Imagine a world in which everyone could afford to drive an Italian sportscar. Wouldn’t that be great? Nice rides for everyone.

The vehicles themselves all would perform to excellent standards, among the best fleet every produced in the history of the auto industry, but the cost of most would be in a range that made them within reach for all of society. Maybe a few come with a higher prices than most others, but those others are nearly as posh as the top-of-the-line options. And once the fleet is put on the market, the price drops precipitously on the cheaper ones if you wait a few weeks.

If that were the case, would you rush out to buy a new one at full price? Or would you wait for a discounted version that was almost as good? Especially if paying top-dollar instead of purchasing the cheaper models meant you then couldn’t afford other essentials that were substantially overpriced — for example, say, kitchen appliances?

In this environment, your personal finances might operate a lot like your fantasy football draft. Instead of overpaying for a sports car you can get on the cheap, in which case you can’t buy that new refrigerator, you decide to wait for on the hot rod and get your kitchenware. It’s much the same way you should treat a quarterback in fantasy draft.

Why overpay for Aaron Rodgers with a third-round pick when you can have Kirk Cousins or Matthew Stafford or Jameis Winston or Philip Rivers for much cheaper. Sure, Rodgers is a better QB, but by paying so much for him, you no longer can afford a solid second running back, or third wide receiver, or another asset whose value won’t last the way QB value does deep into the draft. That RB you get in Round 12 won’t be the kind you can feel confident using in your lineup every week. That 12th-round QB? Chances are, you get a playable guy.

This isn’t just a solid fantasy strategy, it is a problem with fantasy scoring. The evolution of the NFL passing game (thanks in large part to rule changes over the past 10 years) has made quarterback far and away the most important position on any team. They always have been important, but never more so. There was a time when you could win titles with Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer. Now, that is virtually impossible — just ask the Chiefs how good they have to be everywhere else to overcome “average” play from Alex Smith.

This importance isn’t reflected in fantasy scoring. In fact, the reverse practically has become true. The Madman isn’t arguing that QBs are less valuable than defense/special teams or kickers. But it isn’t difficult to build a successful fantasy team by addressing every other position, some with several backup options, before targeting a QB.

So how do we fix this? How does fantasy adjust to properly reflect the importance of the QB?

There are a few options, though they merely curb the devaluation rather than curb it. But a step toward a reflection of real life is a step in the right direction. After all, success in fantasy football should require as much football knowledge as the game allows.

Here are a few ideas:

1. Normalize scoring for QBs. Most formats reward QBs with fewer points for passing touchdowns and yardage. Equalizing this — giving QBs the same six points for a passing TD as other positions and a point for every 10 yards passing instead of every 20, 25 or 50 — would give a boost that would elevate QB value in drafts to something more close to “normal” (normal, as in real-life value).

This alone wouldn’t completely correct the problem, but it is a start. One issue with this is, even though more points tallied naturally creates a better chance for separation between QBs, that separation likely isn’t enough to significantly alter the draft strategy — the low-end starter-worthy QBs still would score at a rate that likely would be acceptable for fantasy owners to justify waiting until the middle- or late-middle rounds to select a QB, so we haven’t really fixed the problem.

2. Split PPR yardage stats. The disease that is points-per-reception leagues is too prevalent to ignore (as much as the Madman wants to). In PPR leagues, the player on the receiving end of the pass collects a point, but the player throwing the pass gets nothing. This is among the numerous flaws in PPR scoring. The receiving player wouldn’t be able to catch the pass had the QB not thrown a catchable ball.

So, why not award a half-point to both players on each end of a successful pass play — a half-point for the thrower (presumably a QB), and a half-point for the receiver (be it a WR, RB or TE). This would do two things: It would further amplify QB value, while also devaluing the other positions, creating a more equal player value base.

The Madman does have some ideological problems here, too, though. First, it still is PPR, which is inherently biased at its core, and it involves partial points, which the Madman despises in seasonal leagues for aesthetic reasons. Making it a full point would curb the fractional issue, but also exaggerate the PPR bias against traditional RBs.

3. Add a second QB to the roster requirements. This would instantly solve the valuation problem, but it also creates a “fantasy” environment that cannot be duplicated in real life. No team uses two QBs on the field at the same time. So though we like the end result, the “reality” cost is too high to endorse.

4. Add a superflex position. This acts like a normal flex position, though it allows for the use of a second QB. Again, it conflicts with our notion of making fantasy football more about real football than fantasy. Thus, again, no endorsement.

5. Do nothing. No fix here is fool-proof or without contradicting other Madman ideals. Though we like the first option (uniform scoring) better than nothing, because that likely won’t sufficiently solve the problem, it is a matter of taste rather than effective action.

So QBs, enjoy your domination of the real game, because it looks like there’s no immediate method by which to extend that dominance to the fantasy realm.