|
Post by ay2013 on May 17, 2019 13:04:53 GMT -5
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. Fair enough re not liking the idea, but you could extend the mandatory conference rule through the Unlimited add drop window.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on May 17, 2019 13:10:19 GMT -5
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. I know injuries, and other unforeseen things (Ceasar quitting Georgia) are more luck, but researching players to see if there setter is the same, and all the things that could effect their production, and then also researching all the players schedules to make sure you have maximum games during the week (I quickly learned players from Texas and most of the Big 12 hurt your team once conference play began). You are just bitter because your strategy did not work last year... filling up on setters that also hit, or L that were designated as OH. LOL You did have some bad luck, but I believe it was karma getting even with you for skirting the position rules!
|
|
|
Post by vbfamily on May 17, 2019 13:14:59 GMT -5
My favorite thread of the season. Followed in 2016, had a spot in 2017 to participate, but way too competitive and limited time so gave it up for another poster to get in. I was able to do the lottery selection order that year but honestly it is just fun to follow the fantasy thread and the varied strategies!
|
|
|
Post by donut on May 17, 2019 13:15:51 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. Which is exactly why I said the underlined... I don't think a rule is "practical" at all, if the only feasible application of it requires reverting said rule at a later point, when the rule is only really applied in the first place to make things "more strategically interesting."
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 17, 2019 13:21:21 GMT -5
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. I know injuries, and other unforeseen things (Ceasar quitting Georgia) are more luck, but researching players to see if there setter is the same, and all the things that could effect their production, and then also researching all the players schedules to make sure you have maximum games during the week (I quickly learned players from Texas and most of the Big 12 hurt your team once conference play began). You are just bitter because your strategy did not work last year... filling up on setters that also hit, or L that were designated as OH. LOL You did have some bad luck, but I believe it was karma getting even with you for skirting the position rules! I’m not bitter at all, my strategy didn’t work, I gambled on some position manipulation and I lost, it’s not the end of the world. That being said, I don’t think that was an unreasonable post to make, regardless of how I chose to play last years game. I just know that a number of posters put a lot of time into developing their roster, regardless of how the results worked out. For much of the league, this wasn’t our first rodeo. It just seems like you are trying to imply that *IF* you didn't finish in the top 2 or 3, you didn't do research re schedules, teams, player strengths, etc., and I assure you that isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 17, 2019 13:32:14 GMT -5
Here's an interesting idea - cap max weekly games per player to 3 for the first four weeks, then 2 afterwards (I'd pro-rate the production for those who exceed it). This will move away slightly from what I think is the biggest con of the drafting process - how schedule-influenced it is.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on May 17, 2019 13:41:21 GMT -5
Here's an interesting idea - cap max weekly games per player to 3 for the first four weeks, then 2 afterwards (I'd pro-rate the production for those who exceed it). This will move away slightly from what I think is the biggest con of the drafting process - how schedule-influenced it is. Are you jumping in this season or sitting on the sidelines again?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 17, 2019 13:43:34 GMT -5
Here's an interesting idea - cap max weekly games per player to 3 for the first four weeks, then 2 afterwards (I'd pro-rate the production for those who exceed it). This will move away slightly from what I think is the biggest con of the drafting process - how schedule-influenced it is. Are you jumping in this season or sitting on the sidelines again? I think I want to, but I don't know if I will be able to resist drafting all Ducks!
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on May 17, 2019 13:46:34 GMT -5
Here's an interesting idea - cap max weekly games per player to 3 for the first four weeks, then 2 afterwards (I'd pro-rate the production for those who exceed it). This will move away slightly from what I think is the biggest con of the drafting process - how schedule-influenced it is. Isn’t researching schedules part of the game? Why make it less important?
|
|
|
Post by donut on May 17, 2019 13:47:57 GMT -5
How would people feel about either increasing the roster size to say 14 or increasing the number of trades to 4 or 5? I know at the end of last season there were several teams that were stuck with having to play injured/inactive players, and I think engagement/participation dipped because of that.
We could also increase the number of trades to like 6, and get rid of the unlimited trade period, which is a bit of a mess.
^^Just some ideas.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 17, 2019 13:50:45 GMT -5
Here's an interesting idea - cap max weekly games per player to 3 for the first four weeks, then 2 afterwards (I'd pro-rate the production for those who exceed it). This will move away slightly from what I think is the biggest con of the drafting process - how schedule-influenced it is. Isn’t researching schedules part of the game? Why make it less important? Because Texas players should be viable options? Finding players with 30+ game schedules is overvalued right now, IMO. I agree it's an interesting part of it, but it should be balanced.
|
|
|
Post by donut on May 17, 2019 13:56:12 GMT -5
Isn’t researching schedules part of the game? Why make it less important? Because Texas players should be viable options? Finding players with 30+ game schedules is overvalued right now, IMO. Yeah, I'd say it's the predominant strategic priority and not a secret either. To still keep it somewhat important, you could use the following: 1) Each player gets 2 (or 3 for the first few weeks) games scored per week. 2) Players who only play 1 game get double the points (or you penalize them and only give them 1 game) 3) Players who play 2 games get their points scored normally 4) Players who play 3+ games can use whichever set of 2 games to score (i.e. I get to choose which 2 games I'm going to score that week)
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on May 17, 2019 13:58:35 GMT -5
Isn’t researching schedules part of the game? Why make it less important? Because Texas players should be viable options? Finding players with 30+ game schedules is overvalued right now, IMO. Texas players will not be a viable option with your recommendation either because they have 24 games scheduled next season, and during the preseason they play two games each week when every other team is playing three or four, so would you rather have a White, Eggleston, Butler with two matches or a player that has three or four? They also have two weeks during conference which they only play one match which hurts. That is six weeks where you are getting 1 to 2 less matches of production.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 30,159
|
Post by trojansc on May 17, 2019 14:02:32 GMT -5
Isn’t researching schedules part of the game? Why make it less important? Because Texas players should be viable options? Finding players with 30+ game schedules is overvalued right now, IMO. I agree it's an interesting part of it, but it should be balanced. I actually like your previous idea. It helps solve the non-conference imbalance, but not in conference. I want Big-12 players drafted, but the hardest part is that conference schedule and I'm not sure how to solve that. I'm for capping production and pro-rating it, but I don't like the idea of saying that if your team has 1 game in conference in a specific week, you double that score. Pro-rating is fine, but multiplying production is not right in my eyes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 14:03:54 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 would have come in 2nd had T'ara Ceasar not screwed me over). Sure, sis.
|
|