I strongly support the current in-season player auction format, but just for the sake of argument I’d like to question why it wouldn’t be better for the tie-breaker to go to the owner that started the auction rather than the owner that finds themselves lower in the standings? I remember there was some debate around (and interest in) this small but important rule change but I don’t see any history of it on these boards so I thought I’d bring it up again. I think it was @Mulligan that brought of the value of “discovering” a player by starting an auction no one else is up to speed on, and I think there could be some merit to at least giving that owner the benefit of the tie-breaker if they start it, which could also potentially increase the number of “transactions” in every league (a good thing).
Any procedure that rewards the owner, at least in a marginal way, who finds a player that others haven’t or that others may be holding off on starting an auction for whatever reason, has to be a good thing. Tipping off other owners on players they may be unfamiliar with can be annoying so any advantage given to the “discoverer” is a positive.
did I miss a “conclusion” or decision on this topic?
what is the logic for awarding the player to the team lower in the standings?
to allow for this rule, I’ve bid more than I originally intended for players I put up for auction