I’m intrigued by re-seeding the divisions. I do relish my division rival match-ups, but it’s nice to shake things up from time to time. I figured to throw out a more left field plan in case people are feeling particularly adventurous. A variation of this has probably been proposed before.. but still.
I’ve recently dove into following the Premier League. One aspect I love is that there are multiple leagues with the Premier league being the top. At the end of the year the bottom three team get demoted to the league below and the top three teams from the lower league get promoted. It’s pretty exciting.
So I propose
TWO divisions (A & B) six teams each, use aggregate points over the last three years to divide to the upper (A) and lower (B) league.
you play each team in your league twice (10 games) and three non-league games
at the end of the season the worst two records in A get relegated to league B the following year, the best two records from league B get automatically promoted to league A.
We also have a playoffs with the top 3 teams from each league (#1&2 from league A get byes). IF that third place team from league B manages to win the championship they get a special promotion to league A for next year. Which means the 4th place team from league A gets a “special” demotion. Brutal.
We still battle the worlds most futile with the bottom three from each league. IF that 4th place team from league A manages to win the Most Futile Franchise he gets a special demotion to league B and thus promoting the 3rd place league B team.
The promotion/relegation scheme adds a lot of drama particularly at the bottom of the brackets and through the playoffs, etc.
Should we kill RFA and instead offer a 4th year option to rookie contracts?
- Yes (78%, 7 Votes)
- No (22%, 2 Votes)
Total Voters: 9
Loading ...© 2017, Matt Giorgianni. All rights reserved.
Okay, asking for some clarification.
Teams in league B could still win the title? They’d go to the playoffs like normal?
I mean, what makes it better to be in league A, other than a first round bye in the playoffs for 2 of the 3 teams?
I considered the bragging rights to carry some weight.
I think I’m more hardcore.
What about 3 divisions?
A: Tops, best, whatever. Your top 4 teams based on last 3-years scoring or whatever.
B: Middle. Your next 4
C: The Holley Hawks of the world.
Playoffs: 3 from A, 3 from B, NONE from C (I’d even go in for 4-2-0.) Top 2 teams from A get a bye, the rest of the 4 are seeded based on points scored (so good teams from division B can still get a decent shot.)
Relegation/Delegation: Worst/Best from divisions A/B switch spots and Worst/Best from B/C switch spots. The effect would be a 2-year journey to even get a chance at the playoffs for those bottom feeder teams. Or you could have a 2-year descent into madness if you’re a good team that has started to sputter.
I know this is probably unpalatable to some, but I think if we’re going to go in for Matt’s idea I’d like to go ALL IN. As it is now, it just seems like division realignment light, with no real punishment for being bad.
AND, just to take it ONE STEP FURTHER, if we really wanted to be like soccer we could have $350 cap for division A, $325 cap for division B, and a $300 cap for division C.
I think I would still care about being in the top league and that would be incentive enough. I’m not necessarily opposed to your ideas here, they are certainly harsher. I would fear that teams in C would likely check out completely. I like the two-division model because then the pool of teams you face twice is just larger, builds more rivalries. The cap level difference can be ported to a two-division model.
You can also really support competition in the lower division by giving the 1st and 2nd pick to the WINNERS of league B (help them compete the following year) the rest of B can take picks in reverse finishing order.
I like the idea of the soccer style relegation system, but have some reservations:
This might be me not being flexible, but with a relegation system all scheduled games should be within your league/division–I could see deviating from this, but then the schedule would need to be balanced (currently each team does not play everyone else), which could happen by altering the play-offs and/or including double header weeks.
What is the point of the play-offs? Promotion and relegation should be based on the quality of the team proven over the course of the season, not a short, but good run at the end–I think this is even more important if relegation resulted in other penalties (i.e. cap hits as josh mentioned). I guess the play-offs could be dropped, to really follow the soccer model, but I don’t think I would like this though, since it takes away the possibility of a run through the play-offs to championship glory…..given the Chitons have generally been a better regular season than play-off team , maybe I should like this.
I think the Playoffs can still operate normally, the glory of getting that championship trophy is essential. The year-long play is what determines promotion/relegation. So there’d be two carrots to chase. If we follow Adam’s suggestion of keeping the playoff representation to 4 from A and 2 from B then, there’s not extra promotion based on playoffs alone.
I don’t think the schedule is too big a problem. 3 out-of-league games is not significant and yet they allow for the drama of a good upset.
I want to re-frame this debate as follows: What problem are we trying to solve?
I think relegation/delegation (dramatic or otherwise) attempts to solve a problem of “keeping it interesting” or “raising the stakes.” I’m not sure that these need solving. I find the league super interesting already. If bragging rights is part of the sell for Divsion A, then how are not already addressing this with the championship trophy and the most futile franchise award?
If the problem is “top-3 scoring teams miss the playoffs because they are all in the same division” (which I think is actually a problem) then Adam’s proposal more directly addresses it.
All of that being said, I’ve been a proponent of the delegation/relegation in the past, but I don’t want to do Relegation Lite. I prefer 3 divisions to 2. If there’s no hope for division C, then I would support a 3-2-1 playoff distribution (along with cap space differences) across the divisions. Then if you’re in the worst division, at least you can go to the playoffs if you win your division (and move up to the next division the following season.)
I hear you, and i’m not sure there is much in the way of a problem. In terms of stakes raising, I think what the relegation/promotion system does is keep the middle of the pack more invested and excited. The Trophy is great and all, but as we all know playoffs can be a little dickish what with real NFL teams resting players etc. This scheme adds in more incentive towards a whole year performance.
I like the idea, especially with the salary cap differences. If you’re completely married to 2 divisions rather than 3, what other differences might we notice with the new scheme? I think I need more incentive for being in the top division – I mean, I’d probably rather be with the scrubs in the second division so I could have an easier time racking up wins.
You wanna be king of the losers… feel free!
More franchise tags?
Lower Holdout demands?
Better restructuring terms?
If a system like this was used, I think I would prefer 2 divisions of 6 teams–puts more weight on games in your division (10 in and 3 out; vs. 6 in and 7 out), and I agree that playing more teams twice adds to generation of rivalries.
How would draft order work? Maybe this could be the incentive to be in the top division, sorta spinning off of Matt, with Division A teams going before Division B? With promotion/relegation the draft order might be like this: B2, B1, A4, A3, A2, A1, B6, B5, B4, B3, A6, A5.
I like the idea of a cap hit as an incentive to stay in the top division, but something with players being less likely to hold out for A Division teams could also be interesting–though probably more complex to implement.
I like both of Tom’s arguments for the draft and for player management.
Right now, players can hold out if they’re 50% of the way through their contract OR if they are past their first year. We could make the Division A threshold that players can’t hold out until Year 3. Or perhaps that they only hold out 4 games instead of 7. For the latter, you’d risk relegation because your guy is holding out against harder competition.
I think it’s important to remember that I already play in the premier division.
The more I think about it, the more I like 3 divisions (because it’s like what Adam proposed) and the lowest division getting a playoff team (so it’s not hopeless for them.) I like the 3-2-1 approach. The advantage of being in the top tier is that you have a much higher chance of making the playoffs. The middle tier replicates what we already have (usually 2 teams from each division go to the playoffs.) The lowest tier is much harder – but hey, if you pull it off, not only do you go to the playoffs but you get promoted!
Maybe the first 3 draft picks automatically go to 3 non-playoff teams in the lowest division (though I’d recommend a lottery for those 3 picks to discourage tanking.) Then the next 2 draft picks could come from the non-playoff teams in the middle division and the #6 pick could go to the non-playoff team from the premier division. Then the teams in the lowest division are trading from a position of strength – if you get their first rounder you’re likely to get a top-3 pick. That can help them overcome being in the lowest division, as they might well rack up solid players (or can draft stars to help them climb out.)
And if you think you might have a chance at winning that division (and promotion) you’d be much more aggressive heading into the trade deadline.
I also like the idea that you have more money from your TV deal if you’re in the top division.
Sorry guys–I’m really busy today and haven’t had time to digest this. And not not afraid to admit I laughed out loud when I realized I had a freaking 21 page PowerPoint in my inbox today … about division realignment … from Franssen …
Ahem, incentives. Referring to slide 18, isn’t the prospect of going 0-13 in the “A” division and not having to play for the Most Futile Franchise a damn good incentive? I assume under Josh’s scenario that the 3 last place teams in “C” and the demotion by team from “B” play for the Futile Franchise, right? In that regard, I’m almost in favor of the 3-2-1 making the playoffs. Think about that–if you’re in “C” you’re either going for the real trophy or playing not to be the worst–should be a real incentive to get out! Plus, if you successfully rebuild, you should be promoted and regarded just by virtue of playing against the crappier teams.
I agree with you Enright. I laughed as well when I saw it was 21 slides.
But yeah, I’ve come around to the idea of giving the best team in division 3 a shot at the title. And I think the incentives we’ve suggested are good ones.
Also, you’re not in the premier division Hammond–can’t call a division that won its first championship in 5 season “premier” … 😉
Ha! I can’t wait until I win the 3rd title so you can shut your stupid face forever.