Proposed change to playoffs for VGCC 2006

Though it’s too late to make changes to the playoffs for this year, I’m considering a minor tweak for next season.

As it is now, ties in a playoff week are broken by:
(1) most correct picks the previous playoff week (divisional finals only),
(2) most correct picks in the regular season,
(3) fewest incorrect picks in the regular season,
(4) highest post-season aggregate spread, and
(5) highest regular-season aggregate spread.

Next year, I’m thinking it’ll be:
(1) highest aggregate spread in current week,
(2) most correct picks the previous playoff week (divisional finals only),
(3) highest aggregate spread in previous playoff week (divisional finals only),
(4) most correct picks in the regular season,
(5) fewest incorrect picks in the regular season,
(6) highest regular-season aggregate spread.

This will put more emphasis on each playoff week, and less on the regular season standings. This past week, for example, when Montreal won by 16 and Edmonton won by 7, those who picked Montreal and Calgary would finish ahead of those who picked Saskatchewan and Edmonton, regardless of their regular season standings.

This change will not take place until next season, because (a) we’ve already started the playoffs under the current system; and (b) this will require some modifying of the spreadsheet, which I’d rather not do until the off-season.

I’d like to get some feedback before I make a decision one way or the other.

Great job BigDave and thanks again. In addition to your suggested changes, how about a total points (yesterday being 44 in the East & 59 in the West) section with the winner being the closest.

I like the way it is now. After a 20 week regular season I believe as much emphansis should be put on that as possible.

I like the way it is, but if you change it i wont cry.... At least the whole season sweats have a meaning the way it is now.

The only thing I would suggest is a point spread.
Say I point for picking the winner and another for picking the spread.
However there is nothing stopping a poster from picking team X by 1

Its your pool I'll be back next year no matter how its played

Great job Dave
Thanks again.

However you could say team x by more that 10 or less than 10

(Point spreads have been considered before, but they just make it a bit too complicated. Getting everyone's picks each week takes a while as it is; if I have to get their spreads as well, it will take twice as long.)

As for the playoff change, my thinking is this: as it is now, if you were in the bottom half of the qualifying group going in, and your team loses the first game, say good night. The new way will keep everyone in the running until the end of game 2.

Imagine the team you picked to win game one lost by 10 points. And say game two is in the final minute, and your team is up by 8. If they kick a field goal, you can be 1-1, and have an A.S. of +1, and should qualify for next week. If they kill the clock, you'll still be 1-1, but your A.S. of -2 will end your year.

If people prefer it the way it is, I'll keep it the way it is. I just thought this might be a bit more exciting.

Please keep up the discussion. I want to get a good idea of what most VGCC'ers think.

I don't think I like your proposed changes. I agree that is hard for the lower players to win, but to do the tie by aggregate spread is a hard thing to do, It puts more emphasis on who will win big, not on who will win.
I think if you are worried about the lower players being able to make it, you should make this change. Make the playoffs a mini regular season. do not eliminate players after rounds. do not change people's picks. This way all eight people get to play till the end. And the winner is who made the best picks in the playoffs. you could also score the rounds. with a win in the semis 1 point, win in the div 2 pts and a grey cup win 3 pts.

I don't know. just some suggestions.

Whatever works the best Big Dave..... I can work under any system.

I just make my picks and you tell me where I stand.

BigDave, I think I like the way things currently are, because the 20 week season should be important, which you've said if these changes take place, will lessen its importance. I can work under any system that is in place, and I'll make my picks next year with whatever system you have. I just think the regular season should be the main attraction, since it is 20 weeks in length, while the playoffs are only five games and three weeks in length.
Having said that, I'll go along with whatever the majority wants to do. Also, thanks again BigDave for a great season, and for your patience with an American learning some new things about the Canadian game and the CFL.

I propose next year you use a format that would include me in the playoffs. I finished in the Top 10 two years in a row and never made it in. (I blame the Riders)

I like your suggestions Big Dave. Billy says that it puts more emphasis on who will win big, but either way a person is going to have to pick the winners to move on. I like the fact that the regular season ranking determines who gets which team, but I think that is all it should count for. Your suggestions will make the game more like real life, where the playoffs are a whole new season and the team's regular season record really means nothing except who gets home field advantage.

Keep up the great work Big D

I know what you mean: Last year, I finished in 8th, but missed the playoffs; under this year's system, I'd have gotten in. This year, I finished out of the top 8, but under the old system I would have picked defensively toward the end, and would have been one of the 19 that would have made it to the post-season.

But then we're back to the problem with the original system, in which a player can get a big enough lead that the Grey Cup becomes meaningless. And prior to the Grey Cup game, there will be those still participating who are unable to catch up to the leader, and people in that situation lose interest. Playoff participants would stop making picks once they are mathematically eliminated, or once a winner is determined.

You are right on that. but say when sdomeone is elliminated mathimatically, then actually eliminate them. I just don't like having the scoes of games regulate more then actual wins. I think its a lot harder to pick a winner in a close game then to pick one in a blowout. Yet you get rewarded more for picking the winner in the blowout then in a close game.

On a constructive note, I would like to say that it would be nice to find a way to change how this all ends.

This year, me and UglyandHasty are in the final. UglyandHasty picks first, hence I'll be stuck with the team he doesn't pick. This means that I'll either lose or win, by default... doing nothing. It is a strange way to decide a championship game.

Even the underdog in the Grey Cup final still plays the game. In the VGCC, the underdog just stands on the sidelines waiting to see what happens.

BigDave, I know you want to keep the same format both for the regular season and the playoff, but I does make for a strange final.

Since you have very little data to collect during the playoffs, maybe at one point you could change the way things are played out.

Don't forget that the Grey Cup is played in a pre-determined city, which means that even the better team in the regular season doesn't necessarily get home field advantage. That would be a CFL reality on which you could justify modifying the format of the final. The regular season doesn't count, you're there.

A suggestion: Point spread? 2nd place picks first, 1st place gets last word.

In a situation where both finalists pick the same team:
2nd place me (514MTL), picks Montreal by 6.
1st place UglyandHasty then decides Montreal by 7 or 5 (over or under). He keeps an important advantage, but at least the 2nd place guy is not standing on the sidelines.

In a situation where both finalists pick different teams, then everything is fine. No need for the spread.

What do you think?