Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:32 pm
I agree that the rules are nebulous and that it's confusing.
Perhaps we should vote on an official change.
Here is what I propose to the comish:
3) The prior year's combined two-season records of the previous card set will determine the divisional assignments for Season 1 of each new year, with the East containing the 4 teams with the highest combined win/loss totals, the Central containing the next 4 best, and the West with the 4 lowest.
4) Divisional assignments for Season 2 each year will be determined by the final win/loss records of season 1, with seeding in each division being assigned as in Rule 3.
I know the reasoning behind the groupings of 4 best, than next 4 best, than last 4 is designed to keep the rotation of tough teams playing each other so that they aren't able to dominate a league for an extended run allowing no one else in the playoffs.
I believe the intention behind the rules was to create something like this:
After the initial season pf play (seeded by the initial draft order) you begin to see which teams are the toughest for that season, placing them together for season 2.
When you move into season 3 (season 1 of a new card set), seeding is based on combined records from seasons 1 & 2 because, you should have a better feel of which teams played most efficiently last card set. The chance that a new team will rise out of the West is good as they will have had the higher draft picks, possibly over several seasons. That is why you then again reseed in season 4 (season 2 of the new set).
Just my $.02 (which probably feel like a buck-fifty by now.)