@Steve O 100343 wrote:
There you have it. There’s a 50/50 chance that random selection of teams last year would have been at least as competitive as the actual teams were. A modified randomization scheme would have performed better in virtually all cases.
I’m have to agree with Cannon’s comment that this analysis has the benifit of hindsight. But we are basically all saying the same thing, we need a handicap, it’s just a matter how how precise it is. Personally I think an estimated # of days and miles is better than a hi/avg/low classification, but I don’t really care. People can sand bag with either.
I like the product of our FMCC discussion – 2 layers of teams, like with the NBC. The first layer is pretty much like last year and teams are locked 1/1. The second layer is a 2 team recruiting tool that pits (DC vs VA, or men vs women, or, disc breaks vs other breaks, whatever). This second layer is open all season and half the competition is in recruiting. The teams are not rebalanced, your team gets to keep whoever you recruit and there points.
IT people is this an option?
