Outside Opinions on Format Change for My Fantasy League

I know this is a rarely visited corner of the boards, but here goes.

First some background
Last year I started a 10 team a league on ESPN with some friends around the area. It's a customizeable league, but for the first year we stuck with ESPN's standard format. It's also a fairly casual league.

Soon we will be having a vote on rule changes for the upcoming season. In addition to a handful of minor items, I am including a proposal for expansion to 12 teams. Several people in the league had expressed concern over the depth of the waiver wire, so I felt it was important to package the idea of expanding with some rule changes that would preserve the waiver wire depth. Some of you may feel that 12 teams still leaves plenty of depth, but the people in my league are particularly concerned about it, and my primary concern is maintaining a format that will be enjoyed by our entire league.

I'll present the 10 team format we used last year as well as the 12 team proposal. I'd greatly appreciate any feedback on the proposal. Please keep in mind that this is for a fairly casual group.


10 Team Format (ESPN Standard)
10 teams, 16 man roster (9 starts, 7 subs)
QB - RB1 - RB2 - WR/RB - WR1 - WR2 - TE - D/ST - K

Passing: 1 pt/25 yds, 4 pts/TD, -2 pts/INT (ESPN Standard)
Rushing and Receiving: 1 pt/10 yds, 6 pts/TD, -2 pts/Lost Fumble (ESPN Standard)
Defense and Kicking: ESPN Standard


12 Team Proposal
4 changes:
1. Reduce roster size to 14 (9 starters, 5 subs)
2. Change RB2 to OP (Offensive player: QB/RB/WR/TE)
3. Add -1 pt/sack for QB's
4. Add 2 point bonuses for notable rushing and receiving events: 40 yd TDs, 100 yd games, and 200 yd games. (No bonuses for passing).


Rationale
As I mentioned before, there was particular concern for how expansion would effect the waiver wire. So I reduced roster size (10x16=160 and 12x14=168), so we only have a modest increase in players owned. Still there is an increase, and there is also less roster space, making things even tighter for owners.

So I changed RB2 to an OP flex. RB was the tightest waiver wire position in our league last year and QB had more depth than most, so this allows some of the player demand to shift to QB and other positions. It also allows greater roster flexibility. Therefore, it simultanesouly solves the issue of thinner waiver wire and smaller roster size. But It also allows for a QB dominated league (or so I've heard).

So the scoring modifications (3 and 4) were implemented to bring the level of QB scoring about even with RB scoring. Because of this the flexibility of the OP is fully realized. Owners can now use a variety of lineups and still find success. They are not forced to use 2 QBs. Some will, others won't.

So what do you think?

It's very interesting. I'll admit off the top that I've never played in a league with that kind of format, so this is just napkin math talking. I could be dead wrong and it could work out beautifully. I think the lockout is going to end up turning this fantasy season completely on its head as is...so if you were going to experiment with the format to try to change things up, it's not a bad year to do it.

That said - I think I'd still be tempted to play a second QB every week. Most teams are going to draft two anyway, why not start both?

Looking at last year's ESPN scoring, the 12th-24th QBs were on par or a little bit above their counterparts at RBs and WRs. And I trust a guy like Cutler, Orton, or even Garrard on any given week to generally match (and often exceed) the output of a guy like Thomas Jones, Moreno, or BJGE...and the QBs have a lot more potential to have a great game. Even factoring in the other scoring changes.

And of course, if a team already has two starters at RB, and two at WR, it's really their 3rd best WR or RB (25th-36th) that we're talking about taking that OP spot...and the disparity gets a lot worse (gaps of nearly 100 points, or 6 ppg).

QBs are generally the highest scoring fantasy players, bonuses or not. The only reason leagues don't revolve around them is because theirs only 1 spot, compared to 2 or 3 RB and WR spots. If you change that dynamic and allow more QB plays, I don't see how a league doesn't become QB heavy.


Have you considered just dropping the RB2 spot altogether? Making it look like:

QB
RB1
RB/WR
WR
WR
TE,K,DST
6 Bench

8 starters, 6 bench. Same number of players taken, but a little more bench space. Teams still have decent flexibility with their lineups (you could even make the flex spot a W/R/T if desired), without the risk of making the league too QB-heavy. It seems like a safer and simpler alternative, albeit maybe not quite as fun.

Sounds like a good alternative. I also added -1 pt per sack for QBs. Using this format the top 15 scorers from 2010 are as follows:

QB- RB- WR
270 331 223
264 246 218
263 234 209
261 233 208
238 228 207
232 226 194
218 219 178
215 218 175
205 211 170
191 211 168
186 204 164
181 200 163
175 192 159
169 189 157
166 180 157

Once you get outside the top 6, RB becomes the a higher scoring group than QB.

Obviously WRs are still lagging behind, but their also the deepest position group, and you have to start at least 2 anyway.

Thanks for the reply!