What do you dynasty sharks think of this idea (1 Viewer)

[cscmtp]

I know a lot of guys on here LOVE Dynasty Leagues. I had an idea and wanted to see what you sharks think about it. My concept was to have a "Mulligan" League, where each team would get a certain amount of Mulligans- where a team could switch one of his starters with a bench player (who scored more points) on Monday morning.

I thought this could create a new fun strategy, where teams could also trade these Mulligans. And I was thinking each team could get anywhere from 1 per week, to maybe 1 per month, or even just 1 per season. So you'd have to decide, do I wait until the end of the year, when I think I need them the most for the playoff push? Do i trade away talent to acquire another Mulligan?

Does this sound like a fun idea? Would anyone be interested in joining that type of league?

 

[Phurfur]

I know a lot of guys on here LOVE Dynasty Leagues. I had an idea and wanted to see what you sharks think about it. My concept was to have a "Mulligan" League, where each team would get a certain amount of Mulligans- where a team could switch one of his starters with a bench player (who scored more points) on Monday morning. I thought this could create a new fun strategy, where teams could also trade these Mulligans. And I was thinking each team could get anywhere from 1 per week, to maybe 1 per month, or even just 1 per season. So you'd have to decide, do I wait until the end of the year, when I think I need them the most for the playoff push? Do i trade away talent to acquire another Mulligan? Does this sound like a fun idea? Would anyone be interested in joining that type of league?

I wouldn't play in a league like that. It takes too much skilll (or lucky) out of the game. It sounds like you are one who leaves points on his bench and want to even the playing field. Set your line up and live with it!

 

[cscmtp]

dude WTF?!? No, I typically don't leave points on the bench, as I usually trade away depth for upgrading my starters, so each week its mostly no brainers. I was just trying to think of a new idea/concept for fun.

 

[Chiefs Transplant]

I think it sounds like a nice twist. I am always looking for ways to spice up my league as well but sometimes have to reign myself in when it gets out of hand. Twice in a season excluding playoffs is as much as i would go for and the ability to trade them would make it interesting.

As for 23928, guess he won't be in your league. Now it's bound to fail!

 

[cscmtp]

I think it sounds like a nice twist. I am always looking for ways to spice up my league as well but sometimes have to reign myself in when it gets out of hand. Twice in a season excluding playoffs is as much as i would go for and the ability to trade them would make it interesting.As for 23928, guess he won't be in your league. Now it's bound to fail!

Thanks for the response Ron Burgundy. I do agree that if i did this, it would only be during the regular season, no way in the playoffs!

 

[Couch Potato]

A mulligan idea offered on St. Patty's weekend. How appropriate.

I've seen something similar, where you got the points from the lineup you turned in plus the points added in for your highest bench scorer (rather than swap the points for another scorer as you are suggesting).

I guess I could see it - we've all been burned by a surprise scratch giving us a zero or some benched guy going off, but I would prefer to add a flex spot rather than do this. I feel like it sort of dumbs things down and helps those who are not as on top of things. Not every week, but in the long run I think it works out that way.

 

[Dave Stauff]

I suspect there could be some backlash if, as an owner, I had a disproportionate number of mulligans used against me, causing me to lose games I would otherwise have won. I could also see the possibility of teams loading up on a powerhouse to try to bring him back to the pack. If these are risks you're willing take, then by all means try soomething new . . .

The thing to remember here is that no one would use their mulligan unless it changed the W/L outcome of their game, unless you develop some additional incentive for simply upgrading your final score.

 

[Iceman56751]

dude WTF?!? No, I typically don't leave points on the bench, as I usually trade away depth for upgrading my starters, so each week its mostly no brainers. I was just trying to think of a new idea/concept for fun.

That my friend, is the key to success.I, too, always deal my excess if I can improve my starting core.

 

[cscmtp]

I appreciate the input everyone! Just to be clear, i wouldn't make this change in any of my existing dynasty leagues. I was thinking about starting a new 12 team league in 2007, but would possibly implement this rule.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I'll compliment the alternative thinking.

Here's a "but if...." twist to this twist.

If you do this "mulligan move", whatever points you gain that week you start behind the next week.

That is, if you are losing 115-111 and take a mulligan to gain 5 points and win, next week you're losing by 5 right now.

 

[FFdork]

For reasons that have already been stated by others, being able to trade mulligans could be problematic in a league with much $ on the line.

Otherwise it has some potential, especially for a more casual league. I like Pasquino's twist.

 

[The Duff Man]

I'm always looking for another type of league to dominate

 

[Chiefs Transplant]

I'll compliment the alternative thinking.Here's a "but if...." twist to this twist.If you do this "mulligan move", whatever points you gain that week you start behind the next week.That is, if you are losing 115-111 and take a mulligan to gain 5 points and win, next week you're losing by 5 right now.

That's a nice twist on the twist. Makes a person think about it a bit more. There would need to be carefully thought out checks and balances.

 

[weisguy0831]

so just have a league where everyone plays. that way, there's no one left on the bench.

 

[KellysHeroes]

 

[Family Matters]

I appreciate thinking outside the box and trying to be creative. It's always great to share ideas.

From my perspective I wouldn't like it. I find myself attracted to leagues that try to eliminate the uck factor as much as possible. The muligan idea tends to give losing owners an out for a possible win while taking away from the winning owners better strategy for that game. Let's face it, the likelyhood of having a big number on the bench is "unforseeable" and therefore a lucky break in getting credit for that player's points. I'd hate to be the guy seeing a win become a loss. The idea that your opponets every week starting QB had an off day and scored 6 points against you while his back up had a career game of 35 is not what I would enjoy.

Now I will say this. Leagues I enjoy the most are the one's whereby "bestball" is used in getting credit for your players. IOW-you get your highest QB/RB/WR/TE and so forth. You do not set your lineups. The reason for this is take the luck factor more. By drafting, trading and acquiring FA's you assemble your team with who you think are the best players. You should get credit for that.

There is 1 thought on your idea that I have kicked around before but could never figure out how to apply it fairly. What if you were allowed to use your mulligan for an injured player? But you would have to define "injured". Is that the guy that starts but only players 1 qtr? Or is it the guy that plays 3 qtrs? What ifthe injured player outscored the bench player. Which one do you get? You would have to manually manage that as well and I can see numerous issues surrounding it's application.

Good luck with your idea(s).

 

[dickey moe]

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'll compliment the alternative thinking.Here's a "but if...." twist to this twist.If you do this "mulligan move", whatever points you gain that week you start behind the next week.That is, if you are losing 115-111 and take a mulligan to gain 5 points and win, next week you're losing by 5 right now.

Yikes, talk about doubly screwing the team that you use the mulligan against. Not only did you use a mulligan to beat him, but the next week you're spotting a competitor points. I remember someone else here that has a league that does something similar but that liked better. If you're waffling between two players you can actually start both of them but take half their points. But you need to decide that ahead of time and you don't get the benefit of just having the best player's points. That seems more fair to me.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Why would this be limited to dynasty leagues?

 

[Liquid Tension]

For reasons that have already been stated by others, being able to trade mulligans could be problematic in a league with much $ on the line.Otherwise it has some potential, especially for a more casual league. I like Pasquino's twist.

Jeff's idea makes it even worse because you are screwing the guy you take the mulligan against.For the most part I don't like this idea. You choose who starts and live with it. Family Matters mentioned he likes where you don't set a lineup and you get your best QB score etc... Personally I don't like that either because then guys who are inconsistent are worth taking ion spots like that. I say you draft your team to win and you use the matchups to make that happen. Luck is a big factor in fantasy football just based on injuries alone, let it go people and enjoy the game.

 

[Chaz]

I absolutely love this type of outside the box thinking. Our hobby has a way of getting ho hum otherwise. While I love the uniqueness of it, just don't think that it would be for me.

The main problem that I see is that it screws someone over without them being able to do anything about it. While I feel that sticking it to someone can be part of the game (ie: bidding up a player, taking the last starting kicker off the wire, that sort of thing), I like when the other owner had the opportunity to prevent it, had they been a little smarter. I don't see that happening with the mulligan rule.

All that said, if you get some guys who are into it, then go for it. The more uniqueness out there the better.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Without the ability to trade the mulligans I don't like the idea at all. With the ability to trade them I think it could be fun trying to figure out what the "value" of the mulligans ends up being. I would restrict it to only a few (maybe even one) per year though.

 

[thayman]

Sounds like fun, I love different new twists, and if you start a league would like to know how it works out for you. Personally I love the luck factor in the game, so not my cup of tea, but sounds like an interesting concept.

 

[super sleeper]

So the only reason to use a mulligan is to win a game you would otherwise lose, correct? If this is a head to head league, the only time you can use this rule to your benefit is if you have a bench player who scores more than your margin of defeat (lose by 6, substitute a bench RB who scored 15 while your starter scored 8).

I can't imagine playing in a league where I stay up until 1 am sweating out those 10 points I need for a win on Monday night, only to wake up the next day and see that the mulligan rule negated the win. The alternative is to have to root for a mulligan-proof blowout. No thanks.

But props for trying to be creative.

 

[moleculo]

say I'm winning a close game, only to see on monday AM that my opponent has taken a mulligan, and has now beat me. I would then have an opprutunity to take a mulligan as well, to get my win back, right? Seems like there would have to be a mulligan submission deadline as well, and if you wanted to take a mulligan, you would do it at the very last minute, so your opponent doesn't have a chance to pull one as well.

Most of my leagues don't like in-week deadlines becasue it means that you have to be focused on FF during work hours, and many don't wanna think about FF between monday niight and the thursday FA deadline. I don't think the mulligan strategy would go over well.

Kudos on the outside the box thinking, though. You never know what kind of breakthrough can make the game more interesting.

 

[cobalt_27]

I think it sounds like a nice twist. I am always looking for ways to spice up my league as well but sometimes have to reign myself in when it gets out of hand. Twice in a season excluding playoffs is as much as i would go for and the ability to trade them would make it interesting.As for 23928, guess he won't be in your league. Now it's bound to fail!

Thanks for the response Ron Burgundy. I do agree that if i did this, it would only be during the regular season, no way in the playoffs!

If it's such a good idea, why wouldn't you do it in the playoffs, too?

 

[cobalt_27]

Now I will say this. Leagues I enjoy the most are the one's whereby "bestball" is used in getting credit for your players. IOW-you get your highest QB/RB/WR/TE and so forth. You do not set your lineups. The reason for this is take the luck factor more. By drafting, trading and acquiring FA's you assemble your team with who you think are the best players. You should get credit for that.

Apparently, you see the function of FF as limited to GM duties--not one where you have to be a head coach and make sharp decisions on gameday, if this is the approach you like. I don't think it takes the luck out of the equation, whatsoever. It removes any kind of cognitive element out of the decision-making process. The credit for assembling the best players can be demonstrated if you follow that up with sound decisions on Sunday morning.

 

[Slinger]

Now I will say this. Leagues I enjoy the most are the one's whereby "bestball" is used in getting credit for your players. IOW-you get your highest QB/RB/WR/TE and so forth. You do not set your lineups. The reason for this is take the luck factor more. By drafting, trading and acquiring FA's you assemble your team with who you think are the best players. You should get credit for that.

Apparently, you see the function of FF as limited to GM duties--not one where you have to be a head coach and make sharp decisions on gameday, if this is the approach you like. I don't think it takes the luck out of the equation, whatsoever. It removes any kind of cognitive element out of the decision-making process. The credit for assembling the best players can be demonstrated if you follow that up with sound decisions on Sunday morning.

 

[redman]

Now I will say this. Leagues I enjoy the most are the one's whereby "bestball" is used in getting credit for your players. IOW-you get your highest QB/RB/WR/TE and so forth. You do not set your lineups. The reason for this is take the luck factor more. By drafting, trading and acquiring FA's you assemble your team with who you think are the best players. You should get credit for that.

Apparently, you see the function of FF as limited to GM duties--not one where you have to be a head coach and make sharp decisions on gameday, if this is the approach you like. I don't think it takes the luck out of the equation, whatsoever. It removes any kind of cognitive element out of the decision-making process. The credit for assembling the best players can be demonstrated if you follow that up with sound decisions on Sunday morning.

 

[Joe Davola]

I think one way this mulligan could work is if you "declare" you will use a mulligan before the weeks games start. You don't have to determine which player will be subbed in/out, but you do have to declare that you will use it.

If you have a better bench player you can put him in, if not you lose your mulligan.

I don't think I would like this in a league, but you might find interest.

 

[Family Matters]

Now I will say this. Leagues I enjoy the most are the one's whereby "bestball" is used in getting credit for your players. IOW-you get your highest QB/RB/WR/TE and so forth. You do not set your lineups. The reason for this is take the luck factor more. By drafting, trading and acquiring FA's you assemble your team with who you think are the best players. You should get credit for that.

Apparently, you see the function of FF as limited to GM duties--not one where you have to be a head coach and make sharp decisions on gameday, if this is the approach you like. I don't think it takes the luck out of the equation, whatsoever. It removes any kind of cognitive element out of the decision-making process. The credit for assembling the best players can be demonstrated if you follow that up with sound decisions on Sunday morning.

Actually it's closer to what NFL teams do. They're not limited to just certain players on their team. They have the benefit of replacing injured players and getting credit for it. They don't have to declare who they "think" their best players are before the game starts. They actually get the benefit of utilizing all their players. I'm sure I'm not the only one that's had player(s) go out to injury right before the game or early in the game and costing you a win. I wouldn't exectly call it "strategy" by me or the owner that got "lucky" because a key player went out to injury. That's the main reason I like it better. Another reason is that if you run multiple leagues, trying to resolve starter issue at 1:00 for several teams can be difficult at best. Especially if you can't access all the sites like FBG's for the lastest info.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I think they only way our league would vote "yes" on a rule like this is if you had a player get injured during a game.

 

[Tornacl]

I think the only way I'd like the rule is if it were limited to game-time decisions that end up not playing. Call it the Denver RB Rule. It bugs me when you find out a guy isn't going to play before the game starts, but you can't make the change because its the 4:00 game (or Sunday/Monday night).

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I think the only way I'd like the rule is if it were limited to game-time decisions that end up not playing. Call it the Denver RB Rule. It bugs me when you find out a guy isn't going to play before the game starts, but you can't make the change because its the 4:00 game (or Sunday/Monday night).

Be careful what you wish for. This is a slippery slope. You would have to define what "ends up not playing" means. Injured and/or deactivated? Ok. What about a "healthy scratch"? What about a player who dresses but doesn't play (See Belichick, Bill)? How about when Randy Moss or Joe Horn plays one series or less and then is MIA for 3+ quarters?