Fantasy-Football.DE
[NSFF] Rule Change Proposals 2020 - Druckversion

+- Fantasy-Football.DE (https://www.fantasy-football.de)
+-- Forum: Fantasy Football Keeper Ligen (https://www.fantasy-football.de/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: NSFF (https://www.fantasy-football.de/forumdisplay.php?fid=50)
+--- Thema: [NSFF] Rule Change Proposals 2020 (/showthread.php?tid=13631)

Seiten: 1 2


[NSFF] Rule Change Proposals 2020 - ranallo10 - 25.03.2020

Please use this thread for any complaints about the current rule system along with your proposed solution (if you have one). This will allow for the league owners to discuss this openly and for the commissioners to decide if we should bring it to a vote.


RE: [NSFF] Rule Change Proposals (2020) - snowfox - 25.03.2020

Hallo zusammen, ich würde die Chance nutzen wollen und hätte drei Vorschläge.

1. RBs bekommen ebenfalls 0.5 Punkte pro catch, genauso wie WR und TE. Damit bekommen 3rd Down /Passing RBs mehr value und könnten auch als Flex eingesetzt werden.

2. TE's auch auf Flex aufstellen zu können. Manchmal hat man das Glück und besitzt 2 gute TE, wobei der 2. TE im Roster dann eigentlich kein Wert hat. Letztes Jahr hatten die Spatzen zum Beispiel Ertz sowie Hooper und konnten nur einen TE aufstellen.

3. Das FAAB System bei dem wöchentlichen Waiver Wire zu verwenden. Jeder erhält am Anfang der Saison 100 Dollar und kann diese wöchentlich auf seine Spieler von der Waiver Wire setzen (wie eBay). Der hochstbietende bekommt dann den Spieler und den Betrag wird von seinen 100 Dollar abgezogen. Man kann auch 0 Dollar Gebote setzen oder Spieler, wie gewohnt im nachhinein für 0 Dollar holen

_____________________________________________

Hello everybody, I would like to take the chance and have three suggestions.

1. RBs also get 0.5 points per catch, just like the WR and TE. So 3rd Down /Passing RBs get more value and could also be used as Flex.

2. TE's could also be set up on Flex. Sometimes you are lucky and have 2 good TE, whereas the 2nd TE in the roster has no value. Last year the Spatzen had for example Ertz as well as Hooper and could only put up one TE.

3. to use the FAAB system for the weekly Waiver Wire. Everyone receives $100 at the beginning of the season and can bet this on their weekly players from the Waiver Wire (like eBay). The highest bidder then gets the player and the amount is deducted from their $100. It is also possible to place $0 bids or get players as usual afterwards for $0.


RE: [NSFF] Rule Change Proposals (2020) - Maybedavis - 25.03.2020

Find alle 3 gut


RE: [NSFF] Rule Change Proposals (2020) - ranallo10 - 25.03.2020

Since I'm co-commish my response requires two perspectives, mine as a commish and mine as an owner. Sorry that it will mean a wall of text:

Commish response/opinion:
1. What is the actual problem with the current scoring system? I understand the benefit but I'm not sure why I see this specific idea should be considered without an actual problem. Please realize this will be the hardest point to agree on since the league was purposefully created to not reward RBs for receptions in an effort to keep the RB value from being inflated beyond that of other key positions.

2. This is technically possible and doesn't impact the actual point distribution so it's only about how this impacts player value, if at all.

3. This is technically possible and would require owners to understand the new waiver system and be on-board with a more involved way of claiming players. This definitely requires more thought than the current waiver system and doesn't create parity for the weak vs. the strong, but it evens out the opportunity so that it's an engaged waiver market as opposed to a simple predetermined order based on standings and matchup luck.

My opinion as an owner:
1. I'm fine either way, but I fear that RBs are already at a premium in our league and this will make RB movement via trades or free agency even more limited than it already is. Anything that encourages player hoarding makes it tough for me to see the good sides of the proposal.

2. This seems like a luxurious problem, the TE position is amazingly weak and I think this only encourages people to corner the market by holding on to more than one good TE throughout the season, making the waiver wire void of bye-week and injury replacements due to a lack of options (it was already hard enough last season to find a viable TE, if more people had two TEs rostered this would become nearly impossible). As stated previously I feel that hoarding also disproportionately inflates the value which negatively impacts the trade market.

What I like about our current system is that I feel it encourages the owner to consider their positional depth due to the small bench size, and then choose where they can sacrifice quantity vs. quality for bye weeks, injuries, etc. That example you gave (Spatzen with two top TEs) allowed for another owner to engage in trade talks and ultimately win the championship due in large part to his acquisition of Ertz. With the new proposal there would be less reason for Spatzen to shop Ertz, and the inflated value would raise the costs, thus making trades less likely. Currently, you either have a top tier TE, or you're taking your chances on the multitude of lottery ticket TEs out there. With this proposal, I feel we'd see those few mid-level TEs kept on benches "just in case", less waiver options, less trades of fair value, ultimately less of the good things and more of the bad things.

Ultimately my opinion as an owner is similar to the first response I provided: anything the discourages trading because it encourages hoarding and inflates the value of one position is the opposite direction I'd want in a league.

3. FAAB is definitely interesting for me and allows successful teams to still compete for the top free agents, when possible. I think our current waiver system is "fine" but I have enjoyed my experiences with FAAB so I wouldn't be opposed to such an idea. But this is definitely a system that requires more involvement than our current waiver system.


RE: [NSFF] Rule Change Proposals (2020) - Dan_the_Man - 30.03.2020

(25.03.2020, 15:59)snowfox schrieb:  Hallo zusammen, ich würde die Chance nutzen wollen und hätte drei Vorschläge.

1. RBs bekommen ebenfalls 0.5 Punkte pro catch, genauso wie WR und TE. Damit bekommen 3rd Down /Passing RBs mehr value und könnten auch als Flex eingesetzt werden.

2. TE's auch auf Flex aufstellen zu können. Manchmal hat man das Glück und besitzt 2 gute TE, wobei der 2. TE im Roster dann eigentlich kein Wert hat. Letztes Jahr hatten die Spatzen zum Beispiel Ertz sowie Hooper und konnten nur einen TE aufstellen.

3. Das FAAB System bei dem wöchentlichen Waiver Wire zu verwenden. Jeder erhält am Anfang der Saison 100 Dollar und kann diese wöchentlich auf seine Spieler von der Waiver Wire setzen (wie eBay). Der hochstbietende bekommt dann den Spieler und den Betrag wird von seinen 100 Dollar abgezogen. Man kann auch 0 Dollar Gebote setzen oder Spieler, wie gewohnt im nachhinein für 0 Dollar holen

_____________________________________________

Hello everybody, I would like to take the chance and have three suggestions.

1. RBs also get 0.5 points per catch, just like the WR and TE. So 3rd Down /Passing RBs get more value and could also be used as Flex.

2. TE's could also be set up on Flex. Sometimes you are lucky and have 2 good TE, whereas the 2nd TE in the roster has no value. Last year the Spatzen had for example Ertz as well as Hooper and could only put up one TE.

3. to use the FAAB system for the weekly Waiver Wire. Everyone receives $100 at the beginning of the season and can bet this on their weekly players from the Waiver Wire (like eBay). The highest bidder then gets the player and the amount is deducted from their $100. It is also possible to place $0 bids or get players as usual afterwards for $0.

@1: to not give PPR points to the RB upvalues the WR and TE a bit and makes the scoring a bit more balanced - I am against this proposal

@2: I asked for this years ago when Skee was still the commish - he refused to even vote on it - IMO it helps over bye weeks and if you snatch two top 5 TE in the draft I don't see why they shouldn't put into the lineup on the flex spot - I support this proposal

@3: A blind bidding WW system is used in another league I am playing in - I like this format but it requires more engagement of the team owners to be up to date with the free agents and it is a bit unfair for those with a bad score - I am undecided on this proposal

I would suggest we bring all three proposals to vote and if the majority (7/12) votes for it we implement those new rules - what's your opinion Chris?


RE: [NSFF] Rule Change Proposals (2020) - Jarlinger - 31.03.2020

Hallo zusammen, zu den Punkten vonChucky:

1. finde ich gut/ That`s good.

2. finde ich gut/ That`s good.

3. finde ich nicht gut/ no good :-)


RE: [NSFF] Rule Change Proposals (2020) - ranallo10 - 06.04.2020

(30.03.2020, 19:51)Dan_the_Man schrieb:  @1: to not give PPR points to the RB upvalues the WR and TE a bit and makes the scoring a bit more balanced - I am against this proposal

@2: I asked for this years ago when Skee was still the commish - he refused to even vote on it - IMO it helps over bye weeks and if you snatch two top 5 TE in the draft I don't see why they shouldn't put into the lineup on the flex spot - I support this proposal

@3: A blind bidding WW system is used in another league I am playing in - I like this format but it requires more engagement of the team owners to be up to date with the free agents and it is a bit unfair for those with a bad score - I am undecided on this proposal

I would suggest we bring all three proposals to vote and if the majority (7/12) votes for it we implement those new rules - what's your opinion Chris?

@1: This will have a profound impact and should be treated as such, therefore I think if we bring this to a vote we need more than just a simple majority (I'd contend this would need to be unanimous because of the impact). You can find that Chucky brought it up back in 2013 and we never took it for a vote because of said impact (https://www.fantasy-football.de/showthread.php?tid=9749&page=2).

@2: Likewise this proposal was brought to a vote in 2013 on Chucky's request, and was voted down (https://www.fantasy-football.de/showthread.php?tid=10172). Since this impact is lesser than that of #1, a majority should be sufficient. I don't mind bringing it back to the table.

@3: This is hard to go off a simple majority because all owners that vote against it are being saddled with a more complex waiver process that they didn't want. The combination of complexity and forced adoption makes it a bit difficult for me to push forward as-is.

We should consider doing a trial period (1 or 2 seasons) to see the impact of any changes on league parity and enjoyment, and bring it back to the table for a vote for full-time adoption at the end of the trial.


RE: [NSFF] Rule Change Proposals (2020) - D@ngermaus - 07.04.2020

Hallo zusammen, zu den Punkten vonChucky:

1. dont like it

2. undecided

3. like it

i have a 4th proposal:   a second pactice squad in the roster. i like it because it adds long term value to the rookie draft (today i would rather take a rookie with clear opportunity than someone with more talent but in a bad situation)


RE: [NSFF] Rule Change Proposals (2020) - ranallo10 - 13.04.2020

(07.04.2020, 12:16)D@ngermaus schrieb:  i have a 4th proposal:   a second pactice squad in the roster. i like it because it adds long term value to the rookie draft (today i would rather take a rookie with clear opportunity than someone with more talent but in a bad situation)
Makes no sense to me, we have a rookie spot and you can use it for the exact purpose you just outlined. If you prefer opportunity over talent with one spot, why would that change with two (or three, etc)?


RE: [NSFF] Rule Change Proposals (2020) - ranallo10 - 14.04.2020

This thread has been open long enough for everyone to chime in with an opinion if they so wished. Uwe and I have discussed each proposal and we have agreed to the following:

Proposal 1: RBs earn 0.5 points per reception
Verdict: We will not take this proposal to a vote, the impact of this change on the points system is too great and changes the identity of the league. We are not a half PPR league and don't wish to make such fundamental changes.

Proposal 2: Extend the Flex position to include TEs (thereby becoming Flex RB/WR/TE)
Verdict: This is a straightforward position eligibility proposal and therefore a simple majority is needed (7/12) to bring this rule into the 2020 season.*

Proposal 3: Change the waiver system from reverse order of the standings to a free agent auction
Verdict: This is a proposal that increases complexity for all owners and thus increases the time required during the waiver process, therefore a 75% majority is needed (9/12) to bring this rule into the 2020 season.*

Proposal 4: Add a second practice squad roster spot for rookies
Verdict: We will not take this proposal to a vote, one roster spot for rookies is sufficient.

*Caveat*: We have some concerns about the impact of proposal 2 and proposal 3 therefore if either proposal is passed it will be subject to a one-year trial period and re-evaluated after this period concludes.

The deadline for both polls is May 15 thus giving all owners 31 days to provide their response. Please message me directly when you've made your vote so I can ensure all owners have participated and can track down those that haven't before the deadline passes.