Self Editor

Forum: foot
Page 4251
Subject: RIFC 2005: pre-draft discussion

Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 13:35

I have sent out the invitations for managers for the 2005 RIFC. The eight playoff teams from the 2004 RIFC are returning. In addition, the regular season winner and the playoff winner from each of the three qualifying leagues have been invited. For the qualifying league in which the regular season winner also won the playoffs, the second place regular season team has been invited.

Thus far, I have received acceptances from 13 of the 14 invitees. I am still awaiting a response from Doug, but since he has been an active manager in the RIHC, I expect he will accept as well. (If not, I’ll pick an alternate from his QL).

Here is the list or managers:
Challenger
Taxman
Ender
Leggestand
GoatLocker
Mötley Crüe
Guru
Sludge
Athletics Guy
Kev
bandos
I_AM_CANADIAN
Bonka
Doug

Next steps:
1. We need to review the league parameters and decide whether any changes are warranted. I’ll start by digging out last year’s parameters and posting them here.

2. We need to organize qualifying leagues. I will start a separate thread for this momentarily.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 13:44

A thread for organizing qualifying leagues has been started. Please use that thread for all QL organization issues. We will use this thread for discussion on rules for 2005.

2005 Qualifying League thread

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 13:46

I have copied the league parameters from last year'ss RIFC. The first order of business is to review those and decided whether any changes are warranted.

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 (no deduction)
Decimal scoring: yes
Int, fumbles lost -2

Kicking
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 3
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 forced 1
Fumble recovery 1
TD 6
Safety 3
Blocked kick 2
IDP receive points for any touchdowns scored, regardless of cause (off, def, or return), as well as for return yardage and other offensive points.

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 head-to-head first, then total points
Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round)

Schedule
13 week round robin
Doubleheaders all weeks 1-13 (play each team twice)
Single elimination playoffs, weeks 14-16

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 13:51

In addition to discussion on potential rules changes, we should consider whether to stay with the Fanball.com hosting site.

While there were some hosting hiccups last year, none were critical, and I generally found the Fanball platform to be satisfactory. I particularly liked the ability to schedule doubleheaders each week, a feature which was uncommon to most hosting sites (at least for last year).

That said, I am open to any suggestions. Once again, RotoGuru.com will pay for the league hosting costs (within reason).

It is not necessary that Qualifying Leagues use the same hosting service, even though this may necessitate some rules differences. Hopefully, those differences can be minimized.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 13:53

In your review of the league rules, you may wish to skim through last year's discussion threads. They are most easily found using the forum filter (searching for threads with RIFC in the subject)

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 23:31

IDP didn't turn out to be as important as I thought it would be with only 3 required. I suggest you increase it to 1 DL, 1LB, 1 DB and 2 IDP Flex and add two more bench slots to make it a 25 round draft. If we can start two RB and three WR, I think we can start five IDP.

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 23:32

...or even increase it to 3 IDP Flex spots and only add one more bench spot.

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 08:56

I liked the fanball site (especially the doubleheader feature), and I think we should stick with that.

The only rule I would vote for being adjusted is the waiver process. I think TB did a good analysis showing that the welfare system wasn't completely flawed last year, but I still think it is "unfair" to allow for the last place team to have #1 waiver priority each week. I also see the other side of the equation that the 1st place team can just sit on the #1 waiver priority until a huge pick up emerges, so, that doesn't seem to be "fair" either. My proposal is something in the middle (I don't even know if this is possible):

What if the first 6 weeks we do the welfare system? It allows for the weaker teams to plug their holes with a higher priority, and after 6 weeks, hoping that most teams are now closer to even, we revert to the non-weekly reorder waiver process? It may not be possible to even do this, so, my thought could be moot...

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 08:59

As for the IDP, I agree that 3 IDP's did not have a huge effect on the games, but I prefer it that way. My vote would be to bump it to 4, and add it as a flex IDP.

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 09:30

Let's get the return yardage straight from the outset this season. Everyone should get points for everything they do. Last year the rule was that defensive players couldn't get return yardage points, and then when we realized Fanball was adding those points in anyway, we modified the rules midseason to allow it, after retroactively deducting points that should never have made it in. Let's make sure we either allow return yardage for everyone or no one this season so that doesn't happen again. I vote that everyone who gets return yardage gets points for it.

As far as waivers were concerned, I'd like to investigate who was claimed on waivers last year and see if they were that significant. I still maintain that most of my important acquisitions were made via free agency.

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 09:33

I agree with MC's return yardage thoughts.

BoNkA
ID: 18651258
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 09:51

I also agree with countin return yards for all players.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 12:48

I think it is safe to assume that as long as the software permits it, all points will be scored for all players, whether offensive or defensive. That was certainly the concensus last year.

Bandos
Sustainer
ID: 279492419
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 13:10

If we are starting two RB's (and no one really started a fullback regularly) it seems odd that there is only one QB spot. Increasing it to 2 would make sense.

I am in favor of 1 DL, 1LB, 1DB, 2 flex - 25 round draft

RE: 13
Two way players in general need a discussion. It seems easy enough for the return yardage, but what about Troy Brown? Mike Vrabel? anyone else who gets touches on O and D? Is that what you mean by ANY points? Or would you have to start Brown at WR and DB?

Alos, is there any way to do fraction of points (ie. 1 Rushing yard = .1 point? and etc?

Looking forward to the year and being in a league with IAC again:) Its always lively.

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 13:22

We used decimal scoring last year.

I don't know that there is multiple position eligibility in football. I actually am fairly sure there isn't. So with guys like Brown and Vrabel, I'd vote to give them all points they accumulate on either side of the ball. I doubt the software will let you do it, though. If Troy Brown catches an INT and runs it back for a TD, and you have him starting at WR, I don't think Fanball Commissioner will score that. Same with Vrabel--if he gets a goaline TD toss thrown at him, I doubt the software can be manipulated to count that. There are certain limitations to what can be done.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 13:25

Yes, we would use fractional points.

I'm open to discussion about 2 way players. I can't even recall how Fanball handled them last year. Did Troy Brown get credit for interceptions? If an offensive player makes a tackle following a turnover (or on a spoecial teams unit), did he (or should he) get those defensive points?

I think the problem with starting 2 QBs is that there are 14 teams in the RIFC, but only 32 NFL teams (and only 28 are playing on bye weeks). That's just not enough depth to provide 2 starting QBs per team.

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 13:33

If an offensive player makes a tackle following a turnover (or on a spoecial teams unit), did he (or should he) get those defensive points?

I am almost 100% sure that they did reward tackles on turnovers with points...but I may be wrong. I just seem to remember a few times that one of my WR's points didn't add up, then I'd find out he was credited with a tackle.

BoNkA
ID: 136312513
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 14:31

I think Fanball does award tackles after turnovers to offensive players. But as far as interceptions and such, I have no idea. Should be easy to find out by emailing them.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 15:27

My recollection is that Fanball awarded all points, offensive and defensive, although I don't recall each of the specific circumstances.

When I asked them specifically at the beginning of last season, though, they provided an incorrect answer, which led to the issue MC referred to in post 10.

Athletics Guy
ID: 43525254
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 15:56

I don't believe I had the doubleheader feature in my league last season. What is it exactly? Setting 1 lineup against 2 teams or being able to set 2 separate lineups?

As far as return yds go, I think they should be counted for all players. And the same goes with scoring on 2-way players. Those turnovers and scores are a big part of the game and shouldn't go to waste.

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 16:29

AG, You can set two different lineups, although most times I kept the same lineup for each game. I did start different 3rd WR's on occasion if I didn't have a great feeling about either of them and didn't want one guy to put up a 0 for two teams.

The real plus for this feature is even if you have a great week, but happen to play another team with a great week, you can still go 1-1 instead of 0-1.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 16:29

AG,
You set two separate line-ups.
One for each game.

Cliff

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 506161118
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 18:54

RE: Bandos... Yeah, looking forward to the competition too. Let's hope I can be a little less a peace disturber than in previous years?! (No promises)

For Subjects up for discussion:
-------------------------------
Fanball - I haven't used it for myself, but I had to make some modifications for my brother's teams last year a couple times, and didn't find it overly complicated.

IDP # of Players: I wouldn't mind seeing a little more importance on IDP, but as long as were using DEF TM as well, I don't think we should go overboard. Maybe: 1DL, 1DB, 1LB, 1IDP-Flex?

Defensive Scoring for Offensive Stats etc: I have NO problem scoring the season this way; but please... make it clear for everyone where we stand in this area. My suggestion: Score everything. This way I won't pass on this years Terrence McGee (11.4PPG by our scoring = Top IDP Player), should one pop his head out this year.

This might be another good reason to add DB as a CAT; because last year their were very few DBs drafted, and McGee was actually a FA pickup.

Also... IDP Related. Any thoughts on bringing up the value of Sacks and Interceptions? There was very little points value comming from DLs and DBs in general last year. Maybe a value of 3 for a Sack (1.5 Half), and 4 for an Int?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 20:25

I heard from Doug, who is in, so we are all set for managers.

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 20:58

I agree with Guru's take on 1 QB starting...

for IDP's, I am easy- I think 3 is fine, but an increase should make the drafting a little more difficult on the defensive side of the ball.

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 00:05

An increase of IDPs means you have to factor them into your draft strategy instead of just filling in your roster near the end of the draft. It's like the TE position; once the top ones are gone, there are plenty that will score about the same. But, if 70 have to be started every week instead of 42 it changes where many will be drafted and it also plays a bigger role in waiver pick-ups.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 00:15

It was real easy last year to pick up good IDPs to cover injuries and off weeks.
Increasing the number makes it a little more work and as TB said, you have to have more of a plan vice "winging" it.

Cliff

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 11:56

Does anyone have an objection to using Fanball again? If not, I'll start setting up league parameters, taking registrations, etc. This might also help in evaluating scoring alternatives.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 12:32

Also, just to get everyone clued in to the likely time line, here is what I'm currently thinking:

Now through August 1: Discuss possible rules changes.

August 2-4: Vote on any rule changes.

Once we have nailed down the rules, we'll hold the draft². As with other Invitational leagues, managers will be randomly ordered, and will get to sequentially select their draft position (1-14) for the player draft.

(As an aside, we also used the reverse draft² order to rank any waiver claims immediately after the draft. All undrafted free agents will be subject to waiver for 48 hours after the draft.)

Last year, the draft took about 15 days to complete. The opening game this year is on Thursday, Sept. 8. I'd like to aim to finish no later than Sept. 3. This means we should probably plan to start the player draft sometime between Aug 15-20. Although everyone is anxious to get started, it is also beneficial to wait as long as we can to be able to avoid pre-season injury catastrophes as much as possible.

We'll plan to use the "On-the-Clock" kafenatid.net draft software. I'll work with KKB to get that set up early next month. If any of you will have access problems for that domain, we'll figure out a way to address that.

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 13:26

I say we start on the 15th, as the 15th is a Monday. Starting on the 15th instead of the 20th (Friday) shouldn't change much in terms of injuries/draft strategy given that no additional preseason games would have been played.

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 14:05

Does anyone have an objection to using Fanball again? Uhh, personally I was not impressed with this site. Main reason is they didn't provide enough stats breakdowns to cover want scoring options were offered.

1) We had to put pen to paper to figure out defending players were actually receiving credit for return yds. No stats were avialable thru this site concerning return yds, IIRC.

2) Guru had to make manual adjustments each week from IDP block fg's and this was discovered into the season.

3) Again IIRC, I actually used Yahoo stats on trying to decide whom I should pick up/drop for IDP's. I can't recall exactly why, unsatisfied with Fanball stats info or the lack of.

4) Now that I think of it, am I wrong or did Fanball also not provide return yds stas for the offensive players also?

Ok, I was able to get into our league from last year and here is what stats are lacked from Fanball per our scoring system from last year:

1) No individual kickoff/punt return stats whatsoever (Off/def)

2) No block kick stats for IDP's and I guess off players too.

At 1st glance I guess that's it. I just wanted to point this out before a final decision was made.

Doug
ID: 47657130
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 14:19

Are there weekly waivers? All free agents get placed on waivers starting at first kickoff of the week and then get processed sometime Monday night or Tuesday?

Doug
ID: 47657130
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 15:25

I would like to get through at least the bulk of Week 2 preseason games before drafting (if possible). There are 14 games played on Aug. 18-20, with only 1 game on the 21st and 1 on the 22nd. If we start the draft on the 21st and it takes 15 days then we would finish on Sept. 4th.

I'd much rather see us accellerate the clock a tiny bit (if necessary, we can play that by ear as it progresses) if we need to compress the draft by a day or two in order to finish by the 3rd. I think that's more than worthwhile in order to see the lion's share of the second week's worth of preseason games.

Weeks 2 and 3 are the most valuable games as well... week 1 is the first exposure to real game speed in however many months and there's a lot of rust, mental errors, etc., and in week 4 the first team tends to rest up. Hence my reasoning for thinking we really should try to get through week 2.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 15:52

For selfish reasons, I'd also like to start later. I'll be on vacation from Aug 13-27, and it would be nice to get through most of the first week without draft responsibilities (although I'll have to spend time on draft research, I suppose.)

I'll go with the majority on this, however.

FWIW, I already got a note from Fanball saying that they would look into adding return yardage stats to the player listings. No commitment, but that's a positive sign.

While there were some aspects of Fanball that I found to be a bit confusing at first, I was generally satisfied once I figured it out. Live scoring was typically up and reasonably accurate. And I really liked the doubleheader feature. While that probably doesn't make a lot of difference in the long run, it helps to ensure that you don't put up the second best score of the week only to go 0-1.

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 16:01

I'm not in the league this year, but just wanted to throw out that my own recollections were quite similar to Challenger's in #32. The whole return yardage problem was a real twist when we realized that the yardage had to be manually changed. And while I was not against having return yardage count (since it made some DBs and 4th-string WRs more attractive) to have the league decide one way and then to find it wasn't that way in the end was a real kick in the pants.

Good luck, fellas.

pd

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 16:03

The interface at Fanball has been changed since last year. I think it's principally cosmetic, but I haven't explored fully.

Since last year's league is still in place, I'm going to see if I can adjust the team ownership to take out the departing owners and add the newcomers. I think I can do this while leaving everything else intact for the time being. I'll simply add a second manager to those teams, and them eliminate the departing manager. New managers should receive an emailed invitation from Fanball. Old managers can simply log in using last year's ID and password.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 16:12

OK. Fanball invites have been sent out to new members. After you register, I'll delete the old manager.

I could have simply deleted old teams and added new ones, but this way new managers can tinker with a fully loaded team during the pre-draft phase, since last year's rosters are still loaded.

The schedule will be shuffled before the season (and draft) begins.

Motley Crue
ID: 213222620
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 16:42

The interface at Fanball has been changed since last year. I think it's principally cosmetic, but I haven't explored fully.

I have to admit, I like the new format much better than the one from last year. It looked like some primitave binary crap or something in 2004. This year it's much sleeker. Easier on my eyes.

Regarding complaints levied against Fanball, until another website that allows doubleheaders is discovered, I don't think any of those other complaints are strong enough to contemplate changing to a different site. We can live with manual score manipulation. I think the RIFC ought to maintain the DH aspect, though. It's like a signature aspect now. I think Fanball is the closest thing to what we want, without actually creating our own website and calculating all of the scores ourselves.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 17:58

Got this from Fanball regarding adding return yards to the player listings:

"We will add this feature to our enhancements list – but we have no timeline on when it may appear, do not to expect anything before the regular season starts – it will most likely be an inseason enahancement."

BoNkA
ID: 276142619
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 20:14

The sooner we start the better, but also the later we start the better! Oh boy. What Doug mentioned is probably the best thing we can do to work around the pre-season scheduling.

Ender
ID: 406351010
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 09:52

Just got back from a minivacation myself so I'll chime in on the things that seem most important to me.

Despite my minor complaints about Fanball and ease of use last year the double header feature makes me want to stay with them. I really enjoyed having 2 opponents every week.

I played in a 2 QB league last year and it was a blast. That being said, it was a 10 team league which is really the max for which you can have 2 QB's. 2 x 14 = 28 just to have a full roster each week. That leaves 4 total QB's to cover bye weeks. It just won't work.

I like the idea of a later draft start time to take position battles and injuries into account.

I don't know if a 4th IDP is necessary. I'm not really opposed to it either. If we do add it, it might as well me a LB because I think it's a pretty safe assumption that that's what everyone will start in that slot if it's flex. If we're going 5 perhaps LB, LB, DL, DL, DB would be good. That 2nd DL could swing the outcome of a game which is what I think you would want if you're going to add to the roster. If the added slot(s) isn't going to have an effect, then why do it?

Enough for now...

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 10:35

I think there were many DB's that produced excellent stats last year. In fact, the last few weeks I started 2 DB's and a DL.

If we tweak the IDP rules, I'd be in favor of a lineup like 1LB, 1DL, 1 DB, 1 Flex. That just makes sense. Force everyone to fill the defensive positions. Just like on offense.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 13:05

I just did some Q&D point averages by position using last year's player stats.

QB: 16.6 (top 14)
RB: 14.1 (top 28)
WR: 9.9 (top 42)
TE: 6.6 (top 14 for the rest of the positions)
K: 8.0
Team Def: 10.1
DL: 5.6
LB: 8.5
DB: 8.1

Clearly, DL is the weakest scoring position. But is it worth goosing up the scoring formula for this position (or for any of the IDP positions) in order to achieve better parity with the other positions?

For example, if we added an extra point for IDP sacks, the DL average would only increase by about 0.6 points/game.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 13:10

BTW, although LBs had a slight scoring advantage over DBs, the difference was slight. Linebackers ranked #15-28 averaged 7.1 per game, while DBs ranked #15-28 averaged 6.7.

So, if we required 4 IDPs (DL, LB, DB, Flex), it appears that the flex spot would not necessarily be dominated by LBs.

I suppose that if we added that extra IDP slot, we should expand the roster size by 1? (I guess I could make that a voting option as well.)

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 13:39

I'm not worried about a disparity in DL scoring. So they all get drafted in the 15th through 20th round. No big deal. I mean, we certainly learned our lessons last year taking Strahan and Rice so early, eh, Guru?

Ender
ID: 406351010
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 13:53

OK, I'll conced the averages then. Can't argue with the numbers. I would be curious to see the Standard Deviations as it seems you can count on LB's to be consistent from week to week whereas you never quite know what you'll get from a DB, but I suppose I could be sot down on that note as well :)

I guess given the above data I'm game for just about anything as far as IDP's go. I don't necessarily think we need to adjust scoring at DL either. I also would say that if we add an IDP I would like to see the roster size increased accordingly.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 14:21

MC[46] - In my case , it was Jason Taylor in round 8. What an idiot.

Sludge
ID: 54692111
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 14:22

One thing to keep in mind while considering the possibilities of adding roster spots. Assuming that we all know what the Hell we're doing, the margins that are there for us to exploit are slim. Given that, adding players adds variability in the scoring, and increased variability means that the "pure dumb luck" factor plays a more significant role.

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 14:37

Sludge, what, do you think you're some kind of statistician or something?

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 21:54

I'd argue the opposite... a larger sample size means
more chances for an astute manager to differentiate
themselves from the pack, even in the margin is slim.
Assuming similar variations per data point, then the
larger your sample, the smaller your overall variation
will tend to be relative to the "performance" aspect, or
the total mean.

If my players average 10 points per week with a
variance of 5, and your players average 9.5 points per
week with a variance of 5, then the larger our active
rosters, the greater my likelihood of victory. Thus, a
slightly diminshed role for pure dumb luck.

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 21:56

Grr... for some reason Firefox on a Mac works with the no line feed option, but IE on Mac puts a hard return wherever it wraps, unless you click yes, in which case you have to put a bunch of "br" tags or what have you everytime you want a paragraph break. Is this fixable? Just curious... I generally stick to Firefox anyway.

Sludge
ID: 54692111
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 10:23

I'd argue the opposite... a larger sample size means more chances for an astute manager to differentiate themselves from the pack, even in the margin is slim.

See, that's just it. We're all astute managers. The margins that you think are there for us to exploit, I hate to tell you, are much slimmer than you think (although our egos would like to tell us otherwise). Furthermore, that argument utilizes the law of large numbers, or if you prefer, the basic fact that the variance of the mean is equal to sigma^2/n. Unfortunately, both of those (at least the usual ones seen) assume independent and identically distributed random variates (in this case, player scores). We don't have equal variances or equal means. To save the day, however, there is a law of large numbers that applies to random variables with differing means and variances (Strong Law of Large Numbers --- note the condition that states that the variance cannot increase at too fast a rate).

But people get in trouble when assigning large sample behavior to small samples, which is the case here. There's not always a smooth transition to the large sample behavior as the sample sizes increase from small to large. In particular, your argument falls apart if the variances for mid-tier players (those that would be added) are actually higher than those before (or after) them. I don't know if that's necessarily the case here, but I would expect to see more outliers from those guys. Given a few minutes this afternoon, I'll take a look at LB, DL, and DB numbers, particularly the week-to-week variation.

Sludge
ID: 54692111
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 10:27

To save the day, however, there is a law of large numbers that applies to random variables with differing means and variances (Strong Law of Large Numbers --- note the condition that states that the variance cannot increase at too fast a rate).

Oops. I forgot to make my point.

With this more general law of large numbers, the large sample behavior doesn't kick in as fast as for the usual LLN.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 10:54

Doug[52] - I could probably develop a workaraound for the Mac linefeed issue, but it would involve some programming that I haven't felt was worth the effort.

Doug
ID: 57352917
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:02

I hear what you're saying Sludge, but my feeling is that it's not the case here. Given the situation where we're discussing adding a 4th IDP, that IDP will most likely (though not necessarily) be an LB... a #15-28 LB if we assumed all LBs, and my gut instinct is that the variances for this group of players is lower than it is for those players before them (such as our QB, RBs, WRs, TEs, etc.)... largely due to the fact that those players score not only yardage but also TD-based points, which significantly increase the variation.

I would predict (haven't done any analysis, just edubacatedinal guessing) that LBs tend to score primarily based on tackles and assists, which in fantasy terms varies similarly to yardage for skill positions (say typically 5-10 tackles per game vs. 50-100 yards per game) but without the additional TD-based variation... and what's more, I would also predict that TDs tend to correlate to yardage, thus amplifying the variance for those players (the variance would be less if yards and TDs were uncorrelated or negatively correlated).

Now, it is true that LBs do have fumble, sack, INT variation, and occassionally even TDs, but my guess would be this is a smaller variation relative to their tackle-based scoring than the TD impact is for the "skill positions". Furthermore, I'd think that this variation is less correlated to their core tackle-based scoring than TDs are to yardage.

Again, lots of guessing without doing the homework here, but just outlining what my instincts tell me in this case.

kev
Donor
ID: 43111845
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:26

Hey guys, I'm out of town from this afternoon until Tuesday. If anything needs to have a deciding vote made, I will check the board ASAP when I get back into town.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:38

Here's my current sense of the discussion on potential changes:

1. We'll need to vote on adding one or two additional IDPs.

2. For team defenses, "Blocked kicks" will be replaced by "Blocked FG and XP", since blocked punts is not a scoring option.

3. For IDP, blocked kicks (of any type) will be eliminated, since it is not an available option.

4. All points listed for offensive players (incl. kickers) will be included for IDP. All points listed for IDP will be included for offensive players. If Fanball fails to included these automatically, the Commish will manually adjust. (I think Fanball does include these automatically.)

5. The issue of waivers is occaionally raised, but seldom seems to get traction. Let me try to clarify our existing rule (please correct me if this sounds wrong):

a) at the end of the draft, all undrafted players are placed on waivers for 2 days, during which time waiver claims can be submitted. The priority order for preseason waiver claims is the reverse of the random draw for selecting draft order.

b) During the season, all free agents are subject to waivers each week (Wednesday noon). Also, any dropped played goes into the waiver pool for 48 hours. At the start of each week, the waiver priority is based on the reverse order of the current standings.

Does anyone have a specific proposal for changing this?

6. I just remembered that we neglected to address playoff add/drop rules in advance last year. We ended up voting on a limited ability to add/drop during the playoffs. I'll have to look that up.

Are there other issues that we need to address?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:46

I see that our trade deadline was evidently the Friday night of week 10. I assume we can keep that date (Nov 11, 11:30pm ET).

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:49

Here was our decision on player transactions during the playoffs:

Players at the primary skill positions (QB, RB, WR) are frozen for the playoffs. Team defenses are also frozen, since they are not subject to injury uncertainty. Other positions are eligible for injury-replacement add/drop/claim transactions only.

Specifically, players in the other slots (TE, PK, IDP) may only be replaced if they are designated as questionable or worse on the NFL injury report. This allowance does not apply to any player who was designated questionable or worse for the week 13 game (the final regular season game).

Thus, you cannot add or drop a QB, RB, WR, or team Def after the week #13 freeze, period. You can only drop someone else if that player was designated as "Probable" or better for week 13, and "Questionable" or lower at some point thereafter. If one of those players is dropped, he can only be replaced by a player fulfilling the same position. (LB and DB will be considered the same position for this purpose.)

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:58

Kev - you still need to register at the Fanball site. I sent out email instructions a few days ago.

Ditto for I_AM_CANADIAN.

Everyone else is registered.

kev
Donor
ID: 43111845
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 13:02

Sorry Dave, will get on that right now.

As for the IDP's, I am in favor of the DL, LB, DB, and flex (4 starters)

Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 13:39

Regarding waiver wire during the season:

We reset the waiver priority each week did we not? Perhaps as a compromise to the welfare system we should not reset it at all (after the initial priority as determined by reverse draft order). It seems to me that it works that way in Yahoo and I've never seen anyone quibble with it.

If we did it that way last year then my memory is just poor and this entire post can be ignored.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 13:40

Correct, the waiver priority is currently reset at the beginning of each week.

kev
Donor
ID: 43111845
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 13:42

I have never used the welfair system- can someone give me a brief description of the difference between it and the normal waiver wire (worst to first)?

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 13:54

kev -

The welfare system is when each week the waiver order resets in the order of "last to first." If you are in last place the first 3 weeks of the season, you get first choice for waiver players for the first three weeks.

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 14:43

See, that's just it. We're all astute managers.

BINGO!

Bringing back up the leggestand's welfare waiver concerns and I'm in 100% agreement with him. If this is really an "astute" league, then why would we continuously bail out the bottom team(s)??

As far as the concern of "sitting" on the #1 priority claim spot, I don't think this will happen with the short bench we have.

Now since I started this post I see several posts have addressed this matter, but I'll leave my post intact.

Guru, before I post my suggestions on the 48 hour waiver system, let's start with what options appear available thru Fanball w/o manual intervention?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 15:08

You can use either winning % or points to set the waiver priorities, either based on year-to-date or just on the most recent week. Regardless of the basis chosen, the priorities are reset weekly.

The alternative is "Commisioner sets manually", although that presumably isn't as onerous as it sounds. If we wanted to avoid a reset from week to week from some point forward, I would just set the priority to manual at that time and then leave it alone. The only thing that would impact it going forward would be claims.

There actually is a bit more work for the Commish to do in order to make sure that all claiming systems are integrated, but that's independent of any decision we make regarding priority.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 15:21

Further clarification:

There are two types of claiming processes.

The first is a free agent claiming process. We applied this on Wednesday noon every week. All non-roster players were subject to this claiming process, after which they became free agents to be picked up first come, first served.

The second is a waiver claiming process. This applies only to a dropped player. In our league, any dropped player was subject to a 48 hour waiver period, during which time he could be claimed based on waiver priorities. After the 48 hour period, the player became a free agent. At game time, any player on waivers automatically goes into the next week's free agent claiming process, regardless of the 48 hour period. (So someone dropped immediately before the Monday night game would still be available for a free agent claim at noon on Wednesday.)

We do not need to run dropped players through waivers, or we could also shorten the period to less than 48 hours.

As an aside, I think that the Fanball system might have allowed bench players to be dropped after they were frozen, but our league overrode that. That had to be manually enforced, as I recall. In other words, in order to pick up a player for Monday night on Monday afternoon, you could not drop a frozen bench player from a Sunday game. You had to either have an open roster slot at the time, or else drop an unfrozen player (i.e., a Monday night or bye week player).

I hope I am remembering all of this correctly, I know it took me several week last year before I fully understood it.

Sludge
ID: 54692111
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 17:18

BINGO!

Bringing back up the leggestand's welfare waiver concerns and I'm in 100% agreement with him. If this is really an "astute" league, then why would we continuously bail out the bottom team(s)??

Please don't use that as an argument for or against the current waiver system. As astute as we all are (and I say that with all seriousness and respect due everyone here), we cannot accurately predict many variables that have a significant impact on a player's performance (injuries being far and away the cream of the crop). We're all trying to shoot fish in a barrel. We may be decent (good even) at aiming, but once I've fired the bullet, I have no control over where the fish is going, and I don't have any control over which direction the bullet is going to veer once it hits the water. It's out of my hands! But it doesn't mean that I'm a bad shot.

Doug
ID: 49112252
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 22:13

Come on, you just need to study fluid dynamics and chaos theory, then build a machine that can accurately model the behavior of an infintely complex system, which you can of course fund by selling it to the weather forecasting industry, and if someone tries to dissuade you with the argument that this is impossible, merely illustrate your case by being in two places at once by use of your improbability drive (an accomplishment generally considered impossible yet already scientifically achieved here on earth at an atomic level, IIRC). It's all quite simple actually.

holt
ID: 566352314
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 04:59

that's exactly what I was gonna say doug.

BoNkA
ID: 18646298
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 09:46

b) During the season, all free agents are subject to waivers each week (Wednesday noon). Also, any dropped played goes into the waiver pool for 48 hours. At the start of each week, the waiver priority is based on the reverse order of the current standings.

The first is a free agent claiming process. We applied this on Wednesday noon every week. All non-roster players were subject to this claiming process, after which they became free agents to be picked up first come, first served.

The first quote seems to say the Free Agents are thrown into the waiver pool every wednesday while the second says they never hit the waiver pool and it's just first come first serve. Which one is the correct one?

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 11:20

Wow, this discussion is getting deep. I will just point out that when I start a league and act as Commissioner, one of my main goals is to ensure competitive balance. It's boring when there are 3 teams with 19-1, 18-2, and 16-4 records and 3 with 3-17, 4-16, and 7-13 records. What motivates Mr. 3-17? I can tell you, not much.

I want the worst team to have an advantage going into the next week. He should have the chance to pick up the player whom he thinks is the best available. Mr. 19-1 certainly does not need that sort of help! Parity makes the league even more fun. Remember, you might not be at the top of the league this year. All of the managers in this league made the playoffs or won their respective QL's last season. That ain't gonna happen again, fellas. Someone has to come in last place. And if you are there in Week 11, I personally think you ought to have first crack at picking up a stud RB's backup when the stud tears an ACL. My $.02.

I am playing Yahoo! baseball for the 1st time this year and learning about the rolling waiver priority system. It's not bad, but I think it's much more critical in football to make good picks off the waiver wire. There are way fewer actual fantasy players in football than there are in baseball. If you miss a good player in baseball, another one may surface soon on waivers. In football that's less likely. Plus we are playing about 1/10 as many games in football. It's essential to help the worst teams so they can catch up with the pack.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 506161118
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 11:56

RE GURU (Post 61):

I had the feeling this happened. I don't think I got your email. Could you please resend it to the address I'd provided before and CC the one I have in this post?

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Ben
IAC

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 506161118
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 12:03

Actually... If anyone else happens to have the above info... If you could send it to me?

Thx,

Ben

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 12:33

You know, I've often thought of changing my name to "I AM AMERICAN".

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 12:46

BoNkA[75] - Let me try again.

Here is the sequence of free agent events:

On Wednesday noon, every player who is not on a roster is subject to a claiming process. (I used to say that all free agents were put on waivers at the beginning of each week, but that isn't the same nomenclature used at Fanball, and caused some confusion for me last year. However, that's the effect.) The waiver priorities are used to rank the claims. If you have the top priority, then you get your first pick. Once you get awarded a pick, you move to the back of the line. So if you have multiple claims, everyone else gets a shot before you get your second pick.

After that claiming process is exhausted, all unclaimed players are available, first come, first served - except for players who were just dropped as the flip side of a claim. Those players go on waivers for 48 hours.

From that point forward, any player who is dropped is placed on waivers. If you want to claim a player who is on waivers, you have 48 hours to do so. When the player's waiver period ends, the claim with the highest priorty gets the player. If he is unclaimed, then he becomes a free agent, eligible for immediate pickup.

If a player is still on waivers when his game freezes for the week, he becomes part of the next week's free agent pool.

The key is that if a non-roster player goes crazy in a Sunday game, the faster finger doesn't necessarily get him. He is subject to the priority claiming process on the following Wednesday.

The confusion is that the free agent claiming process on Wednesday is considered distinct from the waiver claiming process. On Wednesday, all free agents are subject to a claiming process. After that, only players on waivers (dropped players) are subject to any priority claiming process.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 12:47

I_A_C: I just resent the invite to your gmail addy. It comes directly from the Fanball site, so I don't have a copy of it, nor do I have the capability to send it to multiple addresses.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 12:51

Taxman, Ender, and GoatLocker - it would pe a good idea for you to log into Fanball just to make sure you remember how to do it. According to my records, everyone else has successfully logged in this week.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 506161118
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 13:15

I'm in.

Thanks guys.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 13:43

Was in awhile back.
Haven't tried lately.
Can't get in here from work right now.
Will try later today when I get home.

Cliff

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 13:57

OK, was able to get in.
Also like the new look.

Cliff

Doug
ID: 57352917
Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 16:10

LOL, every other website I've ever used has employed the term "free agent" to denote someone who is NOT on waivers or subject to any claim process (ie, immediately available), and then all free agents are put back onto waivers when the games begin for the week. Anyway, it sounds like fanball is doing the same thing in practice, it's just that they're using f'd up non-standard terminology (IMHO).

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 11:39

Guru, not trying to rush things here, but do we have any major issues to vote on? Judging from what I've read above, most of the rules should stay the same, except that we will add an IDP or 2 and they will get KR/PR points, if applicable.

Looking forward to the draft*draft. That's coming soon, right? 21 rounds of drafting! Man that should be fun.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 12:06

I think there are 3 issues to vote on. Before we start to vote, let me lay out draft language for the proposals:

1. IDP
(A) DL, LB, DB, Flex (increase roster size to 21)
(B) DL, LB, DB, 2 Flex (increase roster size to 22)
(C) No change - DL plus 2 flex, roster stays at 20 players

2. Waiver/claiming priority
(A) No change - priorities are reset weekly, based on YTD winning pct. (last to first)
(B) Reset weekly for the first 4 weeks. After that, priorities do not reset weekly.
(C) Reset weekly for the first 6 weeks. After that, priorities do not reset weekly.

3. Waiver period during the regular season:
All non-roster players will be frozen and subject to a priority claiming process on Wednesday noon each week. After Wednesday noon,...
(A) dropped players will go on waivers for 48 hours from the time of drop (same as before)
(B) dropped players will go on waivers for 24 hours from the time of drop
(C) dropped players may be picked up immediately, and are not subject to waivers.

I think the first proposal is worded fine.

I think the second captures the type of change that has been discussed. Are the breakpoints of either 4 or 6 weeks the right ones?

Question 3 would only apply during the regular season. During the preseason, we would continue a 48 hour waiver period for all dropped players.

At this point, do not vote on any proposal yet. I only want to hear from you if you think a proposal should be reworded, or if you want to suggest an additional proposal.

Assuming we can flesh out any wording changes over the next 24 hours, we'll start voting on Tuesday afternoon.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 12:07

We'll start the draft² after the rules issues have been decided.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 506161118
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 12:14

Just wondering about IDP Scoring... are we "good" with the current levels? Or are we interested in modifying them slightly? ie. More points for Sacks and Inters?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 12:17

We could add a separate proposal for each: increase sacks from 2 to 3, and increase interceptions from 2 to 3. Any other IDP stats that we might consider boosting?

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 12:50

I don't have any changes to those proposals. Your language is fine with me.

Do you want a proposal to allow everyone to receive kick return points, or are we just implementing that this time?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 13:05

We're just implementing. That was our intent for last year, and no one seemed to disagree with that philosophy this year.

In fact, this year the simple rule will be that all individual players get all individual points, whether offense, defensive, ir kicking. I think the Fanball system administers it that way, but if not, I can adjust.

Doug
ID: 57352917
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 13:08

Can I cast negative votes?

Issue 1 - Not C
Issue 2 - Not A
Issue 3 - Not C

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 13:45

Above language works for me.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 506161118
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 14:23

So were starting the voting tomorrow?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 14:31

Maybe we should have people rank the options for each issue, so that it's easier to figure out the best solution if no single option garners a majority.

Yes, we'll start voting tomorrow. Wait until I post a final set of proposals.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 506161118
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 18:48

I probably won't be on tomorrow, so I'll most likely cast my vote Wednesday morning.

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 23:55

1. A or B...preferably A (not C)
2. C or B...preferably C

3. No opinion...doesn't matter to me.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 09:59

OK, voting is open on the following five proposals. For those items with 3 choices, please provide your first and second choices.

Proposal 1. IDP slots
(A) DL, LB, DB, Flex (increase roster size to 21)
(B) DL, LB, DB, 2 Flex (increase roster size to 22)
(C) No change - DL plus 2 flex, roster stays at 20 players

Proposal 2. Waiver/claiming priority
(A) No change - priorities are reset weekly, based on YTD winning pct. (last to first)
(B) Reset weekly for the first 4 weeks. After that, priorities do not reset weekly.
(C) Reset weekly for the first 6 weeks. After that, priorities do not reset weekly.

Proposal 3. Waiver period during the regular season:
All non-roster players will be frozen and subject to a priority claiming process on Wednesday noon each week. After Wednesday noon,...
(A) dropped players will go on waivers for 48 hours from the time of drop (same as before)
(B) dropped players will go on waivers for 24 hours from the time of drop
(C) dropped players may be picked up immediately, and are not subject to waivers.

Proposal 4. IDP Scoring -sacks
(A) Increase sacks to 3 points (half sack=1.5)
(B) No change (sack=2, half=1)

Proposal 5. IDP Scoring -interceptions
(A) Increase interceptions to 3 points
(B) No change (2 pts)

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 10:05

Since we are voting to the possibility of increasing the number of IDP's, shouldn't we also be voting to increase the bench?

Currently, I prefer keeping the same number of bench spots, but if we increase the starting spots, I think we should at least increase the bench by one if we add 2 IDP players. If we add 1 IDP, then I'm on the 50/50 on whether to add another reserve spot.

Of course I realize we may want to vote on this after today's vote.

100

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 10:11

I made an executive decision that if we added IDP slots, the bench should remain the same, and the total slots would increase.

As I recall from last year, the bench seemed about right. I don't think it would make sense to add 1 or 2 active slots while reducing the bench slots - especially since the two added roster slots will almost certainly be filled with IDPs who would have remained free agents under the old configuration.

If anyone disagrees, speak up. I thought about making the roster size a voting issue as well, but it seemed to me that it would gain no traction - and the wording gets cumbersome.

102

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 10:31

Blew up my previous post due to mis-vote...

Second choices in ()

1. C (A)
2. B (C)
3. A (B)
4. B
5. B

103

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 11:25

1. B then A
2. A
3. A then C
4. A
5. A

104

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 11:26

I guess I didn't consider adding extra bench spots if we add an extra 1 or 2 IDP. When you vote on the first item (regarding the addition of active IDP slots), if you select A or B, please indicate if you would be in favor of adding any bench slots as well.

106

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 12:02

1. B (A) For B - yes, also add 1 bench spot, (For A - no additional bench spots)
2. B (C)
3. A (B)
4. B
5. A

107

BoNkA
ID: 46619219
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 14:17

1. A then B (A add no spots, B add one)
2. C then A
3. A then C
4. B
5. A

108

Sludge
ID: 54692111
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 14:27

1. C
2. A
3. A
4. B
5. B

109

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 15:18

1. A then B
2. C then B
3. A then B
4. A
5. A

110

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 15:59

1. B then A (add 1 bench only if B)
2. C then B
3. A then B
4. A
5. A

112

Athletics Guy
ID: 43525254
Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 16:38

1. C then A (No Additional Bench)
2. C then B
3. A then B
4. B
5. B

113

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 02:28

1. A then B
2. C then B
3. A then B
4. B
5. B

Also vote that 4 and 5 should be the same...meaning, INT's and sacks should have the same value.

114

Bandos @ Beach
ID: 975037
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 08:53

1. B then A, yes to one additional bench
2. A, C
3. B, A
4. A
5. A

115

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 09:19

Some hotly contested proposals so far (through 10 voters):

Question 1:
A = 3 (6)
B = 4 (3)
C = 3 (0)

Question 2:
A = 3 (1)
B = 2 (4)
C = 5 (3)

Question 3:
A = 9 (1)
B = 1 (5)
C = 0 (2)

Question 4:
A = 4
B = 6

Question 5:
A = 6
B = 4

The few outstanding votes will mean something for the bulk of the proposals...

116

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 09:26

Voting is close on some of these.

Proposal 1 (IDP): 3/4/3
Prop 2 (Waiver priority): 3/2/5
Prop 3 (waiver period): 9/1/0 (settled)
Prop 4 (sacks): 4/6
Prop 5 (ints): 6/4

Still awaiting votes from Taxman, Ender, I_AM_CANADIAN, and me.

117

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 09:27

Looks like it took me at least 7 minutes to count votes!

(At least I feel confident that I counted correctly.)

118

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 506161118
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 11:33

1. A
2. C
3. B
4. A
5. A

119

Ender
ID: 406351010
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 11:55

Whoa...
I had time to read the issues yesterday, but not to ponder them with any depth. You guys are on the ball.

1. C, A
2. B, C
3. B, A
4. B
5. B

120

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 13:53

We have 12 votes. Taxman has yet to vote, as do I.

However, the first three issues are already decided.

For issue 1, none of the choices got a majority (4/4/4), and none can get there even if Donny and I vote the same way. If I include second choice votes, then the current tally is 11/7/4. So it seems that the best choice is A (DL, LB, DB, flex). That was my first choice as well. There also seems to be little support for adding a bench slot with this choice, so the bench will remain at 8.

For issue 2, the current tally is 3/3/6. Including second choices makes the count 4/7/10. Again, regardless of how the final 2 votes are cast, choice C gets the nod.

Issue 3 was already decided in favor of the status quo.

The last two issues are still unresolved. One is 5/7, and the other is 7/5. Further compounding the issue is that Kev has "voted" to keep both categories at the same value. I'll let Taxman weigh in on these two, and then I'll figure out how to decide them.

121

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 13:56

Two people (BoNkA and Challenger) voted to keep sacks at 2, but increase ints to 3. Everyone else voted both questions the same way.

I'd like to hear from Challenger and BoNkA as to their rationales for voting differently on proposals 4 & 5.

122

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 13:59

Further compounding the issue is that Kev has "voted" to keep both categories at the same value.

I'm having a "Duh" moment. Why does that further complicate things?

123

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 14:29

Only that if he feels this is important, he would presumably change his votes to A & A if that would produce a matched outcome (and B & B wouldn't).

124

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 14:41

My brain must have squirted out of my ear, Guru. I'm still not understanding you. I thought Kev's post meant only that the number of points awarded for a sack should be equivalent to the number of points awarded for an INT, not that they should remain the same as last year.

125

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 14:41

I think it makes it more complicated because 11 of 13 managers have voted to keep IDP scoring for sacks and Ints identical to each other, yet as we currently stand we are set to have them score differently.

I agree with kev, that sacks and Ints should be worth equal amounts.

126

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 14:47

Kev voted to leave both cats unchanged (B&B). He also said that both should have the same point value.

I presume that he would change his votes to A&A if that would keep the two cats scored the same.

127

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 14:51

I think it may have to go up for vote...If 11 managers voted either AA or BB, then IMO they effectively said that the categories should be equal. Only 2 managers said they should be different.

128

BoNkA
Donor
ID: 019742310
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 14:53

My reasoning, while not exactly great, is that I just believe an interception is much more of a game breaker than a sack and is also a bit harder to come by.

129

Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 029463114
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 15:08

Late Tax returns:

1. B, A
2. A, C
3. B, C
4. A
5. A

130

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 15:15

I'll vote A and A for 4 & 5. (The first three issues were already decided.)

That means that interceptions change to 3 points by a vote of 9/5. The sack issue is tied at 7/7. However, given Kev's preference, and given that 12 out of 14 voted the same on each of issues 4/5, I'm just going to invoke Commissioner fiat to declare A the winner for proposal 4.

Give me a moment to recast the overall scoring rules, and I'll post them.

131

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 15:35

In assembling the entire scoring list, I see one inconsistency that I'm going to rectify without bothering with a vote.

Previously, ints and fumbles were valued similarly for IDP. An int was worth 2 pts; a fumble forced was worth 1, and a fumble recovered was worth 1.

Given the general sentiment for consistency, I think the combo of a fumble forced and recovered should be valued the same as an interception. Since forcing a fumble would seem to be more notable the falling on the fumble, I'm going to raise the point value for fumble forced to 2 pts, while leaving fumbles recovered at 1 pt.

This doesn't seem like a big deal, but helps preserve symmetry between different types of turnovers.

132

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 15:35

see post 184 for updated league rules

133

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 15:46

OK, so you lose your waiver priority position if you pick up a free agent?

134

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 15:49

The next order of business is to selecting drafting order. We will have a one round draft for this purpose. I will start with an alphabetical list of managers, resequence it based on one set of random numbers, and apply pick order based on a second set.

The manager with the first selection has the opportunity to choose his first round draft position, 1-14. The player draft will snake, so that the manager selecting #1 in the first round will draft last in the second round.

In order to start the draft-draft, I need 2 managers to independently send me (via email) a "random" sequence of the integers 1-14. I will use the first two sets received.

135

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 15:53

MC[133] - you only lose your priority if you are awarded a free agent via a priority claim at noon on Wednesday.

"Normal" free agent pickups do not cost your priority.

Remember that in Fanball's nomenclature, the process on Wednesday noon is a "free agent claiming process". Even though we generally think of this as placing everybody on waivers each week, Fanball does not technically do this, and the Fanball system is more intuitive if you keep this in mind.

137

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 16:10

Numbers received. Awaiting set #2.

Six of you still need to register for the league draft at Kafenatid.net. An email with instructions was sent out last Saturday

138

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 18:05

Wow, I can't believe we have a scoring system for IDP where a sack on 1st down is worth 3 points, a sack on 2nd down (the next play) is worth 3 more points, and on 3rd down the offense achieves a td. IE - no turnover. btw, a sack is also a tackle worth another point. 4 pts for one play which doesn't even become a turnover???

Yet, an interception on any play leads to a turnover, and your offense the ball, is only worth the same 3 points?!!?

Given the general sentiment for consistency - just how consistant is this scoring??

139

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 18:58

Chall - all fantasy sports are rife with scoring inconsistencies vs. real life. In baseball, stolen bases are almost always grossly overvalued. In football, a TD pass is worth less than a TD catch. In Hoops, a 3 pointer is overvalued.

In football, I think we are trying to achieve some scoring balance across positions. A sack is probably worth much less than a turnover. But it is one of the stats that tends to define excellence for defensive linemen. So I don't think it is as necessary that a sack is worth the same as a turnover, since they tend to impact different positions. In that vein, I could have supported 3 for a sack and 2 for a turnover. It still would have left DLs worth less than other IDPs.

I did think that within a position, points should be as consistent as possible. That's why I adjusted fumbles forced, since it is hard to argue that one type of turnover is valued more than another.

But in any fantasy sports, there are always going to be disconnects between scoring formulas and real-life value.

And it is rare that any player gets 3 sacks in one game, let alone in one series, so your theoretical example is amusing, but unfathomable.

Don't get too hung up in reconciling fantasy scoring with real life value. They are never going to agree.

140

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 20:15

I have the random numbers.

leggestand sent me 6 12 10 8 14 4 11 3 1 13 2 9 7 5

Kev sent me 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 2, 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 5, 12

The first set was used to reorder an alphabetized list of managers. The second was used to assign draft order.

Here is the selection order for the draft²
1 Sludge
2 Athletics Guy
3 I_AM_CANADIAN
4 Challenger
5 Kev
6 Leggestand
7 Mötley Crüe
8 Bonka
9 Guru
10 GoatLocker
11 Ender
12 Doug
13 Taxman
14 bandos

Sludge gets the first choice. Bandos gets whatever is left over.

No time limits for this process.

Sludge, what pick do you want?

141

Sludge
ID: 14411118
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 01:15

Oh the pressure!

I've been eyes deep in teaching two classes for four hours a day, so I haven't even had time to prepare. Sorry guys, but you'll have to wait a few days. When am I officially "on the clock"?

142

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 08:40

We won't be drafting players for a couple of weeks, so it's hard to make a case for urgency.

Could you make your decision by Monday? That gives everyone else a chance to think about their druthers as well.

143

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 11:23

I've been digging a bit into scoring idiosyncrasies. Last year we learned that Fanball does score offensive stats for IDP, at least for kick and punt returns.

I don't know whether standard offense stats are scored for IDP or not. Can anyone think of an IDP who caught a pass, or who had rushing yardage last season. I'd like to see how that stat was treated.

It also appears that defensive stats are NOT scored for offensive players. I looked up Troy Brown, and see that his interceptions were not included in his point total.

Although I stated above that all point formulas should apply to all players, I'm wondering if that is the best approach. It looks like I would have to manually apply IDP points for offensive players. This isn't likely to me a major ordeal, but perhaps it is an unnecessary complication with little or no benefit.

Regardless of what we decide to do, we should decide before the draft.

Here are the issues, as I currently understand them:

Resolved issues:
1. Punt and kick return yardage will be applied to all players.
2. Touchdowns, from any source, will be scored for all players.

Open issues:
1. Should defensive stats (interceptions, tackles, etc.) be scored for offensive players?
2. Should offensive stats other than return yardage (i.e., rushing or receiving stats) be scored for IDP?

I'd really like to find an example of a 2004 game in which a defensive player generated an offensive stat (other than return yardage), just to see what Fanball does.

144

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 11:33

Somebody mentioned this before, but I know the Patriots had Mike Vrabel line up as a TE a few times and I think he scored a TD once or twice.

I read the other day that Deion Sanders also played some WR last season. I will look this up and post some box score links if I find any stats.

145

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 11:37

I am pretty sure Vrabel scored a couple TD's last year, too, and it doesn't look like Fanball scored it.

146

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 11:39

Deion Sander rushed for -10 yards in week 7 against Buffalo.

Fanball has him scored for 22.40 fantasy points. Here are the stats I can find for that game:
2 ints
1 TD
2 tackles
2 PD
4 punt ret yards
-10 rushing yds

Excluding the rushing yardage, I can only account for 14.40 fantasy points. I wonder how he got the other 8?

147

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 11:42

OK, last January in Week 17, San Fran at New England. Here's the Box Score.

Mike Vrabel caught one pass for 1 yard and a TD.

As for Deion, I see he caught no passes last season, but did have 1 carry for -10 yards. That shows on his NFL.com player page. It doesn't indicate which game that happened in.

148

Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 11:45

I'm fine with no defensive stats for offensive players. It really only is an issue on special teams (which I doubt happens very often) and on turnovers when they tackle the guy who picked off the pass, etc... I believe Yahoo does do this so it's not unheard of in fantasy to track it, but if Fanball does not I don't see it as a travesty.

As far as defensive players getting offensive stats goes, I believe they should. It's becoming a bit more chic these days for defensive guys to lineup on the other side of the ball. It's still rare, but if someone like the Fridge steals a TD from a guy like Sweetness (this still just sticks in my craw and eats at me whenever I think of it) then the defensive players should get the yards and the TD.

149

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 11:46

Did they count the 48 yards of the INT return?

150

Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 11:50

That being said, if Fanball simply doesn't support it, it's probably not a big deal. I know it's easy for me to say this, not being the Commish and all, but I doubt it happens often enough that Guru can't simply manually add it after the fact. If that's a problem, then we simply don't support it. I don't think there's any IDP (other than maybe Vrabel) that anyone would draft for that reason. I'll qualify that by saying I haven't done any homework on IDP's yet, I'm simply going from memory.

151

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 11:53

It's actually a trend now. I've seen teams lining up D-Linemen inside the 5. Warren Sapp did it for Tampa, IIRC. Trying to remember where else I've seen that.

In 2003, Sapp had 4 catches for 39 yards and 2 TD's.

152

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 11:54

I still can't explain Deion's total, but Vrabel did not receive credit for his receiving TD or his 2 receiving yards in week 9 vs. the Rams.

So it seems that the only "offensive" points awarded to IDP are kick and punt return points.

That is a little odd, since last year, when I asked about the inclusion of return yardage for IDP, the explanation I received was that on kick or punt returns, the returner was functioning as an offensive player, and therefore was eligible to receive offensive points. That rationale was evidently bogus.

So, based on the evidence at hand, it sounds like return yards are scored for everyone, but other offensive stats are not scored for IDP, and defensive stats are not scored for offensive players.

I still want to score any TD for any player, since I don't want to have to rule on whether or not a TD was scored on an offensive or defensive play. If that requires a manual adjustment, so be it.

But what about the other offensive and defensive stats? Should we include them or not?

Now I'm thinking that perhaps we should not.

Any other reactions?

153

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 11:56

I'm fine with leaving it out since it's so rare (relative to the number of other things going on regularly) and it seemingly should make league administration much simpler for you.

154

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 12:00

I'm certainly willing to make the manual adjustments. Processing the adjustments are very very simple. The key is to notice the need for the adjustment.

Screening for offensive stats for IDP should be relatively easy to do, since I have to track offensive stats for TSNP, etc. I can just make that part of my weekly screening.

Screening for defensive stats (tackles, ints, etc.) for offensive players is potentially more difficult. I don't currently have an easy source to do that routinely, although one might exist. If we were going to include these, each team manager would need to be on the alert for his own players. For someone like Troy Brown in 2004, it would be easy to remember to check. But for a receiver who made a tackle on an interception return, it could be very tough to detect.

155

BoNkA
ID: 50723411
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 12:23

I think if we're going to count everything for everyone, it should be up to each manager to find out if his players should be receiving points for the extra stats. It'd be much easier if everyone checked their own players each week rather than have Guru look over all the players. The points most likely won't make a difference 90% of the time, but then again, there could be a real close game and those points could swing the outcome. Basically you can be lazy and not get the points if they're there to be gotten or you can check and get them if you need them (could also help in a points tie breaker for playoffs if it were that close). So the main theme is, you snooze, you lose.

Granted, this is just an idea and first, we'd need to decide whether or not to count the yards, tackles, etc.

156

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 12:32

I'm going to wait a few days to mull this (and collect any more feedback, if there is any).

The reason that I drafted the rules to be all inclusive (everyone gets all points) is that it is simple to understand. But I did think that it would be simpler to administer as well.

Meanwhile, another issue just occured to me.

Retroactive stats adjustments tend to be rare, but they do occur. Sometimes it is because the game stats were simply incorrect - as when the wrong receiver is credited with a catch. Sometimes it is due to a scoring change, as when a fumble is reallocated to the QB instead of the RB on a handoff exchange.

How should these be handled? When does a fantasy game score become final? And if a game score is found to be incorrect after that fact, does the reason for the difference matter?

157

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 13:45

Fantasy game scores should be finalized within a week of the stats being final after Monday Night Football. No matter what. Make a drop dead date and say no retroactive stats after that. There definitely should be no retroactive applications of points after 2 or 3 weeks. This isn't TSN where the total points are the most important thing. Head-to-head fantasy sports require a winner and loser every week. A week seems like a reasonable amount of time to me to wait.

158

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 38410622
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 14:37

I agree with MC. Don't like to see results changed once there "official". Maybe we can implement a 1 day verification time. If you haven't spoken up about points missing by 11:59PM Tuesday evening, then you miss out on whatever scoring errors their are? Just a thought.

159

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 15:40

I disagree. If the NFL mis-scores a play, how am I supposed to know? If Brett Favre botches a handoff to Ahman Green, and the fumble is credited incorrectly, how would I ever know unless the NFL makes a decision to re-score the play? I say all retroactive stats must be incorporated, no matter when they are changed.

160

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 34743414
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 15:52

I'm personally not all that worried that it'll take the NFL stats feeds longer than 24 hours to correct most scoring errors.

I'm worried about someone looking back over stats from 3 weeks prior and saying, "Hey, guess what? I won that week due to..."

I think that is overly messy, and not really fair for all involved. A certain manager may chose to do a high risk/reward trade in order to play a matchup that they think they normally would "have" to win in order to make the playoffs do to a preconceived idea of who won which matchup.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that any major sports league would allow overturning of a decision after a game is complete.

161

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 16:05

I have seen stats change multiple days after the games were played, and I know from last year that IDP scoring is usually re-scored throughout the week as they credit tackles and yardage correctly.

It certainly isn't fair for someone to lose out on points because the NFL scored a play incorrectly. All I want is for the games to be scored correctly; how can anyone complain if a result is overturned because a play was scored correctly?

Sure, the NFL won't change a result, but in order to change a result, the NFL would have to change a play . We are not asking to change a play, we are asking that the stats of each play is credited correctly. The play still exists in its entirety, but the correct people are getting credited with the play.

This is probably a bigger deal than it will ever need to be, but I know we had a few games last year that were won by less than 5 points, so, it is possible that it can affect outcomes of games.

162

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 16:07

I agree that there needs to be some point at which games scores are final. I think Tuesday night is probably too quick. I had been thinking that perhaps the following Sunday noon would be sufficient.

In NFL games, once the next play starts, it is too late to challenge the previous play. Setting a noon Sunday time is similarly saying that once the next games start, the prior week's game results are final. I realize that occasionally the next games start on Thursday or Saturday, but a Sunday noon time would be a simple solution that allows each manager the better part of a week to notice any problem.

A manager would need to post a notice here by that time if he wished to challenge a game score. A challenge could be based on an NFL scoring change, a required adjustment for an untracked stat, correction of a processing error, etc. It would be incumbent on each manager to review his most recent game score some time before the next weekly games start.

163

Doug
ID: 21716317
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 17:38

I agree with the "challenge" notion, because you need to allow time for the manager who (up until that point) believed he had won the game to check the scores and respond in kind. It is not reasonable to expect managers to have already done this on their own time... only when it is raised as an issue.

I was in a league once where someone notified a scoring error at the last minute that changed the outcome of the game. The owner who had previously won (now the loser) never had a chance to respond, and was particularly irate because there was an additional scoring error which went unreported and which would have reversed the outcome back to how it originally was (making him the winner). The league dissolved that offseason, not solely because of this incident, but it certainly added fuel to the fire. The challenge notion heads off these sort of disagreements, provided that the notification and opportunity to respond period is sufficient (say 48 to 72 hours?). In most cases, I think the challenging manager would notify of the situation by Wednesday, so that the resolution would still happen prior to the following weeks games.

164

Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 18:58

This all sounds way more complicated than necessary. If we insist on counting all of these things then we need to find a different site that does so. If we doon't feel that strongly then simply accept that Vrabel can catch a TD, but won't get yards. The QB won't get a tackle if he throws a pick.

I'm fone with that. If I have to scour box scores to see if my WR got a tackle then it will take some of the fun out of it.

All of this challenge/official score business also sounds ridiculous. Find a new site that does what we want or live with what we have.

Keep it simple IMO.

165

Doug
ID: 57352917
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 20:10

FWIW Ender, I feel this is an important issue to determine regardless of whether or not the site handles all of our scoring automatically... even if they do handle our scoring, fantasy football websites are well known... painfully well known... to make scoring errors, and we need some sort of policy to adress that potential situation. The whole point of using a challenge system is that you DON'T have to feel like you have to scour box scores... ONLY in the (hopefully) extremely rare case that someone challenges your result because an error was made (and even then, it's up to you). It may sound complicated now but it's really not, and it's much better IMHO to get this discussion out of the way now rather than in the heat of it.

166

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 04, 2005, 20:54

I don't consider this issue of handling errors/adjustments to be at all related to whether we include offense points for IDP and vice versa. As Doug says, these types of issues can arise with very normal scoring rules, and it's much better to address the guidelines now than to wait until we have a "situation".

Perhaps the degree to which we need to make manual adjustments contributes to the probability that scoring errors will be made, but I think it's a minor contributor.

167

Ender
ID: 406351010
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 10:43

Fair enough. The two issues should be separate. The thought of screening for erros in stats that our particular site seems pretty daunting to me. That doesn't preclude us from having a system in place for challenging a score under any set of circumstances. I see your point.

Instead of having another deadline to remember, why not have it coincide with our waiver deadline each week?

168

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 14:23

By waiver deadline, I ssume you mean noon on Wednesday? That might be a bit quick.

Regarding defensive points for offensive players: I've pretty much concluded that we should not apply IDP-type points to offensive players. With the exception of notable 2-way players (like Troy Brown last year), they would be very difficult to notice, and would be rare enough that their inclusion would only add a random element, but not a strategic element.

I suppose the same logic could be applied to offensive points for IDP. With the exception of punt/kick return yardage and offensive TDs, I'm currently leaning toward excluding all other offensive points for IDP. I think I could track these more systematically, but I doubt if the effort is warranted.

I'm wondering about kickers. If a kicker scores a TD, or throws a TD pass, I wonder if those points are routinely awarded. Does anyone recall a specific instance of this from last season that we could look up?

169

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 14:26

Usually the holder would be the TD passer/rusher. PK's usually just act in a "fake out" capacity on those types of plays. I'll see what I can find.

And incidentally, why don't fantasy baseball games give points to pitchers for offensive statistics? Never could understand why that is a universally applied rule.

170

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 14:52

Vinatieri threw a 4 yard TD pass in week 9 last season. Fanball awarded him the points for the TD pass and the passing yardage.

171

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 14:57

WIlkins rushed for -5 yards vs GB in week 12. He was awarded -.50 FP.

It seems obvious that kickers are getting all offensive points.

172

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 15:07

And, on the flip side, Wes Welker, who was listed as a WR for Miami, got fantasy points for an XP and a FG in week 5 vs. the Pats.

So offensive players also get kicking points.

173

Ender
ID: 406351010
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 16:41

I was referring to the waiver deadline. If that's too early for everybody that's fine. I'll go with the flow. I'm not trying to be a fly in the ointment. I just don't want to over-complicate things.

174

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 16:59

There is no such thing as a "waiver deadline". Waivers last for 48 hours from the time a player is dropped.

I am simply trying to interpret what you mean by "waiver deadline." Our weekly free agent claiming process occurs at noon on Wednesday, and I assume that is what you are referring to.

175

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 18:59

Wow. I certainly hope we sort this out soon. I haven't had much time to start researching the draft yet, but these could be some minor points that would tip the scale for a couple picks.

Couldn't we just get our commish to impose a ruling (ASAP), without having to go through another whole voting ordeal?

My opinion (if anyone cares) is that IF your going to score OFF points for DEF players you have to do the vice/versa. and... we shouldn't leave a pandora's box open that says, "if you're this type of player then it gets scored this way, otherwise too bad."

How exactly do you critiriorize (mispelled I'm sure) a 2-way player? I guess that would be ANY player who scored Off and Def points no? If we do go with the 2-way senario... who's responsibility would it be to make up a list of accepted players that pass? Takes some of the fun out of the game by finding those players yourself doesn't it?

My .02

176

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 19:55

I don't plan to put these issues to a vote. I'm just going to make a Commissioner's decision based on the "best interests of the RIFC".

Defining an offensive player vs. a defensive player is simple. If a player is eligible at QB, RB, WR, TE, or K, he is an offensive player. If a player is eligible at one of the IDP positions, he is a defensive player. The system doesn't provide for multiple position eligibility, so there is no issue of a player having dual eligibility.

I'll make a decision by the end of the weekend.

177

BoNkA
ID: 13711519
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 20:11

I don't think that some players should be scored both ways if they're not all going to be, with the exception of TDs.

178

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Fri, Aug 05, 2005, 20:18

Not meaning to rock the boat here... but why can't we just stick with what we said previous?

"All offensive player scoring also applies to IDP. All IDP scoring also applies to offensive players." (Post 132)

POST 168 really appears to be going in the opposite direction.

If it's because we are putting undo strain on our commish, then I have no problem with the idea that we all take personal responsibility for verifying our own team.

179

Sludge
ID: 14411118
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 11:05

Guru -

Go ahead and make a draft thread and a draft rationales thread with the guidelines for each. I'll be ready to pick soon.

180

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 11:20

Sludge - we don't need to post rationales now for this process. When you actually post your rationale for your first player pick, you can comment on the reason for your order choice. That won't be until we get to the third round of the draft. So there is no reason so set that up now.

Just post your draft order choice in this thread. No need for anything else at this point.

181

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 11:22

Let me amend that slightly. I'll set up a separate thread for the draft² just to keep that process more organized.

182

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 11:29

OK, a separate thread has been set up for selecting draft order. Please use that thread to post your order selection when it is your turn.

183

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 11:49

I have decided to make the following ruling regarding point scoring.

Offensive players (QB, RB, WR, TE, K) will not earn points defined for IDP (i.e., tackles, turnovers, etc.) However, if an offensive player scores a touchdown on a defensive play, he will be awarded 6 points. Of course, offensive players will also earn punt/kick return yardage.

IDP (DL, LB, DB) will not earn points for offensive plays, except that punt/kick return yardage and all touchdowns will be scored for IDP.

There are several reasons:
1. With the possible exception of the occasional "wrong way" TD, the Fanball system should process points this way automatically.

2. There are typically very few players who actually line up both ways. Most "wrong way" points would be random and not strategic. For example, you won't draft Randy Moss thinking that he is likely to make a few tackles following interceptions.

3. Allocating points for all TDs eliminates any need to define whether the TD resulted from an offensive or defensive play. TDs are also easier to notice, and if a manual adjustment is required, it would probably be detected quickly.

4. Tracking "wrong way" stats would introduce a systematic administrative burden on both the Commissioner and on all league managers. It is doubtful whether this burden would produce a meaningful shift in points, but for any close games, it would induce an obligation for a significant manual review.

5. Crediting all points both ways is not the industry standard. Frankly, the use of IDP is not the industry standard either. But it does not appear that this stance at all conflicts with normal practice.

I will amend the scoring rules to clarify this.

184

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 12:08

Roster
1 QB
2 RB
3 WR
1 TE
1 K
1 Team def
1 DL
1 LB
1 DB
1 additional IDP (flex)
8 bench
21 Total

Decimal scoring is applied for all categories.

Offense Category Points
(apply only to QB, RB, WR, TE, and K unless otherwise noted)
Passing TD 4
Other TD 6 (all TDs, whether on offense, defense, or special teams)
Passing-2pt conv 1
Other-2pt conv 2
Passing yard 1/25 (i.e., .04 per yard)
Rushing yard 1/10 (i.e., .10 per yard)
Receiving yard 1/10
Punt return yard 1/10 (also applies to IDP)
Kick return yard 1/25 (also applies to IDP)
Kick return 0 (no deduction)
Int, fumbles lost -2

Kicking Points
(apply only to QB, RB, WR, TE, and K)
Extra point made 1
Extra point missed -1
FG under 40 yards 3
FG 40-49 yards 4
FG 50+ yards 5
Missed FG <30 -1
Missed FG 30+ 0

Team Defense Points
(the following points apply only to team defenses)
Sack 1
Interception 2
Fumble recovered 2
TD 6
Safety 3
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 Points
(the following points apply only to DL, LB, and DB)
Solo Tackle 1
Asst Tackle 0.5
Pass defensed 1
Sack 3 (half sack=1.5)
Interception 3
Fumble forced 2
Fumble recovery 1
TD 6 (all TDs, whether on offense, defense, or special teams)
Safety 3

Priority Claiming
All free agents (any players not on a current roster) are subject to a weekly claiming process at noon on Wednesday. Following the first 6 weeks of the season, the priorities will reset weekly based on the reverse of W/L percentage. After that, priorities will not be reset. Throughout the season, when a player is claimed (either via "free agent priority claim" or a waiver claim), the claiming team moves to the end of the claiming priority list.

Starting at 1:00pm on Wednesday, all free agents may be picked up by any team "first come, first served" without any change in priority status.

When a player is dropped from a roster, the player will go on waivers for 48 hours. At the end of the 48 hour period, if any team has placed a claim on the player, the team with the highest claiming priority will receive the player. If no claims are submitted, the player becomes a free agent at that time. If a player is dropped within 48 hours of his game freeze, he may not be claimed until the following week's free agent claiming process.

Starting five minutes prior to the scheduled start of each NFL game, no player in that game may be dropped, regardless of whether the player is an active or bench player.

Schedule
13 week round robin
Doubleheaders all weeks 1-13 (play each team twice)
Single elimination playoffs, weeks 14-16

Trade deadline
The trade deadline is 11:30pm EST on November 11.

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 head-to-head first, then total points
Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round)

Players at the primary skill positions (QB, RB, WR) are frozen for the playoffs. Team defenses are also frozen, since they are not subject to injury uncertainty. Other positions are eligible for injury-replacement add/drop/claim transactions only.

Specifically, players in the other slots (TE, PK, IDP) may only be replaced if they are designated as questionable or worse on the NFL injury report. This allowance does not apply to any player who was designated questionable or worse for the week 13 game (the final regular season game).

Thus, you cannot add or drop a QB, RB, WR, or team Def after the week #13 freeze, period. You can only drop someone else if that player was designated as "Probable" or better for week 13, and "Questionable" or lower at some point thereafter. If one of those players is dropped, he can only be replaced by a player fulfilling the same position. (LB and DB will be considered the same position for this purpose.)

185

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 12:13

Post 184 lists the updated rules, adjusted for the scoring eligibility outlined in post 183. Those changes are the only substantive changes, although the wording was amended in several other places for better clarity.

I still have not decided on the deadline for challenging a prior game score.

186

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 13:39

Sounds good! Thanks for the quick clarifications Guru.

I'll make my selection shortly for draft position.

187

Ender
ID: 406351010
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 13:57

I like it. The TD's are easy to follow. If we tried to include tackles for offensive players and yardage for IDP's it would too tough on Guru and in turn also tough on the Challenge process.

188

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 14:05

Not meaning to bring up other options... just an in passing comment.

I know that RotoWorld last year WAS scoring tackles by kicker, rb, qb, etc. It was interesting to see those #s.

Although, not necessary to the strategy of the game.

189

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 15:45

How's this for dealing with scoring errors:

During the regular season:
Scoring errors (for whatever reason) will be corrected whenever they are called to the attention of the Commissioner. This includes those due to scoring changes announced by the NFL after the initial stats are released.

However, the results of any head-to-head game will not be changed, regardless of a subsequent scoring change, unless the score is challenged prior to midnight (Pacific time) on the Saturday following that game week. A challenge must be posted by a manager in the current RIFC discussion thread at the RotoGuru forum.

In the event that a winner-changing challenge is posted by the deadline, then the manager of the opposing team will be given until midnight (Pacific time) on Monday (i.e., 48 hours later) to post any additional scoring challenge for that game. If that second challenge is upheld and it restores the original winner of the game in question, then the game result shall stand as originally posted.

The only exception is following the final week of the regular season. At midnight (Pacific time) on the Wednesday following the final regular season game, all challenges must be posted. No challenge filed after that time will impact any regular season result. However, if a late challenge causes a changed game result, the manager of the new losing team will have 24 hours to post an additional challenge.

Comments:
1. You have until the end of Saturday to challenge the result of your game. If you find a scoring error that changes a game result and it is posted before the Saturday night deadline, then the opposing manager gets until Monday to check for any additional errors.

2. If a scoring error is noticed after the related Saturday deadline, the fantasy points will still be corrected, but the result of the game (winner and loser) will not be changed. The points could still come into play for playoff seeding.

3. The drop dead date is midnight on the Wednesday following the final regular season game.

Playoffs
A scoring challenge must be posted by midnight Wednesday. The losing team will have an additional 24 hours to respond to the challenge.

Hopefully, all of this will be moot, but I think it allows for a reasonable time to review, while ensuring that game results are locked in once a week is done.

190

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2005, 18:18

Doug and Sludge still have not registered for the league draft at kafenatid.net. Instructions were sent out via email last week.

Please do so at your earliest convenience.

191

youngroman
ID: 298482214
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 09:08

Guru - I found out that AOL has a free fantasy football game powered by fanball.

AOL League Manager

differences are minor:
info 1
info 2

192

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 34743414
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 09:23

FYI - For Kev's Post.
http://rotoguru1.com/cgi-bin/mb/foot/4268.shtml?1123414762

For those of you who don't know. (like me, I'm Canadian thus learned french instead of spanish)

Ocho = Eight.

Here's a link:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/languages/spanish/Numbers.shtml

193

Trip
Sustainer
ID: 13961611
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 12:03

Guru,

You need to clarify the Team Defense scoring for Safeties (I'm assuming 2).

194

Doug
ID: 57352917
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 12:08

Re: 192, an alternate reference for those who don't know is to just rent the movie "Dodgeball"

195

Trip
Sustainer
ID: 13961611
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 12:12

One more thing Guru.

Can you please define the max # of players by position. I'm really only concerned about Kickers, Team Defense, and Quarterback.

196

youngroman
ID: 298482214
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 12:18

Re 192, 194: you can also get the good old Herbie Goes Bananas

197

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 12:46

Trip:

Team defense safeties are worth 3. It's already in the table above [post 184].

We have no stated max per position, although Fanball seems to max out at 20, so I have set everything at 20.

198

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 12:56

YR[191] - the AOL version (powered by Fanball) is interesting, but I am very leery of anything from AOL. The Fanball price is reasonable for a bird in the hand.

It sounds like Trip is moving his AAA league from Fanball to AOL. I'll let him be the guinea pig.

199

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 13:08

Fanball had an option to shuffle the schedule from last year. I figured, "Why Not?"

Now I know why not. Unfortunately, it set all of the second games equal to the first games. So, I'm going to have to re-enter the second game of each doubleheader manually.

This is just an alert that the team schedules are currently under construction. I'll post a note when they are completed.

200

Doug
ID: 57352917
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 13:17

While Leggestand is up in the draft^2, I got to wondering where that handle comes from. I've heard of (and witnessed) a kegstand, but never a leggestand.

201

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 18:59

OK, the league schedule is now set.

202

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 20:09

Sorry for the delay everyone...was out of town at a wedding and had no cpu access.

Doug, my last name is Legge (leg), and in my college glory days, I was a big fan of the kegstand. As most people called me by my last name, they started calling them leggestand's when I was doing one, and it has been my handle ever since. I haven't done a kegstand in at least a month, though...

203

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Aug 07, 2005, 20:19

Based on the experience of recent Invitational leagues, I'd expect the draft to take about 16 days. Last year's draft took 15 days, but was one round shorter than we'll have this year. The RIBC draft took 21 days, but that league had 16 managers and 25 rounds.

I think we should aim to finish no later than Sept 4. The NFL opening game is Thursday, Sept. 8. Thus, we should plan to start the draft no later than Friday, August 19.

We applied a 6 hour clock in the RIBC, and I think that worked fine. There will be a moratorium period between 11pm and 7am Eastern time, during which the clock is suspended. I realize that if you are on the west coast, that means the clock starts at 4am Pacific time. However, you will either already be on the clock at the end of the prior evening, or you will have until at least 10am PT to make your pick.

If there are times that your access may be limited, you may delegate another manager to make a pick from a queue. We have used the Kafenatid draft software for several leagues, and it has generally run very smoothly.

Thus, unless there is significant feedback to the contrary, I will plan to start the clock at 7am ET on Friday, August 19. More explicit instructions will follow next week.

Those who pick at the endpoints do not get a 12 hour clock. The purpose of the clock is to give you a chance to notice that your pick is due. It is not to give you 6 hours to ponder each pick.

204

holt
ID: 39737722
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 08:17

does a blocked extra point count as a blocked kick?

205

holt
ID: 39737722
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 08:20

i guess i'm assuming blocked kick only means blocked field goal attempts. it doesn't include extra points or punts - right?

206

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 08:28

Blocked kick includes field goals, extra points, and punts.

207

holt
ID: 39737722
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 08:58

ok - thanks. AOL fantasy manager allows scoring for all 3 of those individually.

208

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 09:44

Four spots left to choose from and one of them is the 4th pick. Kind of surprises me. I had the 11th pick last year, IIRC, and my choices were 11, 12, 13, or 14.

209

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 11:03

I think I really went against the grain by not taking #3 overal, and taking #14 instead; I'll have more about why in my rationals later.

210

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 11:09

I selected #13 last year, and thought it worked out well. I almost took that slot again.

Motley, who won it all last year, had the 12th pick. Goatlocker had the 14th pick, got skipped for his first turn (essentially starting his draft with default picks at #27 and #28), and still made it to the second round of the playoffs.

So this league's brief history has treated those at the back end of the draft quite well.

Meanwhile, those selecting 1-3 last year all missed the playoffs.

211

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 11:23

Was going to mention that in the qualifier, I ended up drafting from the 12 slot too, and got caught with Barlow as my "stud" rb. I ended up having a team very similar to MC's.

212

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 11:44

I certainly have a reason that I elected the 5th pick this time around. Last year was more like "That's all that was left." I chose 12th last year because I knew I would be able to get Barlow there and Henry at 2.03. Strategy: this game is all about strategy.

I would have much preferred a higher pick last season. Leggestand has something interesting to explain. He was the second to choose last season, and took the 5th pick. This year, he had the 6th choice and elected to draft 11th, with 4-6 still available. I look forward to the rationales.

Incidentally, I toyed with the notion of selecting the same spot as last year based on my results. But obviously the results I achieved were not based on drafting, so I decided to take a different spot. I think it is possible to draft a great team from any draft position. The key is getting good values from each pick, no matter when the pick occurs. Those values are always available.

213

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 12:41

I saved the Fanball League Rules page as a pdf file so that league outsiders could review the specs. Here is the link:
http://rotoguru1.com/footdata/RIFC2005-rules.pdf

Other leagues using Fanball or Fanball derivative systems should have a page that looks like this. Please compare your setup to this, and let me know if there are any differences. It is always possible that I have coded something incorrectly, or that there is a better way to code something.

A few caveats:
1. At the end of the draft, all undrafted players will be effectively put on waivers for 48 hours, or until all NFL preseason games have been played, whichever is later. Waiver claims for these players will be administered manually, and will be based on the inverse of our draft² order (i.e., Bandos will have top priority, and Sludge will be last.) After those waiver claims are processed, all non-roster players will be free agents, subject to the normal waiver rules for dropped players.

2. All TDs will be scored for all players. The Fanball definitions probably allow a few to be unscored, but those points will be added in manually.

3. Claiming priorities for free agents and waivers will be integrated. This will require weekly Commissioner intervention, since (based on last year's experience), those two priority lists were processed independently by Fanball. This means if a manager gets a player via a Wednesday free agent claim, his waiver priority cycles to the bottom for waivers as well as for future free agent claims. Following each of the first six weeks, these priorities will reset based on reverse standings, after which there will be no further resets (other than to adjust for actual claims.)

214

Sludge
ID: 14411118
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 13:25

So this league's brief history...

Hah! I get a kick out of that.

215

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 13:36

Are you implying that the scientist in you would never allow for analysis based on such a qualifier?

216

Doug
ID: 21716317
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 14:13

How do we determine eligibility for the growing trend of "hybrid" players who are listed as DE/LB, etc. What's the "official" determination of positional eligibility for this league?

217

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 14:26

Whatever Fanball says. I've never seen any football players with multiple position eligibility.

The guys you are talking about, I belive, are mostly labeled as D-Linemen.

218

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 14:29

A player's position eligibility is at whatever position is listed at Fanball. I don't think we have any capability to assign a player to an alternative position. And I'm not aware that they list any players with dual position eligibility.

219

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 14:50

Terrell Suggs BAL LB
Dwight Freeny IND DL
Mike Vrabel NWE LB/TE

Ha. Just kidding. Vrabel is not TE-eligible.

They just don't do that in Fantasy Football. Not yet anyway.

220

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 15:27

I wanted #3 because I wanted my shot at Rich Cannon this year......then he goes and retires.

221

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 17:32

MC- Am I reading correctly? You tried to pick a spot to draft Kevan Barlow and Travis Henry. These were your first 2 picks, and you won the draft?

Last year's waiver wire won a lot of leagues.

222

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 21:58

So when do we start trading picks? ;-)

223

Motley Crue
ID: 1774168
Mon, Aug 08, 2005, 22:54

MC- Am I reading correctly? You tried to pick a spot to draft Kevan Barlow and Travis Henry. These were your first 2 picks, and you won the draft?

Last year's waiver wire won a lot of leagues.

You read correctly, I intended to choose those players. And I won this league.

The waiver wire was fairly worthless to me. I picked up Collins, McGahee, McGee, Indianapolis defense, John Abraham, Ed Reed, and Nate Kaeding as free agents. I traded for Jerry Porter. I won because of that. Not because of waivers.

224

BoNkA
ID: 371090
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 01:10

Ed Reed as a FA? Jeesh. I've had him since 2 years ago in my keeper league. I love him.

225

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 03:42

Looking at the draft order, and considering I sometimes work some long hours, I was wondering if anyone in the top 3 of the draft would be able to take daytime ques for me if it so happens my pick is near. I work days 99 percent of the time. No computer access at work.

Secondly, with the draft order set, are we still going to wait until the 16th to get it started?

226

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 08:58

see post 203 - we are going to wait until Aug 19 to get started.

227

BoNkA
Donor
ID: 019742310
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 10:24

August 19th I'm planning on driving out to school and currently have no internet. I'm waiting on a call today from the cable company about getting it set up, hopefully that day. If not, I will try to get to my friend's house to hop on and check in on the draft. I will let you guys know what's going on when I find out.

228

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 11:01

BoNkA: Since your first pick is immediately before mine, you could send me a queue for that pick. Alternatively, if you can provide a phone number, I'd be glad to call you when it is your pick to update you and get your pick.

229

BoNkA
ID: 43724910
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 11:24

If I have any doubts of having internet access that day, I will leave a queue for my first pick. I'm still waiting on the phone call, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on yet.

230

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 11:58

I just remembered an open issue from last year that we have not discussed yet.

Should there be any sort of "home field advantage" for the playoffs? As you may recall, in the first round last year, the 5-8 seeds all won. In real life, the better seeds get home field advantage, but there is nothing like that in the fantasy game.

How could this work? Presumably, the team with the better seed would get some sort of point supplement. It could be a fixed amount (e.g., 5 points), or it could be the average point differential for the two teams (e.g., last year's #1 seed averaged 118 FP/G, and the #8 seed averaged 106 FP/G, so the supplement could be all or a portion of that difference, perhaps subject to a min and max). Or, it could be related to the gap (if any) in winning percentage, or the gap in seeding.

Based on last year's results, the nrrowest first round margin was an 8.68 point loss for #7 vs. #2. In the second round, #8 beat #5 by less than one point.

I've never played in a league with this type of provision, but it seems like something modest might be warranted. Any thoughts?

231

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 12:14

I sure would have taken it last year.
Just what I would have needed to beat Guru.

Let me think about it and I respond later.

Cliff

232

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 12:14

I like the idea for the difference in seeds being the differential... so #1 gets 7 points (having won the regular season, that doesn't seem too extreme), #2 gets 5 points, #3 gets 3 points, #4 gets 1 point.

I'd say these could carry over to round 2 as well, but definitely nobody gets home field advantage in the championship game.

233

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 12:16

By carry over to round 2, I mean they would be readjusted in round 2 depending on the seeds who advance. So the biggest possible advantage in round 2 is only 4 points (#1 vs. #5, #2 vs #6, #3 vs #7, or #4 vs #8).

234

BoNkA
Donor
ID: 019742310
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 14:26

Just got everything straightened out. The cable guy is supposed to be coming the 19th between 3-5 pm EDT. I'm most likely leaving to drive out before noon EDT, so I will leave a queue with Guru for my first pick and will also leave my cell number for him to get ahold of me when it's my round 2 pick since I'm not going to leave a queue for that. I can scramble somewhere else for internet access if I have to, so it's not a big deal. As long as I know when I'm on the clock.

235

Motley Crue
ID: 1774168
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 14:48

Should there be any sort of "home field advantage" for the playoffs?

Not a points-based advantage. What happened last year was a complete fluke. Anyone who has been playing head-to-head fantasy football for a while would probably admit that. It won't happen again this season, I guarantee.

I said this last year and I'll repeat now: the advantage is playing a lower-ranked opponent. If I am the second best team, I get to play #7. That's a big advantage. We don't need to tack on points to make sure I have an even better chance of winning.

Home field advantage is a big aspect of the NFL Playoffs, but we don't necessarily have to mirror that philosophy. I am in favor of keeping the status quo from last season.

If you want to ensure more top ranked teams make the second and third rounds, have 1 vs 2 and 3 vs 4. Then one of the Top 4 would always make the Championship.

236

BoNkA
ID: 46729914
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 15:29

I wouldn't say it's a fluke. I wouldn't mind the addition of a few points depending on seeds. We can always make it that the home team gets a percentage of their points scored that week added to their score rather than set points. Instead of say 5 points, it could be 5 percent of their score. As the seeds go down, the percentage goes down. This way the players need to perform well to get any kind of decent advantage. Just like it would be in the NFL.

This is just an idea to toss around. I won't be upset if it stays the way it is now.

237

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 15:46

Motley makes valid points. On the other hand, his team was a good example of one which was performing much better at the end of the season than in the early weeks. His #6 seed was a function of his team's overall performance, but the #3 seed didn't get much of a "reward" by getting to face him in the playoffs. I realize that the same is true in the real NFL, although the higher seeded team at least gets home field advantage.

During the regular season in the NFL last year, home teams won roughly 56% of the time. (NFL playoff results are comparatively irrelevant, since they are seeded.)

My recollection is that odds makers generally attribute home field advantage to be worth 3 points. Does anyone know how 3 points compares to the average number of points scored by a team. How much of a percentage boost is that?

238

Doug
ID: 21716317
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 16:24

In my experience, it's not at all a fluke for the "underdogs" to win 40-50% of fantasy playoff games. A lot of times those "last" teams into the playoffs got there because of a late season surge (good waiver wire pickups, etc.) after being mediocre most of the year, and are actually as good or better at that point than the #3-5 teams. I think the top teams deserve some sort of bonus for having been consistently good all season, and playing a lower seed isn't much of an advantage necessarily.

If you want seeding to be an advantage (rather than granting bonus points for home field), then make it so that the #1 seed gets to pick their opponent for round 1, then the #2 squad gets to pick their opponent (unless #1 picked them), and so on. I would predict that at least half the time, #1 would choose to face someone other than #8.

239

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 17:12

Home Field Advantage could be as easy as picking your playoff opponent, couldn't it?

The 1 seed chooses, followed by the 2 seed, then 3, and so on....

Just a thought...

or, as I just read, what Doug said in the previous post....duh.

240

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 17:12

241

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 17:14

I wouldn't be opposed to that. I doubt the website can handle it, though. It's very unusual.

242

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 17:16

The site could handle it. I already have to enter the playoff matchups manually.

243

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 17:18

Perhaps the top seed should only be allowed to choose one of the #5-8 seeds. It would suck to be the #2 seed, suffer a big injury right at the end of the regular season, and then have the top seed decide to face you.

244

Doug
ID: 21716317
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 17:32

Agreed. Likewise for #2 and #3. Then #4 faces whoever is left.

245

Doug
ID: 21716317
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 17:35

I still think a minor bonus would be reasonable... but would make it smaller... maybe 4 for 1 seed, 3 for 2 seed, etc... or even half that.

Highest remaining seed gets a 2 point bonus in round 2... higher seed in other game gets 1 point (or again, half that).

246

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 34743414
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 17:53

I think that last years situation is a little less likely to reproduce itself with the new waiver/free agent system in place.

I don't think you can really give any team a fixed points lead going into a game carried over from the regular season. Choice of opponents is an interesting idea though.

247

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 09, 2005, 19:33

I am very much opposed to giving people a headstart. It just doesn't feel right to me. IAC has a point, too, that the distribution of waiver and free agent players is likely to be more... random this season, based on our new system. This should make it more difficult for someone to get very good at the end based on good waiver pickups.

On the other hand, sometimes managers are very lucky picking up free agents. So a team that starts poorly could still improve substantially by making shrewd FA acquisitions. Not to belabor it.

248

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 12:02

Let's put this up to a vote, just to see what sentiments are out there. I don't think this is something that necessarily needs to be settled prior to the start of the draft, but we might as well get some formal feedback.

Question: How should the playoffs be set up?
(A) Same as last year. Standard 1-8 seeding based on regular season record, and no "home field advantage" should be given to any team by any method (other than that inherent in the normal seeding process).

(B) Home field advantage will be granted by allowing the top ranked regular season team to pick his first round playoff opponent from among the #5-8 seeds. #2 and #3 seeds will then get to pick their opponents. Once the first round is set up, all teams follow a normal bracket (i.e., there is no subsequent reseeding).

(C) Home field advantage will be granted to better playoff seeds in the first two playoff rounds. The advantage will consist of a point supplement, with the amount of the supplement TBD.

If choice (C) should get some traction, we can refine how the point supplement would be determined.

Please vote for your first and second choice.

249

Doug
ID: 21716317
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 12:12

B then C

250

BoNkA
ID: 427411012
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 13:41

C then A

251

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 13:43

A then B

252

Sludge
ID: 27751510
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 13:45

B then A.

Obviously I'm going to abide by the league's decision, but I will say this: If I were invited to participate in a league that gave higher playoff seeds a head-start in the form of free points, I would decline the invitation without any hesitation.

253

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 13:48

There is a big difference between B & C (not forgetting that B is a selection of opponent and C is a point "head start"). Mainly, no reseeding for round 2 for Choice B and the lack of not reseeding option for rd 2 in Choice C.

So I am requesting the vote to be amended to also include whether or not to reseed for round 1 only or both rounds 1 & 2 for either Choice B or C.

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

My vote is B, reseed both rounds 1 & 2
2nd choice - A

***********

Reason not C is because last year the 8th seed, Guru, was favored over me, the #1 seed, by alot because I hit a bad week on the NFL schedule for my team and injuries to my RB's. It would have taken a big point "head start" to have had a chance to win. I was already resigned to a loss. And I lost by about 40 points.

However, if I would have had a choice of opponents, then Guru would not have been my selection for an opponent (neither would MC nor GL) and maybe the #1 seed would have made it into the 2nd round.

Just my $.02

254

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 14:14

Vote:

A then a distant B

255

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 14:17

If I were invited to participate in a league that gave higher playoff seeds a head-start in the form of free points, I would decline the invitation without any hesitation.

Me, too.

256

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 14:53

Re: 253, do you mean if the #1 seed wins first round, then he picks his second round opponent from the two lowest remaining seeds? (Rather than just automatically facing the winner of the 4 vs. x matchup)?

If so, I think this would be a separate discussion/vote (it's a "sub-B" issue), and to avoid overcomplicating would request that we shelve the matter until and unless B wins the initial vote.

257

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 16:30

I guess I'm not reacting to C the same as Motley and Sludge, but the early returns suggest that it's likely to be moot anyway.

I agree with Doug that if Option B seems to be the popular choice, we'll separately address the issue of reseeding the 2nd round. I think that's a topic that needs some more thought.

258

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 17:44

A then B

259

Hubble
ID: 59562922
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 18:33

Maybe i'm just dumb... but isn't giving the choice to #1 to select his opponent not fair to #5-6-7 depending who is selected? Lets say #1 decided to play #5 for whatever reason... #5 did his best to finnish in front of #8... why whould he be punnished? What advantage does #5 has over #8?

I know i don't realy belong in that discussion since i'm only AAA :)

But that is the whole strategy of drafting isn't it? We still have to think of the last weeks and the opponent of our player that we draft or pick along the way... the whole game is about preparing for the playoff... that means it should influence your decision all year... That means that in week 8 for example you may decide to trade away Tomlinson because your almost certain to be part of playoff... but you realize that LT is going to have nasty defense in weeks 13-17... (i didnt check btw) You might wanna trade him high to a team to would be happy to take his points in week 9-11... and therefor prepare your team for playoff... Be agressive on F/A pick-up with long-term into mind... i dunno... but i would be very desappointed to see either option B or C selected...

Is weekly waiver selected on weekly result? So not the worst ranked team (i.e. #14) gets first priority... but rather the team that did the worst in the last week... Of course that could motivate someone to punt a week to get first choice... sigh... i dunno...

Hoping to see the wisedom of RIFC into action...

cheers all...

260

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 19:09

Weekly waiver is based on YTD result, but only for the first 6 weeks.

Hubble does raise a good point, though. If the #5 seed happens to have a tough schedule for the first playoff week, he could get "rewarded" by getting selected to face the top seed. Method B provides benefits to the top 3 seeds, but there is no relative advantage for the #5 seed vs. the #8 seed.

Maybe there are so many potential unintended consequences that we are best advised to leave things well enough alone.

261

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 19:20

Since when is it reward to finish 5th - 8th out of a 14 team league. Your reward is going to the playoffs to have a chance to win. I thought the reward was for finishing higher than the middle of the pack.

262

Hubble
ID: 59562922
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 19:24

Football is a matchup game... not consistency and reward of your consistency...

263

Hubble
ID: 59562922
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 19:28

I wouldn't mind to see Top 2 teams getting a bye week... But that would be boring i guess...

Beside, isn't leader a regular season selected to go in RIFC?... oh this is RIFC... crap that doesnt work....

264

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 20:41

I disagree... I think there should be a reward for consistency... moreso in fantasy football than in real football. There's enough randomness as it is, and your performance over 13 weeks should definitely count for something... a significant something. Everyone pretty much agrees with this, otherwise we wouldn't normally say that #1 faces #8... instead it would be a random playoff seeding for the top 8 teams.

Really, the point we're debating is HOW MUCH reward the top seeds deserve (not IF), and for those who think they deserve a bit more than an automatic #8 matchup (self included), we're coming up with one or two ways to potentially give those top teams a tiny bit more of a reward without it becoming a lopsided affair.

In short, I'm FAR less concerned about the #5 seed getting the short end of the stick than I am about the #1 seed getting the short end of the stick. The 5-8 teams all get a shot at the playoffs... but I don't think it's any big punishment to the #5 seed that they "might" get selected to face #1 in the first round. You want a better matchup? Finish in the top 4. But I'd hate to see #1 or #2 get screwed by a miserable first round matchup.

In fact, NOT allowing the top 3 seeds to pick opponents can lead to funny outcomes. I admit I did this in one league two years ago, but it was some free public yahoo league I didn't care about much, but still wanted to win just for fun, so I didn't worry too much over the ethics of it. A few teams were abandoned before the preseason... such is the nature of those leagues. Anyway, it was more just an experiment, I was the #3 seed going into last week of regular season, and intentionally threw my game to become the #4 seed and end up facing the projected #5 seed, because the #6 seed was a total beast of a team at that point. I won two rounds, and ended up losing to that friggin' #6 seed in the championship! IIRC, he would have beaten me in the first round if I had faced him, so at least this way I made it to the championship game. It was obviously memorable though, in part just because it was an interesting experiment, but also it is the only time I can ever remember throwing a game. I'm normally too competitive/ethical to do that, but there's an exception to every rule. I wouldn't do it in this league either... but why create the temptation?

265

Hubble
ID: 59562922
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 21:04

You wanna reward consistency, then don't make this a match-up league but rather a point league (dunno the proper word...)

U realize that u could score 150 points everyweek and still be 0-12 by season end. The same would be true that u could be 12-0 and having a weekly average of 80 points... I just say that everyone could have reason to ask for a reward, and when we lose we always think it is unfair and we try to analyse the statistic to find THE reason why we lost... Upset and surprises from underdog happens in real life and it should happen here too. The other reason is to encourage bottom team to keep fighting to the end... cause anything can happend in playoffs. It would be cool to recreate a homefield advantage... but IMHO giving points or selecting your opponent is just totally exagerated...

I think the rules are as good as they could be and just wanted to share my unasked-for point-de-vue. I won't trouble ur vote anymore, sorry about that.

266

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 34743414
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 21:05

I'm normally too competitive/ethical to do that, but there's an exception to every rule. I wouldn't do it in this league either... but why create the temptation?

I wouldn't necessarily consider this unethical as much as I would taking advantage of the rules in place.

Don't most playoff secured teams rest their "SuperStud" players in week 17? This of course gives them a less competitive team for that week, but their eye is on the idea of putting in the BEST possible playoff team.

267

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 21:52

Let's keep the vote going to see where the overall sentiment lies. So far, we have 3 votes for A (no change), 3 votes for B (pick opponent), and 1 for C (point supplement).

If anyone wants to change their vote, feel free. We also need to hear from the other half of the league.

268

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 22:18

If this were the playoffs, I would award 3 points for B, for being the best, then 2 points for A, being 2nd best, and no points for C, because I dont like C.

269

Athletics Guy
ID: 43525254
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 22:20

B then C

270

Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 029463114
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 23:08

This playoff vote changes the whole landscape. You choose your wife and brand of beer, but you earn you playoff slot and receive the "luck of the draw", without bonus points. My wife should get bonus points for being stuck with me.

1st choice A
2nd choice A

271

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Aug 10, 2005, 23:39

Taxman's right, Guru. Why is the result from last season in need of change? There are rules and then there are changes to the game. This represents the latter. Why fix what was not broken? What happened last season was a coincidence.

You and I made the final. We played better than everyone else. Is that such an unbelievable concept? Luck is certainly involved, but taking advantage of it shouldn't be construed as having an unfair advantage.

272

Sludge
ID: 14411118
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 00:23

I voted for it, not because anything is broken, but because I think it's a novel idea worthy of a try.

273

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 03:36

I as well voted for B because of "novelty", not because of last years result.

274

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 08:37

I did not raise the issue because something was "broken". I raised it because it was discussed during the playoffs last year, and was worthy of a more thorough vetting this preseason. Undoubtedly, the results last year prompted the observation that there was nothing akin to a home field advantage for the top playoff seeds.

There are plenty of features that aren't broken, but that might be improved with tweaks here and there. This seemed like an issue with that sort of potential.

It's interesting to me that the feelings seem to be running so strongly on this one. Most of the issues we've voted on haven't seemed to be a big deal to most.

275

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 09:19

Fair enough, Guru.

I just noticed that AAA started drafting already. Now I'm jealous! I wanna get this show on the road.

276

Bandos
Sustainer
ID: 279492419
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 09:46

I vote A.

However, a first round bye for 1+2 and only 6 playoff teams would be ideal. Not to add any more to the maelstorm:)

277

BoNkA
Donor
ID: 019742310
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 10:18

I'll change my vote to B then A.

278

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 10:25

Still waiting to hear from leggestand and Ender (and me). Current vote is 5 for A and 6 for B. Option C is clearly off the table.

My recollection is that we considered a 6 team format with byes prior to last season, but decided against it. (Maybe we never formally voted on it, but I thought we at least discussed it.) For some reason, I was thinking that the idea had already been effectively dismissed.

279

Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 11:42

A only

I'm glad C is off the table. I took some time to thini about this one before posting and I am firmly on Sludge and MC's side. My first reaction was "No way, and I wouldn't have played if I knew C was the rule" I didn't post it because I was afraid I felt it was a bit over the top, but upon reflection I simply don't want things to be that way. I say that as one of the guys who was ousted in the first round.

I don't like B either, but wouldn't necessarily make decision about joining based on that rule. Their is nothing wrong with the traditional system. It WAS a fluke that ALL the lower seeds won. In every league it is no surprise if 1 or even 2 of them do, but all 4 is extremely rare.

280

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 12:20

I'm going to vote for A as well. Although we have yet to hear from leggestand, the vote currently stands at 7A, 6B, and since option B cannot attain a majority, we will leave the playoff rules unchanged from last year.

I was intrigued by option B, but wasn't sure I understood all of the implications, not the least of which was whether the second week should also be subject to reseeding. In a close vote, I was unwilling to vote for the change when I didn't think I understood all of the ramifications.

I would like to suggest the following course of action for this season:

1. When we get to the playoffs, I want to go though a "mock" B-type process, essentially tracking a "what if" playoff scheme. I want to think through that process in "real time", given all of the issues that are relevant at that time.

2. Next season, I want to reopen this issue, including not only Option B, but perhaps also discussing once more the "6 teams with 2 byes" option. Option C, however, seems to be "permanently dead".

281

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 12:37

Wow, I think that's the first time I ever voted for something that won in this league.

I like the idea of mocking up Alternative B when the playoffs roll around. I'm eager to see what managers will do and how it will all pan out.

It's hard to go from 8 playoff teams down to 6. Cutting people out of the playoffs is nasty business, especially when they get used to things being a certain way. However, it would definitely heighten the challenge of the league. I'd be willing to play under that scenario. And then the folks who really tear up the regular season get their "reward" and that argument is settled. I'll vote for that next season (assuming I'm around) if you want to go that way.

282

Sludge
ID: 27751510
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 14:02

I've been playing in a league that has 1st round byes for quite a few years now. I hate it. (Anectdotal evidence alert!) It seems that every time I get the bye, I invariably do well during the first week of playoffs when I'm not playing anyone! Gah! Booooorrrrring! Then I'll lose in the 2nd round. Sure I would have lost anyway, but at least I would have had the pleasure of beating the snot out of someone in the 1st round.

283

leggestand
ID: 52731913
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 15:01

Sorry everyone...on vacation until Saturday night.

I vote B then C. I think it's a neat idea to have the 1 seed choose who they face.

Again, sorry I have been unable to check daily, so, if something else comes up for a vote, I may not be checking in until Friday...

284

leggestand
ID: 52731913
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 15:02

Crap, now I see the issue has been decided. Oh well, my voice has been heard!

285

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Aug 11, 2005, 15:07

Yeah, who gave you permission to go on vacation anyway, legge?

286

Kyle
ID: 417461123
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 00:46

Anyone try to print this forum out recently... I am in the AA league and wanted to read what was happening in the big boy league and see what all the ins and outs of the rules are as i left for a week on vacation. Problem is it's more pages than Peyton's TDs

287

Athletics Guy
ID: 43525254
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 01:21

The link in post 213 sums things up pretty well.

288

Sludge
ID: 14411118
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 01:59

Any time you're ready, Guru, set up the draft thread. We can get a few picks under our collective belts before the official start.

289

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 07:57

Yes! Good man, sludge. I am dying to get going. Too much talk and no action makes Motley Crue a dull boy.

290

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 34743414
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 09:12

I'd be ready to plug in a few too (off the clock of course).

291

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 09:17

I'll set up the draft thread a day or two early, but there was some sentiment (including mine) that an early start is not necessarily desirable.

Patience, grasshoppers!

292

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 09:35

Team Defense Points
(the following points apply only to team defenses)
Sack 1
Interception 2
Fumble recovered 2
TD 6
Safety 3
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

Can we take a vote on bumping up Int/fum rec to 3 and sack's to 2 in team def??

293

BoNkA
Donor
ID: 019742310
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 11:02

I think the team defense scoring is fine. If it were bumped like that, they'd be scoring the same as an IDP doing the same thing, which isn't exactly fair considering there's a 10 man difference in getting that one thing done.

294

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 11:12

Yeah, so lets even things up by making Team defense scoring worth 10% of IDP scoring.

Personally I've had enough rules changes. I would vote to keep the scoring as it is now.

295

Athletics Guy
ID: 43525254
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 13:40

If anyone was planning on trading picks, now's a good time.

296

BoNkA
Donor
ID: 019742310
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 14:15

Anyone want to do a Mike Ditka and trade me their entire draft? I'll give up my first rounder for those extra picks. :D

297

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Aug 12, 2005, 15:10

I doubt there will be much trading of picks until the draft actually begins. Most people chose a specific position in the draft*draft and then based their strategy around it--at least last year they did. There weren't any trades until the 3rd or 4th round, I believe. There weren't many trades at all during the draft, either.

298

holt
ID: 347411319
Sat, Aug 13, 2005, 20:49

is the RIFC using kafenatid's 'on the clock' this year?

299

Doug
ID: 31761321
Sat, Aug 13, 2005, 22:14

yes

300

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 09:31

You know things are slow around here when there haven't been any posts made in the Politics Forum in almost 24 hours. That's got to be approaching a record.

301

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 14:56

"Are we their yet? Are we their yet?"

But seriously... can we get this started now? I know D-Day is supposed to be Friday... but I'm trigger happy!

:)

302

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 18:40

My buddy is a trainer for the Chargers, and he said Tomlinson has been hiding a bad knee sprain all summer, and he tweaked it yesterday...just a caution to those 7 people picking in front of me.

303

Athletics Guy
ID: 43525254
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 18:51

I guess I'll cross him off my list now. Thanks for the info Kev! And I'm sure Sludge thanks you too.

304

FRICK
ID: 3410101718
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 21:24

Guru, I am commishing the AA league and had a couple of questions for you.

1. The league is using decimal scoring, does fanball let you chose how many decimals? AOL lets you chose, 1, 2 or 3. I know this is minor, but I am trying to mirror the RIFC as closely as possible.

2. Can you please repost all the final scoring rules.

3. How is the schedule set up. AOL requires the commish to set up the schedule when using double headers. Does fanball do the automatically.

Thanks you,

Frick

305

Trip
Sustainer
ID: 13961611
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 21:38

Frick. Here is the link. Also see post 123.

Setting of schedules can be a bit of a pain, but here is how I did it.

Set the league so that each team only plays 1 game per week and then have fanball automatically assign a schedule. I then reversed the schedule which was generated such that each team plays the same team they played in week 1'st 1st game in the 2nd game of week 13, and the team they play in the 1st game of week 2 in the 2nd game of the 12th week.

This will work for all weeks except for week 7 since if you followed that scenario the 1st and 2nd game matchups would be the same. To prevent this, I had the 2nd week of game 7 equal the 1st week of game 6, the 2nd week of game 6 equal the 1st game in week 6, and the 2nd game of week 8 equal the first game of week 6.

1st game - 2nd game
1 13
2 12
3 11
4 10
5 9
6 8
7 6
8 7
9 5
10 4
11 3
12 2
13 1

306

FRICK
ID: 3410101718
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 21:41

Thanks Trip, I just wanted to make sure that there hadn't been any rule changes that were made after the pdf file was posted.

Double thanks for the schedule help.

Frick

307

Doug
ID: 21716317
Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 23:22

FWIW, I'm not fond of playing the same "pair" of teams in week 3 and 11, 4 and 10, etc. etc. YMMV. Also, it clusters your both your games against the 6-7-8 teams in the middle of the season, rather than spreading them (often teams have a "weak spot" during the season with one or two key players sitting out with injuries, etc.). So, just an alternate arrangement that, IMHO, spreads the scheduling more evenly.

1st game - 2nd game
1 7
2 8
3 9
4 10
5 11
6 12
7 13
8 1
9 2
10 3
11 4
12 5
13 6

308

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 08:38

kev, post 302:

Not funny. Tomlinson is my cornerstone in a $$ keeper league that I won last season.

NOT funny.

309

Sludge
ID: 14411118
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 09:29

My buddy is a trainer for the Chargers, and he said Tomlinson has been hiding a bad knee sprain all summer, and he tweaked it yesterday...just a caution to those 7 people picking in front of me.

Unless this information becomes public, I can assure you that you won't have to worry about making that tough decision, kev. So rest easy, and don't worry your little head about it.

310

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 09:41

FRICK[304] - we use 2 decimal places. None of our formulas would cause the 3rd decimal place to be used, IIRC.

As for schedule, I set up schedule "gaps" so that teams would not face each other twice during the "bye week period" (weeks 3-10) to the extent possible. Other than that, I tried to get decent separation between the "matching" weeks. Here is my pattern:

1 9
2 8
3 13
4 10
5 12
6 11
7 2
8 1
9 3
10 5
11 4
12 7
13 6

311

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 09:46

So we do play everyone twice. Somehow I thought we missed playing everyone else twice each.

312

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 15:01

Just catching up on all the posts that I missed during vacation and saw MC post 212:

Leggestand has something interesting to explain. He was the second to choose last season, and took the 5th pick. This year, he had the 6th choice and elected to draft 11th, with 4-6 still available.

Good question...I wish I could explain my thought process now, but you will just have to wait. One thing is for sure, I am not looking for the 2005 version of Barlow and Henry.

313

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 15:07

HAHAHA. Ha. Funny. Everyone's a comedian.

I wasn't saying you should explain now. I was merely musing as to how it would be revealed once the rationales start going up. I have patience. I know you've got something rolling around in your cranium telling you what to do. Look forward to reading it. My explanation is much simpler this season than last. I look forward to posting it.

314

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Aug 17, 2005, 09:11

I have patience.

Mine is running thin! We are so close to starting, and watching all the QL's already drafting (and AAA already posting some rationales) has gotten me ready to go.

315

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 17, 2005, 13:49

I will unleash "On the Clock" in a few minutes. If Sludge and anyone after him want to start picking, go ahead. The clock will not start until Friday morning, however, so early picks are strictly optional.

I'll set up a draft thread once the program is turned on.

316

Toral
ID: 53422511
Mon, Aug 22, 2005, 15:54

I'm pretty sure that the approved playoff format is A from 248 but it would be a help to the minor leagues if Guru could state the RIFC playoff rules here, so they may be followed.

Toral

317

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 22, 2005, 16:04

Yes, A is the choice. To clarify, the top 6 seeds are based on W/L record, and the 7-8 seeds are based on total points.

We are going to do a "mock" playoff seeding using option B as well, just to see how it would run under actual conditions.

318

The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Fri, Aug 26, 2005, 17:36

Guru,

coldwater coyotes pointed out that the PDF saved and linked to in post 213 does not state that IDPs receive points for return yardage. I know the operating assumption is that they do but if the page can be updated to reflect that it will be less confusing. Thanks!

319

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 26, 2005, 22:02

That page is straight from Fanball, so it can't be easily modified.

Fanball's standard practice is to credit return yardage to IDPs, so I guess they don't call attention to it.

320

The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Fri, Aug 26, 2005, 22:03

Thanks for the clarification.

Forum: footPage 4251Subject: RIFC 2005: pre-draft discussion

Forum: foot
Page 4251
Subject: RIFC 2005: pre-draft discussion