|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on Jan 13, 2015 18:39:02 GMT -5
Or how about we do this for playoffs only - seems to make more sense then when there is so much on the line, to ensure the real best teams make it to the next round. All that work for the whole season, only to have it end suddenly based on a single bad/unlucky matchup or schedule can certainly be frustrating.
Have it tiered to 2 matchups per Round based on seeding:
eg. Round 1
1,2 vs 15,16 (ie. 1 plays 15, 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, 2 plays 16)
3,4 vs 13,14
5,6 vs 11,12
7,8 vs 9,10
Then add up the stats and take the top 2 teams from each group of 4 to proceed to the next round.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jan 13, 2015 18:42:11 GMT -5
Or how about we do this for playoffs only - seems to make more sense then when there is so much on the line, to ensure the real best teams make it to the next round. All that work for the whole season, only to have it end suddenly based on a single bad/unlucky matchup or schedule can certainly be frustrating. Have it tiered to 2 matchups per Round based on seeding: eg. Round 1 1,2 vs 15,16 (ie. 1 plays 15, 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, 2 plays 16) 3,4 vs 13,14 5,6 vs 11,12 7,8 vs 9,10 Then add up the stats and take the top 2 teams from each group of 4 to proceed to the next round. This I could live with |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 22:31:47 GMT -5
Or how about we do this for playoffs only - seems to make more sense then when there is so much on the line, to ensure the real best teams make it to the next round. All that work for the whole season, only to have it end suddenly based on a single bad/unlucky matchup or schedule can certainly be frustrating. Have it tiered to 2 matchups per Round based on seeding: eg. Round 1 1,2 vs 15,16 (ie. 1 plays 15, 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, 2 plays 16) 3,4 vs 13,14 5,6 vs 11,12 7,8 vs 9,10 Then add up the stats and take the top 2 teams from each group of 4 to proceed to the next round.
no
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 10:19:13 GMT -5
Re-visiting this idea since there is a lot of chatter in different fantasy leagues currently regarding multiple match-ups.
The unique thing about our league is that we don't do divisional match-ups. There isn't any real regular season rivalry for frequency of GP against each other since its about 1 GP each.
Having an 82GP schedule means we could potentially have greater amounts of divisional games to create some rivalries. Not sure about that appetite for this around here, so I guess it's worth discussing to see if GMs would like to see some regular season rivalries based on frequent divisional play or not.
My initial thought was to avoid arbitrary divisional alignments. We'd set the division alignments based on last year's standings. The divisions would change yearly based on the standings. Kinda like the IIHF does with the WJC. Example: Div A has team 1,5,9,13,17,21. Div B has 2,6,10,14,18,22. and so on. So basically 4 Divs of 6 teams each. This way each team gets a fresh start every year and their is parity in each division. with 82GP we'd play out-of-division 3 GP each (54GP total) and Div games 6 GP each (30GP total). Something like this anyway. Or for increased rivalry, do out-of-division 2 GP each (36GP total) and Div games 9 GP each (45GP total).
What do GMs think about this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 10:48:28 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of divisions in fantasy sports. I do think your proposal is fair and logical, it just doesn't add any value for me.
Rivalries exist in professional sports due to geographic, cultural, social, and political reasons that can't possibly be re-created between 2 guys at a computer. Even in real life, divisions have not lead directly to rivalries.
Montreal and Buffalo have been in the same division since 1970 (minus a few years in the late 70's) and I don't think anyone would say they are rivals.
Me playing Abbotsford or Barrie 2 extra times per year isn't going to make me hate them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Mar 8, 2015 11:20:39 GMT -5
Re-visiting this idea since there is a lot of chatter in different fantasy leagues currently regarding multiple match-ups.
The unique thing about our league is that we don't do divisional match-ups. There isn't any real regular season rivalry for frequency of GP against each other since its about 1 GP each.
Having an 82GP schedule means we could potentially have greater amounts of divisional games to create some rivalries. Not sure about that appetite for this around here, so I guess it's worth discussing to see if GMs would like to see some regular season rivalries based on frequent divisional play or not.
My initial thought was to avoid arbitrary divisional alignments. We'd set the division alignments based on last year's standings. The divisions would change yearly based on the standings. Kinda like the IIHF does with the WJC. Example: Div A has team 1,5,9,13,17,21. Div B has 2,6,10,14,18,22. and so on. So basically 4 Divs of 6 teams each. This way each team gets a fresh start every year and their is parity in each division. with 82GP we'd play out-of-division 3 GP each (54GP total) and Div games 6 GP each (30GP total). Something like this anyway. Or for increased rivalry, do out-of-division 2 GP each (36GP total) and Div games 9 GP each (45GP total).
What do GMs think about this?
We can only do this if we switch to the premium paid version of Fantrax. Losing SHTOI stat might force us to switch anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by Kokanee-Rage on Mar 8, 2015 14:35:47 GMT -5
I am in 1eague where the week is split in 2 . You play 1 opponent for 3 days during week and then another for the remaining 4 days. This way if you have an injury on Monday you are not stuck the whole week with the injury. This also gets owners more active instead of setting roster for week then waiting until Sunday to set roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Mar 8, 2015 15:10:52 GMT -5
Re-visiting this idea since there is a lot of chatter in different fantasy leagues currently regarding multiple match-ups.
The unique thing about our league is that we don't do divisional match-ups. There isn't any real regular season rivalry for frequency of GP against each other since its about 1 GP each.
Having an 82GP schedule means we could potentially have greater amounts of divisional games to create some rivalries. Not sure about that appetite for this around here, so I guess it's worth discussing to see if GMs would like to see some regular season rivalries based on frequent divisional play or not.
My initial thought was to avoid arbitrary divisional alignments. We'd set the division alignments based on last year's standings. The divisions would change yearly based on the standings. Kinda like the IIHF does with the WJC. Example: Div A has team 1,5,9,13,17,21. Div B has 2,6,10,14,18,22. and so on. So basically 4 Divs of 6 teams each. This way each team gets a fresh start every year and their is parity in each division. with 82GP we'd play out-of-division 3 GP each (54GP total) and Div games 6 GP each (30GP total). Something like this anyway. Or for increased rivalry, do out-of-division 2 GP each (36GP total) and Div games 9 GP each (45GP total).
What do GMs think about this?
We can only do this if we switch to the premium paid version of Fantrax. Losing SHTOI stat might force us to switch anyways. I don't see where its a premium Matt. I checked in settings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 15:34:51 GMT -5
I am in 1eague where the week is split in 2 . You play 1 opponent for 3 days during week and then another for the remaining 4 days. This way if you have an injury on Monday you are not stuck the whole week with the injury. This also gets owners more active instead of setting roster for week then waiting until Sunday to set roster.
This is even worse, then you're wholly dependant on the schedule rather than the strength of your team. Might work in baseball with games nearly every day, but hockey scheduling is far too random week-to-week for this to be practical. Look at Boston the last 10 days: they played Friday, Saturday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. So a matchup with Monday-Wednesday gets 0 games from your Bruins players and then 3 in 4 days? |
|
|
|
Post by Kokanee-Rage on Mar 8, 2015 17:37:53 GMT -5
Even if you have strong team you are still dependant on schedule , even weaker players can get more points if they play more games .You should have a team built with several teams not with too many from 1 team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 18:11:36 GMT -5
Even if you have strong team you are still dependant on schedule , even weaker players can get more points if they play more games .You should have a team built with several teams not with too many from 1 team. That's precisely my point. What is the argument in favour of this as the way matchups work? For weekly matchups, most NHL teams are going to play 3-4 games per week pretty regularly, so the effect of more games is reduced significantly when we're talking ~50 man games per roster rather than 25. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 18:24:36 GMT -5
I like the schedule exactly as it is; if it ain't broke - don't fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Mar 8, 2015 20:41:29 GMT -5
We can only do this if we switch to the premium paid version of Fantrax. Losing SHTOI stat might force us to switch anyways. I don't see where its a premium Matt. I checked in settings. Was it a different stat then? I thought I remembered Fantrax was switching one of the stats we are using to a premium stat next season. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 20:56:49 GMT -5
SH TOI is a premium stat. I think multiple matches is free. That's what I surmise from the convo, anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Mar 9, 2015 7:20:14 GMT -5
SH TOI is a premium stat. I think multiple matches is free. That's what I surmise from the convo, anyways.
correct |
|
