With the draft date set (I have yet to hear of anyone who can't do September 2nd), we can now move onto question number three: to divide or not to divide?
We did NOT have conferences last year, so the playoffs consisted of the Top 6 teams in the league. Most other leagues I have seen have 2 conferences, which means for us, the Top 3 in each conference would advance to the playoffs.
So, yes, it would be possible that the #4 seed in the North Division could have a better record than the #1 seed in the South Division, but wouldn't make the playoffs. That most likely wouldn't happen, but chances are good that someone who would have gotten into the post-season under the old system would get left out under a new one.
Also, I believe the scheduling would also be affected - each team would probably play others in their own conference more frequently than those in the other conference. There also would probably be a division record and an overall record just like the NFL has for tiebreak purposes. Not quite sure about all the details on that yet.
Anyways, that's the question. Two 6-team conferences or one big division like last year?
Labels
- indie bands (1)
- obscure music (1)
- t shirt fans (1)
Personally, I think adding a second conference shakes things up and would definitely add intrigue/scandal at the end of the season.
Of course, I'll probably be the one who gets screwed and will regret these words.
I would prefer to have two divisions.
Divisions winners move on or have a bye... then it comes down to best records, head-to-head tie breaks.
the hardest part of having divisions is for the commissioner. when divisions are created, the schedule does not change. therefore, if you want us to play each team in the division twice, stewart, you yourself will have to change the schedule (which will be a beast of a job).
all that said, i like divisions.
I know you all are VERY concerned about the extra work that I have to put in to make the divisions work, but just so you know, I had to rejigger (that's right) last year's schedules, so I wouldn't mind terribly doing it again.
Love,
Your Dedicated Potentate
This is just another thought...
I'm for having no conferences (I've been f'd in Fantasy Baseball by the whole better-record-left-out-of-the-playoffs thing and it sucks). This being said, with a 13 week schedule, what if we have our eleven games against everyone else, and then two "Rivalry" games...all scheduled in weeks 4 and 11 so as to make for great previews/recaps and to placate ESPN, who has our TV contract and would love nothing more than "Rivalry Week" in which these games could be given clever names and heavily advertised on the ESPN family of networks. Each team would have two "natural rivals" (i.e. Wade/Good Doctor, Ellis/Fuquay, Kelley/Culbertson, ect...) who they would end up playing 2x. This might be slightly hard to schedule, but if pulled off correctly would be awesometown.
Thoughts?
Thought #1: You have miscounted. If I played 10 games against everyone and 2 games against one guy twice (my "rival"), then we have only played 12 weeks worth of games. So either we'd play another team a second time, or our rival a 3rd time, which is...not ideal.
Thought #2: I like the idea of having a couple rivalry weeks, but we should do it with more than one team. A&M has more than one rival, and so do the Wadeboxes. Or Wadeboxi. Wadeboxen...
...anyways, I think we could play each team once, adding up to 11 games, and then play 2 teams twice. This is actually making a BETTER case for divisions, as your rival should be IN your division, adding to the impact of the game.
I'll wait one more day to put up the poll to see if anyone else has comments.
Actually YOU have miscounted. Under the assumption that there are 12 people in this league, with a 13 week season, you would play everyone once (11 games) and 2 rivals one extra time a piece (2 games).
There is your 13 game schedule. I am vindicated.
I'm endorsing Kelley's plan wholeheartedly, as I think the idea of Rivalry Week could be the funniest/best idea to hit this league since Ellis starting writing news-esque recaps.
I'm also in favor of a one-conference league rather than having two divisions. I think head-to-head matchups, while not the best way to measure which team is actually the best over the course of a season (see Smoke and Lose, 2006), is a justified concession to imitate real-life football that makes every week more interesting since you're competing against one specific opponent. Having two divisions, though, is too much in my opinion. I would hate to play in the "Big 12 South" division of our fantasy league only to get edged out come playoff time by some scrubby team from our "Big 12 North." And it's not like we'd be able to make it work like real-life anyway as you'd only play two teams in your division twice, rather than every team twice, so even within the division the strength of schedule could be very uneven.
Kudos to Kelley for his marketing genius in promoting rivalry weeks. Assuming this gets adopted, the next question is how to determine the rivalries. Obviously it's a given that I'll relish getting to smack down the Cowerin' Bye Weeks twice a year, but that second rivalry could be any number of people for a lot of good reasons, and I think the same could be said for most other teams in the league. Let the great debate begin!
Darn you, Kelley. I was diligently studying for the bar when I was informed of your suggestion for two rivalries. I think it is an absolutely hilarious idea. (As for divisions generally, I don’t really care either way. I think it makes the most sense to send the best teams (by record/points scored), but I see the point of divisions as well.)
Back to rivalries: I do like the endless possibilities we have with rivalry week. But how do we determine our natural rivals? Obviously, the Wade Civil war makes sense, as do battles of roommates, etc. But to only have two rivals… that’s hard to figure out. If Fuquay is my most natural rival (given the number of times we’ve pulled guns on each other this semester alone), who is number two? Is it Young Wade? After all, he did punch me in my surgically-repaired shoulder just days after going under the knife. Is it Kelley and his endless baseless callouts and UT envy? Is it Coyote Cubs and his continuing bitterness and humiliation after Frank Gore was stolen out from under his nose while he was in mid-taunt? Is it Rock Fu for vetoing a trade that he had already accepted? Or is it Vittetoe for violating the guy code in dating—and then marrying—my sister despite having been roommates for two years?
Maybe we should treat this like sorority rush: everyone lists their rivals in order of hatred/bitterness and is matched up based on that…. Or maybe we should vote or have a random drawing. However, if we get to call our rivalries before hand, then I call rivalries with Worth and Dr. Wade! [taunt extended]
rivalry weeks sound fun. especially for all the guys who have known each other since high school.
are there people besides myself in this league who did not grow up in the bubble? if not, i immediately call sterling as two weeks of zero competition will greatly benefit my record.