Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion

[chasmvp19]

Originally Posted by Preds

My WC examples didn't specify any division. one could be from the east, the other the west. It was just an example of how seeding could work in a new format.

So are you saying a WC from the same division as a Division winner could be ranked ahead of that Division winner in the playoff seeding??? Sure sounds like you just said that...please explain...

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...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

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.

[chasmvp19]

Whew...

[Preds]

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

So are you saying a WC from the same division as a Division winner could be ranked ahead of that Division winner in the playoff seeding??? Sure sounds like you just said that...please explain...

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...

Again I was just posting a scenario, I wasn't referring to any particular division (and didn't even look to see which division I had with a better record). In a tie within the same division, the division winner would always come out on top. Intra-Division would be based on H2H, though we could also write the rule towards the division winner being a higher seed in a tie record scenario.

[chasmvp19]

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....

[Preds]

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

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....

Not at all. The division title already sorts out that tie-breaker and a division winner would never be seeded over a WC team from the same division.

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.

[wchmego]

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...

[wchmego]

Originally Posted by Preds

Not at all. The division title already sorts out that tie-breaker and a division winner would never be seeded over a WC team from the same division.

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.

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.

[chasmvp19]

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....

[Preds]

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

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....

I don't find a WC team with a great record as being lucky. For one they lost out to an even better team in the division. Your case loses merit on that basis alone.

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.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

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....

The Bees have dominated the East for several seasons. They're 9-4 and could lose the division for the 1st time in years if I beat them for the first time ever H2H this week. Are you going to say they're a "lucky" WC team finishing with the same 9-5 record as I would have because of that? That's just a crazy argument to me that doesn't have merit.

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.

[chasmvp19]

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...

[predator06]

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

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN-_cZNDy0w

[Liquid Swords]

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)

[chasmvp19]

Other than keeping playoffs as is...Swords compromise sounds palatable...