Open ClubAtletico opened 1 year ago
willy4short
commented
11 months ago Didn't we leave off on this topic wondering how many examples of previous high scoring teams missed the playoffs? I'd like to see significant proof that we're leaving the most competitive teams out of the playoffs consistently before we make any movement on this issue.
OFFICIAL VOTE: - Vote NO in favor of changing playoff seeding criteria.
ClubAtletico
commented
11 months ago Chris - you, Tom, and I discussed this a bit at Bear Lake but we have not had this discussion with the league as a whole. A couple of points:
1) There are a number of instances where high scoring teams miss out, or low scoring teams get in based on good fortune regarding who they play and when. I'm not trying to pick on those teams who experienced said good fortune, but if we're trying to reward building a competitive roster, then I think taking into account the output of that roster is appropriate. Here are some examples:
A) Probably the most egregious example was in 2019. That year Andrew had the LOWEST point total in the entire league, and yet made the playoffs with an 8-3 record, beating out teams with significantly higher weekly point totals.
B) In 2016 Joe had the second highest point total in the league, but also a Points Against total that was 80 points above the next closest team. He ended up missing the playoffs while a squad that scored 217 fewer points than him throughout the season made it.
C) Just last year, Tom mad the playoffs with a 7-4 record, and yet he was 10th in total points. There were four consolation teams that had higher point totals throughout the year. Meanwhile, Ogle went into the final week of the season with the highest point total needing a win to control his own destiny for a wild card.
D) In 2015 Tom was on the other end of it, finishing second in the league in PF but missing the playoffs to a team that scored over 100 fewer points than him. Ryan was the beneficiary of a 91.3 PA average, the lowest in the league.
E) In 2013, Josh had the third highest PF and Craig (who I honestly don't even remember meeting) had the fourth highest PF. Both missed the playoffs while the Hooligans got in with a 9-3 record and only the 7th best output in the league, primarily because the Hooligans were third in the the league in lowest PA.
There are a number of other examples.
2) My proposal is not designed to totally flip the nature of who makes the playoffs, but rather reward a team with a roster that can produce solid outputs every week and control for the PA variable. It gives incentives to teams who have experienced bad beats early in the season to not give up, because they can play for that last wild card spot regardless of record. We can't play defense in this league, and therefore no matter how well you prepare through the draft, free agency, and trades, we're all susceptible to a 2016 FJM situation where sheer dumb luck keeps you out of the running. If this league is supposed to be based on preparation, then I think we should control for that for at least one team in a six team playoff.
fffrontoffice
commented
11 months ago Verdict from rules discussion: Not enough support at this time. Closing for now.
fffrontoffice
commented
9 months ago A bit more buzz and interest in this one during 2023 season (QP starting 0-4 with more points than #2 ranked CAB 4-0).
Another idea: Playoff teams are 3 division winners, 1 wildcard using current systems (wins, then points for), 1 wildcard by total points for, and 1 wildcard by separate "week wins" accumulation (each week, W/L score more than half the league).
Outlining two potential ways to reward teams who have had consistent outputs throughout the year, but have suffered some “bad beats.”
Suggestion 1 (most drastic) - two win system. Each week there are two wins/losses on the table. One is determined by your head-to-head matchup while the other is determined by where you finish the week relative to other teams. Top six scores get a W. Bottom six scores take an L.
Example: POW beats CAB 90 to 89.9. They were the two lowest scores of the week. POW goes 1-1 on the week while CAB goes 0-2. Alternatively, that same week WSW beats FJM 160-158, and they were the top two scores. WSW goes 2-0 while FJM goes 1-1. Unlucky losses are cushioned while fortuitous wins are nerfed.
Sleeper offers this as an option in the app.
Suggestion 2 (less drastic) - PF Wildcard
The first five seeds into the playoffs are determined as they are now, based exclusively on records, conference titles, and subsequent tie-breaks. However, the sixth and final wildcard spot is awarded to the team from the remaining seven that has the highest PF over the course of the regular season.