Quote:
Originally Posted by tindleroot
...the team they want to swap needs to be posted publicly and have 1-2 days in which anyone else can take claim...
|
I agree with you on everything except for this.
I agree that the current free agent process has become a big of an arms race, but we (RFA) work hard to identify swaps. As such, all that hard work becomes marginalized if other FF teams are free to just wait around and snipe waivers.
With that being said, I would recommend that waivers be handled 100% privately. The only thing that everyone gets notified of is the fact that a FF team has been granted a waiver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tindleroot
Another thought I had for the waiver system was to create an auction-based system. Give ever FF team x waiver points to start out with. If you wanted to claim a team, you would do so with an attached price, but someone else could out-claim you, even if you were ahead of them in the order. In this way, an FF team could either claim a few really good teams, or a lot of decent teams, or a mix of the two, making for a fairer waiver process.
|
While I suppose this addresses the situation of an 'arms race', I feel like this system will be a downright cluster to implement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlmcmchl
I propose this change to the district points system:
Field performance is normalized independently of Award points. It can be normalized to one or 2 or however many events, but it should be constant across teams.
Awards are normalized to 2 events. So, in this case, Team A would be awarded 21 points for awards, over Team B and Team C.
|
What's interesting is that in your hypothetical scenario, Team A is penalized for attending 3 events. However, in your solution, a much more likely realistic scenario is that Team A is being awarded for attending three events.
I feel like your proposed scenario is much more black and white than reality would suggest. That is to say that Team A is not just going to win DCA; they're in the running for EI, a handful of the other non-engineering awards, and even the engineering awards.
Normalizing 3-event attempts worth of awards down to 2 events is ignoring the fact that Team A had three events in which they had the opportunity to win awards, which pits Teams B and Team C at a disadvantage.
- Sunny G.