Additional 2008 Rules_Changes?

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:25 am

I like the 19th roster spot only for the playoffs.

Seems like we've been having this discussion since 2004. Oh wait, we have been.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:58 am

Koq - shouldn't you be doing your baseball prep? What are u doing on the football boards?!?

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:24 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:
I like the 19th roster spot only for the playoffs.

Seems like we've been having this discussion since 2004. Oh wait, we have been. I'd agree with this, I like 18 for the season but allowing 19 or even 20 for the playoffs to cover for injuries would be a good idea.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:11 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
I like the 19th roster spot only for the playoffs.

Seems like we've been having this discussion since 2004. Oh wait, we have been. I'd agree with this, I like 18 for the season but allowing 19 or even 20 for the playoffs to cover for injuries would be a good idea. [/QUOTE]I don't understand why there should be a change of a rule for the post-season. Doesn't this affect the potential advantage an oner has whose team is healthy during the playoffs?

Either it's a good rule for the whole season, or not. Unless you want to make the rule that rosters expand the same week FAAB ends, this makes no sense to me.

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:32 pm

Originally posted by ultimatefantasyfootballcheatsheets:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
I like the 19th roster spot only for the playoffs.

Seems like we've been having this discussion since 2004. Oh wait, we have been. I'd agree with this, I like 18 for the season but allowing 19 or even 20 for the playoffs to cover for injuries would be a good idea. [/QUOTE]I don't understand why there should be a change of a rule for the post-season. Doesn't this affect the potential advantage an oner has whose team is healthy during the playoffs?

Either it's a good rule for the whole season, or not. Unless you want to make the rule that rosters expand the same week FAAB ends, this makes no sense to me. [/QUOTE]I agree on this point, if a rule gets changed it should be from start to finish. Please don't start making playoff rule exceptions, let's keep things consistent as we still should be trying to attract more players.

I have said before and will continue to reiterate that our often radical rule changes each and every season may be holding this event back from the mainstream.

Our current limited growth rate in entrants does mean it increases ones odds of possibly winning the 100k, but it will continue to cap what Greg can offer in terms of league payouts etc.

Just my .02

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:42 pm

The reason a rule change for playoffs makes sense is that you can't replace an injured player after the season because there is no waiver wire bidding.

And, yes, the idea would be to expand rosters for the final week of FAAB.

[ December 30, 2007, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Mike Costaglio · Post by **Mike Costaglio** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:06 pm

I'm sorry GG I should have been more clear. Less waiver wire management.

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:43 am

Let's get to something more fun like a 12-team Main Event to go along with the 14-team Main Event. I would certainly enjoy 2 drafts on Saturday instead of just one. Any thought about trying this, Greg/Tom?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:08 am

Originally posted by Tamuscarecrow:
Let's get to something more fun like a 12-team Main Event to go along with the 14-team Main Event. I would certainly enjoy 2 drafts on Saturday instead of just one. Any thought about trying this, Greg/Tom?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:17 am

Originally posted by Nag':
Adding a roster spot would be a mistake. There needs to be a level of consistency and roster size is an important component of the NFFC that has and should continue to remain unchanged since inception. The NFFC keeps changing rules and format every year like a chameleon. This is not goood for the game, as much as everyone believes the changes themselves are improvements - and some definitely have been. 18 man roster definitely feels limiting at times but it has created a certain level of strategy which is very challenging. Changing it would not be fixing a mistake, since none exists. I appreciate all of the debate about adding an extra roster spot to the NFFC in 2008, especially after all of the injuries in 2008. But we're already taking 252 players out of the talent pool and another 14 is too much in my estimation. I honestly don't have a desire to change the roster size for our NFFC events.

I definitely think there's merit to having a larger roster in the playoffs because injuries do occur during those three weeks when rosters are frozen. But there's no good way to do that and for the $100,000 depth comes into even greater play here. I plan on keeping rosters at 18 and consistent throughout the contest.

It's funny, yesterday I received an e-mail from a long-time NFBC participant who said he felt rosters were too big in our baseball contest (30 players per team, 450 players). He wanted to cut down to 25 per team and said he probably wouldn't return if the FAAB pool wasn't given more meat. I had to tell him that I understood his pain, but some folks want bigger rosters and fewer available free agents and others want smaller rosters and more free agents. It's a balance that won't please everyone.

The NFFC is difficult with so many injuries and the bye weeks taking six teams out at times. It's supposed to be tough. It's also supposed to be fair. And I think it is.

It's an Executive Decision I'll make as I announce the rules next week. Sorry if I busted anyone's bubble.