Even though I actually really like my team’s chances this year and I picked 20th, I would agree that a lotto that favored weaker teams would probably be best - you could make the odds only slightly favor bad teams so that there’s not a big incentive to tank - I think this is at least something to keep in mind and watch what happens in the next season or two and reevaluate if needed.

Posted by dBKC on 4/22/2020 12:27:00 PM (view original):
Even though I actually really like my team’s chances this year and I picked 20th, I would agree that a lotto that favored weaker teams would probably be best - you could make the odds only slightly favor bad teams so that there’s not a big incentive to tank - I think this is at least something to keep in mind and watch what happens in the next season or two and reevaluate if needed.

I think you did a great job drafting...getting Scottie gave you some options going forward in the draft.

Even if the draft was completely random for non-playoff teams I could live with that (or at least I'd like to see what that did for spreading out the talent). I think we stick with what we have for now, but I foresee issues.

Given the format, I don't think we can even begin thinking about "adjusting" which years we use.
I LOVE any rule that helps eliminate tanking. The URAPP was designed as a tank-free League, but owners have found ways around it, and I know several owners who are thinking of quitting that League because of it. Tanking is killing that League, not the huge randomness that was designed into it. Would hate to see the same thing happen here.
Again, I do still like the proposal of no Top or Bottom 3 or maybe as many as 6 picks in 2 drafts in a row. If owner is lucky enough to draw a Top 6 pick 2 seasons in a row, they would automatically drop to 7th the second Draft or if they are unlucky enough to get a bottom pick 2 seasons in a row, they would at least move-up to 18 the second season.

The intention wasn't to do that in this league - the idea was to point out that there are other ways to inject randomness and prevent dynasties. For the record, I don't think that league lasted very long - as you can imagine people didn't stick around long when the luck went against them continuously.

The URAPP League is in it's 35th season and still active. It seems to have an owner bail like once every other year, which is less than most "regular" progressives. The others I talk with about it, hate the tanking, but can live with the severe (player losses and years to use, as well as Draft position) randomness.

Comments about the "protected" doubling-up of top or bottom 6 picks? I think the Commish is considering it, and I know he wants what the majority wants, unless he feels stongly otherwise. Know he LOVES the random Draft, so even majority input might make for a tough sell, but I'm still trying to cauge how others feel about it. It's it, combined with the rentry of 36 (year 2) or 72 (future years) previously "graduated" players enough to keep those worried about luck happy enough?

I agree 100% with preventing a team from randomly getting back to back top 6 or bottom 6 picks. That would either be an instant championship or a deathblow in this league no matter how good/bad the GM is at drafting. If a team got a top 6 pick last season, keep them in the lotto but then manually move them to #7 if they get another top 6 (and inverse for bottom 6 but with #18). Just my opinion.

Posted by dBKC on 4/23/2020 10:00:00 AM (view original):
I agree 100% with preventing a team from randomly getting back to back top 6 or bottom 6 picks. That would either be an instant championship or a deathblow in this league no matter how good/bad the GM is at drafting. If a team got a top 6 pick last season, keep them in the lotto but then manually move them to #7 if they get another top 6 (and inverse for bottom 6 but with #18). Just my opinion.

Been thinking about this issue....

will float out an idea / proposal and see if it helps that situation.

ISSUE:
DRAFT POSITION - Getting consecutive years of GREAT slots / TERRIBLE spots
There seems to be concern about a team getting too lucky or too unlucky in back to back drafts....

Are we Interested in: (?)

'Quadrant Shift'

Teams that repeat draft position (from Random determination) in Quadrant #1,
the team(s) will shift down to Quadrant #2, starting placement in the #7 slot.

Teams that repeat draft position (from Random determination) in Quadrant #4,
the team(s) will shift forward to Quadrant #3, starting placement in the #____ slot.

(Quadrant #1: picks #1 to #6)
(Quadrant #2: picks #7 to #12)
(Quadrant #3: pick #13 to #18)
(Quadrant #4: picks #19 to #24)

instead of quadrants...what if we did thirds?

1-8
9-16
17-24

I don't like the idea of quadrant shifts because it's assuming the 1st and 6th picks are equal, and they aren't.

My personal opinion is that we randomize the draft order for the 1st season only and then we shift everyone to predetermined slots after that.

So if you got slot 1 in the first draft, you'd shift to 13th, then 24th, then 11th, etc. However we determine is most fair order for each year. So after 24 seasons, every franchise would have had picks 1-24. It's not random at that point, and it's 100% fair, and it's never record based for tanking.

not all draft classes are equal. i would prefer to always to at least have a chance to have a high pick in each draft year than no chance at all. it could be a weighted system, still at least it would provide a opportunity to have a good selection. do not forget we are forgoing trades to improve our clubs and losing players after a few seasons.

Yeah, every owner will stay for 24 years and make it "fair". Come on.

ONE VOTE FOR THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AS LISTED.

The draft order is completely random right? I vote to maintain the random approach without quadrants or any other wrinkles.

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 know I spit out an idea, but I would also vote to leave it as is.