No Idiots Allowed Fantasy League

[Cosmo]

Yo-yo ma!

 

[Hank_Scorpio]

When I become commissioner next year, I'll consider all these changes and make the appropriate decision.


;D

 

[Freelance Hack]

When I become commissioner next season, I will implement negative points for missed field goals and extra points.

 

[Lugnuts]

Seriously? Would you punish a guy less harshly for missing a 55-yarder as opposed to a 15-yarder?

 

[Cosmo]

The real issue I have with the scoring in this league is that it's way, way too touchdown oriented. Someone like Marion Barber III shouldn't be more valuable to your fantasy team than Tiki Barber, but it's a wash because Barber III gets a few goal-line looks a game. In this league, if your player doesn't score TDs, you might as well not have him.

The other league I'm in gives greater rewards for big-yardage games, especially for receivers. That was done mostly because running backs have become far too important in fantasy football. People were drafting three running backs each before going after any other position. It rewarded some creativity in drafting (like me taking the Bears D in the seventh or eighth round, or another guy in our league drafting a QB ahead of a second-tier RB).

It's a lot more fun, honestly.

 

[Freelance Hack]

Seriously? Would you punish a guy less harshly for missing a 55-yarder as opposed to a 15-yarder?

It would be weighted. You'd lose only 1 point for a 50 yarder. It the converse of the point system rewarding distance.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

Seriously? Would you punish a guy less harshly for missing a 55-yarder as opposed to a 15-yarder?

It would be weighted. You'd lose only 1 point for a 50 yarder. It the converse of the point system rewarding distance.

Distance isn't important - it how well you know how to kick the ball.

 

[Buck]

I have no problem considering scoring changes for 2007, but let's not make it too complicated.
Simplicity, babies.

 

[Freelance Hack]

Seriously? Would you punish a guy less harshly for missing a 55-yarder as opposed to a 15-yarder?

It would be weighted. You'd lose only 1 point for a 50 yarder. It the converse of the point system rewarding distance.

Distance isn't important - it how well you know how to kick the ball.

Not really. It's easier to kick an 18-yard figgie than it is to kick a 50-yarder. Therefore, you should earn less points for accomplishing and lose more for failing to accomplish the easier task.

 

[Lugnuts]

The real issue I have with the scoring in this league is that it's way, way too touchdown oriented. Someone like Marion Barber III shouldn't be more valuable to your fantasy team than Tiki Barber, but it's a wash because Barber III gets a few goal-line looks a game. In this league, if your player doesn't score TDs, you might as well not have him.

The other league I'm in gives greater rewards for big-yardage games, especially for receivers. That was done mostly because running backs have become far too important in fantasy football. People were drafting three running backs each before going after any other position. It rewarded some creativity in drafting (like me taking the Bears D in the seventh or eighth round, or another guy in our league drafting a QB ahead of a second-tier RB).

It's a lot more fun, honestly.

I was in a league that did fractional scoring for yardage, and it helped TDs mean less. Plus it was kind of fun - Tony Gonzalez's measly 15 yards could help make the difference in a win or loss. With our system, I got a big 0 for those 15 yards - that bothers me. What if those 15 yards had accounted for a major 3rd down conversion -- a pivotal turning point in the game?

I wouldn't call fractional scoring more complicated because Yahoo does it all for you anyway.

 

[Buck]

Chris' wife has been nice enough to convince him length isn't important.

 

[Buck]

But TDs should count for more than yardage.