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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Jan 2013, 11:08 am

Sharur wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Because I don't have years of memorizing all these details, are you suggesting a one-week, last week of the regular season finale?


No.

The regular season this year has 25 weeks. We voted already not to use week 25. Our playoffs are currently 4 weeks long (3 rounds, 2-week championship), so that means a 20 week regular season.

For a 4-division format with 16 teams, 18 or 21 week regular seasons would produce a better schedule. Accordingly, there were a couple suggestions on how to get regular seasons of those lengths without using week 25 during the playoffs.

One suggestion was make the championship just one week, so the playoffs are only three weeks. Then we get 21 weeks for the regular season and 3 for the playoffs.

Another was to make every playoff round two weeks, so the playoffs are six weeks. Then we get 18 weeks for the regular season and 6 for the playoffs.

Having a 'nice' schedule is arguably relatively unimportant, so maybe we shouldn't be messing with the playoffs to get one. But if we think that the second championship week isn't adding much (that's been my feeling, at least in recent years), then the 21 week regular season & 3 week playoffs would work very nicely. That's my preference at this point, I think.


I'm with you.

I would, personally, love 3 rounds of divisional play (9 games) with one game against every other team. It's balanced and no one would be able to argue that the best team in a division did not emerge.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Jan 2013, 11:10 am

freeman2 wrote:By the way, I played in an Earl Weaver League in the Mid 1980s. Our Commish edited a computer gaming magazine, knew the developer of the game (the guy even came down once), and we sort of play-tested it (not that we contributed anything but our Commish would get early versions of the game). Unfortunately, they did not support the game for very long...


Of course, those were the glory days . . . when 1200 baud was "so fast."

I had an Amiga. I seem to recall a feature where you could use great players from the past. I found that irresistible although I have no idea why.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 21 Jan 2013, 6:51 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:I would, personally, love 3 rounds of divisional play (9 games) with one game against every other team. It's balanced and no one would be able to argue that the best team in a division did not emerge.

I suppose I'd prefer the three extra games be played outside the division. I think three times a season against the same team might start getting a little old.

Of course this is all supposition anyway because half the league hasn't voted yet!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Jan 2013, 10:44 am

SLOTerp wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:I would, personally, love 3 rounds of divisional play (9 games) with one game against every other team. It's balanced and no one would be able to argue that the best team in a division did not emerge.

I suppose I'd prefer the three extra games be played outside the division. I think three times a season against the same team might start getting a little old.

Of course this is all supposition anyway because half the league hasn't voted yet!


Well, with two divisional games you've got 15 weeks left and 12 teams. To me, that lends itself to potential disparity. 3 divisional games plus one against everyone else is perfectly balanced and no one can cry "unfair."

Mostly, I want this to prevent myself from whining. :laugh:
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 2:03 pm

I really don't like the three games against intra-division opponents. I think two is sufficient to determine the division winner. A contest is not just a win-loss proposition since the strength of the win also matters (making head-to-head ties less likely). If I beat down the E's 7-3 and then lose 4-6, I still get the tie-breaker edge.

Both cries of 'unfair' and your whining fall on deaf ears :wink:
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 2:04 pm

From Andrew:
1) I prefer a 1 week championship over a questionable final week of the MLB season
2) Don't know enough to care.
3) Just base this on last year's rankings:

1,16 D1
2,15 D2
3,14 D3
4,13 D4
5,12 D4
6,11 D3
7,10 D2
8,9 D1
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 2:25 pm

1. I'm with Andrew- I'd prefer the one-week championship to adding the final week.

2. I have ultimate power over this anyway, so what do I care what the rest of you think :razz:

3. Andrew's proposal seems unnecessarily unfair to #16. If we do it based on prior-year standings, I think we either do:
[1, 2, 3, 4] [5-8] [9-12] [13-16] or
[1, 5, 9, 13] [2, 6, 10, 14] [3, 7, 11, 15] [4, 8, 12, 16]

That said, I think the most important question is whether divisions are fixed or not. If they're fixed, it doesn't really matter how we choose them. If they aren't, it matters a lot. I still haven't decided which I prefer.

EDIT: I guess, re-reading Andrew's post, that he's implying they should not be fixed.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 857
Joined: 13 Oct 2000, 9:42 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 2:40 pm

1 and 2 - Very much for a 21 week schedule with three against division-mates and one each against everyone else. Strongly favor using the last week of the season rather than shortening the championship week. I have always liked our playoff format and I really hope we don't mess with that. There are all kinds of distortions throughout september anyway (like some teams going to 6-man rotations, inconsistent use of MLB DL's, callups taking PT from vets, etc). I've never really seen the point of dropping the last week. Sure, a few guys get a day off or two. Never had an issue with it. It's not the same as football. I'd also like to see division matchups packed into the end of the season.

3 - I don't see the point of annually flexible divisions at all. If we go that way, then what did we gain from divisions? We wouldn't have created rivalries, but instead just convoluted the playoff seeding system. Perhaps we could put in some provision for partial realignment every couple of years (or maybe 3 or 4?) to protect against someone getting stuck in Jays/Orioles land forever.

Geography or random seem best to me, with divisions fixed or semi-fixed. The goal should be that the divisions are reasonably balanced in overall strength over time.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 2:54 pm

SLOTerp wrote:I really don't like the three games against intra-division opponents. I think two is sufficient to determine the division winner.


I agree, except that leaves 15 weeks and 12 teams. That's what I don't like, especially when we can ensure "balance."

It's really 3 random weeks vs. 3 division weeks. I prefer division because of the fairness aspect.

Theoretically, my three weeks could be against teams 12-14 while yours could be vs. 1-3. If the final playoff spot is determined by such a match-up . . . well, I don't see any big advantage in doing the random schedule.

As for Division alignment, I would like to see them fixed for a few years, then we could revisit it. I think it's likely to result in rivalries and an enhanced sense of competition. I will get to know the weaknesses and strengths within the division and tailor my team accordingly. If you go 9-0 in your division, you're going to do well. Period.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 857
Joined: 13 Oct 2000, 9:42 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 3:00 pm

We could do it the NFL way:

One against everyone and an extra one against the team in the same position in each division as you were the previous year.

This would increase the strength of schedule for teams that do well, which I think is good. I think doing a strong/weak division realignment every year is the wrong way to get to that goal.

EDIT: In other words, if you finish 2nd in your division in 2013, then in 2014 you play 2 against everyone else who finished 2nd in their division, one against all other non-division teams, and 2 against everyone in your division.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 3:39 pm

DiploMatt wrote:We could do it the NFL way:

One against everyone and an extra one against the team in the same position in each division as you were the previous year.

This would increase the strength of schedule for teams that do well, which I think is good. I think doing a strong/weak division realignment every year is the wrong way to get to that goal.

EDIT: In other words, if you finish 2nd in your division in 2013, then in 2014 you play 2 against everyone else who finished 2nd in their division, one against all other non-division teams, and 2 against everyone in your division.


That's way better than random, but I still prefer the division games.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 5:28 pm

DiploMatt wrote:We could do it the NFL way...


Correction/clarification: we would do it that way. 3 division games is another option, of course, but if we just do 2 (with a 21 week season), that's how we'll do it.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 6:45 pm

DiploMatt wrote:We could do it the NFL way:

One against everyone and an extra one against the team in the same position in each division as you were the previous year.

This would increase the strength of schedule for teams that do well, which I think is good. I think doing a strong/weak division realignment every year is the wrong way to get to that goal.

EDIT: In other words, if you finish 2nd in your division in 2013, then in 2014 you play 2 against everyone else who finished 2nd in their division, one against all other non-division teams, and 2 against everyone in your division.

To give credit where it's due, that's what Brad S. suggested several pages ago. I'm on board with this if we do 21 weeks.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 7:42 pm

To sum, here's where we stand:

1) I'll need to put out another amendment on season length. Perhaps something like this:

a. Extend regular season to 21 weeks by shortening championship game by one week.

b. Extend regular season to 21 weeks by pushing back playoffs and utilizing the final week of the MLB season.


If neither passes, we stick with a 20 week season. If both pass, the one receiving the greatest amount of votes takes precedence.

2) Scheduling. I would really prefer not to have three intra-division games. I trust Todd to schedule the non-division games based on previous year records.

3) Creating divisions. I am leaning heavily towards permanent divisions. Of course nothing is forever; changing divisions should be possible. Initially, geography is fine with me (either of the two options I presented work) though I am very open to alternate suggestions.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 8:12 pm

From Andrew:
My redscape login seems broken or something. I wasn't advocating for always changing the divisions, I was just suggesting this for the first allocation and then those teams are those divisions for good.