Commissioners, Dynasty, Keeper and Redraft Leagues (1 Viewer)

[ddarroch4]

My league is a pretty cool dynasty/keeper hybrid league. We have a rookie draft where you get to keep the players for 4 years before they hit the free agent auction. Any non rookie can be signed for up to 3 years. I am starting to have problems recruiting new owners. Explaining the veteran contract rules and trying to get a new owner to join the league with at least 2/3rds of the layers already gone seems to be getting pretty hard. The league is 8 years old and I feel losing 1 owner every year and replacing them with a quality rookie owner is pretty normal and even healthy for the league. I'm thinking about blowing up our entire keeper system to make sure the league is attractive to rookie owners. Half the owners live in Southern California and the other half in Northern California and half the league needs to travel to the draft every year. Draft day is the most important day for the league and I want to keep it as fun as possible. Any ideas? How do you keep draft day awesome and attract new owners with dynasty rules? Should I just blow up all keepers to keep draft day and new owners as excited as possible?

 

[Pickle Rody]

Why would you want to attract new owners for the sole purpose of having annual turnover? What is the point of having a dynasty/keeper league if you want annual owner turnover? If you actually want that, simply start a re-draft league.

Now, if you actually have annual owner turnover for different reasons, I'd question the reasons behind such turnover. Is it league related, or is it location of participants? Or is it something else entirely?

Absolutely NONE of the participants in my keeper league (live draft and awards meetings) would go for tossing their prized keepers back into the pool just to appease a turnover of ownership of a couple of teams.

I handle owner turnover with a Waiting List. I currently have 2 guys sitting on the list. They know what is in store for them should an opening arise. They will get first dibs on the owner-less franchise. If they choose to not accept, it gets offered to the next guy on the list, and so on. If nobody on the list accepts, I go searching.

We started with 8 teams in year one and expanded to 10 teams in year 2, and then 12 total teams in year 3. Holding steady at 12 since then. Of the original 8 owners, 6 still remain. We've had a waiting list ever since, and while turnover has occurred, we haven't had any trouble finding somebody to take over those teams. Also, during the expansion years we did not toss keepers back into the pool......the new expansion teams got first dibs to create their keeper squad from the player pool prior to the next draft. Not a single one of these expansion owners ever complained, and at least one of them has won our championship - the same year he joined as an expansion team.

I hope this helps.

 

[ddarroch4]

Why would you want to attract new owners for the sole purpose of having annual turnover? What is the point of having a dynasty/keeper league if you want annual owner turnover? If you actually want that, simply start a re-draft league.Now, if you actually have annual owner turnover for different reasons, I'd question the reasons behind such turnover. Is it league related, or is it location of participants? Or is it something else entirely? Absolutely NONE of the participants in my keeper league (live draft and awards meetings) would go for tossing their prized keepers back into the pool just to appease a turnover of ownership of a couple of teams. I handle owner turnover with a Waiting List. I currently have 2 guys sitting on the list. They know what is in store for them should an opening arise. They will get first dibs on the owner-less franchise. If they choose to not accept, it gets offered to the next guy on the list, and so on. If nobody on the list accepts, I go searching. We started with 8 teams in year one and expanded to 10 teams in year 2, and then 12 total teams in year 3. Holding steady at 12 since then. Of the original 8 owners, 6 still remain. We've had a waiting list ever since, and while turnover has occurred, we haven't had any trouble finding somebody to take over those teams. Also, during the expansion years we did not toss keepers back into the pool......the new expansion teams got first dibs to create their keeper squad from the player pool prior to the next draft. Not a single one of these expansion owners ever complained, and at least one of them has won our championship - the same year he joined as an expansion team.I hope this helps.

I'm not looking for turnover. I think commissioners can expect to lose on average 1 owner per year. My question is what is the best type of league to have if you want to attract great new owners?

 

[Pickle Rody]

I'm not looking for turnover. I think commissioners can expect to lose on average 1 owner per year. My question is what is the best type of league to have if you want to attract great new owners?

Maybe I misinterpreted your OP. Let me ask you this. Why should commissioners of dynasty/keeper leagues expect to lose on average 1 owner per year? Isn't the goal of these types of leagues to establish a solid group of guys/gals who right from the outset want to stay involved over an extended period of time? Hence the dynasty/keeper league setup?If you expect to lose at least one owner on average annually, why even set up a dynasty/keeper league as those types of leagues are geared towards owner commitment for the future?The best type of league to have if you really do expect annual turnover is to just have a re-draft league.I couldn't imagine starting a dynasty/keeper league with expectations of annual turnover......that's not the goal, nor the expectation, of that type of league.If you want to attract great new owners, have a solid league with a solid commissioner, solid owners and a solid set of bylaws. It doesn't matter what type of league it is. Don't pull wishy-washy crap and stay true to your league's bylaws. If the league is solid, with lots of solid owners, you will attract new owners easily when the time arises. I have a very solid league with very solid owners that others folks would love to get into but can't yet, thus the waiting list.

 

[coolnerd]

The places in order of preference

1) players who have expressed interest i.e. a list of candidates

2) players I know from other leagues

3) players who are recommended by existing league memembers (I could flip 2 and 3)

4) players post that they are inerested in your type of dynasty league on FBGs and "other" forums

5) post on footbalguys looking for leagues.

I think being prepared to have to replace one or two a year is not a bad thing although your goal is not to have any. I am in a dozen plus leagues and think that the one per year per league is about right. This means some years 1 league will get hot with three, while another will go three years with no turnover.

I would not change the rules just to make recruiting easier. Your group has agreed to these rules for awhile because you like thema nd find them challenging. I would not want to lower that aspect if at all possible.

 

[ddarroch4]

The places in order of preference1) players who have expressed interest i.e. a list of candidates2) players I know from other leagues3) players who are recommended by existing league memembers (I could flip 2 and 3)4) players post that they are inerested in your type of dynasty league on FBGs and "other" forums5) post on footbalguys looking for leagues.I think being prepared to have to replace one or two a year is not a bad thing although your goal is not to have any. I am in a dozen plus leagues and think that the one per year per league is about right. This means some years 1 league will get hot with three, while another will go three years with no turnover.I would not change the rules just to make recruiting easier. Your group has agreed to these rules for awhile because you like thema nd find them challenging. I would not want to lower that aspect if at all possible.

Ya I don't have any problems finding new owners. It's just with experience I have found on average 1 owner dropping out per year. I appreciate the advice. So do you think new owners just have to accept they are going to be at a disadvantage? I'm leaning towards keeping the rookie draft but getting rid of the veteran contracts. Everyone loves the rookie draft but I get the feeling that even some of the owners in the league don't really understand the veteran contracts.

 

[coolnerd]

The places in order of preference1) players who have expressed interest i.e. a list of candidates2) players I know from other leagues3) players who are recommended by existing league memembers (I could flip 2 and 3)4) players post that they are inerested in your type of dynasty league on FBGs and "other" forums5) post on footbalguys looking for leagues.I think being prepared to have to replace one or two a year is not a bad thing although your goal is not to have any. I am in a dozen plus leagues and think that the one per year per league is about right. This means some years 1 league will get hot with three, while another will go three years with no turnover.I would not change the rules just to make recruiting easier. Your group has agreed to these rules for awhile because you like thema nd find them challenging. I would not want to lower that aspect if at all possible.

Ya I don't have any problems finding new owners. It's just with experience I have found on average 1 owner dropping out per year. I appreciate the advice. So do you think new owners just have to accept they are going to be at a disadvantage? I'm leaning towards keeping the rookie draft but getting rid of the veteran contracts. Everyone loves the rookie draft but I get the feeling that even some of the owners in the league don't really understand the veteran contracts.

With what you have posted here, I personally don't see it as a real disadvantage. Many time s when you are taking over a team all you have is the rookie draft and whatever you were left on the roster. Seems like you are getting more (a chance at some veterans) , but maybe i am misreading.

 

[ddarroch4]

The places in order of preference1) players who have expressed interest i.e. a list of candidates2) players I know from other leagues3) players who are recommended by existing league memembers (I could flip 2 and 3)4) players post that they are inerested in your type of dynasty league on FBGs and "other" forums5) post on footbalguys looking for leagues.I think being prepared to have to replace one or two a year is not a bad thing although your goal is not to have any. I am in a dozen plus leagues and think that the one per year per league is about right. This means some years 1 league will get hot with three, while another will go three years with no turnover.I would not change the rules just to make recruiting easier. Your group has agreed to these rules for awhile because you like thema nd find them challenging. I would not want to lower that aspect if at all possible.

Ya I don't have any problems finding new owners. It's just with experience I have found on average 1 owner dropping out per year. I appreciate the advice. So do you think new owners just have to accept they are going to be at a disadvantage? I'm leaning towards keeping the rookie draft but getting rid of the veteran contracts. Everyone loves the rookie draft but I get the feeling that even some of the owners in the league don't really understand the veteran contracts.

With what you have posted here, I personally don't see it as a real disadvantage. Many time s when you are taking over a team all you have is the rookie draft and whatever you were left on the roster. Seems like you are getting more (a chance at some veterans) , but maybe i am misreading.

Cool, thanks for the advice. Managing friends is not easy, it's nice to have some peers for commissioner advice.

 

[anakin]

There is some good advice here. As a commish myself who has gone thru the gambit with owners not paying, leaving for money reasons, too many leagues,or just stinking up the joint in terms of dynasty management, finding a fit with new owners can be difficult. I have taken a lot from Zealots dynasty leagues as they have rules in place for replacement teams. If one or more teams are to be replaced, have a redraft of the abandoned teams. Let the teams coming in raid the free agents. This builds a sense of ownership as they helped create the team instead of taking over for someone else's mistakes.

 

[coolnerd]

The places in order of preference1) players who have expressed interest i.e. a list of candidates2) players I know from other leagues3) players who are recommended by existing league memembers (I could flip 2 and 3)4) players post that they are inerested in your type of dynasty league on FBGs and "other" forums5) post on footbalguys looking for leagues.I think being prepared to have to replace one or two a year is not a bad thing although your goal is not to have any. I am in a dozen plus leagues and think that the one per year per league is about right. This means some years 1 league will get hot with three, while another will go three years with no turnover.I would not change the rules just to make recruiting easier. Your group has agreed to these rules for awhile because you like thema nd find them challenging. I would not want to lower that aspect if at all possible.

Ya I don't have any problems finding new owners. It's just with experience I have found on average 1 owner dropping out per year. I appreciate the advice. So do you think new owners just have to accept they are going to be at a disadvantage? I'm leaning towards keeping the rookie draft but getting rid of the veteran contracts. Everyone loves the rookie draft but I get the feeling that even some of the owners in the league don't really understand the veteran contracts.

With what you have posted here, I personally don't see it as a real disadvantage. Many time s when you are taking over a team all you have is the rookie draft and whatever you were left on the roster. Seems like you are getting more (a chance at some veterans) , but maybe i am misreading.

Cool, thanks for the advice. Managing friends is not easy, it's nice to have some peers for commissioner advice.

One thing i forgot to ask do the take over teams have trouble competing?

 

[ddarroch4]

The places in order of preference1) players who have expressed interest i.e. a list of candidates2) players I know from other leagues3) players who are recommended by existing league memembers (I could flip 2 and 3)4) players post that they are inerested in your type of dynasty league on FBGs and "other" forums5) post on footbalguys looking for leagues.I think being prepared to have to replace one or two a year is not a bad thing although your goal is not to have any. I am in a dozen plus leagues and think that the one per year per league is about right. This means some years 1 league will get hot with three, while another will go three years with no turnover.I would not change the rules just to make recruiting easier. Your group has agreed to these rules for awhile because you like thema nd find them challenging. I would not want to lower that aspect if at all possible.

Ya I don't have any problems finding new owners. It's just with experience I have found on average 1 owner dropping out per year. I appreciate the advice. So do you think new owners just have to accept they are going to be at a disadvantage? I'm leaning towards keeping the rookie draft but getting rid of the veteran contracts. Everyone loves the rookie draft but I get the feeling that even some of the owners in the league don't really understand the veteran contracts.

With what you have posted here, I personally don't see it as a real disadvantage. Many time s when you are taking over a team all you have is the rookie draft and whatever you were left on the roster. Seems like you are getting more (a chance at some veterans) , but maybe i am misreading.

Cool, thanks for the advice. Managing friends is not easy, it's nice to have some peers for commissioner advice.

One thing i forgot to ask do the take over teams have trouble competing?

I try and set up the rules as fair as possible for the new owners but I always get a lot of resistance from the returning owners. Before we had the veteran contracts new owners could grab 2 players from every rookie draft they missed. This worked out well because usually sleepers from every class pop up that went un-drafted. For example 4 years ago we had 3 new owners and they got Jay Cutler, Marques Colston and Reggie Bush (from a team that dropped out). All 3 teams have been competitive from the beginning. I felt like our new owner last year was completely lost. I gave the new owner any expansion pick player for $1 (Steven Jackson) to try and keep them competitive but it didn't really work out. I think the veteran contract rules are what have made the league too intimidating for a new owner. I'm trying to decide if it would be better to give new teams a 2nd "expansion pick" (probably Randy Moss or DeAngelo Williams) or just go back to just a rookie draft without veteran contracts.