Rocky Mountain Football League

GORILLA20 · Senior Member

2015 SEEDING OPTIONS

fattycoug · Veteran Member

Any formula that would create a scenario where a team that lost twice to an undefeated team is seeded higher should not be used. You'd have to add in some sort of head-to-head consideration.

But so is a structure where 2 teams that hypothetically lose only to each other end up in 1st and 5th.

GORILLA20 · Senior Member

sorry...all scenarios are after head to head and like i said, dont take it literal. the point is that i think we do away with division winners being seeded 1-4. and find a better way. division winners should get in but not be seeded accordingly.

alsmith_54 · Member

It seems like if you want the true division winner, and then give them an automatic spot, that it should be how they did against their division alone, and not overall record. The overall record reflects nothing for who the best team in each division is. You can have a much better record playing an easier schedule, but can you beat everyone in your division?

I like the new setup, but I think the division record should determine that winner and not overall. As far as seeding I think you could leave as is or open all six spots to the top six based on record etc. but as I see it the biggest flaw (albeit in a much better system) is that you're not really getting the best team in the division.

just sayin

GORILLA20 · Senior Member

that makes sense a.smith but i think you have to give some type of balance which is why we seeded the division. if we do best in division it takes away that balance. Thats why i feel like of we balance it out with sos vs wins, it can at least get the seeding right. For example, the Stealth jump the Sting, who they beat to be 3 seed and REV jump the Blaze, who they beat. Either way, by record and SOS, Stealth are below Rebels and REV. If REV and Rebels split and their only losses are each other, they should be 1 and 2 in whatever order. Sting and Blaze both at 7 and 1 but Sting have higher SOS. Anarchy get in but barely out of AA so they should be 6th. I think its a good convo and worth diving into. This year could be tough for a team that deserves better.

Stealth12 · Veteran Member

It's definitely frustrating when you go undefeated in your division and still can't win it even though you comfortably beat the team that won your division and they had the worst SOS in the entire AAA league. For any team that wouldnt be fun. But its what was voted on so live by die by, right. I think that should be tweaked.

GORILLA20 · Senior Member

in my scenario, you would be the 3rd seed.....winning the division gets you IN but SOS and WINS would get you seeded. so if you squeak in, you dont automatically get that 4th seed. Im sure there will be a lot of different options thrown out there and i think the league and its GMs have been good at fixing things and getting the league back to stability.

GORILLA20 · Senior Member

in my scenario, you would be the 3rd seed.....winning the division gets you IN but SOS and WINS would get you seeded. so if you squeak in, you dont automatically get that 4th seed. Im sure there will be a lot of different options thrown out there and i think the league and its GMs have been good at fixing things and getting the league back to stability.

Jess Peterson · Senior Member

The issue I see with a Division Record is you could have a division winner with a 3-5 record 3-1 in division and a "second place" division team at 6-2 with a 2-2 division record.

In this scenario, the Lions (7-9) should have made the playoffs over the Packers (11-5) last year because they had the best division record int the NFC North.

And Jaye is probably okay with it because the Cowboys would have made the playoffs too...

Dozer99 · Member

Use the same formulas to get the 6 teams in the top and 6 teams in the bottom tier. Once you have the teams placed in there respective tiers then you reseed them using a SOS system with head to head trumping SOS. For instance:

Team A
Record 6-2
SOS .35

Team B
6-2
.40

Team A beat team B in the regular season.

Team A would then be higher seed even though Team B has a higher SOS.

Head to Head trumps SOS no matter what.

But to add to that if a team is in a division that is just not as good and has a 7-1 record. Call this team C, they have a .30 SOS, then they would be seeded below both Team A & B, even though they have a higher record.

This seasons top tier seeding would look like this as of right now with 1 week to play.

Rebels
Rev
Stealth
Anarchy
Blaze
Sting

With this system, it makes it that you cant be seeded lower then a team that you beat unless there is a case where team A beat team B, team B beat team C and team C beat team A, in this case SOS would be the tiebreaker.

-- Edited by Dozer99 on Monday 2nd of June 2014 12:55:51 PM

alsmith_54 · Member

Jess Peterson wrote:
The issue I see with a Division Record is you could have a division winner with a 3-5 record 3-1 in division and a "second place" division team at 6-2 with a 2-2 division record.

In this scenario, the Lions (7-9) should have made the playoffs over the Packers (11-5) last year because they had the best division record int the NFC North.

And Jaye is probably okay with it because the Cowboys would have made the playoffs too...

I get what you're saying... but 1) this isn't the NFL, we don't play a 17 game schedule that allows much more cross over. 2) We want the best team out of each group of 4. the only real way you know who the best of those 4 teams in a group is, would be to take their small division as the focal point. Then determine who has the best record against that small group. If we want the 4 best teams in the overall league then the current setup clearly does not pull those 4 to the top. A clear example is the Blaze are the best in their division, they outright beat everyone in their group.

An extremely bad example of our seeding setup (not what Im arguing about) is that the 2 teams that should be at the top will end up being 1 and 5. when clearly they both deserve to be elsewhere. IF the Rev lose to the Rebels that means they stay at 5 and sit behind a #3 seed that they destroyed as an away game. and behind a 3 potentially 4 loss team. (this goes to Jaye's argument of changing seeding so the correct teams are on top).

All I am saying, is that in the setup we have, we are looking for the best team in each 4 team division. the only way to get that (based off our 8 game schedule and travel limitations) is taking it off of division record. so to your point. the Lions were the best in their division based off of on field performance. but the NFL is structured to take the best teams overall, with much more cross over and competition to bring the top teams. (and even they still have teams fall short that should be in). My point is that our setup wants the top 4 teams of the divisions, which we clearly do not have if we (the RMFL) use overall record. Example (aside from Sting as shown below), the Generals would have full control as to whether or not they make the playoffs because they beat the current leader head to head. So as long as they win this last game they are then tied with Anarchy (assuming they win) which then rewards the best team in that division for winning their division!

To Jaye's point, if we used a different formula it would seed much better. but I still think the root of the problem is that we are rewarding teams as division winners when they really didn't win their division! if we could play a 17 game schedule and have more cross over then yes leave it as is, but don't crown someone as a division winner when they are not.

If the season finished out as hypothetically these standings, who really won the division???

1 Sting --3-1 (only loss comes to the true 4-0 division winner)

2 Stealth --4-0

3 Stampede --1-3

4 Shock --0-4

Since we cannot get everyone to travel and play everyone, we setup divisions (which I like). However, if you want to know the best team of each of those divisions, it should go off of who beat who in the division. (based on our setup)

alsmith_54 · Member

Jess Peterson wrote:
The issue I see with a Division Record is you could have a division winner with a 3-5 record 3-1 in division and a "second place" division team at 6-2 with a 2-2 division record.

This is where the 2 wildcard teams are rewarded for having a great record and winning games. This would give you the top 6 teams, and then from there you could also implement what Jaye has pointed out as a better way of seeding the teams that deserve the better seed. Yes, the other team got the automatic spot for winning the division, but now the better record team has a chance of being seeded higher because they won more games.

-- Edited by alsmith_54 on Monday 2nd of June 2014 01:51:57 PM

GORILLA20 · Senior Member

Dozer.....In that scenario, you have the Anarchy (4-3) above the Blaze (6-1) and Sting (7-1) with both of those teams TRAVELING in the first round of the playoff? The Sting's only loss was to the STEALTH and the BLAZE's only loss was to the REV. The Anarchy lost to the Cobras, the Stampede and the Generals (who are lower caliber teams) and they only have an SOS of only 19-31. There has to be something in the equation to get that right.

You have to have a way to balance out the higher seeds beating up on each other in the regular season. I like that the different seeds are allowed easier schedules based on equal competition and parity. BUT the REV could beat and have beaten everyone in the league except the REBELS. You have to have a formula that takes into account that LOSING to the Rebels holds more weight than beating the Gladiators.

EXAMPLE: A 15-35 SOS with 7 wins is only 52.50 points and a 35-15 SOS with 4 wins is 70.00 points. it gives credit for the "QUALITY" wins and gives you credit for WHO you beat or lose to. No disrespect to anyone BUT a 6-2 record with the schedule of a 1 seed has to hold more weight than a 7-1 record as a 4 seed.

We have to make sure we get the best TEAMS in the upper tier playoffs.....Not necessarily the best records because of how "weighted" the schedule is. EXAMPLE: Who would you be more afraid to face in the playoffs.....the Shock or the Bullets? Both teams have one win but the Shock are STILL ranked like 6th or 7th in the Power Poll.

4 DIVISION WINNERS
NEXT 2 HIGHEST RECORDS
FORMULA
HEAD TO HEAD

IF ALL TEAMS WON OUT AND REBELS BEAT REV, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS.

REV 6-2
REBELS 8-0
STING 7-1
BLAZE 7-1
ANARCHY 5-3
STEALTH 6-2

1-REBELS / 2-REV / 3-STEALTH / 4-STING / 5-BLAZE / 6-ANARCHY

IF ALL TEAMS WON OUT AND REV BEAT REBELS, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS.

REV 7-1
REBELS 7-1
STING 7-1
BLAZE 7-1
ANARCHY 5-3
STEALTH 6-2

1-REV / 2-REBELS / 3-STEALTH / 4-STING / BLAZE / 6-ANARCHY

EITHER WAY, I THINK WE WOULD GET IT RIGHT. THE REV AND REBELS HAVE PROVEN TO BE DOMINANT AND SHOULD BE 1 AND 2. THE STEALTH HAVE ONLY LOST TO THOSE 2 TEAMS. THE STING LOST TO THE STEALTH AND THE BLAZE LOST TO THE REV BUT HAVE A LOWER SOS THAN THE STING. THE ANARCHY DIDN'T PLAY ANY OF THE TEAMS IN THE TOP TIER.

-- Edited by GORILLA20 on Monday 2nd of June 2014 02:09:14 PM

alsmith_54 · Member

GORILLA20 wrote:
In that scenario, you have the Anarchy (4-3) above the Blaze (6-1) and Sting (7-1) with both of those teams TRAVELING in the first round of the playoff? The Sting's only loss was to the REV and the BLAZE's only loss was to the REV. The Anarchy lost to the Cobras, the Stampede and the Generals and have an SOS of only 19-31. There has to be something in the equation to get that right.

No you didn't read my post. I'm only talking about getting the 4 division winners. Then you take the next two as wildcards, just like we do. Combine that with the seeding procedure like you talked about and you have the top 6 teams in the league (based on record). This gives the 4 true division winners an automatic spot. I'm not saying they get an automatic 1-4 seeding. I like the idea of seeding based on the formula you showed. I'm only arguing the fact that an automatic spot is given to teams not truly winning the division.

I agree that the seeding should not be 1-4 for those winners as well.

That means we would still end up with 4 division winners. (As sits now)

Rebels

Stealth

Anarchy

Blaze

Then based on Overall record (as sits now)

Sting

Rev

Then you would go in and reseed with your formula. You still get the same 6 teams, youre just not crowning a non division winner as an automatic. Then reseeding sets it up as you showed.

1 Rebels \2 Rev \3 Stealth \4 Sting \5 Blaze \6 Anarchy

-- Edited by alsmith_54 on Monday 2nd of June 2014 02:09:20 PM

-- Edited by alsmith_54 on Monday 2nd of June 2014 02:11:31 PM

GORILLA20 · Senior Member

I was talking to Dozer and his scenario, A.Smith.

Either way, the Stealth would be a 3 seed. I can see both sides.....I think you have to use record as Division Winner because of how the schedule is "weighted". For example, the 1 seed SHOULD win the division which is why they are the 1 seed and the structure is setup the way it is. In order to do that, we would have to eliminate the seeding or have divisions based on seeding. Either way, you have to have a good record to get in and I think the best teams will rise to the top regardless. BUT, I think that by using best record, then the 2 wildcards, then the formula and then head to head, we can still get it right.

On another note, i would be OK with crowning the Division Winner based on the record in their division. I think that either way, we would get it right and the best teams would still go to the playoffs. Division winner doesn't matter once you get IN the playoffs anyway but it could leave a team like the Stealth from getting in. That could be a SNAG in the system that we need to look further into. What if the REBELS went 6-2, REV went 6-2 and Cobras went 6-2 in our division. Let's say the Sting went 7-1 but lost to the Stealth and the Stealth went 5-3 but only lost to the BLAZE, REV and REBELS who are all 1 seeds. the Stealth could me dropped down to the lower tier although they beat everyone in their division and only lost to 1 seeds. I think that the Stealth should be the Division Winner by going 4-0 in their division. the Sting would still get in by having the best record. The REV and REBELS would both get in based on the SOS of 1 seeds and the Cobras would drop down to the lower tier because they have the schedule of a 4 seed.

Something to think about and I think both scenarios would work using the scenario and formula that I figured out.

-- Edited by GORILLA20 on Monday 2nd of June 2014 02:23:25 PM

JGarrett · Member

Don't you think everything will somewhat balance out next season? The new AAA teams from AA last year, who are said to have the "easy" road (which is obvious that the path was easier for these teams in general) will be seeded higher and player a stiffer competition next year. I have heard from many owners and coaches who voted on and agreed on this format that it was not a perfect format. Where were all these suggestions at last year's league meetings? Just curious, not bashing or pointing the finger at all!!! Again, I think you will see things come into balance next year. Just my humble opinion though.

GORILLA20 · Senior Member

J.Garrett.....i think we all got excited just to get the structure in place.i think its been rough for all teams to adjust in one way or another.sometimes, you consider all of the scenarios until you actually know all the scenarios.im not the type to dwell on what we cant fix right now but seeing the situation, we should have things on the table. teams will change position but it wont ix the seeding vs standings issue. i think we have some great ideas coming.

JGarrett · Member

No I agree, it wasn't a perfect system and I know there are teams struggling with the structure. I'm not taking that away from those guys what so ever! Better ideas are always great, I'm just excited for the day where there can be something put in place that will be set in stone and the League Management can worry about structure, and the teams can just play ball...haha! I would just hope that most teams would agree that this year is better than last in the AAA division, sure as hell beats having 5 teams in AAA and a crap load in AA. It will get better, stronger, and more exciting as the league moves towards a better structure if that's what they deem is necessary. In the meantime, I hope every team is healing up for the playoff push...!!!

James Eyre · Veteran Member

I like Jaye's idea so next year when we have the hardest schedule we can win our division with a lower record. In Jaye's last post does it really put the Rev ahead of Dixie even if they lose this week? Or is that a typo? It can't be a good system if it would put a 6 - 2 team as the number one seed ahead of an 8 - 0 team that beat them twice in one year. I will be rooting for the Rev this week so the #1 seed is in Salt Lake so I can see the Championship if the Sting are not in it because of how bad we suck and how easy our schedule was. We probably don't have any chance against the better teams and I still would like to see how real teams play football. So Jaye, would you give the Stealth the #1 schedule next year and the Sting the #2? Or is it just for playoffs that you would do that? The fact, like the NFL decided, is we are all AAA and equal or we are not. Next year the Sting schedule will be Stealth twice, Rebels, Rev, Blaze, Shock, Stampede, and whoever wins the Idaho division. It will all even out and if your worried that the best team won't win the championship then let's wait and see. I have a feeling like in the end the top two teams will be there but you may be right and some team who doesn't deserve it like the Sting because we are not really any good and should probably be AA but got lucky with our schedule and because we are seeded too high might sneak in.

Bradthurber · Senior Member

I like the discussion and certainly think there is room for improvement; although I think we've got a great foundation to build on. One point of clarification, for the seeding this year in the regular season, we did generally go by how teams finished (i.e. the Bulldawgs were seeded #3 because they advanced further than the Anarchy in the playoffs, even though the Anarchy finished with a slightly better regular season record and the Stealth were seeded #1, etc.) So, if the Stealth end up making the Championhsip and the Sting lose in the semi-finals, the Stealth would still be the #1 seed in their division next year. If the Rev lost to the Rebels twice, but then beat them in the Championship, the REV would be the #1 seed in their division next year, etc. Not to derail the discussion on technicalities, just clarifying.

GORILLA20 · Senior Member

My bad, Mr. Eyre. I posted the REBELS winning and being 8-0 but did the math for both teams being 7-1. I apologize. I think you're taking it personal and I don't think anyone is pointing at The Sting but let's be real.....the system is flawed. I don't think ANYONE thinks the Sting suck or that you're bad. We certainly don't and that's not the point of my post. I didn't single out ANY team and I never do. It's just for the PLAYOFFS. The Stealth won't win the division this season so the Sting would get the #1 seed next year. If we are all "EQUAL" than there would be no seeding and everyone would just play everyone. Part of the new structure was to give lower level / former AA teams a chance to play the big boys but not let it dictate our entire season. I LOVE that idea but with that said, they shouldn't be penalized for being a higher level team. A 7-1 record as a 4 seed should not hold the same weight as a 7-1 1 seed. If you don't think that's realistic than we should not have the seeding at all. It will all evens out for the regular season BUT if you guys go 6-2 and your only loss is to the #1 seed than YOU shouldn't be a 5th seed either. Even if the REV and Rebels split the series, one of them will be a 5th seed and have to travel throughout the playoffs. It does not mean that you aren't a good team, (i'm not sure why that upsets you). For example, the Shock have only won 1 game as a #2 seed. Look at the teams that have won more than 1 game. Where would you put the Shock in that ranking? Probably ahead of ANY team from 1 win through 4 or 5 wins, (or at least in the MIX with those teams). I agree we should use the structure and seeding to create a balance for the lower level teams in the regular season to compete BUT use a formula to balance it out for the upper level teams in the playoffs. And if anyone STILL thinks (after playing the teams this year) that there is not a change in LEVELS than you are BAT-POOP crazy. Best record only means best team if everyone plays everyone. That was why we went to the structure we did in the AA. We cannot use a formula to tip the scales to help out the lower level teams and then let it affect the upper level teams. It doesn't have to be MY scenario and it can be tweaked or adjusted to make it work. Either way, we have to figure something out. We, (as former AA teams) cannot ask for HELP in regards to scheduling and parity to compete than expect to be EQUAL. In either case, the best RECORDS would still be in the playoffs but the best TEAMS that play the best TEAMS would be seeded accordingly.

JGarrett · Member

I guess my question/comment would be how can anyone determine prior to the season who the best teams will be? Since the Sting and Shock to be the current examples lets use them. I don't think there were to many people in the league who thought the Shock would be so devastated by injuries, or would be on the losing side of so many close games, given their regular season record last year, I know that the majority of the league would have been led to believe initially that they would have been on the top teams in the league regardless of their schedule. That in turn would have changed the SOS for the Sting and could very well not be having this conversation about those 2 teams. Let's also say, that a middle of the pack team, or a team that might have a high seeding for the playoffs but are still deemed as an average team due to their schedule or division, go out and recruit heavily and bring in some top notch talent that make them far better then the year before. I don't even know if I made any sense, haha, but what I guess I'm saying, is that in any league there can be parity. Things change and evolve and it's nearly impossible to determine who the best of the best are gonna be the following year. Shoot, we saw that in AA last year, where Boise merged with some very good players creating a monster. Now moving to AAA they dropped off, but have still been pretty competitive going into the later half of the year. The system will never be perfect, and every year there will be points made, and changes desired. I just think it's pretty damn early to already be bucking the system without allowing it to pan out.

alsmith_54 · Member

James Eyre wrote:
I like Jaye's idea so next year when we have the hardest schedule we can win our division with a lower record.
if the Sting are not in it because of how bad we suck and how easy our schedule was. We probably don't have any chance against the better teams and I still would like to see how real teams play football.
Sting schedule will be Stealth twice, Rebels, Rev, Blaze, Shock, Stampede, and whoever wins the Idaho division. It will all even out and if your worried that the best team won't win the championship then let's wait and see.
I have a feeling like in the end the top two teams will be there but you may be right and some team who doesn't deserve it like the Sting because we are not really any good and should probably be AA but got lucky with our schedule and because we are seeded too high might sneak in.

First of all... I don't recall anybody saying the Sting suck, so clearly you have a personal issue ..or motivate yourself by feeling like everyone is against you... (sounds like the Shock mantra! lol) but whatever works!

All that has been said is that you win the division based on overall record (while having the LOWEST SOS in the league) NOT by actually winning the division. The argument has not been that your team doesn't belong in the playoffs, but rather that the division winners do not deserve the automatic top 4 spots. The seeding method is simply saying, take all the six teams that qualified for the playoffs and then rank them in order of where they should be seeded based off of 2 things (Wins and SOS). its a very simple formula that balances out the lots of wins your very non competitive team has, with the actual tough schedules you mentioned later in your post.

Now lets take a look at that schedule too... I'm just going to make my own assumptions on these because you didn't really play them this year. If that had been the Sting schedule this year, I bet the record looks something like 3-5 maybe a 4-4. which pretty much eliminates you from the playoff conversation. So when considering the topic of this thread we see the need for a re-seeding!

I like the new structure, sure it has flaws, as are being discussed. I also think the Shock belong in the playoffs, but based on their tough schedule that doesn't allow them in. So even with an improved system we still see some good teams not make it. That sucks, but the new system and 2014 league structure is better.

I have nothing personal against you, so forgive me if this comes across wrong. However, it seems like most the posts I have seen from you this year immediately jump to how we are all equal and yet nobody respects you because your schedule. etc... The whole topic of this thread has nothing to do with the Structure of AAA, or how the AA teams that moved up have it easier, or better yet how the Sting suck and don't belong. I would say the general sense of this thread has been that the structure is great and produced good results, yet it lacked foresight into balancing the post season.

Do the sting belong in the playoffs? YES... they earned it on the field. Do I think they deserve the Division winner seed, the #2 spot and home field advantage? NO if you re-read the thread, the concepts all still bring those same 6 teams that rose to the top, however it eliminates the automatic seeding and allows for there to be a balanced re-seeding to start the playoffs.