2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'm bumping this thread, and my post in particular. I now feel we have a clear cut instance of tanking.

I'm getting extremely frustrated with the way seasons are ending up around here. Last year, due to the activities of a certain owner no longer with us, we had lengthy discussions about ways to adjust the rookie draft due to perceived "tanking." I know I was one of the owners, who after time had passed, no longer felt a tinkering was necessary. Well, I now deeply regret that change of heart. This year, in my opinion, is setting up to be worse than last year with apparently two teams trying to secure themselves the #1 pick, while games are still being played that will affect teams in the playoffs, as well as the seeding.

I greatly hesitate to call teams out, but I am starting to feel obligated for the sake of the league. I really think the Frenzy is starting to slide downhill, and I love the league setup, and enjoy the comraderie of many of the league members so much I feel something needs to be done, or at least needs to be said. There are two teams in particular I felt made decisions this past week that cannot be contrued as being competitive, and can only be interpreted as trying to secure the #1 overall pick for themselves: The Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects and the Amish Rake Fighters. The lineup decisions I cannot understand:

Insects:

Eli Manning over Matt Hasselbeck. This is not the most egregious decision, but I would think most owners would start Hasselbeck over Manning. This one by itself isn't all that bad, but taken in the full context, it is highly questionable.

Warrick Dunn and Kevin Jones over Derrick Ward and Shaun Alexander. Warrick Dunn has been ineffective almost all season. Jones has never had success against Minnesota, and Minnesota has shut down just about every running back this season. Derrick Ward was the announced starter. Shaun Alexander was known to be coming back from injury.

Brandon Jones over Donald Driver. While some of the other decisions may be defender, this one to me is the most blatent that Frank is apparently trying to throw the game. Driver is Franks best receiver by far. If he wants to get Jones in the lineup, why not at the expense of Curry? Doesn't make sense to me.

I can honestly say I have not been tanking and putting for my best line up every week, except for this week.

I liked Eli against the Bears over the Hassellbeck vs the Eagles.

As for Dunn and Kevin Jones over Alexander and Ward, I simply did not trust Alexander after him missing 3 weeks and Derrick Ward had not played the past 4 weeks (when was he announced the starter b/c I missed that). And Dunn has not been ineffective the past 4 weeks he has scored 22/28/14/13 pts not world beating numbers but a solid RB.

And I don't remember selecting Brandon Jones over Driver. I was suprised when I checked to see that.

Either way I lost by over 40 pts and the only coaching decision I would have changed is Jones over Driver who only scored 10 pts. I have lost 5 straight games yet my player efficiancy rating on the website is at 86% (half the league is at 86% or less).

Would you have called me out on tanking on any week but this week? I think not.

[Flaxwless]

I am not opposed to a weighted lottery. Here's what I would suggest:

It be a lottery between the bottom 3 for the #1 pick w/ picks #2-12 based on record.

Bottom 3 teams lottery

Worst record - 60% chance at #1 overall
2nd worst - 30% chance at #1 overall
3rd worst - 10% chance at #1 overall

A nice simple way to avoid tanking, yet does not ruin league parity through the rookie draft as the worst team can drop no further than #2. Roughly 2 out of 3 times it will keep the 1st pick, with a 40% chance of dropping to #2.

The 2nd worst team has a 1 in 3 chance to move up 1 spot and a 10% shot at moving down 1 spot.

The 3rd worst team will move up 2 spots, 1 out of 10 times or else keep it's spot the other 90% of the time.

It should keep things honest enough to prevent tanking, yet not sigificantly impact the value of high rookie picks for the bottom teams.

[Amish]

Ok, you can call me a cheater Brian fair enough. Thank you for talking to Frank and me first before announcing your ideas to the league.

I have the same argument as Frank as far as this being the only week not submitting a full "ideal" lineup. As far as Harrison, I had a wedding on Saturday and was out of town, and I didn't change that.

As far as it affecting the overall scores, I wouldn't have beat Wonder Mutts.

So, I guess I don't have any defense but the way it was brought up was poorer judgement than my lineup setting.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Again, after hearing the Amish and Insects explain themselves I think it is very hard to prove that someone is cheating. There are too many variables to clearly show this unless you start an entire line-up of injured players.

At the same time I don't think that having some sort of system like Frank mentioned would be horrible. However, as someone who has often been in one of those bottom three slots I would hate to be in line for the top pick only to lose it on a coin flip (or whatever).

I guess I am willing to listen to everyone thoughts and see what options folks want to vote on but I am not sure there is an easy or clear cut solution here.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Amish

Ok, you can call me a cheater Brian fair enough. Thank you for talking to Frank and me first before announcing your ideas to the league.

I have the same argument as Frank as far as this being the only week not submitting a full "ideal" lineup. As far as Harrison, I had a wedding on Saturday and was out of town, and I didn't change that.

As far as it affecting the overall scores, I wouldn't have beat Wonder Mutts.

So, I guess I don't have any defense but the way it was brought up was poorer judgement than my lineup setting.

You're going to get all holier than thou on me because I called you out on what you are admitting you've done? Forgive me if I don't give a rip if what you think I did was not up to your standards.

The point is not if the scores would have affected anything. The point is that trying to tank is pretty bush.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

I can honestly say I have not been tanking and putting for my best line up every week, except for this week.

Would you have called me out on tanking on any week but this week? I think not.

I haven't noticed anything prior to this week, so no, I'm not accusing you of anything prior to this week. But like I said in my original post, anyone of your calls by itself (except for Driver) is fairly innocuous. But, when they are all put together, along with a "whoops" explanation on Driver, it's pretty clear.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

I believe I was in support of a weighted lottery last year, and I remain that way today. To me I'd prefer to see a system like the NHL or NBA, where all non-playoff teams have a % shot at moving up, but no team can move up more than say 3-5 spots (depending on their rank). Additionally, you weight the percentages to greatly increase the chances of the teams with the worse records to move up.

With this system, no team drops more than 1 spot, but the 8th worst team can jump as many as 5 spots into the top 3 if they get drawn, the 7th could also jump 5 spots to to the 2nd pick, the 6th best team could jump say 4 spots, also to the 2nd, the 5th best team could jump 3 spots (again to the 2nd), and teams 4 to 2 can move up to the 1 seed.

I don't think this adequately addresses the tanking aspect. While it does not assure the worst team of having the first pick, is still assures the worst team of having the best chance at the worst pick. I think we need to build in an incentive for teams to win at the end of the year.

The way I'm thinking now, I would put the teams into three buckets. The bottom four, the middle four, and the playoff teams. For the bottom four teams, they can have some sort of lottery for the #1 pick, based partially on their record, but, I think there should be a built in incentive to win. Something like getting additional balls in the hopper for each win after week x (week 7? The divisional game weeks at the end of the year? wins after the soft cap kicks in?) So that teams who phone it in at the end of the year, stop looking to sign free agents, and trade away productive players all which affect the competitive balance for the remaining teams, end up hurting their own chances in the rookie draft the following year.

The middle four teams could be ranked the same way, but I'd leave the playoff teams ordered as is.

Those are my quick initial thoughts on it. I don't think a straight lottery is enough disincentive to prevent tanking. I think we need to build in an incentive to keep winning.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

You're going to get all holier than thou on me because I called you out on what you are admitting you've done? Forgive me if I don't give a rip if what you think I did was not up to your standards.

The point is not if the scores would have affected anything. The point is that trying to tank is pretty bush.

When did we switch personalities?

I feel like I'm reading the Preds of 4-5 years ago from your recent posts.

You're clearly frustrated with issues surrounding the league, but as one of the most reasonable level-headed people I've known, this is not you're normal MO for resolving things.

What's up?.

P.S. - I can't believe I just mentioned myself in the 3rd person!

[Philadelphia Freedom]

P.S. - I can't believe I just mentioned myself in the 3rd person!

Jimmy is sweet on Elaine!!

Okay, pardon the hi-jack. For what it is worth, I think we might be making this more complicated then it needs to be. Why not take the worst 4 (or 6) teams and count their total points scored after a certain point (maybe week 8 or so). This should encourage teams to play their best line-up and get the most points possible and would certainly discourage anyone from putting in a weak(er) line-up. The top scoring team over these final weeks would get the higher pick and we could go from top to bottom.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Jimmy is sweet on Elaine!!

Okay, pardon the hi-jack. For what it is worth, I think we might be making this more complicated then it needs to be. Why not take the worst 4 (or 6) teams and count their total points scored after a certain point (maybe week 8 or so). This should encourage teams to play their best line-up and get the most points possible and would certainly discourage anyone from putting in a weak(er) line-up. The top scoring team over these final weeks would get the higher pick and we could go from top to bottom.

This is an interesting suggestion. This would at least address teams that say are in a division with three tough opponents, where a team in a weaker division would have a better chance of winning games late in the season.

The downside though, is that I think teams might still phone it in. They would be putting forward their best lineup on a weekly basis probably, but if their team is really bad, and they know they can't win games, they might not say "hey, I really have to make a change to my team if I want to win some games."

It's worth considering though.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

The downside though, is that I think teams might still phone it in. They would be putting forward their best lineup on a weekly basis probably, but if their team is really bad, and they know they can't win games, they might not say "hey, I really have to make a change to my team if I want to win some games."

It's worth considering though.

Okay, but if a team phones it in then they would not be gaining anything personally in terms of draft positioning (since their point total would be lower and thus they would get a lower draft pick). They could still disrupt the competitive balance but not for personal gain which seems to be the issue we were trying to take care of here.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Okay, but if a team phones it in then they would not be gaining anything personally in terms of draft positioning (since their point total would be lower and thus they would get a lower draft pick). They could still disrupt the competitive balance but not for personal gain which seems to be the issue we were trying to take care of here.

Right, I'm just saying that if the goal for those teams is to acutally win, instead of just score as many points as possible, it might be more of a motivator to get them to realize they need to make a roster chance, take some active role in managing their team in order to better their chances, which would be better for the league as a whole.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Right, I'm just saying that if the goal for those teams is to acutally win, instead of just score as many points as possible, it might be more of a motivator to get them to realize they need to make a roster chance, take some active role in managing their team in order to better their chances, which would be better for the league as a whole.

Okay, I would still think that scoring the most points kinds of acts as a proxy for trying to win (and takes away the head to head factor which could unitentionally harm a team from a better division).

[Mutts]

I've been starting Michael Turner for the past 5-6 weeks, and I'm trying to win a championship this year. Does anyone feel that I'm cheating? Personally, I think some of you guys are trying to impose your own management opinions on other owners - and owners that have a strong history of good competition, at that. I don't believe we need an anti-tanking rule in the Frenzy. Seems to me that isn't really addressing the problem - really serving only as a band-aid, and a band-aid that will also have a negative affect on the competitive balance in the league (regardless of how much it is minimized). The Frenzy is about highly competitive owners. I really believe we can trust the group of guys we have to get out if they've lost the desire for competition.

Not turning in a lineup is one thing. Turning in a lineup of non-starters or low impact players because your trying to benefit your team next year is completely another.

That being said, I finish between 4th and 7th almost every year, so I'm not likely to make too much of a fuss if you guys want to give me a chance at a top RB.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Amish

Ok, you can call me a cheater Brian fair enough. Thank you for talking to Frank and me first before announcing your ideas to the league.

I have the same argument as Frank as far as this being the only week not submitting a full "ideal" lineup. As far as Harrison, I had a wedding on Saturday and was out of town, and I didn't change that.

As far as it affecting the overall scores, I wouldn't have beat Wonder Mutts.

So, I guess I don't have any defense but the way it was brought up was poorer judgement than my lineup setting.

So to summarize: "Yes, I'm intentionally tanking (cheating, if you like), but you're a jerk for pointing it out."

Why the co-manager of the league (I don't know Brian's official title, but it seems to me that he and Mike run this thing) can't bring problems to light when he sees them is beyond me. To suggest that him pointing out you tanking is worse than you tanking is, frankly, ridiculous.

To intentionally throw games is very lame, IMO. And yes, when you do the following, you are intentionally tanking:

1. Start Garrard over Manning
2. Bench Parker (17.6 PPG) and Graham (16.6 PPG, and 21.9 PPG since becoming the starter) in order to start Lamont Jordon, who lost his starting job in week 7, got completely benched for two weeks in weeks 10 and 11, and returned in week 12 to have 3 carries (opposed to starter Fargas' 22). You benched two STUD RBs for a non-starter and absolute non-factor in Oakland. All Brian did was point out the obvious - you didn't even try to disguise your intentions by playing arguably plausible players.

The fact that some teams (beyond the team that does it) think this is fine is a bad sign.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Popes

So to summarize: "Yes, I'm intentionally tanking (cheating, if you like), but you're a jerk for pointing it out."

Why the co-manager of the league (I don't know Brian's official title, but it seems to me that he and Mike run this thing) can't bring problems to light when he sees them is beyond me. To suggest that him pointing out you tanking is worse than you tanking is, frankly, ridiculous.

To intentionally throw games is very lame, IMO. And yes, when you do the following, you are intentionally tanking:

1. Start Garrard over Manning
2. Bench Parker (17.6 PPG) and Graham (16.6 PPG, and 21.9 PPG since becoming the starter) in order to start Lamont Jordon, who lost his starting job in week 7, got completely benched for two weeks in weeks 10 and 11, and returned in week 12 to have 3 carries (opposed to starter Fargas' 22). You benched two STUD RBs for a non-starter and absolute non-factor in Oakland. All Brian did was point out the obvious - you didn't even try to disguise your intentions by playing arguably plausible players.

The fact that some teams (beyond the team that does it) think this is fine is a bad sign.

I'm majorly against tanking, but rather get into a battle, would prefer we come up with a system to encourage teams to go for the win each and every week of the regular season.

I like Brian's isea of using a lottery system, starting with a base amount of chances that will vary from 1-4), and awarding additional chances in the draw for each win after November 1st. It encourages teams to never give up, encourages competition, and might even move teams into the playoff hunt that never would have expected it.

You just never know how a season is going to turn out, but giveing incentives for all teams to always go for the win is a big plus in my book. Especially when you consder there are already incentives to losing late in the season if your team is stuggling (a higher draft pick is an incentive to tank) and disincentives to make moves (the soft cap hit).

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Mutts

I've been starting Michael Turner for the past 5-6 weeks, and I'm trying to win a championship this year. Does anyone feel that I'm cheating? Personally, I think some of you guys are trying to impose your own management opinions on other owners - and owners that have a strong history of good competition, at that. I don't believe we need an anti-tanking rule in the Frenzy. Seems to me that isn't really addressing the problem - really serving only as a band-aid, and a band-aid that will also have a negative affect on the competitive balance in the league (regardless of how much it is minimized). The Frenzy is about highly competitive owners. I really believe we can trust the group of guys we have to get out if they've lost the desire for competition.

Not turning in a lineup is one thing. Turning in a lineup of non-starters or low impact players because your trying to benefit your team next year is completely another.

That being said, I finish between 4th and 7th almost every year, so I'm not likely to make too much of a fuss if you guys want to give me a chance at a top RB.

Obviously you're not cheating for doing this, but I think it is a sign of what a collasal failure the flex lineup option has been. But, I won't digress down that road at this point.

I've got to take issue with a couple of your points here. The first is your contention of, and I quote, "owners that have a strong history of good competition." Frank? Sure. Joel? He sucked last year, and he sucked this year. That's too strong a statement in my book.

You say that a anti-tanking rule would be a band-aid to what the real problem is. What do you think the real problem is? I'm curious, because I think people tanking games is a problem. If there is a larger problem out there we should be addressing, I'd like to know what that is, so we can address that.

I agree that the Frenzy is about, or at least I agree it should be about, highly competitive owners. We had that for a number of years, but I just don't think we are where we were. When we have antics like this, it sure appears to me that as a collective group, we've regressed, and we either need to change the rules, or change the goals, because obviously we're not all playing for the same goals.

I'm really disturbed that you have no problem with teams turning in lineups feature no impact players with the intention of losing games. I guess I'm just surprised this does not raise more eyebrows around here.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I haven't noticed anything prior to this week, so no, I'm not accusing you of anything prior to this week. But like I said in my original post, anyone of your calls by itself (except for Driver) is fairly innocuous. But, when they are all put together, along with a "whoops" explanation on Driver, it's pretty clear.

It's really tha clear, huh?

Even when the owner of the team has said otherwise. Eli and Hassellbeck had decent match ups, I chose the QB that was going against the poorer defense statistically.

Alexander had been injured for 3 weeks and before that was largelyineffective. Ward had not played the previous 4 weeks and I missed that he would be named started, I just saw his status on MFL at the time as being D/P, thus choosing a healthy Kevin Jones over him.

With Brandon Jones... I really don't remember selecting Driver. You can believe me or not, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Anyways... I will be opposed to any lottery system that does not give the team with the worst record the BEST shot at the 1st pick. The lottery system I mentioned gave the worst record a 60% shot at winning the #1.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Preds

I'm majorly against tanking, but rather get into a battle, would prefer we come up with a system to encourage teams to go for the win each and every week of the regular season.

And my apologies for re-hashing the stats. You're right, it's more productive to decide on a fix rather than debate the details of the past problem. However, I felt the need to respond because I could not let the argument that "Brian's the jerk for bringing this up" go unaddressed. That's a really obnoxious claim, in my book.

I also rehashed because we don't even seem to be in agreement that there's a problem. I wanted to illustrate with some numbers how obvious the tanking is in this case:

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Again, after hearing the Amish and Insects explain themselves I think it is very hard to prove that someone is cheating. There are too many variables to clearly show this unless you start an entire line-up of injured players.

Frank, as far as your lineup goes, if I may put it into legal parlance: there's a good case on each side. Brian lays out a good argument that while each decision is individually plausible, added together, it sure looks bad, especially when you just happen to be one of the two teams vying for the #1 pick. The Jones over Driver selection is really what raises the red flag. You accidentially manually deselected Driver (your normal and arguably best WR) and manually selected Jones (your hands-down worst WR) for the lineup, even though you didn't mean to? That's plausible, sure. However, don't be surprised when people also find it hard to believe. To believe it, we have to give you "credit" for being really inattentive when you submit your starting lineup. On the other hand, each of your moves does individually have a plausible reasoning. I think this would go to the jury and I don't how they'd decide.

Since Joel's case is so clear cut and illustrates the problem being addressed, there's no need for me to spend more time trying to figure out what really happened with your team, hence my focus on Joel's decision.

[Popes]

BTW, I have found a way to ensure losing teams don't lose motivation: trade away your 1st round draft pick! As soon as my team was eliminated from contention, my goal became: "make sure that my 1st round pick (that Frank has) is as bad as possible!"

It could be anywhere from 3-6 - I'm shooting for #6.

[Popes]

In fact, now that I think of it, it could be argued that the status of my 1st round draft pick cuts against Frank intentionally tanking last week. If he gives me a free win in Week 13 to improve his shot at #1, the pick he'll get from me goes from being the prime candidate to be the #3 pick (if I lose) to anywhere from #3 to #6 (if I win).

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I'll gladly swap first round picks with anyone "allegedly" accused of tanking.

Anything to help your "street cred" in the Frenzy! ;)

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Frank, as far as your lineup goes, if I may put it into legal parlance: there's a good case on each side. Brian lays out a good argument that while each decision is individually plausible, added together, it sure looks bad, especially when you just happen to be one of the two teams vying for the #1 pick. The Jones over Driver selection is really what raises the red flag. You accidentially manually deselected Driver (your normal and arguably best WR) and manually selected Jones (your hands-down worst WR) for the lineup, even though you didn't mean to? That's plausible, sure. However, don't be surprised when people also find it hard to believe. To believe it, we have to give you "credit" for being really inattentive when you submit your starting lineup. On the other hand, each of your moves does individually have a plausible reasoning. I think this would go to the jury and I don't how they'd decide.

Not saying I believe or don't believe but I will admit that there have been times that in my haste I have left a player in that was on their bye week. Thankfully, when it happened this year it did not hurt me. However, with all the other things going on in our lives I have a hard time saying someone is cheating over something like this.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

...I will admit that there have been times that in my haste I have left a player in that was on their bye week.

Wish you would have done that during week 12, my friend...

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Not saying I believe or don't believe but I will admit that there have been times that in my haste I have left a player in that was on their bye week. Thankfully, when it happened this year it did not hurt me. However, with all the other things going on in our lives I have a hard time saying someone is cheating over something like this.

For the record, Frank's WRs from the previous week were Driver, Curry and Galloway. As we all know from the site, when submitting your lineup, your previous lineup is the default, so he would have had to actively click Jones and actively click Driver to get the switch in.

For the record, I'm not saying this conclusively proves Frank did it consciously to throw the game, just throwing that in and it can be taken for what it's worth.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Popes

BTW, I have found a way to ensure losing teams don't lose motivation: trade away your 1st round draft pick! As soon as my team was eliminated from contention, my goal became: "make sure that my 1st round pick (that Frank has) is as bad as possible!"

It could be anywhere from 3-6 - I'm shooting for #6.

, I traded mine away in SACD last year, then went on to a terrible 2-6 start, and spent the last 6 weeks of the season doing everything I could to win each week to keep Burt from getting too high a pick. I ended up going 5-1 down the stretch to finish at 7-7 and knock my pick out of the top 3 and down to #6.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Obviously you're not cheating for doing this, but I think it is a sign of what a collasal failure the flex lineup option has been. But, I won't digress down that road at this point.

I've got to take issue with a couple of your points here. The first is your contention of, and I quote, "owners that have a strong history of good competition." Frank? Sure. Joel? He sucked last year, and he sucked this year. That's too strong a statement in my book.

You say that a anti-tanking rule would be a band-aid to what the real problem is. What do you think the real problem is? I'm curious, because I think people tanking games is a problem. If there is a larger problem out there we should be addressing, I'd like to know what that is, so we can address that.

I agree that the Frenzy is about, or at least I agree it should be about, highly competitive owners. We had that for a number of years, but I just don't think we are where we were. When we have antics like this, it sure appears to me that as a collective group, we've regressed, and we either need to change the rules, or change the goals, because obviously we're not all playing for the same goals.

I'm really disturbed that you have no problem with teams turning in lineups feature no impact players with the intention of losing games. I guess I'm just surprised this does not raise more eyebrows around here.

Whoa man, what are you suggesting? I don't think anyone has defended cheating, and an opinion other than your's isn't definitively corrupt. I certainly do not agree with teams turning in lineups with the intention of losing games. However, I don't have a problem with teams turning in non-competitive lineups because they've leveraged this year's roster room against next year's chance at having a better/cheaper base of players. I agree the Amish are looking mighty suspect of the first and that should be dealt with.

I guess you are calling out two specific owners, so let me rephrase my defense of "owners" to "owner": Frank is an asset to this league and one of it's best owners since day one. He has addressed each claim individually, and I don't see anything that merits getting called on the carpet by the league.

The Amish need to give some logic, because it looks awfully bad.

I really believe everyone's goals are the same. Win a championship. The methods for doing this vary, and within the rules, shouldn't have to be defended.

I do believe this is a band-aid. The problem is bad ownership. So get rid of, or punish, the offending owner individually. The Frenzy is still about highly-competitive owners, and should be going forward. I just don't understand implementing a rule, which is going to alter the competitive balance, that is built to address something that shouldn't exist in the first place. Get rid of the problem, don't make the rest of us alter our rules.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

I'm majorly against tanking, but rather get into a battle, would prefer we come up with a system to encourage teams to go for the win each and every week of the regular season.

I like Brian's isea of using a lottery system, starting with a base amount of chances that will vary from 1-4), and awarding additional chances in the draw for each win after November 1st. It encourages teams to never give up, encourages competition, and might even move teams into the playoff hunt that never would have expected it.

You just never know how a season is going to turn out, but giveing incentives for all teams to always go for the win is a big plus in my book. Especially when you consder there are already incentives to losing late in the season if your team is stuggling (a higher draft pick is an incentive to tank) and disincentives to make moves (the soft cap hit).

Guys, I don't understand where you're going with this. The purpose of having a seeded draft in the first place is to help the guy on the bottom, maintain the competitive balance. So now you want to actually boost up the guys in the middle, who've been able to win more or score more points late in the year? I can't get behind it as proposed. One possible suggestion, though, is to only award bonus chances to teams who win and are in 11th or 12th place at the time. That would help the balance IMO.

[Amish]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

You're going to get all holier than thou on me because I called you out on what you are admitting you've done? Forgive me if I don't give a rip if what you think I did was not up to your standards.

The point is not if the scores would have affected anything. The point is that trying to tank is pretty bush.

Brian and Jason - I admitted that I didn't start my best lineup. I apologize. It has happened once and was just an error in judgement.

Brian - The only thing I was trying to say is that I wish you would have talked to me first or pm'd me instead of spouting off to the league on how much you think me and my teams have sucked. You never once have tried to get to know me via pm or im to ask my intentions or how I try in the league. I just ask for a little respect. I had ONE error in judgement and I apologize.

[Urza's Ragers]

Ok, let's move on and see what we can do to better things - agreed?