Should there be Divisions in Dynasty Football?

[Pet_Smith]

Never played in a league with no divisions, but would be keen to explore it. In a 12 team dynasty league, we have three divisions - and as above it's pretty imbalanced, but helps create rivalries. We mix up the divisions every 5 years - not quite at the first re-shuffle, but can't wait for it

[trc]

Only play with divisions, divisions are new every year based on W/L-ratio (best 4 i one division etc) - and I would prolly never go away from it.

The main reason being every team always has that glimmer of chance/hope for playoffs, making it worthwhile every year.

[Pullo Vision]

I play in both but I hate divisions. One league (12 teams, 3 divisions) I'm in the two best teams are in the same division, so 2 years in a row an 11-2 team who was the second highest scoring team by a large margin was the #4 seed and didnt get a bye. When you consider those top 2 teams had to play each other twice since they were in the same division , while the 8-5 #3 seed got to play the two craptastic 2 and 3 win rebuilding franchises twice each, it just exacerbates the situation.

My ideal league is 14 teams, no divisions. Everyone plays each team once. Its just neat and tidy.

The solution to this problem is ranking/seeding not based on record but Victory Points.

[problemsolver]

I play in both but I hate divisions. One league (12 teams, 3 divisions) I'm in the two best teams are in the same division, so 2 years in a row an 11-2 team who was the second highest scoring team by a large margin was the #4 seed and didnt get a bye. When you consider those top 2 teams had to play each other twice since they were in the same division , while the 8-5 #3 seed got to play the two craptastic 2 and 3 win rebuilding franchises twice each, it just exacerbates the situation.

My ideal league is 14 teams, no divisions. Everyone plays each team once. Its just neat and tidy.

The solution to this problem is ranking/seeding not based on record but Victory Points.

If you're going to do that then what do you need divisions for?

[XclickX]

I play in both but I hate divisions. One league (12 teams, 3 divisions) I'm in the two best teams are in the same division, so 2 years in a row an 11-2 team who was the second highest scoring team by a large margin was the #4 seed and didnt get a bye. When you consider those top 2 teams had to play each other twice since they were in the same division , while the 8-5 #3 seed got to play the two craptastic 2 and 3 win rebuilding franchises twice each, it just exacerbates the situation.

My ideal league is 14 teams, no divisions. Everyone plays each team once. Its just neat and tidy.

This. Love the 14 team leagues.

[hockeyBjj]

I play in all division leagues and enjoy it. Sure, once in a while things get a little lopsided or a person misses playoffs despite having a better record than one who got in on division, but that's life and also representative of real NFL and any other sports

I like that it helps to build the rivalries and increases the fun of it when there's history between the two teams/owners

[Pullo Vision]

I play in both but I hate divisions. One league (12 teams, 3 divisions) I'm in the two best teams are in the same division, so 2 years in a row an 11-2 team who was the second highest scoring team by a large margin was the #4 seed and didnt get a bye. When you consider those top 2 teams had to play each other twice since they were in the same division , while the 8-5 #3 seed got to play the two craptastic 2 and 3 win rebuilding franchises twice each, it just exacerbates the situation.

My ideal league is 14 teams, no divisions. Everyone plays each team once. Its just neat and tidy.

The solution to this problem is ranking/seeding not based on record but Victory Points.

If you're going to do that then what do you need divisions for?

After using VPs to determine who made the playoffs, you could sort playoff teams by VP and award based on that. So, the 1st and 2nd teams of division A could secure the byes based on having the most VPs, edging out the other division winners.

The record vs VP discussion is a well worn debate.

[Walter W.]

Our dynasty league uses two divisions, and they are based on geography and affiliations from various re-draft leagues we have done for nearly three decades. I think it adds to the fun, there is a bit of rivalry between the two divisions since they are from two different cities, and rivalries within the divisions because those owners have competed against each other for a long time.

Divisions also help teams who may be out of it with a single table still have a shot at a playoff spot, so it keeps more owners interested longer. I do think anything more than two divisions makes it easier for underserving teams to take away spots from better teams. Yeah, it can happen with two, but three or four really increases the likelihood.

[maxhyde]

I like no divisions especially if divisions are (part of) how playoff positions are decided.

I think the top 6 is the top six...not 4 division winners and 2 WC...almost never the top 6. Also playing "divisional opponents" more often means stronger division owners end up eating from each others bowl. in a 16 team league I would say free for all it have double headers in the starting weeks and play every team 1 time

[problemsolver]

The solution to this problem is ranking/seeding not based on record but Victory Points.

If you're going to do that then what do you need divisions for?

After using VPs to determine who made the playoffs, you could sort playoff teams by VP and award based on that. So, the 1st and 2nd teams of division A could secure the byes based on having the most VPs, edging out the other division winners.

The record vs VP discussion is a well worn debate.

I understand how VPs work. I'm just saying that if you're just going to use VPs to determine playoff seeding regardless of whether you win your division or not, then divisions are unnecessary.


Like I said before I'm in leagues that do it both ways, and its not something I would leave a league over. I just find divisions to be mostly arbitrary and never add anything to my playing experience. I've never once bragged that I won my division in any of my leagues. They do on occasion cause issues like the one I outlined above. And fir that reason I prefer leagues that don't use them.

[FiremanEd]

Play in three leagues:

12 team league with three divisions of four teams. Divisions reshuffle every two years.

28 team league with four divisions of seven teams.

30 team league with six divisions of five teams (two conferences).

Personally am a fan of divisions and the rivalries they bring. Division matchups mean extra, similar to the NFL. Find it gives a more ‘high grade feel’ to a league as well, as I simply don’t like the one clump of teams standings. That’s more of a personal thing than anything else.

[Pullo Vision]

After using VPs to determine who made the playoffs, you could sort playoff teams by VP and award based on that. So, the 1st and 2nd teams of division A could secure the byes based on having the most VPs, edging out the other division winners.

The record vs VP discussion is a well worn debate.

I understand how VPs work. I'm just saying that if you're just going to use VPs to determine playoff seeding regardless of whether you win your division or not, then divisions are unnecessary.


Like I said before I'm in leagues that do it both ways, and its not something I would leave a league over. I just find divisions to be mostly arbitrary and never add anything to my playing experience. I've never once bragged that I won my division in any of my leagues. They do on occasion cause issues like the one I outlined above. And fir that reason I prefer leagues that don't use them.

I actually was trying to show how a league could have divisions without automatically giving the byes to division winners. As others have said, divisions can create more intense rivalries than leagues with no divisions. While not "necessary" from a functional perspective, rivalries add to the league's environment.

You can change all sorts of settings to increase the relevance of divisions while still make seeding VP-based. You could have the division winners earn their buy-in back. Maybe the division-winning playoff teams automatically get their draft picks slotted right after the non-playoff teams, regardless of playoff performance.

[M-Dub]

We abandoned divisions once we discovered the beauty of double-headers. In a 12-team league, we can play a 22-game double round-robin schedule with everyone playing everyone else twice in just 11 weeks. That leaves us a full five weeks for the postseason, so we play a one-week quarterfinal with two-week semis and a two-week championship game. We actually figured out a way to increase the sample size in both the regular season and the postseason. It’s fantastic. I can’t imagine going back to the fluky one game/week format after seeing how well this has worked over the past two years.

[ArrylT]

Looks like a fair majority of owners play in leagues with divisions - probably slightly more than I had expected.

[Cult of Dionysus]

We abandoned divisions once we discovered the beauty of double-headers. In a 12-team league, we can play a 22-game double round-robin schedule with everyone playing everyone else twice in just 11 weeks. That leaves us a full five weeks for the postseason, so we play a one-week quarterfinal with two-week semis and a two-week championship game. We actually figured out a way to increase the sample size in both the regular season and the postseason. It’s fantastic. I can’t imagine going back to the fluky one game/week format after seeing how well this has worked over the past two years.

I wish more guys relayed stories like this or we're open to trying double-headers and triple-headers.