Dynasty League Concerns (1 Viewer)

[Warhogs]

First off several of the owners of this league are readers here and I am not trying to cause issues but I have concerns.

History: This is a dynasty league that is just starting year #2 and I have enjoyed the league.

My concern: We had a cut down due date to 20 players this past Saturday. 4 of 12 teams did not turn in cuts so the commish made the cuts for them. He did not cut the 5 worst players and I am not sure if he did random or what but he dropped some scrubs but also players like Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Jamal Lewis. I understand his idea of making it painful if they did not meet the deadline but I am concerned about a couple of things. 1- These owners have not been active. I think this creates an issue finding new owners when you drop talented players off their roster. 2- This was a decision made to handle this issue and it was not specifically in the rules. The decision significantly changes the value of draft picks for the upcoming restocking rookie/veteran draft. Many owners have traded draft picks recently not knowing that this could be a possibility.

I have emailed the commish my concerns and am waiting to hear back. What would be your reaction to this? I am obviously waiting to hear what the commish says but I have concerns for the future of this league if 4 teams need owners and are put at a disadvantage. Should I consider finding a new league if I am concerned or is this over reacting? Again, I plan on waiting to hear if this is what the league is sticking with.

Thanks!

 

[Dope]

I understand making the cuts for the owners, but you can't cut the studs like that.

That causes resentment, league imbalance, all kinds of problems. I would be shocked if this league continues after just one year and stuff like this happening.

The #1 job of a good or great commish is the betterment of the league...and I don't see how this arbitrary move makes this league better in any way.

 

[BigTex]

First off several of the owners of this league are readers here and I am not trying to cause issues but I have concerns.

History: This is a dynasty league that is just starting year #2 and I have enjoyed the league.

My concern: We had a cut down due date to 20 players this past Saturday. 4 of 12 teams did not turn in cuts so the commish made the cuts for them. He did not cut the 5 worst players and I am not sure if he did random or what but he dropped some scrubs but also players like Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Jamal Lewis. I understand his idea of making it painful if they did not meet the deadline but I am concerned about a couple of things. 1- These owners have not been active. I think this creates an issue finding new owners when you drop talented players off their roster. 2- This was a decision made to handle this issue and it was not specifically in the rules. The decision significantly changes the value of draft picks for the upcoming restocking rookie/veteran draft. Many owners have traded draft picks recently not knowing that this could be a possibility.

I have emailed the commish my concerns and am waiting to hear back. What would be your reaction to this? I am obviously waiting to hear what the commish says but I have concerns for the future of this league if 4 teams need owners and are put at a disadvantage. Should I consider finding a new league if I am concerned or is this over reacting? Again, I plan on waiting to hear if this is what the league is sticking with.

Thanks!

If your league rules do not address this issue then you guys need to consider making an amendment to this rule so this issue would be clear.In our league the worst players are dropped. If an owner misses the draft and doesn't turn in a ranking sheet, then the best are drafted for him.

I hope this works out for you guys.

 

[thayman]

I guess it depends on who else he could of cut. Did he cut Rivers, because needed the roster space, for a comparable/better player.

Also was it a situation where Rivers was let go, but that owner has a top pick and has a good chance of reaquiring him??

Personally I would probably have an issue with this, does any other owner in the league have an opinion??

 

[Warhogs]

I really do think there is a good chance the commish makes things right. He has done a pretty solid job in year 1. I just really see this as a big cloud if it is not made right and am thinking that it may not be a league I want to be part of. Then I asked myself if that is over reacting?

Edit to add: I posted my concerns on the league message board but no other owner has expressed an opinion.

 

[-OZ-]

Off hand I'd want the owners to get a 2nd chance to make cuts, just make this a wake up call.

If owners can't meet deadlines, especially 1/3 of your league, I'd consider it a dead league.

 

[Sopranos]

That kind of action will end a league. Now you have like 4 teams that have far less talent and the stronger teams will get some. Dont even ask. Did he drop them to make room for a better player...crap. You dont drop Rivers in a dynasy or Eli. Take that crap somewhere where people dont have a clue. This is the shark Pool,not the minnow pond

 

[aussiehockeyfan]

Suggestion #1: get new owners to replace inactive ones.

But yeah, the Commish should use common sense and cut players as if it was his team. Otherwise all the issues raised could potentially cause problems down the line.

 

[P Boy]

I think a better penalty rather than running their teams for them and making those cuts would be a draft penalty.

You miss complying with the deadline by 3 days or less - you lose say 3 slots in the draft (ie - going from pick 1.07 to 1.10) with a progessive penalty in the draft from that point on.

If these guys are actually interested in playing in the league, they'll comply quickly. If not, you'll want them replaced anyhow. The major premises of a dynasty league is the year-round involvement as well as the building on the long term. If you end up replacing the owner(s), you can always reinstate the original draft positions with no harm to anyone else's team (since they would have had their original draft slots anyhow).

Making roster decisions for other teams is out-of-bounds, IMO.

 

[thayman]

That kind of action will end a league. Now you have like 4 teams that have far less talent and the stronger teams will get some. Dont even ask. Did he drop them to make room for a better player...crap. You dont drop Rivers in a dynasy or Eli. Take that crap somewhere where people dont have a clue. This is the shark Pool,not the minnow pond

Relax sparky. Merely asking what the rest of the roster looked like. If i'm down to deciding between Petyon Manning, and Philip Rivers, I think I'll keep Peyton.If I've got a stud QB or two, and the 1.01 vet pick you better belive I'll drop Rivers, worst case scenario you pick him back up. Just asking for specifics.

 

[Warhogs]

I think a better penalty rather than running their teams for them and making those cuts would be a draft penalty.

You miss complying with the deadline by 3 days or less - you lose say 3 slots in the draft (ie - going from pick 1.07 to 1.10) with a progessive penalty in the draft from that point on.

If these guys are actually interested in playing in the league, they'll comply quickly. If not, you'll want them replaced anyhow. The major premises of a dynasty league is the year-round involvement as well as the building on the long term. If you end up replacing the owner(s), you can always reinstate the original draft positions with no harm to anyone else's team (since they would have had their original draft slots anyhow).

Making roster decisions for other teams is out-of-bounds, IMO.

This was actually my suggestion. I said penalize them in draft picks if they choose to keep their teams. If a new owner is found then no penalty. I personally feel that these owners should be sent a message explaining this and say their team is available to a new owner and if they do not want to lose it they need to respond ASAP.

 

[Warhogs]

The commish clearly stated when he announced the cuts that if you missed the cut deadline you will not like who he cuts. Obviously he intended to cut some of the better players.

 

[thayman]

The commish clearly stated when he announced the cuts that if you missed the cut deadline you will not like who he cuts. Obviously he intended to cut some of the better players.

I understand the message he is trying to send......but it does skew the league a bit. I think your new owner/draft penalize is probably the best route to go.

 

[Sopranos]

That kind of action will end a league. Now you have like 4 teams that have far less talent and the stronger teams will get some. Dont even ask. Did he drop them to make room for a better player...crap. You dont drop Rivers in a dynasy or Eli. Take that crap somewhere where people dont have a clue. This is the shark Pool,not the minnow pond

Relax sparky. Merely asking what the rest of the roster looked like. If i'm down to deciding between Petyon Manning, and Philip Rivers, I think I'll keep Peyton.If I've got a stud QB or two, and the 1.01 vet pick you better belive I'll drop Rivers, worst case scenario you pick him back up. Just asking for specifics.

Fair enough but with 20 player rosters you cant drop any of the 3 he listed.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

First off several of the owners of this league are readers here and I am not trying to cause issues but I have concerns.

History: This is a dynasty league that is just starting year #2 and I have enjoyed the league.

My concern: We had a cut down due date to 20 players this past Saturday. 4 of 12 teams did not turn in cuts so the commish made the cuts for them. He did not cut the 5 worst players and I am not sure if he did random or what but he dropped some scrubs but also players like Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Jamal Lewis. I understand his idea of making it painful if they did not meet the deadline but I am concerned about a couple of things. 1- These owners have not been active. I think this creates an issue finding new owners when you drop talented players off their roster. 2- This was a decision made to handle this issue and it was not specifically in the rules. The decision significantly changes the value of draft picks for the upcoming restocking rookie/veteran draft. Many owners have traded draft picks recently not knowing that this could be a possibility.

I have emailed the commish my concerns and am waiting to hear back. What would be your reaction to this? I am obviously waiting to hear what the commish says but I have concerns for the future of this league if 4 teams need owners and are put at a disadvantage. Should I consider finding a new league if I am concerned or is this over reacting? Again, I plan on waiting to hear if this is what the league is sticking with.

Thanks!

With 4 owners not returning for duty, your league has some issues.That should be the primary order of business.

The commish should make every effort to re-establish contact and find out if they are IN or OUT. After that, nominations from the league should be opened for replacement owners.

Commish should also re-populate the talent to the teams. That will give incentive for new owners to pick up / take over better teams.

I'd also delay the league activity until new ownership was found. The more they miss the further behind they will be.

No rush to draft, fix the league first. A month or two should do it.

Good luck.

 

[Bizkiteer]

I understand making the cuts for the owners, but you can't cut the studs like that.

That causes resentment, league imbalance, all kinds of problems. I would be shocked if this league continues after just one year and stuff like this happening.

The #1 job of a good or great commish is the betterment of the league...and I don't see how this arbitrary move makes this league better in any way.

I also agree to this way of thinking. I'd also like to point out that why only three good players? If a harsh cut was to be made...there should be equal value of players. I would say getting the rest of the league involved to also decide on who and so forth. Thus, it's a league action and not a personal decision. My whole point is that why scrubs for one team and not the other? This unfair practice in this situation and others will make the league fold. Should be the last players that were picked up, most FA moves don't amount to as much as drafted players. Just a thought IF the league had to make a tuff decision or move.

 

[aussiehockeyfan]

Another thing - if you're going to penalise owners that aren't already active, what's the incentive for those owners coming back?

 

[Z-Dog]

Leave the league immediately. No good will come of this situation.

 

[thayman]

Another thought.....When does your comish pick in the draft?? Did he cut players like Eli and Rivers so he could draft them?? If so I'd drop the league instantly.

 

[P Boy]

Leave the league immediately. No good will come of this situation.

This is another good suggestion. If you gave the commish a better out, and he refused just to flex his muscles (and as a consequence will most probably really queer up the balance of the league with those high profile FAs), and then you have that many inactive owners who don't care about their teams, this league has big red flags all over it.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Everybody has already posted great suggestions, so perhaps this is just piling on. But it seems like your league has a few issues that need to be addressed immediately:

1) Make your rulebook more explicit

Our detailed league rules make it very clear what the penalty is for failing to drop players prior to cutdown. Without detailed rules, along with a process for appealing the Commish's decisions, a league can quickly descend into chaos

2) Get rid of deadbeat owners

You mentioned that a bunch of your owners read this board. That probably means they take fantasy football seriously. Why would you want to be in a 12-team league that is 1/3rd absentee owners?

While revising your rulebook, put in place a process that will be used to get rid of deadbeat owners. We had to do that after our 1st year, and while it caused a bit of turmoil, in the long run it was best for the league

3) Get a new Commish

Being Commish can be a stressful, thankless job. The other owners will always find it easy to second-guess the Commish's decisions. So I'm not trying to be overly critical.

But it seems like your Commish is out to prove points rather than arrive at a constructive decision that will resolve this issue. The Commish needs to always take a long-term view, consult the rulebook, and make the best decision possible for the overall health of the league. In some ways, it's like being on the Supreme Court. (with the obvious difference being that fantasy football decisions are WAY more important than the nonsense the S.C. discusses)

Good luck.

 

[Tick]

No good - if the commish doesn't budge, I'd bail.

 

[mike11162]

I run a 4th year dynasty league and there's no way I'd ever cut players like that for another team. You have to assume these are "dead" owners and you're only making it more difficult to find replacement owners, especially quality ones to avoid a similar situation down the road. Taking actions like that hurts the rest of the league more than the owners of those teams because those owners obviously didn't care enough and probably were quitting any way. I understand a commissioner being frustrated by lack of response, but you have to keep the integrity of the league as top priority and simply bring in new blood.

The proper way to handle this situation would have been for the commissioner to require a confirmation about a week or so before the final cutdown date. If any of the owners failed to respond, then it would be fair game to replace them. A week isn't always enough time to find new owners, especially early in the offseason, but you could always delay the cutdown date from there until you do have all teams confirmed with owners.

In our league we have separate rookie and vet/free agent drafts. If an owner fails to comply with the cutdown date, he simply forfeits his rookie picks. If he intended to cut anyone, he can still do it after the 3 round rookie draft so he can at least make some adjustments to his roster if he intended to, but as our league is a pure dynasty format it's still a big penalty to pay because the rookie draft is the only way to really bring in any quality new talent. I've only had one owner not respond to confirmation, and we replaced him about a month before our cutdown date, so we haven't had a problem like the one in this league. No one's ever missed cutdown day either.

BTW, a responsible commissioner should also be monitoring the owner activity chart to keep alerted if there is potentially a problem brewing like this.

 

[gang-wars]

He pretty much ruined the league. Good job commish!

 

[BigJim®]

That's just wrong on so many levels.

Teams not making cutdown don't need to be penalized, they need to be replaced with competitive owners. Competitive owners won't be easy to find if 8 teams have plundered the 4 you need to fill. Even if you find great replacement owners, I wouldn't expect competitiveness from those teams for a couple seasons.

If you do penalize rare infractions, the manner has to be spelled out and not serve as some meaningless lesson to owners halfway out the door.

One example, my league has never needed it but we have a rule that says:

Any team that exceeds the cut down deadline will be fined three FA credits per day untill the roster is reduced. If the roster is not reduced by season start, the commissionership will cut players off the team in order of most recent acquisition until roster limit and contract limits are met.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

As others have mentioned here, the penalty should be explicit in the rules ahead of time.

I tend to agree with many of the others here, making roster moves for a team is out of bounds for the commish. The penalties should start with something like draft picks, or if your league uses some kind of fake currency or contract years something like that could be an alternative. If that's not getting the point across, expulsion from the league for those teams should be the next step.

Though given the current situation I do kind of see the need for harsh recourse. If these guys are able to wait until after the NFL draft to make their cuts that is a major major advantage.

 

[JohnnyU]

It's really very simple, drop the previously added FAs to meet the max roster size.

 

[Liquid Tension]

First off several of the owners of this league are readers here and I am not trying to cause issues but I have concerns.

History: This is a dynasty league that is just starting year #2 and I have enjoyed the league.

My concern: We had a cut down due date to 20 players this past Saturday. 4 of 12 teams did not turn in cuts so the commish made the cuts for them. He did not cut the 5 worst players and I am not sure if he did random or what but he dropped some scrubs but also players like Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Jamal Lewis. I understand his idea of making it painful if they did not meet the deadline but I am concerned about a couple of things. 1- These owners have not been active. I think this creates an issue finding new owners when you drop talented players off their roster. 2- This was a decision made to handle this issue and it was not specifically in the rules. The decision significantly changes the value of draft picks for the upcoming restocking rookie/veteran draft. Many owners have traded draft picks recently not knowing that this could be a possibility.

I have emailed the commish my concerns and am waiting to hear back. What would be your reaction to this? I am obviously waiting to hear what the commish says but I have concerns for the future of this league if 4 teams need owners and are put at a disadvantage. Should I consider finding a new league if I am concerned or is this over reacting? Again, I plan on waiting to hear if this is what the league is sticking with.

Thanks!

Not sure if the Shark pool is the place to post, but off of this issue I will ask. I agree as commish your one job is what is best for the league as a while. Obviously you can't arbitrarily take draft picks away from the better team or things like that, UNLESS it is in your by laws. I have a great team in my league and I am the Commish. I am concerned that some of the owners will get annoyed and leave. The main purpose of our league (semi dynasty 9 man keeper) was for people who wanted to play long term. I would like to put in some rules such as winning the league you only get to keep 8 players and if you win twice in a row you can only keep 8 etc...Along the same lines if you take a past 4 year total where how many SB wins you had in 4 years you lose that many keepers etc... Also, I was thinking about rewarding longevity somehow? I don't know if it hurts new owners, but it may make it interesting. Has anyone done anything like this. I really want to penalize myself but do it in a "fair" way. BTW, we will be entering out 3rd year and I won the first and lost the SB in the 2nd so I don't want to penalize the 2nd year winning any more than myself. Thanks for any ideas

 

[thayman]

First off several of the owners of this league are readers here and I am not trying to cause issues but I have concerns.

History:  This is a dynasty league that is just starting year #2 and I have enjoyed the league.

My concern:  We had a cut down due date to 20 players this past Saturday.  4 of 12 teams did not turn in cuts so the commish made the cuts for them.  He did not cut the 5 worst players and I am not sure if he did random or what but he dropped some scrubs but also players like Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Jamal Lewis.  I understand his idea of making it painful if they did not meet the deadline but I am concerned about a couple of things.  1- These owners have not been active.  I think this creates an issue finding new owners when you drop talented players off their roster.  2- This was a decision made to handle this issue and it was not specifically in the rules.  The decision significantly changes the value of draft picks for the upcoming restocking rookie/veteran draft.  Many owners have traded draft picks recently not knowing that this could be a possibility.

I have emailed the commish my concerns and am waiting to hear back.  What would be your reaction to this?  I am obviously waiting to hear what the commish says but I have concerns for the future of this league if 4 teams need owners and are put at a disadvantage.  Should I consider finding a new league if I am concerned or is this over reacting?  Again, I plan on waiting to hear if this is what the league is sticking with.

Thanks!

Not sure if the Shark pool is the place to post, but off of this issue I will ask. I agree as commish your one job is what is best for the league as a while. Obviously you can't arbitrarily take draft picks away from the better team or things like that, UNLESS it is in your by laws. I have a great team in my league and I am the Commish. I am concerned that some of the owners will get annoyed and leave. The main purpose of our league (semi dynasty 9 man keeper) was for people who wanted to play long term. I would like to put in some rules such as winning the league you only get to keep 8 players and if you win twice in a row you can only keep 8 etc...Along the same lines if you take a past 4 year total where how many SB wins you had in 4 years you lose that many keepers etc... Also, I was thinking about rewarding longevity somehow? I don't know if it hurts new owners, but it may make it interesting. Has anyone done anything like this. I really want to penalize myself but do it in a "fair" way. BTW, we will be entering out 3rd year and I won the first and lost the SB in the 2nd so I don't want to penalize the 2nd year winning any more than myself. Thanks for any ideas

I like your thought of the returning champ can only protect 8 instead of 9. Maybe expand that to be the two teams that are in the SB??I'm in a similar league (IDP) where we protect up to 8 players. We do one draft, rookies and vets, and every player you protect costs a draft pick. So if I protect 4 players, I don't get a pick until the 5th round. That adds a bit of excitement, ecspecially since we wont know who has a shot at Bush until after our protected lists are in......

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My concern: We had a cut down due date to 20 players this past Saturday. 4 of 12 teams did not turn in cuts so the commish made the cuts for them. He did not cut the 5 worst players and I am not sure if he did random or what but he dropped some scrubs but also players like Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Jamal Lewis.

Total **** move on the commish's part. This is a good way to poison a young league.

 

[Liquid Tension]

First off several of the owners of this league are readers here and I am not trying to cause issues but I have concerns.

History:  This is a dynasty league that is just starting year #2 and I have enjoyed the league.

My concern:  We had a cut down due date to 20 players this past Saturday.  4 of 12 teams did not turn in cuts so the commish made the cuts for them.  He did not cut the 5 worst players and I am not sure if he did random or what but he dropped some scrubs but also players like Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Jamal Lewis.  I understand his idea of making it painful if they did not meet the deadline but I am concerned about a couple of things.  1- These owners have not been active.  I think this creates an issue finding new owners when you drop talented players off their roster.  2- This was a decision made to handle this issue and it was not specifically in the rules.  The decision significantly changes the value of draft picks for the upcoming restocking rookie/veteran draft.  Many owners have traded draft picks recently not knowing that this could be a possibility.

I have emailed the commish my concerns and am waiting to hear back.  What would be your reaction to this?  I am obviously waiting to hear what the commish says but I have concerns for the future of this league if 4 teams need owners and are put at a disadvantage.  Should I consider finding a new league if I am concerned or is this over reacting?  Again, I plan on waiting to hear if this is what the league is sticking with.

Thanks!

Not sure if the Shark pool is the place to post, but off of this issue I will ask. I agree as commish your one job is what is best for the league as a while. Obviously you can't arbitrarily take draft picks away from the better team or things like that, UNLESS it is in your by laws. I have a great team in my league and I am the Commish. I am concerned that some of the owners will get annoyed and leave. The main purpose of our league (semi dynasty 9 man keeper) was for people who wanted to play long term. I would like to put in some rules such as winning the league you only get to keep 8 players and if you win twice in a row you can only keep 8 etc...Along the same lines if you take a past 4 year total where how many SB wins you had in 4 years you lose that many keepers etc... Also, I was thinking about rewarding longevity somehow? I don't know if it hurts new owners, but it may make it interesting. Has anyone done anything like this. I really want to penalize myself but do it in a "fair" way. BTW, we will be entering out 3rd year and I won the first and lost the SB in the 2nd so I don't want to penalize the 2nd year winning any more than myself. Thanks for any ideas

I like your thought of the returning champ can only protect 8 instead of 9. Maybe expand that to be the two teams that are in the SB??I'm in a similar league (IDP) where we protect up to 8 players. We do one draft, rookies and vets, and every player you protect costs a draft pick. So if I protect 4 players, I don't get a pick until the 5th round. That adds a bit of excitement, ecspecially since we wont know who has a shot at Bush until after our protected lists are in......

That can work as well. so for every player you decide to keep it costs you a draft pick. The good teams will not be able to replenish as well but can hold their studs for the years they are still productive. Maybe a combo would work. The one issue would be that teams that did not do well last year would have to keep one less guy to make sure they get the #1 pick...Also, the reason I didn't include the SB candidates in the less keeper is because if you don't win, I don't want someone penalized. Thanks for your thoughts

 

[Warhogs]

I'm not sure how you could work this in or if you would want to but I played in a league many years ago where restocking was done through a blind bidding process using points. I think it would apply to an auction as well. The basic concept was every team got a base number of points to bis on available players and then each team was awarded 2 additional points for each loss. That way the teams with the most losses were given extra points to have a better chance at available players.

I'm not sure if this concept is good or bad but it did allow the poorer teams more ability to build up in that process. My concern would be the risk of teams tanking games for additional points. I guess that is no different than tanking for a higher draft pick.

You could possibly build some sort of scale of points or $$ based on where you finished.

Just wanted to through it out since I have seen this used.

 

[thayman]

First off several of the owners of this league are readers here and I am not trying to cause issues but I have concerns.

History:  This is a dynasty league that is just starting year #2 and I have enjoyed the league.

My concern:  We had a cut down due date to 20 players this past Saturday.  4 of 12 teams did not turn in cuts so the commish made the cuts for them.  He did not cut the 5 worst players and I am not sure if he did random or what but he dropped some scrubs but also players like Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Jamal Lewis.  I understand his idea of making it painful if they did not meet the deadline but I am concerned about a couple of things.  1- These owners have not been active.  I think this creates an issue finding new owners when you drop talented players off their roster.  2- This was a decision made to handle this issue and it was not specifically in the rules.  The decision significantly changes the value of draft picks for the upcoming restocking rookie/veteran draft.  Many owners have traded draft picks recently not knowing that this could be a possibility.

I have emailed the commish my concerns and am waiting to hear back.  What would be your reaction to this?  I am obviously waiting to hear what the commish says but I have concerns for the future of this league if 4 teams need owners and are put at a disadvantage.  Should I consider finding a new league if I am concerned or is this over reacting?  Again, I plan on waiting to hear if this is what the league is sticking with.

Thanks!

Not sure if the Shark pool is the place to post, but off of this issue I will ask. I agree as commish your one job is what is best for the league as a while. Obviously you can't arbitrarily take draft picks away from the better team or things like that, UNLESS it is in your by laws. I have a great team in my league and I am the Commish. I am concerned that some of the owners will get annoyed and leave. The main purpose of our league (semi dynasty 9 man keeper) was for people who wanted to play long term. I would like to put in some rules such as winning the league you only get to keep 8 players and if you win twice in a row you can only keep 8 etc...Along the same lines if you take a past 4 year total where how many SB wins you had in 4 years you lose that many keepers etc... Also, I was thinking about rewarding longevity somehow? I don't know if it hurts new owners, but it may make it interesting. Has anyone done anything like this. I really want to penalize myself but do it in a "fair" way. BTW, we will be entering out 3rd year and I won the first and lost the SB in the 2nd so I don't want to penalize the 2nd year winning any more than myself. Thanks for any ideas

I like your thought of the returning champ can only protect 8 instead of 9. Maybe expand that to be the two teams that are in the SB??I'm in a similar league (IDP) where we protect up to 8 players. We do one draft, rookies and vets, and every player you protect costs a draft pick. So if I protect 4 players, I don't get a pick until the 5th round. That adds a bit of excitement, ecspecially since we wont know who has a shot at Bush until after our protected lists are in......

That can work as well. so for every player you decide to keep it costs you a draft pick. The good teams will not be able to replenish as well but can hold their studs for the years they are still productive. Maybe a combo would work. The one issue would be that teams that did not do well last year would have to keep one less guy to make sure they get the #1 pick...Also, the reason I didn't include the SB candidates in the less keeper is because if you don't win, I don't want someone penalized. Thanks for your thoughts

a pleasure.....it does a good job of keeping the parity of the leauge, since you always have a player that doesn't perform, (Culpepper, Gonzo, etc...) So the guy that kept Culpepper missed out on Caddy, Ronnie Brown, the league moves up and down every year.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm not sure how you could work this in or if you would want to but I played in a league many years ago where restocking was done through a blind bidding process using points. I think it would apply to an auction as well. The basic concept was every team got a base number of points to bis on available players and then each team was awarded 2 additional points for each loss. That way the teams with the most losses were given extra points to have a better chance at available players.

I'm not sure if this concept is good or bad but it did allow the poorer teams more ability to build up in that process. My concern would be the risk of teams tanking games for additional points. I guess that is no different than tanking for a higher draft pick.

You could possibly build some sort of scale of points or $$ based on where you finished.

Just wanted to through it out since I have seen this used.

Appreciate the thought. I agree about the tanking but you can have rules about fielding a team and one thing I am considering is weighting the teams that don't make the playoffs like the NBA does to limit tanking as well. We would then have an auction to decide order. I already give a prize for the team that wins the tournament of non playoff teams. It is not large (I think $40), but stops teams from having nothing left on their roster as a team making a late run can win it.