2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

To discourage tanking, or just plain disinterest, I'd like to propose a weighted lottery for the # 1 pick each year.

The lottery would involve all 8 non-playoff participants, and would be weighted by awarding chances as follows:

16 chances - Team with the Worst Record
14 chances - Team with the 2nd Worst Record
10 chances - Team with the 3rd Worst Record
6 chances - Team with the 4th Worst Record
4 chances - Team with the 5th Worst Record
3 chances - Team with the 6th Worst Record
2 chances - Team with the 7th Worst Record
1 chance - Team with the 8th Worst Record

We could use an online dice roller or something to determine the lottery winner.

I weighted it heavier towards the worst records, reducing by 2 from worst to 2nd worst, then reducing by 4 from 2nd to 3rd and 3rd to 4th, then 2 by 4th to 5th and by 1 thereafter.

After the top pick is awarded, all the remining teams would slot in from 2-8 based on record.

Or we could use the lottery to decide the top 3 picks then go based on record.

Thoughts?

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

What about something like what the NBA does, but not allowing a team to move up more than 3 slots or something like that? I don't know if I like the #5 team getting even a 1 in 56 chance at the #1 overall. That could really screw up league parity. Not sure how that would work in a number generator, but it could be done I would think. We'd have to lotto off each pick starting with #1, and the bottom 4 teams elligible for it.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I see your point in maybe only involving the bottom for, or saying a team can't move up more than 3 or down more than 1.

We can work on creating the system, it's more important to throw ideas out there right now and see if it's even a feasible vote. IF it is, we'll crank out a good and fair system, I'm confident of that.

Keep the input flowing!

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I am not sure how I feel about this. I understand where you are coming from but since we play in a head to head league a team could legitimately put their best line-up out there each week and still have the worst record. If they are intentionally not scoring pionts or not submitting a line-up that would be one thing but to base it off record which a person really can't control seems like a bad idea to me (at least initially).

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

My problem is teams who do nothing to put a competitive team out on the field as the season progresses and it becomes clear they won't be competitive. They just call it in.

I hate to say it, but BDSC totally called it in after about midseason, just look at his lineups the last several weeks. It may not have been intentional, but it is definately deragotory to the league as a whole.

Nothing pisses me off more than to see guys start hurt, or bye, or out players because they refuse to make a move, or don't have the will to make a move to try and at least be competitive.

Joe is a prime example this year, but so are the Highlanders. I've seen it from a lot of other teams as well, especially late in the season. I've seen similar behavior from the Mutts, SBDC, Jersey and even your Freedom Matt over the past 3+ years.

We added 2 roster slots to create roster flexibility, we have an IR, we have Free Agent bidding the entire season, yet you still see guys fail to submit lineups, or make moves to at least have a competitive starting line each week.

Again, I've seen similar crap lineups in the past from at least 4-5 other teams over the past few years, and Joe and Steven weren't the only ones to do it. But that in no way makes it right.

I say we should discourage this, and NOT guarentee a top pick for a crap season. I support the lottery system, make it wieghted, increase the odds for teams that struggle, but make it important that EVERYONE puts out there best each week, EVERYONE.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

One problem I see as a roadblock to this is the soft cap period. This happened to me in SAC'D this year, when after trying to make some moves via trade that failed, and looking at what was on the free agent wire, I knew there was nothing I could do via free agency to make much difference. I could have easily added a player here or there from the wire that would have improved my sad roster for the rest of the season, but with no real long term prospects, and a full roster, you have to start impacting your roster the following season with the cap hit spread. I realize there is a purpose for the soft cap, and you don't want people dumping salaries free and clear, but unfortunately that sword cuts both ways. I'm not sure what the solution to that would be.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I see your point, but don't think the split hit is that big of an obstacle, especially for lower priced players. Joe rode out the season nearly 2g under the cap with 7 (out of 18) players under 121 cbs, and 5 of those 7 clear cut stiffs. He could have made moves with minimal impact next year, hell, he probably could have made moves that would improve him next year.

I'll also add he has 7 players who are IR eligible, many who have been eligible for several weeks. We have IR for a reason.

I'm sorry, I like Joe a lot, but he totally mailed it on on the Frenzy this year.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

BTW, I'd also like to add that I think people let the cap penalties restrict their moves too much. Sometime active management is far more important.

My case in point, the Royal Hawaiian Opihi. Jim has made his share of cap penalty snafus, but he's also landed some FA gems in his gambles. Despite over 2g in penalties, yes 2g, twice the amount of any other team, Jim found a way to scramble to the top of the East yet again and secure yet another playoff position for his team (as the #2 seed no less). Jim's done a fantastic job of running a team, working within the system, but not letting the system restrict his activity.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I won't disagree there is a way to compete when taking on cap penalties. My only point is that when you are out of it, you are in the soft cap phase, and your only goal for the rest of the season is to play spoiler, taking on penalties plays into your consideration. I don't think this was Joe's issue this season (I won't speak for him) but I will speak as an owner who has had hopeless teams.

For instance, last season in SAC'D, once out of it, I made a couple of moves that I knew would be a big cap hit down the line (taking on a horid Deuce McAllister contract). I took the hit this season, and the hit amounted to the price of a decent WR (my biggest hole). After being in that situation last year, I was cautios (maybe overly so) to affect my 2007 team. Maybe for competitive sake that is the wrong way to go, but all I'm saying is it can play a role. I'm not saying there is a solution, or a fix, or even that there needs to be. "I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'."

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

My strategy - DON'T LOOK AT THE PENALTY LINE ON THE ROSTER APP! Seriously, every once in a while I do look at it and I say to myself, "Self, how in the world could you take such a hit with penalties? Surely that money could have been better spent on ACTUAL PLAYERS SALARIES." But fortunately, I don't listen to myself very well.

So it's full speed ahead. Always trying to improve this season... and possibly stash a player or two for the upcoming season.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Does anyone have a proposal that we can organize into a vote on a lottery style draw for the top pick?

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Yes, leave it like it presently is :)

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

If the additional flex lineups pass, I'd agree, since that should help increase more competitive weekly lineups throughout the season.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Agreed, flex lineups would cancel the competitve edge worries.

Still doesn't prevent a team from tanking it, though at this point, until I see a clear cut instance of that, I'm not as worked up about it as I was at the end of the season.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Firstly, Apologies for being late to the thread, I missed it due to extreme work demands at the time.

MYself and Preds have had over the last 24hrs what statesmen politely call "a free and frank exchange of views" and have just about agreed to disagree. Needless to say I completely refute any suggestion of "tanking" games.

In any case, if the league genuinely believes that there is an issue around tanking, which I firmly believe is cheating (both yourself and your leaguemates) then we should implement specific measures to deal with suspected cases. I do not believe that messing with the draft order is the way to go about it, the reverse draft order is critical to maintaining the competitive balance of the league.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I think this makes the most sense. I also would think that these rules need to be crystal clear. With injuries and game day decisions it is sometimes hard to know who to start. I would hate to see someone penalized for making a bad judgement call.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Matt, can you honestly say you've always put out and done your best in the past once your team was out of it? That you made moves to maintain at least some semblance of scoring potential at times late in the season? I remember begging you a few years ago to make a move for a FA QB when your starters were hurt, and you had nobody to plat, but you feared the cap repercussions of making a move, and thus didn't make every effort to do so.

We've had MANY instances over the years where teams started guys on bye, or that were hurt, because they failed to do anything to try and remain compettive once they were out of it.

Joe was grossly MIA for much of last year, going all the way back to the RFA period, and his team showed that. I understand it was primarily due to work, but his inactions hurt the league as a whole, not just his team. FWIW, I like Joe a lot, and have no ill will towards him or anyone else, frankly if Steve hadn't PM'd me the issue was over and forgotten on my end. Regardless, I stand by what I said back in December, but I'm not going to take any more time researching things to back something I said 3 months ago when it was fresh.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Though I don’t remember the specifics I do remember the general scenario and I guess that this is my point. Just because I choose to handle my team differently then someone else I don’t think it constitutes tanking. I have certainly had my share of losses and have held “firesales” but I don’t think that someone should be punished for realizing that they have no chance at a title at some point during a season and making plans for the future. This is a dynasty league and though I have yet to have much success I am always hopeful that next year might be the year. I thinking weighting a lottery could limit that. I am not super opposed (since hopefully I will not be in the running for a top pick in the SAC’d or Frenzy for a while) but I would hate to have injuries and other things hurt me in a given year and than not get the top pick because I lost a lottery.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I have mixed feelings about a lottery draft. I can see the benefits, but I'm not sure they outweigh the negatives.

After following the NBA draft a few minutes ago, I'm leaning against:

The #6 team got the #1 pick with their 5.3% chance and the #5 team got the #2 pick with 8.8%. And the two truly horrible teams (Memphis and Boston) get squat. That just sucks, big time.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Case and point!!! I agree!

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

IMO, you just don't allow 1 team to slide more than 1 spot or climb more than 3.

Or just restrict it to the bottom 3.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Agreed. If we do it, that has to be an integral component.

I'll think about it more when I'm not in "pissed off T-Wolves fan" mode. In our 19 years of existence we've NEVER moved up in the lottery. So watching Portland, who had the same record as us, move from 6 to 1 is hard to swallow.

Oh yeah, as if we weren't already destined to bottom-feeder status for next year, the two awesome guys are coming to our division. Awesome.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

A 5 spot jump and 2 spot drop is ridiculous. should be no more than 3 and 1 in any league IMO.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Well, this isn't totally accurate. Mephis and Boston aren't necessarily a whole lot worse than the rest of the bottom feeders, they just were better at throwing games than the rest. I don't know about Memphis, but it was pretty obvious Boston was trying pretty hard not to win. They don't deserve Odom or Durant (this just goes to feed my NBA conspiracy theory, the Commish didn't give them the pick as punishment. Yeah, that's the ticket).

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

As I've said before, if I thought we had a problem I might be persuaded by this idea but I've seen no evidence that teams were deliberately throwing games.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

This is probably where I stand right now, too. "If it ain't broke..."

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I'm bumping this thread, and my post in particular. I now feel we have a clear cut instance of tanking.

I'm getting extremely frustrated with the way seasons are ending up around here. Last year, due to the activities of a certain owner no longer with us, we had lengthy discussions about ways to adjust the rookie draft due to perceived "tanking." I know I was one of the owners, who after time had passed, no longer felt a tinkering was necessary. Well, I now deeply regret that change of heart. This year, in my opinion, is setting up to be worse than last year with apparently two teams trying to secure themselves the #1 pick, while games are still being played that will affect teams in the playoffs, as well as the seeding.

I greatly hesitate to call teams out, but I am starting to feel obligated for the sake of the league. I really think the Frenzy is starting to slide downhill, and I love the league setup, and enjoy the comraderie of many of the league members so much I feel something needs to be done, or at least needs to be said. There are two teams in particular I felt made decisions this past week that cannot be contrued as being competitive, and can only be interpreted as trying to secure the #1 overall pick for themselves: The Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects and the Amish Rake Fighters. The lineup decisions I cannot understand:

Insects:

Eli Manning over Matt Hasselbeck. This is not the most egregious decision, but I would think most owners would start Hasselbeck over Manning. This one by itself isn't all that bad, but taken in the full context, it is highly questionable.

Warrick Dunn and Kevin Jones over Derrick Ward and Shaun Alexander. Warrick Dunn has been ineffective almost all season. Jones has never had success against Minnesota, and Minnesota has shut down just about every running back this season. Derrick Ward was the announced starter. Shaun Alexander was known to be coming back from injury.

Brandon Jones over Donald Driver. While some of the other decisions may be defender, this one to me is the most blatent that Frank is apparently trying to throw the game. Driver is Franks best receiver by far. If he wants to get Jones in the lineup, why not at the expense of Curry? Doesn't make sense to me.

Some of these calls can be defended (though I think if you look at the whole picture it is pretty obvious), but it is nothing compared to the Amish Rake Fighters:

David Garrard over Peyton Manning. Huh? This is indefendable. You're out of it, fine. At least put your best lineup forward, and your best lineup included the best quarterback in the game over the last several years.

Ron Dayne and Lamont Jordan over Ernest Graham and Willie Parker. Ron Dayne? Fine, he was the announced starter, but at the expense of Ernest Graham and Willie Parker? OK, so the field conditions in Pittsburgh might be bad, but then Ernest Graham? AND Lamont Jordan?

Marvin Harrison over Jeremy Shockey and Calvin Johnson. While neither Shockey or Johnson were great options, it was well known that Harrison was not going to play. OK, lets say for the sake of argument Joel thought Harrison would play. Doesn't that make Manning a good start then? He's getting his #1 back? Nope, I guess not.

This is just rediculous for a free league. My enjoyment of this league seem to decline every year with the antics that seem to be increasing each year. Absentee owners, disinterested owners from day one, and now cheating. Yes, I'll call this cheating. This, in my book, really sucks.

If this is the way teams out of contention play, I really think the rookie draft order should start with the highest rated teams not to make the playoffs and go down. Teams shouldn't be rewarded with Adrian Petersons pulling crap like this.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Believe it or not, I was looking at the exact same thing this weekend!!!! I was fustrated as well and thinking to myself - hey I'm down there why am I submitting such a good lineup, maybe this week I'm put in Michael Bennet!!! I couldn't bring myself to do it as I'm a very competitive guy, I want to win every week no matter what and what I looked at this weekend disturbed me. I'm glad you brought this up Brian!!!

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Let's hear from the individual owners and see if they have anything to say about this. Since they're not in my division, I hadn't been noticing.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Well, I won't go near so far as you on this Brian, but I do agree there were certainly some questionable decisions. That said, I'd rather we have Frank and Joel explain themselves on this 1st, before letting things get out of hand.

I believe I was in support of a weighted lottery last year, and I remain that way today. To me I'd prefer to see a system like the NHL or NBA, where all non-playoff teams have a % shot at moving up, but no team can move up more than say 3-5 spots (depending on their rank). Additionally, you weight the percentages to greatly increase the chances of the teams with the worse records to move up.

With this system, no team drops more than 1 spot, but the 8th worst team can jump as many as 5 spots into the top 3 if they get drawn, the 7th could also jump 5 spots to to the 2nd pick, the 6th best team could jump say 4 spots, also to the 2nd, the 5th best team could jump 3 spots (again to the 2nd), and teams 4 to 2 can move up to the 1 seed.

Basically, if their name is drawn:
8th worst team moves up to #3, teams 3-7 drop 1 spot.
7th, 6th and 5th worst teams move up to #2, teams 2-7 drop 1 spot.
4th, 3rd, 2nd worst teams move to #1, while team 1 drops to 2, and 2 and 3 drop as necessary.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I can honestly say I have not been tanking and putting for my best line up every week, except for this week.

I liked Eli against the Bears over the Hassellbeck vs the Eagles.

As for Dunn and Kevin Jones over Alexander and Ward, I simply did not trust Alexander after him missing 3 weeks and Derrick Ward had not played the past 4 weeks (when was he announced the starter b/c I missed that). And Dunn has not been ineffective the past 4 weeks he has scored 22/28/14/13 pts not world beating numbers but a solid RB.

And I don't remember selecting Brandon Jones over Driver. I was suprised when I checked to see that.

Either way I lost by over 40 pts and the only coaching decision I would have changed is Jones over Driver who only scored 10 pts. I have lost 5 straight games yet my player efficiancy rating on the website is at 86% (half the league is at 86% or less).

Would you have called me out on tanking on any week but this week? I think not.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I am not opposed to a weighted lottery. Here's what I would suggest:

It be a lottery between the bottom 3 for the #1 pick w/ picks #2-12 based on record.

Bottom 3 teams lottery

Worst record - 60% chance at #1 overall
2nd worst - 30% chance at #1 overall
3rd worst - 10% chance at #1 overall

A nice simple way to avoid tanking, yet does not ruin league parity through the rookie draft as the worst team can drop no further than #2. Roughly 2 out of 3 times it will keep the 1st pick, with a 40% chance of dropping to #2.

The 2nd worst team has a 1 in 3 chance to move up 1 spot and a 10% shot at moving down 1 spot.

The 3rd worst team will move up 2 spots, 1 out of 10 times or else keep it's spot the other 90% of the time.

It should keep things honest enough to prevent tanking, yet not sigificantly impact the value of high rookie picks for the bottom teams.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Ok, you can call me a cheater Brian fair enough. Thank you for talking to Frank and me first before announcing your ideas to the league.

I have the same argument as Frank as far as this being the only week not submitting a full "ideal" lineup. As far as Harrison, I had a wedding on Saturday and was out of town, and I didn't change that.

As far as it affecting the overall scores, I wouldn't have beat Wonder Mutts.

So, I guess I don't have any defense but the way it was brought up was poorer judgement than my lineup setting.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Again, after hearing the Amish and Insects explain themselves I think it is very hard to prove that someone is cheating. There are too many variables to clearly show this unless you start an entire line-up of injured players.

At the same time I don't think that having some sort of system like Frank mentioned would be horrible. However, as someone who has often been in one of those bottom three slots I would hate to be in line for the top pick only to lose it on a coin flip (or whatever).

I guess I am willing to listen to everyone thoughts and see what options folks want to vote on but I am not sure there is an easy or clear cut solution here.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

You're going to get all holier than thou on me because I called you out on what you are admitting you've done? Forgive me if I don't give a rip if what you think I did was not up to your standards.

The point is not if the scores would have affected anything. The point is that trying to tank is pretty bush.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I haven't noticed anything prior to this week, so no, I'm not accusing you of anything prior to this week. But like I said in my original post, anyone of your calls by itself (except for Driver) is fairly innocuous. But, when they are all put together, along with a "whoops" explanation on Driver, it's pretty clear.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I don't think this adequately addresses the tanking aspect. While it does not assure the worst team of having the first pick, is still assures the worst team of having the best chance at the worst pick. I think we need to build in an incentive for teams to win at the end of the year.

The way I'm thinking now, I would put the teams into three buckets. The bottom four, the middle four, and the playoff teams. For the bottom four teams, they can have some sort of lottery for the #1 pick, based partially on their record, but, I think there should be a built in incentive to win. Something like getting additional balls in the hopper for each win after week x (week 7? The divisional game weeks at the end of the year? wins after the soft cap kicks in?) So that teams who phone it in at the end of the year, stop looking to sign free agents, and trade away productive players all which affect the competitive balance for the remaining teams, end up hurting their own chances in the rookie draft the following year.

The middle four teams could be ranked the same way, but I'd leave the playoff teams ordered as is.

Those are my quick initial thoughts on it. I don't think a straight lottery is enough disincentive to prevent tanking. I think we need to build in an incentive to keep winning.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

When did we switch personalities?

I feel like I'm reading the Preds of 4-5 years ago from your recent posts.

You're clearly frustrated with issues surrounding the league, but as one of the most reasonable level-headed people I've known, this is not you're normal MO for resolving things.

What's up?.

P.S. - I can't believe I just mentioned myself in the 3rd person! LOL

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Jimmy is sweet on Elaine!!

Okay, pardon the hi-jack. For what it is worth, I think we might be making this more complicated then it needs to be. Why not take the worst 4 (or 6) teams and count their total points scored after a certain point (maybe week 8 or so). This should encourage teams to play their best line-up and get the most points possible and would certainly discourage anyone from putting in a weak(er) line-up. The top scoring team over these final weeks would get the higher pick and we could go from top to bottom.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

This is an interesting suggestion. This would at least address teams that say are in a division with three tough opponents, where a team in a weaker division would have a better chance of winning games late in the season.

The downside though, is that I think teams might still phone it in. They would be putting forward their best lineup on a weekly basis probably, but if their team is really bad, and they know they can't win games, they might not say "hey, I really have to make a change to my team if I want to win some games."

It's worth considering though.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Okay, but if a team phones it in then they would not be gaining anything personally in terms of draft positioning (since their point total would be lower and thus they would get a lower draft pick). They could still disrupt the competitive balance but not for personal gain which seems to be the issue we were trying to take care of here.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Right, I'm just saying that if the goal for those teams is to acutally win, instead of just score as many points as possible, it might be more of a motivator to get them to realize they need to make a roster chance, take some active role in managing their team in order to better their chances, which would be better for the league as a whole.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Okay, I would still think that scoring the most points kinds of acts as a proxy for trying to win (and takes away the head to head factor which could unitentionally harm a team from a better division).

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I've been starting Michael Turner for the past 5-6 weeks, and I'm trying to win a championship this year. Does anyone feel that I'm cheating? Personally, I think some of you guys are trying to impose your own management opinions on other owners - and owners that have a strong history of good competition, at that. I don't believe we need an anti-tanking rule in the Frenzy. Seems to me that isn't really addressing the problem - really serving only as a band-aid, and a band-aid that will also have a negative affect on the competitive balance in the league (regardless of how much it is minimized). The Frenzy is about highly competitive owners. I really believe we can trust the group of guys we have to get out if they've lost the desire for competition.

Not turning in a lineup is one thing. Turning in a lineup of non-starters or low impact players because your trying to benefit your team next year is completely another.

That being said, I finish between 4th and 7th almost every year, so I'm not likely to make too much of a fuss if you guys want to give me a chance at a top RB.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

So to summarize: "Yes, I'm intentionally tanking (cheating, if you like), but you're a jerk for pointing it out."

Why the co-manager of the league (I don't know Brian's official title, but it seems to me that he and Mike run this thing) can't bring problems to light when he sees them is beyond me. To suggest that him pointing out you tanking is worse than you tanking is, frankly, ridiculous.

To intentionally throw games is very lame, IMO. And yes, when you do the following, you are intentionally tanking:

1. Start Garrard over Manning
2. Bench Parker (17.6 PPG) and Graham (16.6 PPG, and 21.9 PPG since becoming the starter) in order to start Lamont Jordon, who lost his starting job in week 7, got completely benched for two weeks in weeks 10 and 11, and returned in week 12 to have 3 carries (opposed to starter Fargas' 22). You benched two STUD RBs for a non-starter and absolute non-factor in Oakland. All Brian did was point out the obvious - you didn't even try to disguise your intentions by playing arguably plausible players.

The fact that some teams (beyond the team that does it) think this is fine is a bad sign.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I'm majorly against tanking, but rather get into a battle, would prefer we come up with a system to encourage teams to go for the win each and every week of the regular season.

I like Brian's isea of using a lottery system, starting with a base amount of chances that will vary from 1-4), and awarding additional chances in the draw for each win after November 1st. It encourages teams to never give up, encourages competition, and might even move teams into the playoff hunt that never would have expected it.

You just never know how a season is going to turn out, but giveing incentives for all teams to always go for the win is a big plus in my book. Especially when you consder there are already incentives to losing late in the season if your team is stuggling (a higher draft pick is an incentive to tank) and disincentives to make moves (the soft cap hit).

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Obviously you're not cheating for doing this, but I think it is a sign of what a collasal failure the flex lineup option has been. But, I won't digress down that road at this point.

I've got to take issue with a couple of your points here. The first is your contention of, and I quote, "owners that have a strong history of good competition." Frank? Sure. Joel? He sucked last year, and he sucked this year. That's too strong a statement in my book.

You say that a anti-tanking rule would be a band-aid to what the real problem is. What do you think the real problem is? I'm curious, because I think people tanking games is a problem. If there is a larger problem out there we should be addressing, I'd like to know what that is, so we can address that.

I agree that the Frenzy is about, or at least I agree it should be about, highly competitive owners. We had that for a number of years, but I just don't think we are where we were. When we have antics like this, it sure appears to me that as a collective group, we've regressed, and we either need to change the rules, or change the goals, because obviously we're not all playing for the same goals.

I'm really disturbed that you have no problem with teams turning in lineups feature no impact players with the intention of losing games. I guess I'm just surprised this does not raise more eyebrows around here.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

It's really tha clear, huh?

Even when the owner of the team has said otherwise. Eli and Hassellbeck had decent match ups, I chose the QB that was going against the poorer defense statistically.

Alexander had been injured for 3 weeks and before that was largelyineffective. Ward had not played the previous 4 weeks and I missed that he would be named started, I just saw his status on MFL at the time as being D/P, thus choosing a healthy Kevin Jones over him.

With Brandon Jones... I really don't remember selecting Driver. You can believe me or not, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Anyways... I will be opposed to any lottery system that does not give the team with the worst record the BEST shot at the 1st pick. The lottery system I mentioned gave the worst record a 60% shot at winning the #1.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

And my apologies for re-hashing the stats. You're right, it's more productive to decide on a fix rather than debate the details of the past problem. However, I felt the need to respond because I could not let the argument that "Brian's the jerk for bringing this up" go unaddressed. That's a really obnoxious claim, in my book.

I also rehashed because we don't even seem to be in agreement that there's a problem. I wanted to illustrate with some numbers how obvious the tanking is in this case:

Frank, as far as your lineup goes, if I may put it into legal parlance: there's a good case on each side. Brian lays out a good argument that while each decision is individually plausible, added together, it sure looks bad, especially when you just happen to be one of the two teams vying for the #1 pick. The Jones over Driver selection is really what raises the red flag. You accidentially manually deselected Driver (your normal and arguably best WR) and manually selected Jones (your hands-down worst WR) for the lineup, even though you didn't mean to? That's plausible, sure. However, don't be surprised when people also find it hard to believe. To believe it, we have to give you "credit" for being really inattentive when you submit your starting lineup. On the other hand, each of your moves does individually have a plausible reasoning. I think this would go to the jury and I don't how they'd decide.

Since Joel's case is so clear cut and illustrates the problem being addressed, there's no need for me to spend more time trying to figure out what really happened with your team, hence my focus on Joel's decision.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

BTW, I have found a way to ensure losing teams don't lose motivation: trade away your 1st round draft pick! As soon as my team was eliminated from contention, my goal became: "make sure that my 1st round pick (that Frank has) is as bad as possible!"

It could be anywhere from 3-6 - I'm shooting for #6.

:D

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

In fact, now that I think of it, it could be argued that the status of my 1st round draft pick cuts against Frank intentionally tanking last week. If he gives me a free win in Week 13 to improve his shot at #1, the pick he'll get from me goes from being the prime candidate to be the #3 pick (if I lose) to anywhere from #3 to #6 (if I win).

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

I'll gladly swap first round picks with anyone "allegedly" accused of tanking.

Anything to help your "street cred" in the Frenzy! ;)

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Not saying I believe or don't believe but I will admit that there have been times that in my haste I have left a player in that was on their bye week. Thankfully, when it happened this year it did not hurt me. However, with all the other things going on in our lives I have a hard time saying someone is cheating over something like this.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Wish you would have done that during week 12, my friend...

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

For the record, Frank's WRs from the previous week were Driver, Curry and Galloway. As we all know from the site, when submitting your lineup, your previous lineup is the default, so he would have had to actively click Jones and actively click Driver to get the switch in.

For the record, I'm not saying this conclusively proves Frank did it consciously to throw the game, just throwing that in and it can be taken for what it's worth.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

LOL, I traded mine away in SACD last year, then went on to a terrible 2-6 start, and spent the last 6 weeks of the season doing everything I could to win each week to keep Burt from getting too high a pick. I ended up going 5-1 down the stretch to finish at 7-7 and knock my pick out of the top 3 and down to #6.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Whoa man, what are you suggesting? I don't think anyone has defended cheating, and an opinion other than your's isn't definitively corrupt. I certainly do not agree with teams turning in lineups with the intention of losing games. However, I don't have a problem with teams turning in non-competitive lineups because they've leveraged this year's roster room against next year's chance at having a better/cheaper base of players. I agree the Amish are looking mighty suspect of the first and that should be dealt with.

I guess you are calling out two specific owners, so let me rephrase my defense of "owners" to "owner": Frank is an asset to this league and one of it's best owners since day one. He has addressed each claim individually, and I don't see anything that merits getting called on the carpet by the league.

The Amish need to give some logic, because it looks awfully bad.

I really believe everyone's goals are the same. Win a championship. The methods for doing this vary, and within the rules, shouldn't have to be defended.

I do believe this is a band-aid. The problem is bad ownership. So get rid of, or punish, the offending owner individually. The Frenzy is still about highly-competitive owners, and should be going forward. I just don't understand implementing a rule, which is going to alter the competitive balance, that is built to address something that shouldn't exist in the first place. Get rid of the problem, don't make the rest of us alter our rules.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Guys, I don't understand where you're going with this. The purpose of having a seeded draft in the first place is to help the guy on the bottom, maintain the competitive balance. So now you want to actually boost up the guys in the middle, who've been able to win more or score more points late in the year? I can't get behind it as proposed. One possible suggestion, though, is to only award bonus chances to teams who win and are in 11th or 12th place at the time. That would help the balance IMO.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Brian and Jason - I admitted that I didn't start my best lineup. I apologize. It has happened once and was just an error in judgement.

Brian - The only thing I was trying to say is that I wish you would have talked to me first or pm'd me instead of spouting off to the league on how much you think me and my teams have sucked. You never once have tried to get to know me via pm or im to ask my intentions or how I try in the league. I just ask for a little respect. I had ONE error in judgement and I apologize.

Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick
 

Ok, let's move on and see what we can do to better things - agreed?