Jump to content


Possible Changes For Next Season


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#61 SAM_Hard8

SAM_Hard8

    Mr. Aniston, FCP Right Wing Whacko

  • Members
  • 29,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jennifer Aniston
  • Favorite Poker Game:NLH

Posted 08 August 2006 - 08:41 AM

View Postgilbertology, on Sunday, August 6th, 2006, 7:40 PM, said:

How about those who cannot play Saturdays have all their games scheduled for Sundays, and they notify the league of this before the season.
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.
My blog
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

QUOTE (Mercury69 @ Monday, December 20th, 2010, 5:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Aren't we all just parasites living on God's frozen turdballs anyway? Every time God takes a shit, a new galaxy is born. The Milky Way is just a bad case of diarrhea.



#62 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 08 August 2006 - 09:48 AM

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 creamI like the idea of adding other games to the mix, Stud and OmahaI 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 gumI hate Saturday gamesI hate that I didn't make it into the finalsI 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 use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#63 sloshr

sloshr

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 754 posts
  • Location:Covina, CA
  • Favorite Poker Game:mixed, esp with badugi

Posted 09 August 2006 - 05:19 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

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.

#64 zimmer4141

zimmer4141

    GO BLUE

  • Members
  • 15,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ann Arbor, MI
  • Interests:Hockey, Golf

Posted 09 August 2006 - 07:36 AM

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.
Hail To the Victors Valiant
Hail To the Conquering Heroes
Hail Hail To Michigan
The Leaders and Best

#65 Randy Reed

Randy Reed

    Words up!

  • Members
  • 7,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 09 August 2006 - 07:52 AM

View Postzimmer4141, on Wednesday, August 9th, 2006, 7:36 AM, said:

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 WINNERS1. Head-to-Head2. Division Record3. Common Games4. Conference Record5. Strength of VictoryDefinition: 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 Schedule7. One game playoffIf 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-Head2. Division Record3. Common Games4. Conference Record5. Strength of Victory6. Strength of Schedule7. 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-CARDIf 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 Teams1. Head-to-Head2. Conference Record3. Common Games (minimum of four)4. Strength of Victory5. Strength of Schedule6. One game playoffThree 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-Head2. Conference Record3. Common Games (minimum of four)4. Strength of Victory5. Strength of ScheduleWild-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.
Waiting for the winds of change
To sweep the clouds away
Waiting for the rainbow's end
To cast its gold your way
Countless ways
You pass the days

#66 zimmer4141

zimmer4141

    GO BLUE

  • Members
  • 15,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ann Arbor, MI
  • Interests:Hockey, Golf

Posted 09 August 2006 - 08:57 AM

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.
Hail To the Victors Valiant
Hail To the Conquering Heroes
Hail Hail To Michigan
The Leaders and Best

#67 fleung22

fleung22

    PokerStars Global Events Rep (PokerStars Macau)

  • Members
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver-->Toronto-->Macau

Posted 09 August 2006 - 09:48 AM

WAS BLIND BUT NOW I SEEI'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?


#68 XX44466XX

XX44466XX

    I RUFF POKAH!

  • Members
  • 3,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Home AND Office
  • Interests:Poker &amp; Boobies &amp; Ninjewtsu
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL HE

Posted 09 August 2006 - 01:27 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

I like ice cream
When the eff did we get ice cream?
"Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination."

I think Oscar Wilde was talking about poker.

It's All Fours And Sixes

#69 mcpickl

mcpickl

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,202 posts

Posted 09 August 2006 - 03:33 PM

View Postzimmer4141, on Wednesday, August 9th, 2006, 7:36 AM, said:

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.
i concur sir
"I ain't on Team Scotty...I'll tell you that. Never been. Never will be. How bout that, buddy?" Erick Lindgren




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users