Memory aid Thread - Future rule changes proposals

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,134
6,429
Rule #1: Ask those who want to sign up for a specific draft what they want.

The last thing GMs want is a decision based on what non-participants long before came to.
 

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,381
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Quoting myself, once more...
May I put in a word for having (at least) a small number of spares (2-3) and one more non-playing staffer (e.g.: Assistant Coach etc.) as part of OPPF? In the last OPPF, I felt weird about assessing teams that contained players that you KNEW were more likely than not to miss time if playing the equivalent of a full season. In the Main ATD, it's easier to adjust for that. [If 'X' is injured, 'Y' comes out of the press-box and the team continues on...] With no definable 'bench,' it's harder to work that out.
Of course, I recognize that it's (almost certainly) too late to go down this road in THIS draft. However, credit to
VanIslander for at least responding to the suggestion by saying:
We have 20 players (oppf) + one coach (from any franchise) = 21 rounds.
We could add 1 or 2 extra rounds but they should follow one-pick-per-franchise rules.
But 3 seems excessive.
Two's better than nothing(!) At least we can consider the conversation started.

I have an opinion- a pretty strong one, about tying coaches to franchises-

I don't like it. At all. Reason being- OPPF is a good place for people new to drafting to get their start. Granted, there's the multi-dimensional element of working out the intersections between Franchise Depth/Scarcity, Positional Requirements, and Ordinal Priority Per Position [a LOT of angles to consider!], BUT in return for that, people only need to figure assessments out to c. 400-500 or so, and not the 1000+ that we had in the most recent ATD. Adding a Franchise Stricture to Coaches in the OPPF-draft adds additional complexity to the equation and requires the application of additional skill. It shouldn't be surprising that the proposal could be popular with experienced participants.

Digression: "McGrath's Law." Back, oh- about four decades ago, the Vermont Chess Association was the perhaps the most dynamic one in America- so much so that it was featured in the National Magazine. It was headed by a fellow named "McGrath." When asked about the ingredients that made that organization so burgeoning, he quipped that a key to their success was the following policy:

1) Listen carefully to how your strongest players want the Organization to be run.
2) Do the opposite.

Proposals such as allowing Trading in the main ATD and tying Coaches to Franchises here reminded me of "McGrath's Law."
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Quoting myself, once more...
Of course, I recognize that it's (almost certainly) too late to go down this road in THIS draft. However, credit to
VanIslander for at least responding to the suggestion by saying:

Two's better than nothing(!) At least we can consider the conversation started.

I have an opinion- a pretty strong one, about tying coaches to franchises-

I don't like it. At all. Reason being- OPPF is a good place for people new to drafting to get their start. Granted, there's the multi-dimensional element of working out the intersections between Franchise Depth/Scarcity, Positional Requirements, and Ordinal Priority Per Position [a LOT of angles to consider!], BUT in return for that, people only need to figure assessments out to c. 400-500 or so, and not the 1000+ that we had in the most recent ATD. Adding a Franchise Stricture to Coaches in the OPPF-draft adds additional complexity to the equation and requires the application of additional skill. It shouldn't be surprising that the proposal could be popular with experienced participants.

Digression: "McGrath's Law." Back, oh- about four decades ago, the Vermont Chess Association was the perhaps the most dynamic one in America- so much so that it was featured in the National Magazine. It was headed by a fellow named "McGrath." When asked about the ingredients that made that organization so burgeoning, he quipped that a key to their success was the following policy:

1) Listen carefully to how your strongest players want the Organization to be run.
2) Do the opposite.

Proposals such as allowing Trading in the main ATD and tying Coaches to Franchises here reminded me of "McGrath's Law."

Allowing trading in the main ATD is not a proposal, in the sense that it was done many times before. It added a lot of flexibility and dynamism to the team-building experience.

I understand why it needed to be shut down at some point, but I for one would welcome it back with open arms.

In other news, this McGrath's Law could apply to society, where the "strongest players" are the ultra-rich.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->