True Dynasty Leagues (1 Viewer)

[paulpogo]

By true dynasty, I guess I'm referring to the ability to keep anyone and everyone on your team for an indefinite amount of time. The only draft you have (after the first season) would be for rookies and free agents.

Does this increase interest throughout the calendar year?

What are some of the negatives? My first thought is that it would make it difficult to replace an owner, but my 18 year old league is a pretty stable bunch. I guess we're just looking to kick it up a notch.

Any thoughts?

 

[Beaumont]

By true dynasty, I guess I'm referring to the ability to keep anyone and everyone on your team for an indefinite amount of time. The only draft you have (after the first season) would be for rookies and free agents.Does this increase interest throughout the calendar year?What are some of the negatives? My first thought is that it would make it difficult to replace an owner, but my 18 year old league is a pretty stable bunch. I guess we're just looking to kick it up a notch.Any thoughts?

Most dynasties use contracts or escalating salary caps to cause a certain amount of roster turnover.Cool Nerd is in a league such as you suggest, where a player can be on your roster indefinitely with nothing forcing turnover ...

 

[Warhogs]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of trying to define the term true dynasty league but the league I am in has you cut 5 players before the rookie/FA draft which is 5 rounds. With fairly large rosters you are usually not cutting much talent anyway so I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I like the idea of creating some sort of escalator that forces teams to make some sort of movement because I think it brings a little more decision making as well as transaction activity to the league. This could be in way of assigning salaries or lengths on contracts. I have seen some leagues where a trade of a player resets the contract years but I really don't like that. The top players never really become available because teams swap out players in the final year.

 

[code]

There are tons of "true dynasty" owners, as you've defined it, around here...

In fact when people refer to "dynasty" that is always the structure I assume they are talking about...

All the other variations, to me, fall into various degrees of "keeper" league...

 

[paulpogo]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of trying to define the term true dynasty league but the league I am in has you cut 5 players before the rookie/FA draft which is 5 rounds. With fairly large rosters you are usually not cutting much talent anyway so I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I like the idea of creating some sort of escalator that forces teams to make some sort of movement because I think it brings a little more decision making as well as transaction activity to the league. This could be in way of assigning salaries or lengths on contracts. I have seen some leagues where a trade of a player resets the contract years but I really don't like that. The top players never really become available because teams swap out players in the final year.

Ignoring my definition, I'm referring to a league where you are not forced to cut anyone. You're running a team/franchise that ages, gets hurt, etc. It seems to mimic the trials of an actual GM the closest, but it's obviously up for debate if that's good or not.

 

[paulpogo]

There are tons of "true dynasty" owners, as you've defined it, around here...In fact when people refer to "dynasty" that is always the structure I assume they are talking about...All the other variations, to me, fall into various degrees of "keeper" league...

I would tend to agree, but it's obvious that many people who are in a keeper league variation call themselves a dynasty league as well.

 

[Beaumont]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of trying to define the term true dynasty league but the league I am in has you cut 5 players before the rookie/FA draft which is 5 rounds. With fairly large rosters you are usually not cutting much talent anyway so I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I like the idea of creating some sort of escalator that forces teams to make some sort of movement because I think it brings a little more decision making as well as transaction activity to the league. This could be in way of assigning salaries or lengths on contracts. I have seen some leagues where a trade of a player resets the contract years but I really don't like that. The top players never really become available because teams swap out players in the final year.

Ignoring my definition, I'm referring to a league where you are not forced to cut anyone. You're running a team/franchise that ages, gets hurt, etc. It seems to mimic the trials of an actual GM the closest, but it's obviously up for debate if that's good or not.

Well a league with both contracts and escalating salaries (including dead money) most closely mimics the decisions a GM has to make ...And these types of leagues have tons of year long interest. They are never slow.

 

[Bull Dozier]

There are tons of "true dynasty" owners, as you've defined it, around here...In fact when people refer to "dynasty" that is always the structure I assume they are talking about...All the other variations, to me, fall into various degrees of "keeper" league...

I define my leagues as "contract dynasty" leagues that encompass aspects of contract values, contract lengths, salary caps, rookie drafts, developmental squads, etc. To me, they are far too complex to fall under the "keeper" umbrella, but I'd agree it does not fall typically into the dynasty realm either. It's all semantics though.

 

[bigreese82]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of trying to define the term true dynasty league but the league I am in has you cut 5 players before the rookie/FA draft which is 5 rounds. With fairly large rosters you are usually not cutting much talent anyway so I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I like the idea of creating some sort of escalator that forces teams to make some sort of movement because I think it brings a little more decision making as well as transaction activity to the league. This could be in way of assigning salaries or lengths on contracts. I have seen some leagues where a trade of a player resets the contract years but I really don't like that. The top players never really become available because teams swap out players in the final year.

Ignoring my definition, I'm referring to a league where you are not forced to cut anyone. You're running a team/franchise that ages, gets hurt, etc. It seems to mimic the trials of an actual GM the closest, but it's obviously up for debate if that's good or not.

So you're looking for a dynasty owner that's in a league where the roster keeps increasing by 3-5 every year? In the "real NFL" teams have roster limits..just trying to get a take on the kind of league you are looking to create

 

[paulpogo]

Well a league with both contracts and escalating salaries (including dead money) most closely mimics the decisions a GM has to make ...And these types of leagues have tons of year long interest. They are never slow.

Good point. The league is split between those that favor moving to a "true dyansty" vs. modified keeper with contract years.

 

[jeter23]

Most of my leagues are dynasty leagues where all players can be kept at the discretion of each owner. Meaning, for example, I have LT and there is nothing forcing me or influencing me to remove him from my roster, via either trade or cut. We don't have salaries/salary caps/contracts etc. This is a FANTASY league. I don't think it mimics the NFL at all, as each NFL GM has decisions to make about every player as far as keep/cut/trade/restructure and how that decision affects the rest of the team.

 

[Beaumont]

Well a league with both contracts and escalating salaries (including dead money) most closely mimics the decisions a GM has to make ...And these types of leagues have tons of year long interest. They are never slow.

Good point. The league is split between those that favor moving to a "true dyansty" vs. modified keeper with contract years.

I can vouch for using both contracts and salary caps that escalate. If you are forced to cut talent merely because of salary, or decide how long you want to sign a player knowing the risk of a bust with lots of future dead money, those decisions make a very rich league with lots of strategy and moves ...

 

[paulpogo]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of trying to define the term true dynasty league but the league I am in has you cut 5 players before the rookie/FA draft which is 5 rounds. With fairly large rosters you are usually not cutting much talent anyway so I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I like the idea of creating some sort of escalator that forces teams to make some sort of movement because I think it brings a little more decision making as well as transaction activity to the league. This could be in way of assigning salaries or lengths on contracts. I have seen some leagues where a trade of a player resets the contract years but I really don't like that. The top players never really become available because teams swap out players in the final year.

Ignoring my definition, I'm referring to a league where you are not forced to cut anyone. You're running a team/franchise that ages, gets hurt, etc. It seems to mimic the trials of an actual GM the closest, but it's obviously up for debate if that's good or not.

So you're looking for a dynasty owner that's in a league where the roster keeps increasing by 3-5 every year? In the "real NFL" teams have roster limits..just trying to get a take on the kind of league you are looking to create

No, you'd have roster restrictions. Each year in the rookie/FA draft you'd have to determine if those guys are worth being on your team. Ignoring everything else about a person's potential roster heading into next season, someone may need to make a decision to keep an aging Marvin Harrison or replacing him with Calvin Johnson in the rookie draft. Or keeping both and cutting someone else. Not a perfect example of course but just trying to illustrate a possibility.

 

[QUEZILLA]

There are tons of "true dynasty" owners, as you've defined it, around here...In fact when people refer to "dynasty" that is always the structure I assume they are talking about...All the other variations, to me, fall into various degrees of "keeper" league...

 

[snellman]

I am involved in several "Dynasty" leagues. We have a 5 round rookie draft each year after which we have to cut 5 players to get our rosters down to the limit. After that we have a FA bidding system where we get so much money for the year to use on bidding for Free Agents.

I love these types of leagues, everyone is more involved year round and alot more trades happen in these leagues, depending if you are building your team for the present or future.

Just my .02

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

As a caveat, I have never participated in a league like you describe, where you keep everyone, and there are no limits to how long you've got a player. So, if you draft a rookie, you've got him for the rest of his career if you want him.

I DO however participate in a very complex dynasty league with a salary cap, contract years, signing bonuses, etc. And, as another poster pointed out, I would say that having some sort of decision/limit on how long you keep a player (like a salary cap, or contract years, or in the case of my league, both) actually more closely mimics the challenges of being an NFL GM.

Also, I think it's nice to have the all-year challenge of maintaining a high-quality roster while still being under the cap. Worrying about how to keep your studs and still have enough "purchasing power" (salary cap room, contract years, or whatever) to field a strong supporting cast? These are the challenges that make a 'contract' dynasty a real blast!

 

[Keg]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of trying to define the term true dynasty league but the league I am in has you cut 5 players before the rookie/FA draft which is 5 rounds. With fairly large rosters you are usually not cutting much talent anyway so I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I like the idea of creating some sort of escalator that forces teams to make some sort of movement because I think it brings a little more decision making as well as transaction activity to the league. This could be in way of assigning salaries or lengths on contracts. I have seen some leagues where a trade of a player resets the contract years but I really don't like that. The top players never really become available because teams swap out players in the final year.

Ignoring my definition, I'm referring to a league where you are not forced to cut anyone. You're running a team/franchise that ages, gets hurt, etc. It seems to mimic the trials of an actual GM the closest, but it's obviously up for debate if that's good or not.

I'm not sure that I like the idea of trying to define the term true dynasty league but the league I am in has you cut 5 players before the rookie/FA draft which is 5 rounds. With fairly large rosters you are usually not cutting much talent anyway so I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I like the idea of creating some sort of escalator that forces teams to make some sort of movement because I think it brings a little more decision making as well as transaction activity to the league. This could be in way of assigning salaries or lengths on contracts. I have seen some leagues where a trade of a player resets the contract years but I really don't like that. The top players never really become available because teams swap out players in the final year.

Ignoring my definition, I'm referring to a league where you are not forced to cut anyone. You're running a team/franchise that ages, gets hurt, etc. It seems to mimic the trials of an actual GM the closest, but it's obviously up for debate if that's good or not.

Well a league with both contracts and escalating salaries (including dead money) most closely mimics the decisions a GM has to make ...And these types of leagues have tons of year long interest. They are never slow.

Beaumont is referring to a league that both he and I are in and it is a DYNASTY LEAGUE, there is no possible way to define it as anything else....The League:

16 Teams

40 Roster Spots(IDP Included)

13 Player DTS(developmental taxi squad)

Yearly 8 round rookie draft(draft slots have predetermined Salary Values)

Salary Cap

Salary Escalation(with higher escalation based on performance)

Contracts

We have the ability to place a Franchise Tag and/or Transitional Tag on players(Restricted Free Agents)

We have an RFA period where teams can bid on RFAs just like in the NFL

This league puts you in a GMs shoes more then any other league I have ever been in or seen.

I am also a part of 3 other 16 team Dynasty "Contract" Leagues with 35 Players and 12/13 player DTS's

you couldnt in a million years make me believe that they were just "KEEPER" leagues

even the OP said that they have to cut players...to me a Keeper allows you to keep up to a set number of players but not enough to field a starting lineup...once you are keeping enough players to field a lineup and still have backups on your squad then imo you are in a DYNASTY FORMAT

The League: http://football18.myfantasyleague.com/2006/home/30545

 

[offdee]

Both of the Leagues listed in my sig are true Dynasty Leagues as you describe in your initial post. Can keep players as long as desired, and wouldn't want to play in a league any other way.

jaWs is going into its 6th year and to a man every owner in the league claims it's the best league they've ever been a part of.

 

[GreatWhite]

I am also in a true dynasty league and there is one thing about our league I would not suggest - do not allow a team to draft college players.

I sacrificed the first 3 years and invested in my future. My team now has LJ, Alexander, McGahee, Maroney (we start 3 RBs), but I also have AD, Lynch, MBush, McFadden, Slaton, James Davis, CJ Spiller, Felix Jones, and Emanuel Moody.

Because of my (and a couple other teams) depth of college talent, the teams that are poor, never get a chance to get rich since all the blue-chip college guys are already on someones team.

 

[offdee]

I am also in a true dynasty league and there is one thing about our league I would not suggest - do not allow a team to draft college players. I sacrificed the first 3 years and invested in my future. My team now has LJ, Alexander, McGahee, Maroney (we start 3 RBs), but I also have AD, Lynch, MBush, McFadden, Slaton, James Davis, CJ Spiller, Felix Jones, and Emanuel Moody.Because of my (and a couple other teams) depth of college talent, the teams that are poor, never get a chance to get rich since all the blue-chip college guys are already on someones team.

My one League (Phenomz) allows for 1 college player per roster and feel this adds a nice twist.I agree though, I wouldn't want to be involved in a league that allows an unlimited number of college players per team.....more than anything it totally devalues future Draft pick values and makes future drafts pretty anticlimatic.With allowing just 1 college player per team at any time it adds a new element to the usual Dynasty League but doesn't sacrifice the value of future picks all that much. It also doesn't upset the balance of powers that greatly because every team has the opportunity to take a chance on one blue chip college prospect and hope they pan out eventually.

 

[Warhogs]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of trying to define the term true dynasty league but the league I am in has you cut 5 players before the rookie/FA draft which is 5 rounds. With fairly large rosters you are usually not cutting much talent anyway so I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I like the idea of creating some sort of escalator that forces teams to make some sort of movement because I think it brings a little more decision making as well as transaction activity to the league. This could be in way of assigning salaries or lengths on contracts. I have seen some leagues where a trade of a player resets the contract years but I really don't like that. The top players never really become available because teams swap out players in the final year.

Ignoring my definition, I'm referring to a league where you are not forced to cut anyone. You're running a team/franchise that ages, gets hurt, etc. It seems to mimic the trials of an actual GM the closest, but it's obviously up for debate if that's good or not.

I'm not sure that I like the idea of trying to define the term true dynasty league but the league I am in has you cut 5 players before the rookie/FA draft which is 5 rounds. With fairly large rosters you are usually not cutting much talent anyway so I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I like the idea of creating some sort of escalator that forces teams to make some sort of movement because I think it brings a little more decision making as well as transaction activity to the league. This could be in way of assigning salaries or lengths on contracts. I have seen some leagues where a trade of a player resets the contract years but I really don't like that. The top players never really become available because teams swap out players in the final year.

Ignoring my definition, I'm referring to a league where you are not forced to cut anyone. You're running a team/franchise that ages, gets hurt, etc. It seems to mimic the trials of an actual GM the closest, but it's obviously up for debate if that's good or not.

Well a league with both contracts and escalating salaries (including dead money) most closely mimics the decisions a GM has to make ...And these types of leagues have tons of year long interest. They are never slow.

Beaumont is referring to a league that both he and I are in and it is a DYNASTY LEAGUE, there is no possible way to define it as anything else....The League:

16 Teams

40 Roster Spots(IDP Included)

13 Player DTS(developmental taxi squad)

Yearly 8 round rookie draft(draft slots have predetermined Salary Values)

Salary Cap

Salary Escalation(with higher escalation based on performance)

Contracts

We have the ability to place a Franchise Tag and/or Transitional Tag on players(Restricted Free Agents)

We have an RFA period where teams can bid on RFAs just like in the NFL

This league puts you in a GMs shoes more then any other league I have ever been in or seen.

I am also a part of 3 other 16 team Dynasty "Contract" Leagues with 35 Players and 12/13 player DTS's

you couldnt in a million years make me believe that they were just "KEEPER" leagues

even the OP said that they have to cut players...to me a Keeper allows you to keep up to a set number of players but not enough to field a starting lineup...once you are keeping enough players to field a lineup and still have backups on your squad then imo you are in a DYNASTY FORMAT

The League: http://football18.myfantasyleague.com/2006/home/30545

This contradicts how this topic started. Originally it says the ability to keep everyone on your roster but you are saying the leagues has an escalating salary and salary cap so it sounds like you do not have the ability to keep everyone on your roster. I guess I'm not sure what the intent of the topic was but there is some great discussion on ideas of how to set up a dynasty type league.

 

[Keg]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of trying to define the term true dynasty league but the league I am in has you cut 5 players before the rookie/FA draft which is 5 rounds. With fairly large rosters you are usually not cutting much talent anyway so I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I like the idea of creating some sort of escalator that forces teams to make some sort of movement because I think it brings a little more decision making as well as transaction activity to the league. This could be in way of assigning salaries or lengths on contracts. I have seen some leagues where a trade of a player resets the contract years but I really don't like that. The top players never really become available because teams swap out players in the final year.

Ignoring my definition, I'm referring to a league where you are not forced to cut anyone. You're running a team/franchise that ages, gets hurt, etc. It seems to mimic the trials of an actual GM the closest, but it's obviously up for debate if that's good or not.

I'm not sure that I like the idea of trying to define the term true dynasty league but the league I am in has you cut 5 players before the rookie/FA draft which is 5 rounds. With fairly large rosters you are usually not cutting much talent anyway so I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I like the idea of creating some sort of escalator that forces teams to make some sort of movement because I think it brings a little more decision making as well as transaction activity to the league. This could be in way of assigning salaries or lengths on contracts. I have seen some leagues where a trade of a player resets the contract years but I really don't like that. The top players never really become available because teams swap out players in the final year.

Ignoring my definition, I'm referring to a league where you are not forced to cut anyone. You're running a team/franchise that ages, gets hurt, etc. It seems to mimic the trials of an actual GM the closest, but it's obviously up for debate if that's good or not.

Well a league with both contracts and escalating salaries (including dead money) most closely mimics the decisions a GM has to make ...And these types of leagues have tons of year long interest. They are never slow.

Beaumont is referring to a league that both he and I are in and it is a DYNASTY LEAGUE, there is no possible way to define it as anything else....The League:

16 Teams

40 Roster Spots(IDP Included)

13 Player DTS(developmental taxi squad)

Yearly 8 round rookie draft(draft slots have predetermined Salary Values)

Salary Cap

Salary Escalation(with higher escalation based on performance)

Contracts

We have the ability to place a Franchise Tag and/or Transitional Tag on players(Restricted Free Agents)

We have an RFA period where teams can bid on RFAs just like in the NFL

This league puts you in a GMs shoes more then any other league I have ever been in or seen.

I am also a part of 3 other 16 team Dynasty "Contract" Leagues with 35 Players and 12/13 player DTS's

you couldnt in a million years make me believe that they were just "KEEPER" leagues

even the OP said that they have to cut players...to me a Keeper allows you to keep up to a set number of players but not enough to field a starting lineup...once you are keeping enough players to field a lineup and still have backups on your squad then imo you are in a DYNASTY FORMAT

The League: http://football18.myfantasyleague.com/2006/home/30545

This contradicts how this topic started. Originally it says the ability to keep everyone on your roster but you are saying the leagues has an escalating salary and salary cap so it sounds like you do not have the ability to keep everyone on your roster. I guess I'm not sure what the intent of the topic was but there is some great discussion on ideas of how to set up a dynasty type league.

i wasnt the OP but i was giving my POV that the league I described(and beau described) is most definitely a dynasty league...but then the OP did state they have to cut players so in essence he did contradict what his initial post stated...

 

[lions327]

I am in some dynasties that are like what the original poster described, also in a contract league, and regardless of whether you are in one like that, or a salary cap league, the difference between a good league and a not so good league is the activity of the owners. It can be frustrating if you get in a league that has a few inactive owners. I personally enjoy year round leagues, lots of trade talk, etc. Any of the above can be active year round, even if you don't keep every player, such as the contract/salary type leagues. But the active owners are what makes the leagues good.

 

[coolnerd]

I am not sure if there is a such thing a true dynasty league, but I assume that the original poster means a league where the only "forced" cuts are to fit draft picks on your roster. I play a nice variety of leagues from a couple described in the previous sentence to those with contracts/salary cap and FA. Personally, I believe that group of guys and the leadership of commish are the most important elements than the various details. My functional defeinition of dynasty is any league where you have the option of maintaining the majority of your team from year to year.

 

[lions327]

I am not sure if there is a such thing a true dynasty league, but I assume that the original poster means a league where the only "forced" cuts are to fit draft picks on your roster. I play a nice variety of leagues from a couple described in the previous sentence to those with contracts/salary cap and FA. Personally, I believe that group of guys and the leadership of commish are the most important elements than the various details. My functional defeinition of dynasty is any league where you have the option of maintaining the majority of your team from year to year.

Well said...and you are spot on about a good commish and good owners, and leadership in general. It makes all the difference in the world.

 

[x260bm]

There are tons of "true dynasty" owners, as you've defined it, around here...In fact when people refer to "dynasty" that is always the structure I assume they are talking about...All the other variations, to me, fall into various degrees of "keeper" league...

I agree. Contract and cap leagues are just complicated keeper leagues. The only reason you see so many of these leagues on message boards is because they are difficult to fill.

 

[lord_helmet]

I'm in a "true" dynasty league that allows players to be kept indefinitely. But I like contract leagues better

 

[crnerblitz]

Can we at least agree that there are 4 distinctly different league formats.

Dynasty. There is nothing to inhibit you from keeping a player from rookie to retirement. It is also my personel fav.

Contract. Some sort of salary cap and contract length is involved to ensure a slow but continous turn over of talent. I rule at these types and find them very challenging.

Keeper. Like a dynasty but league rules usually specify a restricted amount of players you may keep from year to year. This format is also often combined with the contract format to create a hybrid format that can be very challenging.

Catch and Release. Also known as Redraft.

 

[billyjoe]

By true dynasty, I guess I'm referring to the ability to keep anyone and everyone on your team for an indefinite amount of time. The only draft you have (after the first season) would be for rookies and free agents.Does this increase interest throughout the calendar year?What are some of the negatives? My first thought is that it would make it difficult to replace an owner, but my 18 year old league is a pretty stable bunch. I guess we're just looking to kick it up a notch.Any thoughts?

That's actually how most dynasty leagues work. At least in my experience. And yes, it's great.

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

I'm in a "true" dynasty league that allows players to be kept indefinitely. But I like contract leagues better

I've never played in a 'true' dynasty league, then, but I think I agree with you, helmet - it just seems like a league where the only real change that ever happens is a rookie draft (and maybe an occasional waiver pickup) would be REALLY boring. Especially if you make a few bad choices in a rookie draft or two, you could really put yourself in a hole that's hard to dig out of (I know, I know...along with having smokin' hot wives and six-figure jobs, everybody here other than me drafts perfectly every rookie draft they're in... )I mean - don't get me wrong, you can get yourself into a fair amount of trouble with bad decisions in a cap/contract league as well, but at least the cap/contract will potentially make some decent talent available so you can right the ship a little more quickly...

 

[code]

Can we at least agree that there are 4 distinctly different league formats.Dynasty. There is nothing to inhibit you from keeping a player from rookie to retirement. It is also my personel fav. Contract. Some sort of salary cap and contract length is involved to ensure a slow but continous turn over of talent. I rule at these types and find them very challenging.Keeper. Like a dynasty but league rules usually specify a restricted amount of players you may keep from year to year. This format is also often combined with the contract format to create a hybrid format that can be very challenging.Catch and Release. Also known as Redraft.

I've come into to this thread several times since my first post and abandoned the response that I was working on...because frankly I don't understand where this discussion is going...On the one hand you've got what appears to be a rookie question about the "advantages of dynasty leagues"...which seems like a worthwhile topic, but has also been discussed in numerous other threads around here before...however those questions have barely been mentioned at all in the replies...On the other hand you have (intentionally or not) a few polarizing remarks that lead to a largely unimportant debate of the semantics of league "types"...there are going to be cases when a complicated keeper league requires similar skills (drafting, trading, etc) as a "dynasty" league, and there are other times when they will be different (maybe cap management, rules structure, etc)...but fundamentally the naming doesn't matter all that much to me...if you jump into a "dynasty thread" and it immediately becomes apparent that it is about defining initial salaries for players and you don't use salaries, its pretty clear that the thread is not for you...For my money the variety of league types and the "gray areas" in between is part of what makes this hobby interesting...it's certainly not something to get defensive about...call your league type whatever you want, it won't bother me...and while the list above is fine, there are other ways to slice the world as well (IDP leagues, Flex lineups, multi conference leagues, etc, etc)...Disclaimer: I crafted a fairly unique league structure which uses an ever expanding contract year cap allowing our league to effectively grow from a redraft into a "dynasty" league over time...and frankly I don't care which of the four categories above you place us in, I can borrow strategy information from discussion of almost any league type and our owners love it...

 

[GregR_2]

I guess to me the only distinction is in how many players you can keep, and contracts or not don't play a role. If you can under any conditions keep your entire roster or very close to it, it's a dynasty league. If you can only keep some percentage of your roster and probably 50% or less, it's a keeper league.

And for what it's worth, I whole-heartedly agree that contract leagues of either type create more interaction and decision making over the non-contract ones. My contract dynasty league has 55 player rosters, with 26 starters each week at 13 different positions, a hard salary cap, rookie draft salaries, FA auctions, option years on contracts, franchise and transition tags, etc. Year round I am continually re-evaluating my entire team and projecting forward what I'll do for the next 2-3 years in terms of salary and talent, trying to make sure I'll have money available to take advantage of free agent bargains and sign my rookie picks, and sometimes having to make hard decisions to let good players go becuase I need to spend cap on another position. There are a lot more aspects of your team to manage in them than in non-contract dynasty leagues, so I whole-hearted prefer the contract ones.

 

[bez18]

We have a 19 man roster and keep 10 players a year.

It definitely has increased the level of competition, moreso than our redraft league. Everyone makes deals even in the offseason for players and picks. It's a lot of fun to see some guy you held on to make it big. Perfect ex in our league, one guy drafted Shaun Alexander and Peyton Manning in 1st and 2nd rd (4 yrs ago when the league started). In one of the last rds he drafted Larry Johnson and sat him on the bench and even kept him when he did nothing but get some last min carries when Priest was done for the game. Now, he has them both in his backfield!

 

[lions327]

I like most dynasty/contract type leagues, but to me it all comes down to the group of owners in the leagues more than the description/aspects of the league. You can have the greatest format in the world, great rules, challenging etc, but if you have a couple of sour #### owners, or inactive owners, the rest of the stuff is rendered meaningless. I like the fun and friendships made more than the actual format...and when you put the 2 together, then you have the leagues you like the most. You also need committed owners as well.

Strategy and year round activity wise, I don't really have a preference, as most of the league types listed....whether keeping all or most, whether contract/salary or not...are made by the activity of the owners. I do enjoy a variety of league types. Most of my leagues are IDP, but I play some that aren't too. There is so much variety that most anyone can find something they like.

 

[guderian]

By true dynasty, I guess I'm referring to the ability to keep anyone and everyone on your team for an indefinite amount of time. The only draft you have (after the first season) would be for rookies and free agents.Does this increase interest throughout the calendar year?What are some of the negatives? My first thought is that it would make it difficult to replace an owner, but my 18 year old league is a pretty stable bunch. I guess we're just looking to kick it up a notch.Any thoughts?

The most important suggestion that I can give you is to seriously consider your scoring set up and roster requirements before you start. If you are in a large league (14 teams, for instance) and you are forced to start 2 RBs, then your league is starting 28 RBs every week from only 32 NFL teams. If you go with a flex spot in addition to 2 RBs, then people will really hoard RBs. If a team makes a couple of bad decisions at RB, then they could be looking at years before they get back into contention.

 

[zadok]

Yes, I am in a "true" Dynasty league and I love it.

 

[Kit Fisto]

I'm in a "true" dynasty league that allows players to be kept indefinitely. But I like contract leagues better

I've never played in a 'true' dynasty league, then, but I think I agree with you, helmet - it just seems like a league where the only real change that ever happens is a rookie draft (and maybe an occasional waiver pickup) would be REALLY boring. Especially if you make a few bad choices in a rookie draft or two, you could really put yourself in a hole that's hard to dig out of (I know, I know...along with having smokin' hot wives and six-figure jobs, everybody here other than me drafts perfectly every rookie draft they're in... )I mean - don't get me wrong, you can get yourself into a fair amount of trouble with bad decisions in a cap/contract league as well, but at least the cap/contract will potentially make some decent talent available so you can right the ship a little more quickly...

I play in dynasty leagues where you cut/trade/draft however you choose to do so. That to me is "dynasty".You said Pants, that the only real change that happens in these types of leagues is at the draft, and that you'd find that boring. To me, that's the challenge... making this type of league fun throughout the entire year. We trade, have a waiver wire system, etc... At the draft, the first 2 rounds are mostly rookies, followed by veterans that slipped through the previous year unnoticed, defenses, kickers and wicked flyers. And if you make a few bad decisions, that's also the challenge of dynasty; dig yourself out... through trades, waives, or better drafting.