bdc30
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 8:06 PM
QUOTE (custom36 @ Monday, April 17th, 2006, 7:38 PM)

In regards to my team, there were other circumstances surrounding them not being there.
Like apathy, since they were so far out of the race, and had nothing
other than their original $10 riding on it.
In summary, of the ideas I've heard in this thread here are the changes
I think would benefit the fcpfc.
1. Less players. 9 teams of 6 would be plenty. I firmly
believe that 6 players is the most that anyone is able to have control over.
2. 60/40 buy-in split. Say for instance the buyin is $100 total. Each player
gets 3 x $20 tickets, and $40 per player goes into the pool.
Each sn'g would pay the top 3 based on the $20+2 payscale, plus the
final prize pool would be $2160, split 70/30, netting the winning team
players $252 each (on top of any winnings from the original sng's).
That would accomplish a few things, most importantly all players would have a
vested interest in showing up to the tourneys as even taking down one
would get you the original buy-in back.
3. More compacted schedule. If every player needed to play 3 matches,
that's a total of 18 matches. There's no reason we couldn't do one of
these every month if that were the case. Play on nights say Sunday to
Thursday, taking Friday and Saturday off and that would be plenty.
With 6 guys there's no way each of them couldn't find ONE of those
evenings to be home to play.
4. The two teams that were tops in this first one have the option
to stay together, aside from any draft. Everyone NOT on one of
those teams can be drafted by anyone.. After the next fcpfc, the players on
the top two teams at THAT point get the same option. If one of
the teams that decided to stay together doesn't end up in the top
two, all of their players become "free agents" for lack of a better term.
Any thoughts???