Pred's Fantasy Football Forums - View Single Post - SACD Rules Vote - Add new lineup sets - VOTE PASSES 10-2

Nittany Dodgers · April 10th, 2007, 04:36 PM

Matt, that's way simplistic, or missing my point. The decision for a team is not between the players at the top of the ranking, it is between the players at the bottom. Your choice is either 1 RB and 4 WRs for your lineup, or 2 RBs, and 3 WRs. So, you need to compare the fringe starting RBs against the fringe starting WRs. For the sake of arguement, I'd say the ppg difference between the fringe starting RBs and the fringe startings WRs is about what you came to above (~5 ppg). However, that's not the end of the analysis. The next question is cost. The fringe starting Rbs are much more expensive than the fringe starting WRs. With those added cbs, you can bid more money on your #1 RB, and thus driving up the stud RB prices.

This is going to be a snowball effect. What do you think will be the effect of the number of RBs on team's rosters with this new lineup option? Teams won't need to carrry so many RBs because if they lose one, they can always go with a receiver instead.

The rule passed, so arguing is pointless at this point, but I think we will see a difference in the number of RBs carried on rosters, as well as the number of times this option is used.

And I'll go back to my point, if the point is to allow flexibility, why not allow a limited amount of flexibility? If everyone in favor of the additional lineups agree that of course starting 2 RBs is what all teams will try to do anyway, then why not just allow a limited number of 1 RB lineups through the year to account for byes/short term injuries? If we're concerned with everyone being able to field competitive lineups, then why not allow our developmental rosters to be endless, and never have to cut a rookie pick? Then we'll always have talent waiting in the wings. I just don't get the overwhelming support for this.

April 10th, 2007, 04:36 PM	#15
Nittany Dodgers Feeding Frenzy Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Maplewood, MN Posts: 5,204	Re: SACD Rules Vote - Add new lineup sets Matt, that's way simplistic, or missing my point. The decision for a team is not between the players at the top of the ranking, it is between the players at the bottom. Your choice is either 1 RB and 4 WRs for your lineup, or 2 RBs, and 3 WRs. So, you need to compare the fringe starting RBs against the fringe starting WRs. For the sake of arguement, I'd say the ppg difference between the fringe starting RBs and the fringe startings WRs is about what you came to above (~5 ppg). However, that's not the end of the analysis. The next question is cost. The fringe starting Rbs are much more expensive than the fringe starting WRs. With those added cbs, you can bid more money on your #1 RB, and thus driving up the stud RB prices. This is going to be a snowball effect. What do you think will be the effect of the number of RBs on team's rosters with this new lineup option? Teams won't need to carrry so many RBs because if they lose one, they can always go with a receiver instead. The rule passed, so arguing is pointless at this point, but I think we will see a difference in the number of RBs carried on rosters, as well as the number of times this option is used. And I'll go back to my point, if the point is to allow flexibility, why not allow a limited amount of flexibility? If everyone in favor of the additional lineups agree that of course starting 2 RBs is what all teams will try to do anyway, then why not just allow a limited number of 1 RB lineups through the year to account for byes/short term injuries? If we're concerned with everyone being able to field competitive lineups, then why not allow our developmental rosters to be endless, and never have to cut a rookie pick? Then we'll always have talent waiting in the wings. I just don't get the overwhelming support for this.