Buy-In

We've already allowed 3 owners to buy in at $65 for 2 years, so I'd propose that we up the buy-in for the league to $100 for the 2019 season. Reason being is this is a pretty in depth league and I really don't think the payout justify the time put in by the winners. The way I see it is we're a pretty active league 9 months out of the year, so it's basically $11/active month or about $2.50/week over 9 months.

I second this but I believe we need to bring a structured payout to the proposal as well. Not only do the competing teams need to see "Hey $100 buy-in, I could win more money.." the rebuilding teams need to see an incentive to vote for this proposal as well.

Believe that's where we've gone wrong when this has came up before.

Would like to see a rebuilding team, or a newer owners two cents on this subject as well!

I think $100 in 2019 is reasonable. As for incentivizing rebuilding teams, I was wondering how many teams make the playoffs? Perhaps we can have a tournament for the teams that don't make the playoffs or those that get eliminated in first round (if everyone makes playoffs).

Matthew, currently the top 8 records in the regular season make the playoffs. Which all of those spots win some cash. So 8/20 teams are guaranteed a return on their buy-in currently.

Ok so if you do some sort of competition amongst the other 12 teams I think that would be a good incentive. You could do a tournament or track scores during that period.

I am for this idea, as well as combining it with a recommended payout structure (even if that's a 2 step voting process with the upped payment vote contingent on a majority payout structure agreement).

I also like MDuncan's idea of some sort of runoff for non-playoff teams, but I'd suggest making that a separate pool. Also, the payout couldn't be too much, as there should not be an opportunity here to out-win the lower placed playoff teams, or you will end up with some perverse incentive.

Here's my 2 cents on this.
I think the $65 cost should remain.
Looking at the 2016 payouts only 5 teams recovered their costs. (IE, MD, LWB, TBC and SNPP) with the bulk of the payouts ($1060/$1340) going to the top three teams (IE, MD LWB).
Looking at the rosters of the teams in the league and the trading history I've seen so far, it seems quite clear that the same teams will likely dominate the league for the next few years at least.
The concentration of talent, including MLB starters, top prospects and early round draft picks is a testament to the skill of the top owners in the league.
For owners looking to rebuild or trying to compete for the #5-8 spots or a particular scoring category the uphill road is quite a challenge. I actually believe that the time spent by owners in this category is equal to or greater than the time spent by the top teams. The opportunities are fewer and the resources that can be used to make improvements to a teams are scarcer.
That's probably more than 2 cents worth. Sorry for all the words.
Fred

I don't care, but I would vote for $65 for what it is worth. It is not a job - it is not a matter of being worth one's time. It is definitely not worth your time if you are not doing it for fun!

It seems like the issue raised here is more related to competitive balance than the actual buy-in. Some thoughts on more competitive balance:
1. You can have a redraft every year where teams have to expose players for redrafting to the other teams.
2. System of compensation picks for teams that don't finish in playoffs. Perhaps 3rd rounder for 1st year out of playoffs, 2nd rounder for 2 consecutive years out of playoffs, 1st rounder for 3+ consecutive years out of playoffs.
3. Consolidation as team owners leave.

I am a newbie here so I don't know if these have been tried before or if teams are dead set against them...

Mduncan15 wrote:

It seems like the issue raised here is more related to competitive balance than the actual buy-in.  Some thoughts on more competitive balance:
1. You can have a redraft every year where teams have to expose players for redrafting to the other teams.  
2. System of compensation picks for teams that don't finish in playoffs. Perhaps 3rd rounder for 1st year out of playoffs, 2nd rounder for 2 consecutive years out of playoffs, 1st rounder for 3+ consecutive years out of playoffs.
3. Consolidation as team owners leave.

I am a newbie here so I don't know if these have been tried before or if teams are dead set against them...

I don't believe we have a competitive balance issue. We have 3 or so really strong teams right now but injuries, age, and attrition always happen. I had an equally strong team and won it all in 2011.. it was an older team and I blew it up in 2012 and started over. I think you're seeing Team Bud who's been one of the strongest teams in the history of the league do the same.

You obviously have your owners who put more time in than others.. but I believe even the great teams right now only have a 2-3 year window before they're looking in the rearview mirror if they don't make moves.

For example - division winners from 2013 were myself, Team Bud, Louisiana Lightning, and Springfield. Bud's rebuilding and Lightning is no longer in the league. Come 2021 I believe we'll find new teams on top.

I love the discussion here so I'll give my opinion of the 3 topics Matthew brought up...

1.) I'm not a fan of this but I can't say it's totally out of the question..
2.) This is very interesting - don't believe we have enough time to wrap our heads around it now but I'd like to continue the discussion on this topic.
3.) As long as I'm around I'd like to keep it at 20 teams. Think it's the perfect number for a highly competitive Dynasty League like this.

I am concerned that it will make it harder to find new owners. As is this year we wisely gave a 1 year free pass. Will it need to be 2 years under this scenario? Perhaps we are looking too much at the winners side and not enough at downside and the effort necessary there. Does it also creat an addl drop out rate as teams start to slip. I did vote for it, and the non playoff pool will help but we might need to monitor this condition should it pass.