What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

2008 BZ Dynasty A (Startup)...FILLED (1 Viewer)

Zowned

Footballguy
Hi, I currently commish 4 dynasty leagues (1 is finishing it's 3rd season with just 1 team turned over in 3 years). Leagues consist of primarily FBG members so the leagues are competitive.

MFL Site

League Constitution

BruceZone Fantasy Football

Scoring System

25-man rosters, 12-teams, 4 divisions...start 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 2 RB/WR/TE, 1 K, 1 DEF

Entry Fee: $125, $100 for this season, $25 deposit towards the following season

$100 entry fee

League Champion: 40.0% ($440.00)

2nd Place: 20.0% ($220.00)

3rd Place: 12.5% ($137.50)

4th Place: 7.5% ($82.50)

5th Place: 5.0% ($55.00)

6th Place: 2.5% ($27.50)

Total Points Winner 16 Weeks: 10.0% ($110.00)

Highest Regular Season (13 Weeks) Efficiency Rating: 2.5% ($27.50)

The draft will begin one week after the last owner has paid. I accept check/MO, PayPal

Dynasty League A - Filled

Dynasty League B - Now taking teams

1. Mordikai

2. Goodyear Pimps

3.

4.

5.

6.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zowned

Footballguy
interested..only question us rules say 4 divisions but website set up for 3...thanks
Was decided the other night to go with 3 divisions. MFL does not have a packaged schedule for 4 divisions so I set it to 3. There are no division winner prizes so it's not too big of a change.
 

Heep

Footballguy
I want in. I just joined these forums over here from thehuddle.com because they didn't have hardly any leagues in their Find A League and Im really looking for a dynasty league. Let me know what I need to do to get in. This is my 7th year in FF.

 

Zowned

Footballguy
I want in. I just joined these forums over here from thehuddle.com because they didn't have hardly any leagues in their Find A League and Im really looking for a dynasty league. Let me know what I need to do to get in. This is my 7th year in FF.
Leaving for work now, will reply when I get home. I have 2 e-mails of owners wanting in so that puts us at 7-8 owners, 9 if clifton is in.
 

renesauz

IBL Representative
I like the overall setup/rules, but have some issue with one area.

The set-in-stone requirements about a starting lineup's legitimacy.

Example #1: Few would carry more then 2 TE's. Your TE1 is on a bye, your TE2 is hurt. None of the waiver wire TE's are average better then 2 points. Should a team be FORCED to make a move? Ummmm...no. I'd rather keep the developing guys on my bench then drop a potential future stud to pick up one point unlikely to make a difference anyway.

Example #2: It's week 10, and your team is 3-6. Again, you like the young talent on the squad, but your QB is hurt, and your other is on a bye. Sure, there's a third, but he's a handcuff to your bye week guy. With the playoffs a non-factor, it is a very viable strategy to suck up the zero (or start the fourth Qb who is a third string rookie) instead of dumping young talent off the bench just to fulfill the lineup.

The rule needs adjusting. I agree with the basic premise (no throwing games on purpose), but there are legitimate times to take a zero, and the rules should not prevent that possibility.

 

jwb

Footballguy
The rule needs adjusting. I agree with the basic premise (no throwing games on purpose), but there are legitimate times to take a zero, and the rules should not prevent that possibility.
Gotta disagree - this sets up a premise where, say if you are 3-6, and your QB gets hurt, and then your B/U gets hurt (it's happened to me) that you won't replace them and ride out the rest of the year with zeroes. I understand the spirit of what you are proposing, but it's just way too easy to exploit into tanking. You could feasibly take tons of prospect RB's and ignore eveything beyond one TE, and, if not contending, claim you don't want to drop any talent. Truthfully, with 25-man rosters, there should not be a problem dropping one guy to field a valid lineup. I personally don't think an intentional zero is ever acceptable.
 

Zowned

Footballguy
The rule needs adjusting. I agree with the basic premise (no throwing games on purpose), but there are legitimate times to take a zero, and the rules should not prevent that possibility.
Gotta disagree - this sets up a premise where, say if you are 3-6, and your QB gets hurt, and then your B/U gets hurt (it's happened to me) that you won't replace them and ride out the rest of the year with zeroes. I understand the spirit of what you are proposing, but it's just way too easy to exploit into tanking. You could feasibly take tons of prospect RB's and ignore eveything beyond one TE, and, if not contending, claim you don't want to drop any talent. Truthfully, with 25-man rosters, there should not be a problem dropping one guy to field a valid lineup. I personally don't think an intentional zero is ever acceptable.
Bingo.
 

Zowned

Footballguy
Currently at 9-10 owners. 2-3 spots still open. Draft will start in approximately 2 weeks (1 week after I receive final payment and randomize the draft order.)

 

renesauz

IBL Representative
The rule needs adjusting. I agree with the basic premise (no throwing games on purpose), but there are legitimate times to take a zero, and the rules should not prevent that possibility.
Gotta disagree - this sets up a premise where, say if you are 3-6, and your QB gets hurt, and then your B/U gets hurt (it's happened to me) that you won't replace them and ride out the rest of the year with zeroes. I understand the spirit of what you are proposing, but it's just way too easy to exploit into tanking. You could feasibly take tons of prospect RB's and ignore eveything beyond one TE, and, if not contending, claim you don't want to drop any talent. Truthfully, with 25-man rosters, there should not be a problem dropping one guy to field a valid lineup. I personally don't think an intentional zero is ever acceptable.
OK...I really do understand where you're coming from, and agree with the general premise, but not the conclusion. My TE example most clearly demonstrates what I mean. What you explain is tanking...plain and simple. I would HOPE that most folks (IE: Commissioners) could differentiate well enough between the two that they would not need such a hard fast rule that can limit real strategy. My second example was more extreme, but are you saying it's OK to start a QB who's (known to be) on his NFL teams bench? What if every starter is taken, and the injury replacement is snagged on waiver ahead of you? No rules should ever require a trade either.

Not arguing with the spirit of the rules my friends. Far from it! Every league needs an anti-tanking rule. I am just pointing out that tanking is not so simple a concept that it can be specifically defined in a lineup requirement.

By this set of rules, I could start Tony Hunt instead of LaDainian Tomlinson, and not be "tanking". Why? Because you've written into the rules a narrow scope of what defines it, and the end result is to leave the league MORE vulnerable, not less. I'm simply suggesting that the rules should be left vague enough to give the commish the latitiude he needs to protect the leagues integrity without un-necessarily limiting a valid (NOT tanking) strategy by an owner.

All that said...I am interested in this league :popcorn:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top