Hi
The rosters are posted- enjoy. Here is the final outstanding issue- scheduling.
Two options, it seems. Option A is doubleheaders, as we did last year with slight tweaks. Option B is divisions as we did in the past.
Details: Option A
Doubleheader contests in the following weeks:
-One of Weeks 1-4
-Week 10
-Week 12
-Week 13
The reason for the gap in ten to twelve is that the NFL has a bye week in week 11 but not week 10. So, in the interest of fairness, we'll double down on week 10. We'll discuss the implications on the trade deadline next week.
The 'one of weeks 1-4' bit is because although we went with a double to start week one last year it is late and if some in the league would prefer to randomly determine the September double header week we will do so. I could also see some objection to starting the year with two games- get in an early hole, etc., etc.
Others are self-explanatory such as top four make playoffs, top seed picks, etc.
Option B
Two division format is fourteen games, two divisions of five, with rivalry week in week 14 (as in the doubleheader option) and division games in a block from weeks 5-9 (all bye weeks) and a lump of weeks 3, 4, 10, 12, and 13 (no bye weeks). Weeks 1, 2, 11, and 14 will be all cross-division.
In terms of playoffs, the two division winners are in with the top two records among the rest also qualifying.
Voting Instructions
'A- Week 1' if you prefer doubleheaders w/ a week one double
'A- Random' if you prefer a random draw to determine the first doubleheader
'A- Weeks 2-4' if you prefer a random draw w/ week one excluded
'A- No interest' if you want your vote split among all doubleheader options
'B' if you want the divisions
Cast your vote in the thread- for me, I vote 'A- weeks 2-4' with a strong preference to week 4 as it would give teams something to build for in the first third of the season as the league enters the bye weeks.
Tim
Showing posts with label Rule change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rule change. Show all posts
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
State of the NFFL- July 18
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
*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
Monday, June 20, 2011
Rule Change #2, Part 1- WR, TE Salaries (Overview)
Post three, then, of the Great Blog Experiment, or some other equally, unnecessarily long name for what is just me sending out ego-inflating posts as the commish.
This is the most important one for this off-season because it centers around our increase formula. It is a long post so I broke it up as well as I could into sections...
I. Background (skip this and the next two paragraphs if you’ve been paying attention to why we now increase numbers via the points format):
In the beginning…we had a keeper system where two players per roster were retained, unconditionally, each new season. This worked well for exactly seventeen minutes before Bunker (Thompson? Thompson.) purchased Willis McGahee for the smooth sum of forty-four dollars (soon to be forty-four MILLION dollars!). Artificial price inflation was no fun for anyone, so we scrapped the system, played a year straight-up with the winner getting the #1 pick in the first edition of the rookie draft (Brett, meet AP, several Superbowls), and reformatted a price increase system to allow an unlimited but more realistic number and price for keepers.
The first version was pure usage- play a game, buck. Problems included rookies getting screwed (Thompson overpaid for Stewart in year two, for example, by pure usage formula), an incentive to tank, and tight ends being virtually un-keepable, but the system was an improvement. With rivalry week not counting and a six-team playoff format, the maximum number of dollars (soon to be MILLIONS of dollars) a player could increase by was $12 (keep this in mind for later).
In the next round of tweaking, we added buffers to make rookies more affordable and tied increases to fantasy points scored, regardless of playing time, to discourage tanking. Seeing as how we had always done $12, we shaped the new glove to fit the old hand, so to speak, and made that the maximum one could increase by. Without much reasoning, I separated the positions and gave each group of players a different increase formula. Again, the tweak was an improvement, but the same problem with tight ends remained.
II. The Idea
So, here we are in 2011 and Lee brings this issue to my attention with some well-organized graphs and a compelling argument. After taking a look, I see no reason why we should keep these positions segregated going forward and propose using one all-inclusive formula to calculate price increases.
This essentially means that all players will now be priced like quarterbacks and running backs (by luck of the formula, these positions are priced equally at this moment). The immediate impact of this move will be to make tight ends a potential source of cheap investment for future keeping while in the medium term the value of wide receivers will slightly rise. I love the rule change because it cuts my work down to one-fourth of what I would otherwise do in calculating the formula and think we should implement the change immediately. However, as this is a keeper issue the usual standards of maintaining fairness do exist so I think the question for me is not if we make this change, but when.
III. Options
A- No changes (stick to current formula)
B- Implement for next season and use current formula for this year's keepers
C- 'Grandfather Clause' for current keepers, using the new formula next season with players bought or drafted this year. By far the most complicated idea but perhaps the most fair
D- Implement the rule change immediately
A- No changes (stick to current formula)
B- Implement for next season and use current formula for this year's keepers
C- 'Grandfather Clause' for current keepers, using the new formula next season with players bought or drafted this year. By far the most complicated idea but perhaps the most fair
D- Implement the rule change immediately
Please give this one serious thought- it is the most important rule change I currently have in the works. I’m not sure we are ready to vote yet so if we can get a good discussion going here I would love to hear your thoughts. I'll set up the vote once I feel I've heard enough arguments/counter-arguments.
Thanks,
Tim
IV. Appendix
A refresher on how we currently price keepers:
-The five-year average of the top player at all positions is divided by twelve.
-Take this number and divide the total fantasy points scored by each player by this number.
-Add that number to the salary from the prior season for the new keeper number.
Off the top of my head, QB and RB are about 30 points per (MILLION!!!!) dollar(s) and WR are about 20. TE is down around the 15 range. Please all keep in mind that there is no maximum number of keepers and that the three-year rule (no player can be kept three straight summers) is not applicable to players whose salaries are $0 (including those who have used some portion of the buffer to remain at $0).
Friday, May 13, 2011
Welcome, and Rule Change #1
Hi everyone,
Welcome to the NFFL blog. Obviously, I have just slapped this together in under a minute (46 seconds) and have copied and pasted my first rule idea below. Thanks for giving this idea a twirl- hope we find the comments section constructive (In fact, if you guys do not really try to add comments, we might as well pop back to our old way of doing things!).
So, in addition to what we will deal with below, here is a quick list of some ideas we will get into as this off-season winds to a close:
For now, let us get our feet wet with a quick vote on a minor rule change (that we can discard on auction day) for 2011. I propose that we officially change the league salary cap from $100 to $100 million. This change will have no impact whatsoever on how I report, record, or recalculate salary. However, it will require us all to look at something like ‘$5’ and think ‘5 million bucks’ instead of ‘5 bucks’.
I see a number of advantages to this change. First, it will potentially inject comedy into a situation where none previously existed. Is it funny to bid $20 on Jonathan Stewart? No, although it was a bit sad. However, $20 million? Maybe it is not quite funny, either, but at least there is potential. And can’t we all see DFlam making bids with an emphasis on the million, as in ‘fifty-seven MILLION for Brady’?
Jokes aside, the true advantage would be in explaining this league to those on the outside. When I say we play with a $100 cap, the natural assumption is that we all pay $100 to enter this league and use that money to bid on players. I then have to explain that we actually pay less and that the $100 is like chips in poker. At this point, the league seems less impressive. With a $100 million cap, the process of explaining becomes far simpler and the fake nature of the $100 figure far more obvious.
I see no cons, thus, obviously, I am in favor of this change.
Vote ‘Yes’ for entering the millionaire era and ‘No’ for tradition. Also, if you have idea suggestions for new rules or tweaks, now would be the time to step forth.
Welcome to the NFFL blog. Obviously, I have just slapped this together in under a minute (46 seconds) and have copied and pasted my first rule idea below. Thanks for giving this idea a twirl- hope we find the comments section constructive (In fact, if you guys do not really try to add comments, we might as well pop back to our old way of doing things!).
So, in addition to what we will deal with below, here is a quick list of some ideas we will get into as this off-season winds to a close:
-Changing the timing of the league cup
-Adjustment to the formula for salary increasing at the end of the season
-Exploring a creative proposal for rookie QBs
-A formal ‘doomsday plan’ in case the number of games in the 2011 NFL season is cut down
For now, let us get our feet wet with a quick vote on a minor rule change (that we can discard on auction day) for 2011. I propose that we officially change the league salary cap from $100 to $100 million. This change will have no impact whatsoever on how I report, record, or recalculate salary. However, it will require us all to look at something like ‘$5’ and think ‘5 million bucks’ instead of ‘5 bucks’.
I see a number of advantages to this change. First, it will potentially inject comedy into a situation where none previously existed. Is it funny to bid $20 on Jonathan Stewart? No, although it was a bit sad. However, $20 million? Maybe it is not quite funny, either, but at least there is potential. And can’t we all see DFlam making bids with an emphasis on the million, as in ‘fifty-seven MILLION for Brady’?
Jokes aside, the true advantage would be in explaining this league to those on the outside. When I say we play with a $100 cap, the natural assumption is that we all pay $100 to enter this league and use that money to bid on players. I then have to explain that we actually pay less and that the $100 is like chips in poker. At this point, the league seems less impressive. With a $100 million cap, the process of explaining becomes far simpler and the fake nature of the $100 figure far more obvious.
I see no cons, thus, obviously, I am in favor of this change.
Vote ‘Yes’ for entering the millionaire era and ‘No’ for tradition. Also, if you have idea suggestions for new rules or tweaks, now would be the time to step forth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)