Real Fantasy Pigskin: Future Framework and Vote

How many players can each team protect each year?

  • 8

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • 10

    Votes: 11 35.5%
  • 12

    Votes: 17 54.8%

  • Total voters
    31

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,716
Philadelphia
I think we've had enough debate and discussion of the future framework and its time to move forward.  We're probably not going to reach a 100% consensus but there seems to be strong support for this framework.  I'm putting a few details up for a vote in these polls.  Obviously, read the rules below before voting.
 
Supplemental Draft this Offseason
 
We'll have an extra five round draft before the season starts, with teams able to draft any positions of their choosing.  Draft order will begin with #32.  The draft will start August 15th, so that teams will have some time to evaluate how training camp battles are proceeding and take into account any injuries that have occurred to their players.  This should also give us enough time to conclude the draft before the season starts.
 
Annual Offseason Cuts and Draft
 
Every offseason starting in 2014, sometime around June 1, each team will drop four players of their choosing from their roster.   Each team will also choose X players (POLL #1) to protect from the draft.
 
We will then have an offseason draft during the summer with the draft pool consisting of all unprotected rostered players, all new NFL draftees and UDFAs, and all non-rostered players.  During this draft, each team can lose a maximum of Y (POLL #2) unprotected rostered players in the draft.  After Y of your players are selected, the rest of your unprotected rostered players are off-limits and no longer part of the draft pool. 
 
Each team will therefore lose a total of 4+Y players in the offseason.  Given that we want to expand roster sizes at a gradual rate, the number of draft rounds each year will be equal to that number (4+Y) plus 5, until we reach 53 man rosters (if this thing keeps going).
 
There has also been a proposal to limit the number of years that any player can be protected to five and I just want to put this to a straight vote (POLL #3).
 
Simulations
 
The mechanics of this are still TBD but we are going to try to do both Madden and a series of league votes.  I think we can figure this out later.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Any particular reason the annual draft is after the NFL draft date? I kinda like the idea of people doing their own scouting and not being influenced by the actual NFL team picks. 
 
Otherwise, you're great, this is great, it's all great. 
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,716
Philadelphia
soxfan121 said:
Any particular reason the annual draft is after the NFL draft date? I kinda like the idea of people doing their own scouting and not being influenced by the actual NFL team picks. 
 
Otherwise, you're great, this is great, it's all great. 
 
Thanks man.
 
I feel like I had a reason from the other thread but now really can't think of one.  I agree that it sounds like more fun to do our own scouting than just to pick the next highest guy who got taken at whatever position.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Does anybody know how I can see a list of which teams have voted in this poll?  I thought there was a way to do that.
 
I'm not sure if you can do it after you've already created it or not. In the 'Manage Topic Poll' there is a small box that says make vote public. If you go back and edit your original post it might be there, but I don't really have anything to test it on. 
 

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
3,798
The Short Bus
MMS, thank you again for all of the time and effort you are putting in to this. 
 
The Intercourse Panthers have voted (12, 3, and No, in order).
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,834
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I voted yes for #3 because I just think its going to be an exercise in futility and fantasy watching the same players protected ad infinitum (although it looks like its going to lose). C'est la vie...
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,716
Philadelphia
Just a note on the polls...I wanted to give people several different choices because I really didn't know where everybody would stand.  But having three choices makes interpretation of the voting preferences a little tricky, an issue that seems to be arising in the second poll. 
 
Right now there are 9 votes for losing two players, 6 votes for losing three players, and 2 votes for losing four players.  If the horse race comes down to option 1 (two players) versus option 2 (three players), then I am going to count those votes for option 3 (four players) in the second category, under the reasonable assumption that people who voted for losing four players would make losing three players their second choice.  IMO, this is the most accurate way to ascertain majority preferences. 
 
In sum, Option #1 on poll number two is still in the lead, but its really 9-8 not 9-6.
 
Edit to clarify that this isnt an issue with Poll #1 as clearly nobody wants to only protect eight guys.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,525
Manchester, N.H.
bsj said:
I voted yes for #3 because I just think its going to be an exercise in futility and fantasy watching the same players protected ad infinitum (although it looks like its going to lose). C'est la vie...
 
I'm not involved and haven't followed closely, but if this is a concern, would the franchise player concept solve this issue/be a compromise? Basically, five year max of keeping players except for one designated guy, who can be renewed perpetually.
 
I know, there's been a ton of discussion on it and I don't want to introduce a new idea, but it just popped into my head.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,062
Mansfield MA
bsj said:
I voted yes for #3 because I just think its going to be an exercise in futility and fantasy watching the same players protected ad infinitum (although it looks like its going to lose). C'est la vie...
I don't think this is going to be as bad as you think. The last one of these was what, three years ago? So we'd still be within the five year timeframe. Look at the second round from the draft and tell me how many players would still be protected: http://www.sumnerhayes.com/static/fantasy/SoSH%20RealFantasy-%20Pigskin%20Edition.html
 
The only guys who are going to be protected more than five years are franchise QBs, and guys who are really young and good. And those players rarely are available.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,639
Who cares? If there are too many protected players next year, we can amend the rules. Lets give it a try and see what happens.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,639
If it helps at all you can use SMU's vote because I dont really give a shit. I think this has gotten a little serious and I don't really care which way we vote. Let's just settle on something and roll.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
DanoooME said:
Seahawks went:
4. No, really, we don't do PEDs here.
 
We're gonna need to test this guy for "Adderall". 
 
Bengal Bay Bengals voted 10, 2, yes
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,716
Philadelphia
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Just a note on the polls...I wanted to give people several different choices because I really didn't know where everybody would stand.  But having three choices makes interpretation of the voting preferences a little tricky, an issue that seems to be arising in the second poll. 
 
Right now there are 9 votes for losing two players, 6 votes for losing three players, and 2 votes for losing four players.  If the horse race comes down to option 1 (two players) versus option 2 (three players), then I am going to count those votes for option 3 (four players) in the second category, under the reasonable assumption that people who voted for losing four players would make losing three players their second choice.  IMO, this is the most accurate way to ascertain majority preferences. 
 
In sum, Option #1 on poll number two is still in the lead, but its really 9-8 not 9-6.
 
Edit to clarify that this isnt an issue with Poll #1 as clearly nobody wants to only protect eight guys.
 
Updating this, it looks like things have actually reversed and its Question 1 for which this might be relevant.
 
Currently we have 13 people voting for protecting 12 players and 12 people voting for protecting 10 or 8 players.  So Option #3 is in the lead but its extremely close.
 
In contrast, poll #2 has gotten less close.  There seems to be a majority in favor of only losing two players and it would take a huge surge in support for the other options to turn that around.
 
Finally, poll #3 looks conclusive.  There won't be any limits on how long players can be protected.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,087
Philly
It's pretty obvious that the people who voted for 8 would rather vote for 10 and not 12. But it is not obvious where the people who voted 10 stand. They might prefer 12 to 8 or 8 to 12. I would like to see their split.
 
JL
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
I voted 10 but strongly considered 8 and would be unhappy with 12. 
 
Sample of 1. 
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
11,476
I voted 10 but strongly considered 12 and would be unhappy with 8.
 
Guess we cancel each other out.   :colbert:
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
The votes indicate that people want to lose as few players as possible.
 
Which re-rasies the question of how it was decided we'd even lose players in the first place.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
phragle said:
The votes indicate that people want to lose as few players as possible.
 
Which re-rasies the question of how it was decided we'd even lose players in the first place.
 
Lawyer up.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,834
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
phragle said:
The votes indicate that people want to lose as few players as possible.
 
Which re-rasies the question of how it was decided we'd even lose players in the first place.
 
I am fine with walking away from the exercise now and not losing anyone...just reassessing our teams in 3 years like we did last time. 
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,716
Philadelphia
Old Fart Tree said:
We should really do the Madden sim. That's the whole point as far as I'm concerned.
 
I agree completely.  But its going to fall on you guys who know Madden and own gaming systems to figure out how to do the implementation because I'm clueless there.  The last Madden game I owned and played seriously was 98 on the Genesis.
 

RhaegarTharen

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,769
Wilmington, MA
Yeah, I think the Madden sim could be awesome, but we'd have to wait until next year to get the rookies in the game (and way too many were drafted to create them).  Throw in customizing 32 team rosters (and balancing the remaining roster filler) and that's a LOT of work. 
 
I don't have the time to do it, so I won't raise a stink about making somebody else do it in my place.  If anyone volunteers, that'd be fantastic.  But that's certainly going above & beyond. 
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,716
Philadelphia
I'm giving this one more day for voting and then will close it down.  All three options are nearly decided anyway.  Whatever happens with the vote , we'll go on hiatus until about mid-August, when the supplemental draft will start.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
37,818
where the darn libs live
I seriously don't get why we don't just do 5 and 5, every year.  It's easiest and makes sense.  You drop 5 guys and there's a draft every year with all the dropped + new players.  It's simple.