valis
Global Moderator
Posts: 993
|
Post by valis on Dec 2, 2020 22:09:27 GMT
There has been a little confusion on how the league structure works, so here is a brief explanation.
Teams are split into divisions and play inter-divisional matches with the best teams from each division progressing to the play-offs (like the NFL).
6 games are played per season.
The match scheduling is done by BB2 itself in a Swiss-system format:
Each team does not play all the other teams. They meet one-on-one in each round and are paired using a set of rules designed to ensure that each team plays opponents with a similar overall ranking, but does not play the same opponent more than once.
Basically the better you do, the better opponent you will play.
This gives the better teams a challenge, and the teams not performing as well a fighting chance of staying in contention as they are paired against similarly (lower) ranked teams.
|
|
|
Post by haugster on Dec 2, 2020 22:54:37 GMT
ok, good, but why are there different divisions and how are they put together?
|
|
valis
Global Moderator
Posts: 993
|
Post by valis on Dec 3, 2020 6:53:44 GMT
The divisions are constructed based on the previous season's overall record.
Best teams in the North down to worst in the West.
In theory, if you have a miserable season, then next season you will be in a division that will be easier, whereas if you have a great season and go all the way to the play-off final, next season will be more challenging (almost, but not quite, a promotion/relegation format).
This season was a little different as it included the "farmed" teams from Project Super Beef (so they all went in the North to see if they could give Penkoon's team a run for its money).
It's not an exact science, but the overall ranking table is used as the basis for selecting which team goes in which division.
|
|
|
Post by penkoon on Dec 3, 2020 11:15:41 GMT
As far as I can tell, going into the final round of the OHC, nobody has won their division yet, nobody is guaranteed a play-off spot, and only CharzHeidi and Selfy have no chance of making the play-offs (though Anchor or Nearly would need a bounty point and the percentage thing with Watchtower makes the maths confusing). So if the objective is keep as many people in contention for longer it seems to be working.
|
|
selfy
Star Player
Wessex Dork
Posts: 707
|
Post by selfy on Dec 14, 2020 19:42:52 GMT
Where's the thread for posting teams for season 26?
|
|
valis
Global Moderator
Posts: 993
|
Post by valis on Dec 14, 2020 20:55:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by haugster on Mar 5, 2021 19:21:02 GMT
I have to say I still find this a bit confusing. If I (finally) understand this correctly, the whole point of the system is this:
"This gives the better teams a challenge, and the teams not performing as well a fighting chance of staying in contention as they are paired against similarly (lower) ranked teams."
And this means that one team from every "level" of teams based on earlier matchings makes the playoffs, including new teams from SAC? So basically, best team from the three best teams, one team from team four to six etc. and also one in three teams from SAC etc.
Why is it important that teams stay in contention, as you say? Isn't the most important thing to get to play matches and not have downtime between seasons? One of the results of this is that fairly new teams will meet Nobby's norse and (if I didn't suck) my chorfs. That could get ugly. Another is that you could get to be champion without necessarily playing all the best teams.
I for one like a traditional tier system better where you start with rookie teams in rookie divisions and play your way up through the divisions that way. Then you have better chances of not getting slaughtered early (though that may always happen) and also the champion will have played all the best teams.
Alternatively, put all teams in one league and keep playing those with the same points as you have with the best four or eight going to the playoffs, if we want those. The SAC should be kept as a rookie - low TV area, but could work the same way with a rookie champ.
Just my two cents, as they say.
|
|
valis
Global Moderator
Posts: 993
|
Post by valis on Mar 7, 2021 14:41:34 GMT
I have to say I still find this a bit confusing. If I (finally) understand this correctly, the whole point of the system is this: "This gives the better teams a challenge, and the teams not performing as well a fighting chance of staying in contention as they are paired against similarly (lower) ranked teams." And this means that one team from every "level" of teams based on earlier matchings makes the playoffs, including new teams from SAC? So basically, best team from the three best teams, one team from team four to six etc. and also one in three teams from SAC etc. Why is it important that teams stay in contention, as you say? Isn't the most important thing to get to play matches and not have downtime between seasons? One of the results of this is that fairly new teams will meet Nobby's norse and (if I didn't suck) my chorfs. That could get ugly. Another is that you could get to be champion without necessarily playing all the best teams. I for one like a traditional tier system better where you start with rookie teams in rookie divisions and play your way up through the divisions that way. Then you have better chances of not getting slaughtered early (though that may always happen) and also the champion will have played all the best teams. Alternatively, put all teams in one league and keep playing those with the same points as you have with the best four or eight going to the playoffs, if we want those. The SAC should be kept as a rookie - low TV area, but could work the same way with a rookie champ. Just my two cents, as they say. I get what you're saying, but my reasoning is thus:
My local football team is Wigan Athletic, a team that sits in league doldrums, but occasionally wins a (knock out) cup.
Sitting in a lower division, season after season is no fun at all, so I'd rather our coaches have the chance of joining the glory of the playoffs for as long as possible. Yes, this means that not all the best teams get to the playoffs, but it keeps everyone's interest alive as long as possible.
Also, a tiered system is a nightmare to manage when coaches drop their teams to start a new one at the bottom. It renders relegation moot, as relegated teams don't actually go down when they replace teams that are retired by other coaches. There is little jeopardy in finishing bottom of the league.
I don't agree that the main aim is to not have downtime between seasons. Some coaches hate downtime, some need a break, which is why we've introduced the Overseer's Buttplug.
I'd argue that the worst thing for coaches is for their season to be over after 2 games due to heavy defeats. This system tries to avoid that.
|
|
|
Post by penkoon on Mar 8, 2021 13:37:53 GMT
The main issue with the current system, is that it looks like it might give us a Nobby vs Spleens final.
|
|
wilgutspleens
Star Player
I am suffering from prescient nostalgia....the future's not what it used to be
Posts: 864
|
Post by wilgutspleens on Mar 8, 2021 15:55:56 GMT
The main issue with the current system, is that it looks like it might give us a Nobby vs Spleens final. There is no way that is ever gonna happen 😃
|
|
|
Post by haugster on Mar 8, 2021 17:52:31 GMT
I have to say I still find this a bit confusing. If I (finally) understand this correctly, the whole point of the system is this: "This gives the better teams a challenge, and the teams not performing as well a fighting chance of staying in contention as they are paired against similarly (lower) ranked teams." And this means that one team from every "level" of teams based on earlier matchings makes the playoffs, including new teams from SAC? So basically, best team from the three best teams, one team from team four to six etc. and also one in three teams from SAC etc. Why is it important that teams stay in contention, as you say? Isn't the most important thing to get to play matches and not have downtime between seasons? One of the results of this is that fairly new teams will meet Nobby's norse and (if I didn't suck) my chorfs. That could get ugly. Another is that you could get to be champion without necessarily playing all the best teams. I for one like a traditional tier system better where you start with rookie teams in rookie divisions and play your way up through the divisions that way. Then you have better chances of not getting slaughtered early (though that may always happen) and also the champion will have played all the best teams. Alternatively, put all teams in one league and keep playing those with the same points as you have with the best four or eight going to the playoffs, if we want those. The SAC should be kept as a rookie - low TV area, but could work the same way with a rookie champ. Just my two cents, as they say. I get what you're saying, but my reasoning is thus:
My local football team is Wigan Athletic, a team that sits in league doldrums, but occasionally wins a (knock out) cup.
Sitting in a lower division, season after season is no fun at all, so I'd rather our coaches have the chance of joining the glory of the playoffs for as long as possible. Yes, this means that not all the best teams get to the playoffs, but it keeps everyone's interest alive as long as possible.
Also, a tiered system is a nightmare to manage when coaches drop their teams to start a new one at the bottom. It renders relegation moot, as relegated teams don't actually go down when they replace teams that are retired by other coaches. There is little jeopardy in finishing bottom of the league.
I don't agree that the main aim is to not have downtime between seasons. Some coaches hate downtime, some need a break, which is why we've introduced the Overseer's Buttplug.
I'd argue that the worst thing for coaches is for their season to be over after 2 games due to heavy defeats. This system tries to avoid that.
I get most points here, but not the last one about season being over after two matches: why is that more or less possible with your system? Unless you manually pit the best/most dangerous teams against each other and the other teams play each other?
|
|
valis
Global Moderator
Posts: 993
|
Post by valis on Mar 8, 2021 22:47:29 GMT
Most leagues have 3 points for a win. If you have a couple of heavy defeats you're 6 points behind the leader, effectively 7 if you factor in goal difference.
If the season is 6 games, you have to make up a 7 point deficit in 4 games.
I know this is a simplification, but I've been in that situation and it's a grind just finishing the season.
|
|
|
Post by nearly on Mar 8, 2021 23:08:57 GMT
I get what you're saying, but my reasoning is thus:
My local football team is Wigan Athletic, a team that sits in league doldrums, but occasionally wins a (knock out) cup.
Sitting in a lower division, season after season is no fun at all, so I'd rather our coaches have the chance of joining the glory of the playoffs for as long as possible. Yes, this means that not all the best teams get to the playoffs, but it keeps everyone's interest alive as long as possible.
Also, a tiered system is a nightmare to manage when coaches drop their teams to start a new one at the bottom. It renders relegation moot, as relegated teams don't actually go down when they replace teams that are retired by other coaches. There is little jeopardy in finishing bottom of the league.
I don't agree that the main aim is to not have downtime between seasons. Some coaches hate downtime, some need a break, which is why we've introduced the Overseer's Buttplug.
I'd argue that the worst thing for coaches is for their season to be over after 2 games due to heavy defeats. This system tries to avoid that.
I get most points here, but not the last one about season being over after two matches: why is that more or less possible with your system? Unless you manually pit the best/most dangerous teams against each other and the other teams play each other? We all know that any team is only one game of really bad casualty rolls from oblivion. Under a traditional league set up, your first game of the season is against Nobby’s fouling Norse. He gets lucky with his armour rolls and you get -Str on the Minotaur and a horsey, a dead blocker, and a niggle on another. A further blocker is MNG In your weakened state for game 2, Jakala’s New Knights kill the other donkey and claims the bounty on the hobgoblin that scores all your touchdowns. There’s also another -Str for a blocker. In your third game, you’re up against Penkoon’s version of X-factor, but your team’s fucked! You know there’s no chance of winning, the best you can hope for really is no more casualties and a good roll for cash to try to replace some of your cripples. Under Valis’ system your first two games go the same way. However your next game is now against someone shit (like Valis’ rats, or me) or someone equally fucked (like Beefy’s Wood Elves at some point in the near future). So there’s a chance of getting a result, and there’s something to play for.
|
|
valis
Global Moderator
Posts: 993
|
Post by valis on Mar 9, 2021 6:52:47 GMT
However your next game is now against someone shit (like Valis’ rats Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by nearly on Mar 9, 2021 8:49:02 GMT
However your next game is now against someone shit (like Valis’ rats Thanks. They let in five in their last game!
|
|