Buds Board Keepers League

weird, my cap for this season still says 69M... maybe its just me?

mmmh, no. It looks I did set up the new cap in the 'league set up' section, but that didn't change the cap that shows up under each teams' roster.

I never watch for the cap on Fantrax, so I never noticed that

looks like saving again the exact same thing did the trick? I now see 71.4 on my team page as well

What is the rule for us signing players in Europe with entry level contracts? Do they go in the waiver draft?

Yep held for waiver draft

Shep wroteCOLONWhat is the rule for us signing players in Europe with entry level contracts? Do they go in the waiver draft?

After January 1st no mas signings.

So if we are going to a W-L system next year, one thing I dislike about our league is that after around week 5 the standings seem to be all but set for the rest of the year, no matter how well or poor each team plays ( I was 10th in the west last year and only managed to move to 9th despite winning 9 of my last 10 matches). I really wish the parity were better so we would see more teams fighting for a playoff spot with a few weeks left.

Oh, and just going to W-L won't help. Look at Dave's weekly standings. They look just as spread out as the current system.

I thought one idea to reign in the extreme disparity in our league were we to move to W-L would be to mirror the NHL even more so.

How? Include a loser point. In the NHL approx 23.3 percent of games go to overtime. I counted up how many games in bbkl this season between week 1-week 17 ended between 9-7 scores, and it was 234 of 1005 games. This is 23.28 percent. Thus by simply adding a loser point to our close matches (9-7, 8.5-7.5, 8-8), we would be able to mirror NHL overtime games, and create more parity in the standings.

Just a thought.

P.s. - and I know the NHL should go to a 3 point system, but that won't help with bbkl parity, so take the 3 point argument elsewhere.

the only way to achieve parity at this point is a complete restart and redraft. his would also allow us to fix the many goaltending issues we have.

Why wouldn't a loser point work? It works for the NHL. If anyone likes this idea I may spend a few hours and chart out what this seasons standings would look like in w-l-t with a loser point. Probably a lot closer.

Adding points to match ups won't close the gap in roster comparables.

make team better

Lee wroteCOLONAdding points to match ups won't close the gap in roster comparables.

We are talking about two different things. Every league will have top teams and bottom teams. I'm talking about keeping the large middle pack competitive longer into the season, using standings. More people will become more invested later in the year. If you look at the w-l in next year's format for this season all those teams are super spread out, which an overtime loser point should greatly help.

if we moved to WLT I think I'd be in favour of something like that, not because of parity but to help making a few more matchups interesting for at least one of the two teams involved.

Obviously I'll be against a pure WLT system, so hopefully that becomes a mute point.

Let me chime in and say Fuck WLT

Takes away all interest out of matching up against superior opponents. I know Mike is gonna beat me. But I want to at least take a few categories off him.

Weak teams it will just be 0-4 again and again and again.

Fraser wroteCOLONLet me chime in and say Fuck WLT

Takes away all interest out of matching up against superior opponents. I know Mike is gonna beat me. But I want to at least take a few categories off him.

Weak teams it will just be 0-4 again and again and again.

There could be other options in W-L system that keep worse teams in it.

For example, a 3 point system, where say, if a team wins 12.5-3.5 then points are 3-0, but if it is 12-4 then points divided up 2-1. Essentially widening the band, and saying only games where there are blowouts being worth 3-0.

Or a loser point with a widened band, where 12-4, rather than 9-7 is used. So winning team always gets 2 points, and losing team gets a point only if they can get to 4. So this gives teams incentive to not be so so so horrible.

I prefer the loser point with a 9-7 band only because how close it is to NHL overtime percentage.

I may make some charts of how each of the 5 options affect our standings and parity by calculating this seasons standings with each system, and then I'll post it. Would give everyone an idea if there is any incentive to change to each.

- current system
- strictly W/L
- W/L loser point (9/7 band)
- W/L loser point (12/4 band)
- W/L 3 point system (12/4 band)
- hybrid system? I remember people talking about this.

make it maximum 70 players per team, not 90, and have a draft for the left overs.

When the league was started, was there ever any mention of a re-draft after ?10 years or something like that.

I think re-draft would definitely be an interesting discussion. Feel like it would be very polarizing in the league. Not sure where I fall on it (likely would be happy either way). TBH with the # of prospects most bottom teams have been amassing, if they stick with being patient and manage their team appropriately, they could easily move up the ranks within the next few years. So either stick with the course and see more parody in a few years or redraft and see it sooner. Re-draft would be a lot of work and time (that I'm not sure all of us have).

I've spent the last 2 years putting a lot of work into my rebuild. If we redrafted, I'd be furious.

Imo, if someone wants to start from the beginning, they should join a startup league.

Matthew wroteCOLONI've spent the last 2 years putting a lot of work into my rebuild. If we redrafted, I'd be furious.

Imo, if someone wants to start from the beginning, they should join a startup league.

I second this with less fury

Sometimes its important to put the league ahead of the GM's own opinions though, not saying I'm in favor of a redraft but if the argument is that its being considered in order to establish parity then the amount of work individuals have put into their rosters shouldn't really be a consideration. I'd like to hear the arguments of both sides myself.