Offseason Fantasy Rule Change

[i_am_the_swammi]

Ok, so I'm in an 8-team league, and for the last several years, we've had a keeper system in place where each team is allowed to keep exactly 1 QB, 1 RB, and 1 WR. Pretty straight forward, and leaves plenty of talent every year for each new draft.

 

With only 8 teams, each roster has plenty of talent...and thus, we opted at the beginning to start 2 QBs. No real reason other than to add another measure of scoring to make each Sunday that much more exciting. QBs also get 6 points per TD, which is the part of the dilema we now face.

 

Here's the thing...this year, we are going from 8-to-10 teams, and the league has decided to only start 1 QB, since the depth at the position won't be enough to make up for bye week issues. This is where my main issue is, and here's why:

 

By virtue of our rule that QBs earn 6 points per TD, it is imperative for the teams that don't have a Brady/manning/Romo on their squad to have two Tier 2 QBs to make up the differnce. For example, my combo of Palmer/Brees was basically able to offset the Brady/E. Manning or P. Manning/Cutler combo most weeks.But now that we going to just 1 QB, the guys with the stud QBs don't have to worry as much...they can plug and play their stud Qbs every week, knowing they have an advantage over most every other team in the league.

 

So what was proposed was that we go from 6 pts per TDto 3 pts. This way, when brady throws his 3 TDs compared to other "normal" QBs that throw just 2, his point differential won't be so great (yardage aside, Brady would have outscored my QB 18-12 in past years.....under the 3-point rule, he would outscore mine by 9-6, cutting his advantage in half, and leaving my RBs/Wrs having to only make up 3 pts versus 6).

 

Obviously, the guys with Brady/Manning/Romo are not for this rule change, as it cuts into their points. Last year, with Brady throwing 50 TDs, it would have meant 150 point to the Brady owner. With Palmer only throwing 30TDs, it would have only meant 90 points to the palmer owner.

 

My point is, if we are taking away the ability of the owners that don't have a true stud QB to make up some ground by having a better #2 Qb, then we should adjust the scoring to weigh-down the stud QBs. or, we should redraft, since changing the # of teams/# of starting players mid-stream of a keeper league is a little questionable.

 

Thoughts?

Edited June 6, 2008 by i_am_the_swammi

[MikesVikes]

You said that you are changing back to only starting 1 QB? That should help not hurt.

 

What if you decided not to keep any QBs each year? I play in a small league like that and any QB can beat any qb on any given Sunday.

[i_am_the_swammi]

You said that you are changing back to only starting 1 QB? That should help not hurt.

 

I think it hurts. By being able to start 2 QBs, I can draft a 2nd Qb earleir than normal to pair with Palmer and help offset the advantage that Brady holds over any other Qb individually. Like I stated, my combo of Palmer/Brees wasn't that much worse than his combo of Brady/Kitna. However, if we would have started just 1 Qb every week, Brady would have crushed Palmer week-in and week-out. Having that 2nd Qb which dominated his 2nd Qb made a big difference.

 

What if you decided not to keep any QBs each year? I play in a small league like that and any QB can beat any qb on any given Sunday.

 

I like this idea too, but telling the Brady owner that he can't keep brady wouldn't go over real wella t this point.

[Swashbucklers]

Since you are adding two more teams, wouldn't it be wise to start over with keepers? The two new teams won't have an opportunity to get the top 8 QBs, top 8 RBs, and top 8 WRs. They would be at a big disadvantage. Draft in order of finish last year and have the new guys draft last. JMO.

[skylive5]

When you add teams to an existing league you start over in everything. Which means no keepers and a redraw for draft positions. Just as if it was a new league being started. Only way to be completely fair.

[Caveman_Nick]

When you add teams to an existing league you start over in everything. Which means no keepers and a redraw for draft positions. Just as if it was a new league being started. Only way to be completely fair.

 

In my local which has a mandatory 2 keeper rule we have an offseason "supplemental draft". All teams cut down their rosters to a minimum of zero players and a maximum of 4 players. Then in non-serpentine worst to first order teams are allowed to draft players until all teams have 4 players. All cut players and rookies are available to be drafted.

 

We also only allow teams to keep 1 player per position, so at this cutdown juncture it does not make sense to roster 3 RBs or 3 WRs.

 

This gives every team a chance to get their hands on good keeper players, and is a good way to keep from having to "reset"

[skylive5]

In my local which has a mandatory 2 keeper rule we have an offseason "supplemental draft". All teams cut down their rosters to a minimum of zero players and a maximum of 4 players. Then in non-serpentine worst to first order teams are allowed to draft players until all teams have 4 players. All cut players and rookies are available to be drafted.

 

We also only allow teams to keep 1 player per position, so at this cutdown juncture it does not make sense to roster 3 RBs or 3 WRs.

 

This gives every team a chance to get their hands on good keeper players, and is a good way to keep from having to "reset"

 

But are you adding teams?

 

The problem with adding teams and allowing existing teams to keep players is that the teams added are at a disadvantage right off the bat and it will stay that way for a good long while. The only way to be fair is to start over.

[MikesVikes]

When you add teams to an existing league you start over in everything. Which means no keepers and a redraw for draft positions. Just as if it was a new league being started. Only way to be completely fair.

 

Yea, that would only be fair.

[max]

When you add teams to an existing league you start over in everything. Which means no keepers and a redraw for draft positions. Just as if it was a new league being started. Only way to be completely fair.

 

Good info here.

 

I totally agree with Sky. The 2 new teams would not be able to compete with the others for a while. The other members of the league would need to understand that the league will benefit from the 2 additional teams (i.e. payout) and starting over will keep the 2 new owners wanting to stay in the league. Starting over is the only real option.

[Skippy]

When you add teams to an existing league you start over in everything. Which means no keepers and a redraw for draft positions. Just as if it was a new league being started. Only way to be completely fair.

There is the answer. Adding teams just means it is time for a do-over.

[Caveman_Nick]

But are you adding teams?

 

The problem with adding teams and allowing existing teams to keep players is that the teams added are at a disadvantage right off the bat and it will stay that way for a good long while. The only way to be fair is to start over.

 

We have used this system for new/expansion teams. It works out well.

 

The teams might have less conventional keepers, but because of the keeper format and putting them in the front half of the draft they have access to any position where they identify a need. At most 12 RBs are kept, and those are not necessarily going to be the best 12.

 

I have seen it work pretty well. Don't knock it till you try it

[Ziachild007]

But are you adding teams?

 

The problem with adding teams and allowing existing teams to keep players is that the teams added are at a disadvantage right off the bat and it will stay that way for a good long while. The only way to be fair is to start over.

 

Yep, I agree with starting fresh if you are adding new teams.

[i_am_the_swammi]

There is the answer. Adding teams just means it is time for a do-over.

 

Actually, we felt the two new teams would be OK, and to a degree, better than some of the existing teams. here's why:

 

we are only allowed to keep 3 players, and no more than one player from any position. And being just an 8-team league up until now, some pretty notable players will not be kept, since some teams were loaded at RB/WR. For instance, one team had Moss/Wayne as their starting WRs, and can only keep 1; similarly, another team has Ap/Westbrook as their RBs.

 

That being said, here are the the players they'll get to choose from as their keepers:

 

QB: Hass, E. Manning, Roethlisberger, Bulger, Kitna, Young

RB: Westbrook, Edge, jacobs, Maroney, Jamal lewis, Rudi Johnson, Grant, Barber, Mcgahee, Portis, Jones-Drew

WR: A. Johnson, Wayne, Welker, C. Johnson, Buress, R. Williams, Boldin, Housh, Wayne.

 

One of the expansion teams will likely field a team anchored by keepers Big Ben, Westy and A. Johnson. The other might have Hass, Barber and Wayne. To compare, the Brady-team will be Brady, LJ, and Moss. My team is Palmer/Addai/S. Holmes. I don't think they are at a big disadvantage at all.

 

Additionally, we gave the two new teams the top-two picks in the draft, so they, on paper, will be actually better than many of the existing teams. The only disadvantage they have is the fact they don't get a shot at having a Brady/Manning/Romo as their QB.

 

My original post was more to the topic of the scoring change to compensate for the decrease in starting QBs. Should we go from 6 pts per TD pass to 3 pts per TD pass?

[skylive5]

My original post was more to the topic of the scoring change to compensate for the decrease in starting QBs. Should we go from 6 pts per TD pass to 3 pts per TD pass?

 

I have always been a believer in that a TD is a TD and all TD's are worth 6. 99.9% of Huddlers think that a TD is worth 4 or 3 if it involves a QB. So you are going to get a majority vote for the 3.

[Big Country]

These comments are based on a fresh league. Will address the new teams in a minute.

 

I think the major change in value to the QB comes from the change from 2 to 1 QB. While your team was able to make up ground with your particular combination of QBs, there likely were teams that didn't. Also, there was the potential for the Brady owner to have drafted a second QB earlier if he so desired to really press his advantage in that position, but this is a digression towards draft strategy. In the grand scheme of things, the change to 1 QB will affect the QB value more than any change in QB scoring. Yes, the change from 6 to 3 TDs will push the QBs a bit closer together value wise, but it will not be as significant a move as the switch to 1 QB.

 

Now for the addition of the extra teams. I have done this in several keeper leagues and we utilized an expansion draft that ended up working fairly well to keep the teams well balanced. It sounds like you already have agreed upon rules in place to handle this, but I will put in my two cents here. What we did in a league I was in when moving from 8 to 10 teams and each team was allowed 6 keepers was that every team was allowed to keep 2 players. Then the expansion teams each got to pick two players serpentine style. If a player was taken from your team, you immediately got to protect another player. In this particularly league, we allowed all teams to protect an additional player after each two rounds of the expansion draft. This allowed the stronger keeper teams to maintain some of their rightful advantage to having a stronger team, allowed the expansion teams a decent shot at building a fairly strong keeper base (in some cases they ended up stronger than a few keeper teams, partially due to particularly strong teams having a lot of players worth taking, and partially due to IMO odd choices for protection). As the expansion teams were starting out with the "top" 16 players unavailable, we gave them the first two picks in the draft. Whomever had the #1 expansion pick had the 2nd overall pick. In this particular league, we carried 20 players, and we had the first 3 rounds of the draft be NFL style followed up by serpentine for the remainder. In future years when we expanded again but had moved to a larger number of keepers, we instituted a franchise player where if an expansion team wanted that franchise player they could take them but it cost them their first round pick (IIRC, it was really a forced trade of their first round pick, which was top 2, for the other teams 4th rounder.. at this point we only had 6 rounds in the draft)

 

The easiest solution IMO is that with the number of changes you are looking at (number of teams, starting lineup configuration and possibly scoring system) you are in a prime position to do a complete restart, but I do think there are many ways to make your current system work. IMO, the chage from 6 to 3 point passing TDs is minor compared the drop from 2 to 1 QB.

[REZ]

I think with the adding teams and changing the rules fairly dramatically (2qb's vs 1 qb) plus reducing value of td's for qb it seems the fairest way to go would be to start over.

[Whiskey Pimp]

While I do agree that just restarting is the most fair, if the current owners want to still have their keepers and the 2 new owners agree to the conditions laid out then go for it. If you can't find 2 new owners to join due to the current owners having keepers then obviously you start over or stick with 8 owners. Ideally, you should find 4 new owners and restart with a 12 team league. Why would anyone want to be in an 8 or even 10 team league anyway?

[i_am_the_swammi]

What we did in a league I was in when moving from 8 to 10 teams and each team was allowed 6 keepers was that every team was allowed to keep 2 players. Then the expansion teams each got to pick two players serpentine style. If a player was taken from your team, you immediately got to protect another player. In this particularly league, we allowed all teams to protect an additional player after each two rounds of the expansion draft. This allowed the stronger keeper teams to maintain some of their rightful advantage to having a stronger team, allowed the expansion teams a decent shot at building a fairly strong keeper base (in some cases they ended up stronger than a few keeper teams, partially due to particularly strong teams having a lot of players worth taking, and partially due to IMO odd choices for protection).

 

 

Great idea. I really like this, a no one from our league suggested it. Rather than let the existing teams keep 3 off the bat, we could each keep 1, let the expansion teams pick 1each, the each existing team keep another, then again let the expansion teams pick, etc. I really like this concept.

 

As the expansion teams were starting out with the "top" 16 players unavailable, we gave them the first two picks in the draft. Whomever had the #1 expansion pick had the 2nd overall pick.

 

Exactly what we are doing....nice.

 

While I do agree that just restarting is the most fair, if the current owners want to still have their keepers and the 2 new owners agree to the conditions laid out then go for it.

 

They actually love the idea. They know they'll be getting three great players to start their teams (see my prior post on I think each new team will get), as well as the top picks in the draft....they'll be set.

 

Doesn't mean I won't propose Bic Country's idea, though....just so I can get Moss of Brady's team

[Big Country]

Great idea. I really like this, a no one from our league suggested it. Rather than let the existing teams keep 3 off the bat, we could each keep 1, let the expansion teams pick 1each, the each existing team keep another, then again let the expansion teams pick, etc. I really like this concept.

 

I could see something like each team protect one player.

 

If a player from your team is taken in the expansion draft, you immediately protect another player.

 

Once each expansion team has one player, every team protects an additional player (yes, this means those with the first two players taken now have their three players protected, and no, this does not give them an advantage, it just means that they theoretically lost their second best player and got to protect their 3rd and 4th best, though with the keepers being position specific, this may not be true). Then the expansion teams each take their second player, with those teams protecting a player immediately (unless they already had 3 protected players), then the teams without 3 protected players get to protect their third and the expansion teams take their last players.

 

IMO, the expansion teams can take from any team, so a team with 3 proteted players does not have their roster dropped ten and made unavailable (I've seen this proposed before) and at least two teams will have no player taken and still end up with their top 3 players (as only 6 players are being taken in the expansion draft)

 

But, if the expansion teams agreed to not having an expansion draft, they no need to offer it to them.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

I have always been a believer in that a TD is a TD and all TD's are worth 6.

I'm with Sky. No reason IMO that a TD by a RB/WR should be worth 6 while a QB's TD should be worth 3 or 4.

[Big Country]

I'm with Sky. No reason IMO that a TD by a RB/WR should be worth 6 while a QB's TD should be worth 3 or 4.

 

swammi, apologize for the diversion, but, here is a point for thought

 

 

If a TD is a TD is a TD, should a yard not be a yard is a yard? Why do you almost never see anyone advocating QBs get 1 pt per 10 yards as you see the standard scoring for rushing and receiving yardage? Passing yardage is usually scored 1 per 25 or even 1 per 50

 

Discuss......

[The Wolf]

When you add teams to an existing league you start over in everything. Which means no keepers and a redraw for draft positions. Just as if it was a new league being started. Only way to be completely fair.

 

My opinion exactly...I am sure the two new owners would not be thrilled having the top 10 QB's, the top 10 RB's and the top 10 WR's off the board before they make one pick.

[The Wolf]

Actually, we felt the two new teams would be OK, and to a degree, better than some of the existing teams. here's why:

 

we are only allowed to keep 3 players, and no more than one player from any position. And being just an 8-team league up until now, some pretty notable players will not be kept, since some teams were loaded at RB/WR. For instance, one team had Moss/Wayne as their starting WRs, and can only keep 1; similarly, another team has Ap/Westbrook as their RBs.

 

That being said, here are the the players they'll get to choose from as their keepers:

 

QB: Hass, E. Manning, Roethlisberger, Bulger, Kitna, Young

RB: Westbrook, Edge, jacobs, Maroney, Jamal lewis, Rudi Johnson, Grant, Barber, Mcgahee, Portis, Jones-Drew

WR: A. Johnson, Wayne, Welker, C. Johnson, Buress, R. Williams, Boldin, Housh, Wayne.

 

One of the expansion teams will likely field a team anchored by keepers Big Ben, Westy and A. Johnson. The other might have Hass, Barber and Wayne. To compare, the Brady-team will be Brady, LJ, and Moss. My team is Palmer/Addai/S. Holmes. I don't think they are at a big disadvantage at all.

 

Additionally, we gave the two new teams the top-two picks in the draft, so they, on paper, will be actually better than many of the existing teams. The only disadvantage they have is the fact they don't get a shot at having a Brady/Manning/Romo as their QB.

 

My original post was more to the topic of the scoring change to compensate for the decrease in starting QBs. Should we go from 6 pts per TD pass to 3 pts per TD pass?

 

Sorry Swammi...I don't see how that is possible, given what is remaining and who is protected. Sky said it best...if you are expanding, you flush the rosters and start again. If the Brady/Manning/Romo owners object, tough. If enough owners object to where starting over will not happen (they have the majority, or whatever your league calls fore that constitutes majority) then you simply do not expand. These guys need to realize that the league is growing and the same old rules do not apply.

 

Any argument that allows teams to keep their three players while adding in two new teams does not create fairness in the new league and will cause problems right off the start. If the two new owners agree to allowing the three keepers before they make pick one, they are making a hugh mistake.

[Swiss Cheezhead]

Adding two new owners AND changing the rules in a keeper league? It's a no-brainer -- start over.

 

Regardless of who the available players are, the new owners will be at an inherent disadvantage when they're picking their keepers. Every player in the pool is a player the other eight owners chose NOT to keep.

 

If you guys are too entrenched and stubborn to start over, then BC's expansion idea is the fairest way to go.