| 0 |
Subject: Gurupie 24 Preseason Discussion 07
Posted by: Ref
- Donor [539581218] Sun, Jul 29, 2007, 12:42
Previous Thread with Off-season and preseason voting.
Ok now that the voting is done, it's time to start a new thread. Working on getting the new rules in and the constitution cleaned up. Also need to go back and re-read the CBS changes for this year.
After we get those things complete we will get the scoring input/changed and test it. Then we will try and determine dates for Keepers, IDP draft (4 rounds random one time only) and the Supp. draft. (7 rounds). This will take over twice as long as previous drafts--though we're at least hoping the IDP draft will be pretty quick. We also need to get busy on the scheduling as that will take some time. |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 80 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 20:04
|
Toral, the CC has been disolved. It was only formed to help figure out a baseline for how we'd start this IDP. I mean where do we start? We did that and asked the league to then discuss it. Therefore, it's up to the league to decide what to do with it from this point. I mean this should really have been done before. That's the only frustrating thing about it. Now we've had the vote and getting ready to start things up and now some people want to discuss it?!?! :)
There's no reason not to be positive about it. We all want what is best for the league to make it the most enjoyable for all of us. I don't see anyone being defensive, Cards and then I simply explained again how we settled on the CC proposal.
As far as the 2/3 majority thing, again, it's not a big issue. Twarpy was one of the ones telling me he was against it. There were others. I'd like this discussion to continue to see if there can be a melding of the minds to find out if there really is enoug hsupport to have another vote. If so, we need to get on it.
|
| 81 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 21:06
|
Toral, the CC has been dis[s]olved.
That's why I asked you to reconvene it.
I mean this should really have been done before. That's the only frustrating thing about it. Now we've had the vote and getting ready to start things up and now some people want to discuss it?!?! :)
This is disingenuous, ref. You know perfectly well that most league members do not pay great attention to changes off season.
Toral
|
| 82 | Promize
ID: 55223275
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 22:56
|
Crazy... all that time REF begged people to speak up.
|
| 83 | Perm Dude
ID: 1871978
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 22:58
|
Sure. But Toral is right: We are concentrating on other things (particularly other sports).
|
| 84 | TB
ID: 53633209
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 23:07
|
TB and PD for instance basically said get on with the vote.
This is after giving tons of input and basically the only response was, "Come on guys, we need more discussion." I did agree that we needed more discussion and input, but it was disorganized. Let's talk about keepers after we figure out scoring rules and let's figure out scoring rules after we decide how many starters we want to have or whatever order, but it was all over the place. I suggested having as many keepers as we were going to add new IDP starting positions. That either went ignored or didn't generate enough support. I suggested we make DST a mandatory keeper and also suggested excluding that number from the current number of keepers (or adding an additional keeper to account for DST), but ran into the roadblock of "not wanting to dictate policy" to teams. It hasn't happened yet, but someone could dump all their D's and not have one to draft. If they can't work out a trade they have to forfeit all their games.
I really don't want to rant on why I got burnt out being in the committee, but for future reference I do suggest just discussing rule changes as a league in the forum. That way everyone can give their input and participate at whatever level they are able to based on time constraints, but at least be able to follow along.
|
| 86 | Perm Dude
ID: 1871978
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 23:50
|
TB and PD for instance basically said get on with the vote
I missed this. At one point I encouraged you to give more time for additional votes (up to a week total). But I don't recall saying anything like you've said. But perhaps I'm just not clear on your point in bringing it up?
As far as the discussions are concerned, I dunno--I think we have a very large league with guys often not all that football-oriented at the time most opportune to make league-wide changes. So when guys are paying attention (and bringing up good questions, like Doug) the timeliness makes it very messy.
I don't have an answer for you. But I do think we need to have the regular members not jump down the throats of the commishes, while the commishes need to cut the regular members some slack about good discussions coming in late in the process (more to the point, whining about no discussions earlier).
Perhaps one good way to make changes is to try to have in-season discussions of this sort, with changes to take effect the next year. That way we're all focused not only on football, but on the nuances of this league in particular.
|
| 87 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 00:07
|
Perhaps one good way to make changes is to try to have in-season discussions of this sort, with changes to take effect the next year. That way we're all focused not only on football, but on the nuances of this league in particular.
That's an excellent idea.
I'm not dissing the commisshes or the competition committee. Let the CC reconvene. Let the commisshes give their opinions of Doug's change. Only let them not be defensive about their own final proposals. That's what I asked for.
Toral
|
| 88 | blackjackis21
Dude
ID: 034837521
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 00:28
|
I was on the CC and one of the few in on the final discussion. IIRC, it was me, Ref, StL, and Trip. I frankly don't know who was proposed the way the current IDP #/keeper # increase ended up, but suppose it must have been Ref or StL as I don't believe it was me and I think Trip was more or less an observer. Personally, I remember making a comment at some point along the (drawn out) discussions that if people are not compelled enough to keep IDP's, then our scoring system should be tweaked. I.e., if we're going to add IDP's, let's make them have equal value with offensive players. Note: this does not have to mean equal points on an absolute value, as many have been quick to point out.
Either way, I figured there would be plenty of pre-vote discussion and tweaking of rules to be voted upon once the CC presented its ideas. That didn't happen. Indeed, maybe intra-season is the only way to introduce such ideas.
As for reconvening the CC, I see no reason. The CC was always just an attempt to get the entire league participant's ideas moving in a coherent direction. I don't think it was ever intended to be some exclusionary, rule-making body. It appears now that a better percentage of the league is interested - not too late to change things, in my opinion.
|
| 89 | Doug
ID: 422281412
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 03:11
|
Detaching from the specific keeper proposal and moving to the abstract discussion... for me, I have to say there was a fundamental disconnect on the purpose of the CC, both in terms of purpose and methodology which I only understood after the fact by chatting with Ref about it. Nobody to blame about that, it was partly a result of me joining in halfway through. I think in order for me to be really helpful, I would have needed to be part of it from the start. Jumping in halfway through was confusing as hell (and just as a suggestion for the future, I really don't think email threads are the way to go... a message board thread or a wiki helps keep things orderly).
Yes, Ref was asking people to speak up, and I wanted to. I tried to. I sincerely attempted my best to participate in the CC, but honestly I simply couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on half of the time. Other times I did try to contribute (such as on realignment and the double-header issue)... only to have the topic change to a completely different subject 2 emails later, before the existing topic was resolved (and apparently already well into the discussion of the other topic).
My suggestion for the future (completely up to the commishes, just providing my two cents) is to make proposals a 4-step process:
1) Someone proposes a rule change. It needs to be more specific than "add IDPs". Not every detail needs to be hammered out, but some pretty good guidelines of what you're talking about. General parameters at least. Otherwise it's just "an idea", not a "proposal". Be sure to take the time to propose something substantive.
2) The proposal is formalized down to the nitty-gritty wording of it. This is done EITHER by the rules committee, or league-wide... NOT both. My experience from other dynasty leagues is that a rules committee is about 100x more effective for this than a league-wide discussion. The rules committee not only discusses and formalizes the proposal, but thinks of what it feels are the important "pros and cons" and presents those along with the proposal itself (usually the pros are fairly self-evident in the proposal, it's the dissenting side that needs to be made clear). Generally speaking, the rules committee would try to stay focused on one proposal at a time, and not move on to the next until the first one is finalized (unless there is a particular reason, such as directly related proposals, or the need to wait for a particular piece of information, etc.)
3) The league receives the formalized proposals along with the "pros and cons" from the rules committee. Everyone has the option to voice supporting and dissenting opinions if they feel really strongly about it, or if they feel there are certain key pros/cons that were missed by the rules committee. However, the proposal is not modified by the league... it's just an opportunity to comment. If you want input on the actual construction of proposals, join the rules committee. In rare cases, a league member might make a critical observation or point such that the rules committee realizes their error/oversight/etc., retracts the proposal, modifies it accordingly, and resubmits it to the league.
4) League-wide vote.
Note, some proposals don't lend themselves to yes-or-no votes... case in point, should we have 9 keepers, no restrictions... or 9 keepers with 1 IDP, or 10 keepers with 2 IDP, or 10 keepers with 1 IDP, and so on... if you really want to gauge what people are going to be happiest with, there are a couple of "preferential voting" options we could employ. It's really not all that difficult and I'd be happy to help.
Also, some proposals are dependent on the results of others... coming back for a second round of voting a few days after a first round isn't a big deal. When you're dealing with a large issue like adding IDPs, sometimes it's better to break it into separate pieces to vote on (such as how many if any do we add to the league... then, how should their scoring be weighted... then, how should this impact keepers). All the implications of one comprehensive proposal is just too much to take in, particularly for anyone who wasn't involved in crafting it (on the rules committee). When you break it into pieces, people have a much easier time getting their arms around the specific issue being dicussed or voted upon.
This all might sound a bit complicated at first read, but in my experience it actually runs really smooth, and is a fairly consistent approach amongst the longer-running dynasty leagues (currently 5-10 years) that I participate in.
Just to be clear... I'm not trying to monday-morning QB here, and I greatly appreciate all the hard work that's been put in over the last few weeks by the commishes and others who have participated. I'm just trying to make some suggestions for the future that hopefully will help make it easier for managers to participate in the proposal process and make things a bit less maddening for the commishes. Take this post under advisement, and if you don't feel some or all of these ideas would be helpful to running our league, then ignore them... and really, I won't be at all offended that you aren't doing it "my way", and will still try my best to help out in the future. :)
Yeesh, two novellas in one day. I'm becoming rather prolific!
|
| 90 | THK @ fam
ID: 40717218
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 14:03
|
Trade talks
Sorry to interrupt good league talk; however, I am looking to make a deal like this...
Chambers + Jones for an upgrade at WR
or
Chambers + Vinateri for an upgrade at WR
andrewwilson_2009@depauw.edu with trade talks.
Let's make a deal if you see something that works.
|
| 91 | Doug
ID: 422281412
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 14:36
|
Sorry to interrupt THK's 4th post in this thread stating that he's looking for a trade, including one where he turned down two supposedly "good deals" involving a player he had mentioned (do you want to make a trade or not?); however, I am looking to make a deal like this...
Glenn + Rackers for an upgrade at WR
or
Glenn + Michael Turner for a MAJOR upgrade at RB
or
Glenn + Eagles for a top-rated Team D
doug_g24@reprazent.com with trade talks.
Let's make a deal if you see something that works.
|
| 92 | Doug
ID: 422281412
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 14:38
|
Also would consider moving Glenn or Rackers for a draft pick upgrade.
|
| 93 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 18:06
|
I started looking at my own team. It's a disaster.
I trade for a potential starting RB who dies. I trade for a starting RB who appears now will never play in the NFL again. I trade away a backup QB (starting then) who ends up being traded and is now a starter. My stud RB I had to trade away as he is retiring. ANother RB I traded for who was a starting RB is now 3rd on the depth charts.
So I am going to be in major rebuilding mode for the next couple years. I don't have a QB or starting RB. So I'm in a weird position as a buyer and a seller at the same time. Need to fill positions while also looking for the future.
|
| 94 | THK @ fam
ID: 1977917
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 18:10
|
Well I made a trade. Pick after pick I give up for a consistent scorer at RB so I can win now. Maybe this one will break my A-train curse? Here's hoping JJ gets out of town next season...
Can we just make this league PPR or even .5 PPR so I can win and get this off my back?!?! ;-)
Let me know if anybody sees a Chambers deal they are interested in...
|
| 95 | THK @ fam
ID: 1977917
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 18:17
|
Why did we change to 8 keepers again? ;-)
|
| 96 | Perm Dude
ID: 87299
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 21:28
|
Just to mock me, it seems.
|
| 97 | THK @ fam
ID: 1977917
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 21:35
|
PD-
Jones is always available for a draft pick! ;-)
|
| 98 | Slizz
ID: 21733916
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 09:56
|
I know I'm new to these parts, but "GO", a co-worker of mine and manager in this league, has put me up to the Gurupies fantasy football world.
From what I can see on some of the trade offers out there, one is definitely appealing:
Glenn + Michael Turner for a MAJOR upgrade at RB, but the question is: how major?? are we talking Reggie Bush major, or Willis McGahee major?? I mean Glenn might only be servicable for a couple more years, but Michael Turner is damn intriguing. You have a guy who is definitely going to be a FA next year and can step in and contribute right away. Potential destinations:
Cleveland (Young offense and would be competent at QB,RB,WR,TE for the next 5+ years or so)
Pittsburgh (They signed willie parker DIRT CHEAP before last year, and still are missing that big back)
Houston (No State income tax and Ahman Green isnt the long term answer)
Tennessee (LenWhale needs to get his butt in shape and if Henry isnt a 'franchise' back, it wont cost the franchise much)
New York Giants (Brandon Jacobs Needs to learn to pass protect, otherwise hes a liability on the field on passing situations)
WILDCARDS:
Green Bay & Seattle - Nobody knows what Brandon Jackson is going to do, and they have absolutely ZERO depth. Seattle has a aging shaun alexander and paul allen as an owner, he'll make something work if needed.
That being said, those are the most likely destinations for Turner (barring severe injuries) for next season. Good luck with your trades!
As for Ref's post, there are a couple of "Gems" at the QB position that could go unnoticed
Trent Edwards - backs up "operman" JP Losman and could be in a situation like Matt "Stump the" Schaub a couple years down the road.
Jordan Palmer - 6'6 215 with a rocket arm. Throws some INTs, but that can always be worked out by some good coaching. I knwo his name carries some hype, but you never know.
Troy Smith - He WILL be baltimores starter in a year or two. But I anticipate someone reaching on him.
As for your RB's ref, GO has told me that they are far and few in this league. However, my best reccomendation is find "average" backfields in the NFL and go to their local paper's website and read what the beat writers have to say about the position battles:
Kansas City (Kansas City Star)- w/out LJ, what is their contunity plan???
Tennessee (The Tennessean) - nobody knows their situation yet
Houston (Houston Chronicle) - you never know if there is another Dominack Davis around,
San Francisco (Contra Costa Times/SF Gate) - Frank "Cavity Sam" Gore couldnt stay healthy to save his life at the "U" so pay attention to that stuff and before you know it, playoffs.
|
| 99 | TB
ID: 14729815
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 10:05
|
Nice post, Slizz. There are sites where people charge for that kind of analysis.
|
| 100 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 10:30
|
KC's continuity plan has me wondering... is Priest really gonna play this year? or do you think KC just put him up to this to get Larry to sign?
Doug should sign Slizz to do his advertising! lol.. he'd give Species a run for his money in baseball.
|
| 101 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 12:52
|
My post must have struck home to a few people as I have multiple offers. I havne't had the chance to go through them all yet but I have seen them. I am not ignoring them but I have a lot to wade through now that Houston is apparently out of the league. I just got to figure out which direction I want to go. I am definitely interested in high draft picks if anyone wants to deal.
Well we asked Slizz to post somehwere (figured it would be in the 101 thread since he is playing there). You see, GO and I have been talking about Slizz for over a year. He's been telling me about he had been looking at our league (via GO's team) and giving him ideas and commenting on things etc. He kept telling me how astute he is on our league and how much he wanted to be a part of it. But, we've been burnt by a non-gurupie before. Then he moved out of GO's office and went from a one hour commute to a 3 hr commute--leaving little time. Well now he's back in GO's office again and with the commute time cool again, really wants to play. We've been talking with him and we're convinced he's the best candidate to take our open team. And since he has started posting and playing in a couple leagues, he's ready to jump into the fire--though he may be smarter than all of us!!!
Anyhow, please welcome Slizz to the league as he's taking over the Bills. Of course that makes my dviision even harder--but I think we all want the competition.
|
| 102 | mjd
Sustainer
ID: 501381415
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 13:20
|
Slizz, from one rookie to another, welcome aboard.
|
| 103 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 13:39
|
Yeah, his only problem now is there is no way he can trade with Doug after showing how much value Turner has! lol... :)
I'm glad he has been given the opportunity... personally I had no reservations about reccomending Jay (Slizz) as he has always brought seriously stiff competition in my other leagues here at work/friends/family etc. I completely understood why Ref/Cards were worried about an unknown commodity, but our emails back and forth helped introduce everyone and to get a better feel.
And as far as being active, I have no worries there either... he's always looking to make moves, improve, trade etc. Like a Species/GO hybrid! And he was always asking how my squad was coming along, even in the dead of March.
Now its just getting him used to the forum and taking him through the process of an offseason/drafting etc. to get him comfortable. As Ref mentioned, he's used CBS before and I actually gave him access to my squad last year to play around with and get familiar with our league some.
And just a heads up - Slizz is a diehard Chicago sports fan. Don't know if we have any of those in here or not.
|
| 104 | Doug
ID: 422281412
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:34
|
The idea of S. Jackson / M. Turner / A. Johnson / V. Jackson / A. Gates next year excites me. Philly should remain a solid-but-not-dominant D... so I should be golden barring injury and assuming Delhomme stays strong.
Obviously I've been building this team up for a few years now (but still doing reasonably well each year), which is why I'd be looking for something major in exchange for Turner. Trading him would give me a better shot at competing THIS year of course, but I'm not going to completely mortgage next year and beyond just for the sake of a "so-so" starting RB who's on the decline. I don't have anyone specific in mind.
As to Slizz's post... yes, I'd certainly move him (w/ Glenn) for Bush! McGahee... hmm... yeah, I'd probably do that too... maybe try to weasel out of including Glenn though... or include Glenn and look for some form of IDP draft pick compensation to help me go for it all this year.
|
| 105 | Slizz
ID: 21733916
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:47
|
Thanks guys for allowing me to join the G24 league…I look forward to the upcoming season. I understand the privledge that was bestowed upon me to go forth and be an active member of the league, and I can assure you that I wont let you down. I would also like to recognize GO for his constant lobbying on my behalf b/c I would doubt I’d be in the league if it wasn’t for him.
That being said, I can’t stress enough how am really excited to embark on the challenge that lies in front of me. As you already know, my Bills had a tough year finishing at 6-8. Let it be known, there will be no more of that on my watch! The first order of business is cleaning out the dead weight on the roster. That being said, I always looking to discuss trades, so feel free to shoot me an email: jayrsherby@gmail.com.
Currently on the block: Vernand Morency and LenDale White, shoot me an email if you guys are interested. Those teams looking to get a potential starter, please shoot me an email and we can dance. Either or can be had at a reasonable price!! All that I ask in return is "fair" draft compensation.
Thanks Again!
Slizz
|
| 106 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:49
|
My #14 overall, #18 overall, #1.04 in the IDP draft are all available in a package to move up into the top few spots of the supplemental. Anyone up there considering a trading down scenario?
Just spoke with Slizz and he's recieved the offer, signing up and checking in shortly.
|
| 107 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:51
|
Well, slizz, I've sent you an offer. I guarantee it's the biggest one you'll ever get!
Toral
|
| 108 | Perm Dude
ID: 14747108
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:54
|
All of Quebec for some respect of the rest of Canada?
|
| 109 | Slizz
ID: 21733916
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:55
|
Turner is a great back, but that is the risk/reward you have to take for the player. You mortgage the next seasons fresh pick to hopefully improve your team immediately.
For example: The Browns potentially gave up the #1 overall pick next year (darren mcfadden) for Brady Quinn (#22 overall). #22 overall definitely doesnt equal #1 overall, but bottom line, the browns got their guy.
But if the object of the game is win now (in your case), or get your guy (browns case) those are sacrifices you would make (mcgahee & lower). If you were asking for Bush, I just couldnt do it, hes just too damn good. But I could deal with parting a player of willis mcgahee's caliber for that package you mentioned. Thats just me though.
|
| 110 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 15:11
|
Why, is the guy really fat?! lol..
And look at that - he's already posting and looking to trade faster than I can post that "I just talked to him and he'll be checking in" lol...
|
| 111 | THK @ fam
ID: 407421115
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 16:44
|
Slizz-
Only problem is Dallas doesn't need McFadden! :-( Which means we are talking the best LT in the ranks because there is no WR to compare to CJ, etc as of now.
Pete-
You have e-mail and an offer...
|
| 112 | Peter N.
ID: 426242722
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 16:52
|
THK - I didn't get your e-mail, but did get the offer. Thanks, but I have to pass. I can't trade my only player that doesn't have question marks surrounding him. And plus, he's a Texan. :-)
|
| 113 | Peter N.
ID: 426242722
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 16:54
|
Also, forgot to say. Welcome Slizz! Post 98 is excellent. Best of luck.
|
| 114 | THK @ fam
ID: 407421115
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 20:02
|
I'll continue my useless plugs in attempt to make a deal....
Add Jones to anyone on my roster (outside of Palmer, CJ, Smith) for an upgrade.
Jones can help strengthen your keepers if needed. I'll also throw in picks in a deal to make something happen as I am obviously looking to finalize my #4 RB/WR.
Or Jones is available for just a pick if necessary...
Ahhh...let's just get the season started!
|
| 115 | Dan
ID: 2477520
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 20:12
|
Hey guys, sorry I've been MIA the past couple months been very hectic, just got back in town a few hours ago, been out of the province the past 2 and a half weeks, just extremely busy. Things have defintiely settled down now and I hope to get all caught up will try to be on AIM later tongiht as well, I apologize to everyone for not being around.
I understand if you've already replaced me, like I said just trying to get caught up now.
|
| 116 | Dan
ID: 2477520
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 23:32
|
heh just got finished reading the thread and getting caught up!
Slizz congrats, I know I didn't leave you the best team out there :) but if you need any help running the team I'm willing to help out not that you'll need it! Wish you the best of luck, and thank you guys I've enjoyed my time in this league immensly and hope you'll consider me if another spot ever opens in the future! Thanks again!
|
| 117 | deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 14:35
|
I need a clarification on the scoring changes for Kickers please. I was updating my spreadsheets for the drafts and looking at CBS it says for Kickers the penaties for missed kicks is:
-3 points
Plus .5 points for a MFG of 30 to 32 Yds
Plus 1 point for a MFG of 33 to 35 Yds
Plus 1.5 points for a MFG of 36 to 38 Yds
Plus 2 points for a MFG of 39 to 41 Yds
Plus 2.5 points for a MFG of 42 to 44 Yds
Plus 3 points for a MFG of 45 to 99 Yds
So we're going to penalize the points for the kick attempt and a bonus penalty? I've never heard of such a penalty for kickers in a league. I've seen penaltys for missed kicks such as the minus points, but the initial 3 points for the attempt on top of it? Never! A missed 46 yrd FG at the half would cost you 6 pts! Hell, who'd want a kicker?
|
| 118 | Perm Dude
ID: 20734129
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 14:41
|
deep, long FG misses were supposed to have no penalty. I'd assumed that ref's post #33 in this thread was still the operative "tweek" for MFGs. Perhaps it just got put into the system without the sliding scale of penalties based up yardage?
pd
|
| 119 | deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 14:55
|
PD - I'm going by what was posted on CBS as of yesterday when I printed them out. I don't know the intent of the rule, but I know I won't play an active kicker at that expense. It's simply not worth it for the negative implications. There's only about 5-6 kickers in the league that would be worth the chance based on accuracy %. A couple of long kicks and you're in double digit negative points for a kicker
|
| 120 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:01
|
The only way for CBS to calculate our scoring system is to set it up as it is. We've ALWAYS done it this way. We did vote to tweak it last year so it has a shorter breakdown with some half point differences instead of hug breakdowns with 1 point differences to closely mirror how we do for FGs made.
If you look at the numbers you have posted, All FGs missed get -3, but you get rewarded for the longer FGs. So if you miss a 45 yarder you get -3 plus a 3 point bonus so the effect is zero.
CBS scoring is very complicated but at least they do allow us to do a lot of different things. Another way to do it would be to start at 0 points and start bonusing negative points as you fall into different categories.
|
| 121 | deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:07
|
PD - FWIW, I can agree more with the penalties posted in #33 of that thread, but I still don't agree with the principle of the -3 for the initial FG attempt. I've never heard of nor participated in a league that penalized for the attempt itself plus a penalty. I have played in leagues where the -3 was deducted for a miss under a certain yardage attempt (40 yds usually).
Other than a reference to a -3 penalty in "other leagues" for a missed FG, nowhere in the penalty portion of #33 for missed FG does it mention there is an initial -3 for the miss before the penalty is assessed. The penatly portion only addresses negative points in reference to the missed FG yardage.
Not trying to be a pain in the a$$, but a lot of games in this league are settled by a point or 2 and neg/ppg from a kicker could kill.
|
| 122 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:08
|
Re: 118
Your link is the precise formula we use as posted in 117.
I think you two are getting confused on pluses and minuses.
Plus .5 means CBS adds .5 to -3 to get -2.5 and so on down to -3+3=0.
|
| 123 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:10
|
DS, you're overthinking things.
Think of it this way:
You get -3 for all kicks outside of the bonus ranges--which is a missed FG 29 yards and closer. If you miss a FG starting at 30 yards, you hit the first bonus range which means you only lose 2.5 points.
Hope this helps.
|
| 124 | deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:15
|
Ref - so in other words, you're adding points to the missed FG to get the missed FG to get back to Zero instead of subtracting. AAAAHHHHHHHH
My bad, but I thought you were adding the penalty points to the the MFG. In effect it's just an equation... -3+3=0.
There has to be a better way to do this. ;)
|
| 125 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:24
|
Well you can't input a 0 in CBS in the main scoring system I beleive. Or maybe it was a blank or cna't add pbonus to a 0? (I can't remember, but it is something really unintuitive). Anyhow, anytime we ran into a wall with the goofy scoring system, we've managed to keep trying things to find a way around it. We figured the kicking and MFG system that first year finally and we've had it this way since.
|
| 126 | deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:37
|
No problem Ref, I was interpreting the "plus" wrong on how the MFG points were included. You do a good job tweaking the scoring of CBS to get this thing to come out how you want. Lord know how you do it.
|
| 127 | Promize
ID: 55223275
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 21:39
|
Should we be sending a payment in sometime soon?
|
| 128 | Slizz
ID: 237341222
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 23:34
|
RE: 111 - The Saints didnt need Reggie Bush with Deuce McAlister either...that worked out pretty well :)
Dan - the team isnt that bad afterall...I am estatic to have some quality keepers versus what some other teams have to work with.
RE: FG's - I wholeheartedly agree with -3 for FG's 29 and in range. But to penalize a kicker for missing a 40-49 yard fg is a little harsh. Thats just my opinion though.
Just a reminder...check my "on the block" section. Looking for draft picks or a qb.
|
| 129 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 00:13
|
OK, before anyone else miunderstands what we have to go through to make CBS score it how we voted it, let's make it simple:
Missed FGs
45+ no penalty
42-44 -.5
39-41 -1
36-39 -1.5
33-35 -2
30-32 -2.5
29 or less -3
Again, in order to create ranges we had to set it up like it is setup 6 seasons ago. Nothing has changed except adding the tweak we made before last season to create half points.
|
| 130 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 17:03
|
Next Thread
|
| 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?)
|
|