Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Preds
See, you point to the very heart of the problem IMO. Yes, the worst teams should get best shot at the prized rookies, unfortunately the temptation is so great to tank to increase their chances at said stud rookie that it hurts the league.
Whatever happened to trying each and every week to do your best? To never quit, and always do whatever you can to remain competitive? Yes I know it's a contract league, bla bla blah. Guess what, if teams out of it acted like Matt this year, or Jim the last couple years, they might just find themselve fighting for a title instead of the #1 pick.
Instead of giving up and caosting for the top pick(s), you may get a guy like Grant who's helped turn the Freedom into a contender, or Derek Anderson who's oropelled the Opihi into a dominant season. Never quit, never surrender. It's a free league for Pete's sake. Why can't all 12 teams just friggin TRY? The fact we're even having this debate in this league is very dissappointing.
I back an incentive plan, since apparently it's likel;y the only way to get all 12 teams on board with always going for the win, and staying active to improve their teams.
You say a toilet bowl is that big a detriment that you'd consider not playing in 2008... well I say tanking is disgusting and hugely dissappointing, and thus enough reason for ME not to want to play in 2008. How ABOUT THOSE APPLES?
The Frenzy is supposed to be the best of the best, unfortunately, it's falling deeper and deeper into mediocrity and being "just another league".
Ugh.
|
So why should we back an incentive plan? What advantages does it have to overcome the fact that the rookie draft seeding is compromised.
I'm down for teams "trying" harder, never said I was against that, but I have proposed a solution that will have teams try harder AND not compromise the worst teams getting the best picks. IT DOES NOT SACRIFICE ONE FOR THE OTHER like a Toielt Bowl, extra balls does.
Really Mike... please explain your reasoning, instead of just offering your opinion.
Jake... I think the rules committee idea is bad as it will be based on subjectivity. The less sibjectivity in the better.
Also if you think I wasn't trying... when Anderson was a FA I had Eli Manning and Matt Hassellbeck playing very very well. Grant was out of my price range and I have a fairly decent RB committee and did not want to let proven RBs go to make room for Grant and his contract.