POLL: A question of fairness

I think voting on this could lend us some insight into whether the rule change we voted on last summer resulted in a fair outcome. Please consider how YOU would personally feel if you were in Ray's situation, and whether this could be seen as a fair outcome going forward.

yes , it would be fair because I understood the rule. Was totally prepared for it.

my vote is yes it is fair. We all voted for this. The wording of this poll also makes it sound like the person who created it wants us to select no lol. Haha I know Me and my wordin of polls. But if they don't seem neutral im calling it out

yes, I voted yes.... I think. lol. I meant to anyway.

For example does it matter what the score was in the first round of the playoffs ? This team also gets to keep more keepers then 1st and 2nd, They also got a chance to play in playoffs and we all voted on this system 9-1 last year. Those are more valid points than what the rd 1 score was to include in the poll title in my opinion. Anyways you know where I stand on this let me know when a decision is made because I'm done commenting on this current issue. It doesn't even affect me and I'm getting all worked up now lol

John by the way we are good. It did not register my vote the first time

So, if a team finishes in 7th or 8th place during the regular season, they would play the 1st and 2nd place teams from the regular season, with the odds clearly stacked against the lower seeded teams in beating the top teams. And under the rule voted on last year, this would be the way every season.

Theoretically, if I knew that my team was going to finish 7th or 8th and had to face a superior team from 1st or 2nd place which would, in all likelihood, result in a loss for the lower seeded team thereby giving them the 7th or 8th draft position, it would probably benefit the 7th or 8th team to “tank” for the 2 or 3 weeks prior to the playoffs starting in hopes of locking up 9th and 10th place in order to secure a top draft pick instead of being “punished” by playing a top seeded team.

So, this actually would fuel the need to tank so that a team could get a 1st or 2nd overall pick instead of a 7th or 8th draft position. Not exactly what the rule was hoping to avoid. In reality, it actually encourages tanking. Being in this position would take the enjoyment out of trying to make the playoffs and hoping to win IMHO.

Soo Storm schrieb:

my vote is yes it is fair. We all voted for this. The wording of this poll also makes it sound like the person who created it wants us to select no lol. Haha I know Me and my wordin of polls. But if they don't seem neutral im calling it out

How is the wording of this poll not neutral Brandon? The description describes EXACTLY what has happened -- it is in no way theoretical. What the question asks is whether each GM -- if this scenario happened to THEM -- would feel it is fair or not. I think that is a very valid question, and actually gets to the root of the problem.

I am not telling anybody whether they should think it is fair or not. Is is a question, and based on considering the actual outcome that has occurred, each manager can think about whether it would be fair if they were in Ray's situation.

I think Ray brings up a valid point as well, which shows how convoluted this system could potentially get trying to counterbalance every possible negative outcome. Do we create another convoluted rule to prevent managers from tanking into 9th or 10th place, because they're worried about squeaking into the playoffs, facing the best team, and then getting the 7th or 8th round draft pick as a result? I know that if I were faced with being in that situation, I would probably prefer to lose as my chances of competing in the playoffs would be slim at best, and my reward for trying would be getting a much worse draft pick. Most of the elite prospects and players are already gone by 8th.

i dont get it, Whats the purpose of this poll?
like if we vote No does that mean we are changing the rule?
If we vote yes then what happens?


To me
No i dont think its fair
But i do think its only right to let the rule play out for one year, like any other rule we would make.

This has nothing to do with what rule we're adopting for this year. We've already ruled on that, and Greg has stated the position in the thread titled "The Commissioner's Conscience."

This poll was intended to get people to think about the unintended consequences of last year's rule change in the hopes of guiding how we set up our drafting guidelines going forward. To be specific: if we are thinking about implementing a similar rule, I think it's important to think about all those unintended consequences BEFORE we vote this time. I know John says he understood the rule when he voted on it. But clearly not everyone did understand, and it resulted in a very unfair outcome.

Thank you for clarifying Matt