alex
New Member
Posts: 4 
|
Post by alex on Feb 24, 2016 20:18:58 GMT
I am bored so I am going to propose a rule that I know with get overturned, but it will be cool...
One problem I have with leagues like this is that there is no incentive(besides bragging rights) to do well if you cant win... So instead of having drafts reward the worst team from the previous year, lets do it slightly different...
In this league we all took over a major league team, so we should be graded based on that team(at least for the first year)... Owners who do better than their real life team by win% get rewarded with the higher pick...
Playoff teams as always get the bottom picks no matter what...
I am the orioles, lets say my fantasy team does better than the orioles does this season, I should be rewarded as a good owner... while if the orioles do better than me then I should get penalized as a bad owner...
Then future drafts after that are based on your previous season... so if I am a 500 team the current season, but the previous year I was a .600 team then again, I should be penalized for not being a good owner...
Any tie in win% differential the higher draft spot goes to the owner with the worse starting point...
|
|
|
|
Post by srowland on Feb 25, 2016 16:26:24 GMT
I like the idea of not doing it straight off of finish (because tanking). Another idea would be to base the order off of total points scored (playoff teams at bottom of course). This still gives bad teams an incentive to try.
Another thing I always thought would be interesting would be to let whichever teams picks first pick which draft spot they want (not everyone wants the first pick), then second team picks which spot they want and so on...finishing with league champion picking their draft spot (will probably be the last spot).
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Hartman on Feb 26, 2016 13:59:27 GMT
Thanks for the ideas.
I'm not sure that they couldn't be manipulated as easily as 'tanking' though.
Tanking is even an issue at the big league level so it's safe to assume we'll have that concern here too, esp with let's say Gourriel as the top prize next year.
My main concern is helping the poor teams and not making it too easy for good teams to become dynasties. Of course kudos to those who can, but with money involved each team needs to feel like they've got a shot at eventually if they build properly.
At least present set up does that.. we just need to really watch for deliberate losses.
That's my feeling anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by Yankees on Feb 27, 2016 16:13:44 GMT
While we are talking about slightly out there draft ideas. What about a compensation round of picks based on what Alex said? First round is based purely on rankings allowing the worst teams to take the best players, but the second round could be based on outperformance of the MLB team's record. That way the worst teams still have the best opportunity to rebuild, but there is incentive to do better so that you get a better second round pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Hartman on Feb 27, 2016 20:28:20 GMT
Love this idea..
What does everyone else think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Germani on Feb 27, 2016 20:45:47 GMT
I also love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mjuslivin on Feb 28, 2016 12:21:26 GMT
I think a compensation round is a brilliant idea. There aren't very many viable ways to try and keep everyone from tanking and this could be the best one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lucas Smyser TEX on Feb 29, 2016 13:22:39 GMT
I am game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Braves- Mike on Mar 5, 2016 7:50:36 GMT
I honestly feel that we are putting money in people will be competitive although the idea is fun our teams already need to field major league rosters. This idea doesn't take into account significant injuries and lack of depth for low level teams to excel. It also hinders positioning yourself to compete in the future. The idea is cool but considering lets say the my team the Braves try and win and fail to do so, our teams are made up of many others outside of our "starter" team, the drafting matters, call ups matter, we all get that.
Most of all I feel we are putting rules on people to put rules in place. I would prefer to run my team based on how I feel necessary to set myself up to win as quickly as possible. This feels like extra micro management of the teams. So again I say I don't feel is necessary as we already have a competitive rule in place during regular season to fill out rosters with active players. Therefore, I strongly disagree there should be a reward for % win shares when its a luck not function based structure. I would like the chance to better my team through the draft and trades, winning and trying to stay competitive are two very different things.
Lets play ball and let each team manage themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Hartman on Mar 5, 2016 12:11:32 GMT
This would negatively impact rebuilding teams.. that's a good point.
Rethinking my position... it sounds like a fun rule and a different way to reward teams.. but maybe it runs counter to overall goal of allowing all owners equal shots (over time) of cashing in.
It's not like the weak teams are weak of their own doing right now.
Very fair points made Braves!
|
|
