| 0 |
Subject: WWE NEW Standings/Debate Thread
Posted by: MNG@college
- [117422015] Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 17:09
keeper policy the current heated issue. OF course it will be divided. (who's going to want to give up Lesnar or Kurt Angle?). I like the whole new draft idea (or just one non 1st rounder) just to keep things fresh. Well I also would like to propose how the draft order would go. Keep in mind I put a lot of thought in this so don't write it off too fast. My idea is to have playoffs for the last month of wrestling between the top 4 teams starting the RAW after the ppv before SS, (I believe it's KOR, though cmiiw) with everyone starting at 0. These four would be vying for the title, with the champion getting the 12th pick, the runner up getting the 9th, 4th place getting the 11th, and 3rd getting 10th. There would also be a tournament between the teams ranked 5-12. This tournament would determine the 1-8 picks based on how each team did in the playoffs. Thus here is my scheme: 1 vs 4 for the 4 shows after KOR, winner to face the winner of 2 vs 3 for the 4 (2 raw/2 sd) shows after KOR. The title would be determined by 1/4 winner vs the 2/3 winner for the 4 shows+Summerslam. There would also be a 3rd place match between the 1/4 loser and the 2/3 loser each playing during the same shows.
If you are still with me, there is more, the tournament to go like:
5 vs. 12 (first 2 shows after KOR for all matches)
8 vs 9
7 vs 10
6 vs 11
1st pick determinant: 2/3/4 week shows+SS
The winner of this tourney would get the first pick, runner up the 2nd.
There would also be a losers bracket for the third pick, runner up getting 4th:
2nd week shows, 3rd pick- 3/4 week shows+SS
loser 5/12
loser 8/9
loser 7/10
loser 6/11
...The 5th pick, runner up getting the 6th:
3rd week shows, 5th pick title 4th week+SS
loser 5/12/8/9
loser 5/12/8/9
loser 7/10/6/11
loser 7/10/6/11
4th week+SS
...And the 7th pick (loser getting the 8th)
loser 5/12/8/9
loser 7/10/6/11
Of course pts would be reset to zero after each playoff round. |
| 1 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 40029714
Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 17:58
|
Not really a big fan of playoffs, personally. But that is well thought out.
|
| 2 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 18:17
|
One more thing I think might help clarify the draft order:
#1 Winner of 1st pick tourney
#2 Runner up of 1st pick tourney
#3 Winner of Loser's bracket tourney
#4 Runner up of Loser's bracket tourney
#5 Winner of 5th pick tourney
#6 Runner up of 5th pick tourney
#7 Winner of 7th pick match
#8 Runner uo of 7th pick match
#9 Runner up in championship bracket
#10 3rd place in championship bracket
#11 WWE Champion
#12 4th place in championship bracket
|
| 3 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 20:41
|
switch #11 and #12 should be:
#11 4th place in championship bracket
#12 WWE Champion
|
| 4 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 20:59
|
i must admit i'm too confused to give my opinion.
on that merit alone though, i'm not sure if the playoffs are a good idea. we're having a tough enough time agreeing on things in a league where things seemed simple! :o)
peace,
Tree
|
| 5 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 21:17
|
I'll try to explain better Tree, what are you confused about it?
|
| 6 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 21:38
|
I should explain that the matches to determine the first pick are the 1st week of shows after Kor only.
5 vs. 12
8 vs. 9
7 vs. 10
6 vs. 11
I'll try and play out a possible scenario to make everything a little clearer.
1st round tournament for the WWE title
Points count for 1st and second weeks
1 vs. 4
2 vs. 3
1 wins against 4
2 wins against 3
1st round tournament for first pick
Points count for 1st week
5 wins against 12
8 wins against 9
10 wins against 7
11 wins against 6
Points count for 2nd week
5 plays 8 in the semifinals
10 plays 11 in the semifinals
Loser's bracket
12 plays 9 in the tourney to determine 5th pick
7 plays 6 in the tourney to determine 5th pick
5 wins against 8
11 wins against 10
9 wins against 12
6 wins against 7
Points count for 3rd week, 4th week, and SummerSlam
1 vs. 2 for the WWE title (runner up gets 9th)
3 vs. 4 for 3rd place (winner gets 10th)
5 vs. 11 for the first pick
8 vs. 10 for the 3rd pick
9 vs. 6 for the 5th pick
12 vs. 7 for the 7th pick
(I admit it isn't consistent with what's above, but that's because what's above wasn't realistic)
lets say 1,3,5,8,9, and 12 win their respective matches.
The draft order is now:
#1:5
#2:11
#3:8
#4:10
#5:9
#6:6
#7:12
#8:7
#9:2
#10:3
#11:4
#12:1
|
| 7 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195
Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 08:11
|
I haven't looked through all of this, but it seems very complicated. In any case, we do have plenty of time before we have to worry about keeper rules. I'd be inclined to support a system based on our season finishes, as I feel that is likely a better representation of the overall strength of our rosters than any playoff. I would be interested in hearing any ideas of taking the final standings in reverse and tweeking them somehow based on the points of the wrestlers we keep or keep or give back.
|
| 8 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 14:51
|
Agree that it is complicated, and an not sure why it needs to be.
|
| 9 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 18:03
|
It looks complicated but I assure you it isn't as complicated as you think.
|
| 10 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 18:27
|
What? (lol)
I'm not a big keeper fan in fantasy sports, as I enjoy drafts (as Youngbuck would say, "I'm good at live drafts"----lol). But I can see keeping some of our teams. After the top 3 or 4 most of the teams take a sharp decline, IMHO.
|
| 11 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 19:16
|
I happen to dig the playoff scheme above (1-4 vie for the title, 5-12 vie for the 1st pick) I also enjoy fresh drafts. We don't have to announce the scheme now though.
|
| 12 | wiggs
Donor
ID: 10261612
Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 19:38
|
I prefer non keepers too, but if we do have to keep one i would prefer it to be a non 1st rounder.
|
| 13 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 20:55
|
Me too
|
| 14 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 12:59
|
The way I see it, it should go to a vote:
1: Keep 1 non-first rounder (draft order and winner determined by scheme above)
2: Keep 1 non-first rounder (draft order determined by non-biased 3rd party and winner based on most total points at the end, no playoffs)
3: No Keepers, whole new draft (draft order and winner determined by scheme above)
4: No Keepers, whole new draft (draft order determined by non-biased 3rd party and winner based on most total points at the end, no playoffs)
5: Other
My vote goes for 1, I happen to dig playoffs (I can explain the scheme above to those confused!! Once you understand, you might like it) and the one non-first rounder aspect adds more talent to the draft.
|
| 15 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 13:21
|
5
|
| 16 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 14:05
|
5
I don't think a playoff system is warranted in this type of fantasy league. Storylines are too far in the future, and just when your stud goes into a sideline mode someone else's mid-carder gets a push. It's not as if one manager with the mid-carder was more brilliant, it was a bit of good fortune, so I think it punishes those with more of a long term seasonal strategy.
Draft order is trickier. Should it be inverse order of the previous season's standings? That seems typical.
|
| 17 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 38044119
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 14:32
|
5
|
| 18 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 14:47
|
I'm at odds with the playoff idea as a whole and also with only retaining 1 player in a keeper type league. As I suggested earlier, I'd like to toy with inverse order of last seasons' final standings for the draft order, tweeked by the strength of the wrestlers we have to give up or keep. For example the team that finished in first place would pick last, but if he had to release the best wrestler in the The WWE, then maybe he should get moved up a notch, especially if the second and third place finishers only had to hand over someone who isn't likely to stick around too long, like Austin or Steiner.
Also, categorizing them by draft round is flawed because only half or so of the first round drafts look like they are that good that you would want to consider limiting our ability to keep them. For example, should Farn really be forced to release Booker T? In a keeper league Booker T is comparable Ken Griffey. Might have a stinker of a season but talented enough that he could still come back as a major player next season. If Book doesn't do anything this year, Farn should have the option to give his #1 pick another chance.
Guys like Matt hardy and John Cena could easily wind up racking up first rounder-type points by the end of the season, possibly well ahead of Booker, Benoit, Austin, Steiner and Michaels (all first-rounders), for various reasons. I think who we release should be flexible, and that the focus should be on their point totals at the end of the season, not the round they were drafted in.
|
| 19 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 15:26
|
This just came to me; what about freezing the waiver pool activity at an agreed point, say 6 weeks before the season ends. Hopefully some new talent (or at least some new pushes) could emerge in that time to make the draft more interesting. Not freezing the waiver pool would mean continued transacions right up to the end of the season, meaning whatever new pushes and new talent and new prospects emerge at that time will already be on our rosters before the season ends. The draft will not add any new life to the league, just switch the rosters around. Just a thought.
|
| 20 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 16:12
|
i think we're all getting at something here...
i do like a modified keeper league. however, i have issues with forcing someone to get rid of their top draft pick - because in a lot of places in our draft, there were some guys picked non-first round who have potential to be HUGE scorers - Goldberg and Hogan come to mind.
we drafted 8 guys - i believe that we should be able to keep 3 of them - any 3 of them...
EXCEPT for the guy who was the top scorer on the team...
that will probably put the Lesners, Angles, HHH's, and Stone Cold's into the talent pool, but it doesn't completely restrict you to losing your top draft pick.
(hmm, i realize as i re-read MITH's idea, they're remarkably close)
with 3 guys, you're keeping 37.5 percent of your roster - enough to offer continuity.
as for the free agent draft.
i believe STRONGLY it should go in reverse order of finish.
however, i think the second round oughta be a curve ball - almost like supplemental picks - the guy who lost the highest scorer picks first, the second highest scorer second, etc etc...
then back to normal as the third round should be the "snake" end of the first round...
does that makes sense? thoughts?
peace?
Tree
|
| 21 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 16:15
|
Tree all good ideas
|
| 22 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 16:24
|
Good idea Tree. I was thinking in terms of achieving a similar result, but that is much simpler than anything I'd come up with so far.
|
| 23 | kev
ID: 11438306
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 17:00
|
I dont like the playoff system for deciding who gets the first pick. The weakest team should get the first pick. It doesn't make sense to me that the team that just misses the "championship" bracket, probably has the best chance to land the first pick.
Im up for Tree's idea. The thing about not being able to keep a first rounder, is it is more beneficial to the people who picked later in the draft, like myself, blue hen, etc. I don't feel right now, I gain or lose much by keeping one of Eddie or Beniot. Both are solid point producers, so losing Beniot isnt a huge thing for me, as I have Eddie in the 2nd round.
I vote for 2 keepers. Keep 25 percent of your lineup.
|
| 24 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 17:08
|
I like one keeper, (not your best point producer idea). I'm cool with going reverse draft order, but I just think that if a team knows it is out of the running, it can throw the remainder of it's games to get the first pick. The playoffs idea was to prevent scenarios such as this.
|
| 25 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 17:16
|
Perhaps if the above playoff scenario was tweaked so the 9-12 teams competed for the 1st-4th picks, and the 5-8 team competed for the 5th-8th picks. It could even be taken a step further: 11/12 competing for the first pick, 9/10 for the third, and so on. With this scenario a whole month of stats could be used as opposed to the first couple weeks.
Thus, (while I like the whole playoffs idea) I propose:
All pts reset after KOR, pts count for the four weeks of shows after before Summerslam and the Summerslam PPV itself with everybody getting to keep one non-first rounder for next season.
11/12 compete for the 1st pick
9/10 compete for the 3rd
7/8 compete for the 5th
5/6 for the 7th
3/4 for the 9th
1/2 for the championship (loser would get 11th)
|
| 26 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 17:18
|
i think we're getting somewhere, but i still root for keeping more than just one guy....
|
| 27 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 21:33
|
Frankly, I'd be all for keeping half our rosters. Dump your highest and your choice of your second and third highest point producers and two more wrestlers of your choice.
|
| 28 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 22:43
|
Ok number of keepers is negotiable, but is anyone taking a liking to the scheme presented in post 25? It keeps things competitive I think.
Latest proposal (more flexible than in the past):
Dumping top pt producer, dumping choice between #2/#3 pt. producer, dumping choice of #4/#5 pt. producer. That leaves us with 2 keepers (25%), whilest keeping the talent pool relatively high.
|
| 29 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195
Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 22:56
|
Dumping #1 + (#2 or #3) + (#4 or #5) leaves us with 5 wrestlers. You mean dump 3 more of your remaining 5? How about conducting a vote on how many wrestlers we keep, then decide how how we go about it? Maybe that's a bad idea...
|
| 30 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Sat, Feb 01, 2003, 06:59
|
to try and make this mumbo-jumbo concise...i think important posts are:
25
27
28
30 - this one, which stats:
1. post 25 playoffs - more streamlined than the previous one, and keeps it competetive. i like it - however, if the guy who won the regular season claimed that thing by 500 points, i would hate to see him lose it in the playoffs because of one off-week...but i guess that's what the playoffs are about.
2. keepers - let's VOTE on this idea.
a. your top scorer is gone. period.
b. you choose TWO of positions 2 through 4 to keep.
c. you choose two other guys of 5 through 8, for a total of FOUR keepers.
d. you can actually choose to keep less than 4 wrestlers. if this happens, anyone who does that gets "extra" picks at the end of the draft, in the same order as the draft had been going all along.
3. the draft - let's VOTE on this too....
a. round one done in inverse order of finish/playoffs finish.
b. round two is done in the order of team losing highest scorer going first, second scorer second, and so on.
c. round three is the reversal of round one, and the rest of the draft continues in that manner - i.e. 1-2-3-3-2-1-...
aww hell, i'm gonna put these in a new thread to vote on...
peace,
Tree
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|