Please take the time to carefully read through the 2009 NFL Rules Vote. Yes, it is a little lengthy but I tried to clearly explain all the issues.

There are two issues to be voted on this year. The issue on how rosters are to be composed is a difficult one. Due to the complexity of this issue please read carefully how we will handle the vote for roster size.

There are three nominations on how rosters should be changed, as well as keeping the 2008 format. This vote will include four options to choose from. I have always tried to keep voting options to 2 or 3 options only but this is such a highly debated subject that we will have all 4 options to vote on. My biggest concern when having four options is that the vote will be split four ways and none of the four will receive a majority vote.

We will vote on the four options on roster size. If one option receives a league majority vote of 9 or more, then that will be declared the winning vote. If none of the four options receives at least 9 votes, then the two highest votes will then go to a run-off second vote so we do achieve the necessary majority of 9 or more votes.

Here are the two issues to be voted on:

1) Roster Size             In 2008 we expanded rosters to included 2 QB, 2 K and 2 DEF. The TE position was merged into the WR position. The main goal of this was to eliminate the bye week matchups. The change worked well in regards to eliminating bye weeks and using all 32 NFL teams at the QB, K and DEF positions. The problem that developed was at the QB and DEF positions. If a team had a top QB get hurt or turn out to be a bust, they had no chance to rectify that situation via a free agent. The same was found by many with the DEF position. There were multiple DEF that were highly ranked that ended up being bottom level performers. Teams were frustrated because 3 or 4 weeks into the season they were in bad shape and had no way to try and recover. While trading was the suggested path to improvement once again the league had very minimal trade action. There have been a grand total of 8 trades in our league in 4 years. Making a trade to improve is just not proving to be a consistent option. Based upon the lack of opportunity to improve you team once the season started at the QB and DEF positions there is 3 proposals on how to alleviate this problem. The main reason for expanding rosters last year was to eliminate the bye week subs. As Commish I certainly enjoyed not having the 4 or 5 hour nightmare of bye week claims on Saturday nights. I do recognize the frustration of owners on to being able to improve. I look at the options proposed as a middle ground. The three new options include having just two positions that would need a bye week sub each week. As Commish I am comfortable with processing 2 positions for bye week subs each week, while addressing the flexibility concerns the league had. When considering the proposed changes for roster size it is important to consider that we need to keep rosters an even number. So when making a change it must be done in an even number. A team drafting #1 should have the first pick and the last pick in the same amount of rounds. Here are the 4 options:

            Option A         Change to 1 QB and 1 DEF only

                                    This option would allow teams to make free agent moves at the QB and DEF positions. Teams would not be stuck if the suffered a QB injury or if a drafted player or unit played poorly. Allowing teams the flexibility to improve during the year is the most common concern expressed by owners last year. One concern is the past about having one defense is that teams would drop top defenses in the final weeks as they tried to make the playoffs and solely play the matchups. This was another big reason for expanding rosters to 2 DEF. As part of this option it would also included a stipulation that teams could not drop a DEF in the final two weeks of the regular season. Example: A team fighting for a playoff spot in week 12 has Pittsburgh DEF, but they play New England that week. Teams would often drop Pittsburgh and pick up a DEF that was playing the lowest ranked offense that week. This stipulation would not be included for the QB position. Teams dropping a top QB based on matchups is not something that regularly happened. Example: In week 12 a team fighting for a playoff spot has Tom Brady but they are playing Pittsburgh. They are most likely not going to drop Brady for that week. The obvious downside to this change is that we are back to using bye week subs again.

            Option B         Change to 1 QB and 1 K only

                                    This option is similar to option A in the reasoning for going back to 1 QB only. Some owners still do like going back to one DEF as mentioned in option A. This option would prevent those concerns. The opinion is that the K position is one that Kickers are very hard to project each year and the difference in top performers is much less dramatic than the other positions. This proposal would address the QB concerns and having one K keeps the rosters at the desired even number. The downside to this proposal is again going back to bye week subs and also the opinion that getting stuck with 2 bad defenses can greatly hurt a team’s chances of making the playoffs and teams would only have the trade option to improve their team.

            Option C         Change to 1 QB and 1 Team TE

                                    This option is similar to option A in the reasoning for going back to 1 QB only and similar to option B as to why to go back to 1 DEF. Another concern expressed last year was the merging of the TE position with the WR’s. It was felt that we took away a valuable option of taking a stud TE as opposed to a lesser TE. Taking a stud TE early was a drafting option that was no longer available. One reason for including the TE with the WR’s was that after the top 5 or 6 TE’s the quality dropped off significantly. The change last year allowed teams to draft another WR as opposed to being forced to take a lesser TE. The proposal is to draft a Team TE. This means each week at the TE position you would declare two active players from an NFL team to start at the Team TE position. You would only accrue stats from the two specifically declared players. The reason for this is that many NFL teams have two active TE’s each week, but they end up splitting the catches making both a lesser commodity on their own. By using Team TE it would allow these two TE NFL teams to be more competitive with the top stud TE’s. This should create a deeper pool of viable fantasy TE’s. Another concern last year of merging the TE’s was that have taken away the “natural” football lineup. The TE position is a key one for NFL teams and by merging them with WR it just wasn’t a very natural look at the football roster. The downside is again bye week subs and also concerns of using a “Team” type of position. While increasing the depth of the two TE NFL teams, the “Team” position also has the potential for making stud TE’s even better. One of the reasons we did away with Team QB is that a team would get a big lead, the stud QB (TE in this case) would have a big day. They would get pulled in the 3^rd quarter after putting up solid stats. The backup would come in and keep rolling up the stats making a good day an unbelievable day. So while this change may make some lesser NFL TE situations more valuable, it may also make the top stud TE’s also more valuable. Another concern is how teams accurately rank or project the Team TE position for the draft? Yes, most teams would be looking for that top stud TE, but how will the 2^nd TE help and how do you project the NFL team with 2 active TE’s? Another concern is that the top TE’s performed very well last year with the top WR’s. Tony Gonzalez actually won the WR/TE sidepot and there were 6 TE’s in the top 25 overall for WR/TE. It created a much deeper position while not forcing teams to start a lesser TE.

            Option D         Keep the rosters at the 2008 Format            2 QB, 2 K, 2 DEF and WR/TE position

                                    The elimination of bye week subs was very good for me as the Commish. Some owners never liked bye week subs and how teams just picked the sub QB and DEF who played the weakest opponent and would get solid days causing them to lose a game against top performing subs. Teams also liked using all 32 NFL teams at the 3 positions. The top TE’s competed well with the top WR’s creating a deeper WR/TE position. All of these were positives. Yes, the lack of ability to change at QB and DEF is a concern. Several owners expressed the opinion of “tough luck” should be the philosophy when dealing with injuries and busts. In the NFL if a team’s defense performs poorly that NFL team is not going to do well. If a stud QB goes down with an injury that NFL team will probably struggle to make the playoffs as well. It was asked why we are always doing so much to make it easier for teams to improve upon injuries or poor drafting. Injuries are a big part of the NFL and if an NFL team drafts poorly they pay the consequences as well. Yes we want a competitive league and yes the frustration of injuries and busts can make for a long season but again it has been expressed “that is the way it goes sometimes”. In the end it was expressed several times that while keeping the league fun and competitive is a goal we always seem to be changing something to make it easier for teams. Maybe we need to stop this and just accept the fact the sometimes stuff happens and just like the NFL you do the best you can under the circumstances.

2) Draft Order            Last year at the draft we voted to switch the drafting order to the “Third Round Reversal” format. Teams had expressed a concern over the years about drafting in the bottom 8 of round one and the difficulties that it often produced. It has been suggested by multiple owners that we vote again on which format to use.

            Option A         Go back to normal drafting order

                                    The main reason for wanting to go back to the normal draft order is that in 2008 we saw an ever increasing use of multiple RB’s by teams and a complete lack of clear cut top 5 or 6 picks. The top 2008 fantasy performers were not all top 5 picks as often had been the case in past years. Looking at the 2009 mock drafts and projections this year looks to be an even more difficult season to project. In looking at 5 national websites and their projected mock drafts there are a total of 14 players going the top 6 of the drafts. Basically the days there being a clear cut top 3 or 4 or 5 studs that could literally carry a team are over. When looking back at the 2008 draft only one team with a top 5 pick made the playoffs, while 3 teams that had a bottom 5 pick made the playoffs. When looking at sidepot winners at QB, RB and WR/TE positions they were picks 30, 49 and 59. When looking at the top 3 scoring teams they were picks 10, 3 and 13. The feeling is that if you look at last year’s results and the lack of clear cut top picks in 2009 in makes no sense to penalize the top picks by switching the 3^rd round order.

Option B         Third Round Reversal (voted in 2008)

                        This was voted in last year at the draft. Here is a refresher on that proposal:       A common practice in the national big money fantasy football leagues is called "Third Round Reversal". Basically what happens is you pick 1-16 out of a hat as we now do. Round one the draft order is the same, 1-16. Round two is the same, 16 back to 1. In round three you reverse the order. Instead of going 1 back to 16, you again go 16 to 1. Then round 4 continues with pick 1 starting and then alternating rounds after that. It is only round 3 that is reversed. The pro for this is that it really evens out the value of picking #1 and #16. In our current system if you get pick #1, you choose 1, 32 and 33. In the "3RR" system you would now choose 1, 32, 48. The other side is pick 16. In the current system they choose 16,17,48. In the "3RR" system they now choose 16, 17, 33. The balancing out of the value of picks has been proven in the 3 years they have been doing this. Of course, injuries and busts always factor into how picks turn out.

                        The feeling for keeping this new system is the last sentence. Injuries and busts are always going to be a factor and they were a big factor in 2008. In the long run teams with a top 5 pick will normally have an advantage over a team with a bottom 5 pick.

If you have any questions about the two issues, please let me know.

Please try and send me your two choices ASAP. Send me your vote in the following format:

1)      Option X

2)      Option Z

Thanks             Jeff