2012/13 season discussion - Fantasy Basketball Cafe 2014
Fantasy Basketball Cafe


Return to FBC Salary Cap

2012/13 season discussion

Moderators: RedHopeful, silentjim, Fenris-77, DVauthrin, dasein

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby scully19 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:50 pm

Couldn't we just use a tribunal type league. We just do everything sort of by committee. Put everything to vote in a case a decision needs to be made. I can keep doing the main signing page, while at the same time have everyone have access to editing the page during the season.
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1338
(Past Year: 196)
Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby RocketsDWM » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:57 am

scully19 wrote:Couldn't we just use a tribunal type league. We just do everything sort of by committee. Put everything to vote in a case a decision needs to be made. I can keep doing the main signing page, while at the same time have everyone have access to editing the page during the season.


Great idea. Could have a trade committee, salary cap committee etc.
RocketsDWM
College Captain
College Captain


Posts: 589
(Past Year: 144)
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby So-Tex » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:28 am

RocketsDWM wrote:
scully19 wrote:Couldn't we just use a tribunal type league. We just do everything sort of by committee. Put everything to vote in a case a decision needs to be made. I can keep doing the main signing page, while at the same time have everyone have access to editing the page during the season.


Great idea. Could have a trade committee, salary cap committee etc.

Han Solo: No time to discuss this as a committee.
Princess Leia: I am not a committee!
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back!
:-D

Sorry guys, that I didn't come in ASAP - I've been out of town the last few days, and just got back to my home computer.

I can understand the sentiment for the committee approach. The only thing I would see is that things may get so bogged down once "in committee", that then no one would want to even make the effort to try and participate. I mean, I know you can avoid these things by making each committee an odd numbered one (thus, no tie-breakers), but I still I still like the idea of having a commish to oversee and finalize any decisions made.

I just see too much potential for the "Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians" scenario. Although, I really haven't come up with a better suggestion yet.

But I'm thinking about it. ;-D
Image
So-Tex
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1039
(Past Year: 217)
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: South Texas, USA

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby scully19 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:52 am

Ok, serious note, how many things needed to be directly decided upon by the Commish?
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1338
(Past Year: 196)
Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby RedHopeful » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:23 pm

scully19 wrote:Ok, serious note, how many things needed to be directly decided upon by the Commish?

Well, it's not a simple answer. Biggest thing about having only one commish is speed. Having to rely on multiple people acting individually in certain capacities (say we spread out responsibilities) or as a tribunal likely would be slow to react. For instance, during the regular season, someone needs to monitor all roster moves to check for any infractions.

First things first, we need to figure out how EVERYONE feels about this league going forward. One, are you still in it? Two, how much would you be willing to contribute with Kal stepping down?
Image
RedHopeful
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse Team LeaderFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18233
(Past Year: 706)
Joined: 11 Jul 2007
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: http://twitter.com/Redhopeful

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby scully19 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:54 pm

Things like legal moves are already watched by everyone in the league and this would not at all be affected by tribunal/speed of things. Just takes someone to say it is wrong.
scully19
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1338
(Past Year: 196)
Joined: 8 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby silentjim » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:14 pm

scully19 wrote:Things like legal moves are already watched by everyone in the league and this would not at all be affected by tribunal/speed of things. Just takes someone to say it is wrong.


If it was the start of the league I think we may have needed to pick one person, but I do think since we've completed the first few and have most rules established that we might be ok with a group as long as we have really good active members.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11484
(Past Year: 792)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby hi chi » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:04 am

I think the key is having good active members participating in the league and understanding the rules. Any new members to the league will more than likely take a while to get up to speed on the rules of the league which is something to consider and Kal was great at helping with that process. We need to make sure that those members that really have a firm grasp on the rules are willing to help with new members so they can stay active.
hi chi
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1076
(Past Year: 132)
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby So-Tex » Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:28 am

I also think we need to seriously consider the addition of new members to the league. And I don't mean replacement managers to pick up for Kal and/or other teams. I'm talking about adding new managers and teams to make the league larger.

I know the initial intent was to grow the league to a size relative to the actual NBA. But even at 16 teams, this league is huge. Taking it to 20 or more with these size rosters is going to really thin the league out. I'm all for the challenge of trying to find the right talent to pick up for one's squad to be competitive. But at that pace, I think we'll be so thin, that managers will eventually be fighting over FA pickups during the bidding process. And with the current setup in place, newer managers won't stand a chance given all the tie break rules (remember the whole "success matters" argument we had early in the season?).

I'm not saying we should limit the league to just 12, 14 or 16, at least not at this point in time. All I'm saying is we need to consider revising the rules so that it's conducive to allowing growth for the league. Otherwise, if we keep the same basic set of rules, only then should we consider limiting the league to just 12, 14 or 16 (as it is now).

I know it's a little bit more to chew on then where we're actually at at this point in time, but I just feel it needs to be thrown out there for consideration.
Image
So-Tex
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1039
(Past Year: 217)
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: South Texas, USA

Re: 2010/11 season discussion

Postby barrec » Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:49 am

So-Tex wrote:I also think we need to seriously consider the addition of new members to the league. And I don't mean replacement managers to pick up for Kal and/or other teams. I'm talking about adding new managers and teams to make the league larger.

I know the initial intent was to grow the league to a size relative to the actual NBA. But even at 16 teams, this league is huge. Taking it to 20 or more with these size rosters is going to really thin the league out. I'm all for the challenge of trying to find the right talent to pick up for one's squad to be competitive. But at that pace, I think we'll be so thin, that managers will eventually be fighting over FA pickups during the bidding process. And with the current setup in place, newer managers won't stand a chance given all the tie break rules (remember the whole "success matters" argument we had early in the season?).

I'm not saying we should limit the league to just 12, 14 or 16, at least not at this point in time. All I'm saying is we need to consider revising the rules so that it's conducive to allowing growth for the league. Otherwise, if we keep the same basic set of rules, only then should we consider limiting the league to just 12, 14 or 16 (as it is now).

I know it's a little bit more to chew on then where we're actually at at this point in time, but I just feel it needs to be thrown out there for consideration.


I appreciate your bringing it up. I agree it is important to take into consideration as we venture into the next season. As of now, I would tend to agree with you on the number of teams. I like it at 16...pretty darn lofty challenge with lots of competition, but not so thin you have to start an NBA's 8th man. I've referenced it before, but when comparing our league to the NBA, our 'rotation' is quite a bit bigger, so it makes sense to have fewer teams than in the actual league league. We essentially have two starting line-ups per team as it is (for about 32 teams), and so I would say player distribution is pretty good as far as number of teams.

Also, depending on how the roll-call list goes, it could prove difficult enough to keep 16 regular GMs involved year to year, let alone introducing a few more at a time.

What I hope and expect to happen is that we continue to discuss what we like and don't like about the league and vote on those issues. That is what I appreciate about the forum and, more importantly, the GMs on it ;-D
Irony is the strongest force in the universe.
barrec
College Captain
College Captain

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 420
(Past Year: 88)
Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Gresham, OR

PreviousNext

Return to FBC Salary Cap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues




  • Fantasy Basketball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact