Why Don’t You Have Game Against League Median?

Why Don’t You Have Game Against League Median?


I have it in one league, and at the time I thought it was a good idea, but I honestly don’t like it. Fantasy football should have some sort of variance to it IMO, and generally the best teams still rise. I prefer (assuming 12 team) that the 6th playoff spot is awarded to the team that has scored the most points not currently in the playoffs. This allows for head-to-head record to take priority, but also gives a fail safe so if you’re truly just a better team and have bad luck, then you’ll make the playoffs.


>generally the best teams still rise Not a dynasty league, but in one of my leagues last year I was (somehow) the highest scoring team and also lead in points against. I limped into the playoffs in the last week, and ended up winning the ship. Regression does happen quickly sometimes haha.


I’m a 14 team redraft one year I was the 2nd highest scoring team one year (by a pretty good margin) and somehow missed out 6 team playoff field because I always seemed to go against the top scorer. I hated that season ha.


We use it in our league and I think it’s probably a good thing. It is hard to see that you’re 0-4 only two games into the season though 😩


I'm fine with the variance. Kinda makes stuff fun.


Agreed. This is why I like kickers and D/ST too


There's no gray area for tanking. It's perfectly legit and should be encouraged. You need bad team to get the "best"'chance to turn it around. They need to rebuild properly. The issue is throwing games. Purposely benching players who are surefire starters in order to "lose" that week. In response, leagues use PP to set draft order. You should be playing 3 point weeks, 2 H2W and 1 against the median. It's not perfect, but it's another tool.


This is why people had an issue with the Eagles last season. Sure tank no one cares when the Dolphins trade guys for picks and it means they eat shit but don’t pull your starting QB for a third stringer when everyone’s watching. Have some decency.


I can’t stand the league median, and I’m in 3 that use it.


I'm a big fan of game vs. median, it really feels much more fair. This past week I scored 178 points (PPR but still) and still lost by 70 to the dude who rolled out Henry/Aaron Jones. Getting partial credit felt great in that circumstance


I play with a median and I truly enjoy it. I agree Fantasy should have some variance, but a game against the median does not entirely remove variance, just lowers it. It helps ensure the better teams make the playoffs while still keeping that head to head feel.


I’m not sure that would be that interesting? Just witnessed two of our top teams put up top-10 highest scores in our league against each other. It was pretty epic! Week before I won my game on Edwards’ catch near the end zone just before OT. I don’t think you get that level of excitement from vs median.


If you're playing in higher stakes leagues, playing with a median is a must, much like how playing full ppr is a must. It lowers variance of the game making it more skill/knowledge based.


League median is garbage. It reduces competitiveness and rank changes.


Variance is cool and all until you get shafted. Still remember when I had 2nd most PF but had the most PA by far. Didn't even have barkley for most of the year but the rest of the team went off and still finished 2nd last in the league with I believe 3 wins.


League median is fine. But I’ve never been for these ‘fairness’ pushes that really aren’t all that more fair. Like I get what it accomplishes, but if we want to really balance it why not just make it a roto concept and get rid of matchups altogether, because that’s far more likely to show a display at who’s the best at acquiring and accumulating stats. And the reason I wouldn’t actually suggest that is that it’s football and the matchups is fun. So I know that’s kinda extreme, and I’m fine with league median, but the reason I’ve never really gotten the push is that… it’s not that I don’t see matchups as ‘unfair’— it’s that I think if you’re going to have matchups, there will be an inherent unfairness. It isn’t ‘fair’ if you wanted to make the playoffs in the NFC last year that the Bears had one of the easiest schedules and primarily beat up the Texans Jags Falcons and Lions all of whom fired their HC mid season. But it happened


We voted against it in my league. Fantasy football is about matchups and sometimes the second best scoring team of the week doesnt win. Having a game or two of median scoring just feels like a cop out for the head to head competition of fantasy football.


To combat "luck of the schedule", we just have the teams with the top 5 records qualify for the playoffs and the sixth qualifier is the highest PF of the remaining teams (12-team league). It's been a good system so far. We had a year where the 2nd highest scorer of the season was in 8th place because every week their opponents just had blow up games. With the rules in place, they still got to be seeded as the #6 team in the playoffs.


I think that’s a good system but I’d like to pose a counter argument. I think points for is a bit overrated. For example let’s say we have two teams. Team A scored 5 more total points for on the season then Team B. Team A was able to score more then Team B in large part due to 3 weeks where their team went off and scored 50 more points then everyone else. On the other side team B was never the highest scoring team on any week but was a consistent team all season and that is reflected in their record. Which team is better? Personally I think team B is better. I think adding a game vs the median is away to limit variance while also rewarding consistency. A fun way I like to think about who’s better between 2 teams is to see what there records would be if they played each other every week rather then just looking at PF. I’ve played on a platform that actually shows you what you record would be vs each team if you played them each week and it showed your record if you played every team every week. I always found that info to be cool.


I’m in favor of it and have suggested it in probably every league that I’m in. Nobody else in my leagues really wants it.


I just learned about this a few weeks ago and it's great


It doesn't only increase enjoyment. Think about the position where you and your opponent both have terrible games only for your kicker to pull through and win for you by 0.5 points. The displeasure felt by both teams is increased as the records for the week are 0W/2L and 1W/1L instead of 0W/1L and 1W/0L. Edit: Getting downvoted by retards that have never taken a logic class.


I find over three causes too many conflicts of interest where I’m rooting for and against certain players each week.


This kind of setting should be put to a league vote. There's a positives and negatives to both. Do what works best for your league. I'm in leagues that have it and some that don't, no real strong opinions either way, the better teams rise to the top in both formats.


We do league average the first and last week of the season. That way we compete over who had the best offseason (first week), play every other team once, then see who had the best in season (last week). It's fun, we like it.