Downsizing a league (1 Viewer)

[TLEF316]

I'm in what was a 12 team keeper league. It has been running for about 6 years. Each team keeps 5 guys, 1 of which must be a rookie. Then we draft the non-keepers and incoming rookies in a serpantine draft in reverse order of the previous year's finish (league champ gets pick's 12 and 13)

This year, it appears that 2 owners are not coming back, and the commish has proposed the idea of downsizing to ten teams. As the owner of the 4th pick, i was initially happy, as that means i'll be able to draft a pretty darn good player with my first pick (portis, ocho cinco, fitz, maroney, Andre Johnson plus others are on the teams that we would be losing). However, after thinking about it for a while, i'm not sure just dumping the players into the pool is all that great an idea. Although the bad teams (like mine) would be getting a stud, this just means that the elite rookies, which would have been the first few picks, just slide right on down to the bottom of the first round, where the 2 or 3 absolutly loaded teams get to scoop them up.

Is there any other solution? At this point, I think I'd prefer just starting over from scratch if we cant find 2 owners. Yeah, I might be able to get Portis, but how much good does that do when all it means is the league champ is re-loading with the likes of McFadden or Mendenhall (Hell, there is a chance they could get both if some of the teams in the bottom of the first have un-kept veterans that they like on the board)

I guess I'm just worried that this development could make the league totally unbalanced for the next decade.

Just for reference, my likely keepers are McGahee, Steve Smith, Kellen Winslow, Selvin Young (rookie) and one of Earnest Graham or DeAngelo Williams. (PPR league, so graham was huge last year) the top 3 or 4 teams have keepers that are substantially better than mine.

 

[mdog1967]

I'm in what was a 12 team keeper league. It has been running for about 6 years. Each team keeps 5 guys, 1 of which must be a rookie. Then we draft the non-keepers and incoming rookies in a serpantine draft in reverse order of the previous year's finish (league champ gets pick's 12 and 13)This year, it appears that 2 owners are not coming back, and the commish has proposed the idea of downsizing to ten teams. As the owner of the 4th pick, i was initially happy, as that means i'll be able to draft a pretty darn good player with my first pick (portis, ocho cinco, fitz, maroney, Andre Johnson plus others are on the teams that we would be losing). However, after thinking about it for a while, i'm not sure just dumping the players into the pool is all that great an idea. Although the bad teams (like mine) would be getting a stud, this just means that the elite rookies, which would have been the first few picks, just slide right on down to the bottom of the first round, where the 2 or 3 absolutly loaded teams get to scoop them up.Is there any other solution? At this point, I think I'd prefer just starting over from scratch if we cant find 2 owners. Yeah, I might be able to get Portis, but how much good does that do when all it means is the league champ is re-loading with the likes of McFadden or Mendenhall (Hell, there is a chance they could get both if some of the teams in the bottom of the first have un-kept veterans that they like on the board)I guess I'm just worried that this development could make the league totally unbalanced for the next decade. Just for reference, my likely keepers are McGahee, Steve Smith, Kellen Winslow, Selvin Young (rookie) and one of Earnest Graham or DeAngelo Williams. (PPR league, so graham was huge last year) the top 3 or 4 teams have keepers that are substantially better than mine.

I always look at 12 team leagues as the minimum size. I wouldn't play in anything smaller. Most of the leagues I play in are 16 team.

 

[TLEF316]

I'm in what was a 12 team keeper league. It has been running for about 6 years. Each team keeps 5 guys, 1 of which must be a rookie. Then we draft the non-keepers and incoming rookies in a serpantine draft in reverse order of the previous year's finish (league champ gets pick's 12 and 13)This year, it appears that 2 owners are not coming back, and the commish has proposed the idea of downsizing to ten teams. As the owner of the 4th pick, i was initially happy, as that means i'll be able to draft a pretty darn good player with my first pick (portis, ocho cinco, fitz, maroney, Andre Johnson plus others are on the teams that we would be losing). However, after thinking about it for a while, i'm not sure just dumping the players into the pool is all that great an idea. Although the bad teams (like mine) would be getting a stud, this just means that the elite rookies, which would have been the first few picks, just slide right on down to the bottom of the first round, where the 2 or 3 absolutly loaded teams get to scoop them up.Is there any other solution? At this point, I think I'd prefer just starting over from scratch if we cant find 2 owners. Yeah, I might be able to get Portis, but how much good does that do when all it means is the league champ is re-loading with the likes of McFadden or Mendenhall (Hell, there is a chance they could get both if some of the teams in the bottom of the first have un-kept veterans that they like on the board)I guess I'm just worried that this development could make the league totally unbalanced for the next decade. Just for reference, my likely keepers are McGahee, Steve Smith, Kellen Winslow, Selvin Young (rookie) and one of Earnest Graham or DeAngelo Williams. (PPR league, so graham was huge last year) the top 3 or 4 teams have keepers that are substantially better than mine.

I always look at 12 team leagues as the minimum size. I wouldn't play in anything smaller. Most of the leagues I play in are 16 team.

I've never played in anything bigger than a 12, so for me, it's kinda the perfect number. our league starts QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF and 2 WR/RB. Those 2 flex spots make it a little deeper, so every team isn't always running a team full of studs out there. I would try a 14 team league, but would never go 16, especially if it was wtih 3 starting WR's. i guess i'm just not that hardcore.

 

[jeter23]

I think the best option would be to find 2 replacement owners. If this is a local league, that could certainly be tough. I would consider this a last resort since I agree with you, it would throw off the balance of the league.

 

[TLEF316]

I think the best option would be to find 2 replacement owners. If this is a local league, that could certainly be tough. I would consider this a last resort since I agree with you, it would throw off the balance of the league.

i agree. i think we need 2 more. It's actually an internet league that got started with members from a fantasy baseball site. I'm thinking of asking my brother to play. I just really think we need two more. I just wanted to see if anyone else had any other better options for re-distributing the players.One thing i thought about was ditching the serpantine and going straight draft (at least for the first few rounds). However, we'd have to draft ofline then as the league runs on yahoo.

 

[Portis 26]

10 teams is too few. Too many good players to go around. And way too fiddly to reduce the size of the league. Just get two replacement owners.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I don't think there is a problem. The guys at the top still get a choice - if you think the rookies are worth drafting, take them instead.

The other thing is that when going to a 10 team league, the players aren't as valuable as they were in a 12 team league. There are 10 less players kept and almost all of the rookies will not even be used this year or kept next year.

 

[Mjolnirs]

If the league is committed to reducing I would suggest cutting down on the number of keepers for this draft.

Reduce the keepers from 5 to 3 and that frees up 20 extra quality players to throw into the draft (assuming all keepers are quality.) This way the "good" teams have to cut some of their good players and it increases the chances of the "lesser" teams evening the odds.

 

[TLEF316]

I don't think there is a problem. The guys at the top still get a choice - if you think the rookies are worth drafting, take them instead. The other thing is that when going to a 10 team league, the players aren't as valuable as they were in a 12 team league. There are 10 less players kept and almost all of the rookies will not even be used this year or kept next year.

i agree that we'll be able to get the best players for next year. However, as mentioned, we HAVE to keep 1 rookie. So if you have the 4th pick (like i do) do you take McFadden (and have one of the few starting caliber rookie keepers for next year) but let a stud drop to a loaded league champ.....or, do you take the stud to compete this year and let that rookie fall to the elite teams. Either way, the contenders make up like absolute bandits, especially since they get to pick before me again on the way back. With all these players going back into the pool, the elite teams benefit more IMO, because they get two of the top 15 picks, while i only get 1. I've always thought this was a lousy way to draft, but all this extra talent being dumped into the pool makes it even worse.edit: and just to clarify, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm just looking out for myself. I've been on both sides in this league, and I've seen a handful of owners quit because their teams could just never compete (partially our system and partially because they were lousy at fantasy) out baseball league, which i loved, has already died for similar reasons.

 

[jeter23]

If the league is committed to reducing I would suggest cutting down on the number of keepers for this draft.Reduce the keepers from 5 to 3 and that frees up 20 extra quality players to throw into the draft (assuming all keepers are quality.) This way the "good" teams have to cut some of their good players and it increases the chances of the "lesser" teams evening the odds.

Did not occur to me, but cutting the keepers makes a lot of sense as an alternative if they can not find 2 guys.

 

[TLEF316]

If the league is committed to reducing I would suggest cutting down on the number of keepers for this draft.Reduce the keepers from 5 to 3 and that frees up 20 extra quality players to throw into the draft (assuming all keepers are quality.) This way the "good" teams have to cut some of their good players and it increases the chances of the "lesser" teams evening the odds.

Did not occur to me, but cutting the keepers makes a lot of sense as an alternative if they can not find 2 guys.

the only issue with this is that people really like the idea of the rookie keeper, and only keeping 3 would probably eliminate that for this year. Plus, there have been off season trades made for the sole purpose of getting the rookies.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I don't think there is a problem. The guys at the top still get a choice - if you think the rookies are worth drafting, take them instead. The other thing is that when going to a 10 team league, the players aren't as valuable as they were in a 12 team league. There are 10 less players kept and almost all of the rookies will not even be used this year or kept next year.

i agree that we'll be able to get the best players for next year. However, as mentioned, we HAVE to keep 1 rookie. So if you have the 4th pick (like i do) do you take McFadden (and have one of the few starting caliber rookie keepers for next year) but let a stud drop to a loaded league champ.....or, do you take the stud to compete this year and let that rookie fall to the elite teams. Either way, the contenders make up like absolute bandits, especially since they get to pick before me again on the way back. With all these players going back into the pool, the elite teams benefit more IMO, because they get two of the top 15 picks, while i only get 1. I've always thought this was a lousy way to draft, but all this extra talent being dumped into the pool makes it even worse.edit: and just to clarify, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm just looking out for myself. I've been on both sides in this league, and I've seen a handful of owners quit because their teams could just never compete (partially our system and partially because they were lousy at fantasy) out baseball league, which i loved, has already died for similar reasons.

Honestly, the difference between what you're getting and what they're getting is huge. You're getting a legitimate 1st or 2nd round guy (in a startup) and they're getting a rookie and a 5th round guy. I'd trade a rookie and a 5th round pick for 1st round talent any day of the week. In fact, if I were one of the teams at the bottom of the draft, I'd be complaining about it killing the balance. I think you're putting too much value on the rookies. If you weren't forced to keep one each, very few of the ones drafted in the 1st would be kept each year.

 

[TLEF316]

I don't think there is a problem. The guys at the top still get a choice - if you think the rookies are worth drafting, take them instead. The other thing is that when going to a 10 team league, the players aren't as valuable as they were in a 12 team league. There are 10 less players kept and almost all of the rookies will not even be used this year or kept next year.

i agree that we'll be able to get the best players for next year. However, as mentioned, we HAVE to keep 1 rookie. So if you have the 4th pick (like i do) do you take McFadden (and have one of the few starting caliber rookie keepers for next year) but let a stud drop to a loaded league champ.....or, do you take the stud to compete this year and let that rookie fall to the elite teams. Either way, the contenders make up like absolute bandits, especially since they get to pick before me again on the way back. With all these players going back into the pool, the elite teams benefit more IMO, because they get two of the top 15 picks, while i only get 1. I've always thought this was a lousy way to draft, but all this extra talent being dumped into the pool makes it even worse.edit: and just to clarify, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm just looking out for myself. I've been on both sides in this league, and I've seen a handful of owners quit because their teams could just never compete (partially our system and partially because they were lousy at fantasy) out baseball league, which i loved, has already died for similar reasons.

Honestly, the difference between what you're getting and what they're getting is huge. You're getting a legitimate 1st or 2nd round guy (in a startup) and they're getting a rookie and a 5th round guy. I'd trade a rookie and a 5th round pick for 1st round talent any day of the week. In fact, if I were one of the teams at the bottom of the draft, I'd be complaining about it killing the balance. I think you're putting too much value on the rookies. If you weren't forced to keep one each, very few of the ones drafted in the 1st would be kept each year.

Not with two teams (that actually had good keeper options) going back into the pool. There are easily 10 impact type players going into the pool (not counting the rookies) and the later drafting teams are going to get two of them. As far as the rookies being overvalued, i disagree. If you consider the rookies "Free" keepers, one guy is getting ADP while another is keeping Deshawn Wynn. Yeah, he would have kept AD anyway, but with the rookie spot, he gets to keep AD and another top 30-40 player.

 

[ultramattman]

I really don't understand what the issue is here - You have 5 keepers per team, and you're contracting by 2 teams, so that's 10 keepers back in the pool - one for each team. Sounds pretty fair to me. The best keepers will still go to the teams picking first, so what's the problem?

 

[TLEF316]

i dont have the entire list (I'm at work and fantasy sites are blocked) but here are some guys that i know would be in the draft pool if these teams are dropped.

All rookies....

Larry Fitzgerald

Clinton Portis

Andre Johnson

Chad Johnson

Tory Holt

Marion Barber

Eli Manning

plus there are 1 or 2 more guys on a similar level that i cant remember.

As far as i can see, the elite players(if you count the top rookie RB's) will run out just as the league finalists from last year (that are already stacked beyond belief) take their 2nd picks.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I'm in what was a 12 team keeper league. It has been running for about 6 years. Each team keeps 5 guys, 1 of which must be a rookie. Then we draft the non-keepers and incoming rookies in a serpantine draft in reverse order of the previous year's finish (league champ gets pick's 12 and 13)This year, it appears that 2 owners are not coming back, and the commish has proposed the idea of downsizing to ten teams. As the owner of the 4th pick, i was initially happy, as that means i'll be able to draft a pretty darn good player with my first pick (portis, ocho cinco, fitz, maroney, Andre Johnson plus others are on the teams that we would be losing). However, after thinking about it for a while, i'm not sure just dumping the players into the pool is all that great an idea. Although the bad teams (like mine) would be getting a stud, this just means that the elite rookies, which would have been the first few picks, just slide right on down to the bottom of the first round, where the 2 or 3 absolutly loaded teams get to scoop them up.Is there any other solution? At this point, I think I'd prefer just starting over from scratch if we cant find 2 owners. Yeah, I might be able to get Portis, but how much good does that do when all it means is the league champ is re-loading with the likes of McFadden or Mendenhall (Hell, there is a chance they could get both if some of the teams in the bottom of the first have un-kept veterans that they like on the board)I guess I'm just worried that this development could make the league totally unbalanced for the next decade. Just for reference, my likely keepers are McGahee, Steve Smith, Kellen Winslow, Selvin Young (rookie) and one of Earnest Graham or DeAngelo Williams. (PPR league, so graham was huge last year) the top 3 or 4 teams have keepers that are substantially better than mine.

You start the entire league over. You're changing the league and acting like it's the same definately will effect the balance. If all the owners are in agreement to go to 10 teams, you throw everyone back in the pool and redraft.If you can't do that, find 2 more owners to fill the void.

 

[ultramattman]

i dont have the entire list (I'm at work and fantasy sites are blocked) but here are some guys that i know would be in the draft pool if these teams are dropped.All rookies....Larry FitzgeraldClinton PortisAndre JohnsonChad JohnsonTory HoltMarion BarberEli Manningplus there are 1 or 2 more guys on a similar level that i cant remember.As far as i can see, the elite players(if you count the top rookie RB's) will run out just as the league finalists from last year (that are already stacked beyond belief) take their 2nd picks.

There's a pretty broad range within that listing of elite players, with first rounders (Barber, Portis), second rounders (Fitz, AJ) to a midround guy (Eli). In a 10-team league, where studs are absolutely vital, I'd much, MUCH rather have Marion Barber than, say, Matt Forte and Felix Jones. I really think too much is being made of the unbalancing effect here. It's a keeper league, inevitably some teams are going to look stronger than others going into the season.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

There's nothing wrong with a 10-team league. or an eight-team league. or anything else. They aren't any easier; everyone has the same benefit, so it's equal.

It's much, much, MUCH better to have 10 good owners than add two mediocre owners just so you can say you have 12. I don't know where people got this idea that you have to have 12. You have to have dedicated owners who care about the league. It doesn't matter how many there are.

If you can't find two high-caliber owners, don't add them. They'll make the league less fun, not more.

 

[Ozymandias]

I think the best option would be to find 2 replacement owners. If this is a local league, that could certainly be tough. I would consider this a last resort since I agree with you, it would throw off the balance of the league.

i agree. i think we need 2 more. It's actually an internet league that got started with members from a fantasy baseball site. I'm thinking of asking my brother to play. I just really think we need two more. I just wanted to see if anyone else had any other better options for re-distributing the players.One thing i thought about was ditching the serpantine and going straight draft (at least for the first few rounds). However, we'd have to draft ofline then as the league runs on yahoo.

Not so this year. Yahoo has now made it possuble to have a straight draft. If you are the Commish, go to Commish Tools. Then go to Edit Draft Order. You can also assign keepers.

 

[TLEF316]

i dont have the entire list (I'm at work and fantasy sites are blocked) but here are some guys that i know would be in the draft pool if these teams are dropped.All rookies....Larry FitzgeraldClinton PortisAndre JohnsonChad JohnsonTory HoltMarion BarberEli Manningplus there are 1 or 2 more guys on a similar level that i cant remember.As far as i can see, the elite players(if you count the top rookie RB's) will run out just as the league finalists from last year (that are already stacked beyond belief) take their 2nd picks.

There's a pretty broad range within that listing of elite players, with first rounders (Barber, Portis), second rounders (Fitz, AJ) to a midround guy (Eli). In a 10-team league, where studs are absolutely vital, I'd much, MUCH rather have Marion Barber than, say, Matt Forte and Felix Jones. I really think too much is being made of the unbalancing effect here. It's a keeper league, some teams are going to look stronger than others going into the season.

i agree to some extent. However, thats not exactly the choice. Yes, one of the worst few teams from last year will get Barber, and thats huge. However, the "good" team isn't getting Forte. They're probably getting something like Tory Holt AND Darren McFadden, or Chad Johnson AND Jonathan Stewart. Keep in mind that this team already has 3 first/early 2nd round caliber players and will have the advantage NEXT YEAR as they will have McFadden in their rookie keeper spot instead of the 2nd rate rookie the team that got Barber will have to take. Obviously, some teams will always be better in a keeper league. Thats a given. I just think we need to take steps to give the worse teams a shot, and i dont think just throwing the players back into the pool accomplishes that. I think right now I'm going to push to (in order of preference)- Get 2 new owners- stay at ten and start over- dump the current darfting format and go to some sort of non-serpantine format for at least the frist few roundsIf we do what was proposed (stay at ten, dump players into the pool) i can't see myself staying in the league. I think it will just be way too unbalanced.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

i dont have the entire list (I'm at work and fantasy sites are blocked) but here are some guys that i know would be in the draft pool if these teams are dropped.All rookies....Larry FitzgeraldClinton PortisAndre JohnsonChad JohnsonTory HoltMarion BarberEli Manningplus there are 1 or 2 more guys on a similar level that i cant remember.As far as i can see, the elite players(if you count the top rookie RB's) will run out just as the league finalists from last year (that are already stacked beyond belief) take their 2nd picks.

Eli (and any on a similar level) is junk in a 10 team. The fact that you get one of the others should make you jump for joy. It's easy to use ADP and Wynn as the example but if you look at the last 5 or 10 years, it isn't that clear. More than half of the top 5 picks fail to become significant starters, let alone keepers. Look at the 1st round rookie picks from your draft last year. Probably fewer than half are being used as keepers. Without the additional players, you get a top rookie (with a 50/50 chance of panning out) and the equivalent of a late 5th round pick. The guys at the bottom get a rookie (with a 40/60 chance of panning out) and an early 5th round pick. With the additional players, you get a late 1st / early 2nd stud and a rookie 2nd (with a 30/70 chance of panning out). They get a top rookie (50/50) and a player equivalent to about a 4th round pick. The balance is definitely more affected in the 2nd scenario but it leans heavily towards the worse teams.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

i agree to some extent. However, thats not exactly the choice. Yes, one of the worst few teams from last year will get Barber, and thats huge. However, the "good" team isn't getting Forte. They're probably getting something like Tory Holt AND Darren McFadden, or Chad Johnson AND Jonathan Stewart.

How does one of the 'good' teams get both Holt and McFadden? Or, CJ and Stewart? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[TLEF316]

i agree to some extent. However, thats not exactly the choice. Yes, one of the worst few teams from last year will get Barber, and thats huge. However, the "good" team isn't getting Forte. They're probably getting something like Tory Holt AND Darren McFadden, or Chad Johnson AND Jonathan Stewart.

How does one of the 'good' teams get both Holt and McFadden? Or, CJ and Stewart? That doesn't make any sense.

because those two veteran WR's would likely be drafted at the end of the first round (after Barber, Portis, Fitz and AJ). If the lower rated teams choose those guys over the rookies (very possible) the guys i mention would drop into the 8-12 range, meaning the teams at the end of the first/begining of the 2nd would get a crack at 2 of them on the 1/2 turn. I know I'm forgetting 1 or 2 of the top players that will be on the board.edit: I just remembered that one of either Palmer or Romo will also be available, and thats another player that will be in the first round discussion. Our league is PPR, but also point per completion (something i've desperatly tried to change) and 6 pts per TD so top QB's score VERY highly and are highly regarded.

 

[Portis 26]

There's nothing wrong with a 10-team league. or an eight-team league. or anything else. They aren't any easier; everyone has the same benefit, so it's equal.It's much, much, MUCH better to have 10 good owners than add two mediocre owners just so you can say you have 12. I don't know where people got this idea that you have to have 12. You have to have dedicated owners who care about the league. It doesn't matter how many there are. If you can't find two high-caliber owners, don't add them. They'll make the league less fun, not more.

It does matter how many teams are in the league. The fewer the owners, the easier it is for everyone to have good players. It makes it less challenging.

 

[Tanner9919]

10 teams is too few. Too many good players to go around. And way too fiddly to reduce the size of the league. Just get two replacement owners.

12 teams leads to a lot of disparity , i.e., the haves and the have-nots.10 teams is perfect,IMO, makes for a more balanced league, and everyone has a decent team..

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

There's nothing wrong with a 10-team league. or an eight-team league. or anything else. They aren't any easier; everyone has the same benefit, so it's equal.It's much, much, MUCH better to have 10 good owners than add two mediocre owners just so you can say you have 12. I don't know where people got this idea that you have to have 12. You have to have dedicated owners who care about the league. It doesn't matter how many there are. If you can't find two high-caliber owners, don't add them. They'll make the league less fun, not more.

It does matter how many teams are in the league. The fewer the owners, the easier it is for everyone to have good players. It makes it less challenging.

If everyone has good players...the challenge level is basically the same. You have better players to start every week, but you also face better players every week. It is NEVER a good idea to add two scrubs just so you can say you have 12 owners. If you can't find really good owners, don't add them. Their apathy will ruin the league faster than improved rosters will.

 

[Portis 26]

10 teams is too few. Too many good players to go around. And way too fiddly to reduce the size of the league. Just get two replacement owners.

12 teams leads to a lot of disparity , i.e., the haves and the have-nots.10 teams is perfect,IMO, makes for a more balanced league, and everyone has a decent team..

You actually make my point for me Why have a league in which everyone has a decent team?

 

[Portis 26]

There's nothing wrong with a 10-team league. or an eight-team league. or anything else. They aren't any easier; everyone has the same benefit, so it's equal.It's much, much, MUCH better to have 10 good owners than add two mediocre owners just so you can say you have 12. I don't know where people got this idea that you have to have 12. You have to have dedicated owners who care about the league. It doesn't matter how many there are. If you can't find two high-caliber owners, don't add them. They'll make the league less fun, not more.

It does matter how many teams are in the league. The fewer the owners, the easier it is for everyone to have good players. It makes it less challenging.

If everyone has good players...the challenge level is basically the same. You have better players to start every week, but you also face better players every week. It is NEVER a good idea to add two scrubs just so you can say you have 12 owners. If you can't find really good owners, don't add them. Their apathy will ruin the league faster than improved rosters will.

No-one is suggesting that it's a good idea to get a couple of scrubs in just to make it 12. Naturally any league would want to make sure that good owners are brought in.The point is that going from 12 to 10 is a very fiddly process. What happens to the players on those two teams who go? If they are added to the draft pool, doesn't that mean that the whole draft dynamic is changed? Suddenly you've made the draft pool much stronger and that means the top picks suddenly got much more valuable. That kind of stuff.

 

[Keys Myaths]

10 teams is too few. Too many good players to go around. And way too fiddly to reduce the size of the league. Just get two replacement owners.

12 teams leads to a lot of disparity , i.e., the haves and the have-nots.10 teams is perfect,IMO, makes for a more balanced league, and everyone has a decent team..

You actually make my point for me Why have a league in which everyone has a decent team?

Because some people like to play that way.Not every league has to be 25 teams with IDP and 60 round drafts with salary caps and mission statements.

 

[hoochiemama]

I run a twelve team keeper and three years ago we voted to draft in revers order of finish to give lower teams a chance to retool. Then we realized that it was not a great help. No we draft straight-- 1-12 then 1-12 again. Everyone must keep 4 players. You cant keep fewer for an extra pick.

Makes for quite an active July (Keepers must be selected before training camp) since teams with more than 4 legit keepers will try to trade for picks before the draft.

At first no one shined to the idea. then after a year when people got the hang of trading draft picks ( even swapping picks). It makes it quite fun. Many of the owners say " that it makes July fun". Cause while most people are just starting to get excited our league is in full trade talks and strategy even though the league draft isn't for 6 weeks.

 

[joey]

There's the potential of this exact thing happening in my12 team, Keep 3 league.

The thought I had was to have a supplemental, 1-round draft. I thought we could

pick names out of a hat for the draft order then each team, in order, has the

opportunity to swap on of his keepers for a player from one of the 2 now-defunct

teams. Teams have the option of standing pat if they want.

Not a perfect idea but could be ok. The only thing that's gonna make it be a heated

discussion in my league not matter what we choose to do is that the 2 teams in question

have LT, Moss, ADP, MBarber and B Edwards on their squads. Whoever is lucky enough to get

a top-5 pick in the supplemental draft gets a massive upgrade in talent, imo.

Thoughts on that?

ETA: another thought just popped into my head to adjust the above idea...make this year

be a Keep-2 year so that more "elite" talent is available for this supplemental round. Then next

year, with only 10 teams, I'd propose we go up to Keep 5 to make things more intersting again.

 

[senor peso 2006]

lose the serpantine and go to a staight draft.

Not sure why you would want to lower the number of keepers this year? I could see it if you were expanding to give expantion teams a shot at being competitive in the first year, but to cut keepers when retracting doesn't make much sense. Sounds like a redistribution of wealth at the expense of those who have the wealth.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

There's the potential of this exact thing happening in my12 team, Keep 3 league.

The thought I had was to have a supplemental, 1-round draft. I thought we could

pick names out of a hat for the draft order then each team, in order, has the

opportunity to swap on of his keepers for a player from one of the 2 now-defunct

teams. Teams have the option of standing pat if they want.

Not a perfect idea but could be ok. The only thing that's gonna make it be a heated

discussion in my league not matter what we choose to do is that the 2 teams in question

have LT, Moss, ADP, MBarber and B Edwards on their squads. Whoever is lucky enough to get

a top-5 pick in the supplemental draft gets a massive upgrade in talent, imo.

Thoughts on that?

ETA: another thought just popped into my head to adjust the above idea...make this year

be a Keep-2 year so that more "elite" talent is available for this supplemental round. Then next

year, with only 10 teams, I'd propose we go up to Keep 5 to make things more intersting again.

There was an interesting post in another thread that might solve this problem. Go to an auction this year but instead of auctioning the players, auction the draft slots. Here it is:

The coolest thing I've ever seen for determining draft order was in a startup dynasty we did last year.

We did a draft position auction. Each owner had $150 to spend on all 30 rounds. They had to spend at least $1 on each round, so there was $120 to play with.

Basically each owner submitted their bids for all 30 rounds to the commish like a blind bid, not having any idea what anyone else bid. Then he pitted each owners bids against each other by round to determine draft order.

Whoever bid the most on the first round got the first pick, whoever bid the 2nd most got the 2nd pick, etc. This was done for each round individually. Ties were broken by reverse of prior round (except for the first round, which would have been by coin flip, but it didn't happen). It worked out great and no one was upset with the results. You pretty much got the draft picks you paid for and there were no "luck of the draw" advantages or disadvantages. Some spots came down to just a dollar, while other places guys way overbid the next spot. Some guys came up with highly strategic plans, while others just fiddled with the numbers a couple of times and turned them in.

.

.

.

We did it wayyy before the draft.

It was mostly time consuming for the commish, but it was his idea.

The rest of the owners simply had to submit an e-mail that was basically like:

1 - $70

2 - $35

3 - $25

etc... for 30 rounds.

Then, just dump the players into the player pool and hold the draft. Nobody can then complain about their draft position.

 

[TLEF316]

that type of thing will never ever happen in this league. The owners like things to be simple. For years, I've been trying to get keepers to count for something other than just the first 5 picks (to encourage keeping value rather than just your best 5) and was shot down.

I'm about 99% sure that the other owners wont even go for the switch to straight draft. Anything auction related is out of the question.