serpico Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) I am in the process of changing up one of my 10 man leagues this year. Most the members are onboard but before we commit to the idea I am looking for some input. My league is 10 man. Redraft. 0.5PPR Formats on the block with on-roster minimum and maximum spots enforced: Alt 1 Starters: 1 QB min 1 max 2 1 RB min 2 max 5 1 WR min 2 max 5 1 RB/WR/TE 1 RB/WR/TE 1 RB/WR/TE 1 TE min 1 max 3 1 D/ST min 1 max 2 1 K min 1 max 2 Team size: 15 = 9 Start 6 Bench 1 IR Alt 2 Starters: 1 QB min 1 max 2 1 RB min 3 max 4 1 WR min 3 max 5 1 RB/WR 1 RB/WR 1 TE min 1 max 2 1 TE/WR 1 D/ST min 1 max 2 1 K min 1 max 2 Team size: 16 = 9 Start 7 Bench 0 IR Thanks for looking, I know its pretty crazy. Edited August 13, 2015 by serpico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImNotSoIgnorant Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 If there's no bonus for yardage...I think its off balance to give the option of starting 2 QBs. Say someone gets Luck and then one of the top 12 QBs. They're likely to out score any player each week with consistency. So someone two of those will out do someone with, say, Jamaal Charles and Jeremy Hill. If all your league members realize this they'll jump on QBs which means, if it is a Snake Draft, the people at the end of the draft, 10-9-8-7-6, are going to have a large enough advantage over the other teams to not have picked in the top 15 QBs. And if someone doesn't take a QB in the first round and people at 10 to 6 take two QBs in the first two rounds its even worse. I also suggest, since this is a new set of starting possibilities, trying a smaller amount in possible starting positions. So make WR 1-3 and RBs 1-3, etc. and see how that works for one year. Start small to see how larger sets might work out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 If there's no bonus for yardage...I think its off balance to give the option of starting 2 QBs. Say someone gets Luck and then one of the top 12 QBs. They're likely to out score any player each week with consistency. So someone two of those will out do someone with, say, Jamaal Charles and Jeremy Hill. If all your league members realize this they'll jump on QBs which means, if it is a Snake Draft, the people at the end of the draft, 10-9-8-7-6, are going to have a large enough advantage over the other teams to not have picked in the top 15 QBs. And if someone doesn't take a QB in the first round and people at 10 to 6 take two QBs in the first two rounds its even worse. I also suggest, since this is a new set of starting possibilities, trying a smaller amount in possible starting positions. So make WR 1-3 and RBs 1-3, etc. and see how that works for one year. Start small to see how larger sets might work out. My guess is that starters are on the left and roster limitations are on the right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 My opinions: 1. Get rid of the roster limits. Let your owners manage and build their teams as they see fit. 2. What is the point of the IR spot in Alt 1? You said this is a redraft league, so there should not be a need for an IR spot. If a player gets hurt, make your owners manage their teams and decide if they want to use a valuable roster spot on a player that is hurt and may return at some point or if they want to replace them. 3. Of the two lineup options, I prefer Alt1 as it has the most flexibility and let's owners attack the draft/roster building in a multitude of ways. My personal preference would be two required WRs with two flex spots (RB/WR/TE). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 My opinions: 1. Get rid of the roster limits. Let your owners manage and build their teams as they see fit. This, I like more flexibilty, we have no set roster limits by position. We start 9 (no flex spots) and have 18 on roster. If I want to carry 18 kickers I can, of course I'd have a starting line-up of 1 kicker and 8 bench spots every week. Some teams carry 2nd D/K/TE, some don't. Some owners even go for periods with only a single QB able to play. I also like the flexible starting spots, we used to have 1 RB/WR/TE and changed it to a 3rd WR back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asskickas Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 This, I like more flexibilty, we have no set roster limits by position. We start 9 (no flex spots) and have 18 on roster. If I want to carry 18 kickers I can, of course I'd have a starting line-up of 1 kicker and 8 bench spots every week. Some teams carry 2nd D/K/TE, some don't. Some owners even go for periods with only a single QB able to play. I also like the flexible starting spots, we used to have 1 RB/WR/TE and changed it to a 3rd WR back. You guys are missing a major point. If there are crybaby owners in the league (and most leagues have at least 1), there will be a risk of 1 owner that could potentially ruin the draft by drafting x number kickers or 8 rbs. It makes sense to have limits. As to the OP I like Alt 1 which will set limits but still give owners the freedom to start 4 rbs or 3 tes or 4 wrs. It doesn't look like a 2 qb league but you can get away with a fair 2 qb league with 8 or 10 teams. I think it gets a bit unfair with 12-16 teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 You guys are missing a major point. If there are crybaby owners in the league (and most leagues have at least 1), there will be a risk of 1 owner that could potentially ruin the draft by drafting x number kickers or 8 rbs. It makes sense to have limits. As to the OP I like Alt 1 which will set limits but still give owners the freedom to start 4 rbs or 3 tes or 4 wrs. It doesn't look like a 2 qb league but you can get away with a fair 2 qb league with 8 or 10 teams. I think it gets a bit unfair with 12-16 teams. It never makes sense to change rules to accommodate whiners. How is one owner drafting 8 RBs ruining the draft? If the other owners are short on RBs, that is their fault for not adjusting to what was happening in the draft. Reality is if an owner loads up with 8 RBs out of a 15/16 man roster, they are going to be desperately short at the other positions and either not doing very well or looking to make some trades, both of which can be leveraged by the other owners. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 There will always be whiners, we let our owners vote on every major change. They wanted a flex, later they didn't. Most recognize that only a team drafting 8 RB (even with an 18 man roster) are probably weak at other positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 It never makes sense to change rules to accommodate whiners. How is one owner drafting 8 RBs ruining the draft? If the other owners are short on RBs, that is their fault for not adjusting to what was happening in the draft.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Positional roster limits = Communism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serpico Posted August 14, 2015 Author Share Posted August 14, 2015 Thanks for the feedback. The reason for the minimums and maximums was an effort to make decent rb/wr scoring players available in the waiver wire pool and not parked on teams. There is fear among members that without the max they will be out of luck when they lose players to injury due to other members picking up/hoarding any and all wr/rb So far we have tentatively agreed as a league on alt 1 with a 7 man bench no IR. The min and max are still up in the air. I can totally remove maxes but I can still control the available net bench size by enforcing minimums. An idea I dont really like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 There is fear among members that without the max they will be out of luck when they lose players to injury due to other members picking up/hoarding any and all wr/rb. Heaven forbid they may have to trade to improve their team. Quite frankly, unless this is a league full of first year players, let your owners manage their teams. The whole point of even having a bench is to try and find players that may have value somifmeither one of your guys goes down you have a replacement or just as importantly, if someone else's player goes down you have bargaining chips to use to make a trade to try and improve your team while filling their need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 My teams have been strong at WR and weak at RB for several years, so I usually carry fewer backup WR and take more fliers on RBs. Fixed roster limits by position would severly limit that. I can carry 1 TE/K/D and 6-8 RB (start 2) waiting for guys to pan out. If there a fear of player hording then a shorter bench could address that. Our bench is long (a full roster size) and the FA pool is often thin in our league. But we also do a decent amount of trading. Ultimately its your league, if all or the majority of owners like the rules, that is all that matters. 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.