Dynasty League with Age Restrictions (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

This is a spin-off of the other thread making owners wait a year to start. So I just came up with this idea that might force owners to develop a balanced roster of both younger and older players. I would envision it along the lines of doing age brackets and having a set number of players in each age bracket. I would ignore kickers completely. I would also likely ignore 1 QB spot as I don't think there's any difference or advantage of older vs. younger QBs and there is such a huge range at the position.

Assuming a 24 man roster and removing 3 spots (1 QBs, 1 K, 1 Def), that would leave 20 roster spots that would adhere to the following, for example:

20-22 year olds: 3

23-25 year olds: 4

26-28 year olds: 5

29-31 year olds: 5

32-34 year olds: 3

35+ year olds: 1

This would force you to maintain both youth and older players. As players rotate into a higher age bracket, you have to decide whether or not they are worth keeping based on what you have or need to be dropped or traded. I think this would encourage trading as well to help teams keep within the age constraints. It would also force owners to be active throughout the year and manage their rosters accordingly. Any owner that has a player that has a birthday and doesn't have a roster adjustment has to make the adjustment once another owner points it out. That player is then available to be picked up by any other team (likely rotating waiver system). I think this would also force owners to be very good talent evaluators to build a team that can sustain as players get older while developing younger players. Thoughts? Would there be any interest in this?

I would add that there would likely be a 2-3 month "buffer" to allow for trades if a player is going to be changing into the next age bracket. You could designate them in that next group to allow for a trade or waiver move.

It would definitely need some specific tweaking but would work with a good group of active owners, I think.

 

[Bamac]

Well done, sir.

 

[TheFanatic]

Man, I have enough to think about! Sure, I check the ages in my dynasty leagues, but I don't know them all by heart...

Gian, you're making my head hurt!

 

[Bamac]

Man, I have enough to think about! Sure, I check the ages in my dynasty leagues, but I don't know them all by heart...Gian, you're making my head hurt!

He's not serious. He's making fun of me.

 

[Nucker101]

Man, I have enough to think about! Sure, I check the ages in my dynasty leagues, but I don't know them all by heart...Gian, you're making my head hurt!

He's not serious. He's making fun of me.

Really? Seemed like he was pretty serious. No offence, but this idea makes much more sense to me.

 

[gianmarco]

Man, I have enough to think about! Sure, I check the ages in my dynasty leagues, but I don't know them all by heart...Gian, you're making my head hurt!

He's not serious. He's making fun of me.

Really? Seemed like he was pretty serious. No offence, but this idea makes much more sense to me.

I'm very serious. This might be fun.

 

[FUBAR]

This is a spin-off of the other thread making owners wait a year to start. So I just came up with this idea that might force owners to develop a balanced roster...

I effectively stopped reading there.

 

[Bamac]

Man, I have enough to think about! Sure, I check the ages in my dynasty leagues, but I don't know them all by heart...Gian, you're making my head hurt!

He's not serious. He's making fun of me.

Really? Seemed like he was pretty serious. No offence, but this idea makes much more sense to me.

It takes much more than that to offend me.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This is a spin-off of the other thread making owners wait a year to start. So I just came up with this idea that might force owners to develop a balanced roster...

I effectively stopped reading there.

I'm in the same boat. Why are we looking to force a philosophy down anyone's throat. Why can't people run their teams as they see fit.I also think these restrictions will make trading more difficult.

 

[Bamac]

Man, I have enough to think about! Sure, I check the ages in my dynasty leagues, but I don't know them all by heart...Gian, you're making my head hurt!

He's not serious. He's making fun of me.

Really? Seemed like he was pretty serious. No offence, but this idea makes much more sense to me.

I'm very serious. This might be fun.

I'm disappointed that you're serious, because that was a great parody. But if you decide to do this I'd be interested.

 

[gianmarco]

This is a spin-off of the other thread making owners wait a year to start. So I just came up with this idea that might force owners to develop a balanced roster...

I effectively stopped reading there.

I'm in the same boat. Why are we looking to force a philosophy down anyone's throat. Why can't people run their teams as they see fit.I also think these restrictions will make trading more difficult.

It's not forcing a philosophy. It's similar to having designated starter positions vs. flex spots. Your starters can still be concentrated with older players or with younger players or however you want. What it does, however, is keep people from treating it as a complete redraft or from a complete youth only team that won't compete for a couple years (at best). Also, it's not as if this would become a prevalent style of league. There are plenty of leagues to join that allow you to do what you want. This is just a "specialty" kind of league for owners to try something different and offer more of a challenge. If you see it as "forcing a philosophy" to you, then it's obviously not for you.

 

[Bamac]

Instead of the 2-3 month buffer, how about using everyone's age as of a particular date (say June 1)?

June 1 could also be the offseason deadline for getting your roster "right".

 

[Shutout]

Under the current makeup I think it would really restrict trading.

Have you thought about treating age as a salary cap instead? For example, instead of saying you must have X amount of 22-25 year olds, instead say the cummulative of each roster must be X years old and no more than X years old.

So, you crunch some numbers and find two points that would make it feasible to where you couldn't have a roster full of pups or near-deads and you might have more freedom in your trading.

 

[JPeso]

This with an incredibly large buy-in and deposit for future years would be ultimate nirvana. I don't think it hinders trading at all so long as you are playing with 11 other guys who also want to see good how they really are.

 

[FUBAR]

Instead of the 2-3 month buffer, how about using everyone's age as of a particular date (say June 1)?June 1 could also be the offseason deadline for getting your roster "right".

Something like that i could support. June 1, your roster must be between 475-525 years for a 20 man roster, roughly 25 years each. The rest of the year is open.

 

[squistion]

This is a spin-off of the other thread making owners wait a year to start. So I just came up with this idea that might force owners to develop a balanced roster...

I effectively stopped reading there.

I'm in the same boat. Why are we looking to force a philosophy down anyone's throat. Why can't people run their teams as they see fit.I also think these restrictions will make trading more difficult.

It's not forcing a philosophy. It's similar to having designated starter positions vs. flex spots. Your starters can still be concentrated with older players or with younger players or however you want. What it does, however, is keep people from treating it as a complete redraft or from a complete youth only team that won't compete for a couple years (at best). Also, it's not as if this would become a prevalent style of league. There are plenty of leagues to join that allow you to do what you want. This is just a "specialty" kind of league for owners to try something different and offer more of a challenge. If you see it as "forcing a philosophy" to you, then it's obviously not for you.

It certainly is - excluding people who have a philosophy or strategy you don't believe in is forcing your philosophy or preferred strategy whether you see it that way or not.And yes, it obviously is not for me.

 

[FUBAR]

This is a spin-off of the other thread making owners wait a year to start. So I just came up with this idea that might force owners to develop a balanced roster...

I effectively stopped reading there.

I'm in the same boat. Why are we looking to force a philosophy down anyone's throat. Why can't people run their teams as they see fit.I also think these restrictions will make trading more difficult.

It's not forcing a philosophy. It's similar to having designated starter positions vs. flex spots. Your starters can still be concentrated with older players or with younger players or however you want. What it does, however, is keep people from treating it as a complete redraft or from a complete youth only team that won't compete for a couple years (at best). Also, it's not as if this would become a prevalent style of league. There are plenty of leagues to join that allow you to do what you want. This is just a "specialty" kind of league for owners to try something different and offer more of a challenge. If you see it as "forcing a philosophy" to you, then it's obviously not for you.

It certainly is - excluding people who have a philosophy or strategy you don't believe in is forcing your philosophy or preferred strategy whether you see it that way or not.And yes, it obviously is not for me.

It is clearly limiting philosophies. But so is requiring every team to set a "legitimate" starting lineup or preventing tanking.

 

[squistion]

This is a spin-off of the other thread making owners wait a year to start. So I just came up with this idea that might force owners to develop a balanced roster...

I effectively stopped reading there.

I'm in the same boat. Why are we looking to force a philosophy down anyone's throat. Why can't people run their teams as they see fit.I also think these restrictions will make trading more difficult.

It's not forcing a philosophy. It's similar to having designated starter positions vs. flex spots. Your starters can still be concentrated with older players or with younger players or however you want. What it does, however, is keep people from treating it as a complete redraft or from a complete youth only team that won't compete for a couple years (at best). Also, it's not as if this would become a prevalent style of league. There are plenty of leagues to join that allow you to do what you want. This is just a "specialty" kind of league for owners to try something different and offer more of a challenge. If you see it as "forcing a philosophy" to you, then it's obviously not for you.

It certainly is - excluding people who have a philosophy or strategy you don't believe in is forcing your philosophy or preferred strategy whether you see it that way or not.And yes, it obviously is not for me.

It is clearly limiting philosophies. But so is requiring every team to set a "legitimate" starting lineup or preventing tanking.

False equivalency. Trying to prevent people from essentially cheating (by tanking or starting players injured/on a bye) is hardly the same as preventing people from using a shorter term or longer term dynasty strategy you don't agree with.

 

[FUBAR]

This is a spin-off of the other thread making owners wait a year to start. So I just came up with this idea that might force owners to develop a balanced roster...

I effectively stopped reading there.

I'm in the same boat. Why are we looking to force a philosophy down anyone's throat. Why can't people run their teams as they see fit.I also think these restrictions will make trading more difficult.

It's not forcing a philosophy. It's similar to having designated starter positions vs. flex spots. Your starters can still be concentrated with older players or with younger players or however you want. What it does, however, is keep people from treating it as a complete redraft or from a complete youth only team that won't compete for a couple years (at best). Also, it's not as if this would become a prevalent style of league. There are plenty of leagues to join that allow you to do what you want. This is just a "specialty" kind of league for owners to try something different and offer more of a challenge. If you see it as "forcing a philosophy" to you, then it's obviously not for you.

It certainly is - excluding people who have a philosophy or strategy you don't believe in is forcing your philosophy or preferred strategy whether you see it that way or not.And yes, it obviously is not for me.

It is clearly limiting philosophies. But so is requiring every team to set a "legitimate" starting lineup or preventing tanking.

False equivalency. Trying to prevent people from essentially cheating (by tanking or starting players injured/on a bye) is hardly the same as preventing people from using a shorter term or longer term dynasty strategy you don't agree with.

It's only cheating because the rules say you're not allowed to do it.

 

[squistion]

This is a spin-off of the other thread making owners wait a year to start. So I just came up with this idea that might force owners to develop a balanced roster...

I effectively stopped reading there.

I'm in the same boat. Why are we looking to force a philosophy down anyone's throat. Why can't people run their teams as they see fit.I also think these restrictions will make trading more difficult.

It's not forcing a philosophy. It's similar to having designated starter positions vs. flex spots. Your starters can still be concentrated with older players or with younger players or however you want. What it does, however, is keep people from treating it as a complete redraft or from a complete youth only team that won't compete for a couple years (at best). Also, it's not as if this would become a prevalent style of league. There are plenty of leagues to join that allow you to do what you want. This is just a "specialty" kind of league for owners to try something different and offer more of a challenge. If you see it as "forcing a philosophy" to you, then it's obviously not for you.

It certainly is - excluding people who have a philosophy or strategy you don't believe in is forcing your philosophy or preferred strategy whether you see it that way or not.And yes, it obviously is not for me.

It is clearly limiting philosophies. But so is requiring every team to set a "legitimate" starting lineup or preventing tanking.

False equivalency. Trying to prevent people from essentially cheating (by tanking or starting players injured/on a bye) is hardly the same as preventing people from using a shorter term or longer term dynasty strategy you don't agree with.

It's only cheating because the rules say you're not allowed to do it.

No, it is still cheating. Kinda like saying robbery is only considered a crime because there is a law against it.

 

[FUBAR]

This is a spin-off of the other thread making owners wait a year to start. So I just came up with this idea that might force owners to develop a balanced roster...

I effectively stopped reading there.

I'm in the same boat. Why are we looking to force a philosophy down anyone's throat. Why can't people run their teams as they see fit.I also think these restrictions will make trading more difficult.

It's not forcing a philosophy. It's similar to having designated starter positions vs. flex spots. Your starters can still be concentrated with older players or with younger players or however you want. What it does, however, is keep people from treating it as a complete redraft or from a complete youth only team that won't compete for a couple years (at best). Also, it's not as if this would become a prevalent style of league. There are plenty of leagues to join that allow you to do what you want. This is just a "specialty" kind of league for owners to try something different and offer more of a challenge. If you see it as "forcing a philosophy" to you, then it's obviously not for you.

It certainly is - excluding people who have a philosophy or strategy you don't believe in is forcing your philosophy or preferred strategy whether you see it that way or not.And yes, it obviously is not for me.

It is clearly limiting philosophies. But so is requiring every team to set a "legitimate" starting lineup or preventing tanking.

False equivalency. Trying to prevent people from essentially cheating (by tanking or starting players injured/on a bye) is hardly the same as preventing people from using a shorter term or longer term dynasty strategy you don't agree with.

It's only cheating because the rules say you're not allowed to do it.

No, it is still cheating. Kinda like saying robbery is only considered a crime because there is a law against it.

If you say so. Some leagues could allow you to start whatever X amount of players you want to, others could specify the set number of each position. a league could be okay with tanking, while most prevent it.In your analogy, i suppose a society could allow robbery. Most won't.

The only difference between what is proposed here and most leagues is the degree the league limits your personal options.

 

[Ernol]

Rather than forcing a philosophy, it seems to me that this format is attempting to remove philosophy almost entirely from the equation, where all that is left is which owner evaluates the players the best. Is that the idea?

I don’t see this as exclusionary at all. I certainly don’t run my teams this way, and I assume very few that are successful do. The format forces everyone to draft a different way entirely. I view this as a different kind of challenge for those willing to step out of their comfort zone (not sure that’s me though).

 

[jwb]

It's an interesting idea, but it's probably more effort/thought than I personally want to put in.

 

[Ernol]

It's an interesting idea, but it's probably more effort/thought than I personally want to put in.

I was thinking the same. It would require a dedicated crew.

 

[petenice15]

I have doubts if the people on my league know how old they are yet alone 24 players.

 

[gianmarco]

Rather than forcing a philosophy, it seems to me that this format is attempting to remove philosophy almost entirely from the equation, where all that is left is which owner evaluates the players the best. Is that the idea?I don't see this as exclusionary at all. I certainly don't run my teams this way, and I assume very few that are successful do. The format forces everyone to draft a different way entirely. I view this as a different kind of challenge for those willing to step out of their comfort zone (not sure that's me though).

This is a much better way to put it and I guess more of what it would try to accomplish. With dynasty evolving more and more, many owners cling to youth where it just becomes a battle to get the youngest, "most desirable" guys. And that's fine, I enjoy that challenge of identifying them and turning it into profit when possible.That said, this would be a way to get owners out of their comfort zone, as stated above, and just find the best players.As for how much work this would be, remember that these age brackets I put above are 3 years in length. It's not like you're going to have constant movement. If there are 21 players on a roster subject to the age restrictions, you'd have an average of 7 guys that are going to move during a given year. Some of these guys are going to be moving near the same time where it may occupy the next age bracket and nothing would have to be done. Add in the 2-3 month "buffer", and you'd probably have to "work" to address your age brackets 4-5 times/year. It wouldn't take much to look at your roster on MFL and have a short list of guys who are due to move into the next bracket in the next 3-4 months. You work on that list over that time then redo your list in 3-4 months. And I think the draft for this would be incredibly fun as you'd have to budget out your age brackets while trying to take best player available and balancing this with what other owners are doing. It would also make guys like Gonzo or Reggie Wayne or other older productive players almost as valuable as you wouldn't want to just waste your older positions and those guys are actually more scarce.

 

[gandalas]

Am I the only one who thinks this format would actually ADD some extra value to older players? If you are forced to have a 34+ year old guy, would someone like Reggie Wayne not be worth his weight in gold in order to dominate that age bracket?

Just seems like this would pump some extra value into a lot of the league that is getting more long in the tooth. Heck, if there was IDP with it, then London Fletcher would be a top-25 pick.

 

[gianmarco]

Am I the only one who thinks this format would actually ADD some extra value to older players? If you are forced to have a 34+ year old guy, would someone like Reggie Wayne not be worth his weight in gold in order to dominate that age bracket?Just seems like this would pump some extra value into a lot of the league that is getting more long in the tooth. Heck, if there was IDP with it, then London Fletcher would be a top-25 pick.

This is what I was trying to get at. Instead of seeing these older productive players devalued, it would turn them into somewhat sought after pieces, I would think. In fact, it would be interesting to see how many guys are in each of the age brackets with value and where it would be smart to go after first.

 

[WisWolvrns]

You also might want to add in (by possibly reducing some counts at some ages or increasing rosters size) an "Any Age" bracket of 3-4 players. That would give teams some flexibility to grab a few extra players at certain ages, which would keep teams who wait on certain aged players honest and also give each owner some extra flexibility during the age cutover date.

 

[gianmarco]

You also might want to add in (by possibly reducing some counts at some ages or increasing rosters size) an "Any Age" bracket of 3-4 players. That would give teams some flexibility to grab a few extra players at certain ages, which would keep teams who wait on certain aged players honest and also give each owner some extra flexibility during the age cutover date.

I like this....great idea.

 

[Ernol]

You also might want to add in (by possibly reducing some counts at some ages or increasing rosters size) an "Any Age" bracket of 3-4 players. That would give teams some flexibility to grab a few extra players at certain ages, which would keep teams who wait on certain aged players honest and also give each owner some extra flexibility during the age cutover date.

Ah, the flex position/age. 4 may be too many though.

 

[gianmarco]

You also might want to add in (by possibly reducing some counts at some ages or increasing rosters size) an "Any Age" bracket of 3-4 players. That would give teams some flexibility to grab a few extra players at certain ages, which would keep teams who wait on certain aged players honest and also give each owner some extra flexibility during the age cutover date.

Ah, the flex position/age. 4 may be too many though.

Yeah, I think 2 would be plenty.

 

[GregR]

If 12 guys want to do this, but all means do it.

I don't like it though. It forces you to adopt an arbitrary philosophy for no strategic reason.

This isn't like adding a salary cap and then letting you fit things under it however is best. This would be like saying, "You must have 5 $10 contracts, 5 $20 contracts, 2 $30 contracts, etc." Why would I want to play in a league that adds salary but doesn't let me decide what mix of contracts is best for my team?

Age is already a factor that I have to incorporate in my decisions. Why do I want a rule that I have to ignore the best ways of handling age for some system that was arbitrarily decided and forced on everyone? Let me rely on my intelligence and every other owner rely on his to decide what the correct handling is for age. Don't impose one answer on us that takes away whatever advantage the better owner had to decide how age should have best been incorporated.

 

[GregR]

If you really want to include something to do with age, then limit a roster to not being able to have more than 300 cumulative years of player age, or something like that. But don't force people to have to adopt a certain mix of ages.

That a restriction changes how people have to do things doesn't mean it adds an element of critical thinking or strategy. The best rules tend to be those that set up a higher level guideline and then let people have to figure out the best way to work within that guideline, but a lot of freedom to choose wisely or poorly. When you make the restriction this uber specific instead of being general, you rob most of the critical thinking from it.

 

[rct]

If 12 guys want to do this, but all means do it.

I don't like it though. It forces you to adopt an arbitrary philosophy for no strategic reason.

This isn't like adding a salary cap and then letting you fit things under it however is best. This would be like saying, "You must have 5 $10 contracts, 5 $20 contracts, 2 $30 contracts, etc." Why would I want to play in a league that adds salary but doesn't let me decide what mix of contracts is best for my team?

Age is already a factor that I have to incorporate in my decisions. Why do I want a rule that I have to ignore the best ways of handling age for some system that was arbitrarily decided and forced on everyone? Let me rely on my intelligence and every other owner rely on his to decide what the correct handling is for age. Don't impose one answer on us that takes away whatever advantage the better owner had to decide how age should have best been incorporated.

That.

 

[Ernol]

If 12 guys want to do this, but all means do it.

I don't like it though. It forces you to adopt an arbitrary philosophy for no strategic reason.

This isn't like adding a salary cap and then letting you fit things under it however is best. This would be like saying, "You must have 5 $10 contracts, 5 $20 contracts, 2 $30 contracts, etc." Why would I want to play in a league that adds salary but doesn't let me decide what mix of contracts is best for my team?

Age is already a factor that I have to incorporate in my decisions. Why do I want a rule that I have to ignore the best ways of handling age for some system that was arbitrarily decided and forced on everyone? Let me rely on my intelligence and every other owner rely on his to decide what the correct handling is for age. Don't impose one answer on us that takes away whatever advantage the better owner had to decide how age should have best been incorporated.

That.

That is the point. It removes or significantly reduces strategy/philosophy so that player evaluation plays a much larger role. I view this more as a specialty league (a one of a kind thing) for established players that want to see who is the best player evaluator rather than strategist. It is not a mainstream idea because it removes a significant part of what most (including me) find fun about dynasty (varying strategies and philosophies).However, get 12 of some of the best dynasty players together to see who is the best "player evaluator" (after being stripped of all strategic advantages) and I think you'd have a draft worth analyzing and results worth following. I would be interested in following such a league.

 

[gianmarco]

If 12 guys want to do this, but all means do it.

I don't like it though. It forces you to adopt an arbitrary philosophy for no strategic reason.

This isn't like adding a salary cap and then letting you fit things under it however is best. This would be like saying, "You must have 5 $10 contracts, 5 $20 contracts, 2 $30 contracts, etc." Why would I want to play in a league that adds salary but doesn't let me decide what mix of contracts is best for my team?

Age is already a factor that I have to incorporate in my decisions. Why do I want a rule that I have to ignore the best ways of handling age for some system that was arbitrarily decided and forced on everyone? Let me rely on my intelligence and every other owner rely on his to decide what the correct handling is for age. Don't impose one answer on us that takes away whatever advantage the better owner had to decide how age should have best been incorporated.

That.

That is the point. It removes or significantly reduces strategy/philosophy so that player evaluation plays a much larger role. I view this more as a specialty league (a one of a kind thing) for established players that want to see who is the best player evaluator rather than strategist. It is not a mainstream idea because it removes a significant part of what most find fun about dynasty (varying strategies and philosophies).However, get 12 of the best dynasty players together to see who is the best player evaluator (after being stripped of all strategic advantages) and I think you'd have a draft worth analyzing and a league worth following.

I know this kind of league wouldn't be for most people. And while I'm certainly not looking to add leagues, this is something that I haven't seen before that might be interesting to try given the right group of owners.

 

[FUBAR]

If 12 guys want to do this, but all means do it.

I don't like it though. It forces you to adopt an arbitrary philosophy for no strategic reason.

This isn't like adding a salary cap and then letting you fit things under it however is best. This would be like saying, "You must have 5 $10 contracts, 5 $20 contracts, 2 $30 contracts, etc." Why would I want to play in a league that adds salary but doesn't let me decide what mix of contracts is best for my team?

Age is already a factor that I have to incorporate in my decisions. Why do I want a rule that I have to ignore the best ways of handling age for some system that was arbitrarily decided and forced on everyone? Let me rely on my intelligence and every other owner rely on his to decide what the correct handling is for age. Don't impose one answer on us that takes away whatever advantage the better owner had to decide how age should have best been incorporated.

That.

That is the point. It removes or significantly reduces strategy/philosophy so that player evaluation plays a much larger role. I view this more as a specialty league (a one of a kind thing) for established players that want to see who is the best player evaluator rather than strategist. It is not a mainstream idea because it removes a significant part of what most find fun about dynasty (varying strategies and philosophies).However, get 12 of the best dynasty players together to see who is the best player evaluator (after being stripped of all strategic advantages) and I think you'd have a draft worth analyzing and a league worth following.

I know this kind of league wouldn't be for most people. And while I'm certainly not looking to add leagues, this is something that I haven't seen before that might be interesting to try given the right group of owners.

Off hand, I'd be more interested in following it than participating.It seems to me that an owner could establish his team and simply replace players as his players age. he'd need to hit his targets with the young guys, and hope to avoid injury, but a core could age together pretty well if set up well.

Flex age would help some, it shouldn't have more spots than the same as any other age bracket.

 

[gianmarco]

If 12 guys want to do this, but all means do it.

I don't like it though. It forces you to adopt an arbitrary philosophy for no strategic reason.

This isn't like adding a salary cap and then letting you fit things under it however is best. This would be like saying, "You must have 5 $10 contracts, 5 $20 contracts, 2 $30 contracts, etc." Why would I want to play in a league that adds salary but doesn't let me decide what mix of contracts is best for my team?

Age is already a factor that I have to incorporate in my decisions. Why do I want a rule that I have to ignore the best ways of handling age for some system that was arbitrarily decided and forced on everyone? Let me rely on my intelligence and every other owner rely on his to decide what the correct handling is for age. Don't impose one answer on us that takes away whatever advantage the better owner had to decide how age should have best been incorporated.

That.

That is the point. It removes or significantly reduces strategy/philosophy so that player evaluation plays a much larger role. I view this more as a specialty league (a one of a kind thing) for established players that want to see who is the best player evaluator rather than strategist. It is not a mainstream idea because it removes a significant part of what most find fun about dynasty (varying strategies and philosophies).However, get 12 of the best dynasty players together to see who is the best player evaluator (after being stripped of all strategic advantages) and I think you'd have a draft worth analyzing and a league worth following.

I know this kind of league wouldn't be for most people. And while I'm certainly not looking to add leagues, this is something that I haven't seen before that might be interesting to try given the right group of owners.

Off hand, I'd be more interested in following it than participating.It seems to me that an owner could establish his team and simply replace players as his players age. he'd need to hit his targets with the young guys, and hope to avoid injury, but a core could age together pretty well if set up well.

Flex age would help some, it shouldn't have more spots than the same as any other age bracket.

Maybe the following would work:20-22 year olds: 3

23-25 year olds: 4

26-28 year olds: 4

29-31 year olds: 4

32-34 year olds: 3

35+ year olds: 1

Flex age: 2

 

[GregR]

If 12 guys want to do this, but all means do it.

I don't like it though. It forces you to adopt an arbitrary philosophy for no strategic reason.

This isn't like adding a salary cap and then letting you fit things under it however is best. This would be like saying, "You must have 5 $10 contracts, 5 $20 contracts, 2 $30 contracts, etc." Why would I want to play in a league that adds salary but doesn't let me decide what mix of contracts is best for my team?

Age is already a factor that I have to incorporate in my decisions. Why do I want a rule that I have to ignore the best ways of handling age for some system that was arbitrarily decided and forced on everyone? Let me rely on my intelligence and every other owner rely on his to decide what the correct handling is for age. Don't impose one answer on us that takes away whatever advantage the better owner had to decide how age should have best been incorporated.

That.

That is the point. It removes or significantly reduces strategy/philosophy so that player evaluation plays a much larger role. I view this more as a specialty league (a one of a kind thing) for established players that want to see who is the best player evaluator rather than strategist. It is not a mainstream idea because it removes a significant part of what most (including me) find fun about dynasty (varying strategies and philosophies).However, get 12 of some of the best dynasty players together to see who is the best "player evaluator" (after being stripped of all strategic advantages) and I think you'd have a draft worth analyzing and results worth following. I would be interested in following such a league.

While I can understand someone thinking that, I really don't think it does.It takes a fine balance between creating more need than supply, versus creating such restrictive rules that someone who understands supply (i.e. talent evaluation) can't take advantage of his understanding. I think this crosses that line.

THough like I said, if 12 people want to do it, have at.

 

[doowain]

If 12 guys want to do this, but all means do it.

I don't like it though. It forces you to adopt an arbitrary philosophy for no strategic reason.

This isn't like adding a salary cap and then letting you fit things under it however is best. This would be like saying, "You must have 5 $10 contracts, 5 $20 contracts, 2 $30 contracts, etc." Why would I want to play in a league that adds salary but doesn't let me decide what mix of contracts is best for my team?

Age is already a factor that I have to incorporate in my decisions. Why do I want a rule that I have to ignore the best ways of handling age for some system that was arbitrarily decided and forced on everyone? Let me rely on my intelligence and every other owner rely on his to decide what the correct handling is for age. Don't impose one answer on us that takes away whatever advantage the better owner had to decide how age should have best been incorporated.

That.

That is the point. It removes or significantly reduces strategy/philosophy so that player evaluation plays a much larger role. I view this more as a specialty league (a one of a kind thing) for established players that want to see who is the best player evaluator rather than strategist. It is not a mainstream idea because it removes a significant part of what most (including me) find fun about dynasty (varying strategies and philosophies).However, get 12 of some of the best dynasty players together to see who is the best "player evaluator" (after being stripped of all strategic advantages) and I think you'd have a draft worth analyzing and results worth following. I would be interested in following such a league.

While I can understand someone thinking that, I really don't think it does.It takes a fine balance between creating more need than supply, versus creating such restrictive rules that someone who understands supply (i.e. talent evaluation) can't take advantage of his understanding. I think this crosses that line.

THough like I said, if 12 people want to do it, have at.

You have His blessing. You may create the league.

 

[Hoosier16]

Assuming a 24 man roster and removing 3 spots (1 QBs, 1 K, 1 Def), that would leave 20 roster spots that would adhere to the following, for example:

I'm not so sure this the right type of league for you..

 

[gianmarco]

Assuming a 24 man roster and removing 3 spots (1 QBs, 1 K, 1 Def), that would leave 20 roster spots that would adhere to the following, for example:

I'm not so sure this the right type of league for you..

Heh. I initially had it at removing 4 spots (2 QBs) then went back and changed it but forgot to change it to 21. Oops?