Would You Be In Favor Of Ranking Your Draft Spots?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:58 am

I am taking a poll of NFBC members to see if they would be in favor of implementing a Kentucky Derby Style draft selection process for the main event in 2006. Here is basis of the rule change:

Owners would be allowed to rank their draft spot preference after they've signed up and tweak that order continuously until we selected the leagues in March. Once Tom and I picked the leagues and random order, we'd then assign the draft spots according to each owners' preference. So if we picked Joe Smith with the No. 1 pick and Joe's top preference would be the third pick, we'd slot him third. If John Doe was No. 2 and his top preference was fifth, we'd slot him fifth. We'd do this for all 15 owners in each league and announce the order for each league after the changes were made. The No. 15 pick wouldn't get any say in choosing his favorite spot, obviously, but he also might not be slotted 15th if someone else wanted to control the ends.

In order to pull this off, we'd have a system in place online where you could rank your 15 preferences and change those rankings right up until our deadline. Tom and I would then take it from there. A system would have to be created like this:

1st Choice: No. 3

2nd Choice: No. 5

3rd Choice: No. 6

4th Choice: No. 1

5th Choice: No. 4

6th Choice: No. 7

7th Choice: No. 2

8th Choice: No. 8

9th Choice: No. 10

10th Choice: No. 15

11th Choice: No. 9

12th Choice: No. 11

13th Choice: No. 12

14th Choice: No. 13

15th Choice: No. 14

This is the only option I'm thinking about using in 2006 for the main event. If there is a consensus against this, we'll leave the random slot selection order in place. Each team will get one vote in this process.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:37 am

If the poll says you don't have access to vote, you'll need to sign up on the Message Boards. Just look in the upper left-hand corner where it says Log In, click there and fill out the form. Give yourself a Message Board name and you'll be allowed to vote on this. Thanks.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:32 am

i hope no one creates 100+ "dummy" MB accounts/names and "alters" the vote. if you do, please vote "NO" to the derby method. thanks.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:38 am

i hope no one creates 100+ "dummy" MB accounts/names and "alters" the vote. if you do, please vote "YES" to the derby method. thanks.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:39 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

i hope no one creates 100+ "dummy" MB accounts/names and "alters" the vote. if you do, please vote "NO" to the derby method. thanks. I have the power to watch the new signups, so don't get any ideas GG. Let the democratic process work fairly!

And no stumping on this thread. That's for the other one!

Cherokee Nation · Post by **Cherokee Nation** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:26 pm

That's right ! Do not stump on this site...whether on your way to casting a YES vote, or departing, having just cast your YES vote.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:55 pm

ok greg - NO more stumping for me. sorry but i didn't KNOW before. NO means NO...i got it

that's how it's done

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:42 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

And no stumping on this thread. That's for the other one! ...especially if you're campaigning for Ross Perot.

Nice work on the no stumping/anonymous voting thread.

[ October 12, 2005, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:07 am

Greg,

I voted yes, but only because any control is better than no control... I of course, would have voted for Bidding if you would have made that an option - in fact, why not try a poll???

Chris

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:52 am

greg - i voted NO to the kentucky derby method. i would have voted YES to bidding like the poster before me.

Cellar Dwellers · Post by **Cellar Dwellers** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:33 am

I would also vote for blind bidding. The less "Luck of the draw", the better. Why don't we take a poll on how many would like blind bidding, you might be surprised how many would want it.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:19 am

fyi - i'll be posting the Blind Bidding on Draft Slots procedures tomorrow morning. enjoy!

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:36 am

This is the only option I'm thinking about using in 2006 for the main event. If there is a consensus against this, we'll leave the random slot selection order in place. Each team will get one vote in this process. [/qb][/quote]

So do we have a new draft pick process?

[ October 20, 2005, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:52 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

This is the only option I'm thinking about using in 2006 for the main event. If there is a consensus against this, we'll leave the random slot selection order in place. Each team will get one vote in this process. So do we have a new draft pick process? [/QB][/quote]

I have set up the poll to run through next week. Obviously the results thus far are pretty convincing, but let's give it some time yet. I'll likely announce 2006 plans the first week of November.

Just as an FYI: STATS has told me that they can set up a draft selection process like I proposed above and each owner would have time to set up their preference list and change the order whenever they wanted to up until our set deadline. So that's good news. They could also set up a blind bidding draft slot preference, too, if the NFBC or NFFC ever went that way. So technologically, there are no hangups to improving our draft selection process in the future.

[ October 20, 2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Greg Ambrosius ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:34 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

I have set up the poll to run through next week. Obviously the results thus far are pretty convincing, but let's give it some time yet. too bad the poll didn't include blind bidding on draft slots (BBDS). as you can tell from the thread i started, the response has been tremendously in favor of BBDS.

[ October 20, 2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:12 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

as you can tell from the thread i started, the response has been tremendously in favor of BBDS. I count 6 affirmative responses to your idea including your own (though I only counted you once; if I counted every affirmative response you gave yourself, you'd have 100, at least). Don't know that 'tremendous' is the best word to describe 6 affirmative responses.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:35 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

I count 6 affirmative responses to your idea including your own (though I only counted you once; if I counted every affirmative response you gave yourself, you'd have 100, at least). Don't know that 'tremendous' is the best word to describe 6 affirmative responses. please tally the "affirmative responses" for the kentucky dufus method. not the votes, but the affirmative posts made by folks. also count the negative posts for the dufus method.

please repost with your numbers. thanks.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:48 am

Kentucky derby: 50

Old way: 19

Gekko mehod: 6

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:49 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

ok greg - NO more stumping for me. sorry but i didn't KNOW before. NO means NO...i got it

that's how it's done

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:21 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

Kentucky derby: 50

Old way: 19

Gekko mehod: 6 that's what i thought...you got no guts. answer the question i asked. we all know you're afraid. thanks.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:43 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

Kentucky derby: 50

Old way: 19

Gekko mehod: 6

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:10 am

Kentucky derby: 50

Old way: 19

Gekko mehod: 6

bjoak : no guts and no money in 2005

that's how it's done! thanks.

[ October 21, 2005, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:58 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

Kentucky derby: 50

Old way: 19

Gekko mehod: 6

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 2:04 pm

Kentucky derby: 50

Old way: 19

Gekko mehod: 6

bjoak : there's always next year

double thanks.

[ October 21, 2005, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:19 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

Kentucky derby: 50

Old way: 19

Gekko mehod: 6 [/QUOTE]The problem Bjoak is your methodology is totally flawed!

I for exampled Voted for Kentucky (over old way) but would chosen Bidding if it had been given as an option!!!!

Spyhunter