eh I disagree, will name them obv when they get picked

battschr's pick. i got mine ready ldo.

so wht is the current argument for clarity sake?

both of these, I will bring up the addition of an extra round as well (double picks) so that we get 2 more players. Only having 3 extra players for your total team is kinda lame and doesn't allow us to use a variety of formations like we can in real football, and afterall aren't we trying to make this as realistic as possible?

And also I would be getting somewhat screwed in this making it regular snake as well but am voting for it because it makes the thing more fair. Someone brought up that it was done in the NBA modern draft and the same thing applies here, this draft is supposed to be fair, having reverse snake for the double pick rounds is clearly not and I don't see how anyone logical could think otherwise.

I will note that many people have told me that a reverse snake was the most fair in the NBA draft because the top picks of the first round give you such a huge advantage in a sport where you only play 5 at a time. However, in this draft, many have told me that a reverse snake is benefitting the lower teams too much and that I should've gone with normal snake.


Because of this my official vote is "no", but I maintain that if >50% of the 32 owners vote for a change then I'll change it no questions asked, and if you can get at least 12 or 13 then I'll at least listen to the argument more in depth and conisider it.


Like you, I'm honestly just trying to be as fair as possible here. I wasn't the one who proposed the double picks to begin with, so this problem isn't a result of any of my rules.

Anyone who votes against this takes this **** way too serious. I get hurt by this and its so blatantly obvious that it's unfair that I was the first person to bring it up.

The fact that we are even voting on this is a joke, it's incredibly unfair and an insane advantage to the top of the draft.

In favor so far of making the double picks normal snake instead of reverse

Zimmer4141
LurchySoprano
Needle77
SarcasticRat
zj123
EPiPeN11

In favor so far of adding another round to the draft with double picks, allowing us to have 2 extra players which allow for more of a variety of formation use like in real football

EPiPeN11

If some people getting screwed are voting yes because they believe its the most fair way, then you'd have to figure that some that benefit would also vote the way that they think is fair and not just the way that benefits them.

If 17 people vote to change the rule, then it will be changed no questions asked. Otherwise, we will debate it more.

People please don't only count up the 'yes' votes. I'd like an accurate representation, so please count up the 'no' votes too. I vote no.

Also, double picks were added during the draft as well iirc, so the "change the rules midstream" argument is bull**** considering changing the rules is what caused this blatant unfairness.

How are you voting no? What is your argument? I'm honestly shocked to see this post considering I've valued your fairness in these drafts pretty highly.

not 100% following the controversy, but i think flip flopping rounds 20 and 22 would solve the problem

edit: maybe not, but worht a thought

As I mentioned in the above post, I disagree with the bold. In the NBA draft that was true. In the NFL theres plenty of studs for everyone to get at least one in the first round, so high picks don't have as much value. I'm not even sure that a reverse snake was the right decision here(although I think its close, and I'm not definitively saying that regular snake would've been better).

Also from a quick glance at the teams, it seems to me that on average the teams that drafted late are better than the teams that drafted early. Now obviously that could be due to drafting ability, so I'm not saying that its conclusive in any way.

Ugh, you guys are so unorganized.....


Stop voting and get all of the options out there first, guys. Once you get all of the possible options, then list then in A-B-C-D-etc. format and let people choose one. Obviously its likely that no one option will get 17 votes by doing this, so I'm not sure exactly how I will handle the results of the vote, but I promise to try my best to be fair about it and listen to the majority moreso than my own opinions.

if we add another round, could someone show me how those last 4 rounds would look, order-wise..

most of yall are probably right.

but why it took 'til now to realize is past me, i guess..

The talent in the top 15ish picks was so much higher than later rounds. I am talking about the elite QBs obviously.

Top 10 and bottom 10 both had an advantage, middle picks got the shaft.

I completely honestly think that the reverse snake has benefitted the lower picking teams so far and that this would even things out a bit.

In the NBA Draft, I thought it was just the opposite- Regular snake would've been a massive edge to the early teams and even reverse snake I still think they had an edge.

I don't know how I can say this to get you all to believe me, but I swear I'm saying that I complete honesty(and while I picked "early" its not like I had a top 3 pick or anything, so I'm not benefitting too much from either way).

Can someone confirm/deny that the double picks were added after the first pick happened?

I just looked through the teams and ur def right that the late round teams have better teams in general than the early round, but I really think that has to do with the late round teams just drafting better instead of having an advantage

Almost positive they were added before the first pick of the draft, I think Dudd suggested it predrafted and it was agreed upon then

Similar to Needle's reaction to wiper's post, I find it a bit insulting that you automatically assume that I'm being unfair simply because I disagree with you. I'm sure you didn't really mean it like that, but I think you of all people should know that I've been more than fair.

Most of the top teams focused on offense around their QBs for some reason. I think anyways. Going off of memory.

I just don't think someone can look at rounds 20-24 on that draft sheet and come to the conclusion that the way it is currently set up is fair.

I agree that you have tried to be fair many times, numerous times when others knocked you for it which is more impressive. That's why I'm surprised to see your feelings on the issue.

Assani's point is that the teams drafting late had an advantage from reverse snake (hence they have better teams than the teams in general than the ones who drafted earlier) so in order to make it more fair he thinks keeping the way it is will benefit the earlier teams who were at a disadvantage in this.

Not saying I agree with this since I think it has more to do with the teams drafting early drafting poorly in a lot of cases but I can at least see where he is coming from.

Did you read my post at all or are you just going to argue your side relentlessly?

I said that I agreed that it was an advantage to those who picked early. However, I thought that the reverse snake was a bigger advantage to those who picked late, and this made up somewhat for it.