I can see John's point about his leagues, but I think it is different than what we have here.
When I ran a few football leagues, I had one league that had two keepers for each team. If you didn't keep anyone your were put into a supplimental round of the draft. If three teams kept no players, they picked first each year based on last years standings. If there were 5 in the next round, you could possibly have one team pick 3 players in the first 9 picks. The guy that had a bad team last year was excited about the draft each year.
I would have people complain that they should have to keep two players each year. I didn't think it was right to make someone keep two players that were 3/4 round draft pick at best. I wanted teams to be excited on draft day so they came back. It seemed like most years that same teams would be picking in the front of the draft. Every year they were dead money, but they always came back.
In the high stake arena, you need all the customers you can find. If someone quits mid season, are saying you don't want his money next year? If he doesn't return, you might replace him with someone who plays the whole season.
In John's leagues, he doesn't want to replace teams every year. You want to keep your customers and you want them to think they have a chance every year. So a caddy as a commish can only help your customers.
Throwing in the towel
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Throwing in the towel
Originally posted by Todd Zola:
When did I imply this wasn't a topic worthy of discussion? I'm, like, discussing it....
quote:-Some think there should be a default mechanism in place where a player who is defined as OUT or on BYE who is in a starting lineup, would be replaced by the highest averaging viable option on the bench (assuming there is one). Sorry, I misread the proposal and thought the fix was giving the bench player that scores the most that week.
That said...
Personally, I think this is much ado about nothing.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I believe the way to consider the Main Event is the top 10% of teams in terms of total points make Championship Round with an exception given to those with the best H2H record in their league not in the top 10%.
This has to be a very small number of teams.
And the chance one of these teams would not have been the H2H champ if they had not faced a team with a player on BYE is EXTREMELY remote.
But of course one can argue that so long as the replacement system helps a single team, it is worth implementing.
So the system is implemented.
And one week, a team has Buckholter in their lineup because Westbrook was out. The following week, Westbrook is back but the owner DOES NOT switch them, leaving Buckholter active.
Or even that Westbrook came back several weeks after the owner quit.
Why should we replace a guy on bye but not the backup RB when the starter comes back? [/QUOTE]Todd,
Nice post. I personally do not have overly strong feelings about this issue and just thought it was interesting to discuss because it has come up every single year I have been around fantasy sports for 17 years. We all have dealt with it. Some (not saying you) act like it is a non issue. Yet this "non issue" comes up every single year. I am not talking about something like your buckhalter/westbrook example. I am talking only about the situation where a player who is cleary marked as OUT/inactive or on bye is in a lineup at kickoff when a viable option sits on the quitter teams bench.
This one singular issue is the primary problem as it relates to league integrity when an owner bails out on the team. Some think with todays technology we can at least limit this problem if a viable option sits on the bench.
When did I imply this wasn't a topic worthy of discussion? I'm, like, discussing it....
quote:-Some think there should be a default mechanism in place where a player who is defined as OUT or on BYE who is in a starting lineup, would be replaced by the highest averaging viable option on the bench (assuming there is one). Sorry, I misread the proposal and thought the fix was giving the bench player that scores the most that week.
That said...
Personally, I think this is much ado about nothing.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I believe the way to consider the Main Event is the top 10% of teams in terms of total points make Championship Round with an exception given to those with the best H2H record in their league not in the top 10%.
This has to be a very small number of teams.
And the chance one of these teams would not have been the H2H champ if they had not faced a team with a player on BYE is EXTREMELY remote.
But of course one can argue that so long as the replacement system helps a single team, it is worth implementing.
So the system is implemented.
And one week, a team has Buckholter in their lineup because Westbrook was out. The following week, Westbrook is back but the owner DOES NOT switch them, leaving Buckholter active.
Or even that Westbrook came back several weeks after the owner quit.
Why should we replace a guy on bye but not the backup RB when the starter comes back? [/QUOTE]Todd,
Nice post. I personally do not have overly strong feelings about this issue and just thought it was interesting to discuss because it has come up every single year I have been around fantasy sports for 17 years. We all have dealt with it. Some (not saying you) act like it is a non issue. Yet this "non issue" comes up every single year. I am not talking about something like your buckhalter/westbrook example. I am talking only about the situation where a player who is cleary marked as OUT/inactive or on bye is in a lineup at kickoff when a viable option sits on the quitter teams bench.
This one singular issue is the primary problem as it relates to league integrity when an owner bails out on the team. Some think with todays technology we can at least limit this problem if a viable option sits on the bench.
Throwing in the towel
Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
Why should we reward a team that doesn't play?
I put my lineup in and a player on my bench scores 30 points. I lose to someone who doesn't manage his team , but he gets rewarded with some player on his bench who scores 30 points. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I can't understand why people get mad when an owner doesn't manage his team. If he pays his money and quits, who does it benefit? He is dead money in the league. I think people get upset when they played the the quitter owner in week 2 when he was still trying and lost and someone else (due to absolute luck via the schedule) draws him late in the season after he has bailed on the league. When the second owner wins the league due to the free win he got and beats the guy who lost to that very same team when it was trying, it can impact league integrity. That is all I am saying. It comes up for discussion every single year so it must be bothering some people.
Again, I do not have overly strong feelings on it. Gun to my head, I think there must be a way we can at least lessen this problem... But I am sure there are some issues that could come with it and maybe it is best to leave it alone. This isn't about helping the owner who quit, it is about helping the 13 other owners in the league (who paid a lot of money) to get a fair played league.
For those who have strong feelings about H2H being unfair because it is based too much on luck of schedule, they should feel the same way about the luck one team can have drawing the dead team in week ten when he is starting automatica zeros as opposed to the other teams who played him early in the season when he fielded a real lineup.
Why should we reward a team that doesn't play?
I put my lineup in and a player on my bench scores 30 points. I lose to someone who doesn't manage his team , but he gets rewarded with some player on his bench who scores 30 points. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I can't understand why people get mad when an owner doesn't manage his team. If he pays his money and quits, who does it benefit? He is dead money in the league. I think people get upset when they played the the quitter owner in week 2 when he was still trying and lost and someone else (due to absolute luck via the schedule) draws him late in the season after he has bailed on the league. When the second owner wins the league due to the free win he got and beats the guy who lost to that very same team when it was trying, it can impact league integrity. That is all I am saying. It comes up for discussion every single year so it must be bothering some people.
Again, I do not have overly strong feelings on it. Gun to my head, I think there must be a way we can at least lessen this problem... But I am sure there are some issues that could come with it and maybe it is best to leave it alone. This isn't about helping the owner who quit, it is about helping the 13 other owners in the league (who paid a lot of money) to get a fair played league.
For those who have strong feelings about H2H being unfair because it is based too much on luck of schedule, they should feel the same way about the luck one team can have drawing the dead team in week ten when he is starting automatica zeros as opposed to the other teams who played him early in the season when he fielded a real lineup.
Throwing in the towel
I am not talking about something like your buckhalter/westbrook example. I am talking only about the situation where a player who is cleary marked as OUT/inactive or on bye is in a lineup at kickoff when a viable option sits on the quitter teams bench.
This one singular issue is the primary problem as it relates to league integrity when an owner bails out on the team. Some think with todays technology we can at least limit this problem if a viable option sits on the bench.I understand you are only talking about bye week players left active, my point is what is the difference between that and Buckholter/Westbrook? Both leave a weakened lineup. I can argue Buckholter/Westbrook is MORE egregious and deserves to be fixed MORE than the bye week player as Westbrook is likely to score 15-20 (at minimum) more than Buckholter but the replacement for the bye will add single digits.
Forgive me for crossing sports, but this is somewhat analogous to the use of replay in baseball for HR calls.
Your corresponding view would be "if we can get HR calls correct, we should do it."
Mine is "OK, so we get HR calls correct, but we also have the technology to get other calls correct. Why is it fair for TEAM A to win because replay changed a HR call, but it is not fair for TEAM B to lose because of an obviously blown call correctable by replay?
So just as I happen to prefer that replay was not added to baseball, I happen to prefer we leave things as they are in the NFFC, for the primary reason of where do we draw the line?
This one singular issue is the primary problem as it relates to league integrity when an owner bails out on the team. Some think with todays technology we can at least limit this problem if a viable option sits on the bench.I understand you are only talking about bye week players left active, my point is what is the difference between that and Buckholter/Westbrook? Both leave a weakened lineup. I can argue Buckholter/Westbrook is MORE egregious and deserves to be fixed MORE than the bye week player as Westbrook is likely to score 15-20 (at minimum) more than Buckholter but the replacement for the bye will add single digits.
Forgive me for crossing sports, but this is somewhat analogous to the use of replay in baseball for HR calls.
Your corresponding view would be "if we can get HR calls correct, we should do it."
Mine is "OK, so we get HR calls correct, but we also have the technology to get other calls correct. Why is it fair for TEAM A to win because replay changed a HR call, but it is not fair for TEAM B to lose because of an obviously blown call correctable by replay?
So just as I happen to prefer that replay was not added to baseball, I happen to prefer we leave things as they are in the NFFC, for the primary reason of where do we draw the line?
"No one cares about your team but you."
Throwing in the towel
Todd,
If this issue were to be dealt with it would only need to be dealt with in a very black/white way. Some owner might think Buckhalter is going to score more than Westbrook. I am not at all interested in an issue that does not involve a player on BYE or listed as OUT before the game.
Getting the home run call corrected (even if technically we could get other calls correct) is better than getting NOTHING corrected. Getting other baseball calls corrected messes with the flow of a game that already struggles with its pace in todays new age consumer market who can't sit through a baseball game and stay interested the way they did in 1976.
I am fine with things how they are in the NFFC. I am just saying this issue comes up every year. People get upset by it every year. It seems like something that could be at least slightly dealt with in an automated way if we wanted to.
Plus it is fun to talk about football on weds...
If this issue were to be dealt with it would only need to be dealt with in a very black/white way. Some owner might think Buckhalter is going to score more than Westbrook. I am not at all interested in an issue that does not involve a player on BYE or listed as OUT before the game.
Getting the home run call corrected (even if technically we could get other calls correct) is better than getting NOTHING corrected. Getting other baseball calls corrected messes with the flow of a game that already struggles with its pace in todays new age consumer market who can't sit through a baseball game and stay interested the way they did in 1976.
I am fine with things how they are in the NFFC. I am just saying this issue comes up every year. People get upset by it every year. It seems like something that could be at least slightly dealt with in an automated way if we wanted to.
Plus it is fun to talk about football on weds...
Throwing in the towel
Well, if you look at my first few posts then I'll tell you that the guy who wasn't submitting a lineup, and then did for 2 weeks and won 2 games, is now back to not submitting a lineup again. our league is close, one guy is alone in first, and that first place team is playing the quitter team, who decided to start Derek Anderson last night. Looks like a certain victory for the one team we are all gunning for, while other teams play this quitter guy on weeks that he submits his lineup and we've lost. That's garbage.
I've got the solution: A BREAKDOWN LEAGUE. Every week you play every team in your league. That way we will ALL beat the quitter, it won't affect us.
We would still keep the head-to-head in a way cause we play everybody head-to-head. Other than total points, breakdown is the best way to determine best team in the league.
Can you guys at least start a few breakdown satellite leagues next year? See how it goes, than make it bigger?
I've got the solution: A BREAKDOWN LEAGUE. Every week you play every team in your league. That way we will ALL beat the quitter, it won't affect us.
We would still keep the head-to-head in a way cause we play everybody head-to-head. Other than total points, breakdown is the best way to determine best team in the league.
Can you guys at least start a few breakdown satellite leagues next year? See how it goes, than make it bigger?
Throwing in the towel
Mike,
It has been discussed. I would be interested in an All play league but do not think it is the right move for the NFFC main. I do, however, have strong feelings about this issue (just as you seem to).
It has been discussed. I would be interested in an All play league but do not think it is the right move for the NFFC main. I do, however, have strong feelings about this issue (just as you seem to).
Throwing in the towel
What an exhausting topic, but it appears to be alive and well in my $650 auction league. The team in question had Josh Reed and Bryant Johnson in their starting lineup for week 9. Josh Reed was declared "out" during the middle of the week and Bryant Johnson was on a bye for week 9. On the bench was Greg Lewis and Joey Galloway, and both of them at least produced some stats.
For week 10, this same owner has Josh Reed, Chris Chambers and the Dallas defense in the starting lineup. Reed was again declared "out" and Dallas was on a bye. Gotta give him a break with regards to Chambers since he was supposed to play(I think).
Of course, week 9 this owner was my opponent and I still lost, but for week 10 he is playing one of the 2 teams tied for first in our league. The first place team is having a down week, but only needs to post a score in the 70's to likely pull out a win.
From an auction perspective, this is very concerning to me simply because 3 of the 6 playoff teams are based on won-loss records, and therefore the scheduling draw can certainly pose an argument to evaluate it's importance to determine the best teams in the league.
I would be the first to admit that weekly head-to-head matches add to the excitement of fantasy football. When 5 of the 14 teams in the league have scored more total points than the team with the best h2h record, that means there will be 2 or 3 of best scoring teams being eliminated from the playoffs. Since I knew this was part of the auction format going in, I can accept that. But, maybe it's worth reviewing this in the future.
For week 10, this same owner has Josh Reed, Chris Chambers and the Dallas defense in the starting lineup. Reed was again declared "out" and Dallas was on a bye. Gotta give him a break with regards to Chambers since he was supposed to play(I think).
Of course, week 9 this owner was my opponent and I still lost, but for week 10 he is playing one of the 2 teams tied for first in our league. The first place team is having a down week, but only needs to post a score in the 70's to likely pull out a win.
From an auction perspective, this is very concerning to me simply because 3 of the 6 playoff teams are based on won-loss records, and therefore the scheduling draw can certainly pose an argument to evaluate it's importance to determine the best teams in the league.
I would be the first to admit that weekly head-to-head matches add to the excitement of fantasy football. When 5 of the 14 teams in the league have scored more total points than the team with the best h2h record, that means there will be 2 or 3 of best scoring teams being eliminated from the playoffs. Since I knew this was part of the auction format going in, I can accept that. But, maybe it's worth reviewing this in the future.
Throwing in the towel
Originally posted by jschwartz:
What an exhausting topic, but it appears to be alive and well in my $650 auction league. The team in question had Josh Reed and Bryant Johnson in their starting lineup for week 9. Josh Reed was declared "out" during the middle of the week and Bryant Johnson was on a bye for week 9. On the bench was Greg Lewis and Joey Galloway, and both of them at least produced some stats.
For week 10, this same owner has Josh Reed, Chris Chambers and the Dallas defense in the starting lineup. Reed was again declared "out" and Dallas was on a bye. Gotta give him a break with regards to Chambers since he was supposed to play(I think).
Of course, week 9 this owner was my opponent and I still lost, but for week 10 he is playing one of the 2 teams tied for first in our league. The first place team is having a down week, but only needs to post a score in the 70's to likely pull out a win.
From an auction perspective, this is very concerning to me simply because 3 of the 6 playoff teams are based on won-loss records, and therefore the scheduling draw can certainly pose an argument to evaluate it's importance to determine the best teams in the league.
I would be the first to admit that weekly head-to-head matches add to the excitement of fantasy football. When 5 of the 14 teams in the league have scored more total points than the team with the best h2h record, that means there will be 2 or 3 of best scoring teams being eliminated from the playoffs. Since I knew this was part of the auction format going in, I can accept that. But, maybe it's worth reviewing this in the future. I"m in the Chicago auction league as well. My partner in that team was talking about this over the weekend. He doesn't read the boards and he wasn't very happy about this at all. I don't know that answer but it really does stink that a team basically gets a bye.
Your team put up great numbers again this week - even with Cutler and McGahee on the bench. In fact, your bench points would have probably beat either of the teams you posted about this week.
Good luck the rest of the way!
Wayne
What an exhausting topic, but it appears to be alive and well in my $650 auction league. The team in question had Josh Reed and Bryant Johnson in their starting lineup for week 9. Josh Reed was declared "out" during the middle of the week and Bryant Johnson was on a bye for week 9. On the bench was Greg Lewis and Joey Galloway, and both of them at least produced some stats.
For week 10, this same owner has Josh Reed, Chris Chambers and the Dallas defense in the starting lineup. Reed was again declared "out" and Dallas was on a bye. Gotta give him a break with regards to Chambers since he was supposed to play(I think).
Of course, week 9 this owner was my opponent and I still lost, but for week 10 he is playing one of the 2 teams tied for first in our league. The first place team is having a down week, but only needs to post a score in the 70's to likely pull out a win.
From an auction perspective, this is very concerning to me simply because 3 of the 6 playoff teams are based on won-loss records, and therefore the scheduling draw can certainly pose an argument to evaluate it's importance to determine the best teams in the league.
I would be the first to admit that weekly head-to-head matches add to the excitement of fantasy football. When 5 of the 14 teams in the league have scored more total points than the team with the best h2h record, that means there will be 2 or 3 of best scoring teams being eliminated from the playoffs. Since I knew this was part of the auction format going in, I can accept that. But, maybe it's worth reviewing this in the future. I"m in the Chicago auction league as well. My partner in that team was talking about this over the weekend. He doesn't read the boards and he wasn't very happy about this at all. I don't know that answer but it really does stink that a team basically gets a bye.
Your team put up great numbers again this week - even with Cutler and McGahee on the bench. In fact, your bench points would have probably beat either of the teams you posted about this week.
Good luck the rest of the way!
Wayne
Throwing in the towel
If I had a 0-10 record and 500 points I still would be picking up players and submitting a complete lineup. Not sure how teams(Guys) can just walk away? No Pride I guess. Last year I was that team that was 0-10 and had 500 points, I tried to the very end. My goal was not to finish DEAD LAST, which I didn't.
Can You stop a player from playing the next season, No. But a talking too would be nice. Everyone should get a second chance, but if it happens again, it's bad for business.
John
Can You stop a player from playing the next season, No. But a talking too would be nice. Everyone should get a second chance, but if it happens again, it's bad for business.
John