Posted by dBKC on 4/23/2020 5:27:00 PM (view original):
I vote quadrants - or weighting the lottery to give worse teams better odds BUT evening out the odds and giving all 24 teams odds at #1, that way there’s no incentive to tank but bad teams still will on average get better picks to help level the playing field.

i agree with these sentiments.

Posted by all3 on 4/23/2020 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, every owner will stay for 24 years and make it "fair". Come on.

ONE VOTE FOR THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AS LISTED.

Fair for every franchise

I’d rather have completely random over weighted or quadrants.

I don't know that I've ever seen this many people prefer pure luck over skill. It's fascinating.

We are preferring luck over the skill of losing

I think those thoughts will change the first time a champion gets the #1 pick the next offseason

Posted by cea8010 on 4/23/2020 7:24:00 PM (view original):
We are preferring luck over the skill of losing

The only person that would say that is someone that thinks they can't win without luck.

Have you been in a progressive before? The biggest winners are the biggest tankers

Posted by cea8010 on 4/23/2020 7:44:00 PM (view original):
Have you been in a progressive before? The biggest winners are the biggest tankers

There are ways to diminish the tanking without going so far in the other direction that blind luck is the most important skill to winning. Tanking requires more skill than a random draft.

BTW, I am the most impatient person in progressives...I never get a top pick because I am always dealing my #1 picks and I'm almost always a playoff team while winning a couple titles. I'm not defending losing on purpose, but this is the wrong answer and it's unfortunate you won't even consider that until it happens and it's too late because the league falls apart.

The biggest winners are the tankers because they get back to back high picks...that’s why I think we should prevent that possibility

Slash, I hear you. I think this will be a success. The challenge of no trades no drops will make show this is a “skills” league.

is MJ better than Derek Harper? Of course, but all but one of my RiNgZzZ are from progs and I never had a blue chip, top ten pick.

again, I appreciate you trying to get ahead of this stuff because I don’t want this league to fold because I expect to add a couple mire RiNgZzZ

Posted by ronsouth1 on 4/23/2020 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/23/2020 5:27:00 PM (view original):
I vote quadrants - or weighting the lottery to give worse teams better odds BUT evening out the odds and giving all 24 teams odds at #1, that way there’s no incentive to tank but bad teams still will on average get better picks to help level the playing field.

i agree with these sentiments.

I also agree with this

Posted by slashtc on 4/23/2020 7:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cea8010 on 4/23/2020 7:44:00 PM (view original):
Have you been in a progressive before? The biggest winners are the biggest tankers

There are ways to diminish the tanking without going so far in the other direction that blind luck is the most important skill to winning. Tanking requires more skill than a random draft.

BTW, I am the most impatient person in progressives...I never get a top pick because I am always dealing my #1 picks and I'm almost always a playoff team while winning a couple titles. I'm not defending losing on purpose, but this is the wrong answer and it's unfortunate you won't even consider that until it happens and it's too late because the league falls apart.

The league was set up with random draft order as part of the rules before anyone signed up, so if you want to complain about it, so be it. I thought that putting a system in place to keep random good luck and random bad luck from occurring to the same franchises in back-to-back seasons, but to simply change back to a lottery rewarding tanking is no fun. I know how to tank as a skill and I'd rather try to win without any of us employing that common strategy.

Im not sure why TANKING is such a prevalent topic of conversation.

I'm pretty sure that we do not have a system that awards losing -
or where there would be a benefit to lose -
(other than it might create pity from other owners...)

Im not interested in a weighted system - or a tier for a lottery where bad teams shift forward...
Our theme has a quick turnaround (4 years) that helps negate long rebuilds....

The Quadrant idea was to address GOOD or Bad luck in how it impacts draft draws -

If we are wanting to credit or award losing -
we could award a "Good Sportsmanship" award to the team that tries and still stinks....
("Boy... The Potsdam Pirates are cellar dwellers once again -
I love that guy - he makes funny comments in our draft theme and is never late with a pick -
Hell, lets give him our Good Sportsmanship award")

I am having a lot of fun in this theme, building my team - and look forward to jumping into the season !!

Have any of you guys really stopped to think about how deep these drafts will be? First of all, there will be (borrowing from LBJ) not one, not two, not three, but 4 full years of NBA draftees. That will account for 40-50 "good" players. There will then be 36 players who recently graduated out of the CAP League. At least around half of them (18) will probably be worth drafting back into the League. In every draft after the 2nd, there will also be 36 player who graduated out of the CAP League and had to sit a year. Again, at least half of them (18 more) will be worth drafting back into the League. That's at least 90 players, which is more than the 3 full scheduled rounds of drafting.
In addition, didn't we say that drafts are ABBA? That will help too.
If we limit each owner to 1 top or bottom 6 pick every two years, I don't see what else we could possibly do. Again, I'm all for anything that eliminates record from the past season factoring into draft position, since a large part of this League is supposed to be advanced planning.
No Commish is ever going to make every owner in the League happy, so why don't we just let the person who came up with this concept, and who has put a lot of thought and effort into it, take care of things, at the very least until we do see how it works, before clammering for changes?