2018 MOTML New Rules Discussion
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:38 am
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.”
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.”