Forum: foot
Page 5441
Subject: RIFC 2012: Getting Started

  Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 10:54
I am pleased to announce the 14 invited managers for the 2012 RIFC:
Bonka
Beezer
youngroman
TD
Swinganamiss
Wiggs
Frick
Holt
loki
gurudan
jzapps
Challenger
TB
Guru

This list includes the top-6 seeds from last year's RIFC, 3 teams from each AAA league, and the (playoff) winner of the AA league. Since I was among the top 6 in the RIFC, this left one spot open. I evaluated the records of the bubble teams in each of the leagues and selected TB to fill the remaining slot.

All 14 of these managers have accepted my invitation to play in the 2012 RIFC. So the league is full.

Next steps:
1. Sign-ups for qualifying leagues. I will start a separate thread for this.
2. Discussion of possible rules changes. (We can use this thread for that.)
3. Discussion of any other issues that should be resolved before the start of the draft.

Once again, I plan to have the RIFC and all qualifying leagues hosted at myfantasyleague.com. The drafts will be held at MFL as well.

RotoGuru will pay the cost of all RIFC leagues. A voluntary donation of $5 per manager is suggested to help defray the cost. (Managers who have already contributed this year are exempted.) If you wish to donate to the cause, please see the instructions on the GuruPatron info page.

Last year, the draft began on August 23, and was completed in 7 days. This year, I would expect to start the draft a bit later - probably sometime in the August 24-27 time frame. The first game of the NFL regular season is on September 5.
 
1 The Beezer
      Dude
      ID: 191202817
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 14:44 		I'd like to propose the following rule changes:

1. Waiver order after the draft should be set to the reverse of the order draft positions were chosen

Pros:
- Provides value to teams that have limited choice in draft slots
- The Banzai format evens the value of draft positions (as evidenced by the varying pick order in recent drafts) so rewarding those that pick late is no longer needed

Cons:
- Can't really think of any

2. Replace the waiver wire with a $100 FAAB (Free Agent Acquisition Budget) for the season ($1 increments). This would only affect player acquisitions subject to waivers under the current rules. First come first served free agents acquisition would remain as-is.

Pros:
- Gives every owner a chance at every waiver pick
- Introduces more strategy into the waiver process
- Provides more information to those that follow the league to help them with managing their own teams
- Still allows every team to get players to cover injuries/byes while rewarding effective team management

Cons:
- Requires more work to prepare each week
- Favors those that have used a FAAB in other leagues

Aside from that, I thought the changes we implemented last year to lineups, scoring and playoffs were very successful. I'd be hard pressed to make further changes in these areas, yet am open to persuasion.
 
2wiggs
      ID: 1768158
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 16:20 		I personally hate the faab idea we have done that before and someone will blow all there money by week 6 then have an injury and not be able to make a move ruining part of the league for everyone

The other idea seems good though
 
3Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 20:31 		I like the idea of the initial waiver wire being the reverse of pick selection. I'm hesitant about the FAAB idea. I've used it in auction leagues, but I'm not sure the benefits are worth the administration hassle.
 
4The Beezer
      Dude
      ID: 191202817
      Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 11:00 		wiggs, I agree that a FAAB that does not allow no-cost free agent moves is a bad idea for this league. To be clear, I am proposing that once a player clears waivers, they could be picked up at no cost, first-come first-served, the same way they are today. This would allow a broke team with a bye or injury to acquire replacements. They would just not be able to get a player that receives a bid while on waivers.
 
5Judy
      ID: 54203110
      Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 16:09 		Why complicate a waiver system that works. Do agree though that initial order opposite of draft slot choice order sounds like a possibility.
Would anyone be interested in NOT resetting the order in the first six weeks, but just letting it roll all season?
 
6holt
      ID: 108501712
      Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 20:07 		about the FAAB proposal. It already takes a fair amount of time to evaluate players and decide who to add, who to cut, what order to do them in. I'm not seeing how adding another important step in the process would make the league more enjoyable. Is there some major injustice that would be corrected by using this system?
 
7Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 00:13 		I'd rather go to blind bids for waivers. Everyone can do as they choose the entire season without worrying about the waiver order. It's no extra work for the commish because it's all automated. It's actually less, because there's no need to reset the order the first few weeks. There's really no downside to blind bid waivers. If you can legitimately name one that has nothing to do with just not wanting to change the way it's been done, please do so.

And no, someone spending all their blind bid money the first week and having none the rest of the season is not a downside. That's the owner's choice. Not to mention teams can still pick up players in FCFS to replace injured players.

You can even trade the blind bid bucks during the season, which adds something extra you can toss in to sweeten a deal.

I also don't really think the waiver system we use is that great in terms of fairness. If your team just starts slow the first few weeks you get first dibs on all the hot pickups and have those guys to add to your team which may start playing up to their potential a few weeks in and just completely dominate the rest of the way. This basically won't happen in a blind bid system unless you let someone steal guys for low amounts constantly.
 
8TD
      ID: 539351921
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 08:20 		I prefer blind bids for waivers for the reasons stated by Bonka in post 7.
 
9mjd
      Leader
      ID: 501381415
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 11:12 		I don't care for it as it's a huge advantage for the select few who have used it. My guess is that most playing at this level have not and can look forward to less fun and a trip down to AA.
 
10Judy
      ID: 54203110
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 11:28 		I have enough issues trying to decide who to choose without flying "blind" so to speak. I prefer to keep things simple as I see an advantage only for those who already understand it and have used it before...
 
11Challenger
      Sustainer
      ID: 481126818
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 14:21 		My suggestions for the waiver acquisitions.

Waiver order after the draft should be set to the reverse of the order draft positions were chosen. After that, priorities will not be reset during the regular season. Throughout the season, when a player is claimed, the claiming team moves to the end of the claiming priority list.

Simple, yet there is strategy involved, especially if you have a high priority claim position.
 
12Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 16:30 		Blind bid is not difficult at all. You get say $100 for the season, you can bid any amount you want on any player. Highest bid wins, possibly with tiebreakers if 2 or more teams bid the same amount.

Using blind bid before gives you no advantage other than having experience typing a number in a box. You can't predict what someone else is willing to spend on a waiver pickup.
 
13SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 18:22 		I think blind bidding could be the most significant tweak to the rules in the history of RIFC (can't recall anything bigger, but I've not been around since the beginning). Most people can adjust to changes in points for TFL or # of IDPs w/o incorporating a whole additional strategy. Not the case for blind bidding.

Sounds like FAAB gives more advantage to those that are most familiar with it....more advantage than the current process gives to the first priority on the WW. RIFC has intentionally favored giving WW advantage to those starting the season slow. I don't know if it's suddenly the goal to give everybody equal chance at every pick. If we were going for that concept, we'd turn this thing all the way into an auction.

I would vote against FAAB, and actually think Challenger and Judy's suggestion provides the best compromise on not giving slow starters too much advantage, and not requiring full-blown strategic changes.
 
14Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 18:45 		I think you guys are a bit delusional when it comes to this 'advantage' people have from using blind bid waivers before. Apparently because I use blind bid waivers in other leagues I can now read your mind across the internet to know what your bids are going to be.

Assuming we stick with normal waivers, they do need to be the reverse order of the draft pick selection order. I really don't like the order resetting the first few weeks either. Players starting slow/hurt/suspended can let you assemble a ridiculous team with top waiver pickups to add. Sure, this doesn't always happen, but it can and it pretty broken if it does.
 
15mjd
      Leader
      ID: 501381415
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 19:14 		Not having ever used the blind system there'd definitely be a learning curve. Might take a couple of weeks to sort out or could inadvertantly get caught in between strategies. Regardless, at least a couple of weeks go by which could easily ruin your season, given the limited amount of games. Unlike baseball, EVERY game has the potential to make or break your team.

Anyone who has used it has seen various strategies utilized and have at least some idea of how much to bid based on what strategy they plan to use.
 
16Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 19:36 		I've used blind bid waivers and I can honestly say I'm no better off than anyone who hasn't used them when it comes to actually making bids on players. Strategies are nothing more than you can search google for and read. There will be someone who blows $100 the first week on the hot pickup, there will be people who save all their money waiting until they have a major need (or for the next hot pickup) in the mid or late season, there will be people who just make $1 bids on guys so they don't have to wait until FCFS, etc. It's nothing you can't think of yourself. I'm not even mentioning these off of past experience, I just know those are possibilities. Not to mention, no two leagues are the same. Just because things happen a certain way in one league means nothing for the rest.

I hope I'm not the only person who thinks the 'advantage' argument is a bit absurd because I know there isn't a meaningful one from personal experience.

If we were talking about swapping to a full auction rather than draft, then yes, there is value to having participated in previous auctions and knowing first hand what kind of things happen. But it's still nothing you can't read about somewhere on the internet.

Comes down to whether you want a system where everyone starts off on the same exact footing. I feel like I'm the only person who keeps up with current trends in fantasy football around here some times :( At least there are 2 other people in support of this, so that makes me feel a little better.
 
17holt
      ID: 108501712
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 19:50 		I'm not questioning whether FAAB is inferior or superior in any way. I just think it sounds like a hassle. I'd give it very serious consideration in a big money league, where getting a fair shake is more important than fun. Just my two cents. I'm willing to change my opinion if someone can convince me that coming up with my bid amounts every Tuesday at midnight would be fun/worth it.

I'm cool with the idea of not resetting the waiver order each week.
 
18The Beezer
      ID: 96572318
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 19:57 		I agree that using FAAB would be a big change. Perhaps we trial this in the non-Judy AAA league? If we are not ready for FAAB, I support no resets of waiver order until the playoffs.
 
19Judy
      ID: 54203110
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 21:16 		I did google it to try to understand it and found a site (aceinthehole) with the 2011 week by week estimates about how much you should bid on the most likely available players.

I'd like to add that in our league, there are very few good available players except in case of injury. Heck, some teams have had 6 RB and 6 WR to try and cover injuries.

The site was very detailed and I guess interesting as it had helpful hints and words along with the assigned values.

That said, that is way too much work just to pick up a guy -- even if you really really want him!
 
20Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 00:05 		I'll have to check the site out later, as I've never actually read anything on the subject. It's something you can do just based on instinct I feel. It's really not much different than setting normal waivers up though. It's the same process with the added action of typing in a dollar value on the website. Coming up with that value shouldn't take very long, maybe 10 to 20 seconds of thinking for one guy. You also shouldn't need to make these huge waiver ranking lists when you can just bid a large sum on a guy (or a few) you really need. With the current waivers you have to fill out X number of players where X is your waiver position to ensure you get someone that week or you risk wasting your waiver slot (within the first few weeks when they still reset). You can add a bunch of guys at $1 to get someone in that fashion if need be.

Short version:

Most of the work you're doing is finding the players you're interested in then ranking them. The dollar values shouldn't be very difficult to come up with.
 
21Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 11:15 		Without looking it up, I think blind bidding has been voted on at least once, and probably several times in the past. It never passed, largely for the reasons cited above.

The status quo (resetting priorities for the first six weeks) does create some administrative headaches for the commissioner, and given the volatility of the standings in the early weeks, probably doesn't accomplish the intended "welfare" anyway.

While I'd be willing to give blind bidding a try (and certainly putting it to a vote,) I suspect the consensus is going to be to set in the reverse of the draft selection order (i.e., the order draft positions were chosen) at the beginning of the season and then never reset again throughout the regular season. That is simple to administer and simple to understand.
 
22Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 11:26 		One other factor that I'd like to revisit is the use of HTH records as a tiebreaker.

This is less of an issue if we no longer reset waiver priorities based on interim standings, but even so, it seems like points for is a more intuitive tiebreaker criteria, and easier to monitor. We could drop HTH to a secondary level tiebreaker, in the unlikely event that two teams were exactly tied in both win% and points.

We've also voted on this in the past and HTH has survived as the first tiebreaker, although I believe the voting margin has been slim.

Other than those two issues (waiver process and HTH tiebreaker), are there other potential rule changes that should be brought to a vote? Last year's rules are in post [2] of this thread.
 
23Judy
      ID: 54203110
      Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 12:57 		I think the H2H tiebreaker should be dropped and we should use points for. H2H wins/loses can be so random, while points for shows consistently good stuff for a whole season -- at least better than the next guy...
 
24Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 13:55 		Agreed, points is the better tiebreaker than record.
 
25Nerfherders
      ID: 161121811
      Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 15:29 		I dont have a vote but I agree on points for. It also helps at the end to know exactly where you are and what you need to do. I've filled up entire notebook pages going through all the tiebreaking permutations with a couple weeks to go.
 
26Judy
      ID: 54203110
      Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 17:05 		Nerf -- I thought I was the only one who did that!
 
27SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 17:52 		I had mentioned in the Final Recap thread last season that you may want to clarify what is and isn't "cycling". I think Guru loosely defined it during the season as "picking up a player during the week and dropping him prior to his game, just to keep others from getting him". Not sure it needs a whole lot more clarification, but you might think on it so no-one gets bent out of shape.
 
28Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 17:56 		That isn't cycling. If you were chain dropping players to lock them while not actually rostering, that is cycling. Holding someone for a few days then dropping them was acceptable.
 
29SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 20:53 		Bonka, I know that. But not everyone agreed during the season. So, I just wanted to bring it up.
 
30Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 10:20 		[27] I don't recall defining it quite that loosely. Did I?

The rules state that
Managers may not “cycle” though a series of free agents solely for the purpose of blocking them from availability.
If anyone has an idea on how to improve that definition, please suggest.
 
31Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 12:20 		If a manager acquires more than one player of a given position, only one player maybe released from the team prior to that weeks games.


To clarify, if you pick up 4 FA of the same position, 3 must remain on the team. If you pick up 2, 1 must remain. If you pick up one, you can drop him prior to game time.

Picking up a player solely to drop him and reset his waiver time should be illegal, but hording should not. Was that the general consensus last year? If you want to use all of your bench spots for 1 position, you have the choice, but it has consequences.
 
32Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 13:30 		That doesn't really address the issue we were trying to stop. If you pick up multiple RBs in a given week, hold them simultaneously, and then drop them before gametime, that seems OK.

If you add a RB, then drop him and add another RB, then drop him and add another RB, that's not OK.

The key point is that it is acceptable to use each of your bench slots to "protect" a player from other rosters. But it is not OK to use a single bench slot to eliminate access to multiple players.
 
33Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 14:01 		Position should have absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
34swinganamiss
      ID: 386322513
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 14:33 		guru, u defined it more clearly in post 275 of the season thread. i paraphrased it above.
u could force player to be held for certain duration. u could release dropped players back to the pool immediately
 
35Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 15:29 		I'm trying to avoid setting artificial limits that might be perfectly valid in some situations.

One potential way to go with this is to say that any player dropped within a day of his scheduled game does not go through waivers. Or that all players on waivers are cleared for pickup 24 hours before gametime.

I'm not sure if that could be automatically implemented at MFL (although I'll bet something similar could be.)

 
36The Beezer
      ID: 0944216
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 16:07 		I would support the ideas suggested in post 35.
 
37Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 17:48 		Didn't we change the waivers so that players dropped on dayX would go through waivers dayX+1 3am or something? That means the only possible time to cycle players is the day of games, before game time.
 
38Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 18:20 		Yes, we did that - but as I recall, players who would have been scheduled for Monday at 3am were effectively locked in, and not freed for the final day.

Still not sure if we can do this automatically.
 
39Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 18:21 		In other words, I think players dropped on Saturday were locked.
 
40Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 20:14 		It's really difficult or not possible to set up what we're looking for, not sure which. Need a major change to the waiver system to make it an easier fix. Example being nobody gets locked after being dropped. Easily fixes the problem but then also creates the issue where it's right place right time to grab a player who was dropped.
 
41TB
      ID: 451028614
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 20:19 		In my other leagues, any player picked up cannot be dropped until the following week. I don't know why we have it set up that you can pick a player up and then drop them immediately anyway.
 
42SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 20:30 		Guru, I meant post 272 from last Regular Season thread, when you said (sorry I was didn't want to read through the thread using my junky phone)....

I dont see the Young=>Palko move as a rule violation. Young was picked up back on Wednesday as a waiver claim. He was held until Sunday, and then swapped for Palko. While it is clear that Swing had no intent to start Palko this week, he did keep Palko past the time he was locked.

If Palko had been dropped before gametime, that would have been a violation.

Now, if I had picked up Young on Sunday and dropped him on Sunday, would it have been a "violation"? On Saturday? Not sure!
 
43TB
      ID: 451028614
      Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 21:19 		Blind bidding is the best waiver system ever created. I was hesitant to use it the first season I played in a league that uses it, but there isn't a more fair system.

In my league, everyone gets 100 fake dollars to use for blind bidding. You can still make waiver claims with zero dollars. If somebody else makes a claim with their fake dollars you aren't going to win that bid, but it's not like you can't continue to make claims. I've found I make 2-3 mid to large priced claims in the season, a couple small price claims, and several zero dollar claims to pick up a bye week replacement. I just pulled the stats from all league claims last year; 16 team league, 30 player rosters, 22 starters (11 IDP), and 8 bench.
Total waiver claims: 123
$0.00 claims: 37
$1.00-$5.00 claims: 45
$6.00-$15.00 claims: 26
$16.00-$26.00 claims: 10
There were five claims above $26.

I think blind bidding is not only the most fair system, but adds one more dimension of strategy to season long waiver claims. With that said, I'm good with whatever system we use.
 
44Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Thu, Jul 26, 2012, 02:30 		There are leagues where you can't drop players you recently picked up? That blows my mind a bit. I can understand it and it does make some sense but seems a too hardcore/punishing to me.
 
45TD
      ID: 539351921
      Thu, Jul 26, 2012, 22:55 		I am in favor of blind bid waivers and I have never used it. It doesn't seem that complicated and I don't think it would put me at a disadvantage. I think it is a much fairer system.
 
46Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Thu, Jul 26, 2012, 23:09 		i'm partial to the waiver suggestions from post 11. simple. and it works.

no reason to complicate things with some sort of bidding.
 
47holt
      ID: 108501712
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 17:09 		Is the MFL system set up for bidding? If it can't be automated within MFL then we shouldn't waste time thinking about it.
 
48Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 17:32 		Yes, it would be easily set up with MFL.
 
49TB
      ID: 451028614
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 22:39 		I am not partial to the waiver suggestions from post 11. I'd prefer that if we didn't use blind bidding, we either just go in reverse of the draft order or set a waiver position for each draft position now so that we'd have one more piece of information before picking our draft position.

I don't really know where I'd pick if I got the first choice for draft position, but it seems odd that whether I pick 1st, 6th or 14th, I'd get last waiver priority.
 
51Ocho Cinco
      ID: 49550219
      Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 23:28 		I support the blind bid waiver system. It's extremely fair in my opinion.
 
52Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 11:12 		I think it's time to put issues to a vote. Only the 14 managers in the RIFC are eligible to vote.

Following is the tentative wording of the ballot issues. Please let me know if you think I've missed anything, and/or if the wording should be modified on any issue.
1. Should the blind bidding waiver system be used? (Yes/No)

2. If blind bidding is not used, what waiver priority rules should be used at the start of the season?
a. reverse of the draft order (team with pick #14 has top priority – same as previous years)
b. reverse of draft selection order (team with 1st choice for draft order has lowest priority)

3. If blind bidding is not used, how should waiver priorities be reset during the regular season?
a. reset for the first 6 weeks based on the reverse of standings (same as prior years)
b. no weekly resetting – each time a waiver claim is successful, that manager goes to the bottom of the list.

4. Should head-to-head records be eliminated as the first tiebreaker (i.e., points for would be the first tiebreaker)? (Yes/No)

Note that we are not yet voting. This is simply to make sure that questions are complete and appropriated worded.
 
53Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 13:04 		Those look good to me.
 
54Ocho Cinco
      ID: 48713212
      Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 13:13 		Looks good.
 
55SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 17:38 		Even if blind bidding is used, we still need a WW order right? (For ties)

If blind bidding is used, are there other options to discuss? I have no idea what other choices will have to be made in the config.
 
56Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 21:13 		Only things you'll really change with blind bidding are the amount you start with (100, 1000, etc) and whether you can make $0 bids or not.
 
57Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 10:43 		[55-56] Good question. Having never used blind bidding before, I'm not sure how ties are typically broken. I assume we'd use either standings or points.


 
58swinganamiss
      ID: 386322513
      Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 11:59 		does that mean if u are first and i am last, and we both make 4 $1 bids for the same 4 guys, that i get all 4 guys? doesn't sound right to me! there are some nuances to this that will need to be explained, if it passes.
 
59Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 13:34 		[58] Good question, for which I do not know the answer.

Perhaps we could use a rolling waiver priority order to break ties? Does anyone with experience knows if that is doable?

Even if that is possible, in the situation mentioned in [58], which player tie would be decided first?

I know we also have the option to allow $0 bids. Is that a good idea or not? That might have a lot of implications for how ties are decided.
 
60Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 14:42 		In my baseball league, they award a tie to the person who entered their waiver request first.
I don't think there are many ties, though.


 
61holt
      ID: 108501712
      Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 17:05 		My main question is: does a bidding system cause less active team owners to become even less active/competitive over the course of a season? I've never used a bidding system so I honestly don't know the answer to that. I want rules that work toward keeping everyone engaged and equally competitive throughout the season. Playoff spots are largely determined by wins and losses, so I think it's a valid concern.
 
62Donkey Hunter
      ID: 22743318
      Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 19:43 		I don't think it would make people less active. It just replaces the waiver system. Even if you dont bid, you could still pick up players Wednesday through Sunday correct?
 
63Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 20:44 		[62] correct
 
64Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 21:22 		I've been tinkering with the blind bidding setup at MFL, just to see what's possible.

For tie breakers, there are only two options:
1. Earliest submitted bid wins
2. Sort criteria (worst to first) based on points, or win%, or any normal waiver-type ranking.

If we went with #2, it looks like the result of the scenario in [58] is that the same team would win all 4 ties.

I don't see any option to use a rolling approach. (That would also require sequencing the bid awards, which is probably the reason for not enabling this approach.)

There are some other blind bidding explanations/examples on the help pages. For example:
Challenge Help Center Search: blind bidding
 
65Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 21:39 		We could set up the normal Wednesday waivers to use blind bidding.

But I don't see any way to continue to use blind bidding for the subsequent daily locked (dropped) player waivers during the rest of the week. I think those would need to be done using our "traditional" waiver process - unless we decided not to put dropped players on waivers.

Our traditional waiver processing seems to confuse many. I'm really reluctant to impose a system that uses both blind bidding and then traditional waivers.

Can someone who has experience with blind bidding on MFL please suggest an optimal setup to consider.
 
66Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 23:24 		Shouldn't we just be able to use the same exact setup and swap blind bid for normal waivers? The setup looks the same, the option is still there to handle the locked players.

I've never set blind bidding up and the leagues where we use blind bidding have different systems set up for handling dropped players. One is a contract league and players are locked until the following week, the other runs two blind bid periods each week. One that goes off on Wednesday then another on Friday. After the Friday one goes off, everyone is FCFS with no locking. We could always look at using that to simplify the process. It allows the players dropped during Wednesday waivers, as well as anyone else who benefits from sudden news later in the week, to get bid on rather than go to whoever happens to be online and sees the big news story.
 
67Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 00:00 		I see no option for blind bidding for locked players only. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the setup options.

Bonka, in the league that uses Wednesday and Friday blind bidding, are all free agent pickups locked out until Friday (other than those claimed through blind bidding)? Or is the second blind bidding only for dropped players?

Unless I can figure out how the blind bidding setup should work, I'm not even going to bring it to a vote.
 
68Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 01:00 		Yeah, there are no FCFS until the 2nd round of blind bids finish.

I just went and looked at the options and I don't see a blind bid for locked players either. I do think the setup I mentioned with 2 blind bid periods then FCFS is probably better, definitely easier to run. Could also do it with the normal waivers. Maybe we should be voting on that instead then decide if we want normal waivers or blind bid?
 
69TB
      ID: 451028614
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 01:30 		Logged in to the league and updated icons. The questions in #52 look right (if we were answering - 1.Y, 2.a, 3.b, 4.Y).

I don't think we have "inactive" managers in the RIFC, certainly not returning managers.

For bidding, I think there is a default order based on reverse standings for tie bids but it is a good question.
 
70TB
      ID: 451028614
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 01:35 		I should have refreshed the thread before posting. I opened it hours ago when #63 was the last post. I don't have a problem with tiebreaker #2 Sort criteria (worst to first) based on points, or win%, or any normal waiver-type ranking. I can't think of many weeks where people are dropping four players for four other players and if the bid value is only $1.00 seems like there would be many comparable players available.
 
71SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 08:57 		It doesn't matter if it's 2, 4, or 10 players in my example. If the last place team gets "ALL" the players, then BB sounds "less fair" than a normal waiver wire.

Having never done it, I assumed BB still required a waiver wire to account for ties. But, as Guru mentioned--if you are doing ties with a WW then you have to prioritize your $1 bids. It may not be a likely scenario for $1 bids (??), but I could see several managers putting in a few $0 bids each week.
 
72Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 09:20 		We'd have to decide whether we want to allow $0 bids.

I did submit an inquiry at MFL to see whether blind bidding could be used for locked players. They responded that it did not.

Waiting until Friday to be able to pick up free agents doesn't seem like a good idea when there are so many Thursday games.

I'm still opposed to a system that uses blind bidding for all players and then reverts to normal waivers for locked players. If we were to go to blind bidding, we should probably not lock out dropped players. (That might not be a bad idea even if we don't switch to blind bidding.)

If we do move to blind bidding, we need to keep it as simple as possible. Probably one bidding process on Wednesday, and then a FCFS for the rest of the week. We can consider tweaking the process next year after we've gotten more comfortable with the mechanics.

Based on all of this discussion, I'm going to revise the voting questions. Stay tuned...
 
73Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 09:22 		Can anyone opine as to whether it's a good idea to allow $0 bids? It seems like that might be where ties are more likely to come into play.
 
74Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 11:07 		I've never used $0 bids so I can't really comment. The only reason I see allowing them would be if we were to use the 2 sets of blind bidding each week to allow teams to grab players for Thursday games at no cost.

$0 bids seem like something you'd use in leagues that don't have any FCFS.
 
75The Beezer
      Dude
      ID: 191202817
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 11:44 		Agreed. I say we don't allow $0 bids to reduce the chances of ties.
 
76TD
      ID: 539351921
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 11:51 		Would FCFS end the need for any "cycling" rule?
 
77The Beezer
      Dude
      ID: 191202817
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 12:04 		I support not locking out players after they are dropped, regardless of changes to the waiver system. The primary need for that in a fantasy league is prevent a team from getting a good player that is dropped by another team. That's not really an issue in any of the RIFC leagues, is it?

That would also address the cycling issue and simplify the waiver process.
 
78Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 13:30 		[76] Yes, it would eliminate any cycling issues.

I haven't evaluated the history, but I don't think there have been very many waiver claims for players who were just dropped.

 
79Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 13:36 		So, perhaps the best blind bidding option would be to have one blind bid period each week, processing on Wednesday, followed by FCFS for all free agents - with dropped players not subject to any lockout period. Minimum bid should be $1.

Should the blind bidding budget be $100 or $1000? Setting it at $1000 reduces the marginal cost of a $1 bid.
 
80Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 13:53 		Based of the foregoing discussion, here is my revised proposal for the voting issues. Once again, I am NOT yet calling for a vote. I just want to be sure the issues are properly framed.


1. Should a blind bidding waiver system be used for the regular season? All non-rostered players will be subject to a single weekly blind bidding waiver period, processing at noon on Wednesday. After this, all free agents will be available first come, first served, with no lockout for players dropped. (Yes/No)

2. If blind bidding is used, the minimum bid will be $1, and bids must be in increments of $1. What should be the maximum amount each team can spend during the regular season?
a. $1000
b. $500
c. $100

3. If blind bidding is not used, what waiver priority rules should be used at the start of the season?
a. reverse of the draft order (team with pick #1 has lowest priority – same as previous years)
b. reverse of draft selection order (team with 1st choice for draft order has lowest priority)

4. If blind bidding is not used, how should waiver priorities be reset during the regular season?
a. reset after each of the first 6 weeks based on the reverse of standings (same as prior years)
b. no weekly resetting – each time a waiver claim is successful, that manager goes to the bottom of the list.

5. If blind bidding is not used, should dropped players be subject to a 1-day lockout ending with a waiver claim processing (same as prior years)? (Yes/No)

6. Should head-to-head records be eliminated as the first tiebreaker (i.e., points for would be the first tiebreaker)? (Yes/No)


Does this seem adequate and complete?
 
81SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 14:07 		You called out "regular season" for blind bidding. What happens during the playoffs?
 
82The Beezer
      ID: 0944216
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 16:18 		The only change I would make is to make #5 independent of blind bidding. Looks good to me otherwise, although we may want to limit the bidding options to just 100 and 1000 to make it more likely we get a majority.

Swing, I would think that playoff pickups would either continue the same way (with possibly bonus $ given based on playoff seed?), or we would use a waiver wire the same as we have in the past.
 
83Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 18:11 		[81] I think the playoff waiver process would be the same as in prior years. #1 seed gets top priority.

It didn't make sense to me to carry over any unused regular season bidding balances into the playoffs, nor did it make sense to start the playoffs with a new balance.

[82] If we use blind bidding, #5 is a given - since blind bidding does not support locked out players, and I won't use an approach that combines waiver methods during each week.

And maybe it does make sense to limit the options to $100 or $1000.
 
84Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 19:21 		We could give playoff teams different amounts of blind bid dollars once it starts, which effectively gives you a waiver order while still keeping the blind bid aspect. Although it doesn't matter much since we can't pick up any offensive players.

That reminds me, I'd like to see that rule go. Never liked having offensive players locked in for the playoffs, it opens up so much random luck and takes away a big portion of fantasy football (waivers).
 
85wiggs
      ID: 40601413
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 20:16 		how do you change your picture for your team? I cant be having that picture next to my name
 
86Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 20:26 		[84] We could put that up for vote as well.

[85] Under the menu at the top: For Owners->Franchise setup, then click on Customize. You can upload an icon there.
 
87Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 09:35 		Rather than continuing to tweak the details, let's put this to a vote and see where we stand.

Only the 14 members of the RIFC have a vote on these issues. Please post your responses to each of the 7 questions.

1. Should a blind bidding waiver system be used for the regular season? All non-rostered players will be subject to a single weekly blind bidding waiver period, processing at noon on Wednesday. After this, all free agents will be available first come, first served, with no lockout for players dropped. (Yes/No)

(Note: if blind bidding is used during the regular season, we have a separate decision about if and how it should be extended to the postseason.)

2. If blind bidding is used, the minimum bid will be $1, and bids must be in increments of $1. What should be the maximum amount each team can spend during the regular season?
a. $1000
b. $100

3. If blind bidding is not used, what waiver priority rules should be used at the start of the season?
a. reverse of the draft order (team with draft pick #1 has lowest priority – same as previous years)
b. reverse of draft selection order (team with 1st choice for draft order has lowest priority)

4. If blind bidding is not used, how should waiver priorities be reset during the regular season?
a. reset after each of the first 6 weeks based on the reverse of standings (same as prior years)
b. no weekly resetting – each time a waiver claim is successful, that manager goes to the bottom of the list.

5. If blind bidding is not used, should dropped players be subject to a 1-day lockout ending with a waiver claim processing (same as prior years)? (Yes/No)

6. Should head-to-head records be eliminated as the first tiebreaker (i.e., points for would be the first tiebreaker)? (Yes/No)

7. Should we continue the playoff prohibition on adding QB, RB, and WR? (For teams still active in the championship playoffs)
a. Yes, no change from prior years.
b. No, active teams in the playoffs should be allowed to add a player at any position.
 
88loki
      SuperDude
      ID: 4211201420
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 11:58 		1-No
2-b
3-a
4-b
5-Yes
6-Yes
7-a
 
89Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 12:20 		1. yes
2. b
3. b
4. b
5. no
6. yes
7. b


Since there wasn't any discussion on #7, I'd just like to ask those who already have or are going to vote to keep the rule as is, why take out a big portion of fantasy football during the playoffs and is it really that much different from allowing no roster moves during the season and being forced to stick with only players you draft? If the players that got you to the playoffs get hurt, you shouldn't be stuck taking a zero. It's fantasy football after all.
 
90Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 12:57 		[89] The rationale was (and is, presumably) that you should go into the playoffs with the guys that got you there. But I know there are two sides to that argument.
 
91Ochoa Cinco
      ID: 34741621
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 13:25 		1.       Y
2.       B
3.       B
4.       B
5.       N
6.       Y
7.       B
 
92holt
      ID: 108501712
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 13:42 		1. No
2. A
3. B
4. B
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. B
 
93The Beezer
      Dude
      ID: 191202817
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 13:55 		1. Yes
2. B
3. B
4. B
5. No
6. Yes
7. A

My rationale for my vote on 7: QBs, RBs, and WRs are the positions where an injury can turn a bench player into a starter. I'd prefer to limit the chances this could change the outcome of a playoff game.

I'd be much more open to this option if we were to carry blind bidding into the playoffs.
 
94TD
      Leader
      ID: 036331011
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 15:19 		1. yes
2. b
3. b
4. b
5. no
6. yes
7. b
 
95 gurudan
      ID: 39211221
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 15:29 		fear the monkey votes

1. yes
2. b
3. a
4. b
5. yes
6. no
7. a
 
96youngroman
      ID: 56523304
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 15:41 		1. yes
2. a (100) - doesn't really matter to me.
3. a
4. b
5. yes
6. yes
7. a (yes)
 
97SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 18:26 		1. no
2. a
3. a
4. b
5. yes
6. no
7. a

Rationale for #7 is as described by Guru. I think it adds strategy, as opposed to taking it away.
 
98wiggs
      ID: 40601413
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 19:53 		1. no
2. b
3. a
4. b
5. yes
6. yes
7. a
 
99TB
      ID: 451028614
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 21:45 		1. Yes
2. b. $100
3. a. reverse of the draft order (team with draft pick #1 has lowest priority – same as previous years)
4. b. no weekly resetting – each time a waiver claim is successful, that manager goes to the bottom of the list.
5. No
6. Yes
7. b. No, active teams in the playoffs should be allowed to add a player at any position.
 
100Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 08:30 		1. No

2. b. $100

3. b. reverse of draft selection order (team with 1st choice for draft order has lowest priority)

4. b. no weekly resetting – each time a waiver claim is successful, that manager goes to the bottom of the list.

5. Yes

6. No

7. b (Assuming that non-playoff teams were completely locked down)
 
101Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 10:07 		I was hoping that Challenger would weigh in before I cast the final votes, but it's been more than 24 hours since everyone else has voted, so let's move ahead.

1. I'm voting in favor of blind bidding. Even if Chall votes against (implied by an earlier post of his), that is still an 8-6 total in favor of blind bidding.

2. There are already 9 votes for $100, so that's the regular season budget. (More on this in a moment.)

3. The waiver priority question essentially becomes moot, although I believe we can use it for a blind bidding tiebreaker basis for preseason waivers (i.e., waivers run immediately after the draft). I'll use the reverse of the draft selection order for that purpose.

4,5. Questions 4 and 5 are now moot. Weekly waiver priority resets are not relevant, and blind bidding in MFL does not support lockouts for dropped players.

6. HTH will no longer be the 1st tiebreaker in the standings. (11 votes against)

7. Limiting playoff pickups is currently 6-6, and I think we need to re(visit) the playoff waiver process as well.

If we continue with blind bidding into the playoffs, we have several options:
(1) make no adjustments - simply carry forward from the regular season. So, if you have spent your budget in the regular season, you have no blind bids available in the playoffs.

(2) Reset the budgets at the beginning of the playoffs. This could be a flat amount for all 8 playoff teams, or it could be tailored to give different amounts based on seeding.

(3) We could combine the two approaches. Playoff budgets would be the carryover amount PLUS an extra allocation (with flat amt or seed-based).

Teams no longer in the championship playoffs would continue to be prohibited from add/drop transactions of any kind.

Any thoughts?
 
102The Beezer
      ID: 0944216
      Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 11:29 		Option 3 is my favorite. It rewards regular season performance and introduces an additional strategic element to consider in weekly bids. It also ensures that every playoff team will be able to make at least one blind bid even if they have spent their $100.
 
103Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 12:15 		I think I lean that way too.

We have typically given the top playoff seed the top waiver priority in the playoffs. Following that theme, I'd propose that we add an amount to each player's budget that is highest for the top seed and grades down according to seed.

For instance, add $16 to the top seed's balance, add $14 to the #2 seed's balance,... add $2 to the 8th seed balance.

I'm pretty sure that can be done in MFL.

Still unresolved is whether, under this approach, we should prohibit pickups of QB/RB/WR.
 
104The Beezer
      ID: 0944216
      Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 12:57 		How about this progression for bonus $ by seed: 100, 70, 60, 50, 40, 35, 30, 25?

Reasoning: provides an extra incentive for winning in the regular season, gives every team at least the $8/week they get from their $100 FAAB, and provides an interesting risk/reward for teams to spend or save their FAAB.
 
105The Beezer
      ID: 0944216
      Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 13:01 		One more note: I would be willing to change my vote on question 7 if we go with playoff blind bid option 3 to allow playoff pickups at any position.
 
106Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 15:03 		I like option 3 as well. The added value for the playoffs needs to be something reasonable such as what Guru mentioned. Beezer's numbers are a bit crazy and give too much of an advantage/disadvantage.

Also, Challenger has dropped out of RIFC as per his email, so looks like we need to pull someone else in.
 
107Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 15:15 		Re: Challenger

I'm working on it...
 
108Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 09:29 		russelldl will be moving up to take the slot vacated by Challenger.
 
109Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 11:04 		It looks like everyone has checked in at myfantasyleague.com but gurudan and holt. Let me know if you need another invite sent.
 
110Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 11:18 		[103] Given that there has been very little feedback on my proposal in post 103, I'm just going to decree that this is the plan for 2012 - unless I hear enough arguments to the contrary.

Also, given Beezer's vote change on playoff add/drop limits, I'll vote to support the increased flexibility as well.

Thus, here are the playoff rules for 2012:

Blind bidding will continue throughout the playoffs. Unused bid balances will be carried forward from the regular season, In addition, each playoff team will receive an additional budget allocation equal to $2 time the seed value.

There will be no limits on add/drop transactions for teams that are still active in the championship playoffs.

No add/drop transactions are allowed for any team that is no longer alive in the championship playoff bracket.

Note: in the event of tied blind bids during the playoffs, the system will continue to favor the team with the lowest winning percentage.
 
111loki
      SuperDude
      ID: 4211201420
      Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 12:49 		Are all the other rules for scoring and roster remaining the same. If so, where can I find them? Thanks.
 
112Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 12:54 		We can always change the tie breaking procedure during the playoffs. Also, the wording on the additional budget isn't correct, logically anyway, unless seed value is defined somewhere. Top seed would only get $2 and 8 would get $16.
 
113The Beezer
      Dude
      ID: 191202817
      Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 13:18 		Agreed with the proposal in post 103. I'd prefer that tiebreaks in the playoffs always be in favor of the higher seed.
 
114The Beezer
      Dude
      ID: 191202817
      Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 13:25 		Loki, the latest version I can see if post 171 in the 2011 getting started thread. I suspect the updated rules will be posted shortly.
 
115Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 14:39 		Yeah, I got the seed logic backwards. Should be $2x(9-seed)

I know we can change the tiebreaker criteria for the playoffs. But I can't see how we could set it to reward the better seed - unless we could somehow do it manually.

All of the built-in tiebreakers on MFL run from worst-to-first.
 
116holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 14:44 		re 109 - I logged in to MFL when I first received the link. I must have done something wrong.
 
117holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 15:16 		I guess I'm too dumb to be able to log in to MFL. My saved password doesn't work and the "lost password" link isn't helpful. I have no idea why, but if you use yahoo mail you have to wait hours before receiving the lost password email. I found a lost password email that I requested a week or two ago, but maybe it's too old. All it does it take me back to the league login page. Giving up for now. Getting frustrated and it blows my mind that I have to wait hours to receive login help. Like it's 1996 or something.
 
118Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 16:24 		Don't use yahoo address for MFL. I don't know what the issue is, but just avoid it. Grab a gmail account if you don't have one just to use for MFL leagues and have it forward to your yahoo if you want. Guru can change your email for you on MFL so you can actually get the password emails when you need them.

As for the tiebreaking, I'm not really sure what we can do other than manually run them for the playoffs if we wanted to tiebreak based on seed. You can set all 8 criteria to 'none' but I don't know what happens with those settings. Would have to test it.
 
119Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 13:28 		Rules for 2012, as amended by league vote. Changes from 2011 are shown in italics.

Draft
“Banzai” format: Same as a traditional snake, except the third round is reversed. Thus, the team with the first overall pick has the last pick in rounds 2, 3, and 4.

Roster
1 QB
2 RB
2 WR
1 WR/TE
1 TE
1 K
2 DL
2 LB
2 DB
1 additional IDP (flex)
9 bench
24 Total

Decimal scoring is applied for all categories.

Offense Category Points
(apply to all players, including IDP)
Passing TD 4
Other TD 6 (all TDs, whether on offense, defense, or special teams)
Passing-2pt conv 1
Other-2pt conv 2
Passing yard 1/25 (i.e., .04 per yard)
Rushing yard 1/10 (i.e., .10 per yard)
Receiving yard 1/10
Punt return yard 1/10 (also applies to IDP)
Kick return yard 1/25 (also applies to IDP)
Kick return 0 (no deduction)
Int, fumbles lost -2

Kicking Points
(apply to all players, including IDP)
Extra point made 1
Extra point missed -1
FG under 40 yards 3
FG 40-49 yards 4
FG 50+ yards 5
Missed FG <30 -1
Missed FG 30+ 0

Indiv Defensive Player Points
(apply to all players, including offensive players and kickers)
Solo Tackle 1
Asst Tackle 0.5
Tackle for loss 2
QB hit 1
Pass defensed 1
Sack 1 (half sack=0.5)
Interception 3
Fumble forced 2
Fumble recovery 2
TD 6 (all TDs, whether on offense, defense, or special teams)
Safety 3
Blocked kick (FG, XP, punt) 2

Unlisted players
During the draft, any player may be drafted, regardless of whether or not the player is listed at the hosting game site. Once the draft is completed, unlisted players may not be added to any roster. This applies for any post-draft waiver processing as well.

In the event that a drafted player is not listed after the draft has completed, a placeholder player will be assigned to the drafting team, to be replaced by the drafted player as soon as he is available.

Position eligibility
Except as defined below, a players position eligibility will be that assigned by the league hosting site.

If a player is listed at one position when drafted and that position is subsequently changed by the hosting site, the manager drafting that player may elect to retain the original position. In this event, that player will keep the drafted position eligibility until he is dropped or traded, at which time the eligibility will revert to the hosting systems default position.

Priority Claiming
All free agents (any players not on a current roster) are subject to a weekly claiming process at noon on Wednesday, using a blind bidding process. Each team will be allocated a budget for the regular season of $100, with a minimum bid of $1. Ties will be broken in favor of the current standings (with applicable tiebreakers), worst-to-first.

Starting at 3:00pm on each Wednesday, all free agents may be picked up by any team "first come, first served" Dropped players will not be subject to a one day waiver period.

Immediately following the draft, undrafted players will be subject to a priority claiming process (blind bidding), with tiebreaking priorities equal to the reverse of the draft selection order (i.e, the order in which team selected their draft sequence.)

Starting five minutes prior to the scheduled start of each NFL game, no player in that game may be dropped, regardless of whether the player is an active or bench player.

Schedule
13 week round robin
Doubleheaders all weeks 1-13 (play each team twice)
Single elimination playoffs, weeks 14-16

Trades and trade deadline
During the draft, trades may include draft picks. Trades will normally be approved immediately by the Commissioner, assuming they are reasonably balanced. If league managers believe an announced trade is unbalanced, they should protest the trade ASAP.

After the draft, trades will be subject to a review period. For the first 24 hours following a trade, managers may protest a trade by posting a message at the RotoGuru forum, or by sending an email to the Commissioner. If at least 3 managers protest a trade within 24 hours of its announcement, then all managers will be polled within the next 24 hours. If seven or more managers vote to veto a trade, then it will not be approved. If a proposed trade is announced less than 24 hours before the earliest freeze for any player involved, then the entire trade will not be processed until the following week.

If a trade does not receive at least 3 protests, then it will be effective 24 hours after it is announced. If a trade receives at least 3 protests but the protests are not upheld in a full league vote, then the trade will be processed 48 hours after it is announced.

The trade deadline is the weekend following the final week with byes.

Stat corrections
Official stat corrections will be automatically applied. This typically happens on Thursday morning. In the playoffs, this can lead to an issue if a team is suddenly “back in the game”, but that team was unable to make roster moves the prior day. If a stat correction changes a playoff matchup at the last minute, then any impacted team will be given the opportunity to make a last minute roster move, if needed. The Commissioner will attempt to ensure that this provision is enabled as fairly as possible under the circumstances.

During the playoffs, once the first game of the week has started, no stat corrections will be allowed thereafter.

Playoffs
8 teams, single elimination
The 8 teams will be those with the top 6 W/L records plus the two other teams with the most points
The top four seeds will be based on W/L record (including applicable tiebreakers)
Seeds 5-8 will be based on total points for the other four playoff teams
Teams with equivalent W/L records are ranked based on total points first, then head-to-head record.
Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round)

Blind bidding will continue throughout the playoffs. At the beginning of the playoffs, the top seeded team will receive an additional blind bidding allocation of $16, the second seed will receive $14, … with the 8th seed receiving $2. These allocations will be added to any balances remaining from the regular season. Any blind bidding ties during the playoffs will be awarded in favor of the better seeded team.

If a playoff game ends in a tie score, the team with the better seed shall advance.

There will be no restriction on player add/drop transactions for teams still active in the championship playoffs. Teams which are not still active in the Championship playoffs may not make any transactions - adds or drops - even if they are still competing in the Consolation bracket.

 
120Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 13:31 		Hoping I got all the rules properly updated. I'm still trying to figure out what to do for blind bid ties during the playoffs.

Let me know if I need to fix anything. I haven't yet made the updates at the MFL site.
 
121judy
      Dude
      ID: 7771722
      Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 13:38 		Guru -- will you be updating the AAA and AA sites or is that something we should be doing?
 
122Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 13:50 		Let me update our site first. I may be able to copy it over directly to the other leagues.
 
123Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 09:14 		We need to get started on our draft selection round. I'm going to generate two sets of random numbers, and apply them in the traditional way to an alphabetical list of managers. I'll send "audit copies" of the random numbers to several others.

I'll do it later this morning. Stand by.

 
124Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 09:23 		Here is the alpha list of managers I'll start with:

Beezer
Bonka
Frick
Guru
gurudan
Holt
jzapps
loki
russelldl
Swinganamiss
TB
TD
Wiggs
youngroman

Audit copies of the random numbers will be copied to Bonka and Youngroman.
 
125Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 09:48 		Here are the two sets of random numbers:
12 10 9 7 5 3 2 1 11 14 6 13 4 8
12 11 6 9 3 5 4 2 7 10 1 13 8 14

And here is the resulting draft selection order:
1 russelldl
2 youngroman
3 gurudan
4 Guru
5 TB
6 Holt
7 Frick
8 TD
9 Wiggs
10 Bonka
11 jzapps
12 loki
13 Beezer
14 Swinganamiss

Remember that we use a "Banzai" draft order. All rounds are the same as a snake draft except for round #3, which is reversed. Consequently, if you take the first pick, you will have the last pick in each of rounds 2, 3, & 4. After that, the snake will progress normally.

At the end of the draft, we will hold a blind bidding waiver process for all undrafted players. Ties will be broken in the reverse of the order above. So, for example, Swinganamiss will win any ties (for that preseason blind bidding only).

Russelldl can select now.
 
126 gurudan
      ID: 12211321
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 10:03 		i've been predisposed with a relocation. i need the password for MFL, and will send my new address, cell, and email pronto. i assume RIFC and password. i'm still logged in to AAA
 
127russelldl
      ID: 206493120
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 12:19 		1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. russelldl
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Youngroman is next.
 
128youngroman
      ID: 56523304
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 13:37 		1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. russelldl
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. youngroman
12.
13.
14.

gurudan is up.
 
129 gurudan
      ID: 12211321
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 14:58 		pick # 3 still need info to sign in to MFL
 
130Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 15:32 		gurudan - I sent another invite from MFL to dlgirard407@gmail.com several hours ago. Did you get it? Check your spam folder if you don't see it.

If you still don't have it, then send me an email.
 
131Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 15:33 		1.
2.
3. gurudan
4.
5.
6. russelldl
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. youngroman
12.
13.
14. Guru

TB is up.
 
132TB on EVO
      ID: 366292620
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 16:50 		I will take #13. Sorry I can't paste the format from my cell.
 
133Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 17:23 		1.
2.
3. gurudan
4.
5.
6. russelldl
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. youngroman
12.
13. TB
14. Guru

Holt is up.
 
134holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 20:48 		crap. not the choices I wanted to be faced with.
 
135holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 21:06 		1.
2.
3. gurudan
4.
5.
6. russelldl
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. youngroman
12. holt
13. TB
14. Guru
 
136holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 21:13 		Frick is up.
 
137Frick
      ID: 157331422
      Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 23:33 		1.
2.
3. gurudan
4.
5.
6. russelldl
7. Frick
8.
9.
10.
11. youngroman
12. holt
13. TB
14. Guru
 
138TD
      Leader
      ID: 036331011
      Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 06:54 		1.
2.
3. gurudan
4.
5.
6. russelldl
7. Frick
8. TD
9.
10.
11. youngroman
12. holt
13. TB
14. Guru

Wiggs is up.
 
139wiggs
      ID: 40601413
      Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 08:12 		1.
2.
3. gurudan
4.
5.
6. russelldl
7. Frick
8. TD
9.
10. wiggs
11. youngroman
12. holt
13. TB
14. Guru

Bonka is up
 
140Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 11:31 		You guys are crazy, top spots still open. Thanks for a stud RB! Although I do hate picking on turns because the queues are a nightmare not knowing what position you'll get with your first pick.

1. Bonka
2.
3. gurudan
4.
5.
6. russelldl
7. Frick
8. TD
9.
10. wiggs
11. youngroman
12. holt
13. TB
14. Guru
 
141Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 11:37 		By the way, I was the top scoring team the last 2 years out of the 3rd spot in 2010 and 13th in 2011. Maybe we need to watch out for gurudan and TB :)
 
142The graham crackers
      ID: 48713212
      Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 12:02 		1. Bonka
2. Jzapps
3. gurudan
4.
5.
6. russelldl
7. Frick
8. TD
9.
10. wiggs
11. youngroman
12. holt
13. TB
14. Guru
 
143Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 12:50 		loki is up
 
144loki
      SuperDude
      ID: 4211201420
      Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 14:33 		I won RIFC AAA playoffs with 10 last year--hoping for the same with #9. Then again I drafted 9th in RIBC AAA this year and 8 of my 1st 10 picks ended up on the DL.

1. Bonka
2. Jzapps
3. gurudan
4.
5.
6. russelldl
7. Frick
8. TD
9. loki
10. wiggs
11. youngroman
12. holt
13. TB
14. Guru
 
145The Beezer
      ID: 0944216
      Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 14:42 		Last year I ended up with the 5 slot by default and had the best regular season record. This year, I have twice as many options, but I might as well take the 5 hole again.

That gives swing the 4 slot and we are set for the draft.
 
146Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Aug 15, 2012, 17:17 		Got a response to my question on blind bidding tiebreakers:

If a custom waiver order is defined then it will over-ride any sort criteria on the Waivers setup.

If this is really correct, then we can set the playoff tiebreaker to favor the top seeded teams. As such, I'm going to amend the playoff rules to add this.

 
147Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 02:07 		I can't seem to find it quickly, so when were we going to officially start the draft? The 27th?
 
148Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 08:15 		My initial thought was in the Aug 24-27 time frame. I believe some expressed interest in completing before the Labor Day weekend, which would push it up to the Aug 24.

Does that sound OK to everyone?
 
149TD
      Leader
      ID: 036331011
      Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 09:16 		I prefer starting the draft on the Aug 27th after the last week 3 preseason games are played on the Aug. 26th.
 
150Loki
      ID: 444181922
      Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 11:30 		I also would like to wait until after the weekend's preseason games. If there is any desire to start later, I am ok with that. I will be away on 27th and traveling on the 28th with spotty Internet service, but will have an IPad with 3G with me.
 
151The graham crackers
      ID: 48713212
      Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 11:48 		It would be nice to start the 24.
 
152wiggs
      ID: 40601413
      Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 11:54 		I would vote for the 27th but could do either
 
153Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 14:15 		I'd rather the 27th. We'll be done in time for the season, won't be an issue, even with Labor Day. Just need to get good queues going like last year and we can be done quickly.

Having the beginning of the draft going while preseason games are in progress is just a bad idea. It's completely unfair when an injury happens. We'll be drafting during the last preseason week, but we'll be near the end and someone can still get lucky with it being their pick when an injury happens, but it won't be like if I take Foster at 1.01 and he goes down then Tate is now taken at 1.10 or something.
 
154Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Thu, Aug 16, 2012, 14:17 		Actually I guess we'd be in the mid rounds during the week 4 games, but starters don't play much in those so it's not a big deal.
 
155Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 10:45 		Sounds like there is consensus to wait until Monday, Aug 27. I'm OK with that. Everyone should be prepared to knock off 3-4 rounds per day.

Last year we started on Aug 23 and finished on August 30. Of the 336 total picks, 168 were made via queue - exactly half. If we can meet that standard, we should be fine.

I'll plan to activate the draft on Sunday (8/26), as there are only two preseason games scheduled that day. We can either begin (untimed) on Sunday, or at least use that day to set up queues as needed for Monday.
 
156Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 12:16 		Sounds good. I'll pick that Sunday some time to get the draft going.
 
157The Beezer
      ID: 96572318
      Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 18:26 		Sunday the 26th sounds good.
 
158Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 13:31 		Are we using conditional blind bidding? Not sure this was ever brought up or decided. Using conditional blind bidding, the waivers will basically be done like they were in the past, but adding in a bid value. Without conditional, you throw all your bids in one list.

I'm not entirely sure exactly how each works in different scenarios because I don't think I've used both systems and I can't find enough info on the MFL site about them.

I think it may be a good idea to set each up and do quick test runs on the site so we can give people an idea of what they're doing before the season starts and can decide on which setup we want to use after seeing if any issues would arise with a certain setup. We would need at least 2 people to coordinate to test out a case where they bid on the same player in different conditional bid rounds to ensure the higher bid always wins, regardless of what round.
 
159The Beezer
      Dude
      ID: 191202817
      Sun, Aug 19, 2012, 10:09 		I think I have a pretty good grasp on this and would be happy to do some testing we can share with everyone. From what I have seen, conditional bidding makes much more sense for this league. It ensures that people can get who they want while minimizing the risk that they end up getting several pickups at a position when they only want 1. The example from question 14 on this MFL help page might help.
 
160Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Sun, Aug 19, 2012, 11:32 		Their examples don't cover what I'm wondering about. So I'd like to test it to be sure.

Conditional definitely gives you more control over things, but if for some reason it doesn't always go to the high bidder regardless of round, that would be a major issue. I'm pretty certain though that rounds have no meaning other than giving you that control over things.
 
161judy
      Dude
      ID: 7771722
      Sun, Aug 19, 2012, 15:09 		So as I see it, it goes round by round.

It deals with all the round 1 bids, with a player going to the highest $$. After the player is awarded, that manager is done with round 1. And the other managers don't get him, so it looks to their next bid for a different player. It does all the round 1 bids first.

THEN it looks at the bids for round #2. If the player was taken in round 1, even if it was a lower $$ bid, the round 2 manager "loses."

So it is essentially the same -- each round is treated intact and the decider is the $$$ bid.

Yah?
 
162judy
      Dude
      ID: 7771722
      Sun, Aug 19, 2012, 15:10 		so my interp is different from BonK..
 
163Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Sun, Aug 19, 2012, 15:11 		That's the issue, if it works like you mention Judy, that's essentially useless. Players should always go to the high bidder, no exceptions.
 
164judy
      Dude
      ID: 7771722
      Sun, Aug 19, 2012, 15:13 		I sent my thoughts in 161 to the support MFL team...

Will let you know what they say.
 
165SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Sun, Aug 19, 2012, 21:18 		Yeah, I was assuming non-conditional would be used. Conditional definitely needs some clarification.

If I read Beezer's MFL link correctly....
If Beezer bids $5 for Smith and $8 for Johnson in Rd 1, and I bid $2 for Johnson and then $7 for Smith...he gets Smith for $5 and I would get Johnson for $2 ? True?


 
166Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Sun, Aug 19, 2012, 21:22 		Yeah, that's what I want to find out.
 
167TB
      ID: 451028614
      Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 19:56 		I just read the rules and it seems very clear that bids don't have "rounds" unless we set conditions, which we should not do. We should ensure we set tiebreakers for similar bids and it looks like it has the system in place that allows that.
 
168Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 20:01 		Judy contacted MFL and the person who responded said that the highest bid always wins, regardless of round. The rounds are there so you have more control over how you handle your bids.

You can do things like bid on the same player but at different amounts in different rounds dependent on what happens in prior rounds. If you know how to handle the logic for it anyway.

I think I may go try testing things out in a test league in the next day or two to be sure.
 
169Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 22:09 		I was under the impression that we should be using conditional bids.
 
170Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 22:11 		Conditional looks good. I'm messing around with a test league now and a high bid from round 2 is winning the player over a lower bid from round 1. Also, if multiple teams bid the same amount on multiple players, the team with the tiebreaker will win all those players, assuming they can roster them.
 
171Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 22:17 		As an example, with conditional bids you can do the following:

Team 1

Round 1
Bid $3 on Player A
Bid $5 on Player B

Round 2
Bid $2 on Player B


Team 2

Round 1
Bid $2 on Player A
Bid $1 on Player B

Round 2
Bid $1 on Player B

Team 1 wins Player A at $3 and Player B at $2.
 
172SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Mon, Aug 20, 2012, 23:19 		Answering my own post {165} is TRUE.
Assuming conditional bidding, what if it was like this?
Team 1
Round 1
Bid $4 on Player A
Bid $5 on Player B
Round 2
Bid $4 on Player B

Team 2
Round 1
Bid $3 on Player B
Bid $5 on Player A

Which is the correct answer>
1) T1 gets both A for $4 and B for $4
2) T2 gets A for $5 and T1 gets B for $5
3) T1 gets A for $4 and T2 gets B for $3
4) Other?

If you asked me this morning, I would've said #3 was correct. Now I am hopeful/assuming the answer is #2. Seems like the logic could get messy w/ a bunch of teams involved.
 
173Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 00:33 		Team 1 gets both for $4 each, so #1.

After looking at it a bit, this makes complete sense to me. The system will basically look at the first bid in each round and give those priority over 2nd (and 3rd, 4th, etc), since rounds are merely placeholders for your conditional bids (give me player A, if not, give me B). It would make sense that A should go to team 2 at $5, but it's the 2nd bid in that round. Essentially, to me, it seems as if team 2 is taking a risk, trying to get player B at $3 and if not, then A at $5. But there was someone else willing to put a 'priority' bid on player A at $4 so they are awarded A. Hopefully this makes sense.

Basically, if you want multiple players (if you're dropping multiple players) you HAVE to set up multiple rounds of bids.

Also, if you add to Team 2: Round 2: $5 for player A then T1 gets B for 5, T2 gets A for 5.


This stuff is probably hard to follow unless they've dealt with logic before, such as us programmers.



 
174loki
      SuperDude
      ID: 4211201420
      Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 13:32 		Re 158-173, especially 173:

This stuff is probably hard to follow unless they've dealt with logic before, such as us programmers.

This non-programmer would like to propose a re-vote on using blind bidding.
 
175holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 13:58 		Can't wait for all the additional fun of placing bids every week. Ugh. Sorry, hate to be a sore loser. It's already been voted on. I will soldier on.
 
176Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 14:47 		The non conditional is simple, we can just use that.
 
177SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 17:23 		Doesn't really make sense to me. To me this bid setup in a single round...
Bid $3 on Player B
Bid $5 on Player A
Means.... I would like B for $3, but if I don't get him I am willing to spend $5 on player A.
He shouldn't be punished for trying to get B on the cheap.

See this one below....
Team 1
Round 1
Bid $11 on Player B, drop player Y
Round 2
Bid $1 on Player A, drop player X

Team 2
Round 1
Bid $10 on Player B, drop player Z
Bid $10 on Player A, drop player Z

If T1 gets Player A for $1 , then T2 should be ticked off!
 
178Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 17:33 		I just set that example up and T1 got B at 11 and T2 got A at 10. So...I don't know why the other example ended up the way it is.
 
179SwinganaMiss
      ID: 771116
      Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 18:05 		Flipping the rounds for Team 1 shouldn't matter, so who knows. The scenarios are basically testing the same thing, but they came up w/ two different results.

Where are all our BB experts? Maybe they've all used non-conditional in previous leagues.

Another question to decide.....will we allow everybody to see everybody else's bids? I believe you can turn that on/off also.
 
180Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 18:12 		I'll try the original example again later when I get a chance and see what happens. Maybe I was an idiot and entered a number incorrectly.
 
181The Beezer
      Dude
      ID: 191202817
      Tue, Aug 21, 2012, 22:43 		Stick to this guidance for non-conditional bids and you should be good:

- Focus each round on the spot you want to fill (either the already-opened roster spot or the player you want to upgrade)
- Order your players in each round by how much you want them (this may differ from the amount you want to bid on each player)
- You'll normally want to copy your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc bids from round 1 in round 2 (assuming you have multiple players worth dropping)

Regarding seeing non-winning bids, I recommend this not be allowed. Lying about your losing bids is part of the fun! :)
 
182Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 00:04 		Beezer meant to say conditional bids. Non-conditional just has you throw everyone in one big list.
 
183The Beezer
      ID: 0944216
      Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 06:01 		Yes, thanks for the correction Bonka.
 
184Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 09:51 		While I do think there is merit to using conditional bids, I'm wondering if we should go slowly here and use non-conditional bidding for the first year. Once we better understand the thought process of blind bidding, we can decide whether the benefits of a conditional system outweigh the complexity.

Question: Suppose we have non-conditional bidding, and I have just one slot to fill. I set up two bids:
Bid $4 on Player A
Bid $4 on Player B

Essentially, I want either player A or B, and I'm willing to pay $4. Assuming that $4 is the top bid on each player, which one do I get?
 
185Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 11:06 		[184] ...or, if I have only one open spot on my roster, can I even submit a pair of blind bids (using non-conditional bidding)?
 
186Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 13:24 		It's only going to give you one guy for one slot, but you can put in requests for multiple players to make sure you get one. As far as A or B, I'm not sure. I'm guessing whoever is listed first. It may say that on the site even. I can test it later when I'm not busy.
 
187Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 23:00 		Looks like it will go to the highest bid first, regardless of position in the list, then goes by the order listed for bids that are the same value.
 
188Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 11:49 		To those who have used blind bidding previously:

Were those non-conditional?
Is that likely to be sufficient?
 
189Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 13:40 		I use both. Shouldn't really matter much either way.

I think non conditional should be easier for everyone to use, so I'd suggest using that for now. No matter which you use, someone will run in to a problem with it at some point.
 
190Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 10:36 		I have setup our league to disallow conditional blind bids. We'll keep it simple, at least for the first year of blind bidding.