2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

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.

Exactly any lottery that gives teams outside the bottom 3 a shot at the #1 pick I will be strongly against.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

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.

Also there should be no punishment I believe as we don't have a firm rule, regarding tanking and such.

[Popes]

I know this is completely irrelevant to a free league, but we had a great solution in a pay league I used to be in. Rather than the usual $50 entry fee we had always had, we upped it to $60 to cover a $5 payout for every win over the last four weeks of the regular season. Even an 0-10 team had the incentive to turn it around and try to win $20 of their entry fee back. It seemed to work well.

[Flaxwless]

This discussion has died down and let me add another wrinkle into the mix, which I think is the best way to solve this issue... an expanded playoffs back to 6 teams.

4 teams in playoffs just makes it a very exclusive group (some may argue that's how it should be), however with that half the league is out of hope by the trading deadline. If you expand the playoffs more teams would still have a chance at playoffs thus decreasing the likelyhood of tanking.

I was talking to Mike and a Week 17 playoff sucks a whole lot. So why not start playoffs a week earlier to account for the extra games and Mike suggested to play a double header on one of the regular season weeks (possibly double up on non-division games) to make up for the imbalanced schedule.

Expanded playoffs + Bottom 3 team lottery (60/30/10) = Very little reason to tank

[Nittany Dodgers]

A few responses to get up to date:

Originally Posted by Amish

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.

First, I didn't go off on your lack of competitiveness until your reply was to the effect of me being the bad guy for pointing out that you were throwing games. I'm not really sure what "respect" you expect me to give to you. Throwing games to get the number on pick is cheating in my eyes, and to me that doesn't deserve any "respect."

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

It's really tha clear, huh?

Even when the owner of the team has said otherwise.

Obviously your issues are far less clear that Joel's were. If you weren't tanking, you weren't tanking. You're not going to admit it if you were, and I can't prove it. What I think happened doesn't matter in the big picture. I have not, and will not suggest penalties. Also, I don't think any changes we decide on can be implemented for the 2008 draft. So no matter what you did, or what we do, nothing would change for 2008.

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

I was talking to Mike and a Week 17 playoff sucks a whole lot. So why not start playoffs a week earlier to account for the extra games and Mike suggested to play a double header on one of the regular season weeks (possibly double up on non-division games) to make up for the imbalanced schedule.

I would not be against going back to 6 teams in the playoffs if we can find away from getting away from a week 17 championship. Also, I'm not totally against double headers, but I cringe at having only one week as a double header (or any limited number of set weeks). So much of what happens with the standings comes down to the schedule, and when you play who. To double up on that in one week would just extrapolate that. It's an idea worth exploring though.

[Amish]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

First, I didn't go off on your lack of competitiveness until your reply was to the effect of me being the bad guy for pointing out that you were throwing games. I'm not really sure what "respect" you expect me to give to you. Throwing games to get the number on pick is cheating in my eyes, and to me that doesn't deserve any "respect."

So this is saying that you were the bad guy?

Originally Posted by Amish

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

If go back and read that post all I was saying the whole time was that I wish you would have talked to me first.

What I am reading and what I meant was that I didn't have any defense against your post because I admitted it TWICE. I also apologized and said it was poor judgement. It happened once and won't happen again. Then you go on to say

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Joel? He sucked last year, and he sucked this year. That's too strong a statement in my book.

Your posts were definately written quickly and out of anger and I can understand that as you have invested a lot in this league and want good competition. But to that statement I was asking just a little respect to go to the source first.

I am trying to resolve the issue by apologizing and saying it won't happen but all you can seem to do is rehash the issue and some apparant issue you have with me personally.

So if you want me out of the league, just say that straight up rather than beating around the bush. Both years I have tried and if you remember, I took over Liquid Squids team last year AFTER RFA and the draft so I wasn't really running "My team." Obviously I am not up to your standards of a fantasy football player so let me know your decision.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Amish

So this is saying that you were the bad guy?


If go back and read that post all I was saying the whole time was that I wish you would have talked to me first.

What I am reading and what I meant was that I didn't have any defense against your post because I admitted it TWICE. I also apologized and said it was poor judgement. It happened once and won't happen again. Then you go on to say

Your posts were definately written quickly and out of anger and I can understand that as you have invested a lot in this league and want good competition. But to that statement I was asking just a little respect to go to the source first.

I am trying to resolve the issue by apologizing and saying it won't happen but all you can seem to do is rehash the issue and some apparant issue you have with me personally.

So if you want me out of the league, just say that straight up rather than beating around the bush. Both years I have tried and if you remember, I took over Liquid Squids team last year AFTER RFA and the draft so I wasn't really running "My team." Obviously I am not up to your standards of a fantasy football player so let me know your decision.

Yes, I took that post to mean I was the bad guy. You threw a game which you admit was bad judgement, but the way I brought it up was worse, worse than what you did. So maybe that wasn't to say I was the bad guy, I was just the badder guy. Either way, I'm not willing to take any blame for coming out in public for what I saw. If Frank honestly didn't try to throw his game, I can see him coming at me with those comments, but since you're admitting to it, I don't know where you get to come off saying that.

Was my follow-up response written in haste with a little frustration? Absolutely. I was bothered that other people weren't as bothered by what was going on. I was frustrated by what I perceived to people being defendered for what I considered to be highly questionable actions, so I possibly overreacted, and my words were a little harsh. For that I'll appologize.

But I'm not calling for you to be out of the league. You've apologized and so be it. We can move on from that. But, I don't think that is the end of it. I'm not going to be so optimistic that we can leave it at that and move on thinking it won't be an issue again since I bumped the thread discussion this very issue from just LAST YEAR. If it came up last year, and came up this year, it's going to come up again. I'm not willing to just say OK, everybody agrees not to throw games, or throw in the towell to get high picks and we can all move on being on the same page. Incentives need to be built in, or penalties need to be applied for future infractions, or else it will be obvious were not all on the same page. If we're not all on the same page, and there aren't 11 other owners who agree with me that trying to win each and every is the goal for 14 weeks, then it's probably not a league that is worth the time and effort I put into this.

[Preds]

I'll continue to go on the record that I think teams NEED to try and win each and every game. That means making moves to improve your team, not start bye week players, not start injured players, not start inferioir players without reasonable justification (i.e. a benched Joradan for Parker was inexcusable).

We've given teams flexibility in their lineups. IMO using the cap restricitons as an excuse is weak. Jim eats cap left and right, and guess what, he's dominated the league the past 2 seasons.

Personally I like the idea of an incentivized draft lottery that encourages teams to try to win each and every week.

I'm hesitent to see a 6 team playoff format return, particularly with a wk 17 Frenzy Bowl. I prefer the 4 team playoff format where teams really have to earn it to get in. Heck I say that even though a team like my 9-4 squad may not get in this year, but thems the breaks.

If we went back to a 6 team format and a lottery among the bottom 4 for the #1 or 2, it would likely resolve the tanking issue. But the byproduct is inferior teams making the post-season, AND a double header on 1 of the weeks. We have a double header week in my local league, and I hate it personally, but if need be, could give in on it.

One thing I'd fight hard for in a 6 team format is to make it MUCH more difficult for a 5 and 6 team to win week 14 against the 3 and 4 seed. I'd suggest doubling the Home Field advantage for week 14 from 7 to 14 points (I'd keep the semi-finals at 7 points). If a 6 seed can overcome a 14 point edge to get past the 3 seed and advance to the semi-finals I'll feel they deserve a crack at a title. But again, they need to EARN it IMO, and that means overcoming big hurdles to do it.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I know this may be a way out there suggestion but rather than a double header why not just have one game (not a divisional match-up) decided at the end of the year based on the teams average score from the prior 13 weeks. This would be one head to head game and it would take the fear over having one really bad week (and losing two games) out of the equation. Might be something to consider.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I know this may be a way out there suggestion but rather than a double header why not just have one game (not a divisional match-up) decided at the end of the year based on the teams average score from the prior 13 weeks. This would be one head to head game and it would take the fear over having one really bad week (and losing two games) out of the equation. Might be something to consider.

Thing is, we're not looking to pickup a game with a double header, but to instead make up for a lost one,

right now we have a balanced schedule with 6 division games, and 8 games outside the division. THe current formats allows for us to play every team in the league each year. If we shorten it to a 13 week season, someone gets cut out and we can only play 7 of 8 teams outside the division. I wouldn't be in favor of an unbalanced schedule like that personally.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Thing is, we're not looking to pickup a game with a double header, but to instead make up for a lost one,

right now we have a balanced schedule with 6 division games, and 8 games outside the division. THe current formats allows for us to play every team in the league each year. If we shorten it to a 13 week season, someone gets cut out and we can only play 7 of 8 teams outside the division. I wouldn't be in favor of an unbalanced schedule like that personally.

Actually, I got that what I am saying is rather than trying to make up for a lost game with double header why not play the 13 weeks (13 chances for a win or a loss) and then have the 14th game (again not a divisional match-up) decided by the average score across the prior 13 weeks. The end result is the same you end up with 14 chances to win or lose but rather risking losing a game (or two) because your team did not do well during a double header week you get to rely on a much larger sample.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Actually, I got that what I am saying is rather than trying to make up for a lost game with double header why not play the 13 weeks (13 chances for a win or a loss) and then have the 14th game (again not a divisional match-up) decided by the average score across the prior 13 weeks. The end result is the same you end up with 14 chances to win or lose but rather risking losing a game (or two) because your team did not do well during a double header week you get to rely on a much larger sample.

Ah I got you. Interesting idea, however, I don't think MFL could handle it.

I just checked MFL to see if this could be done. You can go against leaguewide average score for any given week, but not a teams average score or you're own average score.

Thus, it would all have to be manually calculated and input. Too much work IMO.

[Mutts]

Just wondering ... outside of obvious penalties incurred by association with gambling, are there rules in professional sports forbidding teams from purposefully losing a game? I know analysts talk about it from time to time (some people thought the Celtics were guilty of that at the end of last year), but I've never heard anyone talk about a specific rule or penalty. Again, just wondering if there might be some precedent we can look to when addressing this issue in our own rules.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Just wondering ... outside of obvious penalties incurred by association with gambling, are there rules in professional sports forbidding teams from purposefully losing a game? I know analysts talk about it from time to time (some people thought the Celtics were guilty of that at the end of last year), but I've never heard anyone talk about a specific rule or penalty. Again, just wondering if there might be some precedent we can look to when addressing this issue in our own rules.

I feel that tanking talk goes more into personal POV, because it is really hard to pinpoint, define, set a rule that everyone agrees on.

With that said there is certainly a way to create an environment that will decrease the likelyhood of it happening which is expanding playoffs and a lottery.

I don't see the problem with having a double header for 1 week, each week we are trying to have the highest score possible, so what's the difference against 1 or 2 teams, you will still field a lineup that will offer you the best score possible. I'd rather have that over an avg score battle. However, this is something I can give on not a deal breaker for me.

The most important thing is that we start playoffs a week early and have a bottom 3 lottery for the 1st pick. I perfer 3 over 4, but can spread it to 4 as long as the worst record has a 60% chance at the #1 pick. These two changes combined shoudl all but assure tanking is near obsolete.

Those against expanding the playoffs I'll ask you this: what do you think is worse for the league? Tanking or an "diluted" playoff pool? I think tanking is a bigger issue than an expanded playoff pool. Gotta give a little to get something, b/c IMO we never had tanking issue with a 6 team playoff.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I would be all for expanding the playoff pool. Can we, um, start this year? Just want to make sure my first winning season ever is not for naught...

J/K of course. However, I do think that having 6 teams in is not a bad idea. We for most part seem to have decent parity which means that there are usually going to be two worthy candidates that don't make it. Also, I agree with Mike that the home field advantage points should provide enough cover for the higher seeded team.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I would be strongly against an expanded home field advantage in the playoffs. Either we're letting teams into the playoffs, or we're not. Fourteen points is a huge advantage. If I have a fair to midland team, the playoffs offer me no glimmer of hope knowing that even if I do make it in, I have to beat my first round opponent, who is probably a similar caliber team to my own, by a whopping fourteen points, and then come back and beat a far superior team than my own by another seven points.

[Nittany Dodgers]

How about a toilet bowl with the bottom four teams to order the first four slots. Bottom four teams play a playoff the first two weeks of the post season. 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. The #4 and #3 teams get home field advantage. This assures even the bottom feeders of needing to maintain a competitive roster.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I would be strongly against an expanded home field advantage in the playoffs. Either we're letting teams into the playoffs, or we're not. Fourteen points is a huge advantage. If I have a fair to midland team, the playoffs offer me no glimmer of hope knowing that even if I do make it in, I have to beat my first round opponent, who is probably a similar caliber team to my own, by a whopping fourteen points, and then come back and beat a far superior team than my own by another seven points.

Well, I'm personally against going back to a 6 team playoff unless there is a significant advantage to the top 4 seeds as I described.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

How about a toilet bowl with the bottom four teams to order the first four slots. Bottom four teams play a playoff the first two weeks of the post season. 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. The #4 and #3 teams get home field advantage. This assures even the bottom feeders of needing to maintain a competitive roster.

This idea has merit.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I would be strongly against an expanded home field advantage in the playoffs. Either we're letting teams into the playoffs, or we're not. Fourteen points is a huge advantage. If I have a fair to midland team, the playoffs offer me no glimmer of hope knowing that even if I do make it in, I have to beat my first round opponent, who is probably a similar caliber team to my own, by a whopping fourteen points, and then come back and beat a far superior team than my own by another seven points.

BTW, I don't feel a 5 and 6 seed deserves the playoffs, which is why I feel it should be VERY difficult to advance.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

BTW, I don't feel a 5 an 6 seed deserves the playoffs, which is why I feel it should be VERY difficult to advance.

I don't like the idea of a 6 man playoff myself. I do like the toilet bowl idea for draft seeding - that has potential.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

With the toilet bowl idea would the goal be to win or lose the games? If your teams sucks (because of injuries or whatever) and you have lost enough games to be in the bottom four it might be difficult to then be able to turn it on and win games.

For example through 13 weeks this year you would have two teams that are 5-8 (I think there are three teams with this record so one of them would not be eligible to play for the top pick) and two teams that 3-10. On any given week anything can happen but the two worse teams would seem to be at a decent disadvantage. Also, since getting into the bottom four gets you a chance at the top pick I would think that this would open up the door for more questionable line-ups. Instead of having to really suck you can coast into the bottom four with a moderate level of sucess in the regular season and then still capture the top pick.

Set-up this way I would think the toilet bowl would run counter to what we are trying to do. If it was just the two worst teams playing I might feel a bit differently.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Well, I'm personally against going back to a 6 team playoff unless there is a significant advantage to the top 4 seeds as I described.

That's fine, but we need a system that makes sense. If people are against expanding to 6 teams, then that's one thing. But if we're going to expand to six teams to create an inventive for more teams to be able to make the playoffs, making it nearly impossible for two of those teams to win simply doesn't make sense.

It's either four teams in the playoff, or six teams in the playoff, but I just don't think it can be six teams in the playoffs with only four having a real shot to win.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

That's fine, but we need a system that makes sense. If people are against expanding to 6 teams, then that's one thing. But if we're going to expand to six teams to create an inventive for more teams to be able to make the playoffs, making it nearly impossible for two of those teams to win simply doesn't make sense.

It's either four teams in the playoff, or six teams in the playoff, but I just don't think it can be six teams in the playoffs with only four having a real shot to win.

We disagree on this. Go figure.

IMO, any shot to win for a 5 and 6 seed is better than the current NO SHOT to win they have now. So despite the odds, you bet your ass I'd be trying to get at least top 6 so I had some shot, slim though it may be.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

With the toilet bowl idea would the goal be to win or lose the games? If your teams sucks (because of injuries or whatever) and you have lost enough games to be in the bottom four it might be difficult to then be able to turn it on and win games.

For example through 13 weeks this year you would have two teams that are 5-8 (I think there are three teams with this record so one of them would not be eligible to play for the top pick) and two teams that 3-10. On any given week anything can happen but the two worse teams would seem to be at a decent disadvantage. Also, since getting into the bottom four gets you a chance at the top pick I would think that this would open up the door for more questionable line-ups. Instead of having to really suck you can coast into the bottom four with a moderate level of sucess in the regular season and then still capture the top pick.

Set-up this way I would think the toilet bowl would run counter to what we are trying to do. If it was just the two worst teams playing I might feel a bit differently.

No matter where you draw the line (four teams, two teams, whatever), you're going to have a team that is on the edge of making the toilet bowl, or making the lottery, or making the cutoff for whatever we do. That's no worse than what we have now, except that what we have now is 100% predictable in that if you coast, and are successful in getting the higher pick you are looking for.

For the toilet bowl, of course the goal would be to win the games in the toilet bowl to get the #1 pick. Looking at this years' teams, while Joel and Frank's teams you may think are at a distinct disadvatage, it woudln't necessarily be the case if there was a toilet bowl. They may have managed their teams differently, gone for some of the free agents that popped up the second half of the season, whatever, that would have put them in a better situation to win games week 15 and 16. That would be the whole point of it. Give them an incentive to be comeptitive the playoff weeks, which in turn makes them more competitve in the weeks leading up to that, and in turn making it better for everyone.

If you leave it to just the bottom two, you're not solving anything. The teams can still coast the last part of the season and know that worst case scenario, they'll end up with the #2 pick instead of the #1 pick. That's not a huge incentive to remain competitive. Also, you still get the same bubble issue with the #3 or #4 worst team throwing games to get to the bottom. The higher you make the entrance into the toilet bowl, the closer you are getting to teams that are legitimately competing for the winner's brackett playoffs.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

With the toilet bowl idea would the goal be to win or lose the games? If your teams sucks (because of injuries or whatever) and you have lost enough games to be in the bottom four it might be difficult to then be able to turn it on and win games.

For example through 13 weeks this year you would have two teams that are 5-8 (I think there are three teams with this record so one of them would not be eligible to play for the top pick) and two teams that 3-10. On any given week anything can happen but the two worse teams would seem to be at a decent disadvantage. Also, since getting into the bottom four gets you a chance at the top pick I would think that this would open up the door for more questionable line-ups. Instead of having to really suck you can coast into the bottom four with a moderate level of sucess in the regular season and then still capture the top pick.

Set-up this way I would think the toilet bowl would run counter to what we are trying to do. If it was just the two worst teams playing I might feel a bit differently.

Anything that rewards wins for draft slots runs counter to what the draft is supposed to do.... help bad teams get better.

Seriosly the expanded playoffs plus Bottom 3 lottery is the best way to prevent tanking, you guys just have to give a little to get what the league as a whole wants: competitive play through out the the season.

The home field advantage I can switch back and forth on homefield advantage. The total pts scored by the entire league per week is averaged to be 1281.2, so per player that amounts to 11.86s pts per game. So a 14 pt home field advantage is a little more than an "extra player" on the field, which is what home field advantage is. Maybe we can go exactly 11 pts for home field or else state that home field advantage is equal to the average pts per player during the regular season (simply 12 teams weekly avg/108 (total # of players starting).

Remember guys we have to give little to get something. As long as we have 6 man playoffs and Bottom 3 lottery (60/30/10). I am all for it!

Also an easy way to figure out draft order is to use those draft randomizers, set up a 10 team draft, enter the worst team's name 6x, the 2nd worst 3x, and the worst team 1x. Then start the randomizer and whoever has teh #1 pick, gets the #1 pick in our league.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

No matter where you draw the line (four teams, two teams, whatever), you're going to have a team that is on the edge of making the toilet bowl, or making the lottery, or making the cutoff for whatever we do. That's no worse than what we have now, except that what we have now is 100% predictable in that if you coast, and are successful in getting the higher pick you are looking for.

For the toilet bowl, of course the goal would be to win the games in the toilet bowl to get the #1 pick. Looking at this years' teams, while Joel and Frank's teams you may think are at a distinct disadvatage, it woudln't necessarily be the case if there was a toilet bowl. They may have managed their teams differently, gone for some of the free agents that popped up the second half of the season, whatever, that would have put them in a better situation to win games week 15 and 16. That would be the whole point of it. Give them an incentive to be comeptitive the playoff weeks, which in turn makes them more competitve in the weeks leading up to that, and in turn making it better for everyone.

If you leave it to just the bottom two, you're not solving anything. The teams can still coast the last part of the season and know that worst case scenario, they'll end up with the #2 pick instead of the #1 pick. That's not a huge incentive to remain competitive. Also, you still get the same bubble issue with the #3 or #4 worst team throwing games to get to the bottom. The higher you make the entrance into the toilet bowl, the closer you are getting to teams that are legitimately competing for the winner's brackett playoffs.

I agree with Brian completely on this. SHOCKER!

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

No matter where you draw the line (four teams, two teams, whatever), you're going to have a team that is on the edge of making the toilet bowl, or making the lottery, or making the cutoff for whatever we do. That's no worse than what we have now, except that what we have now is 100% predictable in that if you coast, and are successful in getting the higher pick you are looking for.

For the toilet bowl, of course the goal would be to win the games in the toilet bowl to get the #1 pick. Looking at this years' teams, while Joel and Frank's teams you may think are at a distinct disadvatage, it woudln't necessarily be the case if there was a toilet bowl. They may have managed their teams differently, gone for some of the free agents that popped up the second half of the season, whatever, that would have put them in a better situation to win games week 15 and 16. That would be the whole point of it. Give them an incentive to be comeptitive the playoff weeks, which in turn makes them more competitve in the weeks leading up to that, and in turn making it better for everyone.

If you leave it to just the bottom two, you're not solving anything. The teams can still coast the last part of the season and know that worst case scenario, they'll end up with the #2 pick instead of the #1 pick. That's not a huge incentive to remain competitive. Also, you still get the same bubble issue with the #3 or #4 worst team throwing games to get to the bottom. The higher you make the entrance into the toilet bowl, the closer you are getting to teams that are legitimately competing for the winner's brackett playoffs.

I think I'm on the same page with the Dodgers. Keep our playoffs the same 4 team format. As it is, we often have at least 6-7 teams with a legitimate shot at the playoffs until week 13 or so each year. I don't think the high end is broke. On the low end, a simultaneous 4 team toilet bowl for draft seeding sounds great. This way, we're not just implementing rules but actually adding exciting competition to the league.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

No matter where you draw the line (four teams, two teams, whatever), you're going to have a team that is on the edge of making the toilet bowl, or making the lottery, or making the cutoff for whatever we do. That's no worse than what we have now, except that what we have now is 100% predictable in that if you coast, and are successful in getting the higher pick you are looking for.

For the toilet bowl, of course the goal would be to win the games in the toilet bowl to get the #1 pick. Looking at this years' teams, while Joel and Frank's teams you may think are at a distinct disadvatage, it woudln't necessarily be the case if there was a toilet bowl. They may have managed their teams differently, gone for some of the free agents that popped up the second half of the season, whatever, that would have put them in a better situation to win games week 15 and 16. That would be the whole point of it. Give them an incentive to be comeptitive the playoff weeks, which in turn makes them more competitve in the weeks leading up to that, and in turn making it better for everyone.

If you leave it to just the bottom two, you're not solving anything. The teams can still coast the last part of the season and know that worst case scenario, they'll end up with the #2 pick instead of the #1 pick. That's not a huge incentive to remain competitive. Also, you still get the same bubble issue with the #3 or #4 worst team throwing games to get to the bottom. The higher you make the entrance into the toilet bowl, the closer you are getting to teams that are legitimately competing for the winner's brackett playoffs.

WHY DO YOU KEEP TRYING TO TELL TEAMS HOW TO MANAGE THEIR ROSTER?!!!!

Why do you think their are NO ANTI-TANKING RULES IN PROFESSIONAL SPORTS when they have much more to gain to have anti-tanking rules?! It is immposible to prevent tanking, yet maintain comptetive balance if you are awarding draft picks based on wins.

Stop telling people how to manage their roster... the best you can do is create an environment that does not support tanking.

Expanded playoffs should ensure that give or take at least 8 teams still have a fighting chance at playoffs till the very end. Then the bottom 3 teams really don't have much incentive to tank as 1st place gets little more than 60% chance to get the Top overall pick. Would they miss out a shot at playoffs for what amounts to little more than 50/50 for the 1st pick?

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Anything that rewards wins for draft slots runs counter to what the draft is supposed to do.... help bad teams get better.

Seriosly the expanded playoffs plus Bottom 3 lottery is the best way to prevent tanking, you guys just have to give a little to get what the league as a whole wants: competitive play through out the the season.

The home field advantage I can switch back and forth on homefield advantage. The total pts scored by the entire league per week is averaged to be 1281.2, so per player that amounts to 11.86s pts per game. So a 14 pt home field advantage is a little more than an "extra player" on the field, which is what home field advantage is. Maybe we can go exactly 11 pts for home field or else state that home field advantage is equal to the average pts per player during the regular season (simply 12 teams weekly avg/108 (total # of players starting).

Remember guys we have to give little to get something. As long as we have 6 man playoffs and Bottom 3 lottery (60/30/10). I am all for it!

Also an easy way to figure out draft order is to use those draft randomizers, set up a 10 team draft, enter the worst team's name 6x, the 2nd worst 3x, and the worst team 1x. Then start the randomizer and whoever has teh #1 pick, gets the #1 pick in our league.

Honestly, I think its horrible that we would have to "give" something to prevent cheating (which shouldn't exist in the first place)! A 4 team toilet bowl, with 11th and 12th place getting home field advantage, adds something to the league - the only reason I can get behind it.