Dynasty with one-year roster building period (better idea ~ post 25) (1 Viewer)

[Bamac]

NOTE: There is a new -- and I think superior -- league proposal in posts 25-26 (starting with BengalBuck). Essentially, it's a "dynasty" that ends after three years, and payouts escalate (significantly) in year three. The goal is for everyone to focus on three-year player valuation.

I'm thinking of creating a dynasty league in which teams draft in summer 2013 but don't start competing until the 2014 NFL season. The purpose is to force everyone to draft for the future, rather than the present. I think this would allow purer competition based on player value. Here's a rough sketch of how it would work:

1. Use one of MFL's free, draft-only leagues for the startup draft in summer 2013.

2. No free agent acquisitions during the 2013 season.

3. After the 2014 NFL draft, conduct a combined rookie/free-agent auction.

4. After the 2014 auction, normal dynasty format.

Any potential issues or suggestions? Do you think this would be an appealing dynasty variation?

 

[SayWhat?]

I'm thinking of creating a dynasty league in which teams draft in summer 2013 but don't start competing until the 2014 NFL season. The purpose is to force everyone to draft for the future, rather than the present. I think this would allow purer competition based on player value. Here's a rough sketch of how it would work:

1. Use one of MFL's free, draft-only leagues for the startup draft in summer 2013.

2. No free agent acquisitions during the 2013 season.

3. After the 2014 NFL draft, conduct a combined rookie/free-agent auction.

4. After the 2014 auction, normal dynasty format.

Any potential issues or suggestions? Do you think this would be an appealing dynasty variation?

I don't get the bolded at all. How does drafting now, but delaying the start of competition affect anything other than everyone adding a year of age onto the players that they're drafting this year? And what does "purer competition based on player value" even mean? Not trying to poo poo your idea, but I'm not following why this would be appealing to anyone at all.

 

[cstu]

I could see a lot of quitters if their team doesn't work out the way they had hoped. I'd at least get the first 2 years paid for. Interesting idea though.

 

[Banemorth]

I'm thinking of creating a dynasty league in which teams draft in summer 2013 but don't start competing until the 2014 NFL season. The purpose is to force everyone to draft for the future, rather than the present. I think this would allow purer competition based on player value. Here's a rough sketch of how it would work:

1. Use one of MFL's free, draft-only leagues for the startup draft in summer 2013.

2. No free agent acquisitions during the 2013 season.

3. After the 2014 NFL draft, conduct a combined rookie/free-agent auction.

4. After the 2014 auction, normal dynasty format.

Any potential issues or suggestions? Do you think this would be an appealing dynasty variation?

I don't get the bolded at all. How does drafting now, but delaying the start of competition affect anything other than everyone adding a year of age onto the players that they're drafting this year? And what does "purer competition based on player value" even mean? Not trying to poo poo your idea, but I'm not following why this would be appealing to anyone at all.

The only reason I could think is to stop people from joining the league, drafting all the old guys in a "win now mode", quitting, and leaving a trainwreck of an abandoned team behind. Seen that happen a few times.

 

[Bamac]

I could see a lot of quitters if their team doesn't work out the way they had hoped. I'd at least get the first 2 years paid for. Interesting idea though.

I wonder about this too. Of course, there would be no fee for 2013, but would definitely require prepayment for 2014.

 

[cstu]

I'm thinking of creating a dynasty league in which teams draft in summer 2013 but don't start competing until the 2014 NFL season. The purpose is to force everyone to draft for the future, rather than the present. I think this would allow purer competition based on player value. Here's a rough sketch of how it would work:

1. Use one of MFL's free, draft-only leagues for the startup draft in summer 2013.

2. No free agent acquisitions during the 2013 season.

3. After the 2014 NFL draft, conduct a combined rookie/free-agent auction.

4. After the 2014 auction, normal dynasty format.

Any potential issues or suggestions? Do you think this would be an appealing dynasty variation?

I don't get the bolded at all. How does drafting now, but delaying the start of competition affect anything other than everyone adding a year of age onto the players that they're drafting this year? And what does "purer competition based on player value" even mean? Not trying to poo poo your idea, but I'm not following why this would be appealing to anyone at all.

The only reason I could think is to stop people from joining the league, drafting all the old guys in a "win now mode", quitting, and leaving a trainwreck of an abandoned team behind. Seen that happen a few times.

There are definitely guys who treat a new dynasty league as a redraft. The main is to get good owners who are willing to rebuild if they decide to go all out year 1. This redshirt year doesn't really solve anything if you have bad owners. The part I do like about it is that it has bit of a devy aspect except with guys already in the NFL.

 

[Bamac]

I'm thinking of creating a dynasty league in which teams draft in summer 2013 but don't start competing until the 2014 NFL season. The purpose is to force everyone to draft for the future, rather than the present. I think this would allow purer competition based on player value. Here's a rough sketch of how it would work:

1. Use one of MFL's free, draft-only leagues for the startup draft in summer 2013.

2. No free agent acquisitions during the 2013 season.

3. After the 2014 NFL draft, conduct a combined rookie/free-agent auction.

4. After the 2014 auction, normal dynasty format.

Any potential issues or suggestions? Do you think this would be an appealing dynasty variation?

I don't get the bolded at all. How does drafting now, but delaying the start of competition affect anything other than everyone adding a year of age onto the players that they're drafting this year? And what does "purer competition based on player value" even mean? Not trying to poo poo your idea, but I'm not following why this would be appealing to anyone at all.

Poo pooing is welcomed. . I don't want to do this if it won't be fun. I think that eliminating the win-now option narrows available strategies. With everyone focused on winning in year 2, the best player evaluators will have a bigger advantage (at least early on). --Actually, maybe this should be a redraft concept. Just don't know if redrafters would have the patience.

 

[Bamac]

I could see a lot of quitters if their team doesn't work out the way they had hoped. I'd at least get the first 2 years paid for. Interesting idea though.

I wonder about this too. Of course, there would be no fee for 2013, but would definitely require prepayment for 2014.

Also, I'd definitely use Leaguesafe. Too long a wait not to do so.

 

[cstu]

I'm thinking of creating a dynasty league in which teams draft in summer 2013 but don't start competing until the 2014 NFL season. The purpose is to force everyone to draft for the future, rather than the present. I think this would allow purer competition based on player value. Here's a rough sketch of how it would work:

1. Use one of MFL's free, draft-only leagues for the startup draft in summer 2013.

2. No free agent acquisitions during the 2013 season.

3. After the 2014 NFL draft, conduct a combined rookie/free-agent auction.

4. After the 2014 auction, normal dynasty format.

Any potential issues or suggestions? Do you think this would be an appealing dynasty variation?

I don't get the bolded at all. How does drafting now, but delaying the start of competition affect anything other than everyone adding a year of age onto the players that they're drafting this year? And what does "purer competition based on player value" even mean? Not trying to poo poo your idea, but I'm not following why this would be appealing to anyone at all.

Poo pooing is welcomed. . I don't want to do this if it won't be fun. I think that eliminating the win-now option narrows available strategies. With everyone focused on winning in year 2, the best player evaluators will have a bigger advantage (at least early on). --Actually, maybe this should be a redraft concept. Just don't know if redrafters would have the patience.

It's definitely better as a dynasty.

 

[Bamac]

There are definitely guys who treat a new dynasty league as a redraft. The main is to get good owners who are willing to rebuild if they decide to go all out year 1. This redshirt year doesn't really solve anything if you have bad owners. The part I do like about it is that it has bit of a devy aspect except with guys already in the NFL.

Maybe the redshirt year discourages these guys from joining, though?

 

[jonboltz]

I feel like I saw a similar league, but in year 1 they DID NOT draft NFL players -- there was just a draft of college players that were eligible for the following NFL draft. In year two, they added NFL players (and continued drafting college guys for the following year).

 

[Riffraff]

But, but but... this ignores rule #1 of dynasty FF: You can only win the year you are in.

Basically it's a paid mock draft for 2014 that you hope owners want to re-visit a year later. Can't see it catching on, but I'm sure out of a million FF players there are 9 other people out there that would do this.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I'm thinking of creating a dynasty league in which teams draft in summer 2013 but don't start competing until the 2014 NFL season. The purpose is to force everyone to draft for the future, rather than the present. I think this would allow purer competition based on player value. Here's a rough sketch of how it would work:1. Use one of MFL's free, draft-only leagues for the startup draft in summer 2013. 2. No free agent acquisitions during the 2013 season. 3. After the 2014 NFL draft, conduct a combined rookie/free-agent auction. 4. After the 2014 auction, normal dynasty format. Any potential issues or suggestions? Do you think this would be an appealing dynasty variation?

It seems you are trying to restrict the dynasty draft strategy to how YOU view it should be (i.e. owners evaluating players on distant future, rather than the short-term). Part of the fun of a dynasty draft is that it allows people to build their team how they want. That means some owners will be drafting all 20 year olds in an attempt to mop the floors with the league in 4 years, some want to win the very next year and will sacrifice the future in order to have a banner hung and some like drafting their favorite players and will be super happy even if their team burns to the ground.I don't quite understand why this would be appealing since you have to wait a year, and the owners are being made to draft under a certain strategy (i.e. youth).

 

[Bamac]

It seems you are trying to restrict the dynasty draft strategy to how YOU view it should be (i.e. owners evaluating players on distant future, rather than the short-term). Part of the fun of a dynasty draft is that it allows people to build their team how they want.

I don't think all, or even most, dynasties should operate this way. I like playing in traditional dynasties too. Think of it this way: a redraft focuses solely on present vale; a traditional dynasty startup focuses on present and future value; this league's startup draft would focus solely on future value. Can you understand the appeal (even if you might not enjoy it)?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

It seems you are trying to restrict the dynasty draft strategy to how YOU view it should be (i.e. owners evaluating players on distant future, rather than the short-term). Part of the fun of a dynasty draft is that it allows people to build their team how they want.

I don't think all, or even most, dynasties should operate this way. I like playing in traditional dynasties too. Think of it this way: a redraft focuses solely on present vale; a traditional dynasty startup focuses on present and future value; this league's startup draft would focus solely on future value. Can you understand the appeal (even if you might not enjoy it)?

While it is more based on future value, keep in mind it is just ONE extra year of future value. Is assessing a strategy for one extra year of future value worth a whole year of not even keeping track of wins and losses?If you wanted to go all out on future value, then just make a restriction that only players who were drafted in 2010 or later are eligible for the inaugural draft and only have rookie drafts going forward. All vets who do not meet that criteria would not be on a roster....ever.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

It seems you are trying to restrict the dynasty draft strategy to how YOU view it should be (i.e. owners evaluating players on distant future, rather than the short-term). Part of the fun of a dynasty draft is that it allows people to build their team how they want.

I don't think all, or even most, dynasties should operate this way. I like playing in traditional dynasties too. Think of it this way: a redraft focuses solely on present vale; a traditional dynasty startup focuses on present and future value; this league's startup draft would focus solely on future value. Can you understand the appeal (even if you might not enjoy it)?

While it is more based on future value, keep in mind it is just ONE extra year of future value. Is assessing a strategy for one extra year of future value worth a whole year of not even keeping track of wins and losses?If you wanted to go all out on future value, then just make a restriction that only players who were drafted in 2010 or later are eligible for the inaugural draft and only have rookie drafts going forward. All vets who do not meet that criteria would not be on a roster....ever.

Looks like great minds think alike. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=679760&view=findpost&p=15413710

 

[ghostguy123]

I think this is a great idea for a group of owners who know each other, and who are in some other leagues.

Everyone LOVES to do a draft, and as long as people are in other leagues I don't think they will mind waiting till 2014.

And I do agree people would draft with more of a future approach. No Steven Jackson in the 3rd, or Reggie Wayne in the 5th in this one.

Some of you are saying people will still draft older guys. I agree, but not nearly as much as if they were drafting for 2013. Why??? because they will be more willing to draft youth, since that youth could be scoring very well in TWO years.

 

[Nucker101]

From my experience, youth and potential is always heavily valued and favoured in dynasty drafts and trades, you could even argue that it may be overvalued at times when people trade proven players that are only 27 or 28 for mid or late first round draft picks. I like to take a look at my dynasty league's past trades and rookie drafts and I've found that trading for picks or unproven players is very high risk. I see one big homerun in every 5 or 6 trades and in the rest of the trades, the team acquiring the proven talent won the deal. Anyways, to get back on topic here, I don't think that this format is necessary at all.

 

[cstu]

I'm thinking of creating a dynasty league in which teams draft in summer 2013 but don't start competing until the 2014 NFL season. The purpose is to force everyone to draft for the future, rather than the present. I think this would allow purer competition based on player value. Here's a rough sketch of how it would work:

1. Use one of MFL's free, draft-only leagues for the startup draft in summer 2013.

2. No free agent acquisitions during the 2013 season.

3. After the 2014 NFL draft, conduct a combined rookie/free-agent auction.

4. After the 2014 auction, normal dynasty format.

Any potential issues or suggestions? Do you think this would be an appealing dynasty variation?

It seems you are trying to restrict the dynasty draft strategy to how YOU view it should be (i.e. owners evaluating players on distant future, rather than the short-term). Part of the fun of a dynasty draft is that it allows people to build their team how they want. That means some owners will be drafting all 20 year olds in an attempt to mop the floors with the league in 4 years, some want to win the very next year and will sacrifice the future in order to have a banner hung and some like drafting their favorite players and will be super happy even if their team burns to the ground.I don't quite understand why this would be appealing since you have to wait a year, and the owners are being made to draft under a certain strategy (i.e. youth).

I don't think it necessarily does this. There will still be owners looking at 2014 redraft numbers. I doubt AP goes top 5 but you never know. I'm actually curious how this would go.

 

[cstu]

From my experience, youth and potential is always heavily valued and favoured in dynasty drafts and trades, you could even argue that it may be overvalued at times when people trade proven players that are only 27 or 28 for mid or late first round draft picks. I like to take a look at my dynasty league's past trades and rookie drafts and I've found that trading for picks or unproven players is very high risk. I see one big homerun in every 5 or 6 trades and in the rest of the trades, the team acquiring the proven talent won the deal. Anyways, to get back on topic here, I don't think that this format is necessary at all.

Necessary, no, but I'd be willing to try it.

 

[Jersey35]

From my experience, youth and potential is always heavily valued and favoured in dynasty drafts and trades, you could even argue that it may be overvalued at times when people trade proven players that are only 27 or 28 for mid or late first round draft picks. I like to take a look at my dynasty league's past trades and rookie drafts and I've found that trading for picks or unproven players is very high risk. I see one big homerun in every 5 or 6 trades and in the rest of the trades, the team acquiring the proven talent won the deal. Anyways, to get back on topic here, I don't think that this format is necessary at all.

Out of curiosity, which fantasy formats do you consider necessary?

 

[Bamac]

From my experience, youth and potential is always heavily valued and favoured in dynasty drafts and trades, you could even argue that it may be overvalued at times when people trade proven players that are only 27 or 28 for mid or late first round draft picks. I like to take a look at my dynasty league's past trades and rookie drafts and I've found that trading for picks or unproven players is very high risk. I see one big homerun in every 5 or 6 trades and in the rest of the trades, the team acquiring the proven talent won the deal. Anyways, to get back on topic here, I don't think that this format is necessary at all.

Out of curiosity, which fantasy formats do you consider necessary?

In Nucker's defense, I think what he means is that switching to this format may not change owners' strategies much because so many already overvalue the future.ETA: In other words, I think he's saying that this format is not "necessary" to encourage owners to value the future, and it won't have much effect.

 

[Nucker101]

From my experience, youth and potential is always heavily valued and favoured in dynasty drafts and trades, you could even argue that it may be overvalued at times when people trade proven players that are only 27 or 28 for mid or late first round draft picks. I like to take a look at my dynasty league's past trades and rookie drafts and I've found that trading for picks or unproven players is very high risk. I see one big homerun in every 5 or 6 trades and in the rest of the trades, the team acquiring the proven talent won the deal. Anyways, to get back on topic here, I don't think that this format is necessary at all.

Out of curiosity, which fantasy formats do you consider necessary?

In Nucker's defense, I think what he means is that switching to this format may not change owners' strategies much because so many already overvalue the future.ETA: In other words, I think he's saying that this format is not "necessary" to encourage owners to value the future, and it won't have much effect.

Thanks for clearing that up, poor choice of words on my part.

 

[lynx4ben]

I'm thinking of creating a dynasty league in which teams draft in summer 2013 but don't start competing until the 2014 NFL season. The purpose is to force everyone to draft for the future, rather than the present. I think this would allow purer competition based on player value. Here's a rough sketch of how it would work:1. Use one of MFL's free, draft-only leagues for the startup draft in summer 2013. 2. No free agent acquisitions during the 2013 season. 3. After the 2014 NFL draft, conduct a combined rookie/free-agent auction. 4. After the 2014 auction, normal dynasty format. Any potential issues or suggestions? Do you think this would be an appealing dynasty variation?

Not sure i could have thought up a worse idea if I tried.Sorry lol had to

 

[bengalbuck]

I think a middle ground approach where payouts are less the first year or two might be better. Say you collect 1,000 in fees each year. First year payouts could be 300. Second year 700. Third year 2,000. Something like that.

That would help to accomplish your goal of getting owners that value the future more than a win now approach, but would also keep it interesting the whole time instead of drafting and then doing absolutely nothing for a year.

 

[Bamac]

I think a middle ground approach where payouts are less the first year or two might be better. Say you collect 1,000 in fees each year. First year payouts could be 300. Second year 700. Third year 2,000. Something like that. That would help to accomplish your goal of getting owners that value the future more than a win now approach, but would also keep it interesting the whole time instead of drafting and then doing absolutely nothing for a year.

Nice! After the feedback I've gotten here, I was planning to do (almost) exactly this. I plan to add one more wrinkle, though: the league ends after year three! I like this new approach better because everyone has the goal to win in year three, not some indefinite "future". Plus, years one and two still count for something. (Downside: I think teams would have to prepay all three years -- Leaguesafe, naturally.)Thanks to all for the feedback, negative and positive. Keep it coming.

 

[FUBAR]

I think a middle ground approach where payouts are less the first year or two might be better. Say you collect 1,000 in fees each year. First year payouts could be 300. Second year 700. Third year 2,000. Something like that.

That would help to accomplish your goal of getting owners that value the future more than a win now approach, but would also keep it interesting the whole time instead of drafting and then doing absolutely nothing for a year.

Nice! After the feedback I've gotten here, I was planning to do (almost) exactly this. I plan to add one more wrinkle, though: the league ends after year three! I like this new approach better because everyone has the goal to win in year three, not some indefinite "future". Plus, years one and two still count for something. (Downside: I think teams would have to prepay all three years -- Leaguesafe, naturally.)

Thanks to all for the feedback, negative and positive. Keep it coming.

Instead of ending the league, why not just set it up for three year intervals? All players go back into the pool in 2016. 2013: $300 payout, 2014: $700, 2015: $2,000, 2016: redraft and start back at $300.

 

[Bamac]

Instead of ending the league, why not just set it up for three year intervals? All players go back into the pool in 2016. 2013: $300 payout, 2014: $700, 2015: $2,000, 2016: redraft and start back at $300.

Good call. That would definitely be the plan.

 

[Biabreakable]

Instead of ending the league, why not just set it up for three year intervals? All players go back into the pool in 2016. 2013: $300 payout, 2014: $700, 2015: $2,000, 2016: redraft and start back at $300.

Good call. That would definitely be the plan.

Or you could just keep the payouts staggered and not redraft. So in the lower payout years top players would have less value.