The waiver priority position for each team should change weekly depending on the standings. (last gets place gets first priority, first place gets last, etc.)
I don't agree with that either. I get the concept that the teams at the bottom are in the most need of help through acquisition, but if you're 6-1 and have Adrian Peterson or Aaron Rodgers go out for the year, should you be penalized in not being able to make any good pickups until your record is worse? I don't think owners should be disadvantaged or handicapped during the season based on their performance to date.
I do agree with the current waiver in that it evens out the priority of pickups across teams. If I'm a #1 team or the #12 team, I can't just go in and get the best guys every week just because I'm the first one in or because my record places me ahead of others. If I get first choice this week, I shouldn't get first choice again next week just because I lost - everyone else should get to take their turn if they want to.
Just my two cents, but I would still vote in favor of the current process. The only other option that I might be in favor of regarding waivers and free agents is a bid process. If we all get a pretend $100 budget for pickups, then you can blind bid against others according to how much you value a player. That gives everyone a shot at getting any free player and makes you responsible for the priority/value you place on them. Currently I might blow my high waiver position on a kicker, then my RB goes down next week and I don't have a shot at his replacement. With a bid system, your ability to pick up players is dependent on what you decide to spend, so you have more control/responsiblity for roster changes. Not even sure if we can do that through Yahoo, but we've adopted it in two of my leagues and it has worked well.