Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri
IMHO, that system would be broken to start. Everyone has a different opinion on how the game should be scored. Leagues should be based off of player skill and demographics, not the scoring system. With such a small user base, I think we'd see a whole bunch of leagues that did not divide users on skill level, but rather 1000 different versions of the scoring rubric.
I think three scoring rubrics is the way to go. One way to split it up may be:
1) Vision of FIRST: includes awards. High weight on chairmans.
2) Common Man: Equal emphasis on both awards and competition. More emphasis given to technical awards than "sympathy" awards. (Sorry, imagery winners...)
3) Die Hard Fan: Scoring based solely on competition results.
What does everyone else think?
|
I have yet to found a Fantasy Sports league of any kind (including Fantasy FIRST) in which I could not determine my own scoring system. Typically my modifications are minor (in FF for example I increased the weighting of "minor awards", reduced the weighting of seeding, CA, and EI, modified ties to 0 points, and removed the high score factor).
I don't think a fixed rubric system would achieve division by skill level either. There is a very common misconception that the "skilled" and "informed" Fantasy FIRSTer loses to the "lucky Chairman's" player. A truly skilled player factors in where the points come from, and the teams most likely to win the most Fantasy points in that league, not the team who has the best robot. Thus why I have always insisted on Chairman's and other awards being included (to provide more criteria for teams to score points, thus typically creating more "powerhouse" teams and reducing overall parity), but have contested the overly dramatic weighting used in most CD leagues.