Response to E-mail about future of this league

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:19 pm

Let's go with B. Position eligibility for all players as they were on draft day, and all transactions made after draft day are reverted.

Purple Helmets · Post by **Purple Helmets** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:21 pm

Originally posted by menobrown:
quote:Originally posted by Purple Helmets:
For example, I drafted Deron Williams with pick #10. Had I know Chris Bosh had dual C/F eligibility at that time, I would have drafted him. And taking him would have altered my second pick...and so on.

Not trying to be argumentative with you but how did you and others now know the position eligibility? E-mails were sent out prior to the draft informing people that Bosh was a C.

Now I said in another post and will say again several times in the draft I did not have time to look up a player or just assumed incorrectly. For instance in the 4th round I picked Paul Pierce when I assumed he was F. Had I known he was a G I'd have chosen another player but I'm willing to live with what I picked. I guess I just don't understand how so many people did not know the eligibility positions. It was pain drafting trying to figure out who was who but we all went through the same thing and I for one am willing to live with the player eligibility as listed when we started the draft even though I made a few mistakes with regards to player eligibility. [/QUOTE]You're not being argumentative...I did know that Bosh was a C. What I'm saying is that I would have drafted him before Williams had I known he had C/F (dual) eligibility which has since been proposed.

[ October 29, 2009, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Purple Helmets ]

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:33 pm

I'm sorry to be a wet blanket as I see most want to go with B.....but why?

To appease those who didn't prepare properly?

I'm sorry....the information was available prior to all drafts. I drafted in the very first draft and I had all the info. Even though I also made a couple mistakes assuming players had different eligibility, I take PERSONAL responsibility for those mistakes.

I think changing the rules mid-stream is catering to those who were less prepared and I have a problem with that.

I also want to point out that I don't think Greg & Tom are to blame here. They hastily put together this contest when they had much bigger things going on because WE wanted a contest.
It was upon us to be prepared with the information provided, when & how it was provided. Now because some of us weren't prepared, we're leaving it to Greg & Tom to fix it.

I'm sorry....to me, this whole discussion is ridiculous. Stick with the eligibility and positionality as is. Those who screwed up, screwed up....it happens.

Glenn

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:15 pm

I'm okay as long as this rule is held:

6. Position Eligibility: The NFBBC will determine each player’s position eligibility before Draft Day.

The 4th Guard and 4th Forward becoming flex spots is not that big a deal to me.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:20 pm

Originally posted by Glenneration X:
I'm sorry to be a wet blanket as I see most want to go with B.....but why?
Choice B seems like a compromise. The ONLY change is the 4th forward and 4th guard spots. All of the draft-day position eligibility remains intact. Every other rule remains. I did two drafts this weekend, and that one single change would have had very little impact (if any) on my drafts.

The other alternative, Choice C, is that we don't have an NFBBC this year. Without some sort of a compromise, that seems to be the direction we're headed.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:24 pm

I vote for b as well.....c should not be an option in my opinion

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:34 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:
quote:Originally posted by Glenneration X:
I'm sorry to be a wet blanket as I see most want to go with B.....but why?
Choice B seems like a compromise. The ONLY change is the 4th forward and 4th guard spots. All of the draft-day position eligibility remains intact. Every other rule remains. I did two drafts this weekend, and that one single change would have had very little impact (if any) on my drafts.

The other alternative, Choice C, is that we don't have an NFBBC this year. Without some sort of a compromise, that seems to be the direction we're headed. [/QUOTE]My question is why keeping everything as is would result in there being no contest this year....
That's the rules we all signed up for in the first place.

Glenn

BOO BOO · Post by **BOO BOO** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:57 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:
quote:Originally posted by Glenneration X:
I'm sorry to be a wet blanket as I see most want to go with B.....but why?
Choice B seems like a compromise. The ONLY change is the 4th forward and 4th guard spots. All of the draft-day position eligibility remains intact. Every other rule remains. I did two drafts this weekend, and that one single change would have had very little impact (if any) on my drafts.

The other alternative, Choice C, is that we don't have an NFBBC this year. Without some sort of a compromise, that seems to be the direction we're headed. [/QUOTE]I think your right KING no NFBBC this year.. owners haven't even been charged yet. All it takes is one owner to back out and the leaue is history.

If some reason it doesn't work out why don't we just start are own league have a draft this weekend.

King/Kimo NBA Fantasy League, NO JUICE, NO EVENT FEE. Let me know if you are interested?

Jim Ferrari

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:00 pm

Originally posted by Glenneration X:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
quote:Originally posted by Glenneration X:
I'm sorry to be a wet blanket as I see most want to go with B.....but why?
Choice B seems like a compromise. The ONLY change is the 4th forward and 4th guard spots. All of the draft-day position eligibility remains intact. Every other rule remains. I did two drafts this weekend, and that one single change would have had very little impact (if any) on my drafts.

The other alternative, Choice C, is that we don't have an NFBBC this year. Without some sort of a compromise, that seems to be the direction we're headed. [/QUOTE]My question is why keeping everything as is would result in there being no contest this year....
That's the rules we all signed up for in the first place.

Glenn [/QUOTE]Unforunately, as Greg and Tom will readily admit, the position eligibility was handled very poorly. Mock Draft Central sent out an e-mail on Friday night -- about 14 hours before the 1st drafts -- with an outdated (2008) Rototimes link and a list of players who would have Center-eligibility, even though they were listed as Forward on the link. Then at 11am on Saturday some additional players were added to the Centers list. At around 12pm -- AN HOUR BEFORE THE DRAFT -- three more names were added to the Centers list. Mock Draft Central's database did not match this list, and had many players who had multi-position eligibility. None of the rookies appeared on any e-mail or Rototimes link, so you were totally guessing the positions of players like Terrence Williams who could easily have been either a guard or a forward.

Unless you were 100% on top of this from Friday night into Saturday morning, it would have been impossible to know the right positions. That's why I don't think it's as simple as following "the rules".

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:11 pm

Glenn, I hear you....no doubt it was confusing.

I'm all for keeping the contest, however things fall. I won't leave the contest and will go along with the majority vote.

My personal vote however will remain as is and that's to keep things as is.
A total aversion to changing rules mid-stream is the reason no matter the cause.

Glenn