 |
 |
Rule 21.2: Draft Inversion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oleg the Finn
Headbanger
3322 posts
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 6/17/2017 10:50:40 PM |
 |
 |
Rule 21.2: Draft Inversion
|
|
|
|
After experiencing the past three months of discussion about realignment, I know that this is going to surprise some people, delight nearly everyone, yet also possibly madden a couple owners. Again, I don't do this lightly or whimsically. But nearly everyone wants it, it's a brilliant approach, and we don't need to spend three months flogging it like we did with realignment. Both Billy and Sean have proposed the inverted draft idea, and this is one of those "head slap that’s so obvious” types of moments. And I do not believe that it is an idea which has any type of exclusive relationship to the realignment approach.
Essentially, the six teams that miss the playoffs will compete for the first six picks in the following year's draft. And the six teams that made the playoffs will compete for the bottom six picks in the following year’s draft.
1st pick: 7th place finisher
2nd pick: 8th place finisher
3rd pick: 9th place finisher
4th pick: 10th place finisher
5th pick: 11th place finisher
6th pick: 12th place finisher
7th pick: 6th place finisher
8th pick: 5th place finisher
9th pick: 4th place finisher
10th pick: 3rd place finisher
11th pick: 2nd place finisher
12th pick: 1st place finisher
We will still do where this position gives you *your choice of draft slot* and is not actually a locked in draft position. We will keep our system of choosing your position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oleg the Finn
Headbanger
3322 posts
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/27/2017 10:43:58 PM |
|
|
Rule 21.2: Draft Inversion - start in 2017 or 2018?
|
|
|
|
| Do we want to start the draft inversion policy in 2017 or start it in 2018? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/27/2017 11:14:48 PM |
|
|
This year
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2017 6:50:26 AM |
|
|
Pros and Cons to each, perhaps
|
|
|
|
Seems like either year has pros and cons.
The pros of 2017 is that we had a lot of stated support for inversion - at least as a stand-alone idea independent of peered divisions - and we get the big changes over and done with.
The cons are that we haven't fully thought out the right order yet - for instance, the 3rd place finisher (let's see who that is real quick, oh it's me!) would lose the incentive to win that 3rd place game if the prize is no extra cash and a worst draft slot. Same for 5th place. Another con is that if implemented this year we wouldn't be able to tell as clearly how rules 21.1 and 21.2 succeeded independently, and may make it harder to evaluate their success.
I'm probably missing other pros and cons here as well. It'd be nice to talk them through, see what other thoughts are out there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2017 1:28:12 PM |
|
|
I think we should wait
|
|
|
|
I agree with Jeremy's concerns about the 3-4 and 5-6 match ups. We need to address exactly how we want this to work before it gets implemented.
Also, I think we should let the realignment stand on it's own for at least a season before making any additional changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2017 2:20:39 PM |
|
|
i think we should wait, too
|
|
|
|
i'm not really concerned too much about the 3-4 and 5-6 matchups issue, though i do agree that it is something to mull over. i don't think anyone here is going to throw a game just to get +1 when selecting their draft position the following year. there is just too much pride. that being said, it may be worth having a different cash payout for each paying finish.
the reason that i think we should wait is because Sean played to not just win the championship last year, but he played to secure the top pick in the following year. that was part of the prize package going into 2016. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2017 2:34:19 PM |
|
|
Agree on waiting
|
|
|
|
| There seems like a logical sequence to implementing divisions this season and draft order the next, as opposed to both at once. Though Keith's point is appreciated too! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2017 2:37:42 PM |
|
|
I can get behind that as well
|
|
|
|
| And it's not like anyone is going anywhere. We can discuss on the weekend as well without rushing into everything at once. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2017 2:43:55 PM |
|
|
3/4 and 5/6
|
|
|
|
Good points made here. It does seem like we should either change the payout or the draft preference for 3rd vs 4th and 5th vs 6th just to keep things uniform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coach Cowher Tomlin
Football Freak
997 posts
 |
Fu: 100.96 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/28/2017 10:14:05 PM |
|
|
Waiting makes sense
|
|
|
|
| I think good cases have been made for waiting a year before we launch the draft inversion. That will give us time to get it solid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head of Scouting
Gjallarhorn Master
529 posts
 |
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/29/2017 4:47:33 PM |
|
|
I would like to make implementation retroactive to the 2016 season
|
|
|
|
| and redraft and replay the entire 2016 season. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coach Cowher Tomlin
Football Freak
997 posts
|
Fu: 100.96 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 6/29/2017 11:07:14 PM |
|
|
Ditto
|
|
|
|
| I'm with Dave on that one! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/4/2017 10:56:21 AM |
|
|
i put up a ballot box for when to do the draft inversion
|
|
|
|
i also voted for 2018.
on a related note, this year's Pick Your Draft Slot deadline has been moved to July 15th. get ready! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 7/10/2017 9:18:05 AM |
|
|
21.2: Draft Inversion Starts in 2018
|
|
|
|
| It is official... Don't forget to pick your draft slots for 2017, as the big reveal is on 7/15! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/4/2018 1:29:33 PM |
|
|
Rule 21.2 Draft Inversion: Addendum
|
|
|
|
Boys, there is nothing more in the world that I would like than to reopen last year's discussion about the realignment and the draft inversion. However, I'm going to practice self denial and keep that issue closed.
Instead, we're just going to keep it simple and agree to the official opinion of the Assistant Director to the Director of Planning:
"When seeding the Loser Playoffs, it should be done from worst to best. This means that the worst two teams would get the #1 and #2 seeds and also the Bye in the first week of the Loser Playoffs, and the best teams will get the #5 and #6 seeds."
Since the ruling of the Assistant Director to the Director of Planning is not open to a public hearing, we'll just go with it and not file a lawsuit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 8/4/2018 1:35:17 PM |
|
|
The Assistant Director is the only smart one in the league office
|
|
|
|
| Finally, a good idea from the league. Promote that guy. |
|
|
|
|
|
