2010 Fantasy Football Offseason Thread

[Yoshi]

It's time to start up league business for the offseason. Please use this thread to propose changes of any kind. These may include the following:

• Scoring Changes
• Roster Changes (in terms of positions and caps)
• Owner Changes (in terms of number or specific people)
• TNL-specific Changes (things not in the ESPN template, e.g. the loser's bracket reward)

Per last year's offseason thread, there will be no free agent sniping during the offseason. We've already decided that free-for-alls are not equitable during the season, so they surely aren't during the offseason either.

One change that is not up for discussion is that ESPN's written rules will be more strictly enforced:

A: More than one team in the same league One person can not control more than one team in the same league. If two or more teams in the same league are under the same account, they must be controlled by different people sharing that account, but not sharing the teams. Violation of this will lead to cancellation of the teams and expulsion from the game. If an owner finds himself in this situation by mistake, he should e-mail the ESPN League Office immediately and explain the situation.

B: Collusive transactions Collusion occurs when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position. One-sided trades are an obvious example of this. Another example is a player drop made so another team can pick up that player. Teams found in violation of this policy will be cancelled, and their owners prohibited from participating in future ESPN fantasy games.

C: Impeding other owners Certain transactions made solely to impede other owners are not allowed. Tanking games for the sole purpose of denying another player's chances to make the playoffs is in violation of the game rules. In particular, cycling through players in free agency to put them on waivers and make them unavailable to other teams in your league is strictly prohibited, and is grounds for expulsion from the game.

D: Roster Dumping Owners that are found to have dumped their players to the player pool in an attempt to undermine the league may be subject to expulsion from the game. If you are giving up on the season, we ask that you maintain league strength by providing the other owners with the most competitive team you are able to field.

Obviously I am not going near owner conduct or offensive posts. Those are what make TNL great.

What I am interested in is input on what the potential repercussions should be for breaking these rules. I want them to be fair but enough of a deterrent to keep people from seeing if they can get away with breaking them.

I think that's it for the league manager stuff for the time-being.

[Yoshi]

I have one proposed roster change that I would like people to consider. As the NFL has evolved with more crazy formations and personnel packages, I think our league needs to evolve to be more flexible in the positions that we can start. I would like to see the following:

QB
RB/WR
RB/WR
RB/WR/TE
WR/TE
WR/TE
K
D/ST

It is not at all unusual to see a five-wide formation. The same goes for three tight ends. Three RBs is somewhat unusual, but is not unheard of. Usually for the Wild Cat, the QB is still on the field but lined up wide, so I don't think it's appropriate to have an option to not start a QB. However, I see flexibility as a very good thing everywhere else.

One of the positive side effects I see for this proposal is that it would likely cut down on RB hoarding. With this much flexibility, it seems reasonable to only allow one more player at a position than can start, so I guess I will roll that into this as well:

2 QB
4 RB
6 WR
4 TE
2 K
2 D/ST

We'll call this proposal A so that we can track all of these and vote on them as a group when the time comes.

[jyoung]

If anything, I think allowing people to start 3 RBs would only create more RB hoarding than the current system does.

The only roster change I'd like to see is more flexibility for starting TEs in the WR spot.

TEs had a huge impact on the league this year.

Heck, my TE Vernon Davis had more points than many of the league's top WRs.

[Yoshi]

I debated going with another WR/TE instead of the RB/WR/TE, so I could go for that as well, if people agree that it could make the hoarding worse.

[Advocate]

1. The penalty for trades in the sake of hurting another team, should be along the lines of hurting the team. Like a auto lose, or no free agent pickups for two weeks. No trades for the rest of the season.
2. 4 RB's - but three to start. So, you have one backup, but if your aim is to start them all. Then don't allow us to bench RB's. If that's even possible.

I guess for option A. In its current form I can't agree on it.

• 1QB/1bench
• 3RBs/no bench

The rest of Yoshi's A proposal I like.

[jyoung]

Yep, I like that format the best:

QB
RB/WR
RB/WR
WR/TE
WR/TE
WR/TE
K
D/ST

WRs and TEs should really be interchangeable with how many good TEs there were this season.

[Advocate]

In fact, the only team who would benefit of making a rb a wideout is Biff. Miami is the only team who has consistantly proven to run the wildcat effectively.

[bbobb]

I debated going with another WR/TE instead of the RB/WR/TE, so I could go for that as well, if people agree that it could make the hoarding worse.

Allowing 3 RBs to start would make the hoarding much much worse. Stick to two, and maybe limit the bench more to allow only 4 RB total on your roster? That would be a better way to fix it, I'd think.
Here's what I think would work best:
QB
RB
RB/WR/TE
WR
WR/TE
WR/TE
K
D/ST
At least one dedicated RB only would be good, along with one dedicated WR only, but make one position any of the three.


What's this possible fix to QB scoring that you came up with that you've hinted at in the main thread before.

[bbobb]

[*]Owner Changes (in terms of number or specific people)

We talked about this in the season, but I'll be the one to bring it up here I guess. The fact of the matter is, this league is too big for a keeper league, 12 teams would be much more optimal.

[Yoshi]

There are several ramifications to a potential change in the number of teams, so we will vote for them one layer at a time, starting with the number question when the time comes. If a change is supported, we'd need to decide who is out, whether we use divisions to extend the season to the right length, and what set up the playoffs would take, e.g. bye weeks.