2022 NCAA Fantasy League

[vup]

I’ll third the idea of playing every fantasy team twice. Foremost, I think it would help curb outliers. As an aside, I think it could provide more depth and insight into a team’s resume. Going 2-0 or 0-2 against an opponent has a very validating effect, imo. While going 1-1 would have a more redeeming/upsetting/equalizing quality.

[vup]

Also, I’d love to participate again. 😊

[ay2013]

May 20, 2023 16:37:27 GMT -5 ay2013 said:

May 20, 2023 14:59:16 GMT -5 Fight On! said:

Calculating HP seems like a PIA unless we have a shared spreadsheet with formulas built in.

I'm pretty sure the box scores give you the player hitting percentages per match so calculating the actual HP shouldn't be an issue. I envision calculating HP for the fantasy team can just be a total of the average of the players hitting percentage like all the other categories.

For example:
Player 1
Match 1- .308
Match 2 - .407
Week Average: .356

Player 2
Match 1- .250
Match 2- .188
Week Average - 0.219

Fantasy Team Total - 0.575

My only stipulation is that there should be a minimum number of touches to be eligible to include the hitting percentage. Like a setter who has a .500 hitting percentage but whose stat line is like 2 kills, 0 errors, 4 touches, shouldn't count....or just exclude setters and libero's all together. Setters are already very overvalued under the current rules anyway.

Also, we did have a shared spreadsheet last year.

I'm going to revise this. The fantasy team hitting percentage should probably have an additional division by number of hitters rather than total. So it would be

Player 1
Match 1- .308
Match 2 - .407
Week Average: .356

Player 2
Match 1- .250
Match 2- .188
Week Average - .219

Player 3
Match 1- .500
Match 2- .150
Week Average - .325

Fantasy Team Hitting Percentage - .300

We could still keep the other 5 categories as is and award points as follows

6-0 win: 5 points
5-1 win: 5 points
4-2 win: 4 points
3-3 win: 2 points 2 points

[vup]

Bump

[trojansc]

May 22, 2023 20:23:27 GMT -5 vballfreak808 said:

May 22, 2023 20:17:14 GMT -5 vballfan17 said:

Relating to the 2 matchups per week, I thought someone suggested submitting a roster for each matchup. That would definitely cause more work, but also, if you’re playing 2 different teams, you might not want the same roster for both opponents.

I agree having 2 matchups could open up the opportunity to add more participants (maybe 16 or 20 instead of 12 or 14). I think if we do that, we’d have to open up the number of selectable teams though.

I personally like the idea of two match-ups and only one roster. It’ll force teams to be more well-rounded rather than stacking certain stat categories.

I think it’s possible to have two leagues, there are people last year plus new people this year who have chimed in enough to say that want in. I guess it’s a matter of is there enough admins for another league

When I first proposed the idea of 2x matches per week, I imagined a lot of people would not want to play the same roster vs. two different teams, but, given responses, it seems like people would enjoy the challenge and that would make it easier on the admins, so, seems like a no-brainer.

Also, as for 2 matches per week, I was hoping that would make it a true double-round robin. I see some comments about adding more participants, but, that would result in playing some teams twice and some teams once, which I think could end up problematic.

I also thought 2 matches per week could negate the effect when you have a really good week but one of your opponents has an out of the world week and you still lose. Then at least you'd likely get rewarded by still splitting the week 1-1.

My personal recommendation/idea is that the league stay with 14 members, play a double round robin. Then, form a second league by however they want with whoever is left (especially with people willing to run it). Guarantee spots to the winners/admins of the 2nd league + top 3 of fantasy like normal.

[ay2013]

I'm perfectly fine keeping the league at 14 members. I was just proposing some bye weeks to add in a few more participants because usually there isn't enough interest for a meaningful second league, but perhaps this year bucks the trend? I do think that a couple spots in the primary league should be reserved for new players, however I do agree with Trojan that a viable second league is going to depend entirely on people willing to run it. I know uofaGRAD? and basil? have offered to setup a second league if there was enough interest, but them preemptively volunteering that would preclude them (?) from being selected for the primary league, which isn't entirely fair for them and would deprive the primary league of highly engaged new players, which is what we want. Perhaps getting a list of interest over the next few weeks could help determine how viable a second league could be this year.

IMO a true double round robin would seem very important if the standings were determined by head to head, but since we are likely going to stay points (based off comments so far), I don't think a true double round robin is as important. Even a few bye weeks would still probably be better than the random 1 matchup only we currently do. I also think that increasing the league to 16/18 players could have some fun draft/roster composition implications. I'm good either way (keeping it at 14 players true double round robin, expanding the number of players and including some bye weeks) but if given a choice I think I'd be in favor of adding a couple more participants.

On the submitting the same roster against both opponents - I do think that it could possibly open up some questionable scenarios, and would prefer the option to submit different rosters, but I'm fine either way.

[volleyfan8288]

May 30, 2023 9:53:31 GMT -5 ay2013 said:

I'm perfectly fine keeping the league at 14 members. I was just proposing some bye weeks to add in a few more participants because usually there isn't enough interest for a meaningful second league, but perhaps this year bucks the trend? I do think that a couple spots in the primary league should be reserved for new players, however I do agree with Trojan that a viable second league is going to depend entirely on people willing to run it. I know uofaGRAD? and basil? have offered to setup a second league if there was enough interest, but them preemptively volunteering that would preclude them (?) from being selected for the primary league, which isn't entirely fair for them and would deprive the primary league of highly engaged new players, which is what we want. Perhaps getting a list of interest over the next few weeks could help determine how viable a second league could be this year.

IMO a true double round robin would seem very important if the standings were determined by head to head, but since we are likely going to stay points (based off comments so far), I don't think a true double round robin is as important. Even a few bye weeks would still probably be better than the random 1 matchup only we currently do. I also think that increasing the league to 16/18 players could have some fun draft/roster composition implications. I'm good either way (keeping it at 14 players true double round robin, expanding the number of players and including some bye weeks) but if given a choice I think I'd be in favor of adding a couple more participants.

On the submitting the same roster against both opponents - I do think that it could possibly open up some questionable scenarios, and would prefer the option to submit different rosters, but I'm fine either way.

I’m down to help admin a second league, with the gigantic caveat that I haven’t played in the first league, so the learning curve might be steep. But I definitely want to participate, and if league 1 is full, then sign me up for league 2!