The season is by no means over, but I'd like to start looking forward to next year. Hopefully all of your had an excellent experience and will be interested in playing in the league next year. As always I'm sure there are things we can improve so here is your opportunity. While it's fresh in your mind let's make some suggestions for next year. What would you like to see changed?
- Different division setups?
- More smack talk?
- Alterations to scoring or payouts?
- Prohibit weekly team name changes?
- A different host website for the league?
 |
| Just joking with the picture! |
Any suggestions you can give will be helpful in ensuring that the league continues to be competitive, fun, and exciting in the future. Let's get some discussion going!
I would institute a mandatory "optimal lineup" based on Projected Points for teams whose owners have not updated their team for a given week. This way, no one gets any freebie wins. Obviously, this could contribute to delinquency, but more often than not, it would simply make games for competitive and everyone else happier.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you that struggle to come up with ideas on your own, here are a few ideas from other leagues in Matthew Berry's Weekly Pickups column for ESPN. Anyone else think Hoosier Park counts as Vegas? http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/story?page=TMR101207
ReplyDeleteNotably the $$$ involved seeming to keep people much more interested this year. If you eliminate Alex (by the way Alex, we were happy to take your money) the only other player who didn't keep up with the league was one that still hasn't paid yet. Looks like I might have to be a little tougher on the pay-to-play rule. As long as people will stick it out uping the ante might be a good option. Thoughts on an appropriate buy-in everyone? Higher/lower? Bigger/smaller payouts?
ReplyDeleteI liked the way the payouts were set up as well as the buy-in of 25. Everyone that I had told our set up to thought it was very cool! As for line-ups, I think I prefer a "flex" position instead of a mandatory 3 WR's. The scoring was pretty good...Anyway, I enjoyed playing in the league this year.
ReplyDeleteI am anti-flex, for what it's worth. It's like saying, "You didn't plan well enough, so we'll give you a break and allow you to play eiter one of your guys." I think the buy-in at the beginning of the year should be $50. Eliminate the "biggest loser" and "smallest defeat". Consider doing a total points payout as well as record payout. So that way, a tough schedule doesn't doom your ability to do well. Just a few more opinions.
ReplyDeleteJust saw a good alternative to a "mandatory play policy" (or in addition to - I like that even better). If you play a guy on IR or on a bye week, it's a $5 fine.
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts. I have to respectfully disagree with Isaac on the "flex" idea. I think a flex position forces owners to evaluate players across positions and plan better for future events. There is also a greater level of risk/reward an owner must take into account. As far as payouts go my goal is a bell curve with the majority of participants taking home right around the entry fee with a big winner and big loser or two. We can explore different payout setups and the flex position next summer.
ReplyDeleteAs far as fees go my only issue is being able to collect if someone runs a deficit. I thought about instituting a fee for each trade/waiver pickup but that discourages transactions and believe the more player movement that happens the more involved owners are. I agree that no one should get free wins but I don't want the league to manage teams for owners on a regular basis. An economic penalty could work if done correctly. The end question is this. Are we more concerned about the matchup winner of the league (wins & losses) or the economic winner of the league ($$$ earned)? Let me hear what you think!
ReplyDeleteI like the "rivalry matchups" idea on the ESPN article and force an additional wager. It would be funny to do them based on experiences outside of PY games. Like when Alex made fun of me for being a sophomore
ReplyDeleteand Waters told the class I scored better then he did on the exam haha
Just thought of another: No trading. Then we have no concrens for "unfair" trading. And obviously, whomever the numnut was that decided to make the Waiver process on Friday should have his noodle checked. Let's make this process on Wednesday next year (sumbitted by Tuesday night).
ReplyDelete