Playoff Losers Bracket

[Oregon Three Lions of Madison]

Do we want to institute the Playoffs Losers Bracket?(Bottom 4 teams playoff, teams 5-8 playoff and teams 9-12 playoff)(This would make it so all teams are playing until the end of the season)

[Oregon Three Lions of Madison]

There can also be a discussion as to the prize(s) of these playoffs. Right now the assumption is the prize would be draft picks. For example, the lowest four teams would be playing for picks 1-4. The winner obviously getting the first pick. There has to be some sort of incentive for these playoffs. I say this because if there is no incentive there will not be interest in maintaining rosters thus making the playoff a joke. I spoke with a few of the owners who were still playing for money, but not the title, at the end of this season and they weren't necessarily even putting their best foot forward once they were out of contention. Not saying that is a bad thing at all. Just want to point out, again, that the idea of this losers bracket playoff is to keep everyone interested until the end.

[San Fran Earthquakes]

I'm assuming that if this one get's the "Yes" vote that we'll then have a poll on prizes? Or should we discuss that in this thread?

[Deleted]

I guess we should talk about that here? I'm good either way, whatever the prize. Like he said in an email, the top draft pick isn't as big as non dynasty leagues. I guess the biggest difference is the minor league draft but I'm fine with either way.

[Ft. Myers Conquistadors]

If enough people are more interested in the Earthquakes idea in this discussion thread we can put it to a vote. Since we discussed the format described by Andy last season, this is essentially the vote on that discussion.

[San Fran Earthquakes]

I would suggest that the prize would be an extra pick at the end of the 1st round. Or a monetary prize. While I agree that he #1 draft pick often times isn't a slam dunk such as a Bryce Harper or the like, but here is why I don't like the idea of playing for the 1st pick.

1) Having the worst team in the league is no fun. Trust me. In that situation, at the very least you have solace knowing that you got the #1 pick in the draft. Something to at least look forward to in the offseason.
2) Depending on how bad a shape the team is in, taking away a #1 pick from the worst team may just provide more incentive for someone to not return. Practically speaking, the worse a team is, the more likely a person is to leave (perhaps from simple disinterest). Finding a replacement, if necessary, is easier if that team has the #1 pick.
3) While the specific player may not be a slam dunk #1 pick, having the choice of who to pick #1 is sometimes more important than who was taken first in the draft.
4) When it is a slam dunk #1 pick, that player should go to the worst team IMO.
5) In the case of a tournament, the team with the worst record (and the team that needs the most help) will very likely lose the #1 pick. It's not a fair fight. Maybe if it was just the bottom 2 teams it may be a fair fight, but more often than not there is a gap even between the worst and 4th worst team, especially in a deep league like this.

And for the record, I would feel this way even if I had the best team in the league.

[Ft. Myers Conquistadors]

Having the worst record shouldn't entitle that team to the first pick as though they earned it. Lets say the worst four teams have 66, 67, 67, and 68 wins to end the regular season. You're telling me the team with 66 wins has earned the #1 pick more than the others? No, make them fight for it. This will keep bad teams honest to have a stake in the rest of the season. I think this is a great thing for the league.

[Deleted]

This is a tough one. I love the idea of playing out the string because frankly, I enjoy staying involved as long as possible. But I do understand the concern about the team with the worst record only getting the 4th pick in the draft. If I had the worst record and I only got the number 4 pick in the draft, how would I feel? Especially if there happened to be a slam dunk number one that everyone was deeming as a special player? (Along the lines of Strasburg or Harper when they were drafted.) How would I feel about missing out on the possibility of getting that kind of player because I lost a playoff against teams who all had better records than I? I'd probably be a bit ticked. If having the worst record in MLB gets you the number one pick, and we truly are emulating MLB, then why have a playoff for the number one pick?

[Ft. Myers Conquistadors]

Are the worst four teams that different from one another? One owner may decide to mail it in completely and take the first pick as a reward in the current model. Coming in last shouldn't be rewarded when teams 17, 18, and 19 are also bad but may have had more fight in them. If you finish 20th you should have to prove that you give a crap and fight for the first pick. I don't believe in handouts.

[Deleted]

I get what you are saying and you certainly have a point. Maybe I am just naive in believing that someone who has money invested in a league would not just call it in. I have no problem with a playoff, but from a fairness view, I think the worst record should get the first pick. But either way the vote goes is fine by me. (I am voting no to allow myself to feel justified in complaining if I ever finish with the worst record and end up with only the 4th pick. Just kidding.)

[San Fran Earthquakes]

Usually there is a good degree of difference between teams #1 & #4 in a 20 team deep league like this. When things go bad (like they did for me this year), it's bad.

Also, what this rule would do is dissuade teams that are clearly out of it from making moves for next year. Because if you do, you're just screwing yourself for the losers tournament. Why would you want to institute a rule that would discourage a bad team from trying to improve for next year.

Also, what you're effectively arguing is while your team just went through the worst record of any team all year, we're going to kick you while you're down and take away the first draft pick. Why do you want to further penalize the worst team and make it more difficult to improve. Let's face it, the #1 pick is more valuable than the #2 or #3 pick. The team may want to leverage that pick as trade value.

I understand your concern about a manager that gives up entirely on his team and then is rewarded with the last pick, but (1) that person very likely wouldn't return the following year and (2) there should be rules about not managing your team, etc.

[Manalapan Devil Dogs]

I agree with Earthquakes, worst team should have #1 pick best chance at improving team just like in real life baseball

[Ft. Myers Conquistadors]

You can rebuild while keeping a respectable team on the field. It's not a difficult thing to manage. I just don't see the other side of the argument, but that's why we vote.

[Deleted]

I also say no to the loser bracket. I know I lost interest after getting knocked out of the first round, and even more so in the losers bracket.

[Ft. Myers Conquistadors]

If it means anything, Chad you actually weren't the worst team. You just had bad luck with your matchups. In a roto world you would have finished 16th. Still deserve the 1st pick?

[Deleted]

My take on this is that the way our rules are now set up, a team truly interested in improving itself is encouraged to play poorly. If you want to call it tanking, okay – but I think we all want to think all other teams are making decisions with the primary goal of improving itself – be it short term or long term.

Asking the commissioners to somehow make decisions about whether a team is doing all it can to win every week even when teams are not in the running for the playoffs just asks for trouble and bad feelings. I’d rather have rules – whether it be losers’ brackets with some reward or something else – that provides the motivation the non-playoff teams need to field their best lineups until the end.

If we decide not to make changes to our rules, I would just suggest we stop talking about tanking. Losing at some point becomes a tool to improve your team – think NBA.

[Deleted]

I also had to say no for the simple fact is the worst team should get top draft pick. The reason for a high draft pick for a bad team is to help them build with possibly better players. I have no problem doing this but coming up with something different but I don't think the team with the worst record should be punished for doing something they did most of the year, which was lose, when you start planning for the future, you trade some of your better players to get young players for the future which in turn makes you worse. It's not fair to that team. I have no problem doing this but maybe come up with a different reward.

And for your above chart, yes, he may have been unlucky but he still had the worst record. In MLB, teams may play better than record shows, or even players do better than numbers show but that's baseball. The worse teams still get the top picks and they get those picks based on record, not numbers. You can say that about any sport.

[Ft. Myers Conquistadors]

Man I'm done arguing. No competitive spirit from some of you. Willing to wrap things up in August just to secure precious draft spots. I hope you nay-sayers whiff on your picks to make your points moot.

[Deleted]

So because we have a different opinion about this than you, it is your enlightened decision that we have no competitive spirit and you respond with the above comment. Really? Why should a team with the worst record under our scoring system have to beat out 3 teams with better records in order to prove his team was the worst and deserves the number 1 pick? And shouldn't the fact that his team just beat the other teams prove his team was not the worst and is not deserving of the number 1 pick? I really do not get the logic of this. And evidently 4 other owners at this time are in agreement.

I will certainly play under whatever rules the majority wish to play under. But until a vote is final I have every right to speak my mind on why I vote the way I do and to point out why I think a particular change should or should not be made. Once the vote is over, I promise you'll hear no more argument from me. I promise not to bitch about having to win a loser's bracket tournament to secure a better draft pick.

Ok, I've gotten that off my chest. Now lets just get back to a civil discussion/vote on whether or not to implement this change. Like you, I think I'm also done pointing out why I don't like tying draft order to a consolation tournament. I think we all know the two sides of the argument, so whatever way the vote goes, it goes. As you said, that's why we vote.

[San Fran Earthquakes]

Roto is a different animal than H2H. For example, certain players are better/worse in each. So to suggest I was the 16th best team in a roto league doesn't really mean much. I don't believe I was just unlikely. Hard to say that when my team was consistently the worst since May and there was very little challenge to take that torch from my team.

Also, I'm fine for a tournament, just not putting the draft picks as the prize. Either put a monetary prize or compensation picks after round 1 as the prize and I'm fine with it.

[Ft. Myers Conquistadors]

All I want to do is keep playing if my team doesn't make the playoffs. Having my season end in mid-August sucked. Making the stakes something like draft picks would have kept everyone very involved. A monetary prize is out of the question IMO. An extra pick wouldn't entice everyone and would be a half-assed playoff IMO.

[madisonbillygoats]

My two cents as I wade through the discussions. I am very conflicted on this vote. I, like Ryan, am very pro the idea of the post-season tourney and continuing the season no matter what my record is. But I also love our current setup with playoff and non-playoff teams making trades for either the stretch run or to better themselves in the future. That is my only hang-up, I believe that could go away with this tourney setup. Although, I do give alot of merit to worst team getting the 1st pick, I don't feel that him getting a pick between 1 and 4 is devastating. Tanking in our league is relative to the owners actions and unless he is not putting forth the best lineup available it isn't tanking. Their aren't many things in life that I can say I hate, but owners the manipulate their lineups, skirting the rules, to win or lose is one of them. I don't think the tourney solves this, as a player can do this all year and step it up in the playoffs. Pros and cons both ways, hmmmm.

[Deleted]

It's ok to do a little tournament. I have no problem with that. In fact I'll change to yes if we come up with another reward than possibly punishing the worse team. I'd love to keep playing during the tournament just to see how well I do against a couple others. But all we ask is not punishing the last place team when their team is obviously not as good. I like the monetary idea. Or we can do something in round 1, meaning round 1 winner gets something and do something different for round 2. This is supposed to be a fun league but with paying money yearly, it's not fair to teams possibly getting a worse pick. So with that said, no reason to get upset over a vote that may not go your way. Some will, some won't. We just have a different opinion and mine is obviously not to punish the worse team in the league. That's why they get the first pick.

If theirs something else we can do as far as prizes to keep playing. Feel free to let us know if there's something you and anyone can come with. Because I do like to have a little playoff like that but not to the point it can hurt bad teams for future years.

[Deleted]

And I wouldn't not trade someone to improve my team for the future because of this. I'd still make trades if I was out of it to improve my team for the future. But others may be unwilling especially if the better draft pick is the prize.

[Deleted]

And about whiffing on picks, I hope everyone except me whiffs on their picks. Maybe then I can actually win something. Lol