2025 PFF Fantasy Football

Scoring Rules to Make the Game More Realistic

[Based on a letter from the beginning of 2003 to the FFL I participated in in 2002, so there are references to that league, and there are some update notes (in Italics) intended to adjust for the modern NFL game. The names cited will bring back some nostalgic feelings for many of you!]

Howdy, boys and girl.

I haven't gotten much of a response to my query about the interest in Big House FFL scoring rule changes, but that may be because of an e-mail glitch I apparently have suffered while changing out my hard-drive and installing all new software in my fabulous and sleek PowerBook. I will proceed as if you are all interested in discussing the possibilities. I know you guys are comfortable with the way you score it now, but if it can be improved, why not do it? And, if new teams are entering the league next year, why not start afresh with a system that levels the playing field a bit for the new guys? Here are my suggestions. I hope you will give them a serious read, and reply with any criticisms/suggestions -- or other ideas. This is meant as a point of departure for the discussion/debate! ...although the ideas are so undeniably brilliant that I cannot imagine anyone not wanting immediately to adopt them exactly as presented.

OK, I think the idea behind fantasy football is to mimic real football, so that each of us can pretend he's the GM and Head Coach of an actual football team, and see how smart he is compared with the other chumps in the league, am I wrong? How can you talk trash if you're playing a game of chance?

To that end, fantasy football players ought to carry the same relative importance as their NFL counterparts, both as positions compared to other positions, and as individuals against others at their position on a given week. Based on that general principle, here are my proposals:

First, as a general principle, I strongly feel the scoring should be awarded in a more continuous progression rather than the heavily stepped system used in 2002 by the Big House FFL. If a player gets one fewer catch, for example, I don't think he should get three fewer points. Therefore, I feel that if we award points for making catches, it should be one point per catch, rather than three only if the player makes three catches.Similarly, if a TD is scored from a certain place on the field, I feel it should be worth the same as a TD scored from one yard further away, rather than three points fewer. In real football, a TD is a TD, no matter from where the play started. The players involved get points for the yardage, so long TDs are already worth more for that reason; they don't need bonus points, which are not reflective of real-football impact. I am also skeptical of bonus points for scoring a TD by means uncommon for a player's position, like a RB getting five points for catching a TD pass instead of running it in. For an example of both, in the recent Denver-KC game, my team's Clinton Portis caught a 66-yard TD pass, and was awarded 23 points for that one play. I don't believe any single play should be worth more than most RBs get for a whole game!!! He scored one TD and gained 66 yards, and should get points for one TD and 66 yards. That was the real-football value of that play, and it should be the fantasy-football value as well. The play should be worth 13 points: 6 for the TD, 6+ for the yards, and maybe one for the catch. If that was the only play he made all day, why should he get more points than a RB who ate up the clock rushing for 100 yards and scored two short TDs for a total of 22 fantasy points? The 100-yard guy was much more important to his team in real football, and he should be so in fantasy football. And suppose Portis caught the ball, ran to the 1-yard line, and was tackled -- then scored the TD on the next play. Would that combination be worth less than the single-play TD? No. Yet he would score 11 fewer points since it was two plays rather than one. BAHHH!!!!

Fumbles lost should cost all players some points. I would suggest 3 or 4 points. Somebody can do some research into how many points on average are the direct result of a TO. I would guess it's pretty close to 3 or 4 points per TO. [Note: It’s closer to 4].

Quarterback

Quarterback is the most important and influential position on the field, agreed? So the points scored by a good QB performance should be as high as any other top performance, and an average QB performance should score at least as high as an average performance by any other player. For the most part, the Big House FFL does a good job of awarding QB points, I think. The only changes I would like to see are the elimination of the bonus points for long plays and rushing/catching TDs as mentioned above, and the reduction of minimum qualifying yards for scoring from 200 to 100. Many QBs win consistently with ball-control offense that sometimes generates less than 200 yards, especially when their team is ahead in the game or has a great RB. I don't think they should get nothing at all for that. They still manage the offense, and play a great role in leading the team to scores.If you feel that the QB needs more points than these changes would allow, I would suggest adding points for passing efficiency by adding a point for each completed pass, and subtracting a point for each incomplete pass. This would reward a QB who plays a bigger part in his teams offense, as well as one who plays a smaller role, but plays it brilliantly. Thus, if a guy throws for big yardage and completes a Bledsoe-like 23 of 40, he adds 6 points (23 completions minus 17 incompletions) to his yards and TDs score. If another guy throws for fewer yards, but completes a Brady-like 23 of 36 passes, he gets 10 extra points, as compared with Bledsoe's 6. If a QB completes only 50% of his passes, like a Jake Plummer, he adds no points to his score. That helps balance games in which the QB's team is ahead and needs less of a passing game, or uses the pass effectively as a ball-control device, requiring different but equally important QB skills. The 300-yard guy will still score more because of his yardage, but by a margin that more accurately reflects the relative value in real football.INTs should also still be penalized, but I think by at least 3 points, and so should QB fumbles lost. Using this system, the incredible Rich Gannon (2002 Big House averaged 31 pts) would score an average of roughly 44 points (23 for ydg +14 for compl% + 10 for TD - 3 for TO), Tom Brady (2002 Big House averaged 24 pts) would score about 32 points (14+10+12-4), Trent Green (2002 Big House averaged 23 pts) would score about 29 points (14+7+10-2), and Jake Plummer (2002 Big House averaged 14 pts) would average about 13 points (11+2+6-6). The averages differ more, but the weekly fluctuations would be less than what we saw in 2002. For example, Trent Green scored zero points on a week in which he gained 190 yds on 20 of 33 passing and no INTs. Is that fair? With the above system, he would have scored 21 points. If the differences seem too high, we could modify the efficiency thing. But a strong QB performance is the single most important factor in an offense, unless you have Priest Holmes or Ricky Williams on your team. [How very 2002!!!]

Defense

Defense is about as important to winning and losing games as the Quarterback is. It is half the game, after all. Therefore, I think the influence of defenses on Big House game results should be reflective of that relative importance.

Sacks are important and exciting, but not by themselves a factor in determining wins and losses. Therefore I don't think they should be awarded the same score as turnovers, which, as any coach will tell you, are hugely important in determining wins and losses. How about making a Sack worth one point, and a fumble recovery or interception worth three (or even four) [I say 4.]? Scoring after the TO is the offense's job, but the defense has made a major contribution to the game with the TO.I like the fact that the Big House doesn't award any points based on yards allowed, since real NFL games aren't determined by yards allowed, but rather by points allowed. The NFL average for points allowed is 22. When teams allowed more than 31, they lost at a rate of 89% of their games. When teams allowed fewer than 13, they won at a rate of 90% of their games. Therefore, I think we should consider awarding a base of 10 points (or even more) to teams that allow 22 points, and one additional point for every point allowed fewer than that, such that if a team allows 21 points, it gets 11 base points; if it allows 20 points it should get 12 base points points; etc. A shutout would then be worth 32 base points. On the other side of the coin, if a team gives up more than 22 points, it should lose points at a similar rate of one FFL point per point allowed. Thus, a team that allows 32 points would score no base points in the FFL scoring, and if it allows more points than that, it would actually score minus points. (Of course, it could still score by turnovers, TDs, sacks, and safeties.) I think that is a good amount, and the gradual rate of point awards makes more sense to me than the stepped system used last season. Defensive touchdowns should get 6 points each, no matter what the distance. Based on this, and counting 3 [or 4] points per INT or FR, an average game by the Tampa Bay D would score about 29 points plus whatever defensive touchdowns and safeties they manage. An average game by the Steelers D (right in the middle of the pack in the NFL in points allowed) would score 19 points plus whatever defensive touchdowns and safeties they manage. Remember, though, that teams are rewarded for lower than average points against and penalized for higher than average points against, so there should be some healthy variation according to how they play that week. How does that sound?

Running Backs

Running backs are very vital to a team's success in the NFL, and they should be similarly valuable in the FFL. [I will offer that this is becoming true again after a period of devaluing RBs, though the number of carries has dropped.] I believe an average RB should not score quite as high as a QB or defense. The great ones, like Holmes, Tomlinson, and Williams should score much more than the run-of-the-mill guys like Antowain Smith or James Stewart. However, though the scoring averages seem about right to me, the weekly fluctuations are much bigger than I think they should be. I used my own guy, Clinton Portis, as an example of a score that got out of proportion with the value of the RB on a given play. I hate to see a game lost on something like that, even if it means that I win. Another team might have better overall RB stats, but lose to the one-play wonder. That shouldn't happen. To prevent that, I think the stepped scoring for long TDs and the bonus points for catching/passing TDs should be eliminated, as described above. Longer TDs are, after all, rewarded with extra points for the yardage gained. Double-threat backs are worth more, so I think they should still get extra points for receiving. Again, I personally dislike the stepped scoring, so I think all catches should be worth a point. I would simplify the scoring to one point for every ten yards gained, one point for every reception, and six points for every TD, and a penalty of three (or four) points for every fumble. Thus, Priest Holmes (who averaged about 2/3 the yardage that Trent Green averaged, with the same number of TDs, but fewer turnovers), who scored 33 points per game in the Big House in 2002, would average 31 points (compared with Trent Green's 29). Ricky Williams, who averaged 24.5 in the Big House in 2002, would average 22 points. Duce Staley, a good double-threat back who scored 16.4 points per game in the Big House in 2002, would average 16 points. Antowain Smith, a good back who doesn't catch the ball as often and scored 12 points per game in the Big House in 2002, would average 12 points. So what's different? The wild fluctuations that don't reflect the real-football value of a given performance would be reduced, and players would be penalized for turnovers. Examples: Instead of scoring 68 points in week 12 with 307 yds and 3 TDs, Holmes would have scored 55 (he didn't fumble). Instead of scoring 64 points in week 15 with 205 yds and 4 TDs, Portis would have scored 41 (he fumbled twice). Not a big diff, but more fair, I think. There would be almost no gooseggs, and a few more points for catches among the lower-scoring RBs.

I would add to this one adjustment to account for today’s NFL run game: RBs carry far fewer times in 2025 than they did in 2002, and gain fewer yards as a result. Therefore, in the interest of giving RBs a more fair portion of their value to the team’s results, I propose giving RBs one point for every three carries, or two carries, whatever sounds more sensible to the group. This is somewhat like the one point per catch that WRs depend upon. Each position contributes yards, but WRs get more yards per play than RBs, yet RBs use up more clock than WRs, and that has value, too. Awarding points for carries would give premier RBs more of a stake in the game than they would otherwise get in today’s Fantasy Football scoring.]

Kicker

Kickers do not, in my opinion, get enough points in the Big House FFL. Place kickers in the NFL score almost every time they are used! That's points on the board, not just yardage. Rewarding QBs, RBs, and WRs with points for yardage is fair and fun, but Kickers put more points on the board than most of them. [24 of the top 28 scoring leaders in the NFL in 2024 were Kickers.] The leading scorer in the NFL after 16 weeks [in 2002] was a RB (Holmes). After that, there were 13 kickers ahead of all the other RBs and WRs! A good kicker can win games almost as often as a great RB or WR. Thus, I think we should reward Kickers a bit better than we do. Instead of the scoring used in the 2002 Big House, how about giving them credit for distance as well as points by giving three for every FG plus one point for every ten yards, but subtracting 3 points for every miss. It would be worth more, and stepped less, than what was used in 2002. Thus, instead of a 30-yarder being 3 points, it would be 6, instead of a 40-yarder being 4 points, it would be 7, a 55-yarder would be 8 instead of 5, and a 56-yarder would be 8 instead of 10. Extra points would still be one point, with a point deducted for every miss. The result would be that instead of the average Kicker making little or no difference to the FFL score, a guy who kicked four FGs would be worth much more than a guy who kicked one, and have a bit more to do with the final Big House outcome. Plus, the increase would be steady, not suddenly stepped. And, vitally, Kickers would be penalized for their costly misses.Andy also had an idea about giving points for game-winning FGs. Maybe OverTime FGs would be worth double, or something? That's Andy's idea, but I think it's worth discussing.

Wide Recievers

Wide receivers are worth as much as they produce, which for most of them is just yards, and an occasional score. For the most part, since the passing game is less reliable than the running game and more susceptible to turnovers, they are worth less than RBs, except for the threat of lots of yards on any one play. I kind of like the points for catches, since it rewards receivers for this extra threat. As described above, I would prefer one point per catch, not a stepped three per three. Also, I would like to see the awards for yardage unlimited by the 50-yard minimum, as with RBs above. Thus, I would simplify WR scoring to one point for every ten yards gained, one point for every reception, and six points for every TD, and a penalty of three (or four) points for every fumble. This makes WRs more consistent than before, but slightly less valuable, since the longer TDs are not rewarded with the compounded scoring previously used. They end up being a bit like seldom-used big-play RBs, which is appropriate value, I think. The best WRs would still score a lot, since their yardage would be similar to top RBs, and they may score a TD or two. If you feel they deserve more, how about two points per catch?

Tight Ends

Tight ends should be scored like what they are in fantasy football: underachieving WRs. [Travis Kelce might disagree!] Thus, I would score them like WRs. [I am not sure I like this last part now! It seems a bit of a reach. But I include it in case anyone thinks it was a good idea.] Lastly, on the matter of fantasy football scoring being all offense and no defense, with the frustrating result that you have no way to stop your opponent from scoring -- making "coaching" a nearly non-existent factor -- Andy and I have played with another idea: How about allowing each "coach" to select one player on his opponent's team each week to defend against. The coach would say, I want to defend that guy, and if that selected player goes on to score less than his weekly average, the player would have his score reduced by the number of points he scored fewer than his average, and those points would go to the defending coach's team. If, on the other hand, the player scored more than his average, the points beyond the average would be deducted from the defending team and added to the player's team. Get it? The defending coach would have to look at the matchups, and pick a player he believes will have the most trouble scoring against his real NFL opponent. If he's going against Priest Holmes, and Holmes is playing the Seahawks, he'd be a dope to defend Holmes. He may have to settle for a #2RB, a QB,or even a WR or K, if they are going against, say, Tampa Bay or Philadelphia. Obviously, high-scoring players are the ones to go after, since you could gain a fraction of a higher number of points -- but if you're wrong, you stand to lose a bigger number of points, also.