|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jan 13, 2015 12:22:18 GMT -5
We are currently at 1 matchup per week, meaning each team plays 1 other team.
I was just looking through commish options for scheduling, and it is possible to do more. (see below)
"# matchups per scoring period per team
Choose the number of matchups that you want the auto-scheduler to generate for each team per scoring period. The "standard" is 1, but some leagues like each team to play several other teams per period.
You may edit the matchups manually on the Matchups tab."
We could actually double, triple, quadruple the amount of "games played" per season.
Interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 12:29:02 GMT -5
Open up roster flexibility a little but everyone plays 2 different teams each week with the same roster. There's some strategizing for ya.
Or if you want to get really crazy, make the regular season 23 weeks, and everyone plays everyone every week. Chaos. Would take one hell of a consistent, strong team to really stand out ahead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 12:34:56 GMT -5
I'm in one other dynasty league. We switched to multiple matchups this year. I hate it. So do the majority of GM's in our league. I don't find it adds anything to the "fun" factor. Granted, it's even worse because that league is daily transactions...so it's just a mess trying to figure out which matchups to pay attention to...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jan 13, 2015 13:18:19 GMT -5
It would work much better with our week lock-in period...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 13:54:07 GMT -5
I do agree with that. If the majority of the league wants to do it, maybe you can run a test scenario to show people what it looks like and give people a feel for it...?
It's not my cup of tea, but if there is support for it, so be it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 14:39:12 GMT -5
I am open to this idea:
1) Increases the level of difficulty for winning each stat category.
2) more accurate depiction of who are actually the top teams in the regular season standings.
3) More unique play-off matchups; switching back to one-on-one as opposed to playing three or four teams.
4) Hot streaks/cold streaks/injury effect decreased in playing a handful of teams as opposed to one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on Jan 13, 2015 15:56:28 GMT -5
Interesting concept for sure. I'm assuming all opponents are then battling for the 1 pt per category.
Seems odd also to have 2 different systems for regular and playoffs but then again we do that for waivers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jan 13, 2015 16:00:28 GMT -5
it's not a different system at all....
just instead of playing against 1 team per week
you could be playing against 2 3 or 4 simultaneously.....
everything else as far as points stays the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 16:10:35 GMT -5
Hello Mr. Seals.
In my other league, it's run like this:
1. In the regular season, each team has two matchups per week. So, for example, your team could go 5W, 4L, 3T in one matchup, and 2W, 8L, 2T in the other matchup. So your team would be credited with the combined total(7W, 12L and 5T in this example).
2. In the playoffs, it reverts to single, H2H matchups (i.e. 1st place versus 16th place); just like we have it right now.
The Commissioner of my other league instituted multiple matchups because he believed it would provide a more accurate depiction of the top 16 playoff teams.
Personally, I find it a bit confusing. Picture heading into the last week and you are battling for 1st place, or 16 place, or whatever. In the single match up scenario, it's pretty easy to track how you are doing versus your opponent. In a mutltiple matchup scenario, you have to track how your two matches are going versus how their two matches are going. So instead of following 2 box scores out of 12, you are following 4 box scores out of 24. I get frustrated just trying to find the relevant ones as they are not highlighted or anything in Fantrax. For me, I just find that I actually track my progress a lot less because too much is happening.
That said, there would be no harm polling the league on this suggestion. For some, more is better.
The only thing I'd recommend is that if there is support for making a move to multiple matchups, that we do it on a 1-year trial basis and then discuss our experience in the off-season.
I do agree with Mr Pembroke that this type of format is much better suited to leagues with weekly moves, as opposed to daily moves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on Jan 13, 2015 16:25:40 GMT -5
sorry i'm too tired, my brain isn't working properly.
So week 1 example (which is correct):
team A vs. Team B as well as team A vs Team C
or is
Team A playing against Team B and Team C
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 16:43:41 GMT -5
A plays B
C plays D
A plays C
B plays D
Everyone has 2 separate matchups. You're final weeks record is out of 34 categories not 17 anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jan 13, 2015 16:45:59 GMT -5
A vs B
A vs C
separately
basically....making 21 "games" (weeks) into 63...82...whatever we choose
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jan 13, 2015 17:08:50 GMT -5
I personally find the idea of multiple matchups silly. Hockey teams do not play more than one team a day.
I am fairly confident that the top 16 teams are more than likely the top 16 teams using our format.
Nothing wrong with a few upsets (due to injuries or scheduling) on occasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jan 13, 2015 18:17:14 GMT -5
They do play more than 1 per week....
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jan 13, 2015 18:32:46 GMT -5
They do play more than 1 per week.... Their games dont take a week to complete. Lets compare apples to apples! |
|
