Divisions/Conferences

[Tim]

How do you want the standings to be kept? Should divisions or conferences be used? Some ideas off of the top of my head:

Conference - 8 teams
Conference - 8 teams

or

Division - 4 teams
Division - 4 teams
Division - 4 teams
Division - 4 teams


Those are just the first ideas to come to my head. Please share any ideas that you have for this. Also if you are in favor of using divisions or conferences, how do you want the standings to be determined? (Every division leader get one of the top 4 spots?)

[Tim]

Personally, I like the idea of having two conferences. It would be just like how the nhl is right now, except no division leaders obviously.

I was thinking about using divisions in one of my leagues this year, but I was worried someone wouldn't make the playoffs just because they were in the best division. (Reminds me of the Western Conference vs. the Eastern Conference in most years) Anyways, recently I thought of a possible solution to this problem. Maybe after the draft every team could rank all the teams in the league and Idbc (should be back by then) or myself could average them out and figure out rankings. The conferences would then be split evenly. Something like:

Conference 1: Team 1, Team 4, Team 5, Team 8, Team 9, Team 12, Team 13, Team 16
Conference 2: Team 2, Team 3, Team 6, Team 7, Team 10, Team 11, Team 14, Team 15

I'm pretty interested in hearing what people have to say about this topic.

[Rocketman9]

I have a fair amount to say on this. I am in a league that has 2 conferences. However, they really mean nothing as you play everyone the same amount and there is no focus on interconference play and the standings aren't reflective of having seeding if you are a conference leader. If we split this up, I would say 2 conferences is easiest with the conference leaders getting in. Top 8 makes it to the playoffs and the seeding goes based on standings after that. Is there a way to make it so it is more inter-conference play? 4 divisions makes it too convoluted I think.

[Tim]

I have a fair amount to say on this. I am in a league that has 2 conferences. However, they really mean nothing as you play everyone the same amount and there is no focus on interconference play and the standings aren't reflective of having seeding if you are a conference leader. If we split this up, I would say 2 conferences is easiest with the conference leaders getting in. Top 8 makes it to the playoffs and the seeding goes based on standings after that. Is there a way to make it so it is more inter-conference play? 4 divisions makes it too convoluted I think.

I pretty much agree with this. And yeah I would really like to see the conferences have meaning. I'm not sure if you can change the schedule and stuff or rearrange the seeding. Does anyone know if this is possible?

[internalprime8]

I'd rather just not use divisions/conferences. There's no geography to account for in Fantasy hockey and you don't end up playing divisional teams any more than not so it just creates oddities in the playoffs that aren't fair.

[Rocketman9]

I'd rather just not use divisions/conferences. There's no geography to account for in Fantasy hockey and you don't end up playing divisional teams any more than not so it just creates oddities in the playoffs that aren't fair.

This is also a valid point. I think if we are going to have conferences they should have meaning. But I also agree that it does create a certain degree of parity. In the 18 team league I am in, 6 of the top 8 teams are in my division and the other division sucks. If the schedule was manipulated to suit each conference, then the better teams would not seem as good as they would be playing better teams more often and the exact opposite would happen in the other division / conference. This would make it so better teams may not make the playoffs. Also, as we have seen this year, it is impossible to predict how each team will do.

[flubber]

There's no geography to account for in Fantasy hockey and you don't end up playing divisional teams any more than not so it just creates oddities in the playoffs that aren't fair.

THIS

One big league is fairest unless you want to unbalance the schedule. Although we will all play a different schedule in that we , in the normal course, would play 9 teams once and 6 teams twice in a 21 week schedule. Most leagues just have yahoo randomize the opponents and no one really notices except at year end some guy may see that he played all the top teams twice.

The only benefit I see to unbalancing the schedule is the potential for creating rivalries, acknowledging that it has the the potential for screwing somebody. A good team could be with the top teams and miss the playoffs as a result. If everyone is on board with that I would play it-- For example yahoo shows this season as having 21 weeks with 3 weeks for playoffs-- If people wanted you could force the schedule so that you played everyone outside your division once -- 1 times 12 and then played your division rivals 3 times-- That exactly 21 weeks total -- You could even force the schedule so that you had division matchups the first 3 weeks and last 6 weeks and had the rest of the league in weeks 4-15- There's lots you can do -- Playing three opponents thrice should definitely build rivalries ect etc-- Playoffs could be top two from each division-- no byes

So I see ways it could be done if people wanted-- Placement in divisions should be random -- probably based on draft order-- we don't know that before the draft so we could say draft slots 1,8,9 16 are Div A , 2,7,10 and 15 are B etc etc ((teams name their division ??) or we could just have a random number generator spit out the numbers from 1-16 and take the results


personally I dont care-- As I explore it in my stream of consciousness above, I would really be intrigued by a 4 division setup with intense divisional play but I always thought of the league as one big 16 team league with no divisions


So will happily play either way-- No divisions is easier, simpler and more traditional-- True divisions require a few more decisions and some people may strongly object but it could be intriguing. All I ask is that we avoid meaningless divisions .

[flubber]

I have a fair amount to say on this. I am in a league that has 2 conferences. However, they really mean nothing as you play everyone the same amount and there is no focus on interconference play and the standings aren't reflective of having seeding if you are a conference leader. If we split this up, I would say 2 conferences is easiest with the conference leaders getting in. Top 8 makes it to the playoffs and the seeding goes based on standings after that. Is there a way to make it so it is more inter-conference play? 4 divisions makes it too convoluted I think.

I have worked on the assumption that people would want it to be that everyone played everyone once-- With a 21 week regular schedule that east up 15 games-- In my 4 division scenario it balances in that you could play your 3 divisional rivals twice more each-- In two conferences of 8, if you played everyone once you could play 6 of 7 conference rivals a second time in a 21 week schedule. It could be done-- Obviously if we don't require that everyone plays everyone once you could do all sorts of things

Heck you could have no inter-conference play at all and the season would be playing your conference 3 times each with top 4 playing the other side in crossover playoffs (it would be like the world junior)-- So the first time the conferences play each other is in the playoffs -- hmmmm???

I wonder would trading with the other conference be more or less inhibited?

Just trying to brainstorm here folks

[flubber]

Anyways, recently I thought of a possible solution to this problem. Maybe after the draft every team could rank all the teams in the league and Idbc (should be back by then) or myself could average them out and figure out rankings. The conferences would then be split evenly. Something like:

Conference 1: Team 1, Team 4, Team 5, Team 8, Team 9, Team 12, Team 13, Team 16
Conference 2: Team 2, Team 3, Team 6, Team 7, Team 10, Team 11, Team 14, Team 15

I'm pretty interested in hearing what people have to say about this topic.

I am against this-- I am ambivalent on divisions generally but if we have them then then should be randomly selected IMHO. Its simpler faster and "fairer"-- Not that winning the league after everyone ranks me 15th wouldn't be a hoot LOL.

[Tim]

I have worked on the assumption that people would want it to be that everyone played everyone once-- With a 21 week regular schedule that east up 15 games-- In my 4 division scenario it balances in that you could play your 3 divisional rivals twice more each-- In two conferences of 8, if you played everyone once you could play 6 of 7 conference rivals a second time in a 21 week schedule. It could be done-- Obviously if we don't require that everyone plays everyone once you could do all sorts of things

Heck you could have no inter-conference play at all and the season would be playing your conference 3 times each with top 4 playing the other side in crossover playoffs (it would be like the world junior)-- So the first time the conferences play each other is in the playoffs -- hmmmm???

I wonder would trading with the other conference be more or less inhibited?

Just trying to brainstorm here folks

This seems like a really interesting idea. I'm really not sure what my vote would be for right now, though. So many possible ways to do it.