Dave My reasoning is essentially that unless we change the rules allowing for slots specifically for multi-position on the first unit it should not apply to the 2nd unit. If this were like ESPN or Yahoo with utility slots and just F slots and just guard slots I could see more freedom for 2nd unit subs but this league isn't like that.A second reason is it spawns relative laziness on an owner's part because if liberal Yahoo positions are applied you essentially don't have to worry much about your bench strength as long as anyone is multi-position...and because the entire 2nd team issue is only supposed to address DNP and not about expanding beyond 6 men starting then I would be open to allowing one single player to cover for 2 backup slots only if injuries between supplemental picks preclude the use of any backup.This is what would happen the first 2 weeks because of drafting only 12 guys and some people would still want to stash a good injured player.You couldn't afford to do that with more than one slot on each team under my compromise scenario. I don't want to excuse bad drafting, bad player evaluation skill ,lack of keeping current with injury reports or lack of oversight as position managers. Owners who don't do the research shouldn't be rewarded by the ability to plug in subs everywhere a hole develops. If you know you must play 12 different guys then you draft differently it's much more challenging and competitive.
I definitely want to keep the league going as the KKBA(Kreb/Koeppel)next year we need to recruit at least one and maybe more owners assuming everyone in the league comes back.Eric would have to address the financial issues
I think, generally speaking, there is a high degree of loyalty to and enthusiasm for this league. Twenty three seasons kind of attest to that. As it happens, my marriage is about two months older, and while it's produced its share of complex challenges and low moments, it has also generated all manner of dazzling triumphs and profound gratification. A little like fantasy basketball, but with better sex. I'm not going anywhere.
Yes, the money thing has gotten a little goofy. It needs to be brought up to date, and I have every intention of doing that. I do apologize that it hasn't happened yet. But I can also say this: I guarantee there is no team owner that is owed a significant amount of money. Few have met their entry fee requirements regularly in recent years (Tom, Dave and Mark are the exceptions), but instead paid down winnings by withholding fees (Hans, Sean, Wingo), so I'm guessing nobody is out more than maybe 100-200 bucks, if that. But again, it is possible to reconstruct all that and I intend to do so. But here's another piece: Once we're squared away, we need for everybody to go back to ponying up the entry fee on draft night. Everybody does that, I can write checks at the end of the season like I once did. No more issues. I'll keep my promise to get us caught up, everybody else keeps that promise.
And the multiple backup thing, I have no idea why we're even going back there. I'm with Mark. Our starters play one spot out of six; backups do the same. No reason not to use 12 guys if we're carrying 15. The argument was that owners should manage their squads and the Platoon Backup System does exactly that. It is also highly effective. I wouldn't ask Mark to go back and see how many times it has worked when activated, but I know the percentage is very high, much more so than the Second Chance Rule by itself. The far bigger issue is how to ensure that team owners actually use the tools that will keep them as competitive as possible as often as possible. That is the greater threat to the well-being of the league.
That's about what I got for now. Maybe we take this up in a couple weeks so we can savor whatever drama is in store on the court. Personally, I'm on the edge of my seat to see if Tom can win the NIT, which, in my mind, would make this the undisputed greatest fantasy league ever.
Wingos appreciate Eric's sincere response about the $$, although he believes he is owed quite a bit. He will be happy to start paying up front once things are reset, and is, frankly, more comfortable doing so. Eric will need to find a new method of holding the $$, because uncashed checks don't work.
As for the backup issue, Wingos stand firmly with Nitecaps on not accepting the new reality, and would also like a formal vote at some point.
Wingman: The only participants who paid an entry fee this year were Tom and Dave. The only participants who paid an entry fee last year were Tom and Dave. Don't get me wrong; you had no reason to buy in this year after winning last season. Same with Sean two seasons back. I've got others in arrears, too. In other words, I'm not the only guy holding your money. And going back, this thing started in part because I got tired of writing checks that were partially covering other guys.
But hey, I'm not holding out. I'll get the thing done.
And regarding the backup thing, you might want to double-check the definition of the word "reality." We did vote on the multiple-duty thing. It lost. Why it is back is beyond me.
Tom was on our side and stated definitively as much before his demise Hawthorne if you go back on the old blog you can find that but of course he can't vote again it was 3/3.. Alt/Delete and P4 I don't recall them saying anything. However, both posted full 12 man lineups immediately after the discussion deadline which is fair to accept as support (albeit without any articulated enthusiasm). We accepted the lack of resistance to the position Eric and I espouse as confirmation
Yeah, I'm with Wingo...I recall a 3-3 vote. Caps, WIngo, Swats vs. E's, Invaders and Tickets...Let's put it to a poll
Mark, I respectfully disagree with your reasoning about subs. We aren't asking for the reserves points to be counted at multiple for multiple positions. You are able to use a starting player at multiple positions. Just doesn't hold weight to me. Never has
Also regarding holding checks...it appears the check I sent you expired. I am with Eric, pay up on draft night. The worst part of running a league is collecting the dough.
Dave I know you're not asking for one sub to be counted at multiple positions but what if the same backup has 2 starters who dnp that he's the sub for both ? which one gets the points? The fact that it would rarely happen is irrelevant it shouldn't be possible. I strenuously object to owners getting by with teams that are only 8/9 deep on this backup plan because Yahoo gives almost every guy 2 positions and some 3 it's too lenient abrogating the need for filling out a roster. If you have injuries precluding filling 12 slots then I might see it otherwise you should utilize most of the roster you drafted. In the leagues we play in we usually have 10 slots every game but half the slots are open for all players.If the starting 6 were divided that way let's say 3 by position and the other 3 by say just F just G and a 6/utility then I would be for this.But under the system this league has I can't imagine the starters having less flexibility because they are starters it's not right the starting 6 must be more valuable not less because you can't move them around like the subs.I understand they only are to be used with a dnp the problem is the 6th starter is the only wild card
Mark...That's simply answered. You would only get the points for 1 position and it wouldn't matter which one. That's the downside, you would risk having 2 DNP's and only 1 backup. I guess the reason I bring it back up (Eric) is that I still haven't heard anything that sounds like logic for a reason against it.
I would like to reopen the conversation on the reasoning behind not be able to have 1 player back up multiple positions.
ReplyDeleteAlso if there are plans to have another season.
What is the financial status of the league?
Any issues should be brought up now.
Dave My reasoning is essentially that unless we change the rules allowing for slots specifically for multi-position on the first unit it should not apply to the 2nd unit. If this were like ESPN or Yahoo with utility slots and just F slots and just guard slots I could see more freedom for 2nd unit subs but this league isn't like that.A second reason is it spawns relative laziness on an owner's part because if liberal Yahoo positions are applied you essentially don't have to worry much about your bench strength as long as anyone is multi-position...and because the entire 2nd team issue is only supposed to address DNP and not about expanding beyond 6 men starting then I would be open to allowing one single player to cover for 2 backup slots only if injuries between supplemental picks preclude the use of any backup.This is what would happen the first 2 weeks because of drafting only 12 guys and some people would still want to stash a good injured player.You couldn't afford to do that with more than one slot on each team under my compromise scenario. I don't want to excuse bad drafting, bad player evaluation skill ,lack of keeping current with injury reports or lack of oversight as position managers. Owners who don't do the research shouldn't be rewarded by the ability to plug in subs everywhere a hole develops. If you know you must play 12 different guys then you draft differently it's much more challenging and competitive.
ReplyDeleteI definitely want to keep the league going as the KKBA(Kreb/Koeppel)next year we need to recruit at least one and maybe more owners assuming everyone in the league comes back.Eric would have to address the financial issues
ReplyDeleteWingos want to keep it going too. Eric definitely needs to get square with the $$.
ReplyDeleteI think, generally speaking, there is a high degree of loyalty to and enthusiasm for this league. Twenty three seasons kind of attest to that. As it happens, my marriage is about two months older, and while it's produced its share of complex challenges and low moments, it has also generated all manner of dazzling triumphs and profound gratification. A little like fantasy basketball, but with better sex.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going anywhere.
Yes, the money thing has gotten a little goofy. It needs to be brought up to date, and I have every intention of doing that. I do apologize that it hasn't happened yet. But I can also say this: I guarantee there is no team owner that is owed a significant amount of money. Few have met their entry fee requirements regularly in recent years (Tom, Dave and Mark are the exceptions), but instead paid down winnings by withholding fees (Hans, Sean, Wingo), so I'm guessing nobody is out more than maybe 100-200 bucks, if that. But again, it is possible to reconstruct all that and I intend to do so.
But here's another piece: Once we're squared away, we need for everybody to go back to ponying up the entry fee on draft night. Everybody does that, I can write checks at the end of the season like I once did. No more issues. I'll keep my promise to get us caught up, everybody else keeps that promise.
And the multiple backup thing, I have no idea why we're even going back there. I'm with Mark. Our starters play one spot out of six; backups do the same. No reason not to use 12 guys if we're carrying 15. The argument was that owners should manage their squads and the Platoon Backup System does exactly that. It is also highly effective. I wouldn't ask Mark to go back and see how many times it has worked when activated, but I know the percentage is very high, much more so than the Second Chance Rule by itself. The far bigger issue is how to ensure that team owners actually use the tools that will keep them as competitive as possible as often as possible. That is the greater threat to the well-being of the league.
That's about what I got for now. Maybe we take this up in a couple weeks so we can savor whatever drama is in store on the court. Personally, I'm on the edge of my seat to see if Tom can win the NIT, which, in my mind, would make this the undisputed greatest fantasy league ever.
I also would like to see Tom win the NIT.
DeletePromise.
DeleteWingos appreciate Eric's sincere response about the $$, although he believes he is owed quite a bit. He will be happy to start paying up front once things are reset, and is, frankly, more comfortable doing so. Eric will need to find a new method of holding the $$, because uncashed checks don't work.
ReplyDeleteAs for the backup issue, Wingos stand firmly with Nitecaps on not accepting the new reality, and would also like a formal vote at some point.
Wingman: The only participants who paid an entry fee this year were Tom and Dave. The only participants who paid an entry fee last year were Tom and Dave. Don't get me wrong; you had no reason to buy in this year after winning last season. Same with Sean two seasons back. I've got others in arrears, too. In other words, I'm not the only guy holding your money. And going back, this thing started in part because I got tired of writing checks that were partially covering other guys.
ReplyDeleteBut hey, I'm not holding out. I'll get the thing done.
And regarding the backup thing, you might want to double-check the definition of the word "reality." We did vote on the multiple-duty thing. It lost. Why it is back is beyond me.
Wingos think the reality is that there are 3 of us, two of you, and you pretending the other guys are on your side...
ReplyDeleteTom was on our side and stated definitively as much before his demise Hawthorne if you go back on the old blog you can find that but of course he can't vote again it was 3/3.. Alt/Delete and P4 I don't recall them saying anything. However, both posted full 12 man lineups immediately after the discussion deadline which is fair to accept as support (albeit without any articulated enthusiasm). We accepted the lack of resistance to the position Eric and I espouse as confirmation
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm with Wingo...I recall a 3-3 vote. Caps, WIngo, Swats vs. E's, Invaders and Tickets...Let's put it to a poll
DeleteMark, I respectfully disagree with your reasoning about subs. We aren't asking for the reserves points to be counted at multiple for multiple positions. You are able to use a starting player at multiple positions. Just doesn't hold weight to me. Never has
Also regarding holding checks...it appears the check I sent you expired. I am with Eric, pay up on draft night. The worst part of running a league is collecting the dough.
Dave I know you're not asking for one sub to be counted at multiple positions but what if the same backup has 2 starters who dnp that he's the sub for both ? which one gets the points? The fact that it would rarely happen is irrelevant it shouldn't be possible. I strenuously object to owners getting by with teams that are only 8/9 deep on this backup plan because Yahoo gives almost every guy 2 positions and some 3 it's too lenient abrogating the need for filling out a roster. If you have injuries precluding filling 12 slots then I might see it otherwise you should utilize most of the roster you drafted. In the leagues we play in we usually have 10 slots every game but half the slots are open for all players.If the starting 6 were divided that way let's say 3 by position and the other 3 by say just F just G and a 6/utility then I would be for this.But under the system this league has I can't imagine the starters having less flexibility because they are starters it's not right the starting 6 must be more valuable not less because you can't move them around like the subs.I understand they only are to be used with a dnp the problem is the 6th starter is the only wild card
DeleteMark...That's simply answered. You would only get the points for 1 position and it wouldn't matter which one. That's the downside, you would risk having 2 DNP's and only 1 backup.
DeleteI guess the reason I bring it back up (Eric) is that I still haven't heard anything that sounds like logic for a reason against it.
Also Eric. I recall you saying Ryan didn't pay up. Then deduct that from the payouts. It's not your job to cover others.
ReplyDeleteDave: Young Ryno showed up for this season's draft and actually paid off his ancient obligation. I do appreciate your concern, though.
ReplyDeleteI will make sure everyone gets the money they are owed. And sorry about the expired check. I still have it. Do you want me to tear it up?