Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Undisputed16

UFCFCCL 2018 Rule Changes Poll

UFCFCCL 2018 Rule Changes  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Refund Value for fighters you are releasing.

    • 25% (Last year's Value)
    • 50% (New Value)
  2. 2. Draft order to be set by random draw.

  3. 3. Refund Frequency.

    • One refund per month (last year's frequency)
    • One refund per week (new frequency)
  4. 4. Separation of Wallet/Fighter value to two separate categories for scoring criteria.

    • No (Last Year)
    • Yes (This Year)
  5. 5. Any fighter ruled out for the rest of the year due to injury or suspension may be refunded at 75% of their current value, instead of the usual 25%. Player will not be able to re-add the fighter

  6. 6. $5,000 automatic bonus for ALL title challengers- this would help challengers outside of their normal weight class, so they don't only get the unranked fighter pay.



Recommended Posts

I think you have the years for the split of the wallet wrong.. this year has them together, last year and all the years before have them split

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Undisputed - can we also have a vote on whether you get a larger refund when someone is out for the rest of the year?  For example, if someone buys Woodley, and he tears his ACL in January and is ruled out for 18 months it's a bit different to someone just getting sick of their fighter and wanting to sell them because they're a can.

Or maybe that's too complicated.  Would definitely have helped Juice in the last couple of years with his Jones problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have the years for the split of the wallet wrong.. this year has them together, last year and all the years before have them split

 

Sorry, "This year" refers to the year/game we ate voting on. I think that's how people interpreted it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Undisputed - can we also have a vote on whether you get a larger refund when someone is out for the rest of the year? For example, if someone buys Woodley, and he tears his ACL in January and is ruled out for 18 months it's a bit different to someone just getting sick of their fighter and wanting to sell them because they're a can.

Or maybe that's too complicated. Would definitely have helped Juice in the last couple of years with his Jones problem.

We can vote on it, but can you please write up a rule? Not really sure where it ends. I don't think a camp with Jon Jones should have been rewarded. Maybe for injuries, and then that player would not be able to draft that fighter again if they recovered, but I think there is a lot of gray area. I don't think Camps with fighters who pop should be rewarded. Edited by Undisputed16
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can vote on it, but can you please write up a rule? Not really sure where it ends. I don't think a camp with Jon Jones should have been rewarded. Maybe for injuries, and then that player would not be able to draft that fighter again if they recovered, but I think there is a lot of gray area. I don't think Camps with fighters who pop should be rewarded.

It's not a reward; rather it's limiting their loss due to things outside their control.

 

Let's take Jones as a prime example.  Cost 100k.  Should have finished the year still as champion, with a value of 100k, with perhaps a couple of defences netting him 80k.  Therefore an investment of 100k yields 180k, plus a couple of wins.

 

As it was, Jones finished as unranked.  Therefore an investment of 100k turned into 10k.  That's basically a game-changer.  Under my proposal, your 100k turns into 75k, so you've lost out but not as punitively.

 

Of course, anyone picking a known roider is asking for it, but there's always a first time.  Anyway.  Here's how I would word the rule.

 

"Any fighter ruled out for the rest of the year due to injury or suspension may be refunded at 75% of their current value, instead of the usual 25%"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 75% rule will be abused if you don't set a time frame. Like its only available for the first 3 months of the season.

That's a good point. I'm really not a fan of it in the first place. If I break the tie I'm voting it down

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good point. I'm really not a fan of it in the first place. If I break the tie I'm voting it down

Im not either. I've had my #1 pick fail me multiple times but every league I'm near the top. Some people will be active and some won't. I don't see any rules changing that.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×