Setting up my league...

[mcgrund]

So, I've been the commish of a yahoo league for the past 3 years. This year I want to spice things up a little (without screwing up the overall balance). So here's how I set up my league:

12 teams
-----------
2 QB (6 pts/td, 1 pt/25 yards)
2 RB (6 pts/td, 1 pt/10 yards)
4 WR (6 pts/td, 1 pt/10 yards)
1 TE
1 K
1 D
4 Bench

As you can see, I changed the defaults by adding an extra QB and WR, and dropped the yardage scoring by half. What do you guys think? I'm also thinking about making the 2nd QB position a QB/RB position, just so people can try out different strategies (ie 2QB+2RB or 1QB+3RB).

(Just so you know, last year I simply added a 3rd RB position, and it really screwed over half the teams in the league... not being able to fill that 3rd RB position with a decent player. I don't want to make the same kind of mistake again!)

Thanks!
MCG

[dgroundhog_ffc]

Why not screw all the teams over by starting

4 QBs
8 RB
14 WR
6 PK
4 DEF/ST

?

Actually, I just don't understand the 2 QB thing. Stupid idea that seems to have become an actual alternative league setting.

I'd change 1 WR to a RB/WR flex position. A QB/RB flex is kind of dumb, since an average QB can put up points like a top RB. Plus, teams could feasibly start 3 QB's a week, which would mean you need 36 starting QB's to fill the league position. There aren't that many NFL teams.

After the top 20-25 RB, you have RBBC guys who don't generate points at all. Having a Jeff Blake to fill your RB/QB flex would be a big advantage over having a Najeh Davenport filling that spot.

[Xtreme]

Maybe I'm reading the post wrong, but I think he's saying that only the 2nd QB spot would be flex. In other words, the only two combinations would be 2QB/2RB or 1QB/3RB. I don't think the 2nd RB is flex.

I do like the idea of changing things every year. It keeps everyone on their toes. But, I also agree with dgroundhog in that starting too many players is difficult. Even two QB's could be tough. I would limit your changes to items that won't necessarily make it more difficult for your owners, but it would make them alter their strategy a little. For example, as the commish of my league, this year I changed the return yardage from defense to the individual player, which made the defenses less valuable and players like M.Lewis and D.Hall more valuable than some 2nd tier WR's. It's not more difficult, just some different strategy.

[STEELtownUSA]

get rid of the 2 qbs and if you want to spice it up put idps in

[mcgrund]

Only the second QB spot would be flex (QB/RB). That way, someone with 3 good RB's could start 1QB+3RB. Someone without could start 2QB+2RB.

Also, I keep hearing that a 2nd QB is dumb, but I can't understand why. How is it any different from starting two RBs? Also, I don't think it would throw off the balance of things because isn't a 2nd/3rd tier QB about the same as a 2nd/3rd tier RB (in fantasy points).

There's 12 teams in my league, so if everyone started 2QBs, that's only 24 players out of 36 NFL teams (leaving some backups if necessary).

I've been meaning to look into starting individual defensive players, but just haven't had the time... (does yahoo allow this?)

Thanks!
MCG

[joester]

Yes Yahoo does start IDPS if u want and I would also cut the 2 QB thing and make the 3th WR a RB/WR flex. And a 2nd/3rd tier QB scores more than a 2nd tier/3rd tier RB in SS's where all TDs are awarded equally and there are no points givin for receptions (another way to spice up teh league)

[mcgrund]

Well, I just checked and yahoo doesn't allow a QB/RB flex, so I'll probably just leave it at 2QB, 2RB, 4WR, 1TE, 1K, 1Def, 4Bench.

I still don't understand why nobody likes the 2nd QB spot?
I really appreciate the responses I've gotten, but nobody's really convinced me not to have 2 starting QBs. I just don't see how it will affect the overall balance of the game (even if I have to reduce the TD points for the QBs).

There's enough QBs in the NFL for everyone in a 12-team league to have 2 decent starting QBs, right???

According to yahoo's kffl default rankings, here's the top 12 QBs:

1 McNabb
2 Garcia
3 Gannon
4 Vick
5 Culpepper
6 Johnson
7 Manning
8 Warner
9 Brooks
10 Pennington
11 Green
12 Favre

Here's the next 12:

1 Brady
2 McNair
3 Hasselbeck
4 Bledsoe
5 Maddox
6 Fiedler
7 Collins
8 Harrington
9 Ramsey
10 Plummer
11 Brunell
12 Kitna
13+ Blake/Redmond/Stewart/Brees/Couch/...

By only starting 1 QB, it leaves a lot of quality players sitting on the benches. Why not have these guys contribute their points to our scores...

Basically, what I guess I'd like to have is the 2QB positions almost equal to the 2RB positions. This will open up different strategies during the draft and the season. For example, if I had the 6th pick out of 12 (right in the middle):

1) do I try to draft McNabb and then Manning (assuming most everyone else is drafting RBs), and settle for two lower RBs?

2) do I try to draft Portis and then Henry (assuming some of the others are drafting QBs), and settle for two lower QBs?

3) or do I try to be more balanced???

Anyway, I'll run some spreadsheets based on last years stats to see what kind of overall affect it'll have. I'd still like to hear any comments...

(As for defensive players, can someone point me to a link detailing how I should set up the scoring system (since yahoo doesn't have any preset defaults)?)

Thanks!
MCG

[Xtreme]

It's really a preference thing. I would prefer not to have 2 QB's because good ones are difficult to find. There are 32 teams, which means 32 QB's getting pts per week. BUT, that also means upwards of 50 RB's and 90 WR's getting points every week. What happens when at the midpoint of the season, there are 7 QB's out on injuries? Now you have to dip into that 25-32 range of QB, or start the now-starting backups. I don't any of those players starting for me.

But again, it's a preference thing. You're the commish, you make the rules. Some advice: put it to a vote. As a commish, I don't make any major changes without putting it to a league vote. That way I know I'm doing what my owners want me to.

[springfield atoms]

in my opinion, there are two types of fantasy football....

there is the idea that you are the GM that is running a team, and then the idea of a competition (gamblin optional) for seeing who can pick the players that score the best.

if you want to be like the GM, then the lineup you go with is....


qb
rb
rb (sometimes rb/wr in a 12 team or larger league)
wr
wr
te
k
def of idps (2 at each of dl, lb, db)

the only POSSIBLE variation is starting a third wr. the only bit of realism you lose is that you start two 'feature backs' rather than a fb.



now, if you just want to see who can pick the players that score the most, then go ahead and go with 2 qbs, or six kickers or whatever. to me, i am not sure that is truely 'fantasy football' but instead more of a pickem pool. guh!


just my thoughts....

[RanCar]

I agree with the idea that FF should be about trying to run a NFL team, where each week only one QB starts for each team. I was a part of a 2QB league last year. By the third or fourth week almost half the league was on a secondary or back up QB. We had the problem of having three or four teams with only 1 QB to start because of injuries.

I would tend to support a flex RB/WR position with a must start TE position which we did not have. Which meant most teams started 4 WRs each week.