NFBC Message Boards

I've drafted in two 50 rounders or Championship Drafts. Both have been the experience I bargained for.
Most drafters have been good about being timely. For some folks, these drafts cannot go fast enough. Some, will try to pressure those who are not going fast enough to their liking. This is when the slower drafter will say, 'I have a life' or 'This IS a slow draft.'
It's a typical thing and will happen in most drafts. In the end, if both sides are sharper than a balloon, the faster drafter will lay off the comments and the slower drafter will be more timely and peace is restored, and a good draft is had by all.

A slower drafter slows down the best part of these drafts, the chat. When there is no action, the chat becomes spotty as some will check in to see how close they are to being up, but not stop to chat.
The chat links these 15 drafters together. If having thick skins and good jabs, the chat can be better than the draft itself.
A wonderful thing.

There are two things that are bothering me about these drafts however.
The first is that I feel I am leaving money on the table. By that, I mean that we can go a lot more than just 50 rounds. There are enough valid players to support the extra rounds easily. And with injuries multiplying each year, this should be the last year of 50 round drafts.
60 Rounds should be drafted next year.
I know that the game operators will worry about the time it takes for such drafting. And maybe some of the participants too.
I have a thought for that as well.
We draft 50 rounds and have the clock stop and reset at 24 hours. Each drafter will then have 24 hours to set up their que's for the rest of the players. When the 24 hours expires, each team is put on 'auto' and the 10 rounds are finished in seconds.

This is all good, but can't be done.
Because of the second problem.
Placeholders.
It's obvious that no research was done before these draft rooms were open. NFBC players were very anxious to get things started as were the NFBC itself.
And when things are hurried, some things don't get done.
Obvious players like Tanaka who is being drafted in the 10-15 round range or Archie Bradley who is drafted in the 20-25 round range. Or even the consensus number one prospect, Byron Buxton is not listed.
All Placeholders.
I know that there is gobbledygook associated with putting these players into the system. They each need to be assigned a number and then placed. And I also don't know if they could start with Tanaka, Bradley, and Buxton, or if the whole she-bang has to be done at once. But, it's a problem.
And I know that it is keeping some frequent drafters from drafting in a lot more drafts.
In short, it is no fun drafting 'placeholder, Chc, p' and then having to ask who was drafted and then sending league e-mails to keep up with them. It is something drafters should not have to do.

Let me put in a vote for 40 rds . 50 rds just too damn much and most of the guys picked after 40 end up being useless as tits on boar hog. All the 50 rds do is extend these drafts way too damn long. Did 3 of these last and 2 went over 32 days because of these slow drafters. lets make these things more enjoyable by lowereing the # of rds. Dan i know you have good intentions but all proposed changes you come up with seem to be more time consuming and frankly i spend way too much time on this and would rather like to find changes that would lesson the time burden.

Point taken, Ken.
At the same time, 40 rounds would make it a battle of attrition rather than who does the best in the draft room.
Luck would ride roughshod over skill.

How about taking if you are taking it to 40 rounds one FAAB budget the day of the all-star game?

anpyanks wrote:How about taking if you are taking it to 40 rounds one FAAB budget the day of the all-star game?

That's been suggested, but few want to take the time to do a FAAB

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

anpyanks wrote:How about taking if you are taking it to 40 rounds one FAAB budget the day of the all-star game?

That's been suggested, but few want to take the time to do a FAAB

ONE FAAB? Really? I wouldn't think that's a lot of time

I couldn't agree more as I am one of the people who proposed it. Especially with 4 days of no baseball at the break!

I think the biggest problem with the Faab is that it takes away from the guys that had a good draft cause it would become a free for all and the top teams are penalized in the Faab and its time consuming on the only time we get a 3 or 4 day break break from this that i need to recharge a little.

anpyanks wrote:

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

anpyanks wrote:How about taking if you are taking it to 40 rounds one FAAB budget the day of the all-star game?

That's been suggested, but few want to take the time to do a FAAB

ONE FAAB? Really? I wouldn't think that's a lot of time

Ha! Neither would I, but I'm the wrong person to ask....

I too think 50 rounds is enough. It's been inching up for several years, and we've now reached 750 total players which is equal to every MLB 25-man roster. That seems like a good place to stop.

FAAB? As the name implies, draft champion should be ... draft champion. I'd be against faab.

I don't even like it the cutline, but it seems inevitable so everyone can save 20 minutes of draft time and then have to spend 5 hours for 3 FAAB periods.

Bama wrote:Let me put in a vote for 40 rds . 50 rds just too damn much and most of the guys picked after 40 end up being useless as tits on boar hog. All the 50 rds do is extend these drafts way too damn long. Did 3 of these last and 2 went over 32 days because of these slow drafters. lets make these things more enjoyable by lowereing the # of rds. Dan i know you have good intentions but all proposed changes you come up with seem to be more time consuming and frankly i spend way too much time on this and would rather like to find changes that would lesson the time burden.

The number of rounds isn't the problem. In my current DC we're only on round 29 (after 13 days) and it's a bad experience. Stopping at 40 rounds wouldn't make the experience any better, just less drawn out.

My suggestion is the option of a league with 8 hour picks, another with 4 hour picks, another with 1 hour picks, etc. If the leagues don't fill up, then scrap them but you may find they are more popular than expected.

For now we have the ability to seek out 15 "like minded" drafters and request a private league.
I'm attempting that with my Dec 26 Boxing Day DC which is listed in the forum message board.

Deadheadz wrote:

Bama wrote:Let me put in a vote for 40 rds . 50 rds just too damn much and most of the guys picked after 40 end up being useless as tits on boar hog. All the 50 rds do is extend these drafts way too damn long. Did 3 of these last and 2 went over 32 days because of these slow drafters. lets make these things more enjoyable by lowereing the # of rds. Dan i know you have good intentions but all proposed changes you come up with seem to be more time consuming and frankly i spend way too much time on this and would rather like to find changes that would lesson the time burden.

The number of rounds isn't the problem. In my current DC we're only on round 29 (after 13 days) and it's a bad experience. Stopping at 40 rounds wouldn't make the experience any better, just less drawn out.

My suggestion is the option of a league with 8 hour picks, another with 4 hour picks, another with 1 hour picks, etc. If the leagues don't fill up, then scrap them but you may find they are more popular than expected.

For now we have the ability to seek out 15 "like minded" drafters and request a private league.
I'm attempting that with my Dec 26 Boxing Day DC which is listed in the forum message board.

Chris - The NFBC had DC leagues last year with four-hour clocks. I did two of them. I thought they would be great but was a little concerned about how the clock would work overnight. (I gather using a four-hour clock during the day and an eight-hour clock overnight is not feasible.) Suprisingly, I did not mind the four-hour clocks even overnight. I suppose every now and then it could get difficult depending on where you are drafting from, but as long as you are willing to use Auto One and folks communicate, it can work surprisingly well. I may do another four-hour draft. Fortunately, I've been lucky in my DC drafts this year. I was in a few very slow DC drafts last year, and it prompted me to try the four-hour format. I know from prior messages that Greg and Tom also can do a six-hour clock, five-hour clock, etc., as long as the time remains constant throughout. Your December 26th DC is - in Doughboys (Dan Kenyon) parlence - a "fast slow draft." Hopefully, it will fill. If not, you may want to see if folks are willing to sign-up for a four-hour or six-hour clock DC.

Mike

50 rounds is my preference...no FAAB. More rounds would be too painful. Agree with KJ...DRAFT championship. Last year, Kole Calhoun in round 49 was money.

45 rounds in past ended up being decided by who drafted players who stayed healthy. Those teams that took risks on long shot prospects lost out when their starters were hurt.

I plan for 2 rounds/day and do what I can using autopick to keep things moving. If it goes faster than 25 days, cool! If it's just marginally slower than 25 days, meh. If it has one/some of the notorious human time sinks in it. I curl up in the fetal position and wonder why I signed up with people I know will slow things to a crawl....annoying but not traumatic.

Don't change a thing the rules are fine...40 rounds is stupid... I needed those last 10 rounds down the stretch last year.....Auto drafting ten rounds is bad too...Just keep things awesome..The way it is!!

This talk of changing rules gets under my skin....There is other formats to play...leave DC alone..lol

How about a 60 round DC with 3 minute clock? I would do it.

i'm up for a fast draft (all 50 rounds in one night) as soon as STATS gets the minor leaguers added to their database and gets rid of the PIA placeholders.

Parnelli wrote:This talk of changing rules gets under my skin....There is other formats to play...leave DC alone..lol

No worries.
Nothing will be changed this year.