RotoGuru Football Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Fair or Unfair - Need Advice

Posted by: Promize@Parents
- [31841217] Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 12:36

So we have a keeper league and the rule of the league on keepers is:

You're allowed to keep 0 up to 3 keepers...

Whatever the final outcome, teams who have not yet picked their keepers will have a pre-draft to full-fill the 3 keepers they need..

At the time, we thought this was a good way to bring more balance to the league and make the league more challenging and get those teams who have had horrible luck or just god ugly teams a chance to compete.

What you all think? Fair to everyone? Unfair to those who have strong keepers year after year?

Another thing to add, our league at this point is like hockey, 8 of 12 teams go to the playoffs...
1TB
      Sherpa
      ID: 031811922
      Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 15:05
How can it not be fair? If you want a first round pick you throw back all your keepers. If you have Peyton Manning, LT, and Frank Gore on your roster you wait until the 4th round to pick.
2Promize@Parents
      ID: 31841217
      Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 15:44
I was thinking the same thing... But of course the folks who have Manning, Gore, etc, seem to think it is unfair...
3TB
      Sherpa
      ID: 031811922
      Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 15:57
Well, it might not be "fair" if we are talking about the teams with better keepers ability to maintain a competitive advantage over the other teams, but if we are talking about maintaining a competitive balance through-out the league, than sure it's fair.
4Doug
      ID: 441251914
      Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 16:36
One league I was in balanced this by putting adding supplemental picks for people who kept "less than the max" beween rounds 1 and 2. That way everyone still had a shot at some rookies and such, while still allowing a pretty decent benefit to those who felt their potential keepers were of sufficient quality.
5Perm Dude
      ID: 188729
      Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 17:43
That seems more fair to me. Still gives a step-up to those teams not keeping at least three (mind you, only three) players.
6Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 17:55
I agree with TB that a sandwich round between the 1st and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd etc might be more fair. It's not their fault they've built up their team. But in the end, no matter what the decision is, I'm sure everyone will move on and strategize accordingly.
7TB
      Sherpa
      ID: 031811922
      Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 21:14
And I'd like to agree with Ref that a scoop of cold vanilla ice cream on top of a hot serving of apple cobler makes it just perfect.
8Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 22:07
Oh snap! That is the best!
9weykool
      Leader
      ID: 41750315
      Mon, Sep 03, 2007, 00:31
I dont think it is fair to allow the teams with bad keepers to pick all their keepers before the teams that managed their keepers properly.
I also dont think the teams with bad keepers should pick their 1st player after the other teams have thier 4th player.
I would let the teams without keepers to have the keeper rounds before the regular rounds.
For example:
Keeper round #1
Regular round #1
Keeper round #2
Regular round #2
and so on.

What happens many timesin keeper leagues is the bad managers abandon the team and then you have to find a replacement.
Most new managers who take over a team understand that the 1st year might be rebuilding but you have to at least give them some hope of competing with the teams who kept LT/Jackson/Manning.
10Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Sep 03, 2007, 07:59
Weycool's suggestion sounds like the best to me so far.
11TB
      Sherpa
      ID: 031811922
      Mon, Sep 03, 2007, 12:41
I guess it depends on what you are trying to get out of the league. A 3-player keeper is nothing more than the people who lucked out in the initial draft getting to keep the top studs. You don't "build" a team when it's three keepers. You just keep the three best players. Kudos to whoever managed to win the draft lottery and got to select LT, Jackson, Manning, Gore, LJ, and the other top players. It probably took a lot of deep research to realize those were the players to draft. May you also be rewarded from this point forward. I either prefer many more keepers (so you can actually build a dynasty team) or something with a bit more strategy. Forfeiting top picks for keepers seems like a good strategy.

On the flip side, who really wants to join a league where 9 of the 12 teams have 25 of the top 30 players and instead of having a draft where you can also get some top players to compete, you get to listen to them whine because they won't get to draft Adrian Peterson this year? Oh well, have fun with it. Honestly, it's what makes annual redraft leagues fun for me.
12Doug
      ID: 441251914
      Mon, Sep 03, 2007, 15:26
I realize this gets a bit away from the original question, I tend to agree with TB in that I either like a more dynasty-ish league (at least 5 keepers, etc.) or else redraft. Of the 3 leagues I was in that have "died" in the last couple years, two were "3-keeper" leagues, and the other was a redraft where the group was never really that tight-knit in the first place.

All my current participation is in 5+ keeper/dynasty leagues or redraft, and I expect that to hold true from now on.

The dynasty leagues are the most fun IMHO and probably the main reason I still play fantasy footbal, but the redrafts are fun to mix in just because I get a chance to own different players and such. The RIFC/AAA/AA redraft is also more fun than usual because of how it affects which division you play in next year, etc... a bit more of a twist than most redrafts. Redrafts are great for playing with co-workers and such though, espeically any situation where you expect some amount of turnover each year.
13sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, Sep 03, 2007, 16:48
I was (and still am), the major proponent of the idea of the 3 keepers being essentially your first 3 picks. (If all keep 3, the draft essentially starts with rd 4)

So that a team who keeps 2, gets a 3rd rd pick. (Before anyone who kept 4 and starts to draft in rd 4)

I put this notion forward last season, argued for it, and eventually saw the league pass the rule. Now, some logistic issues in getting those early picks executed, has caused a backlash that IMHO, is entirely uncalled for. Thus I believe, the reason Promize (our commish), put this topic out there for feedback.

Fact 1 (which has not been mentioned) Initially, keepers were designated as a 3 yr max to be kept. That was later argued/debated and that rule was changed. Keepers we had planned on seeing returned to the draft pool werent returned, and thus a major impetus behind my suggested change last year.

Fact 2: 3 keepers does not a dynasty build. A core, yes. A team...not by by a longshot.

Last year, I kept 2. Using my 'pre-draft' pick to make a mistake. I took Hasselbeck at QB. Then with my 1st real pick, I took Addai, whom I parlayed into Manning. I now have a solid core...P Manning, S Jackson and B Westbrook. Having built that core with the ability to keep less than 3, how can I move to deny someone else that same option?

It is a question which was raised and answered. It should be done with. If the predraft is a bit of a hassle, thenlets fix that. The predraft process seems to be the issue, not the number of keepers.
14Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Mon, Sep 03, 2007, 18:09
I would not play in a league where you only keep 3. Either keep more or re-draft IMM. But that's just personal preference. Can't develop or do much with 3 keeps.
Rate this thread:
5 (top notch)
4 (even better)
3 (good stuff)
2 (lightweight)
1 (no value)
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.

RotoGuru Football Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a random spelling of Roethlisberger
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days11
Last 30 days65
Since Mar 1, 20071360637