- Thread starter
- #1
Brees#1
Well-Known Member
- 7,462
- 330
- 83
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2013
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
And again, no replies from Harold, Pride, and Treff.
So last year my team had the highest scoring team in the league. Consistency has always been my motto over burst. This unfortunately can backfire in the playoffs if too consistent as someone tends to blow up in fantasy playoffs and the biggest unpredictability is a receiver. However, Carr stunk in the game I lost because of facing Bosa, and TyWill's injury started to affect him. Who saw it coming when Cooks went off against a team who shut him down last year and after weeks where the saints were in a slump?
Now here's another point. I had third best record in the league and won all the tie-breakers. I should not have had to play the top seed. And this brings me to my proposed changes.
I am considering cutting down the divisions to 2, that way a second best team in divisions do not get screwed from being seeded lower than a lower record. Last year I beat the third seed head to head and ended up as the fifth seed. But this could only occur if I decided to cut down the playoff teams from 6 to 4. It would mean 8 people would miss the playoffs and last year 7 people were in the running week 13 for six playoff spots. One other person had one of the highest scoring teams but had bad luck. The eliminated person and myself would have won a week 14. The top two finishers in one division would have lost, but it would still put one in the playoffs. The top seed would have lost as well but he beat me both times head to head and he would end up the second seed and I would have been the wild card. What would have happened is a team better than the third seed division winner would miss out and three people with 8-6, 8-6, and 9-5 records would miss out. The third seed division winner had one of the luckiest teams all season battling injuries and ended up with the trophy making him the first two-time winner in the league. However, had he not had the third seed, he would have been fourth and had to deal with the Cooks blowup instead of myself. I would have been to the title game.
No way should I have had to play the top seed in the divisional round. This screwed my season up and robbed me of my rightful title. I can only make it where only four teams get in and there would be two divisions of six teams or maybe still have it six teams but only two divisions. I would like to go to 10 teams but have too many loyal people and don't want to cut anyone who's been good players. Therefore, I'm stuck with 12 teams.
By going four teams, it moves teams down from having to have it right three weeks in a row to two weeks in a row.
Another is the waiver rule. It's been inverse standings every year and now I'm actually considering changing that to first to last waiver claim. Some people wait until after the waiver claims on first go to pick players up. They do this to see who ends up getting dropped. I did it myself often. This rule would absolutely hurt those who waste their waiver picks on unimportant players. I did not understand this process early on but now I do.
These proposed changes are most important to me and to ensure someone deserving ends up with the title.
So last year my team had the highest scoring team in the league. Consistency has always been my motto over burst. This unfortunately can backfire in the playoffs if too consistent as someone tends to blow up in fantasy playoffs and the biggest unpredictability is a receiver. However, Carr stunk in the game I lost because of facing Bosa, and TyWill's injury started to affect him. Who saw it coming when Cooks went off against a team who shut him down last year and after weeks where the saints were in a slump?
Now here's another point. I had third best record in the league and won all the tie-breakers. I should not have had to play the top seed. And this brings me to my proposed changes.
I am considering cutting down the divisions to 2, that way a second best team in divisions do not get screwed from being seeded lower than a lower record. Last year I beat the third seed head to head and ended up as the fifth seed. But this could only occur if I decided to cut down the playoff teams from 6 to 4. It would mean 8 people would miss the playoffs and last year 7 people were in the running week 13 for six playoff spots. One other person had one of the highest scoring teams but had bad luck. The eliminated person and myself would have won a week 14. The top two finishers in one division would have lost, but it would still put one in the playoffs. The top seed would have lost as well but he beat me both times head to head and he would end up the second seed and I would have been the wild card. What would have happened is a team better than the third seed division winner would miss out and three people with 8-6, 8-6, and 9-5 records would miss out. The third seed division winner had one of the luckiest teams all season battling injuries and ended up with the trophy making him the first two-time winner in the league. However, had he not had the third seed, he would have been fourth and had to deal with the Cooks blowup instead of myself. I would have been to the title game.
No way should I have had to play the top seed in the divisional round. This screwed my season up and robbed me of my rightful title. I can only make it where only four teams get in and there would be two divisions of six teams or maybe still have it six teams but only two divisions. I would like to go to 10 teams but have too many loyal people and don't want to cut anyone who's been good players. Therefore, I'm stuck with 12 teams.
By going four teams, it moves teams down from having to have it right three weeks in a row to two weeks in a row.
Another is the waiver rule. It's been inverse standings every year and now I'm actually considering changing that to first to last waiver claim. Some people wait until after the waiver claims on first go to pick players up. They do this to see who ends up getting dropped. I did it myself often. This rule would absolutely hurt those who waste their waiver picks on unimportant players. I did not understand this process early on but now I do.
These proposed changes are most important to me and to ensure someone deserving ends up with the title.
