Boards Fantasy NFL : Manually Setting the Scheduling

TO.

As per JaMarcusHustles would you be in favour of fixing the Scheduling to mimic the NFL and making sure if we keep the 4 Divisions in our Leagues that you get properly defined set of games:

NOTE: If the 14 team leagues win this will then become void.

So YES you want his system or NO you are happy with the current system

See his post here:

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

There’s been some discussion lately about how the divisions seem to be a bit pointless seeing as you don’t always play the people in your division due to the schedule being randomized. So rather than switch to a 16 team division, why don’t we just fix the scheduling instead? Easiest way to do this is just to copy the current conference model, except over 13 games rather than 16. Example:

6 games: 2 games vs each division rival – ideally your first 3 games and last 3 games of the season to make things interesting.

3 games: Versus those who finished in the same position in their division that you did last year, i.e. if you won your division, then you play the 3 teams who also won their divisions.

3 games: Matched up with one of the other divisions, you play the remaining team you haven’t faced above (you’ll have already faced one of them as they finished in the same position you did)

1 game: One random game against a team that doesn’t fall into your schedule above.

The best thing about this it creates a bit of divisional rivalry, and mirrors how the NFL conferences work to an extent. I think it would be far more interesting and fun. An example of this using current NFL AFC teams:



The downside is that the GMs will have to manually set the schedule, but the beauty of this is the above spreadsheet is all formula driven. So the hard work is done, all you have to is input the team names on the side and it will generate the schedule for you. As for the teams that get relegated, simply replace them with their counterparts who are getting promoted.

Would there be any support for such a system?

poldebruin

I like the idea of playing each divisional rival x 2 if we are keeping the 16 team/4 division setup. I 'm not so keen on the rest of the scheduling idea (i.e playing the team that finished in the same slot in the other divisions) as I think it is needlessly complicated.

I'm also not overly keen on the idea of keeping the divisions the same every year either as with 4 coming down and 4 coming up every year there will be a high turnover of teams anyway. Why give the additional headache of setting the teams manually. I suggest using the draft order to group the teams so you would have the people with the first 4 picks of the draft in the same division and so on.

padraig_f

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

I considered doing a similar thing for the auction league, but I found a fatal flaw with it: nfl.com doesn't allow you to guarantee division winners make the playoffs, or actually to have any control over it, bar some very broad options. Qualification for the playoffs is always done on overall record.

This actually makes a division-type scheduling worse than the random one, because it means you play everyone in your division a lot, but qualify for playoffs through overall record.

So people in tough divisions get screwed by the schedule, and people in easy divisions get an easier schedule than normal.


While you can't guarantee division winners making the playoffs, I don't see any point to creating a divsion-oriented schedule, all you're doing is creating an imbalanced schedule.

Please check the playoff qualification options to confirm this (that you can't guarantee division winners or add wildcards), but this is my understanding how it worked when I last looked at it.

TO.

poldebruin wrote: »

I like the idea of playing each divisional rival x 2 if we are keeping the 16 team/4 division setup. I 'm not so keen on the rest of the scheduling idea (i.e playing the team that finished in the same slot in the other divisions) as I think it is needlessly complicated.

I'm also not overly keen on the idea of keeping the divisions the same every year either as with 4 coming down and 4 coming up every year there will be a high turnover of teams anyway. Why give the additional headache of setting the teams manually. I suggest using the draft order to group the teams so you would have the people with the first 4 picks of the draft in the same division and so on.

I can't see us adding more options to be honest. It's already complicated as it is.

poldebruin

TO. wrote: »

I can't see us adding more options to be honest. It's already complicated as it is.

Yeah, I suppose it could turn into a huge can of worms. I don't really see the system we run with at the moment as broken to be honest. I think the whole thing came up as a team with a losing record won their division and made the playoffs ahead or teams with winning records. Personally I don't see a problem with this, and the new proposal would not prevent this from happening in the future.

TO.

poldebruin wrote: »

Yeah, I suppose it could turn into a huge can of worms. I don't really see the system we run with at the moment as broken to be honest. I think the whole thing came up as a team with a losing record won their division and made the playoffs ahead or teams with winning records. Personally I don't see a problem with this, and the new proposal would not prevent this from happening in the future.

I agree with you here 100%

Guffy

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

Don't mind the current system but like udea of division rivals twice. If you have a bad day in one game that's potentially you out of running fir division although there is no point if division winners don't qualify for play offs. Will wait on this vote I think.

BigBadRob83

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

Will there be any vote on the structure of divisions (1x16, 2x8, 4x4), or does this poll mean that we are sticking with the 4x4 regardless and just changing scheduling?

padraig_f

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

Just checking the settings there:

Schedule (NFL-Managed)

Playoffs

The NFL-Managed Playoffs include the top 4 teams from your league in a win-or-go home, single-elimination battle for the title. In the Playoffs, scoring and the head-to-head format remain the same as the regular season. Starting in Week 15, the top four teams in your league will be seeded first through fourth based on how each team finished the regular season (see tie breakers above). To start the playoffs, the matchups will be as follows:

#1 Seed vs. #4 Seed
#2 Seed vs. #3 Seed

i.e. it's just overall win-loss record, with tie-breakers.


Then in custom-league:

Schedule (Custom)

Playoffs

In Custom leagues, the League Manager has a number of different options for Fantasy Playoffs in terms of weeks and eligible teams. For the Championship brakcet, these options are as follows:

Week 15 and 16 (4 teams)
Week 14, 15 and 16 (6 teams)
Week 15, 16 and 17 (6 teams)
Week 14, 15, 16 (8 teams)
Week 15, 16 and 17 (8 teams)
Week 13, 14, 15 and 16 (10 teams)
Week 14, 15, 16 and 17 (10 teams)
Week 13, 14, 15 and 16 (12 teams)
Week 14, 15, 16 and 17 (12 teams)
No Playoffs

i.e. you can configure how many teams make the playoffs, but can't guarantee a division winner to make the playoffs or wildcards.

Tie Breakers

Custom league managers can select from three standings tiebreakers - Head-to-head record, Division record and Points For.

By default, tie breakers for final regular season standings in the case of an overall W-L-T record tie are as follows:

Head-to-Head Record (NFL-Managed Default)
Divisional Winning Percentage (if your custom league uses multiple divisions)
Points Scored For
Points Scored Against (Most Difficult Schedule)
Coin Flip

This is the only place I can see that division standings comes into it, as a tie-breaker if regular season record is the same. But the overall regular season record is still the main decider.

D3PO

padraig_f wrote: »

you can configure how many teams make the playoffs, but can't guarantee a division winner to make the playoffs or wildcards.


.

that makes no sense. division winners now are guaranteed to make the playoffs

padraig_f

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

D3PO wrote: »

that makes no sense. division winners now are guaranteed to make the playoffs

Are they? Documentation or league settings seems to make no mention of it.

TO.

padraig_f wrote: »

Are they? Documentation or league settings seems to make no mention of it.

Yup one of the teams who won their division in the Prem was ranked higher than me going into wildcard round even though I had a better record but he won his division

D3PO

padraig_f wrote: »

Are they? Documentation or league settings seems to make no mention of it.

yes they are lol

if div winners weren't then people wouldn't be even proposing a change. they are proposing a change as somebody was unhappy a div winner with a losing record got in in one of the leagues whilst they missed out with a winning record in their division to somebody else.

that was the whole basis of the argument :P

D3PO

TO. wrote: »

Yup one of the teams who won their division in the Prem was ranked higher than me going into wildcard round even though I had a better record but he won his division

didn't matter you smashed him anyway

see ya in the semis next week :P

TO.

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

Will there be any vote on the structure of divisions (1x16, 2x8, 4x4), or does this poll mean that we are sticking with the 4x4 regardless and just changing scheduling?

When I went through the Fantasy thread only one suggestion was made for 1 x 16. I could be wrong and might have missed more suggestions. We have 5 polls right now Im sure we can squeeze one more.

padraig_f

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

D3PO wrote: »

yes they are lol

if div winners weren't then people wouldn't be even proposing a change. they are proposing a change as somebody was unhappy a div winner with a losing record got in in one of the leagues whilst they missed out with a winning record in their division to somebody else.

that was the whole basis of the argument :P

Ok I wasn't in on that conversation (also you'd think the help would cover how teams qualify for the playoffs).

Anyway, in that case, I'll vote for the change.

Guffy

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

Just to point out there are two votes here. The schedule and the qualification procedure for the playoffs. People might not read comments an no know about a change to playoff qualification. I like idea of changing the schedule, however, it's pointless if it changes qualification method so that a division winner had no playoff spot.

TO.

gufc21 wrote: »

Just to point out there are two votes here. The schedule and the qualification procedure for the playoffs. People might not read comments an no know about a change to playoff qualification. I like idea of changing the schedule, however, it's pointless if it changes qualification method so that a division winner had no playoff spot.

What change to the playoff qualification? The proposal doesn't mention a change. If like the NFL it goes on head to head which is the exact same as we are using right now.

eagle eye

I gotta say that on one hand it sounds like a great idea but I think I prefer things as they are. You play 13 of the 16 teams in the league and for me that is just fine.

A system like these where you have manual scheduling is open to manipulation which is something I don't like.

I think its unfair because teams who have a much easier schedule due to a weak division are more likely to make the playoffs. The way it is now you can have three teams from one division in the playoffs, that is very unlikely to happen with this system. Basically a strong division is at a disadvantage with this system imo.

Guffy

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

TO. wrote: »

What change to the playoff qualification? The proposal doesn't mention a change. If like the NFL it goes on head to head which is the exact same as we are using right now.

It has been mentioned in comments that manually entering the schedule will result in the division winners not being guaranteed a place in the playoffs. Is that not a change to current qualification methods?

TO.

gufc21 wrote: »

It has been mentioned in comments that manually entering the schedule will result in the division winners not being guaranteed a place in the playoffs. Is that not a change to current qualification methods?

In general there are no settings for Division winners going through automatically so whether you leave it by default or change there is no option to set it. Going by that I would say the NFL just have it as a default setting. You win your division you at least got a playoff birth.

Guffy

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

So a yes vote will not change the fact that a 5-8 division winner would get 4th seed, as is currently the case, ahead of two 8-5 non division winners?

TO.

gufc21 wrote: »

So a yes vote will not change the fact that a 5-8 division winner would get 4th seed, as is currently the case, ahead of two 8-5 non division winners?

Exactly. The whole point of JMH settings is to give people the chance to gain at least a head to head against their own division winners. Make it more of a NFL feel which if we are all about the NFL feel a team with a worst NFL record can go to the playoffs ahead of a team that has a better record.

D3PO

Woooah cnage the qualification system ?? that's not part of this vote !!!

I voted for the scheduling but I AM not voting for a change to playoff qualification. If a change to a manual system means changing that then this should be known and the vote should be restarted as people like me will have unwittingly voted for something they do not want.

Guffy

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

That's grand so. Got confused when I read padraig f's post.

TO.

D3PO wrote: »

Woooah cnage the qualification system ?? that's not part of this vote !!!

I voted for the scheduling but I AM not voting for a change to playoff qualification. If a change to a manual system means changing that then this should be known and the vote should be restarted as people like me will have unwittingly voted for something they do not want.

There is no change to the qualification system. Before it is implemented we can find out if a manual change affects anything else. If it does it will be voided. I will do some research and come back to this.

D3PO

eagle eye wrote: »

I gotta say that on one hand it sounds like a great idea but I think I prefer things as they are. You play 13 of the 16 teams in the league and for me that is just fine.

A system like these where you have manual scheduling is open to manipulation which is something I don't like.

I think its unfair because teams who have a much easier schedule due to a weak division are more likely to make the playoffs. The way it is now you can have three teams from one division in the playoffs, that is very unlikely to happen with this system. Basically a strong division is at a disadvantage with this system imo.

never thought of this before voting. I mean this year 3 of us made the playoffs from my Division . In fact 3 of us are in the semis. In the new system there is a very small chance 3 of us will make it to the playoffs.

Mr. Guappa

I've gone back and forth on this one but in the end I've decided to vote to keep the current system. The proposed change skews the playoff rankings and wildcard spots towards strong teams in weak divisions, while teams in strong divisions would be penalised.

Something which I haven't seen mentioned is that the proposed system would also likely see a middle-of-the-road team in a strong division end up being relegated. As I see it the division you get becomes too important.. A projected .500 team could end up in a weak divison and end up with a 9-4 record, while the same team in a strong division could end up 4-9 and relegated.

D3PO

me too guappa unfortunately I cast my vote too early and would actually prefer to change it.

going to ping a mod to see if its possible.

eagle eye

Seeing as this looks certain to go through, may I propose that the schedules are done before the draft, if that is possible?

D3PO

eagle eye wrote: »

Seeing as this looks certain to go through, may I propose that the schedules are done before the draft, if that is possible?

why would it matter ?

matthew8

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

Voted yes because it's nice for the division lads to have a crack at each other. I remember a year I was neck and neck with someone else at the top of the division and we didn't even play once. Don't see how the division winners thing works though, at least 2 will be promoted in all but one league so it couldn't be worked and same for the bottom of the division and relegation. It works in the NFL because winning your division is a sign of a good team and it should make good matchups, in fantasy it's very much luck of the draft. I also think playing an entire other division is a bit pointless. Still though, a good division contest is good I think if we're going 4x4, though I'd probably vote for a 2x8 system. I brought this up a while back and there wasn't much response but I'd like to see the tiebreaker changed from H2H to total points. I think it's unfair for someone to miss the playoffs because they happened to play the team they're tied with the week Dez Bryant and Aaron Rodgers were on a bye.

D3PO

matthew8 wrote: »

Voted yes because it's nice for the division lads to have a crack at each other. I remember a year I was neck and neck with someone else at the top of the division and we didn't even play once. Don't see how the division winners thing works though, at least 2 will be promoted in all but one league so it couldn't be worked and same for the bottom of the division and relegation. It works in the NFL because winning your division is a sign of a good team and it should make good matchups, in fantasy it's very much luck of the draft. I also think playing an entire other division is a bit pointless. Still though, a good division contest is good I think if we're going 4x4, though I'd probably vote for a 2x8 system. I brought this up a while back and there wasn't much response but I'd like to see the tiebreaker changed from H2H to total points. I think it's unfair for someone to miss the playoffs because they happened to play the team they're tied with the week Dez Bryant and Aaron Rodgers were on a bye.

if your going to do it by points playing your division rivals twice i.e the schedule put forward loses most of its point.

the main tenant of the proposal being that you play the person twice so if you tied with somebody in your division having lost to them twice they have earned the tie breaker over you and it cant be because you were unlucky with byes.

especially as the schedule has conference games in weeks 1 to 3 and the last 3 weeks of the reg season meaning none of your players can be on byes.

BizzyC

Just one more thing on this proposed setup.

We currently get reluctant volunteers to be GM's in the first place.
Will we have people willing to take on GM roles with this setup?

This will require them to manually setup 208 fixtures after they do all the research needed to fill in the spreadsheet.

I've been a GM in the past, not a chance I'd do it in the new system.

TO.

I'm beginning to think a test run league this year would have been a better option to test this out than flying in blind.

Truly none of us know if this is going to work properly as no one has ever been in or setup a league with these custom settings before.

We also can't really confirm if it going to work properly the way we want it too and if all the settings we want will be setup correctly and if there is any change to how people make the playoffs and some rules we already have in place.

I honestly would love to see a Boards Beta league in place with 16 volunteers testing out the new system before we jump right in.

The reason i say that is because if it fooks up or something goes wrong it will affect not just one league but all of them and that is a lot of folks fantasy being ruined.

BizzyC

I think that's a good idea TO.

Whether it's a new 14 team setup or 16 teams, all of these proposed and supported changes should be tested in a league of 14/16 of the more active members of boards FF to test before rolling it out across all of the leagues at once.

We can review the feedback of the testers at the end of next season and make the changes in 2016 if they're still supported after being tested.

D3PO

yeah its probably not a bad idea TO.

Question is will the 30 people that voted for it also agree. It wouldn't really be fair to move the goalposts unless theres almost universal agreement to a pilot rather than a full roll out.

JaMarcusHustle

NO I want to keep it the way it is.

I'm happy to test it out in the Keeper League this year if need be.

Spongey1975

I voted no on this but not because i dont like the system but more because it is going to be difficult to implement. It will be reasonable for the top two divisions to implement as that is usually a straight 4 up 4 down movement in these divisions. however lower down the ladder there is significant movement, sometimes up to 12 players get promoted and when they sign up to their new division they get assigned a random division. this will have to be changed around to rank the teams in some sort of order to implement JMH's schedule

As was mentioned above in the lower leagues we get reluctant GMs, players who volunteer as long as there is little work involved. This new system may turn off people volunteering.

I actually didnt realise division players werent guaranteed to play each other and that was where this discussion started from. In fact in the PREM this year 3 of us from same division finished 9-4 and all qualified for the playoffs but as it turned out i didnt play one of the other teams and maybe if i had that would have pushed one of us down to 8-5 and brought someone else into play in the wild card race

If its a case that people just want to guarantee division players play each other once then maybe those matches can be scheduled and the rest can be randomised (less work in this option i think). Same with if people wanted division players to play each other twice.

D3PO

Spongey1975 wrote: »

I voted no on this but not because i dont like the system but more because it is going to be difficult to implement. It will be reasonable for the top two divisions to implement as that is usually a straight 4 up 4 down movement in these divisions. however lower down the ladder there is significant movement, sometimes up to 12 players get promoted and when they sign up to their new division they get assigned a random division. this will have to be changed around to rank the teams in some sort of order to implement JMH's schedule

As was mentioned above in the lower leagues we get reluctant GMs, players who volunteer as long as there is little work involved. This new system may turn off people volunteering.

I actually didnt realise division players werent guaranteed to play each other and that was where this discussion started from. In fact in the PREM this year 3 of us from same division finished 9-4 and all qualified for the playoffs but as it turned out i didnt play one of the other teams and maybe if i had that would have pushed one of us down to 8-5 and brought someone else into play in the wild card race

If its a case that people just want to guarantee division players play each other once then maybe those matches can be scheduled and the rest can be randomised (less work in this option i think). Same with if people wanted division players to play each other twice.

I voted yes but the more I think about it the more I should have voted no. Like you said 3 of us finished 9-4 in our division this year and all 3 of us are actually into the Playoff semis.

The new system of us all playing each other twice would have penalised one or possibly two of us for being in such a strong division and meant that weaker teams may have made the playoffs at the expense of stronger teams.

TO.

I also voted yes but I should have held off because the more I thought about the more I am not sure about it until I see how it pans out. As I said I think I would rather see a test league to make sure it doesn't ruin the ones we have now. It is a big change as we are delving completely into the unknown of custom settings.

D3PO

TO. wrote: »

I also voted yes but I should have held off because the more I thought about the more I am not sure about it until I see how it pans out. As I said I think I would rather see a test league to make sure it doesn't ruin the ones we have now. It is a big change as we are delving completely into the unknown of custom settings.

maybe once the vote ends the people who voted for the change can be invited to vote on weather to run it as a pilot or not. I think your able to see who voted what way right so would be able to allow those who decided on the change to decide weather to try it as a test or a full roll out immediatly ?

Spongey1975

I have a template done for the fixtures that JMH has outlined at the beginning of the thread with one small adjustment. I've taken the random fixture out of the equation in week 10 and basically put a first place playing a second place from an other division and a third place playing a fourth place from an other division. The division you play against will rotate every year.

I can do a schedule for all divisions so as to reduce the work needed by GMs as long as i know where each team lines up in the league. I do think however that divisions need to be set up in the order they finish the previous year. Some promoted people may be positioned randomly as a number 1 or 2 in their division and that could give them a tougher schedule than others promoted. If were to position the players in the order of the list i post of the players playing each year in a snake format as follows

Div A - 1,8,9,16
Div B - 2,7,10,15
Div C - 3,6,11,14
Div D - 4,5,12,13

I think its a fairer setup and also varies who everyone plays against from year to year