Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 11:03:08 GMT -5
i dont think different schedules are a good idea as its a weird mixture but then again, this league has that now anyway. cant wait until the next veto vote that gets explained because its not fair and hurts COMPETITIVE BALANCE because the league as a whole just voted in a way that says competitive balance wasnt worth some teams ending a season sooner. can we at least be consistent and dump the stupid veto system? if going to pass up the chance for balanced schedules fair to everyone for a couple games and longer season for those who are going to be out of the playoffs, let people trade and make mistakes (in your opinion since you cant read the future any more than teams in the trade) as they see fit in trading? i dont see how you can hang a banner for competitive balance as the reason anymore since you let a huge competitive balance move get tossed to the side. seriously not a good reason now for the veto system. cant tout competitive balance because if that was the case, seems like a no brainer to have a balanced competitive schedule. since that's not happening, competitive balance as a reason is really weak since not good enough of a reason to make sure the teams that make the playoffs did so on an equal field. axe the veto system, it has no place. competitive balance? please, obviously that isnt the biggest priority here. if want people to have more fun with having more games then let them have more fun with letting them trade for guys even if you think that trade is stupid. certainly no worse for competitive balance than letting some teams play a second game against a crappy team and another playing one against a great team. I don't agree with your statement that if the schedule is unbalanced, there is no need for any balance at all anymore, even if you assume that the schedule is a cause for imbalance. Just because 1 thing isn't perfectly in balance doesn't mean the league shouldn't have any balance at all. As said, having to play 2 teams twice doesn't have to change the competitive balance a whole lot, and that problem has always been there. While I agree we should be careful with selecting the extra 2 games, but it's perfectly possible to do it in a fair way. Removing the voting system on trades has a much bigger impact, so the two should not be linked. If you're concerned that some teams will face 2 strong teams in the extra games, while others will face 2 weak teams, we should just evaluate the schedule carefully until each team has a fair 2 extra matches (maybe 1 strong 1 weak, maybe 2 mediocre). That should be managable and no reason for the schedule to be imbalanced. If you still have problems with your past vetoes and the voting system, try to find 16 owners that agree with you that it should be removed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 14:51:36 GMT -5
its the hypocrisy that gets to me. trades are vetoed because of competitive balance but now a balanced schedule is pushed to the side for two games and a longer season that wont make a difference to most of the 14 teams. Tell me the last trade that was vetoed due to the sole purpose of a disruption in competitive balance. Trades get vetoed for a variety of reasons (please refer to my earlier post), but go back through the previously denied trades and tell me the last time that one was vetoed strictly because it altered the balance of the league. You won't find it. Generally, not every time, but generally, we as Mods do a fair job in explaining our rationale as to why we veto trades. We don't like doing it, but sometimes it is necessary. This is the Fox News defense. You are forming your argument around a claim that is undeniably false. You keep saying the same thing over and over thinking that if you say it enough times that it will become true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 16:00:44 GMT -5
Tell me the last trade that was vetoed due to the sole purpose of a disruption in competitive balance. Trades get vetoed for a variety of reasons (please refer to my earlier post), but go back through the previously denied trades and tell me the last time that one was vetoed strictly because it altered the balance of the league. You won't find it. Generally, not every time, but generally, we as Mods do a fair job in explaining our rationale as to why we veto trades. We don't like doing it, but sometimes it is necessary. This is the Fox News defense. You are forming your argument around a claim that is undeniably false. You keep saying the same thing over and over thinking that if you say it enough times that it will become true. lol, if you are telling me that trades are vetoed because mods just dont like them and even they dont think they affect the league then vetos are dumber than i thought. now i didnt see your previous post so i will address it. first, you used cleveland as an example as a positive and i believe i have shown how that is a negative. unbalanced schedule let him get in because it got a good draw of schedule over a team with a bad draw. yes, it does squash cleveland from getting in late because his extra game was easier, nothing wrong with that. and no, it doesnt stop the little guy, just means he has to do it on the same level as everyone else. in fact, maybe the little guy is hurt by more games because he face a top dog twice while the team he is catching faces a bottom team. maybe the little guy loses a spot late because of a harder schedule. why not make the even feel? second, im not trying to convey trade vetos and schedule are linked in such cause and effect. my reasoning is solely the message or feel of the league. having strict trade vetos makes the league feel serious. having a loose schedule over a balanced tight schedule feels casual. conflict of message sent. why not make the whole league feel serious or feel casual. im not trying to connect the two as cause and effect, just why is one super serious aspect like vetos but then be meh, let schedules fall as they may, who cares if someone gets the short end. makes no sense to me. i dont understand why people would look at the trades that have been vetoed and think they are so bad someone needs to step in. so one team may get better and one worse. guess what, that can happen on trades you let through too. should they be retroactively stopped since you failed to save the team on the losing end when the trade first popped up? of course not, you let it play out. of course that is what should happen with the trades you veto too. i dont understand why people with that serious way of running a league would want an unbalanced schedule when the chance arrises over two games. if you dont want an owner to run a team into the ground because they make bad moves, why would you want to screw over a team trying hard to make the playoffs because they had a worse schedule. hawks seems to tried their best last year and their reward was to be tied with two teams with easier schedules and watch them in the playoffs, one of which would win it. maybe that should have been in. so the concern is so a team doesnt run themselves in the ground but no concern that those doing their best who get screwed by the schedule. seems stupid to care so much about one part of the league and so little for the other. its funny you mention cavs though even though i would think the obvious thing is to show concern for hawks getting a bad draw. but hey, as long as maybe a team that shouldnt have made the playoffs in a fair schedule gets in, thats a cool way to do things. lets look happily at the team that benefited and ignore the team that got the short end. in fact, give me the hardest schedule possible because i personally dont want to win one because i got a lucky draw. id prefer everyone got the same draw but i certainly dont want to win one because of a lucky schedule ill drop it though, ive said my piece. I think we mostly need to agree to disagree, though I must say that you can't compare 1 trade to the schedule to compare the impact. You need to compare ALL trades, because that's what removing the voting system will cause. Removing that will result in some super strong teams that tend to get the best out of trades all the time, and worthless teams that end up without owner, because it's losing consecutive trades. Then, when the time has no trade value and sits at the bottom, if the owner leaves it's hard to find someone who's willing to rebuild the team. Many times someone will join, attempt a few trades (possible making the team even worse) and then leave again. That has a huge impact on the balance, much more than 2 random games.
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Oaks on Oct 18, 2013 21:00:01 GMT -5
Just thought i'd digress here back to the question i've asked at the start of every season - why not go Each Cat instead of Most Cat? It would make the whole W-L record thing (and DAL's absurdities) insignificant. Parity would reign supreme. It would signal the dawn of the Age of Black and White Handshake Clipart. Praise be.
Could we stop bitching about trades in the league schedule convo also? Maybe do like usual and wait until your trade gets vetoed before moaning? This is just too random otherwise. Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2013 23:53:41 GMT -5
Essentially, Dallas, this is your argument:
Choice A is diet soda Choice B is regular soda
Choice A is, in theory, slightly better for you. The league votes for B.
"Well, if we're going to go with regular soda, we might as well just start snorting blow, shooting heroin, and doing meth."
It's like a wookie living on Endor. It does not make sense.
Life ain't fair. Then you die. Deal with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2013 23:09:23 GMT -5
Essentially, Dallas, this is your argument: Choice A is diet soda Choice B is regular soda Choice A is, in theory, slightly better for you. The league votes for B. "Well, if we're going to go with regular soda, we might as well just start snorting blow, shooting heroin, and doing meth." It's like a wookie living on Endor. It does not make sense. Life ain't fair. Then you die. Deal with it. essentially your only 'argument' is to make fun of someone. first it was a crack about not thinking something through as if any amount of thought would come to your conclusion. now you make a stupid analogy to show how far my thinking must be off. so the end conclusion is your argument for your side is so strong you havent actually made a credible argument by specifying any points or counter points to what i say. all you have been able to do is attempt to crack jokes and be insulting. i hear debaters often go for that method when participating in a debate. why make points or counter points to strengthen your side when you can be insulting or imply those against you are not thinking or smart? Listen, man, the burden of the argument is on you. On you! You have to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the imbalanced schedule leads to less competitiveness. Now, I know what you're thinking, "that's unreasonable." No, its not unreasonable. We're talking about a league that's seen ONE trade vetoed this offseason based on merit. I've seen a number of different teams be competitive each year regardless of their schedule and trades being made. I got my doubts too! All right? How come Vegas could lose in the championship round two years in a row, but I win my first year in the playoffs? Mighty hasn't said shit about the schedule. I WANT JUSTICE! All I'm saying is some people think the cucumbers taste better pickled. More importantly, don't you see the danger, Dallas, inherent in what you're trying to do here? The trade system is the most awesome force in this league, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun. If I may, I'll tell you the problem with the argument you are trying to use here, it didn't require any complex thought to use it. You used a key phrase loosely connecting the two, and you skipped a few steps. You didn't think through argument yourself, so you don't focus on the others that pick the argument apart. You decided to engage the person baiting you with pointless assertions, and before you even knew what had happened he laughed at you, responded, laughed at you some more, and made you look like a fool, and now you're getting angry. You're very frustrated. You were so busy trying to blast me for "insulting" you, that you didn't stop think if that was really true. So with all of that, I'll leave you with something my dad always told me. "Son," he'd say, "You can lead a horse to water is like a day without sunshine." And it's as true today as it was on the day of my Bar Mitzvah. And I had the same response then as I do now, "Dad," I said, "That's great, but why am I having a Bar Mitzvah? We're not Jewish." So, ah, there it is.
|
|