UM Fantasy Football League VIII

[King Richard]

Roster:

QB
WR
WR
RB
RB
TE
RB/WR/TE
K
D/ST

Five bench slots. (debating more or less still)

Points:

Passing TD: 6 points
Rushing TD: 6 points
Receiving TD: 6 points
Passing yards: 20 yds/pt
Rushing yards: 10 yds/pt
Receiving yards: 10 yds/pt
10 rush attempts: 1 point
1 reception: 1 point
Lost fumble: -2 points
Interception: -2 points
2 point conversion: 2 points
FG up to 39 yards: 3 points
FG 40-51 yards: 4 points
FG 52+ yards: 5 points
XP: 1 point
Missed XP: -2 points
Sack: 2 points
Int: 2 points
Block kick/punt: 2 points
Fumble recovery: 2 points
Safety: 2 points
Defensive td: 6 points
Kick return: 6 points
0 points allowed: 15 points
1-3 points: 10 points
4-9 points: 5 points
10-17: 3 points
18-24: 2 points
32+ points allowed: -4 points

 

[Baroque]

^looks good to me

 

[Dak]

Due to the extremely high % of 40-50 yarders being made, no bonus needs to be added for these. I could see a bonus for 55+ yarders. Otherwise scoring looks good. I like the removing arbitrary bonuses for a ppr format instead.

For a 10 man team those rosters are simply too large. I challenge someone explain to me the point of 2 RB slots. Just finding 20 (A starter and a servicable backup) is a challenge in the modern NFL that leans heavily on committee backfields. That was the reason I agitated for 1 RB slot last year, and I didn't see a problem with it.

Five bench slots is the max we should consider.

How would we implement a keeper element?

 

[Nephilim96]

I challenge someone explain to me the point of 2 RB slots.

To have fun.

 

[Dak]

Yeah, it's real fun when (even assuming no one hoards RBs) the average lineup looks something like:

M. Tolbert: 7C 26Y 1TD
R. Wingo: 1C 6Y 0TD

 

[Baroque]

True though, there aren't enough decent RBs to fill 2 spots, since most will be using the RB/WR/TE spot for a RB if available.

It would add more of a luck element really, if you're choosing your 2nd or 3rd RB from backs that rarely see the field. Some weeks you'll get lucky others you'll get nothin from those players

 

[King Richard]

Bonuses for field goals makes kickers relevant and an interesting addition to the rosters now. You actually have to consider them in your weekly plans.

As for the RB issue, I'm thinking more along the lines of slimming the bench spots down to four. I think your argument works in favor of having that additional RB slot though. RB is always the most dynamic position in FF so I don't see a problem with two spots.

 

[Dak]

There are barely 10 everydown backs in the league, much less the 20 needed to start on non by weeks. Factor in a bye week and then you've got something that looks like:

D. Sproles 4C/R 38YDS 0TD
J. Stewart 1C 1YDS 0TD

That's not "fun".

Low active roster optimizes scoring, and low bench makes people actually have to follow the waiver wire etc and constantly assess their roster.

 

[Nephilim96]

Yeah, it's real fun when (even assuming no one hoards RBs) the average lineup looks something like:

M. Tolbert: 7C 26Y 1TD
R. Wingo: 1C 6Y 0TD

It makes it real fun when somebody has Jamaal Charles, and then some rookie who comes out of nowhere to become a top 5 RB. lol

Honestly though, if we only have 10 teams or so, you're not going to be seeing guys with 1 carry, 1 yard. There's enough backs in the NFL to have every team have at least 2 guys who have an impact. I mean shit, last season I had Adrian Peterson, Darren McFadden, and Fred Jackson. McFadden was injured half the year, but those are still 3 pretty good Running Backs that had an impact on my season, and that's just one team. Hell, I was able to trade for Jackson because Baroque was already starting Lynch and Gore, and he had no room for Jackson. You don't need to have 2 everydown backs. I strongly doubt we're going to have teams that have to resort to starting the 4th string Running Back on the Buffalo Bills.

 

[Baroque]

On a side note, I had drafted the two starting running backs on arguably the two strongest running teams in the league in Seattle and SF. Why did I end up in 6th place again? Also: Aaron Rodgers... :/

 

[King Richard]

There are barely 10 everydown backs in the league, much less the 20 needed to start on non by weeks. Factor in a bye week and then you've got something that looks like:

D. Sproles 4C/R 38YDS 0TD
J. Stewart 1C 1YDS 0TD

That's not "fun".

Low active roster optimizes scoring, and low bench makes people actually have to follow the waiver wire etc and constantly assess their roster.

It sounds like to me you need to do a better job at managing your roster. If we only have 10 teams in the league there will be plenty depth at running back and other positions available in waivers. And with only four bench slots available it will be more difficult to make decisions on who to keep and who to drop. I want people to be active and wheeling and dealing. If people aren't trying to make trades or constantly trying to manage their team to make it as good as possible each week then they aren't actually playing fantasy football and it will get boring.

The roster is set. Let's move on. Oh, and I kind of mentioned it but waivers will be returning (assuming you guys haven't been using them the past two years). Speaking of which, I'll be treating waivers differently. It's going to be a bidding process up until about Thursday or so of the week. I'm going to allot "fantasy points" at the beginning of the season and you can use these points to bid on players each week. So if a big name player is available on waivers and everyone tries to pick him up you can outbid everyone and get him yourself. But once you're out of fantasy points that's it for the season. This will be a good time for people to attempt trades as well. After Wednesday all waivers will be like normal.

 

[Dak]

It sounds like to me you need to do a better job at managing your roster.

I won the 2013 league .


I remember what happened a couple of years ago where 1 person loaded up on like 4 backs and then held those without later on in the season due to injury(which didn't include me) hostage for them.

 

[King Richard]

I won the 2013 league .


I remember what happened a couple of years ago where 1 person loaded up on like 4 backs and then held those without later on in the season due to injury(which didn't include me) hostage for them.

Ok, congratulations. But why should I modify the roster size because you decided to hold onto a guy who has Mark Ingram and Pierre Thomas as competition in the run game and Jimmy Graham, Marques Colston, Lance Moore, and a Robert Meachem as competition in the pass game? And Jonathan Stewart who is made out of glass apparently? Come on now. They're just names, you picked them, not my problem. Moving on.

I don't understand your second point.

 

[Dak]

That the scenario I'm describing has happened before. Even if you could scrape enough names to provide 30 good to decent backs, when any of those good backs go down, given that the league is already using the good #2 backs, there won't be much/anything left, except for the rare Blount type late season surge. So if someone holds an extra RB, they can request absurd trades.

 

[brooks55]

Count me in.