Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 22 Jul 2015, 8:13 am

Southern Marylander wrote:I have no opinion on any topic other than baseball


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 22 Jul 2015, 8:14 am

Sharur wrote:The biggest issue with our current setup, in my opinion, is that we have 3 Brads. If we had a 4th Brad, our course would be clear- create an all-Brad division. But as it stands things are somewhat awkward.


That could be a criteria for new owners: named Brad, or willing to change their name to Brad, or at least adopt a nickname for fantasy baseball purposes.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Jul 2015, 10:55 am

geojanes wrote:
Sharur wrote:The biggest issue with our current setup, in my opinion, is that we have 3 Brads. If we had a 4th Brad, our course would be clear- create an all-Brad division. But as it stands things are somewhat awkward.


That could be a criteria for new owners: named Brad, or willing to change their name to Brad, or at least adopt a nickname for fantasy baseball purposes.


I am Brad!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Jul 2015, 10:56 am

Rivalries?

I don't think we play our division enough to really have a rivalry. And, playing them more might be tedious.

So, really, what's wrong with random divisions?
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 28 Jul 2015, 7:03 am

How often would you change divisions? I'm not opposed to shuffling them around, though I think we could consider keeping the top two teams by record over the last two years in each division together, or something similar. I wouldn't be in favor of something completely random because success in the league isn't completely random. I suppose we could consider putting the strongest owners in a division together, which could give weaker owners a better chance at the playoffs, but I'm not sure it makes sense to want a potentially weaker in the playoffs.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jul 2015, 7:39 am

schulni wrote:How often would you change divisions? I'm not opposed to shuffling them around, though I think we could consider keeping the top two teams by record over the last two years in each division together, or something similar. I wouldn't be in favor of something completely random because success in the league isn't completely random. I suppose we could consider putting the strongest owners in a division together, which could give weaker owners a better chance at the playoffs, but I'm not sure it makes sense to want a potentially weaker in the playoffs.


I think we could change the divisions every two years. Frankly, I wouldn't care if it was every year.

The idea of keeping the top two finishers in the same division is intriguing. However, isn't that just punishing someone for doing well?

I guess there could be a formula for assigning divisions. So, maybe the 1,2, 11, and 16 teams are in a division?

I think some care needs to be taken to avoid rewarding mediocrity. I mean you could group them 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, but that would just assure a last place team a playoff spot the following year, which hardly seems right.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 28 Jul 2015, 7:58 am

I think the numerical assignment could make some sense. Curious though, how do you feel about divisions overall? Would you be in favor of eliminating them altogether?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Jul 2015, 9:05 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
geojanes wrote:
Sharur wrote:The biggest issue with our current setup, in my opinion, is that we have 3 Brads. If we had a 4th Brad, our course would be clear- create an all-Brad division. But as it stands things are somewhat awkward.


That could be a criteria for new owners: named Brad, or willing to change their name to Brad, or at least adopt a nickname for fantasy baseball purposes.


I am Brad!


Will the real Brad stand up!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jul 2015, 9:35 am

schulni wrote:I think the numerical assignment could make some sense. Curious though, how do you feel about divisions overall? Would you be in favor of eliminating them altogether?


They don't feel very "division-y" to me. Maybe it's because there's not an uber imbalance to the schedule or maybe it's because it's fantasy, but I don't get more psyched for a division match than a regular one.

I would not have a problem with eliminating them. It really only helps the winner of the worst division.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 01 Aug 2015, 11:21 am

For me this year, there's a clear difference between playing the King's Men and any other team. That sort of thing won't happen in every division every year, but it probably happens in at least one or two every year. Whether that's good or bad is another question, but it certainly has an impact.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 03 Aug 2015, 6:55 am

The divisions have added a little to the experience for me because of a few minor things:

*We've had moments of division pride, and moments of comparing divisions
*I have an active division. Josh and Freeman have been very successful the last two years, and even though Brad has had some bad luck recently, he's still an active owner and a great guy
*I've developed a good relationship with Josh, partially because of being in his division
*I do pay some attention to my division, and definitely find the division matchups more exciting
*I know year-to-year there is going to be some competition within the division in addition to the overall playoff push that every team has

None of these things is make or break, and I wouldn't be opposed to moving divisions around a bit. I say a bit because I think it would be good to keep a couple of teams in each division the same, which is why I threw out the idea of having the top two remain. I think the divisions are reasonably balanced right now and I don't see a huge need to make a change.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Aug 2015, 1:11 pm

If I recall correctly, the schedules are not balanced, right? In other words, we don't play every non-division team the same number of times.

So, it is entirely possible to be in the strongest division (in a given year) and play the strongest non-division schedule.

That could make a difference in determining who makes the playoffs. To me, that matters.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 04 Aug 2015, 4:03 pm

Not only possible but may even be probable for the strongest team in a strong division. The teams that are played twice in the non-divisional schedule are not random. The first place teams in each division last year play one another twice this year. The same applies to the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th place teams. A stronger schedule for the best teams and weaker ones for the worst.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Aug 2015, 4:08 pm

SLOTerp wrote:Not only possible but may even be probable for the strongest team in a strong division. The teams that are played twice in the non-divisional schedule are not random. The first place teams in each division last year play one another twice this year. The same applies to the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th place teams. A stronger schedule for the best teams and weaker ones for the worst.


How NFL-ish! :laugh:
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Aug 2015, 1:21 pm

I like having divisions betters--maybe it's just aesthetics. Although, I do like the the final set of games within divisions. I don't see significant value to keeping divisions the same though year after year. I actually think it would be interesting to be competing against different managers every year. And I think there are legitimate complaints about being stuck in a division with Nick (or Josh) or Matt. I think we should restructure the divisions every year based on the prior year's results. #1, #2, #3, #4 in wins the prior year would head up divisions. #1, #5, #9, #13; #2, #6, #10, #14; #3, #7, #11, #15; #4, #8, #12, #16.

I mean, as Nick says, you do get a sort of divisional pride but I am not seeing the rivalry component as being a big thing. It's more like this is a really tough division to win, wish I was in a less competitive one. I want to beat everyone--I don't much mind who is in my division. I see the merit in having divisions and teams fighting it out for the division title, but I don't see the downside in switching divisions every year. Owners have hypothesized about rivalries developing, but I don't really see it.