FPC Contest Rules Suggestions (1 Viewer)

I only have one suggestion and I know it has been brought up in the past:

Change the starting lineup requirements by deleting one RB (you only need to start 1) and adding a 3rd flex (RB, TE or WR).

It would give more flexibility to get through the bye weeks, injuries and early round busts.

Note: This topic is intended for suggestions to the rules of the competition not the business side (prizes, payout percentages etc...).

Patrick the Pirate said:

I only have one suggestion and I know it has been brought up in the past:

Change the starting lineup requirements by deleting one RB (you only need to start 1) and adding a 3rd flex (RB, TE or WR).

It would give more flexibility to get through the bye weeks, injuries and early round busts.

Note: This topic is intended for suggestions to the rules of the competition not the business side (prizes, payout percentages etc...).

Click to expand...

I appreciate the suggestion but we have used the current starting lineup (1qb-2rb-2wr-1te-2flex-1k-1d) since 2008 and it's used exclusively across all FFPC contests and leagues. This, along with 1.5 ppr for TE, has now become part of the FFPC brand. We are not looking at a change here.

Our society used to paint our houses with lead paint. We changed and everybody benefitted.

Patrick the Pirate said:

I only have one suggestion and I know it has been brought up in the past:

Change the starting lineup requirements by deleting one RB (you only need to start 1) and adding a 3rd flex (RB, TE or WR).

It would give more flexibility to get through the bye weeks, injuries and early round busts.

Note: This topic is intended for suggestions to the rules of the competition not the business side (prizes, payout percentages etc...).

Click to expand...

Not to be rude, but this is a terrible idea.

Why not make it 5 flexes and , 1 QB, 1 WR etc etc.

2 flexes as it stands gives teams alot of flexibility. If you cant find 2 rb's to start any given week, you did a horrible job A) Drafting or B) making waiver pickups.

In your opinion this may be a terrible idea.

or C) you suffered some injuries to your RB's and there is nothing available on waivers other than Jordan Todman

There are two starting WR's per team and only one starting TE and RB.

You only have to start one TE, so why not one RB?

It matters not, they are not going to consider changing it anyways.

1 QB, 1 WR, 5 Flex, 1 K, 1 D/ST (I am assuming you would add the K and D/ST) would actually drop the number of starters from 10 to 9. In my opinion that is a terrible idea. I do not support it.

Patrick the Pirate said:

In your opinion this may be a terrible idea.

or C) you suffered some injuries to your RB's and there is nothing available on waivers other than Jordan Todman

There are two starting WR's per team and only one starting TE and RB.

You only have to start one TE, so why not one RB?

It matters not, they are not going to consider changing it anyways.

1 QB, 1 WR, 5 Flex, 1 K, 1 D/ST (I am assuming you would add the K and D/ST) would actually drop the number of starters from 10 to 9. In my opinion that is a terrible idea. I do not support it.

Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. And to your point about NFL only starting 1 rb, well that might be true but that doesnt mean only 1 rb/team is relevant in fantasy. I would guess there are probably 40 relevant fantasy rb's and if u cant get 2 of those guys, i really think its your own fault. The rosters are super deep to boot. Having said all that, if you lose your top 2 rb's , yes it will be difficult to content. That goes without saying in fantasy, injuries can derail a season. Those who lost Aaron Rodgers and their backup stunk, well their team took huge hits.

But asking teams to start 2 rb's each with 40+ guys out there who put up pts, isnt really much to ask.

Patrick the Pirate said:

Our society used to paint our houses with lead paint. We changed and everybody benefitted.

Click to expand...

This is correct. But comparing a change in flex spots to lead paint is just a bit of a stretch, I say.