Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action - Option 4 Passes 7-2-2-0
 

Vote in the above poll for your desired choice for the appropriate reaction to the attached thread. All options are throroughly discussed.

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showth...1&page=1&pp=60

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Brian- I am not seeing the poll. What am I missing?

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Be patient, young grasshopper.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

You said ASAP ;).

Anyhow, I see it now.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

BTW, option three say to expand to 4 teams but I think you meant six. Thanks! Looks like you caught it. Thanks.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

I can't put into words how much I think expanding the playoffs to 6 teams SUCKS.

I am vehemently against it.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

BTW, I voted Toilet Bowl, but honestly don't think it does enough to address the passive tanking problem.

I'd like to see it combined with option 4, with the Rules committee having the option to sanction draft picks by either moving them down in the order or taking them away entirely for violaters.

I'll also add, yet again, that I HATE THE IDEA OF WATERING DOWN THE F'N CHAMPIONSHIP with a 6 team playoff, double headers, yada yada yada. YUCK.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

:bump:

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

I can't put into words how much I think a Toilet Bowl for bottom four teams SUCKS.

I am vehemently against it.

In fact, is it possible for us to rank the options 1-4 with your first choice getting three points, second two points and third choice one point? This might give us a better result since it would allow us to weight our preferences.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

I don't think it will matter, since I highly doubt any of the options will get a 7 vote majority, and I don't think we can implement any of these changes as large as they are, without a majority. I see no action taking place at this point in time.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

I think you have to have some clear cut definition in the rules of what they're going to enforce and how their going to prove the case.

Edited to add, and even if the Rules Committee option does not win out here, doesn't prevent it from becoming a separate poll with that as the only question. Per the rules, the only thing required to get a vote is for someone to put up a poll.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

At this point doing nothing might make sense, though I would still think we want to add a line to the rule about a lack of line-up submission being a punishable offense.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Because there is no reasonable argument for a Toilet Bowl.

All the "problems" you have with expanded playoffs are just and inconviences/matter of personal taste.... IT DOES NOT ALTER COMPETITIVE BALANCE like a Toilet Bowl does.

I have mentioned it many times.

In a Toilet Bowl the WORST TEAM has the WORST odds at the #1 pick! How can you justify that in a contract league? Especially, when there is a way to get the same effect or nearly the same effect with an expanded playoffs + lottery... all for the sake of dealing with a double header 1 week a year.

Maintence of the status quo will be encouraged. For the 6 teams or so in the playoff chase there is no difference between seeds #1-4. You only have to win 2 games to become Frenzy Bowl Champion. The Middle Tier teams want to stay mediocre - bad enough to possibly make Toilet Bowl, but good enough to win it and STEAL the #1 pick. The bad teams get screwed b/c no one wants to trade.

It alters the trading market and PUNISHES teams for REBUILDING!! Every sport leagues has teams who are contenders and teams rebuilding. It's natural and does not mean people are "tanking," especially in a league like Frenzy where only 4 teams make it... you have to be ELITE team to make it as winning record doesn't get you in (8-6, 9-5 teams have been left out, so I guess a winning record "dilutes" the championship and if a #5 or 6 seed wins 3 games in a row vs. 2 games for #1-2 it's considered undeserving still). B/c of the status quo mentioned above... the buyers are apathetic and the sellers will get punished if they make trades for prospects/picks.

Playoff Expansion + Lottery/Mutts Rule will increase competitiveness amongst the ELITE teams as they have to battle it out for a #1 or #2 seed to get a bye week. The middle teir teams will become larger as more teams can get into the playoffs. The bottom teams are usually the bottom teams... just a fact and they continue by rebuilding into next year trading away productive players for prospects and picks. A lottery, League vote, or even both will curb ANY POSSIBILITY of not setting a maximal lineup.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

With the votes coming down as they have, no option can attain a majority other than the Rules Committe option. Since the only possibilities at this point are that either nothing will be done, or that the Rules Committee will be in charge, I hereby resign from the rules committee.

I hold no grudge against those whose opinions differ from mine, but it is clear that the concerns of the majority of owners in this league differ from my own. That's everyone's personal preference, and I certainly am not going to claim that my opinion is not the right opinion. But, since this is the situation, I no longer feel inclined to spend the same amount of time and effort here. I'll remain as a active and interested owner, but that will be the extent of my involvement.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Brian, I am right there with you as far as improving league competitivness.... but I just can't aligh myself with a Toilet Bowl as previously mentioned. You want more competitiveness... change your vote to playoff expansion. Do you deny any of the theories I have laid out there for playoff expansion or did you just feel a Toilet Bowl was a better option?

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

THIS SUCKS.

And with that, the Frenzy falls to pieces IMO.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Try playoff expansion.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Frank,

I'm TRYING REAL HARD to be nice, but I think it's your insistance on 1 and only 1 option being the solution that is costing us one of our best contributers.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Really? What's another option that doesn't link wins to draft seeding?

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

I'm done arguing.

Good luck to the playoff teams I wish you well, but am tuning out the board till next season.

Wake me when the off-season is set to begin, I'll decide then if I'll return. Hopefully I'll have cooled off and will give a shit again, but right now, the Frenzy and FF in general is in my rearview mirror.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Great I knew my finally making the playoffs was a sign of the apocalypse. Just wait until next week's SI...

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

And before you talk about my insistance maybe you should look at the mirror?

The only knock against playoff expansion from you is personal preference.... 1 week of double headers.

Playoff expansion will imrpove competitveness, just not the same way a Toilet Bowl does.

I'm with you guys in improving the "level" of play in the league! We have the same goal. I am just not willing to sacrifice competiveness by giving the WORST ODDS for the #1 to the WORST team.

So before you blame me for Brain stepping down... maybe "you" should look in the mirrior before blaming me.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Number one, yes I feel a toilet bowl is a better option to increase overall competitiveness. There's two sides to the argument on the toilet bowl (ok, with 12 owners, there's probably 12 sides, but I'll break them down into 2). My side is that it maintains the primary goal of all owners to be competitive on a week to week basis. To me, that is fun. That's just my preference. I'd rather have 12 teams trying to win on any given week that 5 teams trying to win, four teams trying to jockey for draft position, and the rest phoning it in. That to me is not enjoyable.

I recognize the opposition in that requiring teams to try to win on a weekly basis prevents those teams out of contention from doing what they feel is best to build their team for the future. My choices lead me to "forcing my team management decisions onto others" as has been said to me many times. I'm not trying to tell other teams how to run their team, I'm merely prefering to play in a league where all the teams are shooting for the same goal. That's clearly not the case here, and a number of owners prefer to be in a league where they can build for the future and have no consequence for the present. That's a preference. I'm in the minority on that, and that's cool. I've been in the minority before, but since this is a huge key, to me, in the enjoyment of playing FF, there's no point in dedicating as much time to it.

It's probably the downfall of the rookie draft I was largely pushing when we came up with the sliding scale and performance bonuses. We've made the rookie draft too valuable that people feel they need to jockey for position to be able to improve. I don't think that's the case. Look at the four teams in the palyoffs. A whopping one is there with any significant input from high draft picks (Matt). The only starter on my team that is a draft pick was the 18th player selected. Jake has one draft pick contributing to his team and he was the 9th player selected. Jim has ZERO draft picks on his active roster. So all this talk that we're ruining the competitve balance by not giving teams who have sold out their season the right to pick first doesn't jive with me, because I know teams can win without having the #1 rookie pick the next season.

Secondly, as far as expanding the playoffs, I have mixed feelings. Would it expand the number of teams feeling they could compete? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not sold on the guarantee, and there's enough opposition that I'm not going to give it much thought.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Good point. I really haven't been helped much with draft picks since I've been in the Frenzy League. That's partly due to where I drafted... yet predominantly due to this being a VETERAN-HEAVY performance league. Rookies rarely make a significant contribution. The exception might have been Marques Colston last year, and I got him in week one as a FA pickup.

As much as it may not be "PC" to admit... the rookie draft isn't that significant in this league.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

I think if you have 9 out of 12 teams fighting for playoffs... that means there are just 3 really bad teams. Teams that need to rebuild. It's doesn't mean they are phoning it in. I think that's the perfect dynamic of a contract league. Just like in the NFL... every team makes moves and thinks they can turn it around in one season but as the season progresses the contenders and pretenders are sorted out and the pretenders hand things over to the promising young QB, over the veteran. It's a contract league.... if 9 out 12 teams are fighting for playoffs it means... there are 9 potential buyers to help the 3 bad teams restock with picks and prospects.

If we were in a re-draft league a Toilet Bowl makes perfect sense, however not in a contract league.

Everyone is playing to win the Championship... but the dynamics of any league with contracts (fantasy or real professional leagues) is that there are only a select number of teams that can be in it towards the end of the year. Not every year can every team be considered championship contenders in a contract league. However, I doubt any team does not have Championship aspirations in mind.

Fair enough, but everyone knows that not all rookies develop in the 1st or 2nd years. This is a contract league and we still have plenty of players still in their rookie contracts and as you can see by the FA pool most of the talent is on a roster already. There are not enough Ryan Grants, Justin Fargases, or Derek Andersons to go around. This is the by product of being in a contract league, not a rookie scale.

I don't think there is as much opposition as you think.

Most teams have stated favor or open to the idea of playoff expansion.

Matt, Rich, and myself have supported playoff expansion. Jim said he was against a Toilet Bowl, but could be pursuaded into playoff expansion. I believe Joel is in support of playoff expansion through AIM conversation and Jason supported the idea of playoff expansion albiet tied to a Toilet Bowl.

It's just really Mike and yourself that are so strongly against it.

My fight here is done. Thanks for explaining your perspective, but before Mike and you give up on the league, I hope you reconsider playoff expansion.

I think you guys should see that the prospect of ANY improvement, even if it doesn't get all 12 teams involved (which can be due to reason other than tanking) is well worth it, IMO. Rather than having this league fold.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

I'll bet you anything Jim that next year will be much tougher for you with only Betts/Portis, Witten, and Kaeding signed through next year and only Jay Cutler looking like the only one of your prospects ready to contribute.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Don't forget AHMAN GREEN!!!!

Actually, I expect to be very competative with my RFA designations, too.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Mine as well.

I'm not giving up on the league. I just don't want the self imposed responsbilities I've previously felt to try to be a driving force in the league. Someone else can take up those reins, and I can just go for the ride.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Yep but part of your success has been the cheap contracts from your great FA signings. Will be tough to field the same depth.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Not necessarily true, what's stopping him with his good eye for success. Obviously he sees things different than others in the FA process...I'm looking to copy that myself next year. Thanks for sharing the secret!!!!

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

My hats off to Jim and if he pulls it off again next year with a similiar strategy then I'll be very suprised.

As it is he'll have to spend more at QB... with Derek Anderson will be getting a raise and even if he hans the keys over to Cutler @ 341 + 10% + bonuses.

Westbrook will get a pay raise from his 2600 as the #2 overall RB and Justin Fargas as a #3 RB will be definatley gone.

Then his ENTIRE WRs corps will be FA: Holt, Colston, Wes Welker, Cotchery, and Jurivicious. Holt is the only one over 252cbs!!!

He should be able to retain most of his guys but that will leave him very little as far as depth and cap room unless he drafts some servicble rookies.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

"Often imitated, never duplicated."

(Thanks for all the great PR you guys!)

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Haha

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

I'm going to guess that Highlanders are the final team that hasn't voted and won't be voting anytime soon.

Unless anyone objects, I'd be happy to change my vote from "no change" to "rules cmte power" to give it the required majority to pass. It's essentially the same thing to me.

I'm assuming the proponents of the other options don't actually object to the Rules Cmte having the power (versus nothing, which is what will happen as it stands now).

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

For future reference, when the voting numbers are links, that means the poll started made the results public. You can click the link and see who voted for each selection.

If I can, I'll change your vote. Not sure if I have that authority.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

Ah, the #s are links. Thanks for the heads-up!

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

I either don't have the authority, or just don't know how to change the votes. Either Mike can do that to make it official, or we can just recognize that the Rules Committee option has passed with a 7 vote majority and we can put this to bed.

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

I never knew that after how many years!!

Re: Rules Vote: Anti-Tanking Action
 

So now it seems the issue will be what do we define as tanking or are we just using the rules committee just to make sure everyone starts their best lineup (which is probably the best way to go).