|
Post by ay2013 on May 16, 2019 23:50:35 GMT -5
i would like to join this. tried the mens side and didn't do so good, maybe i'll have better luck this time... also may i suggest using the rules ucsdfan used this past season. compiling a list of 25-50 players, from 1 being the most wanted etc. 1 from each conf for all position players, however theres more than 6 conferences so im not sure how this is going to work. but the draft should go smoother... Hmmm interesting.... it could be that each roster MUST have at least 1 player from each eligible conferences (provided that we continue limiting the player pool to a select number of conferences). That would surely make for some interesting drafting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 0:16:59 GMT -5
i would like to join this. tried the mens side and didn't do so good, maybe i'll have better luck this time... also may i suggest using the rules ucsdfan used this past season. compiling a list of 25-50 players, from 1 being the most wanted etc. 1 from each conf for all position players, however theres more than 6 conferences so im not sure how this is going to work. but the draft should go smoother... Hmmm interesting.... it could be that each roster MUST have at least 1 player from each eligible conferences (provided that we continue limiting the player pool to a select number of conferences). That would surely make for some interesting drafting. Something that created an interesting dynamic during the draft, however, was the pressure when it felt like everyone was starting to draft setters or another position. You had to be strategic regarding which position you were taking in each round, and that changed as the draft continued. Making a list 1-50 would negate that.
|
|
|
Post by vup on May 17, 2019 1:18:23 GMT -5
I acknowledge the spectator as a component of the draft, and I think having a more open draft without a requirement for having one player from each conference, adds more excitement, disappointment, and satisfaction to the draft.
I’d also like to bring back up having some type of bonus point for having a weekly high in a category. I had the high for blocks one week and I really, really wanted a medal for that.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on May 17, 2019 2:56:12 GMT -5
I acknowledge the spectator as a component of the draft, and I think having a more open draft without a requirement for having one player from each conference, adds more excitement, disappointment, and satisfaction to the draft. I’d also like to bring back up having some type of bonus point for having a weekly high in a category. I had the high for blocks one week and I really, really wanted a medal for that. I should have been awarded several points for having the most injuries on a weekly basis.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 17, 2019 3:54:22 GMT -5
Hmmm interesting.... it could be that each roster MUST have at least 1 player from each eligible conferences (provided that we continue limiting the player pool to a select number of conferences). That would surely make for some interesting drafting. Something that created an interesting dynamic during the draft, however, was the pressure when it felt like everyone was starting to draft setters or another position. You had to be strategic regarding which position you were taking in each round, and that changed as the draft continued. Making a list 1-50 would negate that. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but I'm not sure how position drafting would change by also saying that each roster has to have a player from each of the primary conferences as well. This surely wouldn't necessarily impact some of the deeper conferences with better schedules.....but even just going off last years draft, there were 11 eligible conferences to pick players from, however in the initial draft, of the 14 fantasy rosters, 9 of them drafted players from 6 or fewer of the 11 eligible conferences. Forcing each roster to have a player from each of the conferences on your roster (perhaps just in the initial draft?) would really make for some interesting drafting. Again, not saying I have strong feelings for this rule, but this would make for an interesting new twist for next years league (if the goal is to switch it up).
|
|
|
Post by donut on May 17, 2019 10:25:37 GMT -5
Re: the conference requirementWith the way the league operates, this really wouldn't increase "non Power 5 conference" representation, it would increase representation from conferences that have lighter schedules (see: SEC, Big 12). We also have 11 eligible conferences currently, so we would need to pick one more. I think it would increase the number of teams we as a league are watching every week, which is a plus. I'm not sure how much it would impact the active rosters (I'm probably just going to bench my Big 12 players every week they only play 1 game) BUT I do think it would necessitate more trades. If my MVC player gets injured, I would have to draft another MVC player possibly of the same position, which would be tough. It's also just a little bit more oversight for the admins to track. I'm open to the rule, but I think I would be more in favor of "no more than 2 players per conference." I think that would still create new drafting strategies, increase the number of teams we are watching, but not be so hard to manage during the regular season with trades. With that rule, maybe we could add a "one per conference" requirement for active players (in effect actually, that means I can really only have 2 pairs of players from the same conference on my roster with the current roster size of 12, but at least you maintain more flexibility during add/drops)?Re: the "extra point for most points in 1 category" vupI voted against this last year but if it's something posters want, I definitely think it will impact the season. I felt it was kind of random (i.e. we're using a mock FIVB points system with 3 points, 2 points, 1 point, the categories are scored like sets, etc., so the extra rule just didn't line up for me). I will say, a player can lose every week 2-3 and still get 3 points if they're only going all in on 2 categories. I think we might see that and I won't say names. ay2013 cough cough. BUT if we're ok with that strategy, I think it would be a season-altering twist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 11:23:09 GMT -5
Something that created an interesting dynamic during the draft, however, was the pressure when it felt like everyone was starting to draft setters or another position. You had to be strategic regarding which position you were taking in each round, and that changed as the draft continued. Making a list 1-50 would negate that. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but I'm not sure how position drafting would change by also saying that each roster has to have a player from each of the primary conferences as well. This surely wouldn't necessarily impact some of the deeper conferences with better schedules.....but even just going off last years draft, there were 11 eligible conferences to pick players from, however in the initial draft, of the 14 fantasy rosters, 9 of them drafted players from 6 or fewer of the 11 eligible conferences. Forcing each roster to have a player from each of the conferences on your roster (perhaps just in the initial draft?) would really make for some interesting drafting. Again, not saying I have strong feelings for this rule, but this would make for an interesting new twist for next years league (if the goal is to switch it up). I was meaning to comment on that poster’s suggestion to do the draft like they do on the men’s side, submitting a ranked list of athletes from 1-50.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on May 17, 2019 11:23:40 GMT -5
I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but I'm not sure how position drafting would change by also saying that each roster has to have a player from each of the primary conferences as well. This surely wouldn't necessarily impact some of the deeper conferences with better schedules.....but even just going off last years draft, there were 11 eligible conferences to pick players from, however in the initial draft, of the 14 fantasy rosters, 9 of them drafted players from 6 or fewer of the 11 eligible conferences. Forcing each roster to have a player from each of the conferences on your roster (perhaps just in the initial draft?) would really make for some interesting drafting. Again, not saying I have strong feelings for this rule, but this would make for an interesting new twist for next years league (if the goal is to switch it up). I was meaning to comment on that poster’s suggestion to do the draft like they do on the men’s side, submitting a ranked list of athletes from 1-50. I hate that.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on May 17, 2019 11:58:54 GMT -5
I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but I'm not sure how position drafting would change by also saying that each roster has to have a player from each of the primary conferences as well. This surely wouldn't necessarily impact some of the deeper conferences with better schedules.....but even just going off last years draft, there were 11 eligible conferences to pick players from, however in the initial draft, of the 14 fantasy rosters, 9 of them drafted players from 6 or fewer of the 11 eligible conferences. Forcing each roster to have a player from each of the conferences on your roster (perhaps just in the initial draft?) would really make for some interesting drafting. Again, not saying I have strong feelings for this rule, but this would make for an interesting new twist for next years league (if the goal is to switch it up). I was meaning to comment on that poster’s suggestion to do the draft like they do on the men’s side, submitting a ranked list of athletes from 1-50. If you submitted a list of the top returning players and new players it would basically neutralize any of the research done by the fantasy team owners to identify the best fantasy players. I do think that made an impact last year in the weekly outcomes and overall league finish. I spent probably 10 hours over the course of a week researching players from 10 conferences, and I know bucky spent three times the effort I did and he came in 1st (I would have come in 2nd had T'ara Ceasar not screwed me over), and you spent more time researching than anyone and it got you 2nd. Seriously, if we made a list of all the top players to draft what would you do for the month of July instead of all that research??? lol
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on May 17, 2019 12:01:59 GMT -5
I was meaning to comment on that poster’s suggestion to do the draft like they do on the men’s side, submitting a ranked list of athletes from 1-50. I hate that. Dude, you were last year's biggest disappointment!! For all the volleyball you watch and players you know I had thought you were going to be at the top of the standings with Shhhh, and vbfreak. Not gonna candy coat it... last season you SUCKED! lol
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on May 17, 2019 12:27:27 GMT -5
Dude, you were last year's biggest disappointment!! For all the volleyball you watch and players you know I had thought you were going to be at the top of the standings with Shhhh, and vbfreak. Not gonna candy coat it... last season you SUCKED! lol It was dreadful. I lost my draft research when I deleted my sheet thinking it was last season’s NFL draft research and I was completely out-of-sync through the draft. And then late season I was eliminated by my father in the quarterfinals of our family fantasy football league and then lost to my MOTHER in the consolation bracket, finishing in 7th place for the league and “earning” the dreaded Goat Trophy... awarded to the biggest year-to-year drop (2017 1st to 2018 7th). Which I also think I earned in this league as well. I was terrible. It was all terrible. The entire 2018 season is one I’d like to forget.
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on May 17, 2019 12:43:03 GMT -5
Please don’t leave me out. At least I wasn’t so bad as to be in the bottom 2. Sis you literally missed submitting your roster like half the time tho And I still did fine! Lol I just drink too much on Sundays. Can rosters be due on Tuesday?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 17, 2019 12:50:19 GMT -5
Re: the conference requirementWith the way the league operates, this really wouldn't increase "non Power 5 conference" representation, it would increase representation from conferences that have lighter schedules (see: SEC, Big 12). We also have 11 eligible conferences currently, so we would need to pick one more. I think it would increase the number of teams we as a league are watching every week, which is a plus. I'm not sure how much it would impact the active rosters (I'm probably just going to bench my Big 12 players every week they only play 1 game) BUT I do think it would necessitate more trades. If my MVC player gets injured, I would have to draft another MVC player possibly of the same position, which would be tough. It's also just a little bit more oversight for the admins to track. I'm open to the rule, but I think I would be more in favor of "no more than 2 players per conference." I think that would still create new drafting strategies, increase the number of teams we are watching, but not be so hard to manage during the regular season with trades. With that rule, maybe we could add a "one per conference" requirement for active players (in effect actually, that means I can really only have 2 pairs of players from the same conference on my roster with the current roster size of 12, but at least you maintain more flexibility during add/drops)?Re: the "extra point for most points in 1 category" vupI voted against this last year but if it's something posters want, I definitely think it will impact the season. I felt it was kind of random (i.e. we're using a mock FIVB points system with 3 points, 2 points, 1 point, the categories are scored like sets, etc., so the extra rule just didn't line up for me). I will say, a player can lose every week 2-3 and still get 3 points if they're only going all in on 2 categories. I think we might see that and I won't say names. ay2013 cough cough. BUT if we're ok with that strategy, I think it would be a season-altering twist. Tbh, I think the only real practical application is for the initial draft. Once the season starts, it’s probably easiest to forget tracking by conference. People only get three trades anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 17, 2019 12:58:57 GMT -5
I was meaning to comment on that poster’s suggestion to do the draft like they do on the men’s side, submitting a ranked list of athletes from 1-50. If you submitted a list of the top returning players and new players it would basically neutralize any of the research done by the fantasy team owners to identify the best fantasy players. I do think that made an impact last year in the weekly outcomes and overall league finish. I spent probably 10 hours over the course of a week researching players from 10 conferences, and I know bucky spent three times the effort I did and he came in 1st (I would have come in 2nd had T'ara Ceasar not screwed me over), and you spent more time researching than anyone and it got you 2nd. Seriously, if we made a list of all the top players to draft what would you do for the month of July instead of all that research??? lol I think you are underestimating how much pure luck goes into the results. I’m surely not marginalizing how much time the players you mentioned put into their team, however, I can assure you they aren’t the only ones vested.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on May 17, 2019 13:00:13 GMT -5
Re: the conference requirementWith the way the league operates, this really wouldn't increase "non Power 5 conference" representation, it would increase representation from conferences that have lighter schedules (see: SEC, Big 12). We also have 11 eligible conferences currently, so we would need to pick one more. I think it would increase the number of teams we as a league are watching every week, which is a plus. I'm not sure how much it would impact the active rosters (I'm probably just going to bench my Big 12 players every week they only play 1 game) BUT I do think it would necessitate more trades. If my MVC player gets injured, I would have to draft another MVC player possibly of the same position, which would be tough. It's also just a little bit more oversight for the admins to track. I'm open to the rule, but I think I would be more in favor of "no more than 2 players per conference." I think that would still create new drafting strategies, increase the number of teams we are watching, but not be so hard to manage during the regular season with trades. With that rule, maybe we could add a "one per conference" requirement for active players (in effect actually, that means I can really only have 2 pairs of players from the same conference on my roster with the current roster size of 12, but at least you maintain more flexibility during add/drops)?Re: the "extra point for most points in 1 category" vup I voted against this last year but if it's something posters want, I definitely think it will impact the season. I felt it was kind of random (i.e. we're using a mock FIVB points system with 3 points, 2 points, 1 point, the categories are scored like sets, etc., so the extra rule just didn't line up for me). I will say, a player can lose every week 2-3 and still get 3 points if they're only going all in on 2 categories. I think we might see that and I won't say names. ay2013 cough cough. BUT if we're ok with that strategy, I think it would be a season-altering twist. Tbh, I think the only real practical application is for the initial draft. Once the season starts, it’s probably easiest to forget tracking by conference. People only get three trades anyway. No, you may add/drop as much as you want through the first week then after that you get 3 trades, so someone could go through the cycles in the draft and the during the first week quickly drop 9 players and pick up 9 players. Theoretically there would only be 14 players drafted from each conference. Think about all the talent still available in the P5s that could be grabbed immediately in first week to whoever add/dropped first? I don't think it is a good idea to require at least 1 player from every conference.
|
|