CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

[leftypower]

@FaCe-LeE-uS @averagejoe @Yellow Fuzzies @SteelersPride @Ram Tough @MilkSpiller22 @TREFF @tlance @Bandit@TKOSpikes @SoShady @broncosmitty @Sam Sportboy @leftypower @Barilko @Trudem @SmokingMonkey @HaroldSeattle@femurov @ehb5 @Chef99 @bksballer89 @Stomp @obxyankeefan

If anyone has an amendment they wish to be considered please state in this manner; 1. specific section and current wording, 2. Proposed change wording, 3. Rationale. Remember the item(s) must gain support from the group which will be noted here. Gaining such support the item will then be put up for vote (2/3 majority must be obtained to carry). I'd like to have these in the next couple of weeks so we can kick off the process. ....

 

[Bandit]

I propose the following amendment regarding relegation and how many teams move up and down. Last year Trudem finished no worse than 2nd in all the power categories, but since he didn't win the championship he stayed in the B league. EHB was the only team moving up because he finished 1st under all the criteria and TKO got to stay in the A league even though he really did have a shitty season and there's no way he's going to argue with me about that. My proposal is to tweak it a little bit so what happened to Trudem last year wouldn't happen again. Right now it's this:

VI. Relegation:
i. In normal circumstances, two teams will move up from the B league to the A league and two teams will move down from the A league to the B league. Teams moving down will be determined by power rankings. In the event of a tie, H2H will be the first tiebreaker, breakdown record will be the second tiebreaker, total points the third tiebreaker -- and if we still have a tie, activity level will determine.
ii. The two teams moving up from the B League will go according to these criteria:
1. Champion
2. Regular season breakdown leader
3. Top seed
4. Regular season power rankings leader (this is redundant because if you are the top seed and the breakdown leader, you are going to be the power rankings leader)
5. Regular season points leader
iii. If the B League champion meets all the other criteria, only a single team moves up (and only a single team moves down). Otherwise, the other B League team with the top-most criterion also moves up. (In the unlikely event of a tie activity level will determine).
iv. To Spice Things Up - If in the regular season the B league outscores the A league by 168 points, FOUR teams move instead of two. If that happens, and the B League criteria above doesn't provide four teams, we'll use playoff seeding for the rest.

I propose this change:

Remove the #4 from right now, move Regular season points leader up a spot, and add #5

4. Regular season power rankings leader (this is redundant because if you are the top seed and the breakdown leader, you are going to be the power rankings leader)

1. Champion
2. Regular season breakdown leader
3. Top seed
4. Regular season points leader
5. Any team that ends the regular season with a power ranking of 32.5 or above

In order to have a power ranking that high, you would have to finish 2nd by yourself in two of the categories for points, breakdown, or record and finish no worse than tied for 2nd in the only category that you didn't finish 2nd in. It still keeps the criteria very high, but if you have a 2nd dominant team, they would still get to move up. For example, last year Trudem finished tied for 1st in record (11.5 power), 2nd in points (11 power), and 2nd in breakdown (11 power) for a total power ranking of 33.5, so he would have moved up under the new criteria. Even if he had finished tied for 2nd in record (10.5 power) he still would have moved up with a 32.5 power ranking, but if he had fallen into a three way tie for 2nd in record (10 power) then he would have only had a 32 power ranking which would have left him short. Like I said, it doesn't change a lot, but I think if you have two dominant teams in the B league they should both move up.

 

[leftypower]

I'll second the Bandit proposal. ....

 

[TREFF]

Remove the rolling waivers and replace with weekly reset by standings, worst to first..


But, I know that won't get support, so ta hell with it, as Harry Doyle would say.

I got nothing

 

[broncosmitty]

Remove the rolling waivers and replace with weekly reset by standings, worst to first..


But, I know that won't get support, so ta hell with it, as Harry Doyle would say.

I got nothing

This is how it works in my money league. It's better.

 

[TREFF]

This is how it works in my money league. It's better.

Which way is the way?

If its what I want, I wholeheartedly agree, if not, I'll just let it lie ;

 

[broncosmitty]

Which way is the way?

If its what I want, I wholeheartedly agree, if not, I'll just let it lie ;

Weekly reset of waivers based on standings (we use overall points weekly.)


I've always felt it aids in competitive balance. And does away with the incentive to not lose your waiver position.

 

[TREFF]

Yessir..but we went round and round and round on this years ago, so unless theres been a change of heart from at least five other people, its a pointless discussion

 

[leftypower]

Well, @TREFF and/or @broncosmitty are you making this a formal proposal ? Personally, it really doesn't matter much to me since I generally end up near the back of the line anyway. ...

 

[Bandit]

Yessir..but we went round and round and round on this years ago, so unless theres been a change of heart from at least five other people, its a pointless discussion

I'll second it to put it to a vote. It can't hurt. Honestly in a straight re-draft league I don't think it matters nearly as much as in a keeper or dynasty league where I firmly think the waivers should not be reset. But I've kind of come around on this one a bit.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

I'll second it to put it to a vote. It can't hurt. Honestly in a straight re-draft league I don't think it matters nearly as much as in a keeper or dynasty league where I firmly think the waivers should not be reset. But I've kind of come around on this one a bit.

Was going to say the exact same thing about the differences when Dynasty / keeper is involved versus redraft leagues

 

[TREFF]

Well, @TREFF and/or @broncosmitty are you making this a formal proposal ? Personally, it really doesn't matter much to me since I generally end up near the back of the line anyway. ...

well if Bandit is gonna second it, sure, might as well.

 

[Chef99]

What the hell, I'll support both those proposals.

 

[Chef99]

Also: I propose that whomever finishes 2nd in either league is awarded a free ice-cold case of quality beer.

 

[obxyankeefan]

I am good with Bandit's proposal.

On Treff's proposal I could care either way.

I vote no on Chef's proposal. Seeing how I don't drink anymore. No nobody knows how hard it is to be a fish that doesn't drink.

 

[Chef99]

I am good with Bandit's proposal.

On Treff's proposal I could care either way.

I vote no on Chef's proposal. Seeing how I don't drink anymore. No nobody knows how hard it is to be a fish that doesn't drink.

I propose an amendment to my proposal: if you finish 2nd, you are awarded the cake of your dreams.

 

[obxyankeefan]

I propose an amendment to my proposal: if you finish 2nd, you are awarded the cake of your dreams.

 

[broncosmitty]

I'll second it to put it to a vote. It can't hurt. Honestly in a straight re-draft league I don't think it matters nearly as much as in a keeper or dynasty league where I firmly think the waivers should not be reset. But I've kind of come around on this one a bit.

Dynasty I'd have to think about it some.

We don't even have waivers in Lions Dynasty...

 

[TKOSpikes]

I support both proposals.

I should probably offer obx to switch with the seasons we had.... no, that's not a propsal! I said, "should", and "probably"...

 

[TKOSpikes]

I support both proposals.

I should probably offer obx to switch with the seasons we had.... no, that's not a propsal! I said, "should", and "probably"...

Trudem I mean...