Post by saskabronco on Jun 5, 2013 17:10:54 GMT -5
So I sort of run a fantasy league with my buddies (I say sort of because if I try and make a big decision I hear so much crap from half the league that most decisions are left to a vote now) and we had a big debate last season. It has been settled now but I am curious what you guys think on the issue:
We used to do a payout of something like 75 or 80% going to the winner of the playoffs and then the rest going to second place. Most people agreed that there should be money going to someone for league results, but this is where the debate got heated... We are a head-to-head league, and some said first place in the league deserved the prize but I argued that it should be most overall points instead... Here is my logic behind it:
In regular football, head to head games are a great way to determine a winner because it requires a combination of offensive, defensive and special teams play. In head to head FFB it is offense vs offense and you have no control over what the other offense can do. Given this, a team could have the most overall points in a season, meaning his/her team performed better than any other team all year, but they were outperformed by their opponent every week (could still be 2nd best in the league every week) so they could be 0-13 to no fault of their own. By the same token, a team could be the second worst team each week but be fortunate enough to play the worst team every week and go undefeated. At that point it is 100% luck, based on match-ups so head to head doesn't mean much.
I like to keep the head to head because it is more fun and it leads into playoffs where you can win a prize for having that luck, but I have always argued that the team with the most points deserves a prize for fielding the strongest team all season.
What are your thoughts on the issue?
We used to do a payout of something like 75 or 80% going to the winner of the playoffs and then the rest going to second place. Most people agreed that there should be money going to someone for league results, but this is where the debate got heated... We are a head-to-head league, and some said first place in the league deserved the prize but I argued that it should be most overall points instead... Here is my logic behind it:
In regular football, head to head games are a great way to determine a winner because it requires a combination of offensive, defensive and special teams play. In head to head FFB it is offense vs offense and you have no control over what the other offense can do. Given this, a team could have the most overall points in a season, meaning his/her team performed better than any other team all year, but they were outperformed by their opponent every week (could still be 2nd best in the league every week) so they could be 0-13 to no fault of their own. By the same token, a team could be the second worst team each week but be fortunate enough to play the worst team every week and go undefeated. At that point it is 100% luck, based on match-ups so head to head doesn't mean much.
I like to keep the head to head because it is more fun and it leads into playoffs where you can win a prize for having that luck, but I have always argued that the team with the most points deserves a prize for fielding the strongest team all season.
What are your thoughts on the issue?