 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 11/27/2018 11:38:31 AM |
 |
 |
Um...
|
|
|
|
| I'm not opposed to actual details of the trade, but isn't today after the trade deadline? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2018 11:48:31 AM |
|
|
trade deadline was sunday kickoff
|
|
|
|
| good point |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2018 11:55:23 AM |
|
|
Trade deadline
|
|
|
|
Everything I saw was that the trade deadline was midnight yesterday, not Sunday. That still means this trade may have been confirmed afterward, so if we need to void it, I won't argue. I also don't want to speak for Billy--full transparency, I proposed it rather than accepted it, so I don't know when Billy accepted, how the site handled, etc.
What I WILL argue--politely, of course!--is that the timing of the trade deadline needs to be changed. I think it's at the right part of the season--after the week 12 games, but before week 13. But the deadline should be moved until either the Tuesday after the week 12 games (so that it doesn't conflict with a Monday Night game, which is weird), or even Thursday prior to that Thursday night Week 13 game (which would allow for one more free agency period).
What does the Rules Committee think in terms of this change for 2019? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2018 1:42:58 PM |
|
|
trade was not accepted before the deadline, so legally it should be undone
|
|
|
|
| As a footnote, the deadline has historically been set for when Week 12's first game kicks off - back in the days before we had Thursday night football and men wore leather helmets. And so it's always been defined that the trade deadline is Week 12 Sunday @ 1pm. Going forward, in order to be consistent with the original vision (i.e. once Week 12 kicks off, no more trading), we can either leave it for Week 12 Sunday or we can make the deadline be Week 12 Thursday kickoff. Personally, I like the Week 12 Thursday deadline because it is clean and simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2018 3:49:42 PM |
|
|
Ok by me
|
|
|
|
| Thursday 7pmbefore week 13 starts makes sense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2018 4:23:01 PM |
|
|
before Week 12, actually
|
|
|
|
| that's been the intentional design and historical precedent since the first year. we don't want trades happening the week before the playoffs start. so once Week 12 is kicked off, the trading window closes. then there is only free agency leading into Week 13, and then free agency is closed once kickoff in Week 13 starts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2018 8:49:14 PM |
|
|
Before Week 12 makes sense to me.
|
|
|
|
| But I think the trade deadline should be on that Thursday at 7pm before the first Week 12 game rather than at some point during the weekend, when it could get confusing with games going on. Whaddya think? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/28/2018 3:42:33 PM |
|
|
Keith, what do you think about restructuring the playoffs?
|
|
|
|
| We want our commish's thoughts! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/29/2018 8:53:39 AM |
|
|
playoff seeding
|
|
|
|
As always, I so greatly appreciate everyone's thoughts and energy. This is what makes our league great.
Part of the vision for the new and ongoing divisional realignment was based on the structure where the playoff seeding and bracket approach would remain the same. This classical divisional paradigm would still be responsible for sending teams to the playoffs, even though by definition we'll have some stronger and some weaker divisions. Just like the NFL. This is the secret sauce.
I think back to the 2010 NFL Playoffs, where there was a big bruhaha over the fact that the Seattle Seahawks won their division with a 7-9 record and got the #4 seed, while the 11-5 New Orleans Saints were a #5 wildcard team and had to travel to Seattle in the first round. Boy, everyone on TV was in a kerfluffle going into that game, saying how the NFL needs to change and determine it's playoffs by overall record. Well guess what? It was one of the greatest playoff games, ever, and the Seahawks deservedly won the game.
In my opinion, having a divisional structure and playoff approach which directly mimics the NFL significantly contributes to the dramatic experience and narrative that takes place each season. If we make a radical change to the playoff seeding and ignore divisions entirely, it seems to undermine some of the other intentional structures that are in place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/29/2018 9:25:56 AM |
|
|
But divisions are still important, aren't they?
|
|
|
|
Even if we changed the seeding to be based on W-L record, divisions would still be important because the division winners, regardless of whether they are 12-1 or 5-8, are still guaranteed a playoff spot. In the event that 7-6 or 6-7 wins a certain division and guarantees a playoff spot when that exact record while NOT winning the division would not--is that not reward enough? That's a pretty significant benefit--especially when you factor in how we've reshuffled divisional configuration.
We're not talking about changing the criteria for MAKING the playoffs. In some ways, we've already done that with the new divisions (and draft order reshuffle) in the spirit of league parity. And as mentioned, the 4 division winners still get in. I'm just proposing that once those playoff teams are determined, the seeding be done based on overall body of work across the 13 weeks of the regular season.
I remember that Saints-Seahawks game, and it was indeed awesome. Not as awesome as the Matt Hasselbeck "we'll take the ball and we're gonna score" playoff game against the Packers, but still very awesome. However, the fact that it was awesome doesn't mean that the Saints should have had to play at Seattle, nor does it necessarily mean that if Seattle had played at New Orleans instead, the game wouldn't also have been awesome.
I guess I don't necessarily get the "mirror the NFL" perspective. The NFL doesn't form divisions by creating an algorithm that determines teams' overall success and then grouping them accordingly, so we're already significantly different in that way. And therefore, having a playoff structure that mimics the NFL isn't as possible anyway because the foundation is already different?
Maybe I'm in the minority on this. And given that I'm a minority myself, maybe that makes sense! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/29/2018 11:02:30 AM |
|
|
I get it, but I've gotta admit some frustration with this new direction
|
|
|
|
The goal of increased parity for the league is a good one, and I believe one that we all agree on. But this latest decision is highlighting for me some of the frustrations with this new direction. Two big questions come to mind:
1) What does parity mean to us?
2) What's more important to us - providing opportunity for parity or ensuring an outcome of parity?
For question 1, is parity defined by more diversity in playoff teams? More diversity in title teams? Is one more important than the other? Take this year as an example: We head into week 13 with a very inclusive and exciting race for 3 playoff spots AND our 2 dominant franchises are a collective 20-4. In people's minds, is this parity? Moreover, if #4 the seed beats #5 seed Koo because of home field advantage, is that a good outcome? Does that bring us closer to parity? Or if Keith beats Koo in the title game, is that a bad outcome? Does that push us farther from parity? What do people think? I'm concerned that as of right now we are not all on the same page about what "parity" means.
For question 2, I guess I'm wondering if the ends justify the means in rule-making. Rearranging the draft order feels to me like it was focused more on ensuring OPPORTUNITY than ensuring outcome, as it's designed to give better access to non-playoff teams. It's the focus on opportunity that I think makes it such a great rule. Conversely, locking in the top 4 seeds feels like it's leaning more towards ensuring OUTCOME than ensuring opportunity, because I worry it suggests that our underlying belief is that the #4 seed winning is a better outcome than the #5 team winning. And I don't think I'm convinced that a lean towards ensuring outcome is a good thing. When a rule is more focused on ensuring outcome than opportunity, I think there are probably better rules to use.
Having said that, I get where the league is coming from on all these changes - or lack thereof, in this most recent case. This road, though, doesn't feel optimal yet. At least not to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/29/2018 10:08:36 PM |
|
|
a comment on W-L and playoff seeding...
|
|
|
|
... sometimes, I think that W-L in fantasy football is transmogrified into something that exceeds its real value. I know that this may seem weird, but hear me out.
In fantasy football, we don't have a real Defense. There is nothing that we can do to impact the number of points scored against us. We have zero impact upon it (hm, jeez, my brain just exploded because I think we can invent a way to do exactly that, but that's another discussion for another day). Fantasy points gets scored against all of us and there is nothing one can do to stop it.
In the real world, the points that are scored against each NFL team are deserved points and their resulting Win or Loss is directly earned. Each NFL team's defense is literally on the physical field trying to outplay the opposing offense. That's not the case in fantasy football. We have no impact whatsover upon our opponent's output, and this is a relational nuance that is too often overlooked in the fantasy world.
The real measurement of fantasy football strength is YTD points. So why don't we simply go with that for playoff qualifications and seeding?
Burnsville has scored 947 points so far and is 5-7 because he has a ridiculous 930 points against. The Koo Dynasty has 26 more points than the Bruins but is 10-2 thanks to a suspicious 793 points against (there are rumors of hidden bribery throughout the kingdom). Is the Koo really FIVE WINS better than the Bruins? I would argue "Nay." No offense to the mighty Koo, but it's 26 points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head of Scouting
Gjallarhorn player
529 posts
 |
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/30/2018 12:03:06 AM |
|
|
This may be much to do about nothing
|
|
|
|
Then again maybe not. Since I began writing this blurb, my stance has completely changed. I believe this is a topic that deserves discussion, and discussions are great for the league and bring out innovative ideas.
Since 2007 when Ragnarok switched to the four division format the League Champion has had the best regular season record seven times, division leader 3 times, wild card once.
So I was thinking with most of the championships being won by that years dominate team would it matter if we changed the bracketing? Yes it would!
The only time that I found that the playoff bracket was "skewed" because of a wild card had a better record than a divisional winner that was seeded higher, was in 2007. In this case the Koo had a higher seed because of winning his division and the Blast had the better record, but a lower seed. Also if the playoff bracket had been reconfigured the Koo who eventually won the championship would have been eliminated in the first round, and the Blast would have made it all the way to the championship game but since the Blast didn't play that week he doesn't have a score to compare. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/30/2018 4:13:13 AM |
|
|
Playoff seeding declaration!
|
|
|
|
| What ever Zack says is the new rule. I motion for a vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/30/2018 7:32:26 AM |
|
|
Many words have been typed in this thread.
|
|
|
|
As I keep returning to it, I still feel that in the 20+ seasons, the eye test with our standings is fooling us. Two 10-2 and an 11-1 teams is making us want to make it "right" for the teams. If Splitters, Bass, and the Maulers were the double digit winners, I'm not so sure this would have even come up. I'm don't mean to point stinky fingers in a shitty way to Jeremy and Sean, they are the two most vocal, (outside of, maybe me) to discuss this. And we've only heard from half the league, some not a word. And They are two of the three double digit winners...
While there is personal interest in re-seeding based on W-L for the Koo, I'm starting to feel like that it would be a too reactive vs. proactive move. Like the points scored against (Keith), the parity for opportunity vs. outcome (Jeremy), and the comments about byes (Dave), we can't make Ragnarok a complete controlled environment. Even after the math and the realignment at the end of the season, it could roll out that next fall, the owners from Hel have the best drafts in August and the strongest rosters. Does that then mean they have the easiest schedules at that point? Historically, maybe, but if they're playing the two other teams with the most ballin players, TWICE, then I'm not sure history plays a big part in real time.
Fantasy isn't real. If the Koo has to play an extra game to win it, because the Gamblers beat him this week, he might have to win it the harder way. Dave is half right. This is much ado about SOMETHING (I'll agree it isn't nothing), but not sure we should dismantle a 20+ year bracket set up in week 12.
I think the bye weeks is what changed it for me. That's sitting in my brain heavy this morning. And as we saw last night with the NO Saints, any given Thursday...
Not even in reality can destinies be prewritten. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/30/2018 8:40:10 AM |
|
|
I'm ok with going with the majority on this, but I need to be clear...
|
|
|
|
This is NOT about me and my chances this year. It never was. And if any of you got that impression, a) I must have done a shitty job of communicating, and b) you don't know me nearly as well as I thought you did, which would be incredibly disappointing (to me, at least). I don't mean that to come across melodramatically, but I have always had the best interests of the overall league in mind and never my own personal goals.
That's why I love bringing up new ideas and concepts--whether you think they're batshit crazy or worthwhile, and whether we make any changes or not (example: 2 QBs!), I do that because I love this league and its owners.
For the record, the redesigned draft order we've implemented that rewards teams 7-12? That was my idea. If I were in it for myself, in theory no one would stand to lose more from that than me, but that wasn't my objective. And the playoff seeding issue was actually something I mentioned to Keith in an email BEFORE this season started.
I worry that part of what has made the playoff seeding--and, from a broader perspective, the division realignment and parity issue--difficult to discuss objectively is that we're making it too personal. We have specific names and teams in mind regardless of which side of the issue you come down on. And frankly, we should be better than that, and give each other more credit.
And in a way, by calling me out (no other way to really put it, whether that was intended as such or not), I think this point is being proven. Go ahead and switch the names: because if it were the Splitters, Maulers, or Bass sitting at 11-2 or 10-3 and having to play a playoff game at a 5-8,6-7,or 7-6 Dynasty team, it would absolutely be just as wrong (to me, at least) as the present situation. On the flip side, if you're NOT willing to objectively look at this situation because it's my team in question, we ain't ever getting anywhere with this.
That's getting lost in the shuffle here--seeding playoffs according to W-L is not geared toward helping specific teams. It helps EVERYONE. EQUALLY. Consider this: the way things currently are, a 2nd place team in a division--ANY division--has no shot at a first round bye. Regardless of record, or how good that division may be in a given year. Next season, it could be the Hel division that has two teams with 10+ wins. And then it would be this second place Hel team having to play a road playoff game against a team from another division with fewer wins.
Look, we don't have to change this rule. Before this season's playoffs, or ever. If that's the way the league feels, I'm totally okay with that. But if we're not going to change it, let's not change it for the right reasons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/30/2018 8:44:27 AM |
|
|
i just love everybody
|
|
|
|
>snif<
On a related note, if anyone wants to get rich Billy and I are going to Vegas to bet on football this weekend. We can place as many proxy bets as you want against the Bills. Easy money! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/30/2018 1:45:40 PM |
|
|
My .02
|
|
|
|
I don't really see the need to change things. Fantasy football has a HUGE amount of luck involved (see Keith's analysis of Sean and Zach's teams). That's just how it works. Last season, both wild card teams had better records than 2 of the division winners and not a peep was made about that. Looking back to when we switched to 4 divisions, there have only been 2 of the 11 seasons where there wasn't a wild card team that had a better record (or an equal record with more points scored) than at least one division winner.
The only difference that I see between those situations and what's being talked about now is that we're guaranteed to have a wild card team with 10+ wins this year. Does it suck for the team that ends up in that spot? In some ways yes, but at least they're in the playoffs. This wasn't an issue when it involved 8 or 7 win teams, I don't see why it's an issue just because it happens to involve a 10 win team.
The best comparison would be to look at the MLB playoffs from this past season. There were 3 teams that won 100 games this year and one of those teams (the Yankees) ended up in the wild card game. Plus, Oakland was the bottom seed in the AL with a record that would have made them the top seed in the NL. Again, that's just how it works.
No system will work perfectly, and I think the one we've been using for the past 12 years is fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/30/2018 2:16:27 PM |
|
|
Stu, thank you
|
|
|
|
| I agree with stu. Teams that make the playoffs in any sport sometimes have better records than a team that is seeded higher. That is how the divisional set up works. I congratulate Sean on his record this year. His team is really good. Unfortunately for him, Jeremy’s is better. That’s just life man. Tough nuggies. When Koo rips through the first two games of the playoffs and meets the gamblers in the championship game, the result will still be the same. Because as Jeremy has said to me before, he can’t beat Koo at anything.( Except golf). So don’t worry, everything is gonna work out as it should. Can’t wait to drop a shit ton of cash against the Bills this weekend. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/30/2018 2:37:38 PM |
|
|
OK, ok. I yield.
|
|
|
|
For the record, my line of thinking here was the fact that it involves a 10+ win team this year (irrespective of whether that happens to be my own team or not) just provided a more extreme example of the general point--that seeding should be a product of overall record rather than division championships, regardless of the # of wins, or difference in # of wins.
It sounds like the league doesn't want to change this, and I can understand that line of thinking even if I don't necessarily agree it. Back to your regularly scheduled program. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/30/2018 3:58:08 PM |
|
|
Seconding the yield
|
|
|
|
And for what it's worth, I'm the one who first brought this up not him. Please don't think this a selfish attempt by Sean to rig the playoffs in his favor - think this a selfish attempt by ME to rig the playoffs in his favor! (Kidding!!)
Like Sean, the 10-win benchmark really stood out to me and made me question the status quo of division-based seeding in a way I'd never done before. The great examples people gave showed this is not a new issue. And those examples show that many other people have felt this issue not worthy of a "fix". Moreover, given how long Stu showed this has been happening in Ragnarok, I'm clearly among those who previously felt it not worth fixing. Pretty inconsistent of me. Wish I'd done better.
I still think there's merit to seeds better reflecting wins and points. But more than that, I see the merit in the group's collective wisdom, and happily back the group's decision.
Thanks to all who weighed in.
Good luck to the Vegas gamblers! (And the Roving Gamblers...) |
|
|
|
|
|
