People think top-standing teams are “gaming the system” with $1 up-bids, and similarly those teams at the top of the standings are “forced” to pay more than $1 if they want a player.
I don’t know why but I actually thought the change I proposed in this thread was already made last year. In my initial response in Niv’s thread regarding a lottery fix I asked for clarification on this topic and then in every response (but my last) I made this suggestion which seemed to get lost in the overall (seemingly charged?) discussion.
To emphasize two points again:
- Even if a lottery system is optional, a league I’ve been paying to be in for years could still vote to implement it despite how it changes the competitive balance of tie-break bids with (weighted) randomized results; and
- I have no way of knowing whether there might be a few bad apples in my or other leagues who are actually ‘gaming the system’ with multiple user ID’s or small-group collusive activities that would actually benefit more from a lottery tie-break system and come at the expense of lesser-competitive teams (and to a greater degree than any low-cost “up-bid”).
The proposal here would be more effective at accomplishing what seems to be the biggest underlying issue of $1 up-bids by avoiding those two major issues- and (I argue) more in the spirit of competitive fairness that is at the heart of the Ottoneu experience. It fits the game’s design, it enhances an already present strategy, and it would seem to be a logical tweak that solves the underlying problem.