The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - League News/General Discussion

Preparation for 2004 and a new beginning

By MVRowner - League Admin
3/30/2024 12:21 am
With the end of the 2003 season fast approaching and with that, the end of an era in Paydirt, I would like to encourage everyone in this league to stay and give this league a chance for the 2004 season and beyond, I've been reaching out to many struggling leagues and their admins about joining Paydirt in a merge attempt.
With that being said, I want to propose the idea of delaying the Free Agency Week 1 sim by 3 days in order to recruit and rebuild this league as much as we can. Would you all be ok with the sim being delayed for that long once the new season starts?

Re: Preparation for 2004 and a new beginning

By MVRowner - League Admin
4/10/2024 9:22 pm
I'm delaying the draft sim an extra day, I've been working hard on adding new members to the league. Apologies for the delay.

Re: Preparation for 2004 and a new beginning

By MVRowner - League Admin
4/22/2024 8:36 pm
I figured for this preseason, we should experiment with some ideas, and figure out if we should apply them for the regular season, or wait until next season and try again then.

First, I would like to experiment League of Legend's "Deebo Rule", with a small twist. You may allow two WRs as part of your backfield lineup and overrides. Obviously, it is easy to lineup an entire RB group with receivers because of the need for speed, but I think it is fair to limit to just two receivers in the RB column.

Second, In terms of the TE position, Any weight below the weight of a TE will not be allowed. I will allow a 6th OL to lineup at the tight end position, but no WR, FB, or RB will lineup at the FB position.

Third, FB is optional. You're welcome to lineup either a FB, 2nd RB, TE, or OL at the position, but no WR.

If you have any more experimental rules to try for the preseason, let me know in chat.
Last edited at 4/22/2024 11:36 pm

Re: Preparation for 2004 and a new beginning

By Mcbolt55
4/22/2024 11:01 pm
You are worried about the rb but not the TE/fb? That was the point of legends weight rule…

…never mind defense, lol
Last edited at 4/22/2024 11:03 pm

Re: Preparation for 2004 and a new beginning

By MVRowner - League Admin
4/22/2024 11:30 pm
Mcbolt55 wrote:
You are worried about the rb but not the TE/fb? That was the point of legends weight rule…

…never mind defense, lol

I shouldn't rushed the post, I had an emergency while writing the message. I was going to address the TEs rule as well. See edit when ready.

Re: Preparation for 2004 and a new beginning

By MVRowner - League Admin
4/22/2024 11:37 pm
Ok, I've updated and edited the previous post and added a few more rules. Let me know if you're interested/recommend anything else or changes to the rules.

Re: Preparation for 2004 and a new beginning

By slowtospeak
4/23/2024 12:40 am
Do what you must, I suppose, but you should outlaw anybody purposely playing people out of position, except in the case of injuries.
You can't reasonably impose such a rule right now, since you've just brought so many people in, but playing the game by its original design should be the goal. Short of that, any arbitrary rule is useless.
I propose not doing anything right now, because we cannot fairly impose a rule on people we just brought in. After this season, however, we should feel free to do anything.
If we end up with some version of the "Deebo rule," I will go right up against it, and I will almost certainly lose anyway.

Re: Preparation for 2004 and a new beginning

By Mcbolt55
4/23/2024 7:08 am
I agree that now isn’t a great time to change roster rules, but I’m cool with playing it straight as long as it affects both sides of the ball. So far it just seems to be offense. Been trying to keep up with legend and Hammond so long that the current roster is slimmed down for max speed, so it will take a while to adjust people back to weight. It just isn’t fair to place weight restrictions after the offseason where suddenly heavyweight skill players become valuable now. Next year sure, but this league was a wide open free for all up until this.

Re: Preparation for 2004 and a new beginning

By MVRowner - League Admin
4/23/2024 7:36 am
slowtospeak wrote:
Do what you must, I suppose, but you should outlaw anybody purposely playing people out of position, except in the case of injuries.
You can't reasonably impose such a rule right now, since you've just brought so many people in, but playing the game by its original design should be the goal. Short of that, any arbitrary rule is useless.
I propose not doing anything right now, because we cannot fairly impose a rule on people we just brought in. After this season, however, we should feel free to do anything.
If we end up with some version of the "Deebo rule," I will go right up against it, and I will almost certainly lose anyway.

I understand, I didn’t think changing the rules for the regular season would work at this stage of the season. It was just simply something to experiment on the preseason. I think we can all agree the preseason is fair game to try different schemes, rules, settings, and players to see if it’s something we like and will considering trying in the future. The first priority is getting more players to join this league.

Re: Preparation for 2004 and a new beginning

By dangalanti
4/23/2024 3:15 pm
Since I'm one of the new owners. I wanted to make sure I'm following all of the league rules properly. I did see the note about the Deebo rule and adjusted my depth chart before preseason game one, but had a question about FBs. Doesn't putting a 217 lb RB in for a 243 lb FB give you the same speed advantage you're trying to eliminate? I know FB isn't the prime target for some of the "home run" pass plays like a TE is, but isn't any speed advantage from playing someone out of position (on offense OR defense) going to put some owners at a disadvantage if they're not doing it too? I appreciate the leagues that have a gentleman's agreement about this, but was just wondering why FBs seem to be getting a pass. Thanks for the clarification.