Before the start of last season I penned an article about the sameness of many fantasy leagues. I railed against leagues which seemed to be single strategy minded rewarding those who could attain the top running backs at the expense of other positions. I felt this was removing some of the creativity from the “fantasy” world making the outcomes far too predictable in way too many leagues. The response to the piece was uplifting.

My email was virtually flooded by people suggesting ideas or sharing how their leagues operated. The material was enlightening, but there was a problem; the football season was upon us. Making, or even contemplating, any change within a league at that juncture was pointless.

This season, with training camp a few weeks away and the first signs of fantasy magazines on the stand, it seemed like the perfect time to lay out what real “experts” said regarding league design. The real experts being the people who have been in this game for decades changing with the times or hanging onto the well laid out plans they had when their leagues started. Some in the game long before the phrase “fantasy” football was in vogue; even before the World Wide Web.

It seems many respondents sighted the performance based nature of fantasy football as the cause of homogenous leagues. In one form or another most leagues reward points based upon weighted positions; weighted by who touches the ball the most.
Of course this makes quarterback the position carrying the most weight while tight ends carry the least. Other respondents sighted the offensive nature of fantasy football, one calling it a restrictive plague called “Fantasy Offense.” The claim goes too many fantasy leagues fail to recognize the importance of defense in the game. They are unwilling to recognize the type of balance a “real” team needs to be competitive in the National Football League.

My own “main” league, a performance weighted affair, has attacked the perceived running back bias. Every year the commissioner of my home league entertains any and all suggestions regarding rule changes. These are placed on a league email where owners can provide input and vote (or being Americans not) on the proposals. Despite being a weighted/performance based league, we have added our own twists to scoring making the league unique and competitive.

Over the years we have attempted to make both QB’s and TE’s more attractive. With regard to QB’s we have gone from a weighted factor of 3 to 5 while with TE’s he have gone from 8 to a factor of 10. We have also tinkered with the notion of three wide outs before finally settling with a “flex” position allowing any receiver or running back into the mix for the week. This year we have decided to make the flex position more attractive by increasing the number. In addition to this we have decided to add one point for each reception for all receivers including running backs. We have also adjusted team size, number of draft positions and we have set up a system of competitive bidding on free agents which includes salary cap. Of course all of these changes were in response to some perceived infraction of ethics like over spending on free agents.

Despite these changes, we are still like many leagues in the fantasy world. We place too much emphasis on running backs while perhaps not enough on defense. As a result of this draft days are almost as a predictable as the outcome of a foot race between Devin Hester and Warren Sapp.

Don’t get me wrong. I have been playing in the league a long time. The people are great while the level of competition is very high, but fresh ideas are not embraced quickly as tradition seems to rule the day. For those of you searching for some creative means of freshening a stale league, read on to see what some experts have to say about combating predictability.

Defense

The defensive end of the game is what seems to be neglected the most in many leagues. In one long time league many moons ago I suggested employing a special teams/defensive component to a stagnant league where I was an owner. I wanted to add some spice; instead I was greeted with, “What are you trying to do? Have my wife divorce me? We already spend too much time on this league.” Given the league met three times a year for a total of about eight hours I knew this cry for marital unity had just invoked the Grim Reaper for this group of owners. In the end the league folded from sheer boredom, but his marriage held. I still question who got the better end of the deal. Fortunately other leagues are open to fresh ideas regarding defense.

There were a couple of suggestions to start employing return yardage as a part of the total points equation. This puts a large value on the likes of Hester, McGee, Hall and their cohorts. Instead of the format of drafting complete units, as many leagues use, there is an ever growing movement to draft individual players. In some leagues the Ray Lewis’s of the world are collecting as many points as Tomlinson and his brethren. Still, there is a drawback to this level of intensity with regard to the defense; homework as well as increased draft time.

Some of the more simple solutions included increasing the amount of points for a safety. Most leagues award the defense a total of two points. For some two points is not enough for a play with such scoring potential. In addition to the two points for tackling in the end zone, the offense gets the ball again after a free kick. In the end the work of the defense could result in as many as ten points for the team. (a TD and two point conversion) It was suggested a play of such potential significance should be worth five or six points.

Most leagues are still rewarding six points for a defensive/special teams TD, as well as points for sacks, interceptions, fumbles and additional points for low scores and total yardage. There is still room for thought and improvement on this side of the ball; it is the offensive side of the fantasy world people seemed to address the most.

Offense

There were many suggestions for addressing the weighting in performance leagues, especially with regard to running backs. As one respondent noted, “…you could simply devalue rushing yards and touchdowns, but fantasy scores based on such a system would not reflect the true value of a backs performance…” In short, playing with the weighting system in a total performance based league is like trying to keep ice from melting in the desert. The ice might change to water, but it is essentially the same product repackaged.

In one Midwest league they have ten owners and a waiting list a mile long. They offer no head-to-head competition. Their season lasts as long as the Super Bowl with everybody paying everybody for their scores. Instead of weighting heavily for yards or receptions, they weight heavily for TD’s with 20 points being rewarded for any sort of kick off return or DB score and 40 points for an LB trip to the Zone. Just one turn around could change an entire week for a team. On the offensive side of the ball more points are awarded to scores from outside of 50 yards. They also reward 300 yard passing quarterbacks and any offensive player attaining the 100 yard mark As the season goes all the way to the Super Bowl there is an added incentive to draft players on playoff potential bound teams.

There are other leagues out there which reward for the length of a TD, some working in a strictly cash mode. One is paying a buck for any TD under four yards with the amount going up to $2.00 for anything between four and ten yards. Between 11 and 30 yards the amount goes to $3.00 with a buck being added to each ten yards there after. The writer had Torry Holt, Steve Smith and TO during the 2005 season; he made a killing with them. Guys like Zack Crockett are valued less than other Raider running backs (if that is possible).

Along the same lines, but with a slightly different take, there is a league out there playing strictly on points. Any rushing TD is scored as six, while a TD pass is worth four. Any field goal, despite the distance, is scored a as three with traditional extra-points being scored as a one. For PAT’s involving a run, the scorer gets two and one point apiece for a toss/reception play. Any safety is still scored as a two and any defensive/special teams score is rewarded with a six. In this league yards, touches, receptions, interceptions or fumbles are not a part of the scoring matrix.

Each one of these ideas changes the traditional thinking with regard to “running back” first fantasy football. It is what makes them all attractive. Still a question remains, should a fantasy league reflect the unique abilities of each position or should they reward the effort of a team as a whole? There may be a solution to honor both ends of this equation.

It would not be so bad to take the accomplishment of all players on a team and treat them as equal, yet separate for offense and defense. You could use any of the defensive schemes to score the unit, but the offensive side of the ball would look a little different.

Instead of rewarding individual players, reward the entire team. Put all of the yards, scores and touches on the same level. In other words go with the total yards for the offensive unit for the week. Take each TD then make it a six point addition with each standard extra-point as a single unit and each non-traditional PAT as a two point reward. All yards are counted as one point for every ten yards gained despite the position player garnering them. Award head-to-head competition by the team totals for the week or keep a running total rewarding owners at the half and end of the season for their performance. In this way the team would be a more balanced unit leveling out the advantage of being first in a snake draft or punishing those who may have over spent in the opening rounds of an auction draft. No one player will be able to make a team and the element of luck will play less of a role than I have seen it play in the past. Make both sides of the ball cohesive units having to score together for their owner to have success. If fantasy football is to act as a distorted mirror of the real thing then include the big time star’s performance as a part of a holistic unit.

Of course all of this is just food for fodder. Most leagues are not going to consider changes; it is a part of human nature. We like being comfortable with what we know, not what we could explore. It is why we have made people like Christopher Columbus, Daniel Boone and John Glenn heroes. They have dared to explore what others had found too frightening, they also came back to tell the tale.

Change for the sake of change is a waste of time, but change for the sake of leveling a playing field, while creating more strategies, is just plain fun. The nice part of being owners is we can play just like the big guys. We can have our meetings, consider suggestions from the rules committee and vote upon them, or we can go out and create our own leagues. I have done both. They have their merits and drawbacks. What they both contain, which can not be questioned, is the fact they lead down the path to another season of competitive action. Win or lose, there is nothing like having your own team to root for while other fans merely follow the standings. It is what sets all fantasy owners apart from the “normal” football fan. There is no substitute for passion. There is not a successful or frustrated fantasy owner lacking this necessary ingredient, which makes us unique.