NFFC Message Boards

How do you feel when you're the team that plays against the LT team when he has a bye... nice, isn't it?

Was it skill that helped you to an advantage that all the other teams didn't have?

How about that unlucky team that never gets a stud on a bye and plays against full strength teams while he has to sit his top draft picks.

How could this be avoided? How about a rule change that says that if you start a player on a bye you get his "average points per game" as the weekly score [edited to add] if that player was a starter on your team the week before his bye. If you choose, you could sit the player and of course they would not count in your stats.

Benefits:

1. Levels the playing field by eliminating a major luck factor, i.e. how byes fall against your team.

2. Helps soften the abandoned team problem as players left as starters on a bye still get points.

3. Allows using bench positions in a more skillful way since you don't have to drop sleepers and injured players to cover byes.

4. Easily understood.

5. Unique change and could be used in marketing.

This change probably would have more impact in eliminating luck than the BBDS.

[ October 21, 2005, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: JerseyPaul ]

Excellent idea. And a very cool sounding acronim - APPG.

JP
Interesting concept as long as people don't try to turn it into something else.
My first thought is this could be great in week 8 or later when averages aren't so easily changed with 1 week of stats. What about weeks 3 and 4?
Suppose next year LT/SA or whoever has a bye in week 3 after they lit it up for 2 weeks. The poor sap playing this team would have to face a 35 point average when in reality, the same player may only average 20 after 8 weeks.
Not trying to shoot down the idea, but this scenerio is possible and really emphasizes randomness.

All play would get the job done in eliminating randomness. As far as holding sleepers all year - I like the fact that we currently have to make weekly choices and personally, I'd like to see rosters reduced to 16 for the regular season and then expanded to 20 for the playoffs. That would sure make FAAB management more important than it currently is.

[ October 21, 2005, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Route C ]

Originally posted by Route C:
JP
Interesting concept as long as people don't try to turn it into something else.
My first thought is this could be great in week 8 or later when averages aren't so easily changed with 1 week of stats. What about weeks 3 and 4?
Suppose next year LT/SA or whoever has a bye in week 3 after they lit it up for 2 weeks. The poor sap playing this team would have to face a 35 point average when in reality, the same player may only average 20 after 8 weeks.
Not trying to shoot down the idea, but this scenerio is possible and really emphasizes randomness. Yes, Week 3 byes may be distorted but I think this is less of a problem than the advantage some teams get from missing playing against key players. I think last year some team got to miss most of the RB studs.

Of course this year LT had a relatively poor 1st 2 weeks so that could cut either way.

I used to be in favor of larger rosters but all that does is promote player hoarding IMO.
It's kind of ridiculous that you have to get your RB backups by round 13/14 in many cases. (I'm not talking high profilers like LJ either)
Reduced roster sizes would eliminate some of that -again IMO.

There are two things I dont like about this idea:

1) It unfairly rewards teams with good players

2) It would be probalematic to allow people to pick players up that are on byes to get guaranteed points.

I was just kidding on the first one, but the second one would be kind of screwy.

Originally posted by Route C:
I used to be in favor of larger rosters but all that does is promote player hoarding IMO.
It's kind of ridiculous that you have to get your RB backups by round 13/14 in many cases. (I'm not talking high profilers like LJ either)
Reduced roster sizes would eliminate some of that -again IMO. Let's not hijack the thread. The topic is getting average ppg for bye week players.

[ October 21, 2005, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: JerseyPaul ]

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
quote:Originally posted by Route C:
I used to be in favor of larger rosters but all that does is promote player hoarding IMO.
It's kind of ridiculous that you have to get your RB backups by round 13/14 in many cases. (I'm not talking high profilers like LJ either)
Reduced roster sizes would eliminate some of that -again IMO. Let's not hijack the thread. The topic is getting average ppg for bye week players. [/QUOTE]I dont like this idea @ all

teams will go after Kickers, defense, and TE's whom have wacky week #1 and #2 point totals to start in upcoming weeks...

Not fair !

Originally posted by SuitedPair:
There are two things I dont like about this idea:

1) It unfairly rewards teams with good players

2) It would be probalematic to allow people to pick players up that are on byes to get guaranteed points.

I was just kidding on the first one, but the second one would be kind of screwy. Point 2 is excellent.

I hate to complicate the rule, as the Message Board guys seem not to be able to handle sentences with 2 clauses. But this point is too important to ignore.

The rule would have to add "the bye player must have been a starter on your team the prior week". I have edited my initial post.

[ October 21, 2005, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: JerseyPaul ]

Excellent rule adaptation on the fly, JP.