GWJCFFL Rules discussion

OK - rules look good - thanks Certis...couple of issues questions then - and sorry to keep harping on details, but when you lose a game on something weird, in season is too late to complain for a change that no one saw coming.

Passing / Receiving 2pt. Conversions 2 points each - I'd suggest making this one - if a RB gets in, he gets 2, but the QB and WR both have a part, and each should only get 1 pt of the 2 pts.

Defense is skewed too high. Pts allowed is WAY too high! This system will set them up to be the highest scoring player on a team (guaranteed) - if thats the intent, ok...but... Yards allowed is valid in that reflects the defense...BUT...pts scored often has to do with offense, which we aren't drafting. Additionally, if you have a day where you hold the team to 3 pts, you already will have held them to little yardage, and gotten some sacks/ints, etc to boot, don't forget fumbles recovered, safety's, ST TD's. Adding a whopping 13 pts would be a gamebreaker imho - we are now putting a team that plays an inept offense, and may not even have a great defensive day - will score in the 25pt + range. Again, the main gist is this is often controlled by the offense, and that kinda sucks...think of the dolphins a few years ago...defense was awesome, offense threw lots of picks for TD's, and gave the other team GREAT field position more often then not.

Example - Mannings day last year for the ages was around a 30 pt day...one of the best offensive days ever - here, imagine the panthers, a good defense, play the suspect ravens offense (lewis in jail, heap injured, etc.), on a wet baltimore day - Stats line - 3 sacks, 2 int, one for a def TD, 1 fumble recovery, held ravens to 3 pts on a field goal, and 222 yards total offense. = 3+2+6+1+4+12 = 29 pts - a good defensive day - but one for the ages...nope. To take the example further - the Ravens had a good day too - ironically, 3 sacks, 2 int, 1 fumble rec, held the panthers to 10 pts (7 of which came off the int return for a TD - so the def/ST had NOTHING to do with it), 288 yards = 3+2+1+8+2 = 16 pts - for an average defensive day (10 pts in a loss, with close to 300 yards allowed). Continuing - that same day, Edge runs wild for 188 yards, with 18 receiving yards - over 200 yards from scrimmage...helluva day - but the TD's are all passes to other players...so...10 pts...average defense, 16, superb RB day - 10.

--- My suggestion - 0-2 pts against - 4 pts / 3-9 pts - 2 pts / 10-13 pts against - 1 pt - 14+ pts...you don't deserve squat! - this gives a little bonus for holding them down, but also is less likely to cost you a game when your defense had a great day, as did the other teams...BUT your offense gave away 5 picks that resulted in 24 pts... I also don't like the penalty for high pts here? Thoughts?

350+ yards = -2 points - would offer up making this 450 yards - 350...that's an average day in today's NFL, and hate to see negatives.

Taking the negatives further - the missed FG for -1 - so a guy who hops on at the end of the half, and tries a 59 yarder loses a point, same as a guy who misses a 23 yard chipshot... OUCH.

Field Goals 0-19 yards = 3 points - I'd vote this was only worth 2 pts if it was put to a vote

Not a fan of fumbles lost costing you a point (but I'm ok with it )

Playoff Game Tiebreakers - I'd vote that the team with the better season record would have had the game at home, and should win, not the bench - makes the season games worth more - Note - this does not apply to the Super Bowl...I'm happy with bench team pts being the deciding factor there...assuming you can change them...if not...I'm happy

Yeah, those defense numbers are all defaults, I don't really like the negatives being in there either.

--- My suggestion - 0-2 pts against - 4 pts / 3-9 pts - 2 pts / 10-13 pts against - 1 pt - 14+ pts...you don't deserve squat! - this gives a little bonus for holding them down, but also is less likely to cost you a game when your defense had a great day, as did the other teams...BUT your offense gave away 5 picks that resulted in 24 pts... I also don't like the penalty for high pts here? Thoughts?

I think they are set too high as well BUT I think your suggestion brings the point total for holding a team to only 2TD's. Here is what I just changed it to, see how that looks. Also, all negatives removed.

0-1 points = 6 points
2-5 points = 5 points
6-8 points = 4 points
9-11 points = 3 points
12-15 points = 2 points
16-21 points = 1 point

Personally, I'm a fan of not having any negative points. No one likes to lose points. I'd rather have 0/+2 than -1/+1 though I really think the way to go is simply 0/+1.

I'm happy with that - somewhere in my old mind many years ago (with beer involved) - I had decided in my mind that a team that gives up 3 TD's deserves no applause for their actions (i.e. one pt) - that said, in todays world, with the 'no touchy my receiva' rules...thats not a bad pt breakdown

Personally, I'm a fan of not having any negative points. No one likes to lose points. I'd rather have 0/+2 than -1/+1 though I really think the way to go is simply 0/+1.

I think if you're going to take a QB who throws a lot of INT's AND a lot of TD's (Favre) you should take a small hit for it. -1 for a pick or a fumble seems good to me. Chronic fumblers like Ahmen Green should give you some pause before taking them.

I would like to be able to change my lineup after the games have started, if my lineup changes involve only players whose games haven't started yet. This becomes more of an issue late in the year when they start playing games on Thursday. A lot of injury stuff becomes an issue when you have to submit your lineup on Thursday, when you players aren't playing until Sunday. Is that possible?

I'll go with the decision, but I'm with grump if i have to say

I don't even have as big of an issue with the -1 for int...namely cuz QB's score pts easier...it just hurts when poor RB schmo runs 18 hard carries for only 58 yards, and is bruised and hurt, he only gets 2 pts, and then loses one because he fumbles...and now I have to call the bastard into my office and give him a reaming for only getting 1 pt for my team...sigh

What have you got against the Packers? Don't go bringing GWJFL into this!

Lineup Change Deadline lock player 10 mins prior to respective game

I'm pretty sure the "respective" part means that each player is locked 10 minutes (I still vote for 0 minutes) before their individual game... so guys who play on Thursday are locked on Thursday but the rest of your lineup remains available. Again, this is only my interpretation.

I would like to be able to change my lineup after the games have started, if my lineup changes involve only players whose games haven't started yet. This becomes more of an issue late in the year when they start playing games on Thursday. A lot of injury stuff becomes an issue when you have to submit your lineup on Thursday, when you players aren't playing until Sunday. Is that possible?

Already done

I'm pretty sure the "respective" part means that each player is locked 10 minutes (I still vote for 0 minutes) before their individual game... so guys who play on Thursday are locked on Thursday but the rest of your lineup remains available. Again, this is only my interpretation.

Correct! Unfortunately the feature only allows for 10 minutes before the game, we can't manually set a shorter time.

I think if you're going to take a QB who throws a lot of INT's AND a lot of TD's (Favre) you should take a small hit for it. -1 for a pick or a fumble seems good to me. Chronic fumblers like Ahmen Green should give you some pause before taking them.

I'm gonna vote for -2 for int's and fumbles. Turnovers are game changing events and should be reflected as such in a fantasy league. Of course no one likes to get points taken off the board but I think it gives a more realistic value of the player. Also I like the -1 for missed field goals. Also I kind of like that defenses are valuable. I mean isn't defense the most important part of a winning team in the NFL? Yet in most fanatasy leagues they are an after thought.

Also I disagree with Pigpens assesment. Sure the defense will probably give up a few more points to a high powered offense but over the season a good defense is going to give up a lot less points than a bad one. You could just as easily make the same argument about an offensive player facing a good defense. I would also like to mention the fact that I hate when you get a poor defense that happens to get a lucky defensive touchdown and suddenly scores more points than a defense that allowed say 7 points in a game. If anything i'd rather see a decrease in defensive touchdown points than a decrease in the bonus for allowing low point totals.

Pigpen wrote:

ah...but the difference is even your average QB's will put 20 TD's on the book for you, while the RB difference is larger. Thats why it should be even, i.e 5 pts for a TD regardless, or scale...but I'm not in favor of RB's get 6 pts, QB's get 4 - it makes that first RB pick too valuable over a manning stud pick.

Wait, explain this again more clearly.... even average QBs throw 20 TDs, therefore we should keep passing TDs high and overvalue them?

Last year's #1 TD scoring RB: LaDainian Tomlinson: 17 TD * 6 pts = 102 points
Last year's #2 TD passing QB: Daunte Culpepper: 39 TDs * 4 pts = 156 points.

And I used Culpepper instead of Manning, because of Manning's unusually high season.

Heck, let's go down the list until we get a passer whose TD value is only equal to Tomlinson's:

3. McNabb: 31 TD * 4 = 124 points
4. Favre: 30 TDs * 4 = 120 points
5. Delhomme: 29 TDs * 4 = 116 points
6. Brady: 28 TDs * 4 = 112 points
7. Plummer: 27 TDs * 4 = 108 points
8. T. Green: 27 TDs * 4 = 108 points
9. Brees: 27 TDs * 4 = 108 points
10. Hasselbeck: 22 TDs * 4 = 88 points

There. At #10, we finally find a QB whose TD totals are below the value of the #1 running back. And if you have, say, the #6 rated RB, well....

And that's with passing TDs at 4 points.

As for RB difference in scoring being larger, well, that doesn't bear out in last year's stats either. Actually, the top-end QBs swung much farther away from the middle of the pack. RB scoring went on a very smooth downward scale from the top: 17, 16, 14, 13, 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12, and then a whole army of 9's, 8's, and 7's.

So no, the top end of the RB TD scale is not so far divergent from the middle of the pack. Nothing like Culpepper and Manning's separation from the other QBs last year.

Certis wrote:

I think if you're going to take a QB who throws a lot of INT's AND a lot of TD's (Favre) you should take a small hit for it. -1 for a pick or a fumble seems good to me. Chronic fumblers like Ahmen Green should give you some pause before taking them.

Agreed 100%. A QB that throws 20 INTs on his way to 30 TDs should not match the value of a guy that throws the same TDs and yardage on 8 INTs.

I don't like the scaled TD's it complicates things way too much.

I would much prefer something like this:

QB, RB, WR, TE
Pass TD= 4pts under 50 yards
Pass TD= 6pts over 50 yards
Rushes or recieves TD= 6pts under 50 yards
Rushes or recieves TD= 8pts over 50 yards

I know some of you don't like bonuses for big plays and if that is the case I would still just like to see 4pts for throwing a TD pass and 6pts for rushing or recieving. I think big plays deserve bigger points it's all about performance and if one QB in a game wins his or her game on 2 over 50 plays, they out performed a QB who did the same but the plays were both under 50. I use 50 yards as the barrier only because they happen much less often than 40 yard plays do.

I guess its just how I got used to it Legion - a good day for a QB is 15 points to me, a great day for a RB is 15 pts...I can adjust either way.

I'm vehemently opposed to the -2 for interceptions - if you do that, then lets get the stat man out there deciding if it was the QB's fault (bad pass) versus inept receiver who's playing with his jock and lets the pass flitter off his fingertips to the defender. TOO many variables to whack the QB heavy for an int - and watch a game, I'd toss out that 30% (my figure...no source) of int's I see could be avoided if the WR held on or fought for the ball...

And the defensive logic is simple - I can get passionate about managing a bunch of individuals on my team, this RB, that WR, etc...but a defense - its a lump of coal...worthwhile, but I'll tell you, overvaluing the defense will kill the game - when I have 6 players that are routinely outscored as a group by one defense, well, you've set up a league that is asking for 3-4 teams to lose interests - because if the totals are so out of whack, you can't compensate with other players. You want to create an environment where a team with a bunch of average players can compete with a team with a superstar or two, but some poor players as well...and having any category out of whack can costs over a 13 game season.

"Pass TD= 6pts over 50 yards" (which means it's worth 7 once you add the 1 point/50 yards)
"Rushes or recieves TD= 8pts over 50 yards" (which means it's worth at least 10 once you add the 1 point/20 yards)
Like I said, if you're giving points for yardage, you don't need bonus points for big plays.

Passing TDs 0-29 yards = 4 points
30-49 yards = 5 points
50+ yards = 6 points

That's the current rule for QB passing TD scores. Maybe Legion can tell us what the average TD pass was last year. I don't know that 4 points per TD flat-out is really good enough considering you only start one QB and he is supposed to be an important part of your offense. I think the scale as it currently stands is a good compromise for those who want lower TD points for QB's and those who want yardage bonuses. A TD is only going to match an RB's base touchdown score if he throws a 30+ TD pass and he would only surpass it if he threw a monster 50+ TD pass... which doesn't happen that often.

Receivers and running backs are a base 6 points per TD and yards are not factored in aside from their usual yardage points (1 point per 20 yards).

Just to muddy the waters further, you guys aren't considering player scarcity. You have to start 1 QB, but 2 running backs. That makes RBs more valuable, even though QBs might score more.

Quote:
Passing TDs 0-29 yards = 4 points
30-49 yards = 5 points
50+ yards = 6 points

I hate the 5 points for TDs 30-49 yards, I absolutely hate it. Too me it just muddies the waters and makes things way more complicated than it needs to be. Like I said in the post above if we are not going to hand out bonuses for big plays than I would rather just stick to 1 number for TDs. 4pts for passing and 6 pts for recieving and rushing TDs.

I don't know that 4 points per TD flat-out is really good enough considering you only start one QB and he is supposed to be an important part of your offense.

You have brought up this point several times, at least to me, and I keep trying to tell you that the MOST, and I repeat MOST important thing of a good fantasy league is balance, meaning 1 position should never consistantly be the key factor in deciding if a Fantasy Team wins the week.

I went back to the stats from last year and quickly ran some numbers using the above scoring system proposed by Certis. I only did 4 weeks and used Culpepper leading passer, C. Martin leading rusher and S. Alexander 2nd leading rusher by only 1 pt as my players. This is what I got based on Yards, TD's, and Int's.

Week 5: Culpepper 32, Martin 4, Alexander 13
Week 6: Culpepper 32, Martin 18, Alexander 11
Week 7: Culpepper 7, Martin 3, Alexander 2
Week 8: Culpepper 7, Martin 12, Alexander 18.

I would like to point out I didn't even go back to look at fumbles so those numbers may be a bit off but you can clearly see how out of wack those numbers are using the scoring system as proposed. Culpepper was great last year but so were Martin and Alexander yet neither running back could break 20 pts in those 4 weeks, where as Culpepper did it twice. Even when he played below par he managed to score 7, on a bad day Martin and Alexander got as low as 3 and 2 pts. So if you had Culpepper on your team and you played a team with both Martin and Alexander, in our league as it is set up you would most likely lose 3 out of 4 weeks because the QB position beat out both your star Running backs combined and only in the 4th week would you have probably won because the 2 RBs played outstanding and finally managed to get some points. Not only that even having an outstanding week combined they couldn't beat Culpeppers best week shown.

Yes QBs are very important in football but so are Running backs and on some teams the RBs are the most important part of the offense not the QB. However as was mentioned before, in fantasy football it isn't fun when you know that only one position will really determine who wins week in and week out.

So what ever system we adopt we have to make sure balance is the key and not what position you think is the most important part of a team.

Certis wrote:

Maybe Legion can tell us what the average TD pass was last year.

I don't have those numbers, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that the number is below 29 yards. I would estimate on the order of 10-15 yards. MOST offensive TD scoring happens inside of the red zone.

That said, I still don't agree with "distance" scoring, if we're already giving points to the yardage itself. A 50 yard TD pass is already going to be more valuable because of the points for 50 yards on top of the touchdown points. I don't think that yardage should be scored twice.

4 points per TD works very well IMO. Yes the quarterback is supposed to be important. But he's only HALF of the passing game. The other half are the people catching the ball, and they're scoring points too. If you want to make things about how valuable something is "supposed" to be, then if you goose up QB points, and have WRs/TEs scoring a bunch of points on top of that, you make the passing game tons more valuable than the running game. Especially once you add in the fact that long-distance receiving TDs are a lot more common than long-distance rushing TDs.

I agree with the idea of being able to tally up your points from the TV crawl: you see Culpepper: 22-30, 315, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, and you know your points. You don't wonder "well how far did the TDs go?". The yardage is already being scored in the 315.

Distance scoring was another one of those things that were introduced to fantasy football just to get away from the basic/pure scoring model. It's different from the yardage model, not a complement. And why complicate things? Points for TDs, points for total yardage. There ya go, it works well. Anything on top of that isn't likely to make a very big divergence in who wins and loses, but makes things a lot more complicated. (Though I am in the group that wants to take points away for turnovers, though I don't particularly care if it's -1 or -2... in my own league where I am the king of all rules, it's -2, but that's just me).

I'm convinced, we'll go with 4 points per QB touchdown, no scale.

Current rules as they stand now, sign off if you're fine with them. Speak up if there's anything you feel is way off-base.

League Name and Password [Edit]
League Name GWJCFFL
League Password ilovestan

Draft Settings [Edit]
Draft Type Live Draft
Draft Date (EST) Mon, Sep 5
Draft Time (EST) 9:00 PM
Time limit per pick 90 sec

League Rules [Edit]
Max Teams in League 12
Player Pool All
Lineup Change Deadline lock player 10 mins prior to respective game
Regular Season Tiebreaker Team with more Bench points wins
Can't Cut List None
Time managers have to protest trades 2 Days
Trades reviewed by League Votes
Trade Deadline Week 12
Time on Waivers 2 Days
Initial Waiver Order Reverse Draft Order
Waiver System Reset Weekly -- Inverse of Standings
Players are locked after draft Yes
How many days? 2 days
After lock period Place players on waivers
Players are locked in-season Yes
Start beginning of first game
End 12:00 AM Tue (Mon night)
After lock period Place players on waivers

Positions & Roster [Edit]
Quarterback 1
Running Back 2
Wide Receiver 3
Tight End 1
Kicker 1
Defense & Special Teams 1
Bench 8
Total roster size 17
Use IR list No

League Scoring [Edit]
Use Fractional Points No
Use Retroactive Stats No
Home Field Advantage Points None
Advanced Scoring System
Passing Attempts 0 points each
Passing Completions 0 points each
Passing First Downs 0 points each
Times Sacked (passer) 0 points each
Passing TDs 4 points each
Passing Interceptions -1 point each
Passing Yards 1 point for every 50 yards
Passing 2pt. Conversions 1 point each
Rushing Attempts 0 points each
Rushing First Downs 0 points each
Rushing TDs 6 points each
Rushing Yards 1 point for every 20 yards
Rushing 2pt. Conversions 2 points each
Receptions 0 points each
Receiving First Downs 0 points each
Receiving TDs 6 points each
Receiving Yards 1 point for every 20 yards
Receiving 2pt. Conversions 1 point each
Fumble Recoveries for TD 6 points each
Fumbles Lost -1 point each
Return Yards 1 point for every 50 yards
Return TDs 0 points each
Field Goals 0-19 yards = 3 points
20-29 yards = 3 points
30-39 yards = 3 points
40-49 yards = 4 points
50+ yards = 5 points

Missed Field Goals -1 point each
Extra Points Made 1 point each
Extra Points Missed -1 point each
Yards Allowed 1-49 yard = 13 points
50-99 yards = 10 points
100-149 yards = 8 points
150-199 yards = 6 points
200-249 yards = 4 points
250-299 yards = 2 points

Points Allowed 0-1 points = 6 points
2-5 points = 5 points
6-8 points = 4 points
9-11 points = 3 points
12-15 points = 2 points
16-21 points = 1 point

Interceptions 1 point each
Sack 1 point each
Any Defensive TD 6 points each
Safety 2 points each
Tackle 0 points each
Defensive Fumble Recoveries 1 point each
Any blocked kick 2 points each

Playoffs [Edit]
Number of teams who make playoffs 6 teams - 3 playoff rounds (top two teams earn byes)
Start Playoffs Week 14
Playoff Game Tiebreakers 1. Team with more Bench Points wins
2. Team with most Touchdowns wins
Playoff Seed Tiebreakers 1. Head to Head record
2. Total Season points

Certis wrote:

I'm convinced, we'll go with 4 points per QB touchdown, no scale.

IMAGE(http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2004/12/17/heart.gif)

works for me - and I'm happy too.

BUT - Just for the record gents, will be glad to give you access to my sites (2) that use these rules - we've worked very hard over 15 years to refine them - for instance, defense the first year were WAY overpowerful (I won the Super Bowl on my defense heavily...lol) - so we balanced. Same goes with why we scaled things - and you are right in that you get yards and TD distance for the TD's, but it averages out. You used Culpepper - but he and manning were true aberations last year my friends.

Manning - 227
Culpepper - 219
McNabb - 175
then a ton of guys in the 117-149 range

RB's
Alexander - 181
Barber - 171
Tomlinson - 165
Martin - 160 - which - you'll note - outscores the #4 QB
Dillon - 151
two in 140's
one in at 136
seven in the 110-120 range

WR's (NOTE _ I'm still hoping we put in some pts for receptions, or WR's are Gimped bad!)
Muhammad - 141
Bennett - 123
Walker - 122
5 between 110-120
then on down

Defense
Bills - 165
Ravens - 139
Steelers - 129
Patriots - 122
and 8 more in between 101 and 119

Bottom line - in the top 10 overall, you had FOUR Qb's - 6 RB's - and to me, that is the balance you are looking for in a league, allowing you to balance the rarity of top QB's, RB's, TE's, WR all together. (top TE was 105 btw)

note - in our league, your standard was 2 RB, 3 WR - but you could play the wishbone with 3 RB and 2 WR or the run and shoot with 1 RB and 4 WR.

The point is to show how we balanced it out - that QB's are not that much more than RB's - recognizing that Manning and Culpepper were mutant scoring machines last year, so threw off the spread we normally see - again - a lot of things seem to be weird or unbalanced when you see rules...but play a system for 10+ years, and you see how certain categories or bonuses can suddenly make a defense all powerful, or make WR's useless...etc...

NOW - how bout receptions for WR's?? (OR - for Certis - how about receptions for WR's? )

And - on the next note as a commissioner in two leagues each year - I'd like to thank Certis for getting it all together. His job is often thankless, and you'd be surprised how much work it can entail. So, on behalf of all...thanks again for what you are doing and organizing this!

To chime in to the various points:

2 points for turnovers is fine by me. That is the only way to control Peyton is with his interceptions sometimes...and about Ahman's fumbilitis....he'll run for a country mile but that is the risk you take with him.

I firmly believe in negative points for kickers. Missed xp's have always been a big penalty in my other leagues...to the tune of -5 points. If they miss that chipshot, there should definitiely be some strong consequences.

There was mention early in the thread of doing combined yards, ie 18 yds rushing plus 6 yds receiving = one point. Easy eay that I have done it in other leagues is partial points. Plus it gets rid of ties...I am not a big fan of the whole tie concept when it comes to football.

Just my rambling thoughts....

I am a little concerned about the 0 points for return scores. Dantae Hall ran the table for me a couple of years back, and he does absolutely nothing as a receiver. Is that aspect of the game just not important?

return points, imho, belong solely on the special teams/defense...not the individual...otherwise, you could be double dipping

'm still hoping we put in some pts for receptions, or WR's are Gimped bad!

Personally, I'm a fan of 1 point per reception (my scoring system runs points a bit on a higher scale than this league, so that's not QUITE as big as it would be here). I would dig a 1 point per 2 receptions rule or something of the sort. But I've drawn battle lines for rules I'm a lot more firm about, so I'm not going to fight that battle too.

I think 1 pt per reception is high for how our league is setup...if we go that route, you'll need some help for RB's I'm guessing...but yes, 1 per 2 receptions (starting at 3) would be my vote.

I would dig a 1 point per 2 receptions rule or something of the sort.
think 1 pt per reception is high for how our league is setup...if we go that route, you'll need some help for RB's I'm guessing...but yes, 1 per 2 receptions (starting at 3) would be my vote.

I think a little somethin' somethin' for receivers is a good idea but I don't want them to be too crazy, here is what I slapped in to see how it fits.

0-2 receptions = 0 points
3-5 receptions = 1 point
6-8 receptions = 2 points
9+ receptions = 3 points