Forum: foot
Page 5569
Subject: RIFC 2016: Final Recap

  Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Mon, Jan 02, 2017, 12:11

Congrats to Philly Busters, who knocked off top seeded Jaydog in the final game. This year, the top two seeds (also the top two scoring teams) made it to the final game. That doesn't happen often.

I'll post the final RIFC standings in a moment, and provide links to the results of the three qualifying leagues as well.

Meanwhile, if anyone in any of the RIFC leagues has any thoughts on possible rules changes for next year, feel free to post them here while they are still somewhat fresh.
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Jan 02, 2017, 12:14

Regular season:

      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Jan 02, 2017, 12:28
AAA #1

AAA #2


Regular Season Standings
AAA #1

AAA #2


      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Jan 02, 2017, 12:34
There are a couple of potential rule adjustments that are worthy of consideration.

One relates to the number of RBs - either starting or rostered. Here is a comment from SteelerG:
"I emailed twolves early in the draft about the fact that based on the number of teams and number of players this league should really only start one RB and one RB/WR flex. This would make it more realistic to NFL play (one RB playing per down) and it would eliminate that injury challenge. No other position is as void of talent if u have an in season injury as RB.

Of course I jinxed myself as all of my RBs got injured(top two out for the year early on). I chose to bid the bulk of my free agent money on RBs that had 0 point averages because that was only 3 points less than the best free agent on the market. Yes 0 was only 3 points less. Getting 5-6 points most likely would not win s game."

This issue has been raised several times in the past, and while there are always some managers who would like to go in that direction, formal proposals of this nature have never attracted a majority to pass.

      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Jan 02, 2017, 13:01
One other issue relates to the inability to put dropped players through separate waivers when using blind bidding.

When we went to a blind bidding approach, we finally decided to let dropped players be immediately added. As I recall, this was based on three considerations:
  1. We did not want managers to be able to "shield" dropped players from other teams for the current week's games.
  2. Most dropped players have no immediate appeal to other teams.
  3. Any approach to try to force extra blind bid waiver rounds created more complexity and limitations that it solved.
For the most part, I think this approach has worked out OK. But every season, there are several instances where a potentially desirable player has been dropped and immediately picked up by some other manager with a fast trigger.

There may be some limitations that could be manually implemented to mitigate the longer-term impact of the "fastest-to-the-trigger" loophole for dropped players. Here is one idea: If a recently dropped player has not been subject to a blind bid round since being dropped, then any team that immediately adds him can only hold the player for the pending weekend. Once weekend games are all locked, the player must be released into the blind bid pool.

This would need to be monitored by the commish each week.
      ID: 811161317
      Mon, Jan 02, 2017, 19:14
I like Gmoney idea of having the second running back be a flex position that could be filled by WR or TE if offensive player needed. However, any player including defensive players might make the flex position more interesting. I would not be in favor of QBs for Flex position as they would be most frequently used and could potentially become like RB with injuries.

The drop and pickup waiver idea the next week seems a very reasonable idea as that would allow a fair chance for all for any dropped player with some dropped right before game time and with blind bidding have to look right away. If I have not bid on player and not interested in picking anyone up, I seldom look immediately. I have missed out on a player more than once this season that I might have picked up for the long run.
      ID: 106132311
      Tue, Jan 03, 2017, 15:54
I wouldn't be in favor of changing the roster composition when it comes to RB's. I think that having to play two RB's adds considerable strategy both to the draft and to in season management.

I could see a consideration to a max # of players on a roster at each position. i've seen teams before hold onto 3-4 QB's, and 7-8 RB's or WR's, with no intention of ever using any of them, which I believe does more to dilute the waiver pool than the number of players that we start. Something like no more than 2 rostered QB's, 5 RB's, and 6 WR's might help put a few useful players back on waivers.

I haven't thought this completely through, but I personally think is a better compromise than lowering the number of starting RB's.