|
Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Mike Florio posted an article he wrote today about reseeding the NFL playoffs that we may want to consider for future Frenzy playoff seeding as well.
The gist of the article is that Overall Records should determine seeding, with winning your Division guaranteeing a playoff spot. Alternatively he suggests some formula of required wins for a division winner to be a higher seed than Wild Card a team with a better record. I'd personally be in favor of seeding based on overall record with winning the division only guaranting your spot in the playoffs. Here's a link to the story: Revised Playoff Seeding is Long Overdue. What does the Frenzy think? |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
We've been doing this in SACd for several years now. I agree it is better way
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
I will vote against it every day it is brought up and twice on Sunday...NO!!!
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
The whole article and premise is ridiculous on its face. There could be 3 wildcard teams in our league with better records than a division winner...now with that in mind...what would you do with a 4th team with a better record than a division winner??? If you wouldn't remove that division winner from the playoffs all together then you can't restack the playoffs just because you think it is more fair - because it is not - divisions matter...Baseball is the same way - wildcard teams may have better records than division winners and they don't take the place of division winners because DIVISIONS MATTER...if more teams have better records than division winners they don't move in to playoffs inplace of division winners because - you guessed it - DIVISIONS MATTER....
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
As far as the NFL changing or MLB...no...the occurrence of an overwhelming better wildcard record traveling to a 8-8 or worse division winner is so minuscule that it has happened less than a handful of times in 100 years...so yeah, NO I don't think this is a problem...
Now you want to wonk up the Frenzy? Just go play SAC'd when they have an opening, that's why the world has so many opportunities for folks to play in leagues they like the rules of...we all signed up for this one as is with minor adjustments to make rules more clear... You will add a 3rd RB before changing the playoff format imo....unless you are willing to change the records of the history of the league and start adding asterisks up and down it... |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
:respect: |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
who makes the playoffs is not changed at all...its just dealing with the seedings...Seedings are simply based on record....the three division winners do not automatically get Seeds 1-3, but all 3 will still make the playoffs.
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
According to this vote, we should already be seeding based on record., no?
http://www.predsff.com/forums/poll.p...lts&pollid=174 |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Sorry Chuck.. Did not fully read your post.
The lone team out has always been an potential, right? How does this really make a difference with that? |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
Seeding is the only thing that would change. Say the 3 division winners were East 9-5, Central 10-4 and West 8-6, and the 2 Wild Card teams were both 9-5 (both of whom beat the East Division winner). In this case the seeds would be: 1 Central Div at 10-4 2 WC1 at 9-5 (H2H win over WC2 and East Div) 3 WC2 at 9-5 (H2H win over east div, but loss to WC1) 4 East Div at 9-5 (H2H losses to WC1 and WC2) 5 West Div at 8-5 6 Best remaining AP record The same teams make the playoffs, and division winners are still guaranteed a spot, they just aren't guaranteed a top 3 seed. |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Dang... to be honest, I totally don't remember how playoff seeding was done. Can we look at the MFL historical sites?
(Sorry, I'm off to choir practice now. I'll try to check more into it tomorrow. However, many of the teams who voted in that poll are no longer in the Frenzy.) |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
Either way I think the format we've been using the past 4-5 years should be used this year and in the interim we can figure out what format should be in place for 2020. |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Okay... I'm late to choir. But here's what I found:
2007 & 2008 -- we only had 4 teams in the playoffs. 2009 -- expanded to 6 teams. the #6 team were the Insects. They had both the highest w/l record and the best all-play percentage. 2010 -- the Chunks were #6 team... they had both the best w/l record & all play % 2011 -- the Burners were the #6 team... they had the best record, but NOT the best all play record (my Opihi would have gone in had that been the case). 2012 -- the Preds were the #6 team... and had both the best w/l record and all play % 2013 -- the Opihi were the #6 team... and the w/l record was split, but had the best all play % 2014 -- the Burners were the #6 team... and did NOT have the best w/l record, but did have the best all play % SO... |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Home teams in playoffs get a 7 point advantage...in all playoff games minus Frenzy bowl...soooo...Divisions still matter...
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Is this the poll from 2007??? I can't open Burts chain is why I ask...
Anyway, that was a 4 team post-season and 1 wild card...plus it appears that only 4 owners out of 12 are still here... The league thought the change/poll results were so worth while that you all chose to ignore them all together, as you should have... Tell you what...get rid of the 7 point home field advantage in the playoffs (since it's stupid anyway) (we don't do it in the regular season) and Cards will listen to your playoff scenarios...that way being a top seed, like a division champ actually becomes meaningless...Cards are not for a wild card team having a free 7 point advantage over a division champ... Hell, while we're at it...let's get rid of divisions, play everyone in league once...then to fill out remainder of season have games scheduled by some random formula like NFL flexes schedule....then just decide if you want 4, 6, or 8 teams to make playoffs...no more strength of schedule or all play playoff squad getting in, just straight records...back to old school playoffs... |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Maybe it's just me, but I hate WC teams getting byes and home games vs division winners...regardless of records...
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
In your "example" both WC teams are from Central div...so why is not division record used as tie breaker...they must have played twice, but you only show 1 H2H meeting...so maybe WC1 won both games, does that trump division record??? What if WC2 had a better division record but still lost twice to WC1???
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
yah, if we have not been using this rule, and its from 2007, then I agree a new poll would need to be done.
I guess I would use current NFL standings as example..Seahawks and Niners both currently have 10-2 records. Say they both finish 13-3 and Dallas finished 8-8 to win their division. Niners are superior team, but Dallas gets #3 seed only because they lucked out winning a mostly losing record division? Personally I don't think that is fair. I do like the friendly rivalry of division foes, so not really into not having divisions, and can see some merit in rewarding division winners...just not enough for me. |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
As for your example, I agree, and it's happened many times over the years. |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
So this is a moot point, as we've neglected to enforce this rule.
If someone wants to officially post a poll for future years, great. Otherwise... move along... nothing to see here. lol |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
I put up this thread for discussion based on Florio's article that I read and linked yesterday. Burt found that we actually voted in a similar change back in 2007, which changed the focus of the discussion a bit as we tried to see what actually happened and if it was ever enforced. It looks like was never enforced and therefore all of us tend to agree isn't applicable. I think more of the current teams need to provide feedback on the any such proposal at this point before I'd put it up for a vote. I think only 3-4 teams have provided thoughts on the idea itself thus far. |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
I am in support of seeding based on record regardless of division as long as division winners are guaranteed playoff spot AND 7 point home field playoff advantage is removed.
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
I have been trying to get the 7 point advantage removed for years ;-)
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
I could probably be talked into giving up HFA in lieu of the seeding based on records (with Division winners guaranteed only a spot in the top 5)
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
If other owners buy into that kind of logic then I would be unable to participate in this league anymore. There is never a reason to seed a WC from the same division as a division winner AHEAD of that division winner... Your example has to have both WC from the Central division to be valid, imo... |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
No. Of course not. There's no way a wild card winner from the same division would ever be ranked ahead of that same division's winner.
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Whew...
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
So you DO envision a scenario where a WC from the same division as a division winner would be seeded higher than that division winner...else you wouldn't need to "write" it so it didn't happen...SMDH....
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
Say there are 2 division Winners at 10-4 (1 east, 1 central), 1 WC at 10-4 (east with H2H over central), the west division winner at 9-5, and the 2nd WC also from the east at 9-5 with a H2H win over the West division winner. Based purely on H2H, the above scenario would be seeded: 1 East Div winner (10-4) 2 East WC1 (10-4 with H2H over Central) 3 Central Div winner (10-4 with H2H losses to East Div Winner and East WC1 4 East WC2 winner (9-5 with H2H win over West) 5 West Div winner (9-5 with H2H loss to WC2) 6 Remaining non-playoff team with best All Play record If we decided to give division winners the first tie-breaker over WC regardless of H2H (which I'm not entirely in favor of), they would be seeded as: 1 East Div winner (10-4) 2 Central Div winner (10-4 with H2H losses to East Div Winner and East WC1 3 East WC1 (10-4 with H2H over Central) 4 West Div winner (9-5 with H2H loss to WC2) 5 East WC2 winner (9-5 with H2H win over West) 6 Remaining non-playoff team with best All Play record Currently teams in the above scenario would be seeded: 1 East Div winner (10-4) 2 Central Div winner (10-4 with H2H losses to East Div Winner and East WC1 3 West Div winner (9-5 with H2H loss to WC2) 4 East WC1 (10-4 with H2H over Central) 5 East WC2 winner (9-5 with H2H win over West) 6 Remaining non-playoff team with best All Play record I personally prefer the first scenario which seeds purely on H2H Since a division winner would always be seeded higher than a WC team in the same division with the same record, the highest a WC team could be seeded is 2. The lowest a Division winner could be seeded is 5. |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Here are a few thoughts from the Roosters...
1) I would love to see the 7 point HVA removed... we don't use it during the regular season and we shouldn't use it in the playoffs... NFL doesn't use it at any time, why should we? 2) Sometimes you have a bad record based on luck rather than just being bad... I have had fantasy teams that are really good (not here in Frenzy lol) but seem to run up against the highest scoring teams week after week. Where my record doesn't reflect how good my team actually is. So, just because I might finish with a 500 record, and the 3 seed from winning my division, doesn't mean my team is crap. 3) I played in a league where you received 1/2 point for winning against the team you played that week and 1/2 point for finishing in the top half of the league for that week. It gave a much more true representation of where teams actually belonged in the rankings/seeding. I think we all want the best teams to get into the playoffs and to get the fairest placement when seeding... |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
I still prefer the 3rd... Just because 3rd division winner is 9-5 doesn't mean they are not the best team. Maybe they have the toughest division and lose some games to better opponents. Think how the Patriot get gifted 5-6 wins a year because of their division. It may not mean they are the best team (or it may lol) but they end up with the best record because of it. |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
I have a hard time letting a lucky WC team getting rewarded with a 1st round bye when they weren't good enough to win a division...
You are knit picking over 1 or 2 wins over an entire season...it's not like the very rare 4 or 5 game spread...you are not making some great compelling argument for change imo.... |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
Nothing like a near or sub 500 team winning a weak division and being seed over a team that may have won 1 or more games against stiffer opposition. Your argument in this case is flawed IMO. |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Quote:
Everybody plays 8 games out of division, and 6 in the division. One or 2 bad weeks inside the division can cost a team the division, yet they could go 8-0 against the non-division foes and you would consider them "lucky". That's just not taking a realistic look at things IMO. |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Your whole premise is flawed when you intend to speak for me and my opinions...it is obvious you don't take this serious when you change your argument at the hint of losing...
This is exactly why more owners don't comment at all because in the face of weird and unnecessary change Mike gets his way... Do what you want I'm tired of listening to you... |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
You both obviously are very involved with this league and I appreciate both of your contributions...but I HATE to see you go for each others throats once a week. Squash it and be civil or move on
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
|
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Maybe a compromise would be good? Have byes go to top two division winners. Then seed 3-6 based on record.
In SACD this year, I was 2nd in my division but 9-5 record got me 2 seed and 1st round bye. I think I was #2 in points scored for season and 3rd in all-play (Burt's 7-7 WC team I think was 2nd in all-play) |
Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
Other than keeping playoffs as is...Swords compromise sounds palatable...
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2000-2022 - Preds Fantasy Football Forums