Commissioner Corner Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
Appreciate the thoughts. My friend says in their league they play head-to-head and also against the league average every week so it kind of combines the head-to-head aspect plus a vs the field kind of situation. So if say you had the 2nd highest score and played the best that week you go 1-1 on the week and by the same token if you have the 2nd worst score and beat the worst you will go 1-1 and not gain on a better team. Over the length of the season it seems this method may sort it out a bit better than a normal 13 week schedule. I like your idea but I want to avoid a Seattle Seahawk situation where a say a 6-7 division winner gets in and a 7-6 2nd place division team is out what do you think?
If your league has 10 or 12 teams, there is no way to avoid scheduling 2 games vs. some teams and 1 game vs. other teams. The only fair way to schedule is along division lines = 2 games vs. teams in your division, and 1 game vs. teams in other divisions ... but this only works if you guarantee a playoff spot for each division winner, since they have proven they are better than other teams in their division, but they are not comparable to other division winners (based on overall record) since you do not have equal round robin scheduling
Thus you either live with this solution, or you change your league to either 8 or 14 teams, since then you can use true round robin scheduling, making overall record the only thing you need (since everyone had equal opportunity to beat all other teams on the schedule). With 8 teams, you play 14 weeks (twice vs. each team) and the top 4 make playoffs (week 15 and 16). With 14 teams, you play 13 weeks (once vs. each team) and the top 6 (or 8) make playoffs (week 14, 15, and 16). In my experience, 6 team playoff is much better than 8 team playoff (so you reward the top 2 teams and minimize # of #$%$ teams, etc.)