Remove divisions.
Problems this may cause
1)Rivalry is gone
Rebuttal: Rivalry is not lost (or created) by divisions. Rivalry is created by competing with the same set of players/teams each season. There are rivalries in the ladder, there are no divisions or leagues there. There are even rivalries developed through scrimmages, or even from the forums.
Rivalries are still held intact because the same group of teams (if they all return) will be playing each other each season. They will be competing for the same playoff spots and have their league stats compared for MVP, etc. each season. I will also show later how removing divisions can actually increase rivalry in a league.
2)This creates a scheduling conflict/breaks the schedule.
Rebuttal: Yes, this would mean you would play each team once and still have 3 games left to play. When using divisions you would assign teams you play twice to teams in your division. Removing divisions removes the restriction of divisions. Below I will explain how removing this barrier actually strengthens and allows more even competition when compared to the division system for a 12 team league.
3)Now there are no automatic playoff spots, like division winners received.
Rebuttal: This is a good thing. Taking winning one's division as meaning one should be guaranteed a playoff spot is a misconceived notion brought on by seeing it practiced in repetition in the other sports. The fact the division system is used does not mean it is the best way or there is not a better way. When a better way is presented that is attainable with the means and resources available, it should be adopted. In the physical world of the NFL for instance, it is easier to use divisions merely because of the larger amount of teams in the division. You could also add travel distance, conferences, and other details for why the NFL chose the heuristic outcome of the division system for its league. In the digital world of GLB2 we don't have such obstacles to overcome. Therefore, a new and better idea is presented, minimal resources are required to affect this change - it should be adopted.
4)We'd have to remove the graphic display of Alpha/Beta/Gama/League Page and some achievements and create new ones.
Rebuttal: I think this would be the only legit argument and reason why this suggestion would be held back. But as the saying goes you have to give a little to get a little, or whatever you wanna say. Basically, it's going to take a tiny bit of work, for what I will demonstrate below as a large benefit. The value of time put in to implement and realize the effects of this change will be high. The game is technically in Beta right and trying to improve upon itself. I see this as a major complaint each season and we can fix this. Yes, it will take work, but it will relieve the complaints, make the game better and more fair, and be worth the effort.
Benefits of removing divisions
1)The best teams go to the playoffs.
Explanation: Playoff seed would be strictly determined by overall record. The tiebreakers are a whole different point to argue after that and I won't get into that here. A 3rd place Alpha team at 11-3 is a better team than a 1st place 9-5 Beta team. No longer would the Beta team get a playoff spot by being in a division with easier opponents. All teams are compared to each other first instead of against only their division first. If a team has the 4th best record, they are the 4th best team. They should get the 4th playoff spot, even if with divisions they would be 4th in their division.
2)The schedule is flexible with a smaller discrepancy in strength of schedule between each team.
Explanation:Now that the schedule restrictions of divisions are removed you can use those 3 extra games to more evenly judge and assign equal opponents. Similar to how the ladder works in attempting to give teams more similarly skilled opponents, these 3 games could also fit that purpose. Akin to the NFL, those 3 games would be scheduled based on the teams with the same or a close record from last season. For example, for those 3 games the best team would play the teams with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best records from last season. In contrast, the worst team would play the 11th, 10th, and 9th best records from that league last season for those 3 games. Essentially, this means you are playing teams closer in skill to you, like the ladder. Also, a team doesn't sneak in or get a better seed because he gets to play 6 games against the 3 worst teams in the league every season. And on the other side, a team stuck in a division with the 3 best teams season after season has a depleted chance at earning 4th seed simply because he is forced to play the strongest teams more often than the other teams in the league. This is why using those 3 games to match teams with similar records would decrease the discrepancy in strength of schedule imposed by divisions when looking at the strength of schedule range in the league. And, if one team does poorly or great for a couple season then their opponents change to better fit their ability, like the ladder games. Allowing those 3 games to be flexible makes many things more accurate and fair as I describe below.
3)Leagues are more competitive.
Explanation: Now leagues are competing against all league teams for each seed. No longer are you competing against 3 teams first, and then judged against the whole league. Plus, since there 3 flexible games each season that should better fit each team's ability than the division system, team's have a larger number of competitive games with an increased relevancy.
4)Each team has a more even chance at a playoff spot each season.
Explanation: This goes along with not being locked into the strongest division or lucking into the weakest division. Freeing the 3 games previously assigned to division opponents moves each team closer to a more even playing field because they play more evenly matched games. They may not be as close as the ladder, but they are loser than what the division systems assigns in a non-perfect league. If everyone is given a more even playing field then everyone has a more even chance to succeed or fail based on skill instead of luck or mismatches.
5)Players will have more relative stats compared to their skill.
Explanation:When do players/teams usually acquire their best/highest stats? When playing the worst team(s) in their league. Why is it more difficult to produce those same stats in a ladder game? Because the opponent more closely matches your ability than the league opponent. So instead of the best team in a division stuck with the 3 worst teams, giving the best team 6 games to pad his player's stats against grossly mismatched competition, winning all the MVP trophies - let's try to make it fairer by giving the best team a better challenge. If is to the detriment of the whole league, and game too, when this situation occurs because now other teams that don't get to play as easy competition as often have a decreased chance to produce great stats because they are playing better teams than the team with the 3 basement dwellers that season. Maybe that one team's LB wouldn't have gotten 100 sacks that season if he didn't have 6 10+ sack games all against his weak division rivals. Or maybe the 2nd place finisher for DMVP would have edged out 1st place if he played those easier teams that gave up all those sacks.
6)Players will have a more even chance to win an MVP award, lead the league in a stat, achieve stat achievements, etc.
Explanation:This goes along with the last one, but is more directed toward agents getting a fair shot at earning trophies for their players. Maybe that one team's LB wouldn't have gotten 100 sacks that season if he didn't have 6 10+ sack games all against his weak division rivals. Or maybe the 2nd place finisher for DMVP would have edged out 1st place if he played those easier teams that gave up all those sacks.
7)Better rivalries are created.
Explanation: Is it really a rivalry when you've been in the same division with a team that is a sub .500 team each season and has never come within 14 points of you any time your two teams have every played? Wouldn't it be better if instead of seeing just your 3 division opponents twice a year you saw the 3 closest teams in skill level to you each year twice? If you're always getting beat by your division opponents that you can chalk up 6 losses each year is that a rivalry? Rivalries are created and strengthened because each team has a good shot at winning. Each team knows that one team has a good chance to beat the other, and they have in fact played and beat each other multiple times. Don't you feel a stronger rivalry when you meet the same team in the playoffs just twice? This team could take you out, you don't like this team because they have shut you down before, this team has success against other teams where you don't. Those add to rivalries, and more of those type of games are played by matching teams with more competitive opponents, both during the regular season and in the playoffs.
8)Problems/complications attributed to the division system are removed.
Explanation: Now nobody can complain about themselves or anyone else being in a strong or weak division. And take the playoffs for example. I see people saying, well if you were better and won your division or the WC then you wouldn't need to complain about a division winner with a worse record than you getting a playoff spot. That is the dumbest logic I've ever heard (ok well not the dumbest, but it's a weak straw-man argument). So let's say an 8-6 team wins their division and gets a playoff spot over a 10-4 team that is 3rd in their division. Now let's say this 8-6 team beats the 13-1 team in the first round. If the 8-6 team from a weaker division, can beat the 13-1 team then surely it must make sense that the 10-4 team could too. In fact, since they had a more difficult schedule and a better record, they would be given a higher chance to beat the 13-1 team and ultimately win the championship. Furthermore, if that 10-4 team beat the 8-6 team in their H2H matchup, what proof is there to back a claim that the 8-6 team is better or is more deserving of a playoff spot over the 10-4 team? If there is any it wouldn't be enough to stand up to the amount of evidence the 10-4 team has to prove it should get a playoff spot. And we want the highest competition right? There's less to feel proud of in accomplishing and earning something if you had an easier road to the trophy. I hear everyone wants more competition. So let's start by having the 4 best teams in the playoffs. Winning your division does not automatically make you a top 3 or 4 team in your league.Pretty much all my other points could fit into this bullet too. But the largest problem I see in the forums regarding divisions is the desire for more competition and the desire for the best teams to go to the playoffs.
9)Chances of an inflated/deflated league record and league stats are lessened.
Explanation: Basically, if you are in a strong division you have 3 extra games with a higher chance to lose than other team's in your league. Another team in your league could be in a weak division and always come out 6-0 in their division. Although those two teams could be a handful of wins apart, they may very well be at the same ability level. One team's players are getting punished and the other team's players are getting the easy road. Not only is this affecting the league though, it is also affecting the "HOF", the ladder, and by extension other teams that play these inflated or deflated teams.
Another solution - remove divisions and add 3 more teams to each league, creating 15 teams leagues.
This would remove the necessity to determine which 3 teams each team would play twice each season. Every team would play each team in their league once. However, I think some rivalry is lost here.
Problems this may cause
1)Rivalry is gone
Rebuttal: Rivalry is not lost (or created) by divisions. Rivalry is created by competing with the same set of players/teams each season. There are rivalries in the ladder, there are no divisions or leagues there. There are even rivalries developed through scrimmages, or even from the forums.
Rivalries are still held intact because the same group of teams (if they all return) will be playing each other each season. They will be competing for the same playoff spots and have their league stats compared for MVP, etc. each season. I will also show later how removing divisions can actually increase rivalry in a league.
2)This creates a scheduling conflict/breaks the schedule.
Rebuttal: Yes, this would mean you would play each team once and still have 3 games left to play. When using divisions you would assign teams you play twice to teams in your division. Removing divisions removes the restriction of divisions. Below I will explain how removing this barrier actually strengthens and allows more even competition when compared to the division system for a 12 team league.
3)Now there are no automatic playoff spots, like division winners received.
Rebuttal: This is a good thing. Taking winning one's division as meaning one should be guaranteed a playoff spot is a misconceived notion brought on by seeing it practiced in repetition in the other sports. The fact the division system is used does not mean it is the best way or there is not a better way. When a better way is presented that is attainable with the means and resources available, it should be adopted. In the physical world of the NFL for instance, it is easier to use divisions merely because of the larger amount of teams in the division. You could also add travel distance, conferences, and other details for why the NFL chose the heuristic outcome of the division system for its league. In the digital world of GLB2 we don't have such obstacles to overcome. Therefore, a new and better idea is presented, minimal resources are required to affect this change - it should be adopted.
4)We'd have to remove the graphic display of Alpha/Beta/Gama/League Page and some achievements and create new ones.
Rebuttal: I think this would be the only legit argument and reason why this suggestion would be held back. But as the saying goes you have to give a little to get a little, or whatever you wanna say. Basically, it's going to take a tiny bit of work, for what I will demonstrate below as a large benefit. The value of time put in to implement and realize the effects of this change will be high. The game is technically in Beta right and trying to improve upon itself. I see this as a major complaint each season and we can fix this. Yes, it will take work, but it will relieve the complaints, make the game better and more fair, and be worth the effort.
Benefits of removing divisions
1)The best teams go to the playoffs.
Explanation: Playoff seed would be strictly determined by overall record. The tiebreakers are a whole different point to argue after that and I won't get into that here. A 3rd place Alpha team at 11-3 is a better team than a 1st place 9-5 Beta team. No longer would the Beta team get a playoff spot by being in a division with easier opponents. All teams are compared to each other first instead of against only their division first. If a team has the 4th best record, they are the 4th best team. They should get the 4th playoff spot, even if with divisions they would be 4th in their division.
2)The schedule is flexible with a smaller discrepancy in strength of schedule between each team.
Explanation:Now that the schedule restrictions of divisions are removed you can use those 3 extra games to more evenly judge and assign equal opponents. Similar to how the ladder works in attempting to give teams more similarly skilled opponents, these 3 games could also fit that purpose. Akin to the NFL, those 3 games would be scheduled based on the teams with the same or a close record from last season. For example, for those 3 games the best team would play the teams with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best records from last season. In contrast, the worst team would play the 11th, 10th, and 9th best records from that league last season for those 3 games. Essentially, this means you are playing teams closer in skill to you, like the ladder. Also, a team doesn't sneak in or get a better seed because he gets to play 6 games against the 3 worst teams in the league every season. And on the other side, a team stuck in a division with the 3 best teams season after season has a depleted chance at earning 4th seed simply because he is forced to play the strongest teams more often than the other teams in the league. This is why using those 3 games to match teams with similar records would decrease the discrepancy in strength of schedule imposed by divisions when looking at the strength of schedule range in the league. And, if one team does poorly or great for a couple season then their opponents change to better fit their ability, like the ladder games. Allowing those 3 games to be flexible makes many things more accurate and fair as I describe below.
3)Leagues are more competitive.
Explanation: Now leagues are competing against all league teams for each seed. No longer are you competing against 3 teams first, and then judged against the whole league. Plus, since there 3 flexible games each season that should better fit each team's ability than the division system, team's have a larger number of competitive games with an increased relevancy.
4)Each team has a more even chance at a playoff spot each season.
Explanation: This goes along with not being locked into the strongest division or lucking into the weakest division. Freeing the 3 games previously assigned to division opponents moves each team closer to a more even playing field because they play more evenly matched games. They may not be as close as the ladder, but they are loser than what the division systems assigns in a non-perfect league. If everyone is given a more even playing field then everyone has a more even chance to succeed or fail based on skill instead of luck or mismatches.
5)Players will have more relative stats compared to their skill.
Explanation:When do players/teams usually acquire their best/highest stats? When playing the worst team(s) in their league. Why is it more difficult to produce those same stats in a ladder game? Because the opponent more closely matches your ability than the league opponent. So instead of the best team in a division stuck with the 3 worst teams, giving the best team 6 games to pad his player's stats against grossly mismatched competition, winning all the MVP trophies - let's try to make it fairer by giving the best team a better challenge. If is to the detriment of the whole league, and game too, when this situation occurs because now other teams that don't get to play as easy competition as often have a decreased chance to produce great stats because they are playing better teams than the team with the 3 basement dwellers that season. Maybe that one team's LB wouldn't have gotten 100 sacks that season if he didn't have 6 10+ sack games all against his weak division rivals. Or maybe the 2nd place finisher for DMVP would have edged out 1st place if he played those easier teams that gave up all those sacks.
6)Players will have a more even chance to win an MVP award, lead the league in a stat, achieve stat achievements, etc.
Explanation:This goes along with the last one, but is more directed toward agents getting a fair shot at earning trophies for their players. Maybe that one team's LB wouldn't have gotten 100 sacks that season if he didn't have 6 10+ sack games all against his weak division rivals. Or maybe the 2nd place finisher for DMVP would have edged out 1st place if he played those easier teams that gave up all those sacks.
7)Better rivalries are created.
Explanation: Is it really a rivalry when you've been in the same division with a team that is a sub .500 team each season and has never come within 14 points of you any time your two teams have every played? Wouldn't it be better if instead of seeing just your 3 division opponents twice a year you saw the 3 closest teams in skill level to you each year twice? If you're always getting beat by your division opponents that you can chalk up 6 losses each year is that a rivalry? Rivalries are created and strengthened because each team has a good shot at winning. Each team knows that one team has a good chance to beat the other, and they have in fact played and beat each other multiple times. Don't you feel a stronger rivalry when you meet the same team in the playoffs just twice? This team could take you out, you don't like this team because they have shut you down before, this team has success against other teams where you don't. Those add to rivalries, and more of those type of games are played by matching teams with more competitive opponents, both during the regular season and in the playoffs.
8)Problems/complications attributed to the division system are removed.
Explanation: Now nobody can complain about themselves or anyone else being in a strong or weak division. And take the playoffs for example. I see people saying, well if you were better and won your division or the WC then you wouldn't need to complain about a division winner with a worse record than you getting a playoff spot. That is the dumbest logic I've ever heard (ok well not the dumbest, but it's a weak straw-man argument). So let's say an 8-6 team wins their division and gets a playoff spot over a 10-4 team that is 3rd in their division. Now let's say this 8-6 team beats the 13-1 team in the first round. If the 8-6 team from a weaker division, can beat the 13-1 team then surely it must make sense that the 10-4 team could too. In fact, since they had a more difficult schedule and a better record, they would be given a higher chance to beat the 13-1 team and ultimately win the championship. Furthermore, if that 10-4 team beat the 8-6 team in their H2H matchup, what proof is there to back a claim that the 8-6 team is better or is more deserving of a playoff spot over the 10-4 team? If there is any it wouldn't be enough to stand up to the amount of evidence the 10-4 team has to prove it should get a playoff spot. And we want the highest competition right? There's less to feel proud of in accomplishing and earning something if you had an easier road to the trophy. I hear everyone wants more competition. So let's start by having the 4 best teams in the playoffs. Winning your division does not automatically make you a top 3 or 4 team in your league.Pretty much all my other points could fit into this bullet too. But the largest problem I see in the forums regarding divisions is the desire for more competition and the desire for the best teams to go to the playoffs.
9)Chances of an inflated/deflated league record and league stats are lessened.
Explanation: Basically, if you are in a strong division you have 3 extra games with a higher chance to lose than other team's in your league. Another team in your league could be in a weak division and always come out 6-0 in their division. Although those two teams could be a handful of wins apart, they may very well be at the same ability level. One team's players are getting punished and the other team's players are getting the easy road. Not only is this affecting the league though, it is also affecting the "HOF", the ladder, and by extension other teams that play these inflated or deflated teams.
Another solution - remove divisions and add 3 more teams to each league, creating 15 teams leagues.
This would remove the necessity to determine which 3 teams each team would play twice each season. Every team would play each team in their league once. However, I think some rivalry is lost here.
Edited by -Phaytle- on Mar 16, 2014 22:43:05
