No announcement yet.

Orange Mane Mock Draft Free Agent Round Debate

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Orange Mane Mock Draft Free Agent Round Debate

    Hey guys, a little slow around these here parts at the moment, so I figured this would be the best time to get this discussion going.

    The Free Agent round is solid as it stands. If we don't change a thing, it still works. It's not as good as it could be though, so that's the goal of this thread, to figure out how to make it better and then if it's worth doing so.

    Currently every owner gets $100,000 as a FA budget. We do blind bidding, highest bid gets the Free Agent. Minimum bid is $5,000. JCMElway, Bowlenball, and possibly others created these fundamental aspects of the game. They are phenomenal and it's a great starting point.

    Logically, the fallacy lies in that after the initial blind bidding, not everyone will have used up all of their funds. The reality is that anyone wanting to win the game will want to use these funds to obtain as many lotto tickets as possible.

    The question is should owners be punished for bidding on a player and losing? That's essentially what we are doing now. I don't believe that's the best way. The strategy of bidding intelligently and accurately holds up regardless.

    Which brings us to the next question, how do we fix it?

    Last year, we had a FA2 round where leftover funds were allowed to be bid on the remaining crop of Free Agents. This was fun and rewarding, but only a handful (10 maybe) people participated. We can't really count that part of the game if nobody is doing it. So, maybe a FA2 round is just too much.

    Which means, we need to make the original FA round the end-all, be-all.

    This is my suggestion:

    Allow owners to bid over budget (like 200k or even more) but require them to number their prospects/bids in preference. Once they have been rewarded 100k worth of players, they are done. This would allow some flexibility if they keep getting outbid on their preferred prospects and ensure they get some Free Agents. The owners not wanting to really participate in FA still have the option to just front load all their money on a handful of guys and be done with it. The owners that love the FA round can basically roll the concept of a FA2 round in the FA1 round and insure they get their budget's worth of players. This would keep the FA round singular and avoid the situation where too few owners are showing up for a subsequent FA round. If an owner doesn't exhaust his budget, it's his own fault for not putting enough players and bids down. To me, that's better than the game parameters potentially causing someone to not get Free Agents at all even if they participate heavily.

    Now, the downside is that this is more work for Bowlenball or whoever is collecting the Free Agency bids. It's still just spreadsheets, but now it's not as simple as highest bid wins, done. I don't think it's overly complicated though. Now, it's pretty much highest bid gets cross-checked with remaining funds, done. It's another step, but the amount of time will be greatly increased because theoretically there will be many more prospects being bid on. (I think that's a great thing in and of itself). If the amount of work is too daunting though, you could simply increase the minimum bid to $10,000. This would decrease the amount of prospects, possibly by half, that would need to be sorted. I'd rather see it stay at 5k, but I can understand if it needs to be raised to 10k.

    Regardless of the decision on the minimum bid, I see this as the best way to improve the Free Agent round going forward. The only con I can see is the increased amount of work grading, but that's easily handled either by just doing the extra work, getting a volunteer to do the extra work, or increasing the minimum bid.


  • #2


    • #3
      Lots of work IMO.

      I like the way it is, except just as last year, the money that was not used to continue to FA round 2, or just give everyone another 100k.


      • #4
        Originally posted by ludo21 View Post
        Lots of work IMO.

        I like the way it is, except just as last year, the money that was not used to continue to FA round 2, or just give everyone another 100k.
        I don't think FA2 is a realistic option. People just aren't going to stick around for that. It's tough enough trying to convince them to commit for one round.

        So, we have to make that FA round the end-all, be-all.

        The big flaw with the system as is, is that someone could bid on a ton of players and just get unlucky and win none. That person would then likely lose the game not because of effort, but because of FA round constraints, which don't really make a ton of sense logically.

        Now, you seem to admit that's a problem, and offer the way to beat it as having an extra FA round. Which, I don't think we can do. However, the suggestion I made above simply moves the FA2 round into the original round. So, it's pretty much the same general concept that we both want people able to use their full money and get players. By allowing the owners to put in as many bids on players as they want, that insures they will use their full 100k. And if they choose not to put in lots of bids, it was their choice.

        As for giving more money, that's definitely not the answer, it would just double the work across the board.

        You mention "lots of work", and I want to address that.

        For the owners that really don't give a crap about FA and just want to get it done, they can put in like 5-10 bids for players at 50-100k each, and they'll likely get one or two and max out their budget and be done. So, it's not more work for those owners, other than listing a couple more names.

        For owners that want to halfway dig in to the process, they can simply put down 10-20 players at 20-50k each and they'll max out at some point relatively quickly.

        For owners that want to go full draftnik and obscurity, they can put down a ton of players at low bids and they'll eventually max out as well. This actually isn't much more work because history shows the draftniks really go after guys even other draftniks don't care about. They'll just put down a few more obscure names at cheap bids.

        The strategy remains the same as you still have to win the bid for the player. Each owner will still prefer to win the guys he lists the highest. It just makes losing out on a bid not as crippling, while crippling the inequality of one team spending a full 100k, while another gets stuck with 60k still in their pockets. They are willing and able to spend, they just can't. This fixes that.

        Their WILL be more work for whomever is grading, but I can always do it if that's a concern. I'm sure others would volunteer as well. All that needs to be done is one spreadsheet with the players crossed by bids/owners, while a second spreadsheet lists owners/budget remaining. Bowlenball is a smart guy, I don't think he'd have a problem with the work, but if so, I think I could have it done in 3-5 hours at most.


        • #5
          I think it sounds like a fine idea, but the FA round is bowlenball's baby. It is his call!!


          • #6
            I like it.


            • #7
              Been an insane week at work (I think JCMElway and I both got snowed under this March!), sorry for not replying to MUG's proposal earlier.

              I think his proposal is an excellent one -- the FA2 round didn't feel quite right last year, but his idea allows for people to bid on all their desired players simultaneously in the first round, up to a cap of $100,000. So, if you get jumped on a few of your players, we automatically go to the next player on your list. It'll be a bit more work, but not so much that I can't handle it - the key is setting up the spreadsheets right before tabulating bids

              So, if it's OK with everyone else, let's run the UDFA round as follows this year:

              1) Teams submit a full list of desired UDFAs, in order of priority and with bid amounts.
              2) There are no limits to the size of your UDFA list, or the total amount bid (no need for a cap on the total amount bid, right?)
              3) Minimum bid per player remains $5000, Maximum total amount spent in the UDFA round remains $100,000
              4) Players are awarded from the top of your list on down until all $100,000 is spent. Players remaining on your list once your cash is gone are NOT eligible to be awarded to you.

              We've still got a month or two to iron out the final details, but I think the tweaks proposed are pretty solid -- comment in this thread if you'd like any further modifications, and we can finalize the details before starting the UDFA round in late April/early May....


              • #8
                Awesome! Was hoping you'd like the idea. Should make it a ton of fun for half of owners that really get into the FA round. The other half are pretty much unaffected and can just do their massive bidding on a few prospects technique.