iowapatriot77
Footballguy
How do we deal with this problem now that we have drafted. Just wondering what we should do to fix it. Redraft?-not an option. Thanks
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Problem with league (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter iowapatriot77
- Start date
schooner44
Footballguy
Why is it a problem? If the rules were set forth before the draft and everyone draft according to the rules it should be fine. I would definitely make a motion to modify it next year but thats about it.
iowapatriot77
Footballguy
This is what 2 owners have said already-"Also the two quarterback starting system doesn't work the best with this many players. It comes down to we have enough starters for two a week but some teams will lose out because bye weeks. There are not enough to have a third quarterback for everyone that will actually play. 3 x 14 = 42There are only 32 quarterbacks that can play so if my maths right 8 teams will not have a third option for bye weeks. Let me know what you think." My opinion is that they should have drafted better. I personally have 3-Rivers,Garcia, and Leftwich
schooner44
Footballguy
They absolutely should have drafted better. If an owner doesn't know the rules before drafting, thats their own fault. I see your dilemma that is is a bad setup but its the way it is. Like I said its something that should probably be changed for next year but the people who drafted accordingly shouldn't be punished.Take my opinion for what its worth but this is coming from a fantasy commissioner of 14 years. If you need ammo for your leaguemates, I would suggest putting up a poll in the Shark pool and gathring numbers to show them.
inca911
Footballguy
We added the following rule to a 14 team start 2QB league and everything has been fine since:
To facilitate the 2 QB roster requirement, if a player only has 2 QBs on their roster and one QB has a BYE week, the points scored from that one QB will also be used for the second QB’s scoring. This rule eliminates add/drops done solely to add a QB for a BYE week. Note that one non-BYE QB is required to get points from the QB position.
To facilitate the 2 QB roster requirement, if a player only has 2 QBs on their roster and one QB has a BYE week, the points scored from that one QB will also be used for the second QB’s scoring. This rule eliminates add/drops done solely to add a QB for a BYE week. Note that one non-BYE QB is required to get points from the QB position.
so huge advantage to the team that owns P Manning? doesn't seem fair to me
inca911
Footballguy
Definitely not a huge advantage. It's only an advantage for one week when the other QB has a BYE. Also, everyone knows the rule up front so if Manning/Palmer/etc. provide an advantage then people will take them earlier.
Koya
Footballguy
There is a simple way to deal with this which may prevent a disaster of a season with huge griping and all.
First, it should be stated that the most FAIR approach (unless the league decides to change the rule unanimously) is to leave things as they are. Everyone knew the rules going into this and should have drafted accordingly.
That said, the BEST approach might be to make the second QB slot a flex so people can start a RB or WR in there if they don't have two QBs that week.
Just BYE weeks alone make mandatory QBs in 14 teams leagues a very bad idea... when you then add injury and the flux of starters in a season you have a recipe for a year of #####ing and potentially the league falling apart.
My recommendation is to send an email to everyone and try to have everyone on board to allow that second QB to be a Flex (I am in a 12 team league and this is how we handle QBs. otherwise some teams would hoard them, others wouldnt have enough and the season would be a mess).
GL.
ETA - Since the rules were clear from the start, if you get some gruff from rulemeisters about "changing midstream" then some compromise may be if you start a non QB in that slot then you only get 1/2, or 3/4 of their points. Just a thought to salvage the season before hell breaks loose.
First, it should be stated that the most FAIR approach (unless the league decides to change the rule unanimously) is to leave things as they are. Everyone knew the rules going into this and should have drafted accordingly.
That said, the BEST approach might be to make the second QB slot a flex so people can start a RB or WR in there if they don't have two QBs that week.
Just BYE weeks alone make mandatory QBs in 14 teams leagues a very bad idea... when you then add injury and the flux of starters in a season you have a recipe for a year of #####ing and potentially the league falling apart.
My recommendation is to send an email to everyone and try to have everyone on board to allow that second QB to be a Flex (I am in a 12 team league and this is how we handle QBs. otherwise some teams would hoard them, others wouldnt have enough and the season would be a mess).
GL.
ETA - Since the rules were clear from the start, if you get some gruff from rulemeisters about "changing midstream" then some compromise may be if you start a non QB in that slot then you only get 1/2, or 3/4 of their points. Just a thought to salvage the season before hell breaks loose.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B
Footballguy
Leagues bigger tham 10 teams shouldn't be starting 2 QBs, anyhow, unless a flex option is available to cover one of the QB slots.
Schooner, Koya: it has nothing to do with drafting correctly. The 14 teams could all be super-shark drafters, and still 10 teams would be shut out of drafting 3rd QBs.
Schooner, Koya: it has nothing to do with drafting correctly. The 14 teams could all be super-shark drafters, and still 10 teams would be shut out of drafting 3rd QBs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
I agree with you Doug. Drafting correctly still leaves bye weeks uncovered and that doesnt even include injuries and change of starters. Basically, as you noted, anything above 10 teams can NOT have a mandatory 2 QB requirement. Needs to be a flex.The problem is that the rules were set and people drafted accordingly. What if I took 5 QBs in the first 7 rounds knowing people would be CLAMORING for trades? Now the draft is done, and if you change the rules too dramatically, what went from the smartest strategy and best draft becomes perhaps the worst.
Either make a flex, a flex which penalizes non qbs (probably the best option) or redraft - or see a disastrous season unfold.
Doug B
Footballguy
... assuming no one stocked up on 5 QBs in hopes of trading them off, this is a case where the rules make no sense for the league and should be modified. I'd say, "so what if the draft already took place"?It's not like changing the scoring rules or something ... this is something fundamental that would keep teams from fielding legitimate lineups. That would lead to a lot of cheap wins for some owners, and potentially to higher-quality teams losing out to lesser teams for divisional titles and playoff berths.
Koya
Footballguy
When you have a system that is so inherently flawed as to create terrible competitive balance (or imbalance), there is a BIG problem. This set up is doomed to fail. The "fair" approach is doomed to fail... I think the league needs to seriously consider its options.
Doug B
Footballguy
Those of you who are saying "too bad, draft better":
Would you be happy losing out on a playoff spot because another owner got two cheap wins over teams forced to start one QB due to bye-week issues? While you faced no such advantage all year long? This problem can very much affect perfect-drafting teams, too, by making things unduly easy on your rivals.
...
Inca911's solution is actually very reasonable. At worst, it might only give an "unfair" advantage to a few owners one week out of the season. And there's still some risk for an owner having to double up -- Peyton Manning or Carson Palmer can lay eggs any given week, and those eggs would get doubled if they were ill-timed.
Would you be happy losing out on a playoff spot because another owner got two cheap wins over teams forced to start one QB due to bye-week issues? While you faced no such advantage all year long? This problem can very much affect perfect-drafting teams, too, by making things unduly easy on your rivals.
...
Inca911's solution is actually very reasonable. At worst, it might only give an "unfair" advantage to a few owners one week out of the season. And there's still some risk for an owner having to double up -- Peyton Manning or Carson Palmer can lay eggs any given week, and those eggs would get doubled if they were ill-timed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
How about this...The rules, while "fair" are so misguided that the league literally implodes half way through the year with numerous owners quiting, giving up, etc. Is that worth it to "stand your ground" telling people they drafted poorly?
rotorooter
Footballguy
if the rules were set prior to the draft it is fair. not the best set-up but fair. i would not change anything for this year but if you do--maybe set up one of your QB slots as a flex QB/TE. we did that in one of my leagues with 12 teams. setting up QB/WR/RB is not fair for those who spent early on QBs to get back ups. a tE is usually harmless and will give a team some points.
Koya
Footballguy
I almost ALWAYS am of the mind that you don't change rules.But when a season's integrity is on the line you need to take more drastic measures. (and honestly, I can see 3-5 owners bailing before the year is done. Bye week here, couple injuries there, someone who gets a little lucky on the waiver wire hording 5 starting QBs thrown in, and a few teams will just give up on the season because they have no hope... and this could happen as soon as week 5-6)
Fear The Turtle
Footballguy
Boy, those "beginner" articles that seem a part of almost every ff magazine out there always seem to have a "know your league's rules" paragraph somewhere on the first half page or so. This is basic stuff. No way would I change things now that the draft has occurred. I would wait until the season is over to change things unless you have 3 or 4 owners, who haven't mastered 3rd grade math yet, quit on you. Then you'd have the optimum 10 team start 2QB league without having to change the rules.
Koya
Footballguy
So, by going to a system which obviously NO ONE understood the implications of (at least not those in charge of the league) you are willing to just throw away a season and perhaps ruin a league forever because of some very shortsighted rules?Because I know a LOT of leagues that would crumble under the weight of such imbalance that by week 6, 3-4 of the teams were eliminated already and the likelihood of BS, cheesiness and no filling out lineups increases exponentially each week.Usually I would agree with you, but I don't see this league making it the full season without any changes.
I also don't understand why it is an issue. Obviously you haven't changed things after the fact so everyone knew you are starting 2 QBs. Personally I wouldn't be in a 14 team league that has this starting lineup requirement but I also make a point of knowing the rules before I join a league or draft ... assume the owners in your league are the same. BTW, an argument can be made that 2 starting RBs in a 14 team league is too much also as it puts even more emphasis on the RB position and it will be impossible for every team to field two RBs every week that actaully have some value.schooner44 said:
Koya
Footballguy
Except with RBs, you have 40-50 players that have SOME value each week.For QBs, you have 32. That's IT. You don't have a guy come in and get 30% of the snaps, or the goaline or third down snaps. So you are going to have MULTIPLE teams that have a PERMANANT hole in their lineup because the league as a whole had no idea what they were doing in setting up this rule. So again, you can stand by your "rules are rules" and see a season fall apart and possibly the league fall apart, or you can understand that there IS an exception to every rule, including the rule that you never change rules after the draft.
That is why I said some value and that an argument can be made against it. Many times a team is better off starting a WR in the flex position than a RB ranked 30-50, and as they are already at a disadvantage against a team that can start 2 RBs in that week, for parity it makes more sense to have the flexibilty ... RBs will still be king as there is an advantage to starting a RB in a flex position. In any case, this discussion is moving away from the topic of this thread which wasn't what I was intending when I mentioned RBs.
