Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Wow. OK, so much for the discussion slowing down.
Mike, great post. Post of the thread so far. Encapsulated the issue right there.
Matt, as for the "who would have been the 5 and 6 seeds in previous years" question, here are the records (I won't bother naming the actual teams because I don't want to go through the tie breakers, but the records should suffice):
2003
#5 Seed - 9-5
#6 Seed - 8-6
2004
#5 Seed - 8-6
#6 Seed - 8-6
2005
#5 Seed - 8-6
#6 Seed - 7-7
2006
#5 Seed 8-6
#6 Seed 8-6
I would be fine with a preliminary vote of "is there a problem to be fixed" before we vote on anything else. However, the problem with tying the expanded playoffs to any change to the rookie draft is that there would simply be too many options to choose from. There would be 6 team playoff with lottery, 4 team playoff with lotter, 6 team playoff with toilet bowl, 4 team playoff with toilet bowl, 6 team playoff with lottery + wins post soft cap, etc. Basically, you'd have a different option for 12 different owners opinions (or close to that). We need to narrow it down somehow. You wouldn't be able to fairly do a vote any way other than an instant runnoff ballot.
|
Wow.. all those teams are undeserving.
They have to be together.
Here is how the polls should go as there are really 3 sides: no change, toilet bowl, playoff expansion.
1st vote:
a) Tanking is not a big enough issue to warrant change in draft seeding or playoffs.
b) Tanking is a big enough issue to risk changing the system and possibly playing under a system I do not support.
2nd vote if people think tanking is a big issue:
A) Toilet Bowl (details later) - General jist - At the end of the season, bottom teams have playoffs for #1 pick. Winner gets #1 pick.
B) Playoff Expansion + Bottom 3 Lottery (details later) - Gneral jist - Playoffs expand to 6 teams, 1 week of double header against non-division opponents, Bottom 3 Lottery for #1 (60/30/10).
C) Rules Committee
D) Extra Balls
E) Other
Then after the 2nd vote we have seperate vote for the various details. As it is the lines are pretty much drawn.... so now it is up to see if people think tanking is a big enough issue to warrant significant changes.