I have an idea to put a twist on the old Offense A – Defense B = Team A final score thing. Showing a fantasy score in this manner does not change the outcome, it is merely a different representation of the same result, and therefore rather pointless. But, what if that were not true? Bear with me here, as this is bound to be a long post. I want to throw the idea out there to see if there is any positive feedback to it, before submitting it as a feature request. Just keep an open mind, because it is not like anything I know of.

First off, my idea is only relevant to leagues that use IDP’s. Ideally, the league should also allow some flexibility with starting lineups. Consider the following setup. 6 players on offense, you must start 1 QB, and the other 5 players can come from RB/WR/TE, subject to MFL’s allowable FORMATIONS. 6 players also on defense, you must start at least 1 player at DL, LB, and DB. The remaining 3 players can come from any of the three defensive positions. No Kickers in this example, just 6 and 6. Starting lineups will remain hidden from other owners until the first kickoff.

Now, the fun part. What if you could set up the fantasy scoring to be a matchup between Offense and Defense, by position? I’ll keep this simple at first, for demonstration purposes. Say Team A is playing Team B. Team A’s final fantasy point total could be the result of the following:

(Team A QB) + (Team A RB – Team B DL – Team B LB) + (Team A WR + TE – Team B LB – Team B DB)

That probably sounds like a terrible idea that you can poke all kinds of holes in right now, but I’m not done yet. The formula would need to be refined for one thing, which I’ll get to in a minute. Also, NO NEGATIVE RESULTS would be allowed inside the parentheses. For example, consider the last part of the above formula, (Team A WR + TE – Team B LB – Team B DB). If Team B LB + DB fantasy point total happens to be greater than Team A WR + TE total, then the result is just ZERO, it is not negative. To put a realistic spin on it, that situation would just mean that Team A’s receiving game got completely shut down. NFL football teams don’t score negative points in real life, but they can get shut out. Same principle here. It will become more apparent why that is so important in just a moment.

Moving on, remember that owners have flexibility in setting their starting lineups, and that those lineups are hidden from other owners until the first kickoff. This is where strategy comes into play. The most extreme example I can think of is the “5 Wide” FORMATION. Lets’ assume Team A rolls with the 5 Wide, and Team B decides to start 4 D Linemen that week, leaving only 1 LB and 1 DB to combat 5 receivers. Well, Team A’s receivers are going to have a field day. The fantasy points earned by Team B’s four D Linemen will be wasted (remember, no negative points), so Team A is going to score a lot of points.

The flip side to that, of course, is that Team B may have opted to load up his secondary and only leave 1 guy on the line. Nobody will know until kickoff. In the latter case, Team A’s offense is probably going to have a tough time scoring very many points. Assuming Team B’s Offense has no major matchup issues of its own against Team A, then Team B is probably going to win.

REFINEMENT:

In real life, teams are going to make adjustments to each other’s offensive and defensive strategies, so the formula would have to account for that. It is unrealistic to expect that Team A could run out on the field with 5 WR’s every play and Team B would just keep loading the line every time. Also, I wouldn’t want my fantasy matchups to be determined by a large luck factor every week based on guessing the wrong formation. Further, it is unrealistic to assume that a RB is always going against a DL or LB 100% of the time, or that WR’s and TE’s are only going up against LB’s and DB’s. QB’s have been left unchecked in the above formula, too, something that should be remedied.

First, lets’ take 50% right off the top to simulate teams adjusting to each other’s strategies (the commissioner could set this to any % he deems appropriate). So, the first part of the formula will look like this:

(Team A Offense * 0.50) – (Opp. Defense * 0.50)

Next, commissioner’s should have the ability to setup the positional matchups however they want, and specify percentages for each. For example, you should be able to specify something like the following:

QB matched up against: 5% of DL, 10% of LB
RB matched up against: 45% of DL, 25% of LB
WR matched up against: 47.5% of DB
TE matched up against: 2.5% of DB, 15% of LB

Note that each of the defensive positions in the positional matchups add up to 50%. The other 50% is accounted for in the overall Off. - Def. If I had decided instead to only take 30% off the top, then the defensive positions in the positional matchups would add up to 70%, and so on. So, based on the percentages I have chosen, the final formula would look like this:

TEAM A FANTASY POINTS = (Team A Offense * 0.50) – (Opp. Defense * 0.50) + [QB – (Opp. DL * 0.05) – (Opp. LB * 0.10)] + [RB – (Opp. DL * 0.45) – (Opp. LB * 0.25)] + [WR – (Opp. DB * 0.475)] + [TE – (Opp. DB * 0.025) - (Opp. LB * 0.15)]

Now, I haven’t actually tested out these percentages, but you get the idea. The commissioner should be able to set up the offensive positions to matchup against any defensive position(s) he deems appropriate, and set a corresponding percentage. He should also be able to specify percentages for overall offense minus defense, just as I have set that at 50% in this example. The higher that percentage, the less sensitive the positional matchups are and vice versa.

That’s about it in a nutshell. I think having the ability to do this would add an exciting new element of strategy into the game, but maybe it is just me. I know a lot of people are set in their ways, so I don’t know how appealing something like this would be to the masses. I know it is tough to impart change, as most individuals are inherently resistant to it. However, if I am going to find a receptive audience anywhere at all, I figured the innovative MFL community would be a great place to start. So lets’ hear it. Questions, comments and concerns…bring ‘em on!

I definitely think it adds a unique twist to fantasy football, but I don't know how the vast majority of players would respond to it.

Obviously any new "innovation" has to be thoroughly tested and tweaked to achieve the desired result. I'd be interested to take a few weeks of the 2009 season and apply these proposed scoring changes to see what difference, if any, it makes.

I'm not in any IDP leagues, so I can't test it myself, but I'd be interested in the results and to see if it can be tweaked for leagues without IDPs.

The only other hangup I can foresee is the live scoring functionality. I'm not sure how well that could be scored live.

Interesting idea...

Thanks for the reply!

As far as live scoring, I don't think it would be any different than it is now. Obviously, some things like tackles aren't going to be accurate live, but that isn't any different. All the players would still be accruing fantasy points like normal, so the system would simply need to make one more calculation (subtracting one subgroup's points from another, to a minimum value of zero) based on your set rules.

As for using this kind of setup with team Defense, it would really defeat the purpose. Not sure if you had something else in mind, but if you are using a team Defense, then you would basically be reverting back to a full on Offense-Defense formula, right? I mean, I guess you could still assign percentages to your offensive positions (how much each one would be matching up against the overall team Defense), but there isn't really any added element of strategy there. Everybody is going to run the same defense out there each week, so why bother with it at all? The results would be exactly the same if you just scored the game in a more traditional manner. This setup was really designed with leagues in mind that use IDP's and flexible rosters on each side of the ball.

I think I'll take a look at doing this, using my league's actual scoring settings and 2009 stats. I'll take a couple team's 2009 rosters and use their actual matchup weeks, also. Then, I'll simulate some games based on the percentages I have presented, and run it with a few different roster formations for each team. Again, the percentages I threw out there are very raw. Basically I just pulled them out of my ass, and certainly some testing would have to be done in order to determine "ideal" numbers. But, they get the job done as far as demonstrating my point.

Stay tuned, and I'll post some examples with real players/numbers attached!

I haven't had a chance to put some real numbers to it yet (been busy working on other stuff right now). But, I wanted to make clear one other point to all of this. In order for the type of setup I have proposed to be worthwhile, IDP scoring should be set up relatively on par with offense. I already set things up in this manner in my own leagues, but I thought I'd go ahead and throw that out there because I am under the assumption most leagues do NOT. To me, its not even worth having IDP players if you are going to set them up so that their fantasy points are only worth a small fraction of the "real players" (offense). Unfortunately, this still seems to be the mindset of a lot of owners I have dealt with, presumably carrying over from the way team defense was always set up. Traditionally, defense and kicker have always been "throw-away" positions and drafted at the end as an afterthought. If that is all they are, then why have them? (Actually, I don't have a kicker spot in my league.)

The reason for comparable scoring on each side of the ball becomes even more important in a setup as I have proposed, because the potential for the defense to outscore the offense in the positional matchups has to be there. If the there is no chance of the defense outscoring the offense in any of the positional matchups, then the whole thing is just a big waste of time.