2003 Rule Change Proposals

[Nittany Dodgers]

Based on my commitment from the "League Chat" forum, I have put together a long list of items from our rules document that need to be clarified and updated. The vast majority of them are simple changes, with various contradiction sections just needing to be re-written, and accepted. Due to the interests of time, I will not address those until later in the year. The following is a list of issues that I remember coming up, or I have found as being inconsistent in the rules document. I am stating my proposals only for league discussion and feedback, they are not official proposals yet. Once we have some discussion, and I can gague league sentiment, I will formally propose each rule seperately, officially, for league vote (this is all based on the tacit consent of the league rules committee members of course).

Changing Playoff Pool to Four Teams: There was some support for the idea of cutting the number of playoff teams to 4. This would shorten the playoffs by one week allowing us to play our Championship Game week 16, instead of week 17 when many starters do not play. We would have the three division winners, and just one wild card team in the palyoffs, with no bye weeks for any team. A change from the current three wild card team with the top two division winners getting byes in the first round.

Post-season roster moves: There was some discussion of drafting rules regarding post season roster moves based on Kyle's move Championship week. Now that our personal feelings are more detached from the events, what are people's feelings on post season roster moves? We already have rosters frozen for eliminated teams. Possibilities include requiring players picked up in the post season to be played by the team that picked them up the same week. Another possibility is to have bidding end at Midnight Saturday each week of the playoffs, that is, that the high bid as of midnight each Saturday of the playoffs wins the player. This would prevent teams from bidding on players, just to prevent an opponent from picking them up, taking advatage of the 24 hour bid clock. It would, however, open up the can worms that is bid sniping (which I don't think would be a problem). This also would more easily allow a team that meets an emergency situation in the post season to actually pick up a replacement. Thoughts?

Penalties for signing players going over the roster limit: This came up a few times during the season (twice by yours truely) where a team signed its 17th player, but did not post a drop within the 24 hour time period allowed. The stated penalties in the rules are the 20% cap release penalty, in addition to 25% of the contract in question, with a minimum of 250cb and a max of 500cb. We also agreed that the offending team is prohibited from bidding on that player for 30 days. When it happened, Mike waived the 25% penalty for "first time offenders" since the rule was slightly unclear, and harsh. My question is, do we want to keep the 25% penalty in in addition to the 20% cap release penalty and 30 moritorium? It is an extremely harsh penalty (especially when you are bidding on a 100cb level player). However, if we all agree on the rule and are aware of it, then it is not so much an issue. I however am of the opinion that the 20% cap release penalty and 30 bidding moritorium are sufficient. If the player if of any value, they should be signed elsewhere within 30 days, which is the biggest penalty. If the player is some scrub, a 250cb penalty in addition to 20% is pretty harsh, in my eyes. Opinions?

Active Roster Requirements: The rules state that each team must have minimum starting lineup requirements on their roster at all times during the season (ie, 1 qb, 2 rbs, 3 wrs, 1 te, 1 k, 1 d), in addition to the minimum of 13 players. It happened last year when one team did not have a tight end for a number of weeks (and may have happened other times as well), but there were no penalties to be enforced. The rules state that there is a 500 cb penalty for falling under 13 players, but it does not address failing to meet starting lineup requirements. The question is, do we want to keep the minimum starting lineup requirement in (in the interest of fair play) and thus add the 500 cb penalty to teams who fail to have a full starting lineup on their roster, or do we want to do away with this requirement (when, since there is no penalty, we can't really fairly enforce at this point anyways). Thoughts?

Please also feel free to add your own issues to the table.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
Once we have some discussion, and I can gague league sentiment, I will formally propose each rule seperately, officially, for league vote (this is all based on the tacit consent of the league rules committee members of course).

You're assistance is greatly appreciated...

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
Changing Playoff Pool to Four Teams: There was some support for the idea of cutting the number of playoff teams to 4. This would shorten the playoffs by one week allowing us to play our Championship Game week 16, instead of week 17 when many starters do not play. We would have the three division winners, and just one wild card team in the palyoffs, with no bye weeks for any team. A change from the current three wild card team with the top two division winners getting byes in the first round.

I don't have a huge opinion on this one either way... I do dislike the week 17 bowl game, but then IMO we need to have a ProBowl or something wk 17 to keep things interesting. We also might want to explore a 3 bracket playoff system, where the top 4 play for the bowl, the middle 4 play for picks 5-8 and the bottom 4 play for picks 1-4. The Opihi probably could help out with this idea if any are interested...

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
Post-season roster moves: There was some discussion of drafting rules regarding post season roster moves based on Kyle's move Championship week. Now that our personal feelings are more detached from the events, what are people's feelings on post season roster moves? We already have rosters frozen for eliminated teams. Possibilities include requiring players picked up in the post season to be played by the team that picked them up the same week. Another possibility is to have bidding end at Midnight Saturday each week of the playoffs, that is, that the high bid as of midnight each Saturday of the playoffs wins the player. This would prevent teams from bidding on players, just to prevent an opponent from picking them up, taking advatage of the 24 hour bid clock. It would, however, open up the can worms that is bid sniping (which I don't think would be a problem). This also would more easily allow a team that meets an emergency situation in the post season to actually pick up a replacement. Thoughts?

I think you all know where I stand on this one. I still have bitter resentment... but I'm slowly getting over it ! Seriously, I think a team picking up a player in the post-season should be required to start them. Honest, it keeps teams from pulling cheap stunts and places an emphasis on players you will actually USE, not just keep away from an opponent or place in reserve just in case...

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
Penalties for signing players going over the roster limit: This came up a few times during the season (twice by yours truely) where a team signed its 17th player, but did not post a drop within the 24 hour time period allowed. The stated penalties in the rules are the 20% cap release penalty, in addition to 25% of the contract in question, with a minimum of 250cb and a max of 500cb. We also agreed that the offending team is prohibited from bidding on that player for 30 days. When it happened, Mike waived the 25% penalty for "first time offenders" since the rule was slightly unclear, and harsh. My question is, do we want to keep the 25% penalty in in addition to the 20% cap release penalty and 30 moritorium? It is an extremely harsh penalty (especially when you are bidding on a 100cb level player). However, if we all agree on the rule and are aware of it, then it is not so much an issue. I however am of the opinion that the 20% cap release penalty and 30 bidding moritorium are sufficient. If the player if of any value, they should be signed elsewhere within 30 days, which is the biggest penalty. If the player is some scrub, a 250cb penalty in addition to 20% is pretty harsh, in my eyes. Opinions?

I'm OK with dropping the 25% penalty for 1st time offenses each year, then instituiting a 10% penalty for a 2nd offense, and a 25% penalty for 3 or more offenses. I like the 30 day bidding moratorium and 20% cap release regardless.

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
Active Roster Requirements: The rules state that each team must have minimum starting lineup requirements on their roster at all times during the season (ie, 1 qb, 2 rbs, 3 wrs, 1 te, 1 k, 1 d), in addition to the minimum of 13 players. It happened last year when one team did not have a tight end for a number of weeks (and may have happened other times as well), but there were no penalties to be enforced. The rules state that there is a 500 cb penalty for falling under 13 players, but it does not address failing to meet starting lineup requirements. The question is, do we want to keep the minimum starting lineup requirement in (in the interest of fair play) and thus add the 500 cb penalty to teams who fail to have a full starting lineup on their roster, or do we want to do away with this requirement (when, since there is no penalty, we can't really fairly enforce at this point anyways). Thoughts?

I think we should require all teams to have a legal starting lineup and institute a penalty system similar to the one for being below the 13 man limit. On a somehwat related note, I think when a team falls below the legal roster/starting lineup limit, we should assess a TEMPORARY 500cb cap hit against their cap which would be lifted only after they return to the legal roster size. Then assess like a 100-200 cb hit off the top for the infraction? Basically it requires teams to either meet the roster cap or have the cap space temporarily squeezed until they do. Too complicated? Anyone get what I'm talking about ?!

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
Please also feel free to add your own issues to the table.

None that I can think of at the moment, but I'm sure some will come up... anyone have some input on the scoring system utilized last year? I liked it quite a bit myslef. Weren't we supposed to review the scoring after the 1 year experiment?

[Flaxwless]

All the other rule cahnges I'm fine wih especially the three bracket playoffs for picks and championship. Prevents teams from sinking games and keeps everyone in it for a full season.

Only quabble is with the active roster thingy.

I think this can be easily solved by adding more roster spots w/ a requirement of keeping a certain muber of PK/TE/DEF or an emergancy spot and money ($200) to use on a Kicker, TE, or Def. Can only keep that player for a week.

The problem I see with a penalty for not filling a starting line up is because of the salary cap. Sometimes teams squeeze it tight and can not afford to cut a player and then pick up another one. I've been in that situation and would much rather save my cap room for signing skill positions players instead of a back up PK, TE, or D that I will use once. BUT I do agree we need to keep the penalty for not meeting the minimum of a 13 man roster.

So eveyrthing sounds good except for the starting line up thing.

And I just say we freeze ALL teams rosters for the playoffs. You don't see the NFL adding players fo rthe playoffs. I don't know why we should. You should have to stick with the team that got you to the playoffs. If injury hits then hopefully you have someone stashed on IR or the DS cause that's what they're their for, more or less DS than IR.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
Only quabble is with the active roster thingy.

I think this can be easily solved by adding more roster spots w/ a requirement of keeping a certain muber of PK/TE/DEF or an emergancy spot and money ($200) to use on a Kicker, TE, or Def. Can only keep that player for a week.

The problem I see with a penalty for not filling a starting line up is because of the salary cap. Sometimes teams squeeze it tight and can not afford to cut a player and then pick up another one. I've been in that situation and would much rather save my cap room for signing skill positions players instead of a back up PK, TE, or D that I will use once. BUT I do agree we need to keep the penalty for not meeting the minimum of a 13 man roster.

Let me clarify. The penalty is not for not having a full starting lineup during a specific week (saw, if your tight end is on the bye and you don't have a reserve), the penalty is for not even having a tight end on your roster. I think it's a fairly normal occurence that a team will be in an occasional situation where they can't fill out a full lineup. I don't think we need to penalize for that. I do think we should require each team to put forth the effort to at least have the ability through a balanced roster to field a full lineup the majority of weeks, which would require each team to have a minimum qb, 2rbs, 3wrs, te, k and d on their roster or face penalties.

[Flaxwless]

Oh okay then it sounds like good to me.

But if that isn't the problem then I think we need to discuss the roster size/back up spot thing again.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Hey gang! Sorry so late in responding... I was away for a business trip most of last week.

Here's my comments on the comments above...

PLAYOFF POOL... I guess I'm not against moving it down to only 4 teams - that would give a bit more weight to the division winners. However, in a division as tough as the EAST (wink, wink), we could conceivably have three of the strongest teams in the whole league (roster-wise), yet beat each other up in the regular season, and have only one team make the playoffs. I'm just using our division as an example, since all I have to go on is last year's results.

I'm all in favor of adding tiers for playoff fun... I'd much rather play every week, than not... even if my team has no chance for the championship. Play for pride! That's how I run my dynasty league, and would be open to giving insight, if wanted.

POST-SEASON ROSTER MOVES... Freeze 'em all! In fact, up until last year, in my dynasty league we only had 1 roster move a week. While that seems rather anemic to many, it did require us to actually PLAN AHEAD as owners (can it be?!?). I think an owner shoulld be able to set up his/her roster prior to the start of playoffs, without having to make any additions. Get depth! Simple as that.

PENALTIES... whatever. Don't plan on going over, so I don't see the need to debate this. Whatever the league agrees on is fine with me.

ACTIVE ROSTER REQUIREMENTS... I think we should be required to have at least the minimum players for the position (ie. 1 qb, 2 rbs, 3 wrs, 1 te, 1 k, 1 d), but NOT be forced to have a full starting lineup each week. If a team wants to go w/o a TE, because their one and only TE is on a bye, that's their risk. I've taken that risk before... sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. I agree we should have to have at least ONE TE on the roster, but leave it up to the owner whether to pickup a backup for the bye week (or make a trade!).

Aloha!

[Preds]

Originally posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

POST-SEASON ROSTER MOVES... Freeze 'em all! In fact, up until last year, in my dynasty league we only had 1 roster move a week. While that seems rather anemic to many, it did require us to actually PLAN AHEAD as owners (can it be?!?). I think an owner shoulld be able to set up his/her roster prior to the start of playoffs, without having to make any additions. Get depth! Simple as that.

My take on this is that our 16 man rosters are too small to have adequate playoff depth at key positions.

I had 2 QB's heading into the title game, one sat wk 17, the other was hurt wk 16. I was SOL, and finding roster space for a 3rd QB is difficult with the 16 man rosters. As it is I can't backup every starting position, no less go 2 deep.

If you want fixed rosters, than we need to expand the rosters and the cap to accomadate more backups IMO.

Maybe we could take the cap out of the playoff pickups, since none of the players can be kept anyhow, and go with a waiver wire by seed, lowest to highest with players assigned the minimum salary. Further, I still support the requirement that players acquired in the playoff weeks have the requirment of being started by the acquiring team.

My 2 cents.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Well, you have a point there, Mr. Mike! I probably would only carry two QBs, too... I like the idea of expanding the rosters, then freezing waivers... however, I like the idea of a waiver wire system for aquisitions in playoffs, if we go that way. And yes, you must start the guy you pick up.

My 2 cents:

1. I dislike the 3 brack playoffs. Face it, the only bracket worth winning is the championship bracket and the is HUGE difference in the week 10-14 games if 6 make the playoffs. Once I know I can't make the top 4, nothing else matters. Keep it 6 and you won't be sorry.

2. I've had the same QB situation flare up as Mike had last season....hence if you look at my starting roster I carry at least 3 active QBs and another on the DS. So, for me, it's all about what risks you like to take. If you want to carry only 2 QBs into the playoffs, then that's the chance you take.

3. On post season pickups, I still think back to the Chargers picking up Deion so he couldn't play for the Raiders. I think it's all part of the chess game. Again, it's about what risk you are willing to live with, then roll the dice and see if they pay off.

With all that said, so long as we all use the same rules, I'm fine with whatever the league decides.

[Flaxwless]

Like Llams said if you only carry two QBs that's the risk you take. I still feel the best and easiest solution is to freeze playoff rosters. If a player gets injured tough luck. That's how life is and football too.

However with the freezing of playoff rosters I propose we expand the lineups by 3 for a maximum roster size of 19. One of the requirements for the 19 man roster in addition to having the minimum 13 for each position is to require that at least 5 roster spots must go to a combination of TE/PK/DEF.

By requiring a team to carry 5 of the TE/PK/DEF combo it gives them leeway to use the last spot for any position or if they choose to have one back up for each spot.

I say a cap increase of about 800 or 900. Just enough to sign a back up PK, D, Kicker and another skill position player. I would also see it being lower maybe as low as 600. 300 for the two back up spots for D/PK/TE and 300 for a skill position.

Just a thought.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Just a thought on the post season roster strategy discussion. As far as QBs, there are not enough QBs in the league for everyone to carry more than 2 starters. Not every team in the league has the luxury of having three starters on their team, so saying we should freeze the rosters for the post season, and that you should just plan ahead by having at least 3 qbs on your roster won't work for everyone.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Regarding the possibility of freezing post season rosters. I am against this. I would like to still be able to pickup players in the off season. This is not real football where NFL teams have 3 to 4 backup players as well as practice team in case of a an emergency. As stated before, due to our current limit of 16 players it is very difficult to keep more than 2 QBs. Lets face it, anyone not on a roster by the time our post season rolls around will not be a game breaker. They would be a fill in player at best. I would consider these pickups emergency situations anyway.

I do not like Mike's rule where the team that makes a pickup during the post season MUST play that player. What if one of my players was Questionable and a game time decision. I pickup someone as insurance but later find that my player is going to play. I would then have to play the pickup over my regular starter? I think if you're in the post season you're going to have to definitely plan ahead weeks in advance. Keeping good players away from your opponents is a viable strategy in my book. This has always been the case.

I like the suggestion of a definitive end time (Sat at midnight was suggested) for bidding so one team cannot prolong the bidding of a FA just to keep them off someone else's team. I feel this is a better route to go.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers
I do not like Mike's rule where the team that makes a pickup during the post season MUST play that player. What if one of my players was Questionable and a game time decision. I pickup someone as insurance but later find that my player is going to play. I would then have to play the pickup over my regular starter? I think if you're in the post season you're going to have to definitely plan ahead weeks in advance. Keeping good players away from your opponents is a viable strategy in my book. This has always been the case.

I like the suggestion of a definitive end time (Sat at midnight was suggested) for bidding so one team cannot prolong the bidding of a FA just to keep them off someone else's team. I feel this is a better route to go.

I think we really should look into the idea of a playoff waiver wire by say Wednesday and then 1st come 1st served after that. Just take the cap out of it come playoff time. At least then you could guarentee a sub if needed. Of course you all know where I stand on the must start idea...

[Mutts]

PLAYOFF POOL... I'm in favor of a 4 team playoff, primarily because I think week 17 alters the face of starting lineups too much. I think complementing that cutback with the implementation of tiered playoffs for draft picks is a great idea. If you're in the league for the long haul, you'll sure relish the chance to turn your 4th pick into a 1!

POST-SEASON ROSTER MOVES... I would like rosters frozen, and to make that possible I would like to expand rosters by two slots and expand cap room to something like $11,000. I want more depth. There was an awful lot of productive talent harbored away on team's development squad's last year.

PENALTIES... I like Brian's thoughts on this. I do think the penalty is excessive for exceeding roster limits.

ACTIVE ROSTER REQUIREMENTS... We should enforce mandatory minimums at every position. Its a good influence on a league, I think.