The main benefit of blind auctions is that they're over in two days and there's no long waits for a last minute miniscule outbid (like happened all the friggin; time last year ). On top of that it forces GMs to make what they think is a fair first offer, rather than dropping out a ridiculous lowball and hoping they don't get outbid. It also means, during the season especially, that guys don't need to be on FBC multiple times per day just to manage an auction bid or two.
I'm all for simplified auction tie breaks too, but I'm not especially fond of the ones outlined by Markos above. I realize that each +1 is only a 16.5% edge, but I don't like that 2/3 of the possible multipliers are for last seasons success. Fantasy teams are far more fluid than real teams, and there's often far less correllation between a team's previous season's standings and their roster strength in a current season. This is especially true in a year where we're looking at allowing teams to dump salary they don't want. I could get behind a single +1 mod for a playoff team, plus the +1 for the home team, but I think you need to take who else plays that position into account. If we're going to go with enough 'realism' to give bonuses for playoff teams, then we need to give one for teams with scads of playing time (and thus need) at the FAs position. Both ideas are predicted on the same level of realism, and I think would help teams who are weak at certain positions, which is a general idea I can really support because it helps level the playing field a little.
Something I don't really support is first bid wins. That kind of depends on the exact system we're suing of course, but mostly I'd be in favour of avoiding any kind of first-to-the-post tie break.
Yahoo doesn't support games limit for HtH play. ESPN might, I suppose, but we'd have to look in to that. In general I'm a huge fan of HtH games limit leagues though, and it would solve a lot of the issues people have with daily lineups.
I'm actually not against it, per se, but I am against having to look in several different places to get the info.
What I would be behind is a thread with one post from each GM that lists the development player, and with each GM responsible for maintaining the accuracy of his own thread, and with substantial enough penalties involved to ensure that people actually do keep it up. Injury slots could be maanged the same way I suppose. I just don't want to have to go check a bunch of different and messy lists in order to figure out who is and isn't available.
And another thing that scares me is all this "Point-based" tie breaker talk. My team, as some others in this league, totally sucked last season. And as willing as I would be to blame my own managerial skills on that, fact is I didn't build this team, I inherited it. And like an ownership change in the NBA, it takes time to rebuild a team into one that doesn't suck. With ALL the current rules in place, I don't stand a snowball's chance at rebuilding this team into a decent squad within the next five years. And now with all this new talk of Champions getting x amount of points and runner-ups getting y amount of points, I'm starting to get that sinking feeling...again!
1) I think a point based tie breaker can work if it's as balanced as possible. That's why I suggest we incorporate BBM rankings and player eligibility into the equation. Teams with weaker starters and less depth would get rewarded in the tiebreaker. After thinking about it, I propose using G, F, and C as the eligibility categories because good teams are far more likely to have one player in those categories that ranks better than options available to bad teams.
In such a point based tie breaker, the only position you would be at a disadvantage at would be G, because of Deron Williams ranking. Your best forward is Shawn Marion, who came in as the 90th best player on BBM last season. Your best center is Chuck Hayes, and he came in at 100 last season. Odds are most teams have one eligible player better than that at either position.
2) Another option available to bad teams that are not under the cap, is to save some of your MLE for the season, so you can offer more than the minimum one year salary. Or if you are under the cap, save some of your money for the season bidding.
3) I'm not suggesting we mimic the NBA, but bad businesses or organizations have to outbid well run businesses for employees all the time. It's no different in our league. However, to make things more balanced, playing time needs to be factored in the equation, and weighted heavily. See my suggestion on using BBM rankings and player eligibility criteria as part of the tiebreaker.