muck Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 I saw the thread title about "your second team" and it got me to thinking about having a league where you had one roster, but played two games each week with that one roster...like a first and second string... Rosters would have to be large enough to allow you to start a viable lineup each week (including byes)...and, you'd have to have a very large lineup requirements (like QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, WR, TE, etc) to make it work, because if you have too small of a starting lineup, it'd be more easy to completely dominate. Off the top of my head, maybe it's like you play double headers each week, but you have a different lineup for each of your two games. ...again, this is just a little brainstorm... If you like to try to cancel out the other guys' stud QB and you have the #3 WR on that team who wouldn't normally start for your "A" game, you can start him against the same team QB. If you're going against a team you believe is definately superior in one game, you can push more of your good players to the other game. ...etc... Not sure how playoffs would work (could you play yourself in the playoffs?) ... so, maybe it'd be easier if it was a total W/L league ... or, maybe it's an all-play league where each team has two teams going each week? To me, it would appear that there would be significant opportunities for strategy to play itself out in the auction (or draft), trades, lineup management, etc throughout the year in a league like this... Just curious if there were any quick views on whether or not this could work and/or if it'd be any fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 I kind of get this effect by submitting 11 lineups every week. Really though, this sounds neat and all but it would make you do too much thinking, IMO. I get too busy during certain times and I really need to just be able to put in my best lineup and run at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 It'd certainly be different. Rosters would need to be about 20 so with 12 owners, that'd be 240 players owned. No chance of many pickings on the WW. It would demand a good draft to have any chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 22, 2006 Author Share Posted December 22, 2006 I'm in two leagues with 240 offensive players on the roster ... and, believe it or not, there is still some interesting FA fodder during the season... ...12 teams with 25 man rosters... ...start two sets of players each week in a head to head set up where one of your teams goes against two different other owners... ...lineups for both of your teams each week must be one of the following -- QB / RB / WR / WR / TE / PK...plus either RB / WR / WR ... or ... RB / WR / TE ... or WR / WR / WR... ...and, in order to do that, you must have at least 2 QBs, 12 RBs & WRs, 2 TEs and 2 PKs not on bye (or hurt)...each week... ...again, just brainstorming... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Kind of like a split squad in baseball preseason games. I like the idea myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryTheRock Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 JV, and Varsity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 This idea has merit. To make it easier, particularly when playoff time comes around, perhaps you could still play head to head against one opponent, but play two games against that opponent. During the regular season: Team 1 submits two full lineups (qb, rb rb, wr, wr, flex, te, pk , def--or something similar) Team 2 does the same. Each game is considered individually--therefore, Team 1 could end up posting 2 wins, 1 win and 1 loss, or 2 losses. It would be the same for Team 2. Once the playoffs are reached, you would play your opponent the same way. However, if each team won 1 of the head-to-head games, then the tie breaker would be to add the total pts for both games. just a few random thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 I saw the thread title about "your second team" and it got me to thinking about having a league where you had one roster, but played two games each week with that one roster...like a first and second string... Rosters would have to be large enough to allow you to start a viable lineup each week (including byes)...and, you'd have to have a very large lineup requirements (like QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, WR, TE, etc) to make it work, because if you have too small of a starting lineup, it'd be more easy to completely dominate. Off the top of my head, maybe it's like you play double headers each week, but you have a different lineup for each of your two games. ...again, this is just a little brainstorm... If you like to try to cancel out the other guys' stud QB and you have the #3 WR on that team who wouldn't normally start for your "A" game, you can start him against the same team QB. If you're going against a team you believe is definately superior in one game, you can push more of your good players to the other game. ...etc... Not sure how playoffs would work (could you play yourself in the playoffs?) ... so, maybe it'd be easier if it was a total W/L league ... or, maybe it's an all-play league where each team has two teams going each week? To me, it would appear that there would be significant opportunities for strategy to play itself out in the auction (or draft), trades, lineup management, etc throughout the year in a league like this... Just curious if there were any quick views on whether or not this could work and/or if it'd be any fun. I'd like to think there's a hidden genius in this idea. However, I think you came up with this idea because of all trade possibilities that a league like this would create. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryTheRock Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Could get more band for the buck and have two leagues going with one roster with two championships. Down side is if a guy is sucking in the First Team season and he tanks by playing good guys on Second team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 However, I think you came up with this idea because of all trade possibilities that a league like this would create. Truer words were never spoken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 22, 2006 Author Share Posted December 22, 2006 I'd like to think there's a hidden genius in this idea. However, I think you came up with this idea because of all trade possibilities that a league like this would create. In all honesty, I just thought about the lineup strategies ... but, yeah, I guess you're right. Also, not sure if it should be a redrafter or a keeper-ish league or if it'd even matter what sort of a league it'd be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 22, 2006 Author Share Posted December 22, 2006 This idea has merit. To make it easier, particularly when playoff time comes around, perhaps you could still play head to head against one opponent, but play two games against that opponent. During the regular season: Team 1 submits two full lineups (qb, rb rb, wr, wr, flex, te, pk , def--or something similar) Team 2 does the same. Each game is considered individually--therefore, Team 1 could end up posting 2 wins, 1 win and 1 loss, or 2 losses. It would be the same for Team 2. Once the playoffs are reached, you would play your opponent the same way. However, if each team won 1 of the head-to-head games, then the tie breaker would be to add the total pts for both games. just a few random thoughts. An idea I'd had was that for playoffs, you simply start a lineup that is 2x as big as the regular season lineups ... but, yeah, your idea of two games against one team w/ the total points tiebreaker could make some sense ... ...which leads to another idea I just had sitting here... What about three games each week and then in the playoffs, you'd play 3x against the same guy, and you'd have to win at least two of those games to advance... ...that may be overkill, though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Down side is if a guy is sucking in the First Team season and he tanks by playing good guys on Second team. If my understanding is correct, it wouldn't matter as the goal is to win with both lineups, so there would be varying strategies such as balancing the teams to give you a shot at winning both games, or loading one team up with your better players to try and lock up a game, etc. No way to tank really as so many of your players are being started it's not like you could really start benching studs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 If my understanding is correct, it wouldn't matter as the goal is to win with both lineups, so there would be varying strategies such as balancing the teams to give you a shot at winning both games, or loading one team up with your better players to try and lock up a game, etc. No way to tank really as so many of your players are being started it's not like you could really start benching studs. No, what he's saying is that an owner who has a first team that isn't doing well and a second team that is could (would) put all his studs in the second team to maximize their results, leaving the other team weak. This would not be tanking by benching but would be tanking by focussing only on the team doing well. This whole thing might make an interesting experiment though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 No, what he's saying is that an owner who has a first team that isn't doing well and a second team that is could (would) put all his studs in the second team to maximize their results, leaving the other team weak. This would not be tanking by benching but would be tanking by focussing only on the team doing well. This whole thing might make an interesting experiment though. BUt, if I understand correctly, the idea is that the owner wit hthe two teams combined that do the best are the ones that advance. Thus, one strategy would be to load one team and hope the secondary lineup squeaks out a few wins, while the other strategy would be to balance the two as much as possible and hope they both win their fair share of games. Because it is not two separate teams, but actually two separate lineups whose results affect the same team (each team has one record made up of the combined record of their two lineups, there is not a Team A and Team B record with separate places in the standings, at least if my understanding is correct), it is a major play on strategy as far as how to set the two lineups based upon the potential lineups of your opponents. (This is something where the option in MFL to keep lineups hidden until kickoff would be of even greater strategic relevance, as you then would not know if one opponent is stacking his squad against you or not) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 BUt, if I understand correctly, the idea is that the owner wit hthe two teams combined that do the best are the ones that advance. Thus, one strategy would be to load one team and hope the secondary lineup squeaks out a few wins, while the other strategy would be to balance the two as much as possible and hope they both win their fair share of games. Because it is not two separate teams, but actually two separate lineups whose results affect the same team (each team has one record made up of the combined record of their two lineups, there is not a Team A and Team B record with separate places in the standings, at least if my understanding is correct), it is a major play on strategy as far as how to set the two lineups based upon the potential lineups of your opponents. (This is something where the option in MFL to keep lineups hidden until kickoff would be of even greater strategic relevance, as you then would not know if one opponent is stacking his squad against you or not) Ah. I see. If I was in this league, along with my umpteen others, I think I'd be by week 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Ah. I see. If I was in this league, along with my umpteen others, I think I'd be by week 10. I would too..... but it is a very interesting idea.... I know however that MFL currently can't handle different lineups for different head to head matchups in the same week.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryTheRock Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 If my understanding is correct, it wouldn't matter as the goal is to win with both lineups, so there would be varying strategies such as balancing the teams to give you a shot at winning both games, or loading one team up with your better players to try and lock up a game, etc. No way to tank really as so many of your players are being started it's not like you could really start benching studs. That was suggesting if there were two different Championsihp games, one for first team and one for second team. Almost like each team were in a different league. First team league and second team league. I was basically shooting down my own idea of it working that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Interesting idea, but I think you might have an issue with lineup submittals. It would almost be like a hockey issue, where the home team gets last chance at putting its players on the ice, but that might be a logistical problem in this kind of league, especially with late injury news on questionable & doubtfull players - especially in a deep roster league like this one would have to be. I do like the thought process of jockeying players to submit players for two different independent teams from 1 roster. Kind of like a Pai-Gow FF league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 23, 2006 Author Share Posted December 23, 2006 If there was any confusion, Big Country has the idea pretty well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.