Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
FCFS is BS. i could continually pick up and drop as many players as i wanted. that system doesn't work.Ah, so you consider that a flaw. In other words words, even though the rules allow you to do something, it is not necessarily something that SHOULD be done, even though it is a strategy that will give you an edge.
Interesting. I kind of feel the same way about what happen to me here - something ALLOWED yet should NOT be done.
Classless act or good strategy??
Classless act or good strategy??
For Players. By Players.
Classless act or good strategy??
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
cases of "extreme malice" are investigated on a case-by-case basis. a quick example...an owner, let's call him Mr X, in your league doesn't like you for whatever reason. you guys almost came to blows at the draft, belittle each other on the MB, etc...
fast forward to week 13. you (9-3) are one game back from the league leader (10-2). Mr X is 4-8, and is playing against the league leader week 13. Mr X decides to pick up all hurt players and start them against the league leader...meaning you can't win the league.Thats is truly an interesting example of "extreme malice". And you're right, it is on a case by case basis. Now let me ask you this - in that same EXACT scenario you just gave, if the 4-8 owner simply submits a half-injured, half-bums lineup made up of his players and does not even bother going through the trouble of picking up bums from the WW, is that still "extreme malice"? The intent is EXACTLY the same and he accomplishes the EXACt same thing doesn't he? Because it is my understanding that THAT would be TOTALLY within the rules of NFFC since Greg and Tom will not force owners to submit valid lineups.
Point being, your example of "extreme malice" may not be either extreme nor malice. At the same time, what happened to me may not be extreme, but can be considered as malice. And ESPECIALLY if some other factors come into play (e.i. similar to what you mentioned in your example), it can turn really ugly. That is why I'm shocked that my situation is being called a "great play" or "brilliant move", when it's one step away from the big "C"
cases of "extreme malice" are investigated on a case-by-case basis. a quick example...an owner, let's call him Mr X, in your league doesn't like you for whatever reason. you guys almost came to blows at the draft, belittle each other on the MB, etc...
fast forward to week 13. you (9-3) are one game back from the league leader (10-2). Mr X is 4-8, and is playing against the league leader week 13. Mr X decides to pick up all hurt players and start them against the league leader...meaning you can't win the league.Thats is truly an interesting example of "extreme malice". And you're right, it is on a case by case basis. Now let me ask you this - in that same EXACT scenario you just gave, if the 4-8 owner simply submits a half-injured, half-bums lineup made up of his players and does not even bother going through the trouble of picking up bums from the WW, is that still "extreme malice"? The intent is EXACTLY the same and he accomplishes the EXACt same thing doesn't he? Because it is my understanding that THAT would be TOTALLY within the rules of NFFC since Greg and Tom will not force owners to submit valid lineups.
Point being, your example of "extreme malice" may not be either extreme nor malice. At the same time, what happened to me may not be extreme, but can be considered as malice. And ESPECIALLY if some other factors come into play (e.i. similar to what you mentioned in your example), it can turn really ugly. That is why I'm shocked that my situation is being called a "great play" or "brilliant move", when it's one step away from the big "C"
For Players. By Players.
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 36393
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:00 pm
Classless act or good strategy??
Nag, trust me Tom and I are watching this thread just as you suggested. I've read every line and thought through every scenario. I've read this thread through the weekend and through tonight and I'll continue to read everyone's thoughts through the week. No need for me to jump in while the discussion is heading toward page 8....and likely more.
The rules were put in place to allow owners to have flexibility on Draft Day and throughout the season. That doesn't mean they were put in place with the intent that each owner could carry 4 QBs on their roster, but they did give each owner the flexibility to carry more players at any position at any time during the season and to adjust as needed through FAAB. Honestly, over the last three years I've read on the WCOFF where the No. 1 concern was "dead owners" and in this case you have a very active owner who is still scratching for another victory. In many ways I'm glad to see this owner and every other owner who is below .500 right now still scratching for wins and points because after all there is a Consolation Bowl for everyone who doesn't make the playoffs.
Should I intercede and disallow this owner's FAAB moves? No, under the letter of the law, I shouldn't. Do I think it was wrong what he did? Honestly, I don't. Was it something I would have done in a high-stakes league? I hate to say it, but I'm more competitive than anyone in the NFFC, and I.....well.....maybe.
Nag is unquestionably one of the most intense fantasy players in the country from all of the leagues he enters and I hear he cashes out in a lot of them. I appreciate the fact that he made this post and asked for input, even though he probably knew that many people wouldn't feel his pain. I think we have assembled a great group of competitors, a great group of die-hard football fans, and a great group of people who will win at all costs within the confines of the rules. In this case, everything was done within the rules and I guess the only question is whether I should change them to put more restrictions on owners in 2005. Should I?
The rules were put in place to allow owners to have flexibility on Draft Day and throughout the season. That doesn't mean they were put in place with the intent that each owner could carry 4 QBs on their roster, but they did give each owner the flexibility to carry more players at any position at any time during the season and to adjust as needed through FAAB. Honestly, over the last three years I've read on the WCOFF where the No. 1 concern was "dead owners" and in this case you have a very active owner who is still scratching for another victory. In many ways I'm glad to see this owner and every other owner who is below .500 right now still scratching for wins and points because after all there is a Consolation Bowl for everyone who doesn't make the playoffs.
Should I intercede and disallow this owner's FAAB moves? No, under the letter of the law, I shouldn't. Do I think it was wrong what he did? Honestly, I don't. Was it something I would have done in a high-stakes league? I hate to say it, but I'm more competitive than anyone in the NFFC, and I.....well.....maybe.
Nag is unquestionably one of the most intense fantasy players in the country from all of the leagues he enters and I hear he cashes out in a lot of them. I appreciate the fact that he made this post and asked for input, even though he probably knew that many people wouldn't feel his pain. I think we have assembled a great group of competitors, a great group of die-hard football fans, and a great group of people who will win at all costs within the confines of the rules. In this case, everything was done within the rules and I guess the only question is whether I should change them to put more restrictions on owners in 2005. Should I?
Founder, National Fantasy Football Championship & National Fantasy Baseball Championship
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Classless act or good strategy??
Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I guess the only question is whether I should change them to put more restrictions on owners in 2005. Should I? of course the answer is no. like some of you say...this is the National Championship. if owners can't figure out bye weeks and/or spend all their FA$ early, it's their own fault. i've blocked in the past, and i will continue to block every week up to and including week 13.
I guess the only question is whether I should change them to put more restrictions on owners in 2005. Should I? of course the answer is no. like some of you say...this is the National Championship. if owners can't figure out bye weeks and/or spend all their FA$ early, it's their own fault. i've blocked in the past, and i will continue to block every week up to and including week 13.
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
-
JerseyPaul
- Posts: 786
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 6:00 pm
Classless act or good strategy??
Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
In this case, everything was done within the rules and I guess the only question is whether I should change them to put more restrictions on owners in 2005. Should I? Of course not. The whole point of many of the threads started by GG and myself (and others), is to increase control by owners, not restrict their moves.
This has been a fabulous season. The contests have been great and the Message Boards have been great. I think everybody has enjoyed the 2004 NFFC season. The changes, if any, should be to allow more strategy and tactics. The more creative moves, the more controversy and interest.
In this case, everything was done within the rules and I guess the only question is whether I should change them to put more restrictions on owners in 2005. Should I? Of course not. The whole point of many of the threads started by GG and myself (and others), is to increase control by owners, not restrict their moves.
This has been a fabulous season. The contests have been great and the Message Boards have been great. I think everybody has enjoyed the 2004 NFFC season. The changes, if any, should be to allow more strategy and tactics. The more creative moves, the more controversy and interest.
Classless act or good strategy??
vegas gambler...
you said that i am the only person talking about this... looks like there is about 7 pages on this topic and i am sure i am not the only one posting...lol this is not about just "winning or losing"... maybe you could clear up your own confusion if you RE-read the title of the thread... let me correct the lastest things you made up that i never said or implied..
-for the 7th time, i never said anyone broke a rule
-i would ask how my opinion means i am on a "high horse", but i know you will have no answer, so i wont ask
to answer your question.... no, i do not draft a player that i know i will never need or use just to BLOCK someone else from fielding a team...
greg...
i was wondering if you are watching this... i am one who thinks you can be "competitive" and try hard to win, and stick with your team even if struggling without pulling this kind of hording/blocking move to stymie some other owner from being able to field a full team... i keep reading things like "hey, you just do all you can to win!!" well of course you do... but there are things that are within the rules, but still wrong.. and i made lists of them earlier (which i think frustrated some here and was partly why this thread got so long...lol).
if this game is about fantasy football lovers fielding players with the intent of putting up stats to win games... thats one thing. if you think this game is also partially about blocking other owners, "playing" other owners, gathering up players to hurt other teams, then leave the rules as they are... this type of situation would come up VERY seldom anyway...
you said that i am the only person talking about this... looks like there is about 7 pages on this topic and i am sure i am not the only one posting...lol this is not about just "winning or losing"... maybe you could clear up your own confusion if you RE-read the title of the thread... let me correct the lastest things you made up that i never said or implied..
-for the 7th time, i never said anyone broke a rule
-i would ask how my opinion means i am on a "high horse", but i know you will have no answer, so i wont ask
to answer your question.... no, i do not draft a player that i know i will never need or use just to BLOCK someone else from fielding a team...
greg...
i was wondering if you are watching this... i am one who thinks you can be "competitive" and try hard to win, and stick with your team even if struggling without pulling this kind of hording/blocking move to stymie some other owner from being able to field a full team... i keep reading things like "hey, you just do all you can to win!!" well of course you do... but there are things that are within the rules, but still wrong.. and i made lists of them earlier (which i think frustrated some here and was partly why this thread got so long...lol).
if this game is about fantasy football lovers fielding players with the intent of putting up stats to win games... thats one thing. if you think this game is also partially about blocking other owners, "playing" other owners, gathering up players to hurt other teams, then leave the rules as they are... this type of situation would come up VERY seldom anyway...
Classless act or good strategy??
No rebuttle to my posts, GG? Hmmm.
Greg. Of course I knew you were reading this and I also knew you would see the danger in what happened to me, even though almost noone else here does. But it's not there job to, so it's ok. You're right, I didn't think I'd get much sympathy on these boards. I guess most FF owners have a pretty simple approach to this hobby - exploit all possibilities and win at all costs. But as I previously mentioned, commissioners and league hosting websites continue to adjust roster management rules every time a loophole is found. In my three seasons of WCOFF and one here, this is the first time a situation like this came up, but I have a strong suspicion it will again, so at least you'll be prepared.
Greg. Of course I knew you were reading this and I also knew you would see the danger in what happened to me, even though almost noone else here does. But it's not there job to, so it's ok. You're right, I didn't think I'd get much sympathy on these boards. I guess most FF owners have a pretty simple approach to this hobby - exploit all possibilities and win at all costs. But as I previously mentioned, commissioners and league hosting websites continue to adjust roster management rules every time a loophole is found. In my three seasons of WCOFF and one here, this is the first time a situation like this came up, but I have a strong suspicion it will again, so at least you'll be prepared.
For Players. By Players.
Classless act or good strategy??
More restrictions would be ridiculous... don't talk like that, Greg.
A good commish should be seen and not heard, lol
I think some obvious things have popped up... division format in auction leagues has to go (check out the extreme disparity in Vegas Auction) as well as seeking to find some methodology to allow owners to control their draft slots, etc.
Basically, I want the power to control my own destiny and any systemic flaw or fluke or quirk that can interfere and make my management irrelevant should be eliminated if possible.
Thanks!
Dave
A good commish should be seen and not heard, lol
I think some obvious things have popped up... division format in auction leagues has to go (check out the extreme disparity in Vegas Auction) as well as seeking to find some methodology to allow owners to control their draft slots, etc.
Basically, I want the power to control my own destiny and any systemic flaw or fluke or quirk that can interfere and make my management irrelevant should be eliminated if possible.
Thanks!
Dave
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Classless act or good strategy??
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I guess the only question is whether I should change them to put more restrictions on owners in 2005. Should I? of course the answer is no. like some of you say...this is the National Championship. if owners can't figure out bye weeks and/or spend all their FA$ early, it's their own fault. i've blocked in the past, and i will continue to block every week up to and including week 13. [/QUOTE]Hope your sitting down GG... I agree...
When you blocked me that one week, I smiled and thought that you made a good move.
I spent something like 579 on Kennison a few weeks before that and the move paid off. That put me in a position to be blocked. So be it.
Greg, don't change this rule. Don't change any rule unless it benefits ALL in the long run. You know what you want this to become, and some will never comprehend, acknowledge, or understand your goals as they only have their best interests in mind. (as it should be)
Go McNabb!!!! Go Ahman!!!
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I guess the only question is whether I should change them to put more restrictions on owners in 2005. Should I? of course the answer is no. like some of you say...this is the National Championship. if owners can't figure out bye weeks and/or spend all their FA$ early, it's their own fault. i've blocked in the past, and i will continue to block every week up to and including week 13. [/QUOTE]Hope your sitting down GG... I agree...
When you blocked me that one week, I smiled and thought that you made a good move.
I spent something like 579 on Kennison a few weeks before that and the move paid off. That put me in a position to be blocked. So be it.
Greg, don't change this rule. Don't change any rule unless it benefits ALL in the long run. You know what you want this to become, and some will never comprehend, acknowledge, or understand your goals as they only have their best interests in mind. (as it should be)
Go McNabb!!!! Go Ahman!!!
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
Classless act or good strategy??
Originally posted by Nag':
No rebuttle to my posts, GG? Hmmm.
Greg. Of course I knew you were reading this and I also knew you would see the danger in what happened to me, even though almost noone else here does. But it's not there job to, so it's ok. You're right, I didn't think I'd get much sympathy on these boards. I guess most FF owners have a pretty simple approach to this hobby - exploit all possibilities and win at all costs. But as I previously mentioned, commissioners and league hosting websites continue to adjust roster management rules every time a loophole is found. In my three seasons of WCOFF and one here, this is the first time a situation like this came up, but I have a strong suspicion it will again, so at least you'll be prepared. That's right Nag, "most of us" are simple in our approach and you're complex and brilliant. And you got out-coached and won't admit it.
Your situation has NOTHING to do with someone picking up and dropping every player on the FA wire and it's not akin to a chop block. It's simple common-sense fantasy football play. Period. Sorry for your bad decisions.
Dyv
No rebuttle to my posts, GG? Hmmm.
Greg. Of course I knew you were reading this and I also knew you would see the danger in what happened to me, even though almost noone else here does. But it's not there job to, so it's ok. You're right, I didn't think I'd get much sympathy on these boards. I guess most FF owners have a pretty simple approach to this hobby - exploit all possibilities and win at all costs. But as I previously mentioned, commissioners and league hosting websites continue to adjust roster management rules every time a loophole is found. In my three seasons of WCOFF and one here, this is the first time a situation like this came up, but I have a strong suspicion it will again, so at least you'll be prepared.
That's right Nag, "most of us" are simple in our approach and you're complex and brilliant. And you got out-coached and won't admit it. Your situation has NOTHING to do with someone picking up and dropping every player on the FA wire and it's not akin to a chop block. It's simple common-sense fantasy football play. Period. Sorry for your bad decisions.
Dyv
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!