Self Editor

Forum: foot
Page 5389
Subject: RIFC 2011: Getting started

Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 11:19

I am pleased to announce the 14 invited managers for the 2011 RIFC:
Motley Crue (declined)
Slizz
Bonka
youngroman
letterj
IAC
Electroman (filling slot vacated by MC)
Judy
russeldl
TD
Beezer
Swinganamiss
Tree
ywk
Guru

This list includes the top-6 seeds from last year's RIFC, 3 teams from each AAA league, the (playoff) winner of the AA league, and me. For each AAA league, I selected the playoff winner plus the top two seeds for the playoffs. In the instance that the playoff winner was one of the top two seeds, then the third seed was selected. Electroman – who was the #7 seed in the RIFC and also had the 2nd highest point total - was offered and accepted Motley Crue’s slot.

I have not yet heard from ywk, who won the AA league. Slizz has tentatively accepted, although he has a potential conflict that may prompt a need to pull out He will let me know for sure by August 1st. If either of these two managers do not play this year, I will invite an appropriate replacement.

Although it is still early, there are several things that we need to start on:
1. Sign-ups for qualifying leagues. I will start a separate thread for this.
2. Discussion of possible rules changes. (We can use this thread for that.)
3. Discussion of any other issues that should be resolved before the start of the draft – including selection of drafting site.

Once again, I plan to have the RIFC and all qualifying leagues hosted at myfantasyleague.com. RotoGuru will pay the cost of these leagues.

Last year, we also used the draft software at the mfl site. Although the Draftime site (formerly kafenatid.net’s “On The Clock”) added many useful enhancements last winter, the mfl software has the advantage of being integrated with the hosting site, which seems like a powerful benefit. I’d like to hear from RIFC managers as to their draft site preference.

Last year, the RIFC draft began on August 19 and was completed in 11 days. I believe we can wait until approx. August 24 to start this year’s draft. The first game of the NFL regular season is on September 8.

For some preliminary discussion on possible rules changes, see the RIFC 2010: Recap thread.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 11:20

Last year’s RIFC rules:

Draft
“Banzai” format: Same as a traditional snake, except the third round is reversed. Thus, the team with the first overall pick has the last pick in rounds 2, 3, and 4.

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

Decimal scoring is applied for all categories.

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

Kicking Points
(apply to all players, including IDP)
Extra point made 1
Extra point missed -1
FG under 40 yards 3
FG 40-49 yards 4
FG 50+ yards 5
Missed FG <30 -1
Missed FG 30+ 0

Team Defense Points
(the following points apply only to team defenses)
Sack 1
Interception 2
Fumble recovered 2
TD 6 (excludes TDs on kick or punt returns)
Safety 3
Blocked kick 2
0-2 defensive points allowed 10
3-6 defensive points allowed 7
7-13 defensive points allowed 4
14-20 defensive points allowed 1
21-27 defensive points allowed 0
28-34 defensive points allowed -1
35+ defensive points allowed -4
Defensive points allowed exclude TDs scored by the opposing special teams or the opposing defense (i.e., TDs on turnovers, kick/punt returns, or blocked kicks).

Points are assigned for yardage allowed according to the following table:
500+ yards allowed: 0 points
400-499 yards allowed: 1 point
300-399: 2
275-299: 3
250-274: 4
225-249: 5
200-224: 6
175-199: 7
150-174: 8
125-149: 9
under 125: 10

Indiv Defensive Player Points
(apply to all players, including offensive players and kickers)
Solo Tackle 1
Asst Tackle 0.5
Pass defensed 1
Sack 3 (half sack=1.5)
Interception 3
Fumble forced 2
Fumble recovery 1
TD 6 (all TDs, whether on offense, defense, or special teams)
Safety 3

Unlisted players
During the draft, any player may be drafted, regardless of whether or not the player is listed at the hosting game site. Once the draft is completed, unlisted players may not be added to any roster. This applies for any post-draft waiver processing as well.

In the event that a drafted player is not listed after the draft has completed, a placeholder player will be assigned to the drafting team, to be replaced by the drafted player as soon as he is available.

Priority Claiming
All free agents (any players not on a current roster) are subject to a weekly claiming process at noon on Wednesday. Following each of the first 6 weeks of the season, the priorities will reset weekly based on the reverse of W/L percentage. After that, priorities will not be reset during the regular season. Throughout the season, when a player is claimed, the claiming team moves to the end of the claiming priority list. Following the final regular season game, priorities will be reset based on playoff seed, with the top seed getting the top priority. Thereafter, throughout the playoffs, priorities will again adjust only when a claim is awarded.

Starting at 3:00pm on each Wednesday, all free agents may be picked up by any team "first come, first served" without any change in priority status. Dropped players will be subject to a one day waiver period, subject to processing rules administered at the hosting site. Managers may not “cycle” though a series of free agents solely for the purpose of blocking them from availability. In such instances, the Commissioner will take appropriate corrective action.

Immediately following the draft, undrafted players will be subject to a priority claiming process, with priorities equal to the reverse of the first round draft order.

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

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

Trades and trade deadline
During the draft, trades may include draft picks. Trades will normally be approved immediately by the Commissioner, assuming they are reasonably balanced. If league managers believe an announced trade is unbalanced, they should protest the trade ASAP.

After the draft, trades will be subject to a review period. For the first 24 hours following a trade, managers may protest a trade by posting a message at the RotoGuru forum, or by sending an email to the Commissioner. If at least 3 managers protest a trade within 24 hours of its announcement, then all managers will be polled within the next 24 hours. If seven or more managers vote to veto a trade, then it will not be approved. If a proposed trade is announced less than 24 hours before the earliest freeze for any player involved, then the entire trade will not be processed until the following week.

If a trade does not receive at least 3 protests, then it will be effective 24 hours after it is announced. If a trade receives at least 3 protests but the protests are not upheld in a full league vote, then the trade will be processed 48 hours after it is announced.

The trade deadline is the weekend following the final week with byes.

Stat corrections
Official stat corrections will be automatically applied. This typically happens on Thursday morning. In the playoffs, this can lead to an issue if a team is suddenly “back in the game”, but that team was unable to make roster moves the prior day. If a stat correction changes a playoff matchup at the last minute, then any impacted team will be given the opportunity to make a last minute roster move, if needed. The Commissioner will attempt to ensure that this provision is enabled as fairly as possible under the circumstances.

During the playoffs, once the first game of the week has started, no stat corrections will be allowed thereafter.

Playoffs
8 teams
Top 6 W/L records are seeded 1-6
Top remaining total points are seeded 7-8
Teams with equivalent W/L records are seeded based on head-to-head first (regardless of the number of teams), then total points.
Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round)

Players at the primary skill positions (QB, RB, WR) and team defenses may not be added for any reason during the playoffs. Free agents at these positions will be locked out after the final regular season game. You may drop a player at one of these positions, but once dropped, that player cannot be added later.

Players at the other positions (TE, PK, IDP) may be added or dropped according to normal regular season guidelines, subject to playoff claiming priorities, if applicable.

If a playoff game ends in a tie score, the team with the better seed shall advance.

Teams which are not still active in the Championship playoffs may not make any transactions - adds or drops - even if they are still competing in the Consolation bracket.

Nerfherders
ID: 14382210
Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 13:28

I just want to say grats to Judy. All of us in the cheap seats will miss her being commish!

The Beezer
ID: 3651014
Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 21:26

I propose that defensive teams be dropped and 7 IDPs required: 2 DLs, 2 LBs, 2 DBs, and 1 flex.

Pros:
- there is not sufficient differentiation at DL as the best starter is only about 1 PPG better than the worst starter
- ditto for DBs except the spread is bigger when a DB is a decent kick returner
- adds more strategy since there would be fewer flex IDPs
- Balances the number of starters on both sides of the ball - 7 offensive, 7 defensive, and 1 special teamer
- Makes the league easier to understand for newcomers since we won't be mixing team D and IDPs

Cons:
- A lot of folks like Team D and the unpredictability it adds to the game
- Offensive slots would likely tighten up slightly because not every team would use the 2 spots they used to use on Team D for IDPs (likely not true during bye weeks since you would need to pick up additional DLs and DBs then to cover byes)
- It would be a big change in a format that doesn't tend to change much so it would be disruptive

I tried to be fair. :) Having said all that, I still would like to see this change made for this season.

Tree
ID: 41512710
Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 23:31

i'm with Beezer. once i started using leagues with IDPs, team defenses seemed useless.

unrelated, but i also have concerns as to how the new bye week schedule will affect fantasy football. This season, there are FOUR weeks with six teams off - last year, there were just two.

i wonder if there is some sort of roster provision that could be looked at to reduce the effect this might have?

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 23:42

I'd like to drop DEF too, as always, since it's just outdated at this point and so completely random most of the time (add kickers to that list). Changing the starting IDP to what was mentioned would definitely change things, but also to be considered would be a change in IDP scoring. Increasing IDP scoring across the board and/or then weighting IDP positions (ex: 2 points per DT tackle, 1.5 for DL, 1 for DB, .75 for LB) so that LBs don't dominate. Leagues where top players at each position are roughly equal value are pretty interesting. Although if that was something we decided to strive for, scoring at some offensive positions would also need to be adjusted.

I_AM_CANADIAN
Donor
ID: 01361448
Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 08:14

I would only vote to remove TeamD IF we where to upgrade at IDP... In which case, yes, I'm all for it. I don't mind staying in the current format either however.

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 14:25

I like DST despite its apparent randomness. However, I do think the yardage and points allowed scoring could be rearranged, bumped higher. In this day of the passing offense, it is almost impossible to reach the low yardage and points cut offs. In addition at the end of games there are somewhat meaningless yards as DST play prevent and allow a ton of useless yardage which often negates an otherwise nice game by the DST.

I do not like the 2 DL requirement -- it is too hard to find them (decent ones and their play is somewhat random) -- also with the big bye weeks (see below and 4 above) I'd bet some people will leave a good DL bye player in rather than drop an important one just to have a spot filled. We need more not less IDP flexibility -- like we have it now.

I do not like the decimal stuff for the IDP's. It is too "messy". I also do not have a problem with LB dominating stats. There are tons out there to choose from and tackling is what they do best! There is no problem having an IDP star or two on your team, to go along with, hopefully, all your offensive studs.

i would like to see tackles for loss. At 2 or 3 points each (because it is like a sack!)

Wow that bye week schedule will be a killer. It will really affect your drafting a lot instead of just a bit. I also think that bye week schedule will impact the IDP more than the offense as we tend to overload on offense subs anyway.

BTW here is a good site for a one page NFL schedule: http://www.johnnyroadtrip.com/schedules/nfl_weekly.htm

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 14:45

Also, I would like to use drafttime for the draft. I thought the changes that were made contributed to a really stress free baseball draft and it wasn't that difficult to insert the players on the teams.

The features I liked the best were the ability to preset picks round by round, to let the computer select automatically (negating the need for the designated picker function), and the ability to do sorts to see who was picking up who where -- so you could see who was left. In baseball, I also used it in season to see who drafted who where so I could see trade potentials -- which don't happen much in football.

I would like to try drafttime again for football and then make a decision between MFL and Drafttime for 2012 -- because there WILL BE a 2012 football season!

Electroman
ID: 3170417
Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 18:43

I would be in favor of droping the team D also. But I think some adjustments would have to be made to IDP's. I don't think that the whole system be rewored, just add some points to aspects that change the game, like the TFL. I don't know if QB hurries are an official stat, but that maybe could be something to be added to make DL more valuable. Return YDS after an INT could maybe be included if possible.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 19:54

Just want to mention that all those new features with Drafttime are already on MFL. What would be nice is for someone to finally add the damn option to use a different queue based on what position you selected with your last pick.

I also noticed you have to manually set the entire draft pick by pick if you aren't using a normal snake or non snake (everyone picks same slot each round).

Regarding IDP, it should be harder to fill your starting slots rather than easier, otherwise there is no challenge. Right now, DL is basically an afterthought, as it's the lowest scoring position and I think has the lowest difference between rank 1 and 14.

Right now it's mostly load up on LBs and the rest you can punt unless you get a top 5 DL. Doing a weighted scoring would change that around and make all positions valuable, which I'd hope is more fun for everyone. This would really go great with a changed IDP lineup of 2 DL, 3 LB, 2 DB.

TFL has to be done correctly, since when a player gets a sack credit, he also gets a TFL credit, so there's a lot of points to be scored there.

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 20:23

I'd favor weighting the IDP scoring to even out defensive positions. I'm not too concerned about offensive parity but I'd be open to ideas on how to do it.

Judy
ID: 54203110
Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 21:13

For and until the bye weeks are over you would need to carry 3 DL. Who wants to do that?

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 22:06

You'd need to pick up an extra DL to cover byes for 2 weeks. There's nothing saying you have to carry 3 DL for weeks on end. You don't carry 2 kickers until your top kickers bye week is gone. Also, if scoring was actually adjusted and the DLs scored roughly the same as other positions, would it really be that boring?

Judy
ID: 54203110
Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 23:06

Ok I goofed on the weeks -- it's 3 weeks:

A, B play, C on bye
A, C play, B on bye
B, C play, A on bye

You still need three good/decent DL for three weeks and I hate to say it but there are not enough to go around for all the teams. I'd bet that managers would just take the loss of points rather than stock 3 DL so early in the season and miss out on other pick ups. You also need to account for possible byes not to mention injuries for your other IDP's. Six teams on byes at one time can really deplete a lineup fast.

????? Any one else out there want to chime in??

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 23:42

There's plenty of DL to use if you adjust the scoring so that DTs get the most per tackle, and DLs also get a bump. I think you're worried about something that isn't a big issue if/when the IDP scoring and starting spots are adjusted. I don't think we'd put in one thing (2 starting DL) without adjusting the rest (weighted scoring).

I play in a league where this was the top 10 last season:

1. Foster, Arian HOU RB 341.370
2. Manning, Peyton IND QB 306.020
3. Mayo, Jerod NEP LB 305.675
4. Tuck, Justin NYG DE 289.800
5. Thomas, Terrell NYG CB 287.325
6. Tulloch, Stephen TEN LB 279.900
7. Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB 272.720
8. Whitner, Donte BUF S 272.500
9. Brees, Drew NOS QB 271.350
10. Fletcher, London WAS LB 270.975

You can change scoring around to make things a lot more interesting than normal. If scoring is a lot different from typical leagues, it also allows for owners to really show what they have since you can't just follow conventional wisdom, which I think is a good thing in general.

I think basically the point of that was just to say we can easily even out positional scoring to accommodate more starting IDP positions.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 09:19

Time to weigh in on a few matters.

First, draft system. While I liked the new draftime system very much, I don't recall that it offered any significant functionality that wasn't also present in mfl. (Correct me if I've forgotten something.)

That said, the integration with the hosting system offers significant additional benefits:
1. Players are immediately added to rosters as they are drafted,
2. so the universe of available players is also always current - supporting easier searches (with current scoring formulas applied to last year's stats.
3. No extra cost.

I have always been a big supporter of KKB and his draft software. But in this case, I think the MFL draft system has a huge embedded advantage.

I'm willing to put it to a vote, however.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 09:29

Team defense - this issue seems to come up every year, and continually gets defeated, although often by narrow margins, IIRC.

I continue to like the slot - but maybe it's time to put a serious alternative on the table.

Forcing a 2-2-2-1 IDP framework would hamstring roster flexibility. In the past, I would usually carry one (or at most 2) extra IDPs to get through the bye weeks. With this new setup and the extra demands of 6-team bye weeks, something would have to give. Either bench slots would need to be added, or offensive backups would need to be reduced (not necessarily a bad thing), or IDP bye week fillers would have to make more extensive use of add/drops and free agents.

Offsetting this, if the team def were eliminated, teams that typically carried 2 defenses would effectively gain a bench slot.

A lot of moving parts that are hard to evaluate in advance.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 11:15

If someone wants to suggest an IDP scoring alternative, I can set it up in MFL and we can see how it compares to the status quo (using last year's stats).

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 11:18

BTW, stats and points for last year can be found here:
http://football22.myfantasyleague.com/2010/options?L=20248&O=08

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 14:20

http://football32.myfantasyleague.com/2011/options?L=64936&O=08

I changed IDP scoring to even the positions out and also added in some PPR to see what it did on offense, but the PPR change hasn't affected the stats from last year yet, not sure when it will kick in. Regardless, you can go see the IDP numbers.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 14:20

http://football32.myfantasyleague.com/2011/options?L=64936&O=08

So used to forums that automatically parse links :(

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 14:23

Doh, apparently the safety position wasn't updated there either. Didn't even notice that until now. I don't think they'll be that much off though.

Judy
ID: 54203110
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 14:35

What values did you assign that were different from last year?

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 14:45

Changed tackle and assist values, added TFL, as well as PPR.

TFL .75

DT 2 and 1 for tackle / assist
DE 1.5 and .75
LB 1 and .5
CB/S 1.3 and .65

RB .5 ppr
WR 1
TE 1.5

You can see all scoring on the scoring page, but that's all that was changed for now. I'll probably mess with it more later to bump top IDPs up with top offensive positions just to see.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 14:46

Still waiting on PPR and Safety position changes to kick in.

Judy
ID: 54203110
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 14:49

PPR = points per return?

Electroman
ID: 3170417
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 14:52

Interesting, DL get a lot of value, same # in top 10 as LB. As opposed to 9 LB in top 10, and no DL, if I counted correctly in between team D.

Judy
ID: 54203110
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 14:53

Would the DT vs DE designation matter depending upon whether a team uses a 3/4 or a 4/3. I have no clue about those as some go with 3/4 but sneak a LB so it is really a 4/3 in all but name... Remember when Suggs was listed as a DL on one site and a LB on another a few years back? What about those hybrid guys?

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 14:57

PPR is points per reception, just wanted to see how the offense evened out since WR and TE lagged behind quite a bit.

As far as the position designation go, MFL handles them and I think we've decided to just go with what they have listed. I haven't seen any big issues with positions on their site that I can recall.

I know McCluster is a RB now though :D

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 15:00

You can click here to view just the IDPs as well. Just keep in mind the safety position is currently not correct, so they won't show up.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 15:09

Looks like the scoring fully updated. Looks like something else wasn't working properly, so the IDP scores got bumped a bit more.

Can always tweak thinks more, but I those values aren't too far off for evening out the positions.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 15:14

Toning down WR PPR to .75, have to wait to see it show up. Not sure if we'll discuss PPR again this year, but doesn't hurt to try it out for a test.

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 15:55

Bonk -- can you add in the DST just for comparison?

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 15:56

Hey I LIKE the web page. I'm at the top to start the season!!

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 16:05

I don't want to set up the DEF scoring since it was removed. Just use the RIFC site if you want to look at DEF numbers.

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 17:32

OK -- that set up is a lot of work!

Nerfherders
ID: 14382210
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 17:54

Is it allowable to have someone from the cheap seats chime in with some ideas?

I can't say I like different scoring for different IDP positions - I'd prefer to build a team oriented concept where everyone gets points for what they do well, but the same values for all positions.

In a perfect world, which assuming the game site supports these stats:

Add Tackles for Loss (TFL). It's no different stopping the RB behind the line than the QB. That should be 3 pts.

Extra point for every 5 yards lost on a sack or TFL.

2 pts for FF and FR. 4 pts for INT. 2 pts for PD

Get away from pts via ho-hum tackling, and reward players for making game-changing plays.

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 19:05

That looks like a good start Bonka. With those values, you could have more position flexibility and still get position diversity across rosters. I know the point values are a bit odd but that's why we use computers now. :)

Electroman
ID: 3170417
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 21:35

Sorry to take this wayyyy off topic, but I am estatic at the Asomugha signing in Philly. Hilarious reading the messages on NFL.com of other fans, one Giants fan said that he was so so as a corner based on his stats. And even with this signing, they still have about 7 million to take care of DJax. Romo/Manning and whoever plays QB for the Redskins are gonna be wishing they played in a different division, because they will either throw picks, or be eationg grass. I love it!!!

Judy
ID: 54203110
Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 22:14

How about Asomugha AND Pence on the same day?

Now give DJax what Holmes got and we are all set, assuming our LB can tackle!

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 10:09

Just to be clear - the point formula in [24] now effectively awards 5.75 points to a DT for a single sack, since a sack is really a sack plus a tackle plus a TFL.

Although differentiating the point formula between DL, LB, and DB may make sense, I'm not keen on a distinction between D and DE, if for no other reason than that those two position designations do shift somewhat during the season. I'd rather not have a player earn one set of points one week, and a different set of points the follow week.

Maybe TFL should be bumped up, and sacks should be bumped down.

BTW, here is the MFL description of TFL:

This is the number of Tackles for a Loss in a game by a defensive player. Players can have 1/2 Tackles for Loss if they share the tackle with another player. Tackles behind the line of scrimmage are only considered to be Tackles for Loss if they occur on a rushing play or as part of a sack. Players tackled for negative yardage after a reception are not counted as a TFL. This stat is not updated during the games in the live stats. It is only updated after the games are finalized.

Note that it is not updated in live stats.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 11:35

Just did a quick analysis of IDP points for last year, using last year's formulas. This makes it looks like LB and DB are already fairly well balanced, and only DL are lagging behind.

Avg PPG by position, 2010
Rank DL LB DB
1 7.1 10.1 10.3
10 5.7 8.7 7.9
15 5.2 8.0 7.7
28 4.5 7.1 7.3
42 4.0 6.4 6.6
56 3.4 5.6 6.1

I did this manually, so there may be an error or two, but for a 14 team league, this gives an indication of how the depth changes at each position as you add an extra player to all rosters. If anything, this suggests that the presumption that flex IDP slots should be filled with LBs may not be the optimum strategy. While top LBs offer more value than top DBs, this data suggests that you might generically prefer a 3rd or 4th DB over a 3rd or 4th LB.

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 12:19

I am in favor of IDP and team defense scoring and flex positions to remain as they were last year.

I would like to see more offense flex positions. I never liked the requirement of 2 RBs in a league this large. It makes the RB position too valuable in relative to other positions. One possibility for offensive positions is

1 QB
1 RB
2 WR
1 TE
2 RB/WR/TE

I also think we should consider PPR.

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 12:54

I agree that we don't want duplication of points for TFLs and sacks. The easiest way to fix that would be to make TFLs 3 points and eliminate sacks completely.

I'm surprised that they don't include pass completions and that puts a damper on things. Glad to see that there is a lot of discussion going around lineups and scoring.

Electroman
ID: 3170417
Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 13:05

You could just lower the value of a sack to 1 point, give TFL 2 points. With the point for a tackle, a sack would be worth the 4 points it has always been. But I had not thought of elimintating sack and replacing it with TFL. I like the idea though of keeping sacks. Even though they are pretty much the same thing(TFL and sack), we have precident of a throwing TD and Rushing TD being worth different values.

Nerfherders
ID: 310111515
Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 13:29

A sack is a little more important than a TFL because it usually stops a passing play. That in effect stops more yards being gained than a rush.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 14:48

It also might rough up the QB while a RB is pretty used to taking the hits and is generally in a good position to do so. I don't think sacks should be dropped completely.

The table Guru posted is a bit misleading. DBs score less than LBs at the top. The 2nd best PPG was 8.7, that 10.3 was Landry who didn't play a full season. I don't think taking PPG in to account is useful for this type of thing. Have to look at the full season. But yes, DBs aren't bad with the old scoring (and are deeper), and I only bumped them to 1.2/.6 in the test one (down from 1.3/.65), but it did bring them up to be about equal.

For offense, if you want to devalue RBs, you add PPR similar to how I did (.5/.75/1.5) and WRs become more valuable, as do top TEs. You can only require 1 starting RB, but I think PPR is a better option, because RBs will usually be in that flex spot anyway vs a WR/TE.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 14:57

Forgot to ask, do DT/DE really get swapped much during the season? I'd have to think they don't. I mean...in general the DTs are usually the big fat guys while the DEs are the top athletes. They don't just switch positions mid season. Players swapping between DE/LB is realistic though.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 16:08

No, those positions don't get swapped much. I seem to recall it happening a few times last year, but since it was of no consequence, I didn't take much note of it. And my memory might be faulty.

Tree
ID: 41512710
Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 22:59

i like 43.

i think, more and more, PPR is essential to bringing balance to a league.

i also think that finding 28 RBs in today's NFL that are...usable...is a joke.

i believe in RIFC AAA last season, Mike Goodson was the 28th ranked RB...who!?!? exactly.

the difference between #1 and #28 was was nearly 200 points. yes, 200 points.

WRs? the difference was less than 75 points.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 23:58

WR difference was 98 since we start 42, not 28. Well, technically not 42 since the one slot is WR/TE, but it's rare that 2 TEs are used. If you compare the PPG for those end of the starting lineup guys, the RBs are still ahead of the WRs. It's just that the top end RBs (usually just 1 guy a year) put up ridiculous numbers. Once you get past the top 3 or 4, it's all pretty similar and it almost mirrors WR scores.

I'm not really sure what to think about changing a RB slot in to RB/WR/TE at the moment.

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 09:48

I would prefer not to change the lineup defaults on the offensive side unless there are changes to lessen the scoring differences between RBs, WRs, and TEs.

I would also prefer to leave DLs grouped together because there is more movement between DEs and DTs than I would like. There is also the whole going from 3-4 schemes to 4-3 schemes to consider. I don't think splitting DE/DTs, OLB/ILBs, and S/CBs is useful until you get to at least 9 IDPs on a team.

Tree
ID: 41512710
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 12:25

the drafting of a top RB...or the loss of a top RB...can pretty much make or break a season in a league this large.

i hate the fact that one player can have that much impact.

Electroman
ID: 3170417
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 15:32

I kinda have to disagree with that statement. I have had success in this format without relying on top tier RB.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 17:03

[53] - I also disagree, at least with half. Rosters are deep enough that I think the value of a RB is not as great as many think. I know there are years when I've done quite well without a strength at RB.

Now, taking a RB with a top pick and then having him be a bust may be a significant drag. But that may be the case with any first round pick that fizzles.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 450482421
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 18:17

Agree w/54 & 55. It's a tweaked and very workable setup. I don't even think that a manager can walk out of the draft w/a "won" season. It's going to involve good managing and free agent/IR movement as well. No single element sticks out as "critical", although certain areas are harder to manage. I say we either go with Status-Quo, or maybe a slight adjustment to the teamD/IDP situation (nothing major).

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 20:12

My top pick was DeAngelo last year, traded him for Gore, and still made it up here. Last year, I'd argue that the most valuable draft pick was the #1 WW position after week 1 to pick up Vick.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 20:38

That reminds me of something I wanted to bring up. I really think we should consider changing to a blind bid waiver system rather than the waiver order. Hot pickups are always extremely key in this league and the way we've done waivers is sort of bad at this point, especially since we've changed the draft style. Teams can start with 100 blind bid dollars and then use them however they see fit for the entire season. If you want to spend all 100 the first week on someone, you can. Ties can be broken by record/points scored. We can also make the blind bid dollars available to trade, which might open a few more trades up.

Right now you have to be in the right spot at the right time to get someone that could be season changing. With the blind bid, everyone has the same chance at free agents.

For the playoffs, you can give higher seeds more blind bid dollars in place of putting them at the top of the waiver order.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 20:40

Crap, forgot how we actually did the waiver order here. Too many leagues I'm in I guess. So the waiver order isn't so bad as is, but still, I think the blind bid is still better overall. Especially when teams that start poorly but actually have an extremely strong team can stockpile even more talent the first few weeks to dominate the rest of the season.

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 21:52

I'd support a blind bid waiver system. My only caveat is that there be a way for a team that has spent all of its money to be able to get players that no one else wants to fill spots as needed.

Judy
ID: 54203110
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 21:54

(57)
I got Foster with the 5th pick and rode him all the way with a few massive points totaled from assorted WR, but not every week and also not when they were on the bench -- which is often a crap shoot on who to start. I believe that Vick was actually drafted in our league?

A lot of luck.

Judy
ID: 54203110
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 21:54

(61) that was Foster in the firth ROUND... Not 5th overall...

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 22:09

Beezer, you can pick players up during first come first serve if you've spent all your dollars. Same as it is now after waiting for waivers to run.

Judy
ID: 54203110
Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 22:24

(62) try again 5th ROUND.

SwinganaMiss
ID: 771116
Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 07:11

Beezer, in our league last year I picked up Vick after week 1. He did help me to the highest point total in the league, but I believe only gave me one additional win over what I would have had w/ Eli Manning. Vick was great, but not necessarily even my "best move" of the season.

Also, Vick was not a no-brainer #1 for WW. Brandon Jackson, Brandon Lloyd, and a couple of IDPs were picked up ahead of him off the WW that week. It was mostly "luck", because at time of pickup I was not so sure that Kolb wouldn't take over in a couple weeks again.

Judy
ID: 54203110
Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 09:51

I do not mind tweaking some scoring rules, but these discussions seem to be suggesting an overhaul and making things way more complicated than they should be -- see the DE/DL distinctions and the blind bidding suggestion (what the heck is that?).

I think we should proceed slowly with any changes, not rewrite the whole thing at once. Just the idea of dropping the DST alters the rest of the scoring, but it is leading us into complicated math (albeit the computer makes it easy to assign any value and we can run what if scenarios).

Judy
ID: 54203110
Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 09:54

Continued (I lost my place on the iPad).

I say keep it simple. Tweak do not overhaul, just because the computer can do all the math. If we do too much it changes the whole character of the league scoring format.

My suggestion for further suggestions (!) is to ask what 2-3 (max) possible changes appeal to you and why? Or what do you want to keep as is?

Toral
ID: 5464267
Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 11:38

Vick was not drafted in our league, Judy, he was picked off the waiver wire -- and not with the first choice either.

Electroman
ID: 3170417
Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 12:11

I too think that an overhaul is not necessary. TFL is one thing that I would like to see added to the scoring.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 12:21

I'm working on a TFL-related proposal that's simpler than what Bonka worked up in [24]. Hope to have something to put out there in the next 24 hours.

Meanwhile, I think the following possible issues/changes have been raised:

1. Eliminate DST (yes, no, or only if IDP is expanded somehow)

2. Add IDP slot, and possibly adjust IDP flex

3. Scoring change(s) for IDP, including TFL, and possibly differing by position

4. Adjust offensive roster config to allow more flex

5. Add PPR, possible differing by pos (i.e., bigger point boost for TE)

6. Replace current waiver system with blind bidding system.

I'll note that many of these have come up in prior years and have been voted down. That's not a reason not to put them up for consideration again - but it does suggest that prior votes have tended to prefer the status quo, or at least incremental changes.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 12:37

A few other thoughts:

We don't currently score blocked kicks for IDP. Seems like an oversight.

QB hits is also offered as a scoring option. This might be a way to disproportionately reward DL

Judy
ID: 54203110
Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 13:46

Yeah -- I think the blocked kicks for IDP is a no brainer...

damoose
Dude
ID: 181042723
Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 14:13

I'm in favor of the blocked kicks for IDP.

I'm not in favor of qb hits stat though.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 15:28

Yeah, I'm sure most of this will be voted down. You can run a league based on any rules you want and just adapt around them. But most of the stuff that has been brought up in recent years is what you would find in a lot of brand new leagues and is just the way fantasy football is moving. Evolution.

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 09:46

My suggestion, if we move to add TFL, then maybe increase interceptions slightly again as well. I don't mind giving out the rewards for big plays, but lets make sure that we don't neglect the other end. After all, from a practical standpoint, an interception is a much more critical (change of possession) stat than a sack (except on 4th downs).

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 09:53

Also, IF we add to IDP, which seems to be the general direction we are going, I'd suggest we go with something along the lines of:

1 DT
1 DL
2 LB
1 CB
1 Safety
1 IDP Flex

It looks like a lot, but it's only 1 more IDP than we had last year, and I think we'll all benefit from getting to know our DTs/CBs better. I think it's a logical progression. This would likely also require adding 1 extra bench slot IMO.

Tree
ID: 41512710
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 10:00

i don't really like separating DE/DT and CB/S. i think we need to simplify and stick with DL/LB/DB.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 10:01

[76] - I like that approach. Rather than trying to force more value into a DL or CB via a differentiated formula, instead just force each team to have at least one of each.

The downside is that it forces more bye week difficulties. Many teams would probably treat DT or CB like a PK, and not carry a backup, instead just filling in a F/A and dropping the "regular" on a bye week. But if you have one of the premier DTs or CBs, you would need a bench spot to hold through a bye.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 10:18

We have a lot of varying ideas here, and before expending too much fine tuning effort to any definitive proposal, I'd like to get a preliminary sense of the level of interest of the major ideas. I'd like to get a poll of the RIFC managers on the following four questions.

Please indicate your first and second choice for each question.

1. Should the Team defense slot be eliminated?
(A) yes, eliminate it
(B) yes, eliminate it, but only if an extra slot is allocated to an IDP
(C) no, keep the team defense slot

2. Should an IDP slot be added?
(A) yes, regardless of the decision on team defense
(B) yes, but only if the team defense is eliminated
(C) no

3. Should we add points per reception (PPR) to attempt to balance out the scoring of offensive players?
(A) Yes, but only if the same PPR formula is applied to RB, WR, and TE
(B) Yes, but only if the formula is differentiate to reward TEs more and RBs less
(C) No

4. Should the second RB slot be replaced with an RB/WR/TE flex slot?
(A) yes
(B) yes, but only if PPR is added to the formulas
(C) no

Feel free to add further qualifications to any of your answers. This is not a binding vote yet - just a preliminary indication of attitudes.

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 11:09

1. A - Please, put DEF out of its misery already.

2. Changing IDP in to a 2 DL, 2 LB, 2 CB, 1 Flex (or something similar) is fine. I'm ok with expanding IDP, but it shouldn't just be adding a bunch of flex. I also don't like the 1 DE 1 DT 1 CB 1 S deal. Most DT are useless. Adding a DT slot without adjusting IDP scoring would be a joke. Think of it like kickers, but with 1/2 of the scoring. AKA, a complete non factor unless you have Suh.

I also see no reason to split CB and S in this league. They already score roughly the same amount of points.

3. B .5/.75(or 1)/1.5 Should be the best route

4. C - If anything, I'd probably rather just tack on a RB/WR/TE Flex in addition to what we have if PPR was added.

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 11:32

1.B
2.B
3.C
4.C

Judy
ID: 54203110
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 12:05

Re 76 and 77

I just checked the two sites I use for cheat sheets -- rotoworld and FFT, and neither one differentiate the IDP. They both just have DL, LB, DB. Even when you go a players profile page, it does not tell you what position he plays. This could be a major headache having to look all that up. I really do not know who is a S or a CB for example. I draft based upon the stats, etc. If we go that way I would hope that there is an easy to use site for differentiation or I will be wasting a lot of paper!

damoose
Dude
ID: 181042723
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 12:08

1. B
2. B
3. A
4. B

Electroman
Donor
ID: 010833614
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 12:28

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

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 12:39

RE 82:

MFL has no issue with sorting by this position. ;)

FYI - N.Sue, Kyle Williams, A.Rubin were the top 3 DTs last year (in our current scoring config).

youngroman
ID: 56523304
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 13:21

1. B, C
2. A, B. I like 2 DL/LB/DB + 1 flex
3. C, B
4. C, A

Tree
ID: 41512710
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 13:40

1. A
2. A
3. A
4. C

and again, just DL/LB/DB for defensive positions. we don't differentiate between RB and FB on offensive, we're not going to differentiate between ILB and OLB, so why do it for DL and DB?

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 15:09

RE 87: FB and HB? Come on that's a joke right?

I don't have much issue with the differentiation of ILB and OLB IF we had more bench slots... but that'd be too much all at once IMO... so I'd rather just stick with 2LBs.

Remember, by removing TeamD, a lot of teams would gain an extra roster slot, as they often held 2.

Judy
ID: 54203110
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 15:53

Actually 2 extra roster spots: 2xDST.

I think we might also want to consider limiting the # of offensive players except K that a team can hold. I can see a team hoarding offensive players and going with the minimum IDPs flipping guys each week to fill the IDP rosters. I've seen a team with 7 RB -- that's a bit much don't you think? Now with an extra slot from DST and the bye week DST open there is the chance to load up on offensive guys -- not so much to use them but to keep others from using them. See what I mean? If we drop the DST we gotta require an extra IDP or that will happen.

Judy
ID: 54203110
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 15:53

85

You are right, but I would still need to pencil in the positions on my cheat sheets...

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 16:03

Personally, I don't care much about hoarding, that's a strategy that you might not appreciate, but it doesn't mean that it's right/wrong to practice it or not.

My .02

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 16:35

...and it does come with a cost (lack of flexibility at other positions). It's an issue we raised last preseason, and there wasn't much sentiment to address it legislatively.

SwinganaMiss
ID: 771116
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 16:48

1.B
2.B
3.C
4.C

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 17:04

1. B, C
2. B
3. NO CLUE
4. A

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 17:28

Slizz had to withdraw due to a work situation, so I have called up Fugazi, who went to the final game of the RIFC playoffs before losing to Motley Crue last year.

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 19:03

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

TD
ID: 51116811
Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 16:51

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

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 05:59

MFL just added a couple more features and noticed this, which I'm sure some of you will find useful:

Get Notified Only When It's Your Turn To Draft - If you're in an email draft, but don't want to be overwhelmed with too many emails or text messages, there is a new option on both the For Owners > Franchise Setup > Contact Info page and the For Owners > Franchise Setup > Wireless pages called "When I'm On The Clock For My Draft" which will allow you to only receive emails or text messages when it's your turn to draft, as opposed to when each pick is made.

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 08:18

RE 98: NICE!

That's a great addition that I thought was lacking with their previous version. I'll be sure to go in and set that.

100

ywk
ID: 4672249
Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 10:26

I'm in---hopefully this is not too late to accept the invitation.

101

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 10:53

Not too late - but you really cut it close!

102

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 10:24

Based on the preliminary poll results, there seems to be significant interest in eliminating team def this year (only 1 of 9 has said to keep it unequivocally).

Adding an IDP slot also has substantial support, especially if team def is dropped.

PPR results are very mixed - but close enough to warrant a formal proposal.

RB flex has very little support, with 6 of 9 against it, regardless of the PPR decision.

I've been sidetracked for the past couple of days fighting forum spam, but that seems to be under control now. I'm going to try to fashion a set of proposals in the next few days, so that we can have a full, formal vote next week.

103

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 10:30

On other fronts, I've heard no support for using Draftime over MFL for the draft (other than from Judy), so I plan to use MFL. I still hope to start the draft on August 24, and we will need to select our draft sequence in advance of that. I don't want to do that until we nail down any rules changes, however.

All league members should have received an official league invite directly from MFL. Three of you have not yet signed in (according to the system) - Fugazi, russeldl, and Swinganamiss. (I know that Fugazi has internet access problems this week.) If anyone needs the invitation to be sent again, let me know.

104

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 13:52

I'm struggling with how to best propose an expansion of one IDP slot. There are many ways to approach it.

At one end of the extremes is the marginal approach of simply adding one more IDP flex position. Instead of DL-LB-DB-3flex, we would have DL-LB-DB-4flex, with no changes in the scoring formulas.

At the other extreme is something along the lines of the Bonka scoring proposal, where scoring is different for each IDP position - and where more slots are inflexible, such as 2DL-2LB-2CB-1flex, or even DL/DT/LB/LB/CB/S/flex, as IAC suggests in post 76.

The root of the decision seems to hinge on two issues:
1. Do we want to either enforce or induce teams to take more DLs, or even a DT and CB?

2. Are we willing to adjust scoring formulas to be position dependent?

In the past, we have had one set of scoring formulas that applied to all individual players. If we want to preserve that "simplicity", then the only way to bring about better parity across IDP positions (i.e., boost the point potential for DL) is to augment the scoring for stats that are endemic to those positions.

I don't think there is really any good way to get better parity between DE and DT unless the factors are different for those two positions.

However, DLs could be relatively enhanced by augmenting the values of sacks, TFL (tackle for loss), and/or QB hits. Still, it's going to be difficult to make DLs as valuable as LBs unless we apply a different formula to DLs vs. other position.

I do think the best approach - if we make a change at all - is to move incrementally. But if so, what are the best incremental changes to propose?

I'm thinking out loud here, but would like some feedback - particularly from some of you who have expressed interest in adding an IDP but have not provided any guidance about the nature of your preferred IDP changes.

105

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 15:09

I'm not a "fan" of the separate scoring for different positions. Seems like more trouble than it's worth.

I do agree that nothing "game changing" should be implemented all at once. In the past we made major re-works of TeamD scoring, and quickly realized that we needed to adjust it yet again... because the scoring was too far off the charts.

106

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 15:13

I think the main thing that should be done is move to a 2/2/2 + 1 or 2/3/2. Then I'd look at changing scoring around.

I just changed the scoring on that test league I set up so I'll wait to see how it turns out. Decided to try a little more big play scoring as opposed to different tackle scoring per position.

107

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 18:13

updated stats

changed all tackles/assists back to 1/.5
TFL - 3
sack - 1
FF - 2
INT - 4

DL gets a decent bump up. LB also gets bumped from the TFL addition. DB has a slight bump from the INT increase.

I think if we did something like this and went with 2 DL 3 LB 2 DB for IDP, it could be pretty solid. Cutting the IDP flex should force a few bench slots to IDP from offense for the league as a whole.

108

SwinganaMiss
ID: 771116
Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 18:35

I like flexibility in IDPs. The only one we'd really have to "force", if we wanted to force anything, is a second DL. Most teams would have the others naturally. I am not in favor of different scoring for different positions, or of forcing DT or CB. I like DL, LB, DB.

I'd suggest DL enhancement as discussed above. I haven't looked at how much TFL impacts. Maybe add 2 pts per TFL (if that skews too much subtract 1 pt per Sack). So a TFL is 2 and sack is 2. So a sack becomes 5 total. Something like that, but I haven't looked at the stats (at all). We don't have to equalize DL w/ others if we force 2nd DL.

I don't chime in much on the rule stuff....like them pretty well as-is--DL right now doesn't bother me in the least either.

109

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 19:02

I see no need to specify slots beyond DL/LB/DB. That's a lot of extra admin work for very little value.

I would recommend that we vote on an option to change scoring while maintaining point value consistency for plays. The simplicity of this approach is valuable and there are already proposals in this thread that seem to do a good job there. So maybe just 2 proposals here - no change and a point structure like in post 107.

I also recommend a second proposal around position specifications. I think a second DL slot is integral so maybe 3 options here - no change, 2 DL/LB/DB/3 flex, and 2 DL/2 LB/2 CB/1 flex.

110

Judy
ID: 54203110
Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 20:45

I agree that we need to have the IDP flexibility.

If we are going to kill the DST, we must add another IDP for a total of 7.
There is a flex in the offense so there should be a flex in the defense. Although I do not like the 2 DL requirement, I really dislike the 3 LB requirement. If we have to have 2 DL, then it needs to be 2 of each and one flex.

I wonder how many teams ever used 2 DL? I am pretty sure I did not as I like extra DB for my flex.

I do not like different scoring for each IDP. We do not do it for the offense, we should not do it for the defense,

I do like the TFL and the sack numbers. I won't add a T/A and bump a sack up to 5 will it?

111

russelldl
ID: 16544922
Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 23:16

Sorry to get in late, I've been sick all week.

Here's my position on the topics discussed.
I would support:
getting rid of Team Def
adding another IDP (preferably flex)
using a blind bid system for waivers

I would not support:
PPR
adding an offensive slot
changing to more specific offensive and or defensive positions
having position specific scoring

Im indifferent to:
adding TFL

112

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 10:53

Assuming we start 7 IDPs, that is a league total of 98 players. If every team carries 2-3 IDPs on the bench, that means about 120-140 IDPs will be on a roster at any given time.

Using Bonka's formula in post 107, the top 140 IDPs (based on total points) are broken down as follows:
20 DL
57 LB
63 DB

The marginal DL will average about 5-5.5 pts/game (assuming we need to reach down to at least 28 DLs).
The marginal LB or DB will average about 6 pts/game.

So that's not too bad in terms of parity.

A few items to note:
1. A sack will be worth 5 points total (sack=1, tfl=3, tackle=1)

2. A fumble that is both forced and recovered is worth 4 (2 pts for each element). That's the same value as an interception.

I should note that TFL is not a stat that is tracked in live scoring (according to MFL). So, live scoring will be less complete than in the past.

113

Letter_J
ID: 33724612
Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 13:24

Sorry as well...still away in the Big Easy.

I'm all for eliminating the defense position and adding the extra IDP (flex).

I'm not really excited at all about separate scoring for different positions, nor am I a proponent of PPR.

I really like live scoring, so if the system does not account for it, then I would prefer not to implement TFL (but for this reason only).

Just my 0.02

114

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 14:07

The TFL don't show up during games, but once the stats go final, which usually isn't that long after the game ends, they are updated in the live scoring program.

115

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 16:22

Here is a slight variation on Bonka's formula:

Reduce TFL by 1 point
Add QB hits for 1 point

The reason I tried this is that it makes a sack worth the same as a fumble (forced & recovered) or an intecerption. (Sack - 1 for sack + 1 for tackle _ 2 for tfl) All of these plays would be worth 4 points.

A QB hit seems as though it should be similar in value to a pass defensed (also worth 1 point) - and helps to diversify the scoring somewhat, especially for DL.

The resulting table is quite similar, with marginally more value for DL, although the extra value is almost negligible. I should note that, similar to TFL, "QB hits" is also not a live stat.

Here are the points for this adjustment.

116

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 16:42

That seems good. I think TFL were too high in my setup. Sacks will be worth 5 though, but ints are as well.

tackle 1
TFL 2
QB hit 1
sack 1

int 4
PD 1

117

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 18:00

A sack is not also a QB hit. I found this definition in a Washington post article:

Hits -- a stat that the NFL started recording in 2006. To qualify for a hit, a defender must knock the quarterback to the ground in the act of throwing, or after he has thrown the ball. Hits that result in roughing the passer penalties are included.

So a QB hit is distinct from a sack.

As further confirmation, check out this game: Justin Tuck, week 11, where he is credited with 3 sacks, but only one QB hit.

Also, is an interceptions always scored as a pass defensed as well? I thought they were distinct, but I haven't yet found a clear definition or counter example.

118

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 18:22

The circumstantial evidence suggests that every interception is also credited as a pass defensed. I haven't been able to find any player with an interception that does not also have at least that many PDs as well.

I supposed you could have a situation where one player deflects a pass and another player catches it for interception. But I don't know if that's how the play would be scored or not.

If an int is also always a PD, then maybe the points for an int should be reduced to 3, so that the total is again 4. Why should an int be valued higher than a fumble forced & recovered?

119

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 20:10

Ah, thought sacks were counted as QB hits, didn't find anything to say otherwise in my quick check like you did. Picked the wrong weeks to look at.

Not sure about reducing INTs back to 3, don't think it matters much either way. Not everything has to be equal though. Passing TDs are worth less than rushing and receiving, 49 yard field goals are worth the same as 40 (50 same as 99!) in this system. I'm also pretty sure forced fumbles get a tackle added on top of them as well, so a complete fumble recovery would be 5 points.

120

russelldl
ID: 16544922
Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 10:18

I agree with Letter J. If TFL isn't available for live scoring, I would oppose it.

121

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 450482421
Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 13:05

My reasoning on why we should considering bringing in CB/DT:

True IDP leagues have ALWAYS used these designations, and I feel that we are naturally attracted to this "complete" feeling of a line-up.

It gives the manager a better understanding of the players that play these positions because otherwise, very few people would ever consider drafting the Kyle Williams/Antonio Garay's of the DT world when option like Peppers/Jared Allen are out there. Similarly, Revis, although being an amazing corner, is an afterthought in a DB system, because almost any starting Safety will outpoint him.

I don't feel like getting into whether or not it's "just" that these guys are getting a "bad rep" from the Fantasy world; but I think we can all benefit from expanding on thoughts on something like this.

My .02

122

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 450482421
Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 13:15

FYI - Looking back at the stats, 2010 seemed to be a bit of an "odd" year, in that a large # of CBs actually scored really well in compared to the previous year.

# of CBs in top 20 CB+S:

2009: 6
2010: 9

Who knows... maybe the game is evolving?

123

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 19:50

If you split CB and S, then we'd basically end up with a full defensive lineup of 2 DE 2 DT 3 LB 2 CB 2 DB since doing any less just isn't worth it. While I don't mind this, I know it won't fly here. This also puts 11 IDP vs 7 offensive and 1 kicker.

I'd really rather tweak some other things before this.

I also don't see the huge deal in stats not showing up in live scoring. It's only a couple points total, and they show up once the game stats go final, so it's not like they just randomly show up on Tuesday. We have to wait for scoring corrections, not sure why waiting a few minutes after the game is such a turn off.

I realize it's not optimal, but...

124

Judy
ID: 54203110
Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 20:54

I can wait for final scoring if TFL is part of the system. 7 IDP is plenty.

125

Tree
ID: 5755719
Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 20:55

True IDP leagues have ALWAYS used these designations, and I feel that we are naturally attracted to this "complete" feeling of a line-up.

what does that mean - "true IDP leagues"?!?!

i've been playing IDPs for years, and pretty much every league was DL/LB/DB. some might have required one DE and one DT, but never a difference between CB and S.

were those leagues not true? were they false?

seriously - at what point do we stop? should we do OLB, ILB, MLB, etc etc?

126

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 21:11

The hardcore IDP leagues run that setup at this point, but they usually also have increased IDP scoring. It's just how things evolve in fantasy. A few years back when IDP wasn't so mainstream, leagues probably only had the couple IDP slots as the new thing. Then it got big and people wanted more.

I don't feel we need to put in a full IDP lineup, but I wouldn't be against it if it ever had a real shot at being implemented.

I do want to say, since it was brought up and why not, that the different LB positions don't vary as much as S and CB and DT and DL. They have easily identifiable role differences where as the LB difference isn't as wide. Although this does change a bit when comparing 4-3 to 3-4 DE and LBs.
Yada yada yada, that's enough for now.

127

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 11:40

I'm still working on how to best construct a formal proposal for IDP. I'll hope to figure that out in the next day.

In addition to proposals on team def & PPR, I think the following items are on the table:

1. Blind bidding vs current waiver system. Although this comes up every few years, it has never gained traction. Haven't decided whether to even propose it this year, just on the KISS principle.

Several issues came up last year after the start of the season, and we should probably formally decide them now.

2. Should teams be required to field a complete lineup each week? Presumably, a complete lineup means no vacant positions, although we could expand that definition to include any player on IR, and perhaps also bye players.

3. Should dropped players be subject to a one-day waiver period? This was the rule back in the fanball.com days, but was dropped several years ago when MFL could not support it. Last year, MFL added the capability, so I reinstituted it without a vote - but then we ran into an issue later in the year related to cycling through F/A pickups to put them all on waivers and thereby block other teams. I outlawed that practice by executive fiat, although there was some pushback. But one way to avoid that issue entirely is to simply make dropped players immediately available once again.

4. I raised the issue of adding points for IDPs for blocked kicks. I'm going to propose that (presumably 2 pts) independent of any other IDP scoring change.

Are there any other issues to (re)consider?

128

holt
ID: 566231915
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 12:02

Just my opinion - but it seems you should be careful about changing too many things in one year.

I enjoy IDP's but they are extremely hard to forecast and the more IDP's you add the more you detract from the value of offensive players. I really don't see how IDP scoring is any less random than team defense scoring. The whole IDP scoring system is inherently flawed anyway. Crappy corners are going to outscore good corners because they are thrown to more often and allow more catches (which is no big deal as long as IDP's are kept out of the spotlight).

IDP's are entertaining to me only if they remain secondary to offensive players. I'm afraid that they'll just become cumbersome and a pain in the butt if their use is continually broadened. How many games can anyone stand to lose due to the fact that their opponents random IDP's outscored them 90 to 40? How much will the proposed rule changes alter draft strategy? Probably not too much, because in the end IDP scoring is as hard to predict as next month's weather.

129

holt
ID: 566231915
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 12:06

btw - my previous post isn't a response to Guru's post 127, just a response to the general IDP discussion.

130

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 12:10

RE 128: The points variance of TeamD has always been very high in comparison to IDP; so the proposed adding of 1 IDP, and removing TeamD, SHOULD bring back extra value to the offensive positions, NOT detract from them.

131

Promize
ID: 15714211
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 12:54

Sorry if this is late:

1. Should the Team defense slot be eliminated?
(B) yes, eliminate it, but only if an extra slot is allocated to an IDP

2. Should an IDP slot be added?
(A) yes, regardless of the decision on team defense

3. Should we add points per reception (PPR) to attempt to balance out the scoring of offensive players?
(B) Yes, but only if the formula is differentiate to reward TEs more and RBs less

4. Should the second RB slot be replaced with an RB/WR/TE flex slot?
(A) yes

132

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 13:17

Here are a couple of issues that have been raised from time to time, regarding playoffs.

Currently the top 6 teams are seeded into the playoffs based on W/L record, with tiebreakers based on HTH (among tied teams), and then points scored. The 7th and 8th playoff seed are the two highest point teams from among the other 8 teams.

Potential changes:
1. Eliminate HTH as a tiebreaker. If teams are tied, use only points scored to break the tie.

2. Seed the top four teams the same as before, but seed the bottom four teams based on total points. Note - I'm only talking about "seeding" for this, not playoff selection.

2a. Seed the top four teams the same as before, and let these teams select their first round opponent (top seed gets first choice, then 2nd seed...) Once the first round is seeded, teams advance as normal (no reseeding in round 2).

133

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 14:12

I kinda like 2a, so as to give a sort of "home field advantage" type scenario.

134

youngroman
ID: 56523304
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 15:56

re 127/3: it seems that you can set a waiver period for dropped players in fractions of a day: "X days later - A recently dropped cannot be acquired or requested/bid on by any franchise until the specified number of days (you can also enter in a fraction of a day where 1 hour = 1/24th day = 0.0417 and 3 hours = 1/8th day = 0.125)"

I don't know if that is better as having no system at all, but it would prevent someone from getting a dropped player because he was the first one who was online. and it also means that you would need to cycle through all available players every few hours. by removing team defense, there is only QB where cycling through might be a strategy. and now that we know that cycling through is a strategy that gets executed, managers will get their position filled earlier and not on Sunday noon.

135

SwinganaMiss
ID: 771116
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 16:44

Guru, when talking about "seeding" also think about how/if this might impact selection for who you keep in RIFC the following year. I remember being in RIFC a couple years back. I was 4th in total points but got the #8 seed, so I went back to AAA the next year. If you had been seeding bottom 4 based on points, I would have been #6 and maybe stayed in RIFC.

136

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 19:12

1. Blind bidding vs current waiver system.

I'm fine with blind bidding since I raised the issue.

2. Should teams be required to field a complete lineup each week?

A full lineup should be required in that no slots are empty. Anything other than that, I'm not sure if we should touch. I think if someone blatantly abuses the system, they can just not be invited back the following year and/or have their team controlled by Guru for the remainder of the season if it's something that happens multiple times.

3. Should dropped players be subject to a one-day waiver period?

I think the waiver period is fine, but we do need to curb blatant player cycling as it's really not in the spirit of the rules.

4. I raised the issue of adding points for IDPs for blocked kicks. I'm going to propose that (presumably 2 pts) independent of any other IDP scoring change.

Sounds fine to me.

I'm also fine with all the playoff things mentioned.

Regarding 'random' IDP scoring...I don't see how it's that random. It's not that hard to project IDPs honestly, and a lot of the top guys are there year after year. Yes, some guys have huge games once in a while, but so do offensive players. As IAC mentioned, the DEF variance is a lot bigger than IDP.

137

Judy
ID: 54203110
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 19:30

Re the complete lineup. I think you should have a player for every slot, even if he is on a bye week. (you would be dropping the IR's as they are useless in our full draft format.)
In other words if there are 7 IDP slots you must have 7 IDP bodies on your roster to fit into your starting lineup even if some of them are on bye. you lose points by using bye players so that would be the penalty. So you would not have to pick up a spare PK unless you wanted the points that week.
The might be a problem in monitoring this?? Or is it one of the mfl options -- I think it is?

Re the waivers. I forgot how we can set it. One league I think was exactly 24 hours after the guy was dropped so if you really wanted him w/o using a waiver pick you knew when to hang around the computer... I don't think that is fair to folks who cannot hang around a computer all day... Also didn't we decide that cycling through was a no no for this league in the spirit of fairness?

138

Judy
ID: 54203110
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 19:39

I agree with boNKA re IDP scoring and projecting who will get points. I LOVE to look for guys to get IDP points for me. I consider it an important strategy to have good IDP's. And yes, while a guy may have a great game every once in a while, the point variation would not be as great as the DST stuff.

No to blind bidding -- mostly because I do not know what it is.

Yes to the blocked kick points

Not sure about the seeding stuff...that would be really tricky if you had to pick your first round opponent, and really embarrassing if you got toasted by the guy! Crawl into a hole type embarrassment...

For playoffs I would like to see us do what we did in my AAA league last year where all the teams keep going to create a ranking of 1 - 14. Details are on the end of season summary for 2010. Keeps your interest up if you lose in the first round of the main draw, you can still finish 5th. First round losers in the main draw go into a plate draw and play out to get 5th place.

139

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 22:18

Blind bidding is pretty simple. Each team is allotted a set amount of blind bid money, we can use $100 as an example. Instead of doing waivers based on the waiver order, you submit bids each week for players you'd like to pick up. Last year Brandon Jackson was a hot pick up early, so say bid $100 on him to grab him (assuming nobody else bid $100, if they did, it would go to a tie breaker) but then would not be able to bid on anyone the remainder of the season and rely on first come first serve pickups. If someone else had bid $50 on him, they lost to the $100 bid and still have their full $100 to use how they please.

You can bid $1 to $100 on any player, highest bid takes the player (or highest bid + tiebreaker). Once you're out of the $100, unable to make blind bids. Can set it to allow trading of blind bid money as well.

It's just a different waiver set up to allow all teams the same shot at players from the start. It's completely up to you how you decide to manage your blind bid money throughout the season. Either blow it all early on a hot pickup, make conservative bids throughout the season, or just pick your spots.

140

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 22:33

Big fan of blind bidding. I don't care if teams field a complete lineup each week or not - their call.

I prefer a 24-hour wait for dropped players. I believe churn can be outlawed as against the spirit of the rules. Another option might be to enforce that all picked up players must be held for at least 24 hours before they can be dropped again.

IDP points for blocked kicks is a no-brainer yes for me.

141

russelldl
ID: 16544922
Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 22:58

I like the blind bid system.

I like having each team have a full lineup but byes are fine. I would just hate to see a team go into monday night with a lead, have their QB as the only player left to play, and be able to pull them out in case of negative points. If you've got a qb on a bye that you can stick in, thats fine.

I like playoff seeding the way its currently done, no changes.

yes to blocked kick points.

Not sure about waivers. I don't like making dropped players available immediately but I also think the churn strategy should be impossible.

142

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 08:03

I don't mind the blind bid system, but it just adds another thing for Guru to keep track of. Thus, I'd vote against it.

Full lineup... it's always been that way, but, I can see why someone might not want to field a full line-up, I'd vote to open it up for greater manager flexibility.

Blocked kicks... sure, why not, will happen VERY rarely anyway.

143

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 11:00

Not sure if blind bidding would be any more or less work.

However, it does look like if we used blind bidding, then dropped players would not be able to go through waivers. We could still lock out dropped players for some period - but we could not run them through a claiming process.

144

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 13:58

Guru, are you sure? I know you can run normal waivers and have blind bidding, so I don't see why you couldn't run waivers for locked players along with blind bidding. I'm in a league where it's twice a week ordered waivers leading up to the season, then blind bidding twice a week and fcfs during the season.

It should be the same setup we had last season, just replace the normal waiver period with blind bidding. Or we could just run 2 sets of blind bidding, ending Friday, then allow FCFS until Sunday.

145

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 14:08

Of course I'm not sure. The system is so complex when it comes to waiver setup that it's taken multiple attempts over the years - by people with more experience at this than me - just to figure out what we've got so far.

I'm just reacting to the blind bidding setup page which only lists three options:

1. Blind Bidding from kickoff of the first game of the week through Wednesday at 10:00 ET.
First come, first served through kickoff of the first game of the following week.
Waivers end on week 17 kickoff.

2. Blind Bidding from kickoff of the first game of the week through Wednesday at 11:30pm ET.
First come, first served through Sunday midnight.
No Waivers from Sunday midnight ET through kickoff of the first game of the following week.
Waivers end on Saturday, 12/17 at 11pm ET.

3. Blind Bidding each Wednesday night from 6-10pm ET.
First come, first served each Sunday from 6am ET until kickoff.
Waivers end on Wednesday 12/14 at 10pm ET.

Maybe there are other alternatives in the custom waiver setup page.

146

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 14:16

Yeah, don't use pre packaged waivers. If the stuff that we set up last year isn't saved, you can set it up again while looking at last year's league page and copy it, then make changes where needed. I can help if needed once we figure out what we're doing. But yeah, it's usually a trial and error process unfortunately. Better than not having options I guess :D

147

Letter_J
ID: 9735915
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 16:35

First, I've never done blind bidding, but seems to be an interesting dynamic...I'll vote in favour.

Second, I, for one, say who cares if one wants to field a complete lineup or not?

Third, I also like playoff seeding the way it is.

Fourth, whatever to blocked kick points; I'll abstain.

148

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 16:38

Just to clarify, I haven't actually asked for your official votes yet. I was just trying to make sure I have all of the questions/issues identified.

149

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 17:01

Here are the questions to vote on. Only members of the RIFC may vote. QL members may certainly offer opinions, but the voting results will only reflect RIFC members.

It will be helpful if you identify your fist and second choices for questions with more than 2 choices.

Note: I am not going to ask for a vote on adding blocked kicks to IDP scoring. That seems to be uncontroversial, and will be implemented.

1. Should the Team defense slot be eliminated?
(A) yes, eliminate it
(B) yes, but only if an extra slot is allocated to an IDP
(C) no, keep the team defense slot

2. Should an IDP slot be added?
(A) yes, regardless of the decision on team defense
(B) yes, but only if the team defense is eliminated
(C) no

3. If an IDP slot is added, how should IDP requirements be set up?
(A) 2 DL, 2 LB, 2 DB, 1 flex
(B) DL, DT, 2 LB, DB, CB, 1 flex
(C) DL, LB, DB, 4 flex
(D) DL, 2 LB, 2 DB, 2 flex

4. IDP scoring:
(A) same as 2010, with sack=3, int=3, fumble=3 (forced=2, recovered=1) [Note: total for sack=4 (incl tackle), total for int=4 (incl PD), total for fumble=3]
actual scoring in 2010 - choice A
(B) same as A, but increase sack by 1 (i.e., exclude TFL and QB hits since they are not included as live scoring stats)
scoring for choice B
(C) Change to sack=1, TFL(tackle for loss)=2, QB hit =1, int=3, fumble=4 (forced=2,recovered=2) [Note: sack total=4, fumble total=4, int total=4]
scoring for choice C
(D) Change to sack=1, TFL(tackle for loss)=2, QB hit =1, int=4, fumble=4 (forced=2,recovered=2) [Note: sack total =4, fumble total=4, int total=5]
scoring for choice D

5. Should we add PPR (pts per reception)?
(A) yes, 0.5 for all positions
scoring for choice A
(B) yes, score 1 for WR, 1.5 for TE, 0.5 for everyone else
scoring for choice B
(C) yes, 0.5 for TE, 0 for everyone else
scoring for choice C
(D) no
actual scoring for 2010 choice D

6. Should our current waiver system (based on standings) be replaced by blind bidding?
(A) yes
(B) no

7. Should dropped players continue to be put on waivers for a day (with no “lockout cycling” allowed)?
(A) yes
(B) no

8. Should we eliminate head-to-head records as a tiebreaker criteria in the standings?
(A) eliminate it, use pts scored as only tiebreaker
(B) no change (use HTH before points)

9. The playoffs include the top 6 teams based on W/L record, plus the two remaining teams with the most points scored. This will not change. However, for playoff seedings, should we:
(A) seed teams 1-4 based on W/L, and seed teams 5-8 based on points.
(B) seed teams 1-4 based on W/L, and let those teams select their 1st round opponent (first choice to top seed)
(C) no change – seed teams 1-6 based on W/L, 7-8 based on points

10. Should teams be required to field a complete lineup each week (no vacant slots)?
(A) yes
(B) no, vacant slots should be allowed

150

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 17:02

I'm hoping that the above choices are clear and complete enough. Note that for the scoring changes, I've provided links to a MFL player stats page based on each formula. Hope I did those correctly.

151

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 17:26

1. A, B

2. A, B

3. A, 2 DL 3 LB 2 DB, B

4. C, D

5. B, A

6. A

7. A

8. A

9. B, A

10. A

152

Tree
ID: 41512710
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 17:27

FIRST CHOICE: (B) yes, but only if an extra slot is allocated to an IDP
SECOND CHOICE: (A) yes, eliminate it

2. Should an IDP slot be added?
FIRST CHOICE: (B) yes, but only if the team defense is eliminated
SECOND CHOICE: (C) no

3. If an IDP slot is added, how should IDP requirements be set up?
FIRST CHOICE: (A) 2 DL, 2 LB, 2 DB, 1 flex
SECOND CHOICE:(D) DL, 2 LB, 2 DB, 2 flex

4. IDP scoring:
FIRST CHOICE:(A) same as 2010, with sack=3, int=3, fumble=3 (forced=2, recovered=1) [Note: total for sack=4 (incl tackle), total for int=4 (incl PD), total for fumble=3]
actual scoring in 2010 - choice A
SECOND CHOICE: (B) same as A, but increase sack by 1 (i.e., exclude TFL and QB hits since they are not included as live scoring stats)
scoring for choice B

5. Should we add PPR (pts per reception)?
FIRST CHOICE:(A) yes, 0.5 for all positions
scoring for choice A
SECOND CHOICE: NOT LISTED - 1.0 for all positions. i am not in favor of different points for different positions at all. in each position, the cream rises to the crop - to me, trying to tweak scoring to make a TE = a WR defeats a lot of what Fantasy Football is about.

6. Should our current waiver system (based on standings) be replaced by blind bidding?
(B) no

7. Should dropped players continue to be put on waivers for a day (with no “lockout cycling” allowed)?
(B) no

8. Should we eliminate head-to-head records as a tiebreaker criteria in the standings?
(A) eliminate it, use pts scored as only tiebreaker

9. The playoffs include the top 6 teams based on W/L record, plus the two remaining teams with the most points scored. This will not change. However, for playoff seedings, should we:
FIRST CHOICE: (C) no change – seed teams 1-6 based on W/L, 7-8 based on points

SECOND CHOICE:(A) seed teams 1-4 based on W/L, and seed teams 5-8 based on points.

400,382nd CHOICE: (B) seed teams 1-4 based on W/L, and let those teams select their 1st round opponent (first choice to top seed)

10. Should teams be required to field a complete lineup each week (no vacant slots)?
(B) no, vacant slots should be allowed

153

youngroman
ID: 56523304
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 17:33

1: B, C
2: A, B
3: A, D
4: C, A
5: D, A
6: B
7: B
8: B
9: A, B
10: A

154

Judy
ID: 54203110
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 18:01

1. B, A
2. B, A
3. D, C, A (B = noooo)
4. D, C, (A, B = nooooo)
5. Sorry -- no opinion
6. B
7. A
8. B
9. A, C (B = noooooooo)
10. A

155

Letter_J
ID: 9735915
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 19:20

1. B, A
2. B, A
3. C, D
4. A, B
5. D
6. A
7. B
8. B
9. C, B
10. B

156

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 19:28

1. A, B
2. B, A
3. A, 2 DL, LB, DB, 3 flex IDP
4. D, C
5. D, C
6. A
7. A
8. B
9. A, C
10. B

157

russelldl
ID: 16544922
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 20:56

1.A,B
2.A,B
3.C,D
4.A,B
5.D,A
6.A(yes)
7.A(yes)
8.B
9.C,A
10.A

158

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 450482421
Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 22:06

1. B,A
2. A,B
3. B,A
4. D,B
5. D,A
6. A
7. A
8. B
9. B
10. B

159

ywk
ID: 053583
Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 00:43

1. B
2. B
3. A
4. A, C
5. A, B
6. B
7. B
8. B
9. C
10. A

160

SwinganaMiss
ID: 771116
Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 07:03

1. B,C
2. B,C
3. A,D
4. C,D
5. D,C
6. B
7. B
8. A
9. A,C
10. no pref

161

Electroman
Donor
ID: 010833614
Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 07:49

1. B,A
2. A,B
3. D,A
4. C,D
5. D
6. B
7. B
8. A
9. B
10.B

162

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 09:35

1. B, A
2. B, C
3. D, A
4. C, D
5. A, D
6. A
7. A
8. A
9. B, A
10. B

164

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 09:54

1. C
2. C
3. A,D
4. C,D
5. D,C
6. B
7. A
8. A
9. A,B
10. A

165

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 10:05

13 votes cast. Awaiting only Fugazi - who may still be having internet connection issues.

The following issues are settled:

1. Team defense is eliminated (overwhelmingly)
2. IDP slot is added (overwhelmingly)
3. 2 DL, 2 LB, 2 DB, 1 flex
4. probably option C
5. PPR is defeated (8 votes against)
6. Blind bidding is defeated (at best, would be a tie)
7. dropped players will continue to go on waivers
10. complete lineup required (at best, would be a tie)

The following are still up in the air:
8. HTH tiebreaker
9. Playoff seeding

166

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 13:38

While I'd like to see stuff like PPR and blind bidding, I'll take the DEF boot for now :D

167

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 14:03

Team defense was on the table multiple times over the years, and this was the first time it has gotten widespread support.

Blind bidding will be close to a tie vote (will end up either 8-6 against or 7-7). Either way, we'd need a majority to approve a change. But that may change in a future year as well.

PPR had 8 votes against, plus an abstention. Of the four in favor, three wanted 0.5 for all positions. Bonka was the outlier there (.5/1.0/1.5)

168

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 19:41

I'm thrilled with the results of the voting. I am very happy to see the increased importance of IDPs in this great league.

169

holt
ID: 40711121
Thu, Aug 11, 2011, 19:46

for Fugazi - still no internet at the moment.

1 - c
2 - b
3 - d
4 - a
5 - d
6 - b
7 - a
8 - a
9 - c
10 - b

170

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 14:59

Voting is now complete.

For IDP scoring (question 4), option C had the most votes, but only 6 (less than a majority). Choice A had 5 votes (no change), and D had 3 votes. When considering second choices, choice C again led the way with 9 votes. So the winner is option C.

The HTH tiebreaker is still in place, as that vote was 7-7. In the event of a tie, I have always ruled that current rule is not overturned.

The playoff seeding vote is tricky to interpret. The choices were:
(A) Seed top 4 by W/L, 5-8 by points
(B) Seed top 4 by W/L, & let them pick 1st round opponent from among 5-8
(C) Status quo: seed 1-6 by W/L, 7-8 by points

The vote was A-5, B-4, C-5. Nine managers voted for a change, but were divided on what the change should be.

When I counted votes for first and second choices, the results were A-9, B-8, C-7. On that basis, I'm going with choice A, although four people did not cast a second choice vote (letter_j, ywk, Electroman, and Fugazi). It is possible that, if they had picked a second choice, the result would be different.

Finally, the vote regarding the need for a complete lineup was 6-yes, 7-no, and one abstention. Rather than trying to figure out how (or whether) to count the abstention, I decided to change my vote to allow a vacancy, making 8 votes in favor of allowing a partial lineup. We'll see how that plays out this year, and possibly revisit next year. But for this year, you may set a lineup with a vacant slot.

I'll now amend the rules narrative and repost. Once that's done, I'll also make the updates to the hosting site for this league, and for the QLs as well.

171

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 15:28

Rules for 2011, as amended by league vote. Changes from 2010 are shown in italics.

I also added a section on position eligibility. This is not a change in rules, but merely defines our traditional league practice - and was inadvertently omitted from prior rule listings.

Draft
“Banzai” format: Same as a traditional snake, except the third round is reversed. Thus, the team with the first overall pick has the last pick in rounds 2, 3, and 4.

Roster
1 QB
2 RB
2 WR
1 WR/TE
1 TE
1 K
~~1 Team def~~ <=eliminated for 2011
2 DL
2 LB
2 DB
1 additional IDP (flex)
9 bench
24 Total

Decimal scoring is applied for all categories.

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

Kicking Points
(apply to all players, including IDP)
Extra point made 1
Extra point missed -1
FG under 40 yards 3
FG 40-49 yards 4
FG 50+ yards 5
Missed FG <30 -1
Missed FG 30+ 0

Indiv Defensive Player Points
(apply to all players, including offensive players and kickers)
Solo Tackle 1
Asst Tackle 0.5
Tackle for loss 2
QB hit 1
Pass defensed 1
Sack 1 (half sack=0.5)
Interception 3
Fumble forced 2
Fumble recovery 2
TD 6 (all TDs, whether on offense, defense, or special teams)
Safety 3
Blocked kick (FG, XP, punt) 2

Unlisted players
During the draft, any player may be drafted, regardless of whether or not the player is listed at the hosting game site. Once the draft is completed, unlisted players may not be added to any roster. This applies for any post-draft waiver processing as well.

In the event that a drafted player is not listed after the draft has completed, a placeholder player will be assigned to the drafting team, to be replaced by the drafted player as soon as he is available.

Position eligibility
Except as defined below, a player's position eligibility will be that assigned by the league hosting site.

If a player is listed at one position when drafted and that position is subsequently changed by the hosting site, the manager drafting that player may elect to retain the original position. In this event, that player will keep the drafted position eligibility until he is dropped or traded, at which time the eligibility will revert to the hosting system's default position.

Priority Claiming
All free agents (any players not on a current roster) are subject to a weekly claiming process at noon on Wednesday. Following each of the first 6 weeks of the season, the priorities will reset weekly based on the reverse of W/L percentage (with applicable tiebreakers). After that, priorities will not be reset during the regular season. Throughout the season, when a player is claimed, the claiming team moves to the end of the claiming priority list. Following the final regular season game, priorities will be reset based on playoff seed, with the top seed getting the top priority. Thereafter, throughout the playoffs, priorities will again adjust only when a claim is awarded.

Starting at 3:00pm on each Wednesday, all free agents may be picked up by any team "first come, first served" without any change in priority status. Dropped players will be subject to a one day waiver period, subject to processing rules administered at the hosting site. Managers may not “cycle” though a series of free agents solely for the purpose of blocking them from availability. In such instances, the Commissioner will take appropriate corrective action.

Immediately following the draft, undrafted players will be subject to a priority claiming process, with priorities equal to the reverse of the first round draft order.

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

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

Trades and trade deadline
During the draft, trades may include draft picks. Trades will normally be approved immediately by the Commissioner, assuming they are reasonably balanced. If league managers believe an announced trade is unbalanced, they should protest the trade ASAP.

After the draft, trades will be subject to a review period. For the first 24 hours following a trade, managers may protest a trade by posting a message at the RotoGuru forum, or by sending an email to the Commissioner. If at least 3 managers protest a trade within 24 hours of its announcement, then all managers will be polled within the next 24 hours. If seven or more managers vote to veto a trade, then it will not be approved. If a proposed trade is announced less than 24 hours before the earliest freeze for any player involved, then the entire trade will not be processed until the following week.

If a trade does not receive at least 3 protests, then it will be effective 24 hours after it is announced. If a trade receives at least 3 protests but the protests are not upheld in a full league vote, then the trade will be processed 48 hours after it is announced.

The trade deadline is the weekend following the final week with byes.

Stat corrections
Official stat corrections will be automatically applied. This typically happens on Thursday morning. In the playoffs, this can lead to an issue if a team is suddenly “back in the game”, but that team was unable to make roster moves the prior day. If a stat correction changes a playoff matchup at the last minute, then any impacted team will be given the opportunity to make a last minute roster move, if needed. The Commissioner will attempt to ensure that this provision is enabled as fairly as possible under the circumstances.

During the playoffs, once the first game of the week has started, no stat corrections will be allowed thereafter.

Playoffs
8 teams, single elimination
The 8 teams will be those with the top 6 W/L records plus the two other teams with the most points
The top four seeds will be based on W/L record (including applicable tiebreakers)
Seeds 5-8 will be based on total points for the other four playoff teams
Teams with equivalent W/L records are ranked based on head-to-head first (regardless of the number of teams tied), then total points.
Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round)

Players at the primary skill positions (QB, RB, WR) ~~and team defenses~~ may not be added for any reason during the playoffs. Free agents at these positions will be locked out after the final regular season game. You may drop a player at one of these positions, but once dropped, that player cannot be added later.

Players at the other positions (TE, PK, IDP) may be added or dropped according to normal regular season guidelines, subject to playoff claiming priorities, if applicable.

If a playoff game ends in a tie score, the team with the better seed shall advance.

Teams which are not still active in the Championship playoffs may not make any transactions - adds or drops - even if they are still competing in the Consolation bracket.

172

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 15:29

Hope I got those stated correctly! Let me know if I blew it.

173

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 15:56

Looks pretty good. Will be very curious to see how the IDP works out w/o a DST. I always liked finding good IDP's and now they will be even more valuable, but the 2-2-2 format will be somewhat restrictive. We shall see how it develops!!

Any chance for enhanced Consolations (esp the Plate Conso for 5 thru 8th places for first round main draw losers) -- so we losers can stay "active" for a few more weeks? You get to stay active and brag (maybe) about "what if"....

please??

174

Nerfherders
ID: 310111515
Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 20:05

The bit about team defenses not being added in the playoffs should probably be removed.

175

Judy
ID: 54203110
Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 22:37

Guru,

What were all those weird posts on the leagues threads august 2 and 3? Was that the spam you were referring to?

176

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 09:48

Yep, that was some of it.

177

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 14:32

I coded up the roster, scoring, and waivers setup for the league.

Please review and let me know if anything looks incorrect.

Once I'm certain that these setting are correct, I'll copy them over the the QLs.

General setup - although I don;t see it mentioned on this summary page, I have set up a maximum limit of 7 IDP starters.

RIFC scoring formulas - even though all formulas apply to all players, I've segregated the offensive formulas from the defensive formulas just for visual clarity

League calendar

178

Electroman
Donor
ID: 010833614
Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 21:19

Does anyone know if you can use the MFL app for iphone that you pay for for the draft?

179

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 09:11

MFL iPhone app description doesn't mention anything about the draft... I'm guessing if you just setup you profile on MFL to notify you when it's your pick, then just use a regular web-browser to make the pick? Sounds logical to me... the short answer would have been: I have no idea. ;)

180

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 10:16

Now that we have settled on rules changes and those have been coded into the system, it's time to begin the draft selection round.

I will have the MFL system generate a random order, which we will use only for the draft selection round. When it is your turn to select, post your choice of draft position in this thread. Hopefully, we will not need a clock for this round, although if we really get stuck, I may skip the laggard and move on.

Remember that we will use a "Banzai" draft order, which means that the third round is reversed from a normal serpentine order. If you take the first draft pick in round one, you will pick last in each of rounds 2-4. Starting with round 5, the draft will then continue as a regular serpentine (snake) draft.

I'm still planning to start the actual draft on August 24th.

181

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 10:27

Well, that went well... I guess.

Here is the selection order for the draft selection round:

1. Guru
2. youngroman's Luschen
3. TD
4. Taiwan OneTail
5. russeldl
6. Electro Eagles
7. GHOSTWOOD (Judy)
8. Bonka
9. IAC
10. SwinganaMiss
11. Fugazi
12. Slaughterers (Tree)
13. Short Bus (letter j)
14. Crazy 88s (The Beezer)

I have the first choice - which I wasn't really expecting. I'll decide by this afternoon.

182

Promize
ID: 37531510
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 11:56

Being a commish in a couple leagues.... it always fills odd when the system picks your name as the first pick / choice.

183

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 12:25

Well, I guess 8th isn't too bad. Not as lucky as last year.

184

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 12:43

I looked back at least year's draft results. Here is the draft order for the teams that finished seeded 1-6 at the end of the season (along with their 1st & 2nd round draft picks):

1. Slizz (seeded #1) - picked 4th, Ray Rice-Tom Brady
2. Bonka - picked 3rd, Adrian Peterson-Greg Jennings
3. Youngroman - picked 11th, Randy Moss-Ryan Mathews
(wow - nice recovery to finish third after those two picks!)
4. Letter J - picked 6th, Frank Gore-Brandon Marshall
5. IAC - picked 8th, Steven Jackson-Miles Austin
6. Motley Crue (playoff winner) - picked 9th, Michael Turner-Calvin Johnson

Interesting that those picks all seem to be bunched in the middle of the round. However, the real point is that team success is obviously more important than those first several picks.

Here is last year's complete draft

185

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 14:39

Let's get this started. I'll pick 6th.

1
2
3
4
5
6 Guru
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Youngroman is up

186

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 14:41

Btw, as a courtesy, please email the next person after you have made your selection. Emails can be found at the mfl site.

187

youngroman
ID: 56523304
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 15:33

would have liked to pick more to the end, but 7 should do it this year.

1
2
3
4
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

188

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 17:07

... it's not as though picks near the end weren't still available...

189

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 17:17

I'll take 14 and we can swap 1st round picks. That should take care of it.

190

TD
Leader
ID: 036331011
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 21:08

1
2
3
4
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 TD

Taiwan OneTail is up

191

ywk
ID: 053583
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 22:15

1
2
3 ywk
4
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 TD

192

russelldl
ID: 16544922
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 23:13

1
2
3 ywk
4
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8
9 russelldl
10
11
12
13
14 TD

I'll email electro

193

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 23:14

I'll be checking in Tues around 10 am to see if EE has picked his slot.

194

Electroman
Donor
ID: 010833614
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 07:44

1 Electroman
2
3 ywk
4
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8
9 russelldl
10
11
12
13
14 TD

195

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 10:52

1 Electroman
2
3 ywk
4
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8 Judy/Ghostwood
9 russelldl
10
11
12
13
14 TD

196

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 12:58

I'll try something different this year, having a stud RB for once worked so well last year, could be shooting myself in the foot.

1 Electroman
2
3 ywk
4
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8 Judy/Ghostwood
9 russelldl
10
11
12
13 Bonka
14 TD

197

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 13:01

1 Electroman
2
3 ywk
4
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8 Judy/Ghostwood
9 russelldl
10
11
12 IAC
13 Bonka
14 TD

198

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 13:03

Why do you have to pick next to me IAC? I have a bad feeling about this. I'm sure Guru is glad I'm nowhere near him after last year.

199

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 13:08

I was going to grab the 10 just to try to grab value through the middle of the rounds; but... I'm interested in the "Banzai effect".

Seeing your name made me ALMOST reconsider, but, I can't pick my position on the thought that we'll draft similarly. Hey who knows... maybe we'll create a few "runs on positions". ;)

200

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 13:10

[198] :-)

201

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 13:11

I'm surprised the early picks didn't go already, honestly. They're still valuable in this draft format. Grabbing that stud RB early can be huge in this scoring setup.

202

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 13:17

Yeah, but I got Foster in Round 5 of AAA last year. Where is this year's sleeper/stud RB to be found?????

I won from 9 last year -- I like the middle as I can't stand waiting so long and seeing my Q picked clean between picks!!

203

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 13:59

FYI - I did email SwinganaMiss immediately after making my pick; in case anyone was wondering.

204

SwinganaMiss
ID: 07561618
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 19:56

I'll pick here in a bit. Gotta look at a couple of things first.

205

SwinganaMiss
ID: 771116
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 21:06

1 Electroman
2 SwinganaMiss
3 ywk
4
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8 Judy/Ghostwood
9 russelldl
10
11
12 IAC
13 Bonka
14 TD

206

holt for fugazi
ID: 40711121
Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 22:22

1 Electroman
2 SwinganaMiss
3 ywk
4 fugazi
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8 Judy/Ghostwood
9 russelldl
10
11
12 IAC
13 Bonka
14 TD

207

Tree
ID: 41512710
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 02:11

1 Electroman
2 SwinganaMiss
3 ywk
4 fugazi
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8 Judy/Ghostwood
9 russelldl
10 Tree
11
12 IAC
13 Bonka
14 TD

208

Letter_J
ID: 9735915
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 07:41

1 Electroman
2 SwinganaMiss
3 ywk
4 fugazi
5
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8 Judy/Ghostwood
9 russelldl
10 Tree
11 ShortBus
12 IAC
13 Bonka
14 TD

209

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 08:30

GREAT!!! Bonka on one side, and my bro on the other; this may be my worst Draft EVER!

210

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 09:35

FYI - Final order:

1 Electroman
2 SwinganaMiss
3 ywk
4 fugazi
5 Crazy 88s (The Beezer)
6 Guru
7 youngroman
8 Judy/Ghostwood
9 russelldl
10 Tree
11 ShortBus
12 IAC
13 Bonka
14 TD

211

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 10:29

Draft order has been input into MFL, include the "banzai'd" round 3.

I plan to activate the draft clock on Wednesday morning (Sept 24). As has been the case in the past, we will have a 6 hour clock, with a clock moratorium from 1am-7am ET.

I'll set up a draft discussion thread shortly.

212

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 13:55

oops -- a Sept 24 start is a bit late...

213

I_AM_CANADIAN
Sustainer
ID: 01361448
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 14:29

RE 212: Never argue with the Commish! You'll end up down in AA. jk ;)

214

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 15:14

OK, let's push it up to August 24 then.

Drafting after a few weeks of the regular season would open up interesting strategies, however...

215

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 15:17

Just put in retroactive scoring and no drafting during games and we'll be set. Talk about spicing things up.

216

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 16:49

Might be fun to start a league the first week of the byes after a few games have gone bye...would be interesting to compare drafts!

217

The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 19:38

Oddly enough, I was seriously considering taking the 5th draft spot if I was to pick first. Thank you banzai!

218

Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 20:46

Yeah 5th slot is good this year. Not sure why nobody took it.

219

judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 17:17

It's unlucky... that's why...

Forum: footPage 5389Subject: RIFC 2011: Getting started

Forum: foot
Page 5389
Subject: RIFC 2011: Getting started