 |
|
|
|
|
|
Illuminati
Football Freak
3324 posts
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 11/6/2005 10:50:58 AM |
 |
 |
Rules Idea for 2006
|
|
|
|
Currently, our first tiebreaker is total points by defensive starters, and the second tiebreaker is total bench points (third tiebreaker is defensive bench points). I'd like to propose that for 2006 we amend this rule, and make the second tiebreaker be Head Coach, shifting the other elements downward one slot.
The reasoning behind this is two-fold:
1) The main reason is that bench points are always a flawed way to evaluate a team, as it ignores a very valid strategy of creating "stacks" of players (getting a player's backup). If a team backs up their QB, their stud RB, etc., they are insuring that their team will nearly always field a full array of starters, and in many cases the backup player can step in and do a good job. These stacked players usually have little or no points in most weeks, but still provide a solid longterm strategy. It's not fair to penalize a team that has a backup strategy, and arbitrarily reward a team that has a scattershot approach.
2) Head Coach is really a near-irrelevant position as it stands right now. There's a 50/50 chance that your team will get 1 point, but this doesn't get added to the defensive starter total. This Coach position is such an afterthought that teams don't even need to carry them on their rosters. If we make the Coach act like the Spy in the game Stratego, all of a sudden in a tight game it becomes a viable team member.
Feel free to chime in on this, anytime up to June 15. On June 15, 2006, we'll finalize our rules set for the 2006 season. In the meantime, we can put any rules discussion into this area of the forum, for easy review of ideas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flayers
Scout
76 posts
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/6/2005 11:47:30 PM |
|
|
Somewhat bitter response from Flayers
|
|
|
|
I say bag the tiebreaker. Or perhaps we could just do a coin flip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/7/2005 8:34:26 AM |
|
|
Sound good
|
|
|
|
I second your proposal. I like Coach, even if he is only worth 1 point and now the 2nd tie breaker.
I would also like to see us adding one more offensive starter such as a flex player or some kind of mandatory rookie slot at some point. With a 10 team league and our current starter system everyone is loaded. One more offensive starter would spread things a little thinner and make it more interesting. We could shoot for adding something after the next season to give everyone time to prepare. Anyone? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rogues
Tape Junkie
55 posts
 |
Fu: 0.00 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/8/2005 9:52:47 AM |
|
|
I'm with the Vultures . . .
|
|
|
|
Coach 2nd tiebreaker - good!
More starting players - better!
Winning - best! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flayers
Scout
76 posts
|
Fu: 0.00 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/8/2005 1:46:55 PM |
|
|
Rules ideas
|
|
|
|
I would like to see another mandatory TE starter and a WR/TE/RB flex position and an individual defensive flex position. Perhaps return yardage points since this is the only offensive yardage category we do not score.
Maybe "continuous" yardage scoring? The thresholds we are now using seem somewhat arbitrary to me (or course, I am biased as I lost last week because my WR got 99 yards instead of 100). Maybe we keep modest bonuses for major milestones (e.g., 100 yards receiving/rushing). How about a defensive team?
BTW, had a guy in my other league lose by 1 via sack points on the Flutie fumble/sack on the last play of MNF. Hilarious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whiskey Ducks
Water Boy
42 posts
|
Fu: 0.00 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/19/2005 5:47:22 PM |
|
|
Starters
|
|
|
|
| Somehow I've put extra guys on IR accidentally and can't start them. Just wanted everyone to know that I am starting Chatman and Cooley |
|
|
|
|
|
