RMF: G24 RULE CHANGES FOR 2017 [RotoGuru Football Leagues & Standings]

RotoGuru Football Leagues & Standings View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread	Self-edit this thread

Subject: G24 RULE CHANGES FOR 2017

Posted by: Judy - [35493114] Tue, Jan 03, 2017, 21:59

Here is the space to put your ideas for rule changes for 2017.
If you mentioned something in another thread, please re submit it here.
I hope to send out the "old rules" from TD soon so you can compare.

Judy
ID: 35493114
Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 07:39

I'll start.

For polls
What should be the criteria for passing an item?
2/3
Simple majority

Of all 24?
Of those who voted?

Toral
ID: 535571316
Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 08:03

For changes to the rules I support keeping the required majority at two/thirds of the whole league. The rule framework of the league, for good or bad, has been established long enough that it should not be changed lightly.

Also, with only a simple majority required, you might have things like D/ST and requirements for filling lineups bouncing back and forth every year. Win 13-11 this year, someone will try to reverse it 13-11 the next. Certainly we'd be voting on way more proposals every year, and forced to spend more time in contentitious and wearisome debate.

Toral
ID: 535571316
Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 08:18

I think it is a good idea to record suggestions for rule changes now, so that next summer someone can gather them together, get specific proposals on the table, and prepare to conduct votes, early.

However I myself am not interested in debating rules proposals now. The fantasy football season is over, it was a frustrating season, and I've switched fantasy football off till July. We don't even know who will be in the league next year, so it's pointless to try to have the actual debate now, IMO.

Toral
ID: 535571316
Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 08:28

I will record two rules change suggestions that I know will come up in 2017:

1) ELIMINATE D/ST

It's come up every year, so why not 2017?

Either

A) Just eliminate it;
B) Replace it with an added flex position (1-1-1-3) (DL-LB-DB-Flex);
C) Replace it with 2 added IDPs (2-2-2-1),

2) ADD AN INJURED RESERVE SPOT

Either

A) On the condition that that the player put on IR be kept the following season;
B) With no conditions.

Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:06

I'd like to propose that we require 2/3rds of those who voted to pass a rule. One rule got 3/4ths but was one vote short because not everyone voted.

Either that, or keep the voting open indefinitely until everyone has voted and/or the rule passes or fails.

I'd like to see IR come up again, because that was the rule that had 3/4ths.

I don't think DST has to come up again so soon. The issue is, as always, what do you do to compensate teams with keeper-quality DST's?

Toral
ID: 535571316
Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 12:36

The issue is, as always, what do you do to compensate teams with keeper-quality DST's?

Good point. I would suggest to anti-D/ST people that they only propose to eliminate the D/ST in 2 years (2018) and coalesce around one IDP replacement option if they hope to pass anything.

Tree
ID: 77532019
Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 08:55

The issue is, as always, what do you do to compensate teams with keeper-quality DST's?

the balance is making it take affect the season after the upcoming one.

keeper DSTs can change pretty rapidly.

deepsnapper
ID: 2108112
Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 10:15

I would prefer we keep the 2/3 vote to pass/change a rule. If you're involved in the league, you should participate in the process.

I do like the I/R position with a caveat:

Eliminate the "frozen" Waiver Wire positioning until used and replace it with the standard record based slotting used in every other fantasy league I know of.

This was a Ref rule and only benefits the ones at the top who usually have the best records and seldom use the W/W except to select the best "breakout" players,

The weaker teams stay weak and the higher slotted teams get the best players. Reset it weekly based on record (worst to first slot) based on Won/lost record (total year). It could improve morale as teams can make overall improvement during the year instead of W/W pickups from the 20-24 slots ALL year and also help with early loss teams losing interest. It would keep owner involvement higher if you actually had a chance to pick up a good player. I have experienced both and the latter sucks.

I know it wasn't a "competitive" draft as several people didn't originally draft teams and were picked for. No ADP or BPA existed. I came onboard about the 3rd or 4th year as Washington and the team was baaad!! (Renamed it Philly in honor of phillyfan). Maybe someone from the first draft could clue us in? I believe it was a fast-live draft on CBS,

The league & rules were Ref's and he had the final decision. I'm not dissing Ref, but it was a monarchy and I commend him on putting a 24 team league together when 12 was about the max then. But times have changed. We added IDP slots only after years of discussion and adding to roster size to compensate.

I recommend a disciplinary group of 3-5 members to handle rules violations after a warning.

I have no idea on D/St as I've had Seattle and Arizona before them which has me concerned about compensation. tbd

ds

Toral
ID: 535571316
Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 11:10

Re the Waiver Wire: there was some similar sentiment last year.

I wonder if a hybrid system might work. Continue with the current system for the first 6 (5? 7?) weeks of the season and then switch to the weekly reset by record for the rest of the season.

My rationale: early-season records like 0-1 and 1-1 don't seem especially compelling grounds to determine the real strength of teams. Once teams have begun to assemble a bit of a record, seeding by record becomes more meaningful.

Tree
ID: 77532019
Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 11:21

I would prefer we keep the 2/3 vote to pass/change a rule. If you're involved in the league, you should participate in the process.

yes, you should. but as we've all seen in most of our leagues, this isn't the case.

i'd be down with this if there was a penalty for not voting. miss your third vote, lose your first round draft pick. it's simple, it's steep, but it'll light a fire under asses.

but if we're not penalizing non-voters, than a simple 2/3 majority of those who voted is fine by me. it's absurd that 75 percent can vote to pass something, but because not enough people voted, it didn't pass.

I know it wasn't a "competitive" draft as several people didn't originally draft teams and were picked for.

i don't know how relevant this is. with a good plan and good moves, one can build a solid team in a short period of time. both WG and I took over teams 3 seasons ago - he won this year, and i placed 5th (losing to WG in the playoffs).

that being said, i've played in leagues with a sort of modified reshuffling of the waiver wires. in he first four weeks of the season, it works as normal - reverse of draft, and so on.

but from week 5 on, the waiver wire reshuffles each week using worst to first.

Toral
ID: 535571316
Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 16:30

I suggest from this discussion that the first vote should be taken is a proposal to reduce the threshold for a rules change to two-thirds of those voting.

Logically, that has to go first. It will need 2/3 of everybody. I suggest that the question should be put as soon as we know who all is coming back, and that the poll remain open as long as necessary to see the proposal either wsucceed or fail; until everyone votes if necessary. It can be a kind of warm-up to other rules votes.

Slizz
ID: 110271112
Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 13:28

Change the divisional tiebreak.

Currently total points is first tiebreaker.

Proposal

Mirror NFL:

-divisional record
-conference record
-head to head
-points

Tree
ID: 77532019
Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 16:02

Mirror NFL:

-divisional record
-conference record
-head to head
-points

not sure how i like that, because we're not the NFL.

in fantasy football, i believe PF are a better indicator of team strength, than divisional wins and losses.

Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 16:15

Especially in this league, where a 2-game H2H is extremely random. Maybe you play that team with your QB on bye that week.

deepsnapper
ID: 462392217
Mon, Apr 17, 2017, 17:53

Any new ideas?

Should we vote on each rule change as they're discussed or wait and vote on all changes at the same time?

deepsnapper
ID: 406282323
Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 18:19

1} Keep the rule change majority the same. 2/3 of the league to pass. If you're going to play in the league, you must participate to stay in the league.

2} As to D/St, I prefer keeping them, but if we're going to eliminate the D/St, this is a great year to do it as this is a very solid draft for defensive players. I'd propose a special ONE round draft before we start the annual draft. I don't know if we'll get another draft class like this one for awhile.

3} Keep the current scoring tie breakers.

4) Propose the I/R rule again. If you put a player on I/R, you have to keep them next season. If you're someone interested in a rule change, make it an open vote so we know who hasn't voted.

5) Define the specific player positions who can't play in a week (bye, D/L, ect.)

Time to decide is NOW as the draft will be here real soon!

Any more changes to propose?

Tree
ID: 77532019
Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 17:51

i HATE the entire 2/3 of the entire league rule to pass, unless we are going to be punitive towards those who don't vote.

post 10 details my thoughts on this.

post 11 addresses a good way to handle voting on this.

taxman
ID: 175591019
Fri, Jul 28, 2017, 01:26

2/3 of those that vote is logical for a league that plays but doesn't want to be involved with administrative decisions.

deepsnapper
ID: 406282323
Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 00:16

Penalties for not voting in rule changes:

1) 1st violation is loss of 2nd RD pick.
2) 2nd violation is loss of 1st RD pick.
3) 3rd violation is removal from the league immediately. Temp/Prospect can be assigned or Commish can designate the temp replacement

Violations must occur in the same season.

CT
ID: 5876313
Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 14:08

Voting - 2/3 of those that vote for change. I concur w/Tree on this - active votes should be the standard.

To clarify Deepsnapper --is violation 2 a loss of 2nd rd pick AND 1st round pick?
Or
the penalty becomes loss of 1st round pick (not 2nd round pick) after violation 2?

3rd violation removal from league for missing vote is reasonable. This is an active league and one needs to be "present" to participate.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 18:07

Judy has accepted my application to be Parliamentarian, something I suggested last year in post 82 of this thread .

I suggested that the task of the position be to:

1) invite rules suggestions on this MB, remembering suggestions made at the end of the previous year;

2) take up issues where a rule change proposal was likely in a sensible order, and invite managers to give their thots on these rules determining proposals HAD A CHANCE to pass and so might be put to a vote;

3) make sure the proposals to be put forth for a vote were properly worded to fit within our Constitution and Rules;

4) conduct a vote, right here on this message board, where questions could be answered;

5) badger people to vote, with gradually increasing force;

6) count the vote and report the results.[slightly edited from last year]

This is what I propose to do, hopefully with little need for the "badgering" part.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 18:16

There are three things to mention right now:

1) very soon after our new members are admitted, I will proceed with discussion of the idea we need to consider before we can consider any other proposal: reducing the threshold for a major change from 2/3 of the whole league to 2/3 of those voting. After a few days for discussion, we will start voting on whatever proposal or proposals on this issue are being put up. Voting right away will be a kind of warm-up and practice for the rest of the rules change proposals.

2) while this discussion is going on I will proceed with the task of gathering the ideas that have been put forth at the end of last year and so far this year, using deepsnapper's collection in post 16 here. You can suggest your own ideas here, or comment on ideas already put forward at the rule change thread if you want; or you can wait until formal consideration of an idea or group of ideas begin;

3) voting will be conducted on this message board; it's more flexible than using an MFL poll, and is the way we used to do it anyway.

Recommendations as to how we should proceed may be sent to me by e-mail.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 18:20

I have one contribution myself to the debate over changing the 2/3 rules threshold. Do we want to set a minimum quorum for those voting? That is, are we happy with the idea that a constitutional change may pass 8-4, with half the league not voting? Or do we want to specify that a change needs to have 2/3 of those voting plus a minimum number of votes, say 14 (which would be the minimum number of votes needed to get to 2/3 if 3 league members didn't vote) or 12?

Something to mull over and discuss if you want.

Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 19:06

I would say a conservative number that would be a good compromise for those that are against the change, would be a minimum of 18 votes required. That would require 12 votes to pass, which is half the league voting yay.

IIRC the IR vote was 15-4, so qualifies under this example.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 19:28

Right. When I mentioned 14 and 12 I was thinking of a minimum of votes for the proposal so that if 12-6 passes when 18 people vote. Because if 12-6 succeeds, shouldn't 12-5, even if only 17 people have voted? I'm not sure...just putting the idea out for discussion.

BTW I remember your offer to do this last year and may ask you for help or assistance when required.

Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 12:28

That's fine by me.

Doug
ID: 53758423
Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 01:58

I'd like something to at least have definitive majority support (i.e., 13 votes).

Then 2/3 support of those who voted.

12-0... no
12-6... no
13-6... yes
13-7... no
etc.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 17:28

OK. There's some intuitive appeal in requiring majority support.

I had been thinking it might be necessary to put a number of alternative proposals up to a vote, but now I think it may be wiser to put up one, Doug's above. I'm sure a proposal requiring some minimum participation will get more votes than one without, so I don't feel I need to put a no-quorum proposal up for a vote.. So unless someone strongly objects to the idea (maybe thinks 13 is an unlucky number?) I may just put up that one proposal.

Meanwhile I am compiling a list of league e-mail addresses for mass e-mailings. A separate thread will be created for voting alone.

Unless there is some great outpouring of mass participation and debate, I may put the proposal up for a vote Tuesday morning.

deepsnapper
ID: 406282323
Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 19:23

1) I believe the vote on rule change should be the primary vote to begin with.

2) The I/R vote should be next. (I'd have loved one last year.) lol

RE: [20] CT: Thanks for asking for clarification. The penalty becomes loss of 1st round pick (not 2nd round pick) after violation #2. Only one draft pick would be involved.

I think a caveat exists if a new owner is selected for the following season, the penalty of draft loss is voided and null. Not real nice to penalize a prospective new owner for something not their fault.

deepsnapper
ID: 406282323
Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 00:52

Rethinking what to do in order to proceed with further changes, we have to vote on the 2/3 majority rule change.

I believe 27 proposed by Doug is a good idea to start with.

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 09:45

On the proposal on 2/3 of those voting, I think there should be a minimum voting period added to the proposal.

For a proposal to pass with 2/3 of those voting, voting must be open for a minimum of x days.

Without this change, I will not vote for this proposal.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 10:00

What kind of number do you think "x" should be?

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 11:07

I think 3 days would be reasonable.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 17:46

That was the number I was thinking of, as it happens. I see no reason not to add that provision to the proposal.

Judy
ID: 35493114
Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 17:50

Agree.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 19:13

OK, while there is still time for further discussion of the 2/3 threshold rule change, I think we can start thinking about and discussing the possibility of adding an IR slot.

Here is an oversimplified summary of the debate last year:

-- some owners wanted to add an IR slot;
-- some owners wanted to add an IR slot with the restriction that a player put in that slot
must be kept by that team the next year;
-- some owners didn't want to add an IR slot at all.

It was more complicated than that. Posts 37, 50, 61, 85, 87, 135, and 165-170 of this thread from last year indicate the nature of the discussion.

There may be other variations put forward this year.

There is also a question of how a vote should be taken. My suggestion is that we narrow down the options to a few possibilities and hold ONE VOTE in which owners may vote for more than one option. If 2 proposals get 16 votes, only the one with more votes will be adopted. If 2 proposals get 16 or more votes and have the same number of votes, the least restrictive proposal will be adopted.

If you have a better suggestion for how the vote should be held, please let me know what it is and why it is better.

We won't be voting on this till the 2/3 threshold vote is over so we have some time to mull all this over.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 09:41

The voting thread is now open and ready to receive your votes on the 2/3 threshold rule change.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 14:17

On the voting: the G24 proposal looks to be in with a chance, but hasn't passed yet (note that there are votes both on the thread and by e-mail.) I won't be providing an up-to-date count till tomorrow (Wednesday) morning.

Meanwhile, additions of IR slots are open for discussion...actually everything is open for suggestions and discussion.

But I suggest starting with IR slots.

The supporters of eliminating the IDP might well be getting their arguments together becuz that might come up next.

slizz
ID: 37713811
Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 17:30

So no IDP and back to DST only, my lord?

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 17:53

Laff. I meant eliminating the "DST".

The folk who want to eliminate the D/ST --like, for example, you Slizz -- might want to get their act together and put together a proposal that might conceivably pass.

That's just my advice. You can do with it as you wish.

Doug
ID: 20722822
Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 23:22

Yeah, there are a lot of parameters in the IR discussion, at least including the following:

1) # of slots (and if multiple, the rules for each such slot)
2) Whether to eliminate a bench slot at same time… so as not to dilute the waiver pool as a result of adding IR slot(s)
3) Who is eligible… “inactive” (but not bye) vs. true IR… on fantasy team prior to eligibility (and for how long), etc.
4) Whether a player can/must be reactivated for fantasy purposes if/when reactivated by their NFL team.
5) How to handle IR spots post-Fantasy-Championship (probably can be addressed separately if/when we approve of 1+ IR spots… and kinda seems a no-brainer)

And it doesn't really help to break up the voting... because it seems support/non-support is dependent on the particulars. For example, someone might want to vote to support adding an IR slot, but ONLY on the condition that it is a "forced keeper" the following year.

I would like to put together a proposal that addresses several of the concerns that folks have raised one way or the other (but not tonight). I think we might need to do some sort Ranked Choice voting between several options.

deepsnapper
ID: 406282323
Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 00:09

I/R position proposal - Add an IR slot with the restriction that a player put in that slot must be kept by that team through the next season's draft.

Once placed on I/R, the slot becomes available through the Bid/FA processes as an open position on the team. An additional player (not I/R player), must be dropped before the next season's draft.

ds

Toral
ID: 0181517
Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 07:59

[Doug 41] Yes, a lot of parameters.

I am willing to consider ranked choice/preferential voting. It might be a better idea than the one I suggested.

re 3) Checking MFL help I see that in setting up IR they have a number of options for eligibility. Unfortunately they don't list them and it seems only a commissioner can see them. We will need the assistance of you or Judy to determine what options they allow.

re 2) My PERSONAL thought is that removing a bench spot will hurt any IR proposal. I know that that loses my vote immediately. OTOH some people objected to dilution of the available player pool in opposing IR last year, so maybe it would gain some votes as well. It's tricky.

[42 deepsnapper] Thanx. IR-Keeper will be one of the options put up in the vote.
----------------------------------------------
Tabulation of the 2/3 threshold vote will be posted after lunch. Voting is still open.

Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 11:44

I think this should be voted on EXACTLY how it was worded last year, when it got a 15-4 vote. That rule seems to have had a good amount of support.

IIRC it was have one IR spot, player must be on IR to be in the spot, and any player put in that spot MUST be kept the next season.

Judy
ID: 35493114
Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 12:23

I agree that nerf's is a simple rule to follow.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 15:20

Here are the EXACT two propositions that were put to the league in the poll last year:

EACH TEAM WILL HAVE ONE ROSTER SPOT FOR AN IR PLAYER IN ADDITION TO THE 20 ON THE ROSTER.

Yes: 15 No: 5

IF WE ADD AN IR SLOT TO THE 20 PLAYER ROSTER, THAT PLAYER MUST BE A KEEPER THE FOLLOWING SEASON.

Yes: 14 No: 4

(See last year's league Communications --> League Polls.)

Toral
ID: 0181517
Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 15:42

There are two questions about the rule that I am not sure were completely addressed last year. The first at least is of immediate relevance:

1. Can you keep, this year, a player on IR and then move him into the IR-Keeper slot?
2. Can you draft a player on IR and then put him into the IR-Keeper slot?

I ask because there seemed to be sentiment last year that the IR slot was for players already on your roster, that you couldn't, during the season, pick up a player on IR and put him into the slot. I'm not sure how far that principle was intended to be taken.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 18:00

I am persuaded by what Nerf and Judy has said that the FIRST order of business should be to present an IR-Keeper proposal for a vote. The same idea as last year, although not the same words. The questions I raised in 47 remain to be settled, along with reactivation rules for a player who comes off IR during the season.

AFTER that an IR-Regular proposal might be made. It is up to those who would favour it to lay out what they have in mind, e.g., to deal with the eligibility question (IR only, or wider?). I will also ask for owners who support or oppose this idea to so indicate in advance -- if there are 9 people who don't like it, it would be helpful to know that at an early stage in the discussion.

I appreciate Doug's Ranked Choice voting and that idea can be stored in the toolbox for other situations but using it here may be overcomplicating things.

Judy
ID: 35493114
Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 21:25

MFL IR options:

A player can only be deactivated when his current official NFL Injury status is: None - any player may be deactivated at any time.
IR
IR or Out
IR or Out or Doubtful
IR or Out or Doubtful or Questionable
IR or Out or Doubtful or Questionable or Probable
Can a player be deactivated when he is listed as "Suspended"? No
Yes
In case of an IR violation, prevent owner from submitting lineup? No
Yes
Once deactivated, an owner cannot activate a player for:

Judy
ID: 35493114
Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 21:27

The answers would be

IR only
No deactivation for suspension
No for preventing line up submission
(We need to figure out some penalty though)
Last one doesn't work for us

Toral
ID: 0181517
Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 15:53

Let me put the questions in 47 in a different way to see if I can get some input to put an IR-Keeper proposal together. Is there anyone who might vote for an IR-Keeper proposal who,

1. OBJECTS to an IR-Keeper slot being used on a player who an owner keeps this year;
2. OBJECTS to an IR-Keeper slot being used on a player who an owner drafts this year (while he is on IR);
3) OBJECTS to an owner's being able, during the season, to pick up a player on IR and put him into the IR-Keeper slot;

If no one has a problem with these things, maybe I'm conjuring up a problem when none exists.

Once this gets settled, I'm just going to throw out a rule on activation for a player who comes off IR during the season that makes sense to me. If there's no big reaction against it, we will be about ready to go with an IR-Keeper proposal.

Judy
ID: 35493114
Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 16:40

MFL has also completely changed is waiver drop/add options. I need to study them for the differences. We may need to vote on those as well.
RIFC had made the changes.

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 16:57

On post 51.

I am Ok with 1.
I object to 2 and 3.

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 17:00

I also don't think a player put on IR should be required to be a keeper the next season.

deepsnapper
ID: 406282323
Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 18:47

Can't use the RIFC rule as they don't have keepers.

1) Once a player is on I/R, draft or during season, he is out for current season. If not kept next season, fine. Waste of roster spot is penalty enough during current season.

Caveat: If I/R is activated during current season, Coach loses next season's #1 draft selection. Coach's decision either way. Play now, pay later. Otherwise pay now, play later.

Does this free up roster spot for I/R player this year, I vote - yes.

ds

Toral
ID: 0181517
Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 19:35

Here's what I'm going to do. Sometime tomorrow (Friday) morning or early afternoon I will post, here, a draft IR-Keeper proposal. Owners can look at it and make comments for the rest of the day. If all goes well, I will put the actual proposal up for a vote Saturday.

Whether the IR-Keeper proposal passes or fails, it will still be possible to have an IR-Regular proposal -- vanilla IR, no necessity to keep a player on it --afterwards.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 06:31

So, here's the draft IR-Keeper proposal;

An IR slot will be added. Only players on NFL's IR are eligible.

A player put in that slot must be kept at the start of the next season. If the player is traded, his new owner must keep him.

A player on IR may not be picked up during the season (on waivers, as a free agent, etc.) and placed in the IR slot.

Some rule about players who are activated from the NFL's IR has to be added. I see three alternatives which I will list below. Any of them seem to be reasonable approaches. I will add to the proposal the one that seems the least unpopular.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 06:50

There are three options for a rule for returning to the lineup in our league a player who has been reactivated from NFL's IR: Mandatory, Optional and Prohibited. I'll add to the unpopular the one which seems to get the best reaction from your comments today.

A: [Mandatory Reactivation] An owner must remove a player activated from the NFL's IR by the second game after the player's real-life activation. The player must still be kept the next season.

B [Optional Reactivation] An owner may remove a player activated from the NFL's IR and place him in his lineup, or may leave the player in the IR slot. In either case, the player must still be kept the next season.

C {Reactivation Prohibited] A player in an IR slot must stay in the slot for the season, even if he is activated from the NFL's IR.

Which one do you like best?

taxman
ID: 175591019
Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 11:56

why not offer the vanilla version first .. if it passes you can then juice it up?? Just asking

Doug
ID: 20722822
Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 14:07

Because some, like myself, might prefer:
1) An unrestricted IR slot
2) No IR slot
3) An IR slot where the player is a required keeper

In short, my support of an IR slot overall is contingent on it being a non-keeper-mandated IR slot. This is why (IMO) we need some sort of rank-ordering of options.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 14:50

[60] taxman: 2 reasons: 1.Because, as Nerfherders noted above, IR-Keeper almost passed last year, 14-4, with 6 owners not voting. I think that gives it a kind of presumptive right to be considered first. 2. Because IMO if there are 16 votes for IR-Vanilla, it is unlikely that there are 16-votes for "juicing it up".

[61]Doug, Given these preferences, you can vote "No" on IR-Keeper and then ask for a vote on an unrestricted IR slot, which will be granted. I'm not sure that a rank ordering of options, with 16 votes required to pass (not just a majority) would work better than two separate votes, although you might be able to show me how. Suppose 9 owners' first choice is IR-Unrestricted, 7's first choice is no-IR, and 8's first choice is IR-Keeper. Under the ordinary version of ranked-choice voting, the no-IR option would be eliminated, and the second choice of these voters counted. That might lead to an incorrect result, declaring as passed a proposal that could not actually get 16 votes on its own.

In any case, *last year* it was clear that IR-Keeper was preferred to vanilla-IR. Maybe that's not the case this year. We'll find out when we vote, starting tomorrow.

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 16:47

Like Doug, I prefer an unrestricted IR slot. But I would vote for an IR-Keeper slot over having no IR slot.

Will there be a vote on an unrestricted IR slot if IR-Keeper passes?

Toral
ID: 0181517
Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 16:49

TD 63 Will there be a vote on an unrestricted IR slot if IR-Keeper passes?

Yes. There is clearly enuf demand for such a vote.

skinneej
ID: 42692211
Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 17:12

I was one of the No's last year on IR - Keeper. I would be in favor of IR spot this year if the following criteria are met:

1. It's an added spot (no removal of a bench spot)
2. It's a non-keeper required spot
3. We use the Mandatory Reactivation option

This was used pretty effectively in RIHC in previous years until the NBA took the DL spot away. After that we had to manage it manually, but I don't think it wasn't too bad. I think we had a rule about not being able to place an IR pickup in a designated slot until after 10 days of being on the roster, but obviously that was a manual check and it's much harder with 24 vs 12 teams to keep up with it. I'd be in favor of an unrestricted IR spot to make it easier.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 07:56

Proposal Two [IR-Keeper] is now up for voting on the voting thread.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Sun, Aug 13, 2017, 21:43

Proposal Two [IR-Keeper] has FAILED. The tally so far is Yes 11, No 10, with 3 votes left to come in.

Proposal Three [IR-Regular] will go out sometime tomorrow (Monday).

Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Mon, Aug 14, 2017, 12:31

So P2 is very nearly the same criteria as last year's porposal. I'm curious why it suddenly has lost favor? Too restrictive?

Doug
ID: 20722822
Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 09:55

Personally I think it can be bad for the league... you suffer a loss in year X losing a guy you (and everyone) thinks is genuinely keeper worthy... we let you put him on IR so you aren't also down a bench spot and can compete that year, etc... but then in the offseason he gets reinjured, or moved to a worse situation, or they draft a rookie, etc... and yet your forced to keep the player, extending the damage into year X+1. So I think it would be bad for the league to require keepers with the limited information you have ~9-10 months ahead of time. Even if 80+% of the time you WOULD be happy to keep the player the next year, it's the 10-20% "regret" cases (just my guesstimate) where people acted in good faith but got doubly screwed that I worry more about.

But... that's just my thinking... it's not a change from last year. We've also changed a couple managers. How many voted in favor last year?

Toral
ID: 0181517
Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 10:46

Still some P2 votes to come in and no decision. I'll wait till the end of the day for more votes and begin chasing down non-voters tomorrow if no decision has been reached.

Meanwhile there is one more item of business from last year under the heading of "might have passed if everyone had voted".

Here's a poll that failed last year:

A PLAYER ON THE NFL SUSPENDED LIST MAY NOT BE A STARTER IN YOUR LINEUP. IF NEEDED, PENALTIES WILL BE DETERMINED LATER.
I agree.: 15
I disagree.: 7
I abstain.: 0
Total Votes: 22

Its companion measure made it:

A PLAYER ON THE NFL IR LIST MAY NOT BE A STARTER IN YOUR LINEUP. IF NEEDED, PENALTIES TO BE DETERMINED AFTER THIS VOTE.
I agree: 16
I do not agree: 4
I abstain.: 0
Total Votes: 20

So I think the No Suspended Players in Lineup deserves to be put up again.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 10:48

I meant more P3 votes to come in obviously....

Toral
ID: 0181517
Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 10:28

Three votes left to be cast. I have e-mailed the owners in question (Oakland, Carolina, Indianapolis).

Toral

Toral
ID: 0181517
Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 11:37

Proposal 3 has PASSED.

The vote so far is:

Yes 17 No 6 To Come 1

Toral
ID: 0181517
Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 11:16

Final vote on Proposal 3:

YES 17 NO 7

Toral
ID: 0181517
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 09:16

Proposal Four (P4) (no suspended players in lineup) is up for voting in the vote thread. Owners may also vote by replying to the e-mail to go out later this morning.

slizz
ID: 37713811
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 10:35

When are we voting on the DST / IDP?

Alan Stewart
ID: 0181517
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 10:45

That was to be my next topic, and I'll just mention the highlights here:

First of all, there has been only one indication of desire for a D/ST vote this year.
That's for the whole year, not just in recent weeks. There needs to be more than that for me to put a rule proposal to a vote. So those who want a vote on the D/ST should indicate so here. Or there will be no D/ST vote this year.

Later today, I'll give free advice to D/ST abolition proponents on what types of proposals might maximize their chance of succeeding. (Abolition for 2017 I would suggest, has no chance of succeeding in any event.)

Finally for now, here's what happened in last year's vote:

WHAT TO DO ABOUT DST
Eliminate DST for 2016: 7
Eliminate DST for 2017: 5
Keep DST but remove yardage and point stats: 1
Keep DST as is.: 12
I abstain.: 0
Total Votes: 25

(The total votes were more than 24 because owners could vote for multiple options.)

Toral
ID: 0181517
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 10:47

Post 77 was from me, and I meant to include my e-mail rather than put in in my name.

Tree
ID: 217372011
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 12:37

Can we please get rid of DST?

Can we please get rid of DST?

Can we please get rid of DST?

There's three more indications.

I'll copy and paste a dozen more times if we need up the indication count.

The vote totals above indicate at the very least a reasonable portion of the league wants to dump dst.

I think it's a simple vote. No need to water down the yes votes with multiple options.

1.get rid of DST, yes or no.

If it passes, the next proposal queries as to when.

1. 2017
2. 2018
3. 2019

I'll go on record saying I'd get rid of it immediately, despite having two keeper worthy defenses.

In a league this deep, team defenses weigh in proportionately heavy.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 14:10

OK, thanx, that's an indication. I hope those who want a vote will chime in.

You anticipated the main suggestion I intended to make -- that D/ST elimination proponents consider a vote aimed at two years ahead, rather than one.

Find me 5 more supporters -- that's just 7 people -- and I'll put forward 3 proposals in one vote.:

-- eliminate D/ST in 2017
-- eliminate D/ST in 2018
-- eliminate D/ST in 2019

Owners could vote for all of them (or 1 of them, or 2 of them, or none of them)

If more than one pass, the earliest one goes into force.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 14:17

youngroman made this point in the Vote Thread:

"leaning towards yes, but: the rule should be extended to account for suspensions issued during a playing week, so that if a suspension is issued on Wednesday (assuming our first waiver round runs on that day) or later, it should not impact the managers decision thinking for the week."

I agree with the sentiment. However I decided to duplicate the wording of the rule that passed last year for people on IR and that
almost passed for suspended players. That poll provided that penalties would be determined later. As far as I gather, last year the consensus was no one would be punished for leaving in lineup someone placed in IR in mid-week, and my assumption is that the same would apply for suspended players.

You can either trust that reasoning or not, and can vote accordingly.

Tree
ID: 77532019
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 14:30

i find i perplexing we essentially have to vote whether or not we're going to vote on something.

and no, no, no to the watered down voting. that's the problem - it lends confusion.

a simple yes or no vote, knowing a no vote will bring a follow up proposal for 2017/2018/2019.

Judy
ID: 35493114
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 21:36

Note that MFL instantly indicates the status of a player by putting IR, S, OUT, or other indication next to his name.

So you should know the status when setting the lineup.

I would hope that the NFL would make a decision before a week's games begin...

TD
ID: 157432020
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 21:45

I would like a vote to eliminate D/ST.

Bobo
ID: 27132111
Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 12:13

I would also be in favor of eliminating the D/ST spot on the roster.

Judy
ID: 35493114
Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 21:04

MFL also warns you in red ink of a "possible IR rule violation"

Here is one from my 2016 RG14 team:

Warning! Possible IR Rule Violation Above.

So there is really no excuse for not knowing.

slizz
ID: 37713811
Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 23:03

Eliminate it!

VampireWeekend
ID: 586112022
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 08:41

Eliminate team d

taxman
SuperDude
ID: 029463114
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 08:47

Keep team D

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 09:04

PROPOSAL 4 HAS PASSED

A player suspended by the NFL may not be a starter in your lineup.

YES 16 NO 3 TO COME 5

Further votes that come in will be counted for the record.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 09:08

I am preparing a proposal to eliminate D/ST to be put to a vote if 2 more indications of a desire to have a vote are received. With keepers due tomorrow, there will be no option to eliminate D/ST this year. There will be two options: eliminate D/ST beginning in 2018; and eliminate D/ST beginning in 2019. Owners may vote for both.

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 09:12

MESSAGE BOARD MODERATOR NEEDED

I request the assistance of a moderator who will, at my request, use his or her magic powers to delete posts from the voting thread as I specify. The thread is (quite innocently) starting to get clogged up with extraneous material, and I want to restrict it to votes, clarifications, and declarations.

This will be particularly important if there is a D/ST vote, because there are still votes on proposal 4 to come in, so owners may be voting
on multiple proposals at the same time, so the thread must be as clean as possible.

Let me know if you are willing.

VampireWeekend
ID: 586112022
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 14:58

Why does there need to be some minimum level of interest for the defense question? Let's just vote again and see where the sentiment is this year.

Tree
ID: 77532019
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 17:40

jesus. why all the hoop jumping to put something to a vote.

proposal:
eliminate DST Yes or no.

if proposal passes, we will then vote to eliminate prior to 2018 season, or prior to 2019 season.

there. just copy and paste that.

skinneej
ID: 42692211
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 18:03

For the DS/T discussion, since we will not be getting rid of it this year, I'd like to add to the discussion for the proposals for future years. There were 12+ managers last year that were not in favor of getting rid of DS/T, so for those that do want to get rid of it, there needs to be quality proposals put forth that could win over enough managers to sway the vote. I don't think it will get there unless a phase out plan and/or compensation is on the table.

First, the reason I have not been in favor of eliminating the position, is I believe there is good strategy opportunities with managing this position. Having 1 or more quality DS/Ts can have a big impact on your team's performance and also makes for good trade opportunities as well. I have made plenty of trades involving this position over the years and not just for covering byes. The difference between an average DS/T and the best or worst units is higher than some other positions.

Let's compare DS/T to the K and TE positions. Taking the top 32 players from each position last year, here's how the scoring breaks down:

avg K - 123.1
avg TE - 86.3
avg DS/T - 110.5

I found the Standard Deviation of each position as well as it relates to the scoring of the top 32 players from last year, and it is as follows:

K - 30.5
TE - 25.3
DS/T - 33.9

So the position with least variance of the three is TE, and the most is DS/T. So the difference between having a top tier defensive unit vs an average unit is more important for that position relative to the other two. It seems we should be looking to eliminate the TE position before any others since that position seems to matter the least.

And since we are discussing eliminating a position where teams hold several valuable players, how would they be compensated if the position is eliminated? If we decided to eliminate TE, I imagine the managers that hold the top several players would not be happy about it. Even if you wanted to phase it out in 2-3 years, what happens to the value of those players? Do we give compensation picks to those managers or do a 1 round supplemental draft at some point?

I'm in favor of keeping it as is. We reduced the scoring a few years back to make it less likely to score negative points, but also took out some of the huge variance on the other end too. Only 2 DS/T units last year scored negative points in more than 3 games, so I think the scoring is pretty good currently. And while it is a limited position as there are only 32 "players", only once in all the years of our drafts has a team not had one when the draft was done. So most teams know to get at least one decent one early, and not be caught empty handed towards the end of the draft and have to pay up.

skinneej
ID: 42692211
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 18:17

Another option (if MFL can do this) could be to add an IDP flex position that would let you play either an IDP or a DS/T. Would have to limit DS/T requirements for that position to 0 or 1 so you couldn't start multiple defenses.

This is similar to something that was discussed in previous years about making TE not a required position anymore, but adding a Flex WR/TE position in it's place. Right now we have to have 1 RB, 1WR, 1TE and then can have 2 more flex.

Tree
ID: 217372011
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 19:13

The difference between an average DS/T and the best or worst units is higher than some other positions.

This is one of the main reasons I am in favor of getting rid of DST. To me, team defense, the only position with a finite amount of "players", should not have as strong of an impact as it does.

Every other position, theoretically, has an infinite number of players.

And since we are discussing eliminating a position where teams hold several valuable players, how would they be compensated if the position is eliminated

No. And I've got two quality defenses.

. It seems we should be looking to eliminate the TE position before any others since that position seems to matter the least.

I don't believe that's why those of us who want to get rid of DST want it eliminated.

Strategy was discussed often in the above posts.

I'm of the belief that a finite number of available players lends itself more to luck than strategy.

What's strategic, and requires deeper levels of research, are IDPs.

Adding a flex IDP (dl/lb/db) to a quintet of 1 dl, 2 lb, 2 db beings about more strategy, more depth, more research, than a singular finite team defense could.

skinneej
ID: 42692211
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 19:51

We just disagree on that position having more value that some others especially because it is infinite. For a team trying to compete for the playoffs, the difference between drafting a potential top 10 defense vs waiting and getting one in the bottom 10 can make more difference than drafting a 5th WR and hoping they pan out. I like that strategy and should make teams have to consider their mid round drafting strategy along with positions like K.

I've seen people complain in the past about runs on kickers going too early in the draft, but if the difference between the 10th best and the 20th best kicker is 2 points/game, maybe that is worthy enough to consider drafting based on positional depth value. It can be hard to predict each season who the top kickers will be, but a few seem to always be in the mix.

BTW, QBs have the highest standard deviation by position at 69.8. If you have a bad one (or a prospect you're holding onto), you probably aren't competing for the playoffs.

Tree
ID: 217372011
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 22:13

In fantasy football QB is an iconic position. DST is a debatable one that has been dropped from many leagues, especially with the emergence of IDPs..

100

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 09:21

If we don't eliminate DST, I am in favor of replacing DST with a flex IDP/DST position as described by skinneej in post 96.

101

Toral
ID: 0181517
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 09:55

Now we are getting into the discussion that we needed to have, rather late in the day. Perhaps I should have started it off sooner -- I was, as I said in post 40, waiting for the anti-DST folks to get their act together. But then, I did mention this back in January. I listed the alternatives re DST that I expected to come up:

Either

A) Just eliminate it;
B) Replace it with an added flex position (1-1-1-3) (DL-LB-DB-Flex);
C) Replace it with 2 added IDPs (2-2-2-1)

Option C, although my favourite and the only one I would vote for, is probably a non-starter, and we can forget about it unless some owners supporting it suddenly make themselves known.

We are still lacking much demand for a vote at all. If there is one, it needs to be decided whether to (a) hold a vote simply on elimination, and, if it passes, vote on a possible new IDP configuration separately, with the possibility that none will pass; or (b) hold one combined vote with both options (just eliminate; or eliminate and replace) available.
I would defer to the consensus of the anti-DST people on that, if there was one.

I should perhaps mention why Tree's suggested procedure can't work. He wanted to hold one vote on whether we want eliminate the DST. The problem is that even if that passes, we haven't decided anything. We aren't even committed to doing anything, because there may be no one specific rule (e.g. on timing) that can get 16 votes. There may be 16 owners who would eliminate the DST on his or her own conditions and according to his or her own timing. That's not enuf to change the rules. To change the rules, there needs to be 16 votes in favour of one specific proposal, not just the general idea of removing the DST. Tree's procedure would just add a useless step to the process.

102

slizz
ID: 37713811
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 10:17

The "positional value" argument is irrelevant for eliminating it. Every position that is out there in fantasy will generate points, and some will be more valuable than others and the haves will get hurt by the move.

We do not have a team offense option. I'm sure if we did that it would generate a nice points disparity...

I would support eliminating the IDP or DST. We should not have both options in a league this deep. The IDP only helps increase the parity in the league, which is what we want.

103

slizz
ID: 37713811
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 10:18

Re team offense - why is that? Because we start all the Individual positions!!!

104

slizz
ID: 37713811
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 10:27

I'm on my phone firing from the hip...so forgive the "popcorn thoughts"...

As for Torals question - when and how do we replace?

-2018 no DST
-positions: 1 DL, 2 LB, 2 DB, 1 Flex

DL is pretty scarce, so I would opt to keep it at 1 and by only having 1 flex it eliminates the hoarding of LB...DB is deep enough where you could start 3

105

skinneej
ID: 42692211
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 11:15

I think most of the arguments I've heard so far against keeping it is why I am for it. I believe it actually adds depth to the league to have both IDP and DS/T. Saying that other leagues have gotten rid of it points to the fact that we should not conform and follow suit. I think researching which teams will perform well as a unit given a particular scheme or coaching philosophy adds to the interest level for me.

There are several team defenses that are bad, but have great individual performers. On the flip of that, there are some really good team defenses that only have a few high value IDPs. Add in Special teams and that can make a mediocre defense more valuable if they get lots of chances to earn points. I don't think Team offense is a good example as it doesn't seem to have that same disparity. Good team offenses will usually produce many very good individual performers.

The only option I would be in favor of with eliminating the position is to phase it out in 2-3 years and have a supplemental draft for IDP in order of the team defense scoring from that previous season. My preference would be to have the Flex position for DS/T or IDP as mentioned above. It would give the best balance for those that like one or the other and take away the potential issues with the DS/T being a limited position.

106

Tree
ID: 77532019
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 11:34

-2018 no DST
-positions: 1 DL, 2 LB, 2 DB, 1 Flex

i'd vote for this in a heartbeat.

107

Toral
ID: 0181517
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 11:39

[105] The only option I would be in favor of with eliminating the position is to phase it out in 2-3 years and have a supplemental draft for IDP in order of the team defense scoring from that previous season.

I had long been trying to think of some mechanism for compensating D/ST owners of the property they were being deprived of. I like this better than anything I had been able to come up with.

108

skinneej
ID: 42692211
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 12:00

[107} Yeah I've been thinking this one over for a few years and what would be acceptable to most and may sway some more voters. I think a 1 round supplemental draft done after keepers but before the regular draft starts is the way to go. Since it will most likely be replaced with an IDP position it makes sense that everyone gets to draft an IDP as a replacement.

109

Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 15:49

I'm not eager to get rid of DST, but if we do, that is the only way I can see for it being fair to those who have a keeper quality defenses.

However, this supplemental draft should be for IDP's only, if that is what we are replacing the roster spot with.

I like the idea of a DST/IDP flex position, so that if you don't have one of the top 12 or so defenses, you can swap to a IDP. It would also help with bye weeks. Just depends if MFL can handle that.

110

skinneej
ID: 42692211
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 16:13

[109] Yes, it would have to be IDPs only. I still like the idea of the flex spot better only if MFL can do it. Looking at stats from last year, 23 defenses were in the top 100 of all defensive players, so it would be reasonable that at least half of team defenses will still be worthy of a roster spot.

Not counting DL's which is a much lower scoring position (best DL came in at #77 overall defense) then it stands to reason that 15-20 out of about 120 starting IDP positions would be DS/T units (with added flex spot and ignoring DL spot). Since there would only be one flex spot to play DS/T units, then I would guess about 5-10 G24 managers would use a LB or CB in that spot instead of a DS/T. It gives teams the opportunity to develop another young potential IDP player, or go for potentially better scoring with a streaming or matchup based DS/T that week.

111

slizz
ID: 37713811
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 16:52

How about this to be fair to those with "keeper DST's":

We agree on a website that ranks the DST's (I.e. fantasypros). The team with the top ranked DST on that website will pick 1st and so on. Regular season / record will not matter for the purpose of this 1 round draft. This way, the teams that would get hurt the most by losing the spot would be compensated with a higher supplemental pick.

112

Toral
ID: 0181517
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 18:50

An observation directed at those who dump on the DL position as compared to DBs: the relevant fact is not how many points a second DL scores, but the difference between how much your DL2 scores and how much your opponent's DL2 scores.

If we look at the difference between DL25 and DL48, and then DB25 and DB48, last year the difference between DLs was greater -- 13 points to 11 points. So the idea that having 2 DLs is dull or lacking in strategy makes no sense to me.

113

Toral
ID: 0181517
Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 18:56

[slizz 111] Something like what you said is something I had thought of. The problems --their experts are ranking defenses according to different scoring systems. And anyway none of them are ranking according to our exact scoring.

But still it's a possibility. It has the advantage of looking at this year's value, not last year's.

114

Toral
ID: 0181517
Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 08:29

ADDITIONAL TOPIC: WAIVERS

Note: a shorter version of this is going out by e-mail for those owners who aren't following this thread.

ISSUE: MFL has changed its add/drop system this year. We now have the ability of MFL to set up waivers as they were done under the rules when we were at CBS Sportsline. Should we do this or not?

This change does not affect our basic system: players lock Monday night, waiver claims may be made for them; waivers run Wednesday at noon; at 3 P.M. everybody but dropped players is available as a free agent for the rest of the week. The only question is how to handle dropped players.

At CBS Sportsline we ran daily waivers for dropped players. When we moved to MFL we found that it couldn't support this. (Hence the "Jerick McKinnon controversy" when McKinnon was dropped at a time when it looked like he might be the full-time replacement for a suspended Adrian Peterson and everybody suddenly realized that our old settings had not been duplicated at MFL.) There's been turnover in the league since then and I'm not sure how many owners remember that we used to have daily waivers, or care.

What we have done on MFL is:dropped players are locked for 24 hours; exactly 24 hours after they are dropped, anyone can pick them up FCFS ("First Come, First Served"). Most dropped players aren't wanted by many owners if any. Once in a while someone who is dropped is wanted by many owners (I'll call him a "McKinnon"). Then everybody who wants him must be at a computer exactly 24 hours after he was dropped and first claim gets him, in what I call a "fastest finger" competition. The few really desirable McKinnons go a few seconds after they unlock.

Besides the history of it, it is *fairer* to have these players go on waivers. If you want the player, put in a waiver claim for him; or take your chance that no one else wants him and pick him up after he unlocks as a free agent.

Judy has invited discussion on this: do we want to reintroduce waivers? What days and what times? (At the old site IIRC they ran in the middle of the night for North Americans, and ran Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.) We could pick different times, and have fewer days.

I'm not sure that this qualifies as a rule change, since it's the way the still-existing old rules did it and they've never been changed by vote. On the other hand it's a change in how we did things last year so maybe it is. It would be nice if there is a consensus.

What do you think?

115

Tree
ID: 77532019
Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 08:43

The team with the top ranked DST on that website will pick 1st and so on. Regular season / record will not matter for the purpose of this 1 round draft. This way, the teams that would get hurt the most by losing the spot would be compensated with a higher supplemental pick.

i like this.

116

Judy
ID: 35493114
Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 19:46

115 tree.

Would we then run the lottery for round 2?

117

Doug
ID: 20722822
Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 22:06

Re: 112... it all depends on whether we're adding position-specific IDP spots or flex IDP spots. What you wrote I fully agree with if we're talking about a 2nd DL-specific spot.

118

Toral
ID: 0181517
Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 23:22

[Doug 117] Talking about adding position-specific slots only.

119

Doug
ID: 17122423
Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 00:12

Re: 101, I prefer keeping D/AT... but IF we were going to get rid of it, I'd prefer C.

120

Doug
ID: 17122423
Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 00:18

Minor point on the IR slot but there was one component of my prior suggestion that we still may want to apply:

I do not believe the IR slot is intended to give you an extra roster slot to choose from at the beginning of the next season. So, at the end of the current season (post-fantasy-bowl), you need to drop a player if you had a player on IR... and the player you drop can't leave you with an inability to field a valid lineup (can't just drop your K, etc.). By adding this stipulation, all teams are on equal footing carry over an equal number of players to choose from the following season with the same roster requirements, regardless of whether they had the misfortune to lose a player to IR during the season.

121

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 09:26

Re: 101 - I would vote for any proposal to eliminate D/ST. Preference is B,C,A.

122

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 09:31

I am in favor of reintroducing waivers.

I think you should set Monday as a deadline for objections. If nobody objects to it, then implement it.

As for time and days, once a day at any time is OK with me. If you don't get any input on this, just pick the times and days you think are best.

123

Toral
ID: 0181517
Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 11:27

There will be a vote on D/ST.

With replacement by an IDP (- new position configuration: 1 DL, 2 LB, 2 DB, 1 Flex)
With a supplementary IDP-only draft designed as compensation for loss of their D/STs -- based on rankings from Fantasy Pros -- or some other site chosen by the commissioner, should something better occur to us by then?
Change to occur in 2018.
If anyone says that they would vote for it for 2019 but not 2018 then I will include an option for that as well.

This is a new proposal that attempts to meet the objections of those opposed to abolition and so deserves to be put to a vote.

I will work on the wording, and post a draft here, probably Sunday. Probably put the vote Monday. To those who like to press for immediate votes: 2 good ideas came out in the first 2 days, ideas that increase the proposal's chance of passing; perhaps the next 2 days will produce something useful as well.

Thank you to those who have put forward constructive thoughts and ideas.

124

Toral
ID: 0181517
Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 11:41

Re waivers, my own opinion:

I really like TD 122.

Re times -- I think the important thing is that it be at the same time each day. RIFC is running blind bids Thursday at 7:30pm ET and Sunday at 8:00am ET. I would prefer not to have to remember a bunch of different times when waivers run.

To me there are two times that are most logical:

-- 5 A.M. That's actually MFL's default time. It's already set on our calendar by MFL right now. You wake up every morning and either you got your claim or not (and the time should be convenient for youngroman too?) It's about when waivers used to run when we were on CBS Sportsline.

-- 12 Noon. That way it's easy to remember -- waivers run every day from Wednesday on at 12 noon.

Days: every day. Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

And, back to TD 122 -- I agree. If there are no objections, then I think Judy should pick the time she likes.

125

Judy
ID: 35493114
Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 21:27

If it passes, I am planning to copy what the RIFC leagues are doing.

126

GO
ID: 565491620
Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 21:38

Copy whatever RIFC does sounds good to me.

127

Toral
ID: 0181517
Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 23:00

RIFC uses blind bidding, not waivers; and runs its first blind bidding period at a different time on Wednesday than we do.

128

deepsnapper
ID: 27762113
Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 23:50

I prefer drafting before the season (therefore 2018 or 2019) and pre-drafting a special round outside of MFL before posting keeper if we drop D/ST. Best team 1st to last D last. The players can be included as a keeper instead of D/ST.

129

deepsnapper
ID: 27762113
Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 23:52

I am in favor of [TD #122] and do the W/W daily. Thursday-Sunday at 5AM to keep the time consistent each day. you can turn on an option to get W/W additions on MFL via mobile or on website.

130

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 13:07

Here is my draft for the proposal to replace the Team Defense/D/ST with an additional IDP in a new
configuration. IT'S JUST A DRAFT; DON'T VOTE ON IT. Post anything I've missed, mistakes, suggestions for better wording, etc.

After mulling suggestions over today (Monday), I'll put it out to a vote on Tuesday.

Beginning in 2018, the roster position of Team Defense (aka D/ST) will be abolished. An additional IDP position will be added, and the IDP configuration will become 1 DL - 2 LB - 2 DB - 1 Flex. After keepers have been selected and before the 2018 draft, a SPECIAL ONE-ROUND ONE-TIME-ONLY IDP Draft will be held. Any IDP who has not been kept by a team may be chosen in that draft.
To determine the order of drafting in that round, the 2018 projected rankings of the Team Defenses owned in the league at the end of the 2017 regular season will be determined according to the "Fantasy Pros" website, or in some similar manner determined by the Commissioner. If a team owns 2 or more team defenses at the end of the 2017 regular season, its best ranked team defense will be used. The special draft order will start with the team with the best ranked team defense and proceed down the rankings, with the last pick going to the team with the worst ranked team defense. Because one player will be picked by its team before the 2018 supplemental draft starts, the draft will be one round shorter than usual; otherwise it will be conducted in the usual manner.

131

Doug
ID: 20722822
Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 15:39

Sort of agree with 128, but it's tricky... if we do the supplemental IDP-only draft pre-keepers, the odds are there won't be much to pick from.

If we do it post-keepers is worse though, because it's basically like having 10 keepers that year... oh, unless what we're saying is you have to use one of your 9 keeper spots on your D/ST if you want to be able to participate in the supplemental IDP-only draft?

Basically, it's unclear to me a bit the logistics of what's being proposed (I know we're still figuring it out).

132

Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 15:59

I would think that you have to mark your DST as a keeper if you want to be in on that draft. Could that mean a 50 pt DST is going to get kept just to get in to the draft? Perhaps, but it's more likely that team has a better option to keep than a poor DST.

133

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 16:06

[Doug 131] A pre-keeper draft not allowing picks of anybody on a team's roster would amount to a forced scrounging the waiver wire -- hardly worth bothering.

Nor was I meaning that you have to use a keeper slot on a D/ST to participate in the draft. Yes it is sort of like having 10 keepers -- which is an additional bonus to those who would have kept their D/ST, who might well feel that a little better position in the IDP draft doesn't adequately compensate them for their loss.

134

Doug
ID: 20722822
Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 18:02

Interesting... agree with Nerf that I'd expect you have use a keeper spot on your D/ST if you want to swap them for an IDP in the supplemental draft.

135

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 18:39

skineej came up with the idea in 108 so I would be interested to see what he thinks. He said it makes sense that everyone gets to draft an IDP as a replacement but maybe he meant only "everyone" who would have included their Team Def among their 9 keepers.

Also interested in the views of those strongly desiring to eliminate the D/ST -- they are those who this proposal is being crafted for (within the bounds of what's reasonable.)

136

Judy
ID: 35493114
Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 20:05

By copy rifc, I mean the days and times...
Still need to look at details.

137

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 20:18

RIFC's rules state:

However, dropped players will subject to a one day lockout period, after which they will be subject to the next scheduled blind bidding period. Blind bidding for dropped players will be scheduled for Thursdays at 7:30pm ET and Sundays at 8:00 am ET.

We do waivers instead, so that would mean 2 waiver runs, Thursdays at 7:30pm ET and Sundays at 8:00 am ET.

Owners who successfully claim players on Thursday at 7:30 and want to start them in a Thursday night game better be at their computer in time! No set it and forget it!

138

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 20:24

I find the RIFC rule puzzling. If a player is dropped as part of a waiver pickup Thursday at 7:30 P.M., then he can't be both subject to a one-day lockout period and subject to blind bidding run on Sundays at 8 A.M. If he's locked for one day, then he would become a free agent Friday at 7:30 P.M. before the blind bidding period ran.

However there is a setting on MFL that dropped players are locked out until the next waiver run (whenever it is) and that would seem to be what is intended (as modified for our situation).

139

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 07:27

Update 1: I've e-mailed skinneej and asked him to inform me for his concept about the special IDP draft. He said he had been thinking this over for a few years and I imagine he would know best what he had in mind.

140

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 07:43

Update 2: Waivers

Monday has passed and there were no objections to reinstituting waivers, nor to Judy setting the days and times.

There were 2 expressions of opinion for Thursday to Sunday at 5 A.M., and 2 (including Judy's) for copying RIFC, which their rules say would mean Thursdays at 7:30pm ET and Sundays at 8:00 am ET.

Ball in Judy's court.

141

judy
Dude
ID: 7771722
Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 11:08

Judy busy drafting.
Will work on it hopefully before the weekend.
Input welcomed.

142

Doug
ID: 20722822
Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 11:17

At this point I think even IF we did vote to retire D/ST, it would be unfair to do so in 2018... as the lack of clarity of how a potential retirement of the position would be handled is affecting the current year draft (at least for myself).

I'm still not going to pick one yet in current draft under the assumption I'd have to use a keeper spot to earn a slot in the supplemental draft. Or just as likely in my mind, that we wind up voting to keep it anyway. Either way, makes sense for me to wait, IMO.

If this was not the case (and we were basically making it a 10th keeper when we retire it by allowing all teams to keep 9 PLUS get a supplemental pick based on some ranking of D/STs) then I would be have drafted a D/ST a round or two ago. I would have exepcted that information prior to the draft.

Given that we're still don't have clarity on this... IF we vote to retire it, then in that scenario I can't see any way to fairly implement that for 2018 given that the 2017 draft is already several rounds in. (And this would be significantly compounded in the "10th keeper" scenario)

143

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 16:10

I appreciate the force of Doug's argument, and so the proposal presented will allow votes for implementation in 2018 or 2019. Owners may vote for both. Owners who agree with Doug's argument
may vote "No" to the 2018 option, and "Yes" to the 2019 option.

144

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 16:20

I am beginning to feel that my understanding of the special-draft rule is not shared by the masses. Hence the proposal will incorporate the other version of the idea..

Here is my attempt to write it up:

Beginning either in 2018 or 2019 (both options will be voted on in the same vote), the roster position of Team Defense (aka D/ST) will be abolished.

An additional IDP position will be added, and the IDP configuration will become 1 DL - 2 LB - 2 DB - 1 Flex. When keepers are selected
in the year the rule goes into effect, owners must indicate whether they wish to enter a SPECIAL ONE-ROUND ONE-TIME-ONLY IDP Draft instead of
using their 9th keeper slot to keep a D/ST. That is, these owners will keep 8 keepers, and the player selected in the Special
IDP Draft will be their 9th keeper. To determine the order of drafting in that round, the projected rankings for the forthcoming year of
the Team Defenses that owners would have kept as their 9th keeper will be determined according to the "Fantasy Pros" website, or in some
similar manner determined by the Commissioner. The special draft order will start with the team with the best ranked team defense among
the team defenses that have been abjured as keepers in order to enter the draft, and proceed down the rankings, with the last pick going
to the team with the worst ranked team defense. Any IDP who has not been kept by a team may be chosen in that draft.

Improvements in wording welcomed, as others may understand this idea better than I do.

145

slizz
ID: 37713811
Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 20:39

As far as waivers go - after they run at say 5am Sunday, can you still pick up a player as a FA?

As long as I can sift through the post waiver garbage I am ok...

146

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 20:47

As far as waivers go - after they run at say 5am Sunday, can you still pick up a player as a FA?

Yes, after waivers run, unclaimed players become free agents.

147

Toral
ID: 0181517
Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 17:08

OK, I've heard from skineej. He has multiple ideas on the details of the subject, and various alternative possibilities, but they do not necessarily contemplate using a keeper slot on the D/ST.

I have decided that the best solution is to put a proposal based on 130 out tomorrow (Friday morning), to take effect in 2019. If I am blasted by anti-DST proponents becuz this comes so late, I will have to point out that 99% of the work done in crafting a proposal that might maximize the chances of passing has been done by people who aren't in favour of eliminating the D/ST in the first place!

148

Tree
ID: 77532019
Sun, Sep 03, 2017, 18:28

144 (involving both 2018 and 2019) makes more sense than just 147 (involving only 2019)

149

deepsnapper
ID: 18814212
Sun, Sep 03, 2017, 19:57

Just a thought, how about having a poll on the MFL site to see if the votes are there to keep or eliminate D/ST, period.

We can leave the poll open all season if necessary and find out how popular the option is.

Something like keep D/ST
or eliminate D/ST in 2019
Click which option to choose.

150

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 07:55

I haven't forgotten about the vote. I got caught up in drafting. Today is a holiday, but the vote will go out tomorrow (Tuesday). It's not taking effect this year so we can hold the polls open as long as is necessary.

I'm still wavering on whether to put up just 2019 or both 2018 and 2019. Comments invited.

151

Tree
ID: 77532019
Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 14:00

what is the harm in putting up both?

152

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 15:24

It has been said that it is too confusing -- see posts 79 and 82.

If that's not a problem perhaps there is no harm. If 2018 would be unfair (post 142) owners can indicate that with thier votes.

153

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 15:57

Doug said

IF we vote to retire it, then in that scenario I can't see any way to fairly implement that for 2018 given that the 2017 draft is already several rounds in. (And this would be significantly compounded in the "10th keeper" scenario)

Do people agree with that or not? Is there any reason that people's D/ST picks were affected by the possibility of a D/ST compensatory plan in 2018? Is it enough to say -- if you think implementing the change in 2018 is unfair, don't vote for it? Or is it so unfair that it just shouldn't be voted on?

154

Toral
ID: 0181517
Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 11:05

OK, ladies and gentlemen the D/ST repeal-and-replace proposals are up in the voting thread. P5
would come into effect in 2018, P6 in 2019.

An e-mail will go out later today.

155

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 14:55

In my opinion, blind bid waivers is a fairer system than the revolving waiver priority we now use.

I think most of the managers in this league have played in RIFC leagues and are familiar with blind bid waivers. I think we should use the same system that is used in RIFC leagues.

I would like this proposal put up for a vote.

Beginning in 2018, G24 will use the following blind bid waiver system.

Everyone gets $100 blind bid dollars to start the season. Bids must be made in integer increments. Once the season starts, blind bid ties will be broken in reverse order of standings (win%, then points, then HTH). Prior to week #1, ties are broken based on the reverse of draft selection round order.

Blind bidding will continue throughout the playoffs. At the beginning of the playoffs, the top seeded team will receive an additional blind bidding allocation of $16, the second seed will receive $14, … with the 8th seed receiving $2. These allocations will be added to any balances remaining from the regular season. Any blind bidding ties during the playoffs will be awarded in favor of the better seeded team.

156

Doug
ID: 20722822
Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 16:33

I actually really like the system we have... some teams to wait to build up priority for a major pickup... others do pickups more regularly throughout season... and sometimes you wait too long to pull the trigger and that "big pickup" moment never arrives and you kick yourself for passing on so many earlier pickup opportunities. Not saying we shouldn't put it to vote, but just my .02 that I like the current system.

157

skinneej
ID: 42692211
Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 16:45

Yes, for a dynasty type league like ours, I prefer the current system. It doesn't reset after the season starts, so teams can save those top waiver picks as long as they want for the season. Since the initial waiver order matches the draft order, it helps give the bottom teams a quicker chance to improve, and we see a good bit of parity in our league.

An example of that is that after making a run to the SB last year, I definitely think it will be hard to make the playoffs again with my current roster. I've got some good young players that have potential, but not a lot of consistent weekly scorers.

158

Doug
ID: 20722822
Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 16:49

And while I'm starting near the top of the list this year, I won the league and started at the very bottom the year prior, so I'm not just advocating because I happen to have early priority this year. :)

159

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 17:30

I think the teams at the bottom get too much of an advantage in this league creating an incentive for a manager to lose games once his team out of playoff contention. We try to put in rules to prevent this, but we cannot prevent a manager from submitting a lineup that does not include his best RB or WR.

I would also like us change to a snake draft. But I suspect I would get little support for this.

Another change I would like is to use a wheel system to determine the 1st round draft order. Similar to the NBA Wheel Proposal .

160

Tree
ID: 77532019
Wed, Sep 13, 2017, 10:33

a snake draft in a keeper league is a terrible idea, unless it's the first season.

and i am not fond of blind bidding. it puts even weight on teams no matter where they are in the standings. post 156 sums it up for me.

the ONLY way i might even consider blind bidding is if it's weighted to the worst finishing teams getting more money than the better ones, but that's a pain in the ass.

161

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Wed, Sep 13, 2017, 12:21

Why do you consider a snake draft a terrible idea? In this league only the first 5 to 10 picks are very valuable and the only place in the draft where you are likely to get a rookie who is productive for many years. After that it is mostly luck. Picking early in the first round is enough of an advantage for performing poorly.

I actually think there should be no reward for performing poorly. In real or fantasy leagues. But most people in this league won't agree with this.

162

Toral
ID: 0181517
Wed, Sep 13, 2017, 12:42

Just as a refresher of the two proposals dealing with in-season play that have passed:

Rule Change Proposal Three (P3) [IR-Regular]

An IR slot will be added. Only players on NFL's IR are eligible.

A player on IR may not be picked up during the season (on waivers, as a free agent, etc.) and placed in the IR slot.

An owner must remove a player activated from the NFL's IR by the second game after the player's real-life activation.

and

Rule Change Proposal 4 (P4) [No Suspended players]

A player suspended by the NFL may not be a starter in your lineup.
------------------------------------------=---

I will do a more comprehensive list, including Proposal One dealing with voting thresholds when not everybody cotes; and replacement of the the D/ST (which will occur either in 2018 or 2019 depending on the last few votes) when all the votes have been rounded up.

163

Tree
ID: 77532019
Wed, Sep 13, 2017, 15:06

In this league only the first 5 to 10 picks are very valuable and the only place in the draft where you are likely to get a rookie who is productive for many years.

i don't buy that.
although it's early this year, i see the following:
1.12 Trubisky
1.14 Kamara
1.20 Jones
1.24 Mack

2.04 Ross
2.14 Foreman
2.20 Godwin
2.24 Kupp

3.06 Golladay
3.09 Schuster
3.11 Samuel
3.20 Cohen (without question, will be the hottest pickup in leagues where he wasn't drated)

and you can literally go all the way into the 11th and final round of our draft to find rookies picked who may very well be difference makers in a draft this deep.

again, it's early, but let's look at the last couple years:

Prescott in the seecond round. Hill in the third. Kelley ion the third. Lee in the sixth. David Johnson at 1.14. Ajayi at 2.10. eric kendricks at 3.09. Landon Collins in the 4th. Kwon Alexander in the 5th.

quality rookies can be had any time in the draft, depending on the depth of that particular class.

*ALL* picks are valuable. it's what you do with them - and yes, some involves luck - but i'd argue that had it not been for WG's second round pick last year, he might not have won the championship.

that being said, what's argument FOR a snake draft? i'd be curious as to why that makes sense in a league this large.

164

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Thu, Sep 14, 2017, 11:26

I agree that quality rookies can be found late in the draft. But after the first 5-10 picks, it is a guessing game as to which ones they will be. That is the reason they are available that late.

So only the first 5-10 picks are very valuable. If a manager likes a rookie that is under the radar, he will probably be available in the late first round or second round.

I gave my argument for a snake draft. Too much an advantage in this league for performing poorly. I understand you disagree with this and think poor performance should be rewarded with better draft picks.

165

Toral
ID: 0181517
Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 10:57

OK, I'll send out one more reminder to non-voters on P5 and P6 (repeal and replace Team Defense aka D/ST) and then I propose to close the polls on Wednesday morning at 3 AM (midnight Pacific time). It seems to me that 4 weeks is plenty of time for the polls to be open.

P6 has passed easily so Team Defenses will be replaced in 2019 at the latest. P5 (would come into effect in 2018) is still undecided.

166

Judy
ID: 35493114
Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 20:42

Thanks for all you have done Toral.

167

Toral
ID: 0181517
Wed, Oct 04, 2017, 07:46

P6 [repeal and replace Team Defense beginning in 2019] has passed! See the 2017 G24 RULE CHANGE VOTES thread for details
------------------------------------------------
Congratulations to the anti-DST folks. I never thot you'd make it. You're entitled to a cigar and a glass or two of champagne.

I guess if this was a congressional bill it would have been called Skineej-Slizz -- Skineej for the compensatory IDP draft idea, Slizz for the idea of using Fantasy Pro rankings. Democracy works (sometimes)!

168

Tree
ID: 77532019
Wed, Oct 04, 2017, 21:58

remarkable. this is cause for celebration.

RotoGuru Football Leagues & Standings View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread	Self-edit this thread

Post a reply to this message: G24 RULE CHANGES FOR 2017

Name:
Email:

Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text Ignore line feeds? no (typical) yes (for HTML table input)

Viewing statistics for this thread
Period	# Views	# Users
Last hour	1	1
Last 24 hours	4	3
Last 7 days	10	8
Last 30 days	44	22
Since Mar 1, 2007	10959	2045