Would You Be In Favor Of Ranking Your Draft Spots?

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:40 pm

The only way to make a bid for draft spots fair is to make it a true live open bidding process. That’s not going to happen because of time on draft day. A blind bid is just as lucky as a Random bid. The horses end bid is just as lucky as the random bid. I predict the horse’s end will be the rule next year. Not because it’s better but because more people will think its better.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:57 pm

Originally posted by Ugly Yellow Tomatoes:
... Deciding who randomly gets to pick their draft spot first ... is really no different than randomly determining who gets to pick the first player. Your argument against derby style draft slots seems to hinge on the fact that the first draft pick selection has an unfair advantage over the last ... yet ... the same argument could be made for the person who drafts the first player.
exactly. totally random draft slots is crap, but kentucky dufus method is crap + unfair. i'll take a single order of crap over kentucky dufus

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:59 pm

Originally posted by Ugly Yellow Tomatoes:
Based on you view of fairness ... it would be consistent to have random player assignments as well (not use the serpentine) ... because you wouldn't want to randomly give someone an unfair advantage to pick the first player.
do you even read what you type? random player assignments

based on my view of fairness, the only method that will work is blind bidding on draft slots.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:00 pm

Originally posted by Ugly Yellow Tomatoes:
GG ... you wanted a logical argument ... here it is! bbbhhahahaha

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:01 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
While GG has a "technical" point about fairness regarding the Derby method technical point? it's not fair. if that's a "technical" point in your book, so be it. in my book that's a pretty big one

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:04 pm

Originally posted by renman:
as the 14th owner i would/could care less... lost cause. sorry

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:42 pm

renman - are you still working on this. YOU said it, now please back up what you said with facts. thanks.

Originally posted by renman:
and many handcuffing the stud backup
my guess is that maybe 1 owner drafted holmes, blaylock and johnson. it's probably ZERO, but i'll let you hang yourself.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:00 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
While GG has a "technical" point about fairness regarding the Derby method technical point? it's not fair. if that's a "technical" point in your book, so be it. in my book that's a pretty big one [/QUOTE]I say technical, because for whoever gets such an advantage or disadvantage, it is still randomly determined. Since "equal opportunity" is probably the best definition of "fair", I'm not sure I can buy your argument that its inherently unfair.

I do, however, agree with you that it is inherently inferior to slot bidding in the same sense that random selection is - it is an element of luck that can be and should be eliminated.

I am all for determining a "National Champion" based on more skill and less luck, at least without having to change the core elements of the game that draws most fantasy players.

I think a key point here is that I certainly don't consider getting a lucky draw as being a core element of the game - and I really wonder if ANYONE believes that it is (and if they don't, do away with it once and for all).

[ October 17, 2005, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:18 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I say technical, because for whoever gets such an advantage or disadvantage, it is still randomly determined. Since "equal opportunity" is probably the best definition of "fair", I'm not sure I can buy your argument that its inherently unfair. CURRENT RANDOM SYSTEM:
Every draft slot is chosen randomly. No owner gains an advantage based on their draft slot preferences. In this regard, this system is fair to all owners.

PROPOSED KENTUCKY DUFUS SYSTEM:
The law of averages say that some owners will get their top-end draft slot preferences, while other owners get their low-end draft slot preferences, and finally the 14th owner gets no say in their draft slot. he gets the leftover slot. In this regard, there is no way this system is fair to all owners.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:26 pm

Originally posted by Walla Walla:
The only way to make a bid for draft spots fair is to make it a true live open bidding process. A blind bid is just as lucky as a Random bid. Some things are so illogical that I normally wouldn't even comment. But I'll make an exception. The above is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

A blind bid has been an accepted methodology for the auction process in business transactions since about the beginning of time. A live auction is likely to yield different results, but in no way is it more or less "fair" or "lucky" than a blind bid process.