Will 3RR be in place next year?

Old School · Post by **Old School** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:44 am

Since there will be no clear cut dominating players
next year.......

mikeybok · Post by **mikeybok** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:47 am

lol ... why wouldn't it ... it's at worse an equally fair system to one without it. Even with the slightest talent curve ... it's more fair (mathematically speaking)

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:12 am

It's HERE.....NFFC/NBC to stay Old School.
It is a much fairer system for the draft than a straight serpentine draft, and it has NOTHING to do with who is the #1 pick

Old School · Post by **Old School** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:20 pm

I'm not saying I don't like the 3RR idea. But did LT2 have nothing at all to do with the rule?

mikeybok · Post by **mikeybok** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:24 am

Old School

Again ... let me apologize for snapping at you on this topic. Sorry again.

The rule only makes sense if there is a talent curve with a diminishing difference from the top players to the bottom. If only one player was way above the others and all other players were equally spaced in talent ... the rule wouldn't make a difference (or make sense).

The spacing of the top players was surely a factor (of which LT2 was surely one of them when the rule was brought over to the NFFC). but the system was used before LT2 was a player.

Saying LT2 was the reason for 3RR would be like saying LT2 was the reason for 1/2 point per catch for RB's. He was one of the RB's that scored too many points with a full point per catch ... but the rule is not about him.

UYT

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:07 am

In general, a problem usually exists for awhile but many either do not recognize the problem or believe it is big enough a problem to deal with until something extreme happens to convince the masses something should be done. I think we all can know of an intersection where there was an accident waiting to happen but there was no traffic light or stop sign put there until the inevitable actually occured. Please don't think I am comparing a football draft to a traffic accident, it was just the first example I could think of in my pre-caffeine state.

If you "graph a draft" based on end-of-season fantasy points, there has ALWAYS been the phenomenon that has the "value slope" of the first round being the most significant, the second round a bit less, the third round even less and after that, the difference in value between players in rounds is less than the error in determining that value, therefore the values are basically the same.

But not many knew this, or cared, because it was true AFTER the season, using stats that already occurred and there was enough turnover in the top-5 players from year to year that having a top-5 pick was not a guarantee you would win.

What 3RR does is help mitigate the POTENTIAL unfairness.

When LT2 had a season for the ages, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, was expected to again have a great season, what was always true, the existence of the "value slope", was addressed with 3RR because this potential became a reality in many people's eyes, and when potential becomes a reality, that's when things get done -- in a reactive, not proactive way.

So yes, it took a historic season from one player combined with the threat he would do it again to open everyone's eyes to the problem. The more "predictable" the slope, the more "necessary is 3RR", or so is the perception.

All that has happened with LT2's decline is the "and he will do it again" aspect of the issue is no longer apropos. There WILL be a value slope when you draft the 2009 fantasy football season and 3RR will help even out THE POTENTIAL unfairness that results.

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:48 am

Todd,

Agree. But did you know in 2006, LT was taken 1.03 more than he was taken 1.01. So 'LT rule' no, top 6 pick of draft, maybe so. Do I like 3RR? You wouldn't be reading this if I didn't.

John

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:07 am

But did you know in 2006, LT was taken 1.03 more than he was taken 1.01. So 'LT rule' no, top 6 pick of draft, maybe soYes I did as I was the owner of the first pick in my league that year but the point is moot - the fact is Tomlinson's extreme exploits in 2006 BROUGHT ATTENTION to the POTENTIAL DISPARITY that HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

In Summary

The "need" for 3RR has always been there.

Tomlinson's standout 2006 brought attention to this fact and was the impetus for general discussion and the implementation of 3RR.

So is the rule solely because of LT2? No.

But would we be using 3RR in the NFFC had it not been for Tomlinson's 2006? While the answer is not definitely no, it would have taken MUCH, MUCH more to convince everyone it was a viable idea.

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:38 am

Originally posted by Todd Zola:
quote: But did you know in 2006, LT was taken 1.03 more than he was taken 1.01. So 'LT rule' no, top 6 pick of draft, maybe soYes I did as I was the owner of the first pick in my league that year but the point is moot - the fact is Tomlinson's extreme exploits in 2006 BROUGHT ATTENTION to the POTENTIAL DISPARITY that HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

In Summary

The "need" for 3RR has always been there.

Tomlinson's standout 2006 brought attention to this fact and was the impetus for general discussion and the implementation of 3RR.

So is the rule solely because of LT2? No.

But would we be using 3RR in the NFFC had it not been for Tomlinson's 2006? While the answer is not definitely no, it would have taken MUCH, MUCH more to convince everyone it was a viable idea. [/QUOTE]So did you pick LT, with your 1st pick?

John

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:49 am

No, I was in Jules' league that year

[ December 27, 2008, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Todd Zola ]