CelticsStrong
Other Discussions => Off Topic => Games / Gambling / Fantasy Sports => Topic started by: Gainesville Celtic on August 21, 2017, 08:32:51 PM
-
This thread is to discuss changes to the GC Yahoo! H2H League Constitution. (The current league thread is here (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=90775.0).)
The constitution can be viewed year round at http://www.10thumbs.org/h2h/league-constitution/ (http://www.10thumbs.org/h2h/league-constitution/).
We'll do voting via Doodle (http://doodle.com/).
Convention Guidelines:
1. Anyone may propose an amendment in the thread. You can kick around ideas, but to formally propose amendments please use the format:
Proposed Amendment #1:
-------------------------------
amendment text in bold red
2. Final and formal amendments must be specific and enforceable. We can't have something like "don't let teams tank" because the commissioner will have no way to decide what is tanking and what is not.
3. I'd like to have someone second each amendment just to assure there's some support before we vote.
4. The Commissioner will approve the final wording (working to make consistent with the original author) and conduct a vote via Doodle.
Constitutional Amendment #1
Revise how picks are penalized by GP audit
-------------------------------
8. At the end of the season the commissioner will conduct an Games Played Audit of the 12 non-playoff teams. For each player with either an O-Rank or Season (total) Rank of 100 or better which misses more than 20 games that he plays in real life (i.e. Basketball Reference “games played” minus Y! Team Log “GP” > 20 games) that team shall be penalized 5 post-lottery draft spots for any first round picks they own, which become their property once traded for. GMs may appeal this penalty to the league. Reversal requires an majority vote (i.e. 11 votes).2.
Proposed by DinoGanja, seconded by Fairweatherfan
Constitutional Amendment #2
Clarity on scheduling in a 20-week season
-------------------------------
(new) 25. When Yahoo! does not allow for a 19-week schedule (i.e. one where each team plays every other team only once) the second matchup shall be determined by the previous season's record — where #1 will play #2 twice, #3 will play #4 twice, etc.
Proposed by Gainesville Celtic, seconded by Fairweatherfan
additions in bold italic red
deletions are bold and struckthrough
consent additions in bold blue
-
For kicking around an idea I was just looking at something old (not actually in this league) but there was a minor issue where some GMs didn't get their cuts done by the deadline. This resulted in dealing with it the way we generally always have, which is by committee. This strikes me as a not broken/don't fix issue, but there were several ideas as to how to possibly deal with this in the future. It's one of those things that doesn't seem very important at all till the minute it happens. Suddenly it's holding up the whole league and maybe 5 GMs make a decision. Not sure if we want to keep doing it that way
-
reserved (darn you eja for messing up my clean threads!)
-
reserved (darn you eja for messing up my clean threads!)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/245460ea1c189358107b4c986f878fbb/tumblr_o0ylrkcSFo1tqpw9zo2_250.gif)
-
^^ nice.
here's one of the 2 issues raised by other GMs, that I'm re-posting now that we're gonna discuss some possible changes:
Hi
I'd like to address the issue where if team A trades for team B's draft pick, then if team B doesn't set a line up frequentl enough thereby violating the games played audit, team A would not be penalised for that.
Dino would you like to speak more to this?
-
Proposed Amendment #1:
-------------------------------
Once a draft pick is traded, it becomes the absolute property of the acquiring team. Any penalties levied against the prior team for failing the games played audit, will not be set against the traded draft pick.
-
Basically if I trade for someone's pick, and they stop setting lineups etc. why should I be penalized that 5 draft slots? How does that penalize the offending person?
-
Proposed Amendment #1:
-------------------------------
Once a draft pick is traded, it becomes the absolute property of the acquiring team. Any penalties levied against the prior team for failing the games played audit, will not be set against the traded draft pick.
I second this but I think we need to finish the thought and specify what DOES happen to the offending team. Next year's pick is docked, and this must be indicated clearly to any team trading for it?
-
Proposed Amendment #1:
-------------------------------
Once a draft pick is traded, it becomes the absolute property of the acquiring team. Any penalties levied against the prior team for failing the games played audit, will not be set against the traded draft pick.
I second this but I think we need to finish the thought and specify what DOES happen to the offending team. Next year's pick is docked, and this must be indicated clearly to any team trading for it?
Third.
Mk
-
Proposed Amendment #1:
-------------------------------
Once a draft pick is traded, it becomes the absolute property of the acquiring team. Any penalties levied against the prior team for failing the games played audit, will not be set against the traded draft pick.
I second this but I think we need to finish the thought and specify what DOES happen to the offending team. Next year's pick is docked, and this must be indicated clearly to any team trading for it?
I like this kind of concept. It's too easy to tank and trade a super valuable piece. Maybe when you are below a certain percent of games played you can't trade for top 150 players or something
-
Proposed Amendment #1:
-------------------------------
Once a draft pick is traded, it becomes the absolute property of the acquiring team. Any penalties levied against the prior team for failing the games played audit, will not be set against the traded draft pick.
I second this but I think we need to finish the thought and specify what DOES happen to the offending team. Next year's pick is docked, and this must be indicated clearly to any team trading for it?
I like this kind of concept. It's too easy to tank and trade a super valuable piece. Maybe when you are below a certain percent of games played you can't trade for top 150 players or something
To throw out arguments/questions for the other side...
1. Will this cause less activity from bottom team's which trade their first round picks?
Maybe this doesn't matter. For the most part, everyone exception the commissioner are stand up guys.
2. Can this be manipulated somehow?
Again, only a guy who wins the league 2 times in 3 years that he's the commissioner of would probably monkey with the rules.
Mk
P.S. (https://media.tenor.com/images/e71481aca752306e3ee36c86508c5515/tenor.gif)
GC is a total stand up guy who would never ever do anything like that...
P.P.S.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/5wWf7GR2nhgamhRnEuA/giphy.gif)
-
Appreciate the discussion here! I'm just thinking out loud to keep things moving.
This is the current relevant section of the constitution (http://www.10thumbs.org/h2h/league-constitution/):
8. At the end of the season the commissioner will conduct an Games Played Audit of the 12 non-playoff teams. For each player with either an O-Rank or Season (total) Rank of 100 or better which misses more than 20 games that he plays in real life (i.e. Basketball Reference “games played” minus Y! Team Log “GP” > 20 games) that team shall be penalized 5 post-lottery draft spots. GMs may appeal this penalty to the league. Reversal requires an majority vote (i.e. 11 votes).2
I should point out that right now the current rule doesn't speak to what would even happen in this instance.
This means, at the very least, it's not been an issue (yet). Which is good!
But it also means, that it's a good thing to address proactively -- so thanks DinoG!
FWIW, I've been operating on this assumption as commish -- that once a pick was traded it wasn't subject to penalties. So I'd be fine with codifying it in the rules.
I agree with FWF then:
Proposed Amendment #1:
-------------------------------
Once a draft pick is traded, it becomes the absolute property of the acquiring team. Any penalties levied against the prior team for failing the games played audit, will not be set against the traded draft pick.
I second this but I think we need to finish the thought and specify what DOES happen to the offending team. Next year's pick is docked, and this must be indicated clearly to any team trading for it?
The games audit/missed games penalty was intended to simply discourage teams from not setting their lineups -- and thereby shifting the competitive balance (i.e. affecting playoff races b/c a, say, 7th seed happens to play a team late that's stopped setting it's lineups).
I'm less worried about teams attempting to artificially manipulate their draft position like LB33 did in the points league. If I think that's going on I may just ask that person to leave.
TBH, the most important thing to me (as another GM) is having 19 other active GMs (i.e. setting lineups, answering trade requests, working the wire, participating in league discussions, etc.)
Therefore, I'll even make this suggestion -- if a GM both trades it's first AND runs afoul of Rule #8 (above) I'd see it as grounds for removal.
IMO there's really no reason -- wether you have your pick or not -- to not set your lineups. And I think you almost have to TRY to run afoul of Rule #8. Remember the audit is only looking at top 100 players on non-playoff teams.
If you can't set your lineups but have the wherewithal to deal away a first round pick... maybe a dedicated league like this isn't for you. And it doesn't get into the issue of manipulation or locking up activity like Mk raises...
too harsh?
-
Also want to let folks know that there are a few minor things on the Yahoo! side that we need to address (I was setting up the league while my wife was on the phone before we watched a movie for her b'day... so I couldn't work through all of them).
The chief thing is that b/c of (I think) changes to the NBA schedule Yahoo has a 20 week season this year -- with the only choices for when to start the playoffs (for a league our size) as week 21.
This would mean an unbalanced schedule -- i.e. instead of teams playing each other 1x, each team plays each other team 1x and a single team 2x.
In the past we've voted to avoid this unbalanced schedule.
To do that this year though would mean starting the league's season in Week 2 and going to Week 20 (a 19-week season) and start the playoffs in Week 20.
-
Also want to let folks know that there are a few minor things on the Yahoo! side that we need to address (I was setting up the league while my wife was on the phone before we watched a movie for her b'day... so I couldn't work through all of them).
The chief thing is that b/c of (I think) changes to the NBA schedule Yahoo has a 20 week season this year -- with the only choices for when to start the playoffs (for a league our size) as week 21.
This would mean an unbalanced schedule -- i.e. instead of teams playing each other 1x, each team plays each other team 1x and a single team 2x.
In the past we've voted to avoid this unbalanced schedule.
To do that this year though would mean starting the league's season in Week 2 and going to Week 20 (a 19-week season) and start the playoffs in Week 20.
We tried starting at week 2 before and it was terrible. Everyone is pumped to start the season, but we have to wait out the first week. I would rather start the playoffs a week earlier.
Mk
-
Also want to let folks know that there are a few minor things on the Yahoo! side that we need to address (I was setting up the league while my wife was on the phone before we watched a movie for her b'day... so I couldn't work through all of them).
The chief thing is that b/c of (I think) changes to the NBA schedule Yahoo has a 20 week season this year -- with the only choices for when to start the playoffs (for a league our size) as week 21.
This would mean an unbalanced schedule -- i.e. instead of teams playing each other 1x, each team plays each other team 1x and a single team 2x.
In the past we've voted to avoid this unbalanced schedule.
To do that this year though would mean starting the league's season in Week 2 and going to Week 20 (a 19-week season) and start the playoffs in Week 20.
We tried starting at week 2 before and it was terrible. Everyone is pumped to start the season, but we have to wait out the first week. I would rather start the playoffs a week earlier.
Mk
I think I would also prefer starting playoffs a week earlier. Good teams start sitting stars as soon as they can and starting playoffs earlier helps avoid that
-
I'd like to propose a daily waiver system. I feel outside of the first day of picking players off the waiver wire, waiver order has very little importance. I'd like to see the waiver order mean more through out the year. This system would be more in line with the way fantasy football does weekly waivers just our league would do them daily.
-
I'd like to propose a daily waiver system. I feel outside of the first day of picking players off the waiver wire, waiver order has very little importance. I'd like to see the waiver order mean more through out the year. This system would be more in line with the way fantasy football does weekly waivers just our league would do them daily.
It can also be really important in the playoffs. Agreed that it means almost nothing in between, though a low # team can snap up guys before the guys sitting on their position have a chance.
-
Also want to let folks know that there are a few minor things on the Yahoo! side that we need to address (I was setting up the league while my wife was on the phone before we watched a movie for her b'day... so I couldn't work through all of them).
The chief thing is that b/c of (I think) changes to the NBA schedule Yahoo has a 20 week season this year -- with the only choices for when to start the playoffs (for a league our size) as week 21.
This would mean an unbalanced schedule -- i.e. instead of teams playing each other 1x, each team plays each other team 1x and a single team 2x.
In the past we've voted to avoid this unbalanced schedule.
To do that this year though would mean starting the league's season in Week 2 and going to Week 20 (a 19-week season) and start the playoffs in Week 20.
We tried starting at week 2 before and it was terrible. Everyone is pumped to start the season, but we have to wait out the first week. I would rather start the playoffs a week earlier.
Mk
Well I'd like to win the league every year... :o
As i mentioned in my post (see bold) the Yahoo setup this year -- for whatever reason only allows for starting the playoffs in Week 21.
That means either (a) having an unbalanced 20-week sched or (b) having a balanced 19 week sched, starting in week 2.
Either way the playoffs start in week 21 -- bc that's the only option Yahoo gives a league or size (i.e. W 8 playoff teams).
-
I'd like to propose a daily waiver system. I feel outside of the first day of picking players off the waiver wire, waiver order has very little importance. I'd like to see the waiver order mean more through out the year. This system would be more in line with the way fantasy football does weekly waivers just our league would do them daily.
The thing I like about this is that it lessens the "first-to-the-computer" dynamic for picking up FAs.
Though that's less of an issue than in a baseball league for example. I don't know that I can think of a guy I missed out on last year for that reason.
On the other hand, I fear it might have a negative impact on teams adding FAs and/or taking a flier on a guy (already a bit of an issue IMO)
for example, early last season I added JaVale McGee to see how he'd play out -- I'm unlikely to take that kind of chance if I have a high waiver priority.
Does this end up having a negative impact on player movement-- especially among the bottom teams?
--
FWIW, outside of the initial Waiver Wire rush -- there were only 27 players added off waivers last year out of ~ 250 players added throughout the season.
-
Am I in this league?
-
Am I in this league?
No... this is the league you're looking for (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=90603.0). (said with a cool Ben Kenobi voice...)
-
for whatever reason only allows for starting the playoffs in Week 21.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/918d97a5f5b63e2cd2ef90802ccfce8b/tenor.gif)
That means either (a) having an unbalanced 20-week sched or (b) having a balanced 19 week sched, starting in week 2.
(http://49.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lc30jvzzBK1qe0eclo1_250.gif)
Seriously though, I vote for the unbalanced 20 games schedule. The more games the better.
On a more interesting topic...
(https://i.imgflip.com/1unhn3.jpg)
Mk
-
I'd like to propose a daily waiver system. I feel outside of the first day of picking players off the waiver wire, waiver order has very little importance. I'd like to see the waiver order mean more through out the year. This system would be more in line with the way fantasy football does weekly waivers just our league would do them daily.
The thing I like about this is that it lessens the "first-to-the-computer" dynamic for picking up FAs.
Though that's less of an issue than in a baseball league for example. I don't know that I can think of a guy I missed out on last year for that reason.
On the other hand, I fear it might have a negative impact on teams adding FAs and/or taking a flier on a guy (already a bit of an issue IMO)
for example, early last season I added JaVale McGee to see how he'd play out -- I'm unlikely to take that kind of chance if I have a high waiver priority.
Does this end up having a negative impact on player movement-- especially among the bottom teams?
--
FWIW, outside of the initial Waiver Wire rush -- there were only 27 players added off waivers last year out of ~ 250 players added throughout the season.
Those are good counter points about it might hinder some other player movement. But the first to the computer aspect is what I was trying to minimize. Even though I was first to get there when linsanity was going on in the middle of his game.
Is there a way to have the players be on waivers from the start of the first game to 3am? Then after that they are free agents until 7pm when the first games start. Id assume this wouldnt be possible on yahoo, but that way you could still add free agents during the day without burning your good waiver number.
-
That means either (a) having an unbalanced 20-week sched or (b) having a balanced 19 week sched, starting in week 2.
(http://49.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lc30jvzzBK1qe0eclo1_250.gif)
Seriously though, I vote for the unbalanced 20 games schedule. The more games the better.
Here's what I'm considering -- if Yahoo allows it:
Setting things up so that teams w/ the best records last year play each other that 2nd time. It's imperfect but better than the 4th team from last year randomly getting the worst team from last year IMO.
1 vs 2
3 vs 4
etc.
I might even make it so that that matchup happens in the middle of the season or something for 2 consecutive weeks?
Thoughts?
-
On a more interesting topic...
(https://i.imgflip.com/1unhn3.jpg)
Mk
Next week or the one after -- or when DKC NYK stops picking' on me -- whichever comes first.
-
I would probably support the 20 week season. I'd be fine either way. On second thought...people are trying to make the playoffs (and tank) that last week. Maybe balanced 19 is better
-
Seriously though, I vote for the unbalanced 20 games schedule. The more games the better.
Same. I'll never be on board with starting Week 2. The imbalance doesn't bother me. If memory serves, it's only even been in the past two seasons that Yahoo has condensed the two weeks around the All Star break into a - perfect for us - 20 week schedule. Strength of schedule is a realty across sports.
-
On a more interesting topic...
(https://i.imgflip.com/1unhn3.jpg)
Mk
Next week or the one after -- or when DKC NYK stops picking' on me -- whichever comes first.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/fe560b3be1e74ebde1fab1493b0bd320/tenor.gif)
Mk
-
Do we have a tentative draft date?
-
Do we have a tentative draft date?
Let's do it!
-
Do we have a tentative draft date?
Let's do it!
Sorry everyone -- work has been brutal the last two weeks.
Are there any objections to Wed. Sept 6 or Thur. Sept 7 from 12-5pm E.S.T.?
-
Do we have a tentative draft date?
Let's do it!
Sorry everyone -- work has been brutal the last two weeks.
Are there any objections to Wed. Sept 6 or Thur. Sept 7 from 12-5pm E.S.T.?
Works for me!
-
Do we have a tentative draft date?
Let's do it!
Sorry everyone -- work has been brutal the last two weeks.
Are there any objections to Wed. Sept 6 or Thur. Sept 7 from 12-5pm E.S.T.?
Any date is fine by me.
I am travelling on the 6th and away in deep wood Maine fishing through the 10th. If the draft is on the 6th, depending on the time of the #10 selection, I may be able to make it. If not or the date of the draft is 7th-10th, I will send a list.
Mk
-
Middle of the work day? I suppose if I must I must
-
Do we have a tentative draft date?
Let's do it!
Sorry everyone -- work has been brutal the last two weeks.
Are there any objections to Wed. Sept 6 or Thur. Sept 7 from 12-5pm E.S.T.?
Both work for me.
-
Do we have a tentative draft date?
Let's do it!
Sorry everyone -- work has been brutal the last two weeks.
Are there any objections to Wed. Sept 6 or Thur. Sept 7 from 12-5pm E.S.T.?
Both work for me.
Sounds good
-
Both work. Thanks
-
I have no picks so it doesn't matter to me :P
-
I will send I list I will be traveling as well. I am trying to trade my only pick the 11th for a big at moment so I won't have to worry about it.
-
Do we have a tentative draft date?
Poll is up in the main league thread (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=90775.msg2383063#new) for whether to hold the draft on Wed. or Thur of next week.
It will stay open until 11 pm tonight.
----
Remember: If you're unable to attend the draft and you have a pick you can:
(a) send me a list
(b) send a list to another GM and LET ME KNOW THAT GM HAS YOUR LIST!
-
now that the draft is over I'd like to finish things up here.
Dino's amendment was seconded and thrided so I'll add it to the original post as an amendment we'll vote on:
Proposed Amendment #1:
-------------------------------
Once a draft pick is traded, it becomes the absolute property of the acquiring team. Any penalties levied against the prior team for failing the games played audit, will not be set against the traded draft pick.
-
I'd also like to make 2 other proposals based on Yahoo!'s settings:
Proposed Amendment #2:
-------------------------------
Playoff ties will be broken using by overall playoff seed
Reasoning: Our constitution states that when something is not covered we'll use the default Yahoo! settings. So I'd like to make this formalized.
I just saw that there are 2 options for breaking a tie in a playoff series:
- overall playoff seed or
- by the team with the better regular season head-to-head record against their playoff opponent.
In as deep a league like where we only play each other once (and sometimes another team 2x) using head-to-head record from a single week (which is, of course, subject to variance, luck, IRL schedules, fluke injuries, etc.) makes less sense to me than overall record. Whereas overall record (i.e. playoff seed) is a much better gauge of a season-long success.
(In the NBA where you might play another team 3-5 times h2h record makes more sense.)
Theorhetically in our league a team could lose a single category all year, go 209-1-10 (i.e. undefeated in 18 weeks, and 0-1-10 in the other week), get the top seed and lose a 5-5 series (even in the title round) against the #8 seed who happened to be the team to beat them 1-0-10.
That seems out of whack.... IMO ties should go to the team with the better overall record (ie. higher playoff seed).
I don't know that we've ever had this problem but would rather avoid it.
-
Proposed Amendment #3:
-------------------------------
When Yahoo! does not allow for a 19-week schedule (i.e. one where each team plays every other team only once) the second matchup shall be determined by the previous season's record — where #1 will play #2 twice, #3 will play #4 twice, etc.
Reasoning: Our constitution states that when something is not covered we'll use the default Yahoo! settings. So I'd also like to make this formalized.
Again I'd prefer to move away from randomness in determining the outcome of the league.
Rather than a good team, randomly, getting to play the worst team twice — the "best" teams should have a harder schedule and have to play the other "best" teams twice to even things out.
I realize a team from the previous season can jump or drop in the standings the following year, but previous year's record still seems like a better method to determine a 2nd matchup (and it's relatively easy to do in the league settings.)
-
Proposed Amendment #3:
-------------------------------
When Yahoo! does not allow for a 19-week schedule (i.e. one where each team plays every other team only once) the second matchup shall be determined by the previous season's record — where #1 will play #2 twice, #3 will play #4 twice, etc.
Reasoning: Our constitution states that when something is not covered we'll use the default Yahoo! settings. So I'd also like to make this formalized.
Again I'd prefer to move away from randomness in determining the outcome of the league.
Rather than a good team, randomly, getting to play the worst team twice — the "best" teams should have a harder schedule and have to play the other "best" teams twice to even things out.
I realize a team from the previous season can jump or drop in the standings the following year, but previous year's record still seems like a better method to determine a 2nd matchup (and it's relatively easy to do in the league settings.)
I'll second this but contingent on clarifying what #1, #2, etc means. Are we talking about regular season record or playoff finish (which is what Yahoo defaults to using for end of season rankings)?
-
Proposed Amendment #3:
-------------------------------
When Yahoo! does not allow for a 19-week schedule (i.e. one where each team plays every other team only once) the second matchup shall be determined by the previous season's record — where #1 will play #2 twice, #3 will play #4 twice, etc.
Reasoning: Our constitution states that when something is not covered we'll use the default Yahoo! settings. So I'd also like to make this formalized.
Again I'd prefer to move away from randomness in determining the outcome of the league.
Rather than a good team, randomly, getting to play the worst team twice — the "best" teams should have a harder schedule and have to play the other "best" teams twice to even things out.
I realize a team from the previous season can jump or drop in the standings the following year, but previous year's record still seems like a better method to determine a 2nd matchup (and it's relatively easy to do in the league settings.)
I'll second this but contingent on clarifying what #1, #2, etc means. Are we talking about regular season record or playoff finish (which is what Yahoo defaults to using for end of season rankings)?
As I put in the amendment text I am proposing regular season record.
-
Proposed Amendment #3:
-------------------------------
When Yahoo! does not allow for a 19-week schedule (i.e. one where each team plays every other team only once) the second matchup shall be determined by the previous season's record — where #1 will play #2 twice, #3 will play #4 twice, etc.
Reasoning: Our constitution states that when something is not covered we'll use the default Yahoo! settings. So I'd also like to make this formalized.
Again I'd prefer to move away from randomness in determining the outcome of the league.
Rather than a good team, randomly, getting to play the worst team twice — the "best" teams should have a harder schedule and have to play the other "best" teams twice to even things out.
I realize a team from the previous season can jump or drop in the standings the following year, but previous year's record still seems like a better method to determine a 2nd matchup (and it's relatively easy to do in the league settings.)
I'll second this but contingent on clarifying what #1, #2, etc means. Are we talking about regular season record or playoff finish (which is what Yahoo defaults to using for end of season rankings)?
As I put in the amendment text I am proposing regular season record.
I figured that's what you meant but wanted to be sure, mainly because of the mention of Yahoo defaults. Seconded.
-
Proposed Amendment #3:
-------------------------------
When Yahoo! does not allow for a 19-week schedule (i.e. one where each team plays every other team only once) the second matchup shall be determined by the previous season's record — where #1 will play #2 twice, #3 will play #4 twice, etc.
Reasoning: Our constitution states that when something is not covered we'll use the default Yahoo! settings. So I'd also like to make this formalized.
Again I'd prefer to move away from randomness in determining the outcome of the league.
Rather than a good team, randomly, getting to play the worst team twice — the "best" teams should have a harder schedule and have to play the other "best" teams twice to even things out.
I realize a team from the previous season can jump or drop in the standings the following year, but previous year's record still seems like a better method to determine a 2nd matchup (and it's relatively easy to do in the league settings.)
I'll second this but contingent on clarifying what #1, #2, etc means. Are we talking about regular season record or playoff finish (which is what Yahoo defaults to using for end of season rankings)?
As I put in the amendment text I am proposing regular season record.
I figured that's what you meant but wanted to be sure, mainly because of the mention of Yahoo defaults. Seconded.
Third.
Mk
-
Proposed Amendment #1:
-------------------------------
Once a draft pick is traded, it becomes the absolute property of the acquiring team. Any penalties levied against the prior team for failing the games played audit, will not be set against the traded draft pick.
OK, here's how I wrote the actual amendment -- I though it made more sense to put in the Audit section than in the trades section:
Constitutional Amendment #1
Revised vote totals needed for amendments
-------------------------------
8. At the end of the season the commissioner will conduct an Games Played Audit of the 12 non-playoff teams. For each player with either an O-Rank or Season (total) Rank of 100 or better which misses more than 20 games that he plays in real life (i.e. Basketball Reference “games played” minus Y! Team Log “GP” > 20 games) that team shall be penalized 5 post-lottery draft spots for any first round picks they own, which become their property once traded for. GMs may appeal this penalty to the league. Reversal requires an majority vote (i.e. 11 votes).2.
Proposed by DinoGanja, seconded by Fairweatherfan
additions in bold italic red
deletions are bold and struckthrough
consent additions in bold blue
I figured this was the easiest, most word economical way to write it. Since a team who receives a pick (or a 2nd or 3rd pick) could also fail the audit and I think should therefore be penalized on their trade-for picks (if they have any) too.
Is this clear enough or do we need to be explicit that penalties assessed are on the owning team, not the originiating team?
You OK with that DinoGanja as the maker of the amendment?
-
Amendment 1 looks like to a solid attempt discourage blatant tanking. That's definitely a good thing. But, at this early stage, it's also a bit frustrating to be on the opposing end. I understand that this can't be properly considered until after this season, but just my 2 cents.
Example: If I win by a large margin any given week because my opposition was benching players, that will still negatively affect my draft position. Pretty frustrating for those that are actively trying to dig ourselves out of the dregs.
Edit: I'll add that a player may have a very good season but fall just outside the top 100 per O-rank. In addition, injuries could skew said players performance any given week (e.g., Jaylen Brown's 23 shot attempts in game 1).