Quote (Kayeto @ Jul 20 2017 03:20pm)
The more teams you add to the payout, the more finely the pot gets cut up.
You seem to be on board with the idea of adding more teams to the payout.
If people agree that incentivizing bids is more important than rewarding Super Bowl teams, then it's just a question of how far it should be taken. I posted an example of taking it to the extreme just to illustrate the point.
How many non-Super Bowl teams have to get a payout before the name of the game needs to be changed from 'Super Bowl Auction"?
At percentage takeout it's too much. How much did the last auction total? I don't think ~1k fg would be a sizable loss, especially if said fg was recuperated from higher bids at the mid level.
Quote (ianarky @ Jul 21 2017 09:08am)
I like this idea. Maybe 250-500 though.
Might be too much. I don't want it to be a massive chunk out of the pot.
Quote (Flopps @ Jul 21 2017 09:27am)
So if it's closer to that again 1642.69 per average, total pot would be 52,566.08, if we take out, say 500 fg for each team that made playoffs (as incentive to but borderline teams), we can do a win system in the playoffs too.
It would be 12 teams, so 6k from the pot, leaving 46k to the SB winner. Then use the 6k as incentives for playoffs.
200 fg if your team loses first round - 5200 left
600 fg if your team loses second round - 2800 left
1400 fg if your team loses afc/nfc championship - 0 left
Then it's wta for the Superbowl, loser would get nothing unless we move another small portion (2500 fg maybe) for the sb loser.
Just an option if we wanna divvy the pot for incentives
Solid napkin math. Definitely something worth considering I think, or at least testing. I don't want to take too much away from the pot, though.