The word on the street is that the NFL is on the verge of moving forward with a new collective bargaining agreement and, by extension, the NFFL is on the verge of officially entering the league off-season. In the next two weeks, we should do what we can to finalize the following:
*Draft date, time, and location
*Confirm new rule changes
I've left the draft date to the facebook thread. The following is where we currently stand on rule changes:
1. New salary increase formula
Status: discussion
There was a post on this one earlier in the summer and everyone should read Tighe's comment from the original thread before proceeding. As rare as it is for our league make rule changes regarding salary in the middle of an off-season, the feeling I get is that the rule change is important, logical, and fair enough to justify breaking the past pattern of waiting a season. A little more debate, I think, is necessary and I'll open it to a vote next Monday.
Once this one is finalized, I will publish the keeper list for the 2011 season.
2. Doubleheaders
Status: pending
This one is just waiting for a rubber stamp. Last season, we opened the fantasy season with a week 1 doubleheader before finishing the season with doubleheaders in weeks 11, 12, and 13. The schedule was arranged so all teams played each other once in a single week and once in a double-header, rivalry matchups exempted. The doubleheaders occurred in non-bye weeks, further ensuring fairness, and allowed a full double round-robin, 18 game schedule. The arrangement also allowed the importance of each week to increase as season went on, building to the week 16 Superbowl.
Any objections? If not, we'll vote Wednesday and move forward for next season with an identical schedule format.
Now, two new rule changes I cooked up over the weekend with an assist from Deputy Commissioner Sammy Knight- pay close attention, although they are more tweaks than wholesale changes.
3. Salary Buffer
Status: NEW
We have used a 'buffer' system for salary calculation, allowing teams to retain critical young and cheap talent from season to season by restricting the salary increases based on auction price. At the moment, a $0 player must increase by $5 before the actual keeper salary begins increasing. For a refresher, the following is the current buffer set-up:
$0 and rookies- $5 buffer
$1- $4 buffer
$2- $3 buffer
$3- $2 buffer
$4- $1 buffer
One critical consequence of the buffer system is that it allows players to remain exempt from the three-year limit by keeping the salary at $0. My proposal is to tweak the system to allow player purchased at $1 and $2 to potentially enjoy this exemption. In calculating the new salary at the end of each season, the rule change would remove the 'buffer' concept and simply subtract the salary from the auction price based on the figures used under the buffer system. An example:
**A $2 player, perhaps injured or a backup QB, does not play in the season and therefore increases by $0. The keeper salary is -$1 ($2 minus the buffer price of $3). For calculating the salary cap during the auction, any player whose keeper salary is negative will be treated as a $0 but in calculating future keeper prices the negative value will be used.
Thus, no change from the old system, so why bother with this seemingly trivial rule change? The major result is that it would allow more teams to speculate on potential backup players, particularly QBs, with the understanding that the initial $1 or $2 investment will be reduced to $0 based on a lack of playing time. The system is fairer to owners whose players do not play- after all, the rest of our rosters increase primarily due to playing time. I also think it fits nicely with the new proposal that increases the value of WRs and TEs- this change tilts the playing field back towards QBs a tiny, but not insignificant, amount.
Keep this one in mind- voting opens up later this week.
4. Rookie Lottery Chances
Status: NEW
Something I want to throw out to the league- does our lottery format create an incentive to finish last? Or, perhaps, finish in the bottom three as opposed to making a charge for the playoffs? I propose a simple but potentially massive tweak that will make our final weeks more competitive.
Our current lottery structure:
Last place: 10 chances
9th place: 9 chances
8th place: 8 chances...
...and so on. My proposal:
All non-playoff teams: 5 chances
4th place: 4 chances
3rd place: 3 chances
2nd place: 2 chances
Superbowl Champion: 1 chance
We can play with the specific numbers (I will shortly) but my point is that I feel our competition would be much improved if final position in the league standings for non-playoff squads did not influence the position in the lottery.
By percentage chance of earning the top pick:
Last place (current): 18.1%
9th place: 16.4%
8th place: 14.5%
7th place: 12.7%
6th place: 10.9%
5th place: 9.1%
4th place: 7.3%
3rd place: 5.5%
2nd place: 3.6%
1st place: 1.8%
New format, all non-playoff teams: 12.5%
4th place: 10%
3rd place: 7.5%
2nd place: 5%
1st place 2.5%
One possible alternative I can see is to adjust the numbers so the percentages remain identical to the current format for playoff teams while evenly distributing chances for non-playoff teams. This would means 7.5 chances per non-playoff team and a 13.6% chance for each of the six teams to win the top pick. If we wanted round numbers, 8 chances would lead to a 13.8% chance at the top pick.
The final point I want to make on this rule is that it would also cushion the blow of just missing out on the playoffs. At this point, the first team outside the top four (also known as the 'fifth-place' team) gets a 1.8% point increase in their likelihood at winning the top pick in exchange for missing out on a shot at $200 and losing two weeks of fantasy football. Seems a bit harsh- with this adjustment, that percentage moves from 6.9% to 13.8%- in other words, double the chances the worst playoff team receives in the lottery.
Rule change #5, the annual League Cup overhaul, will be dealt with after this more important stuff is finalized.
So, take a look, put your thoughts in, and tentatively expect a vote to open up on Wednesday for rules #2-#4 and a full week for #1 (therefore, the post going up next Monday). Thanks for reading and I am looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts and comments.
Tim
