OK, now that injuries are out of the way, let's get to the next topic on our hit list -- schedules/realignment.
One owner had noted that home/away schedules generated by the game were unbalanced. While each team ended up with a total of 81 home games and 81 away games, and that each team played (roughly) the same number of games against each other team in their league, the home/away splits for each team were out of whack. IOW, while a team might play another team 27 times over the course of a season, they might only have 5 home games and 22 away against that team.
To counter that, I wrote a schedule which I posted in a previous post. The schedule fixes this problem by evening out (as much as possible) the home/away splits against each team.
However, there are some in the league who favor a realignment solution -- going to three divisions with a single wild card team. I'm more than willing to discuss realignment (I'm not really in favor of it myself -- but I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea), but I'd like to get the schedule issue settled. There was also talk about keeping the current alignment, but adding interleague play to the schedule.
So, there are (at least) three possibilities:
1. Keep things as they are, with a new schedule to fix the home/away imbalance
2. Keep the current alignment, but add interleague play
3. Switch to a 3 division alignment with a single wild card
4. ... add your own proposal here...
Discuss.
Zev
I like the options Zev...
ReplyDeleteFor me I like the options in this order:
- #3, 3-divisions, it will be just like one of the leagues NL or AL in MLB. So it will not seem as odd as some people think.
- #2, Interleague, I think wee need to play everyone during the season. Play our division play more often, but add in some interleage games every season.
- #1, New schedule
I will only vote in favor of interleague play if it is really limited, as in no more than a single home-and-home series against each team in the other league (so, about 36 games a year).
ReplyDeleteThe schedule will have to be balanced, no matter what. I don't think anyone will oppose that.
I'm not too fond of the three-divisions plan.
So, my suggestion is to keep the two six-team leagues, with limited interleague play, and keep the two wild cards.
I agree with Jeremy (pause to duck flying pig and snowball originating from Hades) and am in favor of all of the options as well.
ReplyDeleteIf ranking them, I'd put the interleague and three-division options ahead of Zev's great new schedule.
But all of the choices appear to me to be clear upgrades.
I vote for #2 for the reasons expressed by Michael.
ReplyDeleteSo, interpreting the responses so far, it looks like the vote is as follows:
ReplyDelete1. Balancing number of home and away games by opponent: 4-0 in favor.
2. Adding interleague play: 2 in favor fully, 2 in favor of limited interleague play only; none opposed.
3. Realignment to three divisions: 2 in favor, 2 opposed.
I'll take 3 divisions, please. Following that a completely balanced interleague schedule.
ReplyDeleteI vote for interleague play and realignment, if for no other reason than to shake things up. If the home/away schedule issue can be fixed without too much effort, I'm for that as well but don't fell all that strongly about it so long as each team still has 81 home and 81 away games.
ReplyDeleteIf we go to a three-division layout, then re-alignment is a fun option. East, West, and Ohio divisions, anyone?
ReplyDeleteContinuing in my self-appointed role as vote tallier,
ReplyDelete1. Balancing number of home and away games by opponent: 5-0 in favor, 1 non-vote.
2. Adding interleague play: 4 in favor fully, 2 in favor of limited interleague play only; none opposed.
3. Realignment to three divisions: 4 in favor, 2 opposed.
I'd favor randomizing the divisions, myself. But I'll go with whatever works for the rest of the owners.
ReplyDelete[Only half-serious off the wall suggestion]
ReplyDeleteIf we realign, I propose a realignment draft. Teams will be given the option to select their future division based on a draft order chosen by prior year's record / inverse order of prior year's record / random chance / Zev's whims. In order, each team will get to pick the division they land in.
Think of the feuds this could create! "I pick the Western Division to prove that Owner X is an incompetent boob and I want to beat him like a (insert metaphor here)."
[/Only half-serious off the wall suggestion]
As previously implied, I am very strongly in favor of the three divisions / one wild-card plan. I see tons of advantages - no automatic reward for finishing second no matter how mediocre your record, an increase in the number of playoff races and likely in the amount of late-season tension regarding who will make the playoffs, more meaning attached to actually winning your division, and so on. It'd basically be the American League if they got rid of the DH and contracted, like, Baltimore and Kansas City (and let's face it, they should do those things ).
ReplyDeleteIf we do it, though, we'd have to have a pretty careful discussion about how the realignment will happen. Doing it randomly sounds fair, but it leads to the risk of plopping, like, Seattle, River Cities, and Los Angeles into a division with the lowest budget team and leaving that team basically hopeless for all eternity.
Just for fun, I looked at the teams from a geographical standpoint. There are three teams that are obviously "East" teams (New York, Brooklyn, Hickory), and three that are obviously "West" (Maui, Seattle, Los Angeles). The rest of the teams would roughly correspond to the center of the continent. I guess you'd assign Houston to the West and Danville to the East, leaving the Central Division as Cleveland, River Cities, Ohio, and Saskatoon.
ReplyDeleteDoes that make it six for the three divisions concept?
ReplyDeleteAs for realignment what about letting the teams choose? Make it in inverse order of finish last year so the bottom team choose, then next, and so forth. I'd go for that.
Not quite yet Nate. According to the accounting firm of Shultz, Shultz & Shultz, here are the up-to-the-minute totals
ReplyDelete1. Balancing number of home and away games by opponent: 5-0 in favor, 2 non-votes (Nate and Frank).
2. Adding interleague play: 4 in favor fully, 2 in favor of limited interleague play only (Michael and Matt), 1 non-vote (Frank), none opposed.
3. Realignment to three divisions: 5 in favor, 2 opposed (Michael and Matt).
Left to vote: Zev, Will, Brent, David, and Paul.
I'm in favor of balancing the home/away. Other than that, I'm with Michael & Matt - limited interleague only, not a big fan of the three division concept.
ReplyDeleteMy vote is for three divisions as it replicates the current major leagues. 3 division winners plus one wild card. My second choice would be to keep the divisions as is but go to the old national league schedule of 18 games (9h/9a) within division and 12 games (6h/6a) with each team in other division.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Sorry, mucked up the first count). Updated running totals:
ReplyDelete1. Balancing number of home and away games by opponent: 7-0 in favor, 2 non-votes (Nate and Frank).
2. Adding interleague play: 5 in favor fully, 3 in favor of limited interleague play only (Michael, Matt, and Paul), 1 non-vote (Frank), none opposed.
3. Realignment to three divisions: 6 in favor, 3 opposed (Michael, Matt & Paul).
Only people left to vote: Zev, Will, Brent.
In sum, balancing home-and-away games by opponent has cleared the majority vote threshold as has at least a minimal level of interleague play.
A three-division alignment needs one more vote in favor to get to seven votes.
Assuming, of course, that we're going with majority rules. It's Zev's league, so he's the ultimate authority here.
For discussion purposes in regards to a "draft" for division selection. Would last picks be more valuable than first picks? Or would middle picks be more valuable than first and last picks? Answers to questions as these might help in determining the best way to allocate order of picks. I look forward to my fellow owners thoughts as to value of picks and how to best dole them amongst ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI don't think a schoolyard-pick, in either top-down or down-up direction, would work for the three-division realignment. There's nothing stopping, say, the four or five weakest teams from sticking Seattle, Cleveland, River Cities, and Saskatoon in its own Division of Death.
ReplyDeleteWhile Groups of Death may be fun in the Olympics and World Cup, they're definitely not going to work here.
I think geographical realignment is the way to go, assuming the three-division plan passes. (I'm still opposed to it.)
Nyeh. Any plan is arbitrary and subject to abuse. And teams shift locations at a whim, it seems. David's Ohio team has been, I think, at least two other places. Heck, Michael, your team has been three! So geographic seems silly.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I should move to antarctica and be in a division of one. Hmm...
If any plan where choices are made seems to work against the commonweal then I'd favor either Zev making the call or a random distribution handled by a function in Excel or something.
Sorry it's taken me a couple days to get to this, I've had jury duty the past two days (didn't even make it into a courtroom...very, very boring).
ReplyDeleteI'm completely in favor of a balanced schedule and interleague play. I'm cautiously in favor of three divisions. I'd prefer more discussion and thinking through any implications and a final vote, though I realize we're coming toward the end of the season here.
What if we did the three-league format as a one-year test subject to another vote next offseason? If everyone hates it, we come back to the current setup. No harm, no foul.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the game's built-in feature for realigning and it's ridiculously easy to do. The only constraint appears to be that it has to be done in the offseason or the preseason.
By the way, counting Brent's "cautiously in favor" as a yes, here are the updated totals:
ReplyDelete1. Balancing number of home and away games by opponent: 8-0 in favor, 2 non-votes (Nate and Frank).
2. Adding interleague play: 6 in favor fully, 3 in favor of limited interleague play only (Michael, Matt, and Paul), 1 non-vote (Frank), none opposed.
3. Realignment to three divisions: 7 in favor, 3 opposed (Michael, Matt & Paul).
Only people left to vote: Zev and Will.
All three propositions now have majority support, regardless of Zev and Will vote.