Forum: foot
Page 5398
Subject: RIFC rule changes: Discussion for non-RIFC manager

  Posted by: loki - [5655229] Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 10:14
We will not have a vote on rule changes for RIFC 2011, but I would like a forum where we can express our opinions without hijacking theirs. There seems to be a strong sentiment in RIBC to make changes, some small and some significant, but in my opinion, "if it ain't broke, why fix it?" I am certain that some changes will be made, but I hope that they do not unnecessarily complicate things, specifically in the area of IDPs. I would like to keep Team Defense because with the exception of a few of the elite defenses, it adds a degree of uncertainty and chance to the game. Of all the major changes the one I like the most is PPR. I like things the way they are,
but I have suggested this before as a way of preventing
stagnation.
 
1Toral
      ID: 5464267
      Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 03:42 		Here's the way I would vote on the proposed RIFC rule changes:

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

It ain't gonna go those way so those of us in the QLs this year will have two big tasks: getting to RIFC and getting their rules back to a pristine state...

Adding a DL position and tweaking the scoring is a good idea, likeweise allowing the 1-4 seeds to choose their opponents....
 
2Kyle
      Sustainer
      ID: 052753312
      Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 22:59 		If I was voting, which I'm clearly not from AA :(

1. Should the Team defense slot be eliminated?
(B) yes, but only if an extra slot is allocated to an IDP
I love the IDP in this league and I think the fact that teams win on fluke Team D performances is pretty crappy. This will raise the value of IDPs and expand the bench by a spot for most people.

2. Should an IDP slot be added?
(B) yes, but only if the team defense is eliminated
I would also vote A as a secondary, but I think it's pretty contingent on Team D being eliminated.

3. If an IDP slot is added, how should IDP requirements be set up?
(D) DL, 2 LB, 2 DB, 2 flex
This is interesting. I think it could provide for some interesting draft strategies.

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

No change is needed here, scoring has been fine

5. Should we add PPR (pts per reception)?
(D) no
I think this has been raised every year since I've played in RIFC. Not a fan of PPR. Never have been, never will be.

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

7. Should dropped players continue to be put on waivers for a day (with no “lockout cycling” allowed)?
(A) yes
Same as #6

8. Should we eliminate head-to-head records as a tiebreaker criteria in the standings?
(B) no change (use HTH before points)
I don't know really, so I fall on the no change side of this.

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:
(B) seed teams 1-4 based on W/L, and let those teams select their 1st round opponent (first choice to top seed)
Or A. But I like the idea that you can choose your opponent and choose who you think is the weakest.

10. Should teams be required to field a complete lineup each week (no vacant slots)?
(A) yes
I like that if you don't field a lineup you get a 0. It really punishes you for roster mismanagement.