Scumleague FF 2015 (Locke, Yiley, TD37!)

[Yiley]

Well I guess I can accept divisions, because I'm in the playoffs. I'll take divisions

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Oh yeah, I'd never claim that divisions don't add an extra element of luck to the process.

I just think that people spend so much time talking about whether teams did or didn't deserve their record but they gloss over the fact that the fundamental H2H structure of most fantasy football leagues is a fairly flawed way to determine which team is 'best', however you want to define it. If you actually want to address what we might define as unfair records, we should just stop using single H2H matchups.

But why are we adding luck to the process when the process already comes with plenty of luck built in?

[Rob14]

D3, he's saying divisions increase luck, not decrease it. I think you're saying divisions decrease luck, for some reason. Not sure your rationale for that.

[Locke Lamora]

No, he hates divisions, he's definitely not saying that. I'm not speaking for everyone but I would say reasons include: people like the matchups that mean a little bit extra (particularly with the schedule set up to have the three divisional matchups the last three weeks); they like some semblance of rivalry with certain teams (even if it's just for a season or two); and in some cases they like the fact that pretty much anyone can get into the playoffs, regardless of experience or skill level.

I'm not sure everyone would phrase the last one that way, but fundamentally I think adding more randomness keeps teams interested that otherwise would not be because the competition is always going to cluster more closely around the mean when you add extra luck, and that gives you more variety in playoff (and in our case relegation) teams from year to year.

[AGar]

With twelve teams, there's no good way to do the schedule. Divisions don't make it better in that aspect, but it definitely adds some different aspects of fun to it. Rivalries can grow and you can look forward to a revenge match down the line. Yes, there's a level of suck inherent when one of the four best teams misses the playoffs, but just doing twelve teams in a line for an online only league kinda makes shit boring. It's one thing for my money league where we all hang out on Sundays and drink and shit talk. It's a different story for MS L1 where I've only met 1 of the 12 in person and very briefly at that. There's some other things cultivated from other leagues (I still have never beaten LL I'm pretty sure in anything fantasy related) but that's about it.

[Rob14]

I'd much rather have rivalry weeks than divisions. Basically, designate three rivalry weeks where games don't count toward standings, but they allow teams to pick their opponents mutually (before the draft) and play for bragging rights. This is already possible in Yahoo's system.

The advantages include:

- No randomness. Every team would play every other team ONCE in games that affect regular season standings. This addresses the argument that divisions are good because it gives a rationale for which teams you're playing twice.
- No BYEs needed to achieve every team playing every other team once. Some players made the valid point that BYEs are boring earlier in the thread.
- Allows rivalries. I'd love to be pitted against Lamora and Agar twice next season, but that is awful from a division standpoint because they consistently compile great teams. Rivalry weeks allow the "real" rivalries to play twice without care toward balance. The games are still interesting, because you can choose opponents that you really would want to beat.
- No divisions needed. Reduces the playoff implications of arbitrary randomness.

[Rob14]

^ Not sure if that would work in L2 and L3, where longstanding rivalries are not as much a thing due to turnover, but it could absolutely work in L1.

[pickemgenius]

no randomness----fantasy football

choose one.

the biggest voice of the division stuff is the guy who had the fewest points scored on him for the year.

so

welcome to fantasy football. shit happens.

[AGar]

I'd much rather have rivalry weeks than divisions. Basically, designate three rivalry weeks where games don't count toward standings, but they allow teams to pick their opponents mutually (before the draft) and play for bragging rights. This is already possible in Yahoo's system.

The advantages include:

- No randomness. Every team would play every other team ONCE in games that affect regular season standings. This addresses the argument that divisions are good because it gives a rationale for which teams you're playing twice.
- No BYEs needed to achieve every team playing every other team once. Some players made the valid point that BYEs are boring earlier in the thread.
- Allows rivalries. I'd love to be pitted against Lamora and Agar twice next season, but that is awful from a division standpoint because they consistently compile great teams. Rivalry weeks allow the "real" rivalries to play twice without care toward balance. The games are still interesting, because you can choose opponents that you really would want to beat.
- No divisions needed. Reduces the playoff implications of arbitrary randomness.

I was unaware this was a thing that could be done.

[Rob14]

no randomness----fantasy football

choose one.

the biggest voice of the division stuff is the guy who had the fewest points scored on him for the year.

so

welcome to fantasy football. shit happens.

Not looking for no randomness, just less. Plus I want to rematch vs Agar and Lamora.

[Talitha]

Due to my untimely elimination I must proceed to take out my frustration by crushing mith this week in the GL league.

[Axxle]

Having weeks not counting for record will make actual player bye weeks a bit weird to draft towards.

[Kmd4390]

If a week didn't count, I'd probably ignore it completely. Takes the fun out of it

[PokerFace]

I agree with kmd i would rather all things mattered

[Kublai Khan]

Whoever wins L1 sets the league setup rules?

I still like my idea. Instead of arguing in thread about pros and cons of blablittyblahblah, let's give power and glory to the winner. Want to change who we run things? Then win.

Winners change things. Losers gripe.

(is a griper who has barely managed to stay in L2 for another year.)

(L2 4 life!)

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

No, he hates divisions, he's definitely not saying that. I'm not speaking for everyone but I would say reasons include: people like the matchups that mean a little bit extra (particularly with the schedule set up to have the three divisional matchups the last three weeks); they like some semblance of rivalry with certain teams (even if it's just for a season or two); and in some cases they like the fact that pretty much anyone can get into the playoffs, regardless of experience or skill level.

I'm not sure everyone would phrase the last one that way, but fundamentally I think adding more randomness keeps teams interested that otherwise would not be because the competition is always going to cluster more closely around the mean when you add extra luck, and that gives you more variety in playoff (and in our case relegation) teams from year to year.

A) I'm not convinced this is actually true. In fact, in L2 this year it seems like we got the opposite result, with three weeks to play every game other than one mattered in the playoff race for D2 and D3 but that would've been the case without divisions as well. But none of the games in D1 mattered in the last three weeks but without divisions suddenly every game PEG played would've been vitally important.
B) L1 was so devoid of rivalry last year that we picked some arbitrary thing to create divisions on; this year in L2 they were completely random. I feel no sense of rivalry with any of them, nor anyone else I could be paired up with. We've already got PF making divisions for next year based on arbitrary criteria. Rivalry might've mattered once, it's not exactly important after so many years of relegation.
C) This argument is goofy, getting rid of divisions will make results more correlated to what little skill this game requires and that's a bad thing? Look if you'd decided you wanted players from Florida teams in the draft and picked up Lamar Miller, Doug Martin, and Blake Bortles you'd be in the playoffs and everyone at the time of the draft would've thought you mad. There's more than enough variance already for "good" players to lose and "bad" players to win.

no randomness----fantasy football

choose one.

the biggest voice of the division stuff is the guy who had the fewest points scored on him for the year.

so

welcome to fantasy football. shit happens.

Ooh an ad hom, let me try one. Or maybe we shouldn't listen to the guy who only made the playoffs because he randomly got placed in the bad division. I know you don't care about the facts but I started making these arguments last year when IS (who I don't even like) got minorly screwed by the divisional structure in L1.

[Flameaxe]

Someone should get ddd some cheese

Edit: I would be less inclined to return next year with the rivalry week schedule.

[Locke Lamora]

The divisional matchups do mean more just because they count towards the tiebreaker. It might only be a little bit more overall because that doesn't come into play very often, but a divisional win helps your playoff chances more than a non divisional one. As for whether scheduling the last three games in-division makes for more or fewer late-season decisive matchups, I don't know, and anecdotal evidence is irrelevant when trying to prove or disprove it. Maybe I'll run a bunch of simulations to find out but what people believe about it won't be based on actual statistical evidence.

I'm not arguing that any of these reasons are good or that they make the league better for players who are actually 'good'. You just asked why we do it, and I made some suggestions for why people like it this way, in spite of the fact that it introduces more luck into the process. It is goofy from the perspective of making the results favour the better teams, but as we've seen, the teams who sneak into the playoffs as a result of the divisional structure are happy about it, and the teams who get an easier matchup in the playoffs as a result probably aren't bothered either.

[Rob14]

Ah, well. Then I hope I'm not in a division with Lamora and Agar next year I guess, since it'd be unbalanced as hell. Guess no enduring rivalries. ;(

[Locke Lamora]

I'll happily be in a division with you guys, sounds good.

[Zachrulez]

Whoever wins L1 sets the league setup rules?

I still like my idea. Instead of arguing in thread about pros and cons of blablittyblahblah, let's give power and glory to the winner. Want to change who we run things? Then win.

Winners change things. Losers gripe.

(is a griper who has barely managed to stay in L2 for another year.)

(L2 4 life!)

Well all I need is just for one of the people who qualifies for league two to not play again next year and I'll be back!

[Flameaxe]

I'll happily be in a division with you guys, sounds good.

Yeah you guys should do this

[T-Bone]

The griping will just change too "so and so only made the playoffs cause of his easier unbalanced schedule" so sure let's do away with divisions so we can hear that one next year! Then the year after that we can just do EPE! It's the only fair solution!

[AGar]

I'll happily be in a division with you guys, sounds good.

I like a good challenge.

[Rob14]

Challenge? Good. Unbalanced? Not good. I don't think it's a good idea to throw three of the five best teams into the same division next year. I wouldn't be opposed to two of us together, ofc. I've been in Lamora's division twice in a row (he made playoffs once, I made playoffs once) so I'd kind of like to continue that so I can win the tie-breaker and then never be in the same division again.