The WIP Fantasy Charter Discussion Thread

D3PO · 27-11-2013 10:21am

I wouldn't do points difference for sure but points for as the tiebreaker at least warrants a discussion although Id be against it.

The argument for is that there should be some reward for being a high scoring team. I mean if I look at my own position this season Im the 2nd highest scoring team in my league but going into the final week I either win my division or Im out as head to head means I cannot possibly make the wildcard spots.

That despite teams with 200 points fewer scored than me over the season being able to secure a wildcard. You can argue its the luck of the draw or that perhaps there should be some move towards having the best teams at least having some benefit.

on the flip however it could mean wildcard spots become out of reach of some teams only 1 game back with 1 week to go as they will enver overcome the points scored difference.

Even though it impacts me negatively this season id still be against the change. H2H is how the NFL does it so I don't see why if we are following a similar NFL position in terms of playoff / wildcard spots that we would then go change this form a different way than the NFL handles tied records.

Im open to a discussion on it in the off season though.

DBIreland · 27-11-2013 11:51am

I have an even more extreme situation than you D3PO.
I'm in Div 8,
I have the highest scoring team in the league,
I lead the Breakdown table by 3 games,
I lead the Coach table by 22 points
Yet I am 10th out of 16 in Div 8 and been out of the playoff picture for maybe 2 or 3 weeks!
I have conceded the most points too, 150 point more than the next highest team! Sounds like all my games were shootouts!
There is almost 400 points difference between the total i conceded and the team that conceded the fewest after 12 weeks.

Luck of the draw plays a huge part in the game and i don't know if that should be taken out of it. There is luck in the draft order and luck in the teams you play.

One change that i thought might be worth thinking about is allowing a TE in the WR/RB flex position. Not sure if it is possible but since TE's are becoming a bigger and bigger part of teams offence it might add further options to peoples selections. (Of course this suggestion may be because i had J. Thomas and J. Witten on my team all year!)

D3PO · 27-11-2013 11:55am

DBIreland wrote: »

I One change that i thought might be worth thinking about is allowing a TE in the WR/RB flex position. Not sure if it is possible but since TE's are becoming a bigger and bigger part of teams offence it might add further options to peoples selections. (Of course this suggestion may be because i had J. Thomas and J. Witten on my team all year!)

THERE SHOULDNT BE A FLEX POSITION IN THE BOARDS LEAGUES !!!!

DIV8 needs to be fixed for next year as its clearly setup wrong.

JaMarcus Hustle · 27-11-2013 11:55am

DBIreland wrote: »

One change that i thought might be worth thinking about is allowing a TE in the WR/RB flex position. Not sure if it is possible but since TE's are becoming a bigger and bigger part of teams offence it might add further options to peoples selections. (Of course this suggestion may be because i had J. Thomas and J. Witten on my team all year!)

Wait, I thought we didn't have any flex positions in the Boards leagues? Division 2 doesn't have any?

As for the tiebreaker, I'd be for Points For being the decider. I think it's better reward someone for having built a better team rather than having a better gameweek once-off. A bye-week could really screw over someone going by the current system.

If it's up for discussion, I vote change it. But I'm not fussed overall. If you want to qualify, then finish top

DBIreland · 27-11-2013 2:34pm

Div 8 must be setup wrong so. We have 1 x QB, 2 x RB, 2 x WR, 1 x TE, 1 x W/R, 1 x K and 1 x DEF and 6 on the bench.
How do the other leagues look?

D3PO · 27-11-2013 2:39pm

DBIreland wrote: »

Div 8 must be setup wrong so. We have 1 x QB, 2 x RB, 2 x WR, 1 x TE, 1 x W/R, 1 x K and 1 x DEF and 6 on the bench.
How do the other leagues look?

the settings on how the league should be setup are in the sticky. Needs to be changed for next season and Id suggest the league manager review all settings as god knows whatever is setup wrong.

EDIT the settings pic no longer showing as visible In the sticky. No wonder Div8 is setup wrong. Can this be fixed and then the LM can identify and resolve any issues in Div8 settings

BizzyC · 27-11-2013 4:25pm

I prefer the head to head tie break, the NFL isn't done by points.
I think we should move to a 2x8 team div setup though.

In our league (Div 5) we have 5 teams fighting for the 2 non-div-winner wildcard spots. All 5 of these teams have a better record than one of the div-winning teams.

Cutting down on the number of divs would reduce the chances of teams with better records losing out to teams who had a worse record.
In our case, there's still a small chance that the winner of that div will have a losing record and make the playoff over a 9-4 team....

D3PO · 27-11-2013 4:32pm

BizzyC wrote: »

I prefer the head to head tie break, the NFL isn't done by points.
I think we should move to a 2x8 team div setup though.

In our league (Div 5) we have 5 teams fighting for the 2 non-div-winner wildcard spots. All 5 of these teams have a better record than one of the div-winning teams.

Cutting down on the number of divs would reduce the chances of teams with better records losing out to teams who had a worse record.
In our case, there's still a small chance that the winner of that div will have a losing record and make the playoff over a 9-4 team....

But that happens in the NFL. I remember a 7-9 Seattle team getting into the playoffs not so long ago.

I also remember an 11-5 Patriots team missing out.

Sometimes things fall in your favour sometimes they don't just like in the NFL.

BizzyC · 27-11-2013 6:35pm

True, but there was discussion at the time because of that too...

D3PO · 05-12-2013 12:47pm

is it possible we can actually put a more specific definition of inactive in the charter ?

I say this as there are guys who don't show as "inactive" if you check the last login date but then you find they have a guy on IR for 3-4 weeks plus in their team. As it stands they cant be considered inactive but as far as I can see they are as good as.

Id like the inactivity description to say that a player whos last login is over 3 weeks ago or who over the course of the season starts players on byes or who are on IR for more than 3 weeks is deemed to be inactive.

Inactive players ruin the game and if it means kicking more guys and having 6-7 quality boards divisions rather than 9 with a few guys inactive in each then that's much better.

open to comments on this. But would like propose it as a change to the charter for next season

Dodge · 05-12-2013 4:01pm

I'd second that. Putting in something to say for 3/4 weeks (as you suggest) allows for mistakes/holidays etc

TO. · 05-12-2013 4:06pm

Dodge wrote: »

I'd second that. Putting in something to say for 3/4 weeks (as you suggest) allows for mistakes/holidays etc

I would agree also.

Tristram · 06-12-2013 6:30am

Fully support stricter rules/enforcement with regard to inactives. They ruin leagues.

JCTO · 06-09-2015 9:24pm

I would like to propose the following to the Charter:

Rule Changes and Voting

- Rules are proposed at the start of the a new season to come into affect the following season leaving a full year to vote on the rule change. So example : Propose a Rule change from June - August 2015 and then in September 2015 the voting poll gets put into place and then closes July 31st 2016. (Only an example)

- Once you cast your vote there is no changing the vote. You have practically a year to make a decision on your vote.

- All current members can vote. This includes any new member who joins and votes before the closing date of said poll. If anyone has not come back to the league and confirmed their re-entry and are removed from the leagues their vote is removed.

BigBadRob83 · 07-09-2015 8:25am

JCTO wrote: »

Rule Changes and Voting

- Rules are proposed at the start of the a new season to come into affect the following season leaving a full year to vote on the rule change. So example : Propose a Rule change from June - August 2015 and then in September 2015 the voting poll gets put into place and then closes July 31st 2016. (Only an example)

Don't think a full year is needed.
Fantasy season ends 3 January this year. If proposals made right after after season (when still in people's minds rather than the summer when not thinking about football) that still leaves 6-8 months before the new season starts. That should be plenty of time really

Agree with other two points

BigBadRob83 · 10-09-2015 2:35pm

Would like to propose that we do away with voting on a trade.
Only reason to reject a trade IMO is collusion, and the commish should be empowered to handle that

Don't think the current review period of 2 days serves any purpose.
Trade currently agreed in Div 3 (not involving me) and Big Ben is part of it, because of the Thursday game he can't play for his new team and trade won' go through until week 2.
Have seen similar issues in the past too, a trade needs to be agreed on Thursday to be in place before Sunday games. Or Monday for a Thursday game.

For consideration.

Tristram · 10-09-2015 2:49pm

Good post Rob. This has been a pet hate of mine since I started playing boards leagues. I believe the length of time it takes for trades to go through actively discourages one of the funnest parts of the game: trading. I would love to see a vote on this topic and hear all the pros and cons regarding such a rules change.

JCTO · 10-09-2015 4:55pm

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

Would like to propose that we do away with voting on a trade.
Only reason to reject a trade IMO is collusion, and the commish should be empowered to handle that

Don't think the current review period of 2 days serves any purpose.
Trade currently agreed in Div 3 (not involving me) and Big Ben is part of it, because of the Thursday game he can't play for his new team and trade won' go through until week 2.
Have seen similar issues in the past too, a trade needs to be agreed on Thursday to be in place before Sunday games. Or Monday for a Thursday game.

For consideration.

Problem is with letting the GM do it is this:

To play devils advocate on this. The GMs actively play in the league and can hardly be impartial to a trade. Also what happens if a trade directly affects the GM. Then you have the problem of using Thursday games as an example what happens if the GM is not readily available that day anyways? You are still back to square 1.

I don't agree with the collusion part about rejecting trades. People have their reasons for not wanting someone to be traded to another team. Unfair to say it is collusion to be fair. I have rejected trades in the past and collusion never had anything to do with it. And I am sure the same can be said for many others.

eagle eye · 10-09-2015 5:25pm

JCTO wrote: »

I would like to propose the following to the Charter:

Rule Changes and Voting

- Rules are proposed at the start of the a new season to come into affect the following season leaving a full year to vote on the rule change. So example : Propose a Rule change from June - August 2015 and then in September 2015 the voting poll gets put into place and then closes July 31st 2016. (Only an example)

- Once you cast your vote there is no changing the vote. You have practically a year to make a decision on your vote.

- All current members can vote. This includes any new member who joins and votes before the closing date of said poll. If anyone has not come back to the league and confirmed their re-entry and are removed from the leagues their vote is removed.

I think I have to agree with BigBadRob on this one. I think proposals should be made before the season begins and the voting should be done during the season and end when it finishes.

eagle eye · 10-09-2015 5:27pm

JCTO wrote: »

Problem is with letting the GM do it is this:

To play devils advocate on this. The GMs actively play in the league and can hardly be impartial to a trade. Also what happens if a trade directly affects the GM. Then you have the problem of using Thursday games as an example what happens if the GM is not readily available that day anyways? You are still back to square 1.

I don't agree with the collusion part about rejecting trades. People have their reasons for not wanting someone to be traded to another team. Unfair to say it is collusion to be fair. I have rejected trades in the past and collusion never had anything to do with it. And I am sure the same can be said for many others.

Fully in agreement with you here. I've also voted against trades in the past and hoped they didn't happen purely so I could offer a trade for one of the players involved in that trade.

Tristram · 10-09-2015 8:58pm

That's interesting JCTO and eagle eye. I've never even considered that as a way to use the voting. Always seemed like such a redundant feature to me.

Anyway, I'm firmly pro changes that promote an environment conducive to trading. It's one of the thing I love most about fantasy.

BigBadRob83 · 11-09-2015 8:32am

JCTO wrote: »

I have rejected trades in the past and collusion never had anything to do with it. And I am sure the same can be said for many others.

eagle eye wrote: »

I've also voted against trades in the past and hoped they didn't happen purely so I could offer a trade for one of the players involved in that trade.

Honestly quite surprised at those comments.

They seem like incredibly petty reasons to vote against a trade. If the two team owners make a trade that they both think improves their team I don't think anyone else should have the ability to stop that because of their own selfish reasons. But I guess this is for the actual debate when it comes to a vote.

Dodge · 11-09-2015 11:08am

I'm generally of the view that all trades should be allowed happen and I don't think I've vetoed any but I don't like the GM having that power either. None of us know anything about collusion but if something is ridiculous (say a starting WR for a kicker), then we should all be allowed veto it

The 2 day grace period isn't that big a hindrance either. Thursday games only effect 2 teams so it just means that trades have to be offered for 2 teams by Tueday. every one else is still in play

JCTO · 11-09-2015 2:22pm

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

Honestly quite surprised at those comments.

They seem like incredibly petty reasons to vote against a trade. If the two team owners make a trade that they both think improves their team I don't think anyone else should have the ability to stop that because of their own selfish reasons. But I guess this is for the actual debate when it comes to a vote.

Petty comments how? Selfish? Are you for real? Madness really but I actually never gave you any of the reasons I have had in the past to reject trades. I have had many reasons for it in the past and honestly if you want to call it petty I am not going to even bother getting into anymore of a discussion with you over trade rejection if you are going to say my comment is petty and bang the collusion drum.

But great way to get your debate going by saying people are colluding and then calling them petty and selfish.

BigBadRob83 · 11-09-2015 2:31pm

JCTO wrote: »

Petty comments how? Selfish? Are you for real? Madness really but I actually never gave you any of the reasons I have had in the past to reject trades. I have had many reasons for it in the past and honestly if you want to call it petty I am not going to even bother getting into anymore of a discussion with you over trade rejection if you are going to say my comment is petty and bang the collusion drum.

But great way to get your debate going by saying people are colluding and then calling them petty and selfish.

All I ever said about collusion was it's the only good reason IMO to reject a trade. Never accused anyone of it

Apologies about the petty comment, that was not meant for both of you, more towards eagle eye's explanation. Didn't re read my sentence structure properly.

Raoul · 19-10-2016 12:12pm

Never really read this thread before. I think that Rob is right about rejecting trades based on the fact that you could offer a better one, that doesn't seem right at all.

We are having problem in our division (premier division). The guy accepted a trade Monday to take John Brown for the Vikings D. Then after John Brown plays, a day after accepting the trade he puts up a message saying that it was a mistake and that he didn't mean to accept to the trade. Also he has messaged the owners to try and get them to veto it.

I have no idea if the guy is being genuine or not or if he had second thoughts about the trade after seeing John Brown. Now I am in a sh*tty position. Anyway...putting this situation in here so that we have a rule whereby if it happens again, we know what to do.

My view is, if you accept the trade by accident and don't realise for a whole day (in particular after a player has played), then you should just have to bite the bullet. If the person accepted the trade by accident and immediately messaged the other person or the group, then you could say "ok fair enough". So...can we get a rule for next year for this situation?

poldebruin · 25-10-2016 3:30am

Raoul wrote: »

We are having problem in our division (premier division). The guy accepted a trade Monday to take John Brown for the Vikings D. Then after John Brown plays, a day after accepting the trade he puts up a message saying that it was a mistake and that he didn't mean to accept to the trade. Also he has messaged the owners to try and get them to veto it.

Shouldn't really need a rule to explicitly apply to the situation you have described. A trade accepted is a trade accepted. ....my view is that you just own the mistake and carry on.....but that one of the players involved has subsequently played? No way....that trade should stay the way it is.

Raoul · 25-10-2016 3:57pm

poldebruin wrote: »

Shouldn't really need a rule to explicitly apply to the situation you have described. A trade accepted is a trade accepted. ....my view is that you just own the mistake and carry on.....but that one of the players involved has subsequently played? No way....that trade should stay the way it is.

Well obviously we do. As I traded the vikings D back cos I was put in an awkward situation.

adrian522 · 25-10-2016 4:11pm

poldebruin wrote: »

Shouldn't really need a rule to explicitly apply to the situation you have described. A trade accepted is a trade accepted. ....my view is that you just own the mistake and carry on.....but that one of the players involved has subsequently played? No way....that trade should stay the way it is.

The player involved played before the trade went through but after the trade was accepted.

The rule as I understand it is that the trade would stand unless both players agree to reverse it.

I think in this case a genuine error was made but according to the rules the trade would have to stand.

The WIP Fantasy Charter Discussion Thread

Comments