| 0 |
Subject: RIFC format changes for an 18 game schedule
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 09:46
It seems likely that the NFL will move to an 18-game (and presumably 19-week) regular season. If so, that has implications for the RIFC.
Currently, the RIFC has 14 teams. This allows each team to face each other exactly twice during the first 13 weeks (doubleheader scheduling). The playoffs then take 8 teams through a 3-week single elimination bracket. Week 17 is excluded from play, due to the likelihood of regular players being rested.
With an extra two weeks, there are a number of options. One is to increase the number of teams to 16, play regular season games in weeks 1-15, and continue with the same playoff format in weeks 16-18. This might prompt a change in the roster configuration as well - perhaps a flex option for one of the RB slots (since two more teams might otherwise take another 8-12 RBs out of the available player pool.)
Alternatively, we could keep the league at 14 teams, and modify the playoff to make use of the extra weeks (i.e, more teams, or 2-week games, or double elimination, etc.)
I figured I would open up the discussion. What ideas do you have?
|
| 1 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 12:58
|
You could always not play double headers every week, and have single games during some of the bye weeks. Bumping up to 16 teams seems like a bad option really. The player pool is already drained with 14, and changing a RB slot to some sort of flex won't really help when 48 more players will be rostered for those 2 extra teams. I just don't think it'd be as fun when you're rostering guys who hardly even play in a redraft. Also, extending the playoffs doesn't seem like a great option either. There's already a high amount of teams making the playoffs compared to most leagues, and running 3 weeks is enough.
I say wait and see what the schedule looks like and figure out if you can fit the 26 games in while only have 1 game per week on some of the bye weeks.
Also, I'm pretty sure the season would be 20 weeks long. There was talk about teams having 2 bye weeks. Even more reason to just wait and see what they come up with. No point figuring stuff out based on something that may change.
|
| 2 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 16:13
|
Not trying to come to any decisions. Just trying to get some ideas on the table...
|
| 3 | Mötley Crüe
ID: 108312919
Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 20:31
|
Bring in more teams absolutely. 1 more RIFC runner-up and another AAA team, or something to that effect.
I think we should have more teams already. The deeper the league, the more research is rewarded. The fun part of this game is hitting on sleepers. Right now, hitting on sleepers equals having a high waiver priority. That would change with 48 more rostered players. Guys like Vick, Lance Moore, Green-Ellis, and Hillis would probably have been drafted. Nice picks if you're the one who made them.
|
| 4 | dpr
ID: 552411820
Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 22:58
|
With so many injuries in football it just makes the difference between your injured star and the replacement level player that much bigger so it adds to the luck in that aspect also.
Starting 32 RBs when there are only 28 starting RBs on bye weeks seems pretty crazy. Obviously more have value than just the starters but an interesting way of viewing it.
|
| 5 | judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 00:12
|
- absolutely keep the doubleheaders
- not sure about adding more teams esp since it would need to be 2, not 1 for balance
- also too many teams drains the (offensive) player pool and one of the nice things in RIFC is having decent options (sleepers or back ups, if you will) on the waiver wire/FA pool; it really hurts a team to have a player go down on IR mid season and there is nothing left to replace him; that's not poor planning, that's dumb luck and while luck is a huge factor it really should try not to be a BIG one.
- wait to see how they plan to handle the bye weeks (2 per season?, how many teams out per bye week?); could be really tough to field a complete team since a player would have 2 bye weeks to plan for...and different combos of bye players to boot! you could need at least 3 decent QB/RB to cover your slots
- no RB fLEX; research is nice, but you cannot predict injuries and one or two crucial injuries can screw up your careful season research... there are not enough RB to go around anyway --even with the RBBC.
- research is for the sleepers and back ups to fill in during your draft and you hope to get lucky
|
| 6 | astade
ID: 78462922
Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 00:34
|
Hope I'm not speaking out of turn...but something I've noticed.
With the recent trend towards Running Back by Committee by many teams, I believe that there is plenty to go around for the RB position. Whether you want to add a flex spot or add teams, that is another question. Why 'handcuff' all of these running back options (even 5-10 carries) only to bench them when they provide valuable extras like goal line TDs, Kick-off/punt return yardage or even receptions. It's not like the days of yore where you were sunk if you didn't have 2 starting RB's. We should adapt to the game.
|
| 7 | I_AM_CANADIAN
Donor
ID: 01361448
Sun, Oct 03, 2010, 10:04
|
I agree with Astade, since we are already using KR/PR adjustments, their is plenty of depth at RB/WR actually. Maybe we could even bring up the points slightly on KR (PR seems already weighted enough)? Plus, with the presence of IDPs we know their is always tons of talent still out their after the draft is done. A couple more teams would make it harder to find LB/DBs... I think that is a good thing.
Not exactly connected, but I'd like to see a "live" draft for next year. We won't have as many weeks of pre-season to draft through, and I personally find it to be quite taxing on my home life.
|
| 8 | Mötley Crüe
ID: 108312919
Sun, Oct 03, 2010, 10:07
|
Live drafting is another topic altogether, but I'll chime in with support of that. I'd love to do a live (2-Part?) draft in this format. That would be excellent.
|
| 9 | I_AM_CANADIAN
Donor
ID: 01361448
Sun, Oct 03, 2010, 11:46
|
I'd almost mentioned the "two" part draft too. Not sure about the logistics, but was thinking about a 5 round "opening" draft, followed by the balance a week later. It would kinda simulate a "keeper" feel, and allow for the extra research about how to "fill out" the rest of your team.
|
| 10 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Oct 03, 2010, 12:41
|
You know, that's a very good and interesting idea, I-A-C.
|
| 11 | wolfer
ID: 43636248
Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 22:16
|
Since we have problems filling up the AA leagues, how about going to a 12 team league with 2-6 team divisions? This would work perfectly if the NFL goes to 20 weeks. You play 10 weeks within your own division, 6 weeks against the other division, and still have 3 weeks for playoffs.
|
| 12 | Mötley Crüe
ID: 108312919
Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 21:01
|
I'm not opposed to wolfer's idea in [11], but in general I'd prefer expansion to contraction.
|
| 13 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 22:05
|
Next year may be an especially difficult year to figure this out, if there is a lockout.
|
| 14 | holt
Donor
ID: 308491916
Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 23:03
|
What's wrong with just leaving everything as it is and letting the mfl-scheduler spew something out. If you have to play a couple teams three times then so be it. I think the less you change the league the better.
I play in a few money leagues and rifc is still always the league I'm most interested in, due to the superior rules.
|
| 16 | I_AM_CANADIAN
Donor
ID: 01361448
Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 19:40
|
I feel that the whole fantasy football community will see a shift with the new schedule. Maybe It'll end up there will be a lot of 10 team leagues, who face-off twice w/o having to resort to double headers? What is the most common setting? Isn't it 12 team leagues? For depth, and "Guru-esk" respect, I say no matter what, we try to stay above the curve instead of just chugging along with the "masses".
|
| 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:
|