Just to get back on track, I'm not asking "divisions or no-divisions". I stated that there are divisions in this scenario.
If you know that the three top division records and one wild card are in the playoffs. Would it be more fair to reward a person for having more wins and playing in a tougher division or less wins in a weaker division. Basing toughness of division on the total number of wins in that division of course.
By the way I'm not trying to change anybodys mind here, I'm not that stupid. And I'm not waiting for somebody to agree with me either. I just want a t least one person to tell me honestly which is more fair, not which they prefer.
Well, Guest, the question really isn't "what's fair", and balancing the "fairness" of one playoff scenerio against the other. There are rules and parameters which define leagues, NFL or otherwise. If you have divisions, you have no choice but to use those divisions and their results to base your playoffs. I think you're confusing fair , with "most-deserving". In fantasy, as in the NFL, the most deserving and best don't always get the best playoff matchups. Overall, divisional is great in the NFL, and good in fantasy.
Last edited by TTTBone on Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-Benjamin Franklin
The most fair is the way agreed upon by the parties before the season started......if you didn't put enough thought into this senario at the beginning of the season, then flip a damn coin.
Traditionally, the only reason you have divisions is to award winners of their divisions a playoff berth, regardless of actual record. It's "fair" that you abide by the rules agreed to beforehand. All owners were aware that it's possible to have a record in the top 4 and not make the playoffs.
KingGhidra wrote:Traditionally, the only reason you have divisions is to award winners of their divisions a playoff berth, regardless of actual record. It's "fair" that you abide by the rules agreed to beforehand. All owners were aware that it's possible to have a record in the top 4 and not make the playoffs.
OK, it's clear that I will not get an answer to this question. I never said a division winner wouldn't be in the playoffs. And I never said it was a rule in any league or not.
KingGhidra wrote:Traditionally, the only reason you have divisions is to award winners of their divisions a playoff berth, regardless of actual record. It's "fair" that you abide by the rules agreed to beforehand. All owners were aware that it's possible to have a record in the top 4 and not make the playoffs.
OK, it's clear that I will not get an answer to this question. I never said a division winner wouldn't be in the playoffs. And I never said it was a rule in any league or not.
By my count, you got answers from 7 different people. I'd say that qualifies as getting an answer, just not the one you want apparently.
Anonymous wrote:By the way I'm not trying to change anybodys mind here, I'm not that stupid. And I'm not waiting for somebody to agree with me either. I just want a t least one person to tell me honestly which is more fair, not which they prefer.
ok, fair enough. the answer is, it's more "fair" if the wildcard plays the top division winner and the other two division winners play each other -- regardless of record. the reason is this: the value of winning a division is greater than the value of a good record.
for example, the world series takes one team from the AL and one team from the NL -- not the two best teams from either the AL or NL. NFL is the same way: best team from the NFC vs. best team from the AFC. a lot of amateur golf tournaments break out flights into age group or handicap and where you finish within your group will get you into the final "champions" tournament at the end of the year. this means that lots of good players can be left behind because a certain number of players need to be taken from each age group. then there are sports with qualifying heats: speedskating tournaments do stuff like take the two best times from each of three heats and put those six skaters together in the finals -- even though there might have been a third guy in the first heat with a faster time than one of the top guys in another heat.
i know some of these are really extreme examples, but the point is, the whole concept of "division" is to divide teams and players. and you play within that division to get to a higher level. that's the the whole purpose of division -- and that's why winning it is so valuable. more valuable than a team's overall record.
20 Team League | 11-3 | 5th Place
--------------------------------------------
Q: Kitna, Flutie
R: Henry, Portis, T. Jones, Rudi, Griffin, Burns
W: Chambers, Ward
T: Shockey
K: Elling
D: Bills
The simple fact is, that if the #1 seed is that good, it will beat the #4 seed anyway. And if the #3 seed is really that bad, it will lose to the #2 seed and the championship game will be the same. That is the methodology. If you changed it..... And #1 faced #3 (with a worse record), #1 still wins. If then #2 faces #4, and #2 deserves to win (because if not, #4 would have been a division winner), the championship game is the same. This is also why the NFL excludes Rd. 1 games between division opponents. But don't listen to me, I'm drunk.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Guest » Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:07 pm 
[/quote]
