AE AE13 - Discussion

[albertonrob]

I have a fantastic idea as well
Pick your opponents - the score you get is based on your opponents ranking.
Think you can beat #1? If you do you get 84 points. If you fail you lose 84 points (or 42 points to make it fairer). Think you can beat #84? You get 1 point if you do or lose your dignity if you don't.
Last six weeks are double points, last week is triple points.

That and JD's idea to change the missing CR in a bye week from 16 to 1.

I like this idea but how about instead of picking your opponents you still get given a draw and your ND score is weighted depending on your opposition (relative to your own position)? The ranking wouldn't be on wins and losses but your confidence points. I understand this doesn't do what Larkis is suggesting but it would be easier to maintain.

It would be like introducing a college-style ranking system.

The other thing might be to either totally randomise the draw or to build the draw based on rankings from the previous season. In addition to this I'd like to see the construct of the divisions and conferences stay relatively stable from one season to the next to build more historic rivalries, I know this is tough with competitors coming and going from one year to the next but perhaps we could over come this by creating franchise names with our BF monnikers representing the name of the franchise owner?

 

[Bucketss]

Agree entirely Bucketss, I love ND (and at the moment I have a reason to hate it), and like you I started my own AFL confidence tipping league this season with ten participants and they loved it. It's like real sports, it doesn't matter how consistent you are on any given day if you come up against a rampant opposition you can lose.

Exactly this. You've scored more CR but are struggling to see the top of the division. In AFL this year I missed out on finals after topping the ladder in 2012. I had a chance to sneak in but ended up drawing the last 2 games against important opposition. One was a perfect round too.

Just my luck this year but to the point - it still provides excitement to those out of the overall comp late in the year.

Always look forward to suggestions on improving the comp though

 

[larkis]

I know this is tough with competitors coming and going from one year to the next but perhaps we could over come this by creating franchise names with our BF monnikers representing the name of the franchise owner?

Good idea - love to bring the reign of the Legendary Larks to AE. As long as it doesn't have to relate to our NFL team we support as I don't think the name Legendary Lambs would be appropriate.

 

[Sven]

.......
or to build the draw based on rankings from the previous season.
.......

^^This.

I believe having a published, set method of allocating people to Divisions, that has some form of equalisation involved in the matchups would go a long way to addressing some of the concerns with ND.

I like the idea of keeping regulars (and by that I mean anyone who plays from the previous year) in the same conference. Then everyone could be ranked based on their last year's CR total and then allocated to a division. Rookies would be ranked at the bottom and distributed between the conferences as needed. If there was 7 divisions in each conference (as is the case this year), then the people ranked 1,8,15,22,29, and 36 would be in division 1, people ranked 2,9,16,23,30, and 37 would be in division 2 and so on. People would play each person in their division once and the players who were placed at the same initial position in each other division in their conference once for a total of 11 qualification games. ie apart from games within their division, the person ranked #1 would be matched up against the players who were ranked #2 through #7 who were placed at position 1 in the other divisions.

Another idea would be to have no divisions at all but to have a system where points are allocated based in where you are ranked each week. If your weekly total is in the upper half then you get a point, upper 25% gets a bonus point, top 10 get another bonus point, and best score for the week another bonus point.

 

[smiths]

Have 10 divisions; the last digit of your ranking the previous season 0-9 determines your division.

For ND allocation purposes probably don't use tied rankings. Maybe a CR countback of week 17 to get rankings 1-84 from this season.

Rookies slotted in wherever needed.

 

[11sjw]

Week 4, (quoting Kirstie Alley's Rebecca from Cheers) "I'm not a loser, I'm a break evener!"

 

[albertonrob]

sheez and I thought last week was a tough one to pick...

 

[smiths]

Temptation lines pls

 

[Woodson]

WEEK 5 SCHEDULE
WEEB EWBANK CONFERENCE
Divisional Dogfights:
Apex (1-3) vs BigRedMachine (2-2)
Arkie (3-1) vs PHX (2-2)
BeLikeMike (2-2) vs WADW (0-4)
Billiever (2-2) vs Chris25 (1-3)
DogLee (2-2) vs Bucketss (2-1-1)
JeffDunne (2-2) vs WCEProd (0-4)
JR77 (2-2) vs RedRifle (2-2)
Marcuz (2-2) vs Jonesy86 (3-1)
McGarnacle (2-2) vs Manureid (1-3)
SBlack (3-1) vs Marklar33 (2-2)

W.E. Conference Clouts:
Albertonrob (1-2-1) vs AxisMiles (3-1)
Arakaan (1-3) vs Chadwiko (2-2)
Broken (3-1) vs Prawnographer (3-0-1)
ChockNurris (4-0) vs Galactic (3-1)
Crowman23 (3-1) vs Juggalo Balla (2-2)
Imation23 (2-2) vs Art Monk (3-1)
Island Bomber (0-4) vs Osmodiar (1-3)
Jezz281 (0-4) vs BPG (1-3)
PeterBuch74 (3-1) vs Danielz23 (2-2)
ShinyOnTop (3-1) vs Tannehill17 (2-2)
TCol (3-1) vs Statsman74 (1-2-1)


ED SABOL CONFERENCE
Divisional Dogfights:
Blacky (3-1) vs Applaps (1-2)
Burningleviathan (3-1) vs Balmainforever (2-2)
Bgt2110 (3-1) vs GeeCats07 (1-3)
BjToby (2-1-1) vs Striker475 (2-2)
DevNull (2-2) vs Moo (1-3)
Matt897 (3-1) vs Dirty Bird (2-1-1)
QuinStick (2-2) vs Swannies (3-1)
Rocco S (2-2) vs Oscarman (3-1)
Smiths (2-2) vs Tomatosauceling (1-3)

E.S. Conference Clouts:
11SJW (0-3-1) vs Drd23 (0-4)
AC83 (2-2) vs TGBB (1-3)
Beez (3-1) vs Primetime Pricey (0-3-1)
Fuey (2-2) vs Sergio's Realm (2-2)
Larkis (3-1) vs Toadvine (3-1)
Pedge (1-3) vs Raskolnikov (2-2)
PhillyCat (1-3) vs Woodson (2-2)
Riggo Diesel44 (2-2) vs GG (1-3)
Sodapop (3-1) vs Eagleoz83 (2-2)
Superfreak (2-2) vs Chism (0-4)
Sven (4-0) vs Lukozade (3-1)
Travodo88 (2-2) vs NakedDeadGuy (3-1)

 

[Bucketss]

C'mon Broken set up a 3-1-1 Divisional Dogfight for prawnographer and myself.

 

[Toadvine]

larkis promise you wont throw a tanty when I beat you

 

[larkis]

larkis promise you wont throw a tanty when I beat you

Don't worry, you'll be back to not posting next week after I dent your record further.

 

[Toadvine]

I wish I could post more. Just hard to find the time....

 

[Broken]

C'mon Broken set up a 3-1-1 Divisional Dogfight for prawnographer and myself.

For you Bucketss, anything

 

[larkis]

I wish I could post more. Just hard to find the time....

Thanks for reminding me to take the Superbowl off before someone else gets in before me

 

[Toadvine]

Don't use annual leave just do the Migraine thing. That's how the pros do it.

 

[GeeCats07]

sheez and I thought last week was a tough one to pick...

I know. There's only a couple of games where I have moved the confidence rating. The others I'm just leaving and hope i tip 14/14....

 

[Blacky]

Good idea re superbowl

 

[tomatosauceling]

Ok I'm hijacking the lines this week as they haven't been updated, hopefully with the blessing of Woodson . I've picked these up from www.footballlocks.com and although there is a bit of difference here and there we may as well use these rather than nothing at all. It will still say TBA on AE but just use these as reference and let JD update them when he can.

 

[JeffDunne]

I've posted the lines for this week (using Sportsbet as agreed which are pretty much the same +/- .5)

@gg/@Woodson, can you email me if I forget them by Wed mornings. Wed/Thurs I tend to be flat stick with work. Being old and senile (& hopefully sterile) I tend to forget shit...

 

[LeverPuller]

I'm getting Clevelanded...

 

[exe ex machina]

NEXT DUEL RETOOL IDEA FOR 2014

projected for 80 people
4 conferences of 20 people each
each conference has 4 divisions of 5 people each

13 week regular season schedule

4 div winners from each conference advance to playoffs (16)

playoffs run over 3 weeks, knockout:
16 down to 8 (week 14)
8 down to 4 (week 15)
4 down to 2 (week 16)
next duel bowl (week 17)

regular season scheduling is where the retooling really takes effect

ALL h2h games are played against non-divisional conference rivals (13 games), but your score each week goes All-Play vs your own division.

EG…

Conference A
Div 1: gg, larkis, oscarman, tgbb, matt_897
Div 2: woodson, balmainforever, moo, chism, peterbuch74
Div 3: tomatosauceling, sblack, wce_all_da_way, chock nurris, chadwiko
Div 4: sven, jeffdunne, ac83, blacky, geecats07

So looking at gg's schedule….

He'd play, say, woodson week 1, balmain week 2, moo week 3, chism week 4, pb week 5, tomato week 6, sblack week 7, wadw week 8, chock week 9, chad week 10, sven week 11, jd week 12, ac83 week 13.

Say week 1 result is GG 94 d. Woodson 90

GG would have 1-0 W-L record.

But, also, GG's score of 94 goes All-Play versus his entire division too in week 1. Say GG's score of 94 was the highest score among his division rivals, then "all-play" means if he'd played h2h against any of his division rivals, he'd have won all 4 games. So week 1 GG's W-L is 4-0 + 1-0 = 5-0.

Meanwhile, say Oscarman was playing Balmainforever in week 1, he lost the game 88 vs 116. Meanwhile his 88 was third best score in his division. So his All-Play would be 2-2. So his week 1 effort would be 2-2 + 0-1 = 2-3.

Standings in Div 1, after Week 1, then could be, say…

GG 5-0
Larkis 3-2
Oscarman 2-3
TGBB 2-3
Matt 1-4

Which is the aggregate of all-play + conf w-l.

There'd be a column ALL-PLAY listing the accumulated all-play record, and there'd be a CONF column listing h2h record vs conf rivals. These used for tie-breakers to determine the standings in each division.

As only each division winner advances to playoffs, then there must be an emphasis on how well you do against your division. 'All-play' is a truer measure beyond luck, but you're also adding in those h2h conf games, not losing that h2h nature.

Once you get to the playoffs, tho, it stays h2h.

It's just emphasizing the division more, where each and every week, your weekly score is being measured against all your other division rivals.

You could arrange the number of confereces, divisions, and number of people in each division to whatever total AE participants there is. It's not really THAT important. There doesn't have to be an effort to settle on 84 people, or even numbered people, etc. You could have 2 conferences of 40, with 10 people per division. Etc etc.

The "all-play" aspect works for all divisions, you're always playing all your divison members every week in essence, and so it doesn't matter if there's some divisions with 5 people, some with 6, some with 7, due to late-comers joining AE, or the influx of rookies etc.

AND...in terms of Woodson/Peterbuch having to make schedules, it's FINALLY a K.I.S.S. method. All they have to do is schedule 13 games from the 16 total other people in the conference. So much easier and simpler to draw up.

The thing too is that as only 1 per division advances, then the schedule is more centralized, teams advancing based on real metrics of how well you perform constantly against your own division + 13 conf games.

Whereas now it's like 4/8 div games are played, with 8 other games scheduled against a variety of people all over the entire 84, and yet you're still asking that people be measured against their division rivals. It just waters down and thins out that whole "div"/"conf" thing.

Lastly....in creating the divs/confs, you can do it either way....either new ones every year based on rankings last year + fitting rookies in. Or you could do it where you have the same people rivaling each other every year, keeping their rivalries going like NFL divisions. It's very flexible.

------

Thoughts? Suggestions?

 

[exe ex machina]

Ideally, you'd look to have smaller divisions so the "all-play" every week isn't too much. If you had divisions of 10. All-play every week would be a number of 9 games. That's a 9:1 ratio to the h2h games you play. Which renders the h2h games a little less consequential to the division standings. Tho I'd imagine even then you'd still get fairly tight all-play placings over the season that the 13 h2h games you also play will have an effect.

Eg...

All-Play
GG 63-44
Larkis 60-47
Oscarman 58-49
TGBB 57-50
Matt 56-51

W-L
Matt 13-0
TGBB 11-2
Oscarman 10-3
Larkis 7-6
GG 6-7

So added on top as they would be an aggregate, they do have a say in the final standings....

GG 69-51
Matt 69-51
Oscarman 68-52
TGBB 68-52
Larkis 67-53

With GG going thru with a superior AP.

But ideally, you'd want something more like 5 per division. A 4:1 ap:wl ratio.

 

[LeverPuller]

As an aside, the Ozzie Newsome Division is hot...lowest record is .500.

 

[Blacky]

You had me until GG 5-0