2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Amish

I know that this will not be an issue for me again in Frenzy and if an "Amish" or "Joel" rule needs to be implemented I understand. (You don't have to be sorry Brian for calling it that, it was deserved.) Just please know that this was a one-time mistake.... If you look all year, I was active in trying to make my team better. I added and dropped numerous players, traded picks, and traded in looking at next year. I just happened to make poor GM decisions this year, but it wasn't a year long thing. The one week it happened was the ONLY time it crossed my mind and again I apologize.

Thanks for your candor, Joel. With this in mind, I say let the rules committee make a ruling on whatever punishment should be implemented for the Amish.

AND LET'S GET ON WITH THE SEASON.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

It's clear that no one wants to listen to you and me argue anymore. And that we're talking past each other anyway.

How are we talking past each other?

Every point you have brought up I have addressed. If I am missing one please let me know.

I really am interested in what you have decided. Like I said you are the only one who likes BOTH ideas... so I was wondering how you choose one over the other if you even did.

I mean there's seems to be 3 groups right noiw.

There's Mike and Brian who want to boost the whole competitiveness of the league by implementing a system that is detrimental to the bottom teams... in no way does the WORST team have the BEST chance at the #1 pick in a Toilet Bowl.

Then there is Matt and myself, who agree with Mike and Brian, but feel competiveness can be fixed with a playoff expansion + lottery instead of a Toilet Bowl as we still want to give the WORST team the best shot at the #1 pick.

Then there is Jake, Jim, and Rich who support basically no change except for a simple rule that will hold teams liable for not starting the "best" line up possible week in and week out. Although Jim and Rich are open to the idea of an expanded playoffs.

So I'm just trying to figure where you fit in and why. Like I said before... I am for anything that will not link wins and draft seeding. I just do not want to see a Toilet Bowl, extra lottery balls, or anything else linking wins and draft spot win with 2 or 3 votes because everyone else is split up. So please share your thought process with us.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Thanks for your candor, Joel. With this in mind, I say let the rules committee make a ruling on whatever punishment should be implemented for the Amish.

AND LET'S GET ON WITH THE SEASON.

I don't think there should be a punishment... b/c we have nothing in the rules for tanking.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I think minds are pretty much made up here. Someone set up the poll and lets move on.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Thanks for your candor, Joel. With this in mind, I say let the rules committee make a ruling on whatever punishment should be implemented for the Amish.

AND LET'S GET ON WITH THE SEASON.

There will be no punishment handed down on the Amish, as there were no explicit rules to justify such.

The point it moving forward, we need a system in place to protect against twhat happened, learn from our mistakes if we may.

Passive tanking is a much bigger issue IMO. And I think it's widespread amongst teams once they realize they're out of it. I know Frank feels a 6 team playoff will resolve this to a degree, but I don't. I think a 6 team playoff will water down the quailty of competition in the Frenzy to the point where mediocrity is acceptable. Instead of the best of the best, it will be the hot hand at the end, a lucky win here or there to advance. Add in the major negatives of a double header week, or a week 17 championship, and I just can't get behind the idea at all.

BTW, speaking of passive tanking, I'm surprised I'm the only one that noticed 3 straight weeks of no line-ups from the Highlanders. As he requested last year (when I indirectly called him out on a similar issue), I attempted to address this privately with him a week ago, he read my PM (according to the tracking), and has yet to respond.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

BTW, speaking of passive tanking, I'm surprised I'm the only one that noticed 3 straight weeks of no line-ups from the Highlanders. As he requested last year (when I indirectly called him out on a similar issue), I attempted to address this privately with him a week ago, he read my PM (according to the tracking), and has yet to respond.

It didn't really jump out at me because he rarely changes his lineup anyway. He hasn't bothered to sign a 2nd defense in both of his seasons. He didn't sign a kicker for his bye this season. He's ridden Troy Williamson for 22 games over the past two seasons, getting 3.6 ppg from him. Getting the default lineup the last three weeks didn't jump out at me.

[Amish]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

It didn't really jump out at me because he rarely changes his lineup anyway. He hasn't bothered to sign a 2nd defense in both of his seasons. He didn't sign a kicker for his bye this season. He's ridden Troy Williamson for 22 games over the past two seasons, getting 3.6 ppg from him. Getting the default lineup the last three weeks didn't jump out at me.

I don't understand how that isn't "worse" than a one time week mistake. It is a whole season of not updating or improving.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Amish

I don't understand how that isn't "worse" than a one time week mistake. It is a whole season of not updating or improving.

I 100% agree this is as bad as a one time mistake. Hence my support for a toilet bowl. If there is a toilet bowl, this kind of absentee ownership isn't automatically rewarded with a high pick.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I 100% agree this is as bad as a one time mistake. Hence my support for a toilet bowl. If there is a toilet bowl, this kind of absentee ownership isn't automatically rewarded with a high pick.

I think the Highlanders actions are far worse than the 1 time error in judgement from the Amish.

I'll take an active owner who makes 1 mistake over an absentee owner any day.

The Highlanders are a team we need to replace this off-season IMO. I called him out last year, he went ballistic on me, and then proceeded to rinse and repeat with the same inaction this year. I know he's on the other side of the pond, but that's not a valid exuse for me. Jim is on the opposite end of the world and is one of our most active and successful owners.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I 100% agree this is as bad as a one time mistake. Hence my support for a toilet bowl. If there is a toilet bowl, this kind of absentee ownership isn't automatically rewarded with a high pick.

While I would not recommend giving anyone the boot lightly this seems like the sort of thing that needs to be addressed. Not sure if taking picks is the way to go since a new owner would be forced to pay for the sins of someone else. However, I think a rule like 3 straight no submissions is worth considering. Obvisiously if someone has a real life issue that is taking them from FF I understand but otherwise this just seems to show a lack of interest and that can't be good for the league.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

While I would not recommend giving anyone the boot lightly this seems like the sort of thing that needs to be addressed. Not sure if taking picks is the way to go since a new owner would be forced to pay for the sins of someone else. However, I think a rule like 3 straight no submissions is worth considering. Obvisiously if someone has a real life issue that is taking them from FF I understand but otherwise this just seems to show a lack of interest and that can't be good for the league.

I PM'd Steve a week ago, politely asking if there was a reason for his lack of activity. Tracking shows he read it, but he did not respond. If something real-life came up, he had an opportunity to respond and apparently has chosen not to.

As for penalties, whenever there is an ownership change, I don't think the sanctions taken against a previous owner should be enforced against a new one.

That said, if Steve were to remain in the league for 2008, I could see sanctions such as loss of picks, or moving his picks down being appropriate barring legitimate justification explaining his inactivity. Personally I think it's time we find a new owner.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

As for penalties, whenever there is an ownership change, I don't think the sanctions taken against a previous owner should be enforced against a new one.

That said, if Steve were to remain in the league for 2008, I could see sanctions such as loss of picks, or moving his picks down being appropriate barring legitimate justification explaining his inactivity. Personally I think it's time we find a new owner.

Agreed. BTW, what is the draft order looking like at this point?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Agreed. BTW, what is the draft order looking like at this point?

1 - Insects 3-11 (lost to Amish)
2 - Amish 3-11
3 - Popes -5-9 (lost to Highlanders)
4 - Highlanders 5-9
5 - Ragers (6-8)
6 - Absolut (7-7)
7 - Derby Cars (8-6)
8 - Predators (9-5)
9 - TBD
10 - TBD
11 - TBD
12 - TBD

[Philadelphia Freedom]

1 - Insects 3-11 (lost to Amish)
2 - Amish 3-11
3 - Popes -5-9 (lost to Highlanders)
4 - Highlanders 5-9
5 - Ragers (6-8)
6 - Absolut (7-7)
7 - Derby Cars (8-6)
8 - Predators (9-5)
9 - TBD
10 - TBD
11 - TBD
12 - TBD

Thanks, glad to be holding the Popes second rounder

[Popes]

Joel, FYI to make you feel better: your tanking one week is NOT worse than a full season of not trying, IMO. I have no doubt it won't happen again. You became the flashpoint here, but I never thought your actions were the biggest detriment to league competitiveness. I just haven't felt it's been my place (as the new guy) to be calling out teams who don't try on a weekly basis. Sorry to make you the focal point when there are bigger issues.

Mike, you're not the only one that noticed, just the only one to bring it up. I've noticed it all year long.

Frank, the fact that I explained myself 10 times and you still don't seem to know where I stand and why illustrates how were talking past each other. There's no point wasting any more time on it.

No punishment for Amish. All I care about is that it not happen again and I'm convinced this thread has accomplished that.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

Frank, the fact that I explained myself 10 times and you still don't seem to know where I stand and why illustrates how were talking past each other. There's no point wasting any more time on it.

Actually my friend you guys ar ethe one not addressing the new points I have brought up. You my friends are the one's talking past me.

Let me summarize your feelings... this is pretty much from memory, so tell me if I get anything wrong.

1. You basically feel that a playoff expansion only minimizes the incentive to tank, while a Toilet Bowl will eliminate any incentive to tank. You feel that a lottery and Toilet Bowl BOTH sacrifice the "worst teams get the best" pick idea. With that feeling you think that playoff expansion would be best for the middle tier teams and that a Toilet Bowl would be best for lower teir teams.

With all that you then announced you have decided? I am asking you what have you decided? As a proponent to BOTH Toilet Bowl and Playoff Expansion how have you picked which need is bigger issue? How can you justify the lower tier teams from feeling the shaft here?

ALL OF YOU against Playoff Expansion have disregarded what I have been saying of a Toilet Bowl.

1. A Toilet Bowl gives the WORST CHANCE at the #1 pick to the WORST TEAM!!! Shouldn't the worst team have the BEST chance? How is that justifiable in a contract league? A Lottery or Mutts Rule can prevent late season non-submission of maximum lineups just the same a s aToilet Bowl.

2. Toilet Bowl proponents say the biggest positive is that a Toilet Bowl will improve "competitiveness" where as a playoff expansion awards mediocrity. However, a Toilet Bowl will be the one to encourage teams to stay put and not make moves!!!! Why?

The Top 4 or 6 teams will be set in there ways no need to trade b/c there isn't any difference between a 1st and 4th seed. You just have to win 2 games win the Frenzy Bowl. The Middle Teir teams will not trade with anyone either because they want to be possible just bad enough to get into the Toilet Bowl AND THEN STEAL the #1 pick. The Bottom teams will fidn it very hard to improve through trades b/c EVERYONE will be fine with the status quo.... the Elite teams are Elite, The Middle Teams can go to playoffs or steal the #1 pick, and the bottom teams are screwed.

Linking this to the deadline deals..

1. Popes give:

P. Manning (1400/1)
E. Graham (560/2)

Amish give:

T. Jones (2200/1)
D. Culpepper (130/1)
C. Henry (390/5 on TS)

A deal between two bottom teir teams... although I don't know the standings at that point and time. However, would bottom tier teams help each other out in the event of a Toilet Bowl? Nope.

2. Heading to the Predators is Anquan Boldin (1760/1yr) and the Amish's highest 3rd rd pick in 2008.

Heading to the Amish is WR Marvin Harrison (1800/1yr) and QB Matt Leinart (363/4yrs on TS).

Would this trade have occured if we were under a Toilet Bowl? No way the Amish would trade for 2 injured players.... which is a great long term move, but would have ruined his chances in a Toilet Bowl. Would Preds have gotten the help he needed? Nope?

Trading is an important part of the league and what a Toilet Bowl does is it removes the potential SELLERS from the market because it would punish them and the buyers would be limited b/c there is no incentive to get better.

In the end... trading will be non existant, the elite and middle teir teams will be happy where they are and the bottom teams get screwed... b/c of a system that awards draft seeding based on WINS!

Please guys... don't ignore this issue and explain yourselves.

[Popes]

With how you muddled my position in your "summary" and the fact that you've horned the only acceptable positions into the ones that you prefer, I'm not going to waste everyone's time on this any longer. The rest of the league has spoken.

Don't worry yourself any longer about my position. I'm voting "no change". There is minimal support for a toilet bowl, so you can stop fretting about it. It ain't happening.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

With how you muddled my position in your "summary" and the fact that you've horned the only acceptable positions into the ones that you prefer, I'm not going to waste everyone's time on this any longer. The rest of the league has spoken.

Don't worry yourself any longer about my position. I'm voting "no change". There is minimal support for a toilet bowl, so you can stop fretting about it. It ain't happening.

How have I muddled it? What am I missing?

What is the point o fthe Toilet Bowl? It eliminates any incentive to tank, which in the end brings up the standards of the league, b/c of the thinking that we are only as strong as our weakest link. What is muddled?

[Popes]

Let it go. You won. There won't be a toilet bowl, so you can stop fighting against it.

Let's get the vote done and move on.

[Nittany Dodgers]

So we can take affirmative action on this and move on, I will be opening up a poll in the rules forum. Please vote ASAP so we can put this behind us and move on. The options will be:

1. No Change
2. Toilet Bowl
3. Playoff Expansion + Lottery (No extra balls)
4. Rules Committee oversight

The options have been well debated in this thread. The details of any changes will be ironed out after the vote if necessary. No other options appear to have significant enough support at this point to merit inclusion in the poll.