YOUR Perfect Fantasy Football League (1 Viewer)

[Keith R]

For the last few weeks, I have taken votes on aspects on what the perfect FBG FFL league would encompass. Based on the results of the Part 1 through Part 8 threads, (the most recent of which can be found at http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=682323#entry15619995 ), our perfect fantasy football league boasts the following;

12 FFL teams

PPR Scoring

Decimal scoring

4 points per passing TD

Decimaled scoring for FG distance, every .1 point per yard, with a minimum of 3 points

No negative points for missed FGs

-1 points for each turnover

Regular Season Ties are left as ties

Team Defenses / Special Teams

Dynasty League

Auction

Any unclaimed player is eligible to be taken during the auction

Head-to-head format

1 starting QB

Required Starters - 1 QB, 2 RBs, 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 Team Defense

2 flex starters, which can be any combination of RBs, WRs, and/or TEs

Roster size is 24 players

6 teams make the playoffs

3 divisions

Week 16 Championship Game

Trade Deadline is Week 10

FA deadline is Week 16

Prize Payouts - Of total prize money, 1/2 to SB winner, 1/3 to SB loser, 1/6 to points champ, 1/12 to 3rd place

Personally, there were a great many issues where my stance was not the consensus, which I'm sure is true for most people. Nevertheless, this is what was voted on. Feel free to use this as a guideline for any startup leagues involving -FBG-minded individuals.

 

[TheCommish]

surprised at the number of dynasty proponents here

 

[butcher boy]

I think 1/6 is too low to give the overall points winner. It could be argued that the overall points winner realty is the best team over the course of the season.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

I think 1/6 is too low to give the overall points winner. It could be argued that the overall points winner really is the best team over the course of the season.

Sure, you could argue that point. But then there wouldn't be a need to play head-to-head each week, which was what the voting public decided they like best, early on in the voting process I believe.

Not entirely my perfect fantasy league here, but it was interesting to see how it played out over these last few weeks.

 

[butcher boy]

I think 1/6 is too low to give the overall points winner. It could be argued that the overall points winner really is the best team over the course of the season.

Sure, you could argue that point. But then there wouldn't be a need to play head-to-head each week, which was what the voting public decided they like best, early on in the voting process I believe.

Not entirely my perfect fantasy league here, but it was interesting to see how it played out over these last few weeks.

I agree. I don't think head to head is the best way to work out who the best team was, but you have to balance that with making the league fun and H2H is a lot more fun than total points leagues. Rewarding the top points scorer well is a way to keep H2H but at the same time recognize that the top point scorer probably is the "best team".

 

[MDSkinner]

surprised at the number of dynasty proponents here

Just a guess but really the people that probably spend the most time in the forums this time of year (up until I will guess mid-July when a bunch of redrafts get drafting) are probably Dynasty owners. Might be more skewed that way because of that and results might be a bit different if this were asked mid season.

 

[butcher boy]

I think more important than the rules when making a perfect league are the following:

1) live, in person draft

2) everyone knows each other to some extent

3) strippers at the draft

 

[CokeZero]

In my humble opinion, no IDP is not a perfect league.

 

[Mainevent]

Prize Payouts - Of total prize money, 1/2 to SB winner, 1/3 to SB loser, 1/6 to points champ, 1/12 to 3rd place

Is there 13 people in the league to get the extra 1/12th?

 

[FUBAR]

Prize Payouts - Of total prize money, 1/2 to SB winner, 1/3 to SB loser, 1/6 to points champ, 1/12 to 3rd place

Is there 13 people in the league to get the extra 1/12th?

apparently the commish pays twice.

 

[Nucker101]

Prize Payouts - Of total prize money, 1/2 to SB winner, 1/3 to SB loser, 1/6 to points champ, 1/12 to 3rd place

Is there 13 people in the league to get the extra 1/12th?

apparently the commish pays twice.

He did say that it's a perfect league.

 

[DoubleG]

Team defenses are very odd, imho. We don't have a defensive component, as team defenses were too volatile, and IDPs was simply too much of a time commitment for eveyone else in the league.

 

[Shane Falco]

I think more important than the rules when making a perfect league are the following:

1) live, in person draft

2) everyone knows each other to some extent

3) strippers at the draft

I couldn't care less about #1 and #2 but #3 is the key

 

[ajarofpennies]

What's the opinion on no-kicker leagues? I read a PFF article awhile back that suggested the exclusion of kickers due to their random scoring output.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/05/16/the-kicker-fantasy-footballs-evolutionary-appendix/

 

[Mentos]

Team defenses are very odd, imho. We don't have a defensive component, as team defenses were too volatile, and IDPs was simply too much of a time commitment for eveyone else in the league.

Yeah, team defenses blow and IDPs can be a pain.

 

[Mario Kart]

surprised at the number of dynasty proponents here

Of the listed winners above... we should conduct another poll to try to determine which of the above are the most varied. Dynasty vs. Redraft or some other minor ones. Reason I say that is to get more feedback in August or September when more people are around.

Team defenses are very odd, imho. We don't have a defensive component, as team defenses were too volatile, and IDPs was simply too much of a time commitment for eveyone else in the league.

I think part of the issue is with the scoring of team defense. Make it more "straight to the point" and people might be more welcoming. A league I am in does team defense scoring by scoring "allowed punts" and "failed 4th down attempts" instead of using the "shutout = 10 points... and so on" way of scoring. I like this "new" way much better and give a true value to the "best" defense.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

surprised at the number of dynasty proponents here

Of the listed winners above... we should conduct another poll to try to determine which of the above are the most varied. Dynasty vs. Redraft or some other minor ones. Reason I say that is to get more feedback in August or September when more people are around.

Team defenses are very odd, imho. We don't have a defensive component, as team defenses were too volatile, and IDPs was simply too much of a time commitment for eveyone else in the league.

I think part of the issue is with the scoring of team defense. Make it more "straight to the point" and people might be more welcoming. A league I am in does team defense scoring by scoring "allowed punts" and "failed 4th down attempts" instead of using the "shutout = 10 points... and so on" way of scoring. I like this "new" way much better and give a true value to the "best" defense.

I find this intriguing.....I'm interested to know if you switched scoring styles after the league was created or if it started out that way......in addition, I'd be interested to know how the yearly scoring was affected by such a change, if in fact it was a change and not out of the gate.

 

[Mario Kart]

surprised at the number of dynasty proponents here

Of the listed winners above... we should conduct another poll to try to determine which of the above are the most varied. Dynasty vs. Redraft or some other minor ones. Reason I say that is to get more feedback in August or September when more people are around.

Team defenses are very odd, imho. We don't have a defensive component, as team defenses were too volatile, and IDPs was simply too much of a time commitment for eveyone else in the league.

I think part of the issue is with the scoring of team defense. Make it more "straight to the point" and people might be more welcoming. A league I am in does team defense scoring by scoring "allowed punts" and "failed 4th down attempts" instead of using the "shutout = 10 points... and so on" way of scoring. I like this "new" way much better and give a true value to the "best" defense.

I find this intriguing.....I'm interested to know if you switched scoring styles after the league was created or if it started out that way......in addition, I'd be interested to know how the yearly scoring was affected by such a change, if in fact it was a change and not out of the gate.

We switched over after the league had been around a couple of years. Our original defensive scoring was set up much different though than the one vaguely explained above (the shutout = 10, etc.)

Last year the Bears scored 270 points and finished 34th overall. 2nd were the Broncos at 240 and 49th overall.

I looked over the last few years and the top defense normally finished in the overall ~40-~45 range. The top 5 ended up finishing near ~70 give or take a few slots. Overall points were in the ~220 range. It works out much better and, to me, shows more accuracy in what defenses actually do.

 

[Backside Pursuit]

I recently read an article that advised fantasy leagues to de-emphasize "Sacks" as a statistical category for D/ST and to emphasize "Forced Punts" (1 point each) and "Fourth Down Stops" (2 points each) as better indicators of real-world value. I thought I read the article here at FBG but I can't find it now. At any rate, count me on board with this idea.

For me, the ideal league is one that encourages balanced team-building rather than RB-hoarding. I want to be in a league where a QB or a WR or an RB might legitimately be worth the first overall pick. I want to be in a league where several players at each of those positions go off the board in Round 1. And I think just such a league format exists: 16-team, 1-starting RB leagues.

Starting lineups (8) would be: QB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, D

Benches would be 8 or 9 deep.

Run the numbers through Draft Dominator and check out the results. Smart, careful, balanced team-building is the only option. Hoarding players at any one position results in a significant competitive disadvantage. Difficult apples-to-apples and apples-to-oranges evaluations are demanded in a league like this.

I normally prefer auction drafts but in a league like this—because it demands balanced team-building—I actually prefer a serpentine (or, preferably, a "broken serpentine" or "reverse serpentine") draft.

 

[msudaisy26]

I think more important than the rules when making a perfect league are the following:

1) live, in person draft

2) everyone knows each other to some extent

3) strippers at the draft

I couldn't care less about #1 and #2 but #3 is the key

If 3 is your key then 1 should be equally important, right?

 

[Shane Falco]

I think more important than the rules when making a perfect league are the following:

1) live, in person draft

2) everyone knows each other to some extent

3) strippers at the draft

I couldn't care less about #1 and #2 but #3 is the key

If 3 is your key then 1 should be equally important, right?

I have a smart phone....

 

[ghostguy123]

1- enough money to make you care, and enough that everyone else in the league cares

2- active owners. People dont need to make a million trades, but just in general 12 active owners

3- a league without kickers. I hate kickers in fantasy football. i have having to spend ANY time figuring out anything regarding my kicker situation

4- I could do away with team defense, but it's ok. I don't like IDP AT ALL!!!!!

5- i like dynasty leagues where the free agents are in the yearly draft, and teams can keep around 20 players year to year.

 

[msudaisy26]

I think more important than the rules when making a perfect league are the following:

1) live, in person draft

2) everyone knows each other to some extent

3) strippers at the draft

I couldn't care less about #1 and #2 but #3 is the key

If 3 is your key then 1 should be equally important, right?

I have a smart phone....

Touche'

 

[adrenaline]

no idp no care

 

[Backside Pursuit]

I have a feeling this is going to sound like a rant and I don’t want it to sound like a rant. I also don’t want to come off like a pompous fantasy football snob. (Like a jazz aficionado dismissing dubstep as non-music or the art house cinema buff railing against vacuous Hollywood blockbusters.) The great thing about fantasy football is that it is customizable; we can set up our leagues however we want to. I get that. I really do. I just think that fantasy football is either built upon an anachronism that needs to be discarded or is built upon a faulty paradigm that equates “more scoring” with “more enjoyment.” (An assumption that is hardly unique to fantasy football and is akin to suggesting that “more explosions” equals “better movie.”)

I think a basic question that needs to be asked is: What do people want out of fantasy football? Are we looking for a challenge grounded in realism or are we less concerned with realism so long as the challenge is fun? I have to believe that a sizable percentage of the people on this site, however, (during the off-season especially) prioritize realism and for us, when fantasy football weakly correlates with actual football, enjoyment decreases.

At the risk of

The multiple-RB starting lineup has got to go. And the RB-eligible flex is borderline embarrassing.

One theory might suggest that the 2-RB lineup is a remnant from the early days of fantasy football when touchdown-only leagues were prevalent. Wisely—in my opinion—yardage leagues were developed yet, unwisely, the 2-RB lineups remained. This allowed the initial imbalance to become more pronounced and, in fact, embedded as our default. A quick perusal of FBG’s 160 cheatsheets notes that not a single one is designed for any league with fewer than 2 starting RBs. The default presumption is for an uncorrected, vestigial distortion.

Artificial counterbalancing distortions have been developed (2-QB leagues, the god-awful PPR nonsense) to attempt to overcome the original imbalance and induce more equitable outcomes by creating a larger pool of potential contributors but the better answer, in my opinion, would be to remove all of the artificial constructs, including the foundational distortion that led to all of the rest. (Incidentally, the escalation of well-intentioned, artificial, counterbalancing distortions is also the problem with contemporary capitalism. But I’ll save that discussion for the FFA.)

3 questions for those who claim to want fantasy football to more accurately correlate with real football:

Question 1: How often do NFL teams line up with 2 fantasy-relevant tailbacks in the backfield at the same time?

Answer: Almost never. In 2012, looking at every offensive, non-kicking and non-punting formation and discounting all running backs with fewer than 40 total fantasy points, it occurred exactly 0.036% of the time.* Real NFL teams do not use 2 tailbacks at the same time unless one is a fantasy-unproductive blocking back. So why do fantasy teams use 2 RBs? NFL teams do not, as a rule, line up with more than 6 skill position players on offense. Fantasy teams shouldn’t either.

Question 2: At the NFL Draft each spring, how many RBs are drafted in the first round? Is the real NFL draft top-heavy with RBs?

Answer: No, the real draft is not about stockpiling RBs. In fact, due to expected shorter longevity and supply-driven replaceability, real NFL teams recognize that the value of RBs is relatively less than that of some other positions, which is why teams are waiting longer to draft a RB now.

Question 3: If the NFL had a dispersal draft for skill position players every spring, would those drafts be top-heavy with RBs? (And to me, this question is the real deal-breaker. This is where we see just how inaccurate and poorly correlative fantasy football is.)

Answer: No, those drafts would not be top-heavy with RBs. Of all the skill positions in today’s NFL, quarterbacks are the key to winning championships, not running backs. A real dispersal draft held annually would be somewhat QB top-heavy yet would quickly become very balanced, I would surmise.

Another indicator of value would be player salaries. A quick check of the top 10 salaries at each skill position suggests that RBs are valued slightly less than QBs and WRs. Yet in fantasy football, RBs are the cornerstones. Why? From our real-world discussions about Hall of Fame qualifications and the NFL draft to our dismissive fantasy mindset toward quarterbacks, our player valuations have become corrupted.

Fantasy innovations like IDP leagues, dynasty leagues, salary caps, contract leagues, and injured reserve designations all add enormously to this hobby precisely because they are not merely creative but also correlative or potentially correlative.

It’s hard for me to imagine a draft more fun and more challenging to prepare for than a 16-team, 6-skill-position (QB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE) draft. Who goes first overall? Players at 3 different positions legitimately qualify. How many various QBs, RBs, TEs, and WRs get picked in the first 2 rounds? I love this kind of start-to-finish balance and I think the dilemmas created by very difficult early-round apples-to-oranges evaluations could add so much to this game. Also, the back-end of the first round might very well be the best place to draft from rather than the worst place to draft from.

“But if the rules are equally distorted for all participants, what’s the harm?”

The complex answer to that question varies depending upon if we are discussing unchallenging 10- or 12- team leagues or unsustainable (3- or 4-RB lineup) 14- or 16-team leagues. Generally speaking, smaller leagues are a joke and larger leagues cannot handle the presumptive lineup distortion. Can a sweet spot be found? Sure. It’s tricky but it’s doable. A 14-team auction league with a non-RB-eligible flex might (sort of) work. But there is a simpler and more scalable solution; one that works regardless of league size or scoring permutations: follow the NFL’s lead and utilize lineups featuring 6 skill position players, with 1 QB and 1 RB.

The bottom line is: if the predominant multiple-RB structure is enjoyable for people, then stick with it. But for some of us, realism is synonymous with and integral to fun and unrealism is neither fun nor constructively challenging. If being adept at fantasy football today is like being able to see well through a skewed lens, it suggests that the endeavor might be of questionable value at identifying good vision.

I realize that if I want to be in a league with only 6 skill position starters, I theoretically can be—assuming that I can find enough participants and enough good fantasy information that I can translate or filter through the tainted, RB-heavy presumptive bias. I just question the underlying assumptions we have adopted and wonder if we can’t do better than this. These RB-top-heavy shark drafts are becoming tiresome and unimaginative.

*[SIZE=8pt]=completely made-up statistic[/SIZE]

 

[Mentos]

I have a feeling this is going to sound like a rant and I dont want it to sound like a rant. I also dont want to come off like a pompous fantasy football snob. (Like a jazz aficionado dismissing dubstep as non-music or the art house cinema buff railing against vacuous Hollywood blockbusters.) The great thing about fantasy football is that it is customizable; we can set up our leagues however we want to. I get that. I really do. I just think that fantasy football is either built upon an anachronism that needs to be discarded or is built upon a faulty paradigm that equates more scoring with more enjoyment. (An assumption that is hardly unique to fantasy football and is akin to suggesting that more explosions equals better movie.)

I think a basic question that needs to be asked is: What do people want out of fantasy football? Are we looking for a challenge grounded in realism or are we less concerned with realism so long as the challenge is fun? I have to believe that a sizable percentage of the people on this site, however, (during the off-season especially) prioritize realism and for us, when fantasy football weakly correlates with actual football, enjoyment decreases.

At the risk of

The multiple-RB starting lineup has got to go. And the RB-eligible flex is borderline embarrassing.

One theory might suggest that the 2-RB lineup is a remnant from the early days of fantasy football when touchdown-only leagues were prevalent. Wiselyin my opinionyardage leagues were developed yet, unwisely, the 2-RB lineups remained. This allowed the initial imbalance to become more pronounced and, in fact, embedded as our default. A quick perusal of FBGs 160 cheatsheets notes that not a single one is designed for any league with fewer than 2 starting RBs. The default presumption is for an uncorrected, vestigial distortion.

Artificial counterbalancing distortions have been developed (2-QB leagues, the god-awful PPR nonsense) to attempt to overcome the original imbalance and induce more equitable outcomes by creating a larger pool of potential contributors but the better answer, in my opinion, would be to remove all of the artificial constructs, including the foundational distortion that led to all of the rest. (Incidentally, the escalation of well-intentioned, artificial, counterbalancing distortions is also the problem with contemporary capitalism. But Ill save that discussion for the FFA.)

3 questions for those who claim to want fantasy football to more accurately correlate with real football:

Question 1: How often do NFL teams line up with 2 fantasy-relevant tailbacks in the backfield at the same time?

Answer: Almost never. In 2012, looking at every offensive, non-kicking and non-punting formation and discounting all running backs with fewer than 40 total fantasy points, it occurred exactly 0.036% of the time.* Real NFL teams do not use 2 tailbacks at the same time unless one is a fantasy-unproductive blocking back. So why do fantasy teams use 2 RBs? NFL teams do not, as a rule, line up with more than 6 skill position players on offense. Fantasy teams shouldnt either.

Question 2: At the NFL Draft each spring, how many RBs are drafted in the first round? Is the real NFL draft top-heavy with RBs?

Answer: No, the real draft is not about stockpiling RBs. In fact, due to expected shorter longevity and supply-driven replaceability, real NFL teams recognize that the value of RBs is relatively less than that of some other positions, which is why teams are waiting longer to draft a RB now.

Question 3: If the NFL had a dispersal draft for skill position players every spring, would those drafts be top-heavy with RBs? (And to me, this question is the real deal-breaker. This is where we see just how inaccurate and poorly correlative fantasy football is.)

Answer: No, those drafts would not be top-heavy with RBs. Of all the skill positions in todays NFL, quarterbacks are the key to winning championships, not running backs. A real dispersal draft held annually would be somewhat QB top-heavy yet would quickly become very balanced, I would surmise.

Another indicator of value would be player salaries. A quick check of the top 10 salaries at each skill position suggests that RBs are valued slightly less than QBs and WRs. Yet in fantasy football, RBs are the cornerstones. Why? From our real-world discussions about Hall of Fame qualifications and the NFL draft to our dismissive fantasy mindset toward quarterbacks, our player valuations have become corrupted.

Fantasy innovations like IDP leagues, dynasty leagues, salary caps, contract leagues, and injured reserve designations all add enormously to this hobby precisely because they are not merely creative but also correlative or potentially correlative.

Its hard for me to imagine a draft more fun and more challenging to prepare for than a 16-team, 6-skill-position (QB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE) draft. Who goes first overall? Players at 3 different positions legitimately qualify. How many various QBs, RBs, TEs, and WRs get picked in the first 2 rounds? I love this kind of start-to-finish balance and I think the dilemmas created by very difficult early-round apples-to-oranges evaluations could add so much to this game. Also, the back-end of the first round might very well be the best place to draft from rather than the worst place to draft from.

But if the rules are equally distorted for all participants, whats the harm?

The complex answer to that question varies depending upon if we are discussing unchallenging 10- or 12- team leagues or unsustainable (3- or 4-RB lineup) 14- or 16-team leagues. Generally speaking, smaller leagues are a joke and larger leagues cannot handle the presumptive lineup distortion. Can a sweet spot be found? Sure. Its tricky but its doable. A 14-team auction league with a non-RB-eligible flex might (sort of) work. But there is a simpler and more scalable solution; one that works regardless of league size or scoring permutations: follow the NFLs lead and utilize lineups featuring 6 skill position players, with 1 QB and 1 RB.

The bottom line is: if the predominant multiple-RB structure is enjoyable for people, then stick with it. But for some of us, realism is synonymous with and integral to fun and unrealism is neither fun nor constructively challenging. If being adept at fantasy football today is like being able to see well through a skewed lens, it suggests that the endeavor might be of questionable value at identifying good vision.

I realize that if I want to be in a league with only 6 skill position starters, I theoretically can beassuming that I can find enough participants and enough good fantasy information that I can translate or filter through the tainted, RB-heavy presumptive bias. I just question the underlying assumptions we have adopted and wonder if we cant do better than this. These RB-top-heavy shark drafts are becoming tiresome and unimaginative.

*=completely made-up statistic

I agree. I like leagues with real NFL formations (so six offensive players total but never 3 RBs). But try finding people who want to play this style. It is a #####.

 

[Penguin]

Prize Payouts - Of total prize money, 1/2 to SB winner, 1/3 to SB loser, 1/6 to points champ, 1/12 to 3rd place

This needs to be adjusted, it adds up to 108.33%

 

[Stealthycat]

I already play in it - 32 team ( split 16 AFC / 16 NFC with winners meeting in Super Bowl) pure salary cap/live auction with a 50% reduction in off season cap and incremental player increases depending on FF finish .... it is THE best

 

[Mentos]

I already play in it - 32 team ( split 16 AFC / 16 NFC with winners meeting in Super Bowl) pure salary cap/live auction with a 50% reduction in off season cap and incremental player increases depending on FF finish .... it is THE best

I don't get 32-team leagues but I realize I might be missing stuff. Owner has Drew Brees, Matt Cassel and Greg McElroy. Brees has a Week 7 bye and the other two QBs are holding clipboards that week. Owner puts Cassel into theQB slot and hopes Ponder gets injured during the game or gets pulled for poor performance. Is that what we see in 32-team leagues? If so, I will stick to 12 and 14 team leagues.

 

[NateDawg]

I already play in it - 32 team ( split 16 AFC / 16 NFC with winners meeting in Super Bowl) pure salary cap/live auction with a 50% reduction in off season cap and incremental player increases depending on FF finish .... it is THE best

I don't get 32-team leagues but I realize I might be missing stuff.Owner has Drew Brees, Matt Cassel and Greg McElroy. Brees has a Week 7 bye and the other two QBs are holding clipboards that week. Owner puts Cassel into theQB slot and hopes Ponder gets injured during the game or gets pulled for poor performance. Is that what we see in 32-team leagues? If so, I will stick to 12 and 14 team leagues.

Can't speak to the original poster, but I believe many 32 team leagues have duplicate players. Likely each player is in the AFC player pool AND in the NFC player pool, but cannot be in both (ie, trades can only occur within the AFC or NFC, but not across conferences).

 

[msudaisy26]

I have a feeling this is going to sound like a rant and I dont want it to sound like a rant. I also dont want to come off like a pompous fantasy football snob. (Like a jazz aficionado dismissing dubstep as non-music or the art house cinema buff railing against vacuous Hollywood blockbusters.) The great thing about fantasy football is that it is customizable; we can set up our leagues however we want to. I get that. I really do. I just think that fantasy football is either built upon an anachronism that needs to be discarded or is built upon a faulty paradigm that equates more scoring with more enjoyment. (An assumption that is hardly unique to fantasy football and is akin to suggesting that more explosions equals better movie.)

I think a basic question that needs to be asked is: What do people want out of fantasy football? Are we looking for a challenge grounded in realism or are we less concerned with realism so long as the challenge is fun? I have to believe that a sizable percentage of the people on this site, however, (during the off-season especially) prioritize realism and for us, when fantasy football weakly correlates with actual football, enjoyment decreases.

At the risk of

The multiple-RB starting lineup has got to go. And the RB-eligible flex is borderline embarrassing.

One theory might suggest that the 2-RB lineup is a remnant from the early days of fantasy football when touchdown-only leagues were prevalent. Wiselyin my opinionyardage leagues were developed yet, unwisely, the 2-RB lineups remained. This allowed the initial imbalance to become more pronounced and, in fact, embedded as our default. A quick perusal of FBGs 160 cheatsheets notes that not a single one is designed for any league with fewer than 2 starting RBs. The default presumption is for an uncorrected, vestigial distortion.

Artificial counterbalancing distortions have been developed (2-QB leagues, the god-awful PPR nonsense) to attempt to overcome the original imbalance and induce more equitable outcomes by creating a larger pool of potential contributors but the better answer, in my opinion, would be to remove all of the artificial constructs, including the foundational distortion that led to all of the rest. (Incidentally, the escalation of well-intentioned, artificial, counterbalancing distortions is also the problem with contemporary capitalism. But Ill save that discussion for the FFA.)

3 questions for those who claim to want fantasy football to more accurately correlate with real football:

Question 1: How often do NFL teams line up with 2 fantasy-relevant tailbacks in the backfield at the same time?

Answer: Almost never. In 2012, looking at every offensive, non-kicking and non-punting formation and discounting all running backs with fewer than 40 total fantasy points, it occurred exactly 0.036% of the time.* Real NFL teams do not use 2 tailbacks at the same time unless one is a fantasy-unproductive blocking back. So why do fantasy teams use 2 RBs? NFL teams do not, as a rule, line up with more than 6 skill position players on offense. Fantasy teams shouldnt either.

Question 2: At the NFL Draft each spring, how many RBs are drafted in the first round? Is the real NFL draft top-heavy with RBs?

Answer: No, the real draft is not about stockpiling RBs. In fact, due to expected shorter longevity and supply-driven replaceability, real NFL teams recognize that the value of RBs is relatively less than that of some other positions, which is why teams are waiting longer to draft a RB now.

Question 3: If the NFL had a dispersal draft for skill position players every spring, would those drafts be top-heavy with RBs? (And to me, this question is the real deal-breaker. This is where we see just how inaccurate and poorly correlative fantasy football is.)

Answer: No, those drafts would not be top-heavy with RBs. Of all the skill positions in todays NFL, quarterbacks are the key to winning championships, not running backs. A real dispersal draft held annually would be somewhat QB top-heavy yet would quickly become very balanced, I would surmise.

Another indicator of value would be player salaries. A quick check of the top 10 salaries at each skill position suggests that RBs are valued slightly less than QBs and WRs. Yet in fantasy football, RBs are the cornerstones. Why? From our real-world discussions about Hall of Fame qualifications and the NFL draft to our dismissive fantasy mindset toward quarterbacks, our player valuations have become corrupted.

Fantasy innovations like IDP leagues, dynasty leagues, salary caps, contract leagues, and injured reserve designations all add enormously to this hobby precisely because they are not merely creative but also correlative or potentially correlative.

Its hard for me to imagine a draft more fun and more challenging to prepare for than a 16-team, 6-skill-position (QB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE) draft. Who goes first overall? Players at 3 different positions legitimately qualify. How many various QBs, RBs, TEs, and WRs get picked in the first 2 rounds? I love this kind of start-to-finish balance and I think the dilemmas created by very difficult early-round apples-to-oranges evaluations could add so much to this game. Also, the back-end of the first round might very well be the best place to draft from rather than the worst place to draft from.

But if the rules are equally distorted for all participants, whats the harm?

The complex answer to that question varies depending upon if we are discussing unchallenging 10- or 12- team leagues or unsustainable (3- or 4-RB lineup) 14- or 16-team leagues. Generally speaking, smaller leagues are a joke and larger leagues cannot handle the presumptive lineup distortion. Can a sweet spot be found? Sure. Its tricky but its doable. A 14-team auction league with a non-RB-eligible flex might (sort of) work. But there is a simpler and more scalable solution; one that works regardless of league size or scoring permutations: follow the NFLs lead and utilize lineups featuring 6 skill position players, with 1 QB and 1 RB.

The bottom line is: if the predominant multiple-RB structure is enjoyable for people, then stick with it. But for some of us, realism is synonymous with and integral to fun and unrealism is neither fun nor constructively challenging. If being adept at fantasy football today is like being able to see well through a skewed lens, it suggests that the endeavor might be of questionable value at identifying good vision.

I realize that if I want to be in a league with only 6 skill position starters, I theoretically can beassuming that I can find enough participants and enough good fantasy information that I can translate or filter through the tainted, RB-heavy presumptive bias. I just question the underlying assumptions we have adopted and wonder if we cant do better than this. These RB-top-heavy shark drafts are becoming tiresome and unimaginative.

*=completely made-up statistic

I agree. I like leagues with real NFL formations (so six offensive players total but never 3 RBs). But try finding people who want to play this style. It is a #####.

What about the wishbone?

 

[Mentos]

I have a feeling this is going to sound like a rant and I dont want it to sound like a rant. I also dont want to come off like a pompous fantasy football snob. (Like a jazz aficionado dismissing dubstep as non-music or the art house cinema buff railing against vacuous Hollywood blockbusters.) The great thing about fantasy football is that it is customizable; we can set up our leagues however we want to. I get that. I really do. I just think that fantasy football is either built upon an anachronism that needs to be discarded or is built upon a faulty paradigm that equates more scoring with more enjoyment. (An assumption that is hardly unique to fantasy football and is akin to suggesting that more explosions equals better movie.)

I think a basic question that needs to be asked is: What do people want out of fantasy football? Are we looking for a challenge grounded in realism or are we less concerned with realism so long as the challenge is fun? I have to believe that a sizable percentage of the people on this site, however, (during the off-season especially) prioritize realism and for us, when fantasy football weakly correlates with actual football, enjoyment decreases.

At the risk of

The multiple-RB starting lineup has got to go. And the RB-eligible flex is borderline embarrassing.

One theory might suggest that the 2-RB lineup is a remnant from the early days of fantasy football when touchdown-only leagues were prevalent. Wiselyin my opinionyardage leagues were developed yet, unwisely, the 2-RB lineups remained. This allowed the initial imbalance to become more pronounced and, in fact, embedded as our default. A quick perusal of FBGs 160 cheatsheets notes that not a single one is designed for any league with fewer than 2 starting RBs. The default presumption is for an uncorrected, vestigial distortion.

Artificial counterbalancing distortions have been developed (2-QB leagues, the god-awful PPR nonsense) to attempt to overcome the original imbalance and induce more equitable outcomes by creating a larger pool of potential contributors but the better answer, in my opinion, would be to remove all of the artificial constructs, including the foundational distortion that led to all of the rest. (Incidentally, the escalation of well-intentioned, artificial, counterbalancing distortions is also the problem with contemporary capitalism. But Ill save that discussion for the FFA.)

3 questions for those who claim to want fantasy football to more accurately correlate with real football:

Question 1: How often do NFL teams line up with 2 fantasy-relevant tailbacks in the backfield at the same time?

Answer: Almost never. In 2012, looking at every offensive, non-kicking and non-punting formation and discounting all running backs with fewer than 40 total fantasy points, it occurred exactly 0.036% of the time.* Real NFL teams do not use 2 tailbacks at the same time unless one is a fantasy-unproductive blocking back. So why do fantasy teams use 2 RBs? NFL teams do not, as a rule, line up with more than 6 skill position players on offense. Fantasy teams shouldnt either.

Question 2: At the NFL Draft each spring, how many RBs are drafted in the first round? Is the real NFL draft top-heavy with RBs?

Answer: No, the real draft is not about stockpiling RBs. In fact, due to expected shorter longevity and supply-driven replaceability, real NFL teams recognize that the value of RBs is relatively less than that of some other positions, which is why teams are waiting longer to draft a RB now.

Question 3: If the NFL had a dispersal draft for skill position players every spring, would those drafts be top-heavy with RBs? (And to me, this question is the real deal-breaker. This is where we see just how inaccurate and poorly correlative fantasy football is.)

Answer: No, those drafts would not be top-heavy with RBs. Of all the skill positions in todays NFL, quarterbacks are the key to winning championships, not running backs. A real dispersal draft held annually would be somewhat QB top-heavy yet would quickly become very balanced, I would surmise.

Another indicator of value would be player salaries. A quick check of the top 10 salaries at each skill position suggests that RBs are valued slightly less than QBs and WRs. Yet in fantasy football, RBs are the cornerstones. Why? From our real-world discussions about Hall of Fame qualifications and the NFL draft to our dismissive fantasy mindset toward quarterbacks, our player valuations have become corrupted.

Fantasy innovations like IDP leagues, dynasty leagues, salary caps, contract leagues, and injured reserve designations all add enormously to this hobby precisely because they are not merely creative but also correlative or potentially correlative.

Its hard for me to imagine a draft more fun and more challenging to prepare for than a 16-team, 6-skill-position (QB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE) draft. Who goes first overall? Players at 3 different positions legitimately qualify. How many various QBs, RBs, TEs, and WRs get picked in the first 2 rounds? I love this kind of start-to-finish balance and I think the dilemmas created by very difficult early-round apples-to-oranges evaluations could add so much to this game. Also, the back-end of the first round might very well be the best place to draft from rather than the worst place to draft from.

But if the rules are equally distorted for all participants, whats the harm?

The complex answer to that question varies depending upon if we are discussing unchallenging 10- or 12- team leagues or unsustainable (3- or 4-RB lineup) 14- or 16-team leagues. Generally speaking, smaller leagues are a joke and larger leagues cannot handle the presumptive lineup distortion. Can a sweet spot be found? Sure. Its tricky but its doable. A 14-team auction league with a non-RB-eligible flex might (sort of) work. But there is a simpler and more scalable solution; one that works regardless of league size or scoring permutations: follow the NFLs lead and utilize lineups featuring 6 skill position players, with 1 QB and 1 RB.

The bottom line is: if the predominant multiple-RB structure is enjoyable for people, then stick with it. But for some of us, realism is synonymous with and integral to fun and unrealism is neither fun nor constructively challenging. If being adept at fantasy football today is like being able to see well through a skewed lens, it suggests that the endeavor might be of questionable value at identifying good vision.

I realize that if I want to be in a league with only 6 skill position starters, I theoretically can beassuming that I can find enough participants and enough good fantasy information that I can translate or filter through the tainted, RB-heavy presumptive bias. I just question the underlying assumptions we have adopted and wonder if we cant do better than this. These RB-top-heavy shark drafts are becoming tiresome and unimaginative.

*=completely made-up statistic

I agree. I like leagues with real NFL formations (so six offensive players total but never 3 RBs). But try finding people who want to play this style. It is a #####.

What about the wishbone?

No. That formation is rarely seen even in college these days.

 

[Stealthycat]

right - its really two, 16 team leagues ..... and the salary and roster limits makes it a losing battle to try and corner the market on a QB

 

[pittstownkiller]

I am thinking of starting a league, amongst some friends, based on these exact parameters but I have some questions:

I was thinking of collecting money for two seasons up front (to kind of get it rolling); is this excessive and thoughts on a reasonable amount per season?

What is the consensus best hosting site; does this format require any special scoring stats that a common site will not carry?

What is reasonable cost for a pay site?

 

[ImTheScientist]

I think more important than the rules when making a perfect league are the following:

1) live, in person draft

2) everyone knows each other to some extent

3) strippers at the draft

#1 and #2 is bottom of my list. I played fantasy football for 20 years with people I knew. Finally got sick of the league setup, payout, a few of the owners and ventured out to the NFFC and now FPC . I find the higher payout/higher entry fee more professional and more entertaining on a week to week basis during the season. You also play with a much higher level of competition all while not having to deal with lame trades and "collusion" talk during the season.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

If don't do full auction, at least do the first few rds auction, it negates a good part of the advantages/disadvantages of your draft spot.

Smaller rosters to drive waivers, charge $10 for each waiver - drives the pot up a lot

Weekly high point winnings - 1st and 2nd place

Most teams having weekly side bets - prevents any thoughts of not paying close attention, much less bailing

Definitely local in-person draft and people knowing one another

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Probably the most popular league, but not a perfect league.

I doubt most of the voters have played in a wide variety of leagues to experience many of the alternatives (e.g. play total points vs. H2H).

It's kind of like taste-testing six beers, trying the first and declaring it a winner without trying the rest.

 

[Spike]

I'm sorry but the perfect ffl isn't based upon the format of the league, it's based upon the people in it.

If you have a group of good, active, cool guys, you have a perfect ffl.

 

[dickey moe]

Prize Payouts - Of total prize money, 1/2 to SB winner, 1/3 to SB loser, 1/6 to points champ, 1/12 to 3rd place

Math?

 

[dickey moe]

Add blind bid waivers to the list.

 

[Dentist]

i agree with most of these.

I think it's crucial how those 6 teams are chosen for the playoffs. we've used cbs for ffl for a long time.. and the way we do playoffs is this:

3 division winners (12 team league)

1 wild card based on next best record

final 2 teams based on "power ranking" which is a combination of record + total points + all-play record (breakdown).

In 8 years of using this, it has ensured the 6 best teams made the playoffs in every year but 1

 

[Dentist]

At the end of the day.. while i agree a good rule set is important...
FFL has never been more fun than when everyone in the league both knows each other, actually likes ffl and participates to an extent, and if possible interacts on a regular basis...

When i was in dental school and all the guys were in teh same building and trades were made over lunch or in between procedures and we would frequently watch monday night football together... well that was fun.

you get older.. people start having kids and crap and all of a sudden if you're "taking it too seriously" or trying too hard you get the "well you know i have 2 kids, a job, and a life.."

I'm not talking about going over the top with making projections in june or something... just with putting in a few hours of time researching before the draft, and then an hour or so a week checking the waiver wire and working with your starting lineups.

enjoy your FFL leagues when you're in high school/college or if you're in your 20's and work in a cubicle type environment where there's a lot of guys to have fun with it...

because it gets less fun as you get older and more disconnected.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I'm sorry but the perfect ffl isn't based upon the format of the league, it's based upon the people in it.

If you have a group of good, active, cool guys, you have a perfect ffl.

I would say this is true for a person who is a casual ff player. Some of us want a little more, not that either is good or bad.

 

[ImTheScientist]

enjoy your FFL leagues when you're in high school/college or if you're in your 20's and work in a cubicle type environment where there's a lot of guys to have fun with it...

because it gets less fun as you get older and more disconnected.

Its all what you make time for as you get older.

 

[Dentist]

enjoy your FFL leagues when you're in high school/college or if you're in your 20's and work in a cubicle type environment where there's a lot of guys to have fun with it...

because it gets less fun as you get older and more disconnected.

Its all what you make time for as you get older.

i agree, and i make time for it.

but it's kind of buzzkill when you're trying and kind of the ultimate put-down is: "my life is too busy for these 'games' so of course you're going to have better results."

i work my butt off to make my league competitive... custom made to our scoring system cheatsheets printed ahead of time, give people clear and consise information when they ask questions mid-draft.. no B.S. to throw people off a scent or anything.... and they still make bad lineup choices and don't properly use the waiver wire... what more can i do?

 

[ImTheScientist]

enjoy your FFL leagues when you're in high school/college or if you're in your 20's and work in a cubicle type environment where there's a lot of guys to have fun with it...

because it gets less fun as you get older and more disconnected.

Its all what you make time for as you get older.

i agree, and i make time for it.

but it's kind of buzzkill when you're trying and kind of the ultimate put-down is: "my life is too busy for these 'games' so of course you're going to have better results."

i work my butt off to make my league competitive... custom made to our scoring system cheatsheets printed ahead of time, give people clear and consise information when they ask questions mid-draft.. no B.S. to throw people off a scent or anything.... and they still make bad lineup choices and don't properly use the waiver wire... what more can i do?

I use to do the same thing. Ran a league for 15 years with friends. Finally got sick of babysitting and went to the NFFC and now play FPC. Now that I don't commish and I play with people that are equally interested and invested in the game I get a lot more enjoyment out of the game. It allows for a lot more free time and a lot less stress.

 

[Dentist]

enjoy your FFL leagues when you're in high school/college or if you're in your 20's and work in a cubicle type environment where there's a lot of guys to have fun with it...

because it gets less fun as you get older and more disconnected.

Its all what you make time for as you get older.

i agree, and i make time for it.

but it's kind of buzzkill when you're trying and kind of the ultimate put-down is: "my life is too busy for these 'games' so of course you're going to have better results."

i work my butt off to make my league competitive... custom made to our scoring system cheatsheets printed ahead of time, give people clear and consise information when they ask questions mid-draft.. no B.S. to throw people off a scent or anything.... and they still make bad lineup choices and don't properly use the waiver wire... what more can i do?

I use to do the same thing. Ran a league for 15 years with friends. Finally got sick of babysitting and went to the NFFC and now play FPC. Now that I don't commish and I play with people that are equally interested and invested in the game I get a lot more enjoyment out of the game. It allows for a lot more free time and a lot less stress.

but i can't trash talk randoms.

and i'm not going to get the same kick out of beating or playing with people that i don't know.

it's kind of the ultimate conundrum.

but ultimately it's been impossible to make people care or want to care enough.

 

[ImTheScientist]

enjoy your FFL leagues when you're in high school/college or if you're in your 20's and work in a cubicle type environment where there's a lot of guys to have fun with it...

because it gets less fun as you get older and more disconnected.

Its all what you make time for as you get older.

i agree, and i make time for it.

but it's kind of buzzkill when you're trying and kind of the ultimate put-down is: "my life is too busy for these 'games' so of course you're going to have better results."

i work my butt off to make my league competitive... custom made to our scoring system cheatsheets printed ahead of time, give people clear and consise information when they ask questions mid-draft.. no B.S. to throw people off a scent or anything.... and they still make bad lineup choices and don't properly use the waiver wire... what more can i do?

I use to do the same thing. Ran a league for 15 years with friends. Finally got sick of babysitting and went to the NFFC and now play FPC. Now that I don't commish and I play with people that are equally interested and invested in the game I get a lot more enjoyment out of the game. It allows for a lot more free time and a lot less stress.

but i can't trash talk randoms.

and i'm not going to get the same kick out of beating or playing with people that i don't know.

it's kind of the ultimate conundrum.

but ultimately it's been impossible to make people care or want to care enough.

lol...true. I trash talk the randoms all season. I usually get one or two to bite each season.

 

[Mentos]

enjoy your FFL leagues when you're in high school/college or if you're in your 20's and work in a cubicle type environment where there's a lot of guys to have fun with it...

because it gets less fun as you get older and more disconnected.

Its all what you make time for as you get older.

i agree, and i make time for it.

but it's kind of buzzkill when you're trying and kind of the ultimate put-down is: "my life is too busy for these 'games' so of course you're going to have better results."

i work my butt off to make my league competitive... custom made to our scoring system cheatsheets printed ahead of time, give people clear and consise information when they ask questions mid-draft.. no B.S. to throw people off a scent or anything.... and they still make bad lineup choices and don't properly use the waiver wire... what more can i do?

I hear ya. It sucks. My cousin quit fantasy sports at age 16 because he got a girlfriend and couldn't be bothered with "baby games" anymore.

 

[Dentist]

enjoy your FFL leagues when you're in high school/college or if you're in your 20's and work in a cubicle type environment where there's a lot of guys to have fun with it...

because it gets less fun as you get older and more disconnected.

Its all what you make time for as you get older.

i agree, and i make time for it.

but it's kind of buzzkill when you're trying and kind of the ultimate put-down is: "my life is too busy for these 'games' so of course you're going to have better results."

i work my butt off to make my league competitive... custom made to our scoring system cheatsheets printed ahead of time, give people clear and consise information when they ask questions mid-draft.. no B.S. to throw people off a scent or anything.... and they still make bad lineup choices and don't properly use the waiver wire... what more can i do?

I hear ya. It sucks.My cousin quit fantasy sports at age 16 because he got a girlfriend and couldn't be bothered with "baby games" anymore.

well too his credit if i had a 16 y.o. i could legally have relations with, i might quit "baby games" too