Call me crazy (aka additional leagues brainstorming)

[Joelsim]

For some structure: a reminder of (now numbered) potential 2019 changes currently being discussed, plus a new one at the bottom:

1. 1-year contracts for 1st-rounders

My opinion: undecided, but I can see why it came up. After some years we've all become experts. This season Luis destroyed us, but teams 2-10 all finished in that 7300-8300 range. The season before that, the two teams on top of the rankings had Ewan and Gaviria as neos, while no fewer than 7 teams right behind them finished within mere 700 points. To give one of those teams 2 free years of the next superstar is like Christmas and Easter together.

2. 2-year contracts for 2nd-rounders

My opinion: probably unnecessary, it's a sheer lottery. None of us have ever heard of Patrick Müller, Simon Sellier, William Barta, Nicola Conci, Damien Touze, Giovanni Carboni, Matteo Fabbro, Corentin Ermenault, Bram Welten, Valentin Madouas, or Nathan van Hooydonck. We cannot know if they're good enough to become successful pros. Their bosses don't know if they're good enough to become successful pros. They don't know themselves if they're good enough to become successful pros! Also, it's irrelevant that they mostly sign 2-year contracts IRL - this is still a puny fantasy game. And passing remains an option.

3. Snake draft order

My opinion: undecided. The argument that we use it in all other games is irrelevant, because there we start from scratch. Here, kept Pozzovivo at 240k and Kwiato at 610k, that's why the current system is designed specifically to help out those who finished at the bottom as much as possible.

4. Restriction on neo-pro trades

My opinion: undecided. For a quick check on how you feel about it, you can visit the sheet and ask yourself whether my kindergarten squad is good strategizing or rules abuse. Voices above range between Tom's "unless you're new, you should know what you're doing", via Fleur's "2nd year only", all the way to Ace's "entirely illegal, violates the spirit of the game".

5. A brand new brainstorming subject: new definition of neo-pro?

This year suddenly a lot of people are struggling to understand our definition:
"Neo-pro is a rider born in 1995 or later who wasn't on a real-life professional team (WT/ProConti) in spring 2017"
Also, when somebody new joins in the future, things would be easier for them if our definition matched the one used IRL.
If that's something we want to consider, it would require 2 changes: removal of age limit, and taking into account previous seasons too.
I believe the accurate wording would be "Neo-pro is a rider who never spent an entire season with a WT/ProConti team IRL."

Curious to hear your thoughts, but please think twice. Sligthly worried about any Pandora boxes like geezers who happen to have ridden for a conti team for the last decade. Example of neo-pros if the definition changes:
2017 - Dupont http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=7948
2018 - A. Jensen http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=17088
2019 - you-know-who http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=21971

Good post Daniel. Feedback to come.

[TERatcliffe26]

1. I guess you kind of already know my point of this one, its the bonus years of the big riders are the problem for me, over the nurturing of talent for the others

2. I think it depends on the year, but i guess the problem is when you see someone get to keep gavaria but you manage to sneak in a good 2nd round pick but loose then in the bidding the next year and he goes on to score a hatfull. I think it should be the same over both years whether that be both at 2 years or both at 1. Think id prefer both at 1 than both at 2.
(Also I know Barta quite well, but you may know from some of my picks in other games that I follow Axeon and riders who have developed from them, which made me a bit gutted I couldn't get Powless)

3. Again it can depend on the year and also how many teams we have in the game, at a high amount of teams its more irrelevant, but if we were ever to reduce significantly it could make a difference, as better riders would be available in the 2nd round. only one rider on my list made it to the start of 2nd round who Garfield took, however had we had reduced teams to say 14/15 (and the 2nd round order reversed) its possible I could have taken him or either crass or dunbar which would have been massive. But like I say as it stands with a high amount its not so much of a disadvantage

4. you know my stance on this.
Although I totally disagree with Florry's assessment that you can pick up 10-15 riders for next to nothing. There (imo) have been a lot of riders going for 60/70/80k and even higher that in the past would have gone for 30/40k (even the relative nobodies), I think picking up cheap riders has become so hard now

5.I think the rules etc around age are perfectly fine and certainly should not be any increase in ages.
Anyone who is born prior to the year of 1995 as it is this year should be in the normal bidding and left to us to pick up on that potential diamond out there
 

[Florry]

4. you know my stance on this.
Although I totally disagree with Florry's assessment that you can pick up 10-15 riders for next to nothing. There (imo) have been a lot of riders going for 60/70/80k and even higher that in the past would have gone for 30/40k (even the relative nobodies), I think picking up cheap riders has become so hard now

That is my point. It has become so hard to pick up cheap riders, yet Garfield has managed to amass a whole herd of $30k riders that could potentially score a large number of points (especially from last year's perspective, when their potential was even more unknown) through his admittedly smart trading.
Of course, you could see this as a way to make it "easier" to pick up cheap riders with potential to score, you could also say it is against the spirit of the game.

[TERatcliffe26]

I misunderstood what you meant by it. But surely that means that 1 year for picks is better then and takes that away, as if you trade youve only got them for that season and that trade arguement kinda disapears

[Ace]

For some structure: a reminder of (now numbered) potential 2019 changes currently being discussed, plus a new one at the bottom:

1. 1-year contracts for 1st-rounders

2. 2-year contracts for 2nd-rounders

My preference has been the same since the league began; 2 years for 1st round picks, 1 year with a non-guaranteed 2nd year for 2nd round picks.

Additional idea: Open FA a couple of days before the draft for bidding on Neos only, but teams must start the auction at 420k or more. This would prevent anyone getting a rider considered a pretty sure thing to score well for just 30k for 2 seasons.

4. Restriction on neo-pro trades

I of course meant the same as Florry; no trades in first year. The game works better when everyone is trying to field a competitive squad.

[Ace]

Also had an idea for an additional game.

Bid for 1 year contracts (25 man teams) but you can keep any rider at double the cost the following season.

[Garfield]

Thanks for your contributions, guys! Keep them coming, and I'll try to decide something concrete next week.

Bid for 1 year contracts (25 man teams) but you can keep any rider at double the cost the following season.

If I understand correctly, that's 500 separate auctions. Basically another very big game, but not really all that different from the existing main game?

Btw I've been pondering about something else we could do more regularly, but not quite as intense as Wall Street. The best I've come up till now is a little guessing game where before a race (or even a stage) we each have the option to name one rider who'll score for us. Of course the same rider could (and often would) be chosen by multiple people, no problem.

Challenges:

• Scoring would have to be relative, otherwise a single Grand Tour guess annihilates a million other bets.
• Complete lack of activity should hurt you a tiny bit, but not too much. You should be able to dynamically choose your activity level between daily, regular, and occasional.

Example implementation:

• Grand Tour GC: 15 for 1st place, 10 for 2nd, 6 - 3rd, 3 - 4th, 1 - 5th, 0 - no bet or 6th, -1 - 7th, -2 - 8th, -3 - 9th, -4 - 10th or lower.
• World Tour stage race or a monument: 10 for 1st place, 6 for 2nd, 3 - 3rd, 1 - 4th, 0 - no bet or 5th, -1 - 6th, -2 - 7th, -3 - 8th or lower.
• Grand Tour stage or a World Tour one-day race: 4 for 1st place, 2 for 2nd, 1 - 3rd, 0 - no bet or 4th, -1 - 5th, -2 - 6th or lower.
• Any smaller tour/stage, for you Tropicale Amissa Bongo experts out there: 2 for 1st place, 1 for 2nd, 0 - no bet or 3rd, -1 - 4th or lower.

Implementation details:

• If you want to place the first bet in any race, you start a thread with the race name. Others reply.
• You insert your own scores into the score sheet.
• Changes possible until the deadline - midnight local time.

Thoughts?

[DJW14]

For some structure: a reminder of (now numbered) potential 2019 changes currently being discussed, plus a new one at the bottom:

1. 1-year contracts for 1st-rounders

My opinion: undecided, but I can see why it came up. After some years we've all become experts. This season Luis destroyed us, but teams 2-10 all finished in that 7300-8300 range. The season before that, the two teams on top of the rankings had Ewan and Gaviria as neos, while no fewer than 7 teams right behind them finished within mere 700 points. To give one of those teams 2 free years of the next superstar is like Christmas and Easter together.

2. 2-year contracts for 2nd-rounders

My opinion: probably unnecessary, it's a sheer lottery. None of us have ever heard of Patrick Müller, Simon Sellier, William Barta, Nicola Conci, Damien Touze, Giovanni Carboni, Matteo Fabbro, Corentin Ermenault, Bram Welten, Valentin Madouas, or Nathan van Hooydonck. We cannot know if they're good enough to become successful pros. Their bosses don't know if they're good enough to become successful pros. They don't know themselves if they're good enough to become successful pros! Also, it's irrelevant that they mostly sign 2-year contracts IRL - this is still a puny fantasy game. And passing remains an option.

3. Snake draft order

My opinion: undecided. The argument that we use it in all other games is irrelevant, because there we start from scratch. Here, kept Pozzovivo at 240k and Kwiato at 610k, that's why the current system is designed specifically to help out those who finished at the bottom as much as possible.

4. Restriction on neo-pro trades

My opinion: undecided. For a quick check on how you feel about it, you can visit the sheet and ask yourself whether my kindergarten squad is good strategizing or rules abuse. Voices above range between Tom's "unless you're new, you should know what you're doing", via Fleur's "2nd year only", all the way to Ace's "entirely illegal, violates the spirit of the game".

5. A brand new brainstorming subject: new definition of neo-pro?

This year suddenly a lot of people are struggling to understand our definition:
"Neo-pro is a rider born in 1995 or later who wasn't on a real-life professional team (WT/ProConti) in spring 2017"
Also, when somebody new joins in the future, things would be easier for them if our definition matched the one used IRL.
If that's something we want to consider, it would require 2 changes: removal of age limit, and taking into account previous seasons too.
I believe the accurate wording would be "Neo-pro is a rider who never spent an entire season with a WT/ProConti team IRL."

Curious to hear your thoughts, but please think twice. Sligthly worried about any Pandora boxes like geezers who happen to have ridden for a conti team for the last decade. Example of neo-pros if the definition changes:
2017 - Dupont http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=7948
2018 - A. Jensen http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=17088
2019 - you-know-who http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=21971

1/2.: As I mentioned, I would go with option 2. The reason for that is primarily that it rewards knowledge / research, or sometimes just a good hunch. Do I know a lot about Touze? No. But I did watch the u23 WC race this year precisely because it's useful for games like this, so in that sense if he turns out to be a star in the next couple of years then it make sense to be rewarded for that at least a little. Of course sometimes guys will get Gaviria / Ewan and will have a big advantage in the 2nd season, but the point of the game isn't for us all to have equal teams, but to be rewarded for having decent judgement about how riders might progress.

3. Seen as most of us seem to be in agreement that there is probably less than a whole round of well-known neo pros who everyone wants, it seems fair to me if the first round starts with the bottom placed from last season, and then the order is reversed for the second round.

4. Picking neo pros is one of my favourite elements of the game so I don't really see why you would bother trading someone you have just drafted. I would be happy with any of the situations, but do agree that it does go against the spirit of the game somewhat.

5. The definition of "neo-pro", as I have always understood it, is that it is not age limited but refers simply to a rider in their first season at WT or PC level. So MVP and Dupont are fine with me, but not young riders who have been on pro teams, dropped to Conti level then come back up.

The reason I think the "spring" element is confusing is that riders who have been stagiaires in previous years would still be considered neo pros in January 2018. So for me the rule should be:

"At the time of the neo-pro auction, any rider who has previously never ridden on a full year contract for a World Tour or Professional Continental team is eligible".

[glomser]

Thanks for your contributions, guys! Keep them coming, and I'll try to decide something concrete next week.

If I understand correctly, that's 500 separate auctions. Basically another very big game, but not really all that different from the existing main game?

Btw I've been pondering about something else we could do more regularly, but not quite as intense as Wall Street. The best I've come up till now is a little guessing game where before a race (or even a stage) we each have the option to name one rider who'll score for us. Of course the same rider could (and often would) be chosen by multiple people, no problem.

Challenges:

• Scoring would have to be relative, otherwise a single Grand Tour guess annihilates a million other bets.
• Complete lack of activity should hurt you a tiny bit, but not too much. You should be able to dynamically choose your activity level between daily, regular, and occasional.

Example implementation:

• Grand Tour GC: 15 for 1st place, 10 for 2nd, 6 - 3rd, 3 - 4th, 1 - 5th, 0 - no bet or 6th, -1 - 7th, -2 - 8th, -3 - 9th, -4 - 10th or lower.
• World Tour stage race or a monument: 10 for 1st place, 6 for 2nd, 3 - 3rd, 1 - 4th, 0 - no bet or 5th, -1 - 6th, -2 - 7th, -3 - 8th or lower.
• Grand Tour stage or a World Tour one-day race: 4 for 1st place, 2 for 2nd, 1 - 3rd, 0 - no bet or 4th, -1 - 5th, -2 - 6th or lower.
• Any smaller tour/stage, for you Tropicale Amissa Bongo experts out there: 2 for 1st place, 1 for 2nd, 0 - no bet or 3rd, -1 - 4th or lower.

Implementation details:

• If you want to place the first bet in any race, you start a thread with the race name. Others reply.
• You insert your own scores into the score sheet.
• Changes possible until the deadline - midnight local time.

Thoughts?

Do we start with points or do we all start at 0 and after a race we can score or lose points?

But this looks like a predicition game. Maybe we can go for a podium. So you name the winner, second and third. For the winner right you score 5 points, for number 2 you score 4 points and for number 3 you get 3 points, if they are placed on the right spot. If you name someone, but nog on the right place you get only 1 point. example. You guess that Sagan wins the MSR, Colbrelli on 2 and Matthews on 3. Auctually Sagan wins, with Matthews on 2 and Kristoff on 3. Your points will be 5 for Sagan and 1 for Matthews.  I would only take the WC races to guess on and make a sort of overall classement.

[cranky]

Also had an idea for an additional game.

Bid for 1 year contracts (25 man teams) but you can keep any rider at double the cost the following season.

I'd be happy for another game along the above lines to begin. I always find the bidding process more interesting and enjoy following the riders I win more than on other games where we pick through draft.

To reduce the game size you could limit the teams to 20 riders.

You could always include other rules to separate it from the main game as well, if everyone wants something a little different.