Creativity, you the real MVP

I'd like to say thank you creativity, you guys played more than anyone and never gave up. You should be in the playoffs IMO. Hope to see you guys make a late push this week and get in, goes to show you these guys really are here to play the best and get better all around. hope to see you guys in the next tournament, you're better than your record shows

P.S WHO THE HELL IS SCRAPPLE

 

I'd say their record represents them pretty well.

 

Scrapple gm here

 

Scrapple took the two things he loves in this world, and used them to make his GT.

Snapple beverages
+
Scrabble

 

Creativity and Future Considerations are extremely good people. cr8 scared us last playoff run and future considerations has a better record against us this time around than anyone else in the tournament.

I'm rooting for both teams down the stretch

 

or or he just loves a pork product made from the scraps of a pig aptly named scrapple...

 

And actually related to this thread you can definitely see some fault with this system as it is, minimum number of games should probably be higher for all teams. But obviously we have 6 teams or so that haven't met the current minimum.

 

Well Future Considerations and Cr8 have a serious shot of making it because of the minimum of games. And I agree i think it should he raised to say 40 games? I don't see how over a month and a half a team can't play 40-60 games.

 

I agree with those saying the minimum amount of games played needs to be higher, or maybe incorporate some kind of point drain for teams that stop playing.

 

You're right, I was just projecting, hoping somebody out there might share my passion for those two things...

I agree, the season spans almost 7 weeks (47 nights), averaging about 7 games a week isn't really all that much.

It's obvious that the way it's setup now is slightly flawed, and favours teams that play less games. While it's not that big of a problem, it definitely is a little bit backwards, and punishes teams for playing more games, when really it should be the other way around.

Looking at my team, we need 8 more games to reach the minimum of 25. Looking at the points totals, we could probably go 2-5-1 in the final 8 games and finish 16th.
That would leave us with a 4-19-2 record for the season, which is a 0.160 win%.
Compare that to Future Considerations (39-58-11) with a 0.361 win% and creativity (34-67-8) with a 0.311 win%, and it's easy to see they would most likely be ranked higher than us over the same number of games, or if the number of games played were at least closer.

 

[MENTION=3845]MaKi x18[/MENTION] and I agree but the top teams win games regardless if they play 30 games or 80. Winning is winning BUT I'd change the point system to more of a hockey/soccer style.

regulation win : 5 points
overtime win : 3 points
regulation loss : - 3 points
overtime loss : - 1 point

no no more of this if they are a low seed u only get 10 points for beating them none sense, a more traditional style is better and easier to follow.

 

Your input will be considered. Honestly don't think that is the way to go but everyone's opinions will be taken into account.

Honestly before this tournament people were adamant that "just playing a lot shouldn't be rewarded". Obviously sucking and stopping shouldn't be rewarded either so I think the best plan moving forward is just adding a little more of an "activity bonus". Even just giving everyone a point or 2 for each game played would drastically change the bottom half of the standings

 

You know I love this tourney and feel it's near perfect but I think the point system should be simplified and more traditional. I've thought about it and you're right if we went to the point system I said then the teams who play a lot even though they lose would be rewarded so I propose this
regulation win : 3 points
OT win : 1 point
regulatiob loss : -5 points
Ot loss : -3 points

it would make losing hit harder than winning a game yet keep the traditional feel of the point system.

 

And the teams like creativity and future considerations will still be screwed. I don't see what you're accomplishing here.

 

I simple point system wont work unless there is a set amount of games. Something like this could easily be exploited.

A suggestion I have for those on the planning board would be maybe to set the minimum games based on teams signed up. Have 2x the teams signed up. In this case it would be what, 48? It's a simple formula the only problem is if this grows big enough there would have to be a cap & once that number is hit it freezes.

 

Yupp.

 

Absolutely. I know I didn't say that directly, but that's why I said it's a flaw, but not a big one. It doesn't really effect the top teams, and won't alter who wins the whole thing really, but it does discourage teams from staying active which could be an issue if it stays like this and teams realize it.

Imagine if creativity and future considerations had stopped playing at 25 games, that's 80 games less for each team give or take, 160 games overall. That would make it a hell of a lot more difficult for teams to find games which is definitely not what this league wants.
The activity was pretty strong throughout this regular season, but there was still times where it was tough to find a game, and that's with a lot of teams going well over the minimum games. If the lower teams were to limit their games played once they reached the minimum because they were worried it would hurt their playoff hopes it would definitely have a negative affect on the league.

Anyway, I think this thing has been organized and run very well, no complaints here. I'm just trying to point out some stuff that may help improve it, however slightly, and avoid potential problems in future seasons.

 

[MENTION=3845]MaKi x18[/MENTION] , I think there still would of been enough games just a lot more of the top teams playing eachother, don't forget Cr8 or FC puts up a game at 12 doesn't mean they're the only team to play against. But I think we need to figure out a way to make it more competitive and teams more active even if that means less teams and more players allowed on a team. Would some of these teams with less than 20 games played have played more if they had 12 guys on the roster or did they stop because they were being beaten? I'm fine with the tourney real, it's my favorite part of LG now but there's always ways to improve

 

To me, adding more people isn't the solution. Letting teams replace inactive players would be far more beneficial.

 

I agree with this to an extent, but with everything there has to be a limit. I could have started my tournament with my roster and replaced a few guys and ended up with Bass - FSU - YouSee - Dups - Kody - Perri and people would probably freak out about it. Replacing 1 player prevents stacking your team after the tournament starts, which in my opinion is unfair because you might be the 9 seed, but you just replaced your whole team with dominant players and now you'll ruin the advantage that having a higher seed is supposed to create.

I'll be taking a lot of the stuff I've learned from the first 2 pro series into consideration before the next run and I'll be talking to a lot of people about their thoughts on things that can be changed. As of now the point system is fairly good, maybe a small tweak to reward activity but thats all I can see changing with that. Roster Size/Replacements could very well change, minimum games could change, but I'll be doing a lot of thinking over the next few weeks of what can change. This playoff availability thing is also something I'm hoping will work but not 100% convinced will go according to plan. If its an issue its another thing that might get changed going forward.