2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

I think we should take a cue from MLB and put in a rule that if the #1 seed and the Wild Card team are in the same division, then the #1 seed plays the lowest seeded division winner and the #2 seed plays the Wild Card

...also wasn't there some other discussion about playoff seedings? something about the wild card team being better than some divisions winners? maybe that was in another league.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

To the 2nd part, that was discussed in the Frenzy I believe. I think Mike's idea was to seed the teams based on record, not the Wildcard automatically getting the #4 seed. If we seeded that way, I don't think the first part of your proposal would be needed. If the Wildcard has a worse record than all three division winners, and the division winner of the wildcard's division is the #1 seed, then I don't see why they shouldn't play each other.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

yeah that's it. i like that idea too. just one idea i'd thought about and remembered another similar proposal somewhere. both couldn't work together but i'd like to see one or the other.

in one of my friend leagues we use the MLB style...we had 3 straight years where the #1 seed and the wild card were in the same division (having already played twice during the season)....2 of the 3 times the WC team had the 2nd best record

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

As a #1 seed who got knocked out by a wildcard team that would not have been the #4 seed by record alone I wholeheartedly agree, the 4th best team should play the #1 seed, irrespective of division

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

I don't really like the seeding based on record, unless you take it to the extreme and give the 4 playoffs spots to the 4 teams with the best record. But then why have divisions. But since we aren't given benefit of home field advantage, I really don't think it's an issue I will argue vehemently about. I'll just go with majority.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

Given the randomness of results on any given week, given the randomness of strengths of teams across divisions during any given year, etc, etc, I really am fine with the 1 vs WC, 2 vs 3 setup we currently have. I don't think its necessary to change...but, I'm not going to go down swinging on this one.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

I have to agree with Burt.. Unless we do away with divisions and go to an over all 12 team setup and take the top 4 teams to determine the playoff seeding. I don't think this is a point worth debating.
With a divisional setup... You have to go with the setup that we have.. If not, what does it mean to win your division? Wild Card is a Wild Card... they have to be the #4 seed in my view, no matter the record.. Just my opinion.
Late,
Brett
2007 :sacd :champ :valencia:

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

I'm concinced the 4 playoff teams need to be seeded based on overall record, reagardless of whether they won a division or not,.

The track history of the Wild Card's dominance over the 1 seed is too long in the Frenzy and SACD to ignore.

Since the 4 team playoff was instituted in the Frenzy 4 seasons ago, the Wild Card team (as the 4 seed) has defeated the top seed every year (not even homefield has saved the 1 seed), and gone on to win the title in 2 or 3 of those seasons. They've also had a better record than at least 1 of not both of the 2 and 3 seeds that won the other divisions every season as well.

In SACD, the Wild Card Team has defeated the 1 seed both years, and won the overall title both years. The Wild Card team has also had a better record than one or both of the other division winners who were seeded ahead of them.

That's essentially 6 years of history, and not once has the 1 seed made it past the 4 seed. Home field advantage or not. This is a HUGE trend, and should not be ignored IMO.

Being top seed is supposed to be an advantage, not a disadvantage. You guys pussied out on home field in SACD, so what's the benefit of the 1 seed? The chance to LOSE to a team that in 6 straight years of history has had a better record than at least 1 and often both higher seeded teams and has never lost to the 1 seed?

Winning your division guarentee's you a playoff spot. THat's why we battle it out. You can finish .500, and otherwise not make it in, but win your division, and you're in the post-season. When it comes to seeding hoever, in leagues this small, it should be based solely on record among the 4 playoff seeds, which would mean in every case over the last 6 seasons of history that the Wild Card would be seeded 2 or 3 and the 1 seed would be playing a much weaker 4 seed, and thus having the advantage it deserves.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

If you are the #1 seed, why should it matter who you play? If you are the best team, you'll win out regardless. Why base playoffs on the hope that someone else beats the 2nd or 3rd best team for you? And if they did, would you rather have some other advantage to be able to beat them, like extra points, or would you rather just beat them straight up to show you are the better team? Pussy, bah!

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

Why should the #1 seed have to face a team with a better record than the 2nd and/or 3rd seed? Please explain that to me like I'm 2? TIA.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

If the Wild card team wasn't good enough to beat out the champ of their division in the regular season, why should they be rewarded with a higher seeding than another division champ? Now go get your pacifier and take a nap.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

Why, because they have a better record than the other division champ(s) who didn't have to face the #1 seed twice as they did already in the regular season.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

Or maybe because the other 3 teams in thier division are closer to each other then the other 2 teams in the WC/#1 division, which makes 6 tough games instead of 2....

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

Also, I'll go back to my original statement, if record is what counts most, why have divisions at all then? Using this year as an example, The Eco Warriors had a better record than Crestone, so should they have gone instead? Hell, I also had the advantage over Crestone in head-to-head.

Winning a division should count for something in the playoffs if we are to play in divisions.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

Winning the division DOES count for something. It gives teams like the Needles a playoff spot. PERIOD. It should garner nothing more than that (since y'all are so against a home field advantage).

Again, IMO, seeding should revert solely to record. Winning the division should welcome you to the playoffs, but not guarentee you better seeding than teams with better records.

Divisions do have a purpose IMO, they add a lot of excitement to the playoff race. Especially down the stretch. You also face you're division oppenents twice vs. just once against all others, and for coming out on top, you get a shot at the title. What else you want. Higher seeding shouldn't be a given unless the record justifies it.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

Good points by all....and a reason I like the MLB-style playoff.

If the #1 seed and the WC (#4) are in the same division then they don't play each other in the first round of the playoffs...the #1 seed plays #3 and #2 plays #4 (WC). If the #1 and WC are not in the same division then #1 plays #4 (WC) and #2 plays #3.

I've seen it many times where the #1 seed and WC are in the same division with the WC team having a better record than the #2 and #3 seeds.

My 2 cents.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

Why complicate it like that. Just seed the 4 playoff teams solely based on record and it'll be problem solved IMO.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

One of the reasons I don't like the home field advantage, and the seedings based on record is because FF scoring is so subjective..home field and seeding really means nothing in FF. If I consistantly put up 180 points, but lose 5 times to teams that put up their best score, but are all over the place for the year, doesn't that say I have the better overall team? I just got unlucky and he had several of his players go off uncharictariscally. I can go for the MLB concept of not having first round games within same division, but would go down kicking and screaming basing all seedings soley on record alone, especially now that I know preds is so passionate for it ;-)

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

No, it will just be you getting your way...that's all!!

How is that less complicated anyway? What if all 4 teams have the same record? Now you have to have a seperate tie breaker for seeding, since you have unmatched head-to-head records....BAH!

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

As I should! :dammit

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

Notice I said 'will'....

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

Throwing my two cents into the ring, as much as it pains me to say it, I agree 100% with what Mike has said here.

The divisions serve a number of purposes in my mind. #1 is scheduling. How else do you schedule a 12 team league to end prior to week 17 without divisions? An unbalanced schedule without divisions doesn't make sense. So that's one reason. Next, it builds rivalries. Playing the same team multiple times in a season naturally builds rivalries. That adds to the fun and enjoyment of the league. It also aids in determining who the playoff teams are since we are forced into an unbalanced schedule.

That all said, let's not get so married to the idea of divisions that we are locked into seeding the playoff teams based on them. They are there to serve a purpose, but not to restrict the fairness of the playoffs. Mike has done an excellent job of illustrating the historical unfairness of assigning the wildcard to the #4 seed. The only situation responses have been hypothetical "what ifs" and whatnot. When the two best teams, or two of the three best teams, come from the same division, they should not be forced to play each other again for a shot at the championship. A team that wins the "weak" division (there's one every year, and you know who you are) should play no one but the best in order for a shot at the championship to prove they belong.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Playoff Seedings
 

:agree

VERY :GoodPost