Jump to content

FFMD Season 2021: What would you like to see?


EaglesPeteC

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

I think the GM needs to just be clear how he is going to use his staff.

Personally, I do voting because I view myself as the delicate for the Eagles forum. If a GM wants to listen to his war room and make the final call then that is also fine as long as he clearly communicates it to his war room.

most saltiness comes from the war room believing it’s a voting thing and a GM thinking he should get final say. Just be clear how you want to run your war room from the start. 

Yes...we have seen this a few times.  Maybe not giving the GM the ability to make that call but a team war room vote on how they want it to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I may have a solution to the pitch idea that even prevents the need for an "agency".  I've been smoking so if this sounds crazy I'll understand.

You wanna write a pitch to get bonus points in the bidding process, then the pitch would be required to be posted in a dedicated public thread prior to the bidding round deadline.  This exposes who the team is potentially targeting, creating a little game planning with the war rooms.  We limit this to one post per fa round, only to be used when two or more bids, say in the range of a 2-5% difference and a public vote from anyone willing to take the time to vote on it determines the best pitch.  I'd suggest providing a structured format to receive all pitches to make for easier reading for those taking the time to read it.  

This provides the ones that prefer to include a pitch the option to do so, without going balls deep.

It creates a debate on whether to use the pitch on a targeted player or as a disguise. 

It's transparent and would only come into play on a handful of transactions.  If we like it we can expand upon it next year. 

Anyway, imho.  If we're going to use any form of a pitch, this would be the way to do it.

@EaglesPeteC

 

Edited by ny92mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, EaglesPeteC said:

I think the GM needs to just be clear how he is going to use his staff.

Personally, I do voting because I view myself as the delicate for the Eagles forum. If a GM wants to listen to his war room and make the final call then that is also fine as long as he clearly communicates it to his war room.

most saltiness comes from the war room believing it’s a voting thing and a GM thinking he should get final say. Just be clear how you want to run your war room from the start. 

Agree 100%

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ny92mike said:

I think I may have a solution to the pitch idea that even prevents the need for an "agency".  I've been smoking so if this sounds crazy I'll understand.

You wanna write a pitch to get bonus points in the bidding process, then the pitch would be required to be posted in a dedicated public thread prior to the bidding round deadline.  This exposes who the team is potentially targeting, creating a little game planning with the war rooms.  We limit this to one post per fa round, only to be used when two or more bids, say in the range of a 2-5% difference and a public vote from anyone willing to take the time to vote on it determines the best pitch.  I'd suggest providing a structured format to receive all pitches to make for easier reading for those taking the time to read it.  

This provides the ones that prefer to include a pitch the option to do so, without going balls deep.

It creates a debate on whether to use the pitch on a targeted player or as a disguise. 

It's transparent and would only come into play on a handful of transactions.  If we like it we can expand upon it next year. 

Anyway, imho.  If we're going to use any form of a pitch, this would be the way to do it.

@EaglesPeteC

 

@Deadpulse / @scar988 / @squire12

Any feedback on this suggestion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ny92mike said:

@Deadpulse / @scar988 / @squire12

Any feedback on this suggestion?

My suggestion would be to add something to the workbook for “role” either starter, role player or backup (we can add or debate others) that can add some bonus to help break ties or close bids.

In a case of an exact matching bid, we can ask the GM’s for pitches 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

My suggestion would be to add something to the workbook for “role” either starter, role player or backup (we can add or debate others) that can add some bonus to help break ties or close bids.

In a case of an exact matching bid, we can ask the GM’s for pitches 

So what is the incentive for a GM to not check the starter box?

I'm signing players to compete for starting spots, at least early on in FA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

My suggestion would be to add something to the workbook for “role” either starter, role player or backup (we can add or debate others) that can add some bonus to help break ties or close bids.

In a case of an exact matching bid, we can ask the GM’s for pitches 

We have a few things in play already.  If you recall we used the bid number to break some matching offers.  For example if I bid 2 million on a player using bid slot one and someone else uses the second bid slot for the same amount.  Id be awarded because I put the player in a higher priority bid slot.

I'm down to look at other methods 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

My suggestion would be to add something to the workbook for “role” either starter, role player or backup (we can add or debate others) that can add some bonus to help break ties or close bids.

In a case of an exact matching bid, we can ask the GM’s for pitches 

The only issue I have with added roles like starter is it would require us to check the depth constantly to make sure the play stays there.  Just seems like added work to keep track of.  

For example I check starter and a week later I move him to depth or just adjust it at the end of the season.  

Signed devils advocate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ny92mike said:

I think I may have a solution to the pitch idea that even prevents the need for an "agency".  I've been smoking so if this sounds crazy I'll understand.

You wanna write a pitch to get bonus points in the bidding process, then the pitch would be required to be posted in a dedicated public thread prior to the bidding round deadline.  This exposes who the team is potentially targeting, creating a little game planning with the war rooms.  We limit this to one post per fa round, only to be used when two or more bids, say in the range of a 2-5% difference and a public vote from anyone willing to take the time to vote on it determines the best pitch.  I'd suggest providing a structured format to receive all pitches to make for easier reading for those taking the time to read it. 

Who is deciding on the bonus for each pitch?

Feels like that gets back to favoring some teams or GM based on things we are trying to avoid.

Public vote just leads to voting for friends issues or teams in my division type setups.

 

 

14 hours ago, ny92mike said:

 

This provides the ones that prefer to include a pitch the option to do so, without going balls deep.

It creates a debate on whether to use the pitch on a targeted player or as a disguise. 

It's transparent and would only come into play on a handful of transactions.  If we like it we can expand upon it next year. 

Anyway, imho.  If we're going to use any form of a pitch, this would be the way to do it.

@EaglesPeteC

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

Who is deciding on the bonus for each pitch?

Feels like that gets back to favoring some teams or GM based on things we are trying to avoid.

Public vote just leads to voting for friends issues or teams in my division type setups.

 

 

 

The pitch value would be a fixed %. 2 to 5% so offers would need to be really close in value for it to even apply.

I get the public vote was just suggesting an alterative to requiring an agent.  Its not the pitch I fear its the adding of agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw I'm perfectly happy with running the fa like weve done in tcmd since we started.  It works we know it works and it rarely leads to any arguments.  Just looking at options to appease the ones that would like to see some form of a pitch without getting wild with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ny92mike said:

The pitch value would be a fixed %. 2 to 5% so offers would need to be really close in value for it to even apply.

I get the public vote was just suggesting an alterative to requiring an agent.  Its not the pitch I fear its the adding of agents.

If it is similar to TCMD where any offer either a set % triggers the pitch to come into play that might make some sense.  Then it should go to a "committee " type vote of like 7 or 9 GM that are blinded to which pitch is from which team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, squire12 said:

If it is similar to TCMD where any offer either a set % triggers the pitch to come into play that might make some sense.  Then it should go to a "committee " type vote of like 7 or 9 GM that are blinded to which pitch is from which team.

The reason why I was saying for the pitch to come in early is so that we arent waiting for them to write it so that it doesn't slow anything down.  Guess it probably wouldn't matter since it would be like 5 total if that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just have a committee of 3 to deciders the tie breaker pitches. Me and two others, there likely would not be many.

Overall, this is an important relaunch of FFMD 1, I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel here. We’ve been testing and crafting the TCMD model for years, I’m not trying to roll something out this year that has not been tested and tweaked etc. So overall it’ll be the basic TCMD, model and we can talk about a new wrinkle or whatever but I’m out on any changes beyond that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EaglesPeteC said:

I would just have a committee of 3 to deciders the tie breaker pitches. Me and two others, there likely would not be many.

Overall, this is an important relaunch of FFMD 1, I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel here. We’ve been testing and crafting the TCMD model for years, I’m not trying to roll something out this year that has not been tested and tweaked etc. So overall it’ll be the basic TCMD, model and we can talk about a new wrinkle or whatever but I’m out on any changes beyond that 

Im down for having TCMD for the hardcores to test out new things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...