My brain doesn't seem to be functioning well today, but few random thoughts in response to the last few pages.
1. I'm not sure I fully get the point of having the nom order related to roster spots. Is it to mean that who ever nominates first nominates a guy that will possibly end up being a $200 bid for someone else to eliminate the $200 nomination-bids? Or will it just end up with a bunch of mid-tier guys going at weird values since the $200 owners will be waiting for someone else and people with lots of roster spots need to be more calculating in their bid values? Seems like this change shifts the auction advantage to guys with more roster spots than the current set up of guys with $200 max bids? Considering roster spots isn't related to league standings, I don't see this as progress as much as a shell game move. Plus Realizar will always be first to nominate.
2. I do think we need to do something about the $200 bid process, as the random Yahoo order has too much power. I don't think $1 nom is really any better, as all it means is that the person nominating can't bid $200, but the next person can (fastest click wins). I would rather keep the $200 nom and have the nomination order go in some variation of the inverted standings. Our league right now is highly competitive, and it can be very hard to move up a tier in the standings. I would propose a tier lotto approach to the nom order, where maybe every 4 teams in the standings are randomized and we use final playoff standing instead of regular season standing (to further differentiate between the rookie lotto). That way, a bad team with $200 has an advantage at the auction over a top team with $200 and it doesn't rely on random Yahoo to make it happen.
3. Dan's proposal, as always, is interesting, and I am coming around to the idea more. I am open to that and any discussions moving forward to further evolve this league. We've come a long way from the SoftEuro days and survived the Dark Days of Tyrant Joey (jokes!) and Snooch (not so jokes), and don't see this as a finished product.
1. I'm not sure I fully get the point of having the nom order related to roster spots. Is it to mean that who ever nominates first nominates a guy that will possibly end up being a $200 bid for someone else to eliminate the $200 nomination-bids? Or will it just end up with a bunch of mid-tier guys going at weird values since the $200 owners will be waiting for someone else and people with lots of roster spots need to be more calculating in their bid values? Seems like this change shifts the auction advantage to guys with more roster spots than the current set up of guys with $200 max bids? Considering roster spots isn't related to league standings, I don't see this as progress as much as a shell game move. Plus Realizar will always be first to nominate.
2. I do think we need to do something about the $200 bid process, as the random Yahoo order has too much power. I don't think $1 nom is really any better, as all it means is that the person nominating can't bid $200, but the next person can (fastest click wins). I would rather keep the $200 nom and have the nomination order go in some variation of the inverted standings. Our league right now is highly competitive, and it can be very hard to move up a tier in the standings. I would propose a tier lotto approach to the nom order, where maybe every 4 teams in the standings are randomized and we use final playoff standing instead of regular season standing (to further differentiate between the rookie lotto). That way, a bad team with $200 has an advantage at the auction over a top team with $200 and it doesn't rely on random Yahoo to make it happen.
3. Dan's proposal, as always, is interesting, and I am coming around to the idea more. I am open to that and any discussions moving forward to further evolve this league. We've come a long way from the SoftEuro days and survived the Dark Days of Tyrant Joey (jokes!) and Snooch (not so jokes), and don't see this as a finished product.
Comment