Pred's Fantasy Football Forums

Pred's Fantasy Football Forums (http://predsff.com/forums//index.php)
-   Frenzy Rules & Bylaws (http://predsff.com/forums//forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Issues to be addressed for 2006 Rules (http://predsff.com/forums//showthread.php?t=6171)

Preds March 31st, 2005 10:50 AM
Issues to be addressed for 2006 Rules
 
For the sake of trying to keep things organized, I'm starting this thread for any of us to bring up issues that come up throughout the year (new or old) that we should consider addressing for the 2006 season. I will edit the summary below to keep the 1st post of this thread current.

Issues that have come up so far:

  1. Clarifying the trading rules, specifically "future considerations," "trade backs," "conditional clauses," definition of what a trade is or isn't (i.e. the moving of tangible "assets" by both parties), etc.
  2. Defining an end to the RFA period if no bidding occurs
  3. Increasing the WR Tender levels in light of the contracts not being matched
  4. Clarifying the RFA Rules on declining the match on a player as part of a trade to the winning team.
  5. We need to add discussion on the elimination or modification of the 5 player TE/K/D minimum.

    At the very least, we should reduce the heavy penalties for violations, although I personally would be in favor of removing the minimum restriction altogether...

    Brian has also suggested that we require the 5 roster spots to be dedicated to TE/D/K without a minimum requirement.

Nittany Dodgers April 4th, 2005 11:56 AM
Re: Issues to be addressed for 2006 Rules
 
When looking back at the 2004 RFA chat thread, I see I had proposed we talk about putting in a rule for the RFA period where if it has been 48 hours since the last active RFA thread had closed, and there are more RFAs available, they are automatically ended. This was related to the Vanderjagt thread from a couple of years ago, where I think it was Matt who had to wait until the end of the RFA period to see this guy get finalized. The idea is if the RFA period is dead, and no one is willing to bid on the guys remaining, then their bidding is terminated after some point in time. Regardless, we can worry about the details later, but just wanted to get this on the agenda for next year.

Nittany Dodgers August 31st, 2005 12:09 PM
Re: Issues to be addressed for 2006 Rules
 
We should add discussion of the transition from Off Season Free Agency to In Season Free Agency to the list.

Liquid Swords August 31st, 2005 12:22 PM
Re: Issues to be addressed for 2006 Rules
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
We should add discussion of the transition from Off Season Free Agency to In Season Free Agency to the list.
http://www.predsff.com/forums/images/smilies/iagree.gif

Preds September 7th, 2005 01:14 PM
Re: Issues to be addressed for 2006 Rules
 
We need to add discussion on the elimination or modification of the 5 player TE/K/D minimum.

At the very least, we should reduce the heavy penalties for violations, although I personally would be in favor of removing the minimum restriction altogether...

Brian has also suggested that we require the 5 roster spots to be dedicated to TE/D/K without a minimum requirement. I can definately get behind this idea.

Preds March 9th, 2006 10:22 AM
Re: Issues to be addressed for 2006 Rules
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preds
For the sake of trying to keep things organized, I'm starting this thread for any of us to bring up issues that come up throughout the year (new or old) that we should consider addressing for the 2006 season. I will edit the summary below to keep the 1st post of this thread current.

Issues that have come up so far:
  1. Clarifying the trading rules, specifically "future considerations," "trade backs," "conditional clauses," definition of what a trade is or isn't (i.e. the moving of tangible "assets" by both parties), etc.
  2. Defining an end to the RFA period if no bidding occurs
  3. Increasing the WR Tender levels in light of the contracts not being matched
  4. Clarifying the RFA Rules on declining the match on a player as part of a trade to the winning team.
  5. We need to add discussion on the elimination or modification of the 5 player TE/K/D minimum.

    At the very least, we should reduce the heavy penalties for violations, although I personally would be in favor of removing the minimum restriction altogether...

    Brian has also suggested that we require the 5 roster spots to be dedicated to TE/D/K without a minimum requirement.
We need to address these issues before the 2006 season begins.

I'd also advocate that we make the Frenzy consistent with any bidding changes that are enacted in SACD (ending ebay style bidding at the end of the off-season, suspending weekend clocks, staring bidding on Mondays, etc.).

Philadelphia Freedom March 9th, 2006 07:29 PM
Re: Issues to be addressed for 2006 Rules
 
I would definately appreciate making the SAC'd rules and Frenzy rules consistent.

Liquid Swords March 12th, 2006 12:44 PM
Re: Issues to be addressed for 2006 Rules
 
I'd also like to propose the elimination of the "Home Field Advantage" for the playoffs.

Royal Hawaiian Opihi March 13th, 2006 07:54 PM
Re: Issues to be addressed for 2006 Rules
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Swords
I'd also like to propose the elimination of the "Home Field Advantage" for the playoffs.
I'd be against this. So much in fantasy football falls upon "chance/luck/good fortune" etc. I think having a small home field advantage rewards the hard work a team accomplishes during the regular season. Remember, this is only during the first round, as the SuperBowl is played on a "neutral site," so no advantage applies (just like in the NFL). Just my $.02, though!

Preds March 13th, 2006 08:34 PM
Re: Issues to be addressed for 2006 Rules
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi
I'd be against this. So much in fantasy football falls upon "chance/luck/good fortune" etc. I think having a small home field advantage rewards the hard work a team accomplishes during the regular season. Remember, this is only during the first round, as the SuperBowl is played on a "neutral site," so no advantage applies (just like in the NFL). Just my $.02, though!
I'm with Jim on this but majority will rule. If 7 teams want it eliminated than so be it, no argument from me, though I prefer to see it in there (and I will add, had to overcome it in the playoffs against Jim).


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2000-2022 - Preds Fantasy Football Forums