Self Editor

Forum: foot
Page 4859
Subject: Gurupie 24 2007 Off-Season Discussion

Posted by: Ref - Donor [539581218] Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 16:51

Previous Thread

We have our "Competition Committee" formed.

The Committee consists of TB, bj21, Peter N, Great One and skinneej along with Cards and myself.

Feel free to discuss anything here. The committee will be corresponding via email and we will report here as we go along.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, May 01, 2007, 16:59

FWIW, I'm looking for a QB. Have a lot of ways I can go to make this a good deal for both of us--just depends on your needs.

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sat, May 05, 2007, 17:06

Love the new thread. Scroll free. I finally got back into town and put my thoughts together. Some very good discussion already.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, May 18, 2007, 12:08

If others would like to get on the competition committee, email me. All discssions are being done via email. The two topics we're discussing right now are the proposals of IDP and Double Headers/realignment so you can play each div. mate twice and everyone else once.

You need to be able to play Devil's advocate on each topic. Even if you are against one of them we still need to put the best proposal out there before we vote on it, even if we end up voting against it.

Within the month we will be having a roll call on returning managers. We will be filling any open slots and taking care of dues. Remember we have a 50% credit coming this year from CBS, but we will have to upgrade the plaque. Still going to be cheaper than what we normally have to chip in.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, May 25, 2007, 11:45

Doug replaced Pete last week on the committee. We are actually going to end up discussing all the rule proposals (even have new ones). It's a little more work than some anticipated. I didn't hear from anyone else to volunteer and help form the rules though.

I have a few people who have expressed interest in joining our legaue. GL informed me last year that he was retiring from this league so we will need at least one new manager. I am going to start talking to the managers who have expressed interest since last year. I'll also be polling some managers in our league--esp our competition committee--for their thoughts on each manager applying. If you know someone who might be a good fit, please email me. Cards and I will be going through last year's managers and reviewing their participation before our invitations go out, but I don't readily recall any issues with our membership.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jun 05, 2007, 01:31

Invites are out. Email me if you didn't receive it.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jun 16, 2007, 12:18

As expected, everyone is returning except for GoatLocker. We will have his replacement named shortly. We really can't make any changes until CBS relaunches the site (expecting it any day now) but we can share his team until then.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 18, 2007, 02:21

Please welcome mjd to the league. He is replacing GL as the manager of the Chargers.

mjd
Sustainer
ID: 501381415
Mon, Jun 18, 2007, 16:45

Hey guys, Thanks for having me. I already know a few of you from other various leagues. I'm looking forward to some great competition. It's a great honor for me to be invited to join this league. I've been to the CBS site and I am semi familiar with it. I've also browsed the fireangel site. Very well organized. I did sign up on AIM. I'm mikelovesf. Odd name, but I'll take it.

I plan to be an active member. As far as trade offers, I will always respond and will give a counter offer 99.9% of the time if it's not what I'm looking for.

Most days I'm camped out on my laptop reading and researching my teams unless I'm rudely interrupted by work.(Rarely, I'm semi/self/unemployed and loving every minute of it.) Fantasy sports is my passion. Football and baseball, mainly. The only time I get real busy happens during hoops draft time, so I usually don't play any basketball. No day games today, so I had a few errands to run.

I guess I need to talk with GL, at his convenience, to discuss where he was headed with this team. Get some input from him.

Special thanks to Ref and St Louis Cards for their interest in me for the league.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Mon, Jun 18, 2007, 16:47

mjd,
Saw your email this morning, but didn't have time to answer it before I left for work.
Will get an answer to you this evening.

Cliff

mjd
Sustainer
ID: 501381415
Mon, Jun 18, 2007, 16:58

Thanks, GL. At your convenience. I'll be home for the duration and watching baseball tonight.

Perm Dude
ID: 22536187
Mon, Jun 18, 2007, 16:59

welcome, mjd!

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Mon, Jun 18, 2007, 23:28

Welcome, mjd. Good to have you. You need to make a trade offer to me or Great One within 72 hours. It doesn't matter what the offer is as long as it's made.

Just kidding. Take your time to look at the scoring rules and your keepers. Very fun league. I suggest looking at trade history and some previous threads to get a feel for the league.

Toral
ID: 52621719
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 03:55

mjd As far as trade offers, I will always respond and will give a counter offer 99.9% of the time

OK, guyz, let's test mjd out.

Let's flood mjd with completely ridiculous trade offers and see if he does, indeed, "give a counter offer 99.9% of the time".

;)
-------------------------------------

Welcome.

Toral

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 12:32

All,
Give him a chance to get his feet under him.
We talked on AIM for a long time last nite and I told him who to watch out for......j/k

Cliff

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 12:50

The sharks see fresh meat! LOL

mjd
Sustainer
ID: 501381415
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 13:24

Make me an offer I can't refuse. I need a good RB.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 13:30

mjd - shoot me an email and I'll give my home email, work email, cell phone, home address, girlfriends phone number etc... I also require that you check in daily during EST business hours as I get paid here to work on trades.

Surely Cliff wouldn't have warned you about me, now would he? :)

And on an encouraging note, don't be discouraged by the lack of talent on your squad, I turned mine around pretty quickly last season when I was the new guy (inheriting Priest Holmes and Pennington as my only "players").

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 14:24

Or email me. I have GO's girlfriend's number.

Peter N.
ID: 4152471
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 15:03

Welcome mjd!

What do you think about Dominick Davis for a good RB...err Dominick Williams???? ;-)

mjd
Sustainer
ID: 501381415
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 15:32

LOL, good one, Pete. If he's not a keeper, he'll be a great first round pick;o)

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 15:44

OK folks, not everyone is making a habit of seeing this thread since it's still only June, but want to give you all a heads up of what to be expecting in the near future.

Since our league is full again, we can begin to get some things done. We are not in a big hurry, but there are more issues this year than normal.

These are not nec. in a particular order...

1. We will be having our lottery draw to figure out the order of the first round.
2. We will have our fees email sent out (Cards went ahead and paid for the site to secure our discount).
3. We will start posting results from the rules committee review of the proposals for league discussion. The biggest and most complicated is the IDP proposal and the committee is moving slower than expected on this. (Btw could still use help on this if there are any volunteers who have the time).
4. We will entertain any other rules change proposals
5. We will start voting on these proposals. There is also a chance there will be multiple votes--esp with the IDP issues involved.
6. We will start to line up deadlines for Keepers and draft dates.

Again it seems early, but we have a lot to do. We are going to need strong participation to get these things moving when that time comes. I'd like to have the IDP proposal posted on here asap as it is a lot to chew on. We are working to make it as simple as possible.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 16:07

CBS NFL 2007 has been launched today. YOu're going ot need to get on your homepage and rearrange it to your liking.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 17:22

Here is the main difference that I see for this year:

Transactions after Thursday games - With the NFL adding more and more Thursday games, we understand the impact this has on your fantasy experience. Now, you can add/drop and trade players up until game time on Sundays even if there has been a game on Thursday or Saturday...of course those players who participated in games earlier in the week will be excluded.

They have also added this feature which could prove helpful or hurtful depending on how reliable it is:

Gameday Inactives - Is Fred Taylor going to play today? No need to sit around waiting for a fantasy writer to speculate on the situation, we'll post the gameday inactives right on your league's homepage as soon as they are announced on Sunday mornings.

Action Figure
ID: 20910
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 17:41

Great.

What address can I Pay Pal the league fee to?

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Tue, Jun 19, 2007, 17:48

I haven't figured out the league fees yet AF. Probably won't do so for a while longer yet, but I'll send out an email when we are ready. Thanks!

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 20, 2007, 01:42

OK time for rules discussions. There are 10 proposals as of now and the Competition Committee ahve discussed them all. However, we'd like to start with the IDP proposal.

Here is what the committee has proposed:

To add a DL/LB/DB/Flex and one bench spot 4/1
Add a separate and random 4 round IDP draft before Supplemental Draft and add a final round to the Supplemental Draft. (IDPs may be taken in the Supp draft as well).
Change the keepers from 8 to 9
Add scoring as follows for IDPs:
INT 4
FF 2
FR 2
Tackle 1
Asst tackle .5
Sack 2
Asst sack 1
Pass Defensed 1
Safety 4
Blocked kick/punt 4
TD 6

We have been discussing this thing for weeks and weeks and many things have come up so we're open to discussing any of this for possible changes. But based on our conversations this is what we finalized tonight in our AIM chat after weeks of emails on the subject. Also if there is a particular area that can't be decided we can vote for IDP in general and then have a separate vote for the part in question.

We're also adding a poll on the idea of Pick-ems.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 20, 2007, 10:37

We might as well post the results from the other rules proposals. This is simply what the rules committee decided and it is not binding. IOW, just because we voted for it or against it doesn't have any impact whether or not there will be a vote or not.

2 DH--tabled because of CBS limit of 4 divisions. Will bring it back if CBS changes it as we requested
3 DST not being charged for points scored against Off (we voted against it)
4 1 day WW (voted yes)
5-6 Pickems drop low week and go all 16 weeks (we vote yes but want to poll the league to see if they still want to do it)
7 allow fa pickups/drops during playoffs (we voted against it because of our keeper issues but want the league to discuss it)
8 Change major rules as deemed by commish to 2/3 vote but this must be agreed to by 2/3 to pass (we voted for it)
9 Change FGs bonus for longest ranges (tabled as I didn't have the info handy)
10 change bonus yards (voted against it and I will withdraw it)

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Wed, Jun 20, 2007, 14:31

per email discussion regarding return yards...

Ref
Re: Return yards
Cards' comments about Steve Smith and other select offensive players that return kicks scared us all. I am not nec against adding INTR and FR yards but if we boost only a certain few Offesnive players like that then we re not sure how fair that is to an existing league.

GO
I can't think of too many stars that still return kicks. Steve Smith had 30 return yards last year.

We counted return yards in Tree's Strong Style league last year so its pretty easy for me to see their impact as the league is up again.
No starting top 100 overall RB or WR had return yards of any significance. (i.e. Westbrook had 39 yards, Reggie Bush? 200 yards)
Usually its rookies and 2nd year backup skill position guys doing the kicks anyway.
Laurence Maroney (and Jones-Drew, less return yards, more offense impact) was the highest ranked with any significant return yardage.
I assume he loses that double duty this year as he'll be the main back.
So basically the return guys are established specialists like Dante Hall or they are rookie skill position players who they are trying to find a way
to get on the field (and we would all have equal chance to draft in our upcoming draft).

In addition to helping the defense, I was thinking it would deepen the pool of WR's and RB's that you could plug in a bye week or injury for instance
and still get 4-5 points out of instead of taking a big fat zero.

And in a league this deep, it would seem that we would do whatever it took to make the pool of players worth owning as deep as possible.

STL
I still don’t see how adding return yds boosts Defense. Fumble recovery and int return yds are not solid stat categories to use in my opinion. I could live with kick return yds and punt return yds because they are something you could calculate in to value a player. FR return yds certainly are not and int yds are bonus on top of an already significant 4 pt play. Obviously Steve Smith did not return many punts last year but previously he did and so did Derek Mason, and there are some defensive starters that do as well. Obviously PacMan Jones won’t be one of them. But you can’t say those players won’t be around. Maybe Hester is the next one now that he is a WR.

My thinking was that the boost to the non-starting return specialist would be small enough that they still wouldn’t be worth starting so really you’re just adding pts to the guys already starting and having dual duties with returns. Maybe that is flawed thinking.

I also would really like to keep the scoring as simple as possible. We can find lots of ways to change it without looking very deeply, but is it really necessary. I don’t want to change it just because we can. This is like the 5th year of the league now.
Kirk

GO
aren't Fumble Recovery and Int Yards different from KO/Punt Return yards?
Like two different categories?
It always was in our Yahoo leagues... we never counted Fumble Yards and Int Yards but DID count KO/Punt Return yards.

I could see how the Fumble Yards and Int Yards are not really a tangible stat and don't really need to be included. I could support them
not being included. You'll never be planning for your draft and say "oh this guy should be good for 200 fumble return yards this season" lol...
I can see that point of view.

And yes, we are really having to stretch back several years to think of prominent offensive starting players that return these kicks and punts.
Smith and Mason are the only ones I can think of too. And neither of them do it any longer.
The only two on defense of significance last year were PacMan Jones and Darrent Williams (RIP) Unfortunately neither of them will be doing it again.
A case could be made for Justin Miller, but he was really more a nickelback and his defensive stats were minimal - Hester the same as he didn't even really play D.

The players we've all suggested (PacMan, Hester, Maroney, Jones-Drew) perfectly illustrates my point at it being rookies and second year guys that are getting the return opportunities among those that got regular playing time as well (excluding the Return Specialists).
If you know we are counting return yards, you can try and pick this years PacMan - as it is likely again be a rookie who isn't on anyone's
team or a backup who may or may not be owned anyway.

Is it better that half the teams in this league are throwing out random backup WR's and FB's like Mike Alstott all season long... taking
zeroes most of the time and definitely when the byes hit?
Or maybe with a slightly deeper pool they could throw Dante Hall or Wes Welker in there and get 4-5 points
and maybe a double digit score on that random week they return it for a TD? And maybe having them on their squad leaves
a few more backup RB's as Free Agents.
Wouldn't that help the competitive balance of the league by offering an alternative avenue to score a few points?

We keep it at a very simple 1/25 stat, easy to track. And anyone that you think may return a few kicks would get bumped up a few spots
in your ranking.

STL
Good points GO. I could live with KO and Punt return yds for the reasons you suggest. I would say though that Wes Welker was already worth owning without return yds in our league, but certainly adding those yds would have helped him more.

One question, are we talking return yds just for individual players or would it also extend to DST?

GO
I think just individuals, never seen it otherwise, but doesn't mean it isn't an option.
I think the thought behind this is that an individual player - IDP, WR, RB, TE whatever... they return a kickoff/punt... they should get something for that.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 20, 2007, 14:52

If we install return yards to the IDP proposal and that also includes INTR and FR, I think we'd recommend chagne INTs to 3 points instead of 4.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 20, 2007, 14:59

Btw, ignore the lineup page warnigns right now, we're testing the idp positions and scoring ramifications.

deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 19:06

mjd - welcome to the league. You've entered the group at an interesting time as we venture into IDP vs a single Defense which is going to make competing in the league a little different than it was in the past.

Ref - Did anyone raise a scoring proposal about tackles for losses? Though not the same as a sack, they put an offense in almost the same situation as a sack and would seem to be worth more than the 1 pt of a regular tackle. We award 2 pts for a 1 yard sack, why not 2 pts for a 4 or 5 yard loss by a RB or WR?

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 22:14

No one had mentioned that. I checked CBS and they don't offer that as a stat.

deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 10:58

Thanks Ref, too bad. It would help the DL's scoring potential.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 11:05

A pretty good idea, its a shame they don't offer it.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 13:57

Yeah I think at least another .5 point for a TFL would be a nice idea.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 15:10

2SJ emailed about boosting the INT and FF/FR points... we can let him chime in here as well or even just cut and paste what he wrote there. My agreed response to that was...

GO via email
I'm all for getting those INT's and FF/FR as high as possible and fully support those proposed increases.

I've been saying all along that they need to be beefed up since they happen so infrequently. I was saying INT's should be worth 6 points and
3 and 3 for the FF/FR but didn't seem to have anyone agree with me for whatever reason. I could live with 4 and 3/3 because we've determined
there isn't always a correlation between FF and FR. And if there is - then so be it, great play, you deserve the points. Others may say, well they
are also getting the points for the tackle or sack at the same time. Well, do we not count the rushing or recieving yards when RB/WR score a TD
cause they overlap? Who cares - its a great play and should be rewarded accordingly.

If the leading DB gets 10 INT's and they are only 3 (or even 4) points each... how are these guys gonna score any points?
Isn't an INT the "touchdown of the defensive back"... WR=TD, DB=INT right?... but thats just 30 or 40 points... thats just 5-6 TDs on offense. Random guys like Brandon
Jacobs will be blowing away the scores of the absolute best DBs in the league. Yes DB's get a few tackles and passes defensed... but thats
easily offset by the yards a RB/WR picks up along the way.

Some were worried that the LB's were gonna be too valuable if we bumped up INT and FF/FR... as I wrote out before this is not the case
--- from before....
And don't get all caught up in LB's getting sacks + INT's cause they may get a little of each but its not an overwhelming number.
For example Urlacher had ZERO sacks last year and 3 INT's.
London Fletcher was the leading scorer in this format and had just 4 INT's and 2 sacks.
It was the tackling that is the bread and butter of the LB's.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 15:23

A QB only gets 4 pts for a 'TD'. I would rather bump tackls, asst tackles, and pass defended pts than increase ints that much. T, AT, PD are the bread and butter and likely to have the biggest impact on scoring for IDP. The thing to be careful of is maximum pts a player could score in a week. Right now 30pts is a whopping day for any player. A lot of top RBs score in the low 20's. WR usually score less than RBs. TEs score less than WR. The scoring is not equal as it is now. If you have a scoring system that allows a DB or LB to score 50pts then there is a problem.

Perm Dude
ID: 125122512
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 15:30

Especially PD...

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 15:30

What would they need to do for 50 points? 2 INT's, 2 FF, 2 FR, 3 sacks, 20 tackles, Def TD? Crap, if they did that, they deserve the 50 points lol...

Trying to think of a huge game that a defender had last year so I can plug it in to the formula and see what a "big game" would be from an IDP. Of course the Jets don't have any of those types of players, so I don't really know any off the top of my head... didn't Ronde Barber have 2 picks for TD's last year in a game maybe?

Perm Dude
ID: 125122512
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 15:45

Well, plug them into Rotowire's rankings.

Or, I could--what are you looking at right now for:

-tackle
-sack
-INT
-TD

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 16:22

Post 26

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 16:23

Yeah, I guess keep it basic, we're obviously not counting safeties or blocked kicks for this sample as they are very random.

Let me see if i can find a big game from last year to try out.

skinneej
Leader
ID: 040625911
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 16:23

Here is the summary of my e-mail to the commitee:

I’m fine with the proposed points except I think the INT and Fumble pts still need more thought. After looking at the data, I believe FF and FR are not being given enough pts. We were worried that giving 3 pts for both would be too much in case the same player forced it and recovered. Looking at the data, I just don’t see that happening. Take Jason Taylor who had 9 FF and 2 FR and Champ Bailey who had 10 INTs. We are giving Champ 40 pts for those INTs but Taylor only 22 pts for the fumbles. You could say forcing a fumble is just as hard as intercepting a pass. First it takes opportunities and DBs probably have more chances at INTs than DLs have for forcing fumbles. That is just based on my gut reaction, but I could be wrong. It is also probable that both of Taylor’s FR were not on his FFs. So should his pts be half of Champ’s?? I think making FF and FR 3pts each makes much more sense. You can leave INTs at 4pts, instead of the 3pts that I suggested previously so that maybe it balances out the few times that a player might get 6 pts for fumbles.

Giving the extra fumble pts will help many DLs since many of the FF leaders seem to be from that group. However, with the current scoring I think DLs are at a huge disadvantage to LBs and DBs. This is because DLs get much fewer tackles. Again consider Taylor who is one of the best DLs in the game. He had 13.5 sacks, 40 solo tackles + 20 assisted and 2 INTs along with the 9 FFs. This does not get him into the top 30 IDP list. That is a problem. Even if you give him 11 extra pts by making FF and FR worth 3 pts instead of 2 pts, he would barely crack the top 30. The only way I know to even things out a bit more are to increase the worth of sacks or decrease the worth of tackles. Since we do have a unique slot for DL, I guess it doesn’t make as much difference since there will be position scarcity, so getting a top DL might be better than going for the top LB even though the LB will score more total pts. That will make trading a little more difficult though inter-position. As we know everyone wants to “win” a trade so trading a guy that scores 9 per game vs one that scores 6 per game is a hard sell even if they are both the top player at their respective positions.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 16:27

If you're considering a big game, you'd need to consider all of our scoring cats--including safetyies, blocked kicks, TDs etc. While bringing an INT to the house may not happen often, those all count for points. You might want to look to see what adding return yards at 1/25 (4/100) would look like too as people are still considering that. Not sure if that is INTR and FR yards as well or simply PR and KR though.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 16:32

I wouldn't have a problem of taking INTs down to 3 points. If we added INTR yds 4 would be way too high. In fact, 3 might even be a smidge high in that case.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 16:33

There are really multiple problems with IDP. One problem I see is that there are too many IDP players and not a big enough drop off between the elite and the bench player. An elite IDP player is only going to score twice as many points as a bench IDP player. If you look at a bench QB/RB/WR/TE they are more in the range of 4/1 in points. So basically an offensive player is going to be the one held in a bench slot hoping for the injury to occur to a starter vs an IDP player that can just be gotten off of the wire without much drop off in pts. We discussed all these things before as they all have implications, but it would be nice for the rest of the league to chime in.

To me adding IDP is a huge thing and not like anything we have done previously.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 16:35

Defensive Player of the Year Jason Taylors best game of 2006 vs Min

2 tackles
3 assisted
1 sack
1 int
2 forced fumbles
2 passes defensed
51 yard INT-ret for TD

Damn, thats an absolutely ridiculous game. Using that system I count 21.5 (23.5 if we use our likely proposed return yards). He played completely out of his mind to just crack 20 points? Without that TD (which is a big rarity for defense) he throws up something in the mid-teens even with all that.

I guess we should look for a similarly big game form someone who gets lots of tackles... Ray, Urlacher etc? I'll check it out when I get home.

Perm Dude
ID: 125122512
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 16:43

If the IDP is replacing the defenses we had last year, we should probably try to match them than way rather than overall high scores.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 16:50

The proposal is for IDP to be added IN ADDITION TO our current setup. Therefore there would be DST and IDPs. Again, this has not been formally voted on yet so IDP is not a given. We are basically trying to get things hammered out before the vote. If worse comes to worse we could have a vote on it and then vote on whatever sticking points there are after that.

However, there is enough support to have a vote on MBJs/TBs proposal of 2/3 vote for major rules changes. If that is passed, IDP would be a major rules change (needing 16 instead of 13 to pass). So we are trying to get this to where everyone likes it just in case people change their mind after the vote and said, wow I would ahve voted for that if you had said that earlier. There have been at least 4 people who now say they regret changing keepers from 9 to 8 and that vote was 13-11 in favor of changing it down to 8.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 16:54

The proposal is not to replace DST but rather in addition to DST.

Looking at 20pts for a DL would be huge in our scoring system if the other guy is getting 4 or 5 pts for that same position. Lots of games are won or lost by a few points.

Here's one good game by London Fletcher:
11/05 12T 2AT 1INT for 17yds 1TD 4PD

Again, I would say increasing the pts for tackles, assists, and passes defended would do more to boost scoring than FF, FR, and INT. Going in to a season it is pretty hard to rank players based on random things like forced fumbles and fumble recoveries.

Perm Dude
ID: 125122512
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 17:06

Going in to a season it is pretty hard to rank players based on random things like forced fumbles and fumble recoveries.

Absolutely. I think return yardage might be the x-factor.

mjd
ID: 25522421
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 17:08

Anyone think that FF should be scored higher than FR? FR is pure luck, many times. Right place, right time, where as FF is most times preceded by a great hit/play.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 17:11

That game by Fletcher of 11/05 last year would have scored 27pts under the proposed scoring system by my calculation.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 17:12

mjd, that's the philosophy with the RIFC. I really like that system. But for us, I was thinking the same simply because on DST there are no points for FF, just FR. I don't know, it's probably apples and oranges. If we add FRR yds then maybe we should do that--though many times FR don't gain yards at all as they dive on the ball. Keep the ideas coming...IDPs is certainly a whole different animal than we're used to, that's for sure.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 17:14

Then again, FR can score TDs too whereas a FF cannot. Maybe FF should be worth more.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 17:15

FF can also be given credit for a sack too though.

mjd
ID: 25522421
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 17:23

I'm just thinking about how the RIFC scored IDPs last year. I thought that, although it wasn't perfect, I thought it worked pretty well. At least for that league.

What did you think about it Ref?

mjd
ID: 25522421
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 17:26

NM, I didn't see post 56.

Great One
ID: 201155199
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 17:40

That would be a good comparison for sure. RIFC is Guru's creation, right? You know he didn't just throw the categories and points together hapazardly.

mjd
ID: 25522421
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 17:57

I'm just thinking that we really don't need to reinvent the wheel. Plus last year was year 2 of their IDP usage. They did tweak the system after the first year.

Is there anything to be gleaned from that system?

Also it's going to be hard to come up with the perfect system for our league in the first year. Perhaps we might consider keeping things fairly simple the first year to see how it shakes out, then tweak or add to the scoring system in subsequent seasons.

Just a thought.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 18:24

mjd, as we may have mentioned in our AIM meeting, that is our mission. However, neing a keeper league, what we do right now, could have an impact on the future as we're proposing to have a separate IDP draft where we might keep IDPs or trade them as keepers based on this scoring system.

A few of us wanted to put real game stats to our numbers and compare and I think as we're seeing that now it is eye-opening. I am not dead-set on any of the numbers we've proposed, but there were reasons we settled on each number that we did. Perhaps those reasons didn't have some info that would have led to different results.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 18:31

I'm not sure what RIFC has to do with this league since they have a different number of teams and different roster requirements, but if you look at the average scoring of IDP vs offensive players they score about half. I did some anaylysis last year on IDP in RIFC and it has some effect but nothing too large. Personally I don't feel it is worth the extra time it takes to draft and then manage them throughout the year. It doesn't add much excitement to my game day activities as I am watching games either since it is so hard to monitor defensive players. Not to mention the stats changing after the fact anyway as tackles are adjusted etc.

I don't know if the analysis I did last year means much or not, but thought I'd throw it out there for people to look at.

IDP in RIFC

mjd
ID: 25522421
Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 19:11

Ref, having not seen the numbers, I understand. I don't feel strongly about any one thing. I, like most I would assume, just want it to work well for our league.

My concern is with the scoring system of IDPs and how it impacts their weight as opposed to the other skill players. Obviously, RBs and QBs should be weighted the highest, but where should "average" IDPs weigh against "average" WRs and TEs. And for keeper purposes #2 and #3 RBs. Certainly heavily weighted IDPs would favor a team like mine with crappy RBs, but I don't plan for my team to suck forever and when I get to the point of competing for a championship I surely don't want a second rate team to beat me because of an unfairly weighted IDP scoring system.

On the other hand, it'd be nice to get the scoring system to a point where IDPs were desirable to be kept as keepers instead of it possibly being mandated.

Interesting stuff, Cards. I agree it's hard to compare this league to the RIFC, but I think your data shows that IDPs do have an impact on the outcome of enough games to be worthwhile and depending on the scoring system, could have even more of an impact, if the league agreed that was a good thing. I don't like the late scoring changes, but I do like opportunities for more scoring.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jun 29, 2007, 17:19

Time for discussion on these things is diminishing. We typically really ramping up for football sometime after the baseball All-Star break. I'm going to have some time where I have no access coming up in the next couple weeks. There is going to come a time in the near future where we're going to have to start voting on these issues.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 16, 2007, 12:27

Training Camps begin opening this Sunday, July, 22. The first preseason game is August 5. Last preseason game is August 31. Preseason week 2 is August 16 and we typically start our draft sometime after that date.

Please refer back to post 21 on what me must start getting done. #3 has been completed but people are still all over the place on this and even though we've done so much work on this, I'm even contemplating withdrawing the IDP proposal. I'll also likely be withdrawing the Double Header proposal as it won't work since CBS refuses to let us have more than 4 divisions. (30 teams but only 4 divisions--nice one CBS). I don't want to add a major rule to our league when there seems to me a lack of interest by so many managers to get it right.

I'm hoping once camps open up within the week that there will be more interest in football. In the meantime, I suppose we can at least start figuring out the lottery.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Mon, Jul 16, 2007, 16:31

Are we still going with the email or switching over here now?

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 16, 2007, 18:14

GO, the committee has been disolved. The committee's official position was posted. Others had ideas but nothing was seemingly liked by enough to change anything. I have serious doubts that most rule proposals will get passed. I'll likely be pulling all of mine unless something major changes soon.

Promize
ID: 55223275
Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 19:14

I'm horrible at figuring out scoring and balancing, but I am still All for having IDPs.

Other then that, I think I'm ready for some football to start and very eager to see where my pick will be for this year... #1 would be great.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 12:35

We can't vote on a rule if we can't get the details finalized and agreed to by the league. As the rules committee can attest, I've worked literally dozens of hours on the new rules and the lack of interest by the majority of the league is telling.

Going to work on the lottery. Since that has to be done. Maybe as the season gets closer, more will mosey on over to this thread and see what happened.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 13:09

Trade on the board. There is no voting in G24 but in the offseason we typically give all trades the day before we act on it. Not sure if the league can see it or not but here it is:

New York Jets
·49ers, DST DST SF
·Bironas, Rob K TEN
·Toomer, Amani WR NYG
FOR
New York Giants
·McCareins, Justin WR NYJ
·Nugent, Mike K NYJ

No promises on when the lottery will run. Guru always sets it up for me and then I run it. He's on vacation so whenever he has a chance to get to it, we will run it.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 13:12

I've gotten messages from both Doug and Twarpy who are trying to ressurrect my Double Headers proposal using the four divisions we are stuck with since CBS refused to let us have the six divisions needed to run the original proposal.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 14:17

Guru has been kind enough to set up our lottery while he's on vacation.

Here are the odds:

Team Name Chances per 1000
16 9. Ref's Colts 3
15 10. AF's Falcons 4
14 11. GO's Jets 5
13 12. Doug's Raiders 7
12 13. CT's Cardinals 9
11 14. sw's Chiefs 13
10 15. ds' Eagles 17
9 16. Dan's Bills 23
8 17. Toral's Saints 32
7 18. GL's Chargers 43
6 19. SJ's Packers 59
5 20. Yokel's Jaguars 80
4 21. Twarpy's Giants 108
3 22. Peter's Cowboys 147
2 23. Promize's Seahawks 200
1 24. PD's Browns 250

link to lottery chart

The following posts will include the results of the draft lottery. As a reminder, the 16 non-playoff teams are vying for the rights to select in the top four spots. After the four teams ahve been selected, slots 5-16 will fall in reverse order of finish. slots 17-24 fall in reverse order of the playoffs. This order only applies for the first round. The remaining rounds will be in reverse order of regular season for teams 1-16, while teams 17-24 continue to adhere to reverse order of playoff finish.

PD has the best chance with a 25% chance to win the lottery. I have the worst chance with a .3% chance to win (3 in 1000).

For autiting purposes the lottery balls will be copied to Guru and Cards. I will ask at least one of those to confirm the rsults.

Good Luck to all.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 14:24

Pick #1 goes to:

DEEPSNAPPER!!!

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 14:25

Pick #2 goes to Twarpy.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 14:26

Pick #3 goes to Promize.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 14:27

Pick #4 goes to PD.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 14:31

So DS' Eagles get the steal of the lottery. Jumping from #10 to #1. Peter N's Cowboys is the only one to fall out of the top 4, going #3 to #5.

PD falls from #1 to #4. Promize #2 to #3. Twarpy jumps up from #4 to #2.

But the real winner was DS. Having only a 17/1000 chance and he not only gets into the top 4 but wins the top overall pick. Congrats!

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 14:37

Confirmed.

Peter N.
ID: 22573013
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 14:43

Haha, had to delete my last post to censor myself. I'm in disbelief. ;-) Congrats Roy!

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 14:48

So upon confirmation of the lottery outcome here is the base draft order (trades not included) for the first round:

1. ds' Eagles
2. Twarpy's Giants
3. Promize's Seahawks
4. PD's Browns
5. Peter's Cowboys
6. Yokel's Jaguars
7. SJ's Packers
8. mjd's Chargers
9. Toral's Saints
10. Dan's Bills
11. sw's Chiefs
12. CT's Cardinals
13. Doug's Raiders
14. GO's Jets
15. AF's Falcons
16. Ref's Colts
17. bmd's Texans
18. thk's Vikings
19. bj21's Rams
20. TB's Ravens
21. mbj's Bengals
22. StL Cards' 49ers
23. CCR's Bears
24. Coyotes' Broncos

Subsequent Rounds will be in this base order:

1. PD's Browns
2. Promize's Seahawks
3. Peter's Cowboys
4. Twarpy's Giants
5. Yokel's Jaguars
6. SJ's Packers
7. mjd's Chargers
8. Toral's Saints
9. Dan's Bills
10. ds' Eagles
11. sw's Chiefs
12. CT's Cardinals
13. Doug's Raiders
14. GO's Jets
15. AF's Falcons
16. Ref's Colts
17. bmd's Texans
18. thk's Vikings
19. bj21's Rams
20. TB's Ravens
21. mbj's Bengals
22. StL Cards' 49ers
23. CCR's Bears
24. Coyotes' Broncos

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 15:04

I am still surprised to see DS win it. 1.7% chance and he nabs it. I would have really been shocked had I won it. AF, GO, Doug, CT and sw also had worse odds than DS. But as long as you're in to paraphrase a line from Dumb and Dumber...so you say there's a chance! I like how Guru has set it up (modled it after NBA lottery) so by just losing a spot or two, it realy doesn't chagne your odds much. So tanking really doesn't play into the odds much and can hurt you.

As an aside, in Hoops I pulled ahead of CC Rider on the last day of the season two years ago and ended up winning the #2 spot this past year while he was out of the top 3. It's all based on which "ping pong ball" comes out. I really enjoy the lottery process and think it has really helped to deter the thought of tanking at all for that first round. In each league we discussed making it permanent but I agree that the teams at the bottom generally need the most help and the depth with the later rounds can help them and love the way it is set up right now.

This is my first lottery entry in this league and was at the worst possible spot. Just missing the playoffs, yet having the least chance of the top 4. But again, there were 3 balls in the hopper with my name on it!!!

Twarpy
ID: 53443916
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 18:20

I know there hasn't been a whole lot of active discussion on the rule changes, but I would love to play two games a week and be able to play most of teams within a season.

I know Doug was talking to Ref about creating a schedule to see how viable it is but I decided to throw one together (I'm still an excel novice, so if anyone wants to pretty it up please feel free to make suggestions).

Under a 2 game a week schedule each team would have the following allotment of games.

10 games versus your division
6 games versus the other division in your conference
6 games versus one of the opposing conferences divisions
4 games versus the other opposing conference division.

Essentially allowing your team to play against 21 of the other 23 teams every year. Then on a rotating basis you would play every team except two from the other conference each year.

I also setup the schedule so that we play a lot of divisional games at the end of the year, which should keep excitement right to the end, while having those games that are important you should not have bye weeks.

I'm more than willingly to change the order of the games shown in Excel, and made the schedule so we could change the order of the divisions (since bye weeks are known and I dont want anyone to think I'm trying to gain an advantage - we could use a randomizer to assign each divisional spot for this year) and then agree to shift those spots each year so that the two teams you dont play would change each year.

G24 Schedule Proposal

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 19:40

All games will be randomized. If the DH rule is adopted I suggest the scheduling be used as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule just in case of anything screwy coming up. Personally, I was going to make the last couple weeks rival games anyhow between the division and the first time you played your division foe would be the first 6 weeks. This worked out perfectly with a six division re-alignment and you could play every team. Also if CBS allows us to go into 6 divs in the future, I'd still want to do it that way. The hardest part of the whole thing was the realignment but the two teams that fell in nowhere land on the different options were easily fixed and explained in the rules committee.

I haven't looked too hard at Twarpy's finished schedule, but generally we reorder teams twice before we schedule--last time is randomized. If this proposal were to gain steam again then obviously SOS would go away. I am not sure how it was figured out which teams would be left out. Twarpy once mentioned that he had 6 possible schedules. If they all work out right then perhaps we can dice roll and pick a schedule.

We would also dice roll each conference and randomize each team after we put them in rank or a-b order from last year.

Twarpy
ID: 53443916
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 19:54

I randomly left which teams would not play each other, obviously this schedule would be tweaked every year for 6 years before everyone has played each team the same amount of times.

After 6 years:
You wouldve played each division rival 12 times
You wouldve played each conference rival 6 times
You wouldve played each opposing conference rival 5 times.

I left it in numerical order so that we can easily decide which teams are represented by which number easily. The first year randomizing can be setup by mixing around the various weeks, and changing the order I have the teams in each division (I took them from how they were on the standings page). After that it is just a simple moving each team up or down two spots in the spreadsheet so that they miss a different two teams next year. (This should be sufficient for randomizing as no one knows the next years NFL schedule before it comes out, and as long as its agreed upon before hand it is very easy to alter).

Bye weeks this year are from Week 4 to Week 10 (Proposed Games 7 to Game 20) Keep that in mind if anyone wants to alter divisional/conference/out of conference weeks.

Promize
ID: 55223275
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 08:00

RE: #84

I don't know if every team who finishes in the bottom is "tanking". Every league I play in I give it my best... I never put a weak player in my lineup just so I can get a better lottery pick. I would rather win then get some stud rookie.

For some reason with the results of the lottery and your post, it just sort of didn't set right... A bit offended actually.

Not sure why we are offering everyone in the league the chances to win first pick.

Maybe I'm still hung over and reading too much into this post... But just didn't like the undertone statement that if you’re in the bottom you’re automatically tanking your season to get a top pick.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 09:07

You may not be but I've certainly seen other teams do it before (not in the Gurupie league, but certainly with managers I respected). The presence of the lottery elminates even the passing notion that say one week at the end of the season and you are tied for last place.. that you may tweak you lineup a little differently giving you a better chance to lose. Maybe you start the WR in a game thats being played in the snow, or you go with a guy like Peyton even though you know they are gonna pull him at halftime...

And if a team does that, not only is it crappy on their end to be trying to manipulate the order, but it also will wind up giving a possible freebie win to the team they are playing - god forbid its a team fighting for a playoff spot.

I think the lottery offers the assurance that there is no motivation for this behavior (which is really impossible to monitor unless it were blatant). And the bottom teams will still always be in the first few picks, it just may get shuffled some.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 11:00

Promize, you're reading too much into it. We don't have a tanking problem and the lottery helps assure us of that.

A few of us are offended however with the lack of input and carefree attitude of the league this year. There are some major rules proposals that few will even take time to read or understand to help craft that would affect us greatly. While all other leagues are ramping up, this league has almost no input whatsoever--even as some members are posting like crazy in this and other forums. These leagues were put together to be ultra-active and this has been the worst ever since there are major happenings right now.

Guess that old adage is right. You can't care more than the league.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 12:37

For those who are following this thread, here is the status on rule proposals on possible votes:

1. IDP/Keeper #s.(Ref)
There is enough interest for the basic idea but since there has not been enough interest to get details ironed out, may withdraw it

2. Possible Realignment/double headers so all teams are played and own division played twice. (Ref)
Was being forced to withdraw it because CBS refuses to allow us to have 6 divs. Twarpy is trying to resurrect it using 4 divs. Not sure there is enough support for a vote due to lack of participation.

3. Possible Defenses not charged for points not scored directly against them. (Doug)
At this point, not enough support for a vote.

4. Waiver period reduced from 2 full days to 1 full day. (Ref)
No vote will be needed unless there are objections. Has full support thus far.

5. Pick-ems drop low week. (Doug)
No vote will be needed unless there are objections. Has full support thus far.

6. Pick-ems goes all 16 weeks. (Ref)
No vote will be needed unless there are objections. Has full support thus far.

7. Possible Change WW/FA pick-up rules/deadline. (Great One) Withdrawn

8. Change major rules proposals to 2/3 majority instead of simple majority (mbj) and to force this rule to be agreed to by 2/3 vote. (TB)
Enough support for a vote.

9. Possible investigate FGM for more of a bonus on FGs for longest ranges .(Ref)
Withdrawn

10. Change Bonus yards for Rush/Rec yards starting at 151 from .125 to .15 to match the passing yards percentage and remove the .005 decimal that gets rounded. (Ref)
Withdrawn

Promize
ID: 55223275
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 19:05

Well, I'm usually not to vocal but like I said, woke up with a hangover and had to go to work. Maybe I did read to much into it, but it sort of sounded like those who finished last were being grouped as "tankers".

But if the problem of tanking doesn't happen in our league, then why do we allow 16 teams a chance for a high lottery pick? We have several commish's to monitor the league.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because of work, it makes it hard for me to keep up on new proposals or changes. With the number of commish's in our league, I tend to rely on their input to make good decisions for our league.

Rule Proposals:

#1 still all for it, but am the worst to ask about leveling scoring... Leave that for the math / statistics folks.

2 ugh, bummer, totally in for the realignment idea, but also like the multiple leagues we have. definitely two thumbs up on the double header weeks.

3 anything that will help the Lions defense better I am all for. Not sure anything well help them though.

4,5,6,7 ok

8 we have the same issue going in another league of mine and definitely like the high majority to vote for a change, instead of the simple majority.

9, 10 fine.

Twarpy
ID: 53443916
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 19:36

Understandable Promize, Football is probably the hardest to even attempt to "tank" in, I mean the bottom teams like me dont even have the depth to be able to put in shit guys to try and "tank" plus with the fact a decent draft pick this year I think I could be in the playoffs.

Similar to Promize heres my thoughts on the proposals..

1)Im on the fence, I personally hate rewarding players for tackles, and when fooling around with last years numbers, it seems as though almost all IDP's are almost on the same level. Id be in for supporting less tackle pts and lot more for sacks, ints, fumbles etc.

2)All for more weeks, I think it will add a more enjoyable aspect of the game, would love to hear from the people who support it what the ordering they want for each week (divisional, conference, outta conference) games should be played.

3)Im all for it as long as its not a pain in the ass, I think its one of those things that generally works it outself in the wash, so I dont mind either way.

4,5,6 sound like common sense - With waivers, I forget so if theres a Thursday game and I waive someone on Friday, one day would be after the Monday night (meaning Wednesday at like 2 AM the players would be off waivers, instead of Thursday at 2 AM like it currently is???)

8) So 14 people...seems about right to me

9) Doesnt seem like a big change, again would have to see numbers.

10) Have thought this would make sense for years so would support it.

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 22:57

I like that schedule you put up Twarpy. It's obvious you put some time into it and I think it would work great.

1. I've given all my input for this. At this point I am okay if it does or doesn't happen.

2. I wasn't into it until I saw Twarpy's schedule. I like that.

3. Nope. Points are points and we all have to deal with them.

4-6 all good to go.

8. I like it.

7, 9, & 10 withdrawn - Good. I hate bonus yards and want to propose a vote for next year that we remove all bonus yards. It is such a luck of the draw stat.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 23:45

Re: 92, Promize if someone is tanking they will be removed from the league. If you remember, we've done it in mid-season before. Obvious tanking and not going all out to do the best you can possibly do is two different things. That is not to say someone who ends up at or near the bottom isn't doing all they can. Sometimes crap happens and there is nothing you can do about it. Look at Pete, he went from playoffs every year to near the bottom.

As far as 16 teams for the lottery, as in all of our legaues that mirror the NBA system, anyone who doesn't make the playoff gets a chance. since there are 16 teams instead of 14 in this league,we allow 4 teams instead of 3 to be at the top. But look at the last two teams in: 3 and 4 out ot 1000. The odds are astronomical that one of those will hit it. Then it goes to 5 and 7 and 9 in 1000. In fact, in most of the draws lately it has been the top teams hitting it over and over again and here 3 out of the bottom 4 hit it. Occassionally you will get a team outside the top 4 hit it and this year was one. The system works. In fact, this is the first time I've ever seen a complaint about it in the number of times we've used it.

mjd
Sustainer
ID: 501381415
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 01:03

Very interesting viewpoints. Alot of information to digest. Two things I do like: Twarpy's DH setup and the lottery. I think it's fair and serves a purpose. (and this from a guy who dropped 1 spot.)

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 12:18

The Rules Committee made their recomendations of IDP is #26 and the rest of the rules in #27. That is the current proposal. There have been some comments but no proposals. The only suggestion on the way to an amended proposal is Twarpy's work to ammend my DH proposal when I tabled it because of the division issue.

If we were to go to a vote right now on IDP, it would be under those terms. Frankly, for a rule that major, it should have had major discussions and it hasn't.

For those of you who don't know, TB was on the rules committee and helped initially with some ideas before rl and a move stole his time and was unable to continue to help. I have put a even more time into this than him (and everyone else combined) and that is my feeling as well, at this point, I don't care if it goes in or not. I'm tired of working so hard on something that (for the most part) people don't care enough about to discuss. Though I do disagree that any of us can say I've given all my input for this. I'd be happy to discuss our reasoning why we came to whatever conclusion we did if someone has any concerns.

Assuming the 2/3 vote passes (though not a certainty by any means), I can't imagine this rule would get 16 votes for it with the lack of enthusiasm surrounding it. Even 13 under the current rules might be tough.

Promize
ID: 55223275
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 13:32

we can start dropping players?

and it is 8 max right?

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 13:53

What I meant was I had nothing new to add that I hadn't already stated. I gave the numbers I thought we should use for scoring and my reasoning behind the numbers. I gave my opinion on number of starters and positions we should have along with the increased bench size and keepers and then waited weeks for it to move past that point. Then three of you got into a chat and presented the "rules committee" decision. I am fine with the decision made and would just like to see something implemented and move forward.

I like you Ref and love what you do for the league, but you are very controlling. This could have been hammered out in about 5 days but we kept beating around the bush and continue to do so. Put a proposal up for vote and let's see how the league feels about it.

Either it passes or it doesn't and we move forward.

100

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 16:09

Controlling?

I guess you're right. When people say they can do something then don't respond in a timely manner, I guess I feel I have to take control. Forgive me for not sitting back and doing nothing. As far as the Rules Committee's final meeting, all but two said they could be there but only three showed up. TB, I wasn't singling you out, as hell, rl DOES take precedence and you told us what was going on. The only thing I disagreed with is that you had nothing further to add--but that could mean that you agree with everything as it's currently presented. I don't know. Comments made previously in the "committee room" aren't seen by those who weren't privy to those coversations.

Forgive me if I come off wrong, but I am not trying to rub anyone wrong. I would just like the league's input in crafting. If it is perfect how it is--just say so then we can vote on it. I think it would be a mistake to just take it at face value then start bitching about it after the season starts and have to overhaul it next year. Tweaks are ok, major changes mean it wasn't good to start with.

So I guess what we STILL need to know (for over a month now) are people's basic opinions in 26 and 27 and twarpy's addendum in 85.

101

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 17:05

You get a bit touchy. It's all good on my end, but I stand by how I perceive you to be. I think you are a great person and love chatting with you, but you are very controlling about this league.

I have no idea why you continue to wait for more opinions. I thought that was why we had the committee. I've long since deleted all those emails, but at least 10 people chimed in with their thoughts. Here is the proposal, so now let's vote on it.

If it passes, we implement it. If it doesn't pass we scrap it and if anyone desires to do so they can present something different next year.

If after the season anyone sees something they would like tweaked, then they submit it just like is done after every season (bonus changes, scoring changes, etc).

I guess what I'm asking is what else are you looking for? I think we've seen that there are about three groups that make up this league of 24 different people. Very active, somewhat participative, and those who enjoy playing the game but it isn't a huge part of their life especially during the offseason.

This is all just my opinion, but if you are waiting for more people to chime in, again I have to ask why? Everyone had a chance to join each committee. They've had almost an entire year to share their thoughts. If those who haven't shared an opinion had something to add they probably would have by now. Maybe they don't have the time or don't care one way or the other. I'm sure there are other possibilities, but we've all played in leagues, and I am in one now, where we could care less about the rules. I just want them finalized before I make my draft list.

I will continue to peek into the thread while waiting for the email that tells me there is a vote pending at the site.

102

Peter N.
ID: 22573013
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 17:08

1. I'm all for this and like the proposal in post 26.

2. I was initially against this, but like what Twarpy has presented. I'd be in favor of it now.

3. I'm against this 100%. As TB said, points are points.

4. That makes sense. I'd be in favor of it.

5 and 6. I don't have a strong feeling either way on these proposals. I'm definitely not against it.

8. Sounds good.

We're still early in the year here. I expect more people to start checking in and giving thoughts once training camp gets rolling.

103

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 17:31

Tb, did you miss the various posts afterwords about others that asked the league their thoughts on return yards? There were some interesting ideas from a couple people that weren't addressed. You're right we could just have the vote and that would be it, but normally when our rules are crafted they are tweaked a smidge at times to form a compromise so they will be passed. The Rules Committee was supposed to form a basis to the league for their opinions.

Typically in our leagues when a new rule proposal comes up, most pipe up and say why or why they don't like a rule and often have another idea and why.

As far as you getting personal with me, the feeling is mutual, I really repsect you and enjoy your football accumen and your personality. If I am, or come off as, controlling then perhaps it's because I feel if I didn't push the subject, things would never get done. Cards and I work very hard behind the scenes each and every week as well as the preseason and we'd at least appreciate the courtesy of participation as required in our rules. For example, all of the records, H2H results and stats (corrections) are done manually every week. Sure we don't need to do all of that, but it adds to the league and some do enjoy it.

I think what we will have to do is just put out an email vote this week. If discussion happens to alter the proposal before then, great. If not, it will go out as is in #26.

104

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 17:35

Pete, thanks.

We did email the entire league about the rules proposals that were up in this forum and said they needed to chime in on them. Also, some of our members are posting in this and other forums on various other football leagues, so it's not like they aren't around.

105

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 17:55

OK, for a recap... ;)

As of now we will be voting on:
#1, #2 and #8.

#4, 5 and 6 will go into effect without a vote.

Others may still be revived for a vote or any new proposals may still come in.

If #8 gets 16 yes votes, then 1 and 2 would also need 16 yes votes since we deem those as major rules changes. If #8 doesn't pass, then only 13 votes would be needed for props 1 and 2.

106

Promize
ID: 55223275
Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 07:50

I think my #98 post got mixed in the recent shuffle..

Can we start dropping players?
And keepers for this year is 8?

107

Great One
ID: 201155199
Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 08:00

In a very quick recap - I am in favor of #1, #2 and #8. I think they would all benefit the league.

My support for IDP is in detail in our emails, I like the DH schedule as Twarpy presented and 2/3 seems like a fair amount for anything significant.

108

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 11:38

Promize: you've been in this league for 6 years plus you played baseball for a few years. You honestly don't remember that we have a Keeper deadline and a Keeper thread?

GO, the emails mean nothing anymore. If you have anything about IDP you want to change from 26, you'll need to restate it and why on the boards. The emails mean nothing once the committee posted their recommendation and dissolved. The whole league will be voting.

109

mjd
Sustainer
ID: 501381415
Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 16:58

Keeper deadline and keeper thread. I need them.

110

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 19:41

mjd: we will give everyone plent of notice before they are due.

111

mjd
Sustainer
ID: 501381415
Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 20:44

Thanks

112

THK
ID: 1657522
Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 15:52

1) I don't like the scoring of IDPs set forth. It would just add position without benefit in my mind. That said, I am used to working with IDPs so I really wouldn't mind using them...

2) I am firmly against double headers. I hate the idea. I like the H2H matchup...one week one game. It is more like football when you are hyped up to play one squad. Realignment is up to what is best for the league. Double headers - NO

8) Agreed

113

THK
ID: 1657522
Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 15:53

Looking to deal Cooley for a draft pick or package him with Jones for a slight upgrade. I really have high hopes for Brandon Jones, so I want to keep him.

If anybody can come up with a fair deal for Cooley - offer away.

114

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 16:18

This whole thing with IDP's has been a mess. What we were hoping was that someone would step up and take charge. We weren't really looking for a bunch of thoughts sent out in emails and then for Ref and I to assemble them into something coherent for the league to vote on. What we were wanting was for someone else to do that. Obviously interest in football hasn't ramped up to that point yet and of course everyone has real lives as well.

In the end we all agreed to get online and hammer it out, and that is exactly what we did. Not everyone will like what we came up with, but everyone had the opportunity to be there and now the time for discussion on major changes has passed. We spent hours discussing every possible thing we could think of based on emails and stats and what we know about how the league works and we don't care to cover that same ground again.

If IDP passes and there are tweaks that need to be made to the scoring, positions, bench slots, etc, I'm sure someone will propose them. We tried to come up with a way to implement IDP while at the same time keeping the league full of decisions and tradeoffs to make.

If it were not for Ref the whole IDP option would have just slowly faded away. Thanks for pushing this through ref. I think we've done all we can do on it and should just vote on it as it stands. I haven't seen any major objections to doing that unless I've missed something.

115

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 12:00

Well there has been nothing more added, so we might as well get on with the vote. Obviously, some aren't well informed--as evidenced by thk's post--but waiting isn't going to improve things when people aren't paying attention.

THK--for the record, realignment was only considered as a necessity for the Double Header proposal. My proposal would require 6 four-team divisions that would allow you to play your own div. twice and every other team once. Each Div champion would mak the playoffs along with one Wild Card team.

Once I figured out the re-aligning teams (based on rl geography with one exception per league), that rule is pretty basic to understand.

In my proposal, I was going to have each team play their three div. foes once in the first half of the schedule and then again in weeks 11, 12 and 13--where it rally mattered. CBS refused to allow us to have more than 4 divisions.

Both Doug and Twarpy wanted to go ahead with my plan but simply leave off two interdivisional games. Never heard from Doug again. Twarpy ran with it and put some time into scheduling. One thing I don't like about Twarpy's schedule is that the last 3 weeks, you play 5 divisional games. One bad week, and you lose two Div. games. But if you spread them out, you're playing Div games 10 of 13 weeks and then you're going to hit bye weeks, so it's hard. Just too many teams in the division, but CBS' cooperation forced our hand to choose. If DH does pass, then obviously this is a bridged solution to get to what the original plan was should we get to six divisions, but I have no faith in CBS to add our suggestion.

CBS said no one (even 30 team leagues) had ever asked them to go to more than 4 divs. How much sense does that make? My guess is that we are the largest league on their site with 24.

My idea with IDP was based on my experience in the RIFC series last year. I started thinking there is a whole new avenue we could explore to add value to teams who were stuck with their current teams to build trade partners and find alternate scoring possibilities. Problem is that teams who don't do their due-diligence in research or not going to do well. Bad teams who fall into that category are going to be much worse. Will IDP make matters worse? Will it create a wider gap between good and bad?

There are several reasons we are looking for input and active participation on happenings in the league. First, we want to be sure that members cna throw out issues that the rest of us may not have thought about. They may have experiences in another league that could help us. There may be a particulat cat. where someone is so against they'd nix the whole proposal while that number may not be a stickler for others. But if someone just says Yes or NO or worse yet--nothing at all, that doesn't give us a whole lot to go on.

Why did we start talking so early this year? Well there is a LOT of work to do--especially behind the scenes. Not only did we have to formulate the scoring with our history and unique depth involved, but had to present it to the league and massage it to where the league felt comfortable with it. We have to go through every position in the rules and set the scoring--then test it. That will take some time. Scheduling already takes some time how it is. If DH goes in, this will be a real nightmare for us. But we can live with that if that's what the league wants. Then we have to have our vote. Time for people to familliarize themselves with IDP and research. Our IDP draft. Our extended Supplemental Draft. A little longer time between the draft and supplemental draft and supp draft and opening day if possible so people can figure out their IDP and allow any trading options with that.

Each week we have to go through every game and check for negative yards gained and other abnormalities. I go thorugh and update the franchise overall standings, H2H overall records and the record book. This year that would even be more work and I don't even know how many people even pay attention to that.

Bottom line is that these rules will cause the commishs a LOT more work. To be honest, I am not even positive how I am going to vote at this time except I plan on voting for Prop #8. I don't want major rules changes unless the league as a whole truly wants them. I definitely don't want to go through a bunch of extra work and then be criticized at the same time because of it.

116

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 15:09

I started looking my team over and realized with the retirement of Jake the Snake I will only have 1 player remaining from my original draft in Jeremy Shockey.

I think I should be in decent shape this year as long as Garcia has a good year in TB. Westbrook should be a stud RB again, Owens a top tier WR, Shockey a top tier TE, Panthers among the best DST's, and Wilkins a solid K. Hopefully training camp will tell me which other players to keep and I could come up with 1 or 2 RBs and a WR that lets me get to the playoffs again.

I'm certainly a few notches down from a few teams talent wise but hopefully the Cards will align right for another Championship Season. Of course the real question is whether I can manage to beat Promize's Seahawks who has derailed my season more than once! I haven't forgotten!

117

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 16:15

I think you need to put a hex on Chris Simms... or trade for him.

118

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 16:19

I think he's already been Hexed and I'm not sure he could survive any more!

119

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 16:42

I should have kept Garcia!

120

deepsnapper
ID: 366132419
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 20:43

I can going forward with #105 as it's stated above. I can't say I've paid a lot of attention on football here lately.

What started with a fall my dad had 6 weeks ago breaking his shoulder in 6 places, ended up with him having a quad bypass yesterday. I'm out of town for at least the next week and have limited PC access. Plans are to be home 8/5 at the latest . TB Perm Dude and several others have my cell phone if someone needs to call.

Can't believe my luck on the lottery. I wasn't even sure I was in until Peter N confirmed it. I do like white truffles. ;)

121

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 15:32

OK working on this vote. Please be absolutely certain your email address on the CBS site has been updated. If it is not current, you will not get your vote notice. I had to email several managers individually after they didn't respond to their invitation to continue with the league. If you don't get the vote, contact me. I will post after it has gone out. Your email on the site is the address correspondance from the commish, league, cbs and other managers will use and it must be kept current.

Here is what we're voting on:

1. The addition of IDP and the rules contained as stated in post 26 of this current thread. (Ref, et al)
2. Double Headers. Teams would play two games per week instead of one. Realignment put on hold because of CBS disallowance to let us go to 6 Divs. of 4. Amended proposal is in post 85 in which you would play own Div twice and all but two teams in the opposite conference once. Twarpy's schedule would be used as a guide and coule be used precisely after randomization. (Ref, amended Twarpy)
3. Passing of commish-deemed major rules. This would mean that any rule proposal that goes for a vote would need 2/3 majority (16) in order to pass. Amended so this rule needs 2/3 (16 votes) to pass. All non-major rules would still need simple majority (13). (mbj, amended TB).

Proposal 3 needs 16 yes votes to pass. Rule 1 and 2 need 16 if Rule 3 gets 16 or else it needs 13 to pass.

122

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 15:51

The vote has been sent.

123

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 17:47

I vote yes to all three rule changes.

124

Promize
ID: 55223275
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 18:14

Yes to all 3

125

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 18:19

Don't need to vote in this thread. If there aren't objections, I will post what people voted. Please note though that there were objections in G20 Baseball. I got emails from both TB and Promize as well as several others and they have been counted.

126

AZ Cardinals
ID: 37262119
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 18:24

Yes, Yes, Yes

127

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 19:34

To clarify, The 3rd vote needs 2/3 vote. If for whatever reason we can't get all 24 votes, than it wouldn't be 16 votes to pass, but 2/3. We've always either hit the required number or everyone has been able to vote in all leagues and votes before.

128

Perm Dude
ID: 386132511
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 19:51

So for proposal #3, you need 16 yays for it to pass, regardless of the number of people voting, or are you saying you would accept 2/3 even if, say, 15 managers replied?

I would say that we should probably keep it at 16 flat votes to pass. Major rule changes should have major participation, and even if a couple of guys don't vote I'd say we still should shoot for 16 to pass.

129

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 19:56

PD, the proposal was for 2/3 vote. Which is 16 of 24. Just if for some reason let's say DS could not be reached and only 23 voted. Do we wait 2-3 weeks to see if a measure or two or even three passes if we have 15--even though that is 2/3 vote? Probably not. I really don't think that will enter into it--just trying to cover our bases.

Weird this year as I have had people vote multiple times, reply to all and email and post on the boards. Usually don't try to influence other's votes. Also just had someone vote and then ask me to sway him why he should vote yes on one of the votes. Obviously I just accepted his vote and referred him to this thread.

130

Perm Dude
ID: 386132511
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:03

No, ref, the rule proposal is:

3. Amending Major Rules passage to a minimum of 16 votes (mbj, amended TB)

I understand how the 16 was arrived at. And I understand the nature of sometimes people not voting (which makes the percentage needed to pass higher).

But the rule proposal was 16 votes. Not 2/3. Not 2/3 with a quorum. Not some other number provided the voting is held within a certain time period. Etc, etc. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you are "interpreting" the proposed rule change by changing it, after the vote has begun on it and before it is completed.

I don't think that is permitted at this point. I certainly would not have voted for 2/3 without a clarification as to what 2/3 means if not 2/3 of the whole league. My strong suggestion, at this point, is to cease making these interpretive gestures until the proposal passes, and then suggest interpretive language for the league to also vote on if you feel 16 votes is too high a threshhold for major rules changes.

131

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:05

PD, why don't you be the commish of all of our leagues as you always seems to know what is best. That is my suggestion to you.

132

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:08

52 Myboyjack
ID: 5410242711
Wed, Nov 29, 2006, 10:26 I am formally proposing a rule that any major rule change (deemed major in the discretion of the commissioners) that is subject to a league vote be passed only upon a favorable vote by 2/3 of the league mamagers.

133

Perm Dude
ID: 386132511
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:31

PD, why don't you be the commish of all of our leagues as you always seems to know what is best. That is my suggestion to you.

Quit if you want. But don't blame me for asking for a clarification. And don't spend scads of posts whining about the lack of feedback on the rules changes and then complain that I'm somehow doing something wrong here. If you messed up with the wording of the proposal rule that's fine, but don't insist that they are the same. They aren't.

I, for one, have no trouble with a 2/3 mininum vote so long as there are some sort of quorum numbers (for example, if only 12 people vote this probably wouldn't be acceptable. Likewise if the voting is taking a lot of time).

But that isn't the proposal before us. The proposal was 16 votes to pass major rules changes.

134

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:41

Well let's call a spade a spade here PD.

Where are you as someone who has been in all our leagues from the beginning and should know our rules and issues? Where and when do you chime in when we are trying to discuss things? No you'd rather wait and find something to nitpick and cast stones after the fact. You have missed votes. You ask questions on rules that are not only in the rules but have been around since we've started. Maybe you just forget. And let's not even talk about all of your competitive teams throughout the years. I tried having you as a co commish for hoops and you did nothing. You couldn't even get the payouts right. Yet you want to play your politics-forum-like notpicks on everything. Why don't you be part of the solution instead of trying to be the one who tries to follow the Roberts Rule of Orders.

My post probably wasn't necessary. I'll give you that. But I have not had a good day in rl and you're posts in baseball and here have hit a nerve and when that happens, it's probably time to move on.

135

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:50

FWIW, my original proposal was pretty explicit and self-explanatory; it required a "yea" vote of 2/3 of the league managers. That would be 16, regardless of participation level in the vote.

136

Perm Dude
ID: 386132511
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 21:03

You have missed votes

When? I'm certainly not aware of any lately, and while I will often vote late in the process after hearing people's ideas I'm not aware of actual missed votes. Of course, you're bringing it up at this point..well, you know. Same as the others. I made what I thought (and what you and RFS and others seem to accept at the time) as an innocent mistake regarding payments owed across different leagues. But there you go. Any other things about me you are holding back? Might as well get it all off your chest. A spade and all.

:)

Why don't you be part of the solution instead of trying to be the one who tries to follow the Roberts Rule of Orders.

Well, this clarification seems pretty important to me, and since MBJ's #135 seems to match my own thinking (as well as the wording of the actual proposal) I think we should just let the proposal stand and see how people vote.

I can see it both ways, but it seems to me that major rules changes should have a 16 vote minimum regardless of the number of people voting.

137

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 21:13

Also, I'll add, by thestated terms of the emailed current vote, "abstaining" is counted as a "no" vote. Right?

If that's so, then it would seem that the rule would always require 16 votes, regardless.

138

Action Figure
ID: 420372221
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 09:19

I am firmly against double headers. I hate the idea. I like the H2H matchup...one week one game. It is more like football when you are hyped up to play one squad. Realignment is up to what is best for the league. Double headers - NO

I'm with you. I like this league because it is so much like the real NFL. If we go with double headers I feel it cheapens that.

139

Perm Dude
ID: 32642268
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 09:50

I can see that, AF. But isn't the doubleheader 2 H2H games? That is, games H2H against two different opponents?

I guess I voted for it because I like the idea of more games.

140

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 09:55

Yes, 2 different games. And you can set 2 different lineups (which is what I was worried about) allowing you to maximize matchups (i.e. you have the go-to WR, your opponent has his QB).

141

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 11:28

First of all let me apologize for acting out of character last night. Several things are not going as expected in rl the past couple weeks and it is very frustrating.

mbj, An abstention is different than a non-vote. But in the past the people who have failed to vote didn't have an impact. The times it has we've waited for those people to get their vote in. My point is that we couldn't wait say 3 weeks to get all the work in it's going to take to get it done. But it's probably a non-issue.

GO, we were told you'd have two lineups going by CBS, but Cards and I set up DHs last night again to test it and we can't figure out how to set two different lineups. Go to your team's lineup page and see if you can find anything.

Would have been nice to have these discussions on these rules before the vote, but I digress.

14 votes are in.

142

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 11:40

mbj, An abstention is different than a non-vote

For what purpose? I don't understand how there could be different categories of "non-votes" for any practical purpose.

143

Perm Dude
ID: 32642268
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 11:41

You're right--the schedule shows doubleheaders but there is only one lineup.

In RIFC we had a small button "Game 1" and "Game 2" but I don't see anything at all on the lineup page like that.

144

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 18:14

First of all, we can drop the whole issue with minimums as DS was able to vote. I know what is going on with his personal life and wanted to give him every chance to have his voice heard--but August 5th was too long to wait. As a general rule, I agree 100% with what mbj is stating.

I beleive these managers have yet to respond to the vote: Dan, Toral, SW, Twarpy, Yokel, skinneej. It's only been a day and I'm not worried about it as we didn't have to put a 24 or 48 hr clock on this for timliness issues. Perhaps I will forward them another vote to the email address I have in my gmail to make sure they get it. I had to resend about this many people re-invites to come back so perhaps they have yet to update their email or it went to spam, etc. If you see them around, you might want to have them check their email.

145

Promize
ID: 55223275
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 21:05

Sooo, on a lighter subject... What are the Vegas odds that Ricky Williams and Priest Holmes would bring any joy to my team this year if I kept them? LOL

146

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 10:18

Can't see Ricky playing at all. Priest is probably getting paid to kick start LJ and end his holdout.

Still need votes from Dan, Toral, Yokel and Skinneej.

147

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 10:19

Still need to hear from Dan and Toral. Probably should htink about setting a deadline for them to vote. I need to count the votes to see where we stand.

148

Perm Dude
ID: 1625288
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 11:49

How about we give them until Wednesday? That'll be a week.

Unless the proposals already have enough votes to pass, of course.

150

Toral
ID: 575542418
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 14:50

My e-mail on the G24 site was wrong. I have corrected it. Have I missed anything relevant to the rules discussion? The invitation to vote did get through -- ref must have used the right e-mail on that one.

I'm looking for clarification on #3, 2/3 vote on commish-deemed major rules. If there has been any discussion on what criteria the commish is expected to follow in deciding what are "major rules", or on what criteria the commish will follow, and you can point me to it, and I can understand it, I should be able to vote today.

Toral

151

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 15:46

Pd, I am currently wrting out each person's vote. Some emailed or voted more than once and I've come up with a couple different counts. Should have the exact count in a few. BUt will wait for Toral's count even if the thresholds have been hit/impossible to hit just to not influence his vote.

Toral, basically, anything we deem as a major rule change will need two-thirds of the league's votes. These two votes (third one has to get 2/3 but its very proposal). IMM, it seems pretty obvious, but if it is ever a question, we'd want input for discussion.

152

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:11

OK, Cards and I have confirmed that we each konw how to count now and we have a total. There are two votes left with Toral and Dan. I will wait for Toral to vote since he posted here, but we do have enough votes to tell you that we do have an outcome on all three votes. Either we have/or can't hit 16 votes or more on all three issues.

153

Toral
ID: 575542418
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:12

Toral, basically, anything we deem as a major rule change will need two-thirds of the league's votes. These two votes (third one has to get 2/3 but its very proposal). IMM, it seems pretty obvious, but if it is ever a question, we'd want input for discussion

I don't want to be a nitpicker, but I want to avoid future problems, particularly avoidable procedural ones. I do not think it will always be obvious whether a proposed rule change is major or not. Most of the time, I think that most managers will have the same intuition as to whether a change is major or not -- but not all the time. So, just to see if I have it clear...the decision whether a rule change is "major" will be made by the commissioner(s) (NOTE: it's still the commissioner who decides, right? or is it the competition committee?) ; if there is any division among managers, the commissioner(s) will invite input on these boards and then rule.

And if the commissioner decided that a rules change proposal was major, and the league wished to challenge his decision, what number of votes would it need to overrule him? 50% 2/3%

If you think this is all too nitpicky I don't mind if you just say so and ignore the questions; but I have seen too much damage to leagues from too-ambiguous rules not to want to see as much detail as I can.

Toral

154

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:15

I was asked by one manager to post the votes. We've done that once before here w/o objection, however in G20 baseball there were objections to it. It doesn't matter to me.

155

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:21

Toral, I'm not bothered by it, but I don't see it being an issue. It will be decided by the commissioners as mbj/tb had in their proposal. In this league, there is a system for the league to overrule a commissioner's decision that is detailed in the league rules. Can't imagine it getting that far.

156

Toral
ID: 575542418
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:23

I didn't see 152 before I posted. Since it's over, my vote will be in soon. :) ref, feel free to answer or ignore the questions in 153 depending on whether you feel it would be useful to state a policy now or not.

Toral

157

Toral
ID: 575542418
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:27

In this league, there is a system for the league to overrule a commissioner's decision that is detailed in the league rules.

That's good, I had forgotten that. The odds are there won't be any major problems with the rule. But if there are, I'll be saying "Don't blame me; I voted No." ;)

Toral

158

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:28

Ok 23 votes in. I don't konw what happened to Dan, maybe he's away w/o access for the week.

Anyhow, 23 votes were cast.

#1 IDP: 19 Yes 4 No
#2 DH: 18 Yes 5 No
#3 2/3: 22 Yes 1 No

All three proposals pass.

159

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:31

LOL: 157!!!

Well thing is, by voting no, all rules would still need just simple majority of 13. And since you outed yourself, I can say that you broke up the unanimous vote! ;)

160

THK
ID: 106322819
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 20:37

Boooooo on double headers.

Anyway, trade thoughts.

Looking to trade Chambers and Cooley for a better WR or KJ and Cooley for an upgrade at RB.

Or will trade Chambers + picks OR KJ + picks for an upgrade as well. ANY PICKS AVAILABLE!

Want to make my run this year. Since KJ did not turn out like I planned - I need a slight upgrade somewhere outside of CJ and Smith!

161

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Jul 29, 2007, 12:42

Heading to a new thread here for the rest of the preseason discussions.

Forum: footPage 4859Subject: Gurupie 24 2007 Off-Season Discussion

Forum: foot
Page 4859
Subject: Gurupie 24 2007 Off-Season Discussion