The WIP Fantasy Charter Discussion Thread

Peyton Manning

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes I did, it wasn't clear.

Well it is now

GoldFour4

Just a little suggstion for next season lads. When the new thread is opened to find out whether people are in or out they should have to post in the forum to say so. I don't think a pm to a member saying their back in is enough. Having someone physically post in the thread allows a gm easy access to them instead of having to search for them.

CoachTO

As discussed a couple of times in the Fantasy thread. A deadline date for people to sign up to their league on NFL.com should also be setup alongside the cut off point for confirming into your league by July 31st. Maybe 7 days after the 31st?

Also as EE brought up that something put in the charter for next year to say ALL must confirm their participation on the thread by logging into their Boards accounts and posting on Thread. This will clear all confusion about participation.

A_Sober_Paddy

CoachTO wrote: »

As discussed a couple of times in the Fantasy thread. A deadline date for people to sign up to their league on NFL.com should also be setup alongside the cut off point for confirming into your league by July 31st. Maybe 7 days after the 31st?

Also as EE brought up that something put in the charter for next year to say ALL must confirm their participation on the thread by logging into their Boards accounts and posting on Thread. This will clear all confusion about participation.

Stealing my idea now are we:D

BigBadRob83

CoachTO wrote: »

Im not sure I understand what you want you think should be written in the charter with regards the make up of the divisions and newbies. I agree the perfect world would have skill sets defining leagues but as I said above we can't judge whether someone with 1 post or 1000 posts is better at fantasy.

"Open spaces in leagues are on first come, first serve basis." Simple and clear.

poldebruin

Not sure if this has been discussed - but is there a cleverer way of rejigging the leagues when a person pulls out or does not respond? i.e If all leagues are set up and somebody drops out of Division 1, all 6 divisions below it are affected.

Speaking as someone who has not arranged any of the leagues myself (and a big hats off to all that have given their time and effort to maintain the league) it seems it would make life a bit easier for the admin/setup of the league

As the divisions were originally set up quite arbitrarily as opposed to on merit, would it not be simpler to add a new user in their place. In spite of all the talk of "promotion and relegation", the divisions system (will eventually) only reflect the chances that the participants will be more active throughout the season.

CoachTO

poldebruin wrote: »

As the divisions were originally set up quite arbitrarily as opposed to on merit, would it not be simpler to add a new user in their place. In spite of all the talk of "promotion and relegation", the divisions system (will eventually) only reflect the chances that the participants will be more active throughout the season.

No to this. As we are trying to establish Promotion and Relegation it would be unfair for a new user just to pop into a spot when someone drops out. The system we have now is the simplist format in my eyes. It takes two minutes to kick someone out of a league and 2 mins to send the details to the newly promoted guy.

It might not be setup on merit but having some sort of merit within the setup for already established leagues makes it that more fun. Simply put if you are good enough and win your league you move up.

johnmcdnl

poldebruin wrote: »

Not sure if this has been discussed - but is there a cleverer way of rejigging the leagues when a person pulls out or does not respond? i.e If all leagues are set up and somebody drops out of Division 1, all 6 divisions below it are affected.

Speaking as someone who has not arranged any of the leagues myself (and a big hats off to all that have given their time and effort to maintain the league) it seems it would make life a bit easier for the admin/setup of the league

As the divisions were originally set up quite arbitrarily as opposed to on merit, would it not be simpler to add a new user in their place. In spite of all the talk of "promotion and relegation", the divisions system (will eventually) only reflect the chances that the participants will be more active throughout the season.

The players who are getting "free" promotions lets call them have gotten the promotions due to finishing high enough in the Division below the year before. It shows that they are committed players and we know as a rule of thumb they will be active. New players are unknown with all due respect to new players. I know lots of new players will be great and will work hard at their teams but if you just throw a new player into the Premier Division say and they end up being inactive it kinda makes a joke of the ladder system we currently have. Ideally in my books at least you earn your right to play in the higher divisions. After all what's to say you couldn't strategically make a new account and jump into a position in a higher league. Just makes the whole fighting for promotions a bit less worthwhile if your just going to end up having a new player jump into a slot above you.

I do think for next year it would be a better idea for GM's to leave the NFL leagues alone and don't invite players until the divisions have been fully sorted out. Have sign ups and confirmations up to the 31st July as normal. Then see who's active and who isn't and sort all the divisions and new GM's out then. Then start inviting players to the leagues on NFL.com. That would leave life a lot easier for the GM's maybe.

As for the arbitrary natural of the league setup right now - perhaps as a though for discussion and idea could be that this year is used as a ranking for next year's Divisions. The top 2 in each division get put in the Premier division next year say. These players are obviously the cream of the crop. Next 2 go in the next division etc etc. We then have a league ladder that has been once and for all determined by actual skill levels of the players. After this any new signups would have to go to the bottom of the ladder and work their way up.

This method could also be weighted because in fairness to the guys in the top Divisions when you look at their names you recognise them immediately as long term posters from here who obviously know their stuff. So maybe top 4 from the top 2 divisions, 3 from the next 2 2 and 1 makes up Premier division next year, and so on and so on.

Just an idea that could be workable. Haven't though about the ins and outs of it but as a general template might be workable??

poldebruin

CoachTO wrote: »

No to this. As we are trying to establish Promotion and Relegation it would be unfair for a new user just to pop into a spot when someone drops out. The system we have now is the simplist format in my eyes. It takes two minutes to kick someone out of a league and 2 mins to send the details to the newly promoted guy.

...yes, and multiply that by 6 all the way down the line. It may take 2 minutes to kick someone and two minutes to invite someone, but you may need to wait for that invite to be acknowledged and accepted (once again, all the way down the line)

Maybe it is as simple as you say, but looking at the thread it seems a little long-winded.

CoachTO wrote: »

It might not be setup on merit but having some sort of merit within the setup for already established leagues makes it that more fun. Simply put if you are good enough and win your league you move up.

The Promotion/Relegation thing might mean something to some of the users, but for me it's about trying to win the league you're in and having as much particiation as possible. Once the season starts I pay no attention to the other leagues, in fact I'd stay in the same league every year if it was competitive and had good participation rates from the owners. It would make for a nice build up in rivalry, familiarity, banter etc.

poldebruin

johnmcdnl wrote: »

The players who are getting "free" promotions lets call them have gotten the promotions due to finishing high enough in the Division below the year before. It shows that they are committed players and we know as a rule of thumb they will be active. New players are unknown with all due respect to new players. I know lots of new players will be great and will work hard at their teams but if you just throw a new player into the Premier Division say and they end up being inactive it kinda makes a joke of the ladder system we currently have. Ideally in my books at least you earn your right to play in the higher divisions. After all what's to say you couldn't strategically make a new account and jump into a position in a higher league. Just makes the whole fighting for promotions a bit less worthwhile if your just going to end up having a new player jump into a slot above you.

Oh I agree, that's certainly the argument for the current system, and it has it's merits. I wonder is it better to have 6 leagues with 2 inactives in each, or 4 upper leagues with no inactives and 2 lower leagues that are filled with inactives. Again, I don't put much heed in the promotion/relegation portion of the set up, as long as there is a good competitive division.

johnmcdnl wrote: »

I do think for next year it would be a better idea for GM's to leave the NFL leagues alone and don't invite players until the divisions have been fully sorted out. Have sign ups and confirmations up to the 31st July as normal. Then see who's active and who isn't and sort all the divisions and new GM's out then. Then start inviting players to the leagues on NFL.com. That would leave life a lot easier for the GM's maybe.

As for the arbitrary natural of the league setup right now - perhaps as a though for discussion and idea could be that this year is used as a ranking for next year's Divisions. The top 2 in each division get put in the Premier division next year say. These players are obviously the cream of the crop. Next 2 go in the next division etc etc. We then have a league ladder that has been once and for all determined by actual skill levels of the players. After this any new signups would have to go to the bottom of the ladder and work their way up.

This method could also be weighted because in fairness to the guys in the top Divisions when you look at their names you recognise them immediately as long term posters from here who obviously know their stuff. So maybe top 4 from the top 2 divisions, 3 from the next 2 2 and 1 makes up Premier division next year, and so on and so on.

Just an idea that could be workable. Haven't though about the ins and outs of it but as a general template might be workable??

That's an interesting suggestion. If it were to have any legs perhaps the correct timing to discuss would be before the current season starts....i.e. the outcome of this season would have a bearing on the set up for next.

CoachTO

The biggest problem with bringing in any system that isnt straight forward is the mess created by people who bail or lose interest or just dont bother. The way I see it right now there is incentive banter or not to move up. Its a straight forward promotion relegation and in 4 seasons now the top 3 divisions have cemented themselves fairly well with the odd few drop outs. But for the most part most members stick around.

Yes its a mess at times but if you move to a more complicated solution or bring in ranking systems to try make it more competitive or put someone in on merits people who were used to the old system and in a higher position will get p1ssed off or lose interest then you will get guys leaving because they are getting dumped into a non competitive league and even though they were competitive they werent good enough to get into the top 2. 4 up 4 down gives everyone a fair shot of moving up.

Im in a league in the US and we have 3 divisions and every year there is someone trying new ideas and honestly the promotion/relegation ends up being the easier method. I started in their div 3 went to the top division and now back in 2nd and the system works.

The problem is with the league in the US is that some guys think they are better than they are or feel they have the right to stay in a top division or earned some merit and to be honest this boards league was set up for the banter and to give everyone a fair shot. When we first started there was 1 division and now there is 7. Trying to reward merit wont work and will end up becoming an exclusive club. I consider myself very good at fantasy but have no problem being relegated if I finish bottom 4.

poldebruin

CoachTO wrote: »

Yes its a mess at times but if you move to a more complicated solution or bring in ranking systems to try make it more competitive or put someone in on merits people who were used to the old system and in a higher position will get p1ssed off or lose interest then you will get guys leaving because they are getting dumped into a non competitive league and even though they were competitive they werent good enough to get into the top 2. 4 up 4 down gives everyone a fair shot of moving up.

I have nothing against the promotion/relegation itself, just the admin mess it seems to create in it's wake. Perhaps as JohnmcD (was it?) mentioned in the above post, it is a matter of timing that needs to be sorted out.

CoachTO

poldebruin wrote: »

I have nothing against the promotion/relegation itself, just the admin mess it seems to create in it's wake. Perhaps as JohnmcD (was it?) mentioned in the above post, it is a matter of timing that needs to be sorted out.

I agree. One thing we can do is not sign or kick any players from the previous season until after the closing date. Then after the closing date the GMs kick the old and send out invites to the new and set a time limit on that also say 7 or 14 days.

By doing this after the closing date all the promotions and relegations are set and Old GMs if promoted can hand over the reigns smoother.

Benimar

CoachTO wrote: »

I agree. One thing we can do is not sign or kick any players from the previous season until after the closing date. Then after the closing date the GMs kick the old and send out invites to the new and set a time limit on that also say 7 or 14 days.

By doing this after the closing date all the promotions and relegations are set and Old GMs if promoted can hand over the reigns smoother.

Due to the number of 'promotions' (me being one of them) I think it should be a 14 day cut off.

This gives time for a GM to be appointed (if needs be - as it is in Div 4 for example) and for the new GM to get emails etc. This could take a week in itself and this gives players a further week to sign up.

Blured

Not sure if there was anything agreed in relation to vetoing trades - just saw there was discussion on it in the Division 3 thread. Some owners want to veto a trade because they see it as being one sided (Peyton Manning for Helu).

In my opinion, a veto should only take place if there is clear collusion. People can argue that this is a very one-sided trade ( I disagree) but I think we can say for certain that there is no collusion. The owner clearly stated after the draft that P Manning was on the block. He got what he thought was value.

I think we should clear this up in the next charter revision, Vetos should be made by League Managers only when they are sure of collusion.

CoachTO

Why do people think the veto is there only to stop collusion. I have been playing a long time and the veto does more than that.

There are such a thing as stupid trades and extremely lobsided trades that regardless of what one owner thinks he is getting the trade is stupid and brings down the overall competition level of the league not just the one team.

The veto also helps stop 1 owner taking advantage of the inexperience or the stupidity of others where the trade will clearly bring down the competition level of said person and team.

Not only that there is owners who dont give a fook and trade blindly without care giving others clear advantage with nonsense trades whether collusion has ever taken place in the first place.

In this case Manning is coming back from injury and Helu is fighting for the starting spot at the Redskins. This one is tough to call in the sense that people will see Manning superior because of the past and Helu still fighting to be named starter. If 1 owner needs a QB and the other a RB this is a alright trade.

Blured

CoachTO wrote: »

Why do people think the veto is there only to stop collusion. I have been playing a long time and the veto does more than that.

There are such a thing as stupid trades and extremely lobsided trades that regardless of what one owner thinks he is getting the trade is stupid and brings down the overall competition level of the league not just the one team.

The veto also helps stop 1 owner taking advantage of the inexperience or the stupidity of others where the trade will clearly bring down the competition level of said person and team.

Not only that there is owners who dont give a fook and trade blindly without care giving others clear advantage with nonsense trades whether collusion has ever taken place in the first place.

In this case Manning is coming back from injury and Helu is fighting for the starting spot at the Redskins. This one is tough to call in the sense that people will see Manning superior because of the past and Helu still fighting to be named starter. If 1 owner needs a QB and the other a RB this is a alright trade.

Could veto power not be abused as well then? Both teams getting a good deal, but the other owners dont want to see it going through as it helps both teams (their competition).

Heres a decent article arguing against vetoing trades

http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/story?id=3074110

CoachTO

Blured wrote: »

Could veto power not be abused as well then? Both teams getting a good deal, but the other owners dont want to see it going through as it helps both teams (their competition).

Heres a decent article arguing against vetoing trades

http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/story?id=3074110

It can but its down to owners using their cop on and not vetoing it just to be a dick or to help yourself. The veto is one of these things that will be controversial no matter what way its explained or used. People will never agree.

What we do in the 3 big leagues im in the US is let all trades go through unless they are clearly taking the piss. As in Collusion, 100% lobsided, Stupid owner, Owner not caring anymore and trading for the sh1ts. Any trade that weakens competition on 1 hand and strengthens it clearly on the other is not a fair trade. That system has worked well for us for the most part for the best of 10 years.

One thing we also do is if someone is interested in a trade a discussion goes up on the discussion board on the site talking about it. This leaves open discussion and weeds out the bias opinion and those who are vetoing for the sake of it.

Tristram

Hey folks, apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere but I couldn't find a mention in this thread.

With regards to league settings and rules was there any discussion about the trade time-frames? In the Division 5 league there is quite a long wait between a trade being agreed and the transaction going through. For example, yesterday myself and another player agreed a trade but it won't go through until Saturday. Is there a reason for the lag or is it a game default? I wonder if such a delay acts to discourage trades as players might not be able to use a player they are seeking to acquire until the following gameweek. I know it's possible to change this in ESPN leagues but I'm not sure about NFL ones?

Maybe something to think about for next year!

eagle eye

Tristram wrote: »

Hey folks, apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere but I couldn't find a mention in this thread.

With regards to league settings and rules was there any discussion about the trade time-frames? In the Division 5 league there is quite a long wait between a trade being agreed and the transaction going through. For example, yesterday myself and another player agreed a trade but it won't go through until Saturday. Is there a reason for the lag or is it a game default? I wonder if such a delay acts to discourage trades as players might not be able to use a player they are seeking to acquire until the following gameweek. I know it's possible to change this in ESPN leagues but I'm not sure about NFL ones?

Maybe something to think about for next year!

All players have the option to vote against a trade, its only fair to give them a couple of days. You cannot expect them to be on everyday.

Tristram

eagle eye wrote: »

All players have the option to vote against a trade, its only fair to give them a couple of days. You cannot expect them to be on everyday.

Absolutely! I totally agree with you that it's vital that a league has the opportunity to veto trades. However, I do think trades should count for that gameweek.

If there is a way to do both it would be great. I think it's a worthwhile topic for discussion.

(also, I wish everyone did check everyday )

justice4lava

Can people participate in multiple boards.ie leagues?
If so...
Newbie users in the lowest division are at a disadvantage if more seasoned users enter a team. And seeing as the draft has a significant impact on the league outcome it's difficult for the newbies to make-up the initial slack.
Newbies are then unlikely to win promotion. The newbies become disinterested. end result is the same pool of players.

Dodge

But no, users can't enter more than one league in the boards standard structure. So yeah, its usually all 'newbies' in that division (set up this year for the first time)

Did you register just to say that?

Johnny_Fontane

as we come to the playoffs, I keep on thinking that next year we should move towards 8 teams making the playoffs. with the top 4 being promoted.

6 teams is very very tight and it would get more people involved in the 'knockout' round.

Thoughts?

JaMarcus Hustle

I dunno, I like how it replicates a conference playoff in the real world. 4 Division winners and 2 Wildcards. I think half the league making the playoffs is a bit much.

D3PO

JaMarcus Hustle wrote: »

I dunno, I like how it replicates a conference playoff in the real world. 4 Division winners and 2 Wildcards. I think half the league making the playoffs is a bit much.

This.

It also means there is a real reward for getting the 1st or second seed and a bye.

8 teams getting in is too much it would also mean that a lot of games become dead rubbers. I,e in Div 1 this year all the playoff spots would be decided with a week still to go.

Dodge

Defo agree with only 6 making the play offs.

adrian522

Looking at the Prem league table I reckon top 14 should make the playoffs with positions 15 and 16 relegated. My opinion may change after this weeks games though.

But yeah, leave it as it is.

matthew8

One little thing I was thinking of is the tiebreak rule. As it stands it's head-to-head record (although I can't see the official league settings picture anymore, or it's just gone) and I just think total points makes way more sense.

TO.

matthew8 wrote: »

One little thing I was thinking of is the tiebreak rule. As it stands it's head-to-head record (although I can't see the official league settings picture anymore, or it's just gone) and I just think total points makes way more sense.

The original image was done in imageshack or one of them and for some reason the links go dead after a while. anyone can see it in their own leagues though. I will get one of the mods to re add it though.

Defo something to discuss though im on the fence with it. On one hand head to head cuts out the problem of teams giving up mid season and going from scoring at least decent points to getting fook all. Screwing up anyones against points who played them before the disappearance. Head to head in some ways guarantees the wins are counted. On the other hand some low scoring teams scrape in on the head to head. I guesd the question is which is valuable wins or points for/against