement.  I am not a fan of all play.

Agree to disagree on it being a perfect set up.  I would not want to play in a league that did the bold.  I wouldn't be a fan but that is what makes this game great.  You can create and play in any type of league you want and none are really better or worse than any other.  It's just a preference. 

 

[Deamon]

we tried to find a balance of keeping the importance of the HTH match ups and divisions...(play all division opponents twice...all non division winners once)....automatically putting the 3 division winners in does this....

balancing that with then actually making sure the best teams actually make the playoffs....all play does that.....

we found that all play really is the best way to determine the overall best team/owners.....total points isn't the end all be all.....you could have more total points then somebody , but they have a better record....etc...

adding in all play.....you essentially are playing (11) games a week.....and if we only went by total points, you could score the second most points in a week in the entire league, but come away with a loss if you happened to play the team that scores the most....at least with all play you come out of that week 10-1.....so adding in the "all play factor" you still have your primary game/matchup that week but you are also playing 10 other teams......quite honestly we feel it is about as close to a perfect league set up that we could find...

but really I think a case could be made that "all play" is what most leagues should just actually go to....all 12 teams in one division and you play 11 games every week.....

All-play is fantastic way to see the true 'greatness' of all the teams in the league, but I think it almost takes TOO much of the luck out.  You say there's a balance of HTH matchups but I'm confused by that... using your scoring system, HTH is almost irrelevant completely.

I don't know why Victory Points isn't used more.  It's by far imo the best scoring for all fantasy leagues.  It's the perfect balance between HTH and takes a bit of the matchup luck out of it... but not all of it.  5 of my 10 leagues now used victory points to rank teams and it makes things very exciting (as you're also cheering for more points monday night even if you've lost/won your matchup)

 

[HairyGOATee]

14 teams in my main league and nobody makes the playoffs.  We play straight through all 17 weeks with best record overall winning the league.  This generally rewards the best team for the year.  In playoffs for fantasy it is all about luck.  You have your main scorer get injured in the first quarter and score zero points and you are eliminated from the playoffs.  That is bad luck.  Taking the overall record for an entire season does remove some of the luck for the league winner. 

Having 14 teams makes for a nice balanced schedule as well.  You play every team one time (13 weeks) and four "position" weeks.   In those weeks 1st vs 2nd, 3rd vs 4th etc.  They are evenly spaced every 4 weeks. 

Interesting idea. I should try that. I've thought of it before, but have never actually done it. Maybe doing it for the first 16 weeks would be good though since Week 17 can be such a crapshoot.

 

[HairyGOATee]

NFL is about the only sport that hasn't had blatant tanking by teams out of the playoffs.  This is not and has not been a concern that I have ever heard discussed with regards to the NFL. 

The reason week 17 games mean less to certain teams has nothing to do with bye weeks.  It has to do with teams already wrapping up their seeding for the playoffs and they have nothing to play for.  So they rest key players to get them ready for the playoffs.  This would not change if bye's were taken away and may even become more prevalent because teams could use week 17 as a bye week if their seeding wouldn't really change regardless of the outcome of that game.  It may do the opposite of your desires. 

Define blatant tanking.

NFL players will still play their hardest since their contracts aren't guaranteed, but front offices sometimes just don't care enough to put the team in a better position when they can, because they know that 1.) they're better off with high draft picks, and 2.) even if they get the help, they probably won't win it all. So the tanking isn't from a player's perspective, but instead from a front office and coaching staff perspective.

Cowboys did that when Romo and Dez went down in the same season. They used Weeden and then gave Moore a shot, even though he didn't really show anything. They could have picked up WRs if they wanted to, but they decided to "see what they had." 

That's not the strongest example of it, but I know that a lot of Texans fans believe the team tanked in 2013 after starting out the season 2-4 and losing some key players to injuries. They finished 2-14 that season, despite winning their first 2 games.

And the 0-16 Browns was pretty blatant tanking to me. That was such a terribly constructed team. They were gunning for a stockpile of high draft picks, and they got it, and now they seem to have turned the franchise around.

 

[Gally]

Interesting idea. I should try that. I've thought of it before, but have never actually done it. Maybe doing it for the first 16 weeks would be good though since Week 17 can be such a crapshoot.

I have been doing it this way for 35 years.  It is much better than having playoffs (I am in these type leagues as well).  It really is the best way to measure the quality of the teams and who is the best team.  No one fluky loss ends your season. 

 

[Yogibear]

The playoff format for the NFL is just as fine as it is.  If you're going to start re-seeding the teams based on record, then it'll be like the NBA Playoff format where they award playoff spots to the top 8 teams in each conference based on record no matter what division you're in.  Let's keep the playoff seedings for both leagues separate from each other as much as possible.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

All-play is fantastic way to see the true 'greatness' of all the teams in the league, but I think it almost takes TOO much of the luck out.  You say there's a balance of HTH matchups but I'm confused by that... using your scoring system, HTH is almost irrelevant completely.

I don't know why Victory Points isn't used more.  It's by far imo the best scoring for all fantasy leagues.  It's the perfect balance between HTH and takes a bit of the matchup luck out of it... but not all of it.  5 of my 10 leagues now used victory points to rank teams and it makes things very exciting (as you're also cheering for more points monday night even if you've lost/won your matchup)

the 3 division winners (best record) automatically get in, so this is where the HTH comes into play big time, it doesn't matter what their "all play" record is...they get in...

the next 3 playoff spots go to the best remaining 3 teams with the best "all play" record.....

we have had division winners with "all play" records in the bottom of the league...but by luck of the draw/weekly match up schedule they ended up winning the division and got in...at like 8-8 or something......along the same lines we have had some good "all play" teams not win their division and in the past maybe miss the playoffs on tiebreakers.....(until we implemented this "hybrid" approach)....it really is almost perfect...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Interesting idea. I should try that. I've thought of it before, but have never actually done it. Maybe doing it for the first 16 weeks would be good though since Week 17 can be such a crapshoot.

we incorporate a two week super bowl (combined scores week 15-16) to try and help with the one bad week thing....week 13 first round, week 14 semis....