Response to E-mail about future of this league

menobrown · Post by **menobrown** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:52 am

Since the e-mail that went out this morning discussing the viability of this league asked for feedback I thought it would be a good idea to dedicate a thread for that discussion.

These were the options presented to us:
We have three options:
1. Make this work with our current lineups on Fanball.com 2. Say we screwed up and bag all five leagues 3. Somehow get everyone together and redraft and still use past stats

Additionally these options were presented:

A) We can adjust your required weekly starting lineup to something like 3-F, 3-G, 1-C, 5 Flex.

B) Or we can adjust your required weekly starting lineup to something like 4-F, 4-G, 1-C, 3-Flex

C) Or I'm open to any other set of starting lineup requirement that gives you more position flexibility and possibly allows you to play your best lineup each week.

My preference is for option 1 but with that option amended. I believe the easiest thing to do with this league is to simply award dual eligibility for most players. I understand some people, myself included, passed on players I would have preferred to fill a certain position. So awarding dual eligibility is not 100% fair but I think it's the easiest thing to do and in terms of real NBA play probably the most accurate. For instance Tim Duncan really does play C and F so I don't have an issue with him being both.

I'd rather do this than go with options A-C above. I thought Option B was the best but reducing it down to one required Center takes a lot of the strategy out of this game. I'd simply prefer we kept the lineup requirements intact and awarded dual eligibility.

This may not be ideal but I have to think it's better than not having the league or redrafting. In terms of redrafting I'm not so sure I'd be on board with that.

This is just my opinion but I would encourage everyone to share their opinion quickly as I would think we need to resolve this sooner rather than later.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:03 am

The fairest thing is to give every player dual-position eligibility. This would work as follows:

PG become G/F
SG become G/F
SF become G/F
PF become F/C
C become F/C

It's pretty easy to distinguish the PG/SG/SF from the PF/C, so there should be very few problems with this set-up.

Let's keep the roster requirements (4F, 4G, 2C, 2FGC) intact.

Finally, let's play some fantasy hoops. A month from now, all of this will be forgotten.

stool pigeon · Post by **stool pigeon** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:18 am

it is a big deal to people who specifically passed on certain players because of eligibility to now get be disadvantaged by new rules/eligibility. it would be a huge pain in the neck to redraft, but that is the fairest thing to do.

koq, i'm not sure i'm understanding your position correctly. in your proposal that means any point guard can now be played at a forward spot?

if we had to vote on an option i would have to go with option b. i do agree that this will league should go on, it has been a blast every year. we will move on and next year it will be straight.

menobrown · Post by **menobrown** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:23 am

KOQ the only think I don't like about your suggestion is playing PG at F. But if it's what it takes I'm on board with it. I'd rather see that than only needing to field one C each week or redrafting.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:26 am

Originally posted by stool pigeon:
koq, i'm not sure i'm understanding your position correctly. in your proposal that means any point guard can now be played at a forward spot?Point guards could remain Guard-only, but that would be about the only restriction that makes sense. There are so many Centers that now have Forward-Center eligibility; it doesn't seem fair to single out a few players as Center-only.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:28 am

Originally posted by stool pigeon:
if we had to vote on an option i would have to go with option b. Option B is completely unfair to those of us who drafted two centers in the first 4 rounds. This is "off the table" as far as I am concerned.

stool pigeon · Post by **stool pigeon** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:48 am

it is going to be unfair no mater what option we choose. i passed on players specifically because of their eligibility. how is it fair i don't have those players i would of picked not on my team?

i'll live with any decision and not trying to get anyone angry. it's just a tough situation and everyone is going to have different opinions because of how they drafted with what rules were in place at the time.

[ October 29, 2009, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: stool pigeon ]

Purple Helmets · Post by **Purple Helmets** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:54 am

I appreciate what Tom and Greg are trying to do but if eligibility changes from when we drafted, I would want (probably demand to be) out of the league. I never question or challenge rules as long as they don't change midstream (after a draft and once the season has started). Think about your fantasy football and baseball leagues (baseball is more relevant), if you went through the draft and then eligibility changed, it would simply not be fair. I was not happy with single eligibility on draft day, but all of my decisions were made based upon the information at hand. 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.

I am not 100% against re-drafting although I think getting all owners to do so would be a very challenging undertaking. And it would be a bit disappointing because I like my team a lot based on the single eligibility understanding under which we drafted.

If eligibility changes from when we drafted, I'm out...and again I say that with respect to Tom and Greg as I know they are trying to make things right. Eligibility should never have been such a question mark when we drafted.

Looking at the responses above, I think it's going to be difficult to get full consensus.

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:04 am

I have no team, just trying to help:

Why not just leave all positions as is?

This kind of happen to me years ago in a IDP League. I drafted a DE who than was moved to LB, I had to play him as a LB, so I had no choice but to cut that player, because his value at LB plus the fact I was loaded at LB made that "Great Pick" a wasted pick.

So again can you just leave the Postion that were "Set" before the draft the same?

Again just trying to help, hope it works out for everyone,

John

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:07 am

I can understand the argument that some people passed on certain players due to position lists, but do not think it is unfair because we all had to deal with the same issue. No one was singled out, we all dealt with it. I vote for keeping this thing going, just change the lineup configuration to more players in the flex position. Come on guys, lets keep this going.