Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

I'm sure. 53 points.

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

I'll trade my first and last pick (1243 and 1189) for 469. That's 31 points.

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

I'm not sure if I like the system. It just rewards who got higher in the draft, or worse who didn't show up. Realistically only a first round pick could possibly outscore 469, and if you have weak enough back picks there's a solid chance 469 could outscore all 3, or at least get close enough to not count. Plus there's no penalty for dropping a good team, since those points effectively "die".

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

Per Basel and my conversation, I'm not a fan either. However, I'm not the one running the draft, and there were other solutions talked about for this, but ultimately, it did come down to Basel's choice for which one to implement.

However I do agree, it only favors those who got a high pick in the draft. Players who got to pick earlier would happily trade away their 2nd and 3rd picks, that they acquired from the "picked over" list of teams, while players who picked lower have to hold on to the teams they got to even compete with the higher first picks.

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

Zach, note that the current highest bid is 53.

I didn't particularly like the system, but on short notice, I couldn't think of a more fair one to implement (and at this point I'm not willing to switch).

Thought for the sake of discussion, it is surely a way for a player to make up for previous bad picks or missing the draft. However, there could be a legitimate debate on whether or not that's even a bad thing. It's not that bad an idea to allow those who made bad choices in the past a "second chance."

As for rewarding those who got higher in the draft:
1. It's a luck. You weren't lucky. Neither was I. Sucks for us.
2. The draft was already like that, and this isn't a major amplification of the previous effect. In this case, so far 469 isn't even going to a high-table player.

Certainly it isn't a perfect system, but to be fair I did consider other solutions, and felt this was the most fair time-sensible solution, and I had no time to work out the kinks.

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

So does the winner of the 469 "Auction" put their teams back into open play to trade for?

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

No, they're out of the draft.

Why? Undoubtedly at least a first round pick will be given up to gain 469. Allowing someone to pick up any of the first-round picks for free (well, third round pick) would heavily unbalance the draft, comparable to allowing 469 to be chosen as such. I don't feel like that'd be fair, so I'm allowing players to (in my opinion) overpay (or simply outbid each other) for 469.

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

You could do additional auctions for the remaining teams, maybe.

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

So it is. My b.

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

Conidered it, but:
1. With more than 1 team being bid, we'd have several going at once (confusing) and
2. Each auction would be somewhat watered down.
3. Also, that's not very time-sensible, with only a couple days, not everyone is willing to get on to bid for less exemplary teams than 469, several times. Getting one draft-full of people together once is hard as it is.

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

How about you just add 469 to the person with the lowest OPR and drop that persons 3rd pick for 469. One person already calculated it in this thread.

Nevermind, just looked and ZachO, who is leading the Auction with the highest bid, would also fit the bill that I just said. Let the auction continue lol =]

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

If enough people sent in lists it's trivial to rerun the draft and just assume everyone would put 469 #1

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

Actually Luke is leading it, and he should have the lowest, having gotten random teams. Though the calculated scores were based off an unnamed equation (notably unrelated to OPR) , with data generated from an unofficial source.
However, the point of FF is that everyone thinks they can choose the best teams, using their own method. That suggestion would basically say "Everyone should pick using OPR, because the highest OPR will give the best score," which just isn't a good idea. Sure, this is idealistic theory, but I try to stick to the standards.

@Chris Several people didn't, and a few others submitted half-lists, intending to make the 3rd or even second picks live. Either way, a re draft... Okay, admittedly a pretty good idea but there just isn't enough time to get everyone together to re-run the draft, especially on a weekday, a couple days out of the competition.

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

rtfgnow............................217.....894.... .548
ClintonBolinger...................2337.....703.... 2145
dodar...............................33.....397.... .322
Karibou...........................2137....3096.... .326
Vikesrock.........................1718.....247.... .862
BaselA.............................910.....503.... 1322
ProgramLuke.......................469
KokoEd..............................27.....494.... 2604
ZachO.............................1243....1684.... 1189
kenavt............................2619......66.... 3401
Chrisisme...........................51......70.... 3415


302 314 468 1506 1946

Out:
2612 903 2832

Teams freeze tonight.

Re: [FF]: [FF]: Kettering Kickoff 2010
 

Alright, so I have two rankings sheets for you. The first is merely added-together OPR of the three teams you've picked, and the second is the OPR minus the DPR of the three teams. Data grabbed off of the team's last event thanks to FRC Tracker 2010 for iOS. It's a great app, I really recommend it.

OPR Only:

1. kenavt (11.2)
2. dodar (10.8)
3. Vikesrock (9.4)
4. BaselA (8.6)
5. KokoEd (8.5)
6. Karibou (8.2)
7. Chrisisme (7.8)
8(t). rftgnow (7.1)
8(t). ClintonBolinger (7.1)
9. ProgramLuke (5.6)
10. ZachO (0.9)

OPR-DPR

1. Chrisisme (4.3)
2. ProgramLuke (4.1)
3. kenavt (3.6)
4. Vikesrock (3.5)
5. dodar (3.3)
6(t). KokoEd (3.2)
6(t). Karibou (3.2)
8. BaselA (0.1)
9. ClintonBolinger (0.0)
10. rftgnow (-2.5)
11. ZachO (-7.6)