Possible league rule change (1 Viewer)

[Bigboy10182000]

I need a good argument from the masses here. I have been running a 10 team, 4 person PPR keeper league for almost 10 years now. We have 17 total people on our roster. You MUST have 2 QB’s, 4 RB’s, 5 WR’s, 2 TE’s, 2 K’s & 2 Defense/ Special teams. We start 1 QB, 2 RB’s, 3 WR’s, and 1 TE, K & DST. Over the past couple of years some owners have asked about eliminating one of the WR spots and changing that to a RB/WR/TE Flex. I’m not totally against this but I have the following concerns:

Hoarding of the RB position

Less likely to trade because you can pretty much start anyone

With less trading I don’t want the league to become complacent

For anyone who have a league like this, do you run into these issues? Or any issues I have not mentioned?

TIA

 

[BuckeyeArt]

If you're relaxing the roster requirements, I don't see any negative effects at all. I'd think a flex spot would make it easier to trade. If you're relaxing the starting requirements, I don't think that is necessary. I think the main reason for a flex starter is to alleviate shortages. A 10 team, 30 starting WR league doesn't have any shortages. The 3:2 ratio of WR to RB seems right for that size league.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

If you're relaxing the roster requirements, I don't see any negative effects at all. I'd think a flex spot would make it easier to trade. If you're relaxing the starting requirements, I don't think that is necessary. I think the main reason for a flex starter is to alleviate shortages. A 10 team, 30 starting WR league doesn't have any shortages. The 3:2 ratio of WR to RB seems right for that size league.

Just so I understand what you're saying....so basically unless I remove the roster requirments, just leave it as is?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Also, would it make better sense to remove the roster requirments in a keeper league?

 

[TheCommish]

I always think more roster flexibility is better. My league requires 1 RB, 2 WR and 1 TE, but we also have 3 flex spots. It allows teams to build their rosters the way they want to, and if they decide to go RB heavy or WR heavy, they can do it. We do have maximums in place for starting line-ups, however (you can't start 4 RBs or 3 TEs, but you can start 5 WRs). Earlier this year, I actually checked the starting line-ups that my league mates submitted over the past two years, and it was surprising how often people took advantage of the available options. I would never have guessed it, but teams in my league submitted a starting line-up with 2 TEs a whopping 22.3% of the time. Here it is:

1RB / 5WR / 1TE ... 27 times (6.6%)

1RB / 4WR / 2TE ... 27 times (6.6%)

2RB / 4WR / 1TE ... 134 times (32.9%)

2RB / 3WR / 2TE ... 51 times (12.5%)

3RB / 3WR / 1TE ... 156 times (38.2%)

3RB / 2WR / 2TE ... 13 times (3.2%)

We don't have a ton of trades in my league (maybe 10 or so per season), but we've got a TON of free agent activity. Personally, that's how I gauge owner interest (especially since every free agent acquisition adds $1 to the season-ending prize pool).

 

[C & C]

I don't think you need to worry about people hording the RB position. The change you are suggesting will likely only mean 3-4 more RB's drafted instead of WR's.

Overall I'm not in favor of roster restrictions, but if you are trying to force transactions, maybe you are charging for them, and want the pot to go up, this is a good way to go about it.

I don't see the need to force teams to draft 2 tight ends, 2 kickers and 2 defenses. I would much rather find those slots on the waiver wire for my bye week fill in. I would want the extra slots to use to draft a RB/WR or possibly a developmental QB and hope to hit the lottery since it's a keeper league.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

I don't think you need to worry about people hording the RB position. The change you are suggesting will likely only mean 3-4 more RB's drafted instead of WR's.

Overall I'm not in favor of roster restrictions, but if you are trying to force transactions, maybe you are charging for them, and want the pot to go up, this is a good way to go about it.

I don't see the need to force teams to draft 2 tight ends, 2 kickers and 2 defenses. I would much rather find those slots on the waiver wire for my bye week fill in. I would want the extra slots to use to draft a RB/WR or possibly a developmental QB and hope to hit the lottery since it's a keeper league.

That's the one issue I'm struggling with.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

If you're relaxing the roster requirements, I don't see any negative effects at all. I'd think a flex spot would make it easier to trade. If you're relaxing the starting requirements, I don't think that is necessary. I think the main reason for a flex starter is to alleviate shortages. A 10 team, 30 starting WR league doesn't have any shortages. The 3:2 ratio of WR to RB seems right for that size league.

Just so I understand what you're saying....so basically unless I remove the roster requirments, just leave it as is?

I don't see any reason for roster requirements/restrictions. They don't encourage trading and probably have the opposite effect. I don't see any problems with a RB shortage in a 10 team league if you allow more RBs to be drafted.I don't see any need for a flex starter in a 10 team league.I'd relax the roster requirements and leave the starting requirements unchanged.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I don't think you need to worry about people hording the RB position. The change you are suggesting will likely only mean 3-4 more RB's drafted instead of WR's.

Overall I'm not in favor of roster restrictions, but if you are trying to force transactions, maybe you are charging for them, and want the pot to go up, this is a good way to go about it.

I don't see the need to force teams to draft 2 tight ends, 2 kickers and 2 defenses. I would much rather find those slots on the waiver wire for my bye week fill in. I would want the extra slots to use to draft a RB/WR or possibly a developmental QB and hope to hit the lottery since it's a keeper league.

That's the one issue I'm struggling with.

I don't see any reason to force people to carry 2 players at these positions. Let them rotate an extra player between the 3 to cover bye weeks if they want. We actually discussed eliminating the K position this past offseason. being required to carry 2 seems like overkill.Like C&C suggested, a keeper or dynasty league should have more flexible roster options to allow owners to develop a player.

 

[C & C]

What would you prefer from your league...teams to grab potential talent off the waiver wire early in the season after watching the first week or two, or teams to take a chance by drafting that talent. Sure some of the former will happen no matter what, but right now the roster are so small (considering the other restrictions), there will be a lot of talent not drafted.

I'll use an example of a guy who's had a thread on the first page for a while now, Brandon LaFell. Under the current guidelines he might not be drafted in your league with average draft position of 56 at wr. As an owner do you draft him at the end of your draft or wait the first couple of weeks to see how he produces? Can you even fit a developmental guy like this on your roster if your fifth WR is someone like Lance Moore or Mike Williams?

 

[VA703]

i dont care for the roster requirements.

i never draft a kicker i always pick one up off the waivers. defenses are usually picked up weekly based on matchups.. if i had the choice id rather grab more rb/wr and hope i hit the lotto

 

[GregR]

Also, would it make better sense to remove the roster requirments in a keeper league?

It makes sense to remove the roster requirements in ANY league.If everyone has the same number of draft picks, it's impossible to "hoard" any position unless less skilled owners are drafting less valuable players and leaving more valuable players on the board. The moment any owner feels any annoyance that someone else is "hoarding RBs" and his team suffers as a result, it should be a message to the owner that HE is at fault for improperly valuing players and he should reevaluate how he drafts. He had the same opportunity to draft RBs and he didn't, and if now his team is hurt by it, then he should learn from his mistake.Why subsidize owners drafting poorly by creating rules so skilled owners who know what they are doing can't draft the higher valued players that are being left available and instead have to waste a roster spot on a backup TE/K/D who won't be any better than what should be available from waivers? Trying to have a league setup where skill wins out should be high amongst our goals. Roster requirements may be the rule that single most effectively strangles the options for a skilled owner to put that skill to work. It also fosters trading when owners who were unwise in how they drafted have to then turn to other teams to acquire the players they should have drafted but didn't.As for the other effects of a flex though... generally the next 10 highest scoring players will be 8 to 10 RBs with maybe 1 or 2 WRs in there. This will increase the value of RBs which means they should be drafted even earlier and more frequently.Personally I don't think increasing RB value of what it already is, is a good thing. My preference is to see other positions increase in value to where you don't see 2/3 of the first two rounds being all one position. Were it me, I'd rather go with a QB/RB flex and an additional WR/TE flex. The QB flex would almost always be a QB so it wouldn't increase the values of RB. Or barring that, I'd probably rather just have a WR/TE flex and leave RBs at 2 starters. Though if your league doesn't mind seeing RBs become more valuable, then the RB/WR/TE flex would be fine.And of course, drop the roster requirements.

 

[Manster]

count me in on the not diggin the roster requirements. I've played in a league like this, we voted it out. IMO, you should have no roster requirements. And, in a 10 team league hoarding wont be too big an issue. Also, you have a pretty short bench, so they cant hoard too many guys. I actually prefer short benches for this reason. And it creates WW activity.

As for flex, I like it. Gets that guy off your bench that may not see your starting lineup. I'm actually thinkin about adding QB to the flex postion in the league i commish. Now its RB/WR/TE. No matter what you do, its all just a change in strategy and scoring. I tend to fall in the "less restrictive rules, more scoring opps" camp.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Also, would it make better sense to remove the roster requirments in a keeper league?

It makes sense to remove the roster requirements in ANY league.If everyone has the same number of draft picks, it's impossible to "hoard" any position unless less skilled owners are drafting less valuable players and leaving more valuable players on the board. The moment any owner feels any annoyance that someone else is "hoarding RBs" and his team suffers as a result, it should be a message to the owner that HE is at fault for improperly valuing players and he should reevaluate how he drafts. He had the same opportunity to draft RBs and he didn't, and if now his team is hurt by it, then he should learn from his mistake.

Why subsidize owners drafting poorly by creating rules so skilled owners who know what they are doing can't draft the higher valued players that are being left available and instead have to waste a roster spot on a backup TE/K/D who won't be any better than what should be available from waivers? Trying to have a league setup where skill wins out should be high amongst our goals. Roster requirements may be the rule that single most effectively strangles the options for a skilled owner to put that skill to work. It also fosters trading when owners who were unwise in how they drafted have to then turn to other teams to acquire the players they should have drafted but didn't.

As for the other effects of a flex though... generally the next 10 highest scoring players will be 8 to 10 RBs with maybe 1 or 2 WRs in there. This will increase the value of RBs which means they should be drafted even earlier and more frequently.

Personally I don't think increasing RB value of what it already is, is a good thing. My preference is to see other positions increase in value to where you don't see 2/3 of the first two rounds being all one position. Were it me, I'd rather go with a QB/RB flex and an additional WR/TE flex. The QB flex would almost always be a QB so it wouldn't increase the values of RB. Or barring that, I'd probably rather just have a WR/TE flex and leave RBs at 2 starters. Though if your league doesn't mind seeing RBs become more valuable, then the RB/WR/TE flex would be fine.

And of course, drop the roster requirements.

I some what disagree with the bolded. I think the SKILLED owners wouldn't be the ones that need to essentially throw mud at the wall and hope something sticks. The skilled ones would already have these players on their teams, IMO.

Also, wouldnt almost everyone just pick one TE, K and DST? Without putting much thought into a league structured this way, that would seem to be what everyone would do. With that, the FA wire would seems to be non-existent, wouldnt it?

 

[GregR]

Also, would it make better sense to remove the roster requirments in a keeper league?

It makes sense to remove the roster requirements in ANY league.If everyone has the same number of draft picks, it's impossible to "hoard" any position unless less skilled owners are drafting less valuable players and leaving more valuable players on the board. The moment any owner feels any annoyance that someone else is "hoarding RBs" and his team suffers as a result, it should be a message to the owner that HE is at fault for improperly valuing players and he should reevaluate how he drafts. He had the same opportunity to draft RBs and he didn't, and if now his team is hurt by it, then he should learn from his mistake.

Why subsidize owners drafting poorly by creating rules so skilled owners who know what they are doing can't draft the higher valued players that are being left available and instead have to waste a roster spot on a backup TE/K/D who won't be any better than what should be available from waivers? Trying to have a league setup where skill wins out should be high amongst our goals. Roster requirements may be the rule that single most effectively strangles the options for a skilled owner to put that skill to work. It also fosters trading when owners who were unwise in how they drafted have to then turn to other teams to acquire the players they should have drafted but didn't.

As for the other effects of a flex though... generally the next 10 highest scoring players will be 8 to 10 RBs with maybe 1 or 2 WRs in there. This will increase the value of RBs which means they should be drafted even earlier and more frequently.

Personally I don't think increasing RB value of what it already is, is a good thing. My preference is to see other positions increase in value to where you don't see 2/3 of the first two rounds being all one position. Were it me, I'd rather go with a QB/RB flex and an additional WR/TE flex. The QB flex would almost always be a QB so it wouldn't increase the values of RB. Or barring that, I'd probably rather just have a WR/TE flex and leave RBs at 2 starters. Though if your league doesn't mind seeing RBs become more valuable, then the RB/WR/TE flex would be fine.

And of course, drop the roster requirements.

I some what disagree with the bolded. I think the SKILLED owners wouldn't be the ones that need to essentially throw mud at the wall and hope something sticks. The skilled ones would already have these players on their teams, IMO.

Also, wouldnt almost everyone just pick one TE, K and DST? Without putting much thought into a league structured this way, that would seem to be what everyone would do. With that, the FA wire would seems to be non-existent, wouldnt it?

The skilled owner already has 4 RBs on his team and is not allowed by rule to take the remaining RBs that 3 other owners passed on to take someone less valuable.And yes, most everyone would just pick one TE, K and DST. Everyone who knows what they are doing anyway. Because they realize the expected value of players at other positions is higher than the value of backups at those positions. So why force them to use valuable roster space on less players that are less valuable to their team.

 

[GregR]

I've give you a true story that illustrates the situation, though it's much more blatant than most.

In one of my leagues back when it only had 1 starting QB, an owner took an elite QB, and then not long after took a high quality backup QB before he'd even filled his starting RBs. And there was one RB remaining after which there was going to be a big drop off to the next RB available, let alone to what would be there at his next pick.

I drafted the RB (which I wouldn't have been able to do if we had roster requirements). Then I called up the owner (slow online draft), and we put together what his roster was going to look like with what he'd drafted and what was available, and what it would have looked like if he'd taken the RB he passed on and that I picked up, and how much worse his team was now.

And as a result, during the draft I was then able to trade him the RB for the QB he'd taken, plus a later draft pick. And his team came out ahead for having made the trade. Normally you don't see the results so glaringly or immediately. Normally you'd trade that 5th RB in a couple of weeks when an injury occurs and it suddenly becomes glaring to an owner that he didn't draft quality backups early enough (leaving them for you to take while he took some less valuable player).

 

[Bigboy10182000]

You're right....there has been many times where I have been in the 8th, 9th or 10th round and saw a guy still there and was unable to pick him because I had that position already filled. I guess on one hand that's part of the strategy but on the other I should be able to have that guy.

The other variable in my league would be how I dispurse best position money. I award the top scoring guy $100 (Best QB, RB, WR and DST) which comes from the FA money. If a change like this were to be made I don't want that to be effected. It's a nice little side thing we do and it helps keep people ineterested.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I’m not totally against this but I have the following concerns:

With less trading I don’t want the league to become complacent

IMHO, you should scrap this as a motive for rule changes. I've found that you really can't legislate complacency. Owners are going to be active and interested in improving their teams, or they're not. The only way to deal with complacency is to replace the owners that get complacent.

 

[GregR]

You're right....there has been many times where I have been in the 8th, 9th or 10th round and saw a guy still there and was unable to pick him because I had that position already filled. I guess on one hand that's part of the strategy but on the other I should be able to have that guy.The other variable in my league would be how I dispurse best position money. I award the top scoring guy $100 (Best QB, RB, WR and DST) which comes from the FA money. If a change like this were to be made I don't want that to be effected. It's a nice little side thing we do and it helps keep people ineterested.

I agree weekly payouts are a nice thing to have to keep interest. I don't think that would be affected majorly. Assuming you pay out for best scoring starter then nothing changes. If you pay out for best scoring rostered player, then it just is something for each owner to factor into his decision making.... whether he'll make more money using a roster spot on a skill position player and helping his chances to win the league, or upping his chance at the DST weekly payout by carrying 2.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

You're right....there has been many times where I have been in the 8th, 9th or 10th round and saw a guy still there and was unable to pick him because I had that position already filled. I guess on one hand that's part of the strategy but on the other I should be able to have that guy.The other variable in my league would be how I dispurse best position money. I award the top scoring guy $100 (Best QB, RB, WR and DST) which comes from the FA money. If a change like this were to be made I don't want that to be effected. It's a nice little side thing we do and it helps keep people ineterested.

I agree weekly payouts are a nice thing to have to keep interest. I don't think that would be affected majorly. Assuming you pay out for best scoring starter then nothing changes. If you pay out for best scoring rostered player, then it just is something for each owner to factor into his decision making.... whether he'll make more money using a roster spot on a skill position player and helping his chances to win the league, or upping his chance at the DST weekly payout by carrying 2.

They're actually done at the end of the season...it's $100 to each best position winner. It would seem as if the FA pool would be down...if so, that would effect the best position payouts. I'm sure I could work around that though.

 

[C & C]

You're right....there has been many times where I have been in the 8th, 9th or 10th round and saw a guy still there and was unable to pick him because I had that position already filled. I guess on one hand that's part of the strategy but on the other I should be able to have that guy.The other variable in my league would be how I dispurse best position money. I award the top scoring guy $100 (Best QB, RB, WR and DST) which comes from the FA money. If a change like this were to be made I don't want that to be effected. It's a nice little side thing we do and it helps keep people ineterested.

I agree weekly payouts are a nice thing to have to keep interest. I don't think that would be affected majorly. Assuming you pay out for best scoring starter then nothing changes. If you pay out for best scoring rostered player, then it just is something for each owner to factor into his decision making.... whether he'll make more money using a roster spot on a skill position player and helping his chances to win the league, or upping his chance at the DST weekly payout by carrying 2.

They're actually done at the end of the season...it's $100 to each best position winner. It would seem as if the FA pool would be down...if so, that would effect the best position payouts. I'm sure I could work around that though.

I'm not entirely sure your transactions will go down, even though I was the one who suggested it earlier. You'll get more transactions at the TE, K, Def positions than you would have previously. We talked about the restrictions not allowing you to draft a guy who you would have otherwise because you have already filled up all those slots for the position. Well, it works in Free Agency as well. If you draft 7 wr's, then you may be willing to cut the 7th guy for a free agent, where you would not have cut the 5th wr on your team.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

You're right....there has been many times where I have been in the 8th, 9th or 10th round and saw a guy still there and was unable to pick him because I had that position already filled. I guess on one hand that's part of the strategy but on the other I should be able to have that guy.The other variable in my league would be how I dispurse best position money. I award the top scoring guy $100 (Best QB, RB, WR and DST) which comes from the FA money. If a change like this were to be made I don't want that to be effected. It's a nice little side thing we do and it helps keep people ineterested.

I agree weekly payouts are a nice thing to have to keep interest. I don't think that would be affected majorly. Assuming you pay out for best scoring starter then nothing changes. If you pay out for best scoring rostered player, then it just is something for each owner to factor into his decision making.... whether he'll make more money using a roster spot on a skill position player and helping his chances to win the league, or upping his chance at the DST weekly payout by carrying 2.

They're actually done at the end of the season...it's $100 to each best position winner. It would seem as if the FA pool would be down...if so, that would effect the best position payouts. I'm sure I could work around that though.

I'm not entirely sure your transactions will go down, even though I was the one who suggested it earlier. You'll get more transactions at the TE, K, Def positions than you would have previously. We talked about the restrictions not allowing you to draft a guy who you would have otherwise because you have already filled up all those slots for the position. Well, it works in Free Agency as well. If you draft 7 wr's, then you may be willing to cut the 7th guy for a free agent, where you would not have cut the 5th wr on your team.

This would also significantly increase the value of a draft pick too, right?

 

[C & C]

This would also significantly increase the value of a draft pick too, right?

I'm not sure I'm completely following you, but if I am then...yes. The value of late mid to later round draft picks will have more value than they did before, but not a lot more value. Early to mid round picks would be the same. Roughly rounds 10-14 would gain some value, but when considering trades and such that value is going to be negligible.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

This would also significantly increase the value of a draft pick too, right?

I'm not sure I'm completely following you, but if I am then...yes. The value of late mid to later round draft picks will have more value than they did before, but not a lot more value. Early to mid round picks would be the same. Roughly rounds 10-14 would gain some value, but when considering trades and such that value is going to be negligible.

We seem to be on the same page...if an owner moves his picks up under my current format he is just basically getting first show at D, back up TE, K or like a 5th WR. If I were to remove the restrictions then you could pick any position thus increasing the value of middle and late round picks.

 

[GregR]

You're right....there has been many times where I have been in the 8th, 9th or 10th round and saw a guy still there and was unable to pick him because I had that position already filled. I guess on one hand that's part of the strategy but on the other I should be able to have that guy.The other variable in my league would be how I dispurse best position money. I award the top scoring guy $100 (Best QB, RB, WR and DST) which comes from the FA money. If a change like this were to be made I don't want that to be effected. It's a nice little side thing we do and it helps keep people ineterested.

I agree weekly payouts are a nice thing to have to keep interest. I don't think that would be affected majorly. Assuming you pay out for best scoring starter then nothing changes. If you pay out for best scoring rostered player, then it just is something for each owner to factor into his decision making.... whether he'll make more money using a roster spot on a skill position player and helping his chances to win the league, or upping his chance at the DST weekly payout by carrying 2.

They're actually done at the end of the season...it's $100 to each best position winner. It would seem as if the FA pool would be down...if so, that would effect the best position payouts. I'm sure I could work around that though.

I'm not entirely sure your transactions will go down, even though I was the one who suggested it earlier. You'll get more transactions at the TE, K, Def positions than you would have previously. We talked about the restrictions not allowing you to draft a guy who you would have otherwise because you have already filled up all those slots for the position. Well, it works in Free Agency as well. If you draft 7 wr's, then you may be willing to cut the 7th guy for a free agent, where you would not have cut the 5th wr on your team.

This would also significantly increase the value of a draft pick too, right?

Well, the last 3 rounds would definitely gain value since more valuable players are being taken.Then a few picks that are currently used on backups that would now be used on a flex starter would gain value since starters contribute more than backups. (Were it me I would add 1 extra bench spot whenever adding another starting spot just a thought).RBs would go up some in value if it's a RB/WR/TE flex, with WR gaining just a tiny amount more value. So some picks that were used to go RB would go up in value.But the increases won't be a monstrous amount, no. You'll probably see nearly the same exact trades as before. A savvy owner might be willing to get picks later in the draft than before.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Well, the last 3 rounds would definitely gain value since more valuable players are being taken.Then a few picks that are currently used on backups that would now be used on a flex starter would gain value since starters contribute more than backups. (Were it me I would add 1 extra bench spot whenever adding another starting spot just a thought).RBs would go up some in value if it's a RB/WR/TE flex, with WR gaining just a tiny amount more value. So some picks that were used to go RB would go up in value.But the increases won't be a monstrous amount, no. You'll probably see nearly the same exact trades as before. A savvy owner might be willing to get picks later in the draft than before.

I'm thinking that not going with a flex is the way to go. Like someone mentioned above, in a 10 team league I think everyone should be able to field good enough starters especially if the rosters are relaxed.