Thoughts on this new dynasty setup (1 Viewer)

[jeter23]

Last off-season, I came up with a couple of unique leagues and both went pretty well. I think I have another that I'd appreciate feedback on.

I've noticed recently a widening gap in terms of how dynasty owners build their teams. Obviously, many go very young and avoid old players like the plague. Others are happy to grab the players that can help them win now and they worry about the future later.

The idea is that half of the league will declare themselves as young, while the other half will go with veterans. We have a cutoff age for each position. Once a player reaches that age, they will have to be dropped by the "young" owners (at the end of the season) and will be available for the "veteran" owners to draft as part of the annual draft. During this same draft, the "young" owners will be drafting the incoming rookies.

We'll be doing the startup auction as soon as the NFL draft is over. Should be an interesting matchup of old vs. young.

Thoughts or questions about the league?

 

[Ruffrodys05]

So, the declared "veteran" owners are not forced to drop some of their quality veterans, but they are also not able to draft rookies? They must field a dynasty team, and win, with "veterans" and cast-off "youngs"?

My dynasty teams evolve from year-to-year. Sometimes I'm looking for an influx of young talent to take over for my veterans when they become run-of-the-mill. My strategy evolves as my team ages from year-to-year. I can't think of one reason why I would want to declare my team a "veteran" team if I am unable to select new talent from the rookie pool in future years. Seems like the rules give the "young" teams first crack at rookies, thus giving them the first option to draft and hold on to the ones that produce. They also can dump the ones that don't. How does a "veteran" squad benefit from this setup?

 

[Winning IS Everything]

I think it is an interesting concept. I am with Ruffrody thinking I would not want to be the "Veteran" team, but then I started thinking...... Say cutoff age for RB is 26, WR 27 and QB 28, then a vet team COULD be Brees, Peterson, Calvin, Vernon Davis etc...... Basically the "Young" teams get to play out the "rookie contract" then the Vet teams get to swoop in and take them........

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Not a fan, you just need to add contract years.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

I think it is an interesting concept. I am with Ruffrody thinking I would not want to be the "Veteran" team, but then I started thinking...... Say cutoff age for RB is 26, WR 27 and QB 28, then a vet team COULD be Brees, Peterson, Calvin, Vernon Davis etc...... Basically the "Young" teams get to play out the "rookie contract" then the Vet teams get to swoop in and take them........

Interesting....I probably didn't think this through...as an example, I have a lot of veterans on my dynasty teams with a few rookies sprinkled in. Eh, the fact that I couldn't select rookies (when they are rookies) if I was a "veteran" team rubbed me the wrong way. I like being the one to "hit" on that stud from day one.

I could see the "veteran" approach as being workable though.

 

[jeter23]

So, the declared "veteran" owners are not forced to drop some of their quality veterans, but they are also not able to draft rookies? They must field a dynasty team, and win, with "veterans" and cast-off "youngs"?

My dynasty teams evolve from year-to-year. Sometimes I'm looking for an influx of young talent to take over for my veterans when they become run-of-the-mill. My strategy evolves as my team ages from year-to-year. I can't think of one reason why I would want to declare my team a "veteran" team if I am unable to select new talent from the rookie pool in future years. Seems like the rules give the "young" teams first crack at rookies, thus giving them the first option to draft and hold on to the ones that produce. They also can dump the ones that don't. How does a "veteran" squad benefit from this setup?

Both sides are limited to only the players that fit on their side. So, if there is a up and coming rookie on the waiver wire, only 6 teams have a chance at that player, the ones who have gone "young"

I agree with you, this will certainly affect my strategy and how I normally build my team, but it will force each owner's hand and may show which is the better way to build a team.

 

[jeter23]

Not a fan, you just need to add contract years.

I've played in plenty of contract leagues, but I think this is a different animal, for better or worse.

 

[jeter23]

While the young teams will be choosing from Gurley and Gordon next year, the vet teams will have a shot at McCoy and AJ Green. So, it's not like anyone should feel sorry for the older teams.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Pretty weird idea. Why force owners into a competition concept that is different from other owners? Have you thought of forcing half the league to use only their left hand and the other half their right when drafting? That could be a cool challenge too.

 

[John 14:6]

Personally, I don't see how this idea would make the league any more fun or interesting. It seems like it would just be more work keeping track of players' ages, etc...

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Last off-season, I came up with a couple of unique leagues and both went pretty well. I think I have another that I'd appreciate feedback on.

I've noticed recently a widening gap in terms of how dynasty owners build their teams. Obviously, many go very young and avoid old players like the plague. Others are happy to grab the players that can help them win now and they worry about the future later.

The idea is that half of the league will declare themselves as young, while the other half will go with veterans. We have a cutoff age for each position. Once a player reaches that age, they will have to be dropped by the "young" owners (at the end of the season) and will be available for the "veteran" owners to draft as part of the annual draft. During this same draft, the "young" owners will be drafting the incoming rookies.

We'll be doing the startup auction as soon as the NFL draft is over. Should be an interesting matchup of old vs. young.

Thoughts or questions about the league?

I'm all for new ideas, but this one seems ... kind of forced. It's like being in a league where half the owners can only pick AFC players and the other half can only pick NFC (I've been in a league that tried that before. It didn't go well.)

If you see the bolded as an issue, you'd want to look for a way to counteract it, rather than using it as an artificial divider. My first thought would be to put a ceiling and a floor on the average age of each roster, or a quota on each age bucket (say, every team's average age has to be between 24.5 and 28.5, with no more than x guys under 23 and no more than y guys over 30). That would force every owner to have some mix of rookies and youngsters, guys in their primes, and older vets.

It would certainly make the weeks leading up to the rookie draft more interesting, as the "go young" guys would be forced to move some potentially promising youngsters to other teams and/or take on older guys in order to fit draft picks onto their roster, while the older teams would have to consistently bring in fresh blood as their average roster age rises, well, a month every month.

 

[jmo87usc]

I play in a league where you can only roster players from rookie year to their fourth year. After that they get dropped and are declared invalid. It's pretty challenging trying to field all positions with just rookies and young guys. I can't imagine going up against veteran teams, especially given how hard it can be to find a young relevant QB.

Maybe two separate divisions (Young and old) that only meet for the championship game would work better?

 

[Zaphod]

Last off-season, I came up with a couple of unique leagues and both went pretty well. I think I have another that I'd appreciate feedback on.

I've noticed recently a widening gap in terms of how dynasty owners build their teams. Obviously, many go very young and avoid old players like the plague. Others are happy to grab the players that can help them win now and they worry about the future later.

The idea is that half of the league will declare themselves as young, while the other half will go with veterans. We have a cutoff age for each position. Once a player reaches that age, they will have to be dropped by the "young" owners (at the end of the season) and will be available for the "veteran" owners to draft as part of the annual draft. During this same draft, the "young" owners will be drafting the incoming rookies.

We'll be doing the startup auction as soon as the NFL draft is over. Should be an interesting matchup of old vs. young.

Thoughts or questions about the league?

So, 0 trading then?

 

[jeter23]

Last off-season, I came up with a couple of unique leagues and both went pretty well. I think I have another that I'd appreciate feedback on.

I've noticed recently a widening gap in terms of how dynasty owners build their teams. Obviously, many go very young and avoid old players like the plague. Others are happy to grab the players that can help them win now and they worry about the future later.

The idea is that half of the league will declare themselves as young, while the other half will go with veterans. We have a cutoff age for each position. Once a player reaches that age, they will have to be dropped by the "young" owners (at the end of the season) and will be available for the "veteran" owners to draft as part of the annual draft. During this same draft, the "young" owners will be drafting the incoming rookies.

We'll be doing the startup auction as soon as the NFL draft is over. Should be an interesting matchup of old vs. young.

Thoughts or questions about the league?

So, 0 trading then?

Not 0, but options are limited obviously.

 

[Borden]

It's an interesting idea and good on you for at least looking into it. The age cut off and scoring system would be very important though.

To me, it seems the old guys would have a serious advantage though as they likely get players in their prime and have a much smaller bust potential. Part of the reason to "go young" with dynasty teams is that if you get a Julio, Luck, Green combo you're set for the next 8 years. This is an extreme example, of course but if you take away that ability to setup your team for the future then going young really loses it flavour. This model also crushes trades. You could have AP about to enter his prime and get nothing or very little because you only have 5 possible trade partners and no matter what he is gone the next year. If a guy gets hurt in that last year he is absolutely worthless.

jmo87usc I think has the better idea, find out the average age of each team and divide them into conferences. Maybe have the entire playoffs mixed though and go with Top 3 from each conference and 2 wildcard spots.

Good job of thinking outside the box though.

 

[coolnerd]

Too restictive in terms of team roster management. Overtime, I would argue my best teams were able to have older player (say andre Johnson) who were still key pieces while a younger player say(K. Patterson) who could be ready when Johnson is no longer a WR1 option. Personally, don't see the fun in not being able to do both.

 

[Concept Coop]

Have you done a points study, by chance? Fantasy points or VBD by your two age brackets? I'd be interested to see it. To me, it seems like the old guys have it made. They don't need to do any scouting, or even worry about future years. Where the young guys need to hit on their guys to compete. And when they do hit, they only benefit for a couple years.

 

[Louche]

I saw this idea for a league when you wrote about it on Twitter a little while back. I'm an owner that tends to go young and bail on players before their market value starts to decline - around 27-29 years old, depending on position. Obviously I don't get rid of them because I think their production will necessarily plummet, but because I am trying to get out while I can still get max value in a trade. With this league there doesn't seem to be that payoff at the end. Yes, the owners of the veteran teams don't have draft picks so in a way you can say that the owners of the rookie teams are getting compensation in that sense but how would you determine draft position? Are they based on performance? Or are they like compensatory draft picks based on the players you are losing? Perhaps the draft order for the rookie draft could be determined by the picks in the veteran player draft - e.g. if AJ Green is moving on to the veteran teams and is drafted by the veteran teams as 1.01, the previous AJG owner would get the 1.01 in the rookie draft. And then rather have extra supplemental draft picks based on performance to maintain competitive balance.

And the cutoff age would need to vary for the different positions. Perhaps 27 for RBs, 28 for WRs and 30 for QB or something.

Another challenge though is how to get enough activity for owners to find it interesting. I think it would be rather boring as a 12 team league. I think the ideal format would rather be something like 24 or 32 teams with a double player pool so everyone has 11 or 15 other owners to make trades with.

 

[Louche]

Have you done a points study, by chance? Fantasy points or VBD by your two age brackets? I'd be interested to see it. To me, it seems like the old guys have it made. They don't need to do any scouting, or even worry about future years. Where the young guys need to hit on their guys to compete. And when they do hit, they only benefit for a couple years.

There are plenty of unknowns when it comes to veterans as well. There are some studs that keep performing way into their thirties but there are plenty of players who gets injured or falls off a cliff as well. And when they do their value drops incredibly quickly, so the veteran owners would also need to make good projections to stay ahead of the curve.

 

[Rockchild]

Just a quick thought not worked through but maybe you could have only a certain amount of players per age bracket per team. Kind of like positional roster limits but by age.i.e., you have to have 5 players 24 and under, 5 25-28, 5 29-32 and 7 33 and older with a roster of 22. The age of the player is set by their age on opening day. Just a thuoght.

 

[Concept Coop]

Have you done a points study, by chance? Fantasy points or VBD by your two age brackets? I'd be interested to see it. To me, it seems like the old guys have it made. They don't need to do any scouting, or even worry about future years. Where the young guys need to hit on their guys to compete. And when they do hit, they only benefit for a couple years.

There are plenty of unknowns when it comes to veterans as well. There are some studs that keep performing way into their thirties but there are plenty of players who gets injured or falls off a cliff as well. And when they do their value drops incredibly quickly, so the veteran owners would also need to make good projections to stay ahead of the curve.

Drafting the current Aaron Rodgers is a lot easier than drafting the next one.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

This strikes me as something that would be interesting to watch unfold as a spectator, with a few tweaks, but not a league I'd want to be in or invest my time into. That's just me, of course. Just doesn't fulfill the reasons I play dynasty to begin with.

 

[Donsmith753]

I'd think you'd need some sort of keeper system so teams can hold a player from the other side. Without that option you kill the trade value of a large group of players each year.

If the team had a way of keeping them that might help that.

 

[Louche]

Have you done a points study, by chance? Fantasy points or VBD by your two age brackets? I'd be interested to see it. To me, it seems like the old guys have it made. They don't need to do any scouting, or even worry about future years. Where the young guys need to hit on their guys to compete. And when they do hit, they only benefit for a couple years.

There are plenty of unknowns when it comes to veterans as well. There are some studs that keep performing way into their thirties but there are plenty of players who gets injured or falls off a cliff as well. And when they do their value drops incredibly quickly, so the veteran owners would also need to make good projections to stay ahead of the curve.

Drafting the current Aaron Rodgers is a lot easier than drafting the next one.

Sure, but it might be easier to find the next Bell, Lacy or Gio than it is to find the next Frank Gore. But I don't really think that is relevant. All the young teams are competing with each other when it comes to discovering talent. So as long as there are younger players who put up production there will be plenty of points to go around on the young teams. In terms of evaluation and drafting, this format is more a matter of seeing which owner is the best owner in their respective age group, not so much about seeing which age group is "best". So to have a balanced league it would be necessary to find the right age for each position where there is an equal amount of production to be found on both sides of the age barrier.

 

[jeter23]

Have you done a points study, by chance? Fantasy points or VBD by your two age brackets? I'd be interested to see it. To me, it seems like the old guys have it made. They don't need to do any scouting, or even worry about future years. Where the young guys need to hit on their guys to compete. And when they do hit, they only benefit for a couple years.

I haven't, but some of the guys in the league did as we tried to agree on the age breaks.

 

[gianmarco]

I had a somewhat similar idea a while back that would force owners to own a certain number of players in age ranges. This would make each team keep a balanced roster and not be too youth heavy or veteran heavy. I'll see if I can find it and bump it. I wouldn't want to be locked into one vs the other, but a balance would make more sense. You wouldn't run into issues of veteran teams being dumped and having 0 value. You also wouldn't have the perpetual rebuilds that some owners get stuck with.

ETA--Here it is