View unanswered posts | View active topics

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Search for:
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:38 am 
Offline
Practice Squad

Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:35 am
Posts: 90
New Rules Discussion

There was an extensive discussion on some new rules on last year’s message board. Here is what was discussed (excluding some things that have already been discussed in the past).

Adding bench spots and/or adding IR spots.

Adding another starting RB or FLEX spot.

Change waivers to either weekly or FAAB budget.

Moving the trade deadline to later.

Realigning divisions.

Less keepers. (Snake draft?)


Go ahead and show support for any of these in this thread and if there is enough support we'll get a vote on it.



Below are some of the more extensive arguments…

“1. Add at least two bench spots. This would bring each team to at least 22 total roster spots, which to me makes horse sense in a dynasty league. Right now, it seems like most of us are either contenders who trade picks for veterans, or rebuilding teams who focus mostly on picks and position. Adding roster spots would encourage a viable third strategy: building a bench of young players who can develop over time. That'd be good for the league IMSO.

2. Add an IR spot or two. Shot in the dark: we all suffered from injuries this year. IR spots reflect reality and give GMs at least a fighting chance when a really serious injury hits. Without 'em, we're too often forced to choose between remaining competitive for the week and remaining competitive in the future. With 'em, the question is more like how we balance those two demands, which I think is far more compelling.”

“My Proposal -
Divisions reseed based on order of finish.
George - 1, 8, 9, 16
Butkus - 2, 7, 10, 15
Singletary - 3, 6, 11, 14
Urlacher - 4, 5, 12, 13
Division play to start and end season, 8 non division games weeks 4-11 George does not play Urlacher, Butkus does not play Singletary, 2 weeks of playoffs seeded by divisional order of finish - 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s.
Draft order tied to winning in playoffs 4s pick 1-4 - first pick goes to the team who won both playoff games, 3s pick 5-8 - round winner picks 5, 2s pick 9-12 - round winner picks 9, 1s pick 13-16 - Champ still picks 16 loser of both rounds picks 13. Re-align, repeat.”

“Honestly I value that this is a keeper league, but to extent we keep players, I think it hurts the competitiveness and fun factor of the league. There are limited ways to truly build a competitive team in this league and that is not always fair to someone new coming into the league.

I would make two suggestions; decrease the number of players we can keep and make the rookie draft snake format.

This helps for two reason. First, with a smaller amount of keepers, hoarding rookies in the first couple picks becomes less valuable. In each draft you have an option of building for the future or finding starting quality players to immediately improve your team.

Secondly, with a snake format, it is less valuable to suck and get the first pick. In come cases, with an expanded draft pool, having picks 16/17 could actually be far better than the first.

I would recommend that each team be able to keep a full roster of starters each offseason and all rookies for thee years. After three years, players would either need to be on the starting roster or released with all of the other non-starters. This would keep the spirit of the keepers in the league, but also keep more teams engaged each year.”

“FAAB to me still favors teams who aren't churning the bottom of their roster constantly. If a team is adding players in a way that results in them being high in waiver order, they are also likely to add players in a way that results in them having a large bidding budget.

It is slightly more equitable in that anyone COULD hold their entire budget the entire season, where now only one team has the ability to sit in first waiver position all season.

If it resets every week based on record the rebuilding teams aren't discouraged from taking a chance on a guy because if they were wrong about him that chance won't cost them 12 spots for 6 weeks. That's how I work waivers. I am much less likely to burn my position once I climb into single digit priority than when I'm 10th or later.

The only way I see a bid system having the potential for being equitable is in a salary cap league where rebuilding teams are full of rookie contracts and they have a decided financial advantage.”

“Mike, good thoughts, I just see it more as if we all get $100 fake dollars, you can still churn the bottom of your roster and have enough to make large bids on other players.

If you make three $1 bids to churn your roster every week, you end up spending $39. that leaves $61 to make an impact bid on any one player the rest of the year.

It really comes down to the value you place on each lesser player. If you want to be active and make sure you get your guy, you might be out of money by week 7-8, but then you get stuck with $0.00 bids and everyone else gets a chance to roster build.

To me, it really is equitable because it comes down to each individual having to determine what they're spending strategy is, and also determining what a player is worth to their team.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:10 am 
Offline
Practice Squad

Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:35 am
Posts: 90
My Thoughts...

I don't think we need to expand rosters in any way. This is by far the deepest league I'm in. But it is supposed to kinda be a full keeper league, and we only keep 14, so I don't think we need to reduce that.

I could be for adding a starting spot, RB or FLEX.

I definitely like waivers the way it is. Weekly causes the same teams to get the top players every week. FAAB gives an advantage to those super into it. I don't think we have the kinda of passionate participation to do FAAB.

I'm ok with moving the trade deadline back a few weeks. It's too early as it is, but not all the way back to the playoffs. 3 weeks before is my other league.

I'd be ok with realigning divisions since there are no natural social rivalries really in this league. I like DD's idea or some kind of relegation would add some spice to the league.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:40 am 
Offline
Practice Squad

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:21 am
Posts: 65
I would be in favor of keeping MORE players. Not fewer. This is a dynasty league.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:16 pm 
Offline
Crafty Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:56 pm
Posts: 981
FAAB simply allows everyone to put whatever emphasis they want on their free agents. Some spend their whole wad on whomever breaks out in week 2-3. Some might simply bid $1 on every player they want, just looking to churn their roster as it was put. Some might hoard a small chunk and spend the rest...No matter what. it gives us the most flexibility to do whatever you want. Their is no guarantee that you'll ever get the guy you want, not like if you hold the #1 waiver order slot. And if you're a dumbass with your fake bankroll, you'll likely regret it later when injuries are mounting and you can't win a bid to save you're team. But it does give everyone a chance at every player that is available, and is the best system.

_________________
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:17 pm 
Offline
Crafty Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:56 pm
Posts: 981
I also like division re-alignment. It keeps things mildly interesting and potentially gives us different opponents every year vs being stuck with the same schedule we've had for a while.

And I like the idea of another starting roster spot, whether we give ourselves a RB or flex.

I was on a 16 team where we made a roster like this:
QB
RB
RB/WR
WR
WR/TE
TE
FLEX
DEF
KICK

It gave a lot of flexibility to manage your roster and start all your studs.

_________________
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:46 pm 
Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:58 pm
Posts: 117
My thoughts:
Fine with roster size and number of keepers, but I am definitely in favor of the IR spot, so would be open to having that as 21st spot/15th keeper and just have some kind of designation of once someone is on that spot they're there for the season.

FAAB in my mind is the only way to go for acquisitions. It's equitable for all and doesn't favor teams not doing well. Those churning out the bottom of their roster aren't prevented from taking gambles as you still can and for $0 after the claim day passes.

I would like to see division realignment and thought basing it on finish is a great idea. We'll never get to play every team in a season, but this would get some variety.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:11 pm 
Offline
Practice Squad

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:21 am
Posts: 65
We did expand rosters a few years ago by eliminating the two IR slots and replacing them with regular bench spots. Just FYI.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:30 am 
Offline
Practice Squad

Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:35 am
Posts: 90
Alright, we have to get going on this. Below are the issues that have enough support and discussion to have a vote. Please post your vote here on the four possible changes below. I will do my best to get everyone's vote in some form and tally them myself. I don't want to create 4 separate poll threads, and then everyone who uses this forum could vote, not just our league.

Rule Changes

#1: Adding One IR Spot

#2: Adding One starting FLEX spot

#3: FAAB instead of waviers

#4: Division realignment each year based on standings


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:35 am 
Offline
Practice Squad

Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:35 am
Posts: 90
My votes...

1. Yes

This essentially expands the rosters by 1 (fulfilling that proposal in a way) since it's likely each team will have a player eligible for IR each week.

2. Yes

I think it's more interesting to start more players, and this league's 6 skill starters is about as low as it gets.

3. No

I'd like to do an FAAB league but I don't think this is the league for it, since it will give an advantage to the higher participators, who I already think have a larger advantage.

4. Yes

It would be DD's proposal unless someone has a better idea, but I like it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:46 am 
Offline
Practice Squad

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:21 am
Posts: 65
1. No. It’s a 16 team league. With 20 roster spots, we’re already as deep as a 12 teamer with 25 spots.

2. No. It’s a 16 team league. Adding a 6th non-qb offensive starter would be the 12 team equivalent of 8 non-qb offensive starters.

3. No opinion. So yes.

4. No opinion. So yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group