NFFC Rules Survey Going Out This Week

[Coach JP]

I just think with how big the QB scoring is in this format (1 per 20 passing is 20% more than standard leagues, and 6 point TD's, either 50% more than standard or the same depending on your opinion of "standard") that we need to be penalizing the QB's a little more for turning the ball over -- the defense gets 2, why doesn't the QB lose 2? 0 or -2 are the choices, -1 is just meaningless.

Good post. I think it makes most sense for it to be -2. Someone posted that they hate losing a game off of a hail mary, but really, how often is a QB throwing a hail mary interception per season? At most, once?

What adding -2 for interceptions does, and it happens more than the random hail mary INT, is it separates garbage QB's from elite QB's more so. For example, I lost Ben Roethlisberger as my QB in my league, and I've had the option to trot Carson Palmer or Chad Henne out there every week, and I have no worries about this. Typically, these QB's are down early and are able to just fling the ball across the field to get stats.

[CALI CARTEL]

2- I am firmly in the camp of awarding individual players points on return TD's. One of the most irritating parts of fantasy football is when your start WR is returning a kick and his performing well on the play actually hurts you. Plus he is vulnerable to injury. You are rooting hard for a fair catch or him to be tackled without injury. If he returns the kick for a TD his offense loses a possession and you lose out. Billy Waz has referenced the game where his WR (eddie royal) actually beat his fantasy team with two punt returns while getting no offensive receptions. I see no reason why the individual player cannot get 6 pts while the def/st also is awarded 6 points.

3-I see no reason why we need to increase interceptions to -2. I think it is fine the way it is. To me, changing that is just nitpicking. It is all relative. Whether it is -2 or -1 the better/best QB's will score the best. No reason to tinker with that. I fail to see how it improves anything.

I was at that DEN-SD game when Eddie Royal went nuts on the returns -- his owner in my home league wasn't amused (we don't give KR/PR TD points to players either).

Wish I hadn't even mentioned the -2 INT thing, because like a few others here I'd prefer them to be eliminated altogether. My issue is that they are pointless for even being included at -1, that small of a number will not cause a change in anything significant a vast majority of the time. My point was, if they are going to be include as a negative at all, that negative should be a little more painful than just 1/6th of a TD or losing 20 passing yards.

[Sandman62]

What adding -2 for interceptions does, and it happens more than the random hail mary INT, is it separates garbage QB's from elite QB's more so.

Not really, over the course of a season. Only a half dozen or so QBs would actually see a change of 1 point or more in their average PPG. However, the -2 ints might be more relevant in weekly H2H (i.e. when Brees or Rivers throw 4 or 5 in a game). But for pure points, it really doesn't seem to make much difference.



Where negative interception points would start to make a difference though is in leagues that only award 1 point per 25 yards passing and 4-point passing TDs. But that's another whole discussion.

[ForLoveOfTheGame]

Greg,

My reason for wanting to be able to cut players from Thusday games is things change. Almost every week someone I have on a team somewhere is questionable for the Thursday game. Lets take Stokley for tonights game. Embarrassing to play him but I have and a lot more than once this year. I don't know if he's going to go, if he does I want to play him. If he doesn't he's a boarder line player to be rostered to say the least so I'd like to cut him to pick someone else up to play. This was a lot bigger issue for me on the weeks where I had MANY players on bye than anything

Add in that a bunch of A-hole coaches are following the Belichick handbook and listing 15 guys as questionable or not giving me any information until i see the active list basically (I'd swing at the Lions head coach if I could!)... I've had plenty of Thursday bench guys I would have cut on Friday if I could. But its not the end of the world to me or an issue I'm going to fight for. Just something I've run into most weeks on this site.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Greg,

My reason for wanting to be able to cut players from Thusday games is things change. Almost every week someone I have on a team somewhere is questionable for the Thursday game. Lets take Stokley for tonights game. Embarrassing to play him but I have and a lot more than once this year. I don't know if he's going to go, if he does I want to play him. If he doesn't he's a boarder line player to be rostered to say the least so I'd like to cut him to pick someone else up to play. This was a lot bigger issue for me on the weeks where I had MANY players on bye than anything

Add in that a bunch of A-hole coaches are following the Belichick handbook and listing 15 guys as questionable or not giving me any information until i see the active list basically (I'd swing at the Lions head coach if I could!)... I've had plenty of Thursday bench guys I would have cut on Friday if I could. But its not the end of the world to me or an issue I'm going to fight for. Just something I've run into most weeks on this site.

Well put

[Glenneration X]

Glenn is correct, I am not in favor of this rule. But there are two versions of it:

1) An owner picked up a player in FAAB on Wednesday who played on Thursday. He didn't start him, but he wanted to see how he would do. Then he wanted to cut him on Friday because he didn't start him. We don't allow that. ALL PLAYERS who play on Thursday night are locked, whether they play or not. So this part I don't see changing.

2) As I think Chad is suggesting, an owner makes his FAAB bids on Wednesday, then on Friday he wants to cut a player who played on Thursday who was on his reserve. We don't allow that. Again, ALL PLAYERS are locked on Thursday. Basically it gives those owners 20+ players to evaluate that week if you allow a Friday cut of someone who already played. You need to make decisions on all players before you see them play that week. It's like giving one answer away on a test to some owners but not others. We're all dealing with 20 man rosters for that week, not allowing some to have 20 on Thursday, see how they play and see if they get hurt, and then add 2 more from your team that had 2 play already. If you want to cut those players, cut them before Thursday's game.

That's our position. And while other contests offer you the chance to cut Thursday players on Friday, there's also debates about why that is allowed within those contests. And I've explained why we don't allow it above.

Reason #1 should be meaningless. It should make no difference in when the player who gets cut was picked up, whether the same week, 2 weeks prior, or drafted. Unless there is a rule in place I'm unaware of that you can't drop a player on Friday that was picked up on Wednesday. If not, the only real qualifier is playing in the Thursday game which puts that player in the same pool as every other player who played that game.

Which brings us to Reason #2. While I understand the perceived advantage you believe is given by allowing the team with the Thursday player to evaluate that player before deciding to cut him on Friday, I believe that perceived advantage is dwarfed by the handicap you place on that team by reducing their pool of players that they are allowed to drop below 20 if they decide there is another player they want to pick up on Friday. Basically you are forcing that team to drop a player they may feel is more valuable to their team or pass on the player they wanted to pick up just to keep the player who had played on Thursday but wasn't part of their lineup on their team. That can be a huge handicap. Especially when the main waiver wire is now so early in the week when the time allowed for evaluation is so reduced. No other contest at this level has ever disallowed this type of drop, from the WCOFF to the FFPC to the FFWC. The industry standard obviously disagrees with your evaluation of the issue.

Lastly and most importantly, if your feelings on this matter are going to be upheld as a rule, please at least make sure it is part of the written rules. You did ask me to remind you.

[BillyWaz]

Glenn is correct, I am not in favor of this rule. But there are two versions of it:

1) An owner picked up a player in FAAB on Wednesday who played on Thursday. He didn't start him, but he wanted to see how he would do. Then he wanted to cut him on Friday because he didn't start him. We don't allow that. ALL PLAYERS who play on Thursday night are locked, whether they play or not. So this part I don't see changing.

2) As I think Chad is suggesting, an owner makes his FAAB bids on Wednesday, then on Friday he wants to cut a player who played on Thursday who was on his reserve. We don't allow that. Again, ALL PLAYERS are locked on Thursday. Basically it gives those owners 20+ players to evaluate that week if you allow a Friday cut of someone who already played. You need to make decisions on all players before you see them play that week. It's like giving one answer away on a test to some owners but not others. We're all dealing with 20 man rosters for that week, not allowing some to have 20 on Thursday, see how they play and see if they get hurt, and then add 2 more from your team that had 2 play already. If you want to cut those players, cut them before Thursday's game.

That's our position. And while other contests offer you the chance to cut Thursday players on Friday, there's also debates about why that is allowed within those contests. And I've explained why we don't allow it above.

Reason #1 should be meaningless. It should make no difference in when the player who gets cut was picked up, whether the same week, 2 weeks prior, or drafted. Unless there is a rule in place I'm unaware of that you can't drop a player on Friday that was picked up on Wednesday. If not, the only real qualifier is playing in the Thursday game which puts that player in the same pool as every other player who played that game.

Which brings us to Reason #2. While I understand the perceived advantage you believe is given by allowing the team with the Thursday player to evaluate that player before deciding to cut him on Friday, I believe that perceived advantage is dwarfed by the handicap you place on that team by reducing their pool of players that they are allowed to drop below 20 if they decide there is another player they want to pick up on Friday. Basically you are forcing that team to drop a player they may feel is more valuable to their team or pass on the player they wanted to pick up just to keep the player who had played on Thursday but wasn't part of their lineup on their team. That can be a huge handicap. Especially when the main waiver wire is now so early in the week when the time allowed for evaluation is so reduced. No other contest at this level has ever disallowed this type of drop, from the WCOFF to the FFPC to the FFWC. The industry standard obviously disagrees with your evaluation of the issue.

Lastly and most importantly, if your feelings on this matter are going to be upheld as a rule, please at least make sure it is part of the written rules. You did ask me to remind you.

Couldn't have said it better, Glenn.

This became more of a pain on the Friday after Thanksgiving, as I needed to pick up a WR, and there were I believe 6 players on my roster I couldn't drop (and there were 2-3 that I dropped the following week).

[Sandman62]

I can see Greg's point though. Getting to see a player play on Thurs, whether in your lineup or not, gives you an extra game to evaluate him compared to the players who haven't played yet. So if one of your bench guy's gets hurt in the Thurs game, you can get a replacement for him on Fri. Put another way though, if one of your guys gets hurt in week 10, you can replace him after he's played; but anyone whose players don't play on Thurs in week 10 do not have the same opportunity. Heck, you could've even picked him up on Wed of week 10, left him on your bench, watched him get hurt Thurs night, then replaced the exact same roster spot with another player on Fri. That's double-dipping, no? Or am I missing something else?

[Glenneration X]

I can see Greg's point though. Getting to see a player play on Thurs, whether in your lineup or not, gives you an extra game to evaluate him compared to the players who haven't played yet. So if one of your bench guy's gets hurt in the Thurs game, you can get a replacement for him on Fri. Put another way though, if one of your guys gets hurt in week 10, you can replace him after he's played; but anyone whose players don't play on Thurs in week 10 do not have the same opportunity. Heck, you could've even picked him up on Wed of week 10, left him on your bench, watched him get hurt Thurs night, then replaced the exact same roster spot with another player on Fri. That's double-dipping, no? Or am I missing something else?

The extra evaluation is Greg's point. My point is....so what? Which is more critical to the fantasy player, the extra evaluation as an advantage or the reduced player pool from which to drop which is a handicap. I believe that the handicap created by the reduced drop pool is more critical, especially considering the Wednesday FAAB and the reduced time to evaluate who to drop in the first place. The rest of the fantasy industry must agree as they have always based their rules allowing the drop. This contest however feels differently, obviously their right. I just disagree.

[Greg Ambrosius]

The rest of the fantasy industry must agree as they have always based their rules allowing the drop. This contest however feels differently, obviously their right. I just disagree.

All very solid points for and against the way we run the Thursday games. As for this point above from Glenn, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the first year the fantasy industry has held two different FAAB periods? Did anyone ever have Wednesday and Friday free agent pickups before this year?

We lock Thursday players just like we lock all players after their games begin whether they were in your starting lineup or not. And we've given our reasons why. If another contest allows Thursday players to be cut on Friday, then we again have slightly different rules. That's the beauty of fantasy football. Everyone in the NFFC should make those tough lineup decisions accordingly. And again, the other contests have had threads about this same rule and some owners have questioned why Thursday players can be cut on Friday. So not everyone is in favor of our rule or the other way it's handled. Yes, it makes it tough on you guys for some lineup decisions, but as long as it doesn't make it "unfair" then we feel very comfortable with the current setup.

We will DEFINITELY emphasize this in the rules going forward so that there is no confusion. Thanks all.