Why a Week 16 Championship Game is Necessary (1 Viewer)

[RUSF18]

Did a search for a similar topic and couldn't find anything, so apologies if a thread is lingering around somewhere.

There are tons of posts around here this week saying that a week 17 championship game is weak due to players sitting, and I definitely agree. However, my main league which consists of 14 teams run by co-workers (despite being an office league it's highly competitive, plenty of trash-talking, etc) has been doing the 17 week season for it's entire run. A couple others and I have complained about it for a few years and we haven't gotten the support yet.

The main opposition comes down to "it gives us another week of fantasy football which = more fun" and "it adds more strategy and tests a manager's ability." I don't necessarily disagree, but I feel that it's more important that teams have their best stable of players available in order to decide who has the best team, and judging from the posts on this subject most around here feel the same way. For full disclosure, I'm in the championship this week and even if everyone was playing on both teams I'd still be a slight underdog. I posted on our league message board a couple days ago why I thought the week 17 championship was bad, and used numbers to back up my argument (our league's #1, #2, #4, and #5 QBs were all expected to either sit or be limited...the #1 and #3 TEs...the #5, #6, #13, #14 WRs, etc).

I wrote that I was doing this ahead of time because we are planning on changing our commish next year and I plan on throwing my hat into the ring, and wanted to start getting support for this switch. I also said that I was doing this now and not after this weekend, because in the event that I lose, I didn't want anyone to think I was being a sore loser. Anyway, all that didn't work and the same arguments were rehashed. I wrote how I felt that players sitting could actually benefit me (I'm going to start Cutler vs DET instead of Rivers, my opponent has Henne as a backup to Rodgers, I'll start the Carolina D against a Brees-less NO, etc). Still no budging from a couple of vocal opponents of this.

I really have no other ideas on how to get this changed, so I'm hoping maybe you guys have another angle that I may not have thought of. I mean, I even posted an AP article that hit most of the major sites that discussed week 17 fantasy matchups and had a quote of "a week 17 championship game is a really stupid idea." Hopefully some of you have been successful in this fight in the past and can lend some support. Thanks for any help.

 

[Coin Flip]

If I were in your league I would support this change.

I have a suggestion to their idea that playing until week 17 adds a "we get to play longer" attitude.

Why not make a small payout for the highest starting lineup----all 14 teams get back into the competition for the last week.....not just 2 teams. This truly gives all teams a feeling of "we get to play longer" Just make this a $20 payout perhaps.

Then see if they will agree that week 16 can be the championship.

 

[Black]

Just list all of the teams that have nothing to play for this week...you have a few dregs that have some pride that will fight against teams cruising to the playoffs. There are very few meaningful games and tons of players sitting. I can't think of any better argument.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I've always thought that a one-game fantasy championship is a silly idea. But if that's the format, I'm not sure week 17 is that much different than week 16. Teams rest starters in week 16, only there's no certainty behind it. At least in week 17 you know that some teams will mail it in.

By week 16 some NFL teams are playing out the string anyway. At least in week 17 you know that player A needs B yards for a milestone, so the team might try and get it for them. It's a crapshoot, but so is week 16. I think trying to make it a better representative of the season calls the entire h2h thing into question in the first place. If it's just one game, does it matter what game it is?

I will say that most people expect a week 16 SB, so for that reason alone I think that's a good reason to try it. It makes fantasy owners more comfortable and some get bent out of shape if there's that extra week. Having it in week 16 is more "traditional."

To answer your question more directly, offer it as a one-year test next year-- then the league would have to re-vote to keep it. People might be more likely to give it a shot if they know it's not permanent. You could also do something different for week 17 to add a little fun for the finale so it's not just a lost week. Maybe have everyone start a waiver wire lineup and high score gets some extra cash or something.