NFFC Message Boards

Playing devil's advocate on the idea that it would be a burden of time, I'm guessing the guys deal with inquiries about the issue every year.

In fact, I'm not sure I understand the rules correctly, but I'll probably toss an email their way to point out the time it happened in my league and see what remedies they have.

I'd estimate that of the five teams that have a chance, and the four games each has left, that only five are them include opponents that have a chance. That number will be reduced as we go, too.

So in our case, over 75% of the remaining games will be subject to those giving up. That's a lot when you consider we know one team has quit and there will probably be more on the way.

Whatever deposit amount they would adopt, it would simply be tacked on to whatever they charge. They would simply have a mechanism to send out those checks at the end of the year (in Quickbooks it would take a half a day at worst). They could subtract from that mechanism any situations that were brought to their attention.

It may take a day or two, but it would be worth it to create a deterrent for tainted results.

Singltary's.....again, the deposit idea will NEVER happen. Don't even go down that road. It's not happening.

Why don't we change this subject to something that's much easier to solve. Like the national deficit or world peace.

Is anyone against the NFFC taking this issue seriously enough to make an announcement about it prior to the live drafts and require all NFFC participants click "I agree" that they read a short message on this issue BEFORE they can get into their league site?

I know this will not FIX the problem... but I guarantee it will make people care more about the issue and improving on the problem is a positive.


Another question...

Does everyone agree that it is BAD for a fantasy football league to have a situation where who wins and loses is dramatically impacted by who is lucky enough to catch quitter owners as opposed to who isn't?

Can we all agree this is a bad thing?

People who put up $1400 and don't give a good effort are not a problem. They are what makes it worth it to play this game.

Everyone is equally as likely to benefit in H2H and everyone benefits in pts. Last week #5 in our league had Newton and Stafford and took a 0 at QB. Now he is in 8th and probably fell 60 spots overall. You want to penalize that guy???? LOL, good stuff.

Ask Tom and Greg if they want to start discouraging weak players to sign up. Maybe just the top 50 overall each year could be invited back.

Basically, if you think avoidable luck should just be a part of the game, I don't know what to say.

Felix, everyone is equally as likely to benefit in H2H? Are you even trying to think here? It benefits the person that goes against somebody who quit, that's it.

There's a reason we don't have people roll a dice to choose between players in their lineup. That would be luck, something we're trying to avoid, right? Luck = facing a team that has quit vs. your competitor going against a team that is trying. If you can't understand that, here's your sign.

This is basically fantasy football 101, and I'm shocked to hear anybody that calls themselves a player even question this. I'd expect a bunch of rookies to hear argument on this and return a vote of no action.

Maybe this is why folks are saying to leave it alone. I honestly didn't care that much about it but now hearing the opposing voices provide laughable reasons, I can see why prior attempts to discuss the issue were frustrating and abandoned.

I would say this to the NFFC, though, let's not let the wrong voices drive the bandwagon here. Having the contest tainted by luck at the end will turn people off.

[ November 09, 2011, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Singletary's Samurais ]

Flex,

I am honestly struggling to understand your point. You just said "people who quit their fantasy football leagues is what MAKES PLAYING THIS GAME WORTH IT.."

You don't seem to be understanding the point. Say the guy who started Newton and Stafford on byes was playing the first place team. Say the second place team faced the Newton/Stafford owner in week 2 when he was trying and lost. Now the second place team is one game out of first and the first place team gets a free win thanks to the team who quit.

It destroys the competitive integrity of the contest.

If you cannot see that, it will be difficult to have a rational discussion on the topic.

He was playing the 1st place team. Zwickel is now 9-0 and only won the game by 22 points.
I AM the 2nd place team. So please stop insinuating I don't get the point. The only reason I am still posting on a non-issue is that I was affected by this and I do get your points and I disagree with them.

I was equally as likely to have benefited because I was just as likely to have been facing him in week 9 as Zwickel was. That's MY point. Zwickel got the benefit not me. But I also gained 100 points on the Newton/Stafford guy (I put up 180+, he had a horrible week and took a 0 at QB and scored 82) which counts big time towards 2nd and 3rd place. It almost eliminates him in fact, so why would I complain? I wouldn't complain, I'm not a fool.

Felix,

Your messages continue to show you don't get the point. Whether YOU are fine with the first place team getting a free win in week 9 ISN'T the point.

The POINT is this hurts the competitive integrity of the competition. You seem to be fine with random luck being a huge part of the results. Most people recognize SOME luck needs to be a part of fantasy football (injuries, lucky plays, bad weather that hurts performance, etc) but we want to limit the random luck factor as much as possible to create a better competitive experience.

Based on your logic we shouldn't even draft our own players. We should let a computer randomly pick all our teams and make it as random as possible.

You say you are disagreeing with me. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Originally posted by Renman:
Felix,

Your messages continue to show you don't get the point. Whether YOU are fine with the first place team getting a free win in week 9 ISN'T the point.

The POINT is this hurts the competitive integrity of the competition. You seem to be fine with random luck being a huge part of the results. Most people recognize SOME luck needs to be a part of fantasy football (injuries, lucky plays, bad weather that hurts performance, etc) but we want to limit the random luck factor as much as possible to create a better competitive experience.

Based on your logic we shouldn't even draft our own players. We should let a computer randomly pick all our teams and make it as random as possible.

You say you are disagreeing with me. What exactly are you disagreeing with? YOUR point, not THE point. I disagree that it hurts the integrity of the game. You can't see that what you and Singletary are saying is an opinion. It's not fact. No use continuing any discussion when someone thinks their opinion is fact...good luck getting this "problem" changed.

FYI- you might want to start by asking TOm or Greg their thoughts, since as we've said now numerous times it will never be changed no matter what you and Singletary "decide" for the rest of us. It's part of the game, has been for 7 years now and it BENEFITS people, it doesn't harm them. (remember? that's your opinion that it harms them, ok got it?)

As a side note, it's also a viable strategy to intentionally lose a game. So good luck getting something implemented to where it forces people to play certain guys in their lineup.

What a colossal waste of time.