NFFC Message Boards

Now that we've put a wrap on the 2006 season, it's time to start thinking about 2007's NFFC. I promise to unveil everything during the middle of next week and open up the Registration page at that time. Tom and I are just busy wrapping up our first fantasy baseball magazine and getting payments worked out for football right now, but we definitely want to get a jump on 2007 and keep the Message Boards hopping all off-season.

Okay, before I finalize everything for 2007, below are some possible changes to the format. Please provide input on these and feel free to suggest any other possible rules changes that I should consider in the next week. Oh, and don't forget about our NFFC Post-Season Hold 'Em Contest as we're still taking signups for that at www.topgunfantasy.com. Thanks everyone:

1. NFFC Content Panel. I promise to pick a group of 14-28 owners who are willing to talk about football year 'round and will use their input on rankings and other content online and in our Fantasy Sports Magazine. Don't volunteer for that job just yet, but I promise to get this started early in 2007. I'll even create an NFFC Content Panel league in late August that will reward the champion with a free 2008 NFFC Satellite League entry. But my ultimate goal is to keep the NFFC Message Boards hopping with content year-round and these panelists will help us out in that goal.

2. League prizes. I may up the entry fee for the main event to $1,300 per team and lower the co-manager fee to $50 per team, thus providing an additional $500 per league in prize money. I would increase third place in each league to $1,000, making our league payouts $8,500. I would also increase the $1,250 Auction Leagues and Draft Champions Leagues to $1,300 and increase the payouts proportionately.

3. I am considering a plan to reward league prizes differently, giving $2,500 to the h2h regular season champion, $2,500 to the total points champion and $2,500 to any team that won both categories. In that case, the next best total points team would win $2,500. If two teams split the top prizes, then we'd have a three-week league playoff consisting of just total points from Weeks 14-16 for the final $2,500 payout.

4. I am considering a plan to use 3rd Round Reversal in all NFFC Draft Leagues along with KDS preferences. In 3RR, the draft order would go serpentine for the first two rounds, reverse back to pick 14 to start Round 3 and then continue serpentine from that point on. Along with KDS, this would provide more draft spot management for NFFC owners and hopefully give more owners a more favorable spot to draft from. We'd still pick each league and each league assignment randomly, but we'd then use the KDS preferences to formulate the draft order for each league and 3RR would then be implemented on Draft Day.

5. We will likely be expanding to Tampa in 2007, although the final details with the Tampa Convention Center are still being worked out. I feel that by adding a fourth city to the event, we are bringing the NFFC to each region of the country. We will use Tampa in 2007 and then look at all of the possible Southern options for 2008 and expand accordingly. But for now, this allows us to work with a familiar setup as we are also at the Tampa Convention Center for baseball in March.

6. We will expand our list of satellite league options in 2007 and use BBDS where demand warrants it. I have no problem expanding on that concept in the satellite leagues. We will also offer NFFC Satellite Auction Leagues in early August if the demand warrants it.

I do not anticipate scoring changes, although I may tweak the defensive scoring just a bit. I do not plan on changing the playoff scoring formula as 1x your weekly scoring average has worked pretty well the first three years. We will reward the regular season champion with a free entry to the NFFC the next year, as we did this year.

Let me know if I've missed anything, and as always, thanks for the help in making our rules as good as can be.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
3. I am considering a plan to reward league prizes differently, giving $2,500 to the h2h regular season champion, $2,500 to the total points champion and $2,500 to any team that won both categories. In that case, the next best total points team would win $2,500. If two teams split the top prizes, then we'd have a three-week league playoff consisting of just total points from Weeks 14-16 for the final $2,500 payout.
All those ideas look great Greg, but I especially like the one above!

Well done, and thanks to you and Tom on ANOTHER great season!!!

I will have my Defensive Scoring analysis done for you sometime early next week using the last 3 years worth of data.

Greg,

1- I think the NFFC content panel is a good idea for obvious reasons and nothing else needs to be said about that. I am more than happy to be part of an active message board during the offseason.

2- I think the raising of the league entry fee is a good idea if it is going to fatten up individual league prizes. I can't imagine that going from $1250 to $1300 is going to put anyone off. If it does we can have Rob from Teds Cracked Heads help out those who are short the extra $50.

3-I love the idea you have for crowning league champions. $2500 for H2H, $2500 for total points leader, and an extra $2500 for someone who wins both, otherwise it is a playoff between two teams over weeks 14-16. This provides added drama and excitment and also may be a more fair way to do it in terms of trying to reward the best team.

4- I think KDS is a very good idea regardless of if we use 3RR or not. There is a part of me that thinks 3RR is more of a knee jerk reaction to the last couple seasons where a couple all-time dominant RB seasons have made some feel there is an unfairness in how we have done things for years. However, I do think 3RR does spice things up strategy wise (especially when combined with KDS) and at the very least gives the perception that things may be more fair for teams on the back end of the draft board. Maybe some people have avoided a high stakes event fearing that they could get stuck on the backend of the draft board and would have no chance, and 3RR can alleviate, who knows?

I think the scoring setup is fine the way it is as is the 1x regular season point average going into the postseason. I have one very minor question about defensive scoring. Would anyone want it to be "points allowed by defense?" in a way that does not count points scored against a defense on returns vs. the offense? For instance, the Packers DEFENSE "shut out" the Vikings this past monday night but do not get "shut out" points in the NFFC because of a Favre INT return that posted 7 points for the Vikings. Does anyone care about this? And if yes, can this be adjusted or no?

I look forward to this thread growing and some good ideas being discussed.

I think changing defensive scoring would be a mistake. Those that complain about defensive counting too much do so because they don't want to spend two seconds analyzing defense, and don't want it to have any impact.

I analyzed the numbers in previous years to show that drafting a defense was pretty much useless under the prior system, with the difference between top and bottom scoring D's virtually irrelevant. I wouldn't want to see defensive scoring reduced.

Kj Duke,

I agree with you. Anything that can add strategy to the draft is a good thing to me. What fun is it going into a draft with the logic being "take whatever defense you like best in the last round or two" being the way to approach defenses? Outside of the one minor thing I mentioned in my previous post I am thinking defensive scoring is fine how it is now.

Originally posted by renman:
I have one very minor question about defensive scoring. Would anyone want it to be "points allowed by defense?" in a way that does not count points scored against a defense on returns vs. the offense? I don't like excluding pts allowed by defense from the pts allowed equation. How a team's offense performs will always impact how many pts a defense allows anyway. A few examples:

- Offensive teams that control the clock significantly reduce the amount of time that a defense has to stop the opponent.
- If a QB throws an INT and tackles the DEF player at the 1 yd line. Now that team's defense has to stop the opponent from gaining 1 yard - is that really much different from an offense that allows a pick for a TD? No.

You cannot in reality allocate pts allowed between offense and defense - it is a team game, and the offense will have a big impact on the defense no matter how you slice it -- that is part of the analysis IMO.

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I think changing defensive scoring would be a mistake. Those that complain about defensive counting too much do so because they don't want to spend two seconds analyzing defense, and don't want it to have any impact.

I analyzed the numbers in previous years to show that drafting a defense was pretty much useless under the prior system, with the difference between top and bottom scoring D's virtually irrelevant. I wouldn't want to see defensive scoring reduced. Me neiter.. It should be increased a tad.

Please reduce the threshold for pts against to 13 instead of 17. Giving up two TD's or more isn't indicative of a good performance.

Replace those lost points with yardage points. Something hard and not a lot of points...
5 pts - less than 150 yds
4 pts - 151-175 yds
3 pts - 176-200 yds
2 pts - 201-225 yds
1 pt - 226-250 yds

[ December 26, 2006, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: UFS ]

Originally posted by renman:
Kj Duke,

I agree with you. Anything that can add strategy to the draft is a good thing to me. What fun is it going into a draft with the logic being "take whatever defense you like best in the last round or two" being the way to approach defenses? Outside of the one minor thing I mentioned in my previous post I am thinking defensive scoring is fine how it is now. Good to hear you agree with me on that, but I also don't like allocating pts allowed for the reasons above, and because it unneccesarily complicates things IMO ... if it was changed, what would happen if a team kicks off, the ball is fumbled, and the kicking team runs it in for a TD - does that count as a TD allowed by the offense or defense?

I agree with BillyWaz - Point no. 3 is excellent.

Perhaps I am in the minority on this, but BBDS is a concept that I have not yet utilized and am not familiar with what should be bid. I am sure that I will not be alone on this come next July/August if BBDS is utilized for satellite leagues and the main event. So, for all of us that are ignorant on the concept, I fear that players familiar with it might have a small advantage in the bidding process. Knowledge is power. If I'm wrong, please tell me. FYI - I understand the concept, just not how it will play out. Thanks.

Jack