With All-Play (aka Breakdown) Every team plays every other team every week, which completely eliminates the luck of the schedule. In a 10 team league, if you had the highest score of the week, you'd get 9 wins 0 losses, since you beat all 9 of the other teams. If the next week you had the lowest score of the week, you'd get 0 wins 9 losses. Your record based on these 2 weeks would be 9-9. If another team finished both weeks with the 6th highest score, their record would be 5 wins 4 losses for both weeks, for a combined record of 10-8.
This method eliminates the flaws of both one-on-one leagues, and total points leagues.
Severe exaggeration here, but if an owner racked-up 2,000 points in week 1, and never scored another point for the rest of the season, he could still win a points league, all because of that first week. That could never happen in All-Play. Also, you'd never wind-up with an owner who typically scores 150 points a game losing a playoff spot to an owner who only typically scores 100, as is often the case in traditional one-on-one head-to-head leagues.
an overall perspective...not just replying to your answer. i have no problem with the hypothetical 2000 point week 1 giving you an advantage for the remainder of the season, except that it would never happen. . i realize it's an exaggeration to make a point...but on the more realistic side of things. i play in a league in which the starting roster and scoring configurations make the 200 point game the mark of a 'great game'. we only had four 200 point game in our league over the entire season. in this league, i was in third place ( a points league) through 8 games. In week 9, i took over the lead and never looked back. I averaged 187+ ppg over than span, my closest competition, 167+. Of course, being a points league ...there were no wins and losses. My highest score in the league was 229 points, that I scored in the last game. But...there were 17 other games in which the optimum scores of the other nine teams would have given them a 200+ point game. Everyone had their chance to catch up to me...but obviously put the wrong players on the field at the wrong time. My point is this. In reality, no one is going to score so many points in one particular game that the competition for the remainder of the season is essentially...OVER. MY lowest score of the season in our league was 136, lowest score inthe league was 106. If an owner had, for instance, pulled off a 200 point game at the time of my low score, they could have made up 64 points on the day i scored 136. I ended up winning by around 250 points over 2nd place, but that score could have easily been overcome by several teams...if they'd started more productive...if not optimum lineups. I'm writing in a hurry..so I hope you can make some sense of this! lol Bottom line: i just don't see how that a huge early score for a particular team can in effect, end the competition early ...and take away the enjoyment of competition.
that "the NFL plays this way"...(h2h) means little to me. yet... i'm somewhat of a 'purist' , in that some things, i like to keep things close to 'how the NFL does it'. ( i don't like QB TDs counting 4 points...don't like PPR leagues in which you could get 10 points for 10 receptions that could be for a loss of yards, etc. ) this just isn't one of them...because when it comes down to it, who scores the most points over the season seems to be what this game should be about. of course, anyone can play any way they wish! I'm not trying to dictate how anyone should play the game. out of time....back to work, but thanks for your explanation and would be glad to chat later.