| 0 |
Subject: RIFC : Potential Rules Changes for 2006
Posted by: Guru
- [2811847] Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 11:54
This thread is for discussion about possible rules changes for next year’s RIFC. Rather than waiting until next summer to launch this discussion, I thought it would help us to begin to organize the discussion now, so that we can more easily get “in the moment” when we begin deliberations in July. This thread (and any poll within it) is open to all participants in the RIFC and all of the qualifying leagues.
So far, I can recall several proposed adjustments.
1. Adjust team defense scoring to reflect only points scored against the defense (rahter than all points scored). I need to study the scoring for this more closely, as I’m not exactly sure how “defensive points” have been defined in the fanball system.
2. Adjust team defense scoring to reflect yardage allowed
3. Adjust (or eliminate) restrictions on roster changes during the playoffs.
The first two items, relating to team defense scoring, have not been discussed at any length, but have been mentioned as potential enhancements.
The third item, relating to playoff rosters, has had considerable discussion, and I recommend that you review posts 117-162 of the regular season discussion thread .
I want to set up an informal poll on various playoff roster options for next season. This poll will not be binding on next season’s decision, but should provide good starting point, and may clarify the will of the majority. Before starting the poll, however, I need to consider how to best frame the alternatives. So don’t start “voting” yet.
|
| 1 | Guru
ID: 2811847
Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 12:12
|
Regarding playoff roster alternatives -
There are three broad approaches:
1. All rosters are completely frozen during the playoffs.
2. Roster changes are limited.
3. Rosters may be managed throughout the playoffs according to regular season rules.
For the first two RIFC seasons, we have used option two, restricting add/drops only to TE, PK, and IDP, requiring that any player dropped must be designated as "questionable" or worse, and must be replaced by a player who can fill the same position slot (with all IDP considered as the same).
Some have argued that this is too restrictive, and my sense is that a less restrictive add/drop rule would have support. Before we vote on the alternatives, let's list some of the possible adjustments. The following alternatives are not mutually exclusive. We might decide to use a combination of these.
A. When adding someone to replace an injured player, allow any player to be dropped. For example, if Antonio Gates is injured, that team could drop an IDP or a RB to create roster space for an additional TE.
B. Permit limited injury replacement for QB, RB, and WR.
C. Permit free substition for TE, PK, IDP, and team defense.
D. Adjust the weekly claiming priorities during the playoffs to award the top priorities to the highest seeded teams.
This last option is to address the potential for a lower ranked team to nab a key player (e.g., the Maurice Morris example) during the playoffs. If a "game changing" player becomes available, a higher seeded team would have ability to block that player from a lower seeded opponent. This rule would probably only apply if we removed most of the other playoff add/drop restrictions.
Are there other options that should be put forth for consideration?
|
| 2 | youngroman
ID: 50818914
Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 14:17
|
with the bunch of good IDPs available on the free agent market all season it may make sense to raise the amount of IDPs by 1 or 2
|
| 3 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 14:34
|
Yeah, I hate to agree because that makes it harder. But I agree. Maybe 2 LB, 1 DL, 1 DB, 2 Flex IDP.
|
| 4 | russelldl
ID: 18114914
Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 15:44
|
Just a thought,
How about any player put on the IR during playoffs can be replaced regardless of position. That allows specifically for relief for players who have zero chance of playing in anymore games.
Or to address it from a different perspective, having the same "questionable or worse" standard for IDPs,Ks, and TEs, while having a stricter standard (for example "doubtful or worse) for all other positions.
|
| 5 | russelldl
ID: 18114914
Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 15:46
|
Also, maybe I'm missing the argument for it, but I don't see any need to allow for Team Defense substitutions.
|
| 6 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 15:48
|
Some people believe that it's OK to play matchups during the playoffs--as in, whoever's playing Baltimore or the Jets in the next few weeks.
I'm OK with guys that go on IR, or even designated as Out being replaced.
|
| 7 | Trip
Leader
ID: 13961611
Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 16:05
|
I would like to extend the trade deadline a week to allow all teams to finish their bye weeks (the Friday after week 10).
I also don't understand why we play 364 games and allow the top 8 teams into the playoffs (which are only 7 games). I propose only allowing the top 6 teams into the playoffs and awarding the top 2 teams with byes in the first week of the playoffs.
|
| 8 | leggestand
ID: 11102399
Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 16:15
|
1. I like the way we do add/drops in the playoffs now. The only adjustment I like would be if you are picking up a permitted position, that you can drop whoever you want. No restrictions on who you have to drop. Only restrictions on who you can pick up.
2. I like Trip's idea to extend Trade Deadline to after all bye weeks are complete.
3. Playoffs. I still like 8 teams. I don't see a bye as a big reward, as I like playing the games, not getting a free pass. Plus, my wife would make me actually leave the couch that weekend.
4. More IDP's...hardest one for me. In two seasons, of the 7 IDP's I have drafted, only one has lasted a full season on my roster. There are a ton of good players out there. Not fully against raising required IDP's, but I am wondering if that will overly dilute the skill positions?
5. Team D scoring. Tough one, as I am a TB Defense holder and Simms has messed me up on multiple occasions on my points against by turning the ball over inside his own 20. How can we make this stat minimal? Maybe, each Team D starts with 5 points. For each 100 yards allowed (omitting return yardage), you lose a point. Most teams would get a 1-2 point boost from this. Just a shot from the hip thought.
|
| 9 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 19:08
|
Re: 7... if you only want 6 teams in the playoffs but don't want byes, then another option would be that all 6 teams face off (seeded) in week 14, with the 3 winners advance to week 15 along with the highest scoring loser. We use this system in another league I'm in and despite initial opposition a couple years ago, everyone seems to really like it now.
|
| 10 | culdeus
ID: 151155423
Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 19:29
|
Of course I'd love to see blind bidding in the rifc, but that will never happen.
The D/ST scoring as it was set out made no sense and clearly people overvalued them vs. the ability to differentiate from 1 to n. An overhaul is needed.
Negative points for kr/pr would help balance people getting return specialists in idp spots.
|
| 11 | Athletics Guy
ID: 1210562417
Tue, Dec 13, 2005, 20:48
|
I would like to see an additional IDP spot as well. Looking through the FAs every week, I noticed there was still a lot of depth there.
I know this has been brought up before, but I still like the idea of creating home field advantage by giving some free points to the higher ranked teams in each matchup. Teams that dominated the regular season deserve more than just getting to play the lowest seeded playoff teams. Depending on the matchups for that particular playoff week, that might not even be an advantage.
|
| 12 | Letter_J
ID: 511026169
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 09:27
|
A AA RIFC perspective (at least mine):
First, I love the idea of additional IDP's; the more the merrier. As I stated in a previous thread, I believe that IDP's really reward those that do their research. Having now played for two years in the RIFC with them, I have come to the conclusion that I would not join another league unless IDP's were included in the roster.
Second, I also echo the "after week 10" trade deadline; this would allow the bye weeks to be completed before the trade deadline.
And third, in line with what Athletics Guy stated, I have read at another site about a league that gives a homefield advantage of 15 points! Not sure if I agree or not with this, but that is what one league out there is doing.
|
| 13 | russelldl
ID: 18114914
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 09:40
|
I would just add to AG's comment about homefield advantage that, because of the 7th and 8th seeds being based on points earned and not record, it can certainly be a disadvantage to be seeded #1 or #2. The 7th and 8th seeds will often be the sleeper of the playoffs because they may have the point totals of a 4th or 5th seed.
One alternative is to select the 8 playoff teams the same way but then seed them based on points scored. Just an idea.
(I'm under the assumption that all RIFC leagues use that format for selecting the 7th and 8th seeds. It was used in the AA league and I assumed it was across the board.)
|
| 14 | Frick@Work
Donor
ID: 3410101718
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 10:34
|
I think this have been suggested before, but what about a home field advantage based on regular season average points. In the RIFC Guru averaged 124.2 vs. Bandos who averaged 113.2. You could either award a 11 point advantage or divide in half for a 5 point advantage.
Looking at the RIFC teams their is a huge divide between teams 1-4 vs teams 5-8. 1-4 averaged 124-121 while teams 5-8 all averaged 114. The advantage would be negligable if 2 top 4 seeds were playing each other.
Looking at the other 3 leagues the difference between teams 4 and 5 isn't that large so an advantage would be small, maybe a point or so.
|
| 15 | Guru
ID: 2811847
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 10:41
|
When we raised the issue of "home field" point advantage during the preseason discussion, we had several managers who were so vehemently against it that they said they would not play in a league with such a format.
As such, it's interesting to hear the issue broached again.
|
| 16 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 10:47
|
culdeus[10] - do you have an alternative to suggest for team defense scoring? If you think this system makes no sense, what would make sense?
|
| 17 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 11:17
|
Guru[15]--I will play RIFC no matter what. I understand that you can make rules unilaterally, but appreciate the way you usually do it democratically. If you were to take a vote on having a point-added "home field" advantage for the Playoffs, and there was significant support for it (as in 2/3 or more), I would willingly support and play with that rule. If qualified people are talking about forgoing playing because of that, I think it's something that we need to be sure almost all managers support before we institute it.
|
| 18 | Letter_J
ID: 511026169
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 11:34
|
Just to add to the thought that I expressed in Letter_J [12], I wish to make it very clear that I am not advocating a system that allows for a "buffer"of 15 points; I was merely raising the issue to buttress the comments of AG.
I leave the question of points seeding to the collective Gurupies; if so, though, does the vote start and end with those that were invited this year; and do those that participate in the AAA or AA have a vote at all? Just asking.
|
| 19 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 12:10
|
I don't have much for suggestions... mainly just to up the IDP depth... I'd suggest it being 2LB, 2DB, 1DL, and one IDP Flex.
|
| 20 | Letter_J
ID: 511026169
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 12:16
|
Wow Ben (I_A_C),
going from 4 to 6; you must like IDP's (:-,)
|
| 21 | Letter_J
ID: 511026169
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 12:20
|
Re post [5], russelldl,
I do not believe that pickups are allowed at the D position.
|
| 22 | russelldl
ID: 18114914
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 14:22
|
they aren't J, but it was mentioned under C. in Guru [1].
That's why I asked about it.
|
| 23 | Guru
ID: 2811847
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 14:24
|
The reason for the suggestion is that some teams prefer to manage team defense flexibly to take advantage of favorable matchups.
|
| 24 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 15:09
|
RE 20:
Indeed. Plus I find it very odd when players like DeAngelo Hall, and London Fletcher are too often on the FA wire.
|
| 25 | TB
ID: 1286814
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 15:34
|
I think there should be at least 6 IDP as well. I was looking at the waiver wire in my AAA league last week after final claims and there were only 4 RB and 4 WR available who averaged more than 5 points a week that played at least 10 games. There were at least 30-40 IDP with several in the top 20 at their position.
If we are going to take baby-steps, I suggest increasing the IDP flex by one more for next year. If we increase it two more to total 6, I like 1 LB, 1 DB, 1 DL, and 3 Flex.
Guru, in the Goldmember league we have 8 IDP starting. There are only 12 teams in that league, but that still equals 96 IDP starters vs 14 teams with 56 starters. Six starters per team makes it 84 starters.
|
| 26 | culdeus
ID: 516121713
Wed, Dec 14, 2005, 18:05
|
My primary problem with d/st scoring is the distribution that it gives. You get 4-5 teams with about 3ppw higher than average then a huge gaggle of teams within 1ppw of eachother. This makes it difficult to evaluate draft wise vis a vis other starting spots vs. other players. This is a chronic problem with D/ST ffl wide. I prefer pure IDP leagues I know the idea was to have d/st to make it a hybrid league, but now maybe it's time to just drop it altogether.
D/st has a place in ffl. In fast drafts to prevent 6-7 rounds of idp picks and to save time. Time isn't a constraint for a slow draft so much. Axe it and add 2 idps.
|
| 27 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 27, 2005, 09:44
|
Let's try a straw poll on poll roster options. Any participant in any RIFC league may vote. The results will not be binding on next season, but will be influential.
1. Rank these three options in order of preference (most preferred to least preferred):
(A) All rosters are completely frozen during the playoffs.
(B) Roster changes are limited (similar to the past 2 years).
(C) Rosters may be managed throughout the playoffs according to regular season rules.
2. If modifications we made to option (B), which of the following would you support? (Select all that apply, as they are not mutually exclusive.)
(a) When replacing an injured player, allow any player to be dropped. For example, if Antonio Gates is injured, that team could drop an IDP or a RB to create roster space for an additional TE.
(b) Permit injury replacements for QB, RB, and WR.
(c) Permit free substition for TE, PK, IDP (i.e., injury is not required)
(d) Permit free substitution for team defense
(e) Adjust the weekly claiming priorities during the playoffs to award the top priorities to the highest seeded teams.
|
| 28 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Dec 27, 2005, 12:34
|
1. C-B-A (what does the Collecitve Bargaining Agreement have to do with this? Or the Candaian Basketball Association, for that matter?)
2. A-B-C-D... not E. I think priority should be preserved from the regular season. If you were able to make it through the last few weeks without a waiver pickup, then you are rewarded accordingly. I like the strategy componenet of deciding when it's worth burning your priority vs. when it's worth holding onto it. I basically see the playoffs as extension of the regular season... weeks 1-13 are a double round robin tourney to separate the wheat from chaff... those teams that survive go into a single-elimination tourney from weeks 14-16... other than that I like to keep the rules the same as much as possible throughout.
|
| 29 | Trip
Leader
ID: 13961611
Tue, Dec 27, 2005, 12:40
|
1. C-B-A
2. A-B-C-D
What Doug said!
|
| 30 | Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Tue, Dec 27, 2005, 14:01
|
1) B-C-A
2) A-B-C-D... not E. I think priority should be preserved from the regular season. I agree and I think allowing E should actually come under "home field" discussion as this is rewarding the top seeds and I believe this would be an overkill for home field advantage.
|
| 31 | youngroman
ID: 50818914
Tue, Dec 27, 2005, 14:28
|
1) B-A-C
2) A-B-C-D, not E
|
| 32 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Tue, Dec 27, 2005, 17:40
|
1. B-C-A
2. A-B-C-D, not E
|
| 33 | culdeus
ID: 431150179
Tue, Dec 27, 2005, 18:21
|
I'd like to see the thread where they actually discussed what, if any, difference wide open waivers makes vs. a restricted system in the playoffs. If you don't have quality backups or handcuffs going into the playoffs then the pie is in your face. No need to make things overly complicated.
I vote free for all-no rules-no holds barred-hide your women and children waivers.
|
| 34 | Athletics Guy
ID: 911151321
Tue, Dec 27, 2005, 19:23
|
1. C-B-A
2. A-B-C-D
|
| 35 | Toral
ID: 541029611
Tue, Dec 27, 2005, 19:56
|
1. C-B-A
2 a,b,c,d,e.
Toral
|
| 36 | leggestand
ID: 101150287
Wed, Dec 28, 2005, 08:52
|
1. B, A, C
2. A, B
|
| 37 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Wed, Dec 28, 2005, 15:10
|
1. B-C-A
2. A-B-C-D Not E
Cliff
|
| 38 | TB
ID: 181162415
Wed, Dec 28, 2005, 17:53
|
1) A-A-A
2) Doesn't matter
|
| 39 | BoNkA
ID: 2911453010
Fri, Dec 30, 2005, 11:45
|
1. B, C, A
2. A, B
|
| 40 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 1511212818
Sun, Jan 01, 2006, 22:24
|
1 - B, C, A.
2 - A, B, C, D, E.
|
| 41 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Mon, Jan 16, 2006, 13:18
|
None of this is binding, but just thought I'd recap for convenience... I counted TBs 2nd and 3rd place votes as a half for each B and C (since he didn't indicate a preference). Tallys are listed as "1st-2nd-3rd" place votes for each option (Question 1) and simply Yes/No for Question 2 choices.
Question 1
A - 1 - 2 - 10
B - 7 - 5.5 - 0.5 - slight edge over C
C - 5 - 5.5 - 2.5
Question 2
A - 12 - 0
B - 12 - 0
C - 10 - 2
D - 10 - 2
E - 3 - 9
|
| 42 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Mon, Jan 16, 2006, 13:19
|
By the way, will there be a thread for RIFC "year in review"? No biggy, just wondering if I should type something up.
|
| 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?)
|
|