Self Editor

Forum: gen
Page 1575
Subject: Season VIII - ECW rules discussion

Posted by: Species - Leader [07724916] Wed, Sep 20, 2006, 16:48

As many of us contemplate late season keeper tweaks and possible trades, at least for me I would have to consider any future effect that our likely ECW addition would have. Things that have been thrown out include roster expansion, expansion of the number of "starters" per week, etc.

Thus, I'd like to begin discussion to lay the framework for formal approval of Season VIII rule changes. I'd appreciate everyone's feedback/discussion on the following:

1 - When it was voted upon, while adding ECW as a scored show for our league (at least in the middle of a season) was voted down, the dissenters seemed to all agree that it makes more sense to add it as a new rule the following year. Quite simply, would you support including ECW programming in Season VIII? This would include televised shows on a national network - be it Sci Fi, NBC, USA, whatever and PPV's.

2 - Would it be necessary to change any of the scoring rules of ECW shows?

3 - Would you want to expand rosters to support additional wrestlers?

4 - Would you want to expand the number of starting wrestlers given the increase in active available wrestlers?

5 - Would this change the number of keepers going into Season VIII? Or more appropriately, Season IX?

Feel free to add any of your own.

Please note that we have a "gentleman's agreement" to NOT pick up any ECW wrestlers this year in order to give everyone a chance at them in next year's draft. Obviously this excluded WWE guys who 'defected' to ECW or ECW'ers that were on our rosters when this agreement was struck. So do NOT run out and claim ECW guys if it looks like we are going to add ECW for Season VIII.

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Sep 20, 2006, 16:59

My thoughts:

1 - Yes, I am in favor of adding it for Season VIII.

2 - I don't see a need to change the rules. We can joke about ECW being the "minor leagues" compared to WWE, but then again we don't change the scoring for Smackdown, and that's as minor league as you can get! lol

One thing we might consider is making the ECW Championship worth as much as the Intercontinental/US Title for example. I'm not really hung up on this, but I could see us 'lowering' the value of the ECW title compared to the WWE/World Heavyweight titles.

3 and 4 - Call me a wuss, but I'm not sure a roster expansion/# of starters expansion would be necessary. If we expand into ECW then most teams would have at least 6 active wrestlers to choose from each week - it would be kind of like Fantasy Football, where not only are your draft/waiver wire picks important, but playing "matchups" and guessing which wrestlers will be on TV becomes part of the enjoyment. I think it would create a bit more activity, as managers have to pay attention to their lineups a little more. Plus it might create a scenario where the best "team" wins as opposed to those who just have the most active wrestlers.

5 - I would say it definitely does NOT change the number of keepers for this year.....and I would propose that it wouldn't change keepers for subsequent years either. Outside of everyone's top scorers, the draft is quite slim. While that presents a nice challenge, it would also be nice to somewhat balance things so that teams without top keepers still have a chance to field a competitive team.

Just my $.02

Tree
ID: 1411442914
Wed, Sep 20, 2006, 17:30

i'm not casting votes either way on anything at the moment, but let me throw something in here that may make it difficult to incorporate ECW into our little game.

i may be mistaken, but i feel like this week's ECW show was actually taped a week ago. if that's the case, and it's going to be a regular occurances, then it sets up all kinds of major problems for us.

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Sep 20, 2006, 17:58

First off, this isn't a call for a vote - but more a discussion thread.....although obviously this is intended to gauge where people stand on the issues at hand, giving us a clear idea of a likely outcome of an official vote.

Good point about ECW tapings.....would a rule prohibiting any movement of wrestlers, both into or off of a lineup, subsequent to a known taping (and we all have access to that info) be sufficient?

Example: ECW tapes on a Saturday. If someone creates a roster thread on Friday and makes a move, then cool. But if someone makes a move involving an ECW wrestler, or ANY wrestler (including a WWE wrestler) known to have participated in the already taped show, would have that move disqualified.

Fair? Maybe a slight pain in the ass once in a while, but I don't think that, in and of itself, would be enough to have us scrap the idea.

Greg Rude
ID: 268381813
Wed, Sep 20, 2006, 17:58

They claim it to be live? From what I can tell it has been so far... I don't know about this week/last week though as you mentioned. I don't understand why they would do that all of a sudden.

I like adding ECW and at first I was thinking we could have bigger rosters/more keepers but Species point about making the weeks (and especially the draft) more interesting, swayed me. I like his idea. This is because I have created a pretend draft, just to get an idea what it will look like... and outside of Round 1, the pickings seem pretty slim. So his idea of keeping everything the same but adding all those new wrestlers, makes the drafting that much more interesting and i'm sure that's one of everyone's favorite things about the league (drafting)

Great One
ID: 523121411
Wed, Sep 20, 2006, 18:56

I believe the pre-taped ECW shows will only be when there is a Supershow the following week. This would only occur 2-3 times per season so not a huge deal. I don't think this would be a major problem to work around. Maybe your ECW roster start/bench decisions would be frozen and whoever starts the roster thread could put a heads up in there for the others.

I am obviously in favor of adding it for next season. Not expanding more keepers for this season because that would obviously not be fair.

In my head I had the worked out the following this summer based on the numbers in available talent, so go ahead and make it the "roster expansion proposal"...

Rosters from 8 to 10.
Starters from 6 to 8.
Keepers from 4 to 5.
Draft from 4 to 6 rounds.

There is a lot of unclaimed talent in ECW right now that will be in the draft. I think there would just be too much talent on the waiver wire, I'd be fine with this but I think it would actually cause 2 problems... 1, difficulty in tracking weekly add/drops for Mike (we already have an extra show to score, so tracking the higher activity will be tricky and I hate to make it any more difficult for him). 2, those that are very active like myself will exploit this by add/dropping like crazy to pick up PPV matches etc.

I guess more activity is great, but on the other hand it has some drawbacks is all I want to say. Perhaps we could consider 1 claim per week to counteract that.

Tree
ID: 15842020
Wed, Sep 20, 2006, 21:16

i'll be completely honest.

i don't ever watch Raw, because i don't get that channel.

i watch smackdown sometimes, but it's so terrible, so if there's no Finlay, i'm probably not paying attention.

i watch ECW when i remember, but only started making a real attempt to catch it because someone i can walk up to and hug the next time i see, who knows me by face and name, is becoming a star on that show, and it makes me smile to see his dreams coming true.

if the rosters expanded, it would be hard for me, because essentially i don't keep up with the WWE. i don't even know who all the champs are, and if it's not an ROH graduate (like London and Kendrick), or on my team, i couldn't name that champ.

there are a couple of solutions to this:

1. expand our rosters and starting line ups dramatically.

i'm in a baseball league where guys like Tom Gordon, Dan Uggla, Nick Johnson, Scott Rolen, Juan Pierre, Chipper Jones, John Lackey, Scott Olsen, and so on have been free agents all season. it's not overly fun, because every team is an all-star team.

2. put a limitation on waiver moves for the season.

3. force a roster restriction on PPVs - where you have to choose only 3 guys on your team to score, or something like this.

i realize all three of these are radical ideas, but i think they could work, alone, or in conjunction with each other, particularly the roster expansion and startling line up expansion.

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Wed, Sep 20, 2006, 22:09

I am obviously in favor of adding it for next season. Not expanding more keepers for this season because that would obviously not be fair.

I agree with points on both sides. Maybe a compromise could be considered. Something like:

Rosters from 8 to 9.
Starters from 6 to 7.
Keepers from 4 to 5.
Draft still 4 rounds. (GO has a math error, he really meant 4 to 5 rounds IF his roster size went to 10)

I don't know if that works or not. Haven't thought it through. I do agree to some extent that too much talent available would cause someone (GO!) to make many weekly roster moves (more than now--egad!). That's the worst part of scoring the league. I don't like limiting moves as much as I favor putting talent on teams. So maybe a bigger roster makes sense for that reason. Whether that be 9, 10, etc, I don't know. And it makes sense to start more guys if the roster is bigger......

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Wed, Sep 20, 2006, 22:09

And like Tree, I follow it less and less I'm afraid.

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Sep 20, 2006, 22:57

I could probably go with 1 more roster spot and 1 more starter.......but would be against 2 spot increases.

Bond, James Bond
ID: 268311817
Wed, Sep 20, 2006, 23:40

I, too, am in favor of adding all ECW results for the new season. As far as roster size, starters, etc., I don't see why we just don't go ahead and expand to 10 per team and START EVERYBODY. It'd certainly make our draft and the waiver pickups much more interesting. ;)

Ok, I know that may be too radical for some but it really does bite when you have someone score some serious unexpected points and you didn't start them.

Also, I'm not sure how I'd feel about enforcing limited transactions for each team but it may be something to consider. In most fantasy leagues I'm involved in, I have only a certain amount of trades/transactions that I can use and that forces me to make the most efficient move(s) that I deem necessary for the success of my team(s).

Certainly, I have no qualms about our current system but if somebody came along and suggested a need for limited transactions, I'd have to say that that idea would have some merit.

Tree
ID: 32832215
Thu, Sep 21, 2006, 06:46

again, i think we can't forget the importance of knowing that several times a year ECW is going to be taped a couple weeks in advance, and even worse, in a PPV week.

someone's got to keep track now of these shows, check on roster freezes, and all that. and then, on the week of a PPV, like this time, it'll add more confusion.

while i think ECW is becoming a decent enough program, it is still a tertiary show for the WWE, and we've never included the one-hour, tertiary shows before.

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Thu, Sep 21, 2006, 06:47

I can't say ECW is similar to the shows you are referring to (Heat? Velocity?).

Great One
ID: 523121411
Thu, Sep 21, 2006, 07:53

Yeah, considering those shows didn't have their own rosters or their own champions thats not really valid. The only similarity is the length of the show.

Who was the Heat Heavyweight Champion again? :)

And if you want to say that guys from RAW and SD show up on ECW to further their own storylines, ok, thats true... but remind me the last time HHH and HBK were on Heat. Its not even comprable.

Tree
ID: 1411442914
Thu, Sep 21, 2006, 10:24

i'm not exactly sure ECW has their own roster either. sure, there are some guys that are exclusively ECW, but there other guys from the other brands who appear regularly. heck, was Big Show even an official ECW guy when he wonr the title?

i just dont consider the show on the same level of Raw or Smackdown. it is the WWE's tertiary show.

Greg Rude
ID: 268381813
Thu, Sep 21, 2006, 10:26

Does Heat still come on? Man I miss Crash Holly (JK)

Great One
ID: 523121411
Thu, Sep 21, 2006, 17:22

Big Show was a member of ECW at the time, he turned on WWE before the One Night Stand PPV and won the title several weeks later in Philly off then busted RVD.

i'm not exactly sure ECW has their own roster either. sure, there are some guys that are exclusively ECW, but there other guys from the other brands who appear regularly.
There are no guys from other brands that appear regularly... Several guys have made one time appearances in ECW such as Batista and Flair and DX but nobody appears regularly. And no ECW talent has gone to a WWE show except for Big Show who was Vinces "hired gun" for the PPV. Hardcore Holly and Matt Striker and Renee Dupree etc are now exclusively on ECW.

Species
ID: 5259811
Thu, Sep 21, 2006, 17:51

Could use some input from Farn (gone), Cliff and wiggs.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Thu, Sep 21, 2006, 18:16

Guys,
My wife is in the hospital with double pneumonia and I've been down sick.

Will try to add my thoughts to this later, but don't have time to do it now.

Cliff

Greg Rude
ID: 268381813
Thu, Sep 21, 2006, 18:33

I know and understand this discussion is for you veterans and senior members, but I just wanted to add one more quick thing.

I think ECW does consider to have it's "own" roster. I'm pretty sure you saw Batista, Flair, DX, etc on the show to help promote it since it's still fairly new. They were just trying to get everyone use to tuning into SCI FI on Tuesday nights... and if Batista, Flair & DX can help fans do that, there ya go. We still score guys no matter what show they show up on anyway, correct? (Like the Smackdown guys recently appearing on RAW)

Tree
ID: 78342121
Thu, Sep 21, 2006, 22:39

i'm simply not keen on expansion. if we incorporate ECW, we have to increase our rosters dramatically.

wiggs
Donor
ID: 04991311
Fri, Sep 22, 2006, 00:44

I would like to see an expansion with the addition of ecw. Possibly adding 3 spots, but I could live with 2.

I would also like to see the keepers increase from 4 to 5 and the starting positions possibly increase to 8 or 9 with a stipulation that you must have 6 raw or smackdown guys and 2 or 3 ecw guys.

those are my thoughts.

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Fri, Sep 22, 2006, 12:11

I'm surprised at the level of roster expansion thrown out for consideration. Some thoughts:

ECW is only a 1 hour show. How much time does that give for these dozens of new wrestlers to be on the show? Looking at the last 2 weeks of results, ECW rushes 4 matches into each show. While true there are plenty of RAW/SD shows that pack so much crap in them that you are lucky to get 4 matches, but ECW has to rush to get 4 in. So you are talking 8-12-ish wrestlers taking part in matches each week, and one out of every three weeks (or every other??) at a minimum has been including a special guest WWE'er.

Most teams barely scratch together 6 scorers as it is, and often times that 6th scorer is a manager/valet/General Manager type. I don't think that's a lot of fun myself. I suppose it's more "challenging" but I would enjoy it more if I actually had a roster of scorers.

Ok I could easily support expanding starters by 1, but 2 or 3?? According to Obsessed with Wrestling's roster page, including 6 'divas', there's only 30 people on the ECW roster (and this includes Angle) - so only half of those could even conceivably be on a given show, much less have true active storylines. With 10 teams in our league, in my opinion, there is not enough talent in ECW to justify expanding by 3 spots, let alone 2.

I'd like to summarize where I think we are:

1 - It seems like there is sufficient support to add ECW for next year - albeit with Tree's dissent noted.

2 - No mention of scoring changes. For now we'll assume that we do not change scoring, although the possiblity of ECW World Title points being lower than WWE Title points I think is still a reasonable tweak.

3 & 4- Obviously we are still debating roster expansion and starting lineup expansion.

5 - I think the consensus is keepers would not be changed going into Season VIII, but there is some sentiment of expansion of keepers if we expand rosters.

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Fri, Sep 22, 2006, 18:08

Good summary, good thread.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Fri, Sep 22, 2006, 18:16

OK all, I'll try to take a few seconds and add some thoughts.

I think I'm pretty well in line with what Species said in 22.

I can see adding ECW, but I don't think any expansion is needed or required along with the addition.

All it would do then would be to potentially even out all teams having six starters that could score.

Unless of course, it is my team and they are all hurt :)

Cliff

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Fri, Sep 22, 2006, 18:31

Thanks for squeezing us in Cliff. Hope things are getting better for you.

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Fri, Sep 22, 2006, 18:49

No rush Cliff. All of us wish the best to your wife.

A summary of suggestions so far in regards to roster/starter/keeper expansion:

GO: Rosters +2, starters +2, keepers +1

Mike D: Rosters +1, starters +1, keepers +1

Bond: Roster and starters to 10!!! lol

wiggs: Rosters +2 or +3, starters +2 or +3, keepers +1

Species: "Ok" with rosters and starters +1. I think it would be more fun to not increase keepers, it would make them more valuable. But for sake of compromise I could be talked into a +1

Goatlocker: Prefers no increase to balance out the talent

Tree: Nay on expansion, but if we did we need to expand rosters "dramatically". (author's note - if he goes to the roster site and sees only 23 active wrestlers on the roster plus 6 divas, would it change his mind?)

So you have GO and wiggs at +2, Tree "increase dramatically", Mike D and I at +1 (with me only a maybe) and Bond out at having TEN starters with Cliff expressing a preference of no increased rosters.

Greg Rude - you are 1/10th of the league and have as much say as any of the rest of us....unless you disagree with me, and then your vote isn't worth squat! ;-) But seriously, your opinion counts too.

============================================
I'm thinking a compromise of +1 rosters and +1 starters might be the winning proposal......I think more keeper discussion should occur though, because I'd vote no increase in keepers at this moment.

Bond, James Bond
ID: 268311817
Fri, Sep 22, 2006, 19:11

My comments above were more "tongue in cheek" than anything else. Hence the: ;)

FWIW, I am in favor of adding ECW. I am in favor of NOT expanding our rosters. I am in favor of starting ALL eight of our superstars. I am in favor of keeping the draft exactly as it is.

Great One
ID: 523121411
Fri, Sep 22, 2006, 19:15

Thinking the compromise could simply use the rule of 1 for the league... 1 more show added, 1 more roster spot, 1 more round of the draft, 1 more starter.

I kind of like the idea of NOT increasing keepers now... this would make the draft interesting for about the first 2 rounds instead of our current first 8 picks and scrubs.

Greg Rude
ID: 17829232
Sat, Sep 23, 2006, 03:39

I agree make the draft more interesting, that is probably one of the finer points of the league. So the keepers stay at 4 (IMO) but I do like bigger roster/more starters... but by 2 (1 to starter and 1 to bench = 7 starters/10 overall) I don't know if the consensus meant this or just meant 1 more in general. (7 starters/9 overall)

Also i've had a bit too much whiskey tonight, so this post should be taken with a grain of salt. heh!

Have you guys seen Tatanka on all these smackdowns lately? For those of you that snickered at my waiver pickup all I have to say is...

YEEEE YEEEE YEEEE YAH YAH! *tatanka music plays*

Great One
ID: 523121411
Sat, Sep 23, 2006, 14:43

I definitely think we found the right manager - drinking whiskey and talking trash at nearly 4 AM! Simply ravishing.

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Sat, Sep 23, 2006, 15:48

Yup. His resume' was sparkling.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Sat, Sep 23, 2006, 18:51

Fits this group to a Tee.
And to think I was supposed to be in Vegas watching the Kings play Hockey tonite.
Oh well.
My wife is home.
They just let her out.
Think she feels worse about missing the hockey game than I do.

9 and 7 would work for me, but would want to see the keepers stay at four and maybe raise to 5 at the end of the new season.

Cliff

Greg Rude
ID: 17829232
Sun, Sep 24, 2006, 01:25

Goat, i'm a huge hockey fan myself... actually when I can afford it I even play ice hockey. I want to get Center Ice so bad but I think another NHL season is going to pass without being able to see very many games.

Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Sun, Sep 24, 2006, 22:58

my short summary of what I'm in favor of.....

1. no roster expansion
2. no more keepers
3. add ECW
4. reduce value of whatever belts ECW has
5. Give Mike D and I a payraise of 200%
6. After next season we have a full redraft and start fresh (Mike D, you're welcome)
7. Set a limit of the # of waiver moves per season and per week/month to avoid ECW ruining the league.

slosh23
ID: 10102211
Mon, Sep 25, 2006, 10:14

Hmmm....since I was one pushing for adding ECW midyear, but have now traded away my ECW talent ... I'm reversing my position and saying NO!! Not really.

I like the idea of 1 additional roster spot, and 1 additional starter with a possible devaluation of the title. No more keepers, though. As to Farn's 5th point ... I think you are selling yourself short, give yourselves a 300% raise.

By the way when Greg Rude says he was into the "whiskey" he means the Zima. If he says the "rum" it was probably a chardonay or zinfandel.

Greg Rude
ID: 4833229
Mon, Sep 25, 2006, 10:32

Please!! Lies!!!

Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Mon, Sep 25, 2006, 15:20

at some point we need to really start voting on some of these points. somebody just needs to draw all that up.

Greg Rude
ID: 4833229
Mon, Sep 25, 2006, 17:40

I think you captured everything in your points, Farn... so maybe we can vote on those. (Of course take out the payraise one, as we are unanimously in favor of the increase) The only other thing I see is the mention of increasing draft rounds, but that obviously would pertain to the # of overall roster/keepers.

So for my official vote:
1. Add ECW: YES
2. Roster Expansion: YES (for specifics, I vote for 2 overall - 7 Starters, 3 Bench)
3. Keeper Expansion: YES (specific: 5 Keepers)
4. Reducing value of ECW Title: NO
5. Complete Re-Draft after next Season: YES :)
6. Waiver Pickup Limitations: YES (specifics, 15 waiver transactions per season, or 3 per month?)

Bond, James Bond
ID: 538332517
Mon, Sep 25, 2006, 20:07

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. Yes

Great One
ID: 523121411
Mon, Sep 25, 2006, 23:21

So for my official votes:
1. Add ECW: YES
2. Roster Expansion: YES (for specifics, I vote for 2 overall - 7 Starters, 3 Bench)
3. Keeper Expansion: NO
4. Reducing value of ECW Title: NO
5. Complete Re-Draft after next Season: NO
6. Waiver Pickup Limitations: YES - I think one add/drop per week would be just fine. Easy to monitor.

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 12:23

1. Yes
2. No (although I would vote yes for 1 more roster spot/1 more starter)
3. No
4. Yes
5. No
6. Yes (1 per week seems ok)

wiggs
ID: 35892012
Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 12:54

So for my official vote:
1. Add ECW: YES
2. Roster Expansion: YES (for specifics, I vote for 2 overall - 7 Starters, 3 Bench)
3. Keeper Expansion: YES (specific: 5 Keepers)
4. Reducing value of ECW Title: NO
5. Complete Re-Draft after next Season: NO
6. Waiver Pickup Limitations: YES (specifics, 15 waiver transactions per season, or 3 per month?)

Tree
ID: 1411442914
Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 13:37

1. Add ECW: YES
2. Roster Expansion: YES (for specifics, I vote for 1 more bench spot, no more starters)
3. Keeper Expansion: NO
4. Reducing value of ECW Title: Yes
5. Complete Re-Draft after next Season: NO, although i would consider it more for TWO seasons from now, but if we know we're re-drafting after next season, it would completely change the keeper dynamic for this season
6. Waiver Pickup Limitations: YES 2 per week, but no more than 4 in a four-week period.

Greg Rude
ID: 4833229
Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 15:27

ECW TONIGHT! 10pm SCI FI
Sandman Vs Big Show for the ECW Title!

Who bets the show goes something like...
Knox /w Kelly vs Dreamer (Test interferes)
Balls Mahoney Vs Kevin Thorn
RVD Vs Hardcore Holly
Sandman Vs Big Show (Striker makes an appearance)

and at some point, through out the show...
Sabu points up and says he's Sabu.
Tazz tries to say exhibitionist.

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 17:00

LMAO! Strip poker will be the highlight......NOT!

Tree
ID: 1411442914
Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 17:25

someone sent me a link of some "dancing" that Ariel did on a p0rn site.

not sure if linking to something that is "legal" from rotoguru though...

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 17:36

Re #45 - gives another meaning to "all in"! Woo hoo.

Greg Rude
ID: 4833229
Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 19:01

ARIEL!!! email attached Tree :)

Tree
ID: 42832618
Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 20:24

keep in mind, it's not all that raunchy. you don't see anything until the third video. and it's pre-boob job!

but, it is wonderfully cheesy, seems like it could easily have been in the 60s Batman TV Series, and the little segment with Ariel is titled: CHUBBY BELLY DANCER SEDUCE THE VIEWERS

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 22:18

1. Yes
2. Yes (1 more roster spot/1 more starter)
3. Yes, if #2 takes place, add 1 for 5
4. No
5. Sigh, I guess not
6. Yes, but only to limit the weekly shuffle. Not sure what limitation I like best, and that may need more consideration. It IS the worst part of the standings tracking though.

Greg Rude
ID: 418472620
Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 22:52

Little thing... Not that anyone would want those guys, or even have room for them in the league since we will probably only add 2 roster spots, maximum.

but I can't help but wonder, will we count the Basham Bro's ?? (Don't know their real names) They are Paul Heyman's henchmen in ECW.

(and about Ariel, no boob job = not very hot. She did a GOOD thing)

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 00:13

Rude - everybody pretty much counts. If Mr. T makes a Wrestlemania 23 comeback he is eligible to be picked up. So if Doug and Danny Basham do a run-in/beatdown on someone they get points.

Great One
ID: 523121411
Wed, Sep 27, 2006, 19:36

One of them won't be a Basham either since one of them tore a bicep and is out til 2007.

Tree
ID: 0944212
Mon, Oct 02, 2006, 23:34

FYI - ECW was taped *again*, apparently.

i just dont see how we can include a show that is taped 2 or 3 times a month.

Tree
ID: 0944212
Mon, Oct 02, 2006, 23:37

and, i just received confirmation that they are taping NEXT WEEK's show, tomorrow, and that this is going to be a regular thing.

most of the episodes from here on in are going to be taped in advance.

Great One
ID: 523121411
Mon, Oct 02, 2006, 23:48

One option would be to really consider elimination of the start/bench process (or shortening it up to 1 perhaps, considered a reserve spot) - between nearly everyone being included with the deeper rosters + putting that cap on weekly moves, there would hardly be opportunity to take advantage of reading the spoilers.

Mike, is the tracking of start/bench something that takes extra time as well? and would you save some time?

Another thought would be having to wait a week to put guys you pick up into your lineup.. I don't know, I'm just brainstorming here.

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 00:13

Start/bench is much quicker than actual transactions.

Tree
ID: 0944212
Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 00:24

the start bench process is an important part of the game.

i mean, it at least gives us *some* interactivity during the course of the season. take that away, and there is almost no game play at all.

i just don't see how we can include a show that will be taped a week in advance on a regular basis.

Greg Rude
ID: 19938216
Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 01:03

I think it would be a bigger crime not to include an entire 1/3 of the WWE in our league and something that a lot of us have incorporated into our normal viewing. (As far as wrestling is concerned.) I think we should do whatever it takes to have access to ECW guys even if that means the GO's idea of no bench.

Tree
ID: 4594434
Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 06:53

i guess that logic befuddles me. a league with more guys, yet less league activity on a week-to-week basis? what's the point?

let's not even bother with a draft anymore while we're at it, and just randomly throw all the names in a hat, and just draw.

ECW is a one-hour, pre-taped, show. it's now got more in common with heat and velocity than raw and smackdown than ever before.

Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 11:55

I can't believe I'm saying this but...

I'm with Tree.

ECW is a pretaped show. I haven't seen an episode since its 2nd week (TIVO tapes it, I delete it). It really is quite a bit like Heat except each week you'll see a top star from Raw or Snoredown.

I'm against not having a bench. I think it would make this league extremely boring if everybody was in the starting lineup.

Then again, I'm against a lot of the changes being discussed in this thread but whatever the majority wants is fine.

Btw, when ECW is taped a week in advance who's gonna be the one to open up the roster threads that early so everyone knows? Considering quite a few people here don't watch shows, read website, or anything related, I can see this becoming a huge challenge to those of us who do. Well, basically just Mike D and myself.

wiggs
ID: 4093439
Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 12:05

after hearing what is going on with ecw tapings, i would like to change my vote to not include ecw.

Great One
ID: 523121411
Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 18:55

These aren't always going to be pretaped, and have been live at least half the time. Rude is right - you can't just blatantly ignore 1/3 of the pie. And I don't think its that difficult to work around.
And don't compare it to Heat because it's apples and oranges. Heat didn't have its own belts... or PPVs.... or roster.
And on a side note, for two weeks in a row they have had the best matches of any of the Big 3 shows. Before anyone goes making grand decisions on whether we are including it, they should sit and watch an entire episode and then consider. So, how about tonight at 10 PM on Sci Fi?! :) Its a date.

Smackdown is taped nearly a week in advance (Monday/Tuesday and I never get to see it til Saturday thanks to pre-emptions) - but nobody seems to care about that because if still falls neatly into our "scoring weeks"... if it didn't fall so neatly, would it be any different than this current situation? Hell, if we eliminated Smackdown and moved the roster deadline to Tuesday at 7 PM (when ECW tapes in advance its Tuesday night for the following Tuesday show) and we'd have the same scenario with a different show.

If changing your lineup to take advantage is the concern, all you need to do is inhibit ECW roster moves. Perhaps by using the the two "ECW spots" as Wiggs proposed -> 2 of your starters are ECW guys and you just leave them there - no starting/benching - thats it - those spots are set. You still move your other guys around as you see fit. And if they break a leg and you need to add/drop your ECW guy, you still gotta stay below that teamwide 1 transaction per week limit for your squad, and (not exactly sure how to word this) you would need to wait for a roster deadline where the show has not already been taped - so you would either do it immediately or just wait the one deadline. I could easily monitor this.

That was hard to write but simple enough I think.

i.e...
Week 4
Booker
Hardy
Shawn
Highlander
Kenny
---- Sabu
---- RVD

Bench
Funaki
Scotty 2 Hotty

Roster Move
Drop RVD due to arrest, Add Tommy Dreamer
This will not be effective til Week 5 due to taping

Tree
ID: 23922317
Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 19:42

These aren't always going to be pretaped, and have been live at least half the time.

that's not true any longer.

tonight's show was taped last night. next week's show is being taped tonight. that's a full week, and that screws up rosters. Smackdown is taped Tuesday, and airs three days later in most of the country, four days in other parts.

you're acting as if our "scoring weeks" aren't important.

they are. they offer some semblance of order.

there is no doubt in my opinion that ECW is the best of the 3 shows. that, however, is not a reason to include it in the game.

i just think the logistics of a show taped often, and so far in advance, makes the game too difficult to administrate.

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 19:52

I wish we had a better answer. I obviously want ECDub, but it's not the end of the world for me. The end of my team maybe, but not the world. ;)

Great One
ID: 523121411
Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 22:32

How about this thought - its so simple... 2 week long scoring periods?

Tree
ID: 23922317
Tue, Oct 03, 2006, 22:57

so we can be less and less active?

Greg Rude
ID: 58943322
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 00:51

We can keep it on a weekly basis but at least lets put it in. Ultimately the problem here is people "cheating" ? So lets go with GO's idea of keeping 2 ECW guys as starters and not being able to touch them, unless you are willing to make a transaction that would take 2 weeks... and if people don't like the 2 ECW starters taking up room, lets EXPAND only to accomodate those two guys :) :)

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 11:55

I'm sorry, but there are not 20 decent scorers in ECW. 4 matches if they are lucky.

I'd like to find a solution. While Tree continues to feel that ECW is 3rd rate (which is his right), the majority seems to want ECW included, although these pre-taping issues have swayed wiggs and Farn.

What if we all agree that roster moves are simply frozen if the show is taped? No whining, no excuses. If I have Sandman benched and wanted to put him into my lineup today for next week, but the show taped last night, I'm $hit-out-of-luck. Normal weekly rosters would continue but like playing Smallworld or Yahoo baseball, once a game has started those players are frozen.

No claims of ignorance allowed - if we do this, we police ourselves. The guy who points out that the show was taped is not the bad guy, the individual manager is responsible and the risk of missing out on points for a match is part of the risk/reward of drafting/using ECW wrestlers. I'm sure those in the know could point the more ignorant (like me) to sites that will detail ECW taping dates. If you don't want to deal with the hassle of checking taping dates, don't draft 'em.

Thoughts?

Mike D
Leader
ID: 41831612
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 11:58

That makes a lot of sense to me. So it must be flawed.

Tree
ID: 1411442914
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 12:11

again, i just feel as if changing the rules of the game like this for the sake of including a dozen extra guys, max, is a bit much.

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 12:30

Duly noted, and if your arguments have swayed others, it may end up being voted down.

But, how would you feel if we instituted a self-enforced 'roster freeze' as outlined in post 69? Does that at least mitigate the pre-taped show issue for you?

Greg Rude
ID: 22953312
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 12:56

Big Show
Sabu
RVD
Hardcore Holly
Test
Sandman
Tommy Dreamer
CM Punk
Balls Mahoney
Kevin Thorn
Mike Knox
Matt Striker
Rene Dupree

About 12-14 credible guys is right, I agree... not 20. So either the Roster freeze sounds fine to me or (back to GO's idea) we could all have 1 ECW guy that no one can touch (always a starter) and then would need expansion to 7 starters, but still 2 bench. After that, the extra ECW guys besides the 10 we have would be the emergency replacements if something severe were to happen to your guy... and of course you'd have to understand that during a taped week it would take an extra week to get the transaction you needed. I expect those would be quite limited anyway, afterall, they are ECW guys :)

Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 13:27

is it bad that I couldn't pick half of those guys listed above out of a police lineup?

Btw, did somebody volunteer to score ECW? I don't intend to do it. One boring wrestling show a week is enough.

Great One
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 15:59

Farn - Seriously? I would think the only two you wouldn't know are Mike Knox and Kevin Thorn (and he was formerly Mordecai so you were familiar with him at one point). Did you not watch ECW in its heyday? And I guess CM Punk if you still don't know who he is.

I would glady score ECW... back to back weeks they have put the "Match of the Week" on my TV and that makes me tune in. The RVD/Holly and RVD/Test matches were easily in the top 10 free-televised matches this year (which may be a statement about the current product overall but thats another story, and I would only put Edge/Flair ahead of either of them right now for the year). So if you aren't watching, then you are only depriving yourself of whats evolving into a pretty damn good show.

I would be cool with the "TSN style" roster freeze on ECW guys, hell, we are all adults and have had a "gentlemens agreement" to not pick up any ECW guys all season and that has gone smoothly. I can't see why we couldn't police ourselves the same way here. That would kind of be the same as the ECW only spots (where they are kind of locked in) - but without being forced to have them if you choose. Those individuals would just be a little more inflexible to your roster, but I'm sure there are guys now you never take out of your lineup, and this would just be the same.

I would also be willing to initiate all weekly roster threads with a heads up regarding the ECW taping status so you know whether that guy will be locked in for the following week as well. And also monitor if there were any violations/adjustments from week to week.

GO

Tree
ID: 1411442914
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 16:31

maybe this is selfish of me, but for me, it's more stuff i now have to keep up with that i don't really have the time to pay attention to.

now i have to follow TWO SEPERATE SCHEDULES for this league. i barely have time to follow one.

Greg Rude
ID: 22953312
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 16:49

You've had enough time to answer nearly every post indicating how opposed you are to adding ECW to the league :)

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 16:53

LOL - touche' Rude.

And he originally voted yes. I appreciate Tree's point of view (and I know you're just giving him a hard time too) and he raises legit points.....although he should remember this isn't the Poli Forum, and by his responses I think his blood type is "B negative" ;-)

Greg Rude
ID: 22953312
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 17:08

Yeah Im joking... this board is great for getting through the day at work lol

Either way this whole discussion was interesting and fun.

Great One
ID: 523121411
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 18:22

Great point Rude lol...

Tree, I'd say you are grossly overestimating how difficult this would be. How many times have you actually even changed your roster this season in 25 weeks? Everybody, not just Tree. Most of us only do it after a transaction of some sort. If you have RVD, Sabu, Big Show, Punk or the other 10 worth owning... you leave them in, set it and forget it unless they have a severe injury or get released.

Are you seriously going to be analyzing and debating whether you are going to start Shannon Moore over Scotty 2 Hotty in a given week and sliding them in and out of the lineup? Somehow I doubt it (we all have guys we either start regularly or who we are waiting to debut or are injured etc). Very few of us have decisions to make on their fringe bench/start guys each week. And if you don't want that to factor in, then don't pick up a fringe guy like Renee Dupree or Danny Doring or other ECW jobber, just go with Eugene or Tatanka or whoever else.

I also read that the ECW brand will be a major part of the Survivor Series (and the Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania as well)... it'll be RAW vs. Smackdown vs. ECW (+the ECW PPV in December). We cannot just ignore their involvement on a weekly basis when they are considered 1/3 of the overall brand.

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 19:30

I fully understand the difficulty following things, but it doesn't bother me. If I don't win the league, it's still fun, and I know I'm at a disadvantage to the couple that do follow things. Most of us don't anymore it seems.

The roster thing/TSN thing also could be similar to Yahoo, which I think is the point. If one or two guys "play" before others, no biggee. It's that way right now with PPVs, RAW, and Snoredown. Maybe the roster deadline needs to be a different day. Or time. When do they tape ECW?

Great One
ID: 523121411
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 19:44

If they are taping the ECW in advance it goes like this...

If there is a Supershow in Week 2, they don't have time to do all 3 in one night, so they do it a week in advance.
Week 1
Monday - RAW (ECW Taping to air the next night)
Tuesday - SD (ECW Taping for following Tuesday)

Week 2 -
Monday - Supershow, both RAW/SD
Tuesday - Nothing

So the only way to move the deadline would be be to bump the "Week 2 deadline" to Week 1, Tuesday at 7 PM. Or the night after our normal deadline.

Great One
ID: 523121411
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 19:48

And you're right, just like in Yahoo when there is a Thursday game in football (and get used to it after Thanksgiving!) a handful of guys get frozen early. This is kind of like there is a "Tuesday game" before the normal deadline 6 days later.

Mike D
Leader
ID: 041831612
Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 22:37

I see. So it reverts back to that "if the ECW is taped, no ECW roster changes could occur."

Bond, James Bond
ID: 10933421
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 00:21

Let me chime in with a few thoughts here.

IMHO, simplicity is key. As much as I'd love to add ECW, Tree's adamant disenchantment with any idea regarding its addition should give all of us pause.

Though he is but one person in our league, his strong voice of negativity towards all things ECW should be heard loud and clear. I, for one, would like to see a modicum of appreciation for his viewpoints however they may be interpreted.

If one person is THAT opposed to any league idea---whether it be Tree, Farn, Wiggs or whomever, I'll respect that and go on to something else. There's plenty of other issues here to discuss without wallowing around in the mire of ECW's status in our league.

Having said that, out of respect to Tree, I cannot with a good conscience vote for something that one of our members is extremely dogmatic against. Therefore, as much as it makes logical sense WWE/ECW-wise to include the likes of Big Show, RVD, Test, CM Punk, etc. to our rosters, I now vote NO in anything related to including ECW in our league for the upcoming season.

For those that already own ECW talent, I would not be opposed, at this time, to allow them to have, say, a supplemental draft perhaps between rounds one and two in order to discard their ECW superstars if they so choose. (Of course, since ECW is owned by WWE, those superstars would always garner points if they appeared on Raw and/or Smackdown and their respective PPV's as well.)

Lastly, I didn't know the "non-activity" issue of starters/non-starters was such a big issue to some. But since it appears to be, I am now in favor of keeping the status quo of starting six of the eight stars on our roster and NOT increasing our roster size.

DISCLAIMER
Be it hereby duly noted that the above opinions of one Bond, James Bond are his and his alone. As such, his opinions can fluctuate on a daily basis and/or be interpreted wrongly by outside parties.

I am Bond, James Bond and I approve this message!

Great One
ID: 523121411
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 07:59

Bond, if it matters, its important to note that I am 10x more adamant on the other side of this than Tree. I don't see how I could continue in this league if we aren't going to include everything.

I don't see why this is so difficult or complicated, it only impacts you as much or as little as you want it to. If you don't wanna worry about ECW guys getting locked in 6 days early a few times a season, then don't pick any for your team.

And Mike, after thinking about that 1 day later deadline for the following week, we could use that for any "ECW changes" from week to week. So it would still allow flexibility if you planned it out right and you wanted to get an extra RAW guy in for a PPV the next week or whatever. Just do it by Tuesday at 7 PM.

Tree
ID: 1411442914
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 09:59

it has a heavier impact that you think GO.

for those of us who can't afford to put more time into this league, it forces us to either drop out, or find a way to make more time to be competitive.

i've been VERY lucky this season (after 2 seasons of really poor luck), in that i've had no serious injuries (knock on wood), and the vast majority of my points were scored by the same six guys, and i haven't had to do much roster shuffling.

i was also able to maximize my points, and all but maybe 75 of my OVERALL points went to my scoring total that counted.

adding another brand in is going to force us to do more research, keep track of more things, etc etc, and some of us just don't have the time for that any longer.

Mike D
Leader
ID: 41831612
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 10:17

All I really do is watch the scoring threads Farn does and the standings as I do them.

Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 11:30

Whats funny is that I score each and every show and there are still times where I stare at the screen and say "who the heck is that?" and then I wait for Cole or JR to tell me. I'm not kidding, I can't even identify these guys.

If y'all wanna add ECW and tweak rosters go for it. I'm ok with whatever. I can barely keep up with new wrestlers as it is so 20 more won't affect me any.

wiggs
Donor
ID: 04991311
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 12:57

well farn, sometimes I still dont know who they are after they announce them, I have to come on here and say. who is that guy?

Mike D
Leader
ID: 41831612
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 13:19

Same here. I google them.

Greg Rude
ID: 22953312
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 16:07

One more quick thing in favor of ECW...

Blocking those 15 guys, in my opinion, would really limit the league and all the GM's potential. For me, since i'm just starting up, it all comes to the draft... being that we keep 4 guys, the only thing I have is round 1. That's a little disappointing. The top scorers go in, we choose who our *new* top scorer will be and then that looks like it's pretty much it. Besides the top scorers and the 40 guys everyone gets to keep, to me, it looks like there is absolutely nothing worth even looking at in round 2, 3 and much less 4. Adding these 15-20 guys would make it interesting AT LEAST through round 3... every year, not just the upcoming one! I think that's my main motivation. Without the ECW guys thrown in the mix, the draft doesn't give a new guy much to work with. (That of course is strictly from my perspective) After I get a nice pick in round 1, i'm then looking at the likes of Koko B Ware.

Greg Rude
ID: 22953312
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 16:10

(CRAP!) I wanted to add another point (Selfish I know) but the main reason I went ahead and took a 2nd round pick for Orton was in anticipation of there being a nice look at ECW guys in that round.

Ok I'm done. I promise :)

Great One
ID: 523121411
Thu, Oct 05, 2006, 18:42

I certainly like the depth they would add as well, making subsequent drafts more interesting as well as filling the last holes of some teams with less depth.

Farn - Yeah I was thinking that about you scoring Smackdown lately, they have had a lot of new talent that comes from all over the place.

And yes, we've determined there are only about 10-12 ECW guys worth owning and they generally get them all on TV each week, so there really isn't much more research involved beyond them - its only a one hour show. Or even just read the spoilers/results with the 3-4 matches and get a feel for whats going on - and the results are usually attached to the Smackdown Spoilers anyway, so just read right along with what you are already likely reading - its right there for you.
Plus, if we are going with the proposed 1 move per week limit, it'll cap the moves a couple really active teams can do - and give more time for others to see that i.e. a new tag team debuted etc.

Beyond having the top "main event" guys in ECW, I'd say there is no advantage/disadvantage to going with say one of the cruiserweight guys on Smackdown over say Stevie Richards who has been on half the ECW shows. So if you are more comfortable with the main shows, then you can stick with the jobber talent from RAW/Smackdown - thats still 4 hours worth of jobbers to choose from vs. 1 hours worth. And if you have one of the "big guns" like RVD, Sabu, Show etc then you aren't moving them in and out anyway, so you only need to track that they didn't get fired or break a leg.

Tree - the irony is, ECW is the only show you actually watch, right? lol... I know thats mainly cause of Punk, but you gotta admit some of these RVD matches have been really good. The IWC seems to think so and I tend to agree.

Tree
ID: 54941617
Fri, Oct 06, 2006, 19:48

no doubt i've enjoyed ECW when i remember to watch it. i think RVD-Bob Holly was the match of Holly's lifetime.

i also like Samoa Joe. doesn't mean i think TNA should be part of the game.

Forum: genPage 1575Subject: Season VIII - ECW rules discussion

Forum: gen
Page 1575
Subject: Season VIII - ECW rules discussion