Proposed Boards Rule Changes..Decision?

poldebruin

I think with July winding down, and the various GMs looking to organise respective leagues, we should think about finishing up the polls we had run exploring new rule changes. It also affects draft strategies to know the rules we'll be playing under.

The current state of play is:

Positions
Flex and WR only are tied - (there are a couple of posters that requested their vote be recast)

Waiver
Reset after claim (current system) leads against bottom team receives priority.

Bench Size
Staying at 5 is a clear leader.

League Size
16 team league is clear leader

Manually setting the schedule
Manually setting the schedule leads automatic scheduling

JCTO

One thing with the Poll we will have to make sure they are all active members of the Fantasy leagues. Makes no sense having a vote from someone for this season coming if they dropped out or do not actually take part. With the re-vote is that something we want to encourage as there is only 2 ways to do so.

- Reset and go again
or
- Just manually remember what they chose but this option if loads of people decide to go down that road will be messy.

poldebruin

Messy is the word. Personally I would be happy to run with the Classic rules for another year.

Paully D

Ideally we'd reset the polls and start again IMO.

JCTO

Paully D wrote: »

Ideally we'd reset the polls and start again IMO.

Problem with this though is deciding how long the Poll stays open for as it takes so long for people to reply in the first place.

BigBadRob83

Can we get a poll on structure of divisions?
4x4 vs 1x16

Personally think divisions make no sense when don't play your divisional opponents more often, and sometimes might not even play against some of them.

poldebruin

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

Can we get a poll on structure of divisions?
4x4 vs 1x16.

maybe we can propose this at next years owners meeting, as there are already 5 rule changes on the board, some having outcomes dependent on the others.

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

Personally think divisions make no sense when don't play your divisional opponents more often, and sometimes might not even play against some of them.

I haven't had experience of a straight up and down 16 man division, so I'm willing to listen to the benefits.

I know the divisional system does give a chance to teams that are doing not so well to make a Cinderella run to the playoffs, and in the absence of a full divisional slate, it's probably a bit foolish, but I like the way it mirrors the nfl. It gives some second place teams something to fight for (2 best runners up qualify) and generally allows a better % of teams to stay in the hunt for a playoff spot as the season goes on.

I also like looking across the divisions and thanking my lucky stars I'm not in the same division as some powerhouse team with Aaron Rodgers and DeMarco Murray!

BizzyC

The biggest problem I'd have with a 1x16 division is that it's only fair if you play everybody once, which is impossible.

I'd be happy to leave it as is but change how the divisions are populated based on previous year's standings to balance out the "power" across all 4 more evenly.

BigBadRob83

BizzyC wrote: »

The biggest problem I'd have with a 1x16 division is that it's only fair if you play everybody once, which is impossible.

How is it less fair than 4 divisions?
The 4x4 doesn't seem to affect the fixtures at all, you don't play your divisional opponents more often.
Can have results where team with a crappy or losing record (could be 9th/10th best in the league) gets into the playoffs because they "won" a division.

D3PO

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

Can have results where team with a crappy or losing record (could be 9th/10th best in the league) gets into the playoffs because they "won" a division.

Just like happens in the NFL so :rolleyes:

anyway I don't know why this debate is going on again. The time for these discussions was pre poll not post vote.

Podge_irl

How about we just go by the result of the polls that were put up for this very reason?

D3PO

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

How is it less fair than 4 divisions?
The 4x4 doesn't seem to affect the fixtures at all, you don't play your divisional opponents more often.

exactly why there was a vote on manually setting the schedule which won !

D3PO

as I see it basically the vote has been for a startus quo bar manually setting the schedule which will essentially mean you play every team in your division.

unless Im mistaken ?

Podge_irl

D3PO wrote: »

as I see it basically the vote has been for a startus quo bar manually setting the schedule which will essentially mean you play every team in your division.

unless Im mistaken ?

Flex over third WR is winning but absurdly close.

JCTO

D3PO wrote: »

as I see it basically the vote has been for a startus quo bar manually setting the schedule which will essentially mean you play every team in your division.

unless Im mistaken ?

You would be correct and manually setting the schedule gets it closer to what people want and justifies the 4 conference system.

All of the polls close the end of August and so far Winning out is:

1. QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF (New) Winning by 1 36/35

2. Move to Last after Claim, Never Reset( Current System) Winning by 11 36/25

3. Bench Size 5 (Current Setup) Winning by 14 33/19

4. 16 Team Leagues (Current System) Winning by 34 votes 47/13

5. And JMH system:(New) Winning by 15 votes 35/20

There’s been some discussion lately about how the divisions seem to be a bit pointless seeing as you don’t always play the people in your division due to the schedule being randomized. So rather than switch to a 16 team division, why don’t we just fix the scheduling instead? Easiest way to do this is just to copy the current conference model, except over 13 games rather than 16. Example:

6 games: 2 games vs each division rival – ideally your first 3 games and last 3 games of the season to make things interesting.

3 games: Versus those who finished in the same position in their division that you did last year, i.e. if you won your division, then you play the 3 teams who also won their divisions.

3 games: Matched up with one of the other divisions, you play the remaining team you haven’t faced above (you’ll have already faced one of them as they finished in the same position you did)

1 game: One random game against a team that doesn’t fall into your schedule above.

The best thing about this it creates a bit of divisional rivalry, and mirrors how the NFL conferences work to an extent. I think it would be far more interesting and fun. An example of this using current NFL AFC teams:



The downside is that the GMs will have to manually set the schedule, but the beauty of this is the above spreadsheet is all formula driven. So the hard work is done, all you have to is input the team names on the side and it will generate the schedule for you. As for the teams that get relegated, simply replace them with their counterparts who are getting promoted.

Would there be any support for such a system?

Paully D

Eagle Eye requested his vote be changed JCTO, so that would bring us to 36 vs 36 on the positional change vote.

BizzyC

The manual schedule changes is a good concept, but realistically who is going to take on a GM role to take care of that?

I've been a GM in the past, no chance in hell I'd do it again if I have to manually set all of the fixtures.

BigBadRob83

BizzyC wrote: »

The manual schedule changes is a good concept, but realistically who is going to take on a GM role to take care of that?

I've been a GM in the past, no chance in hell I'd do it again if I have to manually set all of the fixtures.

Definitely agree, way too much work for a GM.

Did some excel work using the Division 4 2015 default schedule.

- Everyone plays 13 other teams (out of 15) once, no one plays each other twice.
- 4 teams play only two divisional games. All other teams play 3.

D3PO

Paully D wrote: »

Eagle Eye requested his vote be changed JCTO, so that would bring us to 36 vs 36 on the positional change vote.

wouldn't that be 36-35 in favour of current system. you add one to one vote and take one form the other ?

BizzyC

I dont think we should add another starting position without reducing the bench size as well.

Otherwise you're increasing the roster size for each team, which in a 16 man league is tough enough to manage for waivers etc in the current setup.

adrian522

It's not increasing the roster, changing a WR to a flex is all that is being suggested. Still 9 starters.

Paully D

D3PO wrote: »

wouldn't that be 36-35 in favour of current system. you add one to one vote and take one form the other ?

Nah, as he never voted for any of the two most popular options. He was one of only 3 to vote for a particular option IIRC.

BizzyC

adrian522 wrote: »

It's not increasing the roster, changing a WR to a flex is all that is being suggested. Still 9 starters.

Sorry, misread the option. That's not as bad then, but will make RB's, which are already gold dust, much more valuable...

BKWDR

Why not poll all GMs if they want to run the schedule change and get them micro manage what changes implement for this season and see how they turn out...
Or just go with the poll results as discussed

JCTO

Paully D wrote: »

Eagle Eye requested his vote be changed JCTO, so that would bring us to 36 vs 36 on the positional change vote.

So here in lies the problem. Letting people change their votes could get very messy. Also the decision needs to be made if we need to remove those who pulled out or just leave it as is.

I actually would like to change my vote back to the current system but being honest and being fair I feel it would go against a voting system in the first place.

JCTO

For what it is worth I tried adjusting the fixtures the JMH put forward in another 16 team league I was in last year and it didn't take very long. If a current GM hasn't got time to do so or doesn't want to do it I am sure someone will have time to do so or want to do it. What is the point voting on these things if we then go ahead and make changes. To be fair people voted for this system.

D3PO

BKWDR wrote: »

Why not poll all GMs if they want to run the schedule change and get them micro manage what changes implement for this season and see how they turn out...

because the whole concept of the boards fantasy pyramid is that all leagues are identical in settings scoring etc so that goes against the total premise of having a league structure in place.

BizzyC

JCTO wrote: »

For what it is worth I tried adjusting the fixtures the JMH put forward in another 16 team league I was in last year and it didn't take very long. If a current GM hasn't got time to do so or doesn't want to do it I am sure someone will have time to do so or want to do it. What is the point voting on these things if we then go ahead and make changes. To be fair people voted for this system.

Every year there are reluctant GM's taking charge of leagues simply because no one else will do it, I've had to take it on twice for that very reason.
If a GM now has to sit and manually enter 100 fixtures as well, I wont be doing it again.

So far 55 people have voted, that's 3.5 divisions worth of people out of 8-9 divisions of players affected, and how many of those 55 do we know are active members of the league.

Tristram

JCTO wrote: »

So here in lies the problem. Letting people change their votes could get very messy. Also the decision needs to be made if we need to remove those who pulled out or just leave it as is.

I actually would like to change my vote back to the current system but being honest and being fair I feel it would go against a voting system in the first place.

JCTO wrote: »

For what it is worth I tried adjusting the fixtures the JMH put forward in another 16 team league I was in last year and it didn't take very long. If a current GM hasn't got time to do so or doesn't want to do it I am sure someone will have time to do so or want to do it. What is the point voting on these things if we then go ahead and make changes. To be fair people voted for this system.

Couldn't say this better myself on either point. I would happily volunteer to do fixtures.

JCTO

BizzyC wrote: »

Every year there are reluctant GM's taking charge of leagues simply because no one else will do it, I've had to take it on twice for that very reason.
If a GM now has to sit and manually enter 100 fixtures as well, I wont be doing it again.

Hence why we look for someone who is willing to do it or at least ask GMs if they want to do it before making the assumption or decision for them.

So far 55 people have voted, that's 3.5 divisions worth of people out of 8-9 divisions of players affected, and how many of those 55 do we know are active members of the league.

It really doesn't matter how many vote. Not everyone votes during a general election but do we scrape the vote when they don't? No because people don't like or don't care to vote. But people voted and it would then be unfair to decide not to listen to them.

BizzyC

JCTO wrote: »

It really doesn't matter how many vote. Not everyone votes during a general election but do we scrape the vote when they don't? No because people don't like or don't care to vote. But people voted and it would then be unfair to decide not to listen to them.

No, in an election there is a quorum to ensure that an adequate number of eligible voters took part in the election to make the result valid.

Looks like we're actually down to 7 divs this year, there's been a lot of dropouts, so as a % we have about half, but how many of those who voted are actually playing this year.

Just to clarify my position, I'm not in favour of switching the rosters, would be in favour of better schedules but see it being too hard to implement.