| 0 |
Subject: RIBC 2016: League Stacking options
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 11:05
| With four leagues, the current arrangement is to have two AAA leagues and one AA. The AAA leagues have been differentiated by hosting site (ESPN vs Yahoo), but are ranked equally. General succession formula is shown below. | | | | | | | | RIBC | AAA-1 | AAA-2 | AA | | Next RIBC | 1-6, plus Guru (7) | 1-4 (4) | 1-4 (4) | 1 | | Next AAA | 7-16 (9) | 5-11 (7) | 5-11 (7) | 2-10 (9) | | Next AA | | 12-16 (5) | 12-16 (5) | 11-16 (6) | | | | | | | For example, in the RIBC, the top 6 plus me stay in the next RIBC, while the rest drop down to AAA. In AA, the winner moves all the way up to the top league, and those finishing in the top 10 move up to AAA. Typically, I have to promote a few beyond these levels as we have some annual attrition, which then creates some extra openings in AA | | | | | | | It’s been suggested that with just four leagues, we could stack them into four distinct levels. If we did this, then we’d most likely put them all on the same hosting site (ESPN). I’ve worked up a possible approach for advancing/demoting teams below. | | | | | | | | RIBC | AAA | AA | A | | Next RIBC | 1-6, plus Guru (7) | 1-5 (5) | 1-3 (3() | 1 | | Next AAA | 7-12 (5 or 6) | 6-8 (3) | 4-7 (4) | 2-4/5 (3 or 4) | | Next AA | 13-16 (3 or 4) | 9-12 (4) | 8-11 (4) | 5/6-9 (4 or 5) | | Next A | | 13-16 (4) | 12-16 (5) | 10-16 (7) | | | | | | | Not sure I see a big advantage to this approach. Again, with some annual attrition, it’s likely that more teams would move up, with new teams filling openings in single-A. | | | | | | | A third option is to go with one AAA and two AA leagues. This might operate as follows. | | | | | | | | | RIBC | AAA | AA-1 | AA-2 | | Next RIBC | 1-6, plus Guru (7) | 1-7 (7) | 1 | 1 | | Next AAA | 7-12 (4/5) | 8-10 (3) | 2-5 (4) | 2-5 (4) | | Next AA | 13-16 (3/4) | 11-16 (6) | 6-16 (11) | 6-16 (11) | | | | | | | I think like this the least. It becomes much harder to climb out of AA in this approach. | | | | | | | | After looking at these, my inclination is to stay with the status quo. But I’d like to open up discussion, if anyone has differing opinions and/or other ideas. | | | | | | |
| 2 | Seattle Zen
ID: 301361318
Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 11:54
|
The biggest stumbling block for this plan is deciding which 2015 AAA would remain AAA and which one gets tagged as AA.
These two new plans envision quite a few double level demotions. Being demoted one level is devastating enough. We have shrinking numbers as it is, I would imagine even more attrition when a manager who finishes poorly one season now looks at being dropped two levels.
When I look at the two new plans, just look at how hard it would be to stay in AAA. Currently, 14 teams remain in AAA the next season, nine get promoted from AA, nine are demoted from The Show. With each new plan, only 3 teams remain in AAA, 7 or eight are promoted from below and 5 or 6 are demoted from The Show.
I don't like either of these two new plans.
|
| 3 | JeffG
ID: 145191619
Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 11:57
|
First blush, since we are only four leagues now, I like the four distinct levels: majors, AAA, AA, and A. Still gives everyone a chance to make the majors each season.
The only argument against to consider is the folks that prefer Yahoo, but I think ESPN has a better mobile front end and mobile live scoring.
As much as we all like the cache of being in the highest league possible, all four are very competitive.
|
| 4 | Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 029463114
Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 12:41
|
I'm old school. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Current arrangement works for me.
|
| 5 | Nerfherders
ID: 161121811
Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 15:02
|
I like the concept of having four distinct levels because it much better represents the levels of pro baseball. But it's tough when you then try to come up with a plan for movement within that structure.
The plan I came up with makes it hard for AA and A teams to move up at at all, basically having to place in the top 6. I'm not sure if that's exactly what we want.
|
| 6 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 15:53
|
That's pretty much where I always end up when looking at this issue. The concept seems appealing, but the devil's in the details.
|
| 7 | george8kl
ID: 471172519
Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 20:18
|
Greetings,
I'm a relative rookie at fantasy baseball, having managed a few season long and H2H teams on CBS the past two seasons, as well as trying my hand at DFS - I'd be interested to join the A league as an 'expansion team' - can anyone steer me to a basic description of the RIBC game (format, 4x4 or 5x5, draft procedure, etc.)?
Thanks for any and all input, GK
|
| 8 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 20:20
|
I like the way it is...
|
| 9 | Khahan
ID: 51120619
Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 23:25
|
George - its a roto league with 5x5 categories except we use OBP & SLg (as individual categories, not ops) instead of BA/HR.
Rosters include standard positions plus CI/MI/4 OF/Util so its a deep league with 16 managers.
In the past its been divided into 3 divisions:
1. RiBC - invite only based on passed performance. Winning a lower level league or maintaining a certain ranking
2. AAA - the middle leagues. Losers in RiBC, people who placed well in AAA last year etc. This is invite only as well
3. AA - the intro league. New players, managers who had particularly bad seasons etc.
As a new player you'd start out in AA. Dont think this means its the 'easy' league though. AA is quite competitive, stocked with managers who have played for years. There are just only so many spots above.
Winning earns you a spot in RIBC next year. Beyond that, we are currently discussing just how to ste up future league invites. You could earn your way up to AAA and the year after find yourself back in AA or go even further into RIBC.
In the coming weeks, Guru will have a post with a more detailed breakdown of rules, positions scoring, etc. But thats the basic gist. Its a great league to be in. Looks like this year it will be big enough to support 4 leagues actually.
|
| 10 | RoboGuru
ID: 23152129
Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 01:00
|
I like the idea of 4 levels. Just spit-balling, but what about this:
RIBC
RIBC 1-7, +Guru (8)
AAA 8-12 (4)
AA 13-15 (3)
A 16(1)
AAA
RIBC 1-4 (4)
AAA 5-8 (4)
AA 9-14 (6)
A 15-16 (2)
AA
RIBC 1-3(3)
AAA 4-8(5)
AA 9-11 (3)
A 12-16 (5)
A
RIBC 1
AAA 2-4(3)
AA 5-8(4)
A 9-16 (8)
Basically, I started with the premise that bottom half of each league drops(or stays) and top half moves up(or stays).
*Sorry, I wasn't able to figure out how to insert in table format.
|
| 11 | filthy
ID: 32110265
Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 06:55
|
I remember throwing out some ideas awhile back about a 4 tier format like the first proposal, so I like this brainstorm session that is unfolding here.
Dropping multiple tiers would be less than ideal in my mind. It does become quite the puzzle.
Opportunity to move up multiple tiers is key. I really like the potential with proposal A:
Current 2017RIBC Qualifications
1-6th(6) + Guru(1) + 1-4th:AAA(4) + 1-4th:AAA2(4) + 1st:AA(1)
Upcoming 2018RIBC Qualifications
1-6th(6) + Guru(1) + 1-5th:AAA(5) + 1-3rd:AA(3) + 1st:A(1)
Chance for every winner to get the call up is nice. 7th in RIBC over 5th in AAA would be nicer to me, but really just nitpicky.
Just playing around with the puzzle to try and find a suitable fit that stays fair and maintains interest, so I'll throw out some thoughts.
2017AAA
8-14th:RIBC(7) + 5-7th:AAA(3) + 5-7th:AAA2(3) + 2-4th:AA(3)
2018AAA
8-14th:RIBC(7) + 6-8th:AAA(3) + 4-7th:AA(4) + 2-3rd:A(2).
2017AA
15-16th:RIBC(2) + 8-12th:AAA(5) + 8-12th:AAA2(5) + 5-8th:AA(4)
2018AA
15-16th:RIBC(2) + 9-14th:AAA(6) + 8-10th:AA(3) + 4-8thA(5)
2017A
13-16th:AAA(4) + 13-16th:AAA2(4) + 9-16th:AA(8)
**Keep 9-10th AA safe and sacrifice 15-16th RIBC for a triple drop would not be terrible, either way we have all season to battle out of the danger zone.**
2018A
15-16th:AAA(2) + 11-16th:AA(6) + 9-16th:A(8)
Bottom 4 in this year's AAA (bottom 2 going forward) and bottom 2 in RIBC are the only ones that would ever drop two tiers.
Upcoming A ball incentive: win gets promoted three levels to RIBC, 2-3 get promoted two levels to AAA, 4-8 get promoted to AA. Bottom half remains, likely a few replaced with new teams, and a few more bumped up due to attrition and replaced with other new teams.
AA incentive: win gets RIBC. 2-4 get AAA. 5-8 stay AA. 9-16 pioneer the A league.
Upcoming AA incentive: top 3 promoted two levels to RIBC. 4-7 promoted to AAA. 8-10 remain in AA. 11-16 demoted to A.
AAA incentive: top 4 from each league get RIBC. 5-7 from each stay AAA. 8-12 from each AAA demoted to AA. 13-16 pioneer the A league.
Upcoming AAA incentive: top 5 promoted to RIBC. 6-8 remain AAA. 9-14 demoted to AA. 15-16 demoted two levels to A.
RIBC incentive: top 6 plus Guru remain. 15-16 demoted 2 levels. remaining 7 teams demoted to AAA.
Managers returning from time off, recovering from busy seasons, new blood entering the leagues etc. ensure that we always have a good mix of talent up and down these leagues so I don't think the demotion risk would scare off too many managers. Especially if the prospect of a 16 team league with 25 man roster, only 4 bench/no DL didn't scare them off first.
Few cents for now.
|
| 12 | filthy
ID: 32110265
Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 07:33
|
Realizing that I've only slightly tinkered to Guru's proposal to set up the A league tier. I clearly like the idea. Is also very similar to what we currently do, just seems neat to have it all in order like that from A to the bigs.
|
| 13 | Graydog
ID: 4511271214
Sat, Feb 27, 2016, 12:32
|
I like the proposed four tier approach.
|
| 14 | MathRob
ID: 171482113
Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 11:26
|
I like four tiers, A through Majors. I think different details would basically offset each other. It will be painful the year the switch is made, but run smoothly after that.
|
| 15 | Khahan
ID: 51120619
Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 13:23
|
The problem with the third option is you can potentially have somebody finish 7th in AAA and jump to RIBC but somebody finish 7th in RIBC and get dropped to AAA. I had advocated for a format similar to this last year but with the chart laid out I see the flaw.
I think I like option 2 the best - RIBC, AAA, AA and A.
|
| 16 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 17:42
|
This looks like English soccer... Too messy.
I like Ribc, 2x AAA, AA for beginners (1 or 2)
|
| 17 | JeffG
ID: 511362722
Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 19:07
|
There are few beginners among our participants and no shame being in AA or A. There is no need for keeping this group motivated to compete all season but four tiers add an extra positional battle in each league
|
| 18 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 21:37
|
I understand the mathematical "elegance" of stacking four leagues, but there are some consequences of that approach - as mentioned above - that are less desirable than the status quo. But I'm not persuaded that that the 4-tier approach really solves anything. It's just different.
I think we are best to live with the devil that we know, and stick with the original structure.
|
| 19 | RoboGuru
ID: 23152129
Mon, Feb 29, 2016, 12:18
|
It seems the impetus to stay with the status quo is to not hurt people's feelings when they have a bad year and get demoted. The fun of this structure is that doing well gets you a promotion. You can't have the possibility of promotion without the risk of demotion. If you don't finish in the top half of you league, what is your argument for not being demoted? No matter what league everyone ends up in, they are all sure to be competitive and fun, so I don't see why a demotion is so demoralizing.
Even in the plan I sketched up, is it so egregious for the last place team in RIBC to face demotion to A for a year? Sure it sucks for that owner, but so does finishing last. And all it takes to get back to the show is to win your A league the following year.
|
| 20 | blue hen
ID: 10354414
Mon, Feb 29, 2016, 15:31
|
You can easily finish last in RIBC. If you worked your way up there, it's a long road to get back.
I like the current system - AAA is the lifeblood, and most managers are there. Managers who go on a hot streak go to Majors, and managers who go on a cold streak or are new go to AA. Makes perfect sense to me.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: RIBC 2016: League Stacking options
|
|