Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5238
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 01 May 2012, 7:09 pm

Anybody have ideas, gripes, etc...?

I'll be putting forth FAAB again - it failed by one vote last year. Maybe someone will change their mind.

The other amendment that failed was a rule allowing restricted acquisitions after the FA deadline. No opinion on that one right now, although we did pass and use it in the RBL. It had popular support and seemed to work well.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 01 May 2012, 8:08 pm

I definitely want FAAB. I'd be against the postseason acquisitions. The benches are much deeper in the RFL than the RBL.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5238
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 08 May 2012, 12:52 pm

How about changing the RB/WR position to a RB/WR/TE position? I think it has merit... and no de-merits. By the way, ESPN just created that option this year.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5238
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 08 May 2012, 1:08 pm

How about decimal scoring? Uhtar is probably taking the RKL in that direction.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 09 May 2012, 4:09 am

How about changing the RB/WR position to a RB/WR/TE position? I think it has merit... and no de-merits. By the way, ESPN just created that option this year.


I agree.

How about decimal scoring? Uhtar is probably taking the RKL in that direction.


I.e., instead of 1 point per 10 yards, .1 points/yard? I'd definitely be in favor of reducing reliance on arbitrary milestones. It's one of the things I prefer about fantasy baseball over fantasy football- all accumulated stats having meaning.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6615
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 May 2012, 11:26 am

I would like to keep the TE as a specific position. The position is important, and just grabbing another WR to fill the slot is "dumbing down" the game. Why not just have 8 slots that you can make points regardless of position?

That we we could all get 3 QBs, and 3 high point offensive players, and 2 other players. IMHO we should have a:
QB
RB
WR
WR
RB/WR
TE
K
Defense

The RB/WR position shows your team being a running team or a passing team.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5238
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 09 May 2012, 2:50 pm

We would retain the TE specific position. The idea is to expand the current RB/WR position to include TE as well.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6615
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 May 2012, 4:00 pm

To quote the late Gilda Radner... "Never Mind"

http://www.hulu.com/watch/2364/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-emily-litella-on-violins-on-tv
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 14 May 2012, 4:30 pm

Now that Brad mentions it, though, I do wonder why we have 3 WR spots, rather than just two. If we're trying to emulate a "real" offense, there should be 6 spots (11 players, 5 of whom are O-Line). QB, RB, 2xWR, TE, Flex would be 6. I'd always kind of assumed we were trying to emulate a real offense, since we don't have 2xRB like many leagues.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5238
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 15 May 2012, 9:50 am

I'm thinking one of two things on league set-up:

1) I copied some settings from the RKL.
2) That was Yahoo's default when the league was created.

Truth is, I don't know.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 17 May 2012, 12:06 am

Hmm... in that case, it'd probably be worth evaluating, though we may be somewhat stuck due to the whole keeper thing.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5238
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 17 May 2012, 4:43 am

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it (our current set-up) but I'm open to discussing changes.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 18 May 2012, 7:13 pm

One reason I brought it up is that I think WRs are over-valued in our league, relative to other leagues (and specifically relative to RBs). I don't know if that's a problem, exactly, as I've never been a huge fan of the way that fantasy football experts worship at the altar of the almighty RB. It's more fun and interesting (imo) when the 3 primary positions are all pretty viable as high draft picks/expensive auction players, which we're at least closer to than most leagues.

I guess another way to address that would be to scale running, receiving, and passing differently. Passing already is different from the other two, of course, but you could try to scale them such that an "average" QB and an "average" RB scored the same amount; I'm not sure how you would extend that to WRs, since there's more than one, but whatever.

Anyway, I'm just ruminating; if no one else wants to make a change I don't think there's much need to push for one. That is, aside from the two things you already raised.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 21 May 2012, 7:34 pm

Should have thought of this earlier, but... with the (potential) addition of the decimal scoring, would we still need the benchmark bonuses?
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5238
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 21 May 2012, 7:53 pm

I don't see any reason to take them away. Well, assuming you're ok with them in the first place but that would be a different issue if you're not. Decimal scoring will diminish their value by a little bit anyway.