Help Center
|
| Guest (Login) Help Center |
|
|
|
| Noe Valley Mountain Lions | 
Date Sat Oct 31 1:04:30 a.m. ET 2009
|
| Two Proposed Rule Changes - Rough Draft I haven't read any responses to my emails from last night. I was catching up on emails while doing a late night of work when I saw that Cotchery CB fine. Doing work until 3am doesn't have me in the finest mood to start with and then that CB fine had steam coming out of my ears. Here's a more rationale but, nonetheless, passionate way to respond to some recent things in the league I disagree with. When rule proposal time comes, I'll get active. For a league with a long-term focus, we've pushed some rules that have a very "live for the moment" emphasis, in my opinion. I don't think our roster size jives with having to play 9 active players every week. If you trying to live for today (have a good winning season) and build for tomorrow (keeping players you believe will perform in seasons to come), you can't be adding and dropping players constantly. Or you shouldn't be. Basketball teams start 5 and have 10 on the bench. Half a football team is about 30 to field 11. We're playing 9 with 7 on the bench...and you can't send in a kicker to cover for your tight end. Some may disagree, but I want a deeper bench. Especially with how draconian we are with our definition of a "competitive" line up. We've gone way too far with our "Competitive Line Ups" rule in our effort to correct our problem where we had a few teams tanking it. You know where I stand on Farm Teams. We use them to develop talent and bring them on board when we need them and can assign the right level of contract years. You do not bring them up when they start to see some regular action (very difficult to predict.) With only 35 years to allot, you can't bring on a farm member mid-year without putting yourself at some disadvantage. You can do it. Like when a rookie everyone thought would take time to contribute quickly shows he's a special star, it may make sense to pull him off your farm team midseason for a playoff run, but that's a rare case. The way I usually play it: my farm team is staying on the farm. And with two draft picks per year, just two farm slots, and a 2-year max farm stay, I don't believe players being "hidden" on the farm is an issue. That said, I go into the season believing I have 16 players to work with. Of course you can do a drop/add a couple times. Makes sense. However, having to start 9 with only 7 on the bench and factoring in injuries and bye weeks, there are plenty of situations where you can be forced to drop a player you feel has a future for a temporary weekly fix. In these mid-season weeks with byes and injuries building up, this happens a lot. Too much, in my opinion. I believe this league...unlike most leagues with one-season durations or 2 or 3-player keeper rosters...requires more talent evaluation and team-building skills. I love that! I want to keep it that way. Here's what I propose: Roster Maxes of 18. However, I'd set it up so the last two spots are just one year slots. This would mean you could add and drop players to ensure 9 active players out there each week with less of a chance you have to sell-off your future for a one-week fix. * 18 players - 37 roster years * 17 players - 36 roster years * 16 or less players - 35 roster years This structure prevents teams from leaving slots 17 and 18 empty and using these extra years to spend on the players they already have. Basically, it's use them or lose them. I'd appreciate your thought, feedback, and suggestions regarding this idea. I'd sure like to get it enhanced before it becomes a proposal so it has the most positive potential impact on the league that I believe it can have. Next issue is Competitive Line Ups: Several years ago I believe we had a team or two that checked out towards the end of the season. Whether it was just not giving a shit since they couldn't make the playoffs or was purposeful way to back into some extra CBs doesn't matter. It simply wasn't right as other teams' playoff chances had a chance of being unfairly positively or negatively affected. It was a violation of the "man code". Give a shit. Try to win even when the chips are stacked against you. Sadly, we had to make a rule to ensure everyone followed these unspoken "man codes". I remember even proposing a payout system that awarded teams money for each regular season win....thereby making an incentive for every owner to try to win every game. It was treating those tankers like a dog....he really doesn't want to give paw, but, shit, he wants that damn treat so he does it. The problem with my proposal was it needed a full-time accountant to track it all. I volunteered Ed, but, apparently, he does things like eating, sleeping, Zima drinking, and even engages with people outside of the CFFFL . So that didn't work. Point being, we had a problem with teams tanking. I believe that is when and why the Competitive Line Up rule went in. (Hope I got my CFFFL history right!) It has solved that problem. But we've gone too far. Now "Competitive" Line Up is a bit of a tough one to define. It's like the Supreme Court's ruling on pornography: I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it! No one would put the time into this league to not make a reasonable effort to win. The key is "reasonable". If someone puts in a solid line up (defined 9 active starters) on a Tuesday night I think that's a reasonable effort. Most of us catch updates during the week and adjust. But the CFFFL is allowing no room for error, relaxation, or the thing outside of fantasy called "life". If that owner who submitted his respectable line up wants to go fishing on the weekend, take care of a sick child, or go to just turn off the TV for a weekend and he misses something about a player on the news wire, why are we penalizing him? This is supposed to be fun. We're not running nuclear reactors here. If his player got a Friday night DUI, got suspended, and the owner didn't catch it, the zero his player posts is punishment enough. We throw another CB penalty on there because he's not being "competitive"?? I disagree. He's made a fair effort to win the game. While a lawyer could argue our rule is correct to the letter of the law, it's definitely incorrect in the spirit of the game and the spirit of life. And any time you're on the side of the lawyers, you're a dark soul. Defining a "competitive" line up is tough. Probably need lots of help here but a few things I'd say define a reasonable Competitive Line Up rule: * No bye week players/teams in the line up * All starters are deemed active at some point in the week leading up to the game * No playing players of significantly lesser talent unless it can be explained. Example, I should never start a healthy Edgerrin James (based on his play to date and current position on the depth chart) over a healthy Adrian Peterson (the Viking one, that is) * A "REASONABLE" effort was made. What exactly does that mean? I don't know but I don't think it's unreasonable to miss something on a player once in a while. * No Pattern...as stated above: "once in a while". Does an owner keep doing the same stupid shit? If most of us get burned by a big fat zero being posted by a player, he won't be back in the lineup the next week until we're confident he's back to being a contributor. * Commish Judgement - because it's like pornography, a league member would have the right to question a line-up. Typically though, with proper criteria, it shouldn't come to this too often. Also, the owner would be given a chance to explain said line up/effort. * Other criteria? I welcome input....especially in defining a "competitive" line up. We all have too much stuff on our plates and too much bullshit to put up with at work, home, in the line at the grocery store, at the concert where the 7-ft tall guy walks up and stands in front of you, etc. to make fantasy football something you HAVE to monitor constantly. Most of us do this as an outlet. It's when we HAVE to do anything is when it becomes just another chore. I don't want the "C" in "CFFFL" to stand for "Chore". Quite a diatribe there, so if you read this far, thanks. Hope you have something to add to the debate. Peace out. Joe Noe Valley |
| Commissioner |
Date Sat Oct 31 10:45:07 p.m. ET 2009
|
| I agree with Joe on both issues. Regarding the rosters in relation to the lineups, there aren't enough roster spots. If we keep 9 starters, we should expand the rosters to 18, and the cap to 37. Though some will disagree, I want to add a WR to the starting lineup to make 10 starters, which would match WCOFF standard lineups. In that case, we may need to expand to 20 and 39 (or 40), but I'm concerned about adding 25% more to the rosters. There may not be enough players to make that happen effectively. The reason is that the CFFFL has 16 franchises, while WCOFF leagues have only 12. Regarding competitive lineups, I don't like the fining structure. It is not the right way to handle it. That said, it is the rule for 2009. We can change it after this season. I really liked Joe's idea a couple years ago to reward money for each win during the season to encourage winning (doesn't that sound odd?). Positive reinforcement is much better than negative reinforcement. Since we're on the topic of proposed rule changes, I thought I would share a few of mine for next year. These are ideas - can we please have some civil conversation about them! * Lineups and Rosters - As mentioned above, I'd like to add a WR to the starting lineups, making 10 starters. We would need to expand the roster and contract cap. Rosters would need to be at least 18, maybe 20. Contract cap would need to be at least 37, maybe 40. We would also need to provide a cyberbuck bonus to allow for more free agent pickups over the summer. * FA pickups - We should consider First Come First Served free agents after the initial blind bidding period. Owners should be able to pickup players all the way to game time. * Defensive Scoring - We could consider making defensive yards allowed -0.01 points per yard allowed. Currently, it is -1 point for every 100 yards. This rule would greatly reduce the chance for ties. It's not a real issue - this would be considered one of those "tweaks" that we love. * Divisions - I think we should consider changing the divisions yearly. When I created the league, I thought it would be nice to have yearly rivals. Now, I think it would be nice to play against different owners each year. Two things opened my eyes to this thought - 1) The Central division is quite tough this year. The 4th scoring team in the entire league, is last in the division. (Yes, that's my team.) 2) It would match us against other owners each year, offering different challenges each year. Plus, it would be nice to have a shot at two wins against BAY each year. Here are some thoughts: Divisions would be determined either randomly or by the previous season's point totals. There would be only one conference. The division winners and the next two best records would be wild cards. The next two highest scoring teams would be the final two wild card teams. Seeding 1-8 would be based on points scored. Regarding wild card and seedings based on points, it may not be what we're used to, but another league I play in does something similar. The first year, it seemed very strange to me. Now, I like it very much. Before we start talking about potential scoring changes, let's let this season run its course and compare scoring records from 2008 and 2009. Again, these are thoughts, not what's going to happen. I offer these thoughts for discussion. |
| Raleigh Brass Monkey |
Date Mon Nov 9 7:56:25 a.m. ET 2009
|
| I dont like changing divisions. What if you dont want to trade someone to a team that you dont know if they are going to be in your division next season. Hell, the NFL does not fix the NFC West, why should we? |
| Noe Valley Mountain Lions |
Date Fri Nov 6 11:52:56 p.m. ET 2009
|
|
| I think it makes sense to randomly change the division every year or every other year. Regarding FA pickups - I kind of like the idea that people can throw a CB or two out to try to get the FA. However, if we do go to "anytime pick up" I would suggest a blackout period from 1pm ET on Sunday to noon ET on Tuesday. That let's everyone enjoy watching or attending the games instead of having to worry about making roster moves. Joe NOE |
| Commissioner |
Date Sun Nov 8 7:53:14 p.m. ET 2009
|
|
| Joe, To clarify the FA pickup proposal mentioned above, we would still have a blind bidding period from Monday to Wednesday (maybe Thursday), just like we currently do. After that period ends, we would be able to pickup player on a first come first served basis until kickoff that week. Everyone would have a chance to bid on players, yet teams would be able to make last minute roster changes as needed. It's fairly standard in other other leagues. |
| Raleigh Brass Monkey |
Date Tue Nov 10 5:49:47 p.m. ET 2009
|
|
| so what prevents someone from dropping a good 1 yr player and then immediately picking them back up to a new contract? |
| Commissioner |
Date Tue Nov 10 6:26:26 p.m. ET 2009
|
|
| A dropped player is locked until the next blind bidding period. |
| South Carolina Crush |
Date Sun Nov 15 11:33:13 a.m. ET 2009
|
| Thought on QB scoring...Is this how it should be???? Check out this stat line: Jay Cutler. 307 passing yards, 5 INTS. He scores 5.55 points. Seriously? What about changing the scoring for next year to put more of a penalty on Turnovers? How about -4 points for a turnover? Or more? At -4 pts per turnover...that would change that scoring scenario from 5.55 to -4.65 Wouldn't that make more sense? How does Cutler get positive points??? |
 Home |
Site Design by MFLaddons.com |
