Bye Week Rule Change(s)

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Maybe it is just me but this week four of my five active WR's are on bye in the Frenzy. Last Week 3 of my 4 active RB's were on bye in the SAC'd. I am wondering if we want to look at any rule changes to account for the fact the NFL now has a number of weeks each year with 6 bye teams. When we created these leagues I think the max would have been 4 teams on bye. With this being a dynasty it is hard to predict year to year who will be on a bye in which week. Since I don't want to cut any of my young WR's I am essentially force to play this week with 1 WR (also I don't have cap flexibility to move a player around).

Not sure what the options might be but from a competetive standpoint it feels like it might be good to allow teams some options to field a more viable team.

[Burt the Butcher]

Good point ... Off the top of my head, maybe we can make more flexibility in our lineup...maybe going to something similar to what Yahoo does...have two Flex positions...one either RB or WR, and one either WR or TE?

Not sure though...I guess those are the hazards of having too many long term deals - each year we should have enough open slots to give us the flexibility...

[Burt the Butcher]

Good point ... Off the top of my head, maybe we can make more flexibility in our lineup...maybe going to something similar to what Yahoo does...have two Flex positions...one either RB or WR, and one either WR or TE?

Not sure though...I guess those are the hazards of having too many long term deals - each year we should have enough open slots to give us the flexibility...

[pacificscrub]

I would be ok with something like that. In fact, I would make the first flex pos. be RB/WR/TE. Otherwise there wouldn't be much benefit to the owner if they were in Philly's position as outlined above.

[bigmash33]

I'm not against changes, but I feel we have a good amount of flexibility already. We only have to start 1 RB, 2 WR, and 1 TE with two flex spots...one is a RB/WR, the other is a WR/TE. In probably 90% of fantasy football leauges you have to start 2 RBs every week.
I would be against being able to start more RBs than WRs as that would be a big change in overall stradegy. If you look at the scoring, there are 9 RBs that avg over 20 ppg...no WR avg over 20 ppg. It would seem to give a bigger advantage to those that have multiple young RBs under contract for 3-4 yrs since prices for RBs in FA would go up.

Byes are always dicey with dynasty leagues. Sometimes you just have to deal with a bad week to avoid dropping people that could help you down the road. It's very rare that one week is going to decide a year, usually there are going to be bad breaks that happen many weeks that will cost you wins.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by bigmash33

I'm not against changes, but I feel we have a good amount of flexibility already. We only have to start 1 RB, 2 WR, and 1 TE with two flex spots...one is a RB/WR, the other is a WR/TE. In probably 90% of fantasy football leauges you have to start 2 RBs every week.
I would be against being able to start more RBs than WRs as that would be a big change in overall stradegy. If you look at the scoring, there are 9 RBs that avg over 20 ppg...no WR avg over 20 ppg. It would seem to give a bigger advantage to those that have multiple young RBs under contract for 3-4 yrs since prices for RBs in FA would go up.

Byes are always dicey with dynasty leagues. Sometimes you just have to deal with a bad week to avoid dropping people that could help you down the road. It's very rare that one week is going to decide a year, usually there are going to be bad breaks that happen many weeks that will cost you wins.

I agree I would be against EXPANDING rosters AND adding an RB FLEX SPOT.

I feel in SAC'D there's plenty of flexibility between the TS and large roster sizes.

My suggestion if we HAVE to make a change is to add 1 roster spot + 150 or 200 cbs + 1 year. Nothing else.

[Burt the Butcher]

Good analysis Scott...I would have to agree with your assessment....

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I guess I was just thinking along the lines of a one week exemption that each team would have available to them if one of their positions had more than 60% their active players at any one position (and granted that they roster more than one at that position) on bye. Not quite sure what the exemption would entail but that was what I thinking we could all try and hash out.

I do agree with Scott that it should not a be a big issue however we often have playoff seeds decided by one win so it could end up being important. It is also possible that this issue never affects me again over the next couple of years. Just hard to tell and since it hit me now in back to back weeks (RB's in Sac'd last week and the WR's in Frenzy this week) I figured I would throw it out there.

[bigmash33]

I don't really see the need for this, but if everyone wants to make the change I am not opposed to it. Once the league is rolled over to the new season, usually in early summer, you can see what the bye weeks are. You should be able to use that prep to make sure you have this covered for the most part. I am not in Frenzy, so I don't know the issue there, but in this league you had plenty of cap and roster spots to add a "take a chance on RB" for one week if that was.

I just think overall there are a lot of things that affect fantasy outcomes that are less controlable. Obviously Injuries....if you need pts from a RB but they are down a lot and keep throwing...or if you need pts from a QB/WR but the team is up a ton so they are just running out the game.

[PencilGeeks]

I think there is plenty of flexibility in the current line-ups and the Rosters are huge.. And just like in any other FF league, the manager has to deal with bye weeks as best as they can. I don't see a need to add complication to the rules to 'handle' bye weeks.

[Miners]

I vote against any changes. I too feel that there is plenty of flexibility. We have had to go with a number of games with 2-TE's (who are average at best) due to byes or injuries. It requires some management on the managers part whether it be at the beginning of the season or in season where it isn't that difficult to pick up a player or drop one and try to get them back a week later.

[greatshepski]

I vote No - we have great flexability now.