This idea could suck, but I thought I'd throw it out there before I forgot.
There are no weekly prizes to encourage teams to finish out the slate, but what about a $100 (or whatever amount) deposit that is returned at the end of the year.
A team would lose their deposit if they start a player on bye, start a player that is listed as doubtful (possibly could strike this provision), or if they start a player that is listed as out.
This isn't going to stop the idiots that leave bad fantasy plays in, but it seems reasonable to me.
The only other thing is making next year's eligibility subject to disqualification if you had the aforementioned issue arise.
I'm sure it's buried in the rules, but what happens now if/when a team folds up their tent? Does NFFC come in and set the lineup?
Idea to stop deadbeat owners
Idea to stop deadbeat owners
I kinda like that idea.
Wished I'd thought of that.
Wished I'd thought of that.
Idea to stop deadbeat owners
Why not just welcome people who want to throw away $1400 instead of penalizing them.
Idea to stop deadbeat owners
Exactly, Flamingo. If they want to waste their money let's welcome them. Who cares if they quit playing? Every year we seem to get so hung up on owners that quit. It's not rotisserie-based scoring where it would have more of an impact. That's why Greg & Tom have rules that award prizes & playoff spots based more on points than record. That's the beauty of the prize structure already set up, yet every year someone has a rant about their their record without knowing its all about the points you score for the most part.
COZ
Idea to stop deadbeat owners
Forgive my carrying on but for argument's sakes, win-loss record is a clear goal here so if one team quits then the teams they quit against have an advantage. That's an artificial advantage so it's arguable that it shouldn't exist.
I wasn't actually bitching, if you were referring to me, but trying to provide an idea that could possibly improve the contest.
It hadn't even happened in my league until after I posted today, but today team CSA64 started Ryan Mathews who was extremely questionable for the last two days. That contest isn't likely to affect our outcome, but if it had, it's a legitimate gripe.
I'm a big fan of total points and wouldn't be against that as a strict format. I understand, however, that the contest wants as many teams as possible to be competitive down the stretch.
Good luck fellas.
[ November 07, 2011, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Singletary's Samurais ]
I wasn't actually bitching, if you were referring to me, but trying to provide an idea that could possibly improve the contest.
It hadn't even happened in my league until after I posted today, but today team CSA64 started Ryan Mathews who was extremely questionable for the last two days. That contest isn't likely to affect our outcome, but if it had, it's a legitimate gripe.
I'm a big fan of total points and wouldn't be against that as a strict format. I understand, however, that the contest wants as many teams as possible to be competitive down the stretch.
Good luck fellas.
[ November 07, 2011, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Singletary's Samurais ]
Idea to stop deadbeat owners
The only way to do anything about deadbeat owners is to have the "system" program in the lineups so that you are not able to start anyone on a bye week or in injured reserve. That small change would be easy to implement. I benefited yesterday by playing "deadbeat" owner who had several bye week players in his lineup, but the next time it might help one of the other teams in the league.
I never lost a game. I only ran out of time. Bobby Layne
Kid....if you're going to make it in this league, you're going to have to learn to drink. Bobby Layne
Kid....if you're going to make it in this league, you're going to have to learn to drink. Bobby Layne
Idea to stop deadbeat owners
Cox, Flamingo,
It isn't about if they are dead owners who are donating. It is about how they can destroy the competitive integrity of a league when there is a h2h component to the competition.
In one of my leagues the first place team got to play a team who started a QB on a bye. Thus handing a win to the first place team. Now if you are in second place and you happened to catch this team earlier in the season when they were trying and lost is that fair?
Again, it isn't about having guys in leagues who are "dead money." It is about competitive integrity of the league.
It isn't about if they are dead owners who are donating. It is about how they can destroy the competitive integrity of a league when there is a h2h component to the competition.
In one of my leagues the first place team got to play a team who started a QB on a bye. Thus handing a win to the first place team. Now if you are in second place and you happened to catch this team earlier in the season when they were trying and lost is that fair?
Again, it isn't about having guys in leagues who are "dead money." It is about competitive integrity of the league.
Idea to stop deadbeat owners
toxic, sandman,
Both of you bring up worthy ideas to discuss. I don't think the problem could ever be 100% solved but it certainly can be improved upon. This topic comes up every single year on this forum.
I would argue that simply making a firm announcement at the live drafts about this issue and challenging owners (who all are full of optimism minutes before the draft) to have some professional integrity and remind them they are not in some dopey yahoo league and how in the "big leagues" people don't quit on their teams. This in and off itself will help the problem some.
This may be radical, but what about this idea?
If a team is deemed to have "quit." Meaning they have bailed on the team and more than one time have started bye week or players listed as OUT before the game. If this happens repeatedly, what if that team automatically forfeits any wins they had earlier in the season. This way every team who faced this quitter team gets a win.
There would have to be some standard set to define a team that "quit" because I do understand that on occasion anyone can make a faab mistake and/or miss something that results in not having a kicker or player to fill in during bye weeks or to cover injuries. It happens. If it happens regularly or it clearly happens because someone isn't trying and doesn't care is different.
Both of you bring up worthy ideas to discuss. I don't think the problem could ever be 100% solved but it certainly can be improved upon. This topic comes up every single year on this forum.
I would argue that simply making a firm announcement at the live drafts about this issue and challenging owners (who all are full of optimism minutes before the draft) to have some professional integrity and remind them they are not in some dopey yahoo league and how in the "big leagues" people don't quit on their teams. This in and off itself will help the problem some.
This may be radical, but what about this idea?
If a team is deemed to have "quit." Meaning they have bailed on the team and more than one time have started bye week or players listed as OUT before the game. If this happens repeatedly, what if that team automatically forfeits any wins they had earlier in the season. This way every team who faced this quitter team gets a win.
There would have to be some standard set to define a team that "quit" because I do understand that on occasion anyone can make a faab mistake and/or miss something that results in not having a kicker or player to fill in during bye weeks or to cover injuries. It happens. If it happens regularly or it clearly happens because someone isn't trying and doesn't care is different.
Idea to stop deadbeat owners
Win your games, then you aren't affected by it.
I propose that anyone who pays $1400 and doesn't pick up bye week players or forgets to set their lineup get a discount and a welcome package next year.
I propose that anyone who pays $1400 and doesn't pick up bye week players or forgets to set their lineup get a discount and a welcome package next year.
Idea to stop deadbeat owners
Flex,
You are missing the point. Should the Baltimore Ravens get an extra win this year because the Browns decided not to play week 17? Would the Steelers and Bengals be right to complain about that? If they complained to the league and Goodell said "hey, win your games and you wont be affected by the Ravens getting that one free win.."
Would that be a reasonable response?
You are missing the point. Should the Baltimore Ravens get an extra win this year because the Browns decided not to play week 17? Would the Steelers and Bengals be right to complain about that? If they complained to the league and Goodell said "hey, win your games and you wont be affected by the Ravens getting that one free win.."
Would that be a reasonable response?