RotoGuru Football Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: RIFC&RIFC AAA-Rule change suggestion:Reception pts

Posted by: loki
- SuperDude [4211201420] Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 13:17

I don't follow the rule discussions in RIBC, and therefore do not know if this has been previously discussed, or if this is even possible at game sites that we use. If reception points were added to the scoring system, the advantage of having one of the top draft picks would be minimized. The draft would be fairer and the league more competitive. Guru and others, comments.
1Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 13:22
It's certainly possible, but I don't think it's ever been proposed.

I guess I'm at a loss to understand why "the draft would be fairer and the league more competitive", however. For that matter, I don't think there's been any correlation between draft order and ultimate finish.
2loki
      SuperDude
      ID: 4211201420
      Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 14:09
It makes WRs and TEs more valuable in relation to RBs, making more higher scoring players available at the end of rounds and in this way minimizing the advantage of having a high 1st round draft pick. This advantage is not eliminated by snaking the draft. Also more receivers would be taken early making more RBs available later on.
3Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 14:35
Although it may seem intuitive, I dispute the assertion that bumping up the scoring potential for receivers makes them more valuable relative to RBs. I think the primary reason that RBs are so highly drafted in the early couple of rounds is scarcity - we need to start 28 of them (14 RIFC teams x 2 slots per team), and therefore they "enjoy" a scarcity premium. Since there is no flex slot that allows a team to start either a RB or WR, there is should be no direct relevance to the relative scoring of RBs vs. receivers. Every team needs to start 2 RBs and 4 receivers. The ranks of viable receivers are much deeper, and therefore there is more of a premium on RBs. Theoretically, expanding (and leveling) the relative values of productive receivers should cause managers to draft them later.

I'm not averse to raising this option prior to our drafts - but if better draft parity is the objective, then I have doubts that this type of change alone will do that. It might even have the opposite impact.

Now, if we also opened the second RB slot to be a flex spot (i.e., RB or receiver), then having more productive WRs would certainly create greater parity with RBs in the early draft rounds. But as long as RBs and receivers are effectively "walled off", the only relative value issue is the depth and relative scoring within each position, but not across the positions.

And once again, is there any evidence that draft order has had a relationship on ultimate standings? If anything, top RBs have had a propensity to crash and burn in recent years, based solely on my subjective recall. Has anyone done any sort of analysis on this? (or can someone?)
4loki
      SuperDude
      ID: 4211201420
      Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 14:59
Obviously I defer to your analysis. However another reason to consider a major rule change such as this and/or a WR/RB flex position would be shake things up, eliminate complacency, and make managers think more during the draft.
5holt
      ID: 2463620
      Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 21:05
I prefer continuity, but that's just me. and I don't think I'd enjoy losing a game because the opposing team's RB caught 9 passes for 14 yards. Getting a full point for the simple act of catching the ball, regardless of YAC just doesn't seem right.

About the advantage of high draft picks; it's not uncommon for rifc'ers to choose a draft slot in the middle or end and pass on the higher slots.

Analysis that was done on the ribc and rihc showed that draft orders had no correlation to final standings, right? Or am I mistaken? I'd be interested in seeing the numbers on RIFC leagues.
6The Beezer
      ID: 58538277
      Sat, Jul 11, 2009, 04:03
I'd like to see a study on that as well. My suspicion is that the reduced number of games and opportunities compared to baseball/basketball probably does make the draft more important in football versus the other sports.

I'll substitute anecdotes for data and point out that when I won the RIFC in 2006, I drafted 6th.
7Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Sat, Jul 11, 2009, 04:05
I can say I personally do not like drafting in a high slot. It can be good if you're picking number 1 while a guy like LT is still completely dominant, but nobody can reliably predict what is going to happen. I'd rather pick 6th to 8th in hopes of someone dropping or just pick at the end of the round.

I really doubt draft position has any noticeable correlation on final standings. I know I won the AA league while drafting 7th last year. I think most people would agree that it's the picks in the middle rounds that will make or break your season (and just avoiding injuries for your top picks).

All that being said, I agree with Guru that the point per reception likely will not make the league more fair and/or competitive. I wouldn't mind seeing it put up for a vote though, as I am used to playing with that scoring setup.
8culdeus
      ID: 316181423
      Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 21:12
Not super in favor of this. That's a huge 180 from 5 years ago for me, but sue me. I'd much rather see the value of WR go up by having a designated position to get return yardage for, but that's never going to pass.
9Nerfherders
      ID: 347242717
      Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 18:58
In my experience, draft position has little to do with finish as does injuries to your early round picks.

It's very hard to recover from injuries in RIFC. Just ask all those folks who drafted Brady last year.
10holt
      ID: 206331521
      Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 21:35
yeah, that would be me.
11judy
      Leader
      ID: 7771722
      Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 19:44
Would love a flex spot RB/WR/TE in place of the RB2 slot.

It would be fun to weigh the matchup value of an RB2 vs a WR4 or a TE2. it
would also help with injuries, bye weeks and the dreaded RBBC strategy.
12holt
      ID: 206331521
      Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 21:24
It would make things easier. Not sure if that's a good thing though.
13Bonka
      Sustainer
      ID: 019742310
      Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 22:23
I don't think changing the RB2 into a flex position is a great idea. Yeah, it will make setting lineups a whole lot easier, but that's not exactly a good thing. At the moment I'm not against it, but I'm not exactly for it either.

Also, didn't we already have 2 WR, 1 WR/TE, 1 TE last year? If we're looking for WR value to go up, changing a WR slot to WR/TE last year doesn't make much sense.
14culdeus
      ID: 24615279
      Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 10:17
If there is a rule change thread this year I'd at least like to propose a KR/PR spot in lieu of team defense.

This would make this league a little more mainstream IMO.
15The Beezer
      ID: 40281619
      Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 22:04
I'd be interested in more discussion of having a returner instead of team defense position as well. 2 questions:

1. Would all other players still accumulate points for kick and punt returns?
2. How would position eligibility be determined - for instance, if I had a ton of WR breakouts in my later picks, could I start Steve Smith there even if he were to stop returning kicks?
16culdeus
      ID: 587101120
      Tue, Aug 11, 2009, 21:12
1. No
2. Anyone is eligible down to kickers. Only points they get are from returns.
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 block of hidden (spoiler) text
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 days74
Last 30 days1714
Since Mar 1, 20071929879