NFFC Signups Are Now Available

[kjduke]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
No. 2 is still being looked at. I agree with John Z., that one INT shouldn't be punished fully. Sorry, but a lot of things go into one INT. I've asked STATS if they can do a sliding scale of -1 for one INT and -2 for INTs after that. Heck, I'd even go -1.5 for the second INT and -2 for every one after that. We're not giving -2 for fumbles either, but isn't a fumble as bad as an INT. Maybe we go -2 for the second fumble and beyond, too. Doesn't that make sense.
Greg and John, please tell me how one INT is different from another. This is the most illogical thing I have ever heard from either one of you.

So, if a guy throws one INT it might be because it bounced his receivers hands ... but if he throws two he's a bad QB that needs to be punished?

I watch a lot of football games, and I have never noticed how a guy's first INT is different from his 2nd or 3rd.

[ January 09, 2008, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

[kjduke]

Is the first catch a guy makes gonna be worth less than the 2nd too?

How about on Defense, is the 2nd INT worth more than 1st?

If a guy runs for 100 yds is that worth more or less than double a guy that goes for 50 yds?

It screws up trying to analyze position values because no stat service keeps track of single INT games versus multiple INT games.

One of things I like about the NFFC is that aren't any crazy rules about bonus pts for 100 yds, or holding an opponent to a certain amount of defensive yards, or a def TD is worth diff than of off TD, etc, etc, all the scoring is straightforward so you can find all the data, look at the data, and analyze it. Easily. You're getting off plan with sliding scales.

If I project a guy to throw 20 INTs, that's not good enough, now I have to project how many will be single INT gms versus multiple INT gms to be able to project his value. I hate this idea, absolutely hate it; micro-managing at its worst.

[ January 09, 2008, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

[Mike Costaglio]

To answer a prior question...yes a fumble is worse than an int. Ints may be the result of the WR falling down or a tipped ball, etc. it may not be the fault of the QB. I am not a fan of negative points.

[kjduke]

Originally posted by Mike Costaglio:
To answer a prior question...yes a fumble is worse than an int. Ints may be the result of the WR falling down or a tipped ball, etc. it may not be the fault of the QB. I am not a fan of negative points. A fumble can also be the result of a poor outside lineman that gets the QB's head knocked off from the blindside; so why should the QB be punished for that anymore than for throwing to a receiver with bad hands, or one that can't run a route?

[kjduke]

Originally posted by JohnZ:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
No sliding scale!!! -2 period. Sorry. [/QUOTE]along the with scale... guys really like +2 for zero INT's with a min of 10 attempts... not a biggy.. [/QUOTE]John Z, how about these rules too:

1) +1 point if a QB makes it through the whole game

2) +2 points if he is sacked 5 times without fumbling (and an extra +0.5 per every time over that he is sacked without fumbling)

3) +0.33 pts in an RB goes over 100 yds, but only if he does it in less than 25 rushes

4) +0.8 pts if a team is penalized less than 3 times over any consecutive 30 minute period during one game, or +0.4 pts if they do it over 2 weeks (in which +0.2 pts would be credited back to the prior week)

5) -1 pt per INTs #1, #2 and #3, and -1.5 pts for INTs #4 and #5, unless the QB threw the INT because his hot new blondie girlfriend is in the skybox waving at him, in which case he gets no negative points, since hey, did you see how hot she was?

[ January 09, 2008, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

[ultimatefs]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
Is the first catch a guy makes gonna be worth less than the 2nd too?

How about on Defense, is the 2nd INT worth more than 1st?

If a guy runs for 100 yds is that worth more or less than double a guy that goes for 50 yds?

It screws up trying to analyze position values because no stat service keeps track of single INT games versus multiple INT games.

One of things I like about the NFFC is that aren't any crazy rules about bonus pts for 100 yds, or holding an opponent to a certain amount of defensive yards, or a def TD is worth diff than of off TD, etc, etc, all the scoring is straightforward so you can find all the data, look at the data, and analyze it. Easily. You're getting off plan with sliding scales.

If I project a guy to throw 20 INTs, that's not good enough, now I have to project how many will be single INT gms versus multiple INT gms to be able to project his value. I hate this idea, absolutely hate it; micro-managing at its worst. Chilled yet? I did not propose a sliding scale.

I proposed -2 starting at +2. Incredibly easy to figure out.

Tell me how a QB throwing one INT in a game makes it a bad game?

Throwing three or more is the indication that he's having a bad game. That's why this was suggested in the first place, to penalize BAD performances.

+2 is worthy because ZERO Int's IS an accomplishment. It should be rewarded.

My suggestion starts penalizing QB's MORE than RIGHT NOW with the third INT, the mark of a BAD performance and the reason this debate started.

You've gone completely anal. It doesn't change ANY values to the point you have to worry about it.

And to the fumble comment from the other guy, most QB fumbles are the result of the D stripping it from the QB or blindsiding him, not really the QB's fault.

[kjduke]

sorry, I haven't chilled yet

I've pushed for this -2 for a couple of yrs now, and it is now a bastardized version. It had 100% percent support on a flat -2 scale.

There are a million things, John, that are accomplishments that arent rewarded. There is an elegance in simplicity and symmetry. These rules are neither, and are absolutely 100% unnecessary and add nothing to the contest.

-2 was supported in large because it is consistent with a Defense getting +2 for an INT. So this is just taking one inconsistnecy and making it worse.

[kjduke]

Also, please tell me which site I can go to and find data for all of your specialty rules, so I can calculate accurate player values over the course of the season without having to go thru each game individually to figure that out. Thanks.

[ultimatefs]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
No sliding scale!!! -2 period. Sorry. [/QUOTE]along the with scale... guys really like +2 for zero INT's with a min of 10 attempts... not a biggy.. [/QUOTE]John Z, how about these rules too:

1) +1 point if a QB makes it through the whole game

2) +2 points if he is sacked 5 times without fumbling (and an extra +0.5 per every time over that he is sacked without fumbling)

3) +0.33 pts in an RB goes over 100 yds, but only if he does it in less than 25 rushes

4) +0.8 pts if a team is penalized less than 3 times over any consecutive 30 minute period during one game, or +0.4 pts if they do it over 2 weeks (in which +0.2 pts would be credited back to the prior week)

5) -1 pt per INTs #1, #2 and #3, and -1.5 pts for INTs #4 and #5, unless the QB threw the INT because his hot new blondie girlfriend is in the skybox waving at him, in which case he gets no negative points, since hey, did you see how hot she was? [/QUOTE]Give Lance back his alcohol!!!!!!!!! LOL.

no thanks, don't need the ridiculous.

Like Greg, I listen to my customers and they suggested this well over a decade ago and no one has asked for a change since. I was one of the few games at the time that had 6pt TD's for QB throws and this works out well.

This isn't that big of a deal. Just one step above the nffc schedule thing, although -2 for all int's is too much. Same with fumbles. It swings it too much the other way.

[ultimatefs]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:
sorry, I haven't chilled yet

I've pushed for this -2 for a couple of yrs now, and it is now a bastardized version. It had 100% percent support on a flat -2 scale.

There are a million things, John, that are accomplishments that arent rewarded. There is an elegance in simplicity and symmetry. These rules are neither, and are absolutely 100% unnecessary and add nothing to the contest.

-2 was supported in large because it is consistent with a Defense getting +2 for an INT. So this is just taking one inconsistnecy and making it worse. Why should they be equal when the D is way more responsible for them both happening? Sorry, had to borrow your anal hat. LOL.