Self Editor

Forum: foot
Page 3746
Subject: RIFC - League Parameters

Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Fri, Jul 09, 2004, 16:01

I have selected the following 14 Gurupies to participate in the inaugural season of the RIFC (RotoGuru Invitational Football Challenge):

CanEHDian Pride
Challenger
culdeus
deepsnapper
Ender
GoatLocker
Guru
leggestand
Mike V
Motley Crue
Perm Dude
Sludge
Taxman
TB

I used a variety of criteria in making these selections, although I did require that everyone in the first season come from the list of existing GuruPatrons. I am not interested in debating the merits of anyone on this list. In my view, they are all qualified and deserving. Of course, there are many others who are comparably qualified and deserving. Those who are interested (GuruPatrons or not) are invited to join a RIFC qualifying league, which I'm sure will be formed soon. Those leagues should be similar in structure to the RIFC league, but do not need to be exactly the same. In particular, I realize that some qualifying leagues will probably be run on a free site such as Yahoo, and that may limit some of the options. The RIFC will probably be hosted at a pay site, but that has not yet been determined.

The next step is to begin to settle on league parameters. I'll begin that process in a moment. Please stand by...

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jul 09, 2004, 16:12

I have reviewed (but not studied extensively) the many ideas put forward in this introductory thread. In order to get the ball rolling, allow me to propose the following: (Issues to be voted on are noted)

14 team, non-keeper league
Weeks 1-13 round robin (possibly with doubleheaders)
Weeks 14-16 playoffs

Issue 1: 6 teams into playoffs, with 2 1st round byes, or 8 teams into playoffs?
Issue 2: reseed each playoff round?

Top teams (probably those making the playoffs) will automatically return next year. I get to return whether I suck or not. Next year's openings will be filled by top finishers in one or more similar qualifying leagues.

Draft will be done publicly at the forum, using a slow draft format, beginning in mid-August (date TBD, based on number of rounds required). Each manager will be expected to provide a brief rationale for each pick, also to be posted at the forum. General process will the same as for the RIHC and RIBC counterparts.

For a scoring system, I'm proposing the following parameters.

Offensive scoring:
Passing TD: 3 or 4 points (Issue 3)
Rushing TD: 6
Receiving TD: 6
Other TD: 6 (good idea? Issue 4)
2-pt conversion, passing: 1
2-pt conversion, rushing or receiving: 2
Passing yardage: 1 pt per 25
Rushing yardage: 1 pt per 10
Receiving yardage: 1 pt per 10
Return yardage (include, or not? Issue 5)
Use decimal scoring, if available
Deductions for Interceptions, Fumbles lost: -1 per
Extra pt: 1
FG: 3
(Issue 6: bonus for long FG, with deduction for missed short FG?)

Offensive Roster slots: Q-RB-RB-WR-WR-WR-TE-K

Defense:
Issue 7: Team Defense, or IDP, or both?
Once we settle on this, we'll work on defensive point formulas

To get the ball rolling, I want league managers to vote on each of the identified issues. Majority will decide. In addition, if you have any objections or reservations about any of the other proposals above, please raise them now.

Recap of issues to vote on (league managers only):
1. Playoffs: 6 or 8 teams? (with 6, two teams would have a bye in first playoff round)
2. Reseed the playoffs after each round, or set the entire bracket in advance?
3. Passing TDs: 3 or 4 points?
4. Should we include points for other TDs? (return, recovery, etc.)
5. Return yardage: include or not? (we'll work out the points if we decide to include)
6. Field goals: Factor in length, with penalty for missed short FG?
7. Defense: Team only, IDP only, or both?

Note that some of these decisions may have ramifications regarding viable league hosting sites.

Only managers are eligible to vote on these issues, but other are encouraged to weigh in with feedback, alternative ideas, etc.

I'm hoping that the impending All Star break will provide a good chance to settle many of these issues.

leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Fri, Jul 09, 2004, 16:54

First let me say that it is a privilege to play in this league.

1. Playoffs: 6 or 8 teams? (with 6, two teams would have a bye in first playoff round):
I vote for 8 teams to make the playoffs. Since this is an RI league, I don't expect anyone to quit checking their team if they start 0-5, but it would be a shame if a team did start 0-5, won their last 8 and couldn't make the playoffs. I also do not prefer byes during the playoffs because if I happen to end up with a 1 or 2 seed, what am I supposed to do on the Week 13 Sunday?

2. Reseed the playoffs after each round, or set the entire bracket in advance?
I vote for no reseeding the entire bracket after each each round. If the 8 seed happens to knock off the 1 seed, I don't think it should be punished and play the 2 seed in the next round.

3. Passing TDs: 3 or 4 points?
I vote for 4 points. I just think 3 is too little if we are giving 6 points for rushing/receiving.

4. Should we include points for other TDs? (return, recovery, etc.)
I vote yes. If we play IDP's, I think they should be rewarded for scoring a TD. If we count return yards, I think players should be rewarded for scoring TD's. I also think RB's, WR's, QB's should be rewarded for falling on a fumble in the end zone. It counts for 6 points in "real" NFL, so, I think it should count for something in fantasy as well.

5. Return yardage: include or not? (we'll work out the points if we decide to include)
I vote to not include return yards. I think return yardage is such a crapshoot and all it really does is slightly boost the draft position starting WR's that return punts. I don't imagine many people drafting a straight up return man (minus Dante Hall) because there is almost no way to estimate how many yards they will get in a certain game.

6. Field goals: Factor in length, with penalty for missed short FG?
I vote to reward 50+ field goals and penalize for missing Extra Points or field goals less than 20 yards (Extra Point range). I don't think it should be a heavy reward/penalty, but I do think +1 for a 50 yard FG and -1 for the misses I mentioned is reasonable.

7. Defense: Team only, IDP only, or both?
Interesting, I never thought of doing both. My vote is for team defense. I have played both IDP and team defense in leagues past and just like the team defense better. I can't really say why, but it gets my vote. Of all the issues, this is the one I was most undecided in answering, though.

As for everything else, I think it looks good. I generally prefer leagues that start 100-120 players each week (when playing with team defenses), and our league is set up right now to start 112 players (14 teams x 8 starters). Plus, I am a big fan of having the Super Bowl in Week 16.

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 00:16

Thanks for the invite. Looking forward to this season and playing in this league.

1. Playoffs: 6 or 8 teams? (with 6, two teams would have a bye in first playoff round)
Six teams to make play-offs. Top seeds get to catch a break in the first round of the play-offs.

2. Reseed the playoffs after each round, or set the entire bracket in advance?
I like reseeding. Just like it is in the NFL, the teams who do best in the regular season get the advantages during the play-offs.

3. Passing TDs: 3 or 4 points?
Four points.

4. Should we include points for other TDs? (return, recovery, etc.)
Other than passing TD's, which I think should be worth 4 TD's, I vote that every other possible way of scoring a TD should be awarded 6 points to the individual player who scores.

5. Return yardage: include or not? (we'll work out the points if we decide to include)
No or if the majority says yes, I say a lower scoring system like one point every 20 yards.

6. Field goals: Factor in length, with penalty for missed short FG?
Bonus points for length make the better kickers more valuable and drafted higher, so I like it. I do not like to see negative points for any missed attempts.

7. Defense: Team only, IDP only, or both?
I want to vote for IDP but I don't think that Fanball offers it. I really like the option for the doubleheader format offered on Fanball (up until I go 0-2 a couple times...lol) and would like to try that out. So, if Fanball only has Team D that is what I am voting for.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 60151121
Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 02:04

Thanks for the invite Dave and I also feel it is a privilege to play in the league.
Should be a lot of fun and tough with this crowd.

1. Playoffs: 6 or 8 teams? (with 6, two teams would have a bye in first playoff round)
I would say to go with 8 teams. Don't like the bye idea, as my luck is always that would be my best week.

2. Reseed the playoffs after each round, or set the entire bracket in advance?
Set the entire bracket in advance and let things fall the way they do. I just don't like reseeding. Just MHO.

3. Passing TDs: 3 or 4 points?
4 points for sure. 3 just really decreases the QB value too much and also makes the running QBs even more valuable.

4. Should we include points for other TDs? (return, recovery, etc.)
Yes we should and I believe that 6 points per is the right way to go.

5. Return yardage: include or not? (we'll work out the points if we decide to include)
I'm torn the most here. (maybe because Dave kicked all of our rears last year with having Dante Hall)
With 14 teams and the parity in WRs, I would say to include, but if we can't go with IDP, might make it real one sided. So, I guess my answer is to include as long as we also have IDP.

6. Field goals: Factor in length, with penalty for missed short FG?
I say factor in length over 40 yards, but the penalty for missed should be 0 points vice negative points. Something like +2 for over 40, +4 for over 45, and +5 for over 50

7. Defense: Team only, IDP only, or both?
Either IDP only or both. Falls back to my answer for #5 and saying if we include return yardage, that we should have IDP. Also like the addition of having a regular D.

My thoughts.

Cliff

CanEHdian Pride
ID: 46033123
Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 10:25

This should be a fantastic league, thanks for the invite Dave. Projecting me to finish first is also quite flattering. ;)

1. 8 teams because, as mentioned earlier, if I am one of the top two teams (which is quite likely) I do not want to sit by on Week 13 with nothing to do.

2. No reseeding. Let the chips fall where they may.

3. 4 points for many of the reasons given above.

4. All scored TDs should be 6 points.

5. Never really have been a big fan of return yards however, it does bring a little more strategy into the game (starting a more return-oriented player over an actual receiver). I guess I'm for return yards I'd make the scoring pretty tight. 1 point for every 25 return yards (this way a 100 yard kick return rounds out to 10 points).

6. Definately factor in length. I say anything over 50 yards should be given a bonus. I also believe that missed field goals inside of 40 yards should carry a -1 penalty. If there is anyway to track game winning field goals I think it would be a cool bonus as well.

7. I like IDP but I'd be fine with team or both. I like IDP because it allows me to pick up and root for some of my favorite guys on the opposite side of the ball.

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 15:21

Thank you Guru for the invite. I was honored to have received an invitation.

1. Playoffs: 6 or 8 teams? - 8 teams is my vote. I see no reason for a bye, afterall, your players are still playing.

2. Preset or reseed the brackets? - Preset

3. Passing TDs: 3 or 4 points? - 4 points I'd prefer 6 points. I see no reason why a QB should get less points than the receiver, but 6 points is not a option.

4. Should we include points for other TDs? - Yes

5. Return yardage: include or not? - Include I was also in that league which Guru ran over most of us with Dante Hall and he didn't win the league. Yes, return yards can be a crapshoot, but it adds another strategic decision that could make or break ya.

6. Field goals: Factor in length, with penalty for missed short FG? Yes to both. Suggest a -1 point deduction for a miss fg inside 30 yds and a +1 for fg's over 40 yds & +2 for over 50 yds.

7. Defense: Team only, IDP only, or both? - Both Last year was the 1st year I played in a league with significant IDP's and really enjoyed it. I would suggest 1 DL, 2 LB's & 2 DB's.

Ender
ID: 442215
Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 21:26

I'm also grateful for the invite. This should be plenty of fun. The doubleheader option sounds intriguing.

1. 8 team playoffs. The more the merrier and if you win it all, you should have to play every week.

2. Set the bracket in advance.

3. 4 pts

4. All TD's should count

5. I'm not sure :) I've never played with it so I'll go with the crowd. I do think it should 1 for 25 or 25 as said by others.

6. I like bonus points for 50 yders. I don't like the penalty for missed kicks. There's already an inherent -3 pt penalty IMO. I also think you hurt your team less by missing a short one (field position) so it shouldn't be penalized for that reason. Obviously missing a lot of short ones is bad, but then if you're guys doning that he won't be the kicker for long anyway and then you have a different penalty (i.e. having to find a new one).

7. IDP I don't like both. I've played in leagues where defense is half of the weekly points and it always bugged me. If we do both it will be too much weight for defense IMO.

(I can't believe most of what I had to say was about stinking kickers :P)

Motley Crue
ID: 3281411
Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 22:40

1. 8 teams in the playoffs. This should make it more interesting and competitive.

2. Set the playoff bracket in advance and maintain that seeding.

3. Passing TD's worth 4 points.

4. All TD's should be worth something.

5. I think players that do kick returns should get something from that. Not alot, but something.

6. Length of FG should be factored in and negative points should be assessed for short misses.

7. It sounds like we'll be using IDP's. I want to vote for team defense only, because that is more fun in my opinion. I don't think fantasy sports have to resemble the real thing to be fun. I think it's sufficient to have a team defense. But I am resigned to using IDP's if it is chosen by the majority.

Sludge
ID: 59612211
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 02:57

I'm a bit buzzed at the moment, so I hope my comments are cogent.

1. Playoffs: 6 or 8 teams? (with 6, two teams would have a bye in first playoff round)

I would have to vote for 8. Although I dislike over 50% of the league making the playoffs, I dislike bye weeks even more.

2. Reseed the playoffs after each round, or set the entire bracket in advance?

Abstain, with a slight lean towards bracket set in advance. Nice to know who you're playing next, not that it makes any difference for setting lineups.

3. Passing TDs: 3 or 4 points?

I could go either way.

4. Should we include points for other TDs? (return, recovery, etc.)

Aye. Mostly because that's what I'm used to.

5. Return yardage: include or not? (we'll work out the points if we decide to include)

Return yards for which types of plays? Kick returns, no. It just rewards teams with crappy defenses. Int returns, no. In my limited experience with the reporting of stats, fumble return yards aren't reported, and if you aren't going to count those, why count int returns?

6. Field goals: Factor in length, with penalty for missed short FG?

I'm comfortable with yardage factored in with or without penalties for short missed field goals, so doesn't much matter to me.

7. Defense: Team only, IDP only, or both?

I would prefer team simply out of laziness.

Eugene
ID: 57573013
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 03:42

amazing some of the people that got in this

Tree
ID: 32645819
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 08:54

that crazy eugene, always getting involved...

Motley Crue
ID: 3281411
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 21:13

That's funny, Tree, I always kind of imagined you looking like that.

Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 29463114
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 00:57

Great group of managers and the league will prove to be entertaining (every league should have at least one OKie). Best part will be to explain the draft choices (I am already working on the Emmit Smith explanation). My favorite concept is the double header especially if held on some or all of weeks 11-13.

1) 8 teams with no bye (involves more managers and doesn't put the best managers on the sidelines with the non-qualifiers for the 14th week)
2)Set entire bracket on the front (gives meaning to each weeks performance before the playoffs eventhough the playoffs are a crap shoot, at best)
3)4 pts for Passing TD (higher number helps keep the QB draft position value in line with RB and WR positions)
4)Yes, include other TD's at 6 points (a TD is a TD)
5)Yes, include Return Yardage (must be carefull on how points are determined and include all types of return yardage (not just punt/kick off)
6)FG = Yes to a yardage factor and yes to a penalty for missing 30 yrds and in. Also would like to see a big (3 or 4) penalty for missed extra point kicks.
7)Defense = Team and IDP (IDP because many DB's are kick returners; the defensive specialists such as run stuffers, great pass defenders and sack artisits add a higher level of complexity to the fantasy game and provides the manager a chance to overcome an injury or off day of an offensive star)

culdeus
ID: 25618128
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 09:41

Checking in before I head out to get blocked at work.

1) 6 Teams with byes for 1+2 seed.
2) Set the bracket, it doesn't make a difference one way or the other.
3) 4 points
4) 6 points
5) No return yards, if they do make sure a return attempt is -1/punt -2.5/kick return
6) Factor in length on FG's only because they become a non-factor without it. I had to argue this at length last year but a high penalty for missed xp is unfair since for the most part it isn't the fault of the kicker where a missed FG is to a larger degree.
7) Team D, lets face it it is like having an extra bet every week on one side knowing what the score is. Every year at Texas Stadium I watch the crawl much more closely for my Team D's to go low than my bets on the day.

Side issues

-Doubleheaders, no no no. Easy easy way to eliminate the need for DH is to have division winners by record get 1&2 seed by points scored and then let the next two best records in and then the next top two scorers in. Leaning towards points to decide the last two spots takes away some of the "I got beat by 2 points twice this year" stuff.

-About the bye week in the playoff, if you have the byes play eachother that week you can have an extra "bye bowl" prize as well. Or not.

-I am very afraid this league will go to whomever is in the first 7 spots. In a 14 person league especially with no points per receptions advantages abound for the teams at the top of the draft order. Dropping the QB TD back to 4 also adds to this. In a 10 or 12 team league this scoring probably works best.

My settings last year and this year for my main league

Not to pimp ESPN but I really like their setup. And I can get to it through my Companies firewall, most other ffl sites I can't.

Eugene
ID: 57573013
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 11:17

Guru please edit post 12 since you edio one of mine..I still contend im as good as half this league

MikeV
ID: 2166316
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 13:01

Thanks for the invite Guru.

1. 8 team playoff, no byes
2. Preset bracket
3. 4 points
4. All TDs 6 points
5. Include return yards. I think the player pool with this many teams is going to be very tight. This will expand the pool.
6. Graduated values for FGs with appropriate penalties.
7. I prefer team defense and definitely don't want both.

I really like the idea of a double header each week, except playoffs, as long as it's not against the same team.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 13:25

Eugene - I don't want this thread to get hijacked in a pissing match, but let me quickly respond to some of your whining.

1. If you read the opening post, you can see that I restricted the list of invitees to GuruPatrons only. That immediately disqualified you from further consideration. (And there are plenty of other non-GuruPatrons who I would have ranked ahead of you.)

2. A number of other factors also influenced the decision process, including competitive track record and history of RotoGuru site support and activity. Nevertheless, I know there are some very deserving candidates who were left out. It is very difficult to narrow the list down to just 14 names, and I'm sure there were some very deserving options that I failed to consider. But I don't feel that I have to defend any of those chosen.

I don't know what post you think I edited (or "edio-ed"), but the forum logs indicate that you deleted your own post 13. I have no recollection of editing any recent post of yours. In any event, you opened up the whining in post 11, and post 12 is what often happens when confronted with something like post 11.

Tree
ID: 516371212
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 13:40

MC - That's funny, Tree, I always kind of imagined you looking like that.

because i'm due for a haircut, it's not a huge stretch these days...

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 14:00

[Returning to the business at hand...]

We have votes by 11 managers, and here are the results so far:

1. 8 teams will make the playoffs (vote 9-2)
2. Playoff brackets will be set at the beginning of the playoffs (vote 9-1)
3. Passing TDs will be worth 4 (vote 10-0)
4. Other TDs will count for 6 pts (vote 11-0)
5. Return Yards - current vote is 6-4 with one abstention. BTW, I'm referring only to kickoff return and punt return yardage, and if we do use them, the point values would be adjusted.
6. Long FGs will be rewarded. (vote 10-0)
7. Defenses are still up for grabs. Currently, 6 have voted for team only, 1 for IDP only and 4 for both.

So, the only open issues from the first set of votes are items 5 and 7. We also need to decide on kicking formula adjustments.

A few other comments based on your feedback.
- I don't understand culdeus' reluctance for doubleheaders. My thinking was to have each team play a DH each weekend. This would allow every team to face every other team twice.

- Fanball will offer IDP this year, in addition to team defenses.

- The reason that I suggested reduced points for passing TDs is to bring QB points more in line with other offensive players. I think this is fairly normal in many scoring systems. But of course, the reduced points for passing yardage also does this. Is there a strong sentiment to award 6 points for a passing TD, or is 4 appropriate?

In addition to the items already discussed, I suppose we could vote on whether receiving yardage should be scored at a higher rate than running yardage.

But before weighing in on some of these open issues, lets get items 5 and 7 resolved. We are still waiting to hear from Perm Dude and deepsnapper. (and me)

Are there other scoring issues that should be considered (or reconsidered)?

Motley Crue
Sustainer
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 14:00

Actually, this might make no sense at all (or it might make perfect sense) but I imagine Tree looks like Ethan Zahn, the guy who won Survivor Africa.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 15:06

Other than being able to accommodate our scoring system, what issues are important to each of you for a hosting site?

Eugene
ID: 57573013
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 15:26

One more question and im finished Guru...Why is there plenty of managers ranked ahead of me when I have beaten 3 or 4 in here in a league? I just see the same chosen few get in everything and would like to be part of a good league...Didnt mean to hijack a thread,Im just frustrated.

Motley Crue
Sustainer
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 16:40

Dude,

Read Post 19 and the thread headliner:

1. If you read the opening post, you can see that I restricted the list of invitees to GuruPatrons only. That immediately disqualified you from further consideration.

... although I did require that everyone in the first season come from the list of existing GuruPatrons...

This means if you have not donated money to the site, you are not eligible to play this time. The Invitational League is partly a "Thank You" to those who have helped keep the site in business. If you aren't one of those, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you, but you will not get in this League this year. It's just a rule that the Guru made. He made up the League so he can decide who he will play with.

Nothing is stopping you from creating or joining a League of your own, including a qualifying league for next year's RIFC.

Motley Crue
Sustainer
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 16:46

Guru,

This will be my third year playing Fanball's Exit42, and I'm not sure if they have the same live scoring capabilities on the League Manager program, but it's nice to see how you are doing in real time.

I think the Double Header idea would be pretty neat. One thing to consider, though: even though you play everyone else in the League 2 times this way, it's not like you are getting more numbers out of your players. You are fond of mentioning how baseball and hoops are more your style, because the stats are more representative of the players and you have more chances to recover from a bad game. And of course, football isn't like that, because there are only 17 weeks worth of numbers. Well, increasing the number of fantasy games isn't going to increase the number of REAL games, so your performance won't necessarily be enhanced like it might if the NFL actually had a 34 week season.

kev
ID: 3155515
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 16:55

Even though not included in the league, I will chime in with my 2 cents on doubleheaders.

Last year I was in a league that used doubleheaders, and really didn't like it, as was the theme of most of the managers.

Rather than have the chance to recover from a bad game from a player, it seems to affect you even more. Rarely were there 1-1 weeks. Usually, you would go 2-0, or 0-2. It still brings an "all or nothing" approach to the game, unless you are able to start 2 different lineups, and have the bench to make these decisions worthwhile. Injuries play double the role as well. In a leauge where you play one game per week, you can recover from 2 bad weeks with injuries. In a doubleheader league, you could easily go 0-4 in those 2 weeks, which could cause major damages in the standings.

I believe, that with doubleheaders every week, it is actually harder to rebound from bad weeks, as usually, if you have a bad week, you are going to lose both games anyways.

Just my info on it. Hope it helps.

culdeus
ID: 394542411
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 19:02

My comments were about an old FBG thread that discussed this issue and how DH games are great on paper but rarely impact final standings in any meaningful way.

The better option IMO is to organize the last two seeds of playoffs on points and not record that way a high scoring loss doesn't end up costing you a spot and leave the doubleheaders to Sunday MLB ;-).
---------

Hopefully dgrooves isn't watching but last year having 2pts/5receptions as discussed in the old thread worked to provide two things: *ducking*

-Draft equity for people who went RB/WR 1/2
-Prevented run on the Stacey Macks of the world
-Rewarded people who made signifigant catches, not the dump off 1pt/reception you have to get 5 rec. to get any points this way

With the advent of value based drafting and people really being sheep taking RB RB 1&2 Being somewhere south of oh, lets say Fred Taylor puts you in a big hole if WR points aren't doctored a bit.

The downside as I see it is you create a premium for pass catching RBs and possession recievers. IMO this is a small price to pay.

culdeus
ID: 394542411
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 19:07

Uh, not to start something else but maybe 6pts for passing TD and -2 for INT/FR would change the look of things?

6 or 4 for passing TDs is not a big deal, you only start 1 and the delta from the top to the 12th QB isn't that huge.

deepsnapper
ID: 2344179
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 19:27

Guru - thanks also for the invite.

My choices are

1. 8 team playoff, no free lunches
2. Preset brackets
3. QB TD's 4 points
4. Other TD's 6 points
5. Include return yards. Offensive & Defensive return yardage.
6. Graduated values for FGs with penalies for missed kicks less than 40 yds.
7. IDP preferrably 3 flex positions.

I'll have to hear more on doubleheaders to form an opinion one way or the other.

culdeus
ID: 394542411
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 20:57

If we do do doubleheaders I would like to be able to set two different lineups.

For my last suggestion (I promise)

What about the TeamQB? It is a 14 person league...by the time the draft is over there won't be much left out there.

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 21:32

I thought that when doubleheaders were discussed it was with the understanding of two different lineups in order to better match up with your different opponents? I think we'd all agree that DH's would be cool with different lineups but not as good with having to use the same lineup against two different teams.

After looking over the issues, it appears I agree with snap on each of them, so I'll just say "ditto."

pd

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 12:43

With those final votes:

1. return yardage will be included (vote 8-4). I'd suggest that this be limited to punt returns and kickoff returns, and we will need to figure out appropriate factors.

2. The defense situation is murky. We had 6 people vote for team only, 3 votes for IDP only, and 5 vote for both (including me). One way to look at this is that 11 voted to use team defenses, and 8 voted to use IDP. So I'm going to rule that we use both.

With 14 teams, I think we should not have more than one team defense active each week. I guess I'm kind of leaning toward having 3 IDP, although I could be swayed to go as high as 5. We also need to decide whether to specify position requirements for IDP (e.g, DL, LB, DB), or whether to leave that open.

So, I'm tentatively leaning toward the following active roster config:
1 QB
2 RB
3 WR
1 TE
1 K
1 Team def
3 IDP

That would total 12 active slots per week. If we use this setup, how many bench slots should we have? Is 6 enough? That wouldn't even be enough to provide one backup for each position. Maybe 8? With 8, we would have 20 total slots to fill.

We'll need a second set of issues to vote on, but I need some time to formulate reasonable choices. Today is not likely to provide that time, but hopefully I can devote some effort to research tomorrow, and we can begin the next voting on Thursday.

Meanwhile, if anyone has proprosals to put on the table for any of these open issues, please speak up here. I'll want to review the earlier thread for ideas, but will also certainly consider any new ideas here as well.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 12:51

One interesting issue:
culdeus [31] introduced the notion of a "Team QB". I guess I understand the general concept, but am unsure as to how it would work for scoring. Presumably when we draft a team QB, we have the rights to all QBs on that team. But, how is this implemented during the season? Does the team QB slot earn all QB points for that team on any given week? For example, if I own the Minnesota team QB, and Culpepper gets injured in the first quarter, do I still earn his backup's points for that game? Or does this only mean that I am protected against longer term injuries because I would have Culpepper's backup on my bench, to be activated in a future week?

leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 13:02

I will wait for the next batch of issues to be posted before I touch on most of the above items, but I would like to say something brief about bench spots.

I think we definitely need more than 6 bench spots. I would say either 8 or 10. Since we don't have a flex position, and we won't have at least one backup in each position, we will be forced to drop players or get 0 points during bye weeks. Also, with more bench spots, I assume that will allow for more trading, as the waiver wire should be pretty thin.

I would also like to hear what other people think about Team QB, which was Culdeus' thought. I don't normally like Team QB, but with a short bench, it may be a feasible alternative to drafting top backup QB's.

leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 13:11

Re 34: I have never played Team QB, but from what I understand, you accumulate all points for the Team QB, so, if Culpepper gets hurt on the first play of the game, you don't end up getting 0 points.

Drafting Team QB might also be helpful for teams that have not named starting QB's. For instance, I assume someone would draft Ramsey or Brunell from the Skins (at least as a backup) if they knew who would be taking the snaps during the season. With our draft starting in mid-August, though, it is unlikely we will know who the starting QB will be during the first 10+ rounds of our draft. At some point in the late rounds, the Skins may state who they will start, which would reward the person who is "on the clock," or close to it, at the time.

culdeus
Leader
ID: 43105818
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 13:20

The concept with team QB is you get all points every week from anyone throwing from the QB posisiton, you would not get passing yards from HB passes, etc. ESPN supports TeamQB.

I'd lean towards shorter benches, the 14 team leagues straddle that no mans land of a deep league and a draft and waive league. This necessitates controversial things like maxes at posistions if you expand the bench too much to prevent hoarding.

leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 13:34

Culdeus, so, do you think not having 1 backup at each position is okay, or do you think benches should accomodate 1 backup at each position?

Motley Crue
Sustainer
ID: 439372011
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 13:54

I don't love the idea of a team QB slot. Sometimes that backup could be valuable (Rattay last year) as a WW pickup for a team at the bottom of the standings. With 14 teams, everyone can have 2 QB's and there will still be 4 bottom dwellers availble on waivers. We did this last year in the PoliBoard Yahoo League. It worked fine.

Motley Crue
Sustainer
ID: 439372011
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 13:58

How about 2 IDP starting, one DL/LB and one DB? I think the problem with IDP is that none of us know much about them so we won't feel very comfortable with them initially. Why not start with baby steps? Then you have 11 starting players, and you can have 8 or 9 bench players, which will cover all positions and then some.

leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 14:02

I would be a proponent of 2 IDP's, one at DL/LB 1 at DB.

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 14:10

I don't like team QB either. For IDP, I agree with deepsnapper on 3 flex postions. I like the 12 active slots with 8 bench. I think that still leaves some value on the waiver wire and will promote some trading.

culdeus
ID: 394542411
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 18:54

Well TeamQB or max QB on roster at 2, either way it works. With a 12 team league it isn't that big of a deal to let some people run with 3 from time to time. Qb shortages in very deep leagues are just something I think people have learned to just deal with. Again, a 14 team league doesn't fall into either of those slots.

I know I'm sort of coming off like the Tree of FFL, oh well.

culdeus
Leader
ID: 43105818
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 20:59

Using proposed scoring projections show

First 2 rounds: 1QB, 4WR, 19RB, 1st WR at #7

With 1pt/rec: 0QB, 8WR, 16RB, 1st WR at #10

This is really not a great year for QBs anyway so that doesn't bother me that much.

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 21:24

I hope there is not a max QB limit at 2. IMO, when you start maxing roster spots at such a low number you are limiting individual draft strategy. I think that 3 is a good roster max for QB's if we really need to set a max.

We must be using pretty close to the same projections, because I have 20 RB, 7 WR, and 1 QB going in the first 2 rounds with the 1st WR at #8-10 depending on what stats I use.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 60151121
Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 00:10

I don't like the team QB and do not like a limit on number at any position.
If somebody wants to draft 3 QBs, more power to them.
They will have a corresponding weakness because of that.
I think 3 IDP is a good sound number that works.
Last year with Team D and IDP I found it to be a good challenge to pay attention to what was going on.

Cliff

Motley Crue
Sustainer
ID: 439372011
Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 08:33

culdeus, one thing we do not need is another Tree.

I'm kidding.

I vote no limits on anything. If you wait to draft a QB until Kyle Boller and Rex Grossman are the only starting QB's left, you deserve one of them.

deepsnapper
ID: 2344179
Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 19:32

I prefer Guru's proposed lineup in #33 with a 20 player roster. The smaller bench will make drafting for the bye weeks an interesting exercise to say the least.

Starting 3 flex defensive players isn't that difficult of an issue to deal with IMO. Even if everyone drafts 4 IDPs, you've got 56 players out of an estimated pool of 100 pretty good DBs,LBs, & DL to choose from. The short bench will not allow anyone to hoard defensive players. I played in a league with 7 IDPs last season and that was a bit more difficult to deal with.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 15, 2004, 00:28

Sorry to intrude. Was reading this thread and thought the double header concept was interesting. The only downside might be if your team has a really bad week you get two losses, but the same thing can be said if you have a fluke player score a million points and get two big wins. It will be fun to take a look at regardless.

Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 29463114
Thu, Jul 15, 2004, 03:01

Good comment Ref.

I also am really intrigued with the concept...especially if scheduled for the last few weeks of the regular season which would also be after the bye weeks are finished.

3 IDB, 2DL/LB (or 1 of each) and 1 DB

and I like the short roster concept to force some difficult bye week planning and agree that it could encourage trading.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 15, 2004, 09:44

If we use doubleheaders, my thinking is that we would simply have a doubleheader each week during the regular season. This would allow each team to match up against every other team twice, rather than once.

If we use Fanball, they did say that you can use different lineups for each game in a doubleheader.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 15, 2004, 10:08

I've been tinkering a bit with possible IDP scoring formulas.

If all of our IDP slots are flex, then defensive linemen become mostly irrelevant unless the value of sacks is elevated vs. other defensive stats.

If we designate that one IDP slot must be a DL, then this issue essentially goes away. I'd probably lean this way. The other 2 ISP slots could be flex.

The downside to this is bye week management, as it creates one more distinct slot that must be managed.

Any thoughts?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 15, 2004, 10:28

Regarding return yardage:

I'm tentatively thinking that punt return yardage should be scored the same as rushing/receiving. 1 point per 10 yards.

However, kick return yardage should be scored like passing yardage. 1 point per 25 yards.

Anyone want to try to talk me out of either of those? Is either formula too generous?

As reference points, Dante Hall was the leading kick returner last year, averaging 92 yards per game. The top 20 KRs (total KR yards) averaged 66 yds/game. That group included 13 WRs, 5 RBs, and 2 DBs.

The top punt returner was Allan Rossum, who averaged just 34 PR yards/game. The top 20 PRs averaged 24 yds/game. They included 13 WRs, 2 RBs, and 5 DBs.

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Thu, Jul 15, 2004, 10:50

A good suggestion--KRs (outside of Hall) don't get a lot of TDs but they get a lot of yardage.

leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Thu, Jul 15, 2004, 10:52

I would rather see all 3 IDP's be flex positions. Although the DL is then made irrelevant, it is nearly as irrelevant if we mandate a DL position. I would assume that the majority of owners would wait until round 15+ to get their DL due to their "TE like" scoring.

I like the scoring presented above for PR's and KR's. One question: Are we giving yardage credit for returns by IDP's? I would be against that. I think the yardage should only go to WR's and RB's returning kicks.

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Thu, Jul 15, 2004, 10:56

I've always advocated the "everyone gets points" theory myself. It reflects the real game better.

A so-so DB would be worth a look if he also returns kicks. The strategy would kick in depending on how you go with it (and obviously guys who play two scoring positions would get a bump in value).

pd

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 15, 2004, 10:58

Regarding scoring for TEAM defenses:

Here is the default formula for the Yahoo game:
Defensive statistics and point modifiers:

Each sack = 1 point

Each interception = 2 points

Each fumble recovery = 2 points

Each TD = 6 points

Each safety = 2 points

Each blocked kick = 2 points

Shutout = 10 points

1-6 points allowed = 7 points

7-13 points allowed = 4 points

14-20 points allowed = 1 point

21-27 points allowed = 0 points

28-34 points allowed = -1 points

35+ points allowed = -4 points

Please comment on what adjustments you think are appropriate.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 15, 2004, 11:02

leggestand [55]: I'll put the issue of return scoring for IDPs to a vote. Like PD, I tend to like to include all scoring for all players.

I'm coming up with a menu of items that we'll all need to vote on. For now, I'm trying to pin down the best way to frame the various voting issues.

deepsnapper
ID: 2344179
Fri, Jul 16, 2004, 12:02

Playing Doubleheaders each week with different lineups while maintaining a 20 player roster and utilizing 12 player lineups is going to require some creative roster adjustments to say the least. Must be using that "new math" in making roster assignments. ;)

I like the idea of a DL position being manditory for one IDP slot. It may require more consideration during bye weeks depending on the weight given to the position and the value to sacks, etc.

Will we be required to fill out a "complete" roster each week or will partial rosters be allowed? If someone wants to play me with fewer than a full roster of players, that's fine with me. That's my optinion though.

I've always felt like if you can fall on the ball, you can score points. Otherwise, what are you doing out there? They give kickers points don't they? Why not defensive players?

I like the ratios in #53 for kick return yardage. punts should be rewarded for shorter returns.

Guru - looks like there's going to be another round of items to vote on in the near future. ;)

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Fri, Jul 16, 2004, 19:03

With doubleheaders, you have the option of starting different rosters, but you can also start the exact same roster. I would think that maybe one or two slots would be different at the most. Personally, I doubt I ever start different rosters. It's not like my players are playing against a different defense and am I going to start the players who I think will score the most for both games of the DH. The best reason for double headers, that I can think of, is for the weeks you score 120 points only to end up losing to the team that scored 123 points while 4 of the other 6 weekly winners didn't bust 80 points. Yes, it's going to painful on those weeks where your team scores 62 points and you go 0-2, but truthfully, IMO, it will average itself out. It will be fun to compare what the records would be without the DH option.

I did a quick search on antsports for draft place averages for a 14 team draft. The draft format doesn't require 3 WR to start so I fudged a little and substituted some of the later RB picks with the next WR taken. This isn't rocket science, but it is good enough data for my example on starting teams for DH.

Let's say one team ended up with these RB and WR:
RB Priest Holmes
RB Brian Westbrook
RB Lee Suggs
RB Correll Buckhalter
RB Mike Anderson
WR Hines Ward
WR Chris Chambers
WR Roy Williams
WR Quincy Morgan
WR Travis Taylor
WR Corey Bradford

Now, that is a lot of bench dedicated to RB and WR and chances are that some of us won't commit more than 2 bench slots for RB or for WR. I know I was looking at it and trying to figure out what a good bench would be like with only 8 slots. Not sure how comfy everyone is with talking about it before the draft, but my initial thought was One QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, one slot I rotate for TE/K/Team D for bye weeks, and 2 IDP. That is not in stone at all, but really, with such a short bench, there isn't a lot of room to play with. Okay, I am getting off subject. Back to the roster.

So let's just say that is my fleet of RB and WR. Barring injury or bye weeks, my normal starting line-up would be:
RB- Holmes and Westbrook
WR- Ward, Chambers, and Williams
If one of these players (let's say Williams) was hurt (probable/questionable), seriously underperforming, or if someone on my bench (let's say Taylor) was really lighting it up, I can't see any reason why I would start Taylor on one team and leave Williams in on the other. If I think Taylor is going to outscore Williams, I will start him on both teams.

On the other hand, when we start getting way down into the bench due to byes and injuries, and let's say I just don't have a strong feeling either way if I had to choose between starting Bradford or Taylor. Match-ups might be very similiar along with YTD production. I decide to start one each on either team and see what happens. Murphy's Law says that Taylor has a huge week and scores 18 points but the team I play him against scores 130 points and blows me away, while Bradford only gets 2 points and the team I play him against beats me by 1 point....lol

With the short bench, most of your DH will be very similiar, especially on the bye week when half of your bench is your solid back-up QB, and one each of your starting RB, WR, and IDP. I like the DH option not because you can start a varied roster but just because we get to play against two opponents every week. I will try not to cry too much when I am 0-6 after three weeks and Motley Crue starts sending me smack talking emails. :)

TB

Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 29463114
Sat, Jul 17, 2004, 23:21

Defense points look ok. Only tweek I would proffer is that a safty be worth more than a turnover....maybe 4pts.

I agree with Roy on: mandatory DL and scoring for all players

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Mon, Jul 19, 2004, 14:26

From post #33 2. The defense situation is murky. We had 6 people vote for team only, 3 votes for IDP only, and 5 vote for both (including me). One way to look at this is that 11 voted to use team defenses, and 8 voted to use IDP. So I'm going to rule that we use both.

The more I look at scoring options for team defense and IDP, the more I dislike using both of them. I will also admit that I like the added flexibility it will give to our bench, even if it means including a 4th IDP to keep the active roster at 12 players. I would rather it be one or the other (team or IDP).

Team scoring and IDP scoring will be redundant. Both will be getting points for Sacks, INTs, TDs and Safeties. IDP will also get points for tackles and hopefully any return yards (not sure if that was specified yet), while team D also gets points for blocked kicks and final score allowed.

With everything except for Blocked Kicks and Final Scored Allowed being covered by IDP, I am more than comfortable not having a Team D. Heck, blocked kicks are done by special teams and all too often your team D plays well, but special teams gives up two TD's.

I don't know if this is still up for discussion, but I wanted to share my thoughts.

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Mon, Jul 19, 2004, 15:43

Good points, TB. It's always been a burr under my saddle that a team defense gets charged with ST mistakes.

If we are using IDP I'd say do away with team defenses, particularly if it reflects some ST scoring.

culdeus
Leader
ID: 43105818
Mon, Jul 19, 2004, 22:59

I think a good set of options to pose....

A) Team D w/ IDP no ST points
B) Team D no IDP and ST Points
C) IDP with Team D and ST Points

The addition of ST points changes alot of what people were assuming about IDPs in the first ballot.

culdeus
Leader
ID: 43105818
Mon, Jul 19, 2004, 23:00

I'd like to add I would really like to know about the ST points as this will probably be my only league with them and I'd like to start figuring out how it affects rankings.

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Mon, Jul 19, 2004, 23:18

If ST is Special Teams it looks like right now for Team D ST you get points for a blocked kick, fumble recovery, TD, and a safety. For IDP ST you would get return yards (if your IDP was a returner), TD, and I am guessing tackle, fumble recovery, safety, and a possible loss of points for a fumble.

Most leagues I have played in have the ST worked into the Team D on punts and, of course, any points given up by your kicking team have hurt your Team D overall score.

Hoping to hear more folks chime in on this, if it is still up for discussion.

culdeus
Leader
ID: 43105818
Tue, Jul 20, 2004, 19:36

Well actually I meant ST to count KR/PR yardage as well as the other stuff.

Aris
ID: 166571316
Tue, Jul 20, 2004, 21:11

Re: TB #60

One reason for having different line-ups is insurance for your opponent's QB. If last year your opponent had McNabb and you had James Thrash (who wouldn't normally start), you could start Thrash in case McNabb had a monster game and threw a couple of touchdowns to him. For your other game you could start your regular WRs.

It's a useful strategy that has paid off for me sometimes.

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Tue, Jul 20, 2004, 22:33

That's a pretty good point and obviously one I hadn't thought about. I still wouldn't sub in a guy like Thrash for one of my better WR, but it does make sense when trying to fill that third slot with a Morgan-Bradford-Taylor-Thrash player.

culdeus
ID: 406391518
Tue, Jul 20, 2004, 22:44

It can work in the converse for TeamD. If the qb against your team d has a monster game you essentially get the double whammy. So to avoid this you can swap to a different one to avoid it.

Ender
ID: 442215
Tue, Jul 20, 2004, 23:59

I'd be against using both IDP and Team D. One or the other please.

I'd prefer IDP. I really enjoyed that aspect of 1 league I was in last year. It adds a new wrinkle to the draft.

Taxman
ID: 396362121
Thu, Jul 22, 2004, 00:45

I see the inclusion of (a)Team D with (b)3 IDP starters as simply having 4 slots that you can generate or lose points from. I do not see them [(a) and (b)] as duplicate positions nor do not understand why they would be considered mutually exclusive.

The parameters for a great Fantasy QB (as opposed to a QB that you can win the Super Bowl with) is different than for a great running back. The same principal applies. The scoring accorded to Team D (whether or not it includes ST play) will be the same for each manager and will be different from the scoring computation for the IDP position. In short, Team D is just another position.

By the way, I would like the addition to IDP scoring of 1 point per tackle and 1/2 point for each asst tackle (does not apply to Team D computation).

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, Jul 22, 2004, 19:29

I am only opposed to having a team defense and the IDP because it is the same as having a team offensive and IOP (Individual offensive players). I don't even know if any fantasy site allows scoring for that.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that IDP will get one point per tackle and .5 for each asst, otherwise an IDP will be even more worthless than a TE.

:)

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, Jul 22, 2004, 19:57

My .02 for IDP scoring:

Solo Tackle	=	1 point
Asst Tackle	=	.5 points
Sack	=	2 points
Asst sack (.5)	=	1 point
Interception	=	2 points
Fumble recovery	=	2 points
Any TD	=	6 points
Safety	=	3 points
Blocked kick	=	2 points

I also suggest that IDP get the same amount of points for punt and kick returns that any offensive player gets. For Team D, the only changes to the above that I suggest are that Sacks be worth 2 points (same as INT's) and Safeties worth 3 points.

culdeus
ID: 406391518
Thu, Jul 22, 2004, 20:21

Sacks and half sacks aren't usually scored separately for IDPs IIRC. When discussing safties remember you still get either sack points or tackle points at a minimum. To equalize DB points INT at 3 helps level things out and adding 1 for deflected passes adds some help to the DE posistion. As it stands the 24th rated LB will out point the #1 DB AND the #1 DL. But that's sort of a given nowadays.

This isn't factoring return yards.

Sludge
ID: 475323018
Thu, Jul 22, 2004, 20:40

When discussing safties remember you still get either sack points or tackle points at a minimum.

And when discussing touchdowns, remember you still get rushing yards, passing yards, receptions, completions, a blocked kick, or a turnover at a minimum.

culdeus
ID: 406391518
Thu, Jul 22, 2004, 21:06

Some people don't realize you get those points also. Not everyone has done an IDP league before.

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, Jul 22, 2004, 21:44

Sacks and half sacks aren't usually scored separately for IDPs

I don't know what that means. When you look at boxscores it might show that a defensive player recorded .5 sacks for a game. Are you saying he gets credit for a full sack in the fantasy scoring format?

The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Thu, Jul 22, 2004, 21:51

Since TB asked so nicely in the other thread, I thought I'd give my opinion on scoring parameters as someone who plans on playing in a qualifying league.

Team QB (as opposed to drafting QBs by name) = No (more challenging)

Minimums and maximums at positions = No (more challenging)

Team D, IDP, or both = IDP (more challenging, and I just can't get into the idea of using both)

ST points = scoring only, no yardage, by player not team (too difficult to balance yardage on returns versus other points)

culdeus
Leader
ID: 43105818
Thu, Jul 22, 2004, 22:42

I just meant most services just pool half and full to a net total so splitting half and full isn't necissary as a cat.

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, Jul 22, 2004, 22:55

Okay, I gotcha. Truthfully, I couldn't find a nifty way to say that in my little excel table so I just put it in there. With decimal scoring, I figured that if a sack equaled two points, 1.5 sacks would net 3 points.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jul 23, 2004, 11:08

Sorry to intrude again, love reading these setups!

TB, from your chart, that means if your player tackles the QB in their own end zone you'd get 6 points (tackle, sack, safety). That's the same as a TD in most leagues. Just thought that was interesting.

Sludge
ID: 54692111
Fri, Jul 23, 2004, 11:22

Ref -

Before I launch into a message and, possibly, make an ass out of myself (like that would be anything new), are you saying that you disagree with safety = 3 points and that the play being worth the same as a TD is somehow wrong?

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Fri, Jul 23, 2004, 11:50

I was going to ask the same thing. What is the scoring method you propose or use for any other league you are in with IDP?

I haven't really dug into stats, but my guess is that maybe every team averages about one safety for the season. I looked at defensive projections and it had most teams at one and some teams at two. Even though safety scoring seems to draw quite a bit of discussion, it is a rare event to see one in a football game.

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Fri, Jul 23, 2004, 11:58

So let's make it 20 points.

:)

Actually, I'd bump it up to 4 points. It's a scoring play, and enables your team to get the ball back again in good position to score once again.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jul 23, 2004, 13:15

Sludge, not at all. In our 24 team league,we also have 3 pts for a safety. We don't have IDP and a sack is only 1, but for instance as a team if you block a punt (3) for a safety (3), it's also 6. I wasn't criticizing, just noting how big a play that is and how that player should be rewarded just like someone who scores a TD--esp. when you're adding in IDP. Very interesting. Makes you strategize more as your IDP can easily outscore a bigtime WR who has an avg to bad day.

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Fri, Jul 23, 2004, 13:19

As I recall, two seasons ago the TB defense was the one of the top "players" on the board with our scoring rules, and kept me competitive all season long.

Of course I was pissed right after the draft when the computer automatically drafted them for me, but it worked out quite well.

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Fri, Jul 23, 2004, 14:43

Think how big of a play it is if you have Ray Lewis and the Baltimore Defense and he sacks the QB for a safety. Your IDP Lewis gets 1 point for tackle, 2 for the sack, and 3 for the safety = 6 points. Your Team D gets 1 point for the sack and 2 for the safety. Nifty little 9 point play.

How would the scoring be if he sacked the QB in the end zone, forced a fumble, recovered it and scored the TD? Do you get sack/tackle credit in the boxscore? If so, you would get 11 points for IDP and 9 points for Team D, so a wonderful 20 point play. If no tackle/sack credit, it would still be 8 points for IDP plus 8 points for team to make it a 16 point play.

Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 29463114
Fri, Jul 23, 2004, 14:59

good chart TB...and I'm with PD on the 4pt safety.

culdeus, top DBs will be worth top LBs if return yardage for turnovers and ST are put in to play.

OT..culdeus..by the way, I spent 20 some odd years in Dallas way back when .. (20 mile walk to school...in the snow...up hill both directions) been in Austin for the past 20 some odd. With deepsnapper living near Lake Frisco, we have definitive Texas presence. Wonder if the Guru would add Tom Hicks to the league?? The problem of course would be his inability to explain his draft choices (personel moves). I wonder if he could possibly understand football less well than he understands either hockey or baseball!

culdeus
Leader
ID: 43105818
Fri, Jul 23, 2004, 19:54

He can't play fantasy football, Scott Boras doesn't represent anyone in the NFL.

------------

Yes, to answer the question above (89) the grand salami is just that a sack/tackle/fumble recovery/TD In some leagues forced fumbles are 1 so... 3(sack)+1(FF)+2(FR)+1(Tackle)+6(TD)=13!

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 26, 2004, 13:39

The IDP vs Team D vs. both is becoming an interesting issue. In the original voting, team D actually got more votes than IDP, but both had a majority.

I guess I don't see why having both is an issue.

BTW, I'm working on the next set of voting issues, which I hope to post later today.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 26, 2004, 14:20

OK, let's get the ball rolling. I have framed most of these issues as yes/no questions. I have tried to use the emerging consensus as the "yes" option, but many have not yet weighed in, so I may be misreading the tide. If you vote against any yes/no issue, please indicate how you would propose to change it.

I am invoking Guru privilege and keeping both team def and IDP. I'm not putting that up to a vote.

Here are 15 issues for voting:
Team defense:
1. Yes/no: Scoring formula the same as in post 57, excluding safeties (to be voted separately)
2. Safety scoring: 2, 3 or 4 points

IDP:
3. Designate one slot for DL, or make all three ISP slots flexible.
4. Yes/no: Scoring formula the same as in post 75, subject to other voted adjustments
5. Yes/no: Include "passes defensed" for IDP at 1 point
6. Yes/no: Include KR/PR yardage points for IDP

Kicking:
7. Field goals made: +3, plus yardage bonus of +1 for 40-49, and +2 for 50 and over
8. Yes/no: Field goals missed: -1 for missed FG inside 30 yards.
9. Yes/no: Missed XP -1

Return yardage:
10. Yes/no: punt returns +1 point per 10 yards
11. Yes/no: kick returns +1 point per 25 yards

Team size:
12. Yes/no: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, Team D, 3 IDP, 8 bench (20 total)

Waivers:
13. Yes/no: Once a free agent player's game starts, he is locked out and subject to waiver claims for the following week. Waiver priority resets each week, based W/L record, and then total points as a tie breaker. (worst record gets top claim)

Decimal scoring:
14. Yes/no: use decimal scoring (i.e., if we award 1 point per 10 yards, then 5 yards receives 0.5 points. If we use integer scoring, then anything from 0-9 yards produces 0 points.

15. Playoffs - how are the 8 playoff teams selected?
(A) top 8 W/L records
(B) top 7 W/L records and highest point total of remaining teams
(C) top 6 W/L records and top 2 point totals of remaining teams

In each case, teams with identical W/L records would be seeded/selected based on total points.

Are there any open issues that we need to resolve regarding scoring or general operations?

I'm going to spend the next few days exploring game hosting options. I'll let you know what I decide, and whether I need more input.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 26, 2004, 14:28

A few comments on the draft.

Assuming that we will have 20 rounds, I'd like to propose that the draft begin on Monday, August 16. As long as we can knock off an average of one round per day, we should finish no later than Sept 4. The season begins on Sept 9. We'll establish some sort of clock, and adjust the clock as necessary to avoid falling behind.

For baseball, I think we actually averaged about 1.4 draft rounds per day. And that was a 16 team league.

Prior to the draft, we will have a one-round draft for selection order. For this, I need 2 league managers to send me a "random" list of the numbers 1-13. I will use this to establish the draft order for that preliminary selection round. I will take whatever pick is left over.

leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 26, 2004, 14:35

1. Yes
2. 2 Points
3. DL mandatory
4. Yes
5. No
6. No
7. Yes to the mentioned scoring
8. Yes
9. Yes
10. Yes
11. Yes
12. Yes
13. Yes
14. Yes
15. (A)

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Mon, Jul 26, 2004, 14:54

1. Yes
2. 4 Points
3. DL needed
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. No
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. Yes
10. Yes
11. Yes
12. Yes
13. Yes
14. Yes
15. C

Drafting timing looks fine--are we using KKBs program On the Clock?

Sludge
ID: 54692111
Mon, Jul 26, 2004, 16:53

1. Yes
2. 4 points
3. All flex
4. Yes with Safeties = 4.
5. Sure, why not?
6. Yes
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. Yes
10. ?
11. ?
Re: 10 & 11 - are there to be no penalties for having an inordinate number of returns?
12. Yes
13. Yes
14. Yes
15. C

Are there to be run-off votes for items 2 and 15 if no option gets a majority?

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Mon, Jul 26, 2004, 20:20

1. Yes, except make sacks worth 2 and not 1 (Scoring formula in post 57)
2. 3 Points (Safety scoring)
3. Yes (DL mandatory)
4. Yes (Scoring formula the same as in post 75)
5. No (Include "passes defensed" for IDP)
6. Yes (Include KR/PR yardage points for IDP)
7. Yes (FG +3, bonus +1 for 40-49, +2 for 50+)
8. No (FG inside 30 missed: -1)
9. No (Missed XP -1)
10.Yes (punt returns +1 point per 10 yards)
11.Yes (kick returns +1 point per 25 yards)
12.Yes (QB, RBx2, WRx3, TE, K, Team D, 3 IDP, 8 bench, 20 Total)
13.Yes (the waivers set-up as described)
14.Yes (use decimal scoring)
15.(C) top 6 W/L records and top 2 point totals of remaining teams (playoffs)

6, 10, and 11 all tie in together for me. I don't understand why we would have return yards as a scoring category and not let an IDP get those same points? IMO, all or none. Either everyone is eligible for it (kick and punt return yards) or nobody is and nix the category.

MikeV
SuperDude
ID: 25924115
Mon, Jul 26, 2004, 20:40

1. Yes
2. 4
3. All Flex
4. Yes
5. No
6. Yes
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. Yes
10. Yes
11. Yes
12. Yes
13. Yes
14. Yes
15. C

100

culdeus
ID: 406391518
Mon, Jul 26, 2004, 20:53

1. Yes
2. 2 Points
3. All Flex
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. No, especially as defined now
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 No, unless give a minus point for an attempt
11 No, unless give a minus 2 points for an attempt.
12 Yes
13 No
14 No
15 C

Having KR/PR points is fine but it will change this league drastically if penalties are not in place for each attempt. This will alter the entire draft and make the mid-tier WR worthless (as if they weren't already)

I don't feel strongly enough about any of the "no" issues to say anything furthur.

101

GoatLocker
ID: 205472715
Mon, Jul 26, 2004, 21:01

1 - Yes
2 - 4
3 - Mandatory DL
4 - Yes
5 - Yes
6 - Yes
7 - Yes
8 - Yes
9 - Yes
10 - Yes
11 - Yes
12 - Yes
13 - Yes
14 - Yes
15 - C

Draft info sounds good to me.

Cliff

102

Ender
ID: 442215
Tue, Jul 27, 2004, 19:36

1 Yes
2 2 pts
3 1 DL
4 Yes
5 Yes
6 Yes
7 Yes
8 No
9 No
10 Yes
11 Yes
12 Yes
13 Yes
14 Yes
15 C

103

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jul 28, 2004, 10:13

I am persuaded that some sort of KR adjustment for each return is warrranted. Perhaps something on the order of -.5 per KR is appropriate. Maybe even as high as -.8, which would essentially offset the first 12.5-20 yards of return.

I am less persuaded that a negative adjustment for each punt return is needed.

I'll hold off on these issues until the current round of voting is complete. So far, we have 8 who have voted, and are waiting to hear from the other 5. I'll vote if needed to settle any issue.

104

culdeus
Leader
ID: 43105818
Wed, Jul 28, 2004, 14:46

I would say for sure -2 for KR, PR is a gray area. Like I said in an email the argument is it could cost you having someone return punts in some games.

With -.5, I project still 7-8 KR with no other meanginful skill will (or should) go in the first two rounds, is that what you really want!?! There are guys getting 1500 plus yards being a kickoff specialist.

The average KR last year was 20 yards. I don't think someone should be rewarded for having a warm body that returns kicks and gets a free 60 yards and 5 points.

105

deepsnapper
ID: 2344179
Wed, Jul 28, 2004, 17:15

Once my eyes are back to a more normal dialation, I'll try and vote.

Guru - Please check your email.

106

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jul 28, 2004, 17:31

-2 for a KR seems absurd. That means that any kick return less than 50 yards would generate negative points.

107

culdeus
Leader
ID: 43105818
Wed, Jul 28, 2004, 18:30

I was under the impression 1/10 was the yard point here. I missed the 1/25. My apologies, I'll see if this makes any difference. I doubt it will too much. It sort of hinges on decimal scoring I bet.

108

Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 29463114
Wed, Jul 28, 2004, 18:58

On the contrary, not absurd if your goal is to eliminate the use of kick returners or to penalize use of less than a great return guy.
(just joking..not a logical number to deduct from PR/KR...I am not in agreement with assigning a deduction per .. we don't assign a reduction to any of the other positions on a per ?? basis. If we did, why not deduct -3 for each extra appoint attempt and award 4 for each extra point made by kick?)

Sorry, on the tardy vote...work contiues to disrupt all but the briefest time spent in the fantasy sports world. I'm in Chicago tonight, but return to the civilized world of the Hill Country by early Friday morning.

1. yes
2. yes
3. 1 mandatory DL (or a DL/LB)
4. No...actually a yes, but with Safety=4pts
5. yes
6. yes
7. yes
8. yes
9. No...s/b worth -2 and 4 hrs reading IRA posts
10. yes
11. yes
12. yes
13. yes
14. yes
15. C

109

deepsnapper
ID: 2344179
Wed, Jul 28, 2004, 23:55

01) - Yes (sack=2pts)
02) - 4
03) - Mandatory DL positions
04) - Yes (safety=4pts)
05) - Yes
06) - Yes
07) - Yes
08) - Yes
09) - Yes
10) - Yes
11) - Yes
12) - Yes
13) - Yes
14) - Yes
15) - C

Draft date is fine with me.

ds

110

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Wed, Jul 28, 2004, 23:55

I was under the impression 1/10 was the yard point here. I missed the 1/25. My apologies, I'll see if this makes any difference. I doubt it will too much. It sort of hinges on decimal scoring I bet.

It is a huge difference. 100 yards is worth 4 points instead of 10. Josh Scobey led the NFL in KR yards last year with 1684. That comes out to 67.36 fantasy points which is an average of 4.21 a game. With you thinking it was 1/10 that would be 168.4 points which is an average of 10.5 a game. Huge difference.

I was looking at last years stats. Dante Hall had 1478 KR yards (59.1), 472 PR yards (47.2), 423 Receiving yards (42.3), 73 rushing yards (7.3), and 5 TD's (30) for a total of 185.9 points. He lost one fumble so if that is a loss of 2 points, he still had 183.9 points which is a weekly average of 11.6 points.

Using Tory Holt for comparison: 1696 receiving yards (169.6), 5 rushing (.5), 12 TD's (72), and no fumbles or special team yards. Total is 242.1 and average is 15.1 per week.

Without doing all the math, it looks like a couple of the top returners (the ones returning both kicks and punts) will be good fantasy starters. Hall for sure and maybe a couple other guys. The rest will be bye week fill ins.

I don't think we need to subtract any points for attempts. 75 yards a game equals 1200 yards which is 3 points a week. Only four players exceeded 1200 yards last year. 50 yard avg comes out to 800 and 2 points a week. 23 players exceeded 800 yards last year.

111

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 00:02

Okay, I used nfl.com to grab stats and made a quick table for the top returners from last year.
Kick Return Table in Test Forum
It is posted in the test forum so I don't clutter this thread. My only concern is that it looks like nfl.com sorts by average. Could I be missing somebody who had a lot more yards, but a poor average?

112

deepsnapper
ID: 2344179
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 00:04

Taxman - you've got your local lake history a little mixed up since moving to Austin. That lake over by Frisco was called Little Elm. About 25 years ago the USACOE took Little Elm and merged it with Lake Dallas to form Lake Lewisville . (;-Þ)

113

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 00:39

Oops! I gave my votes but I guess somehow I failed to post it. (Scratching my head) Trying it again

1. Yes, except sacks s/b worth 2 pts, same is IDP

2. 2 ponts for safety

3. DL mandatory

4. Yes, except safety worth 2 points

5. Yes, but not really sure what is meant by passes defensed (?passes blocked by rushing the passer or by def cover guy or both?) originally was going to vote no, but hey a blocked pass equals a tackle for no gain.

6. Yes
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. Yes
10. Yes
11. Yes
12. Yes
13. Yes
14. Yes
15. A

Draft date is ok with me.

**********************

I would like to bring up the fact that offense/defense scoring concerning interceptions and fumbles do not match up. I would like to suggest we mirror the offensive scoring to -2 deductions for each interception/fumble. With this change we could then bring up a QB td pass to 6 points to be uniform throughout concerning td points.

114

youngroman
ID: 221118186
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 03:59

TB - for your info a full set of return-yards can be found here at nfl.com

I took this stats along with all the other stats and did a excel-sheet (including scoring formula) which sits on my pc at home, if you want I can upload later today

115

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 12:16

Regarding a deduction per KR, I can see either side. On one hand, if a kick returner takes the ball from the endzone and runs it back 10 yards, it is hard to see why this is a positive contribution. On the other hand, if a kick returner makes a habit of doing this, he won't earn enough points to matter. And the reduced points per yard for KR somewhat compensates for the easier initial yards.

I guess I'm now less inclined to think that an adjustment is needed, based principally on materiality.

I think we have virtually all issues decided now, even though a couple of managers have not yet weighed in. I will summarize the current state of affairs, and we will probably have one more minor vote to resolve a few issues that seem to lack clarity.

I'll try to have the updated scoring list posted this afternoon.

116

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 12:56

I believe that the following list summarizes our results so far. Open issues are in italics.

Roster
1 QB
2 RB
3 WR
1 TE
1 K
1 Team def
1 DL
2 IDP (flex)
8 bench
20 Total

Offense Category
Passing TD 4
Other TD 6
Passing-2pt conv 1
Other-2pt conv 2
Passing yard 1/25
Rushing yard 1/10
Receiving yard 1/10
Punt return yard 1/10
Kick return yard 1/25
Kick return 0
Decimal scoring: yes
Int, fumbles lost -1
Extra point made 1
Extra point missed -1
FG under 40 yards 3
FG 40-49yds 4
FG 50+ yards 5
Missed FG <30 -1
Missed FG 30+ 0

Team Defense
Sack 1
Interception 2
Fumble recovered 2
TD 6
Safety 2
Blocked kick 2
Shutout 10
1-6 points allowed 7
7-13 points allowed 4
14-20 points allowed 1
21-27 points allowed 0
28-34 points allowed -1
35+ points allowed -4

Indiv Defensive Players
Solo Tackle 1
Asst Tackle 0.5
Pass defensed 1
Sack 2 (half sack=1)
Interception 2
Fumble recovery 2
TD 6
Safety ?
Blocked kick 2
IDP also receive points for offensive categories, if applicable

All free agents are subject to weekly waivers

Playoffs
8 teams
Top 6 W/L records are seeded 1-6
Top remaining total points are seeded 7-8
Teams with equivalent W/L records are seeded based on total points
Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round)

Schedule
13 week round robin
Doubleheaders weeks 1-13, if available
Single elimination playoffs, weeks 14-16

Please correct me if anything looks wrong or is missing.

Here are the open issues that I would like to resolve with a final vote:

1. Passing TD: 4 or 6
(note, if we use 6 pts, then passing 2-pt conv will be worth 2)

2. Per kick return: 0 or -.5

3. Int, fumble lost (offensive): -1 or -2

4. Team defense sacks: 1 or 2

5. Team defense safety: 2 or 4

6. IDP safety: 2 or 4

Please vote on these final 6 issues.

117

leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 13:35

1. Passing TD: 4 pts
2. Per kick return: 0
3. Int, fumble lost (offensive): -2
4. Team defense sacks: 1
5. Team defense safety: 2
6. IDP safety: 2

118

MikeV
SuperDude
ID: 25924115
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 14:07

1. 4 Pts
2. -.05
3. -2
4. 1
5. 2

119

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 14:18

1. Passing TD: 6 pts
2. Per kick return: 0
3. Int, fumble lost (offensive): -2
4. Team defense sacks: 2
5. Team defense safety: 3
6. IDP safety: 3
(If I have to pick either 2 or 4 for the two safety questions, instead of going with 3, then I will pick 2)

120

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 14:26

By the way, I'm still awaiting a second set of random numbers. (see last sentence, post 94)

121

Ender
ID: 442215
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 14:47

1. 6 pts
2. 0
3. -2
4. 2
5. 2
6. 2

Mike V, I assume that was -0.5 not -.05 ;) Also what happened to your #6?

122

youngroman
ID: 59242611
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 15:02

one thought of mine:
have you thought about the use of fumbles forced for IDP instead of fumbles recovered? forcing a fumble is more skill for the individual player then recovering it, which in most cases is pure luck. fumble recovering is still included in team defense, where it makes sense because of the luck-factor. it would also help some defense players to get up to 10 more points and makes them worth a bit more

123

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 15:10

Good point, YR.

I received the second set of random numbers. I'll post the draft² order in a moment.

124

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 15:16

1. 6 points

2. -.5/kr (making touchbacks an automatic -.5, right?)

3. -2

4. 1

5 & 6. 4 points

125

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 15:16

For draft ordering, I started with the list of teams in the order that they appear in post 1. excluding me. I then resequenced that list based upon the first set of random numbers received (from TB). That new list was then seeded using a second set of random numbers submitted (by deepsnapper).

Here is the resulting order:
1 Mike V
2 leggestand
3 Challenger
4 culdeus
5 Taxman
6 Perm Dude
7 Sludge
8 CanEHDian Pride
9 TB
10 Ender
11 Motley Crue
12 GoatLocker
13 deepsnapper
14 Guru

To clarify, this does not mean that Mike V has the first draft pick. This means that Mike V gets to select his draft order first. He could choose to pick 1st (and then 28th, 29th, 56th, etc.), or he could select some other draft priority.

Please wait until the scoring rules are finalized before we start the draft².

126

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 15:18

PD - I don't think that a touchback counts as a kickoff return. I think it is a non-event.

127

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 15:23

OK, thanks. Wasn't sure if it was considered a KR with zero yards (an individual stat) or a team stat of a touchback.

128

leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 15:32

I think the same thing goes for fair catches on PR's.

129

leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 15:35

On youngroman's thought: My initial reaction would be to include points for IDP's for FF's and FR's. I think team defense should only get credit for FR's, because their are many instances of fumbles in games that are "non-forced" (i.e. a botched handoff that is fallen on by the QB/RB) where no IDP or team should get credit.

130

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 15:36

Hmmm. Clearly the $5 I PayPal'd the Guru this morning had no real effect on the pick order...

131

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 15:50

LOL.

132

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 16:03

PD - you're assuming that the first five didn't each pay me more than $5?

133

Doug
ID: 57352917
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 16:07

I agree with YR... for IDPs, most leagues I am have FFs at 2 points, and FRs at 0-2 points (depending on the league), and the combined FF and FR points usually equal the INT points. Since this league already has agreed to set INTs to 2 points, my two cents would be to make FF=1 and FR=1.

I'm a little confused by legg's comment. I agree that opponents "accidental fumbles" should not reward a team or IDP... for teams specifically, that is the point of using the "forced fumbles (FFs)" stat rather than just plain old "fumbles" stat. So I don't get why only IDPs should get credit for FF (not teams), yet BOTH get credit for FRs...

134

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 60151121
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 16:09

1. 4
2. 0
3. -2
4. 1
5. 2
6. 2

Cliff

135

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 16:25

I've spent some time slogging through the league setup using Fanball.com. The setup seemed pretty intuitive, and I believe there is only one scoring issue that cannot be accommodated.

In the broad sense, the issue is that offensive scoring stats cannot be applied to IDP. This means that PR and KR yardage cannot be applied to IDP. It also means that if Warren Sapp (for example) catches a TD pass, he won't get the 6 points (or the receiving yardage). IDPs get TD points only for interception returns and fumble recoveries.

It appears that all other features can be accommodated, including our weekly waiver process, doubleheader scheduling, IDP & team defense, and all other scoring options specified above. Thus, we have a decision to make:

1. Find another hosting system that will not have this limitation.

2. Live with the limitation.

3. Live with the limitation, but have the Commissioner manually override the TD limitation. (In other words, all TDs would count for all players, regardless of the type of TD).

As Commissioner, I offer the third option because I don't think it will require much effort, since there will be limited exceptions. However, I'm unwilling to manually adjust all IDP for return yardage points.

Some of you have suggested alternate league hosting sites, and I've browsed a number of them. Unfortunately, the process of figuring out all of the potential issues is tedious. However, if any of you want to do some scouting and flesh out the capabilities of your own "pet" system, please do so and post your findings here. Among those that have been suggested are Sandbox plus, ESPN, CBS Sportsline, and perhaps some others that I've forgotten about.

I'll give you all until the middle of next week (say Wednesday?) to research and post the benefits and constraints of any other hosting site that you want us to seriously consider. At that point, we'll make a decision.

136

leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 16:26

Re Doug: I didn't know if accidental fumbles were technically counted as forced fumbles by a team D. If they aren't, then my point is moot.

137

deepsnapper
ID: 2344179
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 16:31

1) 4 Pts
2) 0
3) -2
4) 2
5) 4
6) 4

Mike V - don't make us Texans look bad (do #6) ;)

138

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 16:34

Can someone define what constitutes a "pass defensed"? Specifically, would an inteception also count as a pass defensed?

139

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 16:41

Pass Defensed Definition from ESPN:
Any pass which a defender, through contact with the football, causes to be incomplete.

The NFL leader last year was Ty Law with 23 for the season.

141

TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 16:45

My 2 cents to post 135. I think we should live with the limitation. We have plenty of scoring rules and we are all subject to the same rules. Keep it simple.

142

MikeV
SuperDude
ID: 25924115
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 16:55

6. 4

143

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 17:03

Re 135: If it's not too much of a hassle, I'd go for the commish overide to grant points to all scoring players. I'd also send a note to fanball asking for this as an option in this or future seasons. They seem like they have a good game, almost certainly a result of player input.

144

culdeus
Leader
ID: 43105818
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 18:21

1. 6 points
2. -.5/kr
3. -2
4. 1
5 & 6. 2 points

Living with the limitation of no KR/PR for IDPs but manually entering them would be a beating of the higest possible caliber. I wouldn't live with this if I was you.

------------

As to 110, I was very unclear. The lesson as always, I'm an idiot. I meant by making much difference I meant I didn't think only KR/PR people would get many points. That's what happens when you get in a hurry and don't explain stuff well. With 3x14 WR slots I think there will be more people drawing from that slot for returners than IDP given the dominance of LBs points wise. I haven't seen too too many DB's that return kicks and provide much else than a nickel/dime presesnce. (with one or two notable execptions)

145

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 18:50

1. Passing TD: 6 pts
2. Per kick return: 0
3. Int, fumble lost (offensive): -2
4. Team defense sacks: 2
5. Team defense safety: 2
6. IDP safety: 2

146

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 19:30

To be clear, I only said I'd offer to manually include return touchdowns for IDPs. I did not offer to override all PR/KR scoring.

Although I haven't looked at historical precedent, I'm assuming that an average week would require no more than 1 or 2 overrides.

147

Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 29463114
Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 02:22

1. 6
2. 0
3. -2
4. 1
5. 4
6. 4

148

Sludge
ID: 373201513
Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 09:14

1. 4
2. -0.5
3. -1
4. 1
5. 4
6. 4

149

Sludge
ID: 373201513
Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 09:21

Nice. For garnering your team 2 points on the field and for getting your offense the ball back, it looks like we'll award the same amount as we will for simply getting your offense the ball back.

150

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 09:26

Other the issue #3 (fumbles and ints will be -2), the other 5 issues are still undecided. We are still waiting to hear from CEHP and Motley Crue, and then from me to break any logjams.

151

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 10:32

Yeah, Sludge, I agree. I pushed a safety to be four points because it's two different positive actions: A turnover and points on the board.

152

deepsnapper
ID: 2344179
Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 12:21

Scratch Sandbox off the list of sites. SBX doesn't support Double-header scheduling of games/week.

153

Doug
ID: 57352917
Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 22:54

Re: 151... true but for an IDP, you get credit for a sack, half-sack, or tackle in addition to the points you get for the safety... so an IDP is scoring 3-4 points for a "safety action" even if the safety itself is only worth 2 points.

This is why IMHO it seems like you'd want an IDP safety to be 3 points, and a team safety to be worth 4 (or else 2 and 3 respectively)... so that the combined point total for a team or IDP safety is the same. Just my uninvited two cents. =-)

154

CanEHdian Pride
ID: 46033123
Sat, Jul 31, 2004, 01:45

1. Passing TD: 4 pts
2. Per kick return: 0
3. Int, fumble lost (offensive): -2
4. Team defense sacks: 2
5. Team defense safety: 3
6. IDP safety: 3

155

Motley Crue
ID: 20636257
Sat, Jul 31, 2004, 09:33

Sorry for taking so long. I was in Vegas on business all week.

In response to #93:
1. Yes
2. Safety: 3 points
3. Designate one slot for DL.
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes (if possible)
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. Yes
10. Yes
11. Kick returns +1 point per 25 yards
NO. I prefer +1 for each 20 yards, but -1 for each attempt. There should be a penalty per attempt, because it's basically a free chance at running the ball up the field.

12. Yes
13. Yes
14. Yes
15. A

In response to #116:

1. Passing TD: 4
2. Per kick return: See 11 above--needs some sort of penalty, so if -.5 is the only option, I'll take that.
3. Int, fumble lost (offensive):-2
4. Team defense sacks:2
5. Team defense safety: (3?)
6. IDP safety: (3?)

156

Sludge
ID: 373201513
Sat, Jul 31, 2004, 10:38

Re: 151... true but for an IDP, you get credit for a sack, half-sack, or tackle in addition to the points you get for the safety... so an IDP is scoring 3-4 points for a "safety action" even if the safety itself is only worth 2 points.

Then we ought to lower the points given for an individual defensive player's TD since it will generally come as the result of recovering a fumble or intercepting a pass.

And then we ought to lower the points given for an offensive player's TD since it will always come after that player has had some other scoreable action, such as a reception, receiving yards, or rushing yards.

I mean, these players are already scoring points for a "touchdown action", so why should we be piling on the extra 6?

157

deepsnapper
ID: 2344179
Sat, Jul 31, 2004, 12:04

Man I hate circular logic. It get me dizzy going around in all those circles.

158

taxman
ID: 516313111
Sat, Jul 31, 2004, 12:43

Yea, but as the "big wheel" Roy, .. what other direction can you go.

Thanks for the Denton County lake history (or how Lake Dallas became Lake Lewisville) .. I actually was just trying to harass you northern types (that would be northern Texas) homesteading north of the Trinity.

Is Flower Mound where the Mounds candy bar was originated? ;o)

(snicker snicker)

159

Doug
ID: 57352917
Sat, Jul 31, 2004, 14:43

Then we ought to lower the points given for an individual defensive player's TD since it will generally come as the result of recovering a fumble or intercepting a pass.

Ummm... currently an INT or fumble recovery for a TD would score 8 points for an IDP, and 8 points for a Team D... so that seems totally consistent to me... so I don't understand what the argument would be for lowering it for IDPs?

Actually... I see... you thought I was arguing the total fantasy points for a safety action should be 2!?!? If so, then you completely misunderstood my point, which was simply that I felt total fantasy scoring for a safety should be as consistent as possible between Team D and IDP (and TD as well, but then again that consistency is already in place with the current system, so I left it aside).

So let me put it this way:
If a "safety via a sack" scores 5 points for a Team D (1 for sack + 4 for safety) then that exact same action should IMHO also score 5 points for an IDP (2 for sack + 3 for safety).

I don't care what the total value is (a safety could be worth 20 points, whatever...), just that the total points on the play are consistent between Team and IDP. Since sacks and tackles are worth an extra point to an IDP vs. a Team D, I think safety's should correspondingly be worth 1 point less for IDPs, so that the total value of an identical safety play is consistent (just like it is for TDs). YMMV.

160

Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Sat, Jul 31, 2004, 14:57

Doug, it's not always going to be consistent, since safeties can be scored a number of ways. A punter who steps on the endline is a safety, as is a sack in the end zone. As far as I know (correct me here if I'm wrong) an individual player does not get credit for the safety in the first instance but does in the second (and, depending upon whether defenses are set up with ST separate or not) the team defense will be credited with safeties in both cases.

pd

161

Doug
Sustainer
ID: 2730280
Sat, Jul 31, 2004, 18:45

I was not arguing that ALL safeties should be consistent, but that IDENTICAL safeties should ideally be consistent (as approrpriate). I am not attempting to compare between a safety via sack vs. a safety via punter stepping on the endline... I see those as two different plays. Obviously it would not make sense for an IDP to receive points in that case (and as far as I know, you are correct... they don't).

162

culdeus
ID: 406391518
Sun, Aug 01, 2004, 22:36

10 sacks last year were credited, I can't find the total sack number.

Much ado about nothing if you ask me.

163

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 03, 2004, 11:49

Here is the latest vote tally:

Passing TDs will stay at 4. Without me, the vote was 7-6 in favor of 4, and I'll vote to make it 8-6.

Kick returns will have no deduction. Vote is 8-5.

Interceptions and fumbles lost (offensive) will be -2.

Team defense sacks will be 1. Vote was 7-6, and I'll make it 8-6. I don't find the need for symmetry with IDP to be compelling.

Regarding safeties, we seem to have 2 distinct camps - those favoring 2, and those favoring 4, with a few still wieghing in at 3, even though that wasn't a listed option. So, perhaps the best resolution is to makes safeties +3 for both team defense and IDP.

So, with these decisions, I'll recap the final rules shortly.

164

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 03, 2004, 12:17

I do want to make an adjustment for forced fumbles.

For IDP, instead of allocating 2 pts for a fumble recovered, we'll award 1 point for a forced fumble and 1 point for a fumble recovery.

For team defense, I'm currently inclined to leave the formula at +2 for a fumble recovered and 0 for forced fumbles. This is consistent with the philosophy that a team defense should only be awarded if there is a turnover. (A forced fumble does not necessarily result in a turnover.)

I'm not going to put these to a vote. Scream if you object, otherwise I'll just implement these via Commisioner fiat.

165

Motley Crue
Leader
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 03, 2004, 19:02

Hey, Big G,

Did you ever decide who would receive automatic invitations to next year's RIFC? If you take all 8 playoff teams, that leaves only 6 new teams (and only 5 if you don't make the playoffs--Hey, it's possible!). Is that the way you want to go? I was thinking the more new people next year, the more pressure on all of us to do well so we get to come back. More challenge.

166

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 03, 2004, 22:53

Let's move this discussion to the next thread: here.

Forum: footPage 3746Subject: RIFC - League Parameters

Forum: foot
Page 3746
Subject: RIFC - League Parameters