I'm not in favor of this for the simple fact that the reason you have a team is that only 1 member may be available each week. There might be some times where this happens, and you can't get 3 players per weekend.

yea, what Zim said. this has nothing to do with me playing 11 of 15 games this season. nothing.

I disagree on a couple of points. If you're on a team and you contribute financially, and want to play more than you are, then you discuss that within your team. Most of us should be adult enough to handle that amongst ourselves, with a few excetions, I'm sure.

Second, most of us had multiple team members because we didn't plan on playing each week. Now, you're suggesting that each member play each week? Also, if there are an odd number of teams, how do you control that the other home teams don't pick the same player, who ends up playing multiple games that week? What if every home team wants to play DN because he's DN, or if I suck really bad, then everyone who is home against my team picks me because they know I suck?

Or, if the other team picks a member, that the visiting team doesn't want to have them play, can't they just say they're not available? I don't think there's a way to control this at all.

Like I said, was just an idea I liked.

Sorry. Didn't mean it to come of sounding badly if it did.

I know there is much debate regarding the playoff games, and one game advantaes, etc.


It seems like a chip lead of 1600-1400 isn't enough, but that a 1 game lead in a 5-game series is too much, but a 7-game series would be potentially very time consuming.

So, would there be any way to make the playoff games deeper stacked, and then have a 3000-2000 chip lead, or a 2800-2200 chip lead, or something to that effect?

I know that for some special MTTS, starting chip stacks have been bumped to 2500, with standard blinds. Of course, you get into the argument that "I'm not dumping if I'm dealt a premium hand first hand" still, but, just a suggestion. This way, you'd have a definite advantage, but still allow the other team enough chips to play with to make it a match.

like Zim said in the other thread, a 5 game series with no one having a lead is only one less possible game than a 7 game series where the higher seed started off 1-0.

Best suggestion so far.

I don't know about you guys but I'm a fan of actually watching these matches even if it's not me.

Worst suggestion so far (so I'm an extremist...sue me!)

Don't take this the wrong way gents but I don't know any of you guys well enough to trust you. Y'all seem nice on the forums but I have people I've know for 10 years I don't trust!!

lindros88 literally lives 5 min. away from me so if he ever tried to fukk with me I could break his door down and beat his a$s. But I know he won't...we've been friends since university and he's helped me out many times in my poker road. I can't say that about anyone else on the forum.

The pick-the-opponent idea won't work and I'll tell you why.

1. Players will play on another guy's account.
2. Is it a default if that chosen player doesn't show?
3. If there's no default then teams will just make excuses as to why the worst player on the team can't make it.

I remember when I made the same suggestion on page one or two of this thread.

Anyhow, I give power of attorney on all my opinions to Fleung since we seem to share the same line of thought on everything league-related.

P.S. Whiskey, hippos are the essence of all that is evil in the world. They kill upwards of one person per day and must be eliminated before they destroy us all. Your avatar is a celebration of this weapon of mass destruction.

Oh yeah...you did suggest it. That's my brain damage kicking in.

Saturdays are out. Way too busy.

No way to pre-schedule way in advance with out knowing what team member will be playing. Many time we didn't decide who would play until game day.

I like the fixed game times on Sunday, with option to change. You notice how first like 8 weeks there were almost no changes to game times etc. Then in the end it seemed every other game got changed?

I like DN's $100 fee for forfeits option to get a free spot into next season.

I like increasing the number of games. That way next season we can all denegrate this season's winner as being able to win with fewer games to play.

I like ice cream

I like the idea of adding other games to the mix, Stud and Omaha

I like the idea of creating a betting system for the office pools with JesterB being the odds creator and DN bankrolling the action to create a true sports betting parlay that will make the whole experience more costly for me.




I hate forcing certain players to play, not enforcable.

I hate when you get that piece of popcorn stuck in between your tooth and gum

I hate Saturday games

I hate that I didn't make it into the finals

I hate that jester and nutz pissed away their office pool lead by getting ONE LOUSY PICK RIGHT out of 15 on the final week's pick. ONE OUT OF FIFTEEN from the two leaders of the office pool. How bad did they choke?

I hate that jayboogie doesn't like me because I made him wear a dress for 4 weeks.

I hate that I can't think of anything good to make a new secret tape about.

I hate that I gave you a great idea for a secret tape until that damn XX44466XX ruined it.

OK, here are the things I didn't like about this year, and what I feel should be changed somehow, doesn't have to be how I want it.

1. Tiebreakers. I hated the fact that someone got a higher seed and huge advantage simply because they won one more game against a conference opponent and lost one more against a non-conference opponent.

My proposed remedy: Change the schedule. 3 games against division opponents, play all conference opponents once, 4 games against other conference. That way almost all tiebreakers can be solved by Head to head.

2. Playoffs. 1 game in a 5 game series is too big of a lead IMO.

My proposed remedy: Make it a 7 game series with a 1 game advantage to the higher seeded team.

Other than that, I don't think the league needs to be changed much. It ran smoothly, with few problems.

Tiebreakers shouldn't be that hard if we follow the NFL rules which are....

DIVISION WINNERS
1. Head-to-Head
2. Division Record
3. Common Games
4. Conference Record
5. Strength of Victory
Definition: A part of the NFL's tiebreaking proceedure, strength of victory is figured by calculating the combined winning percentage of the opponents a team has beaten.
Examples: If two teams end with identical records, combine the records of the opponents in each of the team's wins and calculate the total winning percentage. The team whose opponents have the higher winning percentage wins the tiebreaker.
6. Strength of Schedule
7. One game playoff
If three or more teams in the same division finish with identical records, the following tiebreakers will be used, in this order, until a champion is determined.
1. Head-to-Head
2. Division Record
3. Common Games
4. Conference Record
5. Strength of Victory
6. Strength of Schedule
7. One game playoff
*If two clubs remain tied after a third is eliminated during any step, the tie breaker reverts to step 1 of the two-team format.

WILD-CARD
If two or more teams finish the season tied for one of the two Wild-Card berths, one of the following scenarios will apply. If the tied teams are from the same division, the divisional tie breaker above is used. If the tied teams are from different divisions, the following tiebreakers are used:
Two Teams
1. Head-to-Head
2. Conference Record
3. Common Games (minimum of four)
4. Strength of Victory
5. Strength of Schedule
6. One game playoff
Three or More Teams
*If two clubs remain tied after a third is eliminated during any step, the tie breaker reverts to step 1 of the two-team format.
Start by eliminating all but the highest ranked club in each division by using the divisional tiebreaker above. After the field has been narrowed to no more than one team from each division, the following tiebreakers are used:
1. Head-to-Head
2. Conference Record
3. Common Games (minimum of four)
4. Strength of Victory
5. Strength of Schedule
Wild-Card tie breakers are also used to determine home-field advantage.

Zimmy, my proposed tiebreakers would eliminate the need for all that and with just one more game added it wouldn't be that confusing.

My problem isn't with the fact that the tiebreakers are confusing. My problem is that it's stupid IMO for one team to have a 3 seed instead of a 1 seed because they didn't play either of the teams above them, but all 3 had an equal record, but the 3 seed team gets the 3 seed because they won one less in-conference game despite winning the same amount of games total.

My proposed schedule ensures that almost all tiebreakers would be handled by head to head. All teams that would be tied for playoff positioning would have played each other, so that head to head can be used, which is how most tiebreakers should be decided.

WAS BLIND BUT NOW I SEE

I've got an idea that hasn't been mentioned already.

Playing multiple games per week is a pain because there's so much scheduling involved.

If you want to add more games to the season why not just play more games against the same opponent when they're already there?

For example, instead of meeting someone in my division in 3 different weeks why not just play them 3 times that weekend since they're already there?

When the eff did we get ice cream?

i concur sir