The League

Just bringing up a topic that was in a thread on the old board. There seemed to be some support for addressing PPR(points per reception) for RBs and further discussion is needed.

Ideas presented were:

1) RB - .25, WR - .50, TE 1 (WR and TE same as today)
2) RB - .50, WR - .75, TE 1

I'M for PPR for runningbacks. Either .5 or .25

I'm for PPR for RBs as well!

I wouldn't be opposed to .25 for rb's, I don't think the WR's need any extra help in terms of going to .75 ppr though.

Yeah just runningbacks (.25?). Don't change the WR's

I would be in favor of RBs with .25 and leave the WR's and TE's alone.

I like the .25 idea.

I'll be honest in that I'd like to see RBs and WRs get the same amount of pts for a reception no matter what the amount but I'm in favor of getting RBs something, even just .25

I think if you give RBs reception points, then WRs and TEs need to be increased as well. Everyone knows how unusual or unheard of it is to change scoring rules in a dynasty or contract/ salary cap league after year one. I would hope some of you drafted according to the scoring rules....I did.

I laid off of rbs that got points for receptions because of the initial scoring setup. We didn't "invent the wheel" by not giving RBs any points per reception. We made TEs and WRs more valuable. That is how I drafted. Some chose to spend their money on RBs but I chose WRs...was this right from a strategic point....who knows but year one made me feel like I made the right choice. Should I lose my strategic advantage because some want to have a "Do Over"?

I'm not trying to be a scrooge but if you give RBs PPR, then it is only fair that WRs and TEs reception points increase by the Same increment...Anyone see where I'm coming from???

I drafted and applied contracts based upon WRs being more valuable. I hope before bidding on players you guys looked at scoring from 2005 and 2006 to properly predict value of the positions

Boyz II Men wrote:I think if you give RBs reception points, then WRs and TEs need to be increased as well. Everyone knows how unusual or unheard of it is to change scoring rules in a dynasty or contract/ salary cap league after year one. I would hope some of you drafted according to the scoring rules....I did.

I laid off of rbs that got points for receptions because of the initial scoring setup. We didn't "invent the wheel" by not giving RBs any points per reception. We made TEs and WRs more valuable. That is how I drafted. Some chose to spend their money on RBs but I chose WRs...was this right from a strategic point....who knows but year one made me feel like I made the right choice. Should I lose my strategic advantage because some want to have a "Do Over"?

I'm not trying to be a scrooge but if you give RBs PPR, then it is only fair that WRs and TEs reception points increase by the Same increment...Anyone see where I'm coming from???

I drafted and applied contracts based upon WRs being more valuable. I hope before bidding on players you guys looked at scoring from 2005 and 2006 to properly predict value of the positions

This is a solid point on why not to add .25 for RBs, but at the same time I don't feel the change would be a "do over" as much as it would be giving us one more stat to root for. If you look at the RBs with the most receptions this year they still ended up with big contracts regardless and IMO I don't think the team with Kevin Faulk will be put over the top if he gains .25 per reception next year. I've been in a league that these rules are pretty much based on since 2002 and we've tweeked the scoring a few times and it's never seemed to cause any unfair advantages.

Achon44 wrote:

Boyz II Men wrote:I think if you give RBs reception points, then WRs and TEs need to be increased as well. Everyone knows how unusual or unheard of it is to change scoring rules in a dynasty or contract/ salary cap league after year one. I would hope some of you drafted according to the scoring rules....I did.

I laid off of rbs that got points for receptions because of the initial scoring setup. We didn't "invent the wheel" by not giving RBs any points per reception. We made TEs and WRs more valuable. That is how I drafted. Some chose to spend their money on RBs but I chose WRs...was this right from a strategic point....who knows but year one made me feel like I made the right choice. Should I lose my strategic advantage because some want to have a "Do Over"?

I'm not trying to be a scrooge but if you give RBs PPR, then it is only fair that WRs and TEs reception points increase by the Same increment...Anyone see where I'm coming from???

I drafted and applied contracts based upon WRs being more valuable. I hope before bidding on players you guys looked at scoring from 2005 and 2006 to properly predict value of the positions

This is a solid point on why not to add .25 for RBs, but at the same time I don't feel the change would be a "do over" as much as it would be giving us one more stat to root for. If you look at the RBs with the most receptions this year they still ended up with big contracts regardless and IMO I don't think the team with Kevin Faulk will be put over the top if he gains .25 per reception next year. I've been in a league that these rules are pretty much based on since 2002 and we've tweeked the scoring a few times and it's never seemed to cause any unfair advantages.

Are any of them 16 team leagues? There is a tremendous shortage in RBs
at the 16 team level....I think the league should have been setup as PPR for RBs also, but it wasn't so I believe the scoring ratio should be maintained if any changes are made to scoring

I will just say that this year *was* the year of the WR. In my own league I actually won it, and I had no business winning after the draft. Had no RBs other then McGahee (who did have a nice year but was no stud). Won on the backs of Edwards, Wayne and House-yer-mama along with Jason Witten (we award 2 pts per TE reception, 1pt all other positions). Any other year I'd be lucky to make the playoffs.

Honestly, just .25 isn't going to unbalance anything. At best an RB might get a whole 1 pt extra a game, maybe 2 if it's a crazy game. Of course one might say...then why do it at all? Because we should.

If we did RB .25, WR .50, TE 1.0 that would be almost the same "ratio" as in my league which is 1 pt for RB and WR, 2 pts per TE. Just double the numbers and you get RB .5, WR 1, TE 2. So the numbers are just lower in relation to QBs making the QB a bit more valuable in this league, assuming that is the intent of the scoring system. If not then I say score it "normal" at .5 RB, 1pt WR and maybe 1.5 TE. This would also address Boy's concern.

Anyway, .25 isn't that big of a change and shouldn't effect anyone's long term strategy in any way. It's just correcting something that should have been done in the first place (IMHO). Leagues that don't do PPR are becoming dinosaurs to be honest. Even if we do nothing I'm ok but would much prefer to do something in terms of RBs and PPR.

Boyz II Men wrote:

Achon44 wrote:

Boyz II Men wrote:I think if you give RBs reception points, then WRs and TEs need to be increased as well. Everyone knows how unusual or unheard of it is to change scoring rules in a dynasty or contract/ salary cap league after year one. I would hope some of you drafted according to the scoring rules....I did.

I laid off of rbs that got points for receptions because of the initial scoring setup. We didn't "invent the wheel" by not giving RBs any points per reception. We made TEs and WRs more valuable. That is how I drafted. Some chose to spend their money on RBs but I chose WRs...was this right from a strategic point....who knows but year one made me feel like I made the right choice. Should I lose my strategic advantage because some want to have a "Do Over"?

I'm not trying to be a scrooge but if you give RBs PPR, then it is only fair that WRs and TEs reception points increase by the Same increment...Anyone see where I'm coming from???

I drafted and applied contracts based upon WRs being more valuable. I hope before bidding on players you guys looked at scoring from 2005 and 2006 to properly predict value of the positions

This is a solid point on why not to add .25 for RBs, but at the same time I don't feel the change would be a "do over" as much as it would be giving us one more stat to root for. If you look at the RBs with the most receptions this year they still ended up with big contracts regardless and IMO I don't think the team with Kevin Faulk will be put over the top if he gains .25 per reception next year. I've been in a league that these rules are pretty much based on since 2002 and we've tweeked the scoring a few times and it's never seemed to cause any unfair advantages.

Are any of them 16 team leagues? There is a tremendous shortage in RBs
at the 16 team level....I think the league should have been setup as PPR for RBs also, but it wasn't so I believe the scoring ratio should be maintained if any changes are made to scoring

No, it's 12 teams, but you're required to start 2 RBs.

Okay, here's what we're talking about if RBs get .25 per reception...

Westy had 90 rec = 1.32 points a game
Bush had 73 rec = 1.07 points a game
LT had 60 rec = 0.88 points a game

Those guys were the top three leaders in receptions among RBs. I honestly don't see any huge impact that would sway overall scoring in favor of RBs.

I don't care either way.

Personally, if forced to choose, I would be against any PPR for RB's. This was one season where RB scoring was down. Next year it may be up, may be down, I don't know. Why does it matter what RB's score? This year was a reward to teams with good QB's and stout WR's. I see no reason why to change the rules midstream based on a 1 season sample size.

Reading this thread - the question that now comes to mind is:

-- What is the process by which rule changes get agreed upon or rejected?

I did not see anything specific in the constitution about rule changes. Is there a vote? If so how many "yea" votes does it take to pass? Do we just provide input through the message board and the commish decides based on the input?

I think we should have a standard approach going forward. My two cents.

BTW - I know one game I would have won had I got that "avg 1.32 points a game" from Westy

yugimoto wrote:Reading this thread - the question that now comes to mind is:

-- What is the process by which rule changes get agreed upon or rejected?

I did not see anything specific in the constitution about rule changes. Is there a vote? If so how many "yea" votes does it take to pass? Do we just provide input through the message board and the commish decides based on the input?

I think we should have a standard approach going forward. My two cents.

BTW - I know one game I would have won had I got that "avg 1.32 points a game" from Westy

Great point!

Mistakes Were Made wrote:I don't care either way.

Personally, if forced to choose, I would be against any PPR for RB's. This was one season where RB scoring was down. Next year it may be up, may be down, I don't know. Why does it matter what RB's score? This year was a reward to teams with good QB's and stout WR's. I see no reason why to change the rules midstream based on a 1 season sample size.

I don't think the call for a change is due to this 1 season sample size. Most of us were in favor of PPR for RBs in the first place but a couple owners and the commish was against it (no offense commish). So we dropped it. Now it's the offseason again and it's a good time to talk about it again and once again the majority of the league seems in favor of it including the commish.

I think it's only a good thing to do what we should have done (IMO) in the first place.

But again, I can live without it, I just won't like it.

-----------------------------------

Anyway, if we do want to change then perhaps it should go into effect in 2009, not this upcoming season, to address the concerns a couple of you have. Honestly it's not that big of a deal as pointed out.

I hate that this was not talked about before trading opened up again. I am not saying I would not have made any trades but it would have been nice to know before hand

We just finished our first season and with this being a new league everyone should expect some tweaks here and there.

Yep. And even if you feel that .25 isn't enough and it should be .50 or something, I'd still suggest voting yes because if you vote no because you don't think it's enough then this will probably never come up again, at least not for a few years. Think of it as a first step. Get to .25 now so we have *something* and then we can work on it further if we feel we need to.

So if you voted no simply because you feel it wasn't enough but you really want PPR for RBs, I encourage you to change your vote to yes. Ok, enough politicing from me.

I usually find that if a scoring rule is changed in a dynasty it needs 100% vote by all members, once the league has started. Other things can be a majority vote, but scoring changes should be 100.

After reading Boyz2men suggestion that people did draft according the scoring rules originally, then no changes in PPR for RB's should be allowed as it shows more than one vote against it.

Dangerzone wrote:After reading Boyz2men suggestion that people did draft according the scoring rules originally, then no changes in PPR for RB's should be allowed as it shows more than one vote against it.

I was talking to Marty (Rolling Rockers) about Boyz2men "draft according the scoring rules" argument, because I felt it did have a little weight to it. He brought up the question "When did we draft, because as I remember we had an auction?" After I thought about that for a second it pretty much threw the "draft" argument out the window for me.

I guess I feel an auction draft bears no difference .... People mightve been more apt to pay more for a RB that runs like FWP than a RB that catches a lot of passes cause the only super points you get out of that RB is still only the yards he collected. So I feel it still had a bearing possibly. For me did it? No, I just tried to get a RB from you vultures! LOL

But I can see his point.

I feel a scoring change would still take a 100% agreement in change though.........anyone disagree with that point? I may be able to be persuaded.....but not so far.