Boards Fantasy NFL : Manually Setting the Scheduling

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