GreaterNate 4 Months
Our keeper league uses the consolation bracket to help determine draft order. The winner of the consolation bracket gets first place, runner-up gets second place. and third place gets third place. On the other end, champ gets last place, runner-up gets 9th place, and second runner-up gets 8th place. We use end of season record to fill in the remaining spots.
Last year we set a precedent for filling vacant spots. If an owner of a top three pick left the league, then all spots would shift upward. Our thinking was that those three spots had to be earned, so they should go to an existing owner.
The team who's owner previously held a top three spot but then left the league was moved to the number 4 pick. If a team outside the top three picks lost an owner, the replacement owner would just maintain that spot since those spots were not earned through the consolation bracket.
Our reasoning was that this would provide an incentive for teams eliminated from playoff contention to continue playing.
Fast forward to this year and the guy who would have had first pick decided to leave. His replacement was moved to the fourth pick. He and I are having a friendly but heated argument over the merits of that system.
My argument is that since the owner who earned first pick left, the owner who earned second pick should get that benefit. His argument is that the second pick owner did not, in fact, earn the first spot and has no more right to it than he does.
This argument isn't about him getting the first pick. It's just about the principle of the matter.
So what does the community think?
TL/DR If the prior year's consolation bracket outcome determines this year's draft order and the team with the first pick leaves the league, should a new owner get that first pick or should the consolation runner-up get it?