FantasyFootballRocks wrote:So in another thread people were discussing which is better H2H or points only leagues. I think I know the answer to this question which is neither. An all-play record would show who is the best team that year and should be crowned champion.
H2H is bad because a person could score the second most points in the league every week, but end up losing every week because they played the top scorer that week.
Points only league is bad because a person could get a ton of points all in one week, but every other week have the worst team.
With all-play league every team goes head-to-head and so a team can get a maximum of a 11-0 record (assuming a standard 12 team league) with the worst team that week getting 11 losses. This system is the best because you need to have a team that is consistently putting up a lot of points in order to win the league. However, there is no schedule so nobody can put blame on to the schedule for their losses.
Well I guess that makes you the smartest person on the site. I personally like H2H, as I enjoy the fun of talking trash with my competitor that week. The idea of having divisions and rivalries in a league are something I really appreciate. Obviously the playoff format can reward a lesser team, but it is what it is.
Im really not sure how all-play leagues are any more accurate then a points league in determining who has the best time. I know you complained about a team "scoring all its points in one week" and winning, but isnt that the best team? The team that manages to score the most points over the course of the season. If you are an incredibly average team that just happens to fall above the points midline each week you can finish a 11 (Im doing cheap math, sue me) team all-play 6-4 or 7-3 every week. Does that make you better then a team in that same league that outscores you by 10% and finishes every week 10-0 or 9-1 with some dominant wins except for three weeks where injuries/byes left them 0-10?