NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
-
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Re: NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
Interesting discussion. Absurd to not be able to do conditional bids in my view. Cannot believe anyone would want that.
Re: NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
Somebody said that??Cocktails and Dreams wrote:Interesting discussion. Absurd to not be able to do conditional bids in my view. Cannot believe anyone would want that.
I missed that, but totally agree that it is absurd.
Re: NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
I would prefer only thursday night players bid on in the Wednesday night FAAB followed by the remaining players on Friday.
I would prefer -2 for a turnover.
I have no huge opinion on the return TDs but would lean to adding them to avoid that rare occurrence where you can be beat by your own player.
I would prefer -2 for a turnover.
I have no huge opinion on the return TDs but would lean to adding them to avoid that rare occurrence where you can be beat by your own player.
Re: NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
This essentially is a vote for no conditional bids on the Wednesday waiver period. I can't imagine wanting to bid on a secondary choice (a Thursday player) without the knowledge if my first choice (a Sunday player) was attainable. So you roll with a secondary choice on Thursday because you don't know if you'll bid enough for your first choice playing Sunday?mattjb wrote:I would prefer only thursday night players bid on in the Wednesday night FAAB followed by the remaining players on Friday.
I would prefer -2 for a turnover.
I have no huge opinion on the return TDs but would lean to adding them to avoid that rare occurrence where you can be beat by your own player.
There has to be a better way. The current set up seems to have worked just fine.
Joe
- Sabretooth
- Posts: 683
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:00 pm
- Location: Indianapolis
Re: NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
1 I prefer only thursday night players up for bid wednesday and all others availible saturday.
2 I don't mind a player like djax for example getting 6 pts for a punt return TD as well as the eagles D.
3 I strongly prefer passing td's continue to be 6 pts and not 4. A TD is a TD and should be worth 6 pts. If you want to minimize the QB scoring do it through either -2 for a int or 1 pt for 25 yds instead of every 20 yards.
my 2 cents!
2 I don't mind a player like djax for example getting 6 pts for a punt return TD as well as the eagles D.
3 I strongly prefer passing td's continue to be 6 pts and not 4. A TD is a TD and should be worth 6 pts. If you want to minimize the QB scoring do it through either -2 for a int or 1 pt for 25 yds instead of every 20 yards.
my 2 cents!
Re: NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
No change required.
Re: NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
I like the new FAAB system and + think people have other things to do on Saturdays than to worry about fantasy football. That's all they do Sundays anyway. Wednesday is a natural timing for the full FAAB since it's conveniently few days away from football, before Thursdays game (which actually doesn't constitute always as proper football) and there's the Friday to save you if you need a body... or a Redman. Yeah, you don't have the full slate of information yet on Wednesday or even on Friday, but the situation is the same for everyone - everybody's working with limited info.
I would also like to bring the turnovers to -2 to reduce the power of the quarterback... but would keep QB TD's at six, so they still would be powerful and warrant a top 5 pick. But they should suffer more from interceptions and fumbles.
Also I'd like to see a two-quarterback league and an auction draft league in high stakes NFFC, but that's probably a discussion for another topic.
PS. Cocktails check your PM's.
I would also like to bring the turnovers to -2 to reduce the power of the quarterback... but would keep QB TD's at six, so they still would be powerful and warrant a top 5 pick. But they should suffer more from interceptions and fumbles.
Also I'd like to see a two-quarterback league and an auction draft league in high stakes NFFC, but that's probably a discussion for another topic.
PS. Cocktails check your PM's.
- CoMoHusker
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:00 pm
Re: NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
I also don't see a need to change anything. Seems to have worked great this year.JD CUBE wrote:No change required.
Go Big Red!
Re: NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
I'd like to see a better and consistent playoff seeding setup for 2013.
Diamond Lge
1st - pts
2nd - record
3rd - pts
4th - pts
Classic/Prime
1st - record
2nd - pts
3rd - pts
4th - nothing
online champ
1st - record
2nd - pts
3rd/4th - nothing
The other (non-NFFC) 12-tm main event contests use the following:
1st - record
2nd - pts
3rd - record
4th - pts
That's the one area in which they have an edge over the NFFC contests. Top two scoring teams plus best two records make the playoffs. The NFFC has a better playoff structure with a longer season and a 3-week playoff rather than H2H, but there's no reason we couldn't keep those intact using the seeding setup of the other contests. I also prefer the victory points seeding, which is used in the other higher stakes standalone contests to either of the above setups.
Diamond Lge
1st - pts
2nd - record
3rd - pts
4th - pts
Classic/Prime
1st - record
2nd - pts
3rd - pts
4th - nothing
online champ
1st - record
2nd - pts
3rd/4th - nothing
The other (non-NFFC) 12-tm main event contests use the following:
1st - record
2nd - pts
3rd - record
4th - pts
That's the one area in which they have an edge over the NFFC contests. Top two scoring teams plus best two records make the playoffs. The NFFC has a better playoff structure with a longer season and a 3-week playoff rather than H2H, but there's no reason we couldn't keep those intact using the seeding setup of the other contests. I also prefer the victory points seeding, which is used in the other higher stakes standalone contests to either of the above setups.
Re: NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
KJ,kjduke wrote:I'd like to see a better and consistent playoff seeding setup for 2013.
Diamond Lge
1st - pts
2nd - record
3rd - pts
4th - pts
Classic/Prime
1st - record
2nd - pts
3rd - pts
4th - nothing
I understand why nothing for 4th in Primetime, but why pts for 1st in Diamond, and record for for 1st in Primetime???
I would think most contests would want to keep it consistent.