Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Just curious what folks who have been or are in a dynasty league think about this. Just for the record, I am talking about an established league, not a start up.
Last edited by a moderator:
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!
What percentage of teams should be required (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Holy Schneikes
- Start date
League_dont_know_this_one
Footballguy
Came to say 2/3. 75 is too much, 51 isn't enough.
GregR
Footballguy
My leagues generally have 2 criteria.
For most scoring, lineup, etc type of changes, 2/3 of league, and there has to be sufficient notice that owners have a chance to take the change into account before it goes live. For those type of changes in a dynasty or keeper league, I generally require such changes not go in until the following season.
For a change which doesn't have sufficient lead time, we require they be unanimous. Such as last year in one league people wanted to change the timing of waivers mid-season. One owner voted no, so it passed with over 2/3 but won't go in until 2012.
For most scoring, lineup, etc type of changes, 2/3 of league, and there has to be sufficient notice that owners have a chance to take the change into account before it goes live. For those type of changes in a dynasty or keeper league, I generally require such changes not go in until the following season.
For a change which doesn't have sufficient lead time, we require they be unanimous. Such as last year in one league people wanted to change the timing of waivers mid-season. One owner voted no, so it passed with over 2/3 but won't go in until 2012.
SWC
Bromigo
two less than every team because otherwise you can have a small pissed off majority screw teams that a good but if you need a majority or one less than majority you can have one guy hold out and wreck it but if you ahve two less than a majority it requires one guy who is getting hosed and a friend to stop a hoser move
We only require a simple majority in our keeper and dynasty leagues, but like Greg, any rule that would have an implact on player/keeper decisions isn't implimented for a full season to allow teams to auction or trade appropriately. Things that have no impact on the actual auction (such as increasing the free agent budget last year to account for the shorter conditioning period), can be applied the same year, again with a simple majority.
As a note, these are non-money leagues played amongst close friends who all went to undergrad together, so it's a more friendly league than most.
As a note, these are non-money leagues played amongst close friends who all went to undergrad together, so it's a more friendly league than most.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Changing starting requirements is a major change. It could affect an owner significantly since they may have built their team differently based on those requirements (i.e., getting rid of depth to improve starters or vice versa). This is the kind of change that shouldn't go into place unless unanimous.
This falls under major setup such as scoring and roster changes and defines the basic structure of the league. Most rule changes should only require some type of agreed upon majority, but not this.
This falls under major setup such as scoring and roster changes and defines the basic structure of the league. Most rule changes should only require some type of agreed upon majority, but not this.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Agreed, but I didn't want to try to influence the poll until I got some solid feedback. To me this is a no-brainer at at least a 90% solution in a large league, and preferably 100%. All my other dynasty leagues are at 100%.I thought about rolling scoring into the poll as well, because I think that triggers more red flags than starting requirements for many people, but it really shouldn't. Starting requirements in general probably have a bigger impact on player value that relatively small scoring changes.The reason I posted is that I am in a league (which I like) that recently put up a poll suggesting we change the starting requirements at one position and a lot of folks (including the commish) seem to be acting like it's no big deal. We started last year, and the second year in, some folks seem to be unhappy with their original emphasis, and now want to "fix it". But for the folks that DID put appropriate emphasis on that position based on the rules that we established before the draft, this significantly impacts the value of that position.I'm having an internal debate about how hard I want to push this, because the rules don't specifically mention protecting scoring OR starting lineups, and pretty much anything in theory can be changed with a majority vote. So rule wise the league is in the clear (and my fault for not insisting on those protections beforehand), but "fairness" wise, quite frankly, it's BS in my mind if it passes.I am absolutely shocked by the results so far. I honestly expected the vast majority of responses to be at 90% or 100%, and to see so many 50% votes REALLY stunned me. I mean seriously, if you get a couple of really strong teams, the league can essentially just trim them back with a simple vote in that scenario. Not right, IMO.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Democracy is great, but consistency is what we are talking about. Democracy is a great way to get the rules ESTABLISHED (more or less). It is also fantastic for any kind of re-draft scenario. But changing SOME rules (specifically ones that significantly alter player value) after the fact in a dynasty league just doesn't make sense as a willy-nilly prospect.So the following scenario is totally OK:Standard 12 team dynasty league decides it is a start two QB league. EVERYBODY is on board with this and understands it. EVERBODY ponies up their money in a contest to see (basically) who can make the most accurate player valuations BASED ON THAT RULESET. 5 teams draft really well, placing a lot of emphasis on QB. 7 teams don't place enough emphasis on QB and suck.A year later, the sucky teams vote to make it a start one QB league, and drop the QB scoring as well for good measure. Now the 5 good team that drafted well are ####ty teams, and the 7 bad teams that drafted poorly are good teams. Is that really fair to the 5 teams that did well?
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
100%. Starting Requirements changing is a fundamental change to a league's structure. Teams spend years building towards their roster, which is (or should be) geared towards the specific lineup requirements of the league.
golfguy
Footballguy
never really saw a league change starting lineup reqs after the initial draft. changes to scoring, maybe adding a flex spot (sure), but going from 1to 2 qbs is a pretty substantial change imo. i think you would be looking for 5 new owners in your scenario.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Every starting lineup change is a pretty substantial change. Maybe not AS substantial as going between 1 QB and 2 QB, but substantial nonetheless. That's why a blanket 51% doesn't work IMO, and I am surprised by the results. 51% might work fine for many changes even in a dynasty, but not things that change player value.
coolnerd
Footballguy
For major changes, my leagues require 9 votes with the commish obstaining for rules that influence scoring or line-ups. Before anything like this would be brought up for vote, we would have major discussion beforehand.
I have seen what I a deem a major vote/discussion three times in leagues.
1) In a weighted PPR, the original settings for TE were way too generous, and it passed easily.
2) In the second or third year of dynasty league, a couple of guys were brought in a replacements. after supposedly agreeing to the rule structure with the commish etc., a few weeks later they started to propose major changes to an already complex set of rules. The commish balked (as he should have), but the new guys left and I think a couple ofters followed. the league never recovered and was disbanded.
3) In a establish contract/salary cap non-ppr, a guy after being in a year thinks the league would be better as a PPR. While most of us were already in PPR leagues understood the why, none of us wanted the change because of years of decisions made assuming non-ppr. The commish refused to allow the vote because only one or two people wanted the change. Eventually, the agreement became that scoring and basic set-up is not really up for discussion.
-------
Players are asked to read the rules of the league from their initial contact. Unless there is some scoring hole, really the core ideas of the league need to stay in place.
I have seen what I a deem a major vote/discussion three times in leagues.
1) In a weighted PPR, the original settings for TE were way too generous, and it passed easily.
2) In the second or third year of dynasty league, a couple of guys were brought in a replacements. after supposedly agreeing to the rule structure with the commish etc., a few weeks later they started to propose major changes to an already complex set of rules. The commish balked (as he should have), but the new guys left and I think a couple ofters followed. the league never recovered and was disbanded.
3) In a establish contract/salary cap non-ppr, a guy after being in a year thinks the league would be better as a PPR. While most of us were already in PPR leagues understood the why, none of us wanted the change because of years of decisions made assuming non-ppr. The commish refused to allow the vote because only one or two people wanted the change. Eventually, the agreement became that scoring and basic set-up is not really up for discussion.
-------
Players are asked to read the rules of the league from their initial contact. Unless there is some scoring hole, really the core ideas of the league need to stay in place.
golfguy
Footballguy
well things need to change in dynasty over the years. one of my leagues is going on year 15 this season, so there have obviously been changes over the years. i.e. we are now a PPR league. PPR leagues didn't exist 15 years ago. if you make the reqs to be like 90% you might not ever get things done, and even change in the NFL happens. rule changes in the past 15 years have made a premium on some players and less on others (see RBs and athletic TEs for example). seems the poll is basically 50-75%
