Should fantasy leagues do away with divisions? (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

The vast majority of leagues have divisions set up. In your typical 12 team league, you commonly see 3 divisions of 4 teams. It certainly helps with scheduling.

Now, though, I'm seeing more and more people complain about divisions and the fact that it often allows inferior teams into the playoffs. There's been a push in a few of my leagues to do away with them.

What are general thoughts on this? Any good reasons to keep them other than scheduling? Anyone that has done away with them regretted it?

 

[ChromeWeasel]

The vast majority of leagues have divisions set up. In your typical 12 team league, you commonly see 3 divisions of 4 teams. It certainly helps with scheduling.Now, though, I'm seeing more and more people complain about divisions and the fact that it often allows inferior teams into the playoffs. There's been a push in a few of my leagues to do away with them. What are general thoughts on this? Any good reasons to keep them other than scheduling? Anyone that has done away with them regretted it?

Using divisions for scheduling is fine. Divisions don't need to mean anything for the playoffs. My league allows the division winner into the playoffs, but seeds everyone according to their actual records. So a division winner at 7-6 is seeded lower than a team at 8-5 that didnt win a division.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Have a 3 division 12 team league with a 6-7 team seeded 3rd. It would be a travesty if I didn't have the 2nd seed.

 

[Danish Bengal]

My guess: Because NFL are keeping them. The NFL allows inferior teams into the play-offs almost every year too. Last year it was the Seahawks, this year the winner of AFC West. It's part of the game. As an European I cannot understand why it's not changed.

I know there's a lot af history in some of the division rivalries (Bears vs. Packers is the oldest, right?) and that you cannot have one big division with 32 teams. But it would be a piece of cake to eliminate the divisions, operating with only two conferences, playing each team once (15 games) in the regular season and maybe expanding the play-offs with a game or two. It would result in a lot higher percentage of deserving teams reaching the post-season.

Why not change it? Except for tradition I don't see why not

 

[AcerFC]

Havent had them since 06 in my main league

Everyone plays each other once, play two teams twice and it was set up for 5 years in advance on who was playing who twice

 

[David Yudkin]

I kinda like what we do. Two 6 team division. Play everyone in your division twice and everyone in the other division once. So you end up with 16 games played like in the NFL. The two division winners make the playoffs and the two highest scoring remaining teams make the playoffs (so record doesn't factor into it at all for the 3 and 4 seeds). We have two weeks during the season when we play double headers, so that adds a wrinkle.

I have more of a concern in most leagues with the playoffs than the regular season alignment or schedule. I think I like having it be a two week, four team battle royal where the team that scores the most points in Weeks 15 and 16 out of the 4 teams getting crowned champion. IMO, that makes it fairer to all the playoff teams and no one can complain that their team laid an egg in the playoffs or got a bum rap due to playoff seeding.

 

[RUSF18]

I commish a 14 team work league (very competitive for a work league) where we have two divisions of 7. By default, Yahoo has us play five of our divisional opponents twice, the remaining team once, and two teams outside the division once. Completely arbitrary and random. I made a push to abolish the divisions prior to last season...in a 13 week regular season, works out perfectly to play each team once. But it failed by vote then and again before this season. People just like the concept of divisions and continually playing the same teams.

Division winners each get a bye and the remaining four spots are filled by best record. The problem is that when the schedule is weighted towards divisional play, the inequities between those teams will carry forward and you could end up with undeserving teams in the playoffs. In my effort to have more evidence to convince the league of why we should get rid of the divisions, and to put the focus on the randomness/luck associated with some matchups, I calculated separate standings showing what the playoffs would look like if we just gave wins to the top 7 scorers each week, and losses to the bottom 7.

The way we are currently operating, our playoff teams are as follows (total points is first tiebreaker):

From division 1:

#1 seed Team A (10-3, top points overall...my team, showing I have nothing personal to gain by making changes to the system)

#3 seed Team B (9-4)

#5 seed Team C (8-5)

#6 seed Team D (7-6)

From division 2:

#2 seed Team E (9-4)

#4 seed Team F (8-5)

The way the playoffs would look if we only gave wins to the top 7:

From division 1:

#1 seed Team A (11-2)

From division 2:

#2 seed Team E (9-4)

#3 seed Team G (8-5...actual H2H record 5-8!)

#4 seed Team H (8-5)

#5 seed Team I (8-5)

#6 seed Team F (7-6)

So instead of four playoff teams from division 1, they get one. Teams B, C, and D all drop out.

Now, this really shows the effect that the randomness of H2H has on determining the qualifying playoff teams, but we're never going to abandon that. I do believe that this is enough to show we're compounding the problem by putting everyone into divisions and having an unbalanced schedule.

 

[Bad_Mo]

Every year, we'd re-hash the playoff rules/seeds, etc. so this year we scrapped the 2 division approach and made one big division. Everyone plays each other once so the tiebreakers are points scored then head to head (if tied with points). Much, much simpler.

 

[Zoblefu]

I'm a fan of divisions unless you have 14 teams - With 14 teams you need 3 weeks for playoffs as usually either 6 or 8 will make it, which leaves 13 regular season games, which is perfect to play everyone once.

With a smaller number of teams, you're going to have to play the same people more than once, so you may as well have divisions and have it organized that way for scheduling reasons. Generally the "weak" division will only have one team coming out of it (the winner of that division) and, as others said, is no different than the NFL having an 8-8 team or whatnot make it...

 

[Herm23]

In my favorite, long standing league, which has 12 teams, we have never used divisions and love it. The best teams generally make the playoffs and it makes for some exciting last few weeks, with anywhere from 2 to 5 teams typically all fighting for the same last playoff spot.

The only possible drawback is scheduling, but that is very minor. With our setup in that league, our regular season runs through week 14, so we have everyone play each team once (weeks 1 through 11) and then randomly select 3 teams that are played for a second time (weeks 12, 13, and 14). You could also use this to your advantage if you have a division setup and are looking to move away from it because if you have any "rivalries" that have been built up from those divisions, you can just annually make those the games that are played twice per year, thus keeping the rivalry intact.

 

[footballnerd]

I play in both and enjoy both. Although the division leagues sometimes stack all the stronger teams in one division (usually I'm lucky enough to be in it!) but at least it makes for a long list of "sissy division" jokes you can say to the other side.

 

[GregR]

I think divisions are a good thing when the teams in them are kept the same every year. It creates rivalries. It also causes more games each season to be extra meaningful. Without divisions, a contending team playing any other contending team is a big deal for its potential impact. With divisions, a contending team playing any other contending team OR anyone in their division is a big deal.

I don't think there is enough downside to divisions to be worth losing the rivalry factor. With a 12 team league, 3 division winners and 3 wildcards is generally enough to have the deserving teams in there. Sometimes a higher record team will be left out when a lower record division winner gets in, yes. But the few times I've seen that, it was as much a factor of that division having all good, even-strength teams who beat up on each other... and having the tough extra round of division games the team probably deserved to go.

Can always set your seedings based on straight record if you prefer, so they needn't affect that.

 

[Joe Summer]

Now, though, I'm seeing more and more people complain about divisions and the fact that it often allows inferior teams into the playoffs. There's been a push in a few of my leagues to do away with them.

Even if you get rid of divisions, you'll still have situations where some teams will have the benefit of playing 2 games against doormats, while other teams will get stuck with 2 games against the best team.

 

[mjr]

I have mixed feelings over it. On the one hand, I like the idea of less than perfect teams having a shot at the playoffs under an NFL-like system. It keeps hope alive during the season if you get off to a bad start, allowing you to make moves in an attempt to manage your team into a playoff spot.

On the other hand, I'm in a 12 team with 4 divisions of 3 each, with each division winner winning 40 bucks. All 3 teams in my division are strong while another division is full of sub-500 teams, and of course, we're seeing 6-7 teams winning money and playoff spots while a couple of 7-6 or 8-5 teams being pushed out and not winning any cash back at all. I don't think sub-500 teams should be rewarded with prize money.

 

[footballnerd]

I have mixed feelings over it. On the one hand, I like the idea of less than perfect teams having a shot at the playoffs under an NFL-like system. It keeps hope alive during the season if you get off to a bad start, allowing you to make moves in an attempt to manage your team into a playoff spot. On the other hand, I'm in a 12 team with 4 divisions of 3 each, with each division winner winning 40 bucks. All 3 teams in my division are strong while another division is full of sub-500 teams, and of course, we're seeing 6-7 teams winning money and playoff spots while a couple of 7-6 or 8-5 teams being pushed out and not winning any cash back at all. I don't think sub-500 teams should be rewarded with prize money.

4 divisions def seems like too many, I prob wouldn't go more than 2 unless you have 16 teams

 

[GridironMenace]

The solution is so simple, but it gets ignored by most for fear of change. The answer is to use Victory Points to determine standings instead of record. Use record as the 1st tie breaker. Victory Points removes the luck of the schedule, while at the same time, rewards teams that score a lot of points. You get the best of both worlds.

In a typical 12 team league. The winning teams get 2 victory points and the losing teams get 0 victory points. THEN, you take into consideration total points scored for the week. If you come in the top 4 of total points for the week, you get an additional 2 victory points. If you come in the middle 4 of total points for the week, you get an additional 1 victory point. And if you came in the bottom 4 of total points for the week you get 0 victory points.

So the maximum amount of victory points you can score each week is 4 and the minimum is 0. So if you score the 2nd highest points in the week, but lose, you are at least getting 2 victory points. If you score the 2nd lowest amount of points but win, you get credit for the win (2 victory points) but 0 additional for scoring so few points.

It balances out the schedule and makes sure that the best teams move on to the playoffs. I'm quite shocked that victory point scoring hasn't taken off a little faster. I've converted my 2 home leagues 3 years ago and couldn't be happier with it.

 

[mjr]

I have mixed feelings over it. On the one hand, I like the idea of less than perfect teams having a shot at the playoffs under an NFL-like system. It keeps hope alive during the season if you get off to a bad start, allowing you to make moves in an attempt to manage your team into a playoff spot. On the other hand, I'm in a 12 team with 4 divisions of 3 each, with each division winner winning 40 bucks. All 3 teams in my division are strong while another division is full of sub-500 teams, and of course, we're seeing 6-7 teams winning money and playoff spots while a couple of 7-6 or 8-5 teams being pushed out and not winning any cash back at all. I don't think sub-500 teams should be rewarded with prize money.

4 divisions def seems like too many, I prob wouldn't go more than 2 unless you have 16 teams

I agree. I'm going to suggest a change to 2 divisions and see if we can move the $80 of freed up prize money to the 3rd place and toilet bowl winners.

 

[Coach3K]

Divisions make sense in the real NFL because you can get geographic rivalries established, with a real-world impact on fans of either team. Players also elevate their games in division rivalries because they know every snap of division games could make the difference between making the playoffs and watching their division rival play late into January.

In fantasy, the push for having divisions to establish "rivalries" doesn't have even a fraction of the justification that it does in the NFL. Your players are going to perform exactly the same as they would have if you were playing "just another team in the league" vs. your division "rival" - there's no actual game impact through increased competitive fire.

If you're going to use standard H2H scoring, and not total points, then I think it's imperative that everyone play everyone else in the league at least once.

Sure, you generally have to deal with the extra games, but if you have a solid rotation, or just leave it up to pure random draw, then it works out in the end.

In my opinion, divisions in fantasy are an artificial contrivance, aiming to mimic the NFL setup for the wrong reeasons, with very little end benefit.

 

[bryhamm]

The solution is so simple, but it gets ignored by most for fear of change. The answer is to use Victory Points to determine standings instead of record. Use record as the 1st tie breaker. Victory Points removes the luck of the schedule, while at the same time, rewards teams that score a lot of points. You get the best of both worlds.In a typical 12 team league. The winning teams get 2 victory points and the losing teams get 0 victory points. THEN, you take into consideration total points scored for the week. If you come in the top 4 of total points for the week, you get an additional 2 victory points. If you come in the middle 4 of total points for the week, you get an additional 1 victory point. And if you came in the bottom 4 of total points for the week you get 0 victory points.So the maximum amount of victory points you can score each week is 4 and the minimum is 0. So if you score the 2nd highest points in the week, but lose, you are at least getting 2 victory points. If you score the 2nd lowest amount of points but win, you get credit for the win (2 victory points) but 0 additional for scoring so few points. It balances out the schedule and makes sure that the best teams move on to the playoffs. I'm quite shocked that victory point scoring hasn't taken off a little faster. I've converted my 2 home leagues 3 years ago and couldn't be happier with it.

this is a decent step in the right direction, but the right answer is all-play

 

[bigflig]

In my 10-team league there are 2 divisions. Division winners win there entrance fee back, but the playoff seeding's are strictly based on overall record. Top 2 teams recieve a bye (2 years in a row these teams have been in the same division). The last playoff spot (6th team) is a wild card spot and goes to the highest scoring team not in the top 5 (regardless of record, last year it was a 3-10 team). This keeps all teams interested all season and has been very competitive till the end for all teams. Seeding for seeds 3-6 are based solely on points scored (this is due to the wild card team). The division's are determined before the redraft (1st year it was odd and even, this year it was 1-5 and 6-10), that way the owners can draft against the teams in there division, teams that they have to play x2. playoffs are weeks 14-16

 

[GridironMenace]

The solution is so simple, but it gets ignored by most for fear of change. The answer is to use Victory Points to determine standings instead of record. Use record as the 1st tie breaker. Victory Points removes the luck of the schedule, while at the same time, rewards teams that score a lot of points. You get the best of both worlds.In a typical 12 team league. The winning teams get 2 victory points and the losing teams get 0 victory points. THEN, you take into consideration total points scored for the week. If you come in the top 4 of total points for the week, you get an additional 2 victory points. If you come in the middle 4 of total points for the week, you get an additional 1 victory point. And if you came in the bottom 4 of total points for the week you get 0 victory points.So the maximum amount of victory points you can score each week is 4 and the minimum is 0. So if you score the 2nd highest points in the week, but lose, you are at least getting 2 victory points. If you score the 2nd lowest amount of points but win, you get credit for the win (2 victory points) but 0 additional for scoring so few points. It balances out the schedule and makes sure that the best teams move on to the playoffs. I'm quite shocked that victory point scoring hasn't taken off a little faster. I've converted my 2 home leagues 3 years ago and couldn't be happier with it.

this is a decent step in the right direction, but the right answer is all-play

Of course the best team is the one that score the most points. So why just get rid of a schedule altogether and just play rotisserie with the most total points wins? That would guarantee that the best team wins. The answer as to why people don't do that is because it is boring. H2H scoring is one of the reasons that makes fantasy football fun. In order to get the enjoyment out of a H2H system AND get credit for scoring a lot of points over the course of the season, the best method to determine the standings is via Victory Points.

 

[jon_mx]

In a three division 12 team league last year, I won the division with a 6-8 record. Our division only won a few games outside our division. This year I still have a chance to win the division at 6-7, with the division leader at 7-6. Meanwhile, the second highest scoring in the league has been eliminated for several weeks.

 

[Shutout]

We use divisions and seed according to record. So a wildcard team with a 9-4 record would seed higher than a divisonal winner at 8-5.

The divisions DO make rivalries in keeper and dynasties as you get to butt heads with the same guys and fight over that playoff spot for several years. IT also has a way of emulating the NFL in how teams in the same divisions will sometimes copycat each other. that may be coincidental but I do see that our divisions tend to have the "RB" divison/ the "top QB" division, etc. Just ssems like when a team falls short, they look at their competition and say "He has Brady, I got to make a trade for Brees to compete".

We also have a schedule that emulates the NFL in that we play a weighted schedule where a first place team from one division will play a first place team from other divisons more frequently than agaianst the bottom feeders of the divisions. So two top non-division teams may play each other twice instead of once, etc. In fantasy, the argument can be made that its not the same because ff teams probably turn over more than real ones but in dynasty and keeper leagues, its just as close (IMO) as rela life. I think the NFC SOUTH has been playing worst to first every year for a decade...

The other wrinkle we use is we award the final playoff spot to the highest points scored on the year, regardlesss of record (of all remaining teams that have not secured a spot). So, this year for example, we literally had 8 teams with a legit shot at the final spot going into the final week. Great for dynasties as it helps prevent tanking and selling off to a large degree.

 

[jeter23]

It is being suggested in the leagues I run, as it has before. I used to be strongly against going to one big division, but now can't even remember why. The divisions do not really affect our schedule since we play every team once. We do have a "rivalry" game against one team in our division, but that could still work even with one division. We also change our divisions every 3 years, so there are no real rivalries that have developed.

 

[Dentist]

the short answer is probably yes.

The long answer is that until you completely eliminate head to head play and play in just a total points league, there are going to be a number of years where the champion isn't the best team.

But without head to head fantasy football matchups it really isn't very fun for most people and a total points league leaves several teams out of it 1/2 way or less through the season.

What both of my leagues have discovered works is this: have a prize for total points champion through week 16. Don't award 3rd or 4th (in a typical 10, 12, or 14 man league)

Have 3 prizes: points champ (and make this prize significant), super bowl champ, runner up.

Many times the points leader will win twice.. they will get champ or runner up... but many times he gets blown out in the first round of the playoffs... and then the best team at least still gets rewarded.. because let's face it... total points = best team for the season. Maybe that team already peaked around week 10 and isn't the best team from week 14-16... but they had the best overall team/made the best starting lineup decisions.

Do this and it will make the stress over who makes the playoffs go a lot better.

in addition. I've found that in a typical league that allows 6 teams in teh playoffs for a 12 or 14 man league... it's good to let about 4 teams in purely based on record.

But award the other two spots on "power ranking" which is a component of record, points scored, and all-play record. Sure sometimes that means a 5-8 team qualifies over a 7-6 team... but it's a better team.

record is quite possibly the most meaningless statistic in fantasy football.

 

[Hoosier16]

I like having divisions. I like a HTH schedule. I like one and done in the playoffs. The closer it gets to a total points league, the less interested I am in the league.

It really doesn't bother me at all that the 5th best team might complain about getting left out the playoffs while the 9th best team got in.

 

[Topes]

the short answer is probably yes.

The long answer is that until you completely eliminate head to head play and play in just a total points league, there are going to be a number of years where the champion isn't the best team.

Well put. Head To Head Play is the elephant in the room. It's hiding just under the surface of the myriad "issues" with "fairness" that always seem to crop up this time of year.

If you accept the premise that making the game "fairer" should be the guiding principle underlying future rule changes for your league, you should realize that the end result is just total points. You may not get there. You may not want to get there. But it's the road you're on.

Personally, I feel that Head To Head Play is a HUGE part of what I enjoy about the game.

Fairness is way, way overrated in Fantasy Football.

The long answer is that until you completely eliminate head to head play and play in just a total points league, there are going to be a number of years where the champion isn't the best team.

If the Champion were always the best team, this game would get boring real fast.

 

[Saint]

I run a 16-team league with 4 divisions of 4 teams each. We don't change divisions so as an early poster said, we have some pretty good rivalries going on. Makes it fairly exciting. To play it out, we have division opponents play each other twice, and we play everyone else once. This has necessitated doubleheaders for several weeks, which we usually tie a division opponent + someone from outside the division. Makes it rivalry weeks for the most part.

We mixed up our seeding though, where division winners each get a seed. Then we have 2 wildcards + 2 optional wildcards. Each wildcard is decided by best record. Third wildcard is either most points scored in the league (if not already seeded) or reverts to another wildcard determined by record. The 4th wildcard we call the Cinderella seed. That seed goes to the team with the Most Points Scored Against them. If they're seeded it reverts to a 4th wildcard.

This year we only had 1 team eliminated from a shot at the playoffs going into week 13. Crazy and the league smack talk was great.

 

[steelerfeever]

What if you could play head to head AND total points? Because something exists that just about accomplishes that. The 8+ year league I'm in is 12 teams. Very good friends. Highly competitive. We all hate total points because we love to go up against each other and talk as much smack as possible. We all hate standard head-to-head because if one of us scores the 2nd most points that week but just happens to play the team that scores the most points, we still get the loss. The answer is ALL-PLAY. I literally have 11 head-to-head opponents every week. The same 11 turds, every week. Every year. Most leagues like head-to-head because they like to root against the 8-10 players they are playing that week. Our league is so strong, we almost all know every teams roster and root against every player in the league that is started that isn't ours. I don't own a Packer. I love it when Rodgers hands off to Kuhn for a short TD because that pisses off so many of my buddies. And, this solves the problem of having the 2nd highest points a certain week and taking the loss. With ALL PLAY, 2nd highest points gets you the 10-1 for the week. Also with ALL PLAY, even if you don't have players going on Sunday or Monday night, you're still watching the game with a ton of interest because there are a bunch of teams looking to pass you. Much more exciting than standard head to heads when you or your opponent might have a guy or two playing Monday night. And for the total points people, it's almost always the top total points teams at the top of the standings every year. Our regular season just ended. 1st and 2nd place were also 1 & 2 in total points. Also with ALL PLAY, you're almost never out of it. Roll off a 3-week span of 32-1 and you're back in it. Try that with head to head, one win at a time.

 

[Manster]

this very thing came up in one of my leagues.

10 team league, 2 divisions of 5. top 3 in each divsion make the playoffs.

My division had all the strong teams. I ended up 8-5, but in 4th place in my division, missing the playoffs, while also scoring more points than anyone in the other division. The winner of the other division went 6-6.............I've already suggested we do away with divsions or move some teams around.

I kinda like the idea of doing division winners, then its most points scored for playoff berths.

 

[Jercules]

this very thing came up in one of my leagues.10 team league, 2 divisions of 5. top 3 in each divsion make the playoffs.My division had all the strong teams. I ended up 8-5, but in 4th place in my division, missing the playoffs, while also scoring more points than anyone in the other division. The winner of the other division went 6-6.............I've already suggested we do away with divsions or move some teams around. I kinda like the idea of doing division winners, then its most points scored for playoff berths.

Isn't this exacerbated by the fact that you play your divisional opponents more often? SO if you're in a strong division, not only must you compete in the rankings with good teams, but you're playing those good teams more often than others have to.This is definitely a problem in one of my leagues. I think getting rid of divisions is a great idea. The NFL has them, in part, because of rivalries and travel (ie. $$$$$!!!)

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

The vast majority of leagues have divisions set up. In your typical 12 team league, you commonly see 3 divisions of 4 teams. It certainly helps with scheduling.Now, though, I'm seeing more and more people complain about divisions and the fact that it often allows inferior teams into the playoffs. There's been a push in a few of my leagues to do away with them. What are general thoughts on this? Any good reasons to keep them other than scheduling? Anyone that has done away with them regretted it?

Using divisions for scheduling is fine. Divisions don't need to mean anything for the playoffs. My league allows the division winner into the playoffs, but seeds everyone according to their actual records. So a division winner at 7-6 is seeded lower than a team at 8-5 that didnt win a division.

most who use 3 divisions do so for scheduling. Ergo most play each in their division twice, and I think it is fair at that point to let one out of each division at least, as some divisions have 4 good teams and some only 1 or 2. Not fair really to penalize a team for having to play 6 tough games when many teams with records got them by whipping up on weak division opponents multiple times. The Wild Card takes care of that.I do prefer leagues where 6 make the playoffs and top 2 get byes. Hard to argue about anything if you can't even end up top 6.

 

[coolnerd]

I am having this "issue" in a couple of leagues. IMO, the logic around using divisions is not at the top of the league but lower. As I remember, when I started playing FF there were more leagues with either no or larger divisions and more total points leagues. the move away from was not about doing what the NFL did or anything, it was keeping as much of the league active as possible for as long as possible. Simply, there were more issues with no setting the roster at all, pure tanking, and questionable trades.

One thing in the leagues, that I have seen the complaining is that really division normally take no more than one team out of picture (at worst). I mean the top teams would make the playoffs no matter the system. When it does not happen for a team in year it is not good, but do you want to in sure the best or keep others active?

My thought is that if you trust your league mates, fewer if not no divisions is fine to determine the best player. If you know that 4 or 5 dudes will be usueless if they get off to a bad start or if a couple of teams start off hot then, division are helpful in retaining interest throughut the league.

 

[Longshot88]

this is why divisions are a bad Idea, http://www23.myfantasyleague.com/2011/home/49447#0

My team is the Colts. Top PF , Better record than the other wild card team. I dont care if some of you think that this is not a relevent topic or post, but this is the perfect example.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'm still not sure if I'll actually start this league or not, but I was looking into setting up a dynasty league and wanted to reward the best teams while keeping enough of the H2H to make it interesting for the guys who aren't into total points. What I came up with is a mix of a lot of what's above, with a twist or two:

--14 teams, 13 week regular season, no divisions - everyone plays the same schedule

--Half the money is paid out to the top five based on total points.

--The other half is paid out based on a traditional six-team playoff structure. However, victory points determine the standings.

2 VPs for the win, plus...

3 VPs for top three teams each week,

2 VPs for teams 4-7

1 VPs for teams 8-11

0 VPs for teams 12-14

That means that there are 21 VPs awarded weekly based on all-play record (60%), and 14 VPs for the H2H results (40%). That's enough to make the H2H results matter and keep everyone's weekly interest, but small enough that it's unlikely poor teams are rewarded (especially when you consider half the money has already been awarded based on total points).

 

[AcerFC]

The solution is so simple, but it gets ignored by most for fear of change. The answer is to use Victory Points to determine standings instead of record. Use record as the 1st tie breaker. Victory Points removes the luck of the schedule, while at the same time, rewards teams that score a lot of points. You get the best of both worlds.In a typical 12 team league. The winning teams get 2 victory points and the losing teams get 0 victory points. THEN, you take into consideration total points scored for the week. If you come in the top 4 of total points for the week, you get an additional 2 victory points. If you come in the middle 4 of total points for the week, you get an additional 1 victory point. And if you came in the bottom 4 of total points for the week you get 0 victory points.So the maximum amount of victory points you can score each week is 4 and the minimum is 0. So if you score the 2nd highest points in the week, but lose, you are at least getting 2 victory points. If you score the 2nd lowest amount of points but win, you get credit for the win (2 victory points) but 0 additional for scoring so few points. It balances out the schedule and makes sure that the best teams move on to the playoffs. I'm quite shocked that victory point scoring hasn't taken off a little faster. I've converted my 2 home leagues 3 years ago and couldn't be happier with it.

Because I used to have a lot more time to devote to this hobby, a few years ago I ran this idea thru a simulation using 2 years from my league. I went back and recalculated using the exact method you guys use. Both years, the same 6 teams would have made the playoffs. One year the seeds were right on par and another year, one team would have gone from 6 to 5. It could have been a coincidence but I figured why bother with it

 

[Topes]

this is why divisions are a bad Idea, http://www23.myfantasyleague.com/2011/home/49447#0

My team is the Colts. Top PF , Better record than the other wild card team. I dont care if some of you think that this is not a relevent topic or post, but this is the perfect example.

I'd say you have a bigger issue with color scheme and background image.

 

[Topes]

Divisions make sense in the real NFL because you can get geographic rivalries established, with a real-world impact on fans of either team. Players also elevate their games in division rivalries because they know every snap of division games could make the difference between making the playoffs and watching their division rival play late into January.In fantasy, the push for having divisions to establish "rivalries" doesn't have even a fraction of the justification that it does in the NFL. Your players are going to perform exactly the same as they would have if you were playing "just another team in the league" vs. your division "rival" - there's no actual game impact through increased competitive fire.If you're going to use standard H2H scoring, and not total points, then I think it's imperative that everyone play everyone else in the league at least once.Sure, you generally have to deal with the extra games, but if you have a solid rotation, or just leave it up to pure random draw, then it works out in the end.In my opinion, divisions in fantasy are an artificial contrivance, aiming to mimic the NFL setup for the wrong reeasons, with very little end benefit.

Head To Head Play make sense in the real NFL because NFL players must play real world games against real world opponents, in order to determine winners, losers and statistics.In fantasy, the push for having Head To Head Play to establish statistics doesn't have even a fraction of the justification that it does in the NFL. Your players are going to perform exactly the same as they would have if you were playing another team.In my opinion, Head To Head Play in fantasy are an artificial contrivance, aiming to mimic the NFL setup for the wrong reeasons, with very little end benefit.

 

[Topes]

We use divisions and seed according to record. So a wildcard team with a 9-4 record would seed higher than a divisonal winner at 8-5.

Wouldn't seeding according to Total Points be even more fairerer..?

 

[nickdiesel]

I am a big fan of divisions and head to head games. It gives you opportunity to trash talk a specific person. It gives rivalries and it gives teams something to shoot for because in divisions they usually at least have a chance to catch the teams ahead of them because they play the teams more than once.

people calling for all play and total points, why not just do it rotisserie style like in baseball. I think this would be very boring to do in a league especially a league with friends where part of the joy is talking trash because you just had lagerret blount go off while he had forte lay an egg.

 

[Coach3K]

Divisions make sense in the real NFL because you can get geographic rivalries established, with a real-world impact on fans of either team. Players also elevate their games in division rivalries because they know every snap of division games could make the difference between making the playoffs and watching their division rival play late into January.In fantasy, the push for having divisions to establish "rivalries" doesn't have even a fraction of the justification that it does in the NFL. Your players are going to perform exactly the same as they would have if you were playing "just another team in the league" vs. your division "rival" - there's no actual game impact through increased competitive fire.If you're going to use standard H2H scoring, and not total points, then I think it's imperative that everyone play everyone else in the league at least once.Sure, you generally have to deal with the extra games, but if you have a solid rotation, or just leave it up to pure random draw, then it works out in the end.In my opinion, divisions in fantasy are an artificial contrivance, aiming to mimic the NFL setup for the wrong reeasons, with very little end benefit.

Head To Head Play make sense in the real NFL because NFL players must play real world games against real world opponents, in order to determine winners, losers and statistics.In fantasy, the push for having Head To Head Play to establish statistics doesn't have even a fraction of the justification that it does in the NFL. Your players are going to perform exactly the same as they would have if you were playing another team.In my opinion, Head To Head Play in fantasy are an artificial contrivance, aiming to mimic the NFL setup for the wrong reeasons, with very little end benefit.

I see what you did thar! Fancy!The fact is, everything in fantasy sports is an artificial simulation of real life sports. We pick and choose the systems that make sense to us and provide us entertainment. To ME, picking lineups of players to simulate a team roster and playing H2H against someone else works, providing week-to-week enjoyment and a sense that every game counts for something, even if it leads to some heartache due to a 0.5-point loss. Divisions, on the other hand, just don't make sense to me. "Lesser teams" getting into the playoffs because they won a weak division makes sense? Team A's players won't play any better against Team B's players just because they are in a division together, like you might see in a Steelers/Ravens matchup, so friendly rivalries and bragging rights is all that's left. Do I get to talk some trash to my friend in my division when I whoop him twice? Yeah - that might feel good, but I'd rather have two wins over teams throughout the entire league helping me to an 8-5 finish and a decent playoff seed than deal with the BS of another owner finishing 5-8, winning a super weak division, and getting a playoff spot over my 8-5/I-beat-you-twice-so-suck-it-Jimmy! team...just so that our league could have "rivalry" division games. That happening just once is one time too many.For me, the drawbacks aren't worth it. To each their own, though.