I’ve been thinking about this idea for a while now. I thought it would be good to post it and see what others think. This idea could be used in baseball, as well as football.
As we all know the NFBC main event is really broken into two separate contests, a league contest and an overall contest. My thoughts center on the overall contest.
If we are supposed to be competing against everyone for the lion’s share of the prize money ($100,000 grand prize) via the overall contest, why is the competing done on an indirect level? What I mean is that a significant portion of your success in the overall event is tied to what league you were randomly assigned to. You could be very unlucky and be in a league with experienced and savvy owners. Kinda diminishes your chances of winning the 100K if you’re in a league with Childs, Gillis, and Keynon, doesn’t it? Or on the flip side, you could be fortunate enough to be in a league comprised mostly of NFBC newbies. With that said, wouldn’t it be better to compete as directly as possible against everyone in the overall event? Here’s my thoughts on how…
All Main Event leagues hold their drafts simultaneously (as they do now). After the draft is over, all teams are loaded into STATS.
Each team will be put into TWO separate leagues (a MAIN EVENT-LEAGUE & a MAIN EVENT-OVERALL). Each owner will have two separate links on their STATS homepage to access both of their teams.
In the first league (MAIN EVENT-LEAGUE), each team will be competing against the 14 league mates they drafted against on draft day. Weekly lineups and FAAB are submitted independent of the second league (MAIN EVENT-OVERALL).
In the second league (MAIN EVENT-OVERALL), each team will be competing against every other team. Weekly lineups and FAAB are submitted independent of the first league (MAIN EVENT-LEAGUE). Free agents are determined as follows…Suppose there are 25 leagues main event leagues. Also suppose that Joey Gathright was called up to the Royals this week and was available as a free agent in only 15 of the 25 leagues. My contention is that 10 Gathright’s should be available via FAAB to all teams (except ones that already own Gathright). The owners with the ten highest dollar amount bids for Gathright would acquire him. Currently if you’re in a league where an owner drafted Gathright and has held him all year, you are SOL and can’t bid for him. Why should a situation like that affect the OVERALL competition?
How about Josh Barfield and Chuck James? Both are valuable players who were dropped in only ONE league. Only 15 owners had a chance to bid on each of them, yet all 375 owners are affected in the overall competition.
Allowing free agents to be available to ALL teams in the OVERALL competition would reduce the following frustrations for ALL owners…
*Seeing quality players available via FAAB in other leagues, but not yours
*Losing out on picking up quality FAAB players because you were the runner-up FAAB bidder in your league, but were one of the highest bidders in the ENTIRE NFBC. Unfortunately, the single highest bid in the entire NFBC came from an owner in your 15-team league.
*Are you in a league with 14 other very active owners, while owners in other leagues are competing against “less-active” owners? For example, suppose in someone’s main event league there are three owners who haven’t logged in for over a month. The other 12 owners in that league would effectively be FAAB bidding against only 11 other teams for free agents. Imagine if Childs, Gillis, or Keynon was in that league. Would that be fair to everyone else in the overall competition?
IMO allowing free agents to be available to ALL teams in the OVERALL competition would allow for a better overall competition.
In summary:
*Owners draft a single team
*Each team is put into two separate leagues (a MAIN EVENT-LEAGUE & a MAIN EVENT-OVERALL). In the MAIN EVENT-OVERALL league, free agents are available to ALL owners
*Each team is managed independent of the other (two teams for the price of one )
Thoughts?
[ June 11, 2007, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]
New NFBC Idea
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 4317
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
New NFBC Idea
So if I drafted Gathright and have him on my reserve, as do 10 others teams in your example, he's available 15 times to 375 teams correct ? Will the Stats programming be smart enough to prevent me from bidding on Gathright again ? I can't have 2 Gathrights on my team right ? I suppose there can be a penalty for adding a player you already have but even if done in error it would horribly skew the FAAB process on sunday. Unless I'm missing something in your example...
Q
Q
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 4317
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
New NFBC Idea
Steve - you are correct. A single owner could only have one gathright.
I'm not sure if stats could do it, but it would seem possible, as it's just a logic check that can be programmed.
I'm just introducing the idea
Two separate teams for two separate events
I'm not sure if stats could do it, but it would seem possible, as it's just a logic check that can be programmed.
I'm just introducing the idea
Two separate teams for two separate events
New NFBC Idea
Posted a reply on the NFFC board already, but I think this is a very good idea.
The only downside I can see is time required to input two sets of FAAB --- but that is a very minor point for a major improvement.
The only downside I can see is time required to input two sets of FAAB --- but that is a very minor point for a major improvement.
New NFBC Idea
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
Steve - you are correct. A single owner could only have one gathright.
I'm not sure if stats could do it, but it would seem possible, as it's just a logic check that can be programmed.
I'm just introducing the idea
Two separate teams for two separate events it's a pretty interesting concept. Of course Stats would HAVE to have a forced non-participating faab block on owned players.
The thing is what % does the overall winner attribute to team creation via the actual draft vs free agents added ? The Childs, Kenyons etc will still be drafting vs potentially weaker competition vs other leagues - based on your example. You're closer to coming up with a "true" 1 vs 374 champion but maybe only 35% closer ?
Q
Steve - you are correct. A single owner could only have one gathright.
I'm not sure if stats could do it, but it would seem possible, as it's just a logic check that can be programmed.
I'm just introducing the idea
Two separate teams for two separate events it's a pretty interesting concept. Of course Stats would HAVE to have a forced non-participating faab block on owned players.
The thing is what % does the overall winner attribute to team creation via the actual draft vs free agents added ? The Childs, Kenyons etc will still be drafting vs potentially weaker competition vs other leagues - based on your example. You're closer to coming up with a "true" 1 vs 374 champion but maybe only 35% closer ?
Q
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 3602
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
New NFBC Idea
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
How about Josh Barfield and Chuck James? Both are valuable players who were dropped in only ONE league. Only 15 owners had a chance to bid on each of them, yet all 375 owners are affected in the overall competition. Chuck James?!? Man, who would be crazy enough to waive a guy like that?!?!
How about Josh Barfield and Chuck James? Both are valuable players who were dropped in only ONE league. Only 15 owners had a chance to bid on each of them, yet all 375 owners are affected in the overall competition. Chuck James?!? Man, who would be crazy enough to waive a guy like that?!?!
New NFBC Idea
Originally posted by King of Queens:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
How about Josh Barfield and Chuck James? Both are valuable players who were dropped in only ONE league. Only 15 owners had a chance to bid on each of them, yet all 375 owners are affected in the overall competition. Chuck James?!? Man, who would be crazy enough to waive a guy like that?!?! [/QUOTE]
heh heh king - wisenheimer. Now get back to emailing D.Chase about his ending!
Q
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
How about Josh Barfield and Chuck James? Both are valuable players who were dropped in only ONE league. Only 15 owners had a chance to bid on each of them, yet all 375 owners are affected in the overall competition. Chuck James?!? Man, who would be crazy enough to waive a guy like that?!?! [/QUOTE]
heh heh king - wisenheimer. Now get back to emailing D.Chase about his ending!Q
New NFBC Idea
Using your example of Gathright. If another team in your league rostered him all season (Gave you a larger pool to pickup from) why should you get to pick him up? You had a chance to roster him at the draft, and did not. That he is available in other leagues means that some teams in the overall will have to use a % of their FAAB to roster him.
I agree however, that certain leagues will be weak and if a top 5% team gets in those leagues they have increased their chances of winning. If you get a gimmick team in your league it could help or hinder you in the overall. Somebody is aiming for 375 in steals and someone else targeted ZERO saves going into the draft.
I don't think anyone comes into the league planning to finish 375th and some times "life" happens and I speak from personal history, that the best effort isn't always put forth. Certainly it is easier to find NFBC if you are looking at a money return rather then battling for 15th in your league. In my home league we play for $ every week which in theory should keep teams active when they are in the bottom 1/3 after the all-star break. IMO it doesn't help.
I would think a total re-draft ever week with 14 other teams would be right way to keep everyones leaguemates equal.
I agree however, that certain leagues will be weak and if a top 5% team gets in those leagues they have increased their chances of winning. If you get a gimmick team in your league it could help or hinder you in the overall. Somebody is aiming for 375 in steals and someone else targeted ZERO saves going into the draft.
I don't think anyone comes into the league planning to finish 375th and some times "life" happens and I speak from personal history, that the best effort isn't always put forth. Certainly it is easier to find NFBC if you are looking at a money return rather then battling for 15th in your league. In my home league we play for $ every week which in theory should keep teams active when they are in the bottom 1/3 after the all-star break. IMO it doesn't help.
I would think a total re-draft ever week with 14 other teams would be right way to keep everyones leaguemates equal.
Main C3-pick#12 Crawford/Upton/Mags/Guillen/Chipper/Zimmerman/Del Young
-
nydownunder
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 pm
- Contact:
New NFBC Idea
Interesting, yet perhaps too complex and time consuming (for owners).
However, I do agree with your reasoning regarding the competitiveness of each league. Last year I was in (what I believe to be before the draft and after the season) one of the most competitive leagues: many former league winners. To boot, a couple of 'newbies' were real strong players. This year, I was glad to see going into the draft, that I was not up against similar combatants. Much better results thus far.
My proposal, although not perfect, should take advantage of 'Lifetime Rankings'. Perhaps break them into quartiles next year, and then start pulling names starting with the top quartile. Once all 4 quartiles are complete, then pull the'newbies' out of a hat as well.
Like I said, it's not perfect, but it can create more balance across the leagues.
However, I do agree with your reasoning regarding the competitiveness of each league. Last year I was in (what I believe to be before the draft and after the season) one of the most competitive leagues: many former league winners. To boot, a couple of 'newbies' were real strong players. This year, I was glad to see going into the draft, that I was not up against similar combatants. Much better results thus far.
My proposal, although not perfect, should take advantage of 'Lifetime Rankings'. Perhaps break them into quartiles next year, and then start pulling names starting with the top quartile. Once all 4 quartiles are complete, then pull the'newbies' out of a hat as well.
Like I said, it's not perfect, but it can create more balance across the leagues.
Wagga Wagga Dingoes (NY#4)
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity!
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity!
New NFBC Idea
Originally posted by Quahogs:
So if I drafted Gathright and have him on my reserve, as do 10 others teams in your example, he's available 15 times to 375 teams correct ? Will the Stats programming be smart enough to prevent me from bidding on Gathright again ? I can't have 2 Gathrights on my team right ? I suppose there can be a penalty for adding a player you already have but even if done in error it would horribly skew the FAAB process on sunday. Unless I'm missing something in your example...
Q This would be super easy to program. Like GG said, it is really two teams for the price of one. That is how it would be treated by STATS; there would be two data sets for each owner/team that you only pay Krause Pub one time for. The problem would most likely be STATS charging Krause Pub more money to run the leagues since you are basically doubling the amount of storage space on their server. That would also probably mean that Krause Pub would pass the cost down to us.
Sorry, GG, without any rationalization to your scenario, I would have to say bad idea because we may end up paying more.
So if I drafted Gathright and have him on my reserve, as do 10 others teams in your example, he's available 15 times to 375 teams correct ? Will the Stats programming be smart enough to prevent me from bidding on Gathright again ? I can't have 2 Gathrights on my team right ? I suppose there can be a penalty for adding a player you already have but even if done in error it would horribly skew the FAAB process on sunday. Unless I'm missing something in your example...
Q This would be super easy to program. Like GG said, it is really two teams for the price of one. That is how it would be treated by STATS; there would be two data sets for each owner/team that you only pay Krause Pub one time for. The problem would most likely be STATS charging Krause Pub more money to run the leagues since you are basically doubling the amount of storage space on their server. That would also probably mean that Krause Pub would pass the cost down to us.
Sorry, GG, without any rationalization to your scenario, I would have to say bad idea because we may end up paying more.
George
Smoky Mtn. Oysters
Chicago 4
Wildwood Weeds
Chicago 650 Mixed League Auction
Smoky Mtn. Oysters
Chicago 4
Wildwood Weeds
Chicago 650 Mixed League Auction
New NFBC Idea
Originally posted by nydownunder:
However, I do agree with your reasoning regarding the competitiveness of each league. Last year I was in (what I believe to be before the draft and after the season) one of the most competitive leagues: many former league winners. To boot, a couple of 'newbies' were real strong players. This year, I was glad to see going into the draft, that I was not up against similar combatants. Much better results thus far.
My proposal, although not perfect, should take advantage of 'Lifetime Rankings'. Perhaps break them into quartiles next year, and then start pulling names starting with the top quartile. Once all 4 quartiles are complete, then pull the'newbies' out of a hat as well.
Like I said, it's not perfect, but it can create more balance across the leagues. This only addresses the balance of the leagues and not necessarily all of the things that GG is trying to fix. But I do agree, and this is what I hope Greg is envisioning for the future of the NFBC. Leagues being put together should factor in lifetime rank, yrs in the NFBC, etc. That is how balance can be created. There needs to be some system of handicapping and ranking players so that leagues can be built fairly. I think it is much better for the overall Main Event that all of the superstars get paired against one another and all of the morons get paired together. One superstar in a room full of morons will get all of the girls.
However, I do agree with your reasoning regarding the competitiveness of each league. Last year I was in (what I believe to be before the draft and after the season) one of the most competitive leagues: many former league winners. To boot, a couple of 'newbies' were real strong players. This year, I was glad to see going into the draft, that I was not up against similar combatants. Much better results thus far.
My proposal, although not perfect, should take advantage of 'Lifetime Rankings'. Perhaps break them into quartiles next year, and then start pulling names starting with the top quartile. Once all 4 quartiles are complete, then pull the'newbies' out of a hat as well.
Like I said, it's not perfect, but it can create more balance across the leagues. This only addresses the balance of the leagues and not necessarily all of the things that GG is trying to fix. But I do agree, and this is what I hope Greg is envisioning for the future of the NFBC. Leagues being put together should factor in lifetime rank, yrs in the NFBC, etc. That is how balance can be created. There needs to be some system of handicapping and ranking players so that leagues can be built fairly. I think it is much better for the overall Main Event that all of the superstars get paired against one another and all of the morons get paired together. One superstar in a room full of morons will get all of the girls.
George
Smoky Mtn. Oysters
Chicago 4
Wildwood Weeds
Chicago 650 Mixed League Auction
Smoky Mtn. Oysters
Chicago 4
Wildwood Weeds
Chicago 650 Mixed League Auction
New NFBC Idea
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
Allowing free agents to be available to ALL teams in the OVERALL competition would reduce the following frustrations for ALL owners…
*Seeing quality players available via FAAB in other leagues, but not yours
*Losing out on picking up quality FAAB players because you were the runner-up FAAB bidder in your league, but were one of the highest bidders in the ENTIRE NFBC. Unfortunately, the single highest bid in the entire NFBC came from an owner in your 15-team league.
*Are you in a league with 14 other very active owners, while owners in other leagues are competing against “less-active” owners? For example, suppose in someone’s main event league there are three owners who haven’t logged in for over a month. The other 12 owners in that league would effectively be FAAB bidding against only 11 other teams for free agents. Imagine if Childs, Gillis, or Keynon was in that league. Would that be fair to everyone else in the overall competition?
IMO allowing free agents to be available to ALL teams in the OVERALL competition would allow for a better overall competition.
In summary:
*Owners draft a single team
*Each team is put into two separate leagues (a MAIN EVENT-LEAGUE & a MAIN EVENT-OVERALL). In the MAIN EVENT-OVERALL league, free agents are available to ALL owners
*Each team is managed independent of the other (two teams for the price of one )
Thoughts? Interesting idea, but...
*Seeing quality players available via FAAB in other leagues, but not yours
Quality players being available in the FA pool is due to drafting, injuries, position eligibility, etc. That "etc" also includes ignorance. Point is there are too many factors to try and control this. It is just part of the game, and IMO a non-issue.
*Losing out on picking up quality FAAB players because you were the runner-up FAAB bidder in your league, but were one of the highest bidders in the ENTIRE NFBC. Unfortunately, the single highest bid in the entire NFBC came from an owner in your 15-team league.
Here again, this is just randomness and part of the game. The factors that are involved in how much FAAB is spread out across the leagues and the need of teams in that league are too many to try and control this. IMO, non-issue.
*Are you in a league with 14 other very active owners, while owners in other leagues are competing against “less-active” owners? For example, suppose in someone’s main event league there are three owners who haven’t logged in for over a month. The other 12 owners in that league would effectively be FAAB bidding against only 11 other teams for free agents.
Now we have an issue! There needs to be some type of balance created in the set up of the leagues. There is nothing that can really be done about non-active owners, or ignorant owners. Like I said somewhere else, one superstar with no competition gets all the prizes. I think that owners should be handicapped or ranked and then put into an appropriate league.
GG, that is another good idea but I think it is more of a spin-off than an evolution of the NFBC. Let's face it, the game needs to change a little, to grow... I think that is why you keep posting your suggestions, because you have already realized it too. I don't know if Greg realizes it or not though. The first year there were 195 combatants. The second year there were 300. The third year 330, this year 370. Growth is slowing. Why? The market is way too big for this. The third year should have been a larger increase than the second year. Anyway...
How about this idea? Add a little bit of the football format to baseball to decide the overall winner. At the end of the regular season, take the top 10 overall teams (using the current scoring system), then take the top 6 league winners that weren't selected in the top 10. These would be like wildcards. Based on the ranking set up a 16-team bracket and then let them play it out like a championship in football. There would be an online draft for all of the players who would be in the playoffs. Each week would be head-to-head, with the winner moving on to the next round. I would suggest that we just use our regular teams and play the championship in the last four weeks of the season, but I hate the idea of laying it on the line when your superstars are taking a break since their team already has it locked up.
Allowing free agents to be available to ALL teams in the OVERALL competition would reduce the following frustrations for ALL owners…
*Seeing quality players available via FAAB in other leagues, but not yours
*Losing out on picking up quality FAAB players because you were the runner-up FAAB bidder in your league, but were one of the highest bidders in the ENTIRE NFBC. Unfortunately, the single highest bid in the entire NFBC came from an owner in your 15-team league.
*Are you in a league with 14 other very active owners, while owners in other leagues are competing against “less-active” owners? For example, suppose in someone’s main event league there are three owners who haven’t logged in for over a month. The other 12 owners in that league would effectively be FAAB bidding against only 11 other teams for free agents. Imagine if Childs, Gillis, or Keynon was in that league. Would that be fair to everyone else in the overall competition?
IMO allowing free agents to be available to ALL teams in the OVERALL competition would allow for a better overall competition.
In summary:
*Owners draft a single team
*Each team is put into two separate leagues (a MAIN EVENT-LEAGUE & a MAIN EVENT-OVERALL). In the MAIN EVENT-OVERALL league, free agents are available to ALL owners
*Each team is managed independent of the other (two teams for the price of one )
Thoughts? Interesting idea, but...
*Seeing quality players available via FAAB in other leagues, but not yours
Quality players being available in the FA pool is due to drafting, injuries, position eligibility, etc. That "etc" also includes ignorance. Point is there are too many factors to try and control this. It is just part of the game, and IMO a non-issue.
*Losing out on picking up quality FAAB players because you were the runner-up FAAB bidder in your league, but were one of the highest bidders in the ENTIRE NFBC. Unfortunately, the single highest bid in the entire NFBC came from an owner in your 15-team league.
Here again, this is just randomness and part of the game. The factors that are involved in how much FAAB is spread out across the leagues and the need of teams in that league are too many to try and control this. IMO, non-issue.
*Are you in a league with 14 other very active owners, while owners in other leagues are competing against “less-active” owners? For example, suppose in someone’s main event league there are three owners who haven’t logged in for over a month. The other 12 owners in that league would effectively be FAAB bidding against only 11 other teams for free agents.
Now we have an issue! There needs to be some type of balance created in the set up of the leagues. There is nothing that can really be done about non-active owners, or ignorant owners. Like I said somewhere else, one superstar with no competition gets all the prizes. I think that owners should be handicapped or ranked and then put into an appropriate league.
GG, that is another good idea but I think it is more of a spin-off than an evolution of the NFBC. Let's face it, the game needs to change a little, to grow... I think that is why you keep posting your suggestions, because you have already realized it too. I don't know if Greg realizes it or not though. The first year there were 195 combatants. The second year there were 300. The third year 330, this year 370. Growth is slowing. Why? The market is way too big for this. The third year should have been a larger increase than the second year. Anyway...
How about this idea? Add a little bit of the football format to baseball to decide the overall winner. At the end of the regular season, take the top 10 overall teams (using the current scoring system), then take the top 6 league winners that weren't selected in the top 10. These would be like wildcards. Based on the ranking set up a 16-team bracket and then let them play it out like a championship in football. There would be an online draft for all of the players who would be in the playoffs. Each week would be head-to-head, with the winner moving on to the next round. I would suggest that we just use our regular teams and play the championship in the last four weeks of the season, but I hate the idea of laying it on the line when your superstars are taking a break since their team already has it locked up.
George
Smoky Mtn. Oysters
Chicago 4
Wildwood Weeds
Chicago 650 Mixed League Auction
Smoky Mtn. Oysters
Chicago 4
Wildwood Weeds
Chicago 650 Mixed League Auction
New NFBC Idea
1.As to the “Seeding” of owners for placement in and generation of individual leagues within the NFBC my gut reaction is absolutely not! But I would like to hear other proposals/ideas/thoughts on dealing with the issue of Strong, Average, and Rookie owners. Do I sense a rating system?
A. The geographical ( ‘Vegas, Chicago, NY, ?FLA?) looms as a major sticking point.
B. Multiple team Ownership which is presently allowed.
C. Ghost entries??
2. The following is from my post as follows
posted June 01, 2007 12:20 PM
________________________________________
DRAFT and FAAB Pool Eligibility for 2008
“When” players are/become available for “Rostering” is IMO another area where the rules need tweaking.
(1) The NFBC has a peculiar situation relating to accumulation of stats due to the fact there are concurrent competitions. A team competes against fourteen teams in their “League” while simultaneously being ranked in the “Overall” with 374 other teams. For a truly, level, playing field all teams should have access to the same players at the same time.
What I suggest…
(A) The present pool eligibility for “The Draft” is fine. Every player, @ any level can be acquired within the bounds of your roster.(I’m sure that some day soon SOMEONE! is going take a Hitoke Iwase)
(B) After the Draft, every player drafted, by any NFBC team as well as those on an “Opening Day” 25 man roster will be AND remain eligible for pickup(If available of course!) in every League for the entire season—subject to rulings by the Commissioner.
For instance, if Tim Lincecum, was Drafted in at least one League, he would be in the FAAB Pool from day one and stay there in every League of the NFBC even if he wasn’t Drafted in that league.
OR…
If a Free Agent, (ie.Roger Clemens) wasn’t taken in any League, the Commissioner would rule him in or out of the Pool at the onset of the season, before the first FAAB session.
(C) All other players (Those not in the NFBC FA Pool to start the season) will be added to the FAAB pool as they are called up and remain in the pool for the rest of the current season even if sent down at some point.
Mark’s proposal is interesting but IMO convoluted and confusing though I’m sure it could be programmed. Simple is better and the suggestion above address the problem with simplicity.
Kevin
A. The geographical ( ‘Vegas, Chicago, NY, ?FLA?) looms as a major sticking point.
B. Multiple team Ownership which is presently allowed.
C. Ghost entries??
2. The following is from my post as follows
posted June 01, 2007 12:20 PM
________________________________________
DRAFT and FAAB Pool Eligibility for 2008
“When” players are/become available for “Rostering” is IMO another area where the rules need tweaking.
(1) The NFBC has a peculiar situation relating to accumulation of stats due to the fact there are concurrent competitions. A team competes against fourteen teams in their “League” while simultaneously being ranked in the “Overall” with 374 other teams. For a truly, level, playing field all teams should have access to the same players at the same time.
What I suggest…
(A) The present pool eligibility for “The Draft” is fine. Every player, @ any level can be acquired within the bounds of your roster.(I’m sure that some day soon SOMEONE! is going take a Hitoke Iwase)
(B) After the Draft, every player drafted, by any NFBC team as well as those on an “Opening Day” 25 man roster will be AND remain eligible for pickup(If available of course!) in every League for the entire season—subject to rulings by the Commissioner.
For instance, if Tim Lincecum, was Drafted in at least one League, he would be in the FAAB Pool from day one and stay there in every League of the NFBC even if he wasn’t Drafted in that league.
OR…
If a Free Agent, (ie.Roger Clemens) wasn’t taken in any League, the Commissioner would rule him in or out of the Pool at the onset of the season, before the first FAAB session.
(C) All other players (Those not in the NFBC FA Pool to start the season) will be added to the FAAB pool as they are called up and remain in the pool for the rest of the current season even if sent down at some point.
Mark’s proposal is interesting but IMO convoluted and confusing though I’m sure it could be programmed. Simple is better and the suggestion above address the problem with simplicity.
Kevin
"All of Life is part of the Divine"---Ancient Hindu saying
New NFBC Idea
Kevin, I didn't see that post originally but I think your first idea is a pretty good idea for creating some balance in the FA pool. Every player drafted in the NFBC would become the player pool for every league and team. I would definitely give that a yes vote.
As for my suggestion above, I'm not sure what the actual league selection process would be. I do think that some way of balancing the leagues is important though; however, I'm not particularly attached to any one solution yet.
-----------------------------------
"When you gotta piece of sh!t, you hafta deal with the smell" --- Old American saying
As for my suggestion above, I'm not sure what the actual league selection process would be. I do think that some way of balancing the leagues is important though; however, I'm not particularly attached to any one solution yet.
-----------------------------------
"When you gotta piece of sh!t, you hafta deal with the smell" --- Old American saying
George
Smoky Mtn. Oysters
Chicago 4
Wildwood Weeds
Chicago 650 Mixed League Auction
Smoky Mtn. Oysters
Chicago 4
Wildwood Weeds
Chicago 650 Mixed League Auction
New NFBC Idea
Well, I must be drunk or something right now lol...but I find your idea very interesting.
-
nydownunder
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 pm
- Contact:
New NFBC Idea
Originally posted by Jackstraw:
quote:Originally posted by nydownunder:
However, I do agree with your reasoning regarding the competitiveness of each league. Last year I was in (what I believe to be before the draft and after the season) one of the most competitive leagues: many former league winners. To boot, a couple of 'newbies' were real strong players. This year, I was glad to see going into the draft, that I was not up against similar combatants. Much better results thus far.
My proposal, although not perfect, should take advantage of 'Lifetime Rankings'. Perhaps break them into quartiles next year, and then start pulling names starting with the top quartile. Once all 4 quartiles are complete, then pull the'newbies' out of a hat as well.
Like I said, it's not perfect, but it can create more balance across the leagues. This only addresses the balance of the leagues and not necessarily all of the things that GG is trying to fix. But I do agree, and this is what I hope Greg is envisioning for the future of the NFBC. Leagues being put together should factor in lifetime rank, yrs in the NFBC, etc. That is how balance can be created. There needs to be some system of handicapping and ranking players so that leagues can be built fairly. I think it is much better for the overall Main Event that all of the superstars get paired against one another and all of the morons get paired together. One superstar in a room full of morons will get all of the girls. [/QUOTE]I'm not sure if you were joking or not with the last few sentences, but my idea isn't to put all the top managers in 1 or 2 leagues. The purpose of the ranking is to try and ensure each league has the same number of managers from every level. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best...not managers at your level.
quote:Originally posted by nydownunder:
However, I do agree with your reasoning regarding the competitiveness of each league. Last year I was in (what I believe to be before the draft and after the season) one of the most competitive leagues: many former league winners. To boot, a couple of 'newbies' were real strong players. This year, I was glad to see going into the draft, that I was not up against similar combatants. Much better results thus far.
My proposal, although not perfect, should take advantage of 'Lifetime Rankings'. Perhaps break them into quartiles next year, and then start pulling names starting with the top quartile. Once all 4 quartiles are complete, then pull the'newbies' out of a hat as well.
Like I said, it's not perfect, but it can create more balance across the leagues. This only addresses the balance of the leagues and not necessarily all of the things that GG is trying to fix. But I do agree, and this is what I hope Greg is envisioning for the future of the NFBC. Leagues being put together should factor in lifetime rank, yrs in the NFBC, etc. That is how balance can be created. There needs to be some system of handicapping and ranking players so that leagues can be built fairly. I think it is much better for the overall Main Event that all of the superstars get paired against one another and all of the morons get paired together. One superstar in a room full of morons will get all of the girls. [/QUOTE]I'm not sure if you were joking or not with the last few sentences, but my idea isn't to put all the top managers in 1 or 2 leagues. The purpose of the ranking is to try and ensure each league has the same number of managers from every level. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best...not managers at your level.
Wagga Wagga Dingoes (NY#4)
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity!
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity!
New NFBC Idea
Originally posted by nydownunder:
quote:Originally posted by Jackstraw:
quote:Originally posted by nydownunder:
However, I do agree with your reasoning regarding the competitiveness of each league. Last year I was in (what I believe to be before the draft and after the season) one of the most competitive leagues: many former league winners. To boot, a couple of 'newbies' were real strong players. This year, I was glad to see going into the draft, that I was not up against similar combatants. Much better results thus far.
My proposal, although not perfect, should take advantage of 'Lifetime Rankings'. Perhaps break them into quartiles next year, and then start pulling names starting with the top quartile. Once all 4 quartiles are complete, then pull the'newbies' out of a hat as well.
Like I said, it's not perfect, but it can create more balance across the leagues. This only addresses the balance of the leagues and not necessarily all of the things that GG is trying to fix. But I do agree, and this is what I hope Greg is envisioning for the future of the NFBC. Leagues being put together should factor in lifetime rank, yrs in the NFBC, etc. That is how balance can be created. There needs to be some system of handicapping and ranking players so that leagues can be built fairly. I think it is much better for the overall Main Event that all of the superstars get paired against one another and all of the morons get paired together. One superstar in a room full of morons will get all of the girls. [/QUOTE]I'm not sure if you were joking or not with the last few sentences, but my idea isn't to put all the top managers in 1 or 2 leagues. The purpose of the ranking is to try and ensure each league has the same number of managers from every level. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best...not managers at your level. [/QUOTE]It was just another idea for creating some balance. Like I said in another post, I'm not attached to any particular idea yet. I think what you are proposing has a lot of merit though.
quote:Originally posted by Jackstraw:
quote:Originally posted by nydownunder:
However, I do agree with your reasoning regarding the competitiveness of each league. Last year I was in (what I believe to be before the draft and after the season) one of the most competitive leagues: many former league winners. To boot, a couple of 'newbies' were real strong players. This year, I was glad to see going into the draft, that I was not up against similar combatants. Much better results thus far.
My proposal, although not perfect, should take advantage of 'Lifetime Rankings'. Perhaps break them into quartiles next year, and then start pulling names starting with the top quartile. Once all 4 quartiles are complete, then pull the'newbies' out of a hat as well.
Like I said, it's not perfect, but it can create more balance across the leagues. This only addresses the balance of the leagues and not necessarily all of the things that GG is trying to fix. But I do agree, and this is what I hope Greg is envisioning for the future of the NFBC. Leagues being put together should factor in lifetime rank, yrs in the NFBC, etc. That is how balance can be created. There needs to be some system of handicapping and ranking players so that leagues can be built fairly. I think it is much better for the overall Main Event that all of the superstars get paired against one another and all of the morons get paired together. One superstar in a room full of morons will get all of the girls. [/QUOTE]I'm not sure if you were joking or not with the last few sentences, but my idea isn't to put all the top managers in 1 or 2 leagues. The purpose of the ranking is to try and ensure each league has the same number of managers from every level. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best...not managers at your level. [/QUOTE]It was just another idea for creating some balance. Like I said in another post, I'm not attached to any particular idea yet. I think what you are proposing has a lot of merit though.
George
Smoky Mtn. Oysters
Chicago 4
Wildwood Weeds
Chicago 650 Mixed League Auction
Smoky Mtn. Oysters
Chicago 4
Wildwood Weeds
Chicago 650 Mixed League Auction