Dreams And Dwightmares

2018 Commissioner's Corner

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, BGDDYKWL said:

My opponent in the playoffs desperately needs a RB (Samuels in this case), I do not. I have more FAAB dollars than him. Is it fair for me to bid just more than he has to ensure I don't have to face that player when I play him, thus giving myself a better chance of winning?

You have to ask 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

You have to ask 

Haha, I only asked because I was shocked to find a leaguemate actually disagreed. I thought it was just common sense. You do whatever you can (within the rules obviously) to give your team the best chance to win.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BGDDYKWL said:

Haha, I only asked because I was shocked to find a leaguemate actually disagreed. I thought it was just common sense. You do whatever you can (within the rules obviously) to give your team the best chance to win.

Just good money management.  Totally legit

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BGDDYKWL said:

Haha, I only asked because I was shocked to find a leaguemate actually disagreed. I thought it was just common sense. You do whatever you can (within the rules obviously) to give your team the best chance to win.

 

Plus, if you need another legitimate argument, just point out that, in FF, it's only ever true that "you don't need an RB *right now*". Wait a week, and you may. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brotherbock said:

 

Agreed, that's just odd to be opposed to decimals. I've seen ties even with decimal scoring. But it's very rare.

 

It happened to me this season.

 

46206263231_5f49071198_c.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Brotherbock said:

 

That's wild. Luckily the two records weren't close.

 

Unlucky for me.  I'm the one who didn't make the playoffs.

 

What's that line?  

Quote

You know if it wasn't for bad luck I wouldn't have no kind o' luck...

 

Edited by Johnny Rico
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost a championship on a tie WITH decimal scoring one year. The default Yahoo tiebreaker was higher seed.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Johnny Rico said:

 

Unfortunately.  I'm the one who didn't make the playoffs.

 

What's that line?  

 

 

Because you obviously had the tougher schedule. This absolutely sucks. I rarely play in a league without one of the following to prevent BS like that

 

There's three things that you can put up for vote:

1. Two match-ups per week. This limits the weeks where one team who scores significantly high gets penalized with a lost because he faced the highest scoring team of the week. At least in this format, there is a chance to earn a "split" for the week.

2. The Sixth Seed Clause - The 6th seed is not based on record. It's based on the highest scoring team outside of the 5 playoff teams.

3. Victory Point Format - Top 4 teams in scoring get 2 points, Middle 4 teams get 1 points, Bottom 4 teams in scoring get 0 points for the week. End of season tie breakers based on Total Points

 

Why put your money and the season on the line for a completely randomized luck of the draw schedule.

Edited by nonstopfan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Johnny Rico said:

 

Unlucky for me.  I'm the one who didn't make the playoffs.

 

What's that line?  

 

 

Ooch, sorry man. That other team's Points Against is a crime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

I lost a championship on a tie WITH decimal scoring one year. The default Yahoo tiebreaker was higher seed.

 

That's messed up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnny Rico said:

 

It happened to me this season.

 

46206263231_5f49071198_c.jpg

 

Absolute degenerate font selection, you deserved it

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, nonstopfan said:

 

Because you obviously had the tougher schedule. This absolutely sucks. I rarely play in a league without one of the following to prevent BS like that

 

There's three things that you can put up for vote:

1. Two match-ups per week. This limits the weeks where one team who scores significantly high gets penalized with a lost because he faced the highest scoring team of the week. At least in this format, there is a chance to earn a "split" for the week.

2. The Sixth Seed Clause - The 6th seed is not based on record. It's based on the highest scoring team outside of the 5 playoff teams.

3. Victory Point Format - Top 4 teams in scoring get 2 points, Middle 4 teams get 1 points, Bottom 4 teams in scoring get 0 points for the week. End of season tie breakers based on Total Points

 

Why put your money and the season on the line for a completely randomized luck of the draw schedule.

 

I like that second one. Might propose it.

 

2 matchups def takes out a lot of luck by I find it less fun. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it would fun to have a 12 team league where every manager has 2 teams.   Trades between those teams could not be vetoed.   So a manager could either try to get both teams in the playoffs or do his best to create a superteam.  

 

Would be lots of week to week drama as the managers would allocate players based on what they thought they needed for each game and if they needed to beat a particular team.

 

Probably would need some specific roster rules so one team doesn't fill his bench with QB or TE.

 

Might be fun.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, K197040 said:

I wonder if it would fun to have a 12 team league where every manager has 2 teams.   Trades between those teams could not be vetoed.   So a manager could either try to get both teams in the playoffs or do his best to create a superteam.  

 

Would be lots of week to week drama as the managers would allocate players based on what they thought they needed for each game and if they needed to beat a particular team.

 

Probably would need some specific roster rules so one team doesn't fill his bench with QB or TE.

 

Might be fun.

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting. Would the two teams also play each other? If so, I could easily see one team just ending up being a sacrificial lamb, given that one has to lose to the other at least one week already. Unless there were incentives to get both teams in. Best Combined Record payout or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, K197040 said:

I wonder if it would fun to have a 12 team league where every manager has 2 teams.   Trades between those teams could not be vetoed.   So a manager could either try to get both teams in the playoffs or do his best to create a superteam.  

 

Would be lots of week to week drama as the managers would allocate players based on what they thought they needed for each game and if they needed to beat a particular team.

 

Probably would need some specific roster rules so one team doesn't fill his bench with QB or TE.

 

Might be fun.

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that’s called a 6 team league

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nonstopfan said:

 

Because you obviously had the tougher schedule. This absolutely sucks. I rarely play in a league without one of the following to prevent BS like that

 

There's three things that you can put up for vote:

1. Two match-ups per week. This limits the weeks where one team who scores significantly high gets penalized with a lost because he faced the highest scoring team of the week. At least in this format, there is a chance to earn a "split" for the week.

2. The Sixth Seed Clause - The 6th seed is not based on record. It's based on the highest scoring team outside of the 5 playoff teams.

3. Victory Point Format - Top 4 teams in scoring get 2 points, Middle 4 teams get 1 points, Bottom 4 teams in scoring get 0 points for the week. End of season tie breakers based on Total Points

 

Why put your money and the season on the line for a completely randomized luck of the draw schedule.

On #1 is there a site that allows two matchups per week? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shakestreet said:

On #1 is there a site that allows two matchups per week? 

Yes, I use Fantrax and have it set up as two matchups per week. One versus an opponent and one versus the league average. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lolcopter said:

 

I believe that’s called a 6 team league

 

Not really.  

28 minutes ago, Brotherbock said:

 

Interesting. Would the two teams also play each other? If so, I could easily see one team just ending up being a sacrificial lamb, given that one has to lose to the other at least one week already. Unless there were incentives to get both teams in. Best Combined Record payout or something. 

 

Yeah...I hadn't thought about it until just now.   Would have to be some special rules.  I would think that same manager teams would not play each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, josheggers said:

Yes, I use Fantrax and have it set up as two matchups per week. One versus an opponent and one versus the league average. 

 

Can that lead to more than half the league getting a win against the league average?

 

Using 10 teams, let's say the scores per team were 10, 10, 9, 9, 8, 7, 3, 2, 2, 1. The guy with 7 points saw five teams get a better score than he did. But the league average in this instance is 6.1, which only four teams finished under. Does this mean that six owners get a win against the league average opponent? Or is it just the top five scoring owners period, rather than league average? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corleone said:

 

Can that lead to more than half the league getting a win against the league average?

 

Using 10 teams, let's say the scores per team were 10, 10, 9, 9, 8, 7, 3, 2, 2, 1. The guy with 7 points saw five teams get a better score than he did. But the league average in this instance is 6.1, which only four teams finished under. Does this mean that six owners get a win against the league average opponent? Or is it just the top five scoring owners period, rather than league average? 

Week 1: League Average was 110.12 and 6 teams scored above that
Week 2: League Average was 115.75 and 7 teams scored above that
Week 3: League Average was 114.90 and 4 teams scored above that(2 barely short)
12 team league 
 

Edited by josheggers
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, K197040 said:

 

Not really.  

 

Yeah...I hadn't thought about it until just now.   Would have to be some special rules.  I would think that same manager teams would not play each other.

 

You could do that with divisions, right? Each owners has a team in each of two divisions, teams only play within their division. Prizes, and playoff seeding, for each division. And then one substantial payout at the end for Best Combined Record. 

 

So basically, everyone would have one giant team, from which you'd field two rosters each week. What would be the interesting aspects?

* Choosing each week between fielding one super awesome team and one lame one, or two middle of the road teams, or something in between.

 

* What could make that part more interesting is that if lineups were hidden until each player's game time. So I know I'm playing one of your teams this week, and I know who your players are all total. But I don't know which ones you're throwing at me, and which you're throwing at your other opponent. So I have to play a wagering game--how much of my talent do I throw at you, and how much do I throw at my other opponent. I bet on my other opponent being tougher, and suddenly your early game lineup comes out and you're sending Gurley and Mahomes against me! Crap! :)

 

* You could also limit the number of 'transfers' of players between each owner's teams. 5 players in either direction each week, something like that. Make it tougher, force people to look ahead more.

 

This is kind of a neat idea.

Edited by Brotherbock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, K197040 said:

I wonder if it would fun to have a 12 team league where every manager has 2 teams.   Trades between those teams could not be vetoed.   So a manager could either try to get both teams in the playoffs or do his best to create a superteam.  

 

Would be lots of week to week drama as the managers would allocate players based on what they thought they needed for each game and if they needed to beat a particular team.

 

Probably would need some specific roster rules so one team doesn't fill his bench with QB or TE.

 

Might be fun.

 

 

 

 

 

Super team all the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

 

Super team all the way. 

 

Unless there's a payout for best combined record. Or a penalty for worst record :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brotherbock said:

 

Unless there's a payout for best combined record. Or a penalty for worst record :) 

 

Doesn't matter. Building super teams is a passion of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.