14 teams...12 teams...10 teams -- Sell my league on SUPERFLEX (1 Viewer)

[sushinsky4tsar]

I run a 17-year old re-draft league that was the only fantasy football league I cared about for years. It has lost some of its luster. After years of drafting fairly deep in a 14-team league, we fell back to 12 last season after two of our less enthusiastic leaguemates were turned off by a draft format change from snake to an auction, or more accurately, allowing the champion to decide. We're losing more this season after a dispute in another league from one of our less "grounded" leaguemates. He had a long history of creating problems, but there was no denying that he had more passion for fantasy football than anybody. He's taking two of his buddies with him that he brought in years ago, and it looks like our once deep and robust 14-team league will be no larger than 10 teams this year.

As the commish, my gut instinct is that I'm presiding over a dying league. I hate fantasy all-star teams. "All-star" might be a slight exaggeration, but that's how I think of most 10-team leagues. Or at least those that are using a minimalist starting lineups like ours that only feature 1QB , 2RB, 2WR, and only ONE r/w/t FLEX. That's pretty bare bones these days. It makes a lot of sense in a 14-team league, but I definitely think we should have added a 3rd WR spot or a 2nd Flex when we scaled down to 12 teams last season.

In the 10-team league that we're looking at this season, I think making the switch to SUPERLEX format is a no-brainer. There are enough QBs to make that work without most of the problems that can spike up in a 12-team SF. My proposal is that we add both a Superflex and 3rd WR spot to the starting lineup, bumping total roster spots from 15 to 18 in the process. However, I'm most bullish on the superflex component. It seems like it would add so much more strategy to the draft, team building, and in-season management, not to mention adding much needed depth to the draft. Also, it would be really nice to see fantasy QBs valued just as much as NFL QBs in real football. The first one generally doesn't come off the board until the 3rd round the way that we've been doing it as a 1QB league. There's going to be that much less urgency to address one starting QB dropping down from 12 teams to 10.

I polled one of my better friends in the league the other day. He's opposed to superflex, providing no elaboration for his rationale. I think it's as simple as he's an old fart stuck in his way of doing things for fantasy football. He doesn't want to scheme for a fantasy draft where the position actually matters and is drafted early and often. Maybe there's more to it than that. Does anyone agree with his preference for maintaining 1QB in a 10-team league? It just feels like it has become a glorified kicker position, worth about twice the points.

One of the things that I'm most proud of is that it has always been a live draft. Surely, any league with a live draft is one worth saving. A lot of old high school friends (amongst other additions over the years), that I probably wouldn't otherwise see very often, if at all. At the same time, it feels like enthusiasm is tapering off from this group. For myself, I know that I'm not excited about presiding over a 10-team league if we're doing everything exactly the same way as when we had 14 teams. I feel like Superflex could be the shot in the arm that our league desperately needs.

Am I being overly dramatic if I just let this league die out if I can't get these people onboard with a superflex? I wouldn't cut the cord for this season, but might drop the hint that this will be the league's last Harrah if we can't get back to 12 teams.

 

[Gally]

I would come up with more than a "lets go to SF this year because we are down to 10 teams" as the reason. I would also figure out a scoring system that will not make it a defacto 2 QB league. The point of a SF is to provide an added position for flexibility. Not to make QB so important it overtakes everything (biggest mistake of SF league conversion IMO).

I would figure out the scoring system and show the league how it will impact them by adding a SF. Show that it isn't the end all be all and that you can still build without centering around 2 QB if you don't want to. Show that it isn't a huge change but one that can increase strategery in team construction. But you have to actually make the scoring in line with this approach.

Overall it sounds like you need to find two new teams regardless as I am with you, the less teams the less fun.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

^^^^^ Personally, dropping to 10 teams seems like a great reason to make the quick switch to a SF this year. Almost a consolation prize to what otherwise would be less teams, less fun (and less opportunity to create matchup advantages). But no, I'm not surprised that there's opposition to the idea of a major re-format, even with 2-3 months to prepare.

I can say that with 10 teams, the expectation is that a superflex effectively would be a 2QB league. I just prefer it to 2QB since it at least offers options (albeit bad options) if a team is completely stuck. Going deeper into the weeds, I think some roster maxes for the position might be warranted to ensure that teams don't get stuck because of teams hording 5QBs. But otherwise, my expectation is that QB would become very important (somewhat commensurate with NFL football). Instead of drafting the QB1 in the middle of round 3, I would assume that 10 would be off the board by the conclusion of round 2.

Personally, I'm okay with fantasy QB being the most important position. We never made the switch from 4 points per passing TD to 6, or point per 25 yds to 20 yds, so it's not like QB1 and QB2 would be the only positions that matter.

In a 12-team league, I think tweaks to the scoring system to make the best bench WR/RB options competitive with the QB2 is important, since there are definitely going to be times where a team doesn't have a 2nd QB to play. Not ideal to be an automatic 5-7 point disadvantage coming in to the week just because one of your QBs is on bye.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I would attempt to replace 2 owners & get back to 12 teams, for one.

Then I would suggest proposing SF, and letting the 12 owners collectively agree to it or not. If you don’t have consensus, no amount of convincing will help - you’ll risk ticking off more existing members & see the league shrink further.

Getting everyone on the same page will result in a more enthusiastic league overall. And injecting new blood can often be inspirational to existing league members so it doesn’t have that dying league feeling. New members, new trade opportunities, etc.

 

[Big Nate]

First off I agree that trying to do something to spice things up is a good idea. Having said that I think you need buy-in from the league managers as they are the ones playing and need to enjoy it. Is there a chance to have a meeting to discuss? Or send a message like you wrote above explaining about possible changes you are proposing.

In a 10 team league I would look to have at minimum 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 2Flex, 1TE (DST/K up to you). But that will mean a lot of good players still on benches. Adding a SF spot to those starters would be great or even 1 more WR spot. You can definitely have more starters which makes it more interesting in my mind and having more flexibility with roster construction.

Put your thoughts out to the league and have an opportunity for discussion. Put it to a vote. Even if it doesn't pass this year give people a chance to think about throughout the season and revisit it next year. Another thing is, if it passes this year you can say you will revisit it next year and have another vote to keep it. See if people liked it or not.

EDIT - I would also (as mentioned above) see about getting it back to 12 teams at some point.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I would attempt to replace 2 owners & get back to 12 teams, for one.

This is going off on a bit of a commissioner tangent unrelated to the topic, but since you mention it....

It feels like just getting replacements for fantasy football has become a lot easier said than done. I have previously made it clear to our league that we needed people, let me know if you have friends or family, etc. Complete crickets. I used to get people's girlfriends interested in fielding a team, friends, etc. It has been crickets for years. I have another lifer in this league that does about a dozen dynasty leagues and now seems to feel that a full re-draft league is far inferior, even though this is his only one. Personally, I play both and think they compliment each other well. Despite the popularity of fantasy football, it kind of feels like it's becoming an old man's hobby. Or at least this version of a re-draft league sure does.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

No, definitely won't be forcing this upon the league. Currently reaching out individually and seeing if there's enough interest to justify putting it to a vote.

At this point, I'm kind of thinking that there won't be enough superflex support. For a league based in MN, choosing the old way of doing things over a superlex format that would actually make players like McCarthy/Darnold, Cousins, Purdy (we have a 49ers fan), and all of the rookie QBs relevant is just beyond comprehension to me.

Enough so, that it has me questioning why I'm fighting to keep a stale league going. 10 teams is aspirational right now, it's not the reality. I have 8 locked away. The guy who only likes dynasty and kicked out the dude leaving this year in said dynasty, said that he's a maybe. Hence, just getting to 10 might require bringing back the two guys that couldn't handle an auction last season.

 

[RenegadeRoy]

I'm a big proponent of Superflex but it needs to be massaged to fit league scoring as other users have mentioned. Whether that's decreasing passing TDs or increasing other positional scoring, it's just a fact of balance. Each league is going to pursue that balance in different ways. I like the benefit of the QB position being a viable trade asset as opposed to a throwaway position outside of the top 5ish QBs.

That all being said, I think superflex works better at 12+ than it does at 10-. It becomes a balance of taking two top QBs over some of the traditional non-superflex options. With less teams there's a good amount of "reasonable" QB starters to go around so you can usually start 2 and bench 1. 12 and up, you might find yourself slotting an RB or WR in that superflex spot in more dire times.

I think your inability to find players is due to several factors: the newness of fantasy football has worn off so people who were curious about it have either tried it and bounced off or tried it and are in full force. Those that are in are typically in the league(s) they want to be in. Conversely a lot of old timers who started in the 90s-00s (like myself) or even the newspaper days have been paring back in recent years as it's just become too much of a time sink. So while I used to be in 3-5+ leagues per a year, I've dropped a few extra leagues (like work, ones where I was a fill in, etc), and other leagues have just shuttered due to apathy.

I think your main goal at this point is manager acquisition. If changing to superflex entices more managers to your league, that might be the way to go.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

That all being said, I think superflex works better at 12+ than it does at 10-. It becomes a balance of taking two top QBs over some of the traditional non-superflex options. With less teams there's a good amount of "reasonable" QB starters to go around so you can usually start 2 and bench 1. 12 and up, you might find yourself slotting an RB or WR in that superflex spot in more dire times.

Fair to say that Superflex is probably more essential to a 12-team league, as opposed to a 2QB alternative.

In 10 team, I would think there's just less distinction. Your 10-team superflex is almost always a 2QB league, short of a double bye week, greatly impaired QB scoring, or atrocious QB play. You just have the flexibility not to go 2QB in the unlikely event that you're stuck.

Consequently, the need to balance scoring between the QB and RB/WR/te superflex is probably more important in a 12-team SF league and less important in a 10-team SF, since most teams are generally always going to have 2 to start.

Still, there are rare instances where a non-QB is used in 10-team SF. Rather than worrying about leveling off scoring between QB25, RB25, and WR35, I'm thinking it might be less painful to limit teams to no more than 3QBs on roster, not counting QBs on the same NFL team or on IR. That does create an enforcement consideration, which of course, would be used by those opposed to SF.

 

[Gally]

Consequently, the need to balance scoring between the QB and RB/WR/te superflex is probably more important in a 12-team SF league and less important in a 10-team SF, since most teams are generally always going to have 2 to start.

It's important no matter what size league. The beauty of SF is it let's owners build teams in different ways. If you don't balance the scoring it defeats the purpose of SF and turns it into a 2 QB league. You may think that is fine for a 10 team league but you end up defeating the SF team building benefit.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

Consequently, the need to balance scoring between the QB and RB/WR/te superflex is probably more important in a 12-team SF league and less important in a 10-team SF, since most teams are generally always going to have 2 to start.

It's important no matter what size league. The beauty of SF is it let's owners build teams in different ways. If you don't balance the scoring it defeats the purpose of SF and turns it into a 2 QB league. You may think that is fine for a 10 team league but you end up defeating the SF team building benefit.

It's a fair point, and I think everything you mention here is extremely applicable to a 12-team where you NEED to have the QB-RB-WR-te SF decisions somewhat interchangeable.

I will concede that a real weekly lineup decision at the SF is going to provide much more utility and enjoyment to any 12-team league that has made a point of building up RB/WR/TE-premium scoring to the extent that there's a real weekly decision to be made.

I respect that you certainly could go just a little bit further with those tweaks and bring a comparable scoring system to a 10-team SF that would generate those same interchangeable weekly decisions. I just happen think it would do more harm than good in practice. Or that is to say, it's largely a matter of taste.

The extensive overhaul that would be required in my league's scoring would most likely spark more objections than the actual idea of superflex in the first place. I also think that you're ignoring perhaps the most important benefit of a superflex, which would still serve a 10-team SF even when it's obvious that playing 2QBs weekly is ideal. There's still a lot of strategy in how you prioritize your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd QB in the draft relative to the other positions.


Let's put it this way. Derek Carr was the QB27. Maybe that makes him the 23rd best QB in a given week, factoring out starter-backup combos that finished ahead of him. If that's your 2nd QB, it's fair to say that you punted big time on your QB2 in a 10-team SF. Despite that, he still had a 15.6 point average using fairly conventional scoring. Using fairly conventional scoring in a .5 PPR, a reasonably solid superflex option in the RB#27 or WR#35 range averaged slightly better than 10 points per game. In order to begin to level off the positional disparity, I would have to start with converting from half PPR to a full PPR (horrendous, in my humble opinion). But that wouldn't even do it. I would probably have to do some kind of combo of 1st down scoring and/or larger penalties for QB interceptions beyond that (or less yardage & td points). So while it could be done, none of these new scoring mechanics would be welcomed by the league. Just not worth it when there's nothing wrong with having the top 20ish QBs start, and all other NFL starters serving as bench depth.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

My long-time redraft (12 teams) switched to a modified SF about 20 years ago. I was commish at the time. What I did was take the previous 3 years' stats and kept tweaking the scoring until I got something like balance. For QBs, we decided on 4 pt passing TDs (with distance bonuses - the other spots have distance bonuses, too) and 1 pt per 30 yards passing. That damped their scoring down enough that starting 2 QBs wasn't automatic (I'd say that, on any given week 1/2 to 2/3 of the teams would start 2). We also gave PPR to WRs/TEs. It worked really well for several years.

I think it needs some further tweaking now, but I'm no longer the commissioner and this league is slow to change (it took me 3 years of lobbying back then to get us off of the "RBs are everything" mindset that used to rule FF). The NFL has changed. Nowadays, RBs are devalued in this league - CMC finished 4th in scoring, but the next RB was 18th and everyone else in that top group was either a QB or WR.

 

[markrc99]

"I polled one of my better friends in the league the other day. He's opposed to superflex, providing no elaboration for his rationale. I think ... He doesn't want to scheme for a fantasy draft where the position actually matters and is drafted early and often."

I'm someone who really enjoys the draft aspect of FF & prefers a format where a wide variety of strategies can succeed. As noted, anytime you have to start two QBs, you need at least three & depth at the position is negligible. Oh, I understand the 2nd QB is a flex "option".... mm, not to me, it's only an option for teams that don't have the league-winning depth. I think guys like Jayden Daniels would coming off your board a lot sooner than you'd otherwise expect. It's similar to leagues that are full-pt ppr with a 3-WR lock. The surest way to the gold is pretty much determined due to the starting lineup.

With respect to management, the shmuck that left & took his clones with him, your league just got a lot better! Adding is easy, go .. anywhere and open an account, @nfl.com that might take all of one minute. Choose to create a league & list it the custom league directory. Make sure everyone has to apply, that way you catch the bots at the door. They'll still apply, but they never leave a message in the comment box. Nor will they reply to an email. They're easy to vet if you know what to do. Obviously, the first thing you're telling applicants is that your league is offsite. Now, if it's just the one league, what if a team abandoned mid-season? Back a ways nfl.com would close the custom directory after week 5 or 6, but now it's open later. I tend to keep recruiting even after my leagues are full.

I ask later applicants whether they'd be interested in taking on a team mid-season, but it's not very effective. Better to add early & build a rapport. Next best move for me, I go to my other two leagues and make a pronouncement. I have a dormant team in league B, it sucked from the start, it's a 1-7 team. Help me there & here in league A you're guaranteed to move up & select 1st in round 5 or 6, whichever proves best. You can get this done!