2007 Rule Change Thread

[Musesboy]

I thought it would be useful to dedicate a single thread to discuss possible rule changes.

Two polls are already up: do we add Head Coaches to the scoring, and what shall we do about franchising players?

This is the perfect time to look at the rules. We can do that at any time and I will always listen, but any changes should be adopted before the start of the following season. So now is the time.

It is impossible for me to think about what may be in the minds of 13 other owners, so this is where you can tell me. We are all a part of this league and any one of us might have a great idea about what could be done to make it even better.

I am not going to suggest anything myself. But I am going to list some ideas that may inspire you to suggest some changes. I know the rules are vast already, but I think that some of the twists we have make this league different and more enjoyable than Fanball leagues.

You need not say anything at all if you are happy with the way things are currently done. I just don't want anyone to feel that they never have a chance to change things. But please don't change things just for the sake of it.

Here are the areas that we could look at. If your particular concern is not listed, you can still make your point in this thread.

Structure - 14 teams, 4 divisions, 6 advancing to the playoffs.

Rosters - 45 active players, 3 taxi squad, up to 5 injured reserve.

Starting Lineups - 4 formations on offense, 3 on defense.

Scoring - Is it ok? Backup QBs and homefield ok too?

Rookie Draft - 7 rounds from worst to first, does not snake in any round.

Contracts - 170 cap, cannot be reduced, can be increased at a cost when traded, can be franchised for one year on expiry, no penalty for dropping a player.

Free Agency Bidding - bids in Breakneck Bucks, 7 days without a bid before it is over.

Waivers - everyone happy with this during the season? The time they are processed? The rules in general?

Trading - we allow trading of players that have a contract about to expire, years can be added at 20 bucks per year within one week of the trade.

Breakneck Bucks - Anyone want to change how they are awarded each week/season?

Tiebreakers - for divisions and the playoffs.

Deadlines and Timing - weekly trade deadlines, starting lineups can be changed up until kickoff of each game, trading starts after the Super Bowl, roster cuts are done just before the NFL Draft, the rookie draft is done a week after the NFL Draft (in theory). Any changes you want to see?

[boehlerking01]

Suggestion, when we finish amending the rules could you please pin the new rules to the top of the page so they are easy to find?

I also think that 7 days without a bid could safely be reduced to 4 or 5 without having any problems.If they don't bid in 5 days are they going to bid in 7? Probably not.

[Musesboy]

boehlerking01 said:

Suggestion, when we finish amending the rules could you please pin the new rules to the top of the page so they are easy to find?

I also think that 7 days without a bid could safely be reduced to 4 or 5 without having any problems.If they don't bid in 5 days are they going to bid in 7? Probably not.

I will post them here and email everyone a copy.

[tazinib1]

I would like to see how many people are interested in creating restricted free agency. I love how this league mirrors the NFL and this would be a great addition in my opinion and would eliminate alot of the franchise tag mess.

[kellumboys]

tazinib1 said:

I would like to see how many people are interested in creating restricted free agency. I love how this league mirrors the NFL and this would be a great addition in my opinion and would eliminate alot of the franchise tag mess.

sounds good to me
how would you suggest we do this?

[kellumboys]

1- 5 days on FA bidding sounds good to me.

2- I think all players should become FA when their contracts expire, unless franchised for 1 year.
if you trade a players in the last year of their contract, then their contract can be extended.
otherwise, for example, any player who has a contract to expire in '07 should become a FA after the Super Bowl.

[boehlerking01]

I am interested and this is what I think we should do. I think we should limit the # of RFA's we can have in a season to 1 per team and I also think that If we make a player a RFA, he goes through the bidding process, and the owner matches the bid on that player, when the next season is over that player WILL become a free agent and is NOT eligible for trade before he is released by that owner.I think that All players that are not made into RFA's should be released after the Super Bowl when free agency starts.Lets make owners trade players before the contracts actually expire.That way an owner that is trying to get the player will have at least PART of a season under contract and can also add years to the contract making it so a contract never actually sees an end before free agency.

[Musesboy]

boehlerking01 said:

I am interested and this is what I think we should do. I think we should limit the # of RFA's we can have in a season to 1 per team and I also think that If we make a player a RFA, he goes through the bidding process, and the owner matches the bid on that player, when the next season is over that player WILL become a free agent and is NOT eligible for trade before he is released by that owner.I think that All players that are not made into RFA's should be released after the Super Bowl when free agency starts.Lets make owners trade players before the contracts actually expire.That way an owner that is trying to get the player will have at least PART of a season under contract and can also add years to the contract making it so a contract never actually sees an end before free agency.

I am against RFA and I like things the way they are. All of my decisions have been made with the current rules in mind. I want to guard against letting the owners off the hook if they made bad decisions. I would actually prefer to do away with any franchising system completely.

However, Bill's above suggestion is one that I could live with. I like that it would only be one player per team (just as we have now). I also like that the player can only be kept for one year and must be released unless he is traded during that last season (not after). That way, it is still a severe penalty, and owners that planned well will still be rewarded.

There is still time for others to come forward and give alternative suggestions of course.

If we go with RFA, please define "going through the bidding process". Will we only be allowed to bid Breakneck Bucks for RFAs, or could we bid with players or draft picks too?

But what about this season? I think it would be unfair to suddenly say that we can no longer trade players that have expiring contracts. If those rules were in place, many owners would obviously have moved players during last season, especially if they saw that they were about to miss the playoffs. Therefore I propose the following...

IF we go with RFA in the way that Bill has suggested, we allow trades for this year for the players that have a contract that expires in 2007. We also do away with the current franchising rules right now. We move to the new system immediately (apart from allowing trades for this year only). So you have the OPTION of putting a player on the block as a RFA if you don't want to trade.

Thoughts?

I would like everyone to talk about this or their own ideas before we move on. And I would also urge owners not to agree to trades until we have a rule in place. It would hurt to trade away a player that you could have kept.

[boehlerking01]

I know it looks like I'm the only one with anything to say here but I hope that isn't the case.

By going through the bidding process I meant that he is put on the table and bid on with breakneck bucks....I had not given thought to offering players or picks in the process. I also meant that if a player is bid on and the original owner matches the bid and keeps the player for another season he cannot be traded or dropped by that owner. When free agency opens the next season that player is automatically a free agent.That way the owner will feel the need to trade the player away BEFORE the trade deadline and not let him go to RFA to begin with.

I agree with Steve.He said....

IF we go with RFA in the way that Bill has suggested, we allow trades for this year for the players that have a contract that expires in 2007. We also do away with the current franchising rules right now. We move to the new system immediately (apart from allowing trades for this year only). So you have the OPTION of putting a player on the block as a RFA if you don't want to trade.

I think this is a good Idea, that way owners that didn't plan for this change(and who did) Still have the option of trading those players.Next year would be different though.


We have 14 owners in this league and I hope that all 14 of them know what is being discussed here....I wouldn't like it if we made a change and one of the owners didn't like it and dropped because they weren't involved.....So please make yourself heard!

[BandwagonMark]

kellumsboys said:

1- 5 days on FA bidding sounds good to me.

2- I think all players should become FA when their contracts expire, unless franchised for 1 year.
if you trade a players in the last year of their contract, then their contract can be extended.
otherwise, for example, any player who has a contract to expire in '07 should become a FA after the Super Bowl.

isnt kellum's #2 the rules already in place?

also, if we do go to RFA's, wont breakneck bucks become even more important? I kinda like the way it is because i can offer another team players AND bucks for guys with contracts that are fixing to expire.

[Musesboy]

redskinfanmark said:

kellumsboys said:

1- 5 days on FA bidding sounds good to me.

2- I think all players should become FA when their contracts expire, unless franchised for 1 year.
if you trade a players in the last year of their contract, then their contract can be extended.
otherwise, for example, any player who has a contract to expire in '07 should become a FA after the Super Bowl.

isnt kellum's #2 the rules already in place?

also, if we do go to RFA's, wont breakneck bucks become even more important? I kinda like the way it is because i can offer another team players AND bucks for guys with contracts that are fixing to expire.

At the moment, players can be traded right up until cut day (just before the NFL Draft). That gives us about ten weeks after the Super Bowl to trade them. Kellums is suggesting that they become free agents immediately after the Super Bowl. He is also saying that players can be traded during the season if their contracts are about to expire, but not AFTER the season.

And yes, Breakneck Bucks will become more important. That would be the case whether we forced teams to drop players with expiring contracts, or if we adopted some form of RFA.

That should give the teams with the worst records a better chance because you earn more bucks if you lose than if you win.

[boehlerking01]

With the RFA idea you can trade players with contracts about to expire for players AND breakneck bucks too you just have to do it BEFORE week 12 of the regular season.It would take more planning but still works.

Any OTHER ideas are definately open so if you have one PLEASE speak up.

[kellumboys]

I agree with Muses , that any change we vote on can only take place "next year" , not right away.
RFAs being restricted to one player per team sounds good to me.

[boehlerking01]

Actually Muses didn't exactly say that this would all take effect next year...He suggested that we make it so we can trade players with contracts ending in 2007 this year...just like before(this option would go away next year unless you traded before the deadline.)....But he also thinks we should drop the franchise player option NOW, AND move to the new system where we can put a guy on RFA so he can be bid on if an owner don't want to trade him.

I agree totally with Steve here.

kellumsboys said:

I agree with Muses , that any change we vote on can only take place "next year" , not right away.
RFAs being restricted to one player per team sounds good to me.

[tazinib1]

Well this rule change will definately have an impact on my strategy this year. Too bad I didn't take this team by the horns in the beginning cause I would never be in this mess to begin with. But it is what it is so lets vote on this, iron the kinks out if passed and lets prepare for the trading frenzy!!! We only have 1 week left so lets get these rules passed and put into affect if any should be added ya filthy animals!!

I wasn't sure if anybody else would bite on the RFA addition, but it seems like its gathering some momentum...if passed for the 2007 season, since this was a late addition and there have been some trades prior to, I think some compensation would be justified for owners that traded away FA's before the rule change. Maybe some breakneck bucks to ease the frustration? Or perhaps if both owners start from scratch? Believe me I'm not advicating mass discern and upheival amongst the league, but I would not veto a trade reversal if it was brought to a vote. I think the trading rule for the offseason should be made absoloutley clear from here on out to everybody so as to not cause any ill feelings to the ones who may not have been aware and of course to us as a league for rewriting the rules after a trade had been made. You guys decide. I'm good with whatever the masses agree on here with the RFA and FP subjects.

Just one more thing...maybe next year we can expand on the RFA. Make it more realistic by having an owner give there RFA a bid (salary tenures should be catergoried by levels of tenure as per the NFL) and bids that exceed that and not met by said owner will lose player to high bidding team. BUT...based on salary tenures, winning owner would forfit draft picks accordingly. I love this rule in the NFL and I think it would fit nicely in our league. Having only 1 option of tagging the RFA tag on a player who's contract has expired should be expanded IMO to 1 Offensive and 1 defensive player if the owner wishes to do so. We must make it somewhat of a penalty for owners who rely on the RFA to retain there players though. It should be a penalty that would deter an owner from using the RFA each year to overcome his/her lack of ability properly manage his/her team. Budgeting your roster and making room for trade/draft picks etc. is what the entire concept of our league is based on. So RFA is not intended to be a crutch and be used as such if passed. But an owner having the option to use it will maintain the parody within the ranks and limit an owners ability to sustain a powerhouse without recieving penalties for lack of management skill.

I would also like to propose 1 more thing. I think the cost of weekly transactions should be increased. I noticed alot of us (me included) played the WW each week alot more than any other league I've been in. There should be some sort of mandatory stint a player has with a new team before he can be dropped back in the WW pool. A 2 week mandatory activation of freshly aquired players via the WW might lessen the extreme amount of weekly transactions. Perhaps increasing the Breakneck Buck cost for transactions of this nature would be a better option? I am as guilty as the rest and my heavy use of the WW was a mixture of bye week filling, injury replacements and or just bad management by having players of lesser caliber on my roster. Then again you can all tell me to go screw myself, take my suggestions and shove em up my keister and I'd be good with that too lmao!!

All I know is when Steve's new IDP super league is formed, there are going to be alot of experienced owners overwhelmed with the rules and overall management of there team. We'll see who the GM's are within the Baller community without a doubt.


P.S...I'll be taking trade offers for all players on my roster the following Monday of the Super Bowl. I will be seeking WR,LB and RB's in exchange for players you may be interested in. My immediate goal is to get young, so I am not interested in aging veterans unless the contract is 2 or less years. I will also except offers for Vick who had an extremely impressive point production year in this league and who pretty much guided my team to the playoffs.


All offers will be considered but please DO NOT low ball me when Maroney ;D is the subject of your interest. It's gonna take a TON to get him away from me you maggots!!



I will dominate you all this year. Remember, it is I who beat the owner (our very own STEVE!!!!) that dominated you all with an ease unseen before in the annals of FF (by a whopping .05 points!!!). So I am a force you must reckon with like none that has come before me. You will suffer great lapses in judgement in the frenzied state brought on by the mere glance of a matchup between us. A complete and utter humiliation so grave to those that are pitted against me suffer, you jest of it and sadly, knowingly, but uncontrollably speak words that you know have zero chance of becoming reality. Knowing you will suffer a defeat with no power to stop it must be so immense, the mere thought of meeting me H2H must cause fear comparable to what the PGA field suffers when confronted the knowledge Tiger Woods has entered the same tourney as you. For I am TheTAZMan™ King of propoganda and instiller of second guessing hahahahahahaha....FEAR ME!!! I will crush all that stand before me!!

Ok i'm done...time for bed....peace