Quitters ruin this contest....

renman · Post by **renman** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:14 am

The problem with simply identifying those who quit and ultimately banning them is that it does nothing to address the problem of a league that gets competitive integrity hurt by someone who quits. We need to talk about things that can address the problem in real time to protect an individual league from these types of players.

The best idea I have seen thus far came from King of Queens who talked about how on Tuesdays the rosters can be set in an automated way with the highest scoring projected lineup.. meaning bye week players and players listed as OUT will be removed from the lineup if a viable option exists on the bench.

All real fantasy owners mess with their lineups all week and anyone who wants to change how the "electronically optimum lineup" is set is welcome to do so. This immediately ends the specific problem of quitter owners starting bye week players or injured players because they care less.

BLACKHAND · Post by **BLACKHAND** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:36 am

Originally posted by Renman:
The problem with simply identifying those who quit and ultimately banning them is that it does nothing to address the problem of a league that gets competitive integrity hurt by someone who quits. We need to talk about things that can address the problem in real time to protect an individual league from these types of players.

The best idea I have seen thus far came from King of Queens who talked about how on Tuesdays the rosters can be set in an automated way with the highest scoring projected lineup.. meaning bye week players and players listed as OUT will be removed from the lineup if a viable option exists on the bench.

All real fantasy owners mess with their lineups all week and anyone who wants to change how the "electronically optimum lineup" is set is welcome to do so. This immediately ends the specific problem of quitter owners starting bye week players or injured players because they care less. i think thats the best idea out there yet. then if a team puts in a bye week player it would be intentionally done which should be a lifetime ban.

renman · Post by **renman** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:48 am

The_blackhand,

I see it as the best answer to this problem too. I see ZERO downside and it cleans up an issue that though happens seldom, clearly happens every year and truly ruffles feathers of high stakes fantasy players who more often than not are frustrated by this time of year... I would think the NFFC would want to do their best to lessen the number of things that can turn a future customer off.

With regard to people purposely starting a bye week player.. I assure you someone will post here soon outlining a scenario where strategically they may WANT to lose (or provide another team a win) as it could help them based on their total points and situation in the standings.

[ November 17, 2009, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Renman ]

mikeybok · Post by **mikeybok** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:00 pm

Originally posted by Renman:
The problem with simply identifying those who quit and ultimately banning them is that it does nothing to address the problem of a league that gets competitive integrity hurt by someone who quits. We need to talk about things that can address the problem in real time to protect an individual league from these types of players.

The best idea I have seen thus far came from King of Queens who talked about how on Tuesdays the rosters can be set in an automated way with the highest scoring projected lineup.. meaning bye week players and players listed as OUT will be removed from the lineup if a viable option exists on the bench.

All real fantasy owners mess with their lineups all week and anyone who wants to change how the "electronically optimum lineup" is set is welcome to do so. This immediately ends the specific problem of quitter owners starting bye week players or injured players because they care less. This is well stated and sums up this conversation very well IMO.

You can keep people from cheating ... but not from quitting. The owner of that team has that right. You can't MAKE someone field a team. You can only make rules to compensate for the quitters. I also want them in again next year ... I'll be glad to ware their Q's for them if that's what it takes to get them back

Think about it. Would you get in a High stakes contest that had 70% - 80% of the players quit after week three?? Then consider the contest has a consolation bracket that pays money these guys are out of! I would stand in line to get in that! Dead money is good. For every player it potentially hurts ... it helps someone else even more. Over the long run ... it's good for everyone else!

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:49 pm

Originally posted by Coltsfan:
quote:Originally posted by Renman:
quote:Originally posted by Coltsfan:
Have you noticed that Greg and Tom and stayed away from this topic. That kind of tells me that they do not have any interest in changing anything with the contest. Honestly, I'm fine the way it is. The H2H component of the NFFC doesn't come into play most of the time as the team that wins typically is one of the top teams in points as well. (There will be some exceptions.) It will alwalys be a problem and I don't see a solution that won't be griped about just as much as the original problem. Just my 2 cents.

Wayne I think Greg and Tom enjoy allowing the members of the NFFC debate and discuss things without giving their own personal opinions in a manner that might sway how people view the issue. I think this is an example of how in touch with the NFFC they are. I guarantee they are or have read this thread or other discussion on this issue.. I assure you they care about the issue and have opinions on the issue.

However, they also care about making the event as good as possible so I am certain they are open to good ideas that may be cultivated here like the one King of Queens brought up.

No one is saying that a change like this is going to 100% solve the problem of quitter owners. But it could help lessen this problem some and give the NFFC some protection from what could become an ugly situation when a quitter team hugely impacts the results of this event. [/QUOTE]renman,

I'm sure that Greg and Tom are reading these posts but it seems to me in the past when they were on board with or considering making a change to the nffc that they were actively involved in the discussion. When they aren't looking at making a change they allow the discussion to happen but don't address it. I may be wrong but that is just my impression of how it works.

Wayne [/QUOTE]I didn't realize that folks could tell our demeanor by whether we post or not.

Wow, even letting you guys figure something like this out gets us in trouble when we don't respond.

This thread has been started every NFFC season. The WCOFF tried to address this year and it has opened a few can of worms. You're damned when you do and damned when you don't. The bottom line is that we've always let the owners who paid the dollars to compete in the NFFC the ability to run their teams every step of the way. We're not big on government coming to the rescue of every single nick and cranny or every little problem we face each day. This no different.

But the suggestions are good and we can look into it. If I had responded earlier, we wouldn't have gotten to Page 12. Now I've admitted we are watching and taking notes, but yes Wayne, in many respects I don't believe that Tom and I are the answer to this. Total points is where the big money is won and there isn't anything another team can do to prevent you or anyone else from scoring, scoring, scoring each week. If you dominate in total points, you will dominate in the NFFC.

Good luck all and we don't like quitters any more than you do. But bad grammar isn't good either. Someone, please change the subject head to "quitters RUIN this contest..."

Jim Wiseheart · Post by **Jim Wiseheart** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:22 pm

I like King of Queens idea in theory. You are only changing the way the default lineup is set which seems reasonable to me.

Unfortunately there would stll be problems if this only looks at players on bye or IR. You would really need to exclude players listed as Out or Doubtful too, otherwise these players might be inserted in the "dead" owners lineup (i.e. Chris Cooley)in place of a legitimate option that would be playing. This could make the problem worse. To exclude these players you would have to wait until the NFL injury report comes out on Friday which isn't realistic.

There doesn't seem to be an easy solution to this problem.

mikeybok · Post by **mikeybok** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:32 pm

Originally posted by FF Addict:
I like King of Queens idea in theory. You are only changing the way the default lineup is set which seems reasonable to me.

Unfortunately there would stll be problems if this only looks at players on bye or IR. You would really need to exclude players listed as Out or Doubtful too, otherwise these players might be inserted in the "dead" owners lineup (i.e. Chris Cooley)in place of a legitimate option that would be playing. This could make the problem worse. To exclude these players you would have to wait until the NFL injury report comes out on Friday which isn't realistic.

There doesn't seem to be an easy solution to this problem. Many services provide weekly rankings ... and account for P's Q's D's and OUTS. It's just a default anyway as you can change it on Tuesday. It would only be final for someone who chooses not to play.

... I am beginning to think it should be left alone with last week players as the default. The same people who want protection against quitters will also bitch when the NEW default beats them and knocks them out of the money.

Jim Wiseheart · Post by **Jim Wiseheart** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:40 pm

UYT, you are right. That would work if you used another service vs. NFL if it was available early in the week.

bobsgym13 · Post by **bobsgym13** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:52 pm

This no different.

...But bad grammar isn't good either. Someone, please change the subject head to "quitters RUIN this contest..."

The pettyness of correcting grammar and spelling on boards like these has always driven me nutty. If you have the urge to correct the second word in my first sentence you have helped define irony.

Greg,

You guys run a great contest. I am also for as limited a government as possible - but if the founding fathers of fantasy football would have had the lineup optimizer that KoQ described - I'm pretty sure that they would have used it.

Bob

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:02 pm

Originally posted by Bob Squad:
quote:This no different.

...But bad grammar isn't good either. Someone, please change the subject head to "quitters RUIN this contest..."

The pettyness of correcting grammar and spelling on boards like these has always driven me nutty. If you have the urge to correct the second word in my first sentence you have helped define irony.

Greg,

You guys run a great contest. I am also for as limited a government as possible - but if the founding fathers of fantasy football would have had the lineup optimizer that KoQ described - I'm pretty sure that they would have used it.

Bob [/QUOTE]There are no Founding Fathers of Fantasy Football, just Founding Fathers of Rotisserie Baseball. And they hated it when we began calling this fantasy baseball rather than paying for the trademark R everytime they wanted us to mention Rotisserie.

I'll do everyone a favor and change the subject now. I have to power to do it!!

The default to last week's lineup makes sense. Maybe there's a better option, maybe not. But I'm really not in favor of the game operators making calculated decisions to set everyone's lineup at the start of the week. It's up to each owner to set their best possible lineup each week. That onus shouldn't be on Greg and Tom.

Again, maybe there's a better default option. It's worth looking into as we improve the game setup.