2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

WHY DO YOU KEEP TRYING TO TELL TEAMS HOW TO MANAGE THEIR ROSTER?!!!!

Why do you think their are NO ANTI-TANKING RULES IN PROFESSIONAL SPORTS when they have much more to gain to have anti-tanking rules?! It is immposible to prevent tanking, yet maintain comptetive balance if you are awarding draft picks based on wins.

Stop telling people how to manage their roster... the best you can do is create an environment that does not support tanking.

Expanded playoffs should ensure that give or take at least 8 teams still have a fighting chance at playoffs till the very end. Then the bottom 3 teams really don't have much incentive to tank as 1st place gets little more than 60% chance to get the Top overall pick. Would they miss out a shot at playoffs for what amounts to little more than 50/50 for the 1st pick?

Teams do tank in professional sports, well, at least in the NBA. I doubt teams tank in football, but teams undeniably tank in the NBA. Why do you think Kevin Garnett was mysteriously injured with chronic knee problems the last two years for the Wolves at the end of the season? The guy plays 44 minutes for 70 games without issue and then all of a sudden he's shut down for the rest of the season. I don't remember the details, but I remember it being pretty clear that Boston was tanking at the end of last season as well. I think the guys at the end of their bench started getting 30 minutes a game for no particular reason. Not that it is anywhere near germain to the discussion here, but teams tank in professional sports.

In response to the section highlighted, that is exactly what we're (or at least I am) trying to do. The less predetermined you can make where the #1 pick goes, the less incentive you are giving for tanking. Giving teams incentives to win, even when they can't make the playoffs "creates and environment that does not support tanking." Rewarding a team for losing (ie, more direct probability of getting the #1 pick) does nothing to create an environment that does not support tanking.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Honestly, I think its horrible that we would have to "give" something to prevent cheating (which shouldn't exist in the first place)! A 4 team toilet bowl, with 11th and 12th place getting home field advantage, adds something to the league - the only reason I can get behind it.

Well I am strongly against any type of toilet bowl. Guess we'll just have to draw lines in the sand.

Why is expanding the playoffs such a bad thing? Are the "TOP" teams really that afraid of LOSING to the "BOTTOM" teams? How can adding more teams in the mix for the REAL LEAGUE trophy ever be a bad thing? So they scoot in at 8-8.... that means they have to win for 3 weeks straight to win the bowl game. You know what? They desrved every bit of that trophy then. You guys wants to award great managing, yet you prevent teams from competing in the main playoffs.

Basing draft picks on wins runs against the purpose of draft picks.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Well I am strongly against any type of toilet bowl. Guess we'll just have to draw lines in the sand.

Why is expanding the playoffs such a bad thing? Are the "TOP" teams really that afraid of LOSING to the "BOTTOM" teams? How can adding more teams in the mix for the REAL LEAGUE trophy ever be a bad thing? So they scoot in at 8-8.... that means they have to win for 3 weeks straight to win the bowl game. You know what? They desrved every bit of that trophy then. You guys wants to award great managing, yet you prevent teams from competing in the main playoffs.

Basing draft picks on wins runs against the purpose of draft picks.

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.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

WHY DO YOU KEEP TRYING TO TELL TEAMS HOW TO MANAGE THEIR ROSTER?!!!!

Stop telling people how to manage their roster... the best you can do is create an environment that does not support tanking.

The disconnect here is your definition of "competitive". To you, it simply means not tanking. To Brian, it means actually trying to win each week: making transactions and going after free agents that can help your team.

If all we care about is people not tanking (meaning starting worthless players), then Frank's plan would work. If we want to strive to a higher standard of people actually trying to remain competitive until the end, Brian's idea is great. Regardless, Brian's plan doesn't force anyone to try, it just gives them incentive to try and they lose out if they don't want to.

Personally, I want to play in a league that strives for the higher standard. It's lame if we have to beg people to try a little bit, and even then, a little bit only means not starting a bunch of zeroes, but not actually doing what is necessary to try to win a game. IMO, it shouldn't be this hard to convince people to try, but I guess it is.

Part of the problem might be that so many people play so many leagues simultaneously. It's natural to pay more attention to your winning squads than your losing ones. This is the only league I'm in, so even when my team sucks, you better believe I'm paying total attention, because it's all I have to root for this week. My game with the Ragers this week may be irrelevant, but it means a lot to me to finish 2nd in the division rather than 3rd (bragging rights), and to increase my overall win total for those future stats that Brian will surely be posting down the road (future bragging rights).

[Flaxwless]

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.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

The disconnect here is your definition of "competitive". To you, it simply means not tanking. To Brian, it means actually trying to win each week: making transactions and going after free agents that can help your team.

If all we care about is people not tanking (meaning starting worthless players), than Frank's plan would work. If we want to strive to a higher standard of people actually trying to remain competitive until the end, Brian's idea is great. Regardless, Brian's plan doesn't force anyone to try, it just gives them incentive to try and they lose out if they don't want to.

Personally, I want to play in a league that strives for the higher standard. It's lame if we have to beg people to try a little bit, and even then, a little bit only means not starting a bunch of zeroes, but not actually doing what is necessary to try to win a game. IMO, it shouldn't be this hard to convince people to try, but I guess it is.

Part of the problem might be that so many people play so many leagues simulataneously. It's natural to pay more attention to your winning squads than your losing ones. This is the only league I'm in, so even when my team sucks, you better believe I'm playing total attention, because it's all I have to root for this week. My game with the Ragers this week may be irrelevant, but it means a lot to me to finish 2nd in the division rather that 3rd (bragging rights), and to increase my overall win total for those future stats that Brian will surely be posting down the road (future bragging rights).

No the sole problem here is that awarding draft picks based on WINS, goes against what draft picks are assigned to do.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

That would be the whole point of it. Give them an incentive to be comeptitive the playoff weeks, which in turn makes them more competitve in the weeks leading up to that, and in turn making it better for everyone.

I gotta be honest I think this is totally opposite what would happen. In order to be part of the toilet bowl series you have to qualify as a bad team (ie less competitive). If my team is 5-5 after ten weeks and I still have a shot at the playoffs (for winners not the toilet bowl) I am trying hard to get into the mix. If my team is 4-6 I might be more tempted (which seems to the issue we are trying to counter) to get less competitive to increase my chance at a better draft pick.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I gotta be honest I think this is totally opposite what would happen. In order to be part of the toilet bowl series you have to qualify as a bad team (ie less competitive). If my team is 5-5 after ten weeks and I still have a shot at the playoffs (for winners not the toilet bowl) I am trying hard to get into the mix. If my team is 4-6 I might be more tempted (which seems to the issue we are trying to counter) to get less competitive to increase my chance at a better draft pick.

Let me toss out an idea that would deal with that. If we had a 6 team playoff, then put the other 6 teams in the toilet playoffs. Anyone on the edge will always try to make the real playoffs; no one would tank just to make it into the toilet playoffs.

Then, to increase the odds of the worst teams getting the best picks (the intent of draft picks), give the bottom two teams a bye week. So for 2007, the two 3-10 teams would get a bye. The three 5-8 teams and the 6-7 team would battle it out the first week and the two winners face the two worst teams. The better teams would have to win 3 times to get the top pick, the worse teams would only have to win twice.

Of course, the 3rd worst team could always tank to try and become the 2nd worst team. Maybe there's a "tanking" incentive in any system we come up with that awards draft picks (which is why the "win-back" weeks in a pay league work so well, whether in a draft pick league or not). Even in a lottery, there's incentive to tank to increase your number of "balls in the hopper".

With 12 teams playing into the final weeks of the season, that means everyone is still trying to forge a better team and will be in the hunt for free agents (which is the higher standard Brian is trying to make incentives for). As it is now, at 5-8, even though I'm trying to win each week and I'd make a free agent acquistion if a real prime one was out there, I'm unlikely to make a move, because there's little upside (win a meaningless game), but plenty of downside (I'd have to cut someone I intend to hold for next year or for the RFA period; I'd have to pay on my next year's cap when I cut someone to make room).

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Popes

Even in a lottery, there's incentive to tank to increase your number of "balls in the hopper".

Not in Brian's original idea which rewarded extra "balls" in the hopper for each win after a certain date (say the start of the soft-cap period.

[Popes]

Good point. I was addressing Frank's position: a lottery that doesn't give any advantage for winning.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

As it is now, at 5-8, even though I'm trying to win each week and I'd make a free agent acquistion if a real prime one was out there, I'm unlikely to make a move, because there's little upside (win a meaningless game), but plenty of downside (I'd have to cut someone I intend to hold for next year or for the RFA period; I'd have to pay on my next year's cap when I cut someone to make room).

As someone who struggled often it is the situations like this that make it hard for me to accuse anyone of cheating. How you manage your roster this year will impact what you can do in future years. Having to take a cap hit during the soft cap period and/or cut a player you would like to hold onto to win a game that is meaningless (well actually it is meaningful because losing it would likely help your draft position) is looked at differently by each owner.

BTW, at some point we are going to have to try and distill all of these ideas into something we can vote on. Until then I am enjoying the discussion and back and forth.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

As someone who struggled often it is the situations like this that make it hard for me to accuse anyone of cheating. How you manage your roster this year will impact what you can do in future years. Having to take a cap hit during the soft cap period and/or cut a player you would like to hold onto to win a game that is meaningless (well actually it is meaningful because losing it would likely help your draft position) is looked at differently by each owner.

BTW, at some point we are going to have to try and distill all of these ideas into something we can vote on. Until then I am enjoying the discussion and back and forth.

Exactly and that point is what I feel others are missing. This is a contract league YOU DO HAVE to make considerations of short-term vs long-term benefit.

Toilet Bowl - awarding spots based on WINS, is counter to draft seeding. You make a bottom 4 team toilet bowl and teams just start tanking earlier to get into toilet bowl and then ramp it up come playoff time. You make a 6 team toilet bowl and you just encourage the middle teams to not get better (b/c they can win the #1 pick) and in the end the bottom teams get screwed.

Brian's more balls theory - again all it will do is have teams tank earlier (before said date) and then ramp it up in the end. Again is the worst team really getting help or can it be exploited?

Expand playoffs to 6 teams + Lottery = Downside, 1 less week of actual competition since teams don't want a Week 17 Playoff Bowl (the only reason I agreed to a 4 team playoff). Can teams tank? Sure, but at best with the worst record you get a 60% shot at the 1st pick. If you are anywhere near the final two playoff spots come trading deadline, they would obviously choose to make a push, if not they have a 40% chance not not getting #1.

I think you guys have foregotten how fun this league was when there were 6 playoff teams. We had no tanking issues and the trade deadline was crazy as there were more buyers than sellers.

Expanded Playoffs + Lottery = fun competitive league!!

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

Good point. I was addressing Frank's position: a lottery that doesn't give any advantage for winning.

That's the whole point. Winning should not be tied with draft seeding.

[Urza's Ragers]

After reading all this, I agree with Frank here. At the very beginning of my fantasy life I saw it exactly how Frank sees it now, managing your team your style to either benefit now or later. I then somehow was persuaded to see the other side of things by a former league owner about not throwing games but that's in a whole different league that is not set up like ours. In this league we have to think about our long term goals and I know throwing games is bad competition so I agree with Franks idea of expanding playoffs...I wouldn't mind fighting for the playoffs with a decent record the last couple of weeks. Probably would do more to enhance my chances of making the playoffs...

[Philadelphia Freedom]

For what it is worth I am really thinking that expanding the playoffs might be the way to go. Another option rather than the huge home field advantage would be to award a couple of points (say three) for each extra win the the higher seed had in the regular season. For example a team with a 10-4 record against a team that went 8-6 would get six points for being the higher seed.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Having to take a cap hit during the soft cap period and/or cut a player you would like to hold onto to win a game that is meaningless (well actually it is meaningful because losing it would likely help your draft position) is looked at differently by each owner.

Just a comment on the soft cap. I wasn't around when it was implemented, so maybe this isn't a new observation. I'm guessing the intent of it is to make people really consider their long-term signings. For example, with no soft cap, let's say you're out of it and you sign Ryan Grant after he has one good week. You give him a 5 year contract and then just cut him at the end of this year if he doesn't pan out (with full hit this year, when you don't care because you're out of it). So I see the point as committing you more to a long-term signing.

Anyway, the observation I have is that it it has a downside of serving as a disincentive for the losing teams to be competitive. I've got loads of cap space this year, yet I'm trying to avoid cutting anyone (and therefore picking up anyone) because I don't want to hurt my 2008 cap. For example, I might have been willing to bid on a WR (I was hurting with Holmes out due to injury) to help me win in the final 3 weeks, but I don't want to make the cut and take the hit for next year. Just a thought...

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

That's the whole point. Winning should not be tied with draft seeding.

To chime in as an observer here, in another league I am in, the toilet bowl is bottom 4 teams. First round LOSER moves on to final game. WINNER of that game gets #1 pick....just thought I'd throw that out as an alternate idea....and to keep this discussion out of SAC'd ;-)

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

For what it is worth I am really thinking that expanding the playoffs might be the way to go. Another option rather than the huge home field advantage would be to award a couple of points (say three) for each extra win the the higher seed had in the regular season. For example a team with a 10-4 record against a team that went 8-6 would get six points for being the higher seed.

This idea has potential rather than a strict homefield advanatge.

Whatever floats your guys boats as long as we have 6 man playoffs + Bottom 3 (60/30/10) lottery we are good to go!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

BTW, at some point we are going to have to try and distill all of these ideas into something we can vote on. Until then I am enjoying the discussion and back and forth.

Agreed. It appears as though heels are starting to be dug in here though. Obviously, we are in no hurry to get something figured out (though it is always better to do while issues and options are fresh in people's minds), but I think people's stances are becoming fairly well entrenched. We'll probably have a couple of separate options to vote on here once all the ideas are fully fleshed out.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Agreed. It appears as though heels are starting to be dug in here though. Obviously, we are in no hurry to get something figured out (though it is always better to do while issues and options are fresh in people's minds), but I think people's stances are becoming fairly well entrenched. We'll probably have a couple of separate options to vote on here once all the ideas are fully fleshed out.

Expand Playoffs + Bottom 3 lottery (60/30/10): Insects, Ragers, Freedom
Toilet Bowl: Dodgers, Preds, Mutts

Other half of the league??

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Expand Playoffs + Bottom 3 lottery (60/30/10): Insects, Ragers, Freedom
Toilet Bowl: Dodgers, Preds, Mutts

Other half of the league??

Don't place me in the Toilet Bowl column. I said the idea has merit, but I'm not ready to back it as is.

I remain 100% opposed to expanding the playoffs.

[Amish]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Expand Playoffs + Bottom 3 lottery (60/30/10): Insects, Ragers, Freedom
Toilet Bowl: Dodgers, Preds, Mutts

Other half of the league??

I again apologize for being the start of this massive thread.

With that being said, I would have to vote for the expanded playoffs with the lottery.

Looking at my team this year and relating it to the toilet bowl idea, I would have no chance of winning the toilet bowl based on weekly history. (I am considering this in pre trading, but my trades were made SOLELY on setting myself up for next year with my RFA's and such.) My avg score this year (even if you add in the extra 30 pts I would have had if I would have started Parker / Manning / Shockey the last week) would only be around 90 pts a game. My guys had terrible years. Parker was off this year. T Jones didn't perform at all. Boldin was weak. Shockey had moments but disappeared too often. At the same time a could of won 5 doesn't reflect well either !

BUT, in the toilet bowl I would have to play a team like the POPES who scored an avg of 12pts more than me. ( I also really believe if there was a toilet bowl based on WINS, Popes wouldn't have traded Peyton and E. Graham) Again giving the advantage to the "better" team not just taking issues.

I do see valid points in both but I would lean to opening the playoffs up to 6 teams and having a lottery to the bottom 3 teams.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

Don't place me in the Toilet Bowl column. I said the idea has merit, but I'm not ready to back it as is.

I remain 100% opposed to expanding the playoffs.

Why? It does more good than harm.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Amish

I also really believe if there was a toilet bowl based on WINS, Popes wouldn't have traded Peyton and E. Graham

Maybe. Maybe not. Your point raises an issue that need to be thought about: a toilet bowl will affect trade deadline decisions. It would probably have a tendency to dampen trading, as you point out - I'd have had more to play for this year. And it might make the worst teams even more likely to trade their stars: if you are out of it and so low that you look like you won't even have a real shot at the #1, then trading to improve for next year becomes even more pressing. Something to think about for those who don't like stars being traded to good teams at the deadline (I'm not in that group) - a toilet bowl would probably cut down on it.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Expand Playoffs + Bottom 3 lottery (60/30/10): Insects, Ragers, Freedom
Toilet Bowl: Dodgers, Preds, Mutts

Other half of the league??

Is it just coincidence that so far this list reads pretty much like the teams who have a chance at the playoffs this year, and those that don't?

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

Don't place me in the Toilet Bowl column. I said the idea has merit, but I'm not ready to back it as is.

I remain 100% opposed to expanding the playoffs.

I too remain 100% opposed to expanding the playoffs, unless you guys want to go back to a championship on week 17 (which is the way we did it in the beginning). Otherwise you are taking away one of my weeks to have a team actively competing in the Frenzy, and I think that is an absolutely terrible way to respond to cheating.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Mutts

unless you guys want to go back to a championship on week 17 (which is the way we did it in the beginning)

I would vote against any proposal (regardless of what problems it fixes) that includes playing the championship during Week 17. All of these other issues are minor compared to the disaster that is playing Week 17.

The hosts of our local fantasy football radio show had it right when they said: "If your league plays Week 17, find yourself a new league to be in".

[Amish]

Just an honest question here.

What if instead of changing everything, as it seems it was fine up until my mistake, there is an infraction for tanking. - This could either be loss of cap dollars or even up to loss of 1st round draft pick?

I know that incentives are better than punishments but could this work? I guess the one problem would be what one considers "not your best lineup."

Just an idea, not saying it would work.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Amish

I know that incentives are better than punishments but could this work? I guess the one problem would be what one considers "not your best lineup."

In my mind, you hit on why it can't work. It's way too easy to tank while still making selections that are plausibily defendible. We'd never be able to come up with a standard that was enforceable other than "you can't play guys who are know to be physically unable to play that week".

There's only two ways to fix it: you either make not trying less beneficial (Frank's lottery) or make it detrimental to the team whose not trying (Brian's toilet bowl).

Frank's plan is nice because it still give the worst teams the best picks, but it doesn't solve the problem, it just minimizes the chance of it happened.

Brian's plan is nice because is actually solves the problem. If you don't try under a toilet bowl system, you only hurt yourself. However, it does it at the expense of the "worst teams get best picks for sure" principle.

I think the question everyone really has to decide is: how significant is the problem? If not a big deal, then just do the lottery and minimize the chances of it happening. If it's a big deal (big enough to mess with the draft picks principle), then actually eliminate the problem.

Personally, I don't have a vote at this point - I'm still taking in the discussion.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

In my mind, you hit on why it can't work. It's way too easy to tank while still making selections that are plausibily defendible. We'd never be able to come up with a standard that was enforceable other than "you can't play guys who are know to be physically unable to play that week".

There's only two ways to fix it: you either make not trying less beneficial (Frank's lottery) or make it detrimental to the team whose not trying (Brian's toilet bowl).

Frank's plan is nice because it still give the worst teams the best picks, but it doesn't solve the problem, it just minimizes the chance of it happened.

Brian's plan is nice because is actually solves the problem. If you don't try under a toilet bowl system, you only hurt yourself. However, it does it at the expense of the "worst teams get best picks for sure" principle.

I think the question everyone really has to decide is: how significant is the problem? If not a big deal, then just do the lottery and minimize the chances of it happening. If it's a big deal (big enough to mess with the draft picks principle), then actually eliminate the problem.

Personally, I don't have a vote at this point - I'm still taking in the discussion.

Playoff expansion + Lottery solves the same problem as the toilet bowl as it encourages teams to stay competitive throughout as there are more playoff spots to be had, yet it does not sacrifice the worst teams from getting a chance at the best pick.

Expanding playoffs I am sure will make this league active again. How many tradeline deals do we see now? Barely any. When it was 6 team playoffs there were trades like crazy as everyone still has a chance.

Really for those against expansion, what is the biggest hurdle? We can avoid week 17 championship. We can give higher seeds an advantage if need be.

As for those not in playoff vs in playoffs drawing line sin this argument... prior to this year I had a winning record overall, have been to the Frenzy Bowl 2 times, and have won it once. I have been at the top, I have been at the bottom, I have been mediocre.

Simply put 6 team playoffs solves all the problems people have and will make this league much more active through out the season over a Toilet Bowl where teams could tank earlier to get into the toilet bracket.