 |
All posts by illuminati:
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 4/2/2004 10:49:47 AM |
 |
ahh, the smell of football is in the air
|
|
|
|
ain't it great?
i think it is important to have everyone be in agreement and be comfortable with any economic decisions that we may make. that comfort level is important in dynasty leagues moreso than "reset" leagues, and especially with a game element as important as money.
i think that it would be unbalanced to not have a 50% cut across the board, including trades, and so i am going to vote for holding off on any changes to the annual TV contract until 2005.
if we wait until 2005, we can actually counter the possible "Quid inflation" by having our TV contract get reduced to, say, 30 Quid in 2005.
30 Quid will work, IF we take a closer look at the "+1 per win over .500" Rule.
that +1 Rule is insanely dangerous especially as we strive to reduce the TV contract. Jeremy got 79 Quid this year from that bonus!!!!!! Say what you want about capitalism and rewarding success, but that is so out of whack it WILL kill our league if we don't get a grip on it.
we cannot have those +1's add up to the point where they equal or exceed the TV contract, as then we will totally destroy game balance over time. The "+1" sum needs to offer ONLY A SLIGHT financial benefit, but CANNOT BE A MAIN INCOME DETERMINANT, or we will turn into Major League Baseball and that would suck some serious ass. and in the end, i don't believe that the +1 Rule can safely be a slight boost unless we put a hard annual cap on it.
if we want a conserved approach to Quid, the best way to NOT accomplish this is to leave the +1 Rule alone.
i think we should take a very hard look at the +1 Rule and reign it in before it gets out of hand.
what about:
1) 2004 TV contract will stay at 100 Quid
2) in 2004, get rid of the +1 rule entirely OR put a hard annual cap on it. even if the +1 Rule became "+1 for every win starting at +3 over .500", Jeremy would have still gotten 56 Quid! so either get rid of it, or say that the annual benefit from it cannot exceed 15% of the TV contract, or 15 Quid maximum deposit during the 2004 season and 5 Quid maximum in 2005 and beyond. if we want the bonus, it should be a reasonable percentage of the annual revenues, or we WILL devolve into a league of have and have-nots within just a couple of years.
3) in 2005 and beyond, annual TV contracts become 30 Quid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/17/2003 8:50:49 AM |
|
does anyone not like top heavy?
|
|
|
|
| uh... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 12/12/2003 4:01:54 PM |
|
hey Scandal
|
|
|
|
| you still suck |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/23/2003 7:20:43 AM |
|
Multi-season Trades
|
|
|
|
In order for the Shenanigans Rule to have any power or relevance whatsoever, all trades must be specific. Ambiguous trades are not enforceable, and therefore should not be allowed.
In particular, this issue is raised due to the trade between the Vultures and Bulldogs, where the trade involves "all of next years draft picks." In order to maintain game balance and the integrity of the league, this officially needs clarification in order to allow everyone else to fairly evaluate the trade. From talking to the Vultures, the intent is for them to keep at least 16 players on their roster, thus passing their last half dozen or more picks to the Bulldogs. While this is aggressive, it shouldn't create an imbalance for the league, as the Bulldogs are still limited to 25 players.
However, the problem arises if the Vultures keep less than 16 players - just imagine if only 8 players were kept and then all draft picks were given to the Bulldogs. Clearly, this would be an imbalanced trade and the whole league would suffer for it.
What needs to take place is for trades to involve standard terminology and cite specific rounds of the draft.
So in this example, the Vultures should specify Rounds 17-25. In another trade involving the Biskafas, loose terminology also resulted in owners needing to evaluate a trade based on their "first two picks," when what was really meant was their first two picks AFTER they kept their team. What happens if the Biskafas keep all 25? While this generally would not happen, the possibility for it does exist and thus the other team would get no picks as a result.
I hope that everyone can see the need for using standard terminology with trades, as it gives everyone a clear set of information to evaluate if a trade is balanced, as well as protecting the teams involved in the trade from potential controversy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/9/2003 10:34:40 AM |
|
yup, top 4 make playoffs
|
|
|
|
| Weeks 15 and 16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/9/2003 8:44:18 AM |
|
I'm in Asheville this weekend
|
|
|
|
But will be online until around 11:30 AM, if we want to move on a decision before todays games.
I understand the concept that Jeremy outlined, and this would also accomodate our Week 14 schedule ideas. But I get a bit baffled when trying to cram it all into my tired brain. Is this idea better (fairer) than just having Week 14 be a matchup of 6-home teams @ 5-home teams? In that latter scenario, I wonder if that is good or bad - will we create any unfair scenarios with a "strong" team facing the same "weak team" 3 times?
I subscribe to the mantra "Simple is Good" and in this case I tend to like the 6-home @ 5-home for Week 14. If everyone thinks Jeremy's idea is more fair, please chime in and maybe we can get this in place for this week. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/26/2003 12:16:51 PM |
|
shit - should we reopen the discussion on the Shenanigans Rule?
|
|
|
|
technically, there is a freeze on trades at 8 pm on Saturday night, as our concern for being able to apply the Shenanigans Rule decided it.
i'm finding this restriction to be a pain in the arse, and what does everyone think about lifting it, and saying that a Shenanigans vote can result in retro-fixing starting rosters. like the general philosophy of Aces High, that would put the onus and a penalty on the owners involved in any "shady" trades, as a nullification of illegal starters almost ensures a loss.
in any case, we do have the rule in place now and i guess the trade shouldn't be allowed. personally, i'm fine with lifting it now and granting the trade.
if anyone would like to chime in on this topic, please jump in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/15/2003 2:06:27 PM |
|
I'd love to talk Tiki...
|
|
|
|
| what kind of compensation would you be seeking? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/12/2003 11:43:53 AM |
|
ok, I'm ordering the cards today
|
|
|
|
and since we're getting a set and another league is getting a set, I will try to get two different ones in order to be able to "combine" them for a more complete set. awesome.
as for a mock draft, I'm afraid that I cannot attend - I'm just having to be a stickler for spending every available evening in getting the site completely ready before the regular season. but my picks per round: (1) Daunte Culpepper, (2) Randy Moss, (3) Jim Kleinsasser, (4) Chris Hovan, and (5) Mike Tice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/11/2003 9:36:01 AM |
|
kool kit
|
|
|
|
i'm fairly ambivalent about which method we use, but since the cost for the stickers and the cards is the same, i'm in favor of using the cards instead. the way it works is that we have a large draft board set up on one wall, and it contains sheets of clear plastic that the player cards slide into. those cards will fill up the draft board, and at the end of the draft everyone takes their teams home with them.
since the cost is the same, what say we go with the fun card method? if everyone agrees, I'll go ahead and order them in the next day or two. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/9/2003 8:54:00 PM |
|
summary of outstanding issues
|
|
|
|
while all substantial issues have been resolved and defined, there are just a handful of smaller ones that remain. here is a rundown:
* the league name:
the term "Dynasty" was merely intended as a placeholder, and is much too generic a term for us to adhere to. we do need something that distinguishes us from all of the other "dynasty" leagues that are out there. during a brief brainstorming session, I came up with a few ones to mull over: Empire, Masters, Provincial (was trying to go with the Quid motif), Regency, Aces High. everyone is encouraged to throw some other nominations into the ring, and let's figure out what we want to call ourselves. (I think "Aces High" rocks, but I like poker and Iron Maiden and, um, "high".)
* the 4th-level tiebreaker:
here are the game tiebreakers in order: 1) total defensive points by starters, 2) total bench points, and 3) total defensive points by bench defensive players. what should we do if there is still a tie? so far, two of the best ideas are: a) best "streak" entering the game (W-L), and b) longest FG by the starting kicker. we should decide on what the #4 tie-breaker is, and then make #5 by something like a coin-flip or game of croquet.
* the league trophy:
our meetings at Zog's have implied that we should all kick in $8-$10 towards the purchase of a Stanley Cup style of trophy. does anyone have specific information about this, and do we have options for style of trophy? then next season we just pay an engraving fee, and the trophy gets passed on? in any case, we won't start moving on the trophy until after the Draft, but let's begin to narrow our options and then maybe we can decide before or on the Draft.
* the league entry fee:
while the rules state that the fee is due on July 15 in order to inhibit late dropouts, it is obvious that at least this season such a policy isn't necessary. ergo, league fees will be due on Draft Day: $50 for the prize fund, $X for the trophy, $Y for the draft kit/cards, and $5 for the administrative fee.
* and one other issue IS resolved:
Quid WILL rollover from season to season. now that is COOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/9/2003 2:56:17 PM |
|
is that kit reusable?
|
|
|
|
or does it use stickers? if we would need to buy a kit, how much would it cost? I looked at some of them and it seemed like $20-$30 was the norm. for a tad over $30, I think we can use cards which have added longterm value and are generally more fun. as far as reading them from a distant seat, that can't be guaranteed (is the other kit readable from across the room?).
I think that if we need to purchase something, it's worth the extra 2 bucks a person to have real player cards. If we can use an existing kit, then I'm fine with foregoing the card idea. In any case, we should decide in the next half a week or so, to be sure we are prepared. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/7/2003 1:52:30 PM |
|
Draft Kit?
|
|
|
|
I reckon it'd be good to form a plan on this, since our draft is a mere 22 days away (WOW!)... I've heard of a couple of places to get draft boards, stickers, etc., but haven't done any price comparisons of such.
This may or may not be of interest to everyone, but in another league we actually order the latest NFL player cards and post them on a large draft board (sliding them into clear plastic sheets). I think it costs us about $30-$35 total, and then everyone gets to take home their own team - cool, huh? Also, when trades are made, the players cards are also traded to their new team. Over the years, owners keep their end-of-season teams in 3-ring binders, and you can look back at your team's history.
In any case, let's decide by the middle of next week on this, so that we can get whatever method we choose ordered with time to spare. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/27/2003 6:50:31 PM |
|
Resolutions from the 2nd league meeting
|
|
|
|
1. Coach is voted IN. 1 fantasy point if your coach's team wins.
2. 4-team playoffs in weeks 15 and 16. Loser brackets play 6 teams in weeks 15-17, so the top two losers get a bye in week 15.
3. Symmetrical schedule is 13 weeks, and week 14 will be a matchup of divisional rankings, with #1 vs. #1, #2 vs. #2, etc. This may be a dangerous experiment that we will revise for 2004, but it is an interesting plan for sure.
4. Mixed Yardage was added for RB's. Check out the league scoring system page to see how this works.
5. All offensive skill positions get +5 points for breaking an alltime single game NFL record. In addition, the yardage charts will have a linear addition of +1 for every 20 yards past the exponential maximum (the traditional system would have a cap of, for example's sake, 210 yards and 20 points, and now the same chart would have 230 yards be equal to 21 points, etc.). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/27/2003 6:43:59 PM |
|
tie-breakers question
|
|
|
|
As agreed to in two meetings, there are no ties in the dynasty league.
Here is the official rule:
"If the score of a game is a tie, then the tiebreaker becomes total defensive points by starters. The second tiebreaker is total bench points. Third tie-breaker is total defensive points by bench players. This also applies to the playoffs."
The question is: what is the 4th tie-breaker? Win-streak? Total wins? Home team? ??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/22/2003 5:02:41 PM |
|
6 o'clock sound good?
|
|
|
|
| I can really be there anytime... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/15/2003 6:00:02 PM |
|
another consideration - even number of games
|
|
|
|
With using homefield advantage, each team needs to have the same number of home and away games. Therefore, we probably need to have a 14 week season, in order for teams to have 7 home games and 7 away games.
However, this won't be as easy it it may seem, and the culprit is the odd number of teams in each division - we play 5 games against the opposite division, and so there should be a ratio of 3:2 for home:away or vice versa, and then we should try to make the remaining 14th week (not necessarily "Week 14") where it fills each team's home:away ratio evenly. That should probably be our primary determinant in creating that 14th week.
This would mean that the 2 week playoffs for the best 4 teams would probably take place in weeks 15 and 16. We would still need 3 weeks to resolve the other 6 teams' playoff runs for final positions, and so that would work out for that consideration. Seems like a 14 week schedule would work in that capacity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/15/2003 5:45:13 PM |
|
game tie-breakers
|
|
|
|
We originally had regular season ties, and then changed that to have no ties and the tiebreaker is total points by defensive starters. In the playoffs, under the original thinking, we had no ties and the tiebreaker was supposed to be bench points.
How do we want to have ties resolved in the playoffs? Do we want to be consistent and have the tiebreaker be total points by defensive starters? Second tiebreaker being bench points? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/8/2003 12:28:56 PM |
|
Coaches on the roster?
|
|
|
|
Looking at my notes, I think we were going to table a vote on having NFL coaches on the roster. We'd expand the roster size from 22 to 23, and the starting lineup would include 1 coach slot.
If that NFL coach's team wins, he earns 1 fantasy point for your team. If he loses, no points are awarded.
What say ye, everyone? I think it sounds like fun! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/8/2003 12:26:30 PM |
|
Playoff size and format
|
|
|
|
Did we agree that 4 teams make the playoffs? 6 seemed like a team with a losing record would make the playoffs, and it'd be even worse than the NHL.
For the first round of the playoffs, homefield advantage applies. For the Championship, the game takes place on neutral ground. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/8/2003 12:24:47 PM |
|
Schedule length
|
|
|
|
We have 10 teams in 2 divisions. That results in a symmetrical schedule of (4x2) + (5x1) = 13 weeks. We need to fill in the remainder of weeks.
How many weeks should the regular season be? I'm a strong proponent of a full 17 week schedule, for two reasons: 1) anyone who wins a league should win it based on depth and balance, and not be a one-horse show. 2) we all spend a full offseason of effort in thinking, plotting, negotiating, ferreting information from other owners, doing mock drafts, etc. - why on earth would we want to lose one week of a small precious set of 17 games, just for the sake of the one or two owners that depend too much on one stud player who just happens to have home-field advantaged clinched in the NFL?
Regardless of the actual length of the season, we would need at least one "filler" week (if not two). For the sake of consistent divisional records, should both of these weeks be against opponents in the other division? Does it matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/8/2003 12:15:50 PM |
|
League name?
|
|
|
|
Let's change the league name from Dynasty to something with more personality and elegance, maybe something that can reflect the long-range thinking that is essential in this league.
We are going to use Quid as our currency, so maybe something related to that would be appropriate. Ideas, anyone? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/3/2003 8:43:50 AM |
|
Dynasty league expands to 10
|
|
|
|
Looks like this is so cool that we need to go to 10 teams! That may prove to be better, actually, as the talent pool will be spread out more, requiring better management skills.
We're meeting at Zog's at 6 pm on June 4th, to go over the scoring system, divisional assignments, establish draft order, talk about a draft day, and establish a rule for what happens if a stud gets hurt after draft day but before the regular season. See ya there! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 5/24/2003 2:55:26 PM |
|
Welcome to the new Dynasty league!
|
|
|
|
This is going to be great! This is an 8-team league comprised of hardcore and quality owners who will be able to carry over players from season to season.
We're still selectively filling out the ownerships of the league, as this will not just be an elite league, but we will all have personalities that will get along well with each other.
The league name can be a group decision - we should decide on a better name than the temporary "Dynasty."
Many rules were discussed for hours by Scott, Chris, Jeremy, and Keith, and these exciting rules will be posted in the Rules page. Most parameters are well defined, but we will still need to determine the scoring system, banter about the role of ties, and set a draft date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
