I know we have other threads looking for input on the NFBC in 2005, but I'll start another one with some slight changes to the rules and setup. Please feel free to add your input as we finalize everything for 2005. Thanks.
Here we go:
1) First thing we'll definitely change is allowing you to draft any player on Draft Day. It was a nightmare to enforce the 40-man roster rule this year and so we will allow you to draft anyone you want. If it's a Class A guy who isn't yet on a major league roster and you want to store him on your reserve roster for future use, we'll allow it. Same thing about keeping guys on your NFBC roster. We will not enforce the fact that they must be part of an MLB team's 25-man Opening Day roster. Just too many headaches to enforce.
2) STATS has already created a much easier FAAB bidding system for our football event and thus the same system will be used for the NFBC in 2005. It is quicker, easier to change your bids after you've initially set them, and more convenient to use all around. This is a done deal for sure.
3) In-season position eligibility. Position eligibility to start 2005 will again be 20 games at each position. But there have been requests to lower the minimum number of games played during the season to 5 or 10. I am proposing 10 as I still think 5 is too few. So the new rule would be 20 games played at each position before the season and then 10 games at a new position during the season. Any thoughts?
4) Daily transactions. I do not envision the NFFC using daily transactions in 2005 or even changing lineups during the week. I'm not sure we're ready for that. But I have asked STATS about the possibility of implementing a mid-week period to adjust your starting lineup for the Auction Leagues, giving owners the chance to change their starters before each Friday's games from their reserve roster. Right now that is not possible, but STATS will get back to me on the possibility of adding that to our system. Would that be a good addition or a bad addition for the Auction Leagues? Just looking for feedback there.
5) Auction League prices. We filled three Auction Leagues in 2004 and I'd like to get more people involved in 2005. Would you consider participating if we lowered the entry fee for Auction Leagues from $1,250 to $750? Or even to $650? I'm looking for feedback on the right price point to offer for 2005 involving the Auction Leagues.
6) Starting Times of Auction Leagues. I am also proposing doing the Auction Leagues at different times on Friday, March 18, possibly doing the NL in each city on Friday morning and the AL in each city on Friday night. Possibly 11 a.m. starting time and 5 p.m. starting time. Any thoughts if that would allow people to do both or would it hurt attendance with an early starting time? Thoughts, comments.
7) Fewer reserve players. There has been strong feedback in the Auction Leagues to lower the number of reserves per team from six to four and maybe even three. Obviously, the free agent pool is thin in AL-only or NL-only leagues and thus the proposal makes sense. I'm interested in feedback there. As for the NFFC, is a six-man reserve just right, too few, or too many? Thoughts, comments please.
8) Prize structure. We are again shooting for 300 teams, with a $100,000 grand prize and $7,500 for league prizes ($5,000 for first place, $1,750 for second and $750 for third). Is that a worthy payout structure or should we offer a lesser grand prize and pay back more in league prizes. The current setup is exactly 75% in prize payouts if we reach 300 teams.
9) Starting lineups time. Right now we have the FAAB deadline at 6 p.m. on Sundays and you have to set your starting lineup by 1 p.m. on Monday. I have proposed keeping the FAAB deadline on Sundays again and having STATS allow us to have your starting lineup set five minutes before the first game on Monday. For the most part, that would allow people five or six more hours each week to set their starting lineups. Not a big change, but one that could help people as they are busy on Monday mornings or for those who didn't see which free agents they picked up on Sunday night. Thoughts?
10) Lifetime standings. STATS will include this and everyone will enter 2005 with a ranking of 1 through 195 from 2004. Each day in 2005 the Lifetime standings will change depending on your ranking in 2005 as your placing from next year will be added to the 2004 final placing. It's just another way to reward owners who return for our second year and all years going forward.
That's a handful for now. Let's start the discussions about 2005 now and finalize everything soon. Remember, we will begin taking registrations online next week and we won't process anyone's credit card until Feb. 1. All 195 NFBC members from 2004 will be guaranteed a spot in the 2005 NFBC through Dec. 31. Oh, and winning checks go out in the mail on Monday once we have received the W-9 forms we sent to all owners this week, signed with a social security number. Thanks everyone.
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
This reply came to me via e-mail two minutes after I sent out this note. I had to post it because it showed a different view than what I expected.
"I think the six-man reserve is too small for a 23-man active roster when you have no protection for DL guys. I had to release Brian Lawrence from reserves early in the season because of some quick
hitting injuries. I generally favor a small bench, but with no extra spots for DL'd guys (which is a decision I agree with because it would be a nightmare, otherwise), I think 8 or 10 would be better."
"I think the six-man reserve is too small for a 23-man active roster when you have no protection for DL guys. I had to release Brian Lawrence from reserves early in the season because of some quick
hitting injuries. I generally favor a small bench, but with no extra spots for DL'd guys (which is a decision I agree with because it would be a nightmare, otherwise), I think 8 or 10 would be better."
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
-
The Lollygaggers
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Hi Greg,
First of all, thanks for running such an outstanding contest. I've marked my calendar for next March and am looking forward to playing again next year.
Here is my feedback to your questions, in order of what I think is most important:
#4 - Daily transactions. I think this is one area that should stay exactly as it is, especially for the non-Auction leagues. Daily transactions add nothing to the overall enjoyment of the game; it rewards managers with the most time, not necessarily the most skill; and it would create more dead teams due to the greater time commitment required.
#3 - I like the 10-game in-season eligibility proposal. It's a good compromise: a player is obviously capable of fielding a position once he appears 10 times in-season, and it can often take an extra month or two for a player to show up in games 11-20 at a secondary position. I like your proposed change.
#7 - The six-man reserve pool for NFBC feels right. I certainly wouldn't want it to be fewer than six for injury reasons, and more than six just makes the FA pool that much thinner.
#9 - Personally, I think it's better to keep a consistent deadline every week instead of adjusting it each week based on start time. There just seems to be all kinds of complications that could arise by varying the deadline each week -- possible system glitches from having to manually change the deadline, owners complaining because they didn't realize there was a day game, etc.
That's my two cents. Again, congratulations on a successful first season.
Maroon & White
First of all, thanks for running such an outstanding contest. I've marked my calendar for next March and am looking forward to playing again next year.
Here is my feedback to your questions, in order of what I think is most important:
#4 - Daily transactions. I think this is one area that should stay exactly as it is, especially for the non-Auction leagues. Daily transactions add nothing to the overall enjoyment of the game; it rewards managers with the most time, not necessarily the most skill; and it would create more dead teams due to the greater time commitment required.
#3 - I like the 10-game in-season eligibility proposal. It's a good compromise: a player is obviously capable of fielding a position once he appears 10 times in-season, and it can often take an extra month or two for a player to show up in games 11-20 at a secondary position. I like your proposed change.
#7 - The six-man reserve pool for NFBC feels right. I certainly wouldn't want it to be fewer than six for injury reasons, and more than six just makes the FA pool that much thinner.
#9 - Personally, I think it's better to keep a consistent deadline every week instead of adjusting it each week based on start time. There just seems to be all kinds of complications that could arise by varying the deadline each week -- possible system glitches from having to manually change the deadline, owners complaining because they didn't realize there was a day game, etc.
That's my two cents. Again, congratulations on a successful first season.
Maroon & White
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
1) First thing we'll definitely change is allowing you to draft any player on Draft Day. It was a nightmare to enforce the 40-man roster rule this year and so we will allow you to draft anyone you want. If it's a Class A guy who isn't yet on a major league roster and you want to store him on your reserve roster for future use, we'll allow it. Same thing about keeping guys on your NFBC roster. We will not enforce the fact that they must be part of an MLB team's 25-man Opening Day roster. Just too many headaches to enforce. GOOD IDEA
2) STATS has already created a much easier FAAB bidding system for our football event and thus the same system will be used for the NFBC in 2005. It is quicker, easier to change your bids after you've initially set them, and more convenient to use all around. This is a done deal for sure. Thank you, it is better
3) In-season position eligibility. Position eligibility to start 2005 will again be 20 games at each position. But there have been requests to lower the minimum number of games played during the season to 5 or 10. I am proposing 10 as I still think 5 is too few. So the new rule would be 20 games played at each position before the season and then 10 games at a new position during the season. Any thoughts? I'd prefer 5 games, if a real mgr can use him there why can't we?
4) Daily transactions. I do not envision the NFFC using daily transactions in 2005 or even changing lineups during the week. I'm not sure we're ready for that. But I have asked STATS about the possibility of implementing a mid-week period to adjust your starting lineup for the Auction Leagues, giving owners the chance to change their starters before each Friday's games from their reserve roster. Right now that is not possible, but STATS will get back to me on the possibility of adding that to our system. Would that be a good addition or a bad addition for the Auction Leagues? Just looking for feedback there. Daily would shift too much emphasis to the obsessed/connected as opposed to good drafters - twice a week would be OK but not neccessary ... For auction lge, I prefer same rules - not sure why a different draft method suggests different rules during the season; an unnecessary inconsistency.
5) Auction League prices. We filled three Auction Leagues in 2004 and I'd like to get more people involved in 2005. Would you consider participating if we lowered the entry fee for Auction Leagues from $1,250 to $750? Or even to $650? I'm looking for feedback on the right price point to offer for 2005 involving the Auction Leagues. I suggest $1,000, but I would be ok if you decide to lower it further so long as 1st place win is no less than $5,000 ... it is a long hard season and its gotta be worth it
6) Starting Times of Auction Leagues. I am also proposing doing the Auction Leagues at different times on Friday, March 18, possibly doing the NL in each city on Friday morning and the AL in each city on Friday night. Possibly 11 a.m. starting time and 5 p.m. starting time. Any thoughts if that would allow people to do both or would it hurt attendance with an early starting time? Thoughts, comments. Would prefer drafting in the evening, but I could live with a late am draft for the NL (as for the AL auction, who cares ... its not real baseball )
7) Fewer reserve players. There has been strong feedback in the Auction Leagues to lower the number of reserves per team from six to four and maybe even three. Obviously, the free agent pool is thin in AL-only or NL-only leagues and thus the proposal makes sense. I'm interested in feedback there. As for the NFFC, is a six-man reserve just right, too few, or too many? Thoughts, comments please. Just right.
8) Prize structure. We are again shooting for 300 teams, with a $100,000 grand prize and $7,500 for league prizes ($5,000 for first place, $1,750 for second and $750 for third). Is that a worthy payout structure or should we offer a lesser grand prize and pay back more in league prizes. The current setup is exactly 75% in prize payouts if we reach 300 teams. Of the $17,500 in revenue per lge, I would flip-flop the payout, $10,000 lge prizes, $7500 toward the big pot. Also, how about a small overall auction pot as well?
9) Starting lineups time. Right now we have the FAAB deadline at 6 p.m. on Sundays and you have to set your starting lineup by 1 p.m. on Monday. I have proposed keeping the FAAB deadline on Sundays again and having STATS allow us to have your starting lineup set five minutes before the first game on Monday. For the most part, that would allow people five or six more hours each week to set their starting lineups. Not a big change, but one that could help people as they are busy on Monday mornings or for those who didn't see which free agents they picked up on Sunday night. Thoughts? Good ideas, keep FAAB the same, switch lineup deadline to game time.
10) Lifetime standings. STATS will include this and everyone will enter 2005 with a ranking of 1 through 195 from 2004. Each day in 2005 the Lifetime standings will change depending on your ranking in 2005 as your placing from next year will be added to the 2004 final placing. It's just another way to reward owners who return for our second year and all years going forward. How about an auction lifetime rank too.
[ September 28, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
2) STATS has already created a much easier FAAB bidding system for our football event and thus the same system will be used for the NFBC in 2005. It is quicker, easier to change your bids after you've initially set them, and more convenient to use all around. This is a done deal for sure. Thank you, it is better
3) In-season position eligibility. Position eligibility to start 2005 will again be 20 games at each position. But there have been requests to lower the minimum number of games played during the season to 5 or 10. I am proposing 10 as I still think 5 is too few. So the new rule would be 20 games played at each position before the season and then 10 games at a new position during the season. Any thoughts? I'd prefer 5 games, if a real mgr can use him there why can't we?
4) Daily transactions. I do not envision the NFFC using daily transactions in 2005 or even changing lineups during the week. I'm not sure we're ready for that. But I have asked STATS about the possibility of implementing a mid-week period to adjust your starting lineup for the Auction Leagues, giving owners the chance to change their starters before each Friday's games from their reserve roster. Right now that is not possible, but STATS will get back to me on the possibility of adding that to our system. Would that be a good addition or a bad addition for the Auction Leagues? Just looking for feedback there. Daily would shift too much emphasis to the obsessed/connected as opposed to good drafters - twice a week would be OK but not neccessary ... For auction lge, I prefer same rules - not sure why a different draft method suggests different rules during the season; an unnecessary inconsistency.
5) Auction League prices. We filled three Auction Leagues in 2004 and I'd like to get more people involved in 2005. Would you consider participating if we lowered the entry fee for Auction Leagues from $1,250 to $750? Or even to $650? I'm looking for feedback on the right price point to offer for 2005 involving the Auction Leagues. I suggest $1,000, but I would be ok if you decide to lower it further so long as 1st place win is no less than $5,000 ... it is a long hard season and its gotta be worth it
6) Starting Times of Auction Leagues. I am also proposing doing the Auction Leagues at different times on Friday, March 18, possibly doing the NL in each city on Friday morning and the AL in each city on Friday night. Possibly 11 a.m. starting time and 5 p.m. starting time. Any thoughts if that would allow people to do both or would it hurt attendance with an early starting time? Thoughts, comments. Would prefer drafting in the evening, but I could live with a late am draft for the NL (as for the AL auction, who cares ... its not real baseball )
7) Fewer reserve players. There has been strong feedback in the Auction Leagues to lower the number of reserves per team from six to four and maybe even three. Obviously, the free agent pool is thin in AL-only or NL-only leagues and thus the proposal makes sense. I'm interested in feedback there. As for the NFFC, is a six-man reserve just right, too few, or too many? Thoughts, comments please. Just right.
8) Prize structure. We are again shooting for 300 teams, with a $100,000 grand prize and $7,500 for league prizes ($5,000 for first place, $1,750 for second and $750 for third). Is that a worthy payout structure or should we offer a lesser grand prize and pay back more in league prizes. The current setup is exactly 75% in prize payouts if we reach 300 teams. Of the $17,500 in revenue per lge, I would flip-flop the payout, $10,000 lge prizes, $7500 toward the big pot. Also, how about a small overall auction pot as well?
9) Starting lineups time. Right now we have the FAAB deadline at 6 p.m. on Sundays and you have to set your starting lineup by 1 p.m. on Monday. I have proposed keeping the FAAB deadline on Sundays again and having STATS allow us to have your starting lineup set five minutes before the first game on Monday. For the most part, that would allow people five or six more hours each week to set their starting lineups. Not a big change, but one that could help people as they are busy on Monday mornings or for those who didn't see which free agents they picked up on Sunday night. Thoughts? Good ideas, keep FAAB the same, switch lineup deadline to game time.
10) Lifetime standings. STATS will include this and everyone will enter 2005 with a ranking of 1 through 195 from 2004. Each day in 2005 the Lifetime standings will change depending on your ranking in 2005 as your placing from next year will be added to the 2004 final placing. It's just another way to reward owners who return for our second year and all years going forward. How about an auction lifetime rank too.
[ September 28, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
-
Brian Walton
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Thanks for asking.
3) 10 games is fine or keep at 20. Not 5.
8) Don't dilute the prizes.
9) Good idea to delay until gametime if and only if you are sure it can be implemented smoothly. Otherwise, you've lost your time buffer to fix errors.
10) Lifetime standings. What is the "reward", other than being on a list? How about some cash or no-charge registrations for the top multi-year players? Otherwise, it is a yawner.
3) 10 games is fine or keep at 20. Not 5.
8) Don't dilute the prizes.
9) Good idea to delay until gametime if and only if you are sure it can be implemented smoothly. Otherwise, you've lost your time buffer to fix errors.
10) Lifetime standings. What is the "reward", other than being on a list? How about some cash or no-charge registrations for the top multi-year players? Otherwise, it is a yawner.
Brian Walton
creativesports.com
creativesports.com
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
I definitely like the reduced games requirement for position eligibility in a given season. 10 seems like a good compromise. $750 for auction leagues seems pretty good and might get me involved if I have time. I have one other item I would like looked at before the draft next year. I see no reason why it is necessary to stay on a cell phone the entire draft. I would like to see a rule limiting the use of cell phones during the draft.
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Greg, One reason everybody loves this league is that you are open to feedback and really listen to your players. Here are my thoughts:
1) First thing we'll definitely change is allowing you to draft any player on Draft Day. It was a nightmare to enforce the 40-man roster rule this year and so we will allow you to draft anyone you want. If it's a Class A guy who isn't yet on a major league roster and you want to store him on your reserve roster for future use, we'll allow it. Same thing about keeping guys on your NFBC roster. We will not enforce the fact that they must be part of an MLB team's 25-man Opening Day roster. Just too many headaches to enforce.
HALLELUJAH!!!
2) STATS has already created a much easier FAAB bidding system for our football event and thus the same system will be used for the NFBC in 2005. It is quicker, easier to change your bids after you've initially set them, and more convenient to use all around. This is a done deal for sure.
HALLELUJAH!!!
3) In-season position eligibility. Position eligibility to start 2005 will again be 20 games at each position. But there have been requests to lower the minimum number of games played during the season to 5 or 10. I am proposing 10 as I still think 5 is too few. So the new rule would be 20 games played at each position before the season and then 10 games at a new position during the season. Any thoughts?
I don't like the inconsistency. Why not 10 games before and during the new season? That would make the draft more interesting and give us more protection for injuries during the season as more players would be eligible for position shifts. This would take more luck out of the game - ESPECIALLY if there are no mid-week switches.
4) Daily transactions. I do not envision the NFFC using daily transactions in 2005 or even changing lineups during the week. I'm not sure we're ready for that. But I have asked STATS about the possibility of implementing a mid-week period to adjust your starting lineup for the Auction Leagues, giving owners the chance to change their starters before each Friday's games from their reserve roster. Right now that is not possible, but STATS will get back to me on the possibility of adding that to our system. Would that be a good addition or a bad addition for the Auction Leagues? Just looking for feedback there.
I'm a tad confused. Why would Stats be able to institute mid-week changes for the Auction league, but not the draft league? Regardless, I will repeat a suggestion I made earlier. Assuming Stats can alter the software for mid-week changes: Leave it the way it is, but give each team 3 (or possibly 5) mid-week switches to be used anytime during the season for any reason. This will prevent a team being screwed by the typical Monday night injuries or DL moves. I suggest a very limited number to avoid abuse and so as not to negatively affect owners who can't spend unlimited time on their computers. This should be a perfect compromise for those on all sides of this issue.
7) Fewer reserve players. There has been strong feedback in the Auction Leagues to lower the number of reserves per team from six to four and maybe even three. Obviously, the free agent pool is thin in AL-only or NL-only leagues and thus the proposal makes sense. I'm interested in feedback there. As for the NFFC, is a six-man reserve just right, too few, or too many? Thoughts, comments please.
For the regular draft league, I'd like to see 30 rounds, making seven bench players. Since we can now draft more players, there will be more interest in stashing prospects. The 6 man bench doesn't leave much room for that. Most teams only had one prospect, if that. This would let us have two and would encourage owners to be more prepared with their late selections!
8) Prize structure. We are again shooting for 300 teams, with a $100,000 grand prize and $7,500 for league prizes ($5,000 for first place, $1,750 for second and $750 for third). Is that a worthy payout structure or should we offer a lesser grand prize and pay back more in league prizes. The current setup is exactly 75% in prize payouts if we reach 300 teams.
In theory, I'd like to see bigger league prizes. However, since the $100,000 grand prize is an important, and attention-getting, aspect of your marketing, I'm not sure that it would look good to change. I can certainly live with the current structure.
9) Starting lineups time. Right now we have the FAAB deadline at 6 p.m. on Sundays and you have to set your starting lineup by 1 p.m. on Monday. I have proposed keeping the FAAB deadline on Sundays again and having STATS allow us to have your starting lineup set five minutes before the first game on Monday. For the most part, that would allow people five or six more hours each week to set their starting lineups. Not a big change, but one that could help people as they are busy on Monday mornings or for those who didn't see which free agents they picked up on Sunday night. Thoughts?
In theory, this is absolutely great. In reality, I think this is a very bad idea. With different times each week, there will be problem after problem, bug after bug, misunderstanding after misunderstanding. NIP THIS IDEA IN THE BUD! It is much easier to solve the injury problem by allowing a few extra mid-week moves. (See #4)
Thanks again Greg and Tom for running the best fantasy baseball game on earth! I am definitely on board for 2005.
1) First thing we'll definitely change is allowing you to draft any player on Draft Day. It was a nightmare to enforce the 40-man roster rule this year and so we will allow you to draft anyone you want. If it's a Class A guy who isn't yet on a major league roster and you want to store him on your reserve roster for future use, we'll allow it. Same thing about keeping guys on your NFBC roster. We will not enforce the fact that they must be part of an MLB team's 25-man Opening Day roster. Just too many headaches to enforce.
HALLELUJAH!!!
2) STATS has already created a much easier FAAB bidding system for our football event and thus the same system will be used for the NFBC in 2005. It is quicker, easier to change your bids after you've initially set them, and more convenient to use all around. This is a done deal for sure.
HALLELUJAH!!!
3) In-season position eligibility. Position eligibility to start 2005 will again be 20 games at each position. But there have been requests to lower the minimum number of games played during the season to 5 or 10. I am proposing 10 as I still think 5 is too few. So the new rule would be 20 games played at each position before the season and then 10 games at a new position during the season. Any thoughts?
I don't like the inconsistency. Why not 10 games before and during the new season? That would make the draft more interesting and give us more protection for injuries during the season as more players would be eligible for position shifts. This would take more luck out of the game - ESPECIALLY if there are no mid-week switches.
4) Daily transactions. I do not envision the NFFC using daily transactions in 2005 or even changing lineups during the week. I'm not sure we're ready for that. But I have asked STATS about the possibility of implementing a mid-week period to adjust your starting lineup for the Auction Leagues, giving owners the chance to change their starters before each Friday's games from their reserve roster. Right now that is not possible, but STATS will get back to me on the possibility of adding that to our system. Would that be a good addition or a bad addition for the Auction Leagues? Just looking for feedback there.
I'm a tad confused. Why would Stats be able to institute mid-week changes for the Auction league, but not the draft league? Regardless, I will repeat a suggestion I made earlier. Assuming Stats can alter the software for mid-week changes: Leave it the way it is, but give each team 3 (or possibly 5) mid-week switches to be used anytime during the season for any reason. This will prevent a team being screwed by the typical Monday night injuries or DL moves. I suggest a very limited number to avoid abuse and so as not to negatively affect owners who can't spend unlimited time on their computers. This should be a perfect compromise for those on all sides of this issue.
7) Fewer reserve players. There has been strong feedback in the Auction Leagues to lower the number of reserves per team from six to four and maybe even three. Obviously, the free agent pool is thin in AL-only or NL-only leagues and thus the proposal makes sense. I'm interested in feedback there. As for the NFFC, is a six-man reserve just right, too few, or too many? Thoughts, comments please.
For the regular draft league, I'd like to see 30 rounds, making seven bench players. Since we can now draft more players, there will be more interest in stashing prospects. The 6 man bench doesn't leave much room for that. Most teams only had one prospect, if that. This would let us have two and would encourage owners to be more prepared with their late selections!
8) Prize structure. We are again shooting for 300 teams, with a $100,000 grand prize and $7,500 for league prizes ($5,000 for first place, $1,750 for second and $750 for third). Is that a worthy payout structure or should we offer a lesser grand prize and pay back more in league prizes. The current setup is exactly 75% in prize payouts if we reach 300 teams.
In theory, I'd like to see bigger league prizes. However, since the $100,000 grand prize is an important, and attention-getting, aspect of your marketing, I'm not sure that it would look good to change. I can certainly live with the current structure.
9) Starting lineups time. Right now we have the FAAB deadline at 6 p.m. on Sundays and you have to set your starting lineup by 1 p.m. on Monday. I have proposed keeping the FAAB deadline on Sundays again and having STATS allow us to have your starting lineup set five minutes before the first game on Monday. For the most part, that would allow people five or six more hours each week to set their starting lineups. Not a big change, but one that could help people as they are busy on Monday mornings or for those who didn't see which free agents they picked up on Sunday night. Thoughts?
In theory, this is absolutely great. In reality, I think this is a very bad idea. With different times each week, there will be problem after problem, bug after bug, misunderstanding after misunderstanding. NIP THIS IDEA IN THE BUD! It is much easier to solve the injury problem by allowing a few extra mid-week moves. (See #4)
Thanks again Greg and Tom for running the best fantasy baseball game on earth! I am definitely on board for 2005.
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
The proposed changes seem very good to me. However, my season seemed to be influenced by injuries to a great extent. So I would like to say that for #3 season eligibility I'd like to see the number shrink to 15 or preferably 10 games ('04). More flexibility helps deal with injuries. Also #7 I would strongly like to suggest having a 7 or 8 man bench. I think these ways of lessening the impact of injuries would greatly improve the game. (at least for me) I would also like compliment the whole staff for a greatly run contest. Keep up the good work.
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Brian,
Good points. As for No. 8, we are not looking to dilute the prize structure at all. I'm just asking if we should use some of the overall grand prize to distribute to the league prizes. Some people have suggested that we lower the grand prize to $75,000 and give more to the league prizes. I'm not advocating that, just asking for input. Another suggestion was to make the second place league prize worth $2,000 and maybe lower third place to $500. Still looking for input there as well.
As for No. 9, STATS is working on this and if we can make it happen it will just allow for more time to have everyone enter their starting lineups each Monday. It buys an extra six hours between the FAAB deadline on Sunday night and setting your starting lineups on Monday.
You are correct about the Lifestime Standings. At the end of the year, we need to give something to the leader of our Lifetime Standings. Sounds like something a good sponsor would like to be part of. I think I'll start looking for a sponsor and good prizes for that right now!!!
One other suggestion from Leaderboard Sports was to include Lifetime Standings for Auction Leagues. I've already asked STATS to set that up, so hopefully we will have that as well!!! Oh, and with prizes at the end of the year.
Good points. As for No. 8, we are not looking to dilute the prize structure at all. I'm just asking if we should use some of the overall grand prize to distribute to the league prizes. Some people have suggested that we lower the grand prize to $75,000 and give more to the league prizes. I'm not advocating that, just asking for input. Another suggestion was to make the second place league prize worth $2,000 and maybe lower third place to $500. Still looking for input there as well.
As for No. 9, STATS is working on this and if we can make it happen it will just allow for more time to have everyone enter their starting lineups each Monday. It buys an extra six hours between the FAAB deadline on Sunday night and setting your starting lineups on Monday.
You are correct about the Lifestime Standings. At the end of the year, we need to give something to the leader of our Lifetime Standings. Sounds like something a good sponsor would like to be part of. I think I'll start looking for a sponsor and good prizes for that right now!!!
One other suggestion from Leaderboard Sports was to include Lifetime Standings for Auction Leagues. I've already asked STATS to set that up, so hopefully we will have that as well!!! Oh, and with prizes at the end of the year.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Sooner,
You are the third person this week to suggest no cell phones for an entire draft. I'm not sure I can enforce that, but it's a subject worth discussing on another thread. Being on the cell phone the entire draft seems to skirt around not paying for a co-manager, doesn't it? Worth discussing.
There has been some discussion about keeping an Auction League at $1,250 and offering other Auction Leagues at $650. I'm feeling like two levels of Auction Leagues has some merit to it and I'm considering it. We'll see where it leads us, especially in Las Vegas.
You are the third person this week to suggest no cell phones for an entire draft. I'm not sure I can enforce that, but it's a subject worth discussing on another thread. Being on the cell phone the entire draft seems to skirt around not paying for a co-manager, doesn't it? Worth discussing.
There has been some discussion about keeping an Auction League at $1,250 and offering other Auction Leagues at $650. I'm feeling like two levels of Auction Leagues has some merit to it and I'm considering it. We'll see where it leads us, especially in Las Vegas.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Nevadaman,
Good points and two HALLELUJAHs is all I can ask for. As for your other points:
3) 20 games played per position is pretty standard in Rotisserie Baseball. I don't want to go lower than that as any regular player who plays just 10 games at a position during a 162-game season isn't a full-time player there. But during the season, I can see the need to lower the requirement at a new position.
4) STATS could do a mid-week transaction for the NFFC, but I don't want to venture there at this point. Maybe we try it in the Auction Leagues first to see how it works. Your idea of a set number of mid-week moves does have merit and it's worth considering for the future.
7) 30 rounds is possible. Right now there are lots of different views on the size of rosters for the NFFC and the Auction Leagues.
9) Again, all we are trying to do is allow more time for people to set their starting lineups each Monday. For 23 of the 26 weeks this year, it would be 7 p.m. EST to set your starting lineups, an additional six hours for people. In the three weeks where there was one early Monday game, any player from that game that you'd want in your starting lineup would have to be designated prior to 1 p.m., while all other players could still be moved in or out of your starting lineup before 7 p.m. EST. It's not a function STATS has for baseball yet, but it is one we use for football with them and the guys in the NFFC like the flexibility of waiting longer to designate their starters for that week.
Again, good input and thanks for your loyalty.
Good points and two HALLELUJAHs is all I can ask for. As for your other points:
3) 20 games played per position is pretty standard in Rotisserie Baseball. I don't want to go lower than that as any regular player who plays just 10 games at a position during a 162-game season isn't a full-time player there. But during the season, I can see the need to lower the requirement at a new position.
4) STATS could do a mid-week transaction for the NFFC, but I don't want to venture there at this point. Maybe we try it in the Auction Leagues first to see how it works. Your idea of a set number of mid-week moves does have merit and it's worth considering for the future.
7) 30 rounds is possible. Right now there are lots of different views on the size of rosters for the NFFC and the Auction Leagues.
9) Again, all we are trying to do is allow more time for people to set their starting lineups each Monday. For 23 of the 26 weeks this year, it would be 7 p.m. EST to set your starting lineups, an additional six hours for people. In the three weeks where there was one early Monday game, any player from that game that you'd want in your starting lineup would have to be designated prior to 1 p.m., while all other players could still be moved in or out of your starting lineup before 7 p.m. EST. It's not a function STATS has for baseball yet, but it is one we use for football with them and the guys in the NFFC like the flexibility of waiting longer to designate their starters for that week.
Again, good input and thanks for your loyalty.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Thanks TBill. Going to 10 games during the season for eligibility is getting a strong push and moving to 30 rounds for the NFFC is also being strongly advocated. Looking at all suggestions. Thanks again and we'll see you in March.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Here are some more suggestions I received via e-mail from an NFBC owner who competed in the main event and the Auction League in Las Vegas:
1) Forget daily transactions, you want to draw the most entries. Daily or Bi-weekly, makes this more of a job. Most people hate to have their players hurt, but they probably don't want to be on the computer every day of the week. The more room for moves (daily or bi-weekly) the edge goes to the more active owners. I don't think you will find 300 people that active.
2)Auction leagues-I'd play again for $1250. If everyone is interested in coming back, They should have the first option. If we lose a couple, I'm sure more would want to play this year. This could be the elite auction leagues, then you could offer a lower level to create interest.
3)Starting times-I'll play both. It's better giving you the money than those one arm bandits!!
4)Fewer reserve players would really hurt the owner whose players are already hurt. If I had only three spots, I might have to drop an impact player that is hurt in order to field a lineup. Another owner with no injuries could grab him and say thank you!! Six players is a nice mix, it leaves you room for decisions.
1) Forget daily transactions, you want to draw the most entries. Daily or Bi-weekly, makes this more of a job. Most people hate to have their players hurt, but they probably don't want to be on the computer every day of the week. The more room for moves (daily or bi-weekly) the edge goes to the more active owners. I don't think you will find 300 people that active.
2)Auction leagues-I'd play again for $1250. If everyone is interested in coming back, They should have the first option. If we lose a couple, I'm sure more would want to play this year. This could be the elite auction leagues, then you could offer a lower level to create interest.
3)Starting times-I'll play both. It's better giving you the money than those one arm bandits!!
4)Fewer reserve players would really hurt the owner whose players are already hurt. If I had only three spots, I might have to drop an impact player that is hurt in order to field a lineup. Another owner with no injuries could grab him and say thank you!! Six players is a nice mix, it leaves you room for decisions.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Here's another thought from an NFBC owner about lowering the price of the Auction Leagues:
"Auction league at half price would interest all 3 of our teams from Atlanta."
Hmmmm, I think I may offer a $1,250 Auction League and a $650 Auction League and see where it takes us. There certainly seems to be enough interest in Auction Leagues at $650 right now.
"Auction league at half price would interest all 3 of our teams from Atlanta."
Hmmmm, I think I may offer a $1,250 Auction League and a $650 Auction League and see where it takes us. There certainly seems to be enough interest in Auction Leagues at $650 right now.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Here's one more e-mail to me on the Auction Leagues, mainly for Las Vegas:
"Greg please make the auctions, all of them friday am or afternoon so those of us who make it to the event can enjoy the weekend. The ending at midnight am start was tough."
"Greg please make the auctions, all of them friday am or afternoon so those of us who make it to the event can enjoy the weekend. The ending at midnight am start was tough."
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Here's another e-mail I received from a New York NFBC owner about the proposed changes:
1) Most important rule change is to INCREASE the roster size. The number of injuries in baseball is very large. One team in my league
(later renamed to All-Injury-Team) had 11 of his first 12 picks spend significant portions of the season on the DL. Teams with injuries are
already at such a disadvantage and then to force them to cut their injured players because there aren't available spots on the bench makes it even worse for them. And even for the teams with fewer
injuries, there are always some so you have to use most of your bench
for injured players, leaving no room to make lineup decisions; you just start whoever is healthy; there is no room for playing matchups.
I'd also like the roster size increased so that the initial draft has more importance. I had a very strong initial draft, but now at
the end of the year, I only have 12 of my original 29 players still on my roster. Waiver wire is playing too big a role and there is too
much talent on the waiver wire. I didn't draft a 3Bman until round 20
of the inital draft, but no problem---I was able to get David Bell, Mark Bellhorn, Bill Mueller AND David Wright off the waiver wire to
help out at that position. That's a lot of talent right there, guys
who never should've been on the waiver wire.
Also, the draft is THE EVENT. Many people are travelling from far to be part of the draft so lengthening the draft and making it more of an
event would be fun. In NFFC, I was in a fast-drafting league and we
finished within two hours! A longer draft would just add to the
experience.
I propose keeping the same lineup size at 23, but increasing the
roster size to 32 (or more).
2. You need to clarify and well document the rules regarding how bids will be processed. For example, if I bid
1. Pujols $10 drop Helton
2. Pujols $10 drop Sheffield
who do I end up dropping if my Pujols bid wins? This was never
documented in the rules. This is just one example
of a situation that needs to be clarified, there are others too.
I'll just respond to a few other items, you mentioned in your latest email
3. Keep the weekly lineup deadline. Daily leagues are too much responsibility. I like being able to relax and take a couple days off
(from baseball) midweek, without fearing that I'm neglecting my team.
4. Prize structure--The one thing I could see doing is moving more
money into the prizes for 2-10 overall.
5. Starting lineups deadline--I like the idea of moving it to right
before gametime. It's probably infeasible but I wish there were a way
to get the FAAB deadline after the Sunday night game. Since that's
not possible, I'd maybe just move the deadline to one hour later than
where it is now. Would give people more of a chance to get bids in
after coming home from a Sunday afternoon activity.
1) Most important rule change is to INCREASE the roster size. The number of injuries in baseball is very large. One team in my league
(later renamed to All-Injury-Team) had 11 of his first 12 picks spend significant portions of the season on the DL. Teams with injuries are
already at such a disadvantage and then to force them to cut their injured players because there aren't available spots on the bench makes it even worse for them. And even for the teams with fewer
injuries, there are always some so you have to use most of your bench
for injured players, leaving no room to make lineup decisions; you just start whoever is healthy; there is no room for playing matchups.
I'd also like the roster size increased so that the initial draft has more importance. I had a very strong initial draft, but now at
the end of the year, I only have 12 of my original 29 players still on my roster. Waiver wire is playing too big a role and there is too
much talent on the waiver wire. I didn't draft a 3Bman until round 20
of the inital draft, but no problem---I was able to get David Bell, Mark Bellhorn, Bill Mueller AND David Wright off the waiver wire to
help out at that position. That's a lot of talent right there, guys
who never should've been on the waiver wire.
Also, the draft is THE EVENT. Many people are travelling from far to be part of the draft so lengthening the draft and making it more of an
event would be fun. In NFFC, I was in a fast-drafting league and we
finished within two hours! A longer draft would just add to the
experience.
I propose keeping the same lineup size at 23, but increasing the
roster size to 32 (or more).
2. You need to clarify and well document the rules regarding how bids will be processed. For example, if I bid
1. Pujols $10 drop Helton
2. Pujols $10 drop Sheffield
who do I end up dropping if my Pujols bid wins? This was never
documented in the rules. This is just one example
of a situation that needs to be clarified, there are others too.
I'll just respond to a few other items, you mentioned in your latest email
3. Keep the weekly lineup deadline. Daily leagues are too much responsibility. I like being able to relax and take a couple days off
(from baseball) midweek, without fearing that I'm neglecting my team.
4. Prize structure--The one thing I could see doing is moving more
money into the prizes for 2-10 overall.
5. Starting lineups deadline--I like the idea of moving it to right
before gametime. It's probably infeasible but I wish there were a way
to get the FAAB deadline after the Sunday night game. Since that's
not possible, I'd maybe just move the deadline to one hour later than
where it is now. Would give people more of a chance to get bids in
after coming home from a Sunday afternoon activity.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Here's another e-mail I received this morning from an NFBC owner who drafted in Las Vegas and plans to bring more friends in 2005:
1. Please show HITS in all FA Pitcher and Live Score categories. Also, leave games played eligibility alone.
2. NEVER on daily transactions, or I'm out. This takes enough time as it is. Apparently someone wants the ability to get 15 or 20 pitcher starts per week. Not realistic, some people have to actually spend some time on other things. This is a deal breaker for me.
3. Change the prize structure! The more you share, the more attractive the product. I feel strongly that at least 20% should make a profit. E.G. 1st, $5,000 2nd $2,500 3rd,$1,500 4th&5th,$500. Too many became "inactive" after falling out of the race for 1-2. I fear a big attrition rate from that group. Substantially reduce and elongate the grand prizes. Lesser amounts and more pay places. Emphasize the leagues, Greg. They will be your long term lifeblood and growth catalyst. Us purists look at the grand prize as kind of a lottery longshot, but we are very concerned at how the LEAGUES function. Very important! (From Greg: As a note, this proposal would add $2,500 to the league prizes, but would reduce the grand prize to $50,000.)
4.Leave alone the starting lineups time. A set schedule is easier to conform to than one that changes each week because of rainouts etc. 10. Great, but how will you handle team name changes?
Finally, A great product and lots of fun and good fellowship and sportsmanship. Be careful of too many changes. The most important upgrade is for STATS to get rid of some irrelevant data in Live Scores such as E,s IBB's L's etc and to include Hits in all Pitcher Free Agent listings, and also in Live Scores.
Count me in next year (as long as we don't go to shorter transaction periods).
1. Please show HITS in all FA Pitcher and Live Score categories. Also, leave games played eligibility alone.
2. NEVER on daily transactions, or I'm out. This takes enough time as it is. Apparently someone wants the ability to get 15 or 20 pitcher starts per week. Not realistic, some people have to actually spend some time on other things. This is a deal breaker for me.
3. Change the prize structure! The more you share, the more attractive the product. I feel strongly that at least 20% should make a profit. E.G. 1st, $5,000 2nd $2,500 3rd,$1,500 4th&5th,$500. Too many became "inactive" after falling out of the race for 1-2. I fear a big attrition rate from that group. Substantially reduce and elongate the grand prizes. Lesser amounts and more pay places. Emphasize the leagues, Greg. They will be your long term lifeblood and growth catalyst. Us purists look at the grand prize as kind of a lottery longshot, but we are very concerned at how the LEAGUES function. Very important! (From Greg: As a note, this proposal would add $2,500 to the league prizes, but would reduce the grand prize to $50,000.)
4.Leave alone the starting lineups time. A set schedule is easier to conform to than one that changes each week because of rainouts etc. 10. Great, but how will you handle team name changes?
Finally, A great product and lots of fun and good fellowship and sportsmanship. Be careful of too many changes. The most important upgrade is for STATS to get rid of some irrelevant data in Live Scores such as E,s IBB's L's etc and to include Hits in all Pitcher Free Agent listings, and also in Live Scores.
Count me in next year (as long as we don't go to shorter transaction periods).
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
I'm glad to see even more support for a longer draft. I agree that too much talent was on the wire and a longer draft would take care of that and add to our overall experience. I said 30 rounds before, but 32 is perfectly fine with me! If you can cut the grand prize in half and pay out more league and overall prizes without hurting your marketing, I'm all for it!
One very important point that was not addressed: Since we can now draft all minor league players, how will their position eligibility be determined? This season had some confusion because some rookies were granted starting status for our contest (like Joe Mauer) even though he hadn't actually played in the major leagues yet, but some actual major league players were only utility eligible. Somehow we need to keep everything consistent so that there are no lengthy debates and misunderstandings. I propose a simple solution. Any minor leaguer that gets selected in our draft automatically gets position eligibility for NFBC purposes based on the ONE position they played the most games in at the minor league level - no multi position minor league players. Any minor leaguer who is NOT drafted will have to play the required number of games just like anyone else. This will allow top prospects that we know will start (like a Joe Mauer this year) to be on our rosters from day 1, but will force all other rookies to meet the 10 (or 20) game requirement like regular major leaguers. This should also make things easier for Stats. What do you think?
One very important point that was not addressed: Since we can now draft all minor league players, how will their position eligibility be determined? This season had some confusion because some rookies were granted starting status for our contest (like Joe Mauer) even though he hadn't actually played in the major leagues yet, but some actual major league players were only utility eligible. Somehow we need to keep everything consistent so that there are no lengthy debates and misunderstandings. I propose a simple solution. Any minor leaguer that gets selected in our draft automatically gets position eligibility for NFBC purposes based on the ONE position they played the most games in at the minor league level - no multi position minor league players. Any minor leaguer who is NOT drafted will have to play the required number of games just like anyone else. This will allow top prospects that we know will start (like a Joe Mauer this year) to be on our rosters from day 1, but will force all other rookies to meet the 10 (or 20) game requirement like regular major leaguers. This should also make things easier for Stats. What do you think?
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
I also am in favor of a broader distribution of prize money, focusing more heavily on league prizes. I too, see the current top prize as more of a lottery. I agree with all of the points from the e-mail above.
[ September 30, 2004, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: TBill ]
[ September 30, 2004, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: TBill ]
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
Here's my .02
(1) Expand to 320 participants in 20 leagues of 16 teams.
A. Then you can keep the Bench players at 6 and the additional team dilutes then talent in the Free Agent Pool.(Though I'm not opposed to expanding the benchs to 7 in either case. But not less and not more than 7.)
B. The extra $$$ can up the cash awards for 2nd, 3rd, and fourth overall while offering $250 prizes for the final leaders in each category. Also give $1000/$500 to the 1st and 2nd at the All Star break and the the same for the second half Leader and runnerup. Keep the $100,000 Grand prize. It's pie in the sky to think you can win it buts it's good for marketing, someone has to win it, IT COULD BE YOU and besides IT'S GREAT FUN. ( I'll leave the math-- up to Greg and others to speculate on amounts but 25K more from 20 extra teams is alot to divide up)
C. Some more ideas for the $$$. You could fund the year to year overall prize pool this way. Give $100 to any team that has an active pitcher Twirl a complete game No/No. $500 for a Perfecto(with carryover.)
2. NO CELL PHONES. 1st ring you get a warning. If you answer it you lose your next pick in the Draft. In the Auction get docked $1.
From then on it's a draft pick for each ring. Auction an escalting fine--$3, then $5, then $8 etc.
Draft picks you're charged are picked after the final round of the Draft including bench players. Ist offender 1st, 2nd-2nd and so on. This should NEVER happen.
3. In auction league, fines for not bringing up a player within 1 minute. $1 1st offence $3 2nd, $3 for each violation there after. OFFENDING TEAM IS STILL ON THE CLOCK.
4. No changing the name of your team after the 1st week of the season. It's locked in after that.
5.Monday and Friday line up changes(But once a week is fine with me.)
6.Strict enfocement of all rules.
7. 20 games to qualify at a postion for the Draft/Auction. Most played at for Minor Leaguers and others (Major league starts rule.) 10 to qualify at another postion once the season starts.
(1) Expand to 320 participants in 20 leagues of 16 teams.
A. Then you can keep the Bench players at 6 and the additional team dilutes then talent in the Free Agent Pool.(Though I'm not opposed to expanding the benchs to 7 in either case. But not less and not more than 7.)
B. The extra $$$ can up the cash awards for 2nd, 3rd, and fourth overall while offering $250 prizes for the final leaders in each category. Also give $1000/$500 to the 1st and 2nd at the All Star break and the the same for the second half Leader and runnerup. Keep the $100,000 Grand prize. It's pie in the sky to think you can win it buts it's good for marketing, someone has to win it, IT COULD BE YOU and besides IT'S GREAT FUN. ( I'll leave the math-- up to Greg and others to speculate on amounts but 25K more from 20 extra teams is alot to divide up)
C. Some more ideas for the $$$. You could fund the year to year overall prize pool this way. Give $100 to any team that has an active pitcher Twirl a complete game No/No. $500 for a Perfecto(with carryover.)
2. NO CELL PHONES. 1st ring you get a warning. If you answer it you lose your next pick in the Draft. In the Auction get docked $1.
From then on it's a draft pick for each ring. Auction an escalting fine--$3, then $5, then $8 etc.
Draft picks you're charged are picked after the final round of the Draft including bench players. Ist offender 1st, 2nd-2nd and so on. This should NEVER happen.
3. In auction league, fines for not bringing up a player within 1 minute. $1 1st offence $3 2nd, $3 for each violation there after. OFFENDING TEAM IS STILL ON THE CLOCK.
4. No changing the name of your team after the 1st week of the season. It's locked in after that.
5.Monday and Friday line up changes(But once a week is fine with me.)
6.Strict enfocement of all rules.
7. 20 games to qualify at a postion for the Draft/Auction. Most played at for Minor Leaguers and others (Major league starts rule.) 10 to qualify at another postion once the season starts.
"All of Life is part of the Divine"---Ancient Hindu saying
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
I'm curious as to why there should be a need to limit cell phone use or renaming of teams. I could see a cell phone or renaming as a nusiance but not a threat.
[ September 30, 2004, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: TBill ]
[ September 30, 2004, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: TBill ]
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
I personally couldn't care less if somebody is so ashamed of their team they need to change the name. Allowing people to spend an entire draft on a cell phone though, reporting each and every pick to who knows how many people on the other end, opens up possibilities that simply shouldn't be there in a game of this magnitude. All of us are tied to our cell phones for lots of reasons and I don't think they should be totally disallowed, but there is no reason to allow continuous use of them and I most likely won't participate if something is not put in place.
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
I personally couldn't care less if somebody is so ashamed of their team they need to change the name. Allowing people to spend an entire draft on a cell phone though, reporting each and every pick to who knows how many people on the other end, opens up possibilities that simply shouldn't be there in a game of this magnitude. All of us are tied to our cell phones for lots of reasons and I don't think they should be totally disallowed, but there is no reason to allow continuous use of them and I most likely won't participate if something is not put in place.
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
I agree with the two prevvious responses to my "My .02" posting. With reasonable people having a sense of social ettiquette "Cell Phones" shouldn't be more than a nusiance and who would want to change their team's name anyway.
However, some players are always looking for an edge and resort to 'Guerrilla'tactics. If there's no rule against it they feel they can exploit the potential for skullduggery. So you need a rule to short circuit them and to make a rule useful there has to penalties for violation. A rule with no teeth has little value. (although I do consider my proposed penalties severe they should halt the oversights?? and/or abuses.}
As for Changing team names. I noticed a couple this year. One team near the top of the overall list "Just disappeared". It took me a week or so to pickup on him again. If you're watching matchups between your roster and opponents and you could frustrate and annoy by changing your name on Sunday. Change it back Tuesday--Changed every third day etc. Kosher--No---within the rules yes.
Also, one team (an industry guy) quit playing in June then changed his team name in August to "Phonin' it in since June" played occasionally for a couple weeks then dropped out again. Any suggestions for what you would name his team???
However, some players are always looking for an edge and resort to 'Guerrilla'tactics. If there's no rule against it they feel they can exploit the potential for skullduggery. So you need a rule to short circuit them and to make a rule useful there has to penalties for violation. A rule with no teeth has little value. (although I do consider my proposed penalties severe they should halt the oversights?? and/or abuses.}
As for Changing team names. I noticed a couple this year. One team near the top of the overall list "Just disappeared". It took me a week or so to pickup on him again. If you're watching matchups between your roster and opponents and you could frustrate and annoy by changing your name on Sunday. Change it back Tuesday--Changed every third day etc. Kosher--No---within the rules yes.
Also, one team (an industry guy) quit playing in June then changed his team name in August to "Phonin' it in since June" played occasionally for a couple weeks then dropped out again. Any suggestions for what you would name his team???
"All of Life is part of the Divine"---Ancient Hindu saying
Rules Proposals For 2005 NFBC
I am on terms with a player who had the opinion that changing one's name could be used to disguise a bad record by someone wishing to tout his services. However, I don't see how this could be proved ( I think that the greatest picks in the world can be obliterated by injury, anyway )and I don't think that NFBC need be in the business of policing (based on mere assumption) the rest of the industry. So, I would be in favor of retaining the renaming option. The cell phone issue doesn't need to be isolated, IMO. Maybe there can be a rule against any and all disruptive distracting behavior, thus covering all contingencies.
[ October 02, 2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: TBill ]
[ October 02, 2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: TBill ]