Summer Meeting 2009 Minutes
Home Coaches Rules Standings Press Room Rosters Draft Central History Contact
Official Rules Proposed Rule Changes
Below are minutes of the 2009 summer meeting, held on July 26th, 2009.
11:02 AM Derek has joined Kevin has joined
Andrew has joined
Anthony has joined
11:03 AM Kevin: hi everyone
is anyone else online that i missed?
Anthony: yoyo
Derek: hey
Andrew: yo
Kevin: and can everyone access the website?
Anthony: maybe send a group email to make sure noone is online and not here?
11:04 AM Kevin: Rules Page LinkDerek: I can access it.
11:05 AM Kevin: ok, email is sent
anthony, you were empowered by bill to vote in his interest yesterday unless he showed up
did anyone else submit proxy votes?
11:06 AM Anthony: andrew, you figure out your paypal?
Andrew: i know i had an acct
but havent used it in years
Kevin: scott told me he couldnt make it, but wasn't worried about it. everything was fine.
Derek: So that's Hamal and Sharad left then?
11:07 AM Andrew: i sent sharad a text
Kevin: and one other...
cause there are 4 here, bill is 5, those two is 7
Andrew: scott
Kevin: right
ok
sorry i'm pretty hungover
11:08 AM Derek: I love the way you prep for meetings - pre-drinking :)
Anthony: seriously
Kevin: i was expecting a nice easy meeting, not your "blindside newman with emails" awakining
Derek: I have totally talked about almost all of those with you in advance
11:09 AM no excuses :)
Anthony: andrew... email me your mailing address and ill use that when i send out the who owes what email
Andrew: ok
Kevin: meh
Anthony: should we get this moving?
Kevin: yes, im ready.
Derek: go nuts
Anthony: cool
11:10 AM Kevin: can we start with draft dates?
Anthony: reasonable enough
Kevin: there are 5 votes here, so 3 wins
fair?
Derek: right
Anthony: but there are three day
Kevin: right.
11:11 AM and 3 of us should attempt to agree to make the draft
Anthony: will we just vote btw the top two if there is no majority?
Kevin: or it will probably suck
Anthony: lol
yeah
Kevin: yes
Derek: so let's go over the options again
Kevin: Sunday, August 2nd- 11am or 8pm CT
Sunday, August 9th- 11am or 8pm CT
Thursday, August 6th- 8pm
lets talk DAY first
11:12 AM i should tell you all right now that if you enjoyed the live draft website updating, then we cant do thursday. i'll be driving to traverse city at that time.
i can make either sunday work.
Derek: Thursdays are tough for me too
11:13 AM Andrew: i'd have a hard time doing aug 9, my mom is visting for the weekend
Derek: Well I'll vote for Aug. 2.
Kevin: would aug 2nd give everyone enough time to prepare?
and, just as important, if we are saying that we want peoples cash to winners by draft, is that enough time?
11:14 AM Andrew: I'm guessing the payment part would be tough
Derek: yeah
Kevin: right, me too.
i'm still for aug 2 also, but...
just saying...
Anthony: yeah aug 2 is good
Kevin: well, the 4 of us seem to agree on aug 2.
11:15 AM Anthony: bill too
Andrew: we could extend the payment deadline to prior to start of the season if that helps
Kevin: ok. thanks bill
right, it would probably have to happen.
Anthony: or people could paypal me
and i can send andrew his check
no excuses for not having it on time
Derek: right
Kevin: right.
Andrew: that works
11:16 AM Anthony: or you can figure out your paypay
your username should be your email adderss
Kevin: alright, well, one of the rules we are voting on later affects this, so lets wait on this
Andrew: i'll take a look at it today
Anthony: ok
we gotta vote 11am or 8pm now?
Kevin: i would vote 8pm
ill be moving a friend that day
Andrew: based on this turn out i;m thinking 8pm
11:17 AM Anthony: me and bill too
Kevin: derek?
Derek: I'd prefer 8p. I have baseball tickets for O's BoSox at 1p et
Kevin: ok that was easy
that is CT people
11:18 AM Derek: 8pCT, so 9p ET
Kevin: correct
Derek: Let's not take forever on that though, I've got work in the AM
Anthony: agreed
Kevin: right, i think a lot do. we'll enforce anthonys speed rules from last year
no names of people your not drafting, etc
11:19 AM ok, so draft is set. lets start on the rules.
Anthony: hopefuly everyoen read thesel
and we can fire thru them?
Kevin: lets go through all the ones that were proposed and online for a while first
Andrew: yeah
Kevin: dereks are up there now
11:20 AM Proposal 1 - Under Section 9, insert "If a game is postponed during the season, scoring stats for that game will count for the week it was originally scheduled. Players started or not started are "locked" in that position once that week has occurred, regardless of when the game is actually played."
This proposal codifies what we did last season with the postponed game.
--
derek, did you propose a counter to this?
Derek: No, I'd just as soon vote no on it
11:21 AM Kevin: a no vote, as it stands, would be the same as a yes vote
Derek: ahh, well I'd suggest that a no vote be a repudiation of the rule
Kevin: this is because not putting ANYTHING in the rules means that we would fall to precedent, and we would do what we did last year, which was this
it would be anthony's ruling
11:22 AM anthony?
derek, if you have a suggestion, make it now...
Derek: My suggestion is that points are scored in the week that they are scored.
Anthony: ok lets vote between those?
11:23 AM Derek: Postponements, like injuries, are unforseen and unfortunate developments that may affect all owners equally
Kevin: that sounds good
voting between those
we can "write it up" later if it passes.
Derek: right
Kevin: call them "anthonys option" and "dereks option"
Anthony: bill and i will vote for derek's idea... easier to keep score and people can change their rosters up to the last second anyway
11:24 AM Derek: Derek votes for Derek's version
Andrew: i vote for derek's
Kevin: i vote derek
easy enough.
Anthony: yup
Kevin: Proposal 2 - Under Section 6, insert "2PT Conversion = 2 points." under subsections "Passing," "Rushing," and "Receiving."
This proposal adds points for scoring a two point conversion, the only scoring play we currently do not award any points for.
11:25 AM Derek: I love this
Andrew: yes
Anthony: bill and i will vote yes
Kevin: this is simple enough, no further explanation needed
i vote yes
Andrew: and really how did we miss this for 2 years?
Anthony: lol
cuz i was too lazy to score it
Kevin: Proposal 3 - Under Section 1, change "There shall be 8 teams within the game of College Fantasy Football." to "There shall be 10 teams within the game of College Fantasy Football."
There shall be no "expansion draft." New teams will draft their full roster during the regular preseason draft, and their order will be assigned as part of the random order with all teams. Regular draft rules will apply.
Additionally, the commissioner shall be charged with devising a new playoff schedule to match the increased number of teams. The commissioner's proposal shall be considered "approved as presented" and Section 9 shall be amended as necessary, unless changed by a majority vote of the coaches.
This proposal allows for the addition of two additional teams. There has been a lot of interest in the league from friends, this would give two more a chance to join in the fun.
Andrew: fair enough
Kevin: ok, this is the issue of expansion
we have several people interested in joining
11:26 AM Derek: Here's my question on this one
Kevin: we can easily handle scoring a couple more, but not a LOT more.
Derek: a few folks flaked last year
what if we drop 1-2 teams and don't get enough people?
Kevin: i can find 5 people to join this league and pay tomorrow.
11:27 AM its that popular
we cant "remove" anyone at this point
cause the deadline for player removal is right NOW
according to the rules
so its only if people quit
and we would ask, hopefully, they do that this week
Derek: or if they violate a rule, like not paying
Andrew: i'm all for more teams, and anyone joining with no expansion draft is probably serious
Kevin: right
thats quitting
11:28 AM Derek: ok. That's fine by me then. I'm not opposed to expansion.
Kevin: my biggest concern is 2 people quitting, but yeah.
11:29 AM Anthony: bill and i will allow it, i suppose
Kevin: its not affected by this
AMENDMENT!
what if we said "up to 10"
Anthony: sure
Andrew: sounds good
Kevin: so if we dont fill, people quit, we're not scrambling
11:30 AM we'll add two this week, and go from there.
Derek: `ok
Kevin: anthony is charged with divising playoffs based on how many people are in, so that is fine too
ok, amendment passes
Anthony: ill handle it
winner of you guys
plays me
Derek: I don't know that the playoffs need to change
Anthony: in finals
Derek: hehehe
Kevin: haha
11:31 AM playoffs need to change slightly
cause we actually codify where every place plays
Andrew: with ten teams i think a final 4 playoffs would work
Derek: why? If we've got 10 teams and top 8 make it
Kevin: so 8th place would get the loser award
Anthony: well we cant set the playoffs
Kevin: not 10th
Anthony: until we know how many we have
Derek: ok
Kevin: right.
Andrew: yup
11:32 AM Kevin: its all codified, but this will "drop" that and allow anthony to make it right
and since he wrote the first playoffs, i imagine it will be similar
anthony, can we have your word it will be similar?
Anthony: yeah i can draw up something similiar
yup
Kevin: ok.
11:33 AM any more issues with this? if not lets vote YES or NO
Anthony: eys
Kevin: on full proposal
Anthony: yes
Andrew: yes
Kevin: i vote yes
Derek: yes
Kevin: bill?
Anthony: yup
Kevin: Proposal 4 - Under Section 2, insert "There shall be a Supplemental Draft after Week 2. The Supplemental Draft shall be two rounds, in the same format and order as that season's preseason draft."
Proposal 4.1 - To be voted on only if Proposal 4 passed: Under Section 2, insert "Participation in the Supplemental Draft is optional. For each player drafted, a player from that team's roster must be dropped to keep the roster size consistent with the number of players before the Supplemental Draft."
This proposal would be a big change. If just proposal 4 is adopted, it would mean increasing roster size by two players after Week 2. This would help correct drafting mistakes (draft backup kickers, etc) or early season injuries or benching. But it would mean a big strategy shift. If proposal 4.1 is adopted, it would make the draft more of a "drop/add" period like other online leagues that allow free agency.
ok, this is the crazy one folks
11:34 AM Anthony: very crazy
Kevin: it would mean more time to get together during the season, and change the outlook of the league
talk JUST 4.0 right now
Andrew: i like that we have no free agency type thing
11:35 AM Derek: I do too
And I like rewarding research
Kevin: the biggest issue, why i thought about it was the kicker situation last year
we draft early
Derek: Granted, I got hosed by this (Donnie Carona, Todd Boeckmann)
but that's life
Kevin: and someone drafted 2 backup kickers
and while thats really funny
its also somewhat tragic
11:36 AM Andrew: i would support expanding the rosters
Anthony: yeah i think there are good arguments either way
Kevin: but, that coach could have traded colt mccoy away to get a new one
Derek: exactly
Kevin: well, is any more discussion needed on 4.0?
sounds like not. vote YES or NO
i vote NO
11:37 AM Derek: NO
Andrew: no
Anthony: whos idea was this one?
kevin?
Kevin: yes
Anthony: and you voted no
Kevin: yes
Anthony: lol
ok
i guess ill say no too
Kevin: and bill?
make bill vote yes
11:38 AM haha
Anthony: haha
bill votes no
Derek: Newman, I love that you propose rules you don't like :)
Kevin: Under Section 6, subsection "Rushing" add "For scoring purposes, a QB's minimum rushing yards shall be 0."
This proposal would make it so that having a QB who does not rush at all and takes a couple of sacks per game does not penalize the coach.
this is also somewhat of a major change
11:39 AM it rewards having sack happy qbs
Anthony: but rushing qbs still get their net yards
so they are penalized
Andrew: yeah
Derek: I think we set a dangerous precedent by using a scoring system that college doesn't use.
Kevin: derek makes a point
Derek: and that's the danger of drafting a pass-happy guy
Andrew: it makes some sacks count and some not
Anthony: even though i thought of the idea... bill and i are voting no on this
Andrew: i vote no
Kevin: i vote no
11:40 AM Derek: no
Anthony: easy enough
Kevin: ok, now we are on to dereks proposals. i'll copy and paste in, and then derek can explain them???
Derek: ok
Anthony: ok
Kevin: 1 - Should a coach vacate their team, via resignation or removal, that
team's roster shall immediately become free agents, draft eligible by
any other player. That team will not field another player for the
remainder of the current season, and will be ineligible for the
playoffs.
11:41 AM Derek: The thought here is that we need a way to deal with vacancies
and that it wouldn't be fair, if one team drops but two add, for one guy to get a bonus by having a roster in place
and it avoids expansion drafts
Andrew: and we only do pre-season vacating right
Derek: generally, yes
11:42 AM Kevin: my question is how we would define an inseason "vacancies?"
Anthony: question also is what is on the other side of the vote
Derek: I define it in the rule as "resignation or removal"
Kevin: the other side of the vote is simply "no."
Anthony: is the other option that the players are ineligible?
Kevin: it COULD be that if say, hamal quits, we hand his team to someone
11:43 AM but it doesnt HAVE to be that wAY
Andrew: right
Kevin: its anthonys call right now
this takes the call away from anthony
and makes it no handing over of a team to someone else
basically, think of it like this!
Andrew: i vote yes for doing this pre-draft
Kevin: teams COULD be entities, like an NFL team, bought and sold
11:44 AM or teams COULD be completely tied to the coach, and dont exist without their coach
Anthony: we should vote first on whether the team is handed over... if its not, then we should vote if the players are eligible or ineligible
Kevin: its two different schools of thought
Derek: and I like them tied wholly to the coach
11:45 AM Kevin: anthony moves to divide the question, is there support to dividing the question?
Anthony: otherwise its a clusterfuck of a vote
Derek: fine
Andrew: yeah
Anthony: sharad has a green dot
11:46 AM on gmail
does that mean hes online?
Kevin: ok, quesiton 1 is - team as entity or tied to coach.
Anthony: someone invite him
i dunno how
Kevin: oh, i can
Sharad has joined
11:47 AM Kevin: hi sharad
Sharad: hey
Kevin: we are discussing dereks proposed amendments
Anthony: sharad here?
Kevin: yes he is
Sharad: hold on
i'm on ichat
will sign onto gmail
Kevin: ok
Sharad: reinvite me in 1 min
Sharad has left
Kevin: ok
11:48 AM anyway...
Anthony: ok so now vote yes or no that a coach who joins in place of a departing coach inherits his team
right?
Kevin: yes basically
Anthony: bill and i vote no
Kevin: teams as entities that can be moved,
11:49 AM Andrew: i vote no on inheriting a team
Sharad has joined
Derek: I'm confused, but I vote that you cannot inherit a team
Kevin: right, anthony we ddint define what "no" and "yes" were
11:50 AM and we need to bring sharad up to speed
Sharad: scott was on vacation so he won't show up today
Kevin: so hold on voting
Anthony: i thought i defined it in what i said last
Kevin: yeah, we know
Anthony: yes means a team can be inherited
no means they are dispersed
Kevin: ok, sure.
Anthony: their fate to be determined
by our next vote
Kevin: lets pause and fill in sharad
http://kevinbnewman.googlepages.com/proposedrulechanges
11:51 AM sharad at that site we are on dereks proposal 1
we have divided the question into two votes
first is if a team can be tranfered between people
second is on what happens to players of a vacated team
let us know when you are ready
11:52 AM everyone else, any more discussion or are we all ready to vote?
Sharad: what are the options on the 2nd part?
start from scratch
Kevin: we're only talking 1st part
Sharad: or keep the same roster
oh ok
Kevin: right
Sharad: ok
11:53 AM Kevin: ok, sharad is ready. so voting YES or NO, with what anthony said
Derek: I vote NO, that you cannot transfer a team
Kevin: I vote NO
Anthony: me and bill vote no
Andrew: no
11:54 AM Kevin: sharad?
your vote?
Sharad: i don't udnerstand transfer a team means
Anthony: hes working on the wording
11:55 AM Sharad: ...
Kevin: ah
Anthony: if bill quits
the person who takes his place
gets his team
instead of having to draft a new one
Sharad: why are you guys voting NO? starting from scratch would be brutally difficult
i say YES
Anthony: yup it will be tough
Kevin: ok, fails 5-1
11:56 AM part two
players of vacated team
derek, what are the options?
Sharad: well if the replacement has to drat new team
Anthony: yes for eligible, no for ineligible?
Derek: YES means that the players simply go back into the draft pool
11:57 AM NO would mean they're permanently retired
Sharad: doesn't that mean the players that were on the team are in the pool?
Kevin: thats the vote now
discussion
i think i would at least like to be able to see those players again...
11:58 AM although it makes it MORE WORK on the webmaster
always keep in mind the WEBMASTER work load
Anthony: and will skew the level of talent in the draft
Sharad: why would a new guy want to join? they're donating money for like three years
Kevin: sharad makes a point
11:59 AM this hopefully will not be a common thing, people quitting the league
Derek: I think the key thing on this vote, is that let's say I went inactive last year, would you want someone to have a shot at Dez Bryant, or would he just be done?
12:00 PM Kevin: i would appreciate drafting dez bryant
i woudl have appreciated more if you traded me him right before you went inactive
Andrew: i think players should be eligible
Derek: Ha!
Kevin: any more discussion?
12:01 PM voting YES means players are in draft. NO means they are dead forever.
andrew did you wanna say something?
Andrew: i was just going to say this set of rules might have to change once we hit our set # of teams
12:02 PM or could
Kevin: in what sense?
Andrew: if you have one in, one out i can see a case for taking over ownership of a team
12:03 PM but obviously if you have 2 in and one out that is unfair
Kevin: well, the vote was for never doing it.
that passed
Sharad: if two join and one leaves the two could have a draft for that one team's players
Kevin: we can revisit next year if we think its bad
Anthony: bill and I vote yes
Derek: I vote YES
Sharad: yes
Andrew: i vote yes
12:04 PM Kevin: i vote yes
ok.
6-0
players return t the draft
dereks next proposal
2 - The third WR slot shall also be open to tight ends, now classified
as a WR/TE.
The next two rules are designed to make the draft a little more fair
for teams that tray but aren't that good yet. It accomplishes that
without rewarding anyone for taking at the end of the season. A team
that tanks, under my proposal, could draft no higher than fourth.
However, a that wins can't continue the domination ad infinitum - a
proposal most professional sports leagues consider basic. To allow
folks to vote on this without having to consider immediate beneficial
or adverse effects to their team, these two rules would take effect
with the 2010 draft.
derek please explain
12:05 PM Anthony: bill and i vote yes on wr/te
Derek: Here's the thought on this, we don't consider TEs, but occasionally there's a guy you might like. Eric Knott of MSU would have been someone like that. Jeremy Shockey or Kellen Winslow of Miami are other good examples
Anthony: this is a good idea
12:06 PM Sharad: in my other league TEs just count as WRs
Anthony: i actually like that way better
Andrew: yeah
Kevin: it only allows for ONE starting TE, not what sharad is saying though right?
Sharad: keep it simple
Derek: This would allow for one, and they'd count as a WR
but you couldn't start 2 or 3 TEs
Andrew: college offenses are reaching a pt where a lot dont really have standard positions
Sharad: there's very few TEs anyway
so it's unliekyl anyone will have 2+
12:07 PM Derek: I'd be open to allowing considering all TEs to be playing as WRs
Sharad: so let's just say TEs are WRs in our league
Anthony: i agree
Kevin: except for newman, MSU runs 3 TE sets so i'll draft all of them.
Derek: I'd be OK with that if Sharad is proposing it as an amendment
hehehe
I'd love Newman to draft all 3 MSU TEs
Sharad: did you refer to yourself there?
Derek: I'm told we have a good TE corps
12:08 PM Kevin: is anyone proposing to change it?
Anthony: yup
Sharad: when anthony says bill and i vote ...
is bill there?
Anthony: no
Kevin: guys...
Derek: OK, so the amendment here is to consider TEs as WRs
Kevin: all WR can be TEs?
12:09 PM this is JUST to change it in the proposal, not if the proposal actually passes or not.
Derek: The simple text is that "Tight ends are considered as wide receivers"
Andrew: i vote yes and yes
Kevin: Yes or NO on that.
i vote yes
12:10 PM Sharad: yes
Anthony: yes yes
bill yes yes
Kevin: ok amendment passes
so now we are back on the general question
should we allow TEs?
Derek: yes
yes
Anthony: yes
Kevin: yes
Sharad: yes
12:11 PM Kevin: andrew?
bill?
Anthony: bill yes
bill loves tight ends...
he said that
Andrew: yes
Kevin: ok that passes 6-0, now all spots are WR/TE
12:12 PM 3 - The team that finishes fifth shall hold the second draft pick in
the next year's draft. The team that finishes sixth gets the third
pick. This rule shall take effect starting with the 2010 draft.
derek please explain
Sharad: how many teams are in our league?
Anthony: I like rewarding the first pick and keeping the rest random
Sharad: 7? 8?
Derek: I just wanted to bring up ideas here about draft order, and propose stuff without rewarding tanking
Kevin: there is no garuntee that 5th place means anything under anthonys "not invented yet" playoffs
12:13 PM Derek: that's the trouble
Andrew: until we know # of teams and playoffs we cant make calls on team finishing X drafts here
Kevin: right
Derek: right
Andrew: i support playoff teams pick last
in general
Kevin: well, thats not the vote
thats coming up next
12:14 PM stay on topi
topic
right now, its 5th place drafts 2nd
Anthony: i vote no
Derek: no
Andrew: no
Anthony: bill no
Kevin: i vote no
fails
Derek: I think we should have a comprehensive rule on it though
Sharad: how many teams do we have?
Kevin: 10
Sharad: i know 3 teams make the playoffs
the winners bracket or whatever
12:15 PM so why is 5th place deserve that bonus?
Kevin: sharad your vote??
andrew your vote?
Sharad: i don't quite get the rule so i say no
Andrew: i vote no
Kevin: 4 - The winning team shall draft last in the next draft. The second
place team drafts second-to-last and the third place team drafts
third-to-last. This rule shall take effect starting with the 2010
draft.
derek
Derek: Same deal as last time, but I think this still holds
12:16 PM Andrew: i propose a more general version of this
since we dont know # of teams
Derek: ok
Andrew: but playoff teams pick last
in order of finish
champ last, then 2nd, etc
12:17 PM Anthony: despite this being a keeper league, there is huge turnover each year due to the nature of college fball
its not like nfl
i still favor random draft
with 1st pick being a reward
Kevin: there is a proposed amendment to strike this and say andews idea
Derek: right
YES on andrew's idea
Kevin: so vote first to replace dereks idea with andrews
Andrew: i vote yes
Kevin: i vote yes
12:18 PM Anthony: that rewards giving up, right?
Kevin: correct
Sharad: do we have snake draft?
Andrew: i wouldnt say so
Derek: I don't think it rewards giving up
Sharad: i think these drafts shouldn't be snake
Kevin: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
Anthony: haha
Kevin: we are voting, we have 3 voting to replace
Andrew: it just says playoff teams pick last, winners bracket only
Kevin: 3 have not voted
Andrew: can still have another bracket for top pick
Kevin: STOP TALKING
12:19 PM let them vote before we move on
Derek: Andrew's proposal basically establishes a draft lottery, composed of all that don't make the championship bracket
Anthony: bill and i abstain from voting which version of the vote we are voting on
but we are voting no for whatever one wins
Derek: You would still have the consolation bracket for the 1st pick
Kevin: sharad needs to vote
12:20 PM yes replaces dereks idea with andrews, no keeps it dereks idea. then we'll vote on the winner actually happening
Sharad: yes
Derek: YES
Kevin: ok, amendment passes 4-0-2
now discussion on the final thing
andrews idea, and if it should happen
Anthony: i strongly urge people to vote no on this
lot of turnover in this league
12:21 PM no reason to reward bad teams
Andrew: i think it allows for the idea of taking a rebuilding year
Kevin: (now that sharad has joined, it takes 4 votes for something to pass)
Anthony: rosters are more than 50% different each year
top players have 2-3 elite seasons
12:22 PM Andrew: there will always be a couple of the top teams that bring back those guys
and they dont need the top pick
Anthony: either way we go the league will be fine
because there is a lot of value in the draft
due to the deep pool of players
but bill and i vote no
12:23 PM Derek: I vote YES, we need to allow weaker teams - especially given that we're not having an expansion draft - to get stronger
Sharad: yes
Kevin: i vote no
Andrew: i vote yes
12:24 PM Kevin: it fails
3-3
needed 4 votes to pass
12:25 PM Derek: I blame you, Newman :)
Kevin: 5 - The commissioner shall set a deadline for league dues to be
received. The commissioner shall be empowered to vacate teams whose
coaches do not pay on time. NOTE: This rule may be affected by
Wallbank proposal 1.
derek, any discussion?
Derek: I think this needs to be specifically codified
12:26 PM It obviously hasn't worked the last two years
Kevin: correct
any further discussion??
anyone at all...
ok, voting YES or NO
12:27 PM I vote yes
Sharad: who is commish?
anthony or kevin?
yes
Kevin: anthony.
Sharad: i vote yes
Andrew: yes
Derek: YES
Kevin: kevin just moves stuff along
Anthony: yes yes
Kevin: cause kevin has to leave ASAP
:)
12:28 PM 6 - Rushing yards shall be scored as 1 point per 15 yards. Reason
being: This gets us back to the Season 1 rule. The Season 2 rule
tremendously overvalued RBs, given that feature backs in major
programs are almost a gimme to rack up huge totals early in the season
against patty-cake opponents.
derek?
Anthony: NONONONO
Kevin: let derek explain
Derek: The RBs were way overvalued last year
Anthony: no way receiving yards should be worth more than rushing yards
that was a HUGE oversight season 1
12:29 PM Derek: The problem with that idea, though, is that it's simply easier to get massive Rush yards
Anthony: i dont think they were overvalued
andrew won with bad runningbacks
12:30 PM Derek: Look at it this way - is it easier to rush for 150 yards or receive for them?
Andrew: dont you bad mouth keiland williams and ryan mccants like that
Derek: way easier to run
Anthony: hahaha
Sharad: lol
did you really win with those guys
Anthony: one running back should be more important to a team that one receiver
Sharad: that makes me want to throw up
Derek: you've got maybe 10 WRs capable of it on a consistent basis
and about 20-30 RBs
Andrew: they were on my team, but they didnt play beyond week 1
Anthony: lol
season one
i had ray rice
Sharad: you have the clemson guy
12:31 PM Anthony: and he had a huge year
but barely gave me any points
Sharad: yeah playing 1AA schedule
Anthony: i won because of my terrible texas tech receiver
wr are pleanty valued
they are very strong
Sharad: i vote no keep it 10 pts/yd
Andrew: if the issue is the cupcake opponents i think it's better handled in that rule proposal
Anthony: no need to hurt rbs
Sharad: 10 yds/pt
Anthony: yeah
Derek: yes
Sharad: anthony means no
12:32 PM Kevin: are we ready to vote?
Anthony: bill and i are voting no
Andrew: i vote no
Kevin: i vote no
fails 1-5
7 - To reward tough scheduling choices (and because feature players
always get 30-50 points in shit games against St. Mary's School for
the Blind), players' scores earned against Football Championship Subdivision and below teams will be assessed a 15% penalty (that player's final score will be multiplied by .85).
So let's say Dez Bryant (WR, OK ST) goes off for 200 Yds on 10 catches
with 4 TDs against Grambling State this September. Normally that'd be
20 + 5 + 24 = 49 points. Multiply that by .85 for playing a shit team,
and Bryant pulls in 41.65 points. Still a great haul, recognizing a
great effort, but also a fair recognition that he did it against a
team known more for their drum line than D line.
derek
12:33 PM Derek: Self explanatory
This might have hurt me with Michael Crabtree, and will hurt with Dez Bryant, but it's fair
Kevin: ok. this will be a bitch to try and calculate
Derek: not really
Kevin: it already takes 2-3 hours to do the stats every week
Derek: we'll just note when we submit lineups that the team we're playing is a cupcake
Kevin: we added 2 more teams, so that will be even longer now
12:34 PM and now having to check who each players opponent is? it will take a while
its not the actual calculation
its looking up who everyone played
say it takes 30 seconds per team
Sharad: there's 2 new teamS?
is hamal still in the league?
is bill?
Kevin: thats another 60 mintues!
12:35 PM focus sharad
:)
we expanded to 10 before you got here
Anthony: its a huge risk to start a player vs a nobody team
they often dont play very long
i think no adjustment is needed
Kevin: ok, are we ready to vote?
12:36 PM Derek: I vote YES
Anthony: no, no
Kevin: i vote no
sharad? andrew?
12:37 PM Sharad: yes
Andrew: i guess no
Kevin: ok, it fails 2-4
Andrew: like the idea, but it's tricky to execute and draw the cupcake line
Anthony: yeah true that
Kevin: Anthony, thats all of dereks stuff. do you have anyhting?
Anthony: one thing
Andrew: i have something
12:38 PM Anthony: we should decide how we are allocating the two available spots
Kevin: right.
Anthony: i think anyone who knows someone that wants in
shoul have them write a paragraph about why they should be in
and we should review them over email, and vote
Kevin: i like the idea
Derek: right
Kevin: but i dont wanna vote
Andrew: we need a prospective coach combine
Anthony: haha
Kevin: i say write a paragraph, and anthony pick
12:39 PM Anthony: thats fine too
Kevin: cause we only have a week
Anthony: but what if one is someone that i know, and one isnt? is that fair?
Kevin: um...
hmm...
point
Anthony: i say vote
Sharad: $30 application fee
Anthony: hahaha
Kevin: haha, no
but it would pay for the trophy
Sharad: if i have to read that paragraph
Derek: We can do a vote really easily
12:40 PM Anthony: yeah should be easy
Kevin: ok, vote. but we need to do it FAST cause draft is next week
Anthony: yup
Kevin: paragraphs due tuesday?
vote wed?
Anthony: sounds good
Derek: just put all the paragraphs together, then we'll pick folks Wednesday
Kevin: ok. and anyone in the league whos not voted within 24 hours, just say they arnt gonna vote
Anthony: yup
Derek: Say, we vote until 8p. CT Wed., then Newman sends out an e-mail with the draft order and who's in?
Kevin: cause i dont see bill being able to read
12:41 PM Anthony: yeah thats a prob
we work around his shortcomings
Kevin: but in theory this works
Sharad: anthony don't create a fake application
Anthony: for a B team?
but you have one!
and it beat you...
12:42 PM my friend D'Anthony wants in this league for sure
Kevin: i have two friends interested
Anthony: so does my boy Anfrenee
Kevin: ***** and edwards
derek knows both
Derek: yeah.
Anthony: well thats 4
Derek: both want in badly
Sharad: is hamal still in the league?
12:43 PM Anthony: haha
Kevin: ***** actually looked into ways to kill hamal and assume his email
Anthony: was he ever?
Derek: So we're just going to take 2? or will there be a way to gauge if Hamal's back?
Anthony: i will talk to him
and report back
Sharad: cmon
Kevin: ok.
Sharad: he'll say he's in
by sept 15
he's out
Anthony: yeah but he has to pay this time
so that will be the key
difference
hoepfully?
Derek: I'm with Sharad on this. He dropped last year, didn't show for this
Sharad: who is collecting the money
12:44 PM Kevin: he dropped he should be out.
anthony is
Sharad: so it's OMITTED - SEE RULES SECTION 8.
OMITTED - SEE RULES SECTION 8.x3 years?
Anthony: i will send out an email with who owes what
Kevin: if anthony suggested we vote out hamal, i bet that everyone here would do it
Anthony: the league was OMITTED - SEE RULES SECTION 8. last year
OMITTED - SEE RULES SECTION 8. the first year
Kevin: but according to the rules, anthony has to propose it by the summer meeting
which is this
Anthony: and if we want a trophy, we have to bump it to OMITTED - SEE RULES SECTION 8. this year
to put in OMITTED - SEE RULES SECTION 8. each for a trophy
Sharad: by the way bill is no different than hamal
12:45 PM Anthony: that can be passed around
Sharad: he bailed by week 3 too
Kevin: yes, bill should be out too
Derek: Agreed.
Kevin: "The commissioner has the power to nominate players for removal at any time during the off-season for violation of rules. The nomination must receive a majority vote of the league's membership to be approved."
Derek: I think bailing mid-year is inexcusable
12:46 PM Kevin: that means that 5 votes kicks someone out
but only if anthony proposes it
and by the end of this meeitng
Derek: People always want in now. But if they bailed last time, they'll do it again
12:47 PM Andrew: didn't we also say people would get booted for not paying in time?
Anthony: yeah
Kevin: yes. but NO ONE paid
Anthony: lol
Kevin: before
so we would all be out
Andrew: i mean for this year
Anthony: now we are finally setting it
Kevin: oh, yes
:)
Derek: yes, but if we're not paying before the draft, then we'd have two people vacate after the draft
Anthony: heres how i see it
Kevin: correct.
Anthony: we use the pay before the league attempt
12:48 PM to motivate them
Kevin: and if they dont pay, its too LATE to add more people this year
Derek: so we would have had two people be told the league is full, then run the league with two vacancies
Anthony: and if they quit this year
i will propose their removal
Andrew: fair enough
Anthony: btw, d'anthony and anfrenee are not real people
Kevin: DUH
ok, so anthony isnt going to propose it, so thats it. end of discussion
Anthony: haha
12:49 PM i will next year
Kevin: anthony, anything else or are we dont?
Anthony: if this doesnt work
Kevin: done
Anthony: you have my word
andrew had something
right?
Andrew: yeah
should be quick
Kevin: i take that they didnt show for this meeting as a bad sign
sure, whats up man?
Andrew: i dont think we have anything that sets a roster limit coming out the draft
Kevin: we do, its 18
12:50 PM Andrew: is it called out?
Kevin: ok, its funny
Andrew: the rules just say a minimum of 10 bench players
Kevin: but it says "draft until you reach 18"
you can TRADE for more players and have more
after draft
Andrew: right
Kevin: but you draft until you reach 18 players
and then stop
Andrew: what if you have 20 returning?
as ridiculous as that is
12:51 PM Derek: Then you don't draft at all
Kevin: then you dont draft at all
and keep 20
Andrew: ok
Kevin: "the draft will continue until all coaches have a full roster (Minimum of 18 positions)."
there is no max, you can have 200. you just wouldnt draft at all then
12:52 PM are we ok then? with your issue?
Andrew: yeah
Derek: By the way, does anyone want aldridge or britton?
12:53 PM I'm willing to bundle them together for a single higher draft pick
Kevin: so i think we're done
12:54 PM Anthony: rosters due tomorrow, right?
12:55 PM Kevin: yes
another sign bill and hamal arnt playing
Sharad: i have #1 pick and there was a swap of picks with scott
Kevin: all pick trades are listed on the "trades" page
there were at least 3
Derek: Can we just have an agreement that if someone doesn't submit rosters and they didn't make the meeting they're out?
12:56 PM Kevin: thats on anthony
Sharad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzgAjjuqZM
12:57 PM whoops wrong person
Anthony: lol
Kevin: are we done?
Anthony: yeah
Sharad: funny video w/ cheap shot at detroit
might be worth your time anyway
Anthony has left
Sharad has left
12:58 PM Andrew has left
12:59 PM Kevin: ok, bye derek
1:00 PM Derek: you want aldridge/britton?
1:01 PM Kevin: no
i alrady had aldridge
Derek: right
Kevin: sorry
Derek: I figured you might want a TX Tech WR
1:02 PM Kevin: yeah. lets leave the group chat cause this is recorded for online
Derek has left
Website managed by Kevin Newman.