Wednesday, April 11, 2018

FCFL Partnership Updates

The FCFL announced three major partnerships last week.  Each of these is important on its own, and combined they will provide FCFL broadcasts with the exposure and the polish that they’ll need to get millions of fans involved.

The first (and least surprising) is a partnership with Twitch.  This will provide fans with a great platform for viewing FCFL games and for interacting with the games (by making in-game decisions) and with each other.  I also have a great deal of respect for Amazon (Twitch’s parent company) and think that FCFL has definitely put themselves in a great position to succeed by aligning with them.  This will be the first ‘traditional’ sports league that broadcasts its games on Twitch (which also broadcasts most major esports leagues), and as such, should be an important project from Twitch’s point of view.

Production of the broadcasts will be handled by IMG – the same company that owns the UFC.  This should ensure a high quality to the production.  No chance of a single viewpoint provided by a shaky cameraman using his cell phone!

Entertainment industry titan CAA will also be involved with FCFL, although it’s slightly less clear exactly what they’ll be doing.  It appears that they’ll assist with involvement in a variety of partnerships and distribution ventures.  As more details become clear, I’ll be sure to share them in future articles.

From my point of view, these partnerships are great news, with each of them likely to contribute to the FCFL’s success.  The only potential downside is that partners of this importance may have demands or place constraints on the FCFL which could potentially lead to a slower (although ultimately more successful) rollout of the league. 

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Brief Updates

I'm back from vacation and will be posting regularly again.

The big FCFL news from while I was away is that games will be broadcasted on Twitch with production done by IMG.  Here's an article from the Washington Post:

Two items buried in the article:

  • It mentions that games will begin 'next year'.  Not sure if that means 2019, or just "next season" in a general sense, as I haven't seen any announcements about a delay from the original plan of Q3 2018.
  • It mentions 7v7 football.  I'm assuming that's just an assumption and not necessarily accurate, as the vote on 7v7 vs 8v8 shouldn't be taking place until sometime after the token sale.

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

FCFL Vote Allocation Structures: Part 3

In my previous two articles about vote allocation structures, I described some of the goals of vote allocation and some of the possible types of structures that could be used in the FCFL Which approach do I think is best?

Overall, I think the approach of “one token, one vote…with penalty for large holders” will do the best job of accomplishing the goals (or what should be the goals) of the FCFL

Keep in mind that both the voting mechanism and the exactly distribution of tokens should be completely transparent.  That means that fans will have complete visibility into the voting, and they’ll know exactly when their vote (and the tokens they’ve purchased) are making a difference and how much of a difference they’re making.

Any system in which voting power is based on ranked holdings of tokens isn’t optimal because there will be many users for whom extra tokens are worthless.  For example, let’s say I have 100,000 tokens and the next fan ahead of me has 200,000 tokens.  In a voting structure based on ranked holdings, the next 99,999 tokens that I could purchase are worthless to me.  That’s a situation that the FCFL should be trying to avoid.

In addition, any system based on “one token, one vote” where large token holders aren’t penalized will theoretically allow individuals or small groups of individuals to control all votes.  That effectively makes 49.99% of tokens worthless, which is another situation that the FCFL should seek to prevent.

That leaves only one option from among my original suggestions: “one token, one vote with penalty for large holders”.  In a future article, I’ll get into the details of how that might work.

Monday, March 26, 2018

FCFL Playoff Proposal

I know there’s been some talk about FCFL playoff formats, but no firm decision yet.  I’d imagine that this is one of the decisions that will ultimately be voted on by fans.  Here are my thoughts on an ideal playoff format.

Some of the characteristics that a good playoff system should have are:
  • It should reward regular season success
  • It should give as many teams as possible incentive to win for as long as possible
  • It should be perceived as fair by fans
  • It should create excitement

I think this proposal would accomplish all of those things:
  • 1st place: First round bye, then choose which first round winner they want to play
  • 2nd place: First round bye, play first round winner not selected by 1st place team
  • 3rd place: Choose first round opponent from among 5th and 6th place teams
  • 4th place: Play against 5th or 6th place team not selected by 3rd place team
  • 5th place: Playoff spot
  • 6th place: Playoff spot
  • 7th place: Eliminated
  • 8th place: Eliminated

This means that there’s always a substantial advantage to moving up multiple spots.  In addition, it eliminates the quirk of most existing playoff systems that sometimes a higher rank team gets stuck playing a team that’s perceived as tougher than the opponent of a lower ranked team.  And it introduces the additional excitement of teams having to play against a team that they’ve just insulted by selecting them as an opponent.

I’d love to figure out additional features to separate some of the positions with similar results (particularly 4th from 5th and 7th from 8th), but I think this proposal is a really good starting point for discussion.