League Jibber Jabber

[stomperrob]

Lol...sorry I did mean worst teams get more money.


Also, what is the argument AGAINST rolling over? I understand for the sake of simplicity and respect every-ones opinion I'm just curious, I could be persuaded...

Obviously after some more discussion on both of theses they need to go to a poll IMO

I think it unduly rewards the top teams. Top teams obviously have fewer holes to fill than their less fortunate brethren and therefore would normally have more money left to carry over to the following season. This also serves to give them enormous buying power, should some WW gem(s) hit the market.

Blind bidding is meant to give everyone a fair shot at acquiring FA's - rolling the money over to subsequent seasons defeats this purpose.

[aaawall91]

Okay, I'm swayed, that makes sense to me. I'm not a fan of rolling over money.

[Instinctive]

But if the lesser teams are also getting more money, doesn't it balance that aspect out?

In which case it is just like having the same every year, except it allows you to save up some and adds some strategy. Like working, I could wait until I can buy my new car in full or I can pay some every month until I pay it off. I can pay for some players all the time, or save up with the players I have until I can pay for a big one.

[stomperrob]

But if the lesser teams are also getting more money, doesn't it balance that aspect out?

In which case it is just like having the same every year, except it allows you to save up some and adds some strategy. Like working, I could wait until I can buy my new car in full or I can pay some every month until I pay it off. I can pay for some players all the time, or save up with the players I have until I can pay for a big one.

But the theory is that the weaker teams have more holes to fill and thus make more bids and spend more of their money to try and improve. The stronger teams make fewer pickups and usually have the most money left over - allowing them to have a huge war chest the following year. I strongly disagree with a policy that aids some owners more than others (ie the stronger teams).

Starting with the same total each year with no carrying over of funds is the only way to help ensure a level playing field.

[Kareighuis]

I think re-rostering Forsett was the right thing to do. I once cut Gore by accident and got him back. The principle is the same.

I agree with the idea of no roll-over. If we were to do that, however, we could/should put a cap on how much could be rolled over. It might be a good compromise between the rollover/no-rollover perspective, but I think it could unnecessarily complicate things.

[aaawall91]

I think re-rostering Forsett was the right thing to do. I once cut Gore by accident and got him back. The principle is the same.

I agree with the idea of no roll-over. If we were to do that, however, we could/should put a cap on how much could be rolled over. It might be a good compromise between the rollover/no-rollover perspective, but I think it could unnecessarily complicate things.

If the money is tradeable, which I think we might as well put to a poll this off-season.

Than it should roll-over. I think a fair cap is 200. So max you can roll over from one year to the next without losing money would be 100.

I think the scaled system should be:

12: 100
11: 95
10: 90
9: 85
8: 80
7: 75
6: 70
5: 65
4: 60
3: 55
2: 50
1: 45

I think all three go hand in hand. If there is roll over there needs to be trading AND scaled for it to work out fairly for the worst teams

[Instinctive]

The other way to do it would be a scaled cash infusion each week.

e.g.

Highest Scoring Winning Team: 1
2nd highest....winning Team: 2
...
Highest Scoring Losing Team :7
...
Lowest Scoring Losing Team: 12

So the worst team of that week gets $12 added. And the best team only gets $1. You could do increments of 2 or 3 if you wanted, but this seemed simplest for the concept.

Waiver $$$ should be tradable also. And it's a dynasty league. If you have more money, good for you. Pretend the money is just another player. If i managed to draft Calvin, Fitz and Andre, are you going to only let 2 of them on my team next year because it might be unfair to have all 3? The players all stay, the money should too.

I again point to Zealots as the example: Here's the link to a league. I have the best team, IMO, by a considerably large margin (HOU) and yet this stacking of the money seems to be complete fiction, because I don't have anywhere near the most. The other top teams don't have the most either.

http://www16.myfantasyleague.com/2010/home/27245#0

[LS2throwed]

I don't like the idea of rolling over for some reason. If we do, what do we do, 200$ for 2 seasons at a time? Eventually we would have to start over at some point, plus, what if we do roll over, and a new owner picks up a team who has 0$ budget for the next season without knowing it? I love blind bidding, but I guess I just don't understand rolling budgets from one season 2 the next.

[Kareighuis]

Hey all!

Draft coming in a month or so. I know we were talking about putting some changes to this league up for discussion. I'll try to go through the relevant material over the next few days and track them all down.

[stomperrob]

Hey all!

Draft coming in a month or so. I know we were talking about putting some changes to this league up for discussion. I'll try to go through the relevant material over the next few days and track them all down.