NFFC Signups Are Now Available

Sound Advice · Post by **Sound Advice** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:21 am

I support -1.

Not for minus points, or hurting the qb position.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:43 am

Is this the NFFC Signups are available thread?

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:01 am

1 TD, 3 INT = 0 "TD" points = fair.

1 TD, 2 INT = 2 "TD" points = fair.

1 TD, 1 INT = 4 "TD" points = fair.

2 TD and any scenario with -2 = fair.

1 TD, 1 INT = 5 "TD" points = pretty weak.

I've always felt -1 was weak for a pick, when you also award 6 points to the position that scores the most TD's in the nfl each season.

I could live with the sliding scale...but prefer the flat out -2.

At 6 points per TD, and your sliding scale...you'd need FOUR INT to fully cancel out that SINGLE TD and "punish" the QB...assuming he only had ONE TD.

If you are going to penalize anything...a turnover is a turnover...they happen all over the field and both do the same damage to a teams chances of winning. They don't separate fumbles lost from INT's when discussing the turnover ratio...it's all the same.

I don't think the sliding scale is needed.

Why introduce sliding scales? Seems to bail out the QB.

Many fumbles lost are unavoidable/accidental as well...poor QB/RB exchanges...a helmet on the ball, a WR/TE/RB being "led blindly" into a crushing blow by poor placement of a QB's pass.

Just my opinion.

~Lance

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:06 am

Slightly off topic, but why is a safety worth the same as recovering a fumble? Even worse, why is a safety worth the same as allowing 17 points? Is the frequency of fumble recoveries the same as that of interceptions? Should a fumble recovery in the end zone be scored the same as a 99 yard interception return for a touchdown?

Truth be told, there are multiple inconsistencies in defensive scoring. To compare the rewards on defense to the penalties on offense is pure folly. I like Lance's "relative worth" argument a whole lot better than the proposed offensive/defensive symmetry -- let's stick to comparing apples to apples.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:12 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I'm not sure where the 100 percent support came from other than five guys on a message board. The NFFC has tried to give QBs the value they deserve and adding more negative points defeats that purpose. You're right, when a QB throws 5 or 6 INTs in a game, we're not doing justice with just -1 per INT, yet somehow Romo still won that game. But Peyton Manning didn't win his horrendous game in Week 10 versus San Diego, and still put up a respectable NFFC point total:

34 Comp
56 Att
328 Yds (16.4 points)
2 TD (12 points)
6 INT (-6 points)
TOTAL: 22.4 points

Final score: San Diego 23, Indianapolis 21

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:34 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I'm not sure where the 100 percent support came from other than five guys on a message board. The NFFC has tried to give QBs the value they deserve and adding more negative points defeats that purpose. You're right, when a QB throws 5 or 6 INTs in a game, we're not doing justice with just -1 per INT, yet somehow Romo still won that game. But Peyton Manning didn't win his horrendous game in Week 10 versus San Diego, and still put up a respectable NFFC point total:

34 Comp
56 Att
328 Yds (16.4 points)
2 TD (12 points)
6 INT (-6 points)
TOTAL: 22.4 points

Final score: San Diego 23, Indianapolis 21 [/QUOTE]No he didn't and he still would have scored 16.4 points even with -2 per interception, not a bad game for NFFC owners even though Peyton admittedly was AWFUL in that game.

The original scoring setup wasn't designed to match defensive and offensive NFFC points or to make each position equal in value. But at 6 points per QB TD pass and -1 per interception, it was obviously designed to give QBs more value than in other contests. Right or wrong, that was the concept. And with opinions all over the board on this, I have no problem sticking with my original conviction on this and keeping it at -1.

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:50 am

Greg,

Go back and look at the original posting on this and you'll see a thread that was started on INT scoring in which about 15 people (who normally agree on nothing) posted they liked INT's at -2, no one disagreed for more than a week. Eventually, you'll get guys who disagree just because (where is the cat guy on this, anyway).

I won't re-hash all of the arguments in favor, it isn't just the symmetry argument KOQ, there are many, but principally that a QB who throws one TD and 5 picks should not be getting positive points - these numbers highlight the inequity.

The problem I have with a sliding scale, as I've said, is that is means we won't have accurate data to project values without a lot more work.

And yes, John was a good punching bag last night, thanks John.

I'm done ranting now. Maybe this thread should be re-named, "my QB just threw 6 INTs, but I'm still Winning!

[ January 09, 2008, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:02 am

Sliding scale scoring for INTs is probably the silliest rule change idea I have heard proposed on this board yet. What makes it more shocking is that it's actually being seriously considered.

pizzatyme · Post by **pizzatyme** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:09 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

The problem I have with a sliding scale, as I've said, is that is means we won't have accurate data to project values without a lot more work.
This post is spot on! No matter the rules, as long as we know them, we should be able to place a correlating value to each player and position.

To have to try to quantify sliding-scale scoring seems an exercise in futility.

Good post KJ.

Edit to add that I'm sorry for adding to the hijack of this thread's purpose.

[ January 09, 2008, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: ultimatefantasyfootballcheatsheets ]

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:24 am

Just to set the record straight, 19 of 22 message board posters that cared enough to comment supported -2 for INTs.

IN FAVOR of -2 for INTs
RI Workhorse (topic starter):
Im curious how you guys feel about the Scoring for Inteception's. Is -1 point enough????

KJ Duke:
Many leagues, use -2 pts for INTs and Fumbles, although others don't even count fumbles. Put me in the camp for -2 for offensive TO's.

Snake:
SNAKE votes
1) -2 for an INT

Billy Waz:
Defenses currently get 2 for an INT. I would have no problem giving -2 for QBs (would make it consistent). Would certainly help out those 4 INT's games where a QB still gets 20+ points. Is -2 for a lost fumble being considered? Like INT's it -1 for the player and defenses currently get 2 points for a fumble recovery.

da bears:
Yeah I like giving -2 pts for an interception for a qb, but also giving -2 pts for a fumble by any offensive player would be reasonable too.

Latham:
I think giving QB negative 2 for an interception would also be a good idea, matching it up with the two points currently awarded to defense.

Diesel:
I like the idea of -2 for INT's AND fumbles lost...As long as the defenses get +2 for INT's and fumble recoveries.

BONGIZMO:
I am definately on board for consistency across the turnover realm. if the D gets 2 than the player giving up should be penalized equally.

Shrink Attack:
1) I'm in favor of -2 points for both INT's and Fumbles, since all TD's are 6 points. Any scoring system that allows 6 INT's in one game to be surpassed by a single 1-yard TD pass (6.05 points) must be changed. If Passing TD's were only 4 points, then I might have a different opinion.

Bigger Mo:
I would be in favor of at least (-2) points for INT'S. I think an argument could be made for (-3) points since QB's get 6 points per touchdown. I'm always bugged as well when a QB has a horrible game NFL-wise and still lights it up on the fantasy board.

Go Getta:
I would be all for the -2 INT's and fumbles also.

Riff:
Not that I believe its material, but I'd favor -2 for Int's and fumbles.

Ugly Yellow Tomatoes:
I like -2 for INTs and Fumbles lost.

felixflamingo:
-2 for Ints is fair, having 1TD and 200 yards with 4 Ints getting you 12 points is silly. 8 is a little better.

Gordon Gekko:
I like the -2 for qb int

Teds Cracked Head:
I agree that if the QBs are going to get 6 pts for a TD pass then the minus 2 is appropriate for throwing an INT even if it is not their fault.

JR's Boys:
An interception should definitely be -2 points. I know Fantasy Football in no way approximates real football, but -1 points is just not enough of a penalty IMO.

PRIMO:
Count me in for the -2. Losing one point for a possible game-altering play is made up with a measly 20 yard pass by the QB.

Hard Heads:
Just saw this, we agree as well.

Opposed
Sound Advice:
-1 for int is fine.
-1 is bad enough on a hail Mary or one tipped by the wr.
-2 would blow.
minus points suck.

CC's Desperados:
I prefer -1 on the int's.

renman:
CC's,The more I think about it the more I like -1 on int's as well.