2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:15 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:
Tweak a good thing into extinction.

Naaa...how about grow up and play with the big boys. If you get pick 1 or 6 or 14...do your best.

Bunch of crybabies.

I want this slot...I want KDS...I want a bonus for picking late.

Geez...what a group of wimps.

Funny how in a 12 team based league that sells out...there isn't this crying going on.

We get our draft picks random...and do our best.

Unreal how much you want to tweak and tweak a system that has proven to be very successful.

~Lance From the WCOFF board today.

Don't think it's as bad in NFFC. Didn't someone post those numbers recently?

"I just did some quick research on LT and LJ owners. Obviously the only chance you had at them was a top pick in the draft.

9 out of the top 10 owned LT or LJ = 90% (8LT, 2LJ)

16 out of the top 20 owned LT or LJ = 80% (11LT, 5LJ)

22 out of the top 30 owned LT or LJ = 73% (16LT, 6LJ)

The chances of you making the top 30 in an event that has 840 teams SHOULD BE 3.5%.

The chances of you making the top 30 with LT = 22.8%.

You're over 7 TIMES as likely to be in the Top 30 after 8 weeks if you have LT.

We have this discussion every year, but get a top pick and just don't SCREW it up, is really the strategy.

I'll bet you if I continued this study to show teams IN THE LCG this year, it will be ALARMING.

If you're in the top 30 without one of those 2 guys, that speaks volumes."

[ November 08, 2006, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: UFS ]

renman · Post by **renman** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:20 am

Though I support BBDS, we need to be more honest about this. What about the year Marshall Faulk was the consensus number one pick or when Priest Holmes was a couple years ago and they both killed their teams? What about S. Alexander this year? We never hear a word about that.

THIS YEAR LT and LJ are having a huge impact on the teams succeeding. Not all years are like this. We are making judgements based in hindsight. Is there an advantage being at the top of the draft board? Yes, some years more than others. But it is not nearly as huge as some make it out to be.

TradeStar28 · Post by **TradeStar28** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:28 am

Originally posted by renman:
Though I support BBDS, we need to be more honest about this. What about the year Marshall Faulk was the consensus number one pick or when Priest Holmes was a couple years ago and they both killed their teams? What about S. Alexander this year? We never hear a word about that.

THIS YEAR LT and LJ are having a huge impact on the teams succeeding. Not all years are like this. We are making judgements based in hindsight. Is there an advantage being at the top of the draft board? Yes, some years more than others. But it is not nearly as huge as some make it out to be. Injuries with ANY player are unforseeable and cannot be predicted.

M. Faulk got hurt
P. Holmes got hurt
S. Alexander got hurt

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:36 am

Originally posted by renman:
Though I support BBDS, we need to be more honest about this. What about the year Marshall Faulk was the consensus number one pick or when Priest Holmes was a couple years ago and they both killed their teams? What about S. Alexander this year? We never hear a word about that.

THIS YEAR LT and LJ are having a huge impact on the teams succeeding. Not all years are like this. We are making judgements based in hindsight. Is there an advantage being at the top of the draft board? Yes, some years more than others. But it is not nearly as huge as some make it out to be. renman, you are the ONLY one that is repeatedly calling this HUGE. The difference is what it is, it can be quantified, it does not have to be embelliished, and we all know it can change from one year to the next.

I think the problem is you see something written three times and its HUGE to you. Please, please try to read what is written as its written without magnifying it 10 times.

Also, if you disagree with someone it is not that they are being DISHONEST, it means they have a different viewpoint. UYT has tried to point this out to you several times, it is offensive and ignorant.

[ November 08, 2006, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:13 am

ANY proposal that doesn't let a free market decide draft slots is archaic and holding this event back from capturing a huge market share. let draft slots be decided by bidding FAAB or points. ANYTHING else sucks.
Random sucks
KDS sucks
3rd round flip sucks

case closed.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:25 am

UFS - are you suggesting that the 3RR is the only change in the draft?

I think if you run the numbers, there is a case to be made for switching them again later in the draft so that the total value of the picks is equalized.

Of course the best draft order would be one that allowed each team to have the first pick in one round. Years ago one of the sliderule guys formulated a system where the order changed after every pair of rounds - end result was the fairest from a numerical value view, but it was a nightmare at the draft - easier for the Commish to just say who was next rather than have twelve guys follow the flow chart.

WCOFF · Post by **WCOFF** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:44 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:
UFS - are you suggesting that the 3RR is the only change in the draft?

I think if you run the numbers, there is a case to be made for switching them again later in the draft so that the total value of the picks is equalized.

Of course the best draft order would be one that allowed each team to have the first pick in one round. Years ago one of the sliderule guys formulated a system where the order changed after every pair of rounds - end result was the fairest from a numerical value view, but it was a nightmare at the draft - easier for the Commish to just say who was next rather than have twelve guys follow the flow chart. You are correct. The order should be reversed at least one more time.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:47 am

Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
How about a contest using this method for the final 7 weeks.

We draft next week and use total points from week 10 - 16.

14 teams using the UFS system. (that round 3 swing thing)

$50 each (more for sh_ts and grins and to test the idea live)

1st - 60% ($420)
2nd - 40% ($280)

DC format, no wire. 20 rounds is plenty for 7 weeks.

Draft: some agreable time and date next week on MDC.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:10 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:
UFS - are you suggesting that the 3RR is the only change in the draft?

I think if you run the numbers, there is a case to be made for switching them again later in the draft so that the total value of the picks is equalized.

Of course the best draft order would be one that allowed each team to have the first pick in one round. Years ago one of the sliderule guys formulated a system where the order changed after every pair of rounds - end result was the fairest from a numerical value view, but it was a nightmare at the draft - easier for the Commish to just say who was next rather than have twelve guys follow the flow chart. Perry, I'd assume you're right on this. But I'd also assume that if it is any more complicated than one reversal a larger proportion of people would be against it as too confusing. If the option was only 3RR vs status quo, which would you prefer?

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:12 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:
UFS - are you suggesting that the 3RR is the only change in the draft?

I think if you run the numbers, there is a case to be made for switching them again later in the draft so that the total value of the picks is equalized.

Of course the best draft order would be one that allowed each team to have the first pick in one round. Years ago one of the sliderule guys formulated a system where the order changed after every pair of rounds - end result was the fairest from a numerical value view, but it was a nightmare at the draft - easier for the Commish to just say who was next rather than have twelve guys follow the flow chart. Rd 1 1 to 14
Rd 2 14 to 1
Rd 3 14 to 1
Rd 4 1 to 14
Rd 5 14 to 1
Rd 6 1 to 14

keep flip flopping until finished.

I don't see any need to change it back. By rd 7, teams are drafting moreso for particular team needs. Draft slot really isn't an issue then, so it doesn't really matter if it does add up.

------------------------------------------------

I'm 100% convinced now that those that want any bidding system want it only for the advantages it brings to them.

The auction is the perfect way to go, but there is not a large enough market to even support a $20k grand prize. How in the hell could a bidding system bring more than the auction system, which is already widely known?

Both national contests debate this every year. The solution above fixes the problem w/o involving faab, increases draft and KDS strategy, and is more easy to implement than KDS.

No system will ever be perfect, but this system will leave no ill will. Owners will still be happy with #1. Owners will be more happy with #14.

More owners will get their higher KDS preferences in this system in which all picks will be perceived as being more equal.

KDS lists now. 321 @ #1, Scott Newman @ #14
KDS lists w/3rr est. 190-#1, 130 other picks.
(that's my educated guess after doing this in hoops for 7 years and applying it to FB)

If Greg wants to implement it fine, if not, he'll have a good reason not to.