DRAFTAGEDDON discussion
A few thoughts:
-I was surprised to see the early run on QBs, since I believe a fourth QB (Thorsen) is going to have an excellent year.
-Barkley makes sense at number one, but I thought for sure we'd see Akrum Wadley in the top 10 as well.
-No Spartans? DISRESPEKT! I bet their first player gets drafted between rounds 3 and 9.
Draftageddon is fine for the early rounds. As someone above said, at least it's not soccer. It's discussion of the best players in our conference in the dryest month of the offseason. My other sports fix today is the fucking Home Run Derby in an especially nut-punchy year for my MLB team, so I will happily take the first two rounds of Draftageddon today.
Dollars to donuts there appears an OT thread on the fucking Home Run Derby before the night is through.
each complaint about Draftageddon or the timeliness of the site overhaul will add one round to Draftaggedon.
Is sure to upset many MGoUsers. Not only is it Draftageddon, but 2 OHMYGODTHEYARESOOVERRATED!!!! Penn State players went in the first round.
I just like that the comments section of draftageddon nearly broke the internet. Winter is coming.
Now excuse me while I go read about one of Ace's pretend Beilein teams.
It's the infamous arm-punter being drafted in the first round that is sure to draw the ire
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
If you think the Draftegeddon is boring, don't read it.
Personally, it seems like great content. Did anyone here know that some Minnesota DT had a case as one of the top ten players in the conference? Draftegeddon is a great way to get educated about the Big Ten conference, and provides way more insightful and accurate player evals than anything from ESPN or the BTN.
Gary went too low though.
- Put the link to the front page article at the top of your post
- Note that the comments on the article are turned off b/c it's causing some people BSOD, so you created this thread per their suggestion
- Use paragraph breaks and the number or bullet formatting to make your post look less like a horrid mess
- Leave out the comment insulting other users. That, in and of itself, is probably a huge cause for the blowback to your post. Make it a useful, relevant, non-snarky post (especially if you're not so good at the snark just sayin') and it will be much better received.
- Number 5 because Number 5 is my favorite Number. 5.
1. It's on the front page I think most people figured it out.
2. Normally if Brian's around he can fix that BSOD by deleting the comment that caused it but we couldn't find its source this time.
3. For some reason our format looks better when you just write paragraphs with numbers in front and double-breaks rather than the number-bullet formatting.
4. Insult or no people are going to complain about Draftageddon and we're never going to understand why nor stop doing it so the argument is moot.
5. All lists are top fives.
"Insult or no people are going to complain about Draftageddon and we're never going to understand why nor stop doing it so the argument is moot."
I love you guys. Seriously.
1. What can I say, it's just the way I am. I like to be helpful. It's extra clicks for me to get to it myself rather than the single click with URL in the post.
2. I was like, "What's all this BSOD talk about?" and I read most of the darn Draftaggedon post!
3. Mobile crappiness explains it. Yeah, that's a pain in the patootey.
4. I guess I just have a faith in mankind (or MGoBlogKind - is that a thing? It is now!) that respect begets respect. But I forgot my audience and the subject, so the aftermath was probably unavoidable.
5. It's also David Underwood's number, which clearly means that Noah Cain something something no jinx.
I find the crapping all over it hilarious. So consistent and so insistent.. It reminds me of the time when a Detroit rock station was converting to country (W4?), and the original staff played Garth Brooks' Friends in Low Places on a tape loop all Christmas Day.
like fantasy football, and drop the loser into a pit of lava/a water source in columbus. If not willing to raise the stakes, it's meh at the absolute best.
I'm here to support Draftageddon.
Pros:
Content
Insight into B1G depth
Sparty Disrespect
Comment Sections are Gold
Content
Cons:
Having to read about the 10-15 players selected from OSU every year
As a generally intelligent human who unfortunately suffered from a woefully inadequate football education during my formative years, I deeply appreciate the insight into key players of the upcoming season. And it's in July, when my signed HTTV hasn't yet arrived and I have nothing else to read.
Oh, and I love the banter. Not so much the Draftageddon Hate banter, but the jibing between the drafters. I'll read all the installments.
I also dislike the blog's approach of trying to turn "we know our readers hate this but we do it anyway" into some sort of running joke. That doesn't make it clever.
you get a Fandom Endurance Badge.
Our tracking shows the article has been viewed ~8,000 times, and about 40% of that traffic came directly to the article (without reading the stub), meaning people saw a link and clicked it rather than saw it on the front page. The comments are 50-50, though the haters (especially JClay) feel much more strongly than the likers. That's consistent with the behavior of a "vocal minority" while the article interest level for the offseason is off the charts. It's kind of remarkable even because the comments are turned off so it can't even generate extra views from that.
Always keep in mind, while the commenters' opinions have an outsized importance to us, they're a drop in the bucket compared to the lurkers.
here vote on which of your Draftageddon teams is the best and worst? Maybe that gives the MGo community some more involvement + a last chance to complain.
an awesome idea.
Seth - I can appreciate the passionate defense of Draftageddon. That being said, candidly, it is one of my least favorite pieces of content on MGoBlog. And I say this as an avid (NFL) fantasy player, reader of soccer articles, and other less-mainstream MGoBlog Content.
Good Content, Poor Delivery - I actually think the thought process and breakdown that goes into the player analysis (e.g., the logic why you're picking a specific player) is interesting and helps develop knowledge for the season. My issue is really with presenting this research in the form of a fantasy draft. In my opinion that detracts from the "good" - frankly, it's not as enjoyable to read this way to me.
I am hardly going to suggest that MGoBlog is going the way of other mainstream sports outlets, but I do see a similarity there to the move to video content that was criticized not too long ago (UV Pivots to Hamster). There the information in the video might be the same as in a written article, but it's being delivered to the consumer in a method that many do not prefer (not skimmable text). This is all most likely being done while someone at Fox Sports (or wherever) is saying that the "vocal minority" like Brian are the people upset with the pivot to video (great phrase!), and that the majority of people (read: millennials!) like it.
To paraphrase Brian:
"I dunno what the solution to this content is but I do know that [creating a fantasy draft] is not it. Making your product worse by turning it into a tedious [fantasy draft] instead of a [top list of players, etc.] is also not it."
Competition - I understand this angle, as someone might mail it in and this helps prevent that (I know, I know, nobody would ever do that). But there's ways to do this, create competition, while still presenting something that works better in my opinion.
For example, I feel that choosing an objective metric for ranking players at the same position and then asking writers to present and justify their ranks brings a lot of the same benefits without getting bogged down in the "fantasy draft" angle.
You could have everyone rank QB, RB, WR, OL, etc. based on a predetermined scoring system* and rewards points for who is the most accurate. This might not address others' concerns with the competition angle, but to me this would be way to deliver a similar level of analysis while still keeping some of the competition angles you enjoy. And it also is a way that we can see how each team did at the end of the year in probably, a much more digestible way. After a few years we might even be able to see trends (i.e., Seth is better than Ace at ranking RBs, but worse at WRs.) - again in probably a cleaner presentation for your reader to digest (enjoy).
*For example, you could set up a scoring format that rewarded points for standard stats and advanced metrics, that are used to rank each teams/player's production. At year end, the rankings would be bumped up against each writer's standings projection and they would be rewarded points for accuracy or punished for inaccuracy.
Conceit - This isn't really a big deal for me, however, I feel some of the suggestions I make above remove some of the "fantasy" angles while still keeping it a game. Just my opinion, but allowing everyone to pick the rankings for every spot also removes some of the fantasy football feel of it, but still provides for the added benefit of allowing for snark, input, "here's what we learned" - and still keeps the competition angle.
All of that being said, I'm not losing any sleep over it. I laugh at many of the jokes regarding Draftageddon. This certainly can be something that rational people disagree about, but I think it's good to continue to receive the feedback and analyze it, even if you disagree.
But really, my ideas are good. Adopt them!
Then we're not rating guys against the whole conference--just the other guys at their positions. Everyone agrees Barkley is the best RB, but seeing him taken first overall and then round after round of players going before another RB goes off the board tells you there isn't a clear #2 but there are at least enough good ones left that we all feel confident in getting one.
Fair point - and something my suggestion wouldn't catch. There's obviouosly ways to play around with this - maybe it's an overall ranking regardless of position where scoring is normalized across positions if you want to account for the fact that Barkley is head and shoulders above everyone else at RB but there is good depth in the mid rounds. Or maybe it's rank by position and overall rank as well, and scoring for both - lots of ways to do this.
I guess the question to me becomes is it worth putting that to be displayed by the draft pick in a fantasy draft format when your content says that in the opening explanation to the pick (and could still say in other formats)? Even if that hurts the overall consumption?
That seems like something that is more driven by the fantasy draft-angle of this than by the content angle of this.
[EDIT: And for the record, I appreciate the response and recognize I am unlikely to change your mind on this. Just enjoying a sprited, civil discussion, even if I did call you guys Fox Sports!]
but here's where I have a bit of a problem with your argument that "we get to know the opponents strengths".
We don't.
What we get is a piecemeal evaluation of some selected parts of those wholes, with only the cream of the crop holding much mass interest. (which for junkies IS usable info).
But knowing who might be the best punter on a given team doesn't provide me much insight into why a different team's special teams play is very dangerous for michigan.
I'd rather have a more in depth breakdown of each team in the conference (requiring Mgoblogs great research and attention to detail) than a hodge-podge fantasy mix of players that WILL NEVER PLAY TOGETHER!
If Michigan's true strength is more than just a sum of it's disparate parts, then that should hold true for other teams as well. I'm asking for a better preview.
