hmmm... think i want to lose.

Just thought I would start up a conversation about how this pool is set up for keepers. I notice that if I end 4th which is the best I could do i don't win money. and if I end 5th I would get another keeper, and play the same opponent. This seems like a bad combination to me. Too much reward to lose and could affect everyone's season(if i happened to be playing a team going for first or going for the last playoff spot). I was wondering if this has ever come up before? anyone tank a week to get more keepers or better draft pick before? can we find a way to prevent it?

I think that when it comes to a matter such as the one you brought up, we have to rely on the integrity of the people in the league.

oh boy! lol

Does it matter if you finish 4th or 5th who you play in the 2nd round?
That could be a reason to still try to win a week

Interesting conversation.

Once the dust settles tonight, I will get in there.....

I agree with Ray. I think we have to rely on the integrity of the players in the league. In my mind we haven't had a problem with this, but if somebody notices somebody sticking suspect or injured players in their roster, I think it's something that could be brought up and some form of discipline brought on that person.

I know you've brought this issue up before John, but in my mind this is one of the CORE features of our fine league, and what sets it apart from so many other leagues. There are plenty of other leagues to join if you want a more standardized league format, and I believe that most of us, including yourself, are members of other leagues with different formats. This particular feature is one that's unique to our league, and one that allows weaker teams to rebuild faster and better. Indeed, the team that finished in last place in our first year (with a 3-17 record), was built into a contender in a matter of two years because of some very savvy trading by the manager (Jay).

Is it a perfect solution? No, of course not. But again, I feel that it really is one of those features that allows for quick rebuilds, encourages trading, and involves some interesting strategy when it comes to figuring out keepers.

In short, this is one rule that I feel very strongly we should keep.

Well good day to everyone.

I have just reread the thread to get caught up on the action. Interesting stuff.

I don't think that John is questioning the integrity of anyone in our league, but rather simply bringing up a topic that is of interest to him. I think that kind of behaviour should be encouraged to be honest. It puts us on road to an ever improving league where everyone participates and everyone feels that they have a voice.

What we are currently doing functions rather well. We have a cascading format designed to keep the league relatively competitive and thus far it has done just that. As Bob Dylan so eloquently wrote:

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

That said, I have been in the uncomfortable position that John has brought up. That is to say, that I have put in my 'best' roster for the week, but nevertheless I have hoped with all my heart for a loss. That is a rather unpleasant feeling. I doubt that there is anyone in the league that has not been there before and I doubt that anyone enjoys rooting for their own team to lose. A loss can really be quite a valuable thing under the current format. A loss can allow one additional keeper. That has a great deal of value.

Looking at the current standings, who actually wants to win? Let's look at each team:

1. Desolation Row: wants to win.
2. Frogs: wants to win.
3. BCC: wants to win as a loss brings nothing.
4. Shoreside: could stand to benefit from a loss.
5. Tigers: could stand to benefit from a loss.
6. Juggernauts: could stand to benefit from a loss.
7. Fitzsy Stars: could stand to benefit from a loss although he must keep an eye on the playoffs
8. Gamblers: same as above
9. Storm: wants to win.
10. PoPo: wants almost with 100% certainty to lose

Is there something that could be done about this? Is there some sort of tweak that could be entertained that would entirely remove the incentive to lose? Put another way, is there some sort of tweak that would motivate a GM to root for a win 100% of the time? If so, I am all for it. I hate to ''hope'' for a loss. That goes against every fiber of my being and tends to constipate me.

I am going to take a stab at it. Remember, my aim here is to create an environment where a GM would 100% of the time, be motivated for a win. If it can be done, I think it would be a healthier league.

I think that it is fair to say that any GM in the race for cash as we near the end of the season, would be very motivated to win. We currently have a prize for first and second place in the regular season and one could estimate that anyone in the top 3 or so would be gunning for a win each and every week. It is the teams that fall somewhere between 4th position and 8th position that might not always be that 'unhappy' with a loss. Not that anyone would intentionally set a roster that is not ideal. Again, I am not questioning the integrity of anyone in our league, but simply saying that there are times when a loss can really be a 'win' when looking at the big picture.

What if we considered the following:

Teams finishing in position 1 and 2 would be granted 10 keepers.
Teams finishing in positions 3 through 8 would be granted between 11 and 13 keepers.
Teams finishing in positions 9 and 10 would be granted 14 keepers.

Here is where it gets interesting. To remove any possible incentive to lose, we introduce a lottery. At the end of the regular season, teams in positions 3 through 8 would enter a lottery to determine whether they will be granted 11, 12, or 13 keepers. Each team would be rewarded with one 'ball' which would be put into a virtual hopper to determine the total number of keepers. This lottery would remove any incentive to lose. Since John brought it up, I will use his team as an example. He sits currently in 6th place. That translates into 12 keepers. If the playoffs began tomorrow he would face Ray in round one. If, however, he were to lose this week, he could slip down in the standings thereby earning him one additional keeper. Quite valuable looking at the big picture. He would then in all likelihood face Chris in the first round of the playoffs. Ray has accumulated about a hundred points more that Chris during the course of the regular season so in effect, John would be granted one additional keeper plus he would face an opponent who has accumulated slightly less points thus far. A win win. Simply put, it is in the best interest of The Juggernauts to lose this week. With the lottery system above such an incentive to lose would be effectively removed.

Could we introduce an incentive to win? Yes we can! One possibility would be to take statistics from Week 10 until the end of the regular season. For every win, a team is rewarded a certain number of 'balls' which will be accumulated and thrown into the hopper at the end of the regular season. If I were to face, and beat, a team in position one in the standings, I would be awarded 10 'balls'. If I were to face a last place team and win, I would be awarded one 'ball'. The extra 'balls' would give a GM a higher likelihood of walking away with more keepers should he be involved in a lottery. The 'balls' would create an extra incentive to win each and every week. Looking at John once again, he would not be hoping this week for a loss, but rather a win vs The Tigers in order to earn more 'balls' which would translate into a potentially higher keeper total.

This type of scenario would remove any incentive to lose and it would create an environment where there would always be an incentive to win. Most importantly, it would do so without removing the cascading format that we find so important in this league.

If, hypothetically, the regular season were to end tomorrow, and we were using such a format, here is how it would shake out.

Desolation Row and Suicidal Frogs would be granted 10 keepers.

BCC, SS, AT, JUGGS, FS, GRG would enter the lottery. We would total all the 'balls' earned thus far and then carry out a lottery to determine both keepers and draft order for the following season. The lottery would not alter the playoff match ups. Why? We want to always maintain the incentive to win and if the playoff match ups were altered we would have a conflict of interests of sorts. One would be happy about 'winning' the lottery and earning 13 keepers rather than 11, but then one would be forced to face one of the top two teams. If we left the playoff matchups as ESPN determines then the incentive to win is preserved. The lottery, as I see it, should therefore be used to fix keepers and position in the draft in the following season. Let's say that our results looked like this:

GRG
SS
FS
JUGG
BCC
AT

So, GRG and SS would be granted 13 keepers. FS and JUGG would be granted 12 keepers and BCC and AT would be granted 11 keepers.

Draft order, looking at it in inverse order, would look like this:

10. Desolation Row
9. Suicidal Frogs
8. Arthur Tigers
7. BCC
6. Juggernauts
5. Fitzsy Stars
4. Shoreside
3. Gamblers

Under such a lottery system, a team would be motivated and rewarded at all times to win. It must be noted, however, that the team that earns the most 'balls' would not necessarily earn the most keepers. He would have a higher likelihood of earning more keepers though.

I have not mentioned the teams in the bottom two positions. Each would be granted 14 keepers. Each, however, would enter into a lottery of their own. The idea here would be to determine the draft order in the upcoming season. Under our existing format Gord is highly motivated to lose at the moment. Should he end up at the bottom, he will be rewarded with the first pick in the draft. In other words, he has a powerful incentive to lose. We all respond to incentives and although he is undoubtedly putting his best roster into play, he nevertheless is hoping for a loss. By introducing a lottery for the bottom two teams, we would remove the incentive to lose and provide a powerful incentive to win. The more 'balls' a GM earns the higher his chance to secure the all important 1st draft pick.

So, imagining once again that the regular season was over tomorrow, both Gord and Brandon would earn 14 keepers and both would enter a lottery of their own to determine draft order. We would total up the 'balls' and conduct some sort of lottery which would reflect the totals each GM has earned between weeks 10 and 19 and determine the winner. Under such a scenario Gord would have no incentive to lose this week but rather an incentive to win. Such an environment would bring the interest level up for GMs that were not 'in the money'. It is common for GMs to lose interest if there is nothing at stake. Under such a scenario, each and every match up would be important from start to finish.

I think such a scenario would create a league where each and every GM was fighting tooth and nail from start to finish. And it would do so while holding on to the cascading format that this league was founded on.

Now it is very late here and I am sleepy. I do not mean to imply that this format that I have described is ideal, in fact I have not thought it 100% through to be honest. I am only trying to envision a league where there was never any incentive to lose. I think, without a doubt, that such a league would be even more enjoyable than what we have at the moment.

Look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this.

Desolation Row

this is longer than the league manifesto haha

I don't remember talking about this before.... But maybe i forgot. Last year i finished at the top and was going for first so I didn't even think about keepers or how this could affect someones decisions in the last few weeks. But this year I was checking and noticed a real incentive to lose. I don't want to change it dramatically just see if there is a better way. example i thought of at work today... maybe everyone will hate it but I work on line and have nothing better to think about.

it is complicated and i'm usually against complicated... but anyway. 1st and 2nd make money so they stay the same(group a), 3rd to 8th make the playoffs no money(group b) and 9th and 10th don't make the playoffs (group c). rank order within the groups by points against. This would reward teams that had the tougher schedules and remove insentive to tank. I think it should be draft order as well.

so if we finished right
now the order would be:

row
frogs
cab
shore
tigers
jugg
stars
gamber
storm
popo

and under the points agaist way:

frogs
row
cab
tigers
jugg
shore
gamber
stars
popo
storm


obviously this would not be for the September 2012 draft. can't change a rule like this mid season. but maybe next season. I thought this would be interesting because sometimes you just get a rough schedule. this would reward teams that get those bad schedules. and takes away any incentive to lose.

i love the idea of having places 1, 2 and 9,10 keepeing 10 and 14.

as for places 3-8 i think we definitely could do something there to make things more interesting and make sure everyone is going for the W. off the top of my head without much thought i like the idea greg has outlined and am interested in hearing everyone elses thoughts.

could even simplify things and go

1,2- 10 keepers
3-8 - 12 keepers
9,10 - 14 keepers

and do something to determine seeding for the draft between 3-8 and 9-10.

that way the teams in 3-8 will want to win so they can get a higher seed and face a weaker team.

And I'm just kidding about integrity. I did put in my best team to win (although i hope to lose). I just hope we can find a way to put in the best team to win, and want to win! love winning. hate wanting to lose.

that would be the simplest way Brandon. And I like simple.

Some interesting ideas being thrown around, but I have to admit that I still prefer the way we're doing things. That is a well thought-out idea Gregger, but for me it's too complicated and too random. It doesn't really factor in the shitty luck that some teams can have such as piles upon piles of injuries or a lot of points scored against. For example, I can see that your team has had 3897 scored against (pretty much the lowest in the league), whereas my team has had 4498 points scored against. This is 600 points difference! This the equivalent of two or three weeks of points for most teams.

I've also had two of my star players out for most of the year.

Sure, it's luck of the draw (which is perfectly fine), but my consolation is that at least I will receive 12 or 13 keepers and a decent draft pick. If suddenly I got only 11 keepers because of some random draw I wouldn't be very happy.

If anything, I like John's idea of rating teams by most points scored against the best, which at least takes into account this shitty luck.

Overall, I'd still rather stay with what we have though.

I understand John's concern, if it even amounts to that. I have gone over everyone's views and there were some very in-depth thoughts. Some involving "balls", "lottery picks", "points against", how many bowel movements a team had that week". The list can go on and on. I always liked simplicity, otherwise it gets too complicated and you need a Phd to figure things out. That's my opinion.

The easiest and simplest method by far is the teams ranked 3rd through 8th in the standngs get 12 keepers. The rest remaining the same.

BUT, I like the way things are.

My first year in the league i finished in 9th place and missed the playoffs. I had some terrible luck because of scheduling. That's the way it goes sometimes. SO, taking into consideration someone's poor luck in scheduling or injuries or playing against a team or teams that don't score as much when playing against them shouldn't be part of the equation.

SO then it comes back to the point where each one of us has to make a commitment to the league to do what's best for the league sometimes. That's why this league is one of the best leagues around and why it has lasted 4 years already. There have been some owner adjustments from day one (Butch, ahem) and this year's Bonnie & Clyde Duo of Rich and Christine, which proved to me that this league is serious and not afraid to take action when it comes to the league's integrity. The stakes in this league aren't as high as in others, so for all of us, it is for the love of the sport that we are involved here and in other leagues.

The fact that you did what was best for the league John, proves that you were a good choice for this league.

Matt and Greg have done a great job and have put up with some of my nonsense, but they are level-headed guys, especially when Greg has his regular BMs.

I joined this league without knowing anyone and they have made me feel so welcome and that I was a part of this from the very beginning. Even when I called Butch the cub scout leader or whatever it was that I called him and he didn't like it. Ah, the good old days. See, we have "good old days" already!

Ray

Ahahaha! I had forgotten about that. I think you called him the Cub Scout Master. Those were good ol' days alright!

Ray , who is butch and why do you hate the boy scouts?