Possible NFBC Rules Changes For 2011

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

If I remember correctly, Greg had this coded and ready to go at one time.... Wow, that is NOT true. I think I've said it very succinctly, we are NOT going to have conditional bids at higher values than primary bids. I think Todd has pointed out the obvious problems that could occur and this would cause much more confusion for winning bids than ever before. I understand why folks want this, but it's simple: Primary bids are the highest ones and conditional bids follow at lower bids. That's the way it's going to stay.

[ToddZ]

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

If I remember correctly, Greg had this coded and ready to go at one time.... To make it work, it would HAVE to be that primary takes precedence over first conditional, first conditional takes precedence over second conditional, etc. That could work but I would have to think it through and since it has been made cleat we aren't changing, I figure it would be better to make my ATD pick



[ November 07, 2011, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

[DOUGHBOYS]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

If I remember correctly, Greg had this coded and ready to go at one time.... Wow, that is NOT true. I think I've said it very succinctly, we are NOT going to have conditional bids at higher values than primary bids. I think Todd has pointed out the obvious problems that could occur and this would cause much more confusion for winning bids than ever before. I understand why folks want this, but it's simple: Primary bids are the highest ones and conditional bids follow at lower bids. That's the way it's going to stay. [/QUOTE]Sorry, I thought for sure you had this ready to go at one time....

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by Red Sox Nation-:

quote:Originally posted by Cocktails and Dreams:

Free agent rules need work. Absolutely should be able to bid more on a conditional guy than a primary guy.



If you want one player more but know he will cost less than your 2nd wish and want to have a shot at both, why in the world should you have to way overpay for your first guy to put in a competetive bid on the 2nd guy? I'd also love to see this change. Greg can the software handle this? If not does STATS have enough time to work on this? Thanks



Jason [/QUOTE]This is something we looked at during our first year at Fanball and we quickly decided against trying to program this. No, we're not going down this path for 2012. There are many ways this is more problematic than helpful.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Red Sox Nation-:

quote:Originally posted by Cocktails and Dreams:

Free agent rules need work. Absolutely should be able to bid more on a conditional guy than a primary guy.



If you want one player more but know he will cost less than your 2nd wish and want to have a shot at both, why in the world should you have to way overpay for your first guy to put in a competetive bid on the 2nd guy? I'd also love to see this change. Greg can the software handle this? If not does STATS have enough time to work on this? Thanks



Jason [/QUOTE]This is something we looked at during our first year at Fanball and we quickly decided against trying to program this. No, we're not going down this path for 2012. There are many ways this is more problematic than helpful. [/QUOTE]Alright that's where I got the notion. Sorry for the mislead.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Originally posted by ToddZ:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

If I remember correctly, Greg had this coded and ready to go at one time.... To make it work, it would HAVE to be that primary takes precedence over first conditional, first conditional takes precedence over second conditional, etc. That could work but I would have to think it through and since it has been made cleat we aren't changing, I figure it would be better to make my ATD pick [/QUOTE]You may have just tanked a job, Todd.

This would have required someone well versed in Numerish

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Question for those that are in favor of conditionals larger than primary bids -- how would you assign free agents in this scenario?



OWNER A

Primary Bid -- Red $4

Conditional -- Blue $6



OWNER B

Primary Bid -- Blue $4

Conditional -- Red $8



OWNER C

Primary Bid -- Red $6

Conditional -- Blue $8



Scenario A -- Primary bids take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Blue and OWNER C gets Red?



Scenario B -- Primary bids do not take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Red and OWNER C gets Blue? The way it should work is that whoever has the highest primary bid amount on a player gets that player. That players is then removed from all lists. Then you go to the next highest player that is at the new top of each guys list of bids. He is awarded. And so on and so on until all players are awarded.



I have also seen a nice feature that allows for clicking a checkbox which give you the option to make a conditional bid your primary if needed to get the player. Would work like this.



You want player A over player B. But you might want them both so are willing to go ahead and make b your primary if it is necessary to get him.



You bid 11 on A

You bid 27 on B underneath.



You check the box to make B primary if needed.



Someone else bids 22 as their primary bid on B. Since you checked the box it moves him up your list. You get B for 27 in this bid group.



If nobody bids more than 11 on B, then you will get A for 11.



If you don't check the box you will be out of the running for B even though you had higher bid.





It is probably a programming nightmare, I don't know, but that method works very well.



But the opinions don't matter anyway, for whatever reason they want to leave it with this method that forces us to be hamstrung a bit. Sorry for making the suggestion.

[DOUGHBOYS]

It is a good idea and allows more freedom to get the players we really want.

There is nothing wrong with that....

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by Cocktails and Dreams:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

Question for those that are in favor of conditionals larger than primary bids -- how would you assign free agents in this scenario?



OWNER A

Primary Bid -- Red $4

Conditional -- Blue $6



OWNER B

Primary Bid -- Blue $4

Conditional -- Red $8



OWNER C

Primary Bid -- Red $6

Conditional -- Blue $8



Scenario A -- Primary bids take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Blue and OWNER C gets Red?



Scenario B -- Primary bids do not take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Red and OWNER C gets Blue? It is probably a programming nightmare, I don't know, but that method works very well.

[/QUOTE]I think you hit it on the head Chad. Plus people don't understand it. You're saying that the top primary bid gets the player, but trust me I'll get a million calls from guys who had higher conditional bids and didn't get that player. "HOW DID I NOT GET THAT PLAYER IF MY BID WAS HIGHER? I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS IF IT WAS MY CONDITIONAL BID. I DIDN'T GET THAT ONE EITHER!!"



It's a nightmare all around. With so many people being afraid of FAAB already it's not time to complicate it. I just talked with several potential new NFBC players at the Arizona Fall League Symposium and trying to learn FAAB as a first-year player compared to you 8-year vets is their biggest concern. So adding this new layer on won't get more folks into the NFBC, I'm sure of that.



Good idea. Execution could be a nightmare.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

It is a good idea and allows more freedom to get the players we really want.

There is nothing wrong with that.... See my reasons above.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

It is a good idea and allows more freedom to get the players we really want.

There is nothing wrong with that.... See my reasons above. [/QUOTE]Got it.