Proposed Changes For 2005 NFFC

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:08 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I also have a plan in place which would allow us to increase the league prizes in 2005 while keeping the overall prize structure in place, guaranteeing the $100,000 grand prize. Which would you prefer, without debating what constitutes first place and second place (leave that for another debate):

League Prizes for 2005:
1st: $5,000
2nd: $2,500
3rd: $700

or:
1st: $5,000
2nd: $2,200
3rd: $1,000 1- 5000
2- 2500
3- 575

at 700, you have to issue 1099, owner will make more money at 575. Take the 125 and add it to whatever.

lumpy463 · Post by **lumpy463** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:47 pm

My two cents.

Payout 5000/2500/? if UFS is right, 550 sounds good to me.

I would not change any rules, scoring, rosters, playoff structure in any of the events.

I like the 10% rule, but also think if someone is Head to Head and Most Points, they win 7.5k and are the only team to advance from that league.

Also this year, 25% of the Finalist 8/32 will win some additional funds. I think that 25% of the total number is fair. As an example, 15/60. Reward people for making the Big Dance and doing something while there, even if they dont win it.

Derek "Lumpy" Anderson

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:06 pm

also, at 575, both sides have much less hassle with paperwork. Dyv, insert grem please.

I'm really in favor of 10% rule.

7.5k and only entry from league into finals if team wins both. That truly rewards the team that is very good, and very consistent.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:08 pm

Originally posted by UFS:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I also have a plan in place which would allow us to increase the league prizes in 2005 while keeping the overall prize structure in place, guaranteeing the $100,000 grand prize. Which would you prefer, without debating what constitutes first place and second place (leave that for another debate):

League Prizes for 2005:
1st: $5,000
2nd: $2,500
3rd: $700

or:
1st: $5,000
2nd: $2,200
3rd: $1,000 1- 5000
2- 2500
3- 575

at 700, you have to issue 1099, owner will make more money at 575. Take the 125 and add it to whatever. [/QUOTE]Not true. The entrance fee will more than offset the income. There is no tax liability in any case.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:09 pm

I don't see the Auction league changes.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:28 pm

Comment #1: folding walls – sounds good

Comment #2: League Prizes for 2005:
1st: $5,000
2nd: $2,500
3rd: $700 ($575 sounds even better. use the “extra” money to reward the overall high point teams after week 13. given 32 leagues = $4,000 “extra” overall money; $2,000 for #1 team in overall pts; $1,000 for #2 team in overall pts; $1,000 for #3 team in overall pts)

Comment #3: Playoff teams will take their weekly scoring average times two into the playoff round – guess I could go either way on this.

Comment #4: top 10% of all teams in playoffs – sounds good.

Comment #5: 14-team leagues – I prefer 12, but 14 is okay

Comment #6: 18-man rosters – after going through the main event and auction, I’ve realized 20 man rosters are not do-able. quality of FA’s was overall pretty weak in the auction. I would prefer 19 man rosters, but 18 is okay. *****Any chance of having a 1 or 2 man roster expansion during the last week of Free Agency (week 13). allow teams to carry 19 or 20 players during the playoff weeks. this would alleviate some tough injury breaks in the playoffs due to no FA transactions. I see a lot of teams are riding with only 1 TE or 1 K. pure gambling, made possible by 18 man rosters.

Comment #7: same starting rosters – sounds good

Comment #8: no change to Flex position – sounds good

Comment #9: scoring changes – what about the -1 pt for punt return muffs by “d.branch”? other than that, it sound good.

Comment #10: no draft slot bidding for 2005 - boo

[ December 15, 2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Route Collectors · Post by **Route Collectors** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:22 am

I'll reserve myself to a couple of comments since I agree with most of GG's above post.

I like GG's idea of rewarding overall pts. with 1 exception. I prefer to pay 3rd place 1000.

Definately like doubling the avg pts. for playoffs. Obvious reasons:
After 14 weeks : Team New #1 RC #2 Big Mac Attack #3.
After 1 week of playoffs: Team New #19 RC #7 Big Mac Attack #15.

Is this event truely is about rewarding the best team over the entire season?

If so, then it shouldn't be possible to have a triple digit lead on most of the field in week 13 and fall to 19th in only ONE week.

Also- say what you want about drafting for the playoffs but it doesn't hold water. Look at any cheat sheet you want to on defenses this year. How many predicted San Diego or Washington at the top? How about Dallas or Seattle at the bottom.

Drafting Edge because of the playoff schedule? That's one of the more ridiculous statements of the year. Edge is a high draft pick no matter what. I'm sure his week 15 matchup with the Ravens did little to increase his stock.

Back to the questions at hand. A pre-playoff roster increase would be a nice addition.

RC

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:28 am

Excuse me, RC, but you are correct. I did not draft Edge because of the playoff schedule but did draft Henry in the 2nd because of the playoff schedule (Cleveland, Cincinnati, SF). Believe it or not there are people who think 13 weeks ahead. Things don't go the way you expect but we all have our reasons for the picks we make.

Is this event truely is about rewarding the best team over the entire season?Give the high point team $5k for being the high point leader after 13 weeks. But 13 weeks ago we were complaining about the questionable drafting in LV5 so to double his points makes no sense to me. Why should he get an extra advantage for being in a league that drafted Buckhalter, Shipp, Elling, etc.; you get my drift. The fact that Team New has players going cold on him is a FF fact that can happen to any of us, but I doubt you will feel sorry for him, RC, if you beat him by half a point and win the championship. I hope Greg will change his mind about this because doubling the weekly average for the playoffs will only magnify the different league inequities.

Once again, we need to follow the NFL on this issue. If T.O. or McNabb go down for the season this week or go cold the rest of the season, is the NFL going to say, "Well they had a great season and have the best record in the NFC so because of this injury or circumstance we are going to give them an extra 10 points for each game in the playoffs"? Of course not. So why should Greg change the playoff structure we have now by doubling point totals? GG or BillyWaz, convince me on this because RC sounds like he wants to give the $100k to Team New without a playoff and I'm not buying into that.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:40 am

Originally posted by TamuScarecrow:
GG or BillyWaz, convince me on this because RC sounds like he wants to give the $100k to Team New without a playoff and I'm not buying into that. Comment #3: Playoff teams will take their weekly scoring average times two into the playoff round – guess I could go either way on this.

i'm not the salesman on this one...

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:43 am

Originally posted by Route C:
Also- say what you want about drafting for the playoffs but it doesn't hold water. Look at any cheat sheet you want to on defenses this year. How many predicted San Diego or Washington at the top? How about Dallas or Seattle at the bottom.

Drafting Edge because of the playoff schedule? That's one of the more ridiculous statements of the year. Edge is a high draft pick no matter what. I'm sure his week 15 matchup with the Ravens did little to increase his stock.
if i can't decide which of two players to draft, i could take into account their playoff schedules. i guess you don't. thanks for letting us know.