The straight divisional concept would be a great addition to the league, although there remain some hangups. First, technology is a factor -- we would either need to find a site that allows for free divisional play, or we would have to pony up the extra $200 to upgrade to Yahoo Plus. Second, there is the question of how to fairly align the divisions. We'd want to account for natural rivalries, but then the default alignment would probably end up as "Guys Who Went to High School Together" and "Everybody Else." That's neither equitable nor good for the longterm stability of the league.
Instead, I'd like to propose the ICA adopt -- after expansion to 12 teams -- a fairly radical divisional concept, based on the model of European soccer.
As is my understanding of it, in European soccer, the leagues are realigned each year based on teams' performance the previous year. That is, the bottom-feeders of the Elite League are banished the following season to the Intermediate League, and the top teams from Intermediate move on up to Elite.
Now, I'm not suggesting we banish the Giants and the Mamas Boys.
Rather, we would have two divisions, a Group 1 and a Group 2. These groups would be initially established based on the final standings at the end of our next expansion year. Group 1 would be comprised of the top 6 teams, and Group 2 would be the bottom 6. The groups would play an unbalanced schedule, with games against all teams, but the majority of games against teams in their own group.
But here's the catch: Only teams in Group 1 are eligible to win the Fuggin Cup. Teams in Group 2, on the other hand, are fighting for the right to jump up into Group 1 the following year. The way I envision it (and this can certainly be tweaked), the teams that place in fifth and sixth -- i.e., miss the playoffs in Group 1 -- would be bounced to Group 2. The top two teams in Group 2 would then elevate to Group 1.
Before you scoff at the concept, consider the positives:
- This model rewards smart, longterm planning, by requiring our champion to be a solid team for at least two consecutive years. It would eliminate the possibility of a flash-in-the-pan winner, a la the 2004 Newmaniacs, not to take anything away from Newman's championship.
- It would provide serious annual incentive for mediocre or bad teams to compete. Currently, our system discourages middle-of-the-pack teams from really trying to improve themselves in any given year. Instead, it's often beneficial for a mediocre team to merely trade good players and stockpile draft picks with an eye to the future. This system would give every year more urgency, as non-contenders would be fighting to make the jump or to hold on to their position for the next season.
- It would give legitimate hope to the worst teams. Right now, Colby and Jason have little hope of winning anything of any importance in the near future. But in the group format, they would have a realistically attainable goal -- beating out the mediocre teams for a shot at placement in the top group. Let's face it, Oedipus isn't going to outdo my Golden Sox anytime soon, but it's not unreasonable to think Colby's team could edge out the Pigs -- especially with more games against poor competition.
- It raises the level of excitement for everybody, even the top teams. With the current model, contenders often get several "weeks off" during the season when they play the lesser squads. Not only are the teams mismatched talentwise, but often the bad teams aren't managed as aggressively because they really aren't playing for anything. With the group format, both of these factors are mitigated -- top teams play other top teams more often, and the bottom teams will be more involved because they'll have an attainable goal.
Thoughts?
