LAST BIG NFFC RULE FIX

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:55 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
[QUOTE] That being said, a system like you propose would have to be mastered without folks being slaves to their computers like Appleman states. You feel the high bid e-Bay process is possible, which makes sense. But if we're just going $1 more than the next highest bid -- like GLY says is referred to as the Vickrey system in fantasy baseball -- then that is less appealing to me. That would reward aggressive owners in non-aggressive leagues and allow them to build up incredible rosters. I think you would see more league disparities than we have now.

But maybe I'm wrong and your setup just needs more discussion and more tweaking. I think you're right on both points Greg. I don't see FAAB in need of a fix.

The "last big fix" in my opinion is STATS (or their replacement) improving the game site to the level of everything else in the NFFC.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:20 am

I'm not familiar with the Vikrey system, but I'd like to try to better explain the proxy bidding process Mike (UYT) is suggesting.

Basically, all Stats would have to do differently from what is done today is look at the top 2 bids for any player.

They would award the player being bid upon for $1 more than the 2nd highest bid. It's as simple as that for the backend provider.

As for strategy, someone would not be able to just bid their entire pool of money on each bid as they could easily blow their entire FA $s in one week.

So, there would still be strategy involved. Just a little different strategy.

The only problem I see with the current system is the learning curve for those that are new to FAAB and/or the NFFC. Some new owners will spend too little or too much in the first few weeks of FAAB. I know I did. Even experienced owners with the current FAAB system can blow their entire pool of money in the first 8 weeks and handcuff themsevles for the rest of the year. This will upset the balance of power amongst all leagues, creating unfair advantages.

For this event to grow, I feel like every attempt needs to be made to make it user friendly.

Using the proxy bidding system, you must determine what you are willing to spend on a player and enter that amount. If you get him for less than your maximum bid, great. If you get outbid, then you have no excuse.

The current system heavily penalizes those teams with early-season injuries, IMO. As an example, you lose your top QB and WR in week one, you have to bid very high and overspend most likely to get the best possible replacement. You cannot afford to take the chance, so you will likely cripple your team in FA the rest of the year.

With the proxy bidding, you would still suffer the same injuries, place the same or similar bids, but would stand a chance to get the players you need below your maximum bid. Therefore leaving you room to properly manage your roster the rest of the year.

Thanks for listening to suggestions.

Russ

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:51 am

Originally posted by Participant 2137:

As an example, you lose your top QB and WR in week one, you have to bid very high and overspend most likely to get the best possible replacement. You cannot afford to take the chance, so you will likely cripple your team in FA the rest of the year.

Russ I disagree with this Russ.
Yes, you are correct - what often happens is that people in this situation look for the quick fix to their problem.....but there is a good reason most of the players who are free agents weren't drafted. People overspend for the one that was the best point getter in week 1 thinking that Tavaris Jackson who had 18+ points is going to help replace Brady or Devery Henderson who had 15+ is going to replace Burleson or Curtis and waste too many FAAB dollars they don't like it much later. The injuries are tough to deal with, but when they happen, the drafters with better depth are rewarded as are those who correctly analyze who the better pickups are.

And none of this is helped by using an inferior bidding system IMO.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:11 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:
quote:Originally posted by Participant 2137:

As an example, you lose your top QB and WR in week one, you have to bid very high and overspend most likely to get the best possible replacement. You cannot afford to take the chance, so you will likely cripple your team in FA the rest of the year.

Russ I disagree with this Russ.
Yes, you are correct - what often happens is that people in this situation look for the quick fix to their problem.....but there is a good reason most of the players who are free agents weren't drafted. People overspend for the one that was the best point getter in week 1 thinking that Tavaris Jackson who had 18+ points is going to help replace Brady or Devery Henderson who had 15+ is going to replace Burleson or Curtis and waste too many FAAB dollars they don't like it much later. The injuries are tough to deal with, but when they happen, the drafters with better depth are rewarded as are those who correctly analyze who the better pickups are.

And none of this is helped by using an inferior bidding system IMO. [/QUOTE]Perry, I said the best replacement, not the highest scoring week 1 replacement.

Those teams that lost Brady & Burleson (as an example) in week 1 had to scramble to fill positions by placing high bids.

I'm sure you'd agree that teams who drafted Brady, for instance, typically waited much longer to secure a #2 QB. While that QB would be serviceable, the sans Brady owner would typically try to go after the BEST WW QB. This means a degree of panic bidding takes place. Same with WRs and RBs who are injured early.

The current system rewards owners who can avoid early-season injuries too much. Or better said, it penalizes owners who have early-season injuries too much.

Just because a Proxy Bidding system is different, that doesn't necessarily make it inferior.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:43 am

Originally posted by Eddiejag:
I dont like it , i love when people over think a player they may need and over spend.Ive done it many times my self and cant blame nobody but myself.Be honest how does it feel when you bid 87 and the runnerup bid is 86 , their is no better feeling in the world.Their is a danger to the highest bid that can make and break a season and is one of the most exciting parts tothe NFFC , the EBAY way is just to easy and not at all exciting.This would take away from an already great event.I know we are alway's searching for something new to make this event better like 3rr and kds but this would take away the best part to this event. Just my opinion without attacking anyone. I couldn't agree more Eddie. I carefully calculated the needs of my opponent this week, his limited faab already, and a need for a QB. This might not be his runner up bid, but I went for a block here..

NBC DIRT BAGS Brian Griese 125 122

After 67 passes last week, I expect another high scoring game vs GB and all he has is Matt Ryan.

Also, in my sat league, a guy bid 251 and 200 for players that didn't get another bid. He should be penalized for thinking anyone would bid over 20 for them.

D-Day Heroes · Post by **D-Day Heroes** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:46 am

.... Why dose everyone wnat to try and eliminate all the risk is this game ? I thought Risk was the main stimulus og Gambling :rolleyes:

Eddiejag · Post by **Eddiejag** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:34 am

Showing the runner up bid was the big change.
I remember the first year of the NFBC you didnt see the runner up bid so you never knew if you made a great bid or a overbid.This bothered me as you needed to know how your bidding was doing.To this day i dont know if the 300 on Tony Womack was too much.But Greg heard the voices and the runner up bid was added.Now it is perfect as we can see the overbid's and the close shave's.

D-Day Heroes · Post by **D-Day Heroes** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:45 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eddiejag:
Showing the runner up bid was the big change.
I remember the first year of the NFBC you didnt see the runner up bid so you never knew if you made a great bid or a overbid.This bothered me as you needed to know how your bidding was doing.To this day i dont know if the 300 on Tony Womack was too much.But Greg heard the voices and the runner up bid was added.Now it is perfect as we can see the overbid's and the close shave's. [/QUOTE

I agree Eddie, I think it is Perfect as IS

da bears · Post by **da bears** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:05 pm

Originally posted by Eddiejag:
Showing the runner up bid was the big change.
I remember the first year of the NFBC you didnt see the runner up bid so you never knew if you made a great bid or a overbid.This bothered me as you needed to know how your bidding was doing.To this day i dont know if the 300 on Tony Womack was too much.But Greg heard the voices and the runner up bid was added.Now it is perfect as we can see the overbid's and the close shave's. Yeah I like seeing the runner up bid also except when I bid $135 on a player and see there is no runner up bid.

mikeybok · Post by **mikeybok** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:28 pm

Originally posted by D-Day Heroes:
.... Why dose everyone wnat to try and eliminate all the risk is this game ? I thought Risk was the main stimulus og Gambling :rolleyes: I love to gamble. I hate to take random chances.

Love poker. Hate the lotto.

I like control. I hate to be controlled.

I laugh with people when they bad mouth my Ideas. I hate it when they take personal shots at me while hiding in cyberspace.

It's funny when GLY takes a shot at my idea. Not so much when others belittle me personally because I have an idea.

IMHO, I think you assume incorrectly that this bidding style eliminates risk. I eliminates the randomness of guessing you league members bids and it leaves the risk of the bid in tack.

Thanks for responding.

Ugly