2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I'm waiting for the dust to settle on this before I "vote."

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Playoff expansion + Lottery solves the same problem as the toilet bowl as it encourages teams to stay competitive throughout as there are more playoff spots to be had, yet it does not sacrifice the worst teams from getting a chance at the best pick.

Expanding playoffs I am sure will make this league active again. How many tradeline deals do we see now? Barely any. When it was 6 team playoffs there were trades like crazy as everyone still has a chance.

Really for those against expansion, what is the biggest hurdle? We can avoid week 17 championship. We can give higher seeds an advantage if need be.

As for those not in playoff vs in playoffs drawing line sin this argument... prior to this year I had a winning record overall, have been to the Frenzy Bowl 2 times, and have won it once. I have been at the top, I have been at the bottom, I have been mediocre.

Simply put 6 team playoffs solves all the problems people have and will make this league much more active through out the season over a Toilet Bowl where teams could tank earlier to get into the toilet bracket.

Expanding the playoffs has MAJOR negatives, major ones IMO. Shorter season, unbalanced schedule, undeserving teams getting in as the 5 and 6 seeds, potential double headers (which I personally despise). Only plusses is more teams are in in longer. The bad outweighs the good IMO with a 6 team playoff.

I could probably accept an unbalanced, 1 wk shorter schedule with a 6 team playoff, if and only if, the HFA was doubled for the 3 and 4 seeds like I earlier proposed. Without that, I'll remain stanuchly opposed to a 6 team playoff.

IMO, with 4 teams we get a real champion. It's difficult to make the playoffs, and I like it that way. And I say that having missed the playoffs last year, and having the very real potential to miss them this year, despite the fact that in a 6 team format I'd have been in a week or 2 ago. I just don't like the 6 team playoffs (50% of the teams), in a league like this, where I feel the best of the best truly represent the league at the end of the season.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

I'm waiting for the dust to settle on this before I "vote."

:confused: There's nothing to "vote" on at this point. What we need is everyone's opinion. Your silence is not helpful!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

There was a thread earlier wanting people's opinions between expanding the playoffs vs. Toilet Bowl. That's what I was referring to. Everytime I come on, there's a ton of new ideas. So I'm just sitting back to see where this leads.

Personally, in the only other league I'm involved in (a dynasty league I started), we have a 6 team playoff and it works fine. The following year's draft is based on the bottom 6 teams' win/loss record... and then the results of the playoffs for the top 6. Seems to work fine. We play our championship in week 17... but with 20 person rosters in a dynasty league, there's always enough depth to field a competative team.

Then again, we havne't had to deal with tanking.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

There was a thread earlier wanting people's opinions between expanding the playoffs vs. Toilet Bowl. That's what I was referring to. Everytime I come on, there's a ton of new ideas. So I'm just sitting back to see where this leads.

Personally, in the only other league I'm involved in (a dynasty league I started), we have a 6 team playoff and it works fine. The following year's draft is based on the bottom 6 teams' win/loss record... and then the results of the playoffs for the top 6. Seems to work fine. We play our championship in week 17... but with 20 person rosters in a dynasty league, there's always enough depth to field a competative team.

Then again, we havne't had to deal with tanking.

Was that SO hard?

;)

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

Expanding the playoffs has MAJOR negatives, major ones IMO. Shorter season, unbalanced schedule, undeserving teams getting in as the 5 and 6 seeds, potential double headers (which I personally despise). Only plusses is more teams are in in longer. The bad outweighs the good IMO with a 6 team playoff.

I could probably accept an unbalanced, 1 wk shorter schedule with a 6 team playoff, if and only if, the HFA was doubled for the 3 and 4 seeds like I earlier proposed. Without that, I'll remain stanuchly opposed to a 6 team playoff.

IMO, with 4 teams we get a real champion. It's difficult to make the playoffs, and I like it that way. And I say that having missed the playoffs last year, and having the very real potential to miss them this year, despite the fact that in a 6 team format I'd have been in a week or 2 ago. I just don't like the 6 team playoffs (50% of the teams), in a league like this, where I feel the best of the best truly represent the league at the end of the season.

Shorter season and unbalanced schedule? The actual time of regular season, yes will be shorter, however the games played can remain the same with a double header. Problem fixed. 1 week less of play regular season can be made up with a double header (best during the non-division weeks).

Undeserving teams getting in? Two ways to look at this. (1) Then it shouldn't be a "problem" or threat to the "deserving" teams. or (2) deserving is completely subjective and not a valid argument IMO. If a team sstarts out bad, makes some great moves, and streaks into the playoffs THEN MANAGES TO WIN 3 GAMES IN A ROW... how is that not deserving of being a champion?

Potential double headers? Each team will only have 1 week of double headers, not that big of a deal. As the whole point of this argument it seems as if if you put you best team forward it doesn't matter if it is against 1 or 2 teams. You have a veyr bad week, you lose to 2 teams, you have a mediocre week you lose to maybe 1, you have a great week you beat 2 teams!

So Mike all your "bad" can be fixed or really based on your personal opinion.

I have conceeded home field advanatge for Top 1-4, Top 2, whateve ryou want. Seems like Brian is the one you have to fight for with home field advantage. I think Matt suggested home field advanatge based on differential between wins or we can just say, with the difference in wins counting for 2 or 3 pts each.

So I'll put you down for playoff expansion Mike, you can have all the home field advantage you want that is reasonable.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Playoff expansion + Lottery solves the same problem as the toilet bowl as it encourages teams to stay competitive throughout as there are more playoff spots to be had, yet it does not sacrifice the worst teams from getting a chance at the best pick.

No, it doesn't. A toilet bowl solves the problem completely because there is NO INCENTIVE for tanking, or not trying, or not paying attention.

Your playoffs + lottery minimizes the chances of those things happening, but it doesn't not eliminate them, because your plan still includes incentives to tank/not try/not pay attention for the worst teams.

Let's apply it to this year to see your plan in action (note, I'm not saying it's bad, just pointing out that it does not "solve" the problem).

At the trade deadline this year Opihi, Derby Cars, and Dodgers were division leaders. The 3 wild card favorites would have been Preds @ 8-3, Freedom @ 6-5, and Mutts @ 6-5. Absolut would have been tied with them @ 6-5. Popes (4-7) and Ragers (3-8) would have been alive for our division (plus I'd have had wild card hopes). That leaves the following eliminated from any playoff contention:

Highlanders @ 3-8 (though 3 out of wild card with 3 to go, the teams above him play each other and can't all lose 3 times)
Rake Fighters @ 2-9
Insects @ 1-10

So, the playoff expansion has added no incentive to the bottom 3 teams. Now all three teams have some incentive to lose, because losing increases the odds of getting the #1 pick. In fact, Highlanders' incentive to lose has gone up under your system, because now he doesn't have to drop all the way down to the bottom, he can drop one spot and increase his odds A LOT. The incentive for you and Joel to lose has gone down, because finishing worst doesn't guarantee you the top pick, but don't kid yourself and suggest that there's no incentive for the bottom teams to lose.

Brian's plan is the only one that eliminates the incentive to lose. Like I said, the issue to be determined is how bad the problem is, because Brian's fix does hurt the principle of "draft picks should improve the worst teams". So if the problem is minor, then minimizing the chances w/ your plan is probably enough.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

No, it doesn't. A toilet bowl solves the problem completely because there is NO INCENTIVE for tanking, or not trying, or not paying attention.

Your playoffs + lottery minimizes the chances of those things happening, but it doesn't not eliminate them, because your plan still includes incentives to tank/not try/not pay attention for the worst teams.

Let's apply it to this year to see your plan in action (note, I'm not saying it's bad, just pointing out that it does not "solve" the problem).

At the trade deadline this year Opihi, Derby Cars, and Dodgers were division leaders. The 3 wild card favorites would have been Preds @ 8-3, Freedom @ 6-5, and Mutts @ 6-5. Absolut would have been tied with them @ 6-5. Popes (4-7) and Ragers (3-8) would have been alive for our division (plus I'd have had wild card hopes). That leaves the following eliminated from any playoff contention:

Highlanders @ 3-8 (though 3 out of wild card with 3 to go, the teams above him play each other and can't all lose 3 times)
Rake Fighters @ 2-9
Insects @ 1-10

So, the playoff expansion has added no incentive to the bottom 3 teams. Now all three teams have some incentive to lose, because losing increases the odds of getting the #1 pick. In fact, Highlanders' incentive to lose has gone up under your system, because now he doesn't have to drop all the way down to the bottom, he can drop one spot and increase his odds A LOT. The incentive for you and Joel to lose has gone down, because finishing worst doesn't guarantee you the top pick, but don't kid yourself and suggest that there's no incentive for the bottom teams to lose.

Brian's plan is the only one that eliminates the incentive to lose. Like I said, the issue to be determined is how bad the problem is, because Brian's fix does hurt the principle of "draft picks should improve the worst teams". So if the problem is minor, then minimizing the chances w/ your plan is probably enough.

So then what are we arguing about then? As you outlined above it seems pretty obvious that Joel and I have had really crappy teams through out the season. Why should we be punished with the possibility of losing higher draft picks? What can I do with SA, Brandon Jacobs, Kevin Jones all missing time?

Really tanking isn't an issue as much as playoff contenders complaining jockeying for position. People aruging for Toilet Bowl, seem to be very short sighted IMO. This is a CONTRACT LEAGUE... you have to make decisions based on what's best for you team short term vs. long term. I'm sorry it just happens to be an inconvience to those jockeying for position. Instead of placing the blame on the non-playoff teams for costing you your spot in the playoffs or a #3 or 4th seed... why DON'T YOU BE PROACTIVE AND MAKE TRADES or SIGNINGS that will put you over the top so you don't have to rely on someone else?

In my proposal there is no direct incentive for tanking... but (1) is it really an issue? (2) by expanding playoffs THE league will be much more competitve. Half the league is going to be let in, so 8 games into the NFL season... almost all teams still have a shot. Teams would have made moves earlier, before trade deadline to get into position if we had expanded playoffs. I don't know if there's a way in MFL to track this, but I'm pretty sure that there are more trades made of the course of the regular season when we had 6 playoff teams vs 4 playoff teams.

What is more important to take care of: tanking or helping bad teams get better? I think both are VERY IMPORTANT and my proposal takes care of both issues, not sacrificing one for the other.

That is all I will say from here on out until a new proposal is made.

I mean even those "against" playoff expansion Mike, Brian, and Jake are open to the idea of playoff expansion... it's just working out the details home field advantage or no home field (which can be taken care of with a vote). Sorry Jake, but only way to avoid Week 17 Championship is to have a double header and shorten the regular season, BUT THE NUMBER OF GAMES PLAYED WILL REMAIN THE SAME!

It looks like everyone can get on board with playoff expansion, while those for playoff expansion are strongly against a toilet bowl because of principle: that awarding draft seeding on WINS does not help bad teams get better (and even there Jake agrees).

Like I said, playoff expansion + bottom 3 lottery (60/30/10) takes care of tanking and allows bad teams to get better without sacrificing one for the other.

[Preds]

BTW, I just want to add, having just missed the playoffs on a 4th tie-breaker to Matt, my opinion on this matter has NOT changed. I prefer the 4 team playoff where only the best, most deserving teams get in.

I would have easily been a 5 seed, but I wasn't good enough for top 4, thus IMO, I don't deserve a shot at the title.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Since discussion on this is slowing down, I think we need to start finalizing what the different options are, and get the voting started. Waiting for the offseason would be a mistake in my opinion.

Personally, I think any changes made to the rookie draft, and whether or not we go to a 6 team playoff format are two different votes.

For the 6 team playoff, I would think we would have a simply "yes/no" vote on it first, and then decide the details (details of home field advantage, etc) afterwards.

I'm not sure what to do with the rookie draft idea. Currently on the table, there are the bottom three lottery, the toilet bowl, and the lottery with bonus balls for wins after the soft cap. There may be other ideas I've missed, and there are details to be ironed out for all three. It's tough to get a majority with three different options, and I would hate to see a change as major as this without majority support. Thoughts on that?

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I am not sure about splitting the two pieces but if that is what everyone wants that is fine by me. I would also think that we have to consider that any of these votes has to include the option to leave it as is (nothing like adding yet another option). Could we do this as a bake off? Everyone votes and we take the top 2 options and then we have the final vote?

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

BTW, I just want to add, having just missed the playoffs on a 4th tie-breaker to Matt, my opinion on this matter has NOT changed. I prefer the 4 team playoff where only the best, most deserving teams get in.

I would have easily been a 5 seed, but I wasn't good enough for top 4, thus IMO, I don't deserve a shot at the title.

Again this is based on PERSONAL OPINION OF AN ARBITRAY CUTOFF!!!

In Mike's opinion he is not worthy.... HERE ARE SOME FACTS to show he is plenty WORTHY...

1. They both had 9-5 records. Wow. He's really not worthy?
2. They both had the same division record at 2-2. Wow really they're not worthy still?
3. In their h2h meetings they went 1-1!!! Wow.... the Preds have a far inferior team! OMG!
4. Finally to determine that Mike was not worth they went to total points were Mike scored a measely 2.6 pts less per week than Matt.
5. Matt also had a coud won/lost margin of -4 (1 woulda won, 5 coulda lost) vs. Mike's canceling coulda/would (2-2).

Wow, it is SOOOOOOOOOOO obvious Mike's team is so not worthy, BASED ON HIS OPINION.

Then Mike will counter with the argument that his team sucked down the stretch. What if it were the opposite and a team started out bad, streaked at the end, but missed playoffs due to tiebreakers? Which team would be more worthy?

Also the 6th seed would've been Jake who had an 8-6 record a winning record. Not some bum, he had a chance until the very last game of the season to get in and lost by 6 pts or so. Yep he is not worth either.

I'm sorry Mike, but your arguments against expanding playoffs are BASED SOLELY ON OPINION. Sure it matters to you, but I hope others don't make a decision based on Mike's opinion.



Expanded playoffs + Bottom 3 lottery:

Pros
- Increases competitive balance in the league, with more teams having a shot at THE FRENZY BOWL.
- Minimizes the incentive to tank as worst record has a 40% chance of losing the #1 pick.
- More trades through out the season as there will be more buyers than sellers. Here everyone wins. Teams compete for playoffs, bad teams get the help for the future.
- The worst team has the best shot at the #1 pick.
- Helps bad teams gets better AND increases competitiveness.

Cons
- "Undeserving" teams get in - based soley on opinion, arbitrary cut off, etc.
- Shortens the regular season - Yes, it will to avoid week 17 playoffs, but NUMBER OF GAMES REMAINS THE SAME.
- We will have to have double headers - Each team will just have 1 double header in the season and we should schedule it to be non-division games.

Sorry, but I am really against a toilet bowl or anything that does not give the bottom teams the best chance at the best pick. I agree a bottom 3 lottery does not solve the "problem" (it's really not that big of a deal), but coupled with an expanded playoffs it is the perfect solution.

A Toilet Bowl will not reward the worst team with the highest draft pick. What if a stud team loses LT for 8 weeks.... and sucks enough to get into the Toilet Bowl. Then LT returns fo rthe Toilet Bowl and that team gets the 1st pick. That could be any stud. A Toilet Bowl awards draft seeding based on wins... something in a contract league is a no go.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I am not sure about splitting the two pieces bu if that is what everyone wants that is fine by me. I would also think that we have to consider that any of these votes has to include the option to leave it as is (nothing like adding yet another option). Could we do this as a bake off? Everyone votes and we take the top 2 options and then we have the final vote?

DO NOT SPLIT THEM UP.

The playoffs and lottery were brought up b/c people wanted to change the rookie draft seeding via toilet ball or extra balls etc. To split them up would make it seem like there are 2 different problems, when there is only one... "tanking" (which really isn't a big deal).

I am fine with leaving things status quo... but don't mess with the draft lottery.

If you guys want to solve tanking via messing with the draft seeding... then I will fight until the end for expanded playoffs + bottom 3 lottery. In a contract league, it puts bad teams at a disadvantage.

[Mutts]

Hey! Don't count me out yet. Droughns hasn't been added to my lineup yet (an extra 4 pts, I think) and I have Crumpler going tonight! I plan on winning this thing!

Please do not count me as in favor of an expanded playoff. As I've said, I think its a terrible idea. I also feel a yes/no vote won't work for expanded playoff, as the "details" are likely to very much determine who votes yes or no.

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Again this is based on PERSONAL OPINION OF AN ARBITRAY CUTOFF!!!

In Mike's opinion he is not worthy.... HERE ARE SOME FACTS to show he is plenty WORTHY...

1. They both had 9-5 records. Wow. He's really not worthy?
2. They both had the same division record at 2-2. Wow really they're not worthy still?
3. In their h2h meetings they went 1-1!!! Wow.... the Preds have a far inferior team! OMG!
4. Finally to determine that Mike was not worth they went to total points were Mike scored a measely 2.6 pts less per week than Matt.
5. Matt also had a coud won/lost margin of -4 (1 woulda won, 5 coulda lost) vs. Mike's canceling coulda/would (2-2).

Wow, it is SOOOOOOOOOOO obvious Mike's team is so not worthy, BASED ON HIS OPINION.

Then Mike will counter with the argument that his team sucked down the stretch. What if it were the opposite and a team started out bad, streaked at the end, but missed playoffs due to tiebreakers? Which team would be more worthy?

Also the 6th seed would've been Jake who had an 8-6 record a winning record. Not some bum, he had a chance until the very last game of the season to get in and lost by 6 pts or so. Yep he is not worth either.

I'm sorry Mike, but your arguments against expanding playoffs are BASED SOLELY ON OPINION. Sure it matters to you, but I hope others don't make a decision based on Mike's opinion.



Expanded playoffs + Bottom 3 lottery:

Pros
- Increases competitive balance in the league, with more teams having a shot at THE FRENZY BOWL.
- Minimizes the incentive to tank as worst record has a 40% chance of losing the #1 pick.
- More trades through out the season as there will be more buyers than sellers. Here everyone wins. Teams compete for playoffs, bad teams get the help for the future.
- The worst team has the best shot at the #1 pick.
- Helps bad teams gets better AND increases competitiveness.

Cons
- "Undeserving" teams get in - based soley on opinion, arbitrary cut off, etc.
- Shortens the regular season - Yes, it will to avoid week 17 playoffs, but NUMBER OF GAMES REMAINS THE SAME.
- We will have to have double headers - Each team will just have 1 double header in the season and we should schedule it to be non-division games.

Sorry, but I am really against a toilet bowl or anything that does not give the bottom teams the best chance at the best pick. I agree a bottom 3 lottery does not solve the "problem" (it's really not that big of a deal), but coupled with an expanded playoffs it is the perfect solution.

A Toilet Bowl will not reward the worst team with the highest draft pick. What if a stud team loses LT for 8 weeks.... and sucks enough to get into the Toilet Bowl. Then LT returns fo rthe Toilet Bowl and that team gets the 1st pick. That could be any stud. A Toilet Bowl awards draft seeding based on wins... something in a contract league is a no go.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Brian, do you keep the historical records by year? Would we be able to see what the sixth team in would look like each year? My guess is that they would have to have had a record of 7-7 or better (more likely 8-6 or better). All things considered an 8-6 team would seem to be worthy of a playoff shot. I agree that there should be some sort of home field for the better team in each match-up but I think other than the double header I really favor what Frank is saying (Expanded playoffs + Bottom 3 lottery).

[Preds]

After further reflection, I'm trenching in my vote. Mark me firmly against ANY type of expanded playoff.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Hey! Don't count me out yet. Droughns hasn't been added to my lineup yet (an extra 4 pts, I think) and I have Crumpler going tonight! I plan on winning this thing!

Please do not count me as in favor of an expanded playoff. As I've said, I think its a terrible idea. I also feel a yes/no vote won't work for expanded playoff, as the "details" are likely to very much determine who votes yes or no.

Aside from shortening the regular season why is it a terrible idea?

BTW I think the poll should be a two step process.

1st poll.

I there a tanking problem? How do we fix it?

1) No there is no problem. Keep things as they are.
2) Yes there is a problem. Fix it. Either Toilet Bowl, Expanded PLayoffs + Lottery, extra balls, etc.

Then if people decide the PROBLEM IS BIG ENOUGH TO POSSIBLY play in another format (ie. end up in a toilet bowl or end up in a expanded playoffs + lottery) then we have each proposal up for vote.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Aside from shortening the regular season why is it a terrible idea?

BTW I think the poll should be a two step process.

1st poll.

I there a tanking problem? How do we fix it?

1) No there is no problem. Keep things as they are.
2) Yes there is a problem. Fix it. Either Toilet Bowl, Expanded PLayoffs + Lottery, extra balls, etc.

Then if people decide the PROBLEM IS BIG ENOUGH TO POSSIBLY play in another format (ie. end up in a toilet bowl or end up in a expanded playoffs + lottery) then we have each proposal up for vote.

Without a doubt, there is a tanking problem IMO.

BTW, does anybody know whats up with the Highlanders? Steve hasn't submitted a lineup for 3 weeks. I sent him a PM about it last week, asking if something was wrong, tracking shows he read it, but he didn't reply.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

After further reflection, I'm trenching in my vote. Mark me firmly against ANY type of expanded playoff.

Please explain why?

Seriously... what is the reasoning?

As much as I hate to say it your opinion carries a lot of weight around here. So please explain what the "further reflection" has made you entrench yourself, but if it the same arguments of undeserving, etc. then you can remain silent.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

Without a doubt, there is a tanking problem IMO.

Then vote that way, even if there is a possibility of Expanding Playoffs + Lottery can and should win.

I think some people may not see it as big a problem as others or some may not want to risk playing in another format (toilet bowl) vs fixing "tanking"

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Please explain why?

Seriously... what is the reasoning?

As much as I hate to say it your opinion carries a lot of weight around here. So please explain what the "further reflection" has made you entrench yourself, but if it the same arguments of undeserving, etc. then you can remain silent.

I feel that you're twisting my words into being in support of a 6 team playoff which I clearly am not. I said IF we had to go that route (which I remain opposed to), I'd want to see severe hurdles for the 5 and 6 seeds. You've then twisted that into my supporting a 6 team playoff with modifications.

First and formost I DO NOT support a 6 team playoff, thus, so that my words can't be further twisted by you, I'm now clarifying that in no circumstances will I vote that way.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

I feel that you're twisting my words into being in support of a 6 team playoff which I clearly am not. I said IF we had to go that route (which I remain opposed to), I'd want to see severe hurdles for the 5 and 6 seeds. You've then twisted that into my supporting a 6 team playoff with modifications.

First and formost I DO NOT support a 6 team playoff, thus, so that my words can't be further twisted by you, I'm now clarifying that in no circumstances will I vote that way.

I did not say you support it, if I did, that is not what I meant. What I meant to say is that Brian and You are two pushing for a Toilet Bowl, yet you both are OPEN TO THE IDEA OF 6 MAN PLAYOFFS W/ modifcations.

On the other hand, I am against a toilet bowl, extra balls, or anything that does not give the worst team an advanatge. I did not want to say this and bring another issue into the matter, but just to clarify how much I am against that idea... I would honestly consider walking away from Frenzy and my 3 1st rounders in 08 if a Toilet Bowl is pushed through.

This is a contract league... in the end. The worst teams should get the best draft picks. The impact of a rookie stud is immense as you lock up a stud long term and in the first 2 or 3 years... then money saved due to the cheap rookie contract is spent on improvong the rest of the team via extra capspace to sign another stud FA, build depth, or more flexibility in trades. You get a stud rookie and your team will be in very good shape.

[Mutts]

Personally, I would like to see issues of tanking dealt with on an individual basis. We have a rules committee with the weight to render decisions. Its not out of the realm of possibility that we determine a litmus test for tanking and levy severe penalties when a case rises to the level. For example, conversion of top pick to the 12th pick.

We all disagree on rule changes to address the issue - maybe its best dealt with by the rules committee instead. I really have to believe we're dealing with a very limited problem as it is - I think some simple attention by league enforcers would solve the problem completely.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

I did not say you support it, if I did, that is not what I meant. What I meant to say is that Brian and You are two pushing for a Toilet Bowl, yet you both are OPEN TO THE IDEA OF 6 MAN PLAYOFFS W/ modifcations.

On the other hand, I am against a toilet bowl, extra balls, or anything that does not give the worst team an advanatge. I did not want to say this and bring another issue into the matter, but just to clarify how much I am against that idea... I would honestly consider walking away from Frenzy and my 3 1st rounders in 08 if a Toilet Bowl is pushed through.

This is a contract league... in the end. The worst teams should get the best draft picks. The impact of a rookie stud is immense as you lock up a stud long term and in the first 2 or 3 years... then money saved due to the cheap rookie contract is spent on improvong the rest of the team via extra capspace to sign another stud FA, build depth, or more flexibility in trades. You get a stud rookie and your team will be in very good shape.

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.

[Flaxwless]

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.

[Popes]

Mike basically encapulated my feelings, as well. Well put, sir. Being the new guy, I'm hestitant to soapbox it, but I'm glad you did

I came into this league with some pretty high expectations of how hard people would try to win every week. Frankly, I've been disappointed. I think an incentive program that rewards effort and removes all incentive to lose has the best long-term result for the league.

I'll also note (and credit to Brian for pointing this out to me), that for all the harping that the worst teams must get the best draft picks, that doesn't happen when teams stop trying or when they go so far as to tank. Your final record is only an indication of your "worst"ness IF YOU TRY TO WIN EVERY WEEK!

Also, I think these ideas have to be split up into two votes. Each idea (lottery vs. toilet bowl; playoff expansion vs. none) deals with different issues and has radically different impacts. For example, right now, I like the toilet bowl idea better, but also the playoff expansion idea (pending details). Playoff expansion would work the positive of keeping middle-tier teams trying all year, but it would have very minimal impact on bottom-feeder teams - the lottery/toilet choice addresses that.

And I agree that "no change" has to be an option on both.

Also, when we have a team that has admitted tanking, how can anyone vote "there is no tanking problem"?

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

Mike basically encapulated my feelings, as well. Well put, sir. Being the new guy, I'm hestitant to soapbox it, but I'm glad you did

I came into this league with some pretty high expectations of how hard people would try to win every week. Frankly, I've been disappointed. I think an incentive program that rewards effort and removes all incentive to lose has the best long-tern result for the league.

I'll also note (and credit to Brian for pointing this out to me), that for all the harping that the worst teams must get the best draft picks, that doesn't happen when teams stop trying or when they go so far as to tank. Your final record is only an indication of your "worst"ness IF YOU TRY TO WIN EVERY WEEK!

Also, I think these ideas have to be split up into two votes. Each idea (lottery vs. toilet bowl; playoff expansion vs. none) deals with different issues and has radically different impacts. For example, right now, I like the toilet bowl idea better on that issue, but the playoff expansion idea (pending details) better on that front. Playoff expansion would work the positive of keeping middle-tier teams trying all year, but it would have very minimal impact on bottom-feeder teams - the lottery/toilet choice addresses that.

And I agree that "no change" has to be an option on both.

Also, when we have a team that has admitted tanking, how can anyone vote "there is no tanking problem"?

The reason less people try is because less people get into playoffs. Top 4 is tough as you can see... even teams with WINNING RECORDS (9-5 and 8-6) aren't getting in. The only way to get in is to become a stud team and in a contract league the quickest way to do that is.... DRAFT PICKS!!!

When a 9-5 or 8-6 team does not make playoffs... how can you reasonably expect lower teams to fight, when the only way enter playoffs is to be an ELITE TEAM (not a very good team). Open more playoff spots... offer more hope... I gurantee it will fix the "tanking" problem almost all by itself. The bottom 3 lottery is just icing on the cake.

The only support Toilet Bowl has is that it forces teams to "try their hardest", which it does, but at a detriment to the truly bad teams.

A playoff expansion and lottery.... ALSO FORCES TEAMS TO TRY THEIR HARDEST (more playoff spot on the line, etc.) but it hurts the truly bad teams.

Do not split playoff expansion + bottom 3 lottery. It is just a way to weaken the support and were proposed together to fix tanking.

[Flaxwless]

What does everyone else think?

We've heard from Preds, Dodgers, Freedom, Mutts, Popes, Insects, and even Burt!

ETA: Ragers also chimed in earlier with support for playoff expansion.

PLayoff Expansion: Insects, Freedom, Ragers, possibly Ophi (said 6 works good in his other league). Although Preds and Dodgers are open to the idea of playoff expansion.

Toilet Bowl: Preds, Mutts, Dodgers, Popes

Undecided: Vibe, SBDC, Highlanders, Ophi, Amish

[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.

[Popes]

I think I'm sold on the playoff expansion arguments, so you don't need to make them back to me again. I agree. But it only affects the middle-tier teams. As I pointed out earlier when I applied it to 2007, it would have had NO IMPACT on the bottom three teams this year (at least as of the trading deadline).

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Do not split playoff expansion + bottom 3 lottery. It is just a way to weaken the support and were proposed together to fix tanking.

Or in my case, you'd gain 1/2 of my support. If lottery and playoff expansion must go together, you'll lose me, even though I agree on playoff expansion.

I think we're talking about two different problems and we've muddled them up into one conversation, when they are really separate:

1. How do we keep middle-tier teams trying all year (playoff expansion vs. none)?

2. How do we keep bottom-feeder teams trying all year - or at least not tanking at the end (lottery vs. toilet bowl).

I want to vote for the method that has maximum incentive to win in both cases. If people aren't trying to win every week, then I don't see the point in spending so much time on this league.