� SUGGESTIONS FOR 2004 SEASON RULE CHANGES

Suggestion: Eliminate two-defense requirement
Submitted by: The Jayhawks
Comments:
I've finally come around on this one. You shouldn't have to draft two defenses. We don't have any minimum number requirements on other positions, and there's really no reason to have one for team defenses.

Suggestion: Push back starting lineups deadline
Submitted by: The Jayhawks
Comments:
Several folks this season have commented that the deadline for having your starting lineups in should be later than midnight Saturday, in order to get the most recent injury updates. Since it is frustrating as hell to not have one of your starters not play, I suggest we make the deadline noon Sunday. The drawback to the later deadline is that on Sundays I'm not around the house, the most recent lineups may not be posted until later that afternoon, or even evening, so you might not know exactly who you are going up against head-2-head. However that might happen 25 percent of the time, and I think that's a tradeoff most owners are willing to make. Keep in mind the old system is not unfair, as one person has claimed it to be, since all owners must adhere to the same deadline. It's just occassionally frustrating.

Suggestion: Include special teams turnovers, touchdowns (except returns) and safeties in defensive scoring
Submitted by: The Jayhawks
Comments:
Currently, no points are awarded for special teams fumble recoveries, touchdowns and safeties. This makes scoring defenses somewhat of a pain, as your Commish must weed through the play-by-play to determine which fumble recoveries came on defense, and which came on special teams. I think we should group the two, making scoring easier and giving credit for these plays since they are usually made by defensive guys anyway. This would not include punt or kick returns for touchdowns, since you can start returners as either wide receivers or running backs, whichever they are listed as on the depth chart. Also, no points would be awarded for blocked punts, field goal or extra point tries, but if returned for a touchdown the D/ST would get five points.

Suggestion: Separate yardage chart for TEs
Submitted by: Jellypop Fighters
Comments:
Currently, tight ends use the same yardage bonus chart as wide receivers. But I bet I can count on one hand how many times a tight end actually achieved the bonus in 2003. Last year, Tony Gonzalez, Shannon Sharpe, Todd Heap and Randy McMichael each eclipsed the 100-yard mark once, so we're not talking about a lot of points here. Modifying the yardage bonus chart to make it more realistic with tight end usage would add a little more importance to that position. As it is now, many managers don't even replace their tight end when he is on his bye week. So I propose a yardage bonus chart for tight ends as follows: 60-99 yards rushing/receiving would get 3 points; 100-149 would get 5 points; and 150 or more would get 8 points.

Comments from the Jayhawks: Whoa, I know what you're all thinking: A good idea from Todd? Once unthinkable, it seems to have happened. This gives owners a little extra incentive to pay attention to the TE position -- a position that needs a little life breathed into it (or sucked out of it, if you go by the old Baysden philosophy). The best TE in the game by far, Tony Gonzalez, would have eclipsed the proposed bonus mark eight times last season, as opposed to once under the old system. Todd Heap and Itulu Mili would have done it three times. Shannon Sharpe? Five times. Completely worthless bums like Billy Miller -- guys who are NFL starters and occassionally catch TDs -- still wouldn't have reached the new bonus numbers, so it's not like we're overweighting TEs with this new scoring system.

Suggestion: New yardage-based scoring system
Submitted by: T-Bird2
Comments:
The "all-or-nothing" system stinks. If your guy doesn't score or you don't get a benchmark in yards, you get squat.

I propose a yardage/scoring system that works in 10-yard increments for running and receiving and 25-yard increments in passing: 1 point per 10 yards (or 25 for passing) and scores count 6 (maybe 3 or 4 for a TD pass).

This way your receivers who get 75 yards in a game don't post a goose egg every week. You still get the bonuses for bigger scores because a 30-yard TD is worth 9 points because of the yards adding to the points.

We've used it in my league here in Va. Beach and I think it works much better. It helps too if we add more teams (which I'm in favor of), because then the No. 3 receivers and No. 2 RBs that will be seeing more action can contribute 6-8 points per game without scoring a TD.

Comments from the Jayhawks: I don't think there's anything wrong with the current system. It's not unfair to anyone just because it is different than what everyone else runs, and the best NFL skill position players are still going to be your TFFL studs. You just have to tweak your rankings and lineups to escalate players who make big plays and score TDs. I think it rewards owners who pay attention and think independently, because you can't just look at the average cheat sheet or "Who Do I Start?" column and take some schmo's advice.

We started out as a TD league, and if one of your starting WRs is getting 60 yards a week and never scoring, why should you get any points for his sorry ass? Cut his butt and get somebody new. Our scoring system is part of what makes our league unique. Incorporating the Yahoo! system just makes us like any other league you can play in.

Comments from Jellypop Fighters: Here's my two cents on Timmy's proposal:

The "all-or-nothing" system stinks. If your guy doesn't score or you don't get a benchmark in yards, you get squat.

This is not a bad thing. Why should I get six points if an RB gets 60 yards receiving/rushing? Big deal. There aren't too many running backs these days who don't get at least that much in every game. That being said, maybe a compromise would be to lower the minimum yardage threshold to 75 yards for the 3-point bonus instead of 100, sticking with six points for 150 yards and upping the 200-yard total to 10 points or something.

Maybe we should create a scoring system committee and come up with some recommendations to vote on?

Suggestion: Bonus rival game, 12-team playoffs
Submitted by: The Jayhawks
Comments:
This obviously would work in conjunction with a 12-team league, and it works like this: The regular season lasts 12 weeks. Teams play all 11 other teams, then in Week 12 all teams play a certain "designated rival," with the winner getting 10 bonus points instead of the usual five. We could have everyone pair up with rivals before the draft, although there are some natural fits (Gamblers and Jayhawks via family, Strippers and Killers via work, T-Bird and Berserkers via sexual relations).

Following the 12-week regular season will be a four-week playoff in which the two teams with the best records in each division receive a Week 13 bye, and the other eight duking it out for the right to play the top four. Tech Bowl is Week 16, and our usual "run for the roses" with no head-2-head matchups is Week 17.

Of the scheduling options for 12-team leagues, I like this the best, since it should generate a lot of interest in Week 12 for the rivalry games, and all teams -- even scrubs like Jellypop Fighters -- will have a reason to stay active through at least Week 13.

Suggestion: Trim draft to 16 rounds if we go to 12 teams
Submitted by: The Jayhawks
Comments:
I like the draft as much as anyone, but I doubt we'll be having a lot of fun when pick 200 rolls around. With 12 teams going 16 rounds, we're making 192 picks, or 12 more than the potential maximum with 10 teams going 18 rounds. Using the old system of 18 rounds with the option to forfeit your final two picks, we could possibly make 216 selections. The pickings will be so slim by that point, there's really no point to drafting those guys.

� Archives main page
� Columns archives
� Main page
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1