View Single Post
Old December 7th, 2007, 12:54 PM   #95
Flaxwless
Feeding Frenzy
 
Flaxwless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 6,050
Flaxwless is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutts
I agree, it does run against the purpose of seeding draft picks, but awarding high seeds because of the results of a random lottery also runs against the intent to help out the lesser teams. So the question really is "how big is the negative impact?"

My opinion is that a toilet bowl with home field point bonuses awarded to 11th and 12th has similar negatives to a random lottery, as far as its impact on the lowest teams. I think you have to look at the benefits, then, and my opinion is that the added competition of extra games makes a toilet bowl the better choice.

As for a 6 team playoff, its the same theme for me - you're taking away an actual week of competition. I know there are ways to make up for that extra week, and likely very fair ways of doing it, but you are removing an actual, individual week of free agency, lineup decisions and nervously monitoring realtime stats on Sunday. 4 teams would get to play a game week 14, but 8 others would have to sit back and watch. I just don't like limiting the fun and competition of gamedays, especially knowing that we're only doing it because we've resigned ourselves to admitting we have those that will cheat in the league. I prefer the method that actually adds 4 games each year.
I see what you're syaing an dothers are saying, but why not add an extra spots in the playoffs? With a 6 team league we never had this problem even w/o a lottery for the bottom teams.
__________________
Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
- 1st EVER Feeding Frenzy Champion

Bay Area Bloodsuckers

2008 SAC'D Champions
- 2nd Worst to First in Year!
2011 SAC'D Champions
- #5 seed, # 2 power rankings, #1 in the end!

Last edited by Flaxwless; December 7th, 2007 at 12:59 PM.
Flaxwless is offline   Reply With Quote