|
If my keeper league were tiered and doing promotion/relegation, here's all of the players that would be available for the Supplemental Draft, ie. players on the rosters of the bottom 3 teams, ordered by round drafted (keep in mind, we've been doing this for 4 years, so there are a few guys, like Graham, Rice, Nelson and McCoy, who are in much lower rounds than they should be. Also we value FA pickups as 16th round picks): 1ST ROUND Trent Richardson Chris Johnson Aaron Rodgers 2ND ROUND Dez Bryant Ryan Mathews 3RD ROUND Jeremy Maclin Dwayne Bowe Julio Jones 4TH ROUND Matt Stafford Aaron Hernandez 5TH ROUND Ray Rice Brandon Pettigrew BenJarvus Green-Ellis 7TH ROUND Jacquizz Rodgers Santonio Holmes Randy Moss 9TH ROUND Randall Cobb Jermaine Gresham 10TH ROUND Jimmy Graham Russell Wilson 13TH ROUND Jordy Nelson 14TH ROUND LeSean McCoy Josh Freeman 16TH ROUND Mark Ingram Colin Kaepernick Josh Gordon Vick Ballard Jeremy Kerley Bilal Powell Montell Owens Dwayne Allen Bernard Pierce Jason Witten Brian Hartline Andre Roberts Andre Brown Devery Henderson Darius Reynaud 17TH ROUND Austin Collie 18TH ROUND Nate Washington 24TH ROUND Davone Bess Each player gets one round added the next season. You can bet that McCoy, Rice, Witten, Graham, Nelson, Kaepernick, Freeman, Wilson and Cobb would be taken in the Supplemental Draft e: I didn't include IDPs to make it easier, but in our league we have 5 keepers (2 offense, 2 IDP, and one choice) so our Supplemental Draft would be 15 picks (3 teams x 5 rounds) Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Dec 17, 2012 |
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:18 |
|
|
True. And the supplemental draft should probably be held ASAP after the keeper deadline. So, let's make some executive decisions here. Buyin: $20 Tiers: 2 # of teams per tier: 12 # of teams promoted each year: 3 winners of a 6 team playoff # of teams relegated each year: 3 losers of a 4 team playoff Each tier has a separate, but equal, payout (yet to be determined) IDP: Yes -- The first year, the two tiers will be randomly assigned. At the end of the year, the tier with the highest combined Points For will become Tier A and the other will become Tier B. Tier A is a keeper league (with a YTBD # of keepers). Each keeper costs a draft pick -1 round from previous year's draft. (YTBD penalty for a first round pick from last year's draft). Teams that are new to the league (promoted from Tier B) will participate in a supplemental draft to choose keepers (with the same draft penalties) from the player pool of relegated teams. Tier B is a re-draft league* *Unless we decide to add a Tier C before the keeper deadline. At that point, Tier B will be a keeper league with the same settings as Tier A. Tier C will then be re-draft. -- Divisions in both leagues will be for scheduling purposes only. The first year will be randomly assigned. After the first year: Tier A Div. A: #1, #6, #7, Promotion #3 Div. B: #2, #5, #8, Promotion #2 Div. C: #3, #4, #9, Promotion #1 Tier B Div. A: Relegation #1, #6, #7, #12 Div. B: Relegation #2, #5, #8, #11 Div. C: Relegation #3, #4, #9, #10 -- If someone in Tier A decides not continue on next season for whatever reason, their roster will join the player pool for the supplemental draft and an additional team from Tier B will be promoted to take their place. Ie: someone else leaving isn't going to save your team from being relegated, sucker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 10:57
|
|
|
In regards to rosters, I'd prefer sticking to the standard 1 QB 2 RB 2 WR TE FLEX K for offense. What's the IDP equivalent? Would 2 DL 2 LB 2 DB be fair?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 11:00
|
|
|
Just saw this thread, very interested. I'd be fine with a cash league, and I think that realistically the tiers would have to be completely random and even in the first year, and then established based on rankings from the next year forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
All of that looks good, though I'd say that if the first year is going to be entirely for the purpose of placement, we should forego the divisional format until year two and just do two straight 12-team leagues. Standard leagues with divisions are the worst. Nothing like being tied for the best record and ending up with the 4th seed. Or just have the divisions so we can do the same scheduling, but make the seeding based on record, not division winners. I was actually just thinking up of a bunch of ideas for registration fee/pay-out systems, but it seems like none of them really work toward what you're looking for  Option A - $20/$10 Tiered Split Rate - $20/team in Tier A, $10/team in Tier B - $240 pool in Tier A, $120 pool in Tier B - Tier A payouts 1st: $120 2nd: $70 3rd: $40 #1 Seed in Playoffs: $10 - Tier B payouts 1st: $60 2nd: $40 3rd: $20 Option B - $20 Flat Rate Standard - $20/team, pool of $480 - Tier A payouts: 1st: $200 2nd: $75 3rd: $35 - Tier B payouts 1st: $100 2nd: $50 3rd: $20 Option C - $25 Flat Rate Standard - $25/team, pool of $600 - Tier A payouts 1st: $250 2nd: $100 3rd: $50 - Tier B payouts 1st: $100 2nd: $75 3rd: $25 Option D - $25 Flat Rate Expanded - $25/team, pool of $600 - Tier A payouts 1st: $150 ($200) ($200) 2nd: $100 ($75) ($100) 3rd: $50 ($25) ($0) #1 Seed in Playoffs: $10 Highest Score Each Week: $5 - Tier B payouts 1st: $75 ($100) ($100) 2nd: $50 ($30) ($50) 3rd: $25 ($20) ($0) #1 Seed in Playoffs: $10 Highest Score Each Week: $5 Personally, I think the payouts in Tier A should be a little more than the payouts in Tier B, since the object is really to get up to the top tier, but I'm fine with either. Zypher posted:In regards to rosters, I'd prefer sticking to the standard 1 QB 2 RB 2 WR TE FLEX K for offense. What's the IDP equivalent? Would 2 DL 2 LB 2 DB be fair? Pretty much, yeah, that's good. DLs kinda suck for fantasy though, as there's only like 15 good ones, so I usually don't like having more than one. I'd recommend replacing one of the DLs with a D Flex, but that's a fine setup if you'd prefer it. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 11:23
|
|
|
Obama Yo Mama posted:Personally, I think the payouts in Tier A should be a little more than the payouts in Tier B, since the object is really to get up to the top tier, but I'm fine with either. I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think in year 2 and beyond people in Tier B would be happy with paying more money that they know they won't have a shot at winning that year... but if people want to do it that way, I'm totally down. That sounds good to me. QB 2 RB 2 WR TE FLEX K 1 DL 2 LB 2 DB DFLEX How many bench spots? 8? Yielding a 22 man roster?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
Obama Yo Mama posted:All of that looks good, though I'd say that if the first year is going to be entirely for the purpose of placement, we should forego the divisional format until year two and just do two straight 12-team leagues. Standard leagues with divisions are the worst. Nothing like being tied for the best record and ending up with the 4th seed. Yeah, the divisions are for scheduling purposes only. I should have emphasized that more in my post. I agree with you -- I hate the notion of an arbitrary division affecting playoff seedings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 11:43
|
|
|
To be clear, I am totally for divisions deciding the seeding from Year 2 onward. I like the idea of your previous year's record affecting your placement/schedule/chances at a bye. Not sure if I made that totally clear. Normally I'd say 6 bench would be enough for a starting roster of that size, but an extra two guys isn't bad since it's a keeper. I'd also recommend adding an IR spot since it's a keeper. I don't know if they're standard in ESPN, but I know they aren't in Yahoo and you actually have to turn them on. Nothing sucked more than Brady tearing his ACL and then having to burn a bench spot on him because I wasn't going to drop him and open him up to be someone else's keeper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 11:44
|
|
|
Gotcha. And, yes, we should definitely have an IR spot. I'm updating the OP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 11:54
|
|
|
Thinking about it more, I think 7 would probably be the perfect amount of bench spots. 8 is definitely too much, 6 would be fine for a re-draft but I like the idea of an extra spot for a keeper. Essentially that would let you roll with a bench of: QB, RB, WR, WR, D, D, ?. It won't make byes super-easy to get through like 8 probably would, but will still give you some flexibility for managing them that 6 probably wouldn't, and that ? spot is essentially "The Keeper Slot"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 12:12
|
|
|
Zypher posted:In regards to rosters, I'd prefer sticking to the standard 1 QB 2 RB 2 WR TE FLEX K for offense. What's the IDP equivalent? Would 2 DL 2 LB 2 DB be fair? D FLEX/DB/DL is the standard roster layout for IDP. With 12-team leagues, it doesn't run into depth problems. Zypher posted:Yeah, the divisions are for scheduling purposes only. I should have emphasized that more in my post. I agree with you -- I hate the notion of an arbitrary division affecting playoff seedings. So just to clarify, you mean in other words that divisional records won't determine playoff seeds, correct? If so I highly approve. With 4-team divisions, this is definitely the way to go. The only reason to use divisional records for seeding purposes is if we were doing a single league with Tier A and Tier B divisions. Otherwise, it's straight W/L seeding all the way. HiroProtagonist fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
That's how I initially felt about divisions, too. OYM's reasoning made sense to me last night, but we should probably leave that up for further debate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
I'm in a 14 person league right now with 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, WR/TE, TE, FLEX, D/ST, 2K, and 7 bench spots. The FA and waiver wire is a completely barren wasteland. So if we do a 12 team with standard offensive and IDP rosters, a 7 man bench would be a pretty solid size and would force teams to make hilarious pick up decisions once everyone starts getting injured. It will be awesome. My ideal roster for a 12 team with IDP. No IR, just a large bench. IR is just a sneaky way of having an extra bench spot.  1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, WR/TE, TE, FLEX, K + DB, DL, DFLEX + 7 man bench = 19 players per team for a total of 228 spots. My current league has 252 spots for comparison, so including IDP and that extra WR/TE slot will force a lot of transactions due to sheer desperation.Eventually bye weeks, dumpster fire players and teams, and injuries will remove any depth by the half way point of the season so everyone is crying as they draft a third string WR because you really need someone in that spot even if he's only gonna get like one catch bro But that's just my no-fantasy-football-experience two cents. 3 DONG HORSE fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:D FLEX/DB/DL is the standard roster layout for IDP. With 12-team leagues, it doesn't run into depth problems. You severely under-estimate how many good IDPs are out there. The only shallow position is DL, but there are enough decent ones out there for each team to roster one and be able to snag a bye-week filler. DB and LB are quite deep, I run a 12-team with 3 of each DB and LB and a D flex, every team's got a pretty decent lineup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Obama Yo Mama posted:You severely under-estimate how many good IDPs are out there. The only shallow position is DL, but there are enough decent ones out there for each team to roster one and be able to snag a bye-week filler. DB and LB are quite deep, I run a 12-team with 3 of each DB and LB and a D flex, every team's got a pretty decent lineup. I think you misread me. I was essentially saying the same thing. I like IDP formats though and I wouldn't be averse to having more spots, but I'm not sure if it's necessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
e: I probably did, I thought you were saying that there should only be 3 IDP slots per team. There's plenty more than 36 useful IDPs.Zypher posted:That's how I initially felt about divisions, too. OYM's reasoning made sense to me last night, but we should probably leave that up for further debate. I love divisions mattering in keeper/dynasty leagues. It's fun and it fosters more competition/creates rivalries. The scheduling system we'd be using changes the divisions and schedule each year based on the previous year's performance. Also, the extra 2 games are divisional games so it's not like you're just thrown in random like most divisional set-ups are, you can actually control where you end up seed-wise by beating the teams in your division. I know divisions are scary because most people just make divisions and don't care, but there's actually a lot of thought put into this, it will work I promise so don't be scared  old dog child posted:But that's just my no-fantasy-football-experience two cents. Remember though, Tier A is a keeper league, so we don't want to make the benches too shallow, there will still be plenty of movement, but there needs to be a bench spot there for at least one player who you might want to keep and really just can't afford to drop. For the record, I love having both the WR/TE and WR/TE/RB flex spots, but I'm fine either way. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
I think 6 IDP slots would be better than 3 because it seems to me (with very little IDP experience) that it would be easy to fill 3 IDP slots on each team. With 6 you're probably going to feel slightly more of a pinch without being overwhelming for an IDP noob like myself. I don't really get the point of WR/TE flex spots, myself. 95% of the time you're going to be starting a WR there. If we were to add an additional slot, I would prefer to just go 3 WR. Or if you want to force people to make Sophie's choice every week, add a second TE slot. That could be pretty fun, actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
How do we feel about an unlimited # of keepers? I'd rather tweak the penalty system to find the right balance than choose an arbitrary number of keepers. The supplemental draft would then be unlimited, too. It would end only when all the players in it opt out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
Zypher posted:I think 6 IDP slots would be better than 3 because it seems to me (with very little IDP experience) that it would be easy to fill 3 IDP slots on each team. With 6 you're probably going to feel slightly more of a pinch without being overwhelming for an IDP noob like myself. It's more fun to have the option there since it gives everyone more ways to shoot themselves in the foot (Myers  )Obama Yo Mama posted:Remember though, Tier A is a keeper league, so we don't want to make the benches too shallow, there will still be plenty of movement, but there needs to be a bench spot there for at least one player who you might want to keep and really just can't afford to drop. I didn't think about that, actually. I have never done keeper, so this is a learning process for me, too. I forgot that players break sometimes 
3 DONG HORSE fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
Yeah, it's basically the equivalent of having 3 WR instead of 2, with the exception of being tempted to start Jermaine Gresham and only getting 2 points.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
Zypher posted:I think 6 IDP slots would be better than 3 because it seems to me (with very little IDP experience) that it would be easy to fill 3 IDP slots on each team. With 6 you're probably going to feel slightly more of a pinch without being overwhelming for an IDP noob like myself. I like having the option of WR/TE. You're right though, 98% of people would probably choose a WR (myself included) but if someone wants to build around Gronk and Graham, I like that it's still a possibility. Or maybe with injuries you're stuck starting two TE
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
Zypher posted:How do we feel about an unlimited # of keepers? I'd rather tweak the penalty system to find the right balance than choose an arbitrary number of keepers. I'd probably prefer dynasty style to unlimited keepers (keep your whole starting line-up and just draft a new bench) but I feel like if we're going promotion/relegation, that'll probably make it unnecessarily difficult on the promoted teams. If we're going to do unlimited keepers, then there's going to have to be a tiered system for round penalties (top 5 rounds cost 1st round pick, rounds 6-10 cost 5th round pick, etc.), but then we'd still need to have added penalties if someone wants to keep more than one player in the same tier, and also even more penalties if someone decides to keep more than one player in the top tier because, by virtue, you're being rewarded with that second keeper by getting him in the 2nd when he should be a 1st rounder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
That seems too harsh to me. What about this? a) every keeper has a one round penalty b) a first round pick is kept for a first rounder + two rounds of penalties c) penalties that can't be enforced on a keeper will transfer to the next highest keeper d) keepers from the same round are kept for an equal or greater round. if not available, there will be an additional penalty for each round below the original value e) all penalties must be enforced As an example, I'm going to use my draft from a twelve team league I was in this season: 1. (4) Drew Brees QB 2. (21) DeMarco Murray RB 3. (28) Jamaal Charles RB 4. (45) Percy Harvin WR 5. (52) Ahmad Bradshaw RB 6. (69) J. Finley TE 7. (76) Stevie Johnson WR 8. (93) Kenny Britt WR 9. (100) Michael Bush RB 10. (117) Greg Little WR 11. (124) D. Heyward-Bey WR 12. (141) Ronnie Brown RB 13. (148) Mike Williams WR 14. (165) Russell Wilson QB 15. (172) New York DEF 16. (189) Justin Tucker K Let's say I wanted to keep Drew Brees, DeMarco Murray, Jamaal Charles, and Percy Harvin. Keeping my first rounder, Drew Brees, costs me two rounds in penalties, but I can't enforce it yet because there is no round above first. DeMarco, Jamaal, and Percy all cost another round in penalties each, but I can't enforce them either since they're picks 2-4. I've now accrued 5 rounds of penalties that I must spend. The bottom of my draft kind of sucks, but maybe I decide it's worth getting those 4 players back if I also take Mike Williams in the 7th round. So I'm keeping my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 13th from the 2012 draft for a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th in the 2013 draft. -- Provision D examples: Now let's say I've traded for Adrian Peterson, who was picked up in the 3rd round in this draft. If I want to keep both Jamaal Charles and Adrian Peterson, it's going to cost me two 2nd round picks. Since I don't have two 2nd round picks, provision D kicks in and two 3rd round picks from 2012 end up costing me a 1st and a 2nd in 2013. If I want to keep DeMarco, Jamaal, and Adrian... DeMarco costs a 1st round pick. Since I don't have two 2nd round picks, and I don't have a greater round available, the second half of provision D kicks in. The two 2012 3rd round picks now cost a 2nd, a 3rd, and 2 rounds of unspent penalties in 2013 in addition to the 1st round pick that I've already spent on DeMarco. Finally, let's say that I traded for Chris Johnson (who cost a 1st rounder in 2012) instead. If I want to keep both Drew Brees and Chris Johnson, it will cost me a 1st round pick, a 2nd round pick, and 5 rounds of unspent penalties (2 for Brees, 2 for Chris, and 1 to compensate for using 1st and 2nd round picks instead of two 1st round picks). It's late and I have no idea if my ramblings above make sense... I hope it does. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
While I'm not totally against penalties for keepers, to generate more movement, I rather like not being able to keep your first round and every other round can be kept at a cost of -1 round. Unlimited amount, but only if they are a starter, cannot keep them if it means they will be on your bench.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
Boywunda posted:While I'm not totally against penalties for keepers, to generate more movement, I rather like not being able to keep your first round and every other round can be kept at a cost of -1 round. Unlimited amount, but only if they are a starter, cannot keep them if it means they will be on your bench. That seems kind of unenforceable in practical terms. I don't want the commish to head up the brute squad and have to check rosters every week to keep team managers in line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:That seems kind of unenforceable in practical terms. I don't want the commish to head up the brute squad and have to check rosters every week to keep team managers in line. I'm not sure what you mean by this? My suggestion is for determining keeper players, which is a 1 time practice, not an every week thing. If they are going to enforce a -1 round penalty, I don't see how making sure they weren't your first round pick being that difficult to manage? If you can only start 1 QB, I don't think you should be able to keep 2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
Boywunda posted:I'm not sure what you mean by this? My suggestion is for determining keeper players, which is a 1 time practice, not an every week thing. If they are going to enforce a -1 round penalty, I don't see how making sure they weren't your first round pick being that difficult to manage? If you can only start 1 QB, I don't think you should be able to keep 2. Yeah, I'm assuming you mean just set your roster at the end of the year, keepers have to come off that roster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
Boywunda posted:I'm not sure what you mean by this? My suggestion is for determining keeper players, which is a 1 time practice, not an every week thing. If they are going to enforce a -1 round penalty, I don't see how making sure they weren't your first round pick being that difficult to manage? If you can only start 1 QB, I don't think you should be able to keep 2. I'm not sure I'm into this idea. Short of regular roster limits, I don't think there should be any other sort of restrictions as to how many players of a certain position you can keep. If you want to be an idiot and keep 2 or 3 QBs as bargaining chips for next season and suffer as a result, more power to you. I also like the idea of being able to keep your starting QB and a speculative rookie QB or something. As far as keeper rules, a fellow goon posted this up in the FFL thread earlier in the season and I'm intending to implement something similar for the league I commission next year. We could maybe tweak it for this league as well. All in all, I like the freedom of choice that a points based system brings to the table over a round based penalty, especially the fact that points roll over each year, meaning that you aren't forced into keeping as many players as you can or suffering a disadvantage. http://thesunsethighway.wordpress.com/rules/keepers/
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
Mikey Purp posted:I'm not sure I'm into this idea. Short of regular roster limits, I don't think there should be any other sort of restrictions as to how many players of a certain position you can keep. If you want to be an idiot and keep 2 or 3 QBs as bargaining chips for next season and suffer as a result, more power to you. I also like the idea of being able to keep your starting QB and a speculative rookie QB or Fair point. I only suggested it to generate more movement. In other dynasty leagues I have seen or been in, it always seems that the same people stayed at the top, due to the players they kept every year. And my suggestions were to promote movement around top tiered players, instead of being dynasty to one team forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Boywunda posted:Fair point. I only suggested it to generate more movement. In other dynasty leagues I have seen or been in, it always seems that the same people stayed at the top, due to the players they kept every year. And my suggestions were to promote movement around top tiered players, instead of being dynasty to one team forever. Yea right on. My opinion is that the way to counter dynasty staleness is by changing your keeper penalties so that it's not cost effective to keep the same player core for more than a couple of seasons. If you look at the system I linked for example, the cost to keep a player rises each year and you cannot keep one player for more than 3 consecutive seasons. Something like that should promote movement I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
This seems like a really fun idea, I'd love to play if you still have some room.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Same here. Count me in if a spot's avail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Added you to the list, Dirty Chub and Suave Fedora.Zypher posted:a) every keeper has a one round penalty In regards to dynasty staleness, we could add something to the effect of provision F to my proposal. Continuing off the examples I used above, if I keep Drew Brees and DeMarco Murray in 2013, it would cost me my 1st and 2nd round picks as well as 3 rounds of penalties down the board. In 2014, Drew Brees and DeMarco Murray both count as 1st round picks. So in order to keep both of them, it would cost me my 1st and 2nd round picks, and now 5 rounds of penalties down the board. That cost stays the same for 2015 and onwards... -- But if I wanted to keep Brees, DeMarco, and Jamaal Charles, all three of them would count as 1st round picks starting in 2015. 2013: Brees (1st + 2 penalties) DeMarco (2nd + 1 penalty) Jamaal (3rd + 1 penalty) 2014: Brees (1st + 2 penalties) DeMarco (1st + 2 penalties) Jamaal (2nd + 1 penalty) +1 penalty for using a 2nd round pick on a 1st rounder 2015: Brees (1st + 2 penalties) DeMarco (1st + 2 penalties) Jamaal (1st + 2 penalties) +1 penalty for using a 2nd round pick on a 1st rounder +2 penalties for using a 3rd round pick on a 1st rounder Zypher fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
The way that I solved this in my league was that for every 1st round keeper you have, you have to add an extra round to your lowest keeper. Draft players in Round 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 16 Next year values: 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 14 Draft players in Round 1, 2, 5, 12, 14, 20 Next year values: 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 18 Draft players in Round 1, 2, 3, 6, 13, 17 Next year values: 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 15 Draft players in Round 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 Next year values: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 And so on. e: seems like that's pretty much the same thing Zypher's saying if I'm reading it properly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Mikey Purp posted:As far as keeper rules, a fellow goon posted this up in the FFL thread earlier in the season and I'm intending to implement something similar for the league I commission next year. We could maybe tweak it for this league as well. All in all, I like the freedom of choice that a points based system brings to the table over a round based penalty, especially the fact that points roll over each year, meaning that you aren't forced into keeping as many players as you can or suffering a disadvantage. I see the appeal in this system, but I'm not too keen on tracking a database of player values. I'm already going to have a lot to keep up with in this league, so remembering tracking whether a player finished in the top 13 or not over the course of several seasons on top of everything else seems daunting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Obama Yo Mama posted:The way that I solved this in my league was that for every 1st round keeper you have, you have to add an extra round to your lowest keeper. Actually, I'm adding rounds to your next highest keeper, not lowest. I was also making a first rounder worth 2 rounds of penalties. Draft players in Round 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 16 Next year values: 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 15 Draft players in Round 1, 2, 5, 12, 14, 20 Next year values: 1, 2, 3, 10, 13, 19 Draft players in Round 1, 2, 3, 6, 13, 17 Next year values: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 16 Draft players in Round 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 Next year values: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
I feel like it works better my way, because if you keep pushing the higher keepers even higher, eventually you're just going to run into a bunch of guys not getting kept because they'll all cost 1st Rounders. Plus, if the rounds get added to the lower guys, you'll have guys like Morris getting added back to the player pool a lot quicker if they end up on a team with a Rodgers/Johnson/Peterson that keeps getting kept in the 1st every year. If you drafted Morris in the 16th, he could end up being an 8th round pick within two years if you incur enough penalties, and eventually he'll become too expensive to keep. The other way around, he'll pretty much be on your team until he starts to suck or retires. e: tl;dr: in the long run it hurts you more value wise if you force your lowest keepers to move up more rounds. e2: but regardless of where the rounds get added, this is probably the framework for the best system. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
Obama Yo Mama posted:eventually you're just going to run into a bunch of guys not getting kept because they'll all cost 1st Rounders. That was my intent. Also, I just went back up and clarified the language for F. Transferred penalties go back to the player that originally incurred the penalty for the following season. So, in the case of an Alfred Morris drafted in the 16th round, he retains 15th round value next season even if you've been forced to add 4 rounds of penalties on him to make your draft work. If you want to keep 3 1st rounders and Alfred Morris, you don't get as good of a deal on Alfred Morris as you normally would.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Honestly, I don't think keepers or dynasty will work well with a money league. You are going to have a lot of players quit after the first season cause their team sucks and they can't compete with the top teams, so why waste the money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:18 |
|
|
I feel like anyone you keep in the first 10 rounds is eventually going to become too expensive to keep anyway, so it's sort of redundant to penalize those guys doubly, and you're pretty much just creating player movement for the sake of player movement. You'll be pretty quickly running into those scenarios, where a guy kept in the 6th one year goes right back into the pool the next year, essentially making it a re-draft league with a one-year waiting period, which I don't think is what we're trying to go for here. If someone's keeping a 1st, 2nd, 7th, and 15th, they're going to have to give up 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 11th the next year. That would still accomplish what you're trying to do, while also hurting the value of the lower player. If you're throwing the penalties on the higher guy, you'd end up with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 14th which will also probably put that 4th rounder back into the pool the next year, but works out a lot better for that lower round player. If someone ended up with Calvin Johnson in the 1st, Peterson in the 2nd, and Russel Wilson in the 17th round, they can just keep a random 10th rounder every season to absorb the Johnson/Peterson penalties and have 3-top tier players at prime positions and still have 7 of their top 10 picks from now until 2017 Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 22:00
|
|