Suggestions for the 2014 PC Tournament?

Put another way:

All of the following teams win 90 games in a regular tour season.

1. 98 points - this guy won the ring.
2. 96 points - this guy lost the Finals (with 6 playoff wins).
3. 94 points - this guy was swept in the Finals (with 4 semis wins).
4. 92 points - this guy lost in the Semis (with 2 semis wins).
5. 90 points - this guy was swept in the Semis.
6. 90 points - this guy missed the wildcard.

Right now, under our current system:

Team 1 is awarded 105 points.
Team 2 gets 100 points.
Team 3 earns the same 100 points as Team 2.
Team 4 makes 95 points.
Team 5 also gets 95 points.
Team 6 has a plain vanilla 90 points.

How does this make sense to anybody, when the scenario on top is so much more precise???

J-Pav, I like this idea. I agree that the bonus points really skew the point standings

I like GBrookes' proposal. Rewarding points for playoff appearance and performance doesn't really skew points totals as much as it factors in playoff appearance and performance, which are a significant part of a team's success. Why would we want to completely disregard that element of success when deciding the final 36 and the champion?

In other words, is making regular season performance the sole arbiter of deciding the final 36 and the champion worth completely disregarding performance in the playoffs, which is a significant part of the competition, when deciding the final 36 and champion?

Put another way:

All of the following teams win 90 games in a regular tour season.

1. 98 points - this guy won the ring.
2. 96 points - this guy lost the Finals (with 6 playoff wins).
3. 94 points - this guy was swept in the Finals (with 4 semis wins).
4. 92 points - this guy lost in the Semis (with 2 semis wins).
5. 90 points - this guy was swept in the Semis.
6. 90 points - this guy missed the wildcard.

Right now, under our current system:

Team 1 is awarded 105 points.
Team 2 gets 100 points.
Team 3 earns the same 100 points as Team 2.
Team 4 makes 95 points.
Team 5 also gets 95 points.
Team 6 has a plain vanilla 90 points.

How does this make sense to anybody, when the scenario on top is so much more precise???

But, J-Pav, with this logic, why do they have any playoffs in professional sport in real life?
Answer, because it's a fun way to determine the winner. More fun than just declaring the regular season winner as the overall winner.
I get the main point. I can live with the conclusion in a "relative" way. I like my proposal better as a compromise. Otherwise, no playoffs will mean a darn thing until the final.
I'm proposing to essentially cut the playoff bonus points in half, near enough. I think that goes a long way to addressing your concerns. I really hope you can live with that, as a compromise solution. Please give it some thought. I like my idea (obviously), and I'd like to go with that. Please give it some more thought.

I like GBrookes' proposal. Rewarding points for playoff appearance and performance doesn't really skew points totals as much as it factors in playoff appearance and performance, which are a significant part of a team's success. Why would we want to completely disregard that element of success when deciding the final 36 and the champion?

In other words, is making regular season performance the sole arbiter of deciding the final 36 and the champion worth completely disregarding performance in the playoffs, which is a significant part of the competition, when deciding the final 36 and champion?

Wow. My ability to communicate must really be lacking. I'm pretty much done here, so I hope someone else can take a few snaps. Where on earth did I say to completely disregard playoff performance??? I'm simply saying one playoff victory earned should equal one point earned. The bonus point system overwhelms the actual wins by too large a percent, is all I am saying.

But, J-Pav, with this logic, why do they have any playoffs in professional sport in real life?
Answer, because it's a fun way to determine the winner. More fun than just declaring the regular season winner as the overall winner.

Where in professional sports are playoffs organized around teams having the most fun? What we are doing has nothing to do with real life baseball playoffs. Also, how did we leap to "just declaring the regular season winner as the overall winner." I've never suggested anything remotely close to that.

I get the main point. I can live with the conclusion in a "relative" way. I like my proposal better as a compromise. Otherwise, no playoffs will mean a darn thing until the final.

Where in professional sports are "bonus points" added to the standings? And what does "no playoffs will mean a darn thing until the final" mean??

I'm proposing to essentially cut the playoff bonus points in half, near enough. I think that goes a long way to addressing your concerns. I really hope you can live with that, as a compromise solution. Please give it some thought. I like my idea (obviously), and I'd like to go with that. Please give it some more thought.

I don't need to give it more thought. The thread is called "Suggestions for the 2014 PC Tournament." I had a suggestion and I've stated my case. It would be nice if some other people chimed in, besides us going back and forth. I'm not trying to hold court and I'm not trying to win anyone over. I just had a suggestion for making the tournament more competitive. As commissioner I guess you're the final arbiter now anyway.

I like GBrookes' proposal. Rewarding points for playoff appearance and performance doesn't really skew points totals as much as it factors in playoff appearance and performance, which are a significant part of a team's success. Why would we want to completely disregard that element of success when deciding the final 36 and the champion?

In other words, is making regular season performance the sole arbiter of deciding the final 36 and the champion worth completely disregarding performance in the playoffs, which is a significant part of the competition, when deciding the final 36 and champion?

Wow. My ability to communicate must really be lacking. I'm pretty much done here, so I hope someone else can take a few snaps. Where on earth did I say to completely disregard playoff performance??? I'm simply saying one playoff victory earned should equal one point earned. The bonus point system overwhelms the actual wins by too large a percent, is all I am saying.

Um, J-Pav......lighten up, dude. We're discussing a Stratomatic championship here; it ain't life or death. I did miss your point about the points-per-playoff victory, but I still agree with Gbrookes that there should be bonuses for both first round playoff victories and championships. As he said, making the finals and winning the finals are why we play the game, not to set records for extreme-winning seasons...although those too are already rewarded by the point-per-win system.

So, the bonus point system--which GBrookes offered to reduce--doesn't "overwhelm actual wins" (as you say), but it makes sure that finals made and finals won are factored into determining the final 36 and the champion....as they should be.

Apparently, you're "pretty much done here," but, if you choose to "return," I look forward to your and others' further say in the matter. I imagine, no matter what is discussed, that it will eventually come down to some vote or opinion poll.

Re-reading some of this, maybe there's some confusion.

I am not suggesting we do away with the 36 semi-finalists or the 12 team finals league in favor of crowning a high points champion. I'm simply saying the way we calculate the points to determine the top 36 semi-finalists should more accurately reflect a manager's actual winning percentage. To me that means wins on the field (both regular season and post-season wins). "Bonus points" are not "wins on the field", they are an arbitrary distortion.

Re-reading some of this, maybe there's some confusion.

I am not suggesting we do away with the 36 semi-finalists or the 12 team finals league in favor of crowning a high points champion. I'm simply saying the way we calculate the points to determine the top 36 semi-finalists should more accurately reflect a manager's actual winning percentage. To me that means wins on the field (both regular season and post-season wins). "Bonus points" are not "wins on the field", they are an arbitrary distortion.

Bonus points for finals made and finals won are not an "arbitrary distortion." They are a way of factoring in those finals made and finals won--the reasons we play the game--in the determination of the 36 semi-finalists and the champion...as they should be.

Why not 25 points for making the playoffs, 25 more for winning the semis and 50 for winning the ring?