Winning votes in red below

1)       Priority System:          We have been using the rotating priority system for a few years now. Some teams still don’t like the system as it is, some like it but think it is still very tough at times to move up the list. The priority system was put in to place so that teams would have a more even chance of acquiring players. Teams felt it was wrong to give all the lower ranked teams’ first chance at free agents all year. The argument is made that is how those teams can improve. The rebuttal is that just because you start out 3-0 doesn’t mean you should be shut out of free agents for the next month. It may be too late by the time your record levels out and you have a chance at top claims. An additional suggestion was made to keep the priority system, but move teams down the list on IR moves with the exception of franchise player IR moves. This would address some of the concern about how hard it is to move up the list.

Vote: Priority System
Option A        Go back to old system of lowest ranked in the standings priority system for all moves
Option B        Modify current system. Teams would move to bottom of priority list on IR moves, with the exception of franchise player IR moves

Option C        Keep current rotating priority system as is

2)       Use of a sub: Currently we allow players listed as questionable, probable or not on the injury report to be replaced with a sub if they are a DNP for the game. Some owners do not like questionable players to be replaced by a sub. Their argument is that a questionable player has a serious enough injury that he is “officially” 50-50 to play. In their opinion the team should not get a sub if they choose to start him. The rebuttal is that there are several NFL teams that really manipulate the injury report any way they want it to read. The most notable offenders are New England and Tennessee. These teams list a dozen or more players each week as questionable. While the “official” designation of questionable means a 50-50 chance of playing, in reality the majority of questionable players are active each week for many teams. The real problem is teams like NE & Ten are really bad, they often list players as questionable and then game time comes and a significant amount of questionable players don’t dress. NFL teams are often very sneaky when they want to be about the actual status of players. This makes it hard to have equal ground for all questionable players.

Vote: Playoff Rosters
Option A        Eliminate questionable players, only allow probable or not on the injury report to be replaced by a sub

Option B        Keep current rule, allow questionable players to be replaced by sub

 

3)       Score Reporting:         Currently we require all teams to report scores to the Commish by 9pm Tuesday. As Commish, I do all the scores for the league already to ensure we get the correct scores. We had some problems a few years ago where teams were confirming scores that were incorrect. This had many potential ramifications, so now I do them each week and just ask teams to confirm with me. Yes, I do make a mistake or two during the year but normally I am pretty good with the accuracy of the scores. The last few years I have had problems with teams getting scores reported to me on time. This has often delayed the score reporting process. My suggestion is as follows: 1) Teams are asked to send their scores for Thursday and weekend games to me on Monday if possible. 2) I will continue to do all the scores and post the weekly results on Monday night after the MNF game or Tuesday at my first chance. 3) Teams will be asked to confirm final results with me by Wednesday of each week. This will allow me to get results out to the league quicker, still ensure accuracy by Wednesday at the latest, and not leave me waiting at 7, 8 or 9pm Tuesday for the last 3, 4 or 5 teams to send in scores which was a common occurrence.

Vote: Score Reporting
Option A        Use new system of Commish posting results, teams then confirming by Wednesday

Option B        Keep current score reporting responsibilities

 

4)       Lineup/Transaction Deadline:  Currently lineups are due by Saturday at 9pm. This is also the cutoff for transactions for the week. For Thursday and Saturday games we allow transactions and lineup changes until kickoff of that game. A proposal was made to move the Saturday 9pm deadline back to Sunday at 11am Mountain time, when the first Sunday games kickoff. The Saturday 9pm deadline is tough for owners that work late and are left scrambling to find any Saturday player news and get a lineup in on time. It is also difficult for the Commish as I am trying to get rosters finalized at 10 or 11pm or later. I have very little chance of contacting owners that I have issues with when it is that late. By moving the deadline back to Sunday at 11am it would allow teams to fully evaluate Saturday news and see the Sunday morning preview shows and make adjustments accordingly. There is often player status news on Saturday and Sunday morning (both good and bad) that would be very beneficial to owner. On multiple occasions each year a player had a change in injury status Saturday evening and an owner was in bed already or just didn’t get the news and they never had a chance to address it. If we move the deadline back to Sunday at 11am, I would get lineups posted on the website very shortly after kickoff of the early games. It would still be recommended to send lineups on Saturday, just in case. Once the early games start there would be absolutely no late transactions or lineup changes allowed. One argument against this is that not all owners are sitting in front of the TV Sunday morning. The rebuttal is all teams would have the chance to find out late news, which often comes out well before 11am so you don’t necessarily need to be glued to the TV all Sunday morning. It also greatly assists teams that consistently have a problem meeting the Saturday 9pm deadline due to working late and finding out all the Saturday player updates before submitting their lineup. Another concern was that we shouldn’t be accommodating owners who can’t get their lineup adjusted properly more time to update, stick with 9pm Saturday as we have and make them get it adjusted on time. The rebuttal is we want a competitive league and everyone has lives to lead and for most it doesn’t revolve around football. Giving everyone the extra time to properly evaluate player status is what this rule change is about. Another concern is owners like to have their opponent’s lineup when watching the games on Sunday. An owner may not be able to get to a computer Sunday after 11am and may not have their opponent’s correct lineup when watching the games. The rebuttal is there are computers at work to get lineups or a phone call can be made to the Commish or another owner to get a lineup off the website.

Vote: Lineup/Transaction Deadline
Option A:      Change deadline to Sunday at 11am mtn

Option B:      Keep current deadline, Saturday at 9pm mtn
 

5)       Game Tiebreaker:       Currently in the event of a tie game the team with home field gets the win. A proposal was made to do away with this. The suggestion is to award both teams one point in the event of a tie game. The reason being it just doesn’t seem fair that if two teams tie, one team gets two points because of home field, while the other gets zero. Currently if two or more teams tie for the final 8^th position in the top 8, both teams get the bonus point. That rule was changed a few years ago because of the same philosophy. That rule would not be affected as to get a top 8 finish is difficult enough, and if you score in the top half of the league (tie or not) both teams should get the bonus point. The one additional issue is what about playoff games? You can’t have a tie in a playoff game. There were suggestions such as go to subs, most total TD’s and stuff like that. None of them really made sense. The most logical suggestion was playoff games that ended in a tie would still be decided by the higher seed getting the win. This would still reward the team that had a better regular season and got the higher seed. Yes, this is still “home field” in the playoffs, but you have to break a playoff game some way and this seems to be the best option as you are rewarding regular season performance to break the tie. The regular season tie game is the only change suggested to be made.

Vote: Game Tiebreaker
Option A:      Eliminate home field, both teams get 1 point in a tie game
Option B:      Keep current rule, home field gets the win

 

6)       Rosters:        Currently our rosters have 1 QB, 1 K and 1 DEF. A proposal was made to expand rosters. The proposal is for each team to pick 2 QB, 2K, and 2 DEF. Teams could not pick multiple QB’s or K’s from the same NFL team, as the positions would still be franchise players and team’s would have rights to the backups. All 32 NFL teams would be taken at the three positions. One major reason for this proposal is elimination of bye week claims. Bye week pickups have been troubling to owners who feel that it is not fair teams pick up whichever QB is playing the worst defense, get a huge game and get a win because of a player who is not even on their team. The same can be said for defenses, pick up whoever is playing Cleveland or Buffalo, and you got yourself a solid score most weeks. Another concern was how teams play the matchups in the final weeks of the regular season. Teams are dropping players/defenses for a lesser replacement, which just has a good/better match up that week. This change would also alter draft philosophy, which should be a good thing. If you took your first QB late, do you take a second QB before a 3^rd RB? If you take Peyton Manning, do you just wait until the last round for your 2^nd QB? Expanded rosters should also bring more trading to the league, something lacking the last few years. If your 2^nd QB is having a great year, but not better than your starter, you now have a good commodity to address needs on your team. Another benefit of the expanded rosters is teams could play the matchups with their players, but it is their players (unlike bye week pickups or end of season transactions). Your second defense may have a much better match up one week, but you don’t have to drop (and probably lose under current rules) your #1 defense in order to use the backup. For example, you have Pittsburgh defense that is solid, but they play Indy this week. You would probably play your back up defense that week. Same with QB and Kicker. Another positive is this will make the Commish job a little easier. Saturday is a night I dread each week as there is always some type of problem, whether it be bye week claims, free agent claims or lineups submitted. In addition it is quite time consuming to process all the free agent claims, bye week moves and lineups submitted on Saturday. It often takes me 3-4 hours just to process everything Saturday night. Removing the bulk of bye week claims would greatly assist the process. Making the Commish job easier should not be the number one reason to vote for this rule, but it is a positive of the proposed system. There are concerns to the proposal from owners. The elimination of free agents at these three positions would reduce your ability to improve your team. The rebuttal is that the majority of transactions involve RB/WR, so you do have a chance to improve. You also have the chance to improve through trades as well. What if you draft two players or defenses with the same by week? If that happens at the draft, the team would have to swing a trade or take a zero for the week at the position. Tracking the bye weeks at the draft would be very important. Another concern is what if your stud QB gets hurt? You would probably be screwed since you most likely took a second QB late. The rebuttal to that is if a stud QB goes down under current roster format, who is his often his replacement? The back up on that NFL team. If you have Peyton and he goes down, are you going to bypass the new Indy QB? You would still have the rights to that back up under the new format. Another concern is that we are adding 3 rounds to the draft, making it even longer. The rebuttal is that the draft is a once a year thing. Many guys look forward to draft night, as you only get one chance a year to pick your fantasy football team. The extra hour to 90 minutes is not that much more when again you consider it is a once year draft. You will notice that TE’s are not included in the expanded rosters. They were in the original proposal, but after further review they were excluded. The reason is that after the top 10-12 TE’s, the talent level drops off significantly because there are many NFL teams that use TE’s for blocking purposes only. There are also several NFL teams with multiple good TE’s that are carried on fantasy rosters that would deplete the depth even more. The impact of a bye week replacement TE is normally significantly less than what the other three positions offer. Based upon these issues, the TE’s were removed and there would still need to be bye week replacements for an off week TE. This is a significant change to the league format, strong support and concerns on both sides of the issue.

Vote: Rosters
Option A: Expand rosters to two QB, K and DEF
Option B: Keep current roster format of 1 QB, K and DEF

 

7)       Claiming “Injured” Players:                    Currently any player listed as questionable or worse is not eligible to be claimed as a free agent. Each week there are numerous free agents that are listed as questionable, but from all accounts are not a concern of them missing the weekend game. Most of these players do play and play well. There has been concern about not being able to claim these “injured” players. A proposal was made to allow claiming of players listed as questionable or worse.  The main reason being that we are eliminating to many potential pickups because they are listed as questionable that week. (see earlier explanation of NFL teams manipulating the injury report) Under the proposal any available free agent may be claimed. But, if they are on the injury report as questionable or worse at the time they are claimed, they can not be put on the IR until they have been downgraded to probable or removed from the injury report for one week. For example, you pick up Todd Pinkston at WR in week 3 but he is questionable. You can not put him on the IR until he completes one week not on the injury report as questionable or worse. That means he would have to be probable or not on the injury report for week 4 in order for you to IR him in week 5 if he is questionable that week. If he remains questionable for multiple weeks in a row, you can not IR him at any point. You can pick up an “injured” player and then drop him the following week, you just can’t IR him.

Vote: Claiming “Injured” Players
Option A: Allow “injured” players to be claimed as free agents, but you can’t IR the player until the come off injury report for one full week
Option B: Keep current rule, players listed as questionable or worse are not eligible to be claimed as free agents

8)       Champ vs. Champ game:            Currently in week 17 the Champ of NFL 1 plays the Champ of NFL 2. There is $80 put up by each league that goes to the winner of the game. One issue is that the league champ has probably already made out very well financially, why give them even more? The biggest problem is that week 17 is such a weird week, with most top players taking the game off or playing very little. Last year’s game was a thrilling 43-41 game as both teams had limited players available. The suggestion was made to get rid of this game and redistribute the $80 elsewhere in the league prize fund. An adjusted prize fund would be provided before the season starts.

Vote: Champ vs. Champ game
Option A: Eliminate Champ vs. Champ game, redistribute $80 elsewhere
Option B: Keep current rule, have Champ vs. Champ game

9)       Scoring system:          A proposal was made to use a new scoring system. The proposed new system would be as follows:

QB

1pt - every 20 yds passing

4pts - passing TD

2pt bonus - passing TD over 40 yds

4pt bonus - passing TD over 60 yds

1pt bonus – 60-69.9% passing

2pt bonus – 70+% passing

RB, WR & TE  (QB Rushing/Receiving) 

1pt - every 10 yds rushing and receiving combined

6pts - every rushing or receiving TD

2pt bonus - every rushing or receiving TD over 40 yds

4pt bonus - every rushing or receiving TD over 60 yds 

1pt - every 2 receptions

There would be no changes to the kicking and defensive scoring system. The reasons for this proposal are a simplified scoring system that does not require going to a reference chart every time you do scoring and does not score twice for yardage when a player scores a touchdown. The rebuttal is that this new system will probably require a chart for many owners as well. Also, use of a chart is not a negative, just part of the system. Owners find it a refreshing change to the "ESPN" type scoring system (6pts for TD, 1 point for every 40yds). The current scoring system works well and gives the league some identity with a unique system.

Vote: Scoring System
Option A: Use new scoring system
Option B: Keep current scoring system

10)   Standings:                    A proposal was made to change how we do standings. The proposed new system to determine standings each week would be:

3pts - per win head to head

Bonus Points for points scored:

6pts 100 pts+                5pts 90-99 pts                      4pts 80-89 pts

3pts 70-79 pts (baseline score for a good week)                    2pts 60-69 pts      1pt   50-59pts

The reason for this proposal is it eliminates luck of schedule and rewards teams for scoring well week to week. The rebuttal is that we are rewarding scoring to much in this proposal, why not just rank teams based on scoring only? A team that wins and scores 49 will get the same points potentially as a team that lost their game. This would greatly minimize the value of the head to head concept, which is something our leagues are built on. Luck of the schedule is all part of fantasy leagues.

Vote: Standings
Option A: Use new standings system
Option B: Keep current standings system

11)   Scoring Bonus:                           *This proposal will only take affect if vote #9 does not pass, but still needs to be voted on by all teams under the assumption #9 doesn’t pass. A proposal was made to add a scoring bonus, similar to the 4/5 hit bonus in baseball. The proposal is to add a 4 point bonus to any 200+ yard rushing or receiving game by a RB/WR/TE, and 4 point bonus for a 400+ yard passing game by a QB. The reason for this proposal is to properly reward a great game by a player. There was a case last year where a RB had 200+ rushing in game, only to be outscored by his fullback who had two 1 yard rushing TD’s. The rebuttal is that player is already getting good points on yardage, why give him more?

Vote: Scoring Bonus
Option A: Add scoring bonus to system
Option B: Keep current scoring system

12)   Bonus Points:                              *This proposal will only take affect if vote #10 does not pass, but still needs to be voted on by all teams under the assumption #10 doesn’t pass. A proposal was made to change how the weekly bonus points are awarded for league high scores. Currently the top 8 teams get one bonus point each week. The proposal is to award bonus points based on points scored each week as follows:

1^st-5^th Place 2 points                   6^th-10^th Place 1 Point                          11^th-16^th Place 0 Points

The reason is the difference from 1^st to 8^th place each week is normally pretty significant, and they both get one bonus point. This three tier system would reward the top scoring teams more. The rebuttal is that it may reward top teams to much. You now have a chance of a four point swing each week, i.e. you lose and finish 11^th, your division rival wins and finishes 5^th, you dropped four points back. This is also a reason for the proposal; you would now have a chance to make up 4 points potentially in a week. The last concern is that head to head matchups should still be the biggest factor in standings, not additional bonus points for scoring well.

Vote: Bonus Points
Option A: Use new bonus point system
Option B: Keep current bonus point system

13)   Defense Points:                           *This proposal will only take affect if vote #9 does not pass, but still needs to be voted on by all teams under the assumption #9 doesn’t pass. A proposal was made to extend the scoring tiers of defense points allowed. A few years ago we added to the offensive yards scoring tiers a final tier that says 1 point for each additional 29yds (in the case of passing yards). This is so that in the rare case of a player going beyond our scoring chart, they are properly rewarded. Currently the defensive yards allowed chart is maxed out at 149 yards. The proposal is to add 1 point for each additional 19 yards not allowed. For example a team defense only allows 125 yards, they would receive 12 points, not 10 as in the current system. Again, this is keeping in line with the offensive yardage charts, and rewarding the rare occasion a team goes below 149 yards allowed.

Vote: Defense Points
Option A: Add to defense yardage allowed 1 point for each additional 19 yards not allowed
Option B: Keep current defense yardage allowed system

14)   Offense Points:                            *This proposal will only take affect if vote #9 does not pass, but still needs to be voted on by all teams under the assumption #9 doesn’t pass. Currently the offense scoring charts for yardage, pass completion % and receptions all start with two points. A proposal was made to extend the tiers to include a 1 point tier. The reason is that a player can have a decent game but get nothing. For example, a WR can have 2 receptions for 48 yards and gets nothing. A QB goes 18/31, 198 yards and gets nothing. Not great games, but respectable. Under the proposal they would now get 2 points for their efforts. The rebuttal is we already have high enough scoring, no need to increase it more. The rebuttal to that is we are only adding 1 point tiers, it will not greatly affect the scoring, just add a little more. The proposed 1 point tiers would be:

Pass Yds 170-199                       RB/WR/TE Yds 30-49                        Pass Comp% 55-59           Receptions 2

Vote: Offense Points
Option A: Add 1 point tiers to offense scoring
Option B: Keep current offense scoring tiers