Outside of the Top 6 owners (which obviously includes jfranco), I have a hard time seeing how any of the other 18 sunk a lot of time into research when the pool was only 12 seasons worth of players.

I picked 3rd after the top 6 owners on Monday; spent a good deal of time beforehand researching on which season pair to join and then started setting up my draft order Monday night into yesterday. A couple of hours may not seem like much, but it's time that I'm not getting back.

Posted by jfranco77 on 9/10/2025 8:51:00 AM (view original):
As someone who doesn't always have a lot of time for research, I hope this change comes with a lot of leniency on slow picks and time for research, and hopefully some later dates for teams being due. I could have really used that time I spent researching the original theme to build my teams, and this new one sounds like a fair bit of research too.

I understand the need for a change if everyone thought the previous setup would be too skewed (and I'm sorry if I caused it by not following the 60s herd). I just hope we don't have to scrap this one too.

I think we should move the deadlines back a week to account for the potential change in themes.

Ok, the vote is 10-4 in favor of the change with 8 supporting the majority.

But … I received some feedback I want to share with a proposed adjustment.

The concern is that the #7 and #13 owners join up with #1 and thereby have all the top choices for each “round” in one division, and the ripple effect being that #6, 12 and 18 wind up with a much lesser player pool and more complaints ensue.

Proposed modification: The first six owners pick the same way. Then we snake back for 7-12, so those 12 owners will be set in groups that lock in (1-12, 2-11, 3-10, 4-9, 5-8, 6-7). This distributes those franchises more equitably.

Owners 13-18 still will pick their group and add the expansion franchise, and with this adjustment it should make that a more intriguing decision. Owners 19-24 will still choose their group and the division they go in.

How does that sound?

PS: No concern with pushing all deadlines back a week.

So, the (perceived) seventh best franchise is paired with the sixth best, while the 12th best is paired with the best. Makes perfect sense.

Adding the expansion franchise as a third franchise means there will be lots of good players to choose from.

I love this.

So is modification to separate the act of selecting a franchise and which group they wish to join (ex. being in with _JJP) for the mid owners (ranks 7 - 18).

So rounds 2 thru 5 would be:

Round 2: Owners 7-12 would pick one of the remaining original franchise which wasn't selected by the top 6.
Round 3: Owners 13-18 would pick one of the available expansion franchises (excluding the newest ones which didn't exist until after 1990)
Round 4: Owners then select which of the top 6 owner groups they wish to join in reverse order (18 back to 7)?

Or is round 4 is some other weird strange order(or is the group they are assigned to fixed in some way?

Owners 7-12 are assigned to divisions in reverse order of Top 6 and select 2nd original 16 franchise.

Owners 13-18 still pick their division and an expansion franchise.

Owners 19-24 pick their division and assign their division to a league (AL/NL).

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/10/2025 12:03:00 PM (view original):
So is modification to separate the act of selecting a franchise and which group they wish to join (ex. being in with _JJP) for the mid owners (ranks 7 - 18).

So rounds 2 thru 5 would be:

Round 2: Owners 7-12 would pick one of the remaining original franchise which wasn't selected by the top 6.
Round 3: Owners 13-18 would pick one of the available expansion franchises (excluding the newest ones which didn't exist until after 1990)
Round 4: Owners then select which of the top 6 owner groups they wish to join in reverse order (18 back to 7)?

Or is round 4 is some other weird strange order(or is the group they are assigned to fixed in some way?

Not quite.

Round 1: no change
Round 2: locked into pairs with top 6, choose any remaining original franchise
Round 3: not locked into any group, choose both group and expansion franchise
Round 4: stay in order, choose any of the 6 groups to join and assign it to a division slot

OK, so essentially removing the choice of owners 7-12 of which of the top 6 owners they want to join and locking them in (ex. _JJP #1 will be joined by Bansberg #12, etc.) and only giving owners 13 thru 18 the option to pick which group to join.

May I suggest this maybe?

Round 1: Top 6 owners pick an original franchise (1 to 6 in order)
Round 2: Owners 7-12 pick one of the remaining available 16 franchise not selected in round 1 (7 to 12 in order). Grouping is automatic in pairing (ex. 1 & 12)
Round 3: Owners 13 - 18 pick one of the available 10 expansion franchise (13 - 18 in order)
Round 4: Owners 18 - 13 pick which group they wish to join (18 to 13 in descending order)
Round 5: Owners 19 - 24 pick which group they wish to join (19 to 24 in order)

The above will at least give the lower owners in the 13 thru 18 group to get their choice of which top 12 pairing to join since they got the least desirable expansion franchise in round 3.

But then, theoretically, owners 13-18 (and I say that as one of them) could really screw people over. I'd just assign a division with the worst expansion team and go elsewhere.

Round 3: Owners 13 - 18 pick one of the available 10 expansion franchise (13 - 18 in order)
Round 4: Owners 18 - 13 pick which group they wish to join (18 to 13 in descending order)

The problem with this is that the choice of expansion franchise is very likely dependent on the division they choose to join, and your suggestion would screw that up. If I'm going into a Yankees or Red Sox division, I might take a pitching-heavy franchise, And vice-versa.

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/10/2025 12:28:00 PM (view original):
But then, theoretically, owners 13-18 (and I say that as one of them) could really screw people over. I'd just assign a division with the worst expansion team and go elsewhere.

No what I'm saying you are picking which top 12 pairing *you* want to join with the expansion franchise you are playing with.

If say you pick the 6th best available expansion franchise (because the owners ahead of you picked 5 better ones than you) you get the *top* pick of which pairing you want to join with that franchise.

So sure you could pick a really crappy franchise but would you not be limiting what franchises you are picking from?

I also think some people are getting caught up in this idea of total fairness. Yes, everyone should have opportunity and a big enough player pool to create equally competitive teams. But the better owners from Round 1 should have advantages when it comes to drafting/selecting divisions. 13-18 should just select team and division.

Posted by schwarze on 9/10/2025 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Round 3: Owners 13 - 18 pick one of the available 10 expansion franchise (13 - 18 in order)
Round 4: Owners 18 - 13 pick which group they wish to join (18 to 13 in descending order)

The problem with this is that the choice of expansion franchise is very likely dependent on the division they choose to join, and your suggestion would screw that up. If I'm going into a Yankees or Red Sox division, I might take a pitching-heavy franchise, And vice-versa.

OK, that's understandable being some undesirable effect of owners 13 picking a franchise where he does not know where he's going to be assigned (which in that instance he'd have no choice).

I guess this would be bad for owner #18 who essentially gets the worst available expansion franchise and no choice in which group he's joining (since by then there's only 1 spot available).

Posted by schwarze on 9/10/2025 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Round 3: Owners 13 - 18 pick one of the available 10 expansion franchise (13 - 18 in order)
Round 4: Owners 18 - 13 pick which group they wish to join (18 to 13 in descending order)

The problem with this is that the choice of expansion franchise is very likely dependent on the division they choose to join, and your suggestion would screw that up. If I'm going into a Yankees or Red Sox division, I might take a pitching-heavy franchise, And vice-versa.

OK, that's understandable being some undesirable effect of owner #13 picking a franchise where he does not know where he's going to be assigned (which in that instance he'd have no choice).

I guess this would be bad for owner #18 who essentially gets the worst available expansion franchise and no choice in which group he's joining (since by then there's only 1 spot available).