Self Editor

Forum: foot
Page 4876
Subject: Gurupie 24 Preseason Discussion 07

Posted by: Ref - Donor [539581218] Sun, Jul 29, 2007, 12:42

Previous Thread with Off-season and preseason voting.

Ok now that the voting is done, it's time to start a new thread. Working on getting the new rules in and the constitution cleaned up. Also need to go back and re-read the CBS changes for this year.

After we get those things complete we will get the scoring input/changed and test it. Then we will try and determine dates for Keepers, IDP draft (4 rounds random one time only) and the Supp. draft. (7 rounds). This will take over twice as long as previous drafts--though we're at least hoping the IDP draft will be pretty quick. We also need to get busy on the scheduling as that will take some time.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Jul 29, 2007, 12:51

Here is the major change that CBS that we have no control over to prevent even if we wanted to.

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.

We could always change our lineups after Thursday's games but couldn't add/drop or trade a player. The key part is that if a player's team has already played, he is excluded. (DST is considered a player). This could also help with teams dropping a player on Thursday that was off-limits until the following week even though he didn't play until Sunday.

It says gametime on Sundays. I assume that is the first game of the day on Sunday as it has always been when there were no Thursday/eraly week games. Otherwise, they'd allow it up to the MNF game. So for rules purposes it will say something to that effect. Again, we are at CBS' mercy in this a the question has already been posed to them for confirmation.

THK
ID: 106322819
Mon, Jul 30, 2007, 02:00

Repeat:
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!

----
Also, I saw that new CBS addition for the league that I run. Hate it. It is going to cause somebody an illegal lineup in my league - I know it!

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jul 30, 2007, 16:18

Looks like the hex worked GO:

News: The St. Petersburg Times reports that Chris Simms has been limited in practice with what the team is calling a sore throwing arm, and because of these problems, the Buccaneers are considering releasing Simms or placing him on injured reserve.

Promize
ID: 55223275
Mon, Jul 30, 2007, 20:45

What is the consideration for the IDPs? The order of drafting? Just regular?

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jul 30, 2007, 23:25

From the previous thread post 26 which is what was voted on:

...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).

Promize
ID: 55223275
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 07:26

Have you all determined the random draft order yet STL?

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 11:45

Not yet Promize, we are still getting the infrastructure in place for everything right now. We'll give everyone notice when we're ready to do the random draw to determine draft order. Good to see people starting to get anxious for football :)

Doug
ID: 113132214
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 14:34

Ref I gonna send you a spreadsheet that should be good for scheduling.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 16:13

Trying to determine what teams are not played. This would be so much easier had we been able to do the six divisions, but we have to go with what we have. Thought about a random number 1-12 and each team doesn't play their reciprical number. Problem is we have to do that twice and overlapping occurs. I just thought of an idea of first two numbers of a random generator. Just have to figure our which two teams each team will not be playing each year during the regular season.

Scoring sitll needs to get done with the addition of IDP. Rules are almost done.

Cards and I are discussing the best timetable for the keeper/idp draft/s-draft so we're done in time enough to get ready for the season. If we get done as fast as we did last year, we can go on a similar schedule we used then, even with the extra draft rounds. We can get the scoring input and tested and schedules done in the interim. Will also get the IDP draft order done as well.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 16:21

Actually probably the best way is if all the teams are random anyhow, we just pair them up. Maybe one from each div instead of two from the same div. this might not be that hard. random means 1-12 and 1 doesn't play #1 in each div and so on.

Doug
ID: 113132214
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 16:33

I made it a very minor SOS based on prior season record... if you were #1 in your division last year, you don't face either of the #6 teams from the other conference (and so on for 2/5, 3/4, etc.)

In the course of a 26-game regular season, the effect is fairly negligible as it only affects 2 games... the other 24 games on everyone's slate are non-SOS.

The other thing nice about this is in case they don't add 6-division option next year, it's very easy to plug-n-play the team names to generate the schedule next year and beyond.

I left the first page as a template, all you have to do is fill in the actual teams (which I've done for 2007 on the second page).

A few other details of how I set it up are noted at the top of the file... I think it provides just about as well-balanced of a schedule as we're likely to find, but could modify it if someone finds a significant problem with it.

Schedule file can be downloaded here

Doug
ID: 113132214
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 16:36

- Play every team in your division twiceâ€¦ once during a bye week, and once during a "non-bye" week

- Play every team in the other division in your conference once (weeks 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13)

- Play every team in the other conference onceâ€¦ except that 1 seeds don't play 6 seeds (based on previous season finish)â€¦ same for 2/5 and 3/4â€¦ a VERY MINOR strength of schedule adjustment for a 26-game season

- 2 conference games to kick off the season in week 1, and also closing out the regular season weeks 12 and 13

- 1 conference game and 1 non-conference game per week (for weeks 2 through 11)

- I tried to keep things fairly balancedâ€¦ in a given week, if you play an opponent who was 1st in their division the prior season, your other opponent that week should generally be 4th-6thâ€¦ there are a few exceptions but I think it's pretty solid as-is.

Perm Dude
ID: 2625319
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 16:40

Nice work, Doug.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 16:50

Doug, just glanced at it, but sounds good to me. Takes randomness out of it, but I actually like it better as it still adds to the SOS factor that we like. It's better than anything we had even considered. Barring a mistake somewhere in your work, that would make scheduling a lot easier for sure.

Doug
ID: 113132214
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 16:54

Thanks PD.

Actually, now that I think about it, the 2 "SOS" games really just return the playing field to level... since ordinarily, #1 teams don't play themselves in their own division, and #6 teams don't play themselves in their own division either... thus by default the top teams would have an easier SOS and the bottom teams actually have a more difficult SOS.

With this adjustment, #1 teams now play 3 games against the "other" #1 teams from last year, and the #6 seed ALSO play 3 games against #1 seeds (2 in division, 1 in other division from same conference). So it's not even a SOS so much as a "leveler" so that all teams in the league play an even schedule.

Doug
ID: 113132214
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 16:56

Sounds good Ref... lemme know if you catch anything.

(I mean, "if you catch any problems with the spreadsheet". There's no need to update me on any illnesses you come down with. Just clarifying.)

blackjackis21
Dude
ID: 034837521
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 16:59

What if Ref goes fishing?

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:03

Doug looking at it further, I like it even more. I didn't like the fact that you'd play 5 games against your div in the last 3 weeks. Two div games in the same week, esp at the end hurt managing and even trading to try to get in. Your schedule encompasses all of our guidelines and spread out in a fair manner. Again, it's not random per se, but it's random enough within our guidelines. Because you play certain opponents during certain weeks, total randomness isn't really even important.

Am going to talk to Cards, but I think this is really easy to use and set up. Did you test this yet? Errors become more obvious during or after scheduling. But perusing this, I think we can definitely use this for our scheduling. Thanks a lot for your help.

Doug
ID: 113132214
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:16

> Did you test this yet?

The second page would be this years schedule... I browsed through it and felt it made sense. Sure, occasionally someone is going to have a tough week where you're going to face a pair of "#2 teams", and other weeks you might skate by against a #4 and a #6... but for most teams, most weeks, you're playing a balanced schedule. Besides, last year's performance is far from a guarantee of this year's performance... and it's actually fun to have some weeks be a little bit tougher or a little bit easier... sometimes it works to your advantage, sometimes it works against... so there will still be plenty of randomness in our schedules on those points alone. :)

Oh, and yeah... Ref (like everyone) should totally keep me up-to-date on any fishing expeditions. Particularly if you are fishing for G24 trades...

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:18

Also like how you never have to play the top seed of each div in the same week. There are some weeks where teams ahve to play hte 2nd place team in each div in the same week, but some things are going to be unavoidable. Also teams rise and fall each year and last year's #2 may be a 1 or a 4 etc this year.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:20

LOL Doug!!! We basially just said the same things. I don't see any errors. I can def. see us using that. Thanks again. Just saved us a lot of time.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:25

Ok looking on the 2nd page. How did you seed those teams? We can't consider the playoff games. So the final standings for this would be the standings after week 13 from last year? Is that what you used? I haven't double checked but a couple teams seemed different than the list of our final order of 1-24.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:27

This is not broken down by Div. but here are the records after week 13--end of reg. season.

2006 End of Regular Season Rankings
1. Coyotes' Broncos 10-3 1058.8
2. CCR's Bears 10-3 920.7
3. bj21's Rams 9-4 1060.8
4. TB's Ravens 9-4 1033.5
5. StL Cards' 49ers 9-4 986.7
6. mbj's Bengals 9-4 968.7
7. Bmd's Texans 9-4 922.4
8. thk's Vikings 8-5 1080

9. Ref's Colts 8-5 933.8
10. AF's Falcons 7-6 1054.5
11. GO's Jets 7-6 822.8
12. Doug's Raiders 6-7 975.5
13. CT's Cardinals 6-7 927.9
14. sw's Chiefs 6-7 912.8
15. ds' Eagles 6-7 872.2
16. Dan's Bills 6-7 862.2
17. Toral's Saints 6-7 853.3
18. GL's Chargers 5-8 743
19. SJ's Packers 5-8 718.8
20. Yokel's Jaguars 4-9 852.2
21. Twarpy's Giants 4-9 736.9
22. Peter's Cowboys 3-10 789.8
23. Promize's Seahawks 2-11 753.7
24. PD's Browns 2-11 570.7

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:49

Found errors:

Hou is aw2
oak aw3
ks aw4
sd aw5

stl ns1
sf ns2
atl ns3
phi ns4
no ns5

Doug
ID: 113132214
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:50

Oh, you know what, I just looked at the cbs site and used the info off the "standings" page... but forgot that those included playoff games. So I just re-uploaded the file with what I believe are the proper standings to use for 2007 (based on the results posted above). Just re-download the file and it should be good to go.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:53

Looks good now Doug. Thanks again.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 18:00

Just looked at my opponents based on Doug's schedule. Figures that both of the teams I won't be playing (GB and Phi) are also two teams I have never played before. At least I will be playing 3 other teams for the first time ever (sf, atl, dal).

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 13:11

Update: Scoring and Rules entered. Testing now.

Does anyone have any objections to simply taking the numbers in #23 and simply randomizing off of that to be our actual IDP draft order? I know there are probably a few who'd like to pick their draft order based on priority but that may take a long time based on what we've seen previously. So based on that I am inclined to run one random sequence generator for the order of the 4 round snake draft.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 13:18

Actually let's do this...Two people email me random numbers from here (smallest value 1 largest value 24) and that will be our order.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 13:46

I have the two sets of numbers, Thanks for your quick responses. Am working on the IDP order right now.

Twarpy
ID: 53443916
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 14:09

I understand using SOS for this year to randomize the schedule, but what about next year? I voted for double headers so we played every team but two every year, and with strength of schedule it seems as though you could be not playing the same team the next year.

Also a little confused on how these random numbers are being applied to each manager in the IDP draft.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 14:09

Original Order	PD's #s	GO's #s	New Order	IDP Draft Order
1. Coyotes' Broncos 10-3 1058.8	* 10	17	20. Yokel's Jaguars 4-9 852.2	1. Yokel's Jaguars
2. CCR's Bears 10-3 920.7	* 3	7	14. sw's Chiefs 6-7 912.8	2. sw's Chiefs
3. bj21's Rams 9-4 1060.8	* 13	8	16. Dan's Bills 6-7 862.2	3. Dan's Bills
4. TB's Ravens 9-4 1033.5	* 16	1	11. GO's Jets 7-6 822.8	4. GO's Jets
5. StL Cards' 49ers 9-4 986.7	* 4	4	5. StL Cards' 49ers 9-4 986.7	5. StL Cards' 49ers
6. mbj's Bengals 9-4 968.7	* 18	3	2. CCR's Bears 10-3 920.7	6. CCR's Bears
7. Bmd's Texans 9-4 922.4	* 20	10	1. Coyotes' Broncos 10-3 1058.8	7. Coyotes' Broncos
8. thk's Vikings 8-5 1080	* 22	11	19. SJ's Packers 5-8 718.8	8. SJ's Packers
9. Ref's Colts 8-5 933.8	* 12	2	12. Doug's Raiders 6-7 975.5	9. Doug's Raiders
10. AF's Falcons 7-6 1054.5	* 21	24	23. Promize's Seahawks 2-11 753.7	10. Promize's Seahawks
11. GO's Jets 7-6 822.8	* 1	6	13. CT's Cardinals 6-7 927.9	11. CT's Cardinals
12. Doug's Raiders 6-7 975.5	* 2	14	18. mjd's Chargers 5-8 743	12. mjd's Chargers
13. CT's Cardinals 6-7 927.9	* 6	9	17. Toral's Saints 6-7 853.3	13. Toral's Saints
14. sw's Chiefs 6-7 912.8	* 7	12	9. Ref's Colts 8-5 933.8	14. Ref's Colts
15. ds' Eagles 6-7 872.2	* 19	21	10. AF's Falcons 7-6 1054.5	15. AF's Falcons
16. Dan's Bills 6-7 862.2	* 8	18	6. mbj's Bengals 9-4 968.7	16. mbj's Bengals
17. Toral's Saints 6-7 853.3	* 9	5	24. PD's Browns 2-11 570.7	17. PD's Browns
18. mjd's Chargers 5-8 743	* 14	15	21. Twarpy's Giants 4-9 736.9	18. Twarpy's Giants
19. SJ's Packers 5-8 718.8	* 11	13	3. bj21's Rams 9-4 1060.8	19. bj21's Rams
20. Yokel's Jaguars 4-9 852.2	* 17	23	22. Peter's Cowboys 3-10 789.8	20. Peter's Cowboys
21. Twarpy's Giants 4-9 736.9	* 15	16	4. TB's Ravens 9-4 1033.5	21. TB's Ravens
22. Peter's Cowboys 3-10 789.8	* 23	20	7. Bmd's Texans 9-4 922.4	22. Bmd's Texans
23. Promize's Seahawks 2-11 753.7	* 24	19	15. ds' Eagles 6-7 872.2	23. ds' Eagles
24. PD's Browns 2-11 570.7	* 5	22	8. thk's Vikings 8-5 1080	24. thk's Vikings

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 14:17

Had to explain the chart above to Twarpy so he asked me to explain it just in case anyone else didn't understand what happened.

We started with a base or original order. PD gave me a set of randme numbers that scrambled that original order. So for instance Yokel went from being #20 to #17. Then GO gave me a list of scrambled numbers that determined the actual order. Since 17 was first, Yokel will select first and so on. I don't see any errors. So unless I have overlooked any, you may use these slots as your "property" in terms of trading, etc.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 14:20

Funny how Cards' place stayed the same the entire time!

Also, I till have not heard from Dan since the 2nd try for the re-invites. Will continue to try and contact him.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 14:23

I liked PD's numbers where I had the #1 pick better lol... glad I helped boot myself out of that spot! :)

Perm Dude
ID: 5774518
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 14:25

Still, a nice move up for you!

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 14:31

Thats all relative since its a snake draft of course though.

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 16:21

I am still lost on how you did the numbers. Using Yokel as the same example, he went from 20 to 17, but then it looks like 17 picks 5th. It looks like Cards got 4th and the 4th person got 1st pick.

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 16:26

Forget it, I see what you did. You assigned a team number to everyone from the first set and then the 2nd set of numbers was the actual draft order based on your team number.

Doug
ID: 113132214
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 20:35

Wait... that's the order we're drafting in, or the order we get to select our draft slot in? I thought we were doing a "draft slot draft" first... I seem to recall discussing this in rules committee emails, no?

Doug
ID: 113132214
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 20:59

Re: #31... yes, it is possible that you would not play the same team two years in a row... and most likely this will happen for a couple of teams each year (but not ongoing, each year is a new random chance, and the odds of not playing the same team 3 years in a row are fairly low... on average it might happen to a single "team-pair" out of entire league, etc.

Also, doing it randomly still leaves a likely chance that a few teams will wind up "non-matched" for consecutive years... it doesn't really solve that problem.

More importantly (IMHO), the benefit of this approach versus random is that it actually negates the inherent SOS bias. Imagine a 4-team league, with a 3 week season, and teams ranked 1 through 4 based on prior year.

1 vs. 2,3,4
2 vs. 1,3,4
3 vs. 1,2,4
4 vs. 1,2,3

SOS is not equal. Compare the schedules for teams 1 and 4... Team 4, the worst team, actually has the toughest SOS, and Team 1 the easiest!!! This is basically what we have by default when we construct our schedule before we "remove" 2 games from the slate (but on a larger 24-team scale, so the effect is less significant since there are a larger number of "games in common")

If we removed those 2 games randomly, it would have no effect on SOS... that is, there would STILL be the default SOS bias in the schedule (as illustrated above). Not to mention there'd still be a chance that you didn't play the same team two years in a row.

By using the "2-game SOS" approach, we actually restore SOS to be very near to equilibrium, such that that everyone actually plays a balanced difficulty schedule each and every year. And the percentage chance of missing an opponent 2 years in a row is only slightly higher, depending how "sticky" you think divisional rankings are from one year to the next.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 01, 2007, 23:01

Doug,

The topic was broached butas we ultimately decided there, and I alluded to again in 28, getting the managers to show up here in order would be difficult and time-consuming. It was decided we would just do it randomly and get it over with.

What Twarpy is referring to i that he wanted to make it guaranteed that next year you'd play the two teams you didn't play this year. As in not-random. I see his point and I would love the chance to finally get to play DS and sj, but the league also has asked us to use SOS in the past so this seems to work out the best and I love the way the schedule was put together. It jsut makes sense. I think you both want what is best for the league and that's a good thing (sorry Martha). Hopefully, CBS will give us 6 divisions next year so it won't make a difference. Not holding my breath though.

If it wasn't for Twarpy taking the bull by the horns, I would have withdrew my proposal. Also, the amended version seemed watered down from what I enviisoned and I was so on the fence that I couldn't decide how to vote for the longest time. So both Twarpy and Doug deserve major credit for helping us with this.

Doug
ID: 441251914
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 11:44

Understood Ref... and thanks... although I do feel compelled to point out that I think it bodes poorly for this league that we make a major change like adding IDPs, but when it comes to drafting them we skip the draft slot draft because we're worried about people participating in a timely manner. If that's the case, it's not exactly the perfect atmosphere to be making things more complicated by adding IDPs. It just seems rather inconsistent to me. My .02, not gonna lose any sleep over it, just felt it needed pointing out.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 11:57

Point taken Doug. I'm not worried about it either. While I wouldn't mind having people pick their own draft slots by priority too, it's fine this way. We've never done that in any of our G20/24 leagues before anyhow. For instance, Dan is in the 3rd slot. I've emailed him yet again and stressed to him the importance of getting back to me asap since he missed the mandatory discussion and voting and he still hasn't responded. How long would we wait? At least this way we all know where everyone is and if there is a trading issue, people can trade their pick if needed. At least this issue is done and we can move on.

Still testing scoring. Couple quirks are showing up in IDP. Wish i could throw a complete game stat on it and see how it comes up. I think it is ok, but am going to ask CBS just to clarify.

Promize
ID: 55223275
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 18:41

Just to inform the league now, probably going to have to have someone text message me at work during the draft... I will not have any access at all for the draft, to much security at my company. So if anyone doesn't mind texting and would help when its my turn and doing a short recap... would be great :)

THK @ fam
ID: 40717218
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 19:22

Man, looking back on the standings and realizing I was #1 in points in the regular season...hurts

Toral
ID: 575542418
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 19:34

Can I just be allowed to drop out of the league and disappear because I own Michael Vick? Like the league never happened?

I didn't draft him -- I picked up a team with him on it. I always wanted to trade him but didn't know for what. He was always On the Block.

Interesting to me -- I never got a serious offer for Vick of any kind. Smart league.

Toral

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 20:31

Scoring is still irritating the living crap put of us. Problem is there is a oerall default, a DST and a LB, DL and DB that we have to allow different scoring functions and some go straight to overall which is the default. I think I've finally managed to trick the yards and points allowed into not scoiring for teh IDP, but there are a few other issues giving us problems--though we do have some ideas how we can get around those. CBS hasn't responded yet to my questions about it.

Also found some other quirks in lineups. Finally figured out that one of the errors we are getting on the lineup pages is because CBS now has a maximum number of players at a certain position and it was defaulted to our max actives. Once I figured out what the problem was and changed that number to 9s--those errors went away.

Another issue is the flex positions. CBS has added flex positions for our rb/wr/te positions as well as dl/lb/db positions. We have chosen that option and it should allow the matchups on games to lineup for a change. However, if people would rather us get around that as we did before we can get that configuration back and the same wit the IDPs. There is zero real difference--just if it really matters what you choose. For instance now you can now only have one rb and one wr but you can have two rb/wr/te positions. Play around with your lineups. This way will show matchups better for pick'ems players, but in reality it doesn't matter.

Doug
ID: 113132214
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 21:11

I had no problem playing around with my lineup using the rb-wr-te option... although it seems odd that if I choose a rb as my flex player, it lists is "before" my WR... that is, it moves around depending which actual position the flex player is... rather than just listing the flex positions as separate lines. *shrug* Not a big deal, just different than how most other sites do it... and makes me dubious whether it will acutally line up the flex slots properly on the pick 'ems pages. We'll see.

I'd noticed they'd added positional caps, figured you guys just hadn't gotten around to tweaking the values on those settings yet. :)

And I think the scoring issues for IDPs is just karma frowning upon our decision to include them. *snicker* ;p

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 21:40

Agreed Doug about flex listing before the wr if he is a rb, that's why I posted it here. Just a little different look.

Those positional caps really took me awhile to figure out. But an easy fix once I saw what they did. I'm confident Cards and I will get teh IDP and DST scoring right soon. Trial and error just takes awhile. Those DH schedules being done are going to save us massive amounts of time.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 22:08

If anyone in here already isn't in an RIFC league, a second AA league needs about a half dozen managers. I played last year for the first time and it was fun. In fact, the IDP led me to my idea to add it here. Had already considered DHs for a long time, but the fact that many others in ehre have played there too might have helped the concept even though it wasn't able to happen exactly as I pictured it. Sign up in the RIFC AA thread(s) in this forum.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 10:18

Follow up advertisement
Football 101 is looking for a few good men as well... so of course everyone here is invited to join my new 4-keeper Yahoo PLUS league :)

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 12:00

OK, I think Scoring is set-up right now. Will go over everything again, but in testing we got it to work. CBS did finally respond today and said they are showing that the way I have configured it will accomplish our goals. Figured they wouldn't respond until after we kept playing around with it to finally figure it out. Unncessarily complicated. Not intuitive at all.

Next up: Schedule for Keepers/IDP Draft/S Draft and getting our seasons schedules input.

Also, if we don't hear from Dan soon, I think we are going to have to look to find another manager--if nothing else to give a new person time to evaulate his team, get familliar with the rules and research before the keepers and drafting starts.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Aug 04, 2007, 16:27

Schedule of Upcoming Events:

CBS will automate the Keepers for us but we have to have them due by 11:59 pm ET.

So Keepers Due by that time on Sunday August 19.

IDP Draft will begin sometime around Noon ET on Monday August 20

Supplemental Draft will begin shortly after we complete the IDP draft and then get the S Draft Ready. Best guess is no later than Friday Aug 24. There's an outside chance it could begin on Thursday Aug 23.

Rationales: Last year we had an 8 hr cumulative time clock to get through 5 rounds. Only Dan and CCR timed out. It took us less than 6.5 days to complete. This year we will ahve two extra rounds with the one less keeper and the added bench slot due to the IDP rule. Last year we began on Thurs Aug 24. We got done faster than expected and had 8 days before opening night. So if our draft begins a day later and takes say 2.5 days longer, we still have 3-4 days before opening night. With one day WW waits this year, that still gives us plenty of time and still allows us to see two weeks of preseason games before keepers are due and IDP draft begins. S Draft will begin after preseason week 3 has begun and by the time you get out of the first round or so, you will likely have 3 preseason weeks in the books.

Keepers: You must mark your own Keepers. Go in and mark them now. You can always change them up until the deadline. If you fail to mark them, your lineup will be wiped. The commishs will get into everyone's lineups at some point and click on 8 names. Not going to spend too much time on it. But if you fail to mark the ones you want, you'll get "stuck" with these 8.

Drafting Time Limits: Cards and I haven't come to a final number yet. The IDP draft will be pretty agressive--similar to the Prospect Draft in baseball. With snaking, that will cut down the endcaps big time as by our "skip" rule, you'll only have your per pick limit to make both picks. It's a four round draft. My guess is that the per pick limit will remain at 3 hrs as all of our drafts are, but the c time will be 5 or 6 hrs. S Draft will need to add some time to the 8 hrs since we are adding two more picks. As of now, everyone has a 7th round pick as we have added that upon the addition of IDP. If we get squeezed for time late, we could always shorten those.

THK @ fam
ID: 40717218
Sun, Aug 05, 2007, 10:52

Ok guys...here is the plan.

Cooley must go!

Cooley + Chambers for a top WR
Cooley + KJ + pick for an upgrade at RB
Cooley for a pick

Contact me now if you want Cooley on your squad!

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 11:38

We have sent several emails to Dan over the past weeks w/o response. Based on missing the votes and discussion and the issues over the last few years combined, we have given him a deadline of this afternoon in our last email to him to contact us or post, etc. or we would start taking steps to replace him. We feel that whoever takes his spot is going to need time to not only familliarize himself with the league but to have a chance to entertain trade offers to try and mold his team before the keepers and drafts are due/start. It sure would be easier if he responds but we'd rather do it now then have to stop/postpone the drafts to replace him then.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 15:08

FYI, For next year, with 19 players and 9 Keepers, there will be 10 round supplemental draft. Somoene just contacted me about possibly trading next year's picks and just wanted to clarify.

THK @ fam
ID: 40717218
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 15:44

Received 2 good offers in a deal for Cooley but I have decided to stand pat with those current offers.

Will deal KJ + Jones + high picks for an upgrade at RB.
Will deal Chambers + high picks for an upgrade at WR.

Cooley is still on the market, but with such a solid reliable contributor at TE I am going to have to command top price. He is one of those under the radar, under-valued commodities that I have to make sure I get equal value for...

andrewwilson_2009@depauw.edu with trade talks

Doug
ID: 422281412
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 18:54

I'd like to make a suggestion re: IDPs and keepers. I don't know how many people were really paying attention to the details of this with all the proposals and info going around, but before we get going with this keeper draft I don't think it's too late to address this.

Pre-IDP, we had 8 starters and 8 keepers. Most teams drop a defense, or a TE, or a K (if not all 3), so at QB/RB/WR we actually have a number of "bench" players being kept as well. Basically, anyone halfway decent is "kept" most years, and you can build for the future with talented young guys. Unfortunately, we've basically completely abandoned that with respect to our IDPs.

As it stands, we've added 4 starting positions (all IDPs)... but only added ONE keeper. This is terribly inconsistent with what we do on offense (for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to use "offense" to refer to "non-IDPs", even though it includes team defense).

Furthermore, at present nothing says that additional 9th keeper has to be an IDP, you could keep 9 offensive players (basically "undoing" the change we voted on last year).

My proposal is:

Add a 10th keeper, but require at least 2 keepers each year to be IDPs.

This would bring us back to the 8 "non-IDP" keepers that we just implemented this year. Also, it would make our defensive keeper situation at least "somewhat" similar to the offensive side (although you'd still only be keeping 2 out of 4 fantasy IDP starters, whereas ALL offensive starters are typically kept).

Aside: In all honesty, I think 11 total / 3 IDP keepers would be the best solution to make defense more like offense, but I figured I'd suggest the more moderate 10/2 option since I think this is likely to get broad consensus and minimize conflict/objections.

Honestly, I think it's pretty important we address this now, not next year, since this is the first year of IDPs and thus our first draft. The valuing of certain older IDP players (Zach Thomas comes to mind) is greatly affected by this decision, and it wouldn't be fair to managers to change this rule next year (even if it wasn't implemented until 2009)... because when making dynasty picks like this (where you can keep a player his entire career), I definitely consider what I think this player's value is over the next several years... so I feel this is a bit of a "now or never" type of decision/issue. Modifying it 1-2 years after the initial draft is BAD.

I do apologize for not raising this sooner, but this aspect of the IDP proposal was sort of lost in the sea of proposals... and I didn't realize the implications until today. It was just a bit too much to digest at once when it's all bundled together (though I certainly understand the desire to offer a "comprehensive" proposal... just explaining why I think we still might want to revise this prior to the IDP draft).

Toral
ID: 575542418
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 20:24

I agree with Doug.

THK @ fam
ID: 40717218
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 20:50

Agree as well..

Now, NO PICK IS OFF LIMITS! I am looking to make a deal ASAP! Contact me if you see something that interests you...

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 16:30

Schedule has finally all been input. It is very very easy to make mistakes. Cards and I have not tested it yet and are getting ready to do so as we speak. I tried to matchup your home and away games as best as I could but that's just to make things pretty. Most important things is your matchups. Please go in and check your indiviudal teams. It should match up with the file in post 11. Make sure you play everyone in your own division twice and everyone in your own conference outside of your div. once and everyone in the opposite conference once except the SOS teams you're not playing this year based on your seeding. We hope that it's right and will go over it again to try and make sure but each team is responsible to look at their own team to double chekc. Thanks! On to testing and to the next number in our to do list...

Perm Dude
ID: 1871978
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 16:44

I agree with Doug's analysis of what happens in the keeping (so to speak), but disagree on his solution.

People keep the players they do because they are either valuable (make lots of pts/game), rare (a big drop-off to the next player in pts/game) or both. And it is relative to a particular team. That process isn't going to change. A very valuable/rare IDP is going to be kept, just like a valuable D has been kept in the past. What will happen is that those valuable IDPs will displace offensive players that might otherwise have been kept.

But so long as they all contribute points to the same cause, I don't see the need to require certain positions to be kept.

The best way to make the treatment of IDPs and non-IDPs equal (if, indeed, that is a goal of ours--I remain unconvinced myself) is to increase the points for IDPs, making them more valuable as keepers.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 16:51

This is the kind of discussion that we "pleaded" for earlier. People have aimed/emailed me discusing their views on this and I say better late than never to discuss--but they need to pipe up themselves on here.

Toral
ID: 575542418
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 17:00

The best way to make the treatment of IDPs and non-IDPs equal (if, indeed, that is a goal of ours--I remain unconvinced myself)

Has that been a goal of the league's changes? That's a genuine question -- I haven't followed the discussion all that closely. I was for IDPs. If the goal was to make the treatment of IDPs and non-IDPs equal I would have been against. There is a league advertising on the boards right now that attempts to make IDPs and offensive skill players equal in value. I don't remember anyone suggesting any such thing here -- but I could be wrong in that. I don't think picking the best outside linebacker in the league should be as much of an advantage of picking the best running back.

I don't think that the goal you set out has been a goal of making the changes and so I cannot support your solution of making IDPs more important. If your solution does not gain a lot of support, I hope you will support Doug's proposal as being at least an improvement to the status quo.

Toral

Perm Dude
ID: 1871978
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 17:38

Well, that is the question, isn't it?

Other than some kind of "equalization" (by whatever measure!) why are you in favor of the proposal to make some keepers IDPs?

Toral
ID: 575542418
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 17:57

The proposal rewards long-term talent recognition.

It broadens strategy by requiring assessment of both short- and long-term value. (Ol' Billy Bob Simmons -- sure to lead the league in tackles and be in the top 5 in IDP points the next 2 years. Too bad he has terminal cancer and will be dead immediately after that and his backup will be ven better...)

It makes selection of IDPs an important part of the league....And also guards against it being ba too-important part of the league. If there is some supernaturally knowledgebale IDP shark out there among us, he will now be competing with people who know that they will have to be keeping 2 of their choices, and so will look at things more carefully.

Toral

Perm Dude
ID: 1871978
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 18:11

Hmm. Thinking out loud here, but isn't that the point of keepers anyway? So why, in particular, force people to drop offensive keepers for defensive ones? Seems to me that it is just as likely that a young up-and-comer WR will get dropped because of the IDP keeper requirement as an up-and-coming DB will be kept.

Perhaps a rule adding a "young keeper" with 3 or fewer years of service might serve that function. I don't see how a positional keeper requirement would necessarily force managers to pick younger players.

Doug
ID: 422281412
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 18:15

Personally I would differentiate the treatment of IDPs in the scoring sense and the keeper sense. I agree they should not be equivalent to offensive players in the scoring sense. However, I would like us to have a bit more consistency in the "keeper sense".

It is because of the scoring disparity that IDPs are far less likely to be kept than offensive players... therefore I really don't think there will be much "displacement" of offensive players in favor of IDPs in our league.

Fantasy leagues are in 3 main categories... redraft, keeper (usually 3-6), and dynasty (where you retain most if not all of your squad each year). Thus far, this has been a dynasty league.

My perception is that if we proceed with the 9/0 keeper setup, we will basically have a dynasty league on the offensive side, and a borderline keeper/redraft league on the IDP side... and to me that just doesn't seem in the spirit of what we've all worked to create here the past several years. If we're going to include IDPs (which I opposed, FWIW), let's at least "really" include them by keeping at least 2 of your 4 starters.

The other reason I see the need to require that 1-2 of your players kept be IDPs is that the whole reason we went from 9 to 8 keepers this year (as I understand it) is that the talent available at RB and WR in the annual draft was a bit too thin. We wanted to "ratchet back" on the dynasty a bit, to allow teams a little better chance to improve each year (at least that was the theory, I think).

Now we've added 24 keeper slots to the league. If you think that around 24 IDPs will be kept each year, then it's a null effect. If you think (like I do) that's it's probable to be only like 10-20 IDPs per year, then that means we're undoing a bit of this year's change. But, if you significantly more than 24 IDPs will be kept each year, then we're actually further "de-dynasty-ing" the offensive side of things.

I think the prior paragraph is the heart of the question as to whether the newly adpoted keeper system needs tweaking... and personally I just don't see people valuing IDPs that highly such that any more than the top-5 or so at each of the 3 positions are going to be kept over an additional young QB/RB with upside, or a WR heading into his 3rd year, etc. It'll depend on each teams circumstance, to be sure, but I think that will be the general trend.

And I would NOT suggest going to 10 keepers without requiring a minimum of 1 or 2 IDPs (I proposed 2)... otherwise we'll be even more severely reversing track on the "offensive keeper reduction" that we've implemented this year (and haven't even had a chance to really evaluate).

To reiterate the beginning of this post (and to agree with Toral), I do NOT think the goal is to make IDPs anywhere near equal scoring-wise... however, I think there is something to be said for making them at least somewhat similar keeper-wise (more "dynasty" and less "redraft")... and the only way I can see to achieve that (without increasing IDP scoring in an IMHO undesirable way) is to bump our total keepers up while including a minimum requirement for IDP keepers specifically.

Even with my proposal, hardly anyone will be keeping more than 2 IDPs... which is only half your starting lineup... compared to offense where most teams keep most of their starting lineup along with a bench QB/RB/WR or two or three... so it's still not going to be "dynasty" on the IDP side, but at least it'll be more "keeper-ish" and less "redraft-ish".

My apologies for writing a monster post. I can be a bit verbose sometimes. =p

Doug
ID: 422281412
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 18:23

Responding to what was posted while I was writing my novella... ;)

> So why, in particular, force people to drop offensive keepers for defensive ones?

I guess I don't look at it that way. We voted last year to reduce the allowed number of QB/RB/WR/TE/K/D (non-IDP) keepers to 8. The IDP keeper proposal would keep that non-IDP maximum at 8.

In other words, we're not forcing people to drop offensive keepers for defensive ones (compared to the current-year system)... we're keeping the existing system the same, and then augmenting it by adding 2 IDP keepers (out of 4 IDP positions).

I can understand the desire/appeal to look at the roster wholistically (is that a word?)... but in reality I just don't think IDPs will be valued and kept nearly as much (maybe 1 per year per team on average). It seems weird to me that we'd add these players to a dynasty league, but then end up redrafting the bulk of them each year (and again, even with the proposal we'll still end up redrafting half the IDPs each year).

Perm Dude
ID: 1871978
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 18:31

It seems to me that the players worth keeping will be kept, yes? So, artificially bumping up a player's value (over the desire of managers to keep other players they would otherwise value more highly) seems to be saying: "These guys aren't as valuable to your team, but you have to pick two of them anyway."

As far as the number of keepers, I think we shouldn't comparing what we had last year to your proposal, but what we have right now. And right now we have 9 keepers, not 8.

I'm still mulling over your thoughts, but I guess I'm not seeing the need to do what you are setting out to do. Why not require a kicker to be kept, or reduce the number of keepers altogether to put in more players into the draft pool?

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 18:49

wholistically is not a word

but in reality I just don't think IDPs will be valued and kept nearly as much (maybe 1 per year per team on average).

If we're adding one keeper and 1 IDP per team is kept then everything is just as it was. I would agree that 1 IDP per team on average will likely be kept. That means that 8 offensive players per team will be kept, the same as it is now. Part of the problem is we really don't know the impact of IDP. We definitely discussed making 2 IDP keepers and a total of 10. We also discussed making DST a mandatory keeper.

The way I see it is that we don't want to tell people how to run their team. Some people might forgo an IDP keeper to keep a young WR or QB etc. Others might keep 2 top IDPs and not care about the 3rd/4th WR/RB as they already have 2 starters of each. One idea was that we want to keep this league full of tough decisions to make. Do you drop a proven IDP for a chance on keeping a longshot prospect? I would honestly be shocked if people don't keep IDPs. Are you really going to drop that 2nd year linebacker that is the next great thing just so you can keep some 3rd string offensive player that will only play if someone gets hurt? I don't know, maybe some will. Right now I'm looking at keeping a 3rd/4th WR on a running team vs my kicker. If I had 2 solid IDP's on my team I'd probably rather keep them. If you keep none, there is likely to be a big run on them in the draft. If IDP's aren't worth keeping then I'm not sure why we even have them at all.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 18:53

I'm definitely interested in what the rest of the league thinks, so chime in. None of this was easy to come up with as their are pros and cons to everything, but better to get it right now than be sorry later.

Doug
ID: 422281412
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 18:58

> As far as the number of keepers, I think we shouldn't comparing what we had last year to your proposal, but what we have right now. And right now we have 9 keepers, not 8.

AFAIK, right now we have 8 keepers. Last year we had 9. NEXT year we will have 9 again (and IDPs will become part of the keeper mix).

> Why not require a kicker to be kept

Because we didn't add kickers to the mix, they were already part of the system we had in place.

> or reduce the number of keepers altogether to put in more players into the draft pool?

That's what we did this year with the reduction to 8, and we haven't yet really had a chance to see how it worked.

IDPs muddy the keeper situation, but IMHO they will end up "undoing" this year's reduction somewhat, and in the end IDPs will have been added to our otherwise dynasty league as primarily redraft players.

My perception is that this was an unintended consequence... that people liked the general idea of IDPs, but we didn't fully explore this particular aspect of it (the implications for keepers), and that my proposal would seem preferable for the sake of keeping this more of a dynasty league throughout all positions. I certainly could be wrong, but figured the topic merits discussion.

I appreciate your thoughts PD and Toral and the ongoing conversation... but I'll be quiet for a bit now, to hopefully allow some other folks to share some opinions on this matter. :)

Toral
ID: 575542418
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 19:08

StL Cards I'm extremely disappointed in your response. I appreciate your judgment very much, and have been very glad that you are in a position of influence.

It's too late for this to pass now. The mbj-inspired "major changes" rule will certainly prevent it.

I guess I'll inflame the thing by asking ref: what is the number of votes needed to pass Doug's rule change?

Now I understand why some NFL owners come to hate one another.

StLCards We definitely discussed making 2 IDP keepers and a total of 10. We also discussed making DST a mandatory keeper.

In retrospect, do you not think it would have been better if the Competition Committee had made its discussions available to league members? Generally I would agree with the view that such discussions ought to be private....but if there were reasonable alternatives, what would be the harm in opening the discussion? The league is going to vote for the CC recommendations anyway.

StLCards I'm definitely interested in what the rest of the league thinks, so chime in. None of this was easy to come up with as their are pros and cons to everything, but better to get it right now than be sorry later.

Bit late to say that now.

Toral

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 19:40

Toral:

The competition committee came up with a proposal. We had to have something down in order for us to start somewhere with the league discussions on it. We couldn't get anyone to discuss things. We continued to ask for discussion. TB and PD for instance basically said get on with the vote. After waiting another week for anyone to pipe up, we finally got to the vote. We knew it was going to take some time to get the changes set-up in the league's infrastructure if it passed. Also we only wanted to have one vote.

I haven't talked to Cards yet, but in my mind, since the rule hasn't taken effect yet (no drafts have started etc) then it might just be a tweak and a simple majoirty to change something within the IDP rule.

Cards stated why we finally made it 9 keepers. All teams are made up differently. What if I just had two players retire or get hurt and my offensive keepers aren't that good? Maybe I want to keep 2 or even 3 stud IDPs. Maybe I trade a non-keeper to a playoff team for a keeper IDP? The league voted a reduction to 8 keepers. We thought that most teams would keep at let one IDP. If you had 2 IDP keeper worthy players than maybe that 3rd string WR or RB would be dropped in order to do it. Why mandate what or who you have to keep? My original suggestion was what Doug is now suggesting, but the longer we talked the more that 9 seemed right.

As far as the compettion committee goes...originally we had just a few people in and then we opened it up so anyone that wanted to be on it could join. We posted and sent emails to the league. Every year we have people ask about rule chagnes or things they would like to change after the fact. We gave everyone lots of time to chime in and now here we are. GO brought up return yards--no one would discuss it. The INT number was brought up to see if it was good. No discussion.

Bottom line is we want to get things right. If the league really wants it--then no it's not too late to "rectify" it. But I know for a fact there are people who like Doug's idea and people who don't and not everyone is posting, obviously.

Twarpy
ID: 54735718
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 19:44

To be honest and not trying to be a jerk here, but I would probably change my opinion on IDP's if we went to 2 keepers.

I have been a strong advocate for decreasing keepers in football for many years, and am happy that we are down to 8 keepers this year (I would still love for it to be less - so I dont have to keep a kicker or a 2nd defence, which most of the league does)

Personally I think there isnt a huge dropoff of studs between the "top tier" IDPs and the next tier, so again picking between two marginal guys seems a little backwards to me.

Toral
ID: 575542418
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 19:56

Ref:

Thank you for a good response. A very positive response.

1) I would like for the Competition Committee to reconvene, and, not having to be defensive about its original proposals, consider Doug's idea. And make a recommendation for or against it (or neutral on it).

Basically the league has trust in the Competition Committee, and rightly so. I voted for the 2 main recommendations of the CC without understanding or even reading them. I suspect I'm not the only one. (I voted against the "major changes" change-of-majority rule. Why? We see right now. This kind of situation is exactly why I voted against.)

Toral

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 20:04

Toral, the CC has been disolved. It was only formed to help figure out a baseline for how we'd start this IDP. I mean where do we start? We did that and asked the league to then discuss it. Therefore, it's up to the league to decide what to do with it from this point. I mean this should really have been done before. That's the only frustrating thing about it. Now we've had the vote and getting ready to start things up and now some people want to discuss it?!?! :)

There's no reason not to be positive about it. We all want what is best for the league to make it the most enjoyable for all of us. I don't see anyone being defensive, Cards and then I simply explained again how we settled on the CC proposal.

As far as the 2/3 majority thing, again, it's not a big issue. Twarpy was one of the ones telling me he was against it. There were others. I'd like this discussion to continue to see if there can be a melding of the minds to find out if there really is enoug hsupport to have another vote. If so, we need to get on it.

Toral
ID: 575542418
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 21:06

Toral, the CC has been dis[s]olved.

That's why I asked you to reconvene it.

I mean this should really have been done before. That's the only frustrating thing about it. Now we've had the vote and getting ready to start things up and now some people want to discuss it?!?! :)

This is disingenuous, ref. You know perfectly well that most league members do not pay great attention to changes off season.

Toral

Promize
ID: 55223275
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 22:56

Crazy... all that time REF begged people to speak up.

Perm Dude
ID: 1871978
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 22:58

Sure. But Toral is right: We are concentrating on other things (particularly other sports).

TB
ID: 53633209
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 23:07

TB and PD for instance basically said get on with the vote.

This is after giving tons of input and basically the only response was, "Come on guys, we need more discussion." I did agree that we needed more discussion and input, but it was disorganized. Let's talk about keepers after we figure out scoring rules and let's figure out scoring rules after we decide how many starters we want to have or whatever order, but it was all over the place. I suggested having as many keepers as we were going to add new IDP starting positions. That either went ignored or didn't generate enough support. I suggested we make DST a mandatory keeper and also suggested excluding that number from the current number of keepers (or adding an additional keeper to account for DST), but ran into the roadblock of "not wanting to dictate policy" to teams. It hasn't happened yet, but someone could dump all their D's and not have one to draft. If they can't work out a trade they have to forfeit all their games.

I really don't want to rant on why I got burnt out being in the committee, but for future reference I do suggest just discussing rule changes as a league in the forum. That way everyone can give their input and participate at whatever level they are able to based on time constraints, but at least be able to follow along.

Perm Dude
ID: 1871978
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 23:50

TB and PD for instance basically said get on with the vote

I missed this. At one point I encouraged you to give more time for additional votes (up to a week total). But I don't recall saying anything like you've said. But perhaps I'm just not clear on your point in bringing it up?

As far as the discussions are concerned, I dunno--I think we have a very large league with guys often not all that football-oriented at the time most opportune to make league-wide changes. So when guys are paying attention (and bringing up good questions, like Doug) the timeliness makes it very messy.

I don't have an answer for you. But I do think we need to have the regular members not jump down the throats of the commishes, while the commishes need to cut the regular members some slack about good discussions coming in late in the process (more to the point, whining about no discussions earlier).

Perhaps one good way to make changes is to try to have in-season discussions of this sort, with changes to take effect the next year. That way we're all focused not only on football, but on the nuances of this league in particular.

Toral
ID: 575542418
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 00:07

Perhaps one good way to make changes is to try to have in-season discussions of this sort, with changes to take effect the next year. That way we're all focused not only on football, but on the nuances of this league in particular.

That's an excellent idea.

I'm not dissing the commisshes or the competition committee. Let the CC reconvene. Let the commisshes give their opinions of Doug's change. Only let them not be defensive about their own final proposals. That's what I asked for.

Toral

blackjackis21
Dude
ID: 034837521
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 00:28

I was on the CC and one of the few in on the final discussion. IIRC, it was me, Ref, StL, and Trip. I frankly don't know who was proposed the way the current IDP #/keeper # increase ended up, but suppose it must have been Ref or StL as I don't believe it was me and I think Trip was more or less an observer. Personally, I remember making a comment at some point along the (drawn out) discussions that if people are not compelled enough to keep IDP's, then our scoring system should be tweaked. I.e., if we're going to add IDP's, let's make them have equal value with offensive players. Note: this does not have to mean equal points on an absolute value, as many have been quick to point out.

Either way, I figured there would be plenty of pre-vote discussion and tweaking of rules to be voted upon once the CC presented its ideas. That didn't happen. Indeed, maybe intra-season is the only way to introduce such ideas.

As for reconvening the CC, I see no reason. The CC was always just an attempt to get the entire league participant's ideas moving in a coherent direction. I don't think it was ever intended to be some exclusionary, rule-making body. It appears now that a better percentage of the league is interested - not too late to change things, in my opinion.

Doug
ID: 422281412
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 03:11

Detaching from the specific keeper proposal and moving to the abstract discussion... for me, I have to say there was a fundamental disconnect on the purpose of the CC, both in terms of purpose and methodology which I only understood after the fact by chatting with Ref about it. Nobody to blame about that, it was partly a result of me joining in halfway through. I think in order for me to be really helpful, I would have needed to be part of it from the start. Jumping in halfway through was confusing as hell (and just as a suggestion for the future, I really don't think email threads are the way to go... a message board thread or a wiki helps keep things orderly).

Yes, Ref was asking people to speak up, and I wanted to. I tried to. I sincerely attempted my best to participate in the CC, but honestly I simply couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on half of the time. Other times I did try to contribute (such as on realignment and the double-header issue)... only to have the topic change to a completely different subject 2 emails later, before the existing topic was resolved (and apparently already well into the discussion of the other topic).

My suggestion for the future (completely up to the commishes, just providing my two cents) is to make proposals a 4-step process:

1) Someone proposes a rule change. It needs to be more specific than "add IDPs". Not every detail needs to be hammered out, but some pretty good guidelines of what you're talking about. General parameters at least. Otherwise it's just "an idea", not a "proposal". Be sure to take the time to propose something substantive.

2) The proposal is formalized down to the nitty-gritty wording of it. This is done EITHER by the rules committee, or league-wide... NOT both. My experience from other dynasty leagues is that a rules committee is about 100x more effective for this than a league-wide discussion. The rules committee not only discusses and formalizes the proposal, but thinks of what it feels are the important "pros and cons" and presents those along with the proposal itself (usually the pros are fairly self-evident in the proposal, it's the dissenting side that needs to be made clear). Generally speaking, the rules committee would try to stay focused on one proposal at a time, and not move on to the next until the first one is finalized (unless there is a particular reason, such as directly related proposals, or the need to wait for a particular piece of information, etc.)

3) The league receives the formalized proposals along with the "pros and cons" from the rules committee. Everyone has the option to voice supporting and dissenting opinions if they feel really strongly about it, or if they feel there are certain key pros/cons that were missed by the rules committee. However, the proposal is not modified by the league... it's just an opportunity to comment. If you want input on the actual construction of proposals, join the rules committee. In rare cases, a league member might make a critical observation or point such that the rules committee realizes their error/oversight/etc., retracts the proposal, modifies it accordingly, and resubmits it to the league.

4) League-wide vote.

Note, some proposals don't lend themselves to yes-or-no votes... case in point, should we have 9 keepers, no restrictions... or 9 keepers with 1 IDP, or 10 keepers with 2 IDP, or 10 keepers with 1 IDP, and so on... if you really want to gauge what people are going to be happiest with, there are a couple of "preferential voting" options we could employ. It's really not all that difficult and I'd be happy to help.

Also, some proposals are dependent on the results of others... coming back for a second round of voting a few days after a first round isn't a big deal. When you're dealing with a large issue like adding IDPs, sometimes it's better to break it into separate pieces to vote on (such as how many if any do we add to the league... then, how should their scoring be weighted... then, how should this impact keepers). All the implications of one comprehensive proposal is just too much to take in, particularly for anyone who wasn't involved in crafting it (on the rules committee). When you break it into pieces, people have a much easier time getting their arms around the specific issue being dicussed or voted upon.

This all might sound a bit complicated at first read, but in my experience it actually runs really smooth, and is a fairly consistent approach amongst the longer-running dynasty leagues (currently 5-10 years) that I participate in.

Just to be clear... I'm not trying to monday-morning QB here, and I greatly appreciate all the hard work that's been put in over the last few weeks by the commishes and others who have participated. I'm just trying to make some suggestions for the future that hopefully will help make it easier for managers to participate in the proposal process and make things a bit less maddening for the commishes. Take this post under advisement, and if you don't feel some or all of these ideas would be helpful to running our league, then ignore them... and really, I won't be at all offended that you aren't doing it "my way", and will still try my best to help out in the future. :)

Yeesh, two novellas in one day. I'm becoming rather prolific!

THK @ fam
ID: 40717218
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 14:03

Trade talks

Sorry to interrupt good league talk; however, I am looking to make a deal like this...

Chambers + Jones for an upgrade at WR
or
Chambers + Vinateri for an upgrade at WR

andrewwilson_2009@depauw.edu with trade talks.

Let's make a deal if you see something that works.

Doug
ID: 422281412
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 14:36

Sorry to interrupt THK's 4th post in this thread stating that he's looking for a trade, including one where he turned down two supposedly "good deals" involving a player he had mentioned (do you want to make a trade or not?); however, I am looking to make a deal like this...

Glenn + Rackers for an upgrade at WR
or
Glenn + Michael Turner for a MAJOR upgrade at RB
or
Glenn + Eagles for a top-rated Team D

doug_g24@reprazent.com with trade talks.

Let's make a deal if you see something that works.

Doug
ID: 422281412
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 14:38

Also would consider moving Glenn or Rackers for a draft pick upgrade.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 18:06

I started looking at my own team. It's a disaster.

I trade for a potential starting RB who dies. I trade for a starting RB who appears now will never play in the NFL again. I trade away a backup QB (starting then) who ends up being traded and is now a starter. My stud RB I had to trade away as he is retiring. ANother RB I traded for who was a starting RB is now 3rd on the depth charts.

So I am going to be in major rebuilding mode for the next couple years. I don't have a QB or starting RB. So I'm in a weird position as a buyer and a seller at the same time. Need to fill positions while also looking for the future.

THK @ fam
ID: 1977917
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 18:10

Well I made a trade. Pick after pick I give up for a consistent scorer at RB so I can win now. Maybe this one will break my A-train curse? Here's hoping JJ gets out of town next season...

Can we just make this league PPR or even .5 PPR so I can win and get this off my back?!?! ;-)

Let me know if anybody sees a Chambers deal they are interested in...

THK @ fam
ID: 1977917
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 18:17

Why did we change to 8 keepers again? ;-)

Perm Dude
ID: 87299
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 21:28

Just to mock me, it seems.

THK @ fam
ID: 1977917
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 21:35

PD-
Jones is always available for a draft pick! ;-)

Slizz
ID: 21733916
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 09:56

I know I'm new to these parts, but "GO", a co-worker of mine and manager in this league, has put me up to the Gurupies fantasy football world.

From what I can see on some of the trade offers out there, one is definitely appealing:

Glenn + Michael Turner for a MAJOR upgrade at RB, but the question is: how major?? are we talking Reggie Bush major, or Willis McGahee major?? I mean Glenn might only be servicable for a couple more years, but Michael Turner is damn intriguing. You have a guy who is definitely going to be a FA next year and can step in and contribute right away. Potential destinations:

Cleveland (Young offense and would be competent at QB,RB,WR,TE for the next 5+ years or so)

Pittsburgh (They signed willie parker DIRT CHEAP before last year, and still are missing that big back)

Houston (No State income tax and Ahman Green isnt the long term answer)

Tennessee (LenWhale needs to get his butt in shape and if Henry isnt a 'franchise' back, it wont cost the franchise much)

New York Giants (Brandon Jacobs Needs to learn to pass protect, otherwise hes a liability on the field on passing situations)

WILDCARDS:
Green Bay & Seattle - Nobody knows what Brandon Jackson is going to do, and they have absolutely ZERO depth. Seattle has a aging shaun alexander and paul allen as an owner, he'll make something work if needed.

That being said, those are the most likely destinations for Turner (barring severe injuries) for next season. Good luck with your trades!

As for Ref's post, there are a couple of "Gems" at the QB position that could go unnoticed

Trent Edwards - backs up "operman" JP Losman and could be in a situation like Matt "Stump the" Schaub a couple years down the road.

Jordan Palmer - 6'6 215 with a rocket arm. Throws some INTs, but that can always be worked out by some good coaching. I knwo his name carries some hype, but you never know.

Troy Smith - He WILL be baltimores starter in a year or two. But I anticipate someone reaching on him.

As for your RB's ref, GO has told me that they are far and few in this league. However, my best reccomendation is find "average" backfields in the NFL and go to their local paper's website and read what the beat writers have to say about the position battles:

Kansas City (Kansas City Star)- w/out LJ, what is their contunity plan???

Tennessee (The Tennessean) - nobody knows their situation yet

Houston (Houston Chronicle) - you never know if there is another Dominack Davis around,

San Francisco (Contra Costa Times/SF Gate) - Frank "Cavity Sam" Gore couldnt stay healthy to save his life at the "U" so pay attention to that stuff and before you know it, playoffs.

TB
ID: 14729815
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 10:05

Nice post, Slizz. There are sites where people charge for that kind of analysis.

100

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 10:30

KC's continuity plan has me wondering... is Priest really gonna play this year? or do you think KC just put him up to this to get Larry to sign?

Doug should sign Slizz to do his advertising! lol.. he'd give Species a run for his money in baseball.

101

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 12:52

My post must have struck home to a few people as I have multiple offers. I havne't had the chance to go through them all yet but I have seen them. I am not ignoring them but I have a lot to wade through now that Houston is apparently out of the league. I just got to figure out which direction I want to go. I am definitely interested in high draft picks if anyone wants to deal.

Well we asked Slizz to post somehwere (figured it would be in the 101 thread since he is playing there). You see, GO and I have been talking about Slizz for over a year. He's been telling me about he had been looking at our league (via GO's team) and giving him ideas and commenting on things etc. He kept telling me how astute he is on our league and how much he wanted to be a part of it. But, we've been burnt by a non-gurupie before. Then he moved out of GO's office and went from a one hour commute to a 3 hr commute--leaving little time. Well now he's back in GO's office again and with the commute time cool again, really wants to play. We've been talking with him and we're convinced he's the best candidate to take our open team. And since he has started posting and playing in a couple leagues, he's ready to jump into the fire--though he may be smarter than all of us!!!

Anyhow, please welcome Slizz to the league as he's taking over the Bills. Of course that makes my dviision even harder--but I think we all want the competition.

102

mjd
Sustainer
ID: 501381415
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 13:20

Slizz, from one rookie to another, welcome aboard.

103

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 13:39

Yeah, his only problem now is there is no way he can trade with Doug after showing how much value Turner has! lol... :)

I'm glad he has been given the opportunity... personally I had no reservations about reccomending Jay (Slizz) as he has always brought seriously stiff competition in my other leagues here at work/friends/family etc. I completely understood why Ref/Cards were worried about an unknown commodity, but our emails back and forth helped introduce everyone and to get a better feel.

And as far as being active, I have no worries there either... he's always looking to make moves, improve, trade etc. Like a Species/GO hybrid! And he was always asking how my squad was coming along, even in the dead of March.

Now its just getting him used to the forum and taking him through the process of an offseason/drafting etc. to get him comfortable. As Ref mentioned, he's used CBS before and I actually gave him access to my squad last year to play around with and get familiar with our league some.

And just a heads up - Slizz is a diehard Chicago sports fan. Don't know if we have any of those in here or not.

104

Doug
ID: 422281412
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:34

The idea of S. Jackson / M. Turner / A. Johnson / V. Jackson / A. Gates next year excites me. Philly should remain a solid-but-not-dominant D... so I should be golden barring injury and assuming Delhomme stays strong.

Obviously I've been building this team up for a few years now (but still doing reasonably well each year), which is why I'd be looking for something major in exchange for Turner. Trading him would give me a better shot at competing THIS year of course, but I'm not going to completely mortgage next year and beyond just for the sake of a "so-so" starting RB who's on the decline. I don't have anyone specific in mind.

As to Slizz's post... yes, I'd certainly move him (w/ Glenn) for Bush! McGahee... hmm... yeah, I'd probably do that too... maybe try to weasel out of including Glenn though... or include Glenn and look for some form of IDP draft pick compensation to help me go for it all this year.

105

Slizz
ID: 21733916
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:47

Thanks guys for allowing me to join the G24 league…I look forward to the upcoming season. I understand the privledge that was bestowed upon me to go forth and be an active member of the league, and I can assure you that I wont let you down. I would also like to recognize GO for his constant lobbying on my behalf b/c I would doubt I’d be in the league if it wasn’t for him.

That being said, I can’t stress enough how am really excited to embark on the challenge that lies in front of me. As you already know, my Bills had a tough year finishing at 6-8. Let it be known, there will be no more of that on my watch! The first order of business is cleaning out the dead weight on the roster. That being said, I always looking to discuss trades, so feel free to shoot me an email: jayrsherby@gmail.com.

Currently on the block: Vernand Morency and LenDale White, shoot me an email if you guys are interested. Those teams looking to get a potential starter, please shoot me an email and we can dance. Either or can be had at a reasonable price!! All that I ask in return is "fair" draft compensation.

Thanks Again!

Slizz

106

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:49

My #14 overall, #18 overall, #1.04 in the IDP draft are all available in a package to move up into the top few spots of the supplemental. Anyone up there considering a trading down scenario?

Just spoke with Slizz and he's recieved the offer, signing up and checking in shortly.

107

Toral
ID: 575542418
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:51

Well, slizz, I've sent you an offer. I guarantee it's the biggest one you'll ever get!

Toral

108

Perm Dude
ID: 14747108
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:54

All of Quebec for some respect of the rest of Canada?

109

Slizz
ID: 21733916
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 14:55

Turner is a great back, but that is the risk/reward you have to take for the player. You mortgage the next seasons fresh pick to hopefully improve your team immediately.

For example: The Browns potentially gave up the #1 overall pick next year (darren mcfadden) for Brady Quinn (#22 overall). #22 overall definitely doesnt equal #1 overall, but bottom line, the browns got their guy.

But if the object of the game is win now (in your case), or get your guy (browns case) those are sacrifices you would make (mcgahee & lower). If you were asking for Bush, I just couldnt do it, hes just too damn good. But I could deal with parting a player of willis mcgahee's caliber for that package you mentioned. Thats just me though.

110

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Aug 10, 2007, 15:11

Why, is the guy really fat?! lol..

And look at that - he's already posting and looking to trade faster than I can post that "I just talked to him and he'll be checking in" lol...

111

THK @ fam
ID: 407421115
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 16:44

Slizz-
Only problem is Dallas doesn't need McFadden! :-( Which means we are talking the best LT in the ranks because there is no WR to compare to CJ, etc as of now.

Pete-
You have e-mail and an offer...

112

Peter N.
ID: 426242722
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 16:52

THK - I didn't get your e-mail, but did get the offer. Thanks, but I have to pass. I can't trade my only player that doesn't have question marks surrounding him. And plus, he's a Texan. :-)

113

Peter N.
ID: 426242722
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 16:54

Also, forgot to say. Welcome Slizz! Post 98 is excellent. Best of luck.

114

THK @ fam
ID: 407421115
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 20:02

I'll continue my useless plugs in attempt to make a deal....

Add Jones to anyone on my roster (outside of Palmer, CJ, Smith) for an upgrade.

Jones can help strengthen your keepers if needed. I'll also throw in picks in a deal to make something happen as I am obviously looking to finalize my #4 RB/WR.

Or Jones is available for just a pick if necessary...

Ahhh...let's just get the season started!

115

Dan
ID: 2477520
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 20:12

Hey guys, sorry I've been MIA the past couple months been very hectic, just got back in town a few hours ago, been out of the province the past 2 and a half weeks, just extremely busy. Things have defintiely settled down now and I hope to get all caught up will try to be on AIM later tongiht as well, I apologize to everyone for not being around.

I understand if you've already replaced me, like I said just trying to get caught up now.

116

Dan
ID: 2477520
Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 23:32

heh just got finished reading the thread and getting caught up!

Slizz congrats, I know I didn't leave you the best team out there :) but if you need any help running the team I'm willing to help out not that you'll need it! Wish you the best of luck, and thank you guys I've enjoyed my time in this league immensly and hope you'll consider me if another spot ever opens in the future! Thanks again!

117

deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 14:35

I need a clarification on the scoring changes for Kickers please. I was updating my spreadsheets for the drafts and looking at CBS it says for Kickers the penaties for missed kicks is:

-3 points
Plus .5 points for a MFG of 30 to 32 Yds
Plus 1 point for a MFG of 33 to 35 Yds
Plus 1.5 points for a MFG of 36 to 38 Yds
Plus 2 points for a MFG of 39 to 41 Yds
Plus 2.5 points for a MFG of 42 to 44 Yds
Plus 3 points for a MFG of 45 to 99 Yds

So we're going to penalize the points for the kick attempt and a bonus penalty? I've never heard of such a penalty for kickers in a league. I've seen penaltys for missed kicks such as the minus points, but the initial 3 points for the attempt on top of it? Never! A missed 46 yrd FG at the half would cost you 6 pts! Hell, who'd want a kicker?

118

Perm Dude
ID: 20734129
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 14:41

deep, long FG misses were supposed to have no penalty. I'd assumed that ref's post #33 in this thread was still the operative "tweek" for MFGs. Perhaps it just got put into the system without the sliding scale of penalties based up yardage?

pd

119

deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 14:55

PD - I'm going by what was posted on CBS as of yesterday when I printed them out. I don't know the intent of the rule, but I know I won't play an active kicker at that expense. It's simply not worth it for the negative implications. There's only about 5-6 kickers in the league that would be worth the chance based on accuracy %. A couple of long kicks and you're in double digit negative points for a kicker

120

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:01

The only way for CBS to calculate our scoring system is to set it up as it is. We've ALWAYS done it this way. We did vote to tweak it last year so it has a shorter breakdown with some half point differences instead of hug breakdowns with 1 point differences to closely mirror how we do for FGs made.

If you look at the numbers you have posted, All FGs missed get -3, but you get rewarded for the longer FGs. So if you miss a 45 yarder you get -3 plus a 3 point bonus so the effect is zero.

CBS scoring is very complicated but at least they do allow us to do a lot of different things. Another way to do it would be to start at 0 points and start bonusing negative points as you fall into different categories.

121

deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:07

PD - FWIW, I can agree more with the penalties posted in #33 of that thread, but I still don't agree with the principle of the -3 for the initial FG attempt. I've never heard of nor participated in a league that penalized for the attempt itself plus a penalty. I have played in leagues where the -3 was deducted for a miss under a certain yardage attempt (40 yds usually).

Other than a reference to a -3 penalty in "other leagues" for a missed FG, nowhere in the penalty portion of #33 for missed FG does it mention there is an initial -3 for the miss before the penalty is assessed. The penatly portion only addresses negative points in reference to the missed FG yardage.

Not trying to be a pain in the a$$, but a lot of games in this league are settled by a point or 2 and neg/ppg from a kicker could kill.

122

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:08

Re: 118

Your link is the precise formula we use as posted in 117.

I think you two are getting confused on pluses and minuses.

Plus .5 means CBS adds .5 to -3 to get -2.5 and so on down to -3+3=0.

123

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:10

DS, you're overthinking things.

Think of it this way:

You get -3 for all kicks outside of the bonus ranges--which is a missed FG 29 yards and closer. If you miss a FG starting at 30 yards, you hit the first bonus range which means you only lose 2.5 points.

Hope this helps.

124

deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:15

Ref - so in other words, you're adding points to the missed FG to get the missed FG to get back to Zero instead of subtracting. AAAAHHHHHHHH

My bad, but I thought you were adding the penalty points to the the MFG. In effect it's just an equation... -3+3=0.

There has to be a better way to do this. ;)

125

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:24

Well you can't input a 0 in CBS in the main scoring system I beleive. Or maybe it was a blank or cna't add pbonus to a 0? (I can't remember, but it is something really unintuitive). Anyhow, anytime we ran into a wall with the goofy scoring system, we've managed to keep trying things to find a way around it. We figured the kicking and MFG system that first year finally and we've had it this way since.

126

deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 15:37

No problem Ref, I was interpreting the "plus" wrong on how the MFG points were included. You do a good job tweaking the scoring of CBS to get this thing to come out how you want. Lord know how you do it.

127

Promize
ID: 55223275
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 21:39

Should we be sending a payment in sometime soon?

128

Slizz
ID: 237341222
Sun, Aug 12, 2007, 23:34

RE: 111 - The Saints didnt need Reggie Bush with Deuce McAlister either...that worked out pretty well :)

Dan - the team isnt that bad afterall...I am estatic to have some quality keepers versus what some other teams have to work with.

RE: FG's - I wholeheartedly agree with -3 for FG's 29 and in range. But to penalize a kicker for missing a 40-49 yard fg is a little harsh. Thats just my opinion though.

Just a reminder...check my "on the block" section. Looking for draft picks or a qb.

129

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 00:13

OK, before anyone else miunderstands what we have to go through to make CBS score it how we voted it, let's make it simple:
Missed FGs
45+ no penalty
42-44 -.5
39-41 -1
36-39 -1.5
33-35 -2
30-32 -2.5
29 or less -3

Again, in order to create ranges we had to set it up like it is setup 6 seasons ago. Nothing has changed except adding the tweak we made before last season to create half points.

130

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 17:03

Next Thread

Forum: footPage 4876Subject: Gurupie 24 Preseason Discussion 07

Forum: foot
Page 4876
Subject: Gurupie 24 Preseason Discussion 07