FantasySharks.com

There are two types of Fantasy Football Owners: Sharks and Chum, which are you?
It is currently Sun 12.21.2014, 09:24

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 699 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri 12.30.2011, 14:41 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Sat 08.16.2008, 11:46
Posts: 2074
Sand$: 985
Donate
stl.gif
unimsw wrote:
honingskills wrote:
unimsw wrote:
So, with the poll questions, I answered yes to both switch to redraft, to keep a homer and to go to 3 keepers as they would all be preferable to what we currently have (you don't have to vote yes for just one). Although I highly doubt any of these will go through.


The one poll question that I see the Broncos have added is the drop round values attached to the keepers. I absolutely need to endorse this one!!! I think this is where we are running into a lot of the issues in terms of balance in the league and manipulation of picks. If we get rid of the round value and just keep our top 4 players that would solve a lot of issues. Above all, this is the one issue that I most strongly feel needs to be changed. Hope you all agree... if it comes down to it, I will bribe people to vote yes!



The issue is that people have made moves based on those round values.... so dropping them would suck for those teams.

Yes, but it wouldn't go into effect for over a year. The downside of those round values is much greater than the upside.

And no, I'm not actually bribing people...


I would support a rule change that would prevent manipulation of draft picks. Something along the lines of losing a higher pick, rather than a lower one, if you don't have the round needed to keep that particular player. Or even something where you can't keep a player if you don't own the corresponding pick.

But I think the round values corresponding to keepers in general is just another part of the strategy involved and I enjoy it being a part of the league. I wouldn't like to see it abolished.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 12.30.2011, 17:09 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Thu 08.31.2006, 19:28
Posts: 32842
Sand$: 57381
Donate
Location: Home of UNI Panthers
min.gif
KevD wrote:
unimsw wrote:
honingskills wrote:
unimsw wrote:
So, with the poll questions, I answered yes to both switch to redraft, to keep a homer and to go to 3 keepers as they would all be preferable to what we currently have (you don't have to vote yes for just one). Although I highly doubt any of these will go through.


The one poll question that I see the Broncos have added is the drop round values attached to the keepers. I absolutely need to endorse this one!!! I think this is where we are running into a lot of the issues in terms of balance in the league and manipulation of picks. If we get rid of the round value and just keep our top 4 players that would solve a lot of issues. Above all, this is the one issue that I most strongly feel needs to be changed. Hope you all agree... if it comes down to it, I will bribe people to vote yes!



The issue is that people have made moves based on those round values.... so dropping them would suck for those teams.

Yes, but it wouldn't go into effect for over a year. The downside of those round values is much greater than the upside.

And no, I'm not actually bribing people...


I would support a rule change that would prevent manipulation of draft picks. Something along the lines of losing a higher pick, rather than a lower one, if you don't have the round needed to keep that particular player. Or even something where you can't keep a player if you don't own the corresponding pick.

But I think the round values corresponding to keepers in general is just another part of the strategy involved and I enjoy it being a part of the league. I wouldn't like to see it abolished.

That idea was tossed around too, with regard to losing a higher pick. Not sure exactly why it wasn't adopted. I think it has something to do with people trading their early round picks to others so that they wouldn't have to give them up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 12.30.2011, 19:17 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09.15.2005, 18:00
Posts: 5841
Sand$: 1751
Donate
Location: Alpha Quadrant, Sector 001
cin.gif
KevD wrote:
unimsw wrote:
honingskills wrote:
unimsw wrote:
So, with the poll questions, I answered yes to both switch to redraft, to keep a homer and to go to 3 keepers as they would all be preferable to what we currently have (you don't have to vote yes for just one). Although I highly doubt any of these will go through.


The one poll question that I see the Broncos have added is the drop round values attached to the keepers. I absolutely need to endorse this one!!! I think this is where we are running into a lot of the issues in terms of balance in the league and manipulation of picks. If we get rid of the round value and just keep our top 4 players that would solve a lot of issues. Above all, this is the one issue that I most strongly feel needs to be changed. Hope you all agree... if it comes down to it, I will bribe people to vote yes!



The issue is that people have made moves based on those round values.... so dropping them would suck for those teams.

Yes, but it wouldn't go into effect for over a year. The downside of those round values is much greater than the upside.

And no, I'm not actually bribing people...


I would support a rule change that would prevent manipulation of draft picks. Something along the lines of losing a higher pick, rather than a lower one, if you don't have the round needed to keep that particular player. Or even something where you can't keep a player if you don't own the corresponding pick.

But I think the round values corresponding to keepers in general is just another part of the strategy involved and I enjoy it being a part of the league. I wouldn't like to see it abolished.


I agree with Kev D and second this to be voted on. But, perhaps it makes sense to first see how the voting for losing round value vs. not is resolved, as if we vote to go to straight keepers with no round value lost, then this is moot.

To me though, this simple rule change is a good compromise between the "but we've been planning for years" camp (keep the round values), and the "round value leads to too much draft manipulation" (lose the round values) camps......

_________________
Mike Brown - terrorizing Cincinnati and Bengals fans everywhere since 1991!
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 12.31.2011, 23:21 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Wed 10.25.2006, 17:28
Posts: 9265
Sand$: 60810
Donate
Location: Tacoma, WA
sea.gif
Seahawks have voted. I think the only "Yes" vote for me was the locking of players individual games.

I agree with the current discussion regarding manipulation of the draft & keepers. I agree that keeper values always revert to the highest pick in a round.

Example: Rodgers is a rd 6 Keeper. Let's say I acquire another rd 6 in a trade. Rodgers should have to go to the highest pick.

5.16
6.1 (Proposed rule)
6.16 (Current Rule)
7.1
8.16

_________________
The views expressed by xX-MaNx do not represent that of himself or his subsidiaries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01.01.2012, 19:59 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Thu 08.31.2006, 19:28
Posts: 32842
Sand$: 57381
Donate
Location: Home of UNI Panthers
min.gif
xX-MaNx wrote:
Seahawks have voted. I think the only "Yes" vote for me was the locking of players individual games.

I agree with the current discussion regarding manipulation of the draft & keepers. I agree that keeper values always revert to the highest pick in a round.

Example: Rodgers is a rd 6 Keeper. Let's say I acquire another rd 6 in a trade. Rodgers should have to go to the highest pick.

5.16
6.1 (Proposed rule)
6.16 (Current Rule)
7.1
8.16

I don't think it's only that it reverts to the highest pick in a round, but a higher pick if you trade your round that the player is kept at.

Player X has 6th round value:
5.16 (Proposed rule)
Rd 6 traded
7.1 (Current Rule)
8.16


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01.01.2012, 20:00 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Thu 08.31.2006, 19:28
Posts: 32842
Sand$: 57381
Donate
Location: Home of UNI Panthers
min.gif
Should we lock this thread and only use the other one?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 01.01.2012, 21:46 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Fri 11.09.2007, 10:20
Posts: 5177
Sand$: 13219
Donate
Location: Nation's Capital
was.gif
unimsw wrote:
Should we lock this thread and only use the other one?


We will...I wanted to hit people who still had this thread bookmarked though. I'll put a link and a closure on this thread later tonight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01.02.2012, 02:08 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Wed 10.25.2006, 17:28
Posts: 9265
Sand$: 60810
Donate
Location: Tacoma, WA
sea.gif
unimsw wrote:
xX-MaNx wrote:
Seahawks have voted. I think the only "Yes" vote for me was the locking of players individual games.

I agree with the current discussion regarding manipulation of the draft & keepers. I agree that keeper values always revert to the highest pick in a round.

Example: Rodgers is a rd 6 Keeper. Let's say I acquire another rd 6 in a trade. Rodgers should have to go to the highest pick.

5.16
6.1 (Proposed rule)
6.16 (Current Rule)
7.1
8.16

I don't think it's only that it reverts to the highest pick in a round, but a higher pick if you trade your round that the player is kept at.

Player X has 6th round value:
5.16 (Proposed rule)
Rd 6 traded
7.1 (Current Rule)
8.16


I like that even more!

_________________
The views expressed by xX-MaNx do not represent that of himself or his subsidiaries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 01.02.2012, 11:11 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Fri 11.09.2007, 10:20
Posts: 5177
Sand$: 13219
Donate
Location: Nation's Capital
was.gif
Locking this thread. Please bookmark and visit our new 2012 off-season thread.

http://www.fantasysharks.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=283777


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 699 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group