Extraordinary Upset!

Just when it looked like the League was going to vote in favour of keeping just 1 roster spot eligible for QB points, in a stunning upset, the League has voted 7-5 in favour of adding QB-eligible players to the Flex position.

The vote was tied 4-4 with 4 GMs still to have their say.  As expected, 2 of the GMs voted to have just one roster spot earning QB-eligible points, putting the votes at 6-4.  But as the arguments continued and went back and forth, one of the GMs surprisingly switched his vote from AGAINST to FOR.   Shortly thereafter, one of the final absentee GMs cast his vote also in favour of adding a QB to the flex.  The vote was now 6-5 in favour of adding QB to the flex.  With a chance to either secure change or end in a deadlock, the final GM cast his vote in favour of adding QB-eligible players to the flex but only under one condition; that the GMs revisit the situation in the offseason.

However, as Commissioner, I cannot allow a rogue GM to hold our illustrious League hostage like a common terrorist.  Before responding to the Crimson Jihad's demands, I thought about my team last year.  I was RB-heavy and drank the kool-aid on the Mike Martz - Cutler marriage being glorious.  In the end, it wasn't, and there were SEVERAL weeks where my 3rd RB earned more points than the QB I had started.  Several weeks Cuts threw for less than 200 yards with 0 TDs and at least 1 INT - that's like 6 points.  Meanwhile my RBs were getting rushing yards, catching yards, TDs, and far fewer turnovers.

So, after reviewing all of the arguments, charts, and appendices, and considering how the change would have affected MY season last season, I decided that the GM's suggestion did have merit because I for one, will likely still be focussing on RBs and having a dominant rushing attack including from the Flex position.  GM Wynner represented his side with passion and facts and should be commended for stepping up and having his side heard.  As well as he debated, however, I feel the one assumption his arguments failed to consider was that there would be GMs, like me, who may not always put a QB in the FLEX spot.  If a GM has the foresight to draft a player, start a player on the right weeks, and decide on keeping or not keeping the player, he should be rewarded.  And given how sought after QBs were last season, I expect the battle to be ruthless.  But still, as a GM who believes in defense and the running game, I think there is slightly more depth at RB than QB especially when one considers that we have reduced our RB roster spots from 3 to 2.  If you'd like to draft 4 QBs then that is your prerogative, but good luck to you when one of your RBs or star wideout is lost for a few weeks and you have to decide whether or not those QBs deserve bench spots.  There are multiple ways to play the game and we need to respect them all.

So, in conclusion, for this year, we will be adding QB-eligible players to the Flex position.

Be it resolved however that should 7 of the current 12 GMs, at the end of this 2011/12 fantasy football season, vote that we return to using flex spots that do NOT include QBs, it will be so and the issue will be closed for no less than 3 seasons.

This is clearly the most daunting issue that our young league has ever faced - never before has there been such a close divide existed amongst the GMs - however our resolve is absolute and no issue is bigger than the League.  Now, with eyes wide open we can commence with offseason activities and position our teams as best we can.

Thank you to all GMs for your passion but now it is time to move forward.  Please stay tuned to the Blog as I hope to be posting several more entries today and over the weekend about keeper dates, expansion plans, prize payouts, scoring options, and of course the ever important draft day.