Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Mar 20, 2024 7:25:50 GMT -5
As many of you know, despite the best efforts of many well-meaning league officers over the years, the most difficult rule to write, update, and enforce is the QB rule. Given that there are 32 teams in this league, the reality is that no team can have more than 1 starter for any amount of time, as that effectively means another team goes without. As we've seen many times in the past, doing so all but guarantees a victory for an opposing team. It does not take all too long before one (Or multiple) team(s) keeping more than one starting QB causes another team to miss any chance of going to the playoffs, allowing some teams to determine the playoff field, effectively. This, and the risk of tanking for a team(s) willing to go without a starter, necessitates having a QB Rule. However, in the past, despite our many, many, well-intentioned attempts at fixing the rule (Or significantly improving it, at least) have been beset by two factors: 1. Loopholes appearing that were not considered/could not have been known at the time of writing, and 2. The league's willingness to abide by the approved/voted on rule by the majority of the league (More on that later). It has been a constant headache for league administrators, as well as individual GMs alike, and this has become even more the case throughout COVID (Including a game where the NFL FORCED the Broncos to start a wide receiver non-rostered in this league, at QB), and the way that the NFL is now allowing its coaching staffs to not reveal/even misdirect fans and media alike on which QB will be starting a given game. That makes it extraordinarily difficult to enforce a rule that is already near impossible to do so under ideal circumstances. Therefore, after consultation with a number of current and former league officers, I am proposing that we make the most drastic change to the QB Rule in league history.
Using elements from different proposals made to fix the QB Rule over the last five years (Including from Trey, Christian, Jordan, and myself), I think we have come up with the most fair, easiest to enforce, and the rule with the most positive outcome for all members involved. So, here is the proposal. Teams will continue to keep exactly 1 starting QB on their roster. They will be required to put their starter in the lineup every week. The necessity of the QB Arb Committee in a circumstance in which a team does not possess a starter for any two-week period consecutively will still exist. However, the incidence of these occurrences should be greatly diminished if this rule change were to be successful. The difference in this proposal compared to the current and long-standing rule on the book is as follows: Unlike with the current rule, whether or not a team in this league has a real-life NFL team's backup is entirely optional, and often not advantageous to a team rostering a starting QB, we are proposing to incentivize rostering a team's backup QB(s). For example, under the current rule, if the Rookie QB1 were to start the season behind an existing bridge QB, then it would be both impractical to acquire him for a team that currently rosters said bridge QB. That means, likely at a time during the season, a QB situation--potentially involving the QB Arb Panel--is necessitated, whereas if a team in this league were to roster both a real-life team starter and a backup, this situation would almost always be avoided. The following are ways that are considering incentivizing it: Allowing a team that rostered their real-life starting QB's direct backup to keep said backup(s) without his salary counting against his team's cap/creating a new backup QB position on teams' roster pages that would not count against the current 25-man rosters, for the life of the player's actual contract in this league. Meaning, if a backup QB was added by a GM (Whether by draft, FA signing, or trade), that contract/contract length at the time of acquisition would be the basis for the player's contract/term should he be added to a GM's team roster. Until such time (Which could be voluntary by the GM, or upon a situation in which that player became the starting QB of his/another real-life NFL team). How we believe this would benefit the league is as follows:
While there are other kinks that may need to be ironed out (And I invite a discussion of those below), I do believe that this would greatly improve the QB Rule in this league, and cut down on both the burden on league managers in adjudicating the rule as is (And without exposing them to inappropriate/hostile behaviors from managers who feel aggrieved that they put themselves in a poor situation, and are looking for someone to take it out on). I'm certain that there are holes that we are not aware of at present, and I seriously doubt that this will be the ONCE AND FOR ALL (Quoting Futurama) fix that we would all ideally like to have, I do think that this is the most perfect version of the rule proposed as of this date. Please tell us your thoughts below, and please remember to vote in the poll above. Thank you again.
Using elements from different proposals made to fix the QB Rule over the last five years (Including from Trey, Christian, Jordan, and myself), I think we have come up with the most fair, easiest to enforce, and the rule with the most positive outcome for all members involved. So, here is the proposal. Teams will continue to keep exactly 1 starting QB on their roster. They will be required to put their starter in the lineup every week. The necessity of the QB Arb Committee in a circumstance in which a team does not possess a starter for any two-week period consecutively will still exist. However, the incidence of these occurrences should be greatly diminished if this rule change were to be successful. The difference in this proposal compared to the current and long-standing rule on the book is as follows: Unlike with the current rule, whether or not a team in this league has a real-life NFL team's backup is entirely optional, and often not advantageous to a team rostering a starting QB, we are proposing to incentivize rostering a team's backup QB(s). For example, under the current rule, if the Rookie QB1 were to start the season behind an existing bridge QB, then it would be both impractical to acquire him for a team that currently rosters said bridge QB. That means, likely at a time during the season, a QB situation--potentially involving the QB Arb Panel--is necessitated, whereas if a team in this league were to roster both a real-life team starter and a backup, this situation would almost always be avoided. The following are ways that are considering incentivizing it: Allowing a team that rostered their real-life starting QB's direct backup to keep said backup(s) without his salary counting against his team's cap/creating a new backup QB position on teams' roster pages that would not count against the current 25-man rosters, for the life of the player's actual contract in this league. Meaning, if a backup QB was added by a GM (Whether by draft, FA signing, or trade), that contract/contract length at the time of acquisition would be the basis for the player's contract/term should he be added to a GM's team roster. Until such time (Which could be voluntary by the GM, or upon a situation in which that player became the starting QB of his/another real-life NFL team). How we believe this would benefit the league is as follows:
- It provides a further incentive to avoid QB Arbitration at any point during the year (Thereby allowing teams more autonomy in their roster construction/decision making, and freeing up league members'/QB Arb Panel members' time from one of the worst aspects/requirements of league managers' jobs in this league: forcing teams to do something that they don't want to do to comply with the agreed upon rules, and then listening to them whine/threaten us over the difference between a 2nd and 3rd round pick, or the inclusion of a real-life team's WR5 as if we had killed their dog)
- It provides those who were otherwise unwilling or unable to roster a 2nd QB (Due to the detrimental effect of carrying a backup usually rendering it a dead roster spot) an ability to avoid rostering a player who does not often play
- Despite adding an additional player(s), there will be no financial disincentive to doing so, either in terms of salary or contract years, at least until such time that a backup becomes a real-life starter
- If a real-life team retains two backups on their roster/practice squad, a team in this league may do the same with the same conditions
- In a circumstance where a backup has become a starter for a real-life team, but is later relegated to a backup role (Either for underperformance, or just being used as an injury fill-in, etc.), he may be reverted to his previous status as a backup/housed off of our 25-man rosters
- Lastly, if a real-life team either trades/releases/IRs a backup off of their real-life roster, or replaces that backup with another one, a GM in this league may enjoy a free cut of this player
While there are other kinks that may need to be ironed out (And I invite a discussion of those below), I do believe that this would greatly improve the QB Rule in this league, and cut down on both the burden on league managers in adjudicating the rule as is (And without exposing them to inappropriate/hostile behaviors from managers who feel aggrieved that they put themselves in a poor situation, and are looking for someone to take it out on). I'm certain that there are holes that we are not aware of at present, and I seriously doubt that this will be the ONCE AND FOR ALL (Quoting Futurama) fix that we would all ideally like to have, I do think that this is the most perfect version of the rule proposed as of this date. Please tell us your thoughts below, and please remember to vote in the poll above. Thank you again.
