Fantasy Cutthroat 2014 - Discussion
- Thread starter Exe Gesis
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,054
- 94,913
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #1,652
It'll be interesting to see what he comes up with. He'll find that indeed the way ive done it is the 'best possible' system.
nobbyiscool
Cancelled
WWE Board
Goosed
Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match
Tasmanian Team
NFL Fantasy Comp Champion
Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
- Aug 11, 2006
- 21,110
- 23,512
arakaan I didn't spend half an hour doing this because you thought I should.
In hindsight, it was the post from GG which has me regretting the stupid amount of time I spent on this.
I'll ignore the first 2 games because they're more about your drafting because injuries and byes haven't hit yet - so I think luck is very minimal at this point of the season. It's more about your drafting skill.
I'll also say that, going into the season, I thought 9 wins would be enough to make the playoffs in a 12 team league. (I'd never played in 12 team before - I've only ever played 8 & 10)
Obviously I didn't plan the season out - I was planning about 2 weeks out while also being mindful of future byes. But I knew I could afford at least 4, probably 5 losses.
Week 3 - expected loss. My luckiest win of the year, despite what you think. I kept Davis (who wasn't yet a season bust) as a 0 here expecting to lose and was rescued by Kyle Fuller.
Week 4 - expected win. It was disgraceful navigation, no doubt - but not for the reason you think. There's a couple of things at play here. Firstly, you can't say that my week 2 win was down to luck and my week 4 loss was down to being s**t when both results were decided largely by injuries; secondly, as I keep telling you - I knew my opponents score would be low so was doing just enough to get the W. The only reason I didn't win? I got held up at work on the Tuesday morning and wasn't able to drop Wagner for a Tuesday night replacement, who was going to be Houston.
But this is a good example of what I'm talking about - had I played Houston I would've won with about 85 points (from memory). It's still a crap score by your standards - by my standards the actual number of points I scored is completely irrelevant. I'd have played the match up to perfection doing as little as I had to in order to win, without having to make early-season roster changes
Week 5 - expected win. This wasn't just another fair win - this was one of the wins that I calculated for and I took risks to make sure it happened. If you think back, waiting it out on Wagner and picking up an already beat up Ellington were down to good management and an early calculated risk.
Week 6 - expected loss. If I thought I was going to win I wouldn't have given Patterson another chance cos he'd been s**t, nor would I have kept Davis because he'd been under an injury cloud. As an aside though, it's interesting that, once again, my wins are due to my opponents injuries, but my losses are due to s**t management - 2 of my defenders went down to season ending injuries having had good starts to the season.
Week 7 - expected loss. I was up against Foster, Manning and Harrison Smith; I had McCoy on a bye, so at no point considered replacing him. I picked up Cutler despite his terrible match up (the Dolphins D was good even back then), and again I kept Davis despite his ongoing injuries.
Week 8 - expected win. Had good match ups and was up against a team worse than me. I finally got rid of Davis, and I switched Cutler and Foles again because Cutler reminded me the week before exactly why I don't want him in my team.
In fact the Cutler example is good one of the point I'm making - if this game was about total points and not about win losses, you would invest a lot more risk and engage in a lot more match-up playing with "feast or famine" players like Cutler, who will get you anywhere from 1 point to 30 points; as opposed to a guy like Foles who I went into the season thinking was good for 15-20 points each week.
Week 9 - expected win. This week is why I know you don't understand what I'm talking about. You said "You play against somebody with 5 players on bye to your 1 and win with and average score. Congrats on that lack of luck and great management. KOTD win." My point is that yes - I was playing someone with bye trouble.. which is exactly why I didn't need to make any moves to win by more.
So despite the fact that I scored 120 points, it doesn't mean my team is luckier than the team that lost with 130 points. I played the match up and did enough to win - maybe the other hypothetical team dropped 2 excellent players to try and win and lost. Who is the better manager? (I didn't even expect to score that much - Quinn and Ellington had good games. But even if they'd only had average games I did enough to win - which is my strategy.)
Week 10 - expected win. The luck in this game wasn't mine, but my opponents - once again, I did what I thought was enough to win, no more. My opponent actually got much closer than he should've this week as Megatron scored his first serious points in 2 months and because Marshall tore it up in junk time at the end of a result against Green Bay that no one could've predicted... and I lost out on McLain with an excellent match up after all the advice I'd read on Sunday night indicated he was playing.
Week 11 - expected win. Kept Wilkerson (bye) and Sanu (rubbish) because - and I'm repeating myself now to get it through your stupid head - I was doing enough to win. My opponent had byes, I didn't need to do any more.
Of course the season hasn't gone exactly as I planned - I hoped/expected to be 3 and 1 after week 4. But since then it's gone pretty much as planned (albeit some closer games than I'd have liked).
Can you understand what I'm talking about now?
Whoever scores the highest points is not the best manager. Because if that's how this competition was being decided I'd be making a LOT more changes, streaming a LOT more boom or bust players favourable match ups, and I'd be trying to get a better weekly score.
But I don't need to, because that's not what fantasy football is.
Your "kissed on the dick comments" are ignorant, stupid, and most of all, completely wrong. From week 5 onwards my own thought processes and management contributed to every single one of my games, and because this is fantasy football where the winner is the guy that wins the final, your point score from week to week is largely irrelevant.
Which is really why the 2 spot bump in the power rankings got me ranting - because I've busted my arse and know I've managed this season friggen well... for no recognition whatsoever from these so-called "power" rankings.
So having gone to all that effort and spending half an hour on it, that's all I'll say about it, because...
...responses such as this demonstrate that you're the type that has to have the last word in any argument/debate, regardless of how insipid your response is. So I fully expect to get something equally as stupid and patronising.
As I said GG, the more I re-read my posts, my problem isn't the rankings. My first problem is with calling them a Power Ranking, especially in light of your explanation of them.
In US sports a power ranking is someones estimate at who is the best team.The power ranking isn't a "best team".
My second problem was with you writing off Shermy's results as luck, just as Arakan did to me. If he's thought about this and considered his management as much as I have - your comment was actually really disrespectful to him.
I'll have a crack at an alternative though - but please don't be too hard, I've only thought of this as I wrote this post.
Obviously it's an impossible task to come up with an alternate idea without bothering to go through some different scenarios (which, after the rest of this post, I'm not prepared to do) - but my initial response is simply to include win/loss in the calculations, and probably with a slightly higher contribution than the other factors. Maybe 40% contribution for the W/L, 30% for total points scored and 30% for teams you would've beat.
I'm sure it's not perfect, I'm sure there are holes in it - but I doubt it's as glaring a hole as a system that interprets anyone who is playing their match up and playing for the last 4 weeks as "luck".
In hindsight, it was the post from GG which has me regretting the stupid amount of time I spent on this.
I'll ignore the first 2 games because they're more about your drafting because injuries and byes haven't hit yet - so I think luck is very minimal at this point of the season. It's more about your drafting skill.
I'll also say that, going into the season, I thought 9 wins would be enough to make the playoffs in a 12 team league. (I'd never played in 12 team before - I've only ever played 8 & 10)
Obviously I didn't plan the season out - I was planning about 2 weeks out while also being mindful of future byes. But I knew I could afford at least 4, probably 5 losses.
Week 3 - expected loss. My luckiest win of the year, despite what you think. I kept Davis (who wasn't yet a season bust) as a 0 here expecting to lose and was rescued by Kyle Fuller.
Week 4 - expected win. It was disgraceful navigation, no doubt - but not for the reason you think. There's a couple of things at play here. Firstly, you can't say that my week 2 win was down to luck and my week 4 loss was down to being s**t when both results were decided largely by injuries; secondly, as I keep telling you - I knew my opponents score would be low so was doing just enough to get the W. The only reason I didn't win? I got held up at work on the Tuesday morning and wasn't able to drop Wagner for a Tuesday night replacement, who was going to be Houston.
But this is a good example of what I'm talking about - had I played Houston I would've won with about 85 points (from memory). It's still a crap score by your standards - by my standards the actual number of points I scored is completely irrelevant. I'd have played the match up to perfection doing as little as I had to in order to win, without having to make early-season roster changes
Week 5 - expected win. This wasn't just another fair win - this was one of the wins that I calculated for and I took risks to make sure it happened. If you think back, waiting it out on Wagner and picking up an already beat up Ellington were down to good management and an early calculated risk.
Week 6 - expected loss. If I thought I was going to win I wouldn't have given Patterson another chance cos he'd been s**t, nor would I have kept Davis because he'd been under an injury cloud. As an aside though, it's interesting that, once again, my wins are due to my opponents injuries, but my losses are due to s**t management - 2 of my defenders went down to season ending injuries having had good starts to the season.
Week 7 - expected loss. I was up against Foster, Manning and Harrison Smith; I had McCoy on a bye, so at no point considered replacing him. I picked up Cutler despite his terrible match up (the Dolphins D was good even back then), and again I kept Davis despite his ongoing injuries.
Week 8 - expected win. Had good match ups and was up against a team worse than me. I finally got rid of Davis, and I switched Cutler and Foles again because Cutler reminded me the week before exactly why I don't want him in my team.
In fact the Cutler example is good one of the point I'm making - if this game was about total points and not about win losses, you would invest a lot more risk and engage in a lot more match-up playing with "feast or famine" players like Cutler, who will get you anywhere from 1 point to 30 points; as opposed to a guy like Foles who I went into the season thinking was good for 15-20 points each week.
Week 9 - expected win. This week is why I know you don't understand what I'm talking about. You said "You play against somebody with 5 players on bye to your 1 and win with and average score. Congrats on that lack of luck and great management. KOTD win." My point is that yes - I was playing someone with bye trouble.. which is exactly why I didn't need to make any moves to win by more.
So despite the fact that I scored 120 points, it doesn't mean my team is luckier than the team that lost with 130 points. I played the match up and did enough to win - maybe the other hypothetical team dropped 2 excellent players to try and win and lost. Who is the better manager? (I didn't even expect to score that much - Quinn and Ellington had good games. But even if they'd only had average games I did enough to win - which is my strategy.)
Week 10 - expected win. The luck in this game wasn't mine, but my opponents - once again, I did what I thought was enough to win, no more. My opponent actually got much closer than he should've this week as Megatron scored his first serious points in 2 months and because Marshall tore it up in junk time at the end of a result against Green Bay that no one could've predicted... and I lost out on McLain with an excellent match up after all the advice I'd read on Sunday night indicated he was playing.
Week 11 - expected win. Kept Wilkerson (bye) and Sanu (rubbish) because - and I'm repeating myself now to get it through your stupid head - I was doing enough to win. My opponent had byes, I didn't need to do any more.
Of course the season hasn't gone exactly as I planned - I hoped/expected to be 3 and 1 after week 4. But since then it's gone pretty much as planned (albeit some closer games than I'd have liked).
Can you understand what I'm talking about now?
Whoever scores the highest points is not the best manager. Because if that's how this competition was being decided I'd be making a LOT more changes, streaming a LOT more boom or bust players favourable match ups, and I'd be trying to get a better weekly score.
But I don't need to, because that's not what fantasy football is.
Your "kissed on the dick comments" are ignorant, stupid, and most of all, completely wrong. From week 5 onwards my own thought processes and management contributed to every single one of my games, and because this is fantasy football where the winner is the guy that wins the final, your point score from week to week is largely irrelevant.
Which is really why the 2 spot bump in the power rankings got me ranting - because I've busted my arse and know I've managed this season friggen well... for no recognition whatsoever from these so-called "power" rankings.
So having gone to all that effort and spending half an hour on it, that's all I'll say about it, because...
Nothing to Understand. You have been KOTD. Nothing more, Nothing less.
You cannot even dispute the facts and that is the reality.
...responses such as this demonstrate that you're the type that has to have the last word in any argument/debate, regardless of how insipid your response is. So I fully expect to get something equally as stupid and patronising.
As I said GG, the more I re-read my posts, my problem isn't the rankings. My first problem is with calling them a Power Ranking, especially in light of your explanation of them.
In US sports a power ranking is someones estimate at who is the best team.The power ranking isn't a "best team".
My second problem was with you writing off Shermy's results as luck, just as Arakan did to me. If he's thought about this and considered his management as much as I have - your comment was actually really disrespectful to him.
I'll have a crack at an alternative though - but please don't be too hard, I've only thought of this as I wrote this post.
Obviously it's an impossible task to come up with an alternate idea without bothering to go through some different scenarios (which, after the rest of this post, I'm not prepared to do) - but my initial response is simply to include win/loss in the calculations, and probably with a slightly higher contribution than the other factors. Maybe 40% contribution for the W/L, 30% for total points scored and 30% for teams you would've beat.
I'm sure it's not perfect, I'm sure there are holes in it - but I doubt it's as glaring a hole as a system that interprets anyone who is playing their match up and playing for the last 4 weeks as "luck".
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,054
- 94,913
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #1,654
nobbyiscool
one major problem with coming up with an alternative method is spare time. I work from pretty much 8am to 9pm 5 days a week. I have to run fantasy comps, participate in them, participate in AE, whilst also manually managing multiple spreadsheets i do for fantasy and AE. Whilst also trying to fit in life itself away from a computer.
So, basically, it's all manually done. If there was an in-built 'power ranking' in ESPN, it would use the exact same system im using....except it would be able to calculate things like "should've won" "could've lost" aspects. I can't manually do all that. Too much for me. MyFantasyLeague site does have a very good Power Ranking in-built, but not ESPN.
If I were able to manually do it....i guess a better ingredient than Points For would be average points per active starter, tho that would still not factor in injuries that happen during a game.
It comes full circle to "best possible" system. There really is no better determiner of how good a team is than All-Play. It's still reliant on points for scored in a week. Even tho CT format is unique and complicated due to strategy, still the fundamental of fantasy is how much you score in a week, or how many league opponents you would've beaten with a different schedule (All-play).
Power Rankings is not perfect, but it's there to illustrate. To give some insight into how people compare across the various leagues. To tear down the over-simplistic W-L percentage and REVEAL who has been more CONSISTENT.
Power in 'Power Rankings' is just a word, not a word to get all upset about. Actual NFL Power Rankings are just based on someone's opinion anyway. There's no real formula being used. They just look at W-L record and opine a ranking based on observations.
And even ranking systems used by NFL stat sites, to rank top Ds, and Os, and Run D's vs Pass D's etc...they always still use stats in different formulas, or different weights used in the formulas than other formulas used....there's no real single perfect formula/system because whenever you're working with stats and formulas there are always multiple other factors that you can't truly quantify into numbers. For example, things like QB Rating or Total QB Rating that ESPN uses. You always still get imperfections or holes in the logic.
one major problem with coming up with an alternative method is spare time. I work from pretty much 8am to 9pm 5 days a week. I have to run fantasy comps, participate in them, participate in AE, whilst also manually managing multiple spreadsheets i do for fantasy and AE. Whilst also trying to fit in life itself away from a computer.
So, basically, it's all manually done. If there was an in-built 'power ranking' in ESPN, it would use the exact same system im using....except it would be able to calculate things like "should've won" "could've lost" aspects. I can't manually do all that. Too much for me. MyFantasyLeague site does have a very good Power Ranking in-built, but not ESPN.
If I were able to manually do it....i guess a better ingredient than Points For would be average points per active starter, tho that would still not factor in injuries that happen during a game.
It comes full circle to "best possible" system. There really is no better determiner of how good a team is than All-Play. It's still reliant on points for scored in a week. Even tho CT format is unique and complicated due to strategy, still the fundamental of fantasy is how much you score in a week, or how many league opponents you would've beaten with a different schedule (All-play).
Power Rankings is not perfect, but it's there to illustrate. To give some insight into how people compare across the various leagues. To tear down the over-simplistic W-L percentage and REVEAL who has been more CONSISTENT.
Power in 'Power Rankings' is just a word, not a word to get all upset about. Actual NFL Power Rankings are just based on someone's opinion anyway. There's no real formula being used. They just look at W-L record and opine a ranking based on observations.
And even ranking systems used by NFL stat sites, to rank top Ds, and Os, and Run D's vs Pass D's etc...they always still use stats in different formulas, or different weights used in the formulas than other formulas used....there's no real single perfect formula/system because whenever you're working with stats and formulas there are always multiple other factors that you can't truly quantify into numbers. For example, things like QB Rating or Total QB Rating that ESPN uses. You always still get imperfections or holes in the logic.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,054
- 94,913
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #1,655
Actually, I wanted to create a 'tradeaway' league this year where your score is NOT based on points for at all....but on match-ups. If your QB outscored their QB, you got 1 point, they got 0. If your RB outscored their RB, you got 1 point, they got 0. Etc. So the end of a game would result in a final score like 7-5 say. Where 7 of your players outscored their direct matched-up starting opponent, and 5 of theirs outscored yours.
That would be a pretty good scoring method for a fantasy comp. Unfortunately I have yet to see a site that offers that system for NFL, and im still trying to figure out if it's something that can be done on MFL with some clever way of setting the scoring settings in a league.
Might even be something better suited to the Cutthroat Format....seeing as how much strategy is involved in CT, no bench, and how you manage your roster, the aim being more to win match-ups in a h2h game than flat out outscoring your opponent. Where a tie-breaker for a drawn game 6-6 could THEN be points scored.
That would be a pretty good scoring method for a fantasy comp. Unfortunately I have yet to see a site that offers that system for NFL, and im still trying to figure out if it's something that can be done on MFL with some clever way of setting the scoring settings in a league.
Might even be something better suited to the Cutthroat Format....seeing as how much strategy is involved in CT, no bench, and how you manage your roster, the aim being more to win match-ups in a h2h game than flat out outscoring your opponent. Where a tie-breaker for a drawn game 6-6 could THEN be points scored.
arakaan
Premiership Player
Well Nobby now I know for certain why your so low in the rankings.
Note to GG your rankings are definately not broken and Nobbys team proves that beyond any doubt.
Nobody could ever think sitting idle because your playing a 4,5 or 6 players down in an opposing team is good management.
I've never heard a dumber philosophy ever.
Enjoy your team. You have 0% chance of achieving anything in this game.
I wish you had my draw and never playing anyone with more the 1 bye on any one week let alone the multiple gifts you have been given.
In fact given all the 0's you have been gifted week after week you should be 9-2 at absolute worst.
GG should put you last in the rankings for that complete failure alone.
How you could sit at your computer a few hours ago and with a straight face claim to be upset at being so low in the rankings is truly astonishing.
I would love to know the total 0's each team has faced(bye or injury) because that would really show you up.
Kissed on the dick is an understatement with you in this comp. You've had the whole thing gobbled down.
Note to GG your rankings are definately not broken and Nobbys team proves that beyond any doubt.
Nobody could ever think sitting idle because your playing a 4,5 or 6 players down in an opposing team is good management.
I've never heard a dumber philosophy ever.
Enjoy your team. You have 0% chance of achieving anything in this game.
I wish you had my draw and never playing anyone with more the 1 bye on any one week let alone the multiple gifts you have been given.
In fact given all the 0's you have been gifted week after week you should be 9-2 at absolute worst.
GG should put you last in the rankings for that complete failure alone.
How you could sit at your computer a few hours ago and with a straight face claim to be upset at being so low in the rankings is truly astonishing.
I would love to know the total 0's each team has faced(bye or injury) because that would really show you up.
Kissed on the dick is an understatement with you in this comp. You've had the whole thing gobbled down.
Last edited:
nobbyiscool
Cancelled
WWE Board
Goosed
Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match
Tasmanian Team
NFL Fantasy Comp Champion
Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
- Aug 11, 2006
- 21,110
- 23,512
Whatever pal. I already identified you as someone who wouldn't stop until you got the final word. Given that this is my first season playing Cutthroat, my first no-bench league, and my first IDP league, you'll have to excuse me for not being the expert that you apparently believe yourself to be. I'm experimenting, I'm playing the format the way I thought would work the best - and honestly, I don't give a s**t how my overall point score compares to others. I'm trying to qualify for, and then win the playoffs. Which is the point of fantasy football, and the point of my original rant to GG.
I'm happy to talk about the game or about my ideas around power rankings, but I have no interest in wasting any more time on a keyboard fight when I don't even know who you are (hence I won't waste my time looking at your team), when it was only originally an observation made to GG that had nothing to do with you, when you're arguing points I didn't even make, and when you're incapable of thoughtful and respectful response. I know you spent some time going through my season - which was why I showed you the respect of a response that took over half an hour (once again, proving a point that I didn't even make).
I bet you were patting yourself on the back for being such an awesome keyboard warrior. But your response says a hell of a lot more about you than it says about me.
Last edited:
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,054
- 94,913
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #1,658
Nothing like Cutthroat that brings out the anger, rivalry, trash talk 
arakaan
Premiership Player
Well GG it's simple. You put a lot of effort into the rankings and they are way more correct than they are wrong.
So when someone who can't handle the fact that he is so low, comes out with oh GG is wrong and his rankings are broke, simply because his sitting idle, poorly handled team has 7 wins purely because he has been KOTD, he deserves to be shown up.
But as he sees success or failure purely on wins that is fine as well. He will lose to a better team this week who is 2-9. A team that despite its record hasn't sat idle. Well done to the 2-9 team you will get win 3. Congrats.
So when someone who can't handle the fact that he is so low, comes out with oh GG is wrong and his rankings are broke, simply because his sitting idle, poorly handled team has 7 wins purely because he has been KOTD, he deserves to be shown up.
But as he sees success or failure purely on wins that is fine as well. He will lose to a better team this week who is 2-9. A team that despite its record hasn't sat idle. Well done to the 2-9 team you will get win 3. Congrats.
arakaan
Premiership Player
Also I would suggest any player who gives up and stops managing their team half way through the season should be banned from entering the competition from that point on in future years.
It is clearly happening in BFFFL this year and in this league as well.
It is clearly happening in BFFFL this year and in this league as well.
Dagless
Hall of Famer
Not sure why Larkis liked that post arakaan, given it's his forte to quit when the going gets rough ;(
peterbuch74
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 10, 2007
- 5,711
- 10,729
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Denver Broncos, Liverpool
Nothing like Cutthroat that brings out the anger, rivalry, trash talk
I'd love to see Cutthroat change it up a bit and make it a rule that you must play with a full squad each week meaning that you can't carry a player through a bye. That'd mix it up!
Would make the waiver wire competitive each week lol
manureid
Laziest Poster on Figbooty
Thread got serious. Makes a change from Larkis inane drivel I guess.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,054
- 94,913
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #1,664
Im interested in adding layers to CT for next season. So ideas welcome. I'll process and roll them around.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,054
- 94,913
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #1,665
Some ideas I am thinking of....
Replace waiver wire with Blind Bid Auction. Everyone still fights for juicy FAs, but added cutthoating where you have to make weekly bids.
The no bye starters idea. Or limited bye players allowed.....dont think ESPN offers that customization.
Matchup scoring instead of H2H points for....again ESPN and even MFL doesnt offer this.
Increase playoff teams....3 div winners + 2-3 wild cards instead of 1. Meaning week 17 becomes useable. Ok for CT format.
Change roster positions from LBx2, DLx2, DBx2, to something like LBx2, DEx1, DTx1, CBx1, Sx1.
Change roster total size to 14-16...if I make it 8 IDPs and 8 IOPs, or 7 and 7 plus PK. etc.
Change it from an offline draft to an auction process or autofill process...seeing as a draft is always contentious if its even worthwhile for CT format. Can be quicker to get done too if we have 3 to 4 leagues again.
Replace waiver wire with Blind Bid Auction. Everyone still fights for juicy FAs, but added cutthoating where you have to make weekly bids.
The no bye starters idea. Or limited bye players allowed.....dont think ESPN offers that customization.
Matchup scoring instead of H2H points for....again ESPN and even MFL doesnt offer this.
Increase playoff teams....3 div winners + 2-3 wild cards instead of 1. Meaning week 17 becomes useable. Ok for CT format.
Change roster positions from LBx2, DLx2, DBx2, to something like LBx2, DEx1, DTx1, CBx1, Sx1.
Change roster total size to 14-16...if I make it 8 IDPs and 8 IOPs, or 7 and 7 plus PK. etc.
Change it from an offline draft to an auction process or autofill process...seeing as a draft is always contentious if its even worthwhile for CT format. Can be quicker to get done too if we have 3 to 4 leagues again.
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
I'd love to see Cutthroat change it up a bit and make it a rule that you must play with a full squad each week meaning that you can't carry a player through a bye. That'd mix it up!
Wouldnt that take some of the strategy out? Deciding whether to drop a player depending on your situation. Become more luck if we changed it.
I'd prefer a comp that has no head to head and awards points on weekly ranking plus bonus points for reaching certain scores e.g 12 points for no 1 in a certain week plus extra point for 150 points, extra 2 points for 160 etc. Something like that anyway
larkis
Win it for Him
I quit at the end of the season, not during. HUGE difference. Committed til the end.
Having a bad Quinnmas?
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Chism
Franks & Beans
- Sep 7, 2008
- 38,324
- 38,093
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Cowboys/Pacers HotSpurs/Dodgers
Not a fan of any of these except maybe roster positions etc. I used to like the Kicker option and many people use to win or lose games when their kicker shanked a 25yd FG or likewise got massive points for a 55+ ydr that he hit! If the scoring is done correctly for kickers they can be very valuable and have an average point score of around 10-14ish while bad ones will be in the negatives!
CT is good like it is. If you want to implement changes and stuff things about set up a new league and do it there! This league/format has heaps of interest and leave it alone FFS! Roster positions is the only thing i would look at tweaking, bidding/ auctions and all that other stuff is crap IMO!!
We are not buying houses and the draft is great online as it is.
fuey
Statistically Impossible
My only gripe with the power rankings is that the ap pts must be against the other 47, not just your own league. We already know the best teams in each league, we want inter-league competition, not intra-league!
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,054
- 94,913
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #1,670
Btw.....
There are just three weeks of regular season left in CT. It's the start of the return division legs (3 games left to play).
The division winners (3) advance + 1 wild card.
There are just three weeks of regular season left in CT. It's the start of the return division legs (3 games left to play).
The division winners (3) advance + 1 wild card.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,054
- 94,913
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #1,671
The CT playoff picture for each league....
MACUAHUITL (mack-wheat-el)
East - Oaktown and Larks both tied 8-3, with Wanderers 6-5, there's a very slim for him to claim the division, but a chance still for WC.
Central - Donkeys and Bloods both tied 6-5, with Heisenberg 5-6 and even Warriors 4-7 all a chance for the division. Realistically, one of Donkeys, Bloods, maybe Heisenberg still chances for the WC.
West - Le Pun 6-5, Randy Moss 5-6, and Gay Pirates 4-7, all a chance for division, maybe only one of that lot still a chance for the WC.
Projection - Oaktown and Larkis make playoffs (one of them the WC), and it's a s**t-fight for three teams in the West and Central to see who claims the divisions.
MACUAHUITL (mack-wheat-el)
East - Oaktown and Larks both tied 8-3, with Wanderers 6-5, there's a very slim for him to claim the division, but a chance still for WC.
Central - Donkeys and Bloods both tied 6-5, with Heisenberg 5-6 and even Warriors 4-7 all a chance for the division. Realistically, one of Donkeys, Bloods, maybe Heisenberg still chances for the WC.
West - Le Pun 6-5, Randy Moss 5-6, and Gay Pirates 4-7, all a chance for division, maybe only one of that lot still a chance for the WC.
Projection - Oaktown and Larkis make playoffs (one of them the WC), and it's a s**t-fight for three teams in the West and Central to see who claims the divisions.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,054
- 94,913
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #1,672
KPINGA (ker-pin-gah)
East - Patrol Group 9-2 and Ranga Express 8-3 are still vying for the division title. House of Miles 6-5 is a long-shot for title but still a chance for the WC.
Central - Show Me Your TDs 7-4 and Beasts of Barwin 7-4 in a dog-fight for the division title. And both a good chance still for WC.
West - Arro 5-6 leads CT's version of the NFC South, the remaining three teams there all are log-jammed at 4-7. So all four still a chance for the division title, but none for the WC.
Projection - Whoever wins the divisions is very much up in the air, the bigger interest is who out of Patrol Group, Ranga, Miles, Show Me, and Barwin will claim the Wild Card.
East - Patrol Group 9-2 and Ranga Express 8-3 are still vying for the division title. House of Miles 6-5 is a long-shot for title but still a chance for the WC.
Central - Show Me Your TDs 7-4 and Beasts of Barwin 7-4 in a dog-fight for the division title. And both a good chance still for WC.
West - Arro 5-6 leads CT's version of the NFC South, the remaining three teams there all are log-jammed at 4-7. So all four still a chance for the division title, but none for the WC.
Projection - Whoever wins the divisions is very much up in the air, the bigger interest is who out of Patrol Group, Ranga, Miles, Show Me, and Barwin will claim the Wild Card.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,054
- 94,913
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #1,673
TRIDENT (try-don't)
East - Toad 9-2 and Laziness 8-3 are clear of their division rivals. So both are in the running for Div and WC.
Central - Army Ants 6-5, Swiftas 6-5 and Badger 5-6 are all in the race still for division title. But unlikely either can claim the WC, but the first two are a chance still.
West - Potatoes 8-3 and Castro 8-3 are both clear of the rivals. So both in the running for Div and WC.
Projection - Two teams fighting for their divisions, three teams for the other. The WC will probably come down to the 2nd placed team in East and the West, and will come down to tie-breakers perhaps. First tie-breaker is always H2H....so who won the mid-season matches between those four teams?? Wonder if anyone will rue starting bye players that caused them to lose those H2H games that cost them the WC.
East - Toad 9-2 and Laziness 8-3 are clear of their division rivals. So both are in the running for Div and WC.
Central - Army Ants 6-5, Swiftas 6-5 and Badger 5-6 are all in the race still for division title. But unlikely either can claim the WC, but the first two are a chance still.
West - Potatoes 8-3 and Castro 8-3 are both clear of the rivals. So both in the running for Div and WC.
Projection - Two teams fighting for their divisions, three teams for the other. The WC will probably come down to the 2nd placed team in East and the West, and will come down to tie-breakers perhaps. First tie-breaker is always H2H....so who won the mid-season matches between those four teams?? Wonder if anyone will rue starting bye players that caused them to lose those H2H games that cost them the WC.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,054
- 94,913
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #1,674
CHAINSAW
East - Vandals 9-2 and Beaters 8-3 are more likely to win the division, and the loser to claim the WC. Tho Kombat 6-5 and even Riders 5-6 have slim unrealistic chances of that.
Central - Borrachos 6-5, leads drd 5-6, Cats 5-6 and Knowledge 4-7....all still have a chance for the division title! But probably no chance of a WC.
West - Toros 8-3 has a handy two game lead over Assassins 6-5, the other two no chance. Assassins will have to work extra hard because the other two teams at 2-9 will have to help him out by beating Toros twice.
Projection - Central is a mess, no idea who wins that. WC will come down to Assassins, Kombat, and Beaters/Vandals. Assassins is in hot form, so is a danger with his massive scores of late. Kombat too cant be slept on, but maybe left his run too late.
East - Vandals 9-2 and Beaters 8-3 are more likely to win the division, and the loser to claim the WC. Tho Kombat 6-5 and even Riders 5-6 have slim unrealistic chances of that.
Central - Borrachos 6-5, leads drd 5-6, Cats 5-6 and Knowledge 4-7....all still have a chance for the division title! But probably no chance of a WC.
West - Toros 8-3 has a handy two game lead over Assassins 6-5, the other two no chance. Assassins will have to work extra hard because the other two teams at 2-9 will have to help him out by beating Toros twice.
Projection - Central is a mess, no idea who wins that. WC will come down to Assassins, Kombat, and Beaters/Vandals. Assassins is in hot form, so is a danger with his massive scores of late. Kombat too cant be slept on, but maybe left his run too late.
