Should there be Divisions in Dynasty Football?

[evorzan]

I'm commissioner in one league, so I'll speak on that. It's a 12 team league with 3 divisions, 3 division winners make the playoffs and so does 1 wildcard that has the highest non-divisional champion record. Tiebreakers for seeding are based on head to head record followed by points for. This allows for a 14 week season followed by a week 15 semi-final and a week 16 championship.

While I like some of the things I've heard above better than this, the schedule lines up beautifully. Each team plays it's divisional foes twice each year (6 games) and every other team in the league once (8 games). It build rivalries within divisions. The guys in my league seem to like this, although several keep clamoring for something like a switch to best ball or seeding based purely on points for. My only argument against it is that a change like that would impact strategy and team construction, rewarding owners who roster boom/bust guys and somewhat penalizing guys who have a team with a solid floor. I can't see switching the bylaws so radically 4+ years into the league without scrapping our teams altogether and starting anew.

[rubber_duck]

This decision depends on what the goal of the league. If the focus of the league is to determine the best team then divisions, conferences, and playoffs are really not needed and add a lot of unneeded variability to the end results. In most leagues all teams will be able to play each other at least once (obviously not deeper leagues) and a season winner determined without the need of playoffs. There is also the argument that head to head games not be used and instead rely on total points scored. Divisions, conferences, and playoffs do help to keep more teams involved and interested throughout the fantasy season at the chance of making the playoffs. A similar argument could be made for a professional sport like MLB where each team could face every other team multiple times to determine the champion just from the regular season. There is a financial motivation in professional sports due to increased fan and media interest for playoffs.

This helps get to the crux of the discussion. There are some FF purists that are adamant the "best" team should be the league champion. Then there are those that believe FF should be a close reflection of actual NFL football. Then again, there are some of us that think fantasy football should never be forced to reflect the actual NFL game, but use the NFL to generate a new game & league.

Setting up a league with the intention of having the best team be league champion each year can drive us down a pretty logical path. First, that league should eliminate divisions, as there is no purpose to them. That league should also eliminate head-to-head games, as that introduces a great deal of randomness and "luck". A league of that sort should be based upon total points, all play record, or something of that sort. The case can even be made to eliminate playoffs, as that could result in a hot team winning the title ... but one that had not performed as well as others for the majority of the season.

If there is a lot of money on the line, then I'd be all for participating in a league like that. How frustrating would it be to clearly have the best team, but still lose $$$ because karma decided to pay me back for kicking that puppy in 1994?

For those that want to play in fantasy leagues with head-to-head match ups, we simply must accept that a great deal of randomness will result, just as it does in the NFL. We all know that the strength of a team (real or fantasy) varies greatly over the course of a season due to: scheme changes, injuries, player development, and on ... and on ... and on. The Steelers beat the Rams in week 3, the Browns lost to the Rams last week. Did they face the same team? Gurley barely saw the field against the Steelers, while the Rams crushed the Browns on the back of that same player. If the Steelers win a playoff spot over the Browns this year it could be because of WHEN they played the Rams.

Truely, to accept fantasy football with head-to-head match-ups we should embrace the idea that it is a game for fun. A game that is built on joking with friends, trying to be the smartest guy in the room, and most importantly ... drinking beer, eating pizza and drafting the best team ever.

[splendorlex]

rubber_duck, I strongly approve of your post. You framed it in a great way. You are correct that if you start trying to gear things towards making sure the best team wins, there are a lot of sacrifices you'd have to make to do so. In the end then, it all depends on what degree you want luck and randomness to play vs pure performance. I do think that in the future I would push for wild card types to go to the top non-division winners, regardless of any conference or division dividers.

[hankscorpio]

It's refreshing to see so many good posts on the subject, I expected most of them to be "I HATE DIVISIONS!!!"

Personally I prefer them because every non-divisional matchup week I'm not only rooting for my team but against my division mates. When we had no divisions it was impossible to know who to even root for or against until very late in the season. But it's certainly an added layer of luck.

[sloth8u]

i think alot of this really comes down to how you score your standings. do you use vp's or w-l record? the idea of using vp's is to ensure the best teams make the playoffs. if at the end of the year your standings have you in the playoffs, but your forced out due to a division winner "having to make it"....what was the point of using vp's? if you use w-l record then i think its fine to have division winners, since your division has simply battled it out throughout the year. this is the catch here...you assign vp's by an all play method as if there were no divisions, so why do divisions matter when the playoffs roll around?

i will point to a few leagues where so many teams are rebuilding that there really shouldnt be a playoff team from some of those divsions. i will also point to how some divisions are so much stronger than others for various reasons. those teams beat up on each other and a weak division is represented by a laughable "contender".

i hadnt seen this thread, but brought this topic up in the hof league. im curious to see how some of those guys feel about this. we use vp's there and wins are weighted pretty heavily, which im a fan of....but im interested in how that group feels about being listed as one of the top 6 teams but being on the outside looking in because their opponent played in a weaker division.

[DLF3000]

We try to balance real football and fantasy football's nuances around this:

We use two conferences/divisions (same thing for us), basically an East and West.

Who goes the playoffs is balanced between winning your division and scoring the most points.

You're automatically in if you win your division (like real football), and if you don't win your division, the next two highest scoring teams also go (which is more fantasy football-friendly in case the schedule screws you).

You play everyone in your division twice (like real football).

It's okay. I mean, one division would be fine too, but then the drama of winning a division goes away completely if we switched to that. Then it's pretty much classic rotisserie at that point, so what we have now feels like a nice balance between real football and fantasy.

[TomBobAnderson]

Like someone said, I do this for fun. I'm not going to get rich playing FF. So I prefer divisions or conferences or both. It creates rivalries and trash talk. I also sometimes decline a trade with a division rival whereas I may have accepted it if it were from a team that wasn't in my division. It's just more fun to me.

[Coogan Football]

Like someone said, I do this for fun. I'm not going to get rich playing FF. So I prefer divisions or conferences or both. It creates rivalries and trash talk. I also sometimes decline a trade with a division rival whereas I may have accepted it if it were from a team that wasn't in my division. It's just more fun to me.

100% agree!

[Cult of Dionysus]

Curious as to what structure your leagues take? Are they single-table leagues without divisions? Or do you have two or more divisions?

There's a poll below, but please also post your experience with both and what, if any, preference you have.

The basis for this poll is that members of the DLF Premium League are discussing whether or not to do away with our 4 Division / 2 Conference structure in favor of a 16-team table. That got me curious as to how many people regularly play in single-table leagues.

[ArrylT]

Personally I do not care too much, and like many things it is all about preference. I play in both, and I do not find either gives me a noticeable advantage or disadvantage. One benefit of divisions, especially in leagues with a fair size pot is giving divisional winners $ money. It is easy to say they (division winners) are most likely to win other money - but you never know what is going to happen from week to week. But everything has its pros and cons so in the end it is what the majority prefer the most.

[Jigga94]

Not a huge deal but I've always played with 2 divisions.

I like my one league how we reconfigure the divisions each season. Odd and Even. Determined by your placement in the standings/playoffs. Attempt to give some balance to the league, but it doesn't matter too much

[slaughterrt]

I kinda like having divisions. I’ve played in both and while I don’t really think it’s gives anyone an advantage either way, I guess it’s just preference.

The 16 team leagues I am in are 4 divisions of 4 teams.
The 12 team leagues are 3 divisions of 4.

I guess maybe it’s an OCD/organizational thing or something. It just looks cleaner to have several smaller groups than just one big blob of a group. Sounds kinda silly as I type it out, but that’s the best way I can describe why I like divisions.

[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.

[Elroypedro]

10 team 2 divisions. Play each team in your division 2x, each team in other division 1x. 3 week 6 team playoff with 2 byes.

12 team 4 divisions. Play each team in your division 2x, each team in other division 1x. 3 week 6 team playoff with 2 byes.

14 team no divisions. Play each team 1x. 3 week 6 team playoff with 2 byes.

16 team 4 divisions. Play each team in your division 0x, each team in other divisions 1x. 4 week 16 team playoff seeded from regular season outcome!

[Dr.Graffin]

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.

I agree a 14 team league with no divisions would be best. I play in a 3 division, 4 teams per division league and without reordering the divisions, I can foresee issues in the future with divisions getting lopsided to the point it's not competitive. Payouts go to less deserving teams simply because they play in a crap division and better scoring teams cannibalize one another as 3 of the top 5 teams are in the same division. We allow the top point scorer to get the 6th seed so that helps even things out a bit.