Wow! I understand your desire for a big league, but 32 teams sounds like a recipe for owner discontent. I'm wondering about roster size, as the talent at every position, not just QB, is going to get thin in a hurry.
Would you consider two conferences of 16, each with their own player pool?
Ya kno, i kno this isnt the answer you were looking for, but i suggest you dont do that idea. If you want this many teams you have got to have more than 1 player pool. There is simply to big of a difference between the 1st and 32n ranked qbs, as well as other positions. When 1 team has peyton, another has grossman, one has tomlinson, another has james stewart (as #1 rbs) thats too much.
There is simply to big of a difference between the 1st and 32nd ranked qbs, as well as other positions. When 1 team has peyton, another has grossman, one has tomlinson, another has james stewart (as #1 rbs) thats too much.
I figured that having a serpentine draft would smooth over those problems.
Wouldn't one team have Manning/Stewart and another Tomlison/Grossman. Sure the difference is big between QBs and RBs, but one team won't have both Manning and Tomlison with 63 picks in between their choices.
I guess I should also add that my starting line-ups has 2 flex positions (RB/WR/TE) on offense and three flex positions on defense (DL/LB/DB) which give owners more flexibity when they are putting their team together, and my scoring system includes partial yardage, and receptions. This also increases the amount of useable RBs, TEs, and WRs.
I'm not saying that the league won't be difficult, but it essentially challenges people to know more than just the elite players in the league.
Your point about educating your owners on the 'non-elite" is well taken.
Just a hypothetical, but using the NFL itself as a model, someone in your league is going to have the Cardinal's Marcel Shipp as their #1 RB. Now, I like Shipp as perhaps a #3 or a utility player, but if I'm forced to make him my 1 back, I'll almost certainly have to take Emmitt, since they will share carries; furthermore, I'll have to play them simultaneously to try to cover all the carries. The same could be said for Minnesota, Tampa, or any other RBBC team; the sheer size of the league will force my hand, rather than my own judgement. Also, if Shipp were my #1, what real value would my #3 have?
The flip side is that, as you stated, your owners will really need to be up on their game, particularly when it comes to selecting true sleepers, and this may be what determines your champion. I hope that you are successful in enticing all thirty two of them to plumb the depths of every NFL roster, as this is what it will take for them to win. On that note, team QB should not be an option for you, as QB controversies in and of themselves yield sleepers.
i think this is a terrible idea (no offense intended) but it is called fantasy football, not simulated football management.
The only way this would really work is to add offensive lines, defensive players and kick returners I would think. And make their point values approximate what the top offensive guys would get.
say give bonuses for less sacks allowed and bonuses for big rushing game s(the offensive line helps) But that is waay too much to get involved with in my opinion.
I don't even really think that would be fun.
But if you do this, you really have to expand the types of stats are accumulated. Like if someone gets stuck with a crappy q1b and rb (could happen) then the league has to have some method for letting teams make up the difference --w r's defenses, lines or something.
I woudl lose interest REAL quick if you got one stud rb, one decent wr and crap, then your first round pick went down.
I don't like it.
If you are going to do that, maybe there should be two conferences where the same player can go in each league.
But then what if the championship game has too many identical players? nto fun either.
The biggest knock against this is backup players. There are only 32 starting QBs. There are only 32 starting Ks. There are not enough RBs to cover backups for all 32 teams. Overall sounds like a bad idea.
Last edited by KingGhidra on Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KingGhidra wrote:The biggest knock against this is backup players. There are only 36 starting QBs. There are only 36 starting Ks. There are not enough RBs to cover backups for all 32 teams. Overall sounds like a bad idea.
I have to agree with you, sounds like a recipe for disaster.