|
|
Post by Jeff - Everett AquaSox on Feb 5, 2011 16:54:57 GMT -8
How about 6 teams make the playoffs with the 2 top teams getting a 1st round bye for there outstanding season performances. And we move to a 1 week playoff..due to teams sitting players late in the season to get them healthy for the playoffs. Basically cut a week off the playoffs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff - Everett AquaSox on Feb 5, 2011 17:14:58 GMT -8
I should of clarified that the 2 top teams getting a 1st round bye would be the 2 division winners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe - Milwaukee Brewers on Feb 5, 2011 17:58:39 GMT -8
do we give a prize for division winners?
if we do then no bye.If we dont then the prize is the bye
6 making is ideal,NEED CLARITY ON TIE BREAKERS!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Feb 5, 2011 19:11:40 GMT -8
I have only one issue with having 6 teams make the playoffs is cutting the DLCS down to a 1-week battle. I am a traditionalist in this regards - I like the best of three-week format. I think with the championship money on the line, it takes away the possibility of some fluke performance, say a Jhoulys Chacin perfect game or something, deciding the championship.
We could go to a two-week championship, where the total points from the two weeks are added up, but I don't know how I feel about that scenario.
Jeff did make a good point, about the last week of the MLB season. That week being the deciding week of the DLCS can suck sometimes... as MLB teams that have clinched do rest their players.
Throw out some ideas of how we can make a 6-team playoff work - I'd love to hear them...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - N.C. Pine Tar Sluggers on Feb 5, 2011 20:58:51 GMT -8
I really like the idea of 6 teams while giving the byes to the Division Winners. Anything to makes things more competitive as the season reaches near the end.
I also like the idea of one week games. After all it matches the rest of the season.
I also see value in avoiding Week 26. Especially since this a keeper league (since dropping a top level player is not an option, you can be stuck when they decide to bench your players at the end). In addition, you don't want the Championship determined by a great week by some utility infielder who hasn't played all season.
I also have an idea for wrapping the consolation playoff into the mix. Allow the losers of the Championship 1st round an opportunity to fall back to the consolation game. I show 3 options below, but I personally like Option B.
Championship playoff
Week #23 #3 plays #6 and #4 plays #5, #1 and #2 get byes
Week #24 - Winnner #3/6 plays #2 and Winner of #4/#5 plays #1 (or give top seed chance to pick opponent?)
Week#25 (and possibly #26) - Championship
Consolation Playoff (4 options)
Option A.
Week 23 - Setup similar 6 team playoff with byes for #7 and #8.
Week 24 - 4 teams left
Week 25 (& possibly 26) - 2 teams left
OR
Option B.
Week 23 - Top 4 scoring teams of the bottom 6 and the 2 losers from 1st round of Championship make it to the 2nd round of 4. (essentially an all play week). Alternatively you could have #12 play loser of #3/#6, #11 play loser of #3/#4, #10 play #7, #9 play #8 to get 4 teams.
Week 24 - 4 teams left
Week 25 (& possibly 26) - 2 teams left
OR
Option C -
Week 23 - Setup similar 6 team playoff with byes for #7 and #8.
Week 24 - 4 teams left
Week 25 (& possibly 26) - 2 teams left
Option D - Week 23 no game in consolation
Week 24 start 8 game consolation (with 2 losers from Championship playoff)
Week 25 4 remaining teams play
Week 26 Consolation Championship
Long winded answer I know. I am thinking of adding some sort of element similar to this in Dads & Sons Fantasy Football league I run. In that league we already have a 6 team playoff and it keeps everyone in the game that much longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Feb 6, 2011 12:52:05 GMT -8
One option to make everything work would be to lessen the regular season by one week. The only issue is that this season the regular season (for fantasy purposes) is already one week shorter, because of the MLB season starting on a Thursday (Side note, the 1st game of the season is Det @ NYY) and ending on a Wednesday.
So we could make the regular season 20 weeks, give the two best teams a bye, and have 6 teams make the playoffs. I like Mike's idea of tying the first round losers into the consolation bracket. Those two teams would conceivably get a first round bye for the consolation bracket.
I'd love to get more input on this subject. I won't close the books on this one tonight (2/6) like I will others, because it has no real effect on scoring and/or draft and keepers prep.
Of course, with 6 teams making the playoffs, that means 50% of the league is in, which is more NBA-like than MLB-like. Now that we have 12 comitted owners, what would you all think of possibly expanding to 14 teams at some point? I know one of the two NC owners would take an expansion team, so theoretically we'd only need to find one new owner. Thoughts on that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Hanover Headhunters on Feb 6, 2011 13:34:15 GMT -8
I like the direction this is going - I like the idea of six teams making the playoffs, byes for the division winners, I like the idea of expansion (although that posses additional questions - redraft, etc.), I love the idea of expanding to having minor league systems (regardless of how big/small), and I like the decision to limit weekly transactions. All in all, I'm looking forward to this league continuing to progress and get better. And I'm on record as stating this is by far the best league I've ever played in. Can't wait for the season to start!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenny - Carolina Mud Cats on Feb 7, 2011 18:08:15 GMT -8
Much like Chris said earlier I'm pretty much of a tradionalist too so i'm not too much for either expanded playoffs or expansion of teams. As for expanding the playoffs it's like Chris said it would be like the NBA with half of the teams making the playoffs. If we did go to 14 teams then 6 playoff teams would be ok but then how do you line up the divisions? Unless you went to 2 divisions of 7 teams if you stayed with the 3 division system one division would only have 4 teams and the other two divisions would have 5. The you get into division parity and that opens up a whole new problem. But if we did try to expand to 14 teams, to me we would have to seriously pair down the daily lineups to keep the league from getting too diluted. 5 SP's, 6 RP's and 5 OF'ers in 14 lineups everyday would stretch the pool of competitive talent quite a bit. Also I am in favor of shortening the season by at least a week so that the league championship is not settled by reserves playing out the last week of the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Feb 8, 2011 11:16:47 GMT -8
I suppose expanding to 15 teams at some point could be an option, 3 divisions, 5 teams each. With 15 teams, and 6 teams (40%) making the playoffs, that wouldn't be so bad.
I think this might be a topic worth discussing over the summer, but for 2011 we will stick to the current set up - if only because I think this drastic a change will take a good deal of time to work out and set up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintin - Alexandria Beetles on Feb 8, 2011 19:05:32 GMT -8
I'm all for 6 teams making the play-offs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug - Tatooine Tusken-Raiders on Mar 24, 2011 21:37:30 GMT -8
I kind of like the league the way it is. Too many teams will water down the talent pool. I guess more teams would increase the prize pool.
Any thoughts of raising the buy in? Increasing the final prize and maybe the weekly high score prize.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Mar 25, 2011 10:44:19 GMT -8
I would be interested in raising the buy in if everyone was on board for that. Even bumping it to $60 would add an extra $120 to the prize pool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug - Tatooine Tusken-Raiders on Jun 6, 2011 15:23:19 GMT -8
I'd like to see a change in the playoffs to match the Major leagues playoff match ups. Normally the best record will play the wild card (just as it is in the Dennys league now). This changes if the two teams are in the same division. I believe that the change is that the best record now plays the division winner w/ the worst record and the second best record plays the wild card instead.
It is possible for the two best teams in all of the Dennys league could be in the same division and they would have to play each other in the first round of the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug - Tatooine Tusken-Raiders on Mar 24, 2012 13:50:05 GMT -8
Any thoughts on my last two posts here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintin - Alexandria Beetles on Mar 24, 2012 18:47:36 GMT -8
I'm down with 6 teams making the play-offs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Mar 25, 2012 14:00:07 GMT -8
I am all for increasing the buy-in, and I will throw that out for a vote. Being as how the draft has already taken place, the change would go into effect for 2013.
As far as the bigger issue of playoffs and expansion - I think the two go hand-in-hand. If we are going to increase to 6 teams making the playoffs then we must expand to 14 or 15 teams. Expanding to 15 would leave the divisions even, at 5 teams each. I do have 2 interested people that would take expansion teams. the next issue that would come along is tweaking the rosters. Adding 2 additional teams would in effect take 70 additional players out of an already somewhat limited free agent pool. There are definitely some easy adjustments - dropping a C, Infield slot, 2 OFs, and a couple of Ps. The bench could also be lowered to 8 players.
I'd love to get a lot more input.... let me hear it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintin - Alexandria Beetles on Mar 25, 2012 16:32:13 GMT -8
I'm not for 15 teams leagues. I am for 6 teams making the play-offs
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenny - Carolina Mud Cats on Mar 25, 2012 17:05:28 GMT -8
If we expanded to 15 team wouldn't that mean each week one team would have to have a bye week? Or would it work if each week 2 teams only played one opponent? I'm not sure if that could work or not. But as long as we could make the schedules even and pair down the rosters I think 15 teams might be a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenny - Carolina Mud Cats on Mar 25, 2012 17:49:27 GMT -8
I've been thinking about scheduling an odd number of teams and I'm not sure how that would work. It would have to be some kind of combination of some teams playing 2 games a week and some teams only playing one I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Mar 25, 2012 19:35:58 GMT -8
With two matchups each week I think the scheduling would work out ok. I haven't totally worked it out yet though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - N.C. Pine Tar Sluggers on Mar 25, 2012 20:30:48 GMT -8
Lots more issues here than just 6 teams make the playoffs.
6 teams make the playoffs - I am for it. It gives the top 2 seeds a definite advantage of a bye week. I also am not against 6 of 12 making playoffs.
Expanding beyond 12 - Not too sure. I had a lot of trouble developing a 15 team schedule for FF. Eventually it just didn't happen. You almost end up going to 16 & 4 divisions. In general though I like 12. Otherwise the team with a poor season or minimal keepers have little/no chance of coming back next season. That can quickly drain the excitement of the league.
Reducing roster size.
I am in favor of reducing pitchers. 6 RP just become burdensome and removes some strategy. You are simply waiting for closers to lose their jobe and hope you have the backup. 4 RP would be plenty.
5 SP is high. With daily lineups you can essentially be starting 8-10 different SP each week. Reducing to 4 SP would be more reasonable.
Hitters - I really like the lineup breakdown. It follows the standard & allows us to actually play with some of the prospects in the lineup. I would hate tol lose the MI or CI. I like the LF,CF,RF and U. The only hitting drop may be only a 4th OF (and not a 5th). With the SP churning that goes on, reducing the number of hitters would only more so put the points scored more in the SP favor.
Increasing the pot. I think $50 is plenty. $10 extra won't break the bank, but I am already stretching what the wife thinks should be spent. Of course, if I would win that may change. In general, though, I would vote no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 26, 2012 11:23:45 GMT -8
increase the buy in =yes
expand=no
expand playoff teams =yes
If you look at the playoffs each year there are deserving teams that have no shot because the division leader is way ahead and only 1 wild card spot ?...kinda blows...would also make the keeper and trade deasline more exciting instead of just cutting salary you would have more teams play to win
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug - Tatooine Tusken-Raiders on Mar 29, 2012 16:46:59 GMT -8
increase the buy in =yes
expand=no, I'm fine with 12 players
expand playoff teams = Not really necessary in my opinion. It does suck when the wild card and 5th place have better records than a division leader, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug - Tatooine Tusken-Raiders on Apr 2, 2012 18:36:33 GMT -8
If we increase the buy in, can we increase the high score of the week prize? I think $2 is kind of low.
One of the reasons why I want to increase the buy in, is because the site fees are pretty high, so a bunch of the buy in goes towards CBS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe - Milwaukee Brewers on Apr 5, 2012 3:32:40 GMT -8
agree that the site is too costly and we can kick it up a few dollars to make the weekly higher or disband it and add somewhere else the weekly monies?
|
|
