2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

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.

I don't think we need worry too much about subjectivity. If a case is brought in front of the committee, we gather the facts and throw a vote out to the league. We should require a 75% majority to convict - so its almost impossible that a gray-area type case would get penalized. If you're found guilty, you're 1st or 2nd pick becomes a 12th pick. Now, that's a reason to not tank!

If we implemented this, I can't imagine we would have to even deal with it more than once or twice. I just can't imagine teams would tank knowing that they could drop almost entirely out of the 1st round.

This is Soap Box's idea, so I know there's at least 2 of us that like this route. I really do think this is the best way - I just hate the fact that poor sportsmanship and cheating has to cause the rest of us to alter our rules. Let's just penalize the cheater.

[Flaxwless]

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.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

I don't think we need worry too much about subjectivity. If a case is brought in front of the committee, we gather the facts and throw a vote out to the league. We should require a 75% majority to convict - so its almost impossible that a gray-area type case would get penalized. If you're found guilty, you're 1st or 2nd pick becomes a 12th pick. Now, that's a reason to not tank!

If we implemented this, I can't imagine we would have to even deal with it more than once or twice. I just can't imagine teams would tank knowing that they could drop almost entirely out of the 1st round.

This is Soap Box's idea, so I know there's at least 2 of us that like this route. I really do think this is the best way - I just hate the fact that poor sportsmanship and cheating has to cause the rest of us to alter our rules. Let's just penalize the cheater.

So please define tanking for us and/or come up with a definition that everyone can support/agree.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by 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).


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.

Playoff expansion will have even the bottoms teams trying as earlier in the year they will make more moves as they are still "in it" and when they look down the line they are not even guranteed the #1 pick so that is extra incentive to NOT TANK and try harder.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

So please define tanking for us and/or come up with a definition that everyone can support/agree.

Starting Lamont Jordan over Willie Parker in week 13. Anyone disagree with that?

Seriously, you don't have to specifically define tanking. If the rules committee takes notice, or someone brings an instance to their attention, they look into it. If there is a question, its thrown out to the league as a vote. The definition of tanking: if 75% of Frenzy owners vote "yes"

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Starting Lamont Jordan over Willie Parker in week 13. Anyone disagree with that?

Seriously, you don't have to specifically define tanking. If the rules committee takes notice, or someone brings an instance to their attention, they look into it. If there is a question, its thrown out to the league as a vote. The definition of tanking: if 75% of Frenzy owners vote "yes"

There has to be some precedent or some rule.

What if Jordan DID score more the Parker? Would that be tanking or great coaching move.

There has to be guidlines or rules or else it will get out of hand and it will get personal.

[Urza's Ragers]

How about we just expand playoffs to 6 teams and everyone try their best every week!!!! Simple enough...I mean damn it, this is a free fun league - we shouldn't be having all these issues. Why can't everyone just submit their best lineup every week and don't give me the bullshit that the best lineup is so subjective, f that man. We all play fantasy long enough to know...I think it's the Preds and Popes that said that this league is FREE AND WE SHOULD BE PLAYING FOR BRAGGIN RIGHTS...

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Playoff expansion will have even the bottoms teams trying as earlier in the year they will make more moves as they are still "in it" and when they look down the line they are not even guranteed the #1 pick so that is extra incentive to NOT TANK and try harder.

I just don't understand how it makes sense that 50% of all teams in a league, any league, would make the playoffs. Just doesn't seem very elite.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Urza's Ragers

How about we just expand playoffs to 6 teams and everyone try their best every week!!!! Simple enough...I mean damn it, this is a free fun league - we shouldn't be having all these issues. Why can't everyone just submit their best lineup every week and don't give me the bullshit that the best lineup is so subjective, f that man. We all play fantasy long enough to know...I think it's the Preds and Popes that said that this league is FREE AND WE SHOULD BE PLAYING FOR BRAGGIN RIGHTS...

So seems like there is support for expanding playoffs, but there may not be support for bottom 3 lottery.

So votes can alter to...

A) Toilet Bowl
B) Expand Playoffs to 6 teams
C) Rules Committee
D) Other

The main thing is that Playoff expansion NEEDS to go head 2 head with Toilet Bowl b/c they are both proposed to fix tanking. After that then the Playoff Expansion all the other details (home field, bottom 3 lottery, double headers, etc.) will go through further vote.

The big thing is that Playoff Expansion and Toilet Bowl go against each other in the same vote, as playoff expansion will increase competitiveness (as Popes and Ragers see) w/o sacrificng the worst teams get the best picks.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

I just don't understand how it makes sense that 50% of all teams in a league, any league, would make the playoffs. Just doesn't seem very elite.

The NBA has more than 50% (16 out of 30) of the teams make it yet every year, yet the best teams still win it (past 10 years only the Spurs, Lakers, Pistons, Heat) have won.

Sure it doesn't make playoff very exclsuive but the benefits are so much more... increased competition in the league, more trades made as it will be more buyers than sellers, and so forth.

Really playoffs right now are for ELITE teams... even VERY GOOD teams historically have not gotten in (8-6, 9-5 teams getting out after tie breakers). In the end the #1 and #2 seeds only have to win 2 games (huge advantage (even teams #3 and 4 will push harder to get that bye week)... the #3-6 seeds have to win 3 games. You win 3 games... I think you deserve the trophy.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

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.

There's at least on team that prefers Playoff expansion, but not the lottery. Why should their first preference not be part of the vote? Just becuase it is your first preference for how to encorporate the playoff expansion doesn't mean it has to be the only way to do it.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

There has to be some precedent or some rule.

What if Jordan DID score more the Parker? Would that be tanking or great coaching move.

There has to be guidlines or rules or else it will get out of hand and it will get personal.

No, there really doesn't. How could a majority of 75% get personal? You don't start a lineup that you know a vast majority of the fantasy football world would consider tanking. That's a pretty good threshold.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Urza's Ragers

How about we just expand playoffs to 6 teams and everyone try their best every week!!!! Simple enough...I mean damn it, this is a free fun league - we shouldn't be having all these issues. Why can't everyone just submit their best lineup every week and don't give me the bullshit that the best lineup is so subjective, f that man. We all play fantasy long enough to know...I think it's the Preds and Popes that said that this league is FREE AND WE SHOULD BE PLAYING FOR BRAGGIN RIGHTS...

Ideally, this would be the case and we wouldn't have to worry about it. But, after one year (2006) of suspected tanking, and the next year with confirmed tanking, we know that's not the case. Something needs to change because the current setup isn't getting it done.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

There's at least on team that prefers Playoff expansion, but not the lottery. Why should their first preference not be part of the vote? Just becuase it is your first preference for how to encorporate the playoff expansion doesn't mean it has to be the only way to do it.

**REPOST FOR POST #159**
So seems like there is support for expanding playoffs, but there may not be support for bottom 3 lottery.

So votes can alter to...

A) Toilet Bowl
B) Expand Playoffs to 6 teams
C) Rules Committee
D) Other

The main thing is that Playoff expansion NEEDS to go head 2 head with Toilet Bowl b/c they are both proposed to fix tanking. After that then the Playoff Expansion all the other details (home field, bottom 3 lottery, double headers, etc.) will go through further vote.

The big thing is that Playoff Expansion and Toilet Bowl go against each other in the same vote, as playoff expansion will increase competitiveness (as Popes and Ragers see) w/o sacrificng the worst teams get the best picks.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Ideally, this would be the case and we wouldn't have to worry about it. But, after one year (2006) of suspected tanking, and the next year with confirmed tanking, we know that's not the case. Something needs to change because the current setup isn't getting it done.

Did we have problems with tanking when we had a 6 team playoff? Just wondering.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

**REPOST FOR POST #159**
So seems like there is support for expanding playoffs, but there may not be support for bottom 3 lottery.

So votes can alter to...

A) Toilet Bowl
B) Expand Playoffs to 6 teams
C) Rules Committee
D) Other

The main thing is that Playoff expansion NEEDS to go head 2 head with Toilet Bowl b/c they are both proposed to fix tanking. After that then the Playoff Expansion all the other details (home field, bottom 3 lottery, double headers, etc.) will go through further vote.

The big thing is that Playoff Expansion and Toilet Bowl go against each other in the same vote, as playoff expansion will increase competitiveness (as Popes and Ragers see) w/o sacrificng the worst teams get the best picks.

Playoff expansion would have done absolutely nothing for the problem we had this year. (Unless someone is admitting to tanking before week 13.)

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Playoff expansion would have done absolutely nothing for the problem we had this year. (Unless someone is admitting to tanking before week 13.)

Yes. Team would have had more of a shot earlier in the season forcing them to make more moves and in the end being more competitive.

Again we never had this problem with 6 team playoffs. Is it a coincidence that when we made playoffs more exlcusive (cutting out very good teams at 9-5 and 8-6) that tank started? Just think about that before we go to a toilet bowl or reseeding of draft picks.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Yes. Team would have had more of a shot earlier in the season forcing them to make more moves and in the end being more competitive.

Again we never had this problem with 6 team playoffs. Is it a coincidence that when we made playoffs more exlcusive (cutting out very good teams at 9-5 and 8-6) that tank started? Just think about that before we go to a toilet bowl or reseeding of draft picks.

But the 9-5 and 8-6 teams aren't the ones tanking! How does a 6 team playoff incentivize the worst teams in the league? I just don't buy this logic at all.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Did we have problems with tanking when we had a 6 team playoff? Just wondering.

I wasn't around the first year, so I don't know. The second year, there was none that I remember, but the fact that the rookie draft did not hold the same value that it does not makes that comparison completely irrelevant. Getting teh #1 pick was not the coup is currently is.

[Flaxwless]

BTW we voted on a Toilet Bowl the year playoff expansion was introduced and it was shot down 7-5 (also playoff cropping was also aprroved 7-5). Both narrow margins and I don't know how teams owners/opinions have changed since then.

Previous # Playoff Team Vote
Previous Toilet Bowl Vote

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

BTW we voted on a Toilet Bowl the year playoff expansion was introduced and it was shot down 7-5 (also playoff cropping was also aprroved 7-5). Both narrow margins and I don't know how teams owners/opinions have changed since then.

Previous # Playoff Team Vote
Previous Toilet Bowl Vote

Frank,

You continue to lump me in as supporting expanding the playoffs.

I am 100% AGAINST any such thing. I hate the shorter season, I hate the idea of double headers, I hate the idea of a week 17 championship in lieu of the prior 2.

All those scenarios SUCK. And the only reason for them is because we have teams that don't put up 100% each and every week. It makes me sick.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

Frank,

You continue to lump me in as supporting expanding the playoffs.

I am 100% AGAINST any such thing. I hate the shorter season, I hate the idea of double headers, I hate the idea of a week 17 championship in lieu of the prior 2.

All those scenarios SUCK. And the only reason for them is because we have teams that don't put up 100% each and every week. It makes me sick.

-Shorter season, but not # of games. More teams get in playoffs, so two more teams would have a longer season, BTW.

-It is for 1 week and should be against non-divisional opponents. Yet it does not disrupt competitive balance like a Toilet Bowl does.

- Week 17 playoffs can be avoided, with 1 week of double headers.

- So what makes teams not trying each every single week? If until Joel's admitted tanking is the only thing you guys want to fix then... Jake's suggestion of league wide vote is the best solution. If it is improving competitiveness as a whole... playoff expansion + lottery is the best way

- I don't have a problem with improving competitiveness (beyond starting your best line up).... that is why I have brought forth the playoff expansion + lottery. However, I do have a problem with sacrificing bad teams from getting good picks like a Toilet Bowl or extra balls does. We're on the same page as far as improving league wide... and that's what you are threatning of leaving the league for... teams not trying. Playoffs expand + lottery will make teams try.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

-Shorter season, but not # of games. More teams get in playoffs, so two more teams would have a longer season, BTW.

-It is for 1 week and should be against non-divisional opponents. Yet it does not disrupt competitive balance like a Toilet Bowl does.

- Week 17 playoffs can be avoided, with 1 week of double headers.

- So what makes teams not trying each every single week? If until Joel's admitted tanking is the only thing you guys want to fix then... Jake's suggestion of league wide vote is the best solution. If it is improving competitiveness as a whole... playoff expansion + lottery is the best way

- I don't have a problem with improving competitiveness (beyond starting your best line up).... that is why I have brought forth the playoff expansion + lottery. However, I do have a problem with sacrificing bad teams from getting good picks like a Toilet Bowl or extra balls does. We're on the same page as far as improving league wide... and that's what you are threatning of leaving the league for... teams not trying. Playoffs expand + lottery will make teams try.

I'm threatening to leave? I threw that out there after YOU posted you wouldn't play in an environment in which the worst team may or maynot get the best shot at the #1 pick.

For you, it's either your way or the highway. Gimme a break Frank. I'm just pointing out that I can be just as stubborn, and in the end, it does NOBODY any good.

[Preds]

And Frank, playing 14 games over 13 weeks IS a shorter season. It also means double headers, and I can tell you from experience in my local league, where we have them, that those weeks COMPLETELY SUCK.

I hate em.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Playoffs expand + lottery will make teams try.

And playoffs + toilet bowl will make them try even more.

I'm not against a lottery - I think it's better than the current system. But I still think you overstate the case if you think that a lottery will make the bottom teams try significantly more. It removes some incentive to lose, but the incentive still exists. The #3 and #2 worst teams have significant incentive to lose in a lottery system, just not as much as they do under the current system. Only the toilet bowl actually REMOVES THE INCENTIVE TO LOSE AND REPLACES IT WITH AN INCENTIVE TO WIN.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

And playoffs + toilet bowl will make them try even more.

I'm not against a lottery - I think it's better than the current system. But I still think you overstate the case if you think that a lottery will make the bottom teams try significantly more. It removes some incentive to lose, but the incentive still exists. The #3 and #2 worst teams have significant incentive to lose in a lottery system, just not as much as they do under the current system. Only the toilet bowl actually REMOVES THE INCENTIVE TO LOSE AND REPLACES IT WITH AN INCENTIVE TO WIN.

Yes, but then it compromises the fact that the worst teams should get the best draft picks. In the end the worst teams are the worst teams... this year Joel just was jockeying for poistion with me thus the "tank" job. But I don't think the league will contest that we had the worst teams in the league. Would Joel have really tanked knowing even at 2nd place he has a 30% chance of getting 1st? I think not.

The problem seems to have been overblown. Aside from "Week 13" would you guys have suspected us of tanking? Would you have called us out? I doubt it. With all the spotlight that has been exposed on it I doubt it will occur again even w/o a toilet bowl, lottery, or playoff expansion.

A playoff expansion will keep most teams active and competitive. The bottom teams will still be the bottom teams in the end... and with all the scrutinity that has occured, a toilet bowl is overkill... a simple lottery for the bottom 3 nixes any value gained form tanking.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

And Frank, playing 14 games over 13 weeks IS a shorter season. It also means double headers, and I can tell you from experience in my local league, where we have them, that those weeks COMPLETELY SUCK.

I hate em.

Did I refute that anywhere? I said it was a shorter season, but not # of games played... can't change that but we can still have a balanced schedule and avoid week 17 championship game... by playing a double header.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

So seems like there is support for expanding playoffs, but there may not be support for bottom 3 lottery.

So votes can alter to...

A) Toilet Bowl
B) Expand Playoffs to 6 teams
C) Rules Committee
D) Other

The main thing is that Playoff expansion NEEDS to go head 2 head with Toilet Bowl b/c they are both proposed to fix tanking. After that then the Playoff Expansion all the other details (home field, bottom 3 lottery, double headers, etc.) will go through further vote.

The big thing is that Playoff Expansion and Toilet Bowl go against each other in the same vote, as playoff expansion will increase competitiveness (as Popes and Ragers see) w/o sacrificng the worst teams get the best picks.

I disagree with your premise. In my mind, the toilet bowl and lottery both deal with tanking (i.e. intentionally losing games at the end of the season). The expanded playoffs deals with inattention/inactivity of middle tier teams throughout the season - no one is accused them of tanking. And yes, it might make the bottom-tier teams try harder early in the season, but that is long before tanking ever becomes an issue. I'd like to see the voting as:

Re teams tanking:
1. no change
2. lottery
3. toilet bowl

Re increased competitiveness generally:
1. no change to playoffs
2. expand playoffs to 6

I'd argue the proposal you made above effectively defeats the toilet bowl by matching it up against the seeming support for playoff expansion, when the two are very different and address different issues. Why can't I vote for the two ideas I like (especially when they deal with separate problems, IMO)?

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

I'm threatening to leave? I threw that out there after YOU posted you wouldn't play in an environment in which the worst team may or maynot get the best shot at the #1 pick.

For you, it's either your way or the highway. Gimme a break Frank. I'm just pointing out that I can be just as stubborn, and in the end, it does NOBODY any good.

Like I said....

Your issue is teams trying. Playoff expansion, Toilet Bowl, Extra balls, or whatever we come up with will make more teams try more... because we all want the same thing.

My issues is sacrificing the parity that the draft offers to the bad teams, IN ORDER to get teams to try harder. My solution does not sacrifice one for the other.

We both agree on your issue with trying and competitiveness. We have no problem there. Everyone will say it is a great thing. I agree 100% and no one wants to be in a league where not everyone is trying.

However, there is a difference between leaving because of the quality of league play and the leaving because of disagreement with the structure of the league.. even then I said I'd strongly consider leaving. Didn't say I would.


Your issues with playoff expansion are PERSONAL PERFERENCES... not based on facts, not based on much reason, and nothing that affects competitive balance of the league.

Will Toilet Bowl make bottom teams try harder? Yes... but at what cost? Why not pick the solution that improves the league and maintains league parity.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

I disagree with your premise. In my mind, the toilet bowl and lottery both deal with tanking (i.e. intentionally losing games at the end of the season). The expanded playoffs deals with inattention/inactivity of middle tier teams throughout the season - no one is accused them of tanking. And yes, it might make the bottom-tier teams try harder early in the season, but that is long before tanking ever becomes an issue. I'd like to see the voting as:

Re teams tanking:
1. no change
2. lottery
3. toilet bowl

Re increased competitiveness generally:
1. no change to playoffs
2. expand playoffs to 6

I'd argue the proposal you made above effectively defeats the toilet bowl by matching it up against the seeming support for playoff expansion, when the two are very different and address different issues. Why can't I vote for the two ideas I like (especially when they deal with separate problems, IMO)?

Fine with me, but tanking is not a big issue to risk a Toilet Bowl. It won't take effect for 08, but why should I lose my #1 pick b/c of Joel's tanking (not trying to point fingers). Why should future bad teams suffer?

IMO... it's toilet bowl AGAINST expanded playoffs. Those against a Toilet Bowl are against it b/c it sacrifices the bottom teams. They are not agaisnt it b/c it does not prevent tanking, which it does, but so will expanded playoffs + lottery.

Also if you issue is the bottom teams tanking (ie not setting their best line up) then count me in with Jake and league wide vote would be the best solution.

I could support..

No change.
Expanded playoffs + bottom 3 lottery.
Expanded playoffs + league wide vote on tanking.

Either way for me and I'm sure most of the others in support of playoff expansion it's ether playoff expansion or toilet bowl... not playoff expansion AND toilet bowl.

Any Toilet Bowl, Extra Balls,, or anything that grants draft seeding on WINS... I am against.

I think Jake and Popes would support... PLayoff Expansion + league wide vote on tanking any others?

IMO... seems like Toilet Bowl is losing out.