FRANSBURG, VA – It’s time to shake up the SCUFFLE Immersion Divisions. The divisions were originally put in place to reflect the geographic relationships of the home teams which, not surprisingly, is no longer relevant thanks to owner movement and replacement over the past decade (current residences shown):
|
Gas Giants |
A over Zero |
Los Perros Mugrientos |
| Colliders – Illinois | Chitons – Illinois | Pirates – Oregon |
| Revolution – Virginia | Banthas – Ohio | Krackens – California |
| Marauders – Wisconsin | Hawks – Oregon | Gridiron Gang – Oregon |
| Battery – Illinois | Silvertips – South Carolina | Dream Team – Oregon |
We COULD simply realign based on current locations, moving the Hawks to make an all-Oregon division, partnering the Marauders with the Illinois squads to make a “Northern Midwest” division and mashing the Krackens, Banthas, Revolution, and Silvertips to form a “Below 40 Degrees Latitude” division. Unfortunately, that’s boring – we end up playing the same teams over and over. I propose that we switch things up on an annual basis so that we get new rivals all the time. So, how to do it?
I propose using points scored from the previous year. It’s as good a measure as any and will ensure that there’s competitive balance among divisions from year to year.
RULE PROPOSAL: Every year, we re-seed the divisions based on points scored the previous season. Teams are assigned a division based on rank in serpentine order such that:
Division A – 1st in points scored, 6th, 7th, 12th
Division B – 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th
Division C – 3rd, 4th 9th, 10th
For reference, Figure 1 illustrates the scoring from last year (note: the division color scheme is the same as in the table above). I ranked each team 1-12 where 1 was most points scored and 12 the fewest. The top three scoring teams were the Revolution, Battery, and Colliders, respectively. The bottom three teams in scoring were the Banthas, Dream Team, and Hawks, respectively. If the league were well-balanced, we’d expect one team from each division to be in the top ¼ and one in the bottom ¼.
But one year is one year; let’s look at the data from the past three seasons (we’ve had the same 12 owners for that time span – woo hoo!). For Figure 2 I again ranked each team 1-12 in scoring and then simply averaged that rank over three years, which resulted in some ties:
Again, it’s clear that using the 3-year ranking based on points scored would really shake up the divisions for next season. Based on my proposal of serpentine re-seeding (starting with #1 in Division A), we can go with either of these options and set up new and interesting divisions for the coming season:
OPTION 1: Divisions based on 2016 points scored:
Division A – Revolution, Pirates, Silvertips, Banthas
Division B – Battery, Chitons, Marauders, Dream Team
Division C – Colliders, Krackens, Gridiron Gang, Hawks
OPTION 2: Divisions based on the points scored the last three years:
Division A – Krackens, Battery, Banthas, Hawks
Division B – Revolution, Chitons, Marauders, Silvertips
Division C – Colliders, Pirates, Gridiron Gang, Dream Team
In summary, making this change would be a fun and easy way to keep the Divisions fresh from year to year, resulting in new and interesting rivalries. Which option do you prefer?
Should we move the cap penalty window from June 1st to the start of UFA?
- Yes (100%, 7 Votes)
- No (0%, 0 Votes)
Total Voters: 7
Loading ...© 2017, Adam Franssen. All rights reserved.
I’m slightly confused–are we voting on should we do division realignment, or is it a foregone conclusion? I’m not saying I’m against it, just asking.
If division realignment happens, and these are our only 2 options, and it’s going to continue in the future, then Option 1 is a no-brained to me–no need to do something different the first year of a new rule. Plus, it keeps division naming rights intact.
I think we have to vote to realign or not realign first. After that, we could choose between the two options here. The goal of the question at the end of the article was to get some feedback. I added a poll on Facebook that also included Option 3: Stay the same.
What I like about this is that it takes out some of the element of luck . When the top-3 scoring teams are in the same division that sucks for the team that goes 6-7 and misses the playoffs, despite being 2nd or 3rd in scoring. Meanwhile, some clown college team in another division cakewalks to 8-5 on the strength of the 9th most points scored.
I personally like the idea of new divisions every year because it would be kind of fun to learn who your opponents will be each season. And it’d be fun to develop new rivalries, especially for me, as I have so thoroughly dominated my division mates for years.
I bet some years the divisions wouldn’t even change that much. And I’m cool with that because it would mean that we have moved one step closer to taking luck out of the equation (as much as possible.)
I’m of course interested in passing my proposal. I’m ALSO interested in Matt’s idea, so I could go that way, too.
I have no objection to switching around the divisions. I think these options work if we want to do that (probably only need the one year point totals), but I too think Matt’s option might shake things up and add more excitement.