2007 Changes

2007 Rule Change Proposals

New Proposals

League Competitiveness Passed 13-3
In order to maintain the competitiveness in the league:
- Teams shall be fined 1cb per position not filled by an active player in a lineup in consecutive weeks. This does not exclude byes. A player's status shall be determined by the NFL's Game Summaries (example).
- Each team must leave 1 contract year available per roster spot less than 16, such that a roster can be completed at any time via free agency.
- Such that teams may patch and/or complete rosters, minimum FA bids shall be 0.
  - Commish note: Every year there seems to be at least one team, usually more, that gives up on the season and does not turn in competitive lineups. This is not fair to the other teams in the league. While I understand that it should be each owner’s prerogative to run his team as he wishes, there should be penalties for owner decisions that disturb the competitive balance of the league. Therefore, these are my suggested changes, all aimed at fixing the competitive balance of the league. Vote yes!

Dues / League Competitiveness II Failed 9-7
Dues shall be $150 per team, $2,400 total, with the following payout structure.

Payout Milestone	Payment	#	Total
Win, Weeks 1-9	$5	72	$360
Win, Weeks 10-13	$15	32	$480
Division Champs	$50	4	$200
Round 1 Win	$100	4	$400
Conference Champs	$200	2	$400
Cyber Bowl Champ	$520*	1	$520
*minus cost of software (usually $40)

Commish note: I like this for several reasons. 1) It increases the stakes, which has been long overdue. 2) It rewards winning, and specifically winning late in the season. 3) It gives all teams incentive to win throughout the season. This combined with the League Competitiveness proposal above should end our tanking issue, or make it such that it's not rewarding to do so. Even this proposal by itself would go a long way towards fixing the problem of tanking. Vote yes!

Farm System Qualifications Failed 8-8
Instead of limiting/allowing a player to remain on a team's farm system for 2 years, a player will be allowed to remain on a farm system until he meets one of the limits below. The following year, the player will not qualify to be on the farm system.
- QB - 100 pass attempts
- RB - 80 combined rush attempts & receptions
- WR - 24 receptions
- TE - 16 receptions
- K - 1 attempt
  - Commish note: It doesn't really matter to me. I found this idea on an FFL website of a similar style league and thought it was worth presenting.
Pro Bowl Passed 13-3
Each conference runner-up shall choose a starting lineup of players to represent their conferences in a week 17 Pro Bowl. Cyberbuck rewards will be distributed in the following manner: 1) all franchises from winning conference receive 1cb, 2) the franchise with the Pro Bowl MVP (most points scored) receives 1cb, & 3) the winning coach's franchise receives 1cb.
- Commish note: An unnecessary change, but it could be fun.

Carryover Proposals

Cyberbuck Cap (2003: 11-5, 2005, 2006: 9-7) Failed 7-9
In order to correct a mistake at the inception of the league, over the next 3 seasons, there will be a limit on the number of cyberbucks a team can possess. Every team will be required to be at or below the cyberbuck cap by noon the Monday before the Week 1. Any team over the cap at that time will be fined the amount needed to bring them into compliance with the cap.
- 2006 - 70cb
- 2007 - 50cb
- 2008 - 30cb
- 2009 - no more cap
  - Commish note: Worthy of consideration.

Yardage (1999, 2005: 11-5, 2006: 9-7) Failed 10-6
1 point for every 20 yards of rushing and receiving combined (currently 1 point for 20 yards rushing, 1 point for 20 yards receiving).
- Commish note: It doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, why change?

Cyberbuck Allotment (2006: 11-5) Failed 9-7
New yearly allocation to take place in 2007. The change is that the non-playoff teams have an increment of 2 cb's per place.

Place	CB's	Place	CB's
1	16	9	25
2	17	10	27
3	18	11	29
4	19	12	31
5	20	13	33
6	21	14	35
7	22	15	37
8	23	16	39

Commish note: I don't think it's broken, but it was worth throwing out there.

Rosters and the Roster Cap (2006: 11-5) Failed 10-6
Each team must leave enough years available to complete an entire roster of active players. (For example, a team with only 14 active players, may only use 33 of the 35 years available to the team).
- Commish note: This rule proposal is intended to keep teams from assigning more years to fewer players to stack the roster for the future. The intent of the contract cap is to make sure that players are being recycled regularly. This is a loophole that many of us, including me, have exploited. To close that loophole, this should definitely be voted in. This same rule is combined in the new League Competitiveness proposal of 2007.