WCOFF FAAB SNAFU
-
nostradamross
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:00 pm
WCOFF FAAB SNAFU
from what i see here from a group of fantasy footballers that know their stuff, and i would guess have no vested intrest in the outcome of the wcoff fiasco, not one person thought they should or would leave the early bids as they were. i think that says something about what the right answer should have been. if i had to choose one over the other right now i would choose the nffc.
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
WCOFF FAAB SNAFU
Lenny and Emil really bungled this one badly. Not directly their fault that their stat company screwed up, but they made two terrible errors in judgment:
(1) Continuing a partnership with a stat company that has proven to be unreliable
(2) Making a terrible resolution to the situation, then relying on a message board poll to validate their decision
Just an absolute disgrace. They're going to lose a lot of business over this one, and many people will not come back.
(1) Continuing a partnership with a stat company that has proven to be unreliable
(2) Making a terrible resolution to the situation, then relying on a message board poll to validate their decision
Just an absolute disgrace. They're going to lose a lot of business over this one, and many people will not come back.
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
WCOFF FAAB SNAFU
Originally posted by Shrink Attack:
quote:Originally posted by UFS:
Yuk... That's a no win situation either way.
At 8am, I would doubt that more than 2% of the players saw any bids.
I would have deleted the processed bids right away, and then reloaded them into all of the accounts by hand if necessarry and then run them again at normal time.
I would not allow anyone to change their bids if already input. That's the the scenario with the least amount of problems.
You have to do your best to make it as normal as possible.
Leaving the 8am bids as processed leaves a huge can of worms both legally and for repeat business IMO. The problem with that is that the results were already automatically emailed to all the participants. [/QUOTE]I saw that in the other thread. What a mistake that is. Are prople so lazy that can't log in?
quote:Originally posted by UFS:
Yuk... That's a no win situation either way.
At 8am, I would doubt that more than 2% of the players saw any bids.
I would have deleted the processed bids right away, and then reloaded them into all of the accounts by hand if necessarry and then run them again at normal time.
I would not allow anyone to change their bids if already input. That's the the scenario with the least amount of problems.
You have to do your best to make it as normal as possible.
Leaving the 8am bids as processed leaves a huge can of worms both legally and for repeat business IMO. The problem with that is that the results were already automatically emailed to all the participants. [/QUOTE]I saw that in the other thread. What a mistake that is. Are prople so lazy that can't log in?
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
-
sportsbettingman
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:00 pm
WCOFF FAAB SNAFU
Please tell me what you would have done, K of Q?
Either way you cut it...there is hell to pay.
I actually think they did well in the decision they made.
Everyone still had the chance to fill their rosters...nobody had the advantage of knowing anothers bids when bidding.
There HAD to be casualties in this one...and the casualties were those that waited the longest without bidding had less players to bid on.
~Lance
Either way you cut it...there is hell to pay.
I actually think they did well in the decision they made.
Everyone still had the chance to fill their rosters...nobody had the advantage of knowing anothers bids when bidding.
There HAD to be casualties in this one...and the casualties were those that waited the longest without bidding had less players to bid on.
~Lance
"The first man what makes a move can count amongst 'is treasure a ball from this pistol."
~Long John Silver
~Long John Silver
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
WCOFF FAAB SNAFU
What was the solution?
wipe out 8am and rebid?
If this happened, the horror when someone guy that won lowers his bid and loses or just simply gets out bid.
What a mess.
wipe out 8am and rebid?
If this happened, the horror when someone guy that won lowers his bid and loses or just simply gets out bid.
What a mess.
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
WCOFF FAAB SNAFU
Originally posted by nostradamross:
from what i see here from a group of fantasy footballers that know their stuff, and i would guess have no vested intrest in the outcome of the wcoff fiasco, not one person thought they should or would leave the early bids as they were. i think that says something about what the right answer should have been. if i had to choose one over the other right now i would choose the nffc. I agree. Very perceptive nostradamross.
This was a no brainer. How could they let those bids stick? This would be trajic if it was week one (tons of free agents) or week 6 or 7 when a lot of turnover goes on.
Unbeleivable.
from what i see here from a group of fantasy footballers that know their stuff, and i would guess have no vested intrest in the outcome of the wcoff fiasco, not one person thought they should or would leave the early bids as they were. i think that says something about what the right answer should have been. if i had to choose one over the other right now i would choose the nffc. I agree. Very perceptive nostradamross.
This was a no brainer. How could they let those bids stick? This would be trajic if it was week one (tons of free agents) or week 6 or 7 when a lot of turnover goes on.
Unbeleivable.
Hakuna Matata!
WCOFF FAAB SNAFU
Here's a bid from a league I'm in.
Joe Shmo bid 181 on Owen Daniels
(where Lucky Dog was second highest bidder with 61)
If Joe Shmo bids didn't get in ... everyone can rebid or bid where Lucky Dog can also raise OR LOWER his bid knowing that Lucky bid 61. Joe Shmo will probably get him anyway because Lucky Dog probably wouldn't be willing to pay 181 if he was only at 61 to begin with. The guy willing to pay the most for Daniels still gets him even if that person changes (which is the best part of this solution).
The other solution ... give Lucky Dog Daniels for 61 and tell Joe Shmo too bad ... he should have got his picks in a day earlier than the deadline??!!! In this case the guy probably willing to pay the MOST for Danials does NOT get him (would not even get a chance at getting Daniels). Greater injustice IMHO.
You also need a ruling to be consistant. If it runs 2 days early next week or next year and only one guys got his bids in ... does he just get all his guys? How could you look him in the eyes and say your doing it different this time. Keeping in mind this is Joe Shmo who gets his picks in early now because he got the shaft with Daniels.
Mike
[ November 03, 2006, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Ugly Yellow Tomatoes ]
Joe Shmo bid 181 on Owen Daniels
(where Lucky Dog was second highest bidder with 61)
If Joe Shmo bids didn't get in ... everyone can rebid or bid where Lucky Dog can also raise OR LOWER his bid knowing that Lucky bid 61. Joe Shmo will probably get him anyway because Lucky Dog probably wouldn't be willing to pay 181 if he was only at 61 to begin with. The guy willing to pay the most for Daniels still gets him even if that person changes (which is the best part of this solution).
The other solution ... give Lucky Dog Daniels for 61 and tell Joe Shmo too bad ... he should have got his picks in a day earlier than the deadline??!!! In this case the guy probably willing to pay the MOST for Danials does NOT get him (would not even get a chance at getting Daniels). Greater injustice IMHO.
You also need a ruling to be consistant. If it runs 2 days early next week or next year and only one guys got his bids in ... does he just get all his guys? How could you look him in the eyes and say your doing it different this time. Keeping in mind this is Joe Shmo who gets his picks in early now because he got the shaft with Daniels.
Mike
[ November 03, 2006, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Ugly Yellow Tomatoes ]
Hakuna Matata!
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
WCOFF FAAB SNAFU
Originally posted by sportsbettingman:
Please tell me what you would have done, K of Q?
Either way you cut it...there is hell to pay.
I actually think they did well in the decision they made.
Everyone still had the chance to fill their rosters...nobody had the advantage of knowing anothers bids when bidding.
There HAD to be casualties in this one...and the casualties were those that waited the longest without bidding had less players to bid on.
~Lance Here is what should have happened:
(1) The results from the erroneous 8 a.m. evaluator should have been wiped out. The original bids should have been placed back in the system, with teams free to change those bids up until 8 p.m. this evening. Every owner should have had an opportunity to bid on every player that was a free agent this week, including the ones that were mistakenly placed on teams at 8 am.m this morning. While the blind bids were compromised, giving every owner access to every free agent was the much "lesser evil" -- by far.
(2) Lenny and Emil should have taken a stand on this much more quickly than they did. Jeremy from Xpertsports put up a post sometime this morning that he had "spoken to Lenny". Lenny did not appear on the message boards at all, while Emil appeared at around 3 p.m.
(3) The poll that was put up should not have impacted WCOFF's decision-making process. The poll was put up without warning in the middle of the day, and the vast majority of WCOFF owners did not know about it until after the poll results were closed. Under 100 votes were received, without any way to tell how many of those votes were multiple votes from the same owner. Additionally, "junior members" were unable to vote until they had 30 posts. Finally, many WCOFF owners do not post on the message boards and are not even registered. A much better solution would have been to send an urgent e-mail to each owner, asking for their vote.
Lance, mistakes happen all the time. It is the manner in which these mistakes are dealt with that ultimately determines the success or failure of a situation. Here, the mistake was not properly handled. In fact, it was miserably handled. As a result, I do not have faith in Lenny and Emil to make proper decisions should a situation such as this arise again.
Please tell me what you would have done, K of Q?
Either way you cut it...there is hell to pay.
I actually think they did well in the decision they made.
Everyone still had the chance to fill their rosters...nobody had the advantage of knowing anothers bids when bidding.
There HAD to be casualties in this one...and the casualties were those that waited the longest without bidding had less players to bid on.
~Lance Here is what should have happened:
(1) The results from the erroneous 8 a.m. evaluator should have been wiped out. The original bids should have been placed back in the system, with teams free to change those bids up until 8 p.m. this evening. Every owner should have had an opportunity to bid on every player that was a free agent this week, including the ones that were mistakenly placed on teams at 8 am.m this morning. While the blind bids were compromised, giving every owner access to every free agent was the much "lesser evil" -- by far.
(2) Lenny and Emil should have taken a stand on this much more quickly than they did. Jeremy from Xpertsports put up a post sometime this morning that he had "spoken to Lenny". Lenny did not appear on the message boards at all, while Emil appeared at around 3 p.m.
(3) The poll that was put up should not have impacted WCOFF's decision-making process. The poll was put up without warning in the middle of the day, and the vast majority of WCOFF owners did not know about it until after the poll results were closed. Under 100 votes were received, without any way to tell how many of those votes were multiple votes from the same owner. Additionally, "junior members" were unable to vote until they had 30 posts. Finally, many WCOFF owners do not post on the message boards and are not even registered. A much better solution would have been to send an urgent e-mail to each owner, asking for their vote.
Lance, mistakes happen all the time. It is the manner in which these mistakes are dealt with that ultimately determines the success or failure of a situation. Here, the mistake was not properly handled. In fact, it was miserably handled. As a result, I do not have faith in Lenny and Emil to make proper decisions should a situation such as this arise again.
WCOFF FAAB SNAFU
Originally posted by Ugly Yellow Tomatoes:
Here's a bid from a league I'm in.
Joe Shmo bid 181 on Owen Daniels
(where Lucky Dog was second highest bidder with 61)
Joe Shmo realizing everyone knows he is willing to pay 181 for Daniels ... all can rebid or bid where Joe Shmo can also raise OR LOWER his bid. Joe Shmo will probably get him anyway because Lucky Dog probably wouldn't be willing to pay 181 if he was only at 61 to begin with. The guy willing to pay the most for Daniels still gets him even if that person changes (which is the best part of this solution).
Or give Lucky Dog Daniels for 61 and tell Joe Shmo too bad ... he should have got his picks in a day earlier than the deadline??!!! In this case the guy probably willing to pay the MOST for Danials does NOT get him (would not even get a chance at getting Daniels). Greater injustice IMHO.
Mike UYT, I'm not sure I understand this post at the end. And in your first part, you only have Joe and Lucky. What if Lizard hadn't bid yet, and he had more money than Joe? He now sees who Joe wanted and how much he did/could spend. Not to mention others that might have set their bids and not have access to the computer until after the deadline. How would they know they had to re-bid?
BTW, I did not personally like the decision handed down.
Here's a bid from a league I'm in.
Joe Shmo bid 181 on Owen Daniels
(where Lucky Dog was second highest bidder with 61)
Joe Shmo realizing everyone knows he is willing to pay 181 for Daniels ... all can rebid or bid where Joe Shmo can also raise OR LOWER his bid. Joe Shmo will probably get him anyway because Lucky Dog probably wouldn't be willing to pay 181 if he was only at 61 to begin with. The guy willing to pay the most for Daniels still gets him even if that person changes (which is the best part of this solution).
Or give Lucky Dog Daniels for 61 and tell Joe Shmo too bad ... he should have got his picks in a day earlier than the deadline??!!! In this case the guy probably willing to pay the MOST for Danials does NOT get him (would not even get a chance at getting Daniels). Greater injustice IMHO.
Mike UYT, I'm not sure I understand this post at the end. And in your first part, you only have Joe and Lucky. What if Lizard hadn't bid yet, and he had more money than Joe? He now sees who Joe wanted and how much he did/could spend. Not to mention others that might have set their bids and not have access to the computer until after the deadline. How would they know they had to re-bid?
BTW, I did not personally like the decision handed down.
You'll be fine long as your pretty face holds out, then it's gonna get pretty cold out...
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
WCOFF FAAB SNAFU
Originally posted by UFS:
What was the solution?
wipe out 8am and rebid?
If this happened, the horror when someone guy that won lowers his bid and loses or just simply gets out bid.
What a mess. Nope. They let the 8am bids stand, and asked everyone else to bid on the leftovers. Players that were dropped this morning were ineligible to be claimed 12 hours later.
What was the solution?
wipe out 8am and rebid?
If this happened, the horror when someone guy that won lowers his bid and loses or just simply gets out bid.
What a mess. Nope. They let the 8am bids stand, and asked everyone else to bid on the leftovers. Players that were dropped this morning were ineligible to be claimed 12 hours later.