I’m not alone, as a reader named Peter (featured back in my Week 3 column) ended up in pretty much the same position.

Some readers will say that H2Hers who are unhappy with such outcomes should join “total points” leagues. Others will argue that luck is part of the H2H phenomenon and that those of us who enjoy H2H leagues should accept the fact that poor teams will often advance to the playoffs on the basis of lucky schedules. “Luck is part of the fantasy package, bro,” as one reader put it to me years ago.

I understand why some folks may be reluctant to tamper with the traditional H2H formula. It’s fun. It’s easy to understand and thoroughly tested. And best of all, if your great team doesn’t make it to the postseason this year, it’s always possible that your crappy team will manage to sneak in next year.

But a number of readers have written me with proposals for retaining the excitement of H2H leagues while trying to inject some of the “fairness” inherent in total points leagues.

One hybrid model comes from Bo:

The rules were simple for my 14-team/2-division league:

8 teams earned a playoff place: #1-#2 the two division champions, #3-#6 the teams with the next best record from both divisions, #7-#8 wild cards.

Wild card race: Each week the best scoring team earned 14 points, the second 13, the third 12 ... and the last 1. At the end of the season the 2 teams with the most points in the wild card race that had not already earned a playoff spot won the 2 last playoff spots.

So you keep the H2H component but at the same time you eliminate the schedule randomness, since even if you end up with a 0-14 record because of the scheduling gods, you can make the playoffs.

Between this proposal from Bo, the “King of the Hill” model from Peter featured in Week 3, and a third alternative proposed by Bill in my column from Week 15, readers can easily see that there are lots of ways to try to tackle the challenge of “eliminate[ing] schedule randomness.”

But before we wrap up another season of Q&A, I want to focus on a thoughtful model proposed by Kim:

Here's the idea: if in a given week you would beat two-thirds of the teams in your league but ended up losing in the H2H matchup you had that week, you are awarded half a win. You could leave it at that or also deal with the flip side by taking half a win away from team(s) that got a win in their H2H matchup but would've lost to two-thirds of the rest of the teams. . . . It won't fix all the possible inequities of H2H leagues, but it should minimize the egregious cases where 2 of the 3 highest scoring teams in our league are missing the playoffs.

I liked Kim’s idea right out of the gate, but I was delighted when he followed up with another note to tell me what the fallout of his model would have been if it had been adopted in past seasons:

I went through each of the last two seasons of my FF league and I feel pretty good that this fix works. It succeeded in getting arguably (using all-play and/or total points) the 6 best teams into the Super Bowl playoffs in both seasons. The seeding was still not all that reflective of the all-play record or total points, but it did enough to at least get the right teams into the dance (which was really my point). On a practical note, we have a 12-team league, and 2/3's of 11 is 7.2 something. I rounded down to 7 and think it wouldn't have worked if I'd rounded up to 8. That means a team had to score better than 7 teams but yet lose [its H2H match] to get the extra half win or win with a score lower than 7 teams to have a half win subtracted. It was obvious pretty early that using both ends of the equation (adding and subtracting half wins) would be necessary. Interestingly, half wins were awarded and subtracted much more frequently in the 2013 season than the 2014 season, but it changed the seeding and overall makeup of the playoffs more in the 2014. . . . It also succeeded in bumping the teams (1 in 2013 and 2 in 2014) from the Super Bowl playoffs that, by the same criteria listed above, should've been bumped. . . .

Anyway, I wanted to relay that this fix, on a very small sample size, had the desired effect while still maintaining all the excitement of H2H. I think it's also possible it will make it less likely that a team will coast against a weak opponent and generate more interest in the scores of the rest of the league games as well as rooting against specific fantasy players even when they aren't on your H2H opponent's team. All good in my book.

Just as I applauded Peter for taking the time to show his league-mates how his KOTH formula would have worked out if they had adopted it in 2014, I want to commend Kim for working out the ramifications of his proposal (if only hypothetically).

If you want to start lobbying for models such as any of those outlined in this column (or possibly combinations of elements from the various models), be sure that you can show the other owners in your league how and why adopting a change would do a better job of getting the most deserving teams into the playoffs.

My thanks go out to all the readers of this column who give me such great feedback on the various questions posed here during the regular season. I hope everyone in the FFToday community enjoys the holidays and has a great 2015. Most of all, I want to offer my thanks to Matthew Schiff for continuing to provide us with his Survivor Pool insights week in and week out. And on that note . . .

Someday, Blake Bortles may look back on his rookie season and say, “Well, that wasn’t too bad.” Peyton Manning went 1-15 in his first full year in the league, and Bortles already has three wins after starting the season as the backup to Chad Henne. Not too shabby. Although the Jags are improving, Houston has the better team in this matchup. J.J. Watt and company still have a shot at the 6th and final playoff spot. It’s true that the Texans need help (in the form of losses by Baltimore and San Diego), but as Philly fans know too well, the most important thing in this scenario is to take care of your own game first. This same Texans team beat Jacksonville 27-13 just three weeks ago on the road. With so much to play for, and nothing left if they lose, can there be a safer bet? Probably not. And with very few other games as attractive as a team that must win to get into the playoffs in your survival pool, it’s reasonable to expect a Texans win at home in Week 17.

#2: Dallas over Washington (10-6: CHI, Sea, NO, TB, DET, Den, CLE, MIA, KC, BAL, SF, GB,HOU, MN, IND, PHI)

The Cowboys have clinched their division but are still fighting for the bye in the playoffs. Jay Gruden and his Redskins aren’t as fortunate this year, and while an upset victory over the Eagles on the road was nice, it is highly unlikely that the Redskins can pull off back-to-back wins against the their division rivals. That said, this matchup is a perfect example of why I live by the philosophy of AVOIDING DIVISIONAL MATCHUPS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. However, with the NFL scheduling nothing but divisional matchups in week 17, we have to go out on a limb – three times over in this column. The Cowboys have all the weapons they need to beat the Skins, but there’s always the possibility that Romo and company will fall behind early, decide that they have nothing left to play for, and sit their most valuable personnel during the second half of the game. If that happens, then there goes all of your hard work in your Survival Pool. Take this game with a large dose of caution knowing that the players may dial it back depending on what is happening on the out-of-town scoreboard.

#1: Minnesota over Chicago (13-3: PHI, DEN, NE, SD, GB, SEA, BAL, DAL, CIN, AZ, WAS, IND, DET, NO, NYG, BUF)

In the final week of the season, how can you find the perfect Survival Pool pick? Start by looking for a game in which it’s clear that one of the opponents is definitely going to mail it in. Unfortunately for Bears fans, Chicago appears poised to do just that. With Jay Cutler benched, Marshall out due to injury, and nothing but a draft position to play for, it doesn’t seem likely that the Bears will bring much fight to this storied rivalry. In spite of the fact that Minnesota was eliminated from playoff contention a while ago and is in a similar state as the Bears, the Vikes have gotten better each week. It is for this reason that these teams are headed in different directions, and the Vikings thus become the clear choice in Week 17. If you need more, understand this: Each of these teams will undergo much transition in the next 9 months. The difference is the Vikings players and staff will be moving into a brand new stadium with a bright future, while the Chicago players and staff will be sitting at home wondering whether they will have any kind of future with the Bears or any NFL team. Need I say more?