ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Dynasty NHL => NHL Leagues => Dynasty NHL: Archive => Topic started by: snugerud on January 29, 2015, 02:00:54 PM
-
1) We use a draft lottery to determine draft position. Bottom 1-5 teams get a bonus 10 ballots each, 6-10 get a bonus 5 , 11-15 get a bonus 2, 16-20 no additional ballots. After that we go by standings 16th place team gets 16 ballots. , 15th 15 ballots, and so on.
2) teams can not move up or down more than 5 places, so if you are last place team , the worst draft position you can get is 5th overall , and if you ended 1st in the league the best you can hope for is 15th spot.
2) penalties for intentional tanking, (aka not setting line ups)
First instance - warning
Second instance - warning
Third instance - warning
Forth and any instances after docked 1 ballot in the draft lottery, up to a max of 10 ballots docked.
This would take away incentives to intentionally tank and gives a proportionate penalty towards lines not being set. By setting a max of 10, we protect against new gms getting the shaft in the draft due to poor management by a previous GM that has gone dormant or decides to leave.
-
Backyard uses a lottery and you can check it out here.
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=15463.0
-
yeah we use lottery for my fantrax league as well. We had to out of necessity for the tanking etc or a few bum gm's that weren't setting their lines.
We also use Random.org but instead of using the random number generator we listed the teams however many ballots they have and then randomize,,,, results of a test run below to show.
This would be the finalized draft order -
Philly
Colorado
San Jose Sharks
Montreal
Boston
Florida
Toronto
Edmonton
NYR
Detroit
Pittsburgh
Calgary
Winnipeg
Tampa
LA
Ottawa
List Randomizer
There were 186 items in your list. Here they are in random order:
Philly
Colorado
San Jose Sharks
Montreal
Boston
Colorado
Boston
Florida
Colorado
Colorado
Florida
Colorado
Toronto
Edmonton Oilers
Philly
Montreal
Florida
Colorado
New York Rangers
Boston
Philly
Boston
Boston
Colorado
Toronto
Montreal
Montreal
Toronto
Toronto
Detroit Red Wings
Boston
Montreal
Montreal
Pittsburgh Penguins
Florida
New York Rangers
Colorado
Calgary Flames
Boston
Toronto
Montreal
Colorado
Montreal
Winnipeg Jets
Toronto
Colorado
Colorado
Boston
New York Rangers
Montreal
Boston
Florida
Calgary Flames
Tampa Bay Lightning
Boston
Detroit Red Wings
Colorado
Florida
Montreal
Los Angeles Kings
Boston
Florida
New York Rangers
Montreal
Toronto
San Jose Sharks
San Jose Sharks
Philly
Boston
Tampa Bay Lightning
Philly
Detroit Red Wings
Colorado
Montreal
Florida
Toronto
Colorado
Edmonton Oilers
Detroit Red Wings
New York Rangers
Los Angeles Kings
Winnipeg Jets
Detroit Red Wings
Florida
San Jose Sharks
Montreal
Florida
Philly
San Jose Sharks
Toronto
Florida
Los Angeles Kings
Calgary Flames
Boston
San Jose Sharks
Boston
Montreal
Boston
Calgary Flames
Colorado
Winnipeg Jets
Montreal
Toronto
Calgary Flames
Montreal
Florida
Los Angeles Kings
Toronto
Toronto
Winnipeg Jets
Detroit Red Wings
Pittsburgh Penguins
Boston
Tampa Bay Lightning
Florida
Florida
Montreal
Calgary Flames
Toronto
Colorado
Colorado
Toronto
Calgary Flames
Boston
Los Angeles Kings
Boston
Montreal
Florida
Montreal
Ottawa Senators
Colorado
Calgary Flames
Colorado
San Jose Sharks
Philly
Detroit Red Wings
Florida
Pittsburgh Penguins
San Jose Sharks
Montreal
Florida
Toronto
Montreal
Winnipeg Jets
San Jose Sharks
Florida
Colorado
Colorado
Boston
Boston
Toronto
Florida
Boston
Boston
Florida
Philly
Florida
Montreal
Boston
Toronto
Toronto
Boston
Toronto
Detroit Red Wings
Toronto
Florida
Winnipeg Jets
Philly
Toronto
Colorado
Toronto
Toronto
Philly
Tampa Bay Lightning
Calgary Flames
Winnipeg Jets
Florida
Boston
Los Angeles Kings
Colorado
Colorado
Toronto
Toronto
Toronto
Calgary Flames
Philly
-
I'm not opposed to the idea. I'll post more thoughts on it later.
I don't think we need the penalties. Not starting players on your 30 man roster is straight up against the rules. It's not a written rule I don't believe, but doing that is basically going inactive, and I have always replaced inactive teams. Keeping active players in your minors legally to minimize your scoring is a legal form of tanking which has been utilized. Not starting a guy like Ovechkin would be an active form of illegal tanking. If a team was doing it, I'd replace them. Might as well keep it black or white instead of adding more rules for tanking specifically.
-
Besides, adding a lottery would be a form of preventing tanking. Adding the penalties would be doubling down on it.
-
yeah, that was mostly for the league I run. Its basically a bunch of Sean Averys looking for ways to skirt the rules. if its not in writing its fair game.
Do you mean tanking in leaving Malkin on my IR for the rest of the season? ha ha.
I do have a reason,, its not to tank, basically freeing cap to lump some buyouts before the end of the season.
-
yeah, that was mostly for the league I run. Its basically a bunch of Sean Averys looking for ways to skirt the rules. if its not in writing its fair game.
Do you mean tanking in leaving Malkin on my IR for the rest of the season? ha ha.
I do have a reason,, its not to tank, basically freeing cap to lump some buyouts before the end of the season.
Malkin was added to IR legally. You can leave him there for the rest of the season whether he plays or not. I will force him back onto your roster in the offseason if he's healthy. That's legal tanking to me.
A situation could also occur where you put Malkin on IR, then sign some FA's and when Malkin's healthy you don't have the cap to move him to your active roster. I don't want to get involved in trying to sort that out which is part of the reason I don't force you to activate players from IR whether they are healthy or not.
-
I do have a reason,, its not to tank, basically freeing cap to lump some buyouts before the end of the season.
That's definitely something that I would do if I was in your shoes.
-
Is this the NBA now lol. I think blatant tanking can be handled without a lottery. For example, my team was sold off for young players for a rebuild. I still am able to field a lineup. Same thing with FLA last year. I don't think I've seen a team tank on purpose. If there is an issue a GM should be told about it and have it fixed. I don't think a lottery is needed.
-
Is this the NBA now lol. I think blatant tanking can be handled without a lottery. For example, my team was sold off for young players for a rebuild. I still am able to field a lineup. Same thing with FLA last year. I don't think I've seen a team tank on purpose. If there is an issue a GM should be told about it and have it fixed. I don't think a lottery is needed.
I'm not saying it will happen, but if we did add some sort of lottery it wouldn't happen this year.
I'm on the fence. I kinda agree with Chris here.
-
trading all you good players for picks and prospects is the only tanking I have seen so I don't think a lottery is needed and if we put one in place I might have to leave the league.
-
trading all you good players for picks and prospects is the only tanking I have seen so I don't think a lottery is needed and if we put one in place I might have to leave the league.
Sorry guys, I wasn't trying to suggest anyone has or is intentionally tanking their team.
It was something that came up in the league I run and thought it would be proactive to bring it up as a potential rule bend that might happen down the road in this league (intentional or unintentional) or in the case that we are dealing with , you have 2 good teams that otherwise would have finished in the mid rankings but the owners of those teams got busy with life. yada yada yada. Lines have been intermittently set. It hasn't been bad enough that we are saying get rid of the owners since both have been good GMs up to this point but as a league we thought it wasn't necessarily fair to the other teams that probably need the higher picks but had better records due to consistently always having all available players playing. (ours is a very valuable draft, no minors signings,minors are 25 or younger, 80games or less whichever comes first, only 4 picks per team and you can freely move your minors in and out of your lineup) so what was happening was say consistently 2-3 days per week the lines weren't set (missing out on 3-5 player starts per week) Doesn't sound like much but we didn't want to reward inactivity.
-
For me, if I was going to support a rule change like this it would be solely for the fun of it. A lottery would make for an interesting wrinkle in the league. I don't think it would change the way teams rebuild in the least here. It's just not an issue. If you stop starting your active players - I warn you. If you keep doing it - I replace you.
Then again - we already have some randomness to our entry draft process with the keeper draft. I mean... Snuggy got Mackinnon when his team was a front runner. Two thirds of the first round entry draftees are gone before the supplemental even begins! For this reason we might want to make sure the worst teams get the best picks.
-
For me, if I was going to support a rule change like this it would be solely for the fun of it. A lottery would make for an interesting wrinkle in the league. I don't think it would change the way teams rebuild in the least here. It's just not an issue. If you stop starting your active players - I warn you. If you keep doing it - I replace you.
Then again - we already have some randomness to our entry draft process with the keeper draft. I mean... Snuggy got Mackinnon when his team was a front runner. Two thirds of the first round entry draftees are gone before the supplemental even begins! For this reason we might want to make sure the worst teams get the best picks.
Completely agree with Rob here. If I were to vote yes to the lottery, it would be strictly on a curiosity factor to add another wrinkle to the league. I'm just not sure we need it. Great Idea, I'm just not sure we need it with this group of GM's and with the Commish that we have.
-
I'm normally all for adding more rules to create nuance to the league, but I agree with Rob's last assessment that our draft is important and it is especially important that the teams with the lowest record get the highest pick since much of the talent gets siphoned out with our keepers. So, in this instance I would vote to keep it the way we have it.
-
I'm normally all for adding more rules to create nuance to the league, but I agree with Rob's last assessment that our draft is important and it is especially important that the teams with the lowest record get the highest pick since much of the talent gets siphoned out with our keepers. So, in this instance I would vote to keep it the way we have it.
:iatp:
-
I would vote to keep it the way we have it.
I like the fact that we have two types of Drafts (NHL Draft and Suppl Draft). This way the tanking has only half chance to be successfull and the team with the lowest record still has a good chance to get a very good pick from a contracted teams.
:thumbsup: