WHAT DOES ANYONE THINK OF THIS???

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:53 am

Originally posted by UFS:
That's all good, but I agree with GG that there should not be e-mail addresses or league wide MB's. see we agree on something.

now get ready. this is the week i pass you in total points. with the crummy year i've had, that's not a good thing for you

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:59 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Now you and Walla Walla are bowing out because the system may be tweaked? Yikes, you're a tough bunch to please. I guess you and John always had similarities.i can't speak for anyone other than myself. the KD method is a turnoff for me. step in the wrong direction. the KD method isn't the only constraint. season last too long. interferes with football, etc...KD was just the icing on the top

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
If you leave baseball over KDS, it's a good crutch, but no way does KDS play ANY factor in who wins the NFBC next year. you may be right, but i find it interesting that the KD method hasn't even been tried in any NFBC or NFFC sanctioned league (that i know of) and then you decide to change your whole format. what if there are unexpected results because of your change. much better to run it threw some sat leagues first, don't you agree?

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:59 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
This is pretty simple rule change, if Greg deems it necessary. It should read like this:

"Public or private communication concerning the speculative amount of bidding necessary to acquire a free agent is strictly forbidden. Violators will be subject to corrective action up to and including expulsion from the NFFC." not necessary [/QUOTE]I agree about it being unnecessary, but it seems that some people would like to have a rule like this in place to avoid potential threats of collusion.

We'll miss you next year, GG

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:01 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:
I agree about it being unnecessary, but it seems that some people would like to have a rule like this in place to avoid potential threats of collusion.i posted my bids on the league MB. in no way is that collusion or a threat of collusion

Originally posted by King of Queens:
We'll miss you next year, GG

just like barlow, don't bury me just yet.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:13 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by Captain Hook:
Would you like some cheese with those whines...? so you don't periodically evaluate where you're at? you just blindly throw money at something? you sound like an NFL player who keeps playing until you get run out cause you lost your edge [/QUOTE]I don't blindly throw money at anything (well my wife's credit card, but...), but I also would never try and excuse my absence from a competition that I have been an important part of, because of a very minor rule change (in practice there is only a small difference between random assignments and the KD method and we all know that GG).

If you want to tell people that you can't do baseball because it weakened you at football, that is certainly your prerogative. I don't feel that way and will continue to support and be supported by the NFBC and NFFC.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:16 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
I agree about it being unnecessary, but it seems that some people would like to have a rule like this in place to avoid potential threats of collusion.i posted my bids on the league MB. in no way is that collusion or a threat of collusion[/QUOTE]Be honest: were those your actual bids, or an attempt to get others to spend more of their FAAB than they otherwise would have?

Posting bids on the message boards -- whether actual or false amounts -- COULD be deemed collusionary by certain owners.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:19 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:
Be honest: were those your actual bids, or an attempt to get others to spend more of their FAAB than they otherwise would have?

Posting bids on the message boards -- whether actual or false amounts -- COULD be deemed collusionary by certain owners. weren't you the guy who made the WSOP analogy a few days ago. don't players bluff? come on KoQ.

Posting bids on the message boards is certainly legal. look up the definition of collusion

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:41 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
weren't you the guy who made the WSOP analogy a few days ago. don't players bluff? come on KoQ.Don't get me wrong -- I love playing mindgames with my fantasy opponents more than anyone! Where do you think the name "SVENGALI" comes from?

The problem here is one of perception. As has been stated by you and others, examples of unacceptable behavior should be listed here to avoid feathers getting ruffled.

While the WSOP has no rules concerning bluffing, apparently a set of guidelines is needed for the NFFC.

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
Posting bids on the message boards is certainly legal. look up the definition of collusion

By posting your bid amounts -- particularly false/inflated ones -- you are establishing a higher level of bidding than might otherwise be necessary. It's not collusion, but then by definition, neither is what Sack did in New York 6. Again, it applies more to acceptable levels of behavior.

This needs to be repeated: I don't have a problem with posting bids, or even posting false bids. However, enough people disagree with you and me to warrant a discussion and/or a revised set of rules.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:51 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
I agree about it being unnecessary, but it seems that some people would like to have a rule like this in place to avoid potential threats of collusion.i posted my bids on the league MB. in no way is that collusion or a threat of collusion
[/QUOTE]Not collusion at all.

Those were not real bids as you pulled them off in an attempt to get others to use FAAB.

I laugh at this stuff because I know you. But for those that don't, it really could affect their bids, (that's why you do it), and it could easily turn off people for next year, because why play in a league where people have to do this to win? We all want to win, but I think most want to have fun playing in their attempt to do so. Win or lose, we thrive on the competition. This stuff gets really old after awhile. When it's all said and done, it's the memories that the event gives you that will bring you back or not, not some silly rule change.

If we all played with the spirit of Lumpy's Losers or a Jim Ferrari, this event would double every year.

GG, you're a very nice person, but why do you have to go to such great lengths to suck the fun out of playing? It's great to offer suggestions, but your digs on people when they don't view things the same as you only bring out the worst in people, including myself.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:56 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Now you and Walla Walla are bowing out because the system may be tweaked? Yikes, you're a tough bunch to please. I guess you and John always had similarities.i can't speak for anyone other than myself. the KD method is a turnoff for me. step in the wrong direction. the KD method isn't the only constraint. season last too long. interferes with football, etc...KD was just the icing on the top

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
If you leave baseball over KDS, it's a good crutch, but no way does KDS play ANY factor in who wins the NFBC next year. you may be right, but i find it interesting that the KD method hasn't even been tried in any NFBC or NFFC sanctioned league (that i know of) and then you decide to change your whole format. what if there are unexpected results because of your change. much better to run it threw some sat leagues first, don't you agree? [/QUOTE]STATS should have the KDS system finished next week for baseball and then you can tell me how difficult it is to use. If Tom and I can't figure this out correctly, then we're in trouble. But I trust that correctly configuring 1 through 15 preferences is something the two of us can handle. You can double-check everything for us afterwards.

But you are right, it's our job to make sure EVERY owner has posted their preferences. Things could happen. I've gambled before on my ideas and lived to talk about them and this very, very minor change is something I think we can handle and that I will make if enough owners want it. Again, it's up to the majority of owners in baseball and football and if it's preferred then I'll find a way to do it...and do it right.

Maybe I should just go to 12 teams, 20 players, random draft selection, one location. The other way was too big of a gamble!