RFA Compensation Revision [change to point system] - Passes 6-1

[Nittany Dodgers]

For the details, please see this thread:

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10647

Unless there are strong objections, here are the clarifications to the debated points:

The order of the comp picks in each round will be the same as the order of the regular draft picks (before trades).

There will not be cafeteria style pick selection.

Please vote.

[Flaxwless]

Voted no.

Like the comp order to be based on the total difference between tender level and final price.

Comp picks are not for rewarding crappy teams, they are to fairly compensate or mitigate the loss of a player.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I think we will see a decrease in total picks so using the records to determine the order is fine by me. Also, crappy teams are not as likely (I would not think) to have players that are going to merit lots of compensation.

[Preds]

I'd like to chime in that while I voted yes (as I agree with devaluing the comps), I do agree with Frank that the order should be determined by the value of RFA's lost, not by draft position (overall record from prior year).

I missed that in the proposal and don't care for it.

[Flaxwless]

Wait so is this a vote for the whole RFA rivision process? Meaning point system for RFAs lost or is this just a vote for order of comp picks?

Let me clarify my stance if the former is the case.

1) I support the point system.
2) I think it is stupid to tie the order of comp picks to team record vs. value of RFA lost. COMP PICKS should have nothing to do with record but RATHER THE VALUE OF THE PLAYERS LOST!

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Preds

I'd like to chime in that while I voted yes (as I agree with devaluing the comps), I do agree with Frank that the order should be determined by the value of RFA's lost, not by draft position (overall record from prior year).

I missed that in the proposal and don't care for it.

I've changed my vote to a NO pending discussion on the order.

[Popes]

I actually haven't voted yet because I'm in agreement. I definitely want the new system, but would also prefer "amount over tender" to be the ordering device. While I don't think it's a huge deal, it is more fair IMO in relation to the intent of the RFA system (as Frank pointed out).

I actually sent a PM to Brian inquiring about the possibility of making it two votes: one to implement the new system generally (should pass 12-0) and a separate one to determine the ordering device (might be a close vote).

[Nittany Dodgers]

I'm too busy at work today to clear it up. I posted in the original thread for final thoughts to go into the final proposal. There were mixed opinions on the order of the picks, so I stated it was going to be the way I have it here unless there was further discussion. Of course last week, there wasn't. I thought this was the way we decided it for SAC'D so I did it to keep it consistent. I might even have been wrong about that.

Bottom line, I don't have time to fix it right now. Someone else can feel free to close this thread, and open up a thread to specifically discuss the one debated issue. I've already asked for comments on it once and don't have time for the second go round.

[Popes]

BTW, I meant to say in my last post "my bad" for not discussing it and making my opinion known in the initial debate thread. As the Commish for upwards of 10 years in my old league, I know how annoying it is when an issue is essentially unaddressed before the vote, despite the opportunity being given, then it becomes a big deal once you try to move forward on the larger issue.

Apparently I was not paying enough attention in the first thread.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Just checked SAC'D. The order wasn't specified in the original post, but Burt (comish) said later it would be based on the order of the original picks. That's what I based it on since clarification/input was absent.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Bottom line, I don't have time to fix it right now. Someone else can feel free to close this thread, and open up a thread to specifically discuss the one debated issue. I've already asked for comments on it once and don't have time for the second go round.

Suggestion: maybe it would be cleaner and easier for Brian if we just left this thread alone for awhile and we can all return to the debate thread to hash the issue out:

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10647

Once we have consensus there, we can return here and vote on the proposal in its final format.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Where did we land on revising the Compensation for RFA's?

[Nittany Dodgers]

We only have 7 votes on this, but I think the consensus was we wanted to go forward with this. What I think we need at this point is a separate vote to determine if the comp picks will be ordered based on the regular draft picks, or based on the value of the RFAs lost, or the value over tender of the RFAs lost.

[Popes]

I'm closing this out. We need to move ahead and get the details nailed down so people have time to plan before RFA declarations. I re-read this voting thread and the long discussion thread (http://www.predsff.com/forums/showth...7&page=1&pp=30) and everyone seems to agree on the need for the change. Even those who voted against it really just differed on the details, not the need for the change itself.

So, we are instituing the point based system generally laid out by Brian. Of the two remaining points of discussion, one was essentially resolved in the other thread:

As to the ordering of the comp picks, 6 wanted it done by starting tender level (w/ amount over tender as tie-breaker), 2 wanted amount over tender, and 0 wanted same as draft order. I'm calling that a done deal.

The remaining issue of how to award the comp picks was split: 4 for predetermined (though one is no longer in the league), 3 for predetermined but with the option to drop down, and 1 for cafeteria-style. I will open a new voting thread to resolve this final issue.

[Popes]

Note on final tally of 6-1 in thread title: Insects voted NO, but based on what this vote finally ended up meaning (just the change to the overall point system + not using draft order for ranking), he agreed with it.

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Wait so is this a vote for the whole RFA rivision process? Meaning point system for RFAs lost or is this just a vote for order of comp picks?

Let me clarify my stance if the former is the case.

1) I support the point system.
2) I think it is stupid to tie the order of comp picks to team record vs. value of RFA lost. COMP PICKS should have nothing to do with record but RATHER THE VALUE OF THE PLAYERS LOST!