[Dynasty] 1QB League to Superflex Transition Thoughts (1 Viewer)

[runner06]

I am the commissioner of a 1QB Dynasty League that I started up in 2010.

Since that time, it seems Superflexes have become more popular in fantasy football. I am considering gauging my league's interest this offseason in transitioning from a 1QB to a Superflex Dynasty League. I know I am not the first to consider asking my league about this sort of change nor would I be the first to actually do it.

A couple of things first:

• I understand there is no fair way to transition from a 1 QB to Superflex league. The purpose of this thread is discuss ways to make this transition less unfair if a league as a whole decides it wants to make a change. The comment "Just create a new separate dynasty league for interested owners" isn't something that works in my opinion especially if you're like me and want to limit the number of leagues you are in to just one league.
• Ideally your league already has some sort of league constitution that states the minimum number of owners who must vote in favor of the change to make the transition. My particular league's constitution requires 100% of owners to vote to make the change.
  • Consider for example your league constitution dictates that 75% of owners must approve such a change, I still think it might be a good idea to make sure there are not 1 or 2 owners strongly against such a change. There is a difference between preferring a 1 QB league over a Superflex league and being strongly against going to a Superflex league. If there are any owners strongly against the switch, then perhaps you or someone else could talk to them to find out their reasons against the change and then if they could be amendable to making the change. I would think you wouldn't want any owners to leave your league due to a change like this.
    
    
  • For leagues that don't have this stated in league rules, what do you think the minimum should be?

After googling similar reddit threads here are some my thoughts / thoughts taken from reddit users:

Note: I'd also like to see what others' thoughts are on regarding transitioning from a 1 QB League to Superflex league plus any thoughts you have regarding the ideas I have below. Full disclosure I have never played in a Superflex league.

Edit - A criticism of what I've written below this is that my initial ideas are far to convoluted (both to my league mates and here) which to I agree. I've posted an updated idea which still might not be super simple, but I think less complicated and way more fair then "Transition in x years".

My updated thoughts are here (Post #9 in thread):

[Dynasty] 1QB League to Superflex Transition Thoughts

I am the commissioner of a 1QB Dynasty League that I started up in 2010. Since that time, it seems Superflexes have become more popular in fantasy football. I am considering gauging my league's interest this offseason in transitioning from a 1QB to a Superflex Dynasty League. I know I am not...

forums.footballguys.com

Have a transition period

• I am thinking if a league started the transition prior to the 2023-24 season, that a league wouldn't fully converted until the 2025-26 season. This allows owners time to prepare for a significant change to the league's structure and prepare for a major change in how QBs are valued.

QB Transition Tax
I am thinking teams should be allowed to keep up to two QBs. Although the value between say Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes and say Kenny Pickett and Geno Smith seems to be greater in Superflex then in 1 QB leagues, I think it would be best for their to be no "tax" on the first QB kept.

Keeping a 2nd QB would come at a "tax". If you wanted your league to have to pay for all kept QBs or allow teams to keep more then two QBs then I think it would make sense to have the approach to determine the cost to keep each QB the same.

I think the best time for the "tax" would probably be the offseason immediately prior to making the switch? So if my league added the Superflex position for the 2025-26 season then the tax would occur in April 2025 or May 2025.

Potential Option
Use an agreed up trade value chart in advance to determine the cost of each player ideally one hasn't been posted yet. I don't know what the rules are regarding posting links to competitors' sites but there currently is one that is posted monthly over at FantasyPros that I would probably suggest to my league mates. For example, perhaps our league agrees to use the 2025 May FantasyPros Dynasty Trade Value Chart to determine the tax. That trade value chart as well as one I found from footballguys.com dated to April 2022 have trade values for both QB1 and Superflex leagues.

The tax would be the difference between the Superflex Trade Value and 1 QB Trade Value.

My league seem to value QBs a bit more then the FantasyPros Trade Value would indicate so perhaps we add a modifier to their 1 QB values such as 1.25 or 1.35. That of course would also need to be agreed upon in advance.

Allow teams to either give up a 2025 1st round pick or up to 1 or 2 players whose combined trade value total or exceed that of the difference between the Superflex and 1 QB values. I got the idea regarding having to give up a first round pick from reddit and then thought maybe it would be good to expand upon because of a couple of issues I see:

• Very few if any 2025 first round picks would be traded if that was the only asset an owner could give up in order to keep in order to keep say both Tua Tagovailoa and Dak Prescott.
• The difference in value between an early first and a late first is quite substantial.

Lets pretend my league had already started the transition process and was switching to a Superflex fully for the 2023 season. There is an owner in my league who owns both Tua Tagovailoa and Dak Prescott. Perhaps he decides to keep both and using the trade value chart from December 2022 from FantasyPros with a 1.25 modifier for the 1 QB trade value. The 1 QB trade value for Prescott is currently 25 which x the 1.25 modifier gets you a trade value of 31.25 for a 1 QB league. Prescott's trade value score on that site currently for Superflex leagues is 66 so 66 - 31.25 means this owner would need to give up 1 or 2 assets that have a total trade value of greater then 34.75. Not wanting to give up the 2023 1.04 rookie pick, perhaps he decides to give up Skyy Moore (22 trade value) plus Ezekiel Elliott (22 trade value).

Minimum "Tax" for 2nd QB
Trade value charts values can lag a bit. Call this the "Sam Darnold" rule. I recently picked him up in my league because my QBs besides my starter (Kyler Murray) suck. His current superflex trade value of 6 seems rather enticing. I believe it would be reasonable to set the minimum price to keep a 2nd QB whether it be 20 trade value points, 25 trade value points, 30 trade value points, etc.

Deciding what to do with players/picks given up due to the "tax".
I think there would be two options here:

• Allocation Draft for surrendered 1st and players for teams who opted not to keep 2 QBs. A few issues I see with choice:
  • How do you determine the draft order?
  • Under this method you might consider limiting the rule to being able to give up one player who is worth the equivalent of a first round pick rather then allowing up to two players to sum to the total. Otherwise, the teams who have later allocation draft picks would be at a greater disadvantage.
  • The -44 trade value Skyy Moore + Ezekiel Elliott would be going directly to another team which in a way is a net +88 change for the team who opted not to keep a 2nd QB. I'm not sure this is fair either. I think if taking the allocation draft approach you might consider halving the difference so if you have an allocation draft instead maybe the Tua Tagovailoa and Dak Prescott owner only has to give up a player worth more then 17.375 points so say just Skyy Moore. So essentially, the Dak + Tua owner would be losing Skyy while another owner would gain him for free.
• Rookie / Free Agent Draft - I would lean towards just adding the surrendered players to the existing annual draft and have any surrendered firsts be removed from the draft like forfeited drafts are in the real life NFL Draft.
  • If you take this approach I think you would want to extend the rookie / free agent draft by one to two rounds for one year only. My league currently has a 4 round rookie / free agent draft. Perhaps we make it 5 or 6 rounds for one year only.

(1st post of 2)

 

[runner06]

Edit - Much of this post is convoluted as well. The "edit" post I reference above in red is still further down the thread after posts from others.

Compensatory Picks
Teams inevitably are going to have to cut players like Malik Willis during the transition. I think those owns should be compensated for having to give up players like this based on what their value was in a 1 QB league. I think you would want to assign trade value ranges in advance that give compensatory picks at the end of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round of the Rookie/Free Agent draft. Perhaps the Malik Willis owner is given a 3rd round compensatory pick.

2023 Draft Picks
If my league wanted to start the transition to Superflex then I'm not sure whether or not QBs drafted during the 2023 Rookie/Free Agent draft should be exempt from the "tax" and if not if teams should be allowed to keep them in addition to the 1 free QB (in case of my league) and 1 QB subject to the tax. I see issues both ways:

• Not having them be Exempt
  • Teams with two QBs already such as the owner with both Tua and Dak in my league are less likely to draft a quarterback because they wouldn't be able to keep three QBs during the offseason where the "Tax" happens. I don't like that. The compensatory pick system might help some with this issue but still wouldn't ideal.
• Having them be Exempt
  • It completely changes the value of rookie picks starting with the 2023 Rookie/Free Agent draft in anticipation that teams will hopefully be able to use them in a Superflex starting in 2025. The problem is this is that a lot of draft picks including 1st round picks were already traded in my league under the assumption the league would remain a 1 QB league forever. For example, back in late October I gave up Brian Robinson and what will be either the 2023 2.11 or 2.12 pick for what turned out to be the 2023 1.08 pick, 2023 3.08 pick, and Deon Jackson. I doubt the other owner gives up his 1st round pick for Brian Robinson if the league had decided to transition to Superflex.
    • Optics - This is specific to my league but the optics don't look great for me. In my league, I own the 2023 1.01, 1.08, 1.10, 1.11 or 1.12, 2.02, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, and 2.11 or 2.12 rookie picks so it's not just the Brian Robinson trade where the draft pick I traded for would be improved by going to Superflex. Ultimately, the reason for me acquiring all these picks was that I was to rebuild and thought this was good draft to do it in given the possible RB depth but even with my QB situation I think it's undeniable my team would benefit more then most from making the transition just from owning so many picks in 2023.

Changes to Scoring?

• Our league currently gives 6 points per passing touchdown, 0.04 points per passing yard (i.e. 1 point per 25 yards passing w/ decimal scoring), -2 points per interception, -2 points per fumble lost, 6 points per rushing/receiving touchdown, 0.5 PPR, and 0.1 points per rushing/receiving yard.
  • Would it make sense to change any of these like reducing passing touchdowns from 6 points to 4 points to lessen the value of QBs if we decided to transition to Superflex when we fully switched?

Allow to use a QB in the current flex vs. creating a 2nd flex
Currently, our league is a 12-team 24 man roster (+2 IR), start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 Flex (RB/WR/TE), 1K, and 1DEF. What are the pluses/negatives of switching the current flex to (QB/RB/WR/TE) versus keeping the current flex (RB/WR/TE) and then adding a 2nd flex (QB/RB/WR/TE) which would change this from a start 10 to start 11 league?

Roster Size
If moving to superflex for this particular league then I think it probably makes sense to increase the roster size from 24 players to 26 players but what do others think? I think it would also make sense for other leagues as well to up the roster size if making such a transition even if you don't add another flex?

Additional things to consider
Parity - I believe league parity is good for fantasy football and I think switching to Superflex would tend to reduce the overall parity of a league. Currently, the most valued position in my league is easily RB. The RB position also seems to have the shortest shelf life so it makes staying at the top of the standings for more then a few years in my dynasty league relatively difficult. If we switch to Superflex, then the most valuable assets suddenly become Patrick Mahomes and Josh Allen. Top end QBs like these guys can have a very long shelf life meaning I think it is more likely the same teams could stay a top the standings for much longer. For this reason alone, I am hesitant to vote "yes" for a Superflex transition for my league. What are others' thoughts on this? Am I overblowing this issue?

Rookie Draft - The rookie draft would be deeper which in turn would make it more fun. Players like KJ Jefferson and Tanner McKee are currently afterthoughts in a 1 QB format. In Superflex, you at least have to spend time reading their scouting profiles (or at least I probably would).

Why am I considering gauging my league's interest in possibly transitioning to a Superflex league now versus waiting?

Well my current QBs are Kyler Murray, Sam Darnold, Ryan Tannehill, or Zach Wilson. Given that Murray just tore his ACL I will certainly consider drafting a QB, trading for Lamar Jackson (owner also has Jalen Hurts), Dak Prescott (owner has Tua as previously mentioned), or drafting a QB + trading for Jackson or Dak given all the picks that I have.

I don't want to bring this up in a year or two after I've had an opportunity to address my current QB situation.

I think I am happy with keeping the league I am a commissioner as a 1 QB league but also feel like I should possibly make sure most of my league mates aren't silently in favor of converting the league to a Superflex.

 

[eighsse2]

I have never played superflex, but just to throw in my 2 cents, I feel like having a substantial transition period makes it fair enough without throwing in other rules. I feel like if 10/12 (or similar in other-sized leagues) want it to happen, that's probably a good threshold. If there is a strongly-against, maybe he could try to persuade just 1 or 2 of the for's to join him and keep it from happening. But, once it's decided that the transition will happen, if you have a transition period of 3 or 4 or even more years, personally I think that's enough time for owners to adjust to the different value system. Still sucks, I suppose, to be the guy with Dak, Mac Jones, and Tannehill, in a league where that was fine enough to get by, and now your QB spot is completely dwarfed by the guy with Josh Allen and Kyler Murray. Which I guess is where you're going with all the taxes and compensatory picks, but it sounds too complicated for my liking.

 

[Gally]

There is for sure a fair way to transition to a SF league. It is to announce that it is happening (assuming you get agreement from the league) and then have it happen a few years down the line. Make a specific date for the change (say 2025). Then every team is aware of this change and can proceed how they see fit to get there. This is the fair way to do so.

Now there are other accommodations you can make as you move towards that change and these need to be made clear at the time you announce when the change will occur. Again, this is so everyone can proceed how they see fit based on the rules set forth. For example, if you decide that all teams can keep at most 2 QB's going into the season of changing to SF (so in my example going into the 2025 season) then everyone knows now that they will only be able to carry 2 QB's into that season. Teams can then start planning now for that situation.

I would start looking at your scoring system and make changes to QB scoring so that they aren't 15 of the top league scorers. If you want to make SF meaningful (and not too powerful) the QB scoring has to be such that you don't have to play a QB in the SF spot to be competitive. Many sites will allow you to change scoring and see where a previous year shakes out. You can change a few things and see what happens. We had to increase damage for turnovers (50% of a passing TD seems to work well------> -2 pts if a TD pass is worth 4 pts) but you are likely going to have to increase scoring for other positions so that they can get into the SF starter potential. Ideally you want the same tier level scoring across all positions. So a tier 2 RB = tier 2 WR = tier 2 QB, etc. If you make QB scoring too powerful you may as well just go to a 2 QB league because it will end up being that way anyway. Play around with the scoring and see if you can tinker a way to get a nice distribution of positions across the top XX scorers where XX is the number of starters based on your number of teams and starters allowed (10 teams with 10 starters per team would be the top 100 scorers).

Essentially you will be screwed trying to make a change as long as the other owners are short sightedly looking strictly how it will affect their current situation. You need to stress that they need to look at it wholistically and not from their current situation. Basically, do they think a SF league would be better in general. If so, then dive in and let the chips fall where they may. If they only look at the immediate situation (my QB's are great lets do it/don't do it) then it will never pass.

 

[heckmanm]

I would start looking at your scoring system and make changes to QB scoring so that they aren't 15 of the top league scorers. If you want to make SF meaningful (and not too powerful) the QB scoring has to be such that you don't have to play a QB in the SF spot to be competitive

I wonder if you could have different scoring for a QB in the superflex spot vs the main qb spot. Haven’t given it any real thought, just popped into my head.

 

[zamboni]

My keeper league went to SF two years ago. When we first voted it in, we didn’t have a transition year per se, but we were allowed to keep only one QB (we keep 8 total) in the offseason prior to SF becoming effective. A bit of a bummer for me, as I had Allen, Burrow and Hurts at the time and could only keep Allen. But it wouldn’t have been fair to keep more than him considering teams didn’t have the knowledge that SF was happening the next year.

Anyway, I highly recommend SF over one QB leagues. Brings another element of strategy to fantasy and makes QBs much more valuable - as they should be when thinking about real NFL terms.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

If you're changing midstream from 1QB to SF, I honestly think the ideal effective date for the change is 2026, if not 2027.

I understand that you probably want to do it sooner than that. Could you make it for the 2024 season? Probably, given that there's some decent QB classes coming through in the '23 and '24 draft. I still think that would be an unfair advantage to teams that have a young franchise QB in place or a even a second quality QB on the roster. Any league that is voting for or against a major transition like this effective immediately is being kind of shady in my opinion, so I applaud the 100% approval voting requirement in your league. Otherwise, the teams set at QB vote for, the teams that don't have a lot at that position who thought they were playing in a 1QB league vote against. If the vote is successful, the teams that had very good dynasty assets in Mahomes, Allen, Hurts, suddenly have overpowered top 4 overall dynasty startup picks.

With that said, I agree that the superflex is probably a more fun way to play the game in 2022. From an optics standpoint, the OP will definitely look a lot better making the case for SF if they're sitting on A-Rodgers and Mariota, as opposed to Allen and Fields.

Since you're trying to switch sooner, I think you're on the right track on capturing the dynasty valuation changes for QBs in 1QB vs SF, converting that into draft capital as a form of compensation or taxation. It goes without saying that agreeing on the sources and compensation amounts for these valuations is going to be an absolute nightmare for you. But let us know how it goes.

This is also why I'm a big fan of Empire mode for dynasty leagues. The league resets with a startup draft when somebody wins back-to-back championships. You shouldn't make any changes during the life of the reset, but the league can ethically and seamlessly make any changes it wishes at the reset. Expected life of each reset is 4.5 years, but can obviously range from 2 to 10 years+.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

Putting a real proposal out there since you obviously put a lot of thought into how to go about doing this. Instead of "taxing" teams with a good QB situations, maybe you're better off giving some level of draft capital to all of the teams that don't have the best QB situation. I'm thinking "sandwich picks" (similar to the NFL), starting in your first rookie draft where teams haven't already traded away draft capital. In the scenario below, I'm laying out a proposal that will devalue the 1st round draft picks of alll playoff teams, as well as every draft pick thereafter.

PROPOSAL:

Insert three bonus picks in the middle of the first round between the teams that qualified for the playoffs and those that didn't. Insert three more between the first 1st and 2nd round. Insert another three in the middle of the 2nd round. Three more between round 2 and 3. 12 bonus picks total of varying value.

Do the same for the following draft year. Maybe even once more for the year following that if it's deemed necessary.

Use a trusted, impartial trade calculator to calculate the team that benefits the most as a result of moving from 1QB to SF. You probably don't do this until the year that it becomes effective. The team that benefits the most receives zero. If you were able to do it this offseason, it's probably the team with Mahomes/Allen/Hurts and/or has a quality younger backup.

Calculate how many points less every other team is "benefitting" at the QB position. Their number of points back is going to be their base value for an auction. If teams feel that their QB is overvalued by the calculator, let them work out a trade to remove them from their roster, or allow them to release them to the rookie/free agent draft pool to recoop their point value plus another 20% for their loss (can be more or less).

So you now have one team with zero points (the team benefitting the most from a SF). And eleven other teams with varying points. Some of these teams have very few points and benefitted almost as much as the top QB team. Other teams with a bad QB situation have a whole lot of points. With those points, you're now auctioning off the "bonus" / sandwich draft picks for the current and following year. If you could do it this offseason, this would include:

2023 #7 overall
2023 #8 overall
2023 #9 overall
2023 #16 overall
2023 #17 overall
2023 #18 overall
2023 #25 overall
2023 #26 overall
2023 #27 overall
2023 #34 overall
2023 #35 overall
2023 #36 overall

**AS WELL AS THE SAME 12 picks for the 2024 draft

So, the team with the worst QB situations for super-flex is almost certainly walking away with a first round pick in '23 or '24 (#7 to #9 overall), unless they're strategically trying to amass a lot of picks later in the draft.

Depending on the specific QB situation and auction strategy, you would expect the half of your league with the worst QB situations to walk away with a 1st rounder in either '23 or '24. Pending all of the variables, they might have enough leftover points to battle for some of the lesser picks as well.

Do a mock auction. If the value of the picks that the worst QB team is accumulating approximately matches the dynasty value that the team with the top QB situation is gaining as a result of moving to a super-flex, you probably found the right formula. Tweak all variables as necessary to get it right.

Everyone is having their normal draft picks devalued about the same as a result of the sandwich picks (except for the non-playoff teams that need the top half first round pick the most). That's why you have to wait until a year where draft capital hasn't already changed hands. The team with Allen and Fields might say this is bullcrap. My normal draft picks are devalued and I get nothing while other teams are getting a free top 10 pick and probably another late 2nd on top of that. But the reality is that the incremental value boost for an elite QB going from 1QB to SF is massive, probably more than the value of a 1.7 and 2nd round pick combined. You actually might need to create additional bonus picks in '25 to get the tradeoff just right.

 

[runner06]

So the main criticism is that my ideas for a Superflex transition are way to convoluted, both here and from the other owners in my league. I think that criticism is fully warranted.

Here's an updated idea that I think might be a bit less complicated. Note that I'm developing these ideas off a couple from the following line of thinking:

• I would consider Lamar Jackson and the 2023 1.07 rookie pick for Bijan Robinson in a 1 QB league to be total garbage. However, in a league that was already Superflex that seems like a very good offer for the 2023 1.01.
• If owners really wanted Superflex, then I think they'd need to get over the fact the system below would force them to cut players who are currently valued like Sam Darnold and Carson Wentz. Both of these guys were free agents for part of our league's season this year. In a Superflex you might get a late 2nd for them.

Updated Transition Timeline

• Year 1 - Agree to transition only if unanimous in the case of my league. This could be less for other leagues.
• Year 2 (May 2024 in this case) - There should be a 2 to 4 week trade period prior to this to allow teams to strategically move between the options. If the Jalen Hurts and Lamar Jackson owner in my league thinks having a compensatory pick is preferable to keeping both of those guys then he can trade one of them, keep just 1 QB, and then gain a compensatory pick.
  • All teams get to keep 1 QB for free. There is no benefit to keeping 0 QBs.
  • The 2nd QB is also free technically. However, teams not keeping a 2nd QB get a compensation pick immediately after the 1.06 Rookie Pick. Compensation picks are ordered in what would have been team with 1.07 draft slot, team with 1.08 draft slot, though team with the 1.12 draft slot, and then 1.01 draft slot team through 1.06 draft slot team. This means playoff teams actually would get a compensatory pick before a non playoff teams. This is to not hose playoff teams because their first pick should not be after what it would have been been with no compensatory picks added.
    • Note: If a playoff team traded their 2024 1st, then that priority would go to the team who has the pick. For example, if what was the 1.08 (before compensatory picks) was traded to the team with the 1.02 then the team with the 1.02 pick would either inherit the 2nd best compensatory pick if 1.07 team only kept 1 QB or best compensatory pick if the 1.07 owner opted to keep two QBs. The original playoff team if only keeping 1 QB would then pick after all other compensatory picks.
  • Keeping each additional QB costs a forfeiture of any 2024 1st round draft pick. If someone with an earlier first round pick wants to keep I imagine they could trade down and gain an asset or assets and acquire a late first round pick to forfeit instead.
• Year 3 (2025-26 season) - The Superflex position is added. This allows a full season to pass after the Year 2 transition for teams to build back up their QB depth before converting to Superflex.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

So the main criticism is that my ideas for a Superflex transition are way to convoluted, both here and from the other owners in my league. I think that criticism is fully warranted.

Here's an updated idea that I think might be a bit less complicated. Note that I'm developing these ideas off a couple from the following line of thinking:

• I would consider Lamar Jackson and the 2023 1.07 rookie pick for Bijan Robinson in a 1 QB league to be total garbage. However, in a league that was already Superflex that seems like a very good offer for the 2023 1.01.
• If owners really wanted Superflex, then I think they'd need to get over the fact the system below would force them to cut players who are currently valued like Sam Darnold and Carson Wentz. Both of these guys were free agents for part of our league's season this year. In a Superflex you might get a late 2nd for them.

Updated Transition Timeline

• Year 1 - Agree to transition only if unanimous in the case of my league. This could be less for other leagues.
• Year 2 (May 2024 in this case) - There should be a 2 to 4 week trade period prior to this to allow teams to strategically move between the options. If the Jalen Hurts and Lamar Jackson owner in my league thinks having a compensatory pick is preferable to keeping both of those guys then he can trade one of them, keep just 1 QB, and then gain a compensatory pick.
  • All teams get to keep 1 QB for free. There is no benefit to keeping 0 QBs.
  • The 2nd QB is also free technically. However, teams not keeping a 2nd QB get a compensation pick immediately after the 1.06 Rookie Pick. Compensation picks are ordered in what would have been team with 1.07 draft slot, team with 1.08 draft slot, though team with the 1.12 draft slot, and then 1.01 draft slot team through 1.06 draft slot team. This means playoff teams actually would get a compensatory pick before a non playoff teams. This is to not hose playoff teams because their first pick should not be after what it would have been been with no compensatory picks added.
    • Note: If a playoff team traded their 2024 1st, then that priority would go to the team who has the pick. For example, if what was the 1.08 (before compensatory picks) was traded to the team with the 1.02 then the team with the 1.02 pick would either inherit the 2nd best compensatory pick if 1.07 team only kept 1 QB or best compensatory pick if the 1.07 owner opted to keep two QBs. The original playoff team if only keeping 1 QB would then pick after all other compensatory picks.
  • Keeping each additional QB costs a forfeiture of any 2024 1st round draft pick. If someone with an earlier first round pick wants to keep I imagine they could trade down and gain an asset or assets and acquire a late first round pick to forfeit instead.
• Year 3 (2025-26 season) - The Superflex position is added. This allows a full season to pass after the Year 2 transition for teams to build back up their QB depth before converting to Superflex.

I think the above format is putting too much emphasis on the quantity of QBs retained and doesn't pay enough attention to the quality (QB dynasty value, what happens to it when a league goes from 1QB to SF). Consequently, you're artificially creating winners and losers in your league. You're not adequately compensating the losers, while also giving the teams that are going to benefit the most a chance to grab a prime compensatory pick if they don't love their current backup QB on roster.

You pretty much said it in your Lamar Jackson + 1.07 -for- 1.01 example. I will give you another to drive the point home. My preferred dynasty trade calculator is dynastyprocess. It seems to follow fantasypros dynasty consensus value, which is generally the dynasty ranking that I find has the least number of headscratchers (not that any trade calculator is ever going to be perfect). Personally, I think they're a little low on QBs in general, but I do think you will see the top QBs shoot up the rankings based on how this year has played out. The value of a top QB has certainly been noted by the fantasy community this season. Even in a 1QB, Josh Allen is getting picked before the late 3rd round.

With that said, the current rankings are still fair enough to drive home the point of what happens when a league goes from 1QB to SF. In 1QB, Josh Allen has a value of 5,726. Tee Higgins has a value of 6,895. If you change the format to SF, Tee Higgins has a value of 5,673, Josh Allen has a value of 10,160. In other words, the team that had Josh Allen in a 1QB, has basically been gifted the equivalent value of a Tee Higgins, based on how much much more valuable Josh Allen becomes in a superflex league. Hence, the streamlined proposal of saying the 1st QB is "free" for every team is extremely flawed, The Josh Allen team is benefitting greatly from a SF format. The team that has A-Rodgers as their starter in 1QB, isn't gaining anything close to a Tee Higgins of incremental value. Nor is the team with Kyler Murray, Dak Prescott, or any other team that doesn't have Mahomes or Hurts.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I'm currently in a 12-team league 1QB. I think everybody wants to do superflex for the next go around. Since it's an empire league, we'll just wait until the reset to make the change. However, if it was a standard dynasty with no determined endpoint, here's how I make the transition as early as this offseason. I'm going to conveniently assume that no rookie/free agent picks have changed hands.

• change from 1QB to SF is effective for '23 season
• compensatory "sandwich" picks will be added to the '23 and '24 rookie/FA drafts as follows
  • two picks in between the playoff and non-playoff teams (1.7 & 1.8)
  • one in front of the team with second place payout (1.13)
  • one in front of the championship team (1.15)
  • two picks behind the championship team, in front of round 2 (1.17 & 1.18)
  • Hence, the expanded first round now has 18 total picks instead of the usual 12
  • Repeat and rinse for Round 2. There are now 36 picks in the first 2 rounds, as opposed to the usual 24.
  • To recap, 12 bonus / "sandwich" picks have been created as compensation. Value of picks ranges from what would traditionally be mid-late 1st rounders (1.7 & 1.8) to late 3rd rounders (2.17 & 2.18)
  • Duplicate bonus picks for the '24 draft -- we have now created 24 bonus "sandwich" picks in the '23 and '24 draft.
  • Teams will compete for these 24 bonus selections in a one-time auction format this offseason
    • Each team will receive varying budgets that are based on QB dynasty value points gained as a result of moving from 1QB to 2QB
    • The team that received the biggest boost to their dynasty value will receive zero points and won't be able to obtain any bonus picks
    • The number of points back from the team that gained the most will be the budget that the other 11 teams will use to chase these picks.
    • Additional considerations:
      • any teams keeping a third QB will have the value of the 3rd most valuable QB multiplied by 1.5
      • any teams keeping a fourth QB will have the value of the 4th most valuable QB multiplied by 4, hopefully this prevents any team from keeping 4

Here's how the real-world results would look in my league. I'm going to omit the penalty on keeping 3rd and 4th QBs from this list to keep things a little more simple, but providing an example on Team A:

QB dynasty value points gained -- and subsequent auction budget:

A: Lawrence, Tagovailoa, R Wilson, Ridder 2731 to 12,601 = 9,870 gain -- $0
**e.g. Additional Wilson tax = 2043 x 0.5 = 1021 (not counted above)
**e.g. Additional Ridder tax = 344 x 3 = 1032 (not counted above
B: Fields, Lance, Carr 2,037 to 10,147 = 8,110 gain -- $1760
C: Allen, Cousins, D. Jones 6,338 to 13,581 = 7,243 gain -- $2627
D: Mahomes, Rodgers 5,013 to 11,764 = 6,761 gain -- $3109
E: Herbert, Brady, Willis 4028 to 10,681 = 6,653 gain -- $3217
F: Murray, Stafford 2866 to 9140 = 6,274 gain -- $3596
G: Burrow, Goff, Wentz 2982 to 9193 = 6,211 gain -- $3659
H: Hurts, Geno Smith 3127 to 8805 = 5,678 gain -- $4192
I: Prescott, Z Wilson, Garoppolo 1743 to 7358 = 5,615 gain -- $4255
J: Lamar Jackson, Dalton 3510 to 9011 = 5,501 gain -- $4369
K: Watson, Love, Mariota 1611 to 6523 = 4,912 gain -- $ 4958
L: Mac Jones, Tannehill, Mayfield 332 to 2071 = 1,739 gain -- $8131


Here's a mock auction of who I might expect to win the bonus draft picks:

'23 1.07 -- Team L $4193
'23 1.08 -- Team L $3938
'23 1.13 -- Team J $3660
'23 1.15 -- Team F $3596
'23 1.17 -- Team H $3218
'23 1.18 -- Team E $3217
'23 2.07 -- Team C $710
'23 2.08 -- Team H $683
'23 2.13 -- Team J $482
'23 2.15 -- Team D $368
'23 2.17 -- Team C $292
'23 2.18 -- Team K $205

'24 1.07 -- Team K $4256
'24 1.08 -- Team I $4255
'24 1.13 -- Team G $3659
'24 1.15 -- Team D $2628
'24 1.17 -- Team C $1550
'24 1.18 -- Team B $1078
'24 2.07 -- Team B $682
'24 2.08 -- Team K $482
'24 2.13 -- Team H $180
'24 2.15 -- Team J $114
'24 2.17 -- Team D $113
'24 2.18 -- Team H $111


Summary of Compensation by Team:

A: Lawrence, Tagovailoa, Wilson, Ridder +9,870 -- NOTHING
B: Fields, Lance, Carr +8,110 -- '24 1.18 '24 2.07
C: Allen, Cousins, D. Jones +7,243 -- '23 2.07 '23 2.17 '24 1.17
D: Mahomes, Rodgers +6,761 -- '23 2.15 '24 1.15 '24 2.17
E: Herbert, Brady, Willis +6,653 -- '23 1.18
F: Murray, Stafford +6,274 -- '23 1.15
G: Burrow, Goff, Wentz +6,211 -- '24 1.13
H: Hurts, Geno Smith +5,678 -- '23 1.17 '23 2.08 '24 2.13 '24 2.18
I: Prescott, Z Wilson, Garoppolo +5,615 -- '24 1.08
J: Lamar Jackson, Dalton +5,501 -- '23 1.13 '23 2.13 '24 2.15
K: Watson, Love, Mariota +4,912 -- '23 2.18 '24 1.07 '24 2.08
L: Mac Jones, Tannehill, Mayfield +1,739 -- '23 1.07 '23 1.08

**I will note that I think there might be some unrealized value increases coming during the offseason for Teams C, G, and H. I was surprised that those increases weren't larger based on the season some of those QBs are having.

The team gaining the most by moving to a Superflex is bringing in three young QBs (two premium) and a veteran. Team A is gaining all kinds of value at the QB position (primarily with Lawrence and Tua). However, they will pay for this windfall in two ways. Every other team in the league will gain some compensation in the form of bonus picks over the next two years whereas Team A gets nothing. Furthermore, Team A's regularly scheduled draft picks over the next two years will be devalued as a result of adding these bonus picks.

Teams B through E are standing on very good to solid ground for a move to superflex. The draft picks that they're winning in the auction are pretty marginal assets. They're probably losing more in the form of devaluation of their regularly scheduled draft picks over the next two years, as compared to anything they're gaining in the form of bonus picks.

Teams F through J aren't far behind, bringing at least one good QB to superflex. Their compensation is a little better than the previous group.

Team K is in pretty rough shape for a move to superflex. It depends how you feel about a Watson turnaround, but they're picking up a valuable #7 overall pick in 2024 to help make the transition.

Team L is in a terrible spot to move this collection of QBs from a 1QB to a SF. They were able to win the 1.07 and 1.08 in '23 to go get immediate help at the position.

So here's where the debate comes, and where you can tweak all of the parameters for your league. As bad as Team L's QB situation is, that isn't necessarily a death sentence for competing in a 1QB league if they have enough going on at the other positions. But if that collection of QBs moves to a super-flex, that team has no chance at competing. Is the 1.7 & 1.8 in '23 adequate compensation to deal with this newly created hardship? If the answer is yes, and you also think Team A is paying the right price for what they're gaining, you probably found the right formula.

 

[JohnnyU]

Just not up to reading a book today, sorry.

 

[runner06]

I'm currently in a 12-team league 1QB. I think everybody wants to do superflex for the next go around. Since it's an empire league, we'll just wait until the reset to make the change. However, if it was a standard dynasty with no determined endpoint, here's how I make the transition as early as this offseason. I'm going to conveniently assume that no rookie/free agent picks have changed hands.

• change from 1QB to SF is effective for '23 season
• compensatory "sandwich" picks will be added to the '23 and '24 rookie/FA drafts as follows
  • two picks in between the playoff and non-playoff teams (1.7 & 1.8)
  • one in front of the team with second place payout (1.13)
  • one in front of the championship team (1.15)
  • two picks behind the championship team, in front of round 2 (1.17 & 1.18)
  • Hence, the expanded first round now has 18 total picks instead of the usual 12
  • Repeat and rinse for Round 2. There are now 36 picks in the first 2 rounds, as opposed to the usual 24.
  • To recap, 12 bonus / "sandwich" picks have been created as compensation. Value of picks ranges from what would traditionally be mid-late 1st rounders (1.7 & 1.8) to late 3rd rounders (2.17 & 2.18)
  • Duplicate bonus picks for the '24 draft -- we have now created 24 bonus "sandwich" picks in the '23 and '24 draft.
  • Teams will compete for these 24 bonus selections in a one-time auction format this offseason
    • Each team will receive varying budgets that are based on QB dynasty value points gained as a result of moving from 1QB to 2QB
    • The team that received the biggest boost to their dynasty value will receive zero points and won't be able to obtain any bonus picks
    • The number of points back from the team that gained the most will be the budget that the other 11 teams will use to chase these picks.
    • Additional considerations:
      • any teams keeping a third QB will have the value of the 3rd most valuable QB multiplied by 1.5
      • any teams keeping a fourth QB will have the value of the 4th most valuable QB multiplied by 4, hopefully this prevents any team from keeping 4

Here's how the real-world results would look in my league. I'm going to omit the penalty on keeping 3rd and 4th QBs from this list to keep things a little more simple, but providing an example on Team A:

QB dynasty value points gained -- and subsequent auction budget:

A: Lawrence, Tagovailoa, R Wilson, Ridder 2731 to 12,601 = 9,870 gain -- $0
**e.g. Additional Wilson tax = 2043 x 0.5 = 1021 (not counted above)
**e.g. Additional Ridder tax = 344 x 3 = 1032 (not counted above
B: Fields, Lance, Carr 2,037 to 10,147 = 8,110 gain -- $1760
C: Allen, Cousins, D. Jones 6,338 to 13,581 = 7,243 gain -- $2627
D: Mahomes, Rodgers 5,013 to 11,764 = 6,761 gain -- $3109
E: Herbert, Brady, Willis 4028 to 10,681 = 6,653 gain -- $3217
F: Murray, Stafford 2866 to 9140 = 6,274 gain -- $3596
G: Burrow, Goff, Wentz 2982 to 9193 = 6,211 gain -- $3659
H: Hurts, Geno Smith 3127 to 8805 = 5,678 gain -- $4192
I: Prescott, Z Wilson, Garoppolo 1743 to 7358 = 5,615 gain -- $4255
J: Lamar Jackson, Dalton 3510 to 9011 = 5,501 gain -- $4369
K: Watson, Love, Mariota 1611 to 6523 = 4,912 gain -- $ 4958
L: Mac Jones, Tannehill, Mayfield 332 to 2071 = 1,739 gain -- $8131


Here's a mock auction of who I might expect to win the bonus draft picks:

'23 1.07 -- Team L $4193
'23 1.08 -- Team L $3938
'23 1.13 -- Team J $3660
'23 1.15 -- Team F $3596
'23 1.17 -- Team H $3218
'23 1.18 -- Team E $3217
'23 2.07 -- Team C $710
'23 2.08 -- Team H $683
'23 2.13 -- Team J $482
'23 2.15 -- Team D $368
'23 2.17 -- Team C $292
'23 2.18 -- Team K $205

'24 1.07 -- Team K $4256
'24 1.08 -- Team I $4255
'24 1.13 -- Team G $3659
'24 1.15 -- Team D $2628
'24 1.17 -- Team C $1550
'24 1.18 -- Team B $1078
'24 2.07 -- Team B $682
'24 2.08 -- Team K $482
'24 2.13 -- Team H $180
'24 2.15 -- Team J $114
'24 2.17 -- Team D $113
'24 2.18 -- Team H $111


Summary of Compensation by Team:

A: Lawrence, Tagovailoa, Wilson, Ridder +9,870 -- NOTHING
B: Fields, Lance, Carr +8,110 -- '24 1.18 '24 2.07
C: Allen, Cousins, D. Jones +7,243 -- '23 2.07 '23 2.17 '24 1.17
D: Mahomes, Rodgers +6,761 -- '23 2.15 '24 1.15 '24 2.17
E: Herbert, Brady, Willis +6,653 -- '23 1.18
F: Murray, Stafford +6,274 -- '23 1.15
G: Burrow, Goff, Wentz +6,211 -- '24 1.13
H: Hurts, Geno Smith +5,678 -- '23 1.17 '23 2.08 '24 2.13 '24 2.18
I: Prescott, Z Wilson, Garoppolo +5,615 -- '24 1.08
J: Lamar Jackson, Dalton +5,501 -- '23 1.13 '23 2.13 '24 2.15
K: Watson, Love, Mariota +4,912 -- '23 2.18 '24 1.07 '24 2.08
L: Mac Jones, Tannehill, Mayfield +1,739 -- '23 1.07 '23 1.08

**I will note that I think there might be some unrealized value increases coming during the offseason for Teams C, G, and H. I was surprised that those increases weren't larger based on the season some of those QBs are having.

The team gaining the most by moving to a Superflex is bringing in three young QBs (two premium) and a veteran. Team A is gaining all kinds of value at the QB position (primarily with Lawrence and Tua). However, they will pay for this windfall in two ways. Every other team in the league will gain some compensation in the form of bonus picks over the next two years whereas Team A gets nothing. Furthermore, Team A's regularly scheduled draft picks over the next two years will be devalued as a result of adding these bonus picks.

Teams B through E are standing on very good to solid ground for a move to superflex. The draft picks that they're winning in the auction are pretty marginal assets. They're probably losing more in the form of devaluation of their regularly scheduled draft picks over the next two years, as compared to anything they're gaining in the form of bonus picks.

Teams F through J aren't far behind, bringing at least one good QB to superflex. Their compensation is a little better than the previous group.

Team K is in pretty rough shape for a move to superflex. It depends how you feel about a Watson turnaround, but they're picking up a valuable #7 overall pick in 2024 to help make the transition.

Team L is in a terrible spot to move this collection of QBs from a 1QB to a SF. They were able to win the 1.07 and 1.08 in '23 to go get immediate help at the position.

So here's where the debate comes, and where you can tweak all of the parameters for your league. As bad as Team L's QB situation is, that isn't necessarily a death sentence for competing in a 1QB league if they have enough going on at the other positions. But if that collection of QBs moves to a super-flex, that team has no chance at competing. Is the 1.7 & 1.8 in '23 adequate compensation to deal with this newly created hardship? If the answer is yes, and you also think Team A is paying the right price for what they're gaining, you probably found the right formula.

I think the biggest issue with this that my league would never go for it.

I think your approach seems fair, but would also to complicated to get the other owners in my league to agree to.

The biggest feedback I got from my league members was my first idea was way to complicated.

 

[runner06]

Just not up to reading a book today, sorry.

LOL that's totally fair.

 

[Zow]

Not reading all that, but having been in both dynasties and keepers where we transitioned to superflex the best tip I can give is: notice. By that, give at least one season's notice to all owners of the change (ideally, you have this change be voted on and approved that way). So, if you're looking to make this change now, this should be for at least the 2024 seasons.

In my dynasty league we do 3 rounds of rookie drafts and those picks can be traded up to three years out. So, when we did the rule change, out of fairness to those who traded their picks away (since a rookie pick is arguably more valuable in superflex), we didn't implement the change for three years. Owners had plenty of time to be aware and plan and there were no complaints.

Similarly, in a keeper league of mine we are actually making the switch to superflex next year and we made this vote before this year's keepers and made and draft picks were eligible to be traded (this league only allows for draft pick swaps for the next year). We also agree to limit QB keepers to just one so there was no hoarding next year - if anything, the impact was that the first round picks became more valuable. So far it seems totally fair and there've been no complaints.

 

[BassNBrew]

What about implementing next year and multiple QB scoring by .6 next year and .8 the following year. You get the fun of the SF immediately while giving QB weak teams a big advantage during the transition.

 

[HW_53]

Aight. I'm out.