| 0 |
Subject: RIFC 2005: pre-draft discussion
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 13:35
I have sent out the invitations for managers for the 2005 RIFC. The eight playoff teams from the 2004 RIFC are returning. In addition, the regular season winner and the playoff winner from each of the three qualifying leagues have been invited. For the qualifying league in which the regular season winner also won the playoffs, the second place regular season team has been invited.
Thus far, I have received acceptances from 13 of the 14 invitees. I am still awaiting a response from Doug, but since he has been an active manager in the RIHC, I expect he will accept as well. (If not, I’ll pick an alternate from his QL).
Here is the list or managers:
Challenger
Taxman
Ender
Leggestand
GoatLocker
Mötley Crüe
Guru
Sludge
Athletics Guy
Kev
bandos
I_AM_CANADIAN
Bonka
Doug
Next steps:
1. We need to review the league parameters and decide whether any changes are warranted. I’ll start by digging out last year’s parameters and posting them here.
2. We need to organize qualifying leagues. I will start a separate thread for this momentarily. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 271 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 23:39
|
Taxman's right, Guru. Why is the result from last season in need of change? There are rules and then there are changes to the game. This represents the latter. Why fix what was not broken? What happened last season was a coincidence.
You and I made the final. We played better than everyone else. Is that such an unbelievable concept? Luck is certainly involved, but taking advantage of it shouldn't be construed as having an unfair advantage.
|
| 272 | Sludge
ID: 14411118
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 00:23
|
I voted for it, not because anything is broken, but because I think it's a novel idea worthy of a try.
|
| 273 | kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 03:36
|
I as well voted for B because of "novelty", not because of last years result.
|
| 274 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 08:37
|
I did not raise the issue because something was "broken". I raised it because it was discussed during the playoffs last year, and was worthy of a more thorough vetting this preseason. Undoubtedly, the results last year prompted the observation that there was nothing akin to a home field advantage for the top playoff seeds.
There are plenty of features that aren't broken, but that might be improved with tweaks here and there. This seemed like an issue with that sort of potential.
It's interesting to me that the feelings seem to be running so strongly on this one. Most of the issues we've voted on haven't seemed to be a big deal to most.
|
| 275 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 09:19
|
Fair enough, Guru.
I just noticed that AAA started drafting already. Now I'm jealous! I wanna get this show on the road.
|
| 276 | Bandos
Sustainer
ID: 279492419
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 09:46
|
I vote A.
However, a first round bye for 1+2 and only 6 playoff teams would be ideal. Not to add any more to the maelstorm:)
|
| 277 | BoNkA
Donor
ID: 019742310
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 10:18
|
I'll change my vote to B then A.
|
| 278 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 10:25
|
Still waiting to hear from leggestand and Ender (and me). Current vote is 5 for A and 6 for B. Option C is clearly off the table.
My recollection is that we considered a 6 team format with byes prior to last season, but decided against it. (Maybe we never formally voted on it, but I thought we at least discussed it.) For some reason, I was thinking that the idea had already been effectively dismissed.
|
| 279 | Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 11:42
|
A only
I'm glad C is off the table. I took some time to thini about this one before posting and I am firmly on Sludge and MC's side. My first reaction was "No way, and I wouldn't have played if I knew C was the rule" I didn't post it because I was afraid I felt it was a bit over the top, but upon reflection I simply don't want things to be that way. I say that as one of the guys who was ousted in the first round.
I don't like B either, but wouldn't necessarily make decision about joining based on that rule. Their is nothing wrong with the traditional system. It WAS a fluke that ALL the lower seeds won. In every league it is no surprise if 1 or even 2 of them do, but all 4 is extremely rare.
|
| 280 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 12:20
|
I'm going to vote for A as well. Although we have yet to hear from leggestand, the vote currently stands at 7A, 6B, and since option B cannot attain a majority, we will leave the playoff rules unchanged from last year.
I was intrigued by option B, but wasn't sure I understood all of the implications, not the least of which was whether the second week should also be subject to reseeding. In a close vote, I was unwilling to vote for the change when I didn't think I understood all of the ramifications.
I would like to suggest the following course of action for this season:
1. When we get to the playoffs, I want to go though a "mock" B-type process, essentially tracking a "what if" playoff scheme. I want to think through that process in "real time", given all of the issues that are relevant at that time.
2. Next season, I want to reopen this issue, including not only Option B, but perhaps also discussing once more the "6 teams with 2 byes" option. Option C, however, seems to be "permanently dead".
|
| 281 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 12:37
|
Wow, I think that's the first time I ever voted for something that won in this league.
I like the idea of mocking up Alternative B when the playoffs roll around. I'm eager to see what managers will do and how it will all pan out.
It's hard to go from 8 playoff teams down to 6. Cutting people out of the playoffs is nasty business, especially when they get used to things being a certain way. However, it would definitely heighten the challenge of the league. I'd be willing to play under that scenario. And then the folks who really tear up the regular season get their "reward" and that argument is settled. I'll vote for that next season (assuming I'm around) if you want to go that way.
|
| 282 | Sludge
ID: 27751510
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 14:02
|
I've been playing in a league that has 1st round byes for quite a few years now. I hate it. (Anectdotal evidence alert!) It seems that every time I get the bye, I invariably do well during the first week of playoffs when I'm not playing anyone! Gah! Booooorrrrring! Then I'll lose in the 2nd round. Sure I would have lost anyway, but at least I would have had the pleasure of beating the snot out of someone in the 1st round.
|
| 283 | leggestand
ID: 52731913
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 15:01
|
Sorry everyone...on vacation until Saturday night.
I vote B then C. I think it's a neat idea to have the 1 seed choose who they face.
Again, sorry I have been unable to check daily, so, if something else comes up for a vote, I may not be checking in until Friday...
|
| 284 | leggestand
ID: 52731913
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 15:02
|
Crap, now I see the issue has been decided. Oh well, my voice has been heard!
|
| 285 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 15:07
|
Yeah, who gave you permission to go on vacation anyway, legge?
|
| 286 | Kyle
ID: 417461123
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 00:46
|
Anyone try to print this forum out recently... I am in the AA league and wanted to read what was happening in the big boy league and see what all the ins and outs of the rules are as i left for a week on vacation. Problem is it's more pages than Peyton's TDs
|
| 287 | Athletics Guy
ID: 43525254
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 01:21
|
The link in post 213 sums things up pretty well.
|
| 288 | Sludge
ID: 14411118
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 01:59
|
Any time you're ready, Guru, set up the draft thread. We can get a few picks under our collective belts before the official start.
|
| 289 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 07:57
|
Yes! Good man, sludge. I am dying to get going. Too much talk and no action makes Motley Crue a dull boy.
|
| 290 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 34743414
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 09:12
|
I'd be ready to plug in a few too (off the clock of course).
|
| 291 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 09:17
|
I'll set up the draft thread a day or two early, but there was some sentiment (including mine) that an early start is not necessarily desirable.
Patience, grasshoppers!
|
| 292 | Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 09:35
|
Team Defense Points
(the following points apply only to team defenses)
Sack 1
Interception 2
Fumble recovered 2
TD 6
Safety 3
Blocked kick 2
Shutout 10
1-6 points allowed 7
7-13 points allowed 4
14-20 points allowed 1
21-27 points allowed 0
28-34 points allowed -1
35+ points allowed -4
Can we take a vote on bumping up Int/fum rec to 3 and sack's to 2 in team def??
|
| 293 | BoNkA
Donor
ID: 019742310
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 11:02
|
I think the team defense scoring is fine. If it were bumped like that, they'd be scoring the same as an IDP doing the same thing, which isn't exactly fair considering there's a 10 man difference in getting that one thing done.
|
| 294 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 11:12
|
Yeah, so lets even things up by making Team defense scoring worth 10% of IDP scoring.
Personally I've had enough rules changes. I would vote to keep the scoring as it is now.
|
| 295 | Athletics Guy
ID: 43525254
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 13:40
|
If anyone was planning on trading picks, now's a good time.
|
| 296 | BoNkA
Donor
ID: 019742310
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 14:15
|
Anyone want to do a Mike Ditka and trade me their entire draft? I'll give up my first rounder for those extra picks. :D
|
| 297 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 15:10
|
I doubt there will be much trading of picks until the draft actually begins. Most people chose a specific position in the draft*draft and then based their strategy around it--at least last year they did. There weren't any trades until the 3rd or 4th round, I believe. There weren't many trades at all during the draft, either.
|
| 298 | holt
ID: 347411319
Sat, Aug 13, 2005, 20:49
|
is the RIFC using kafenatid's 'on the clock' this year?
|
| 299 | Doug
ID: 31761321
Sat, Aug 13, 2005, 22:14
|
yes
|
| 300 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 09:31
|
You know things are slow around here when there haven't been any posts made in the Politics Forum in almost 24 hours. That's got to be approaching a record.
|
| 301 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 14:56
|
"Are we their yet? Are we their yet?"
But seriously... can we get this started now? I know D-Day is supposed to be Friday... but I'm trigger happy!
:)
|
| 302 | kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 18:40
|
My buddy is a trainer for the Chargers, and he said Tomlinson has been hiding a bad knee sprain all summer, and he tweaked it yesterday...just a caution to those 7 people picking in front of me.
|
| 303 | Athletics Guy
ID: 43525254
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 18:51
|
I guess I'll cross him off my list now. Thanks for the info Kev! And I'm sure Sludge thanks you too.
|
| 304 | FRICK
ID: 3410101718
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 21:24
|
Guru, I am commishing the AA league and had a couple of questions for you.
1. The league is using decimal scoring, does fanball let you chose how many decimals? AOL lets you chose, 1, 2 or 3. I know this is minor, but I am trying to mirror the RIFC as closely as possible.
2. Can you please repost all the final scoring rules.
3. How is the schedule set up. AOL requires the commish to set up the schedule when using double headers. Does fanball do the automatically.
Thanks you,
Frick
|
| 305 | Trip
Sustainer
ID: 13961611
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 21:38
|
Frick. Here is the link. Also see post 123.
Setting of schedules can be a bit of a pain, but here is how I did it.
Set the league so that each team only plays 1 game per week and then have fanball automatically assign a schedule. I then reversed the schedule which was generated such that each team plays the same team they played in week 1'st 1st game in the 2nd game of week 13, and the team they play in the 1st game of week 2 in the 2nd game of the 12th week.
This will work for all weeks except for week 7 since if you followed that scenario the 1st and 2nd game matchups would be the same. To prevent this, I had the 2nd week of game 7 equal the 1st week of game 6, the 2nd week of game 6 equal the 1st game in week 6, and the 2nd game of week 8 equal the first game of week 6.
1st game - 2nd game
1 13
2 12
3 11
4 10
5 9
6 8
7 6
8 7
9 5
10 4
11 3
12 2
13 1
|
| 306 | FRICK
ID: 3410101718
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 21:41
|
Thanks Trip, I just wanted to make sure that there hadn't been any rule changes that were made after the pdf file was posted.
Double thanks for the schedule help.
Frick
|
| 307 | Doug
ID: 21716317
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 23:22
|
FWIW, I'm not fond of playing the same "pair" of teams in week 3 and 11, 4 and 10, etc. etc. YMMV. Also, it clusters your both your games against the 6-7-8 teams in the middle of the season, rather than spreading them (often teams have a "weak spot" during the season with one or two key players sitting out with injuries, etc.). So, just an alternate arrangement that, IMHO, spreads the scheduling more evenly.
1st game - 2nd game
1 7
2 8
3 9
4 10
5 11
6 12
7 13
8 1
9 2
10 3
11 4
12 5
13 6
|
| 308 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 08:38
|
kev, post 302:
Not funny. Tomlinson is my cornerstone in a $$ keeper league that I won last season.
NOT funny.
|
| 309 | Sludge
ID: 14411118
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 09:29
|
My buddy is a trainer for the Chargers, and he said Tomlinson has been hiding a bad knee sprain all summer, and he tweaked it yesterday...just a caution to those 7 people picking in front of me.
Unless this information becomes public, I can assure you that you won't have to worry about making that tough decision, kev. So rest easy, and don't worry your little head about it.
|
| 310 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 09:41
|
FRICK[304] - we use 2 decimal places. None of our formulas would cause the 3rd decimal place to be used, IIRC.
As for schedule, I set up schedule "gaps" so that teams would not face each other twice during the "bye week period" (weeks 3-10) to the extent possible. Other than that, I tried to get decent separation between the "matching" weeks. Here is my pattern:
1 9
2 8
3 13
4 10
5 12
6 11
7 2
8 1
9 3
10 5
11 4
12 7
13 6
|
| 311 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 09:46
|
So we do play everyone twice. Somehow I thought we missed playing everyone else twice each.
|
| 312 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 15:01
|
Just catching up on all the posts that I missed during vacation and saw MC post 212:
Leggestand has something interesting to explain. He was the second to choose last season, and took the 5th pick. This year, he had the 6th choice and elected to draft 11th, with 4-6 still available.
Good question...I wish I could explain my thought process now, but you will just have to wait. One thing is for sure, I am not looking for the 2005 version of Barlow and Henry.
|
| 313 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 15:07
|
HAHAHA. Ha. Funny. Everyone's a comedian.
I wasn't saying you should explain now. I was merely musing as to how it would be revealed once the rationales start going up. I have patience. I know you've got something rolling around in your cranium telling you what to do. Look forward to reading it. My explanation is much simpler this season than last. I look forward to posting it.
|
| 314 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Aug 17, 2005, 09:11
|
I have patience.
Mine is running thin! We are so close to starting, and watching all the QL's already drafting (and AAA already posting some rationales) has gotten me ready to go.
|
| 315 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 17, 2005, 13:49
|
I will unleash "On the Clock" in a few minutes. If Sludge and anyone after him want to start picking, go ahead. The clock will not start until Friday morning, however, so early picks are strictly optional.
I'll set up a draft thread once the program is turned on.
|
| 316 | Toral
ID: 53422511
Mon, Aug 22, 2005, 15:54
|
I'm pretty sure that the approved playoff format is A from 248 but it would be a help to the minor leagues if Guru could state the RIFC playoff rules here, so they may be followed.
Toral
|
| 317 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 22, 2005, 16:04
|
Yes, A is the choice. To clarify, the top 6 seeds are based on W/L record, and the 7-8 seeds are based on total points.
We are going to do a "mock" playoff seeding using option B as well, just to see how it would run under actual conditions.
|
| 318 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Fri, Aug 26, 2005, 17:36
|
Guru,
coldwater coyotes pointed out that the PDF saved and linked to in post 213 does not state that IDPs receive points for return yardage. I know the operating assumption is that they do but if the page can be updated to reflect that it will be less confusing. Thanks!
|
| 319 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 26, 2005, 22:02
|
That page is straight from Fanball, so it can't be easily modified.
Fanball's standard practice is to credit return yardage to IDPs, so I guess they don't call attention to it.
|
| 320 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Fri, Aug 26, 2005, 22:03
|
Thanks for the clarification.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|