Trying to set up rules for an Auction draft

[DALLAScornhusker]

This is fairly new to all of us, and we are at the beginners table trying to sort out how to approach situations that will come up.

I think we have the easy ones solved but lend me your experience if we are wrong:

1. We will start out $200, you can never bid more than what you currently have left.
2. When you run out of money, you have to wait until the rest of the teams are done drafting or out of money. If you still have roster spots to fill, you may do so after the season has started (waivers are allowed).
3. Each owner will nominate players. Each owner that nominates a player also starts the bidding (has to be at least $1, could be $40+).
4. Bidding will go round to all according to a pre-determined order. Highest bidder takes home the pick.

 

[DALLAScornhusker]

What we seem to be caught up on is the bidding process. Do we have an auctioneer trying to keep up with guys shouting numbers, do we have an open forum and not an order?

 

[DALLAScornhusker]

My idea was to have the order, and maybe limit it to going around the table twice. If you don't bid the first time around, you forfeit bidding on the second time. My thought is if its left open, we could be drafting all night, $1 at a time. It would keep those that are interested in a player involved and those not interested out of the running - so less bidding up players for nothing (maybe).

 

[averagejoe]

We have a similar style in our off-line draft.
We have no auctioneer either. But the league manager runs the auction (going once, going twice, sold).
Shouldn't be a problem to have everyone nominate a player, even at $1. That may eliminate bogus nominations which only waste time.

The only flaw I see with this idea is letting the money evaporate to zero. My suggestion is that every player must be bought. This way, the nomination order takes on greater significance. So if owner C overpaid for some players and now has $5 left for 5 players (at $1 each), if owner B is in the same predicament, then owner B at least gets to nominate someone he has a chance to keep, based on his draft order; since owner C can't out bid him.

Otherwise, it seems like you have a mad dash for the waiver wire in week 1.

 

[DALLAScornhusker]

Otherwise, it seems like you have a mad dash for the waiver wire in week 1.

This also doesn't seem appealing to me. But the way I understand it, that takes one person out of the bidding process toward the end of the draft - theoretically making things cheaper for the rest. It is my belief that if a player runs out of cash, they no longer can nominate players, hence the $1 bid to start the bidding process.

What are alternative options for someone that ends up needing 5 players and have only $4 left? Do we limit the amount of waiver pick-ups to fill out that roster? So if you end up with 3 empty roster spots - you get one waiver buy each week. Thus making a full roster in week 3?

 

[DALLAScornhusker]

Or do we make them responsible for their actions: you cannot bid at the expense of not filling out your roster? I just worry if someone doesn't do their math right, we will still end up with one owner that puts us in this situation.

 

[DALLAScornhusker]

We will have at least one owner skyping in, so I fear if we don't take turns bidding, they will be left in the dust constantly by not hearing clearly/data signal quality or glitches. That's my take on why I feel bidding in an order is ideal. But I also don't want raises of $1 all around the board, making each pick take 5 minutes. The two ways I though we can speed up the process is to
1). Cap the bidding at two rounds per player?
2). If you don't bid on said player the first round, you can't bid the second (final) round.

It would limit BS bids. It would also make bidders give solid bids, not just upping the ante $1.

 

[SteelersPride]

Or do we make them responsible for their actions: you cannot bid at the expense of not filling out your roster? I just worry if someone doesn't do their math right, we will still end up with one owner that puts us in this situation.

this basically, keep track, and if you jack up you forfeit some cash

 

[MilkSpiller22]

We have a similar style in our off-line draft.
We have no auctioneer either. But the league manager runs the auction (going once, going twice, sold).
Shouldn't be a problem to have everyone nominate a player, even at $1. That may eliminate bogus nominations which only waste time.

The only flaw I see with this idea is letting the money evaporate to zero. My suggestion is that every player must be bought. This way, the nomination order takes on greater significance. So if owner C overpaid for some players and now has $5 left for 5 players (at $1 each), if owner B is in the same predicament, then owner B at least gets to nominate someone he has a chance to keep, based on his draft order; since owner C can't out bid him.

Otherwise, it seems like you have a mad dash for the waiver wire in week 1.

I actually was liking the waiver wire thing.. as long as the waiver wire is set by money left... tie goes to the first to finish...

So any team who went over will not have first priority...

That or just use FAAB, which i would prefer especially in a auction league....

my only complaint was that they have to wait after week one to make these transactions....

 

[averagejoe]

Dallas,
Every owner should be responsible and not over bid. They should have money left to fill out their entire roster including the bench.
I think some of your fears about how it will go (slow bidding, bogus nominations) will be eliminated after the first couple of nominations.
For example: Nominate Andrew Luck for a $1, and other owners may start raising bids by $5 or $10. After a few elite players go through the auction process, other elite players (like Dez Bryant) may be nominated starting at $25. Other owners will catch on and adjust their nomination/bidding to the player.
But there still may be an owner with no clue, who nominates Winston for $40. He'll probably be stuck with him for $40.
If you still insist on doing the auction the way you're suggesting (leaving open roster spots), will the league site (Yahoo, ESPN, etc.) allow open roster positions?
I hope this is helping?

 

[wilwhite]

The problem with allowing for open spots is that you'll have a mix of conscientious people budgeting for a full roster and clever guys gaming the system by spending all their money on three or four studs and getting the rest of their roster for free.

You could even have somebody there use an online auction draft site, just to track things - in the standard setup a dollar is unavailable for each future unfilled slot, so if you have a roster size of 15 the most you could bid for the first guy would be $186.

 

[SteelersPride]

The problem with allowing for open spots is that you'll have a mix of conscientious people budgeting for a full roster and clever guys gaming the system by spending all their money on three or four studs and getting the rest of their roster for free.

You could even have somebody there use an online auction draft site, just to track things - in the standard setup a dollar is unavailable for each future unfilled slot, so if you have a roster size of 15 the most you could bid for the first guy would be $186.

this

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The problem with allowing for open spots is that you'll have a mix of conscientious people budgeting for a full roster and clever guys gaming the system by spending all their money on three or four studs and getting the rest of their roster for free.

You could even have somebody there use an online auction draft site, just to track things - in the standard setup a dollar is unavailable for each future unfilled slot, so if you have a roster size of 15 the most you could bid for the first guy would be $186.

don't really see this as a problem, if owners are willing to do this then the prices of these players are going to sky rocket so high that they really will only be able to afford 3 or 4 players... I don't think even having 3 or 4 players(depending on the league) will be any better strategy than having a balanced team...

Don't forget that the higher priced guys will be in demand by all teams, so if that owner wants to do that strategy, they will need to pay extra for all of them...