Suggestions for the 2014 PC Tournament?

Please post your suggestions for the upcoming 2014 Players Championship Tournament here!

Thanks!

GBrookes
commissioner

I think we should do away with the "bonus" points for making/winning playoff games.

If you win 88 games and I win 88 games, but I make the playoffs as a wildcard (and you do not), my team is NOT 5-15 additional wins better than yours.

My opinion is that the points accumulated should be based straight across the board on wins only, to include the additional playoff wins. That is, if you win 90 regular season games and 8 post-season games, then you receive 98 total points. If you win 90 regular season games and get swept in the semis, you get 90 points.

The downside is that the points races will probably be a lot closer; however, I think in the end this is more desirable than watching a weak 87-win division winner get a huge (but imaginary) percentage mark-up over a 92-win runner-up in another stronger division, who misses the wildcard.

I think we should get started right away.
Also include some live drafts in the mix.

I like J-Pav's suggestion, although I'd be OK with giving the ultimate league champion a 5-point bonus. But no other bonus points just for making the playoffs.

I think we should get started right away.
Also include some live drafts in the mix.

Agree with both of these thoughts.

Re the comments by J-Pav and GoDucks:

I agree in broad principle with both of you.

A couple of "dilemma" thoughts -

- I still think that there should be some bonus points - maybe just not as many. Otherwise, the playoffs become completely meaningless to the overall tournament. Also, playoff points provide some "faint hope" for the players who are otherwise out of contention for the top 36, to leapfrog in. Thus it keeps it interesting for a wider group of players for a greater period of time. One player in particular was able to jump in at the very end - I think it was markyura maybe, from memory. This keeps it fun.

- GoDucks - I actually think that there is relatively more "merit" in just making the playoffs, than there is in for winning the playoff series. Many vets say that anything can happen in a 7 game series. But making the playoffs requires a high level of skill over the 162 game schedule.

It's worth noting that the championship winner in each league was once awarded 20 bonus points, a few years back.

Here's my proposal, to reduce the impact of the playoff bonus points, without eliminating them.

-make playoffs - 3 bonus points
-advance to finals - 2 bonus points
-win championship - 3 bonus points

That means that the most you could win, as playoff bonus points, would be 8 - down from 15 at present.

What do you think?

I think we should do away with the "bonus" points for making/winning playoff games.

If you win 88 games and I win 88 games, but I make the playoffs as a wildcard (and you do not), my team is NOT 5-15 additional wins better than yours.

My opinion is that the points accumulated should be based straight across the board on wins only, to include the additional playoff wins. That is, if you win 90 regular season games and 8 post-season games, then you receive 98 total points. If you win 90 regular season games and get swept in the semis, you get 90 points.

The downside is that the points races will probably be a lot closer; however, I think in the end this is more desirable than watching a weak 87-win division winner get a huge (but imaginary) percentage mark-up over a 92-win runner-up in another stronger division, who misses the wildcard.

J-Pav - please see my previous post. To specifically comment on your point about the 92 game winner who misses the playoffs - you're right. I just think that, with changes to the number of bonus points, the "evil" from this occurrence is somewhat offset by the positives that come with a modified bonus point system. Please let me know if you can live with my "compromise" proposal. I think the reduced number of bonus points reduces the "evil" for the 92 game winner who misses the playoffs.

Thanks, Geoff.

I can live with anything, I'm just giving you my personal opinion.

In the very end, 36 very capable teams make the playoffs. I don't think changing the point system dramatically alters that outcome, except...

...it will probably have a more noticeable impact on teams 30-40. If our goal is to keep the most managers interested and involved for the longest amount of time, then anything that keeps the points closer will be more desirable. How many teams drop out after leagues 1-2, because one guy earns 105 points and they earn 79? That 79 win team very well could have been an 85 win team with another chance. That 90 win team that gets a quick ring puts 26 points of distance on the board that will probably not be overcome in four additional leagues. My point is, those two teams are not so far apart as our current system implies.

FWIW, I'm not in favor of helping the great "leap-frogging" team. In any individual game, the VERY BEST managers in SOM Online win 52-54% of the time. Those are hard earned wins. And that means averaging 87 wins in a season puts you in pretty good company. Anything that distorts this favors the less capable player, because then we move further into the "wow, that was really lucky" category of things.

87 wins means an average winning pct of .537. Three more losses or three more wins means that changes from .519 to .556. When those three losses and wins are assigned as "bonus points", again, in my opinion, that's an unrealistic picture of who is doing what. And to think the bonus points can be 15 "wins" per league (ie, x4), it's no wonder people drop out fast.

Even a "compromise" 8 points distorts things too much. 8 wins more or less than 87 means a winning pct range from .488 to .586. That is simply too much range when they are just "bonus" points.

If we need bonus points, I'm all in favor of a 5 point participation bonus.

For discussion:

Here are the Top 36 teams, with their four best records unfiltered by the bonus points (to incl the participation pts).

1. qksilver69 424 - 379
2. J-Pav 406 - 356
3. Knerrpool 404 - 354
4. karphenry 397 - 358
5. gbrookes 396 - 351
6. DERRICKS 395 - 360
7. stevep107 394 - 346
8. the ghost 393 - 358
8. NYY82602 393 - 348
8. ROGGIE 393 - 358
11. Terry101 392 - 352
12. Stoney18 391 - 356
13. the splint 389 - 354
14. Spider 67 387 - 357
15. Pan Mark 385 - 360
16. Dr.Publix 383 - 338
17. spicki17 381 - 361
18. Phenome 380 - 355
19. mesquiton 379 - 349
20. Jake Squid 377 - 352
20. buzz0823 377 - 347
22. teamnasty 376 - 351
23. TomSieb 375 - 350
24. thisisray 374 - 349
24. chuckwo 374 - 344
24. mpchare 374 - 334
24. bertolett 374 - 344
24. Delbird 374 - 344
29. pronk08 372 - 337
29. durantjerr 372 - 342
29. LongIsland 372 - 337
32. jmoore 371 - 341
32. Gilbo 371 - 346
34. blsmith7 370 - 345
35. TexasKen 369 - 349
36. coachtwit 368 - 333

My argument: it is more desirable to have the unfiltered points, because that best reflects the actual performance of any team over four tour leagues, and the closer races will keep people involved for a longer stretch of time.

*Note: I still think the playoff wins should be added to the total (they are NOT factored in above) as the "bonus" points. They are earned on the field of play, not "assigned".

The revised Top 12 (Baker's Dozen):

1. qksilver69 424 - 379
2. spicki17 381 - 361
3. DERRICKS 395 - 360
3. Pan Mark 385 - 360
5. karphenry 397 - 358
5. the ghost 393 - 358
5. ROGGIE 393 - 358
8. Spider 67 387 - 357
9. J-Pav 406 - 356
9. Stoney18 391 - 356
11. Phenome 380 - 355
12. Knerrpool 404 - 354
12. the splint 389 - 354

I think you can see from this distribution how much the "real" wins are altered by "bonus" points. I'd much rather lose a heart-breaker by one "real" point than get smoked by an illusionary 15 "bonus" points. And again, to reiterate, the Top 36 are still (pretty much) the Top 36, but the slight difference is in rewarding those last few teams to make it in. Who deserves most to be there?