|
|
Post by vbprisoner on May 17, 2019 14:05:39 GMT -5
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) For #4 would that be they get to choose before the matches or after the matches? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 14:07:22 GMT -5
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. Per-set numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 17, 2019 14:07:49 GMT -5
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. Fair. It's also easier to draft knowing you'll need to bench them one week, rather than looking at 7-8 weeks of the season not being viable. |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on May 17, 2019 14:10:07 GMT -5
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. Per-set numbers. That’s a potential solution, but it disadvantages participants with players playing 5 set matches. Ultimately, there are always trade-offs. Anything that increases the burden on participants in regards to scorekeeping isn’t good IMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 14:12:07 GMT -5
That’s a potential solution, but it disadvantages participants with playing 5 set matches. Ultimately, there are already trade-offs. Anything that increases the burden on participants in regards to scorekeeping isn’t good IMO. Agreed. The suggestions of pro-rating numbers is just asking for the season to fail. That’s too much. |
|
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 14:13:38 GMT -5
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. Per-set numbers. What is your (and everyone else's) opinion on the roster-rules for last year and potential changes? (like, how players are counted as which position, and how they are drafted, and how they can be used? The multi-position players and also freshmen) |
|
|
|
Post by donut on May 17, 2019 14:17:59 GMT -5
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) For #4 would that be they get to choose before the matches or after the matches? Depends on how much of an advantage you want to give players with 3 games. Before the match is less of an advantage, after the match is obviously more of an advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on May 17, 2019 14:19:44 GMT -5
That’s a potential solution, but it disadvantages participants with players playing 5 set matches. Ultimately, there are always trade-offs. Anything that increases the burden on participants in regards to scorekeeping isn’t good IMO. Instead of per-set, you could do per-game numbers. That still gives an advantage to players in 5 set matches. |
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on May 17, 2019 14:38:20 GMT -5
We shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel... just tweak a couple things. Last year was fun, and too many changes could make it more tedious than fun!
I think we should first understand who is coming back to play in 2019. Also is rule #7 being dis-guarded? I remember trojansc or ay stating in a post that we should consider taking it down to 10 or 12 teams and having two leagues if there were enough requests to join the fantasy league.
Regardless if we stick with 14 or even explore the other option(s) we need to get a role call for who's in for 2019.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on May 17, 2019 14:39:41 GMT -5
We shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel... just tweak a couple things. Last year was fun, and too many changes could make it more tedious than fun! I think we should first understand who is coming back to play in 2019. Also is rule #7 being dis-guarded? I remember trojansc or ay stating in a post that we should consider taking it down to 10 or 12 teams and having two leagues if there were enough requests to join the fantasy league. Regardless if we stick with 14 or even explore the other option(s) we need to get a role call for who's in for 2019. 🙋🏻♂️ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 16:17:41 GMT -5
What is your (and everyone else's) opinion on the roster-rules for last year and potential changes? (like, how players are counted as which position, and how they are drafted, and how they can be used? The multi-position players and also freshmen) I mean, I had thoughts and misunderstood some things early on, but I really loved the league. When you’re given a set of rules, you adopt a strategy to be successful within those rules. That’s what I tried to do. I assumed that you set the league up this way because you’re a big mid-major fan, and this ruleset really forces you to look at those teams and athletes if you want to be successful each week. |
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on May 17, 2019 17:22:14 GMT -5
Liked it for creativity but can’t stand her. |
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on May 17, 2019 17:25:07 GMT -5
(I would have come in 2nd had T'ara Ceasar not screwed me over). Sure, sis. HAHAHAHA so far so good! |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 17, 2019 19:13:37 GMT -5
I do think that keeping scoring as easy as possible to track is the way to go. I also would be in favor of switching to a per set basis for each player in each category, if only to change it up and assess new strategy in drafting.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 17, 2019 19:25:08 GMT -5
I was a bit surprised Madelyn Halteman, S, Fresno State, never got picked up.
|
|
