Help! Right now w/ Lineup submission!!

Route Collectors · Post by **Route Collectors** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:03 pm

Originally posted by Nag':
It's not changing the rules midseason because this is not a rule issue and it's not even addressed in the rules. It's a software issue. The would-be allowed lineup changes would still result in VALID linups. Again - no rules changes. I agree with this statement. If we were voting on this (which we're not) I'd vote to allow the change as long as it's a valid lineup put in before (in this instance) Sunday's kickoff.

I wonder how many would vote for a software change that recognizes any of our acceptable RB/WR/TE combos and doing away with the current flex label. Same rules - different software.

David Wooderson · Post by **David Wooderson** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:11 pm

Originally posted by Team Legacy:
quote:Originally posted by David Wooderson:
quote:Originally posted by Team Legacy:
wow, i missed all the fun.. again.

This seems like a TOTAL SOFTWARE FAILURE.

I can't imagine that the owners of this event INTENDED it to be so, OTHERWISE, it would be stated in the rules so that all players could be aware of the possible issue.

For everyone to jump on board and say, "That's the way it is and has been" may be valid, HOWEVER, has the owner of this event said this and IF so, I would like an explanation why this rule is NOT in the rule book.

If this is the case, are there OTHER rules in the rule book that AREN'T in the rule book ??

I would want an answer to this question before I enter again.

Edited to add: I guess I shouldn't use the word "Rule", however it seems like a RESTRICTION that at the very least, should be documented.

I guess what I'm getting at is, (and maybe the regulars can help), How many other things are out there could be left open for interpretation? For someone who is this interested in the rules, why did you start Carolina this week at D/ST? [/QUOTE]i guess for the same reason you started A-Train over Toomer ...

no, this is a product of a sick household all week and TOO damn many fantasy leagues. The one I was bombing in didn't get the attention it deserved... but I somehow still eeked out the win.

Congrats on your undefeated record! [/QUOTE]We are just trying to fire you up for your game next week. We need you with all hands on deck big boy, no bye players....Next week, we become TEAM LEGACY Fans!

3INTBOY · Post by **3INTBOY** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:45 am

Originally posted by FI$HER:
quote:Originally posted by 3INTBOY:
I have Holt(of course)

I had Chambers as my Flex guy. The lineup submission will not allow me to take Holt out and put in a 3rd RB.

Gotta go and have not heard back on my e-mail.

Anyone know how to correct this?

Thanks.

3' He wasnt trying to put in a WR obviously as his post stated. He was looking to move Chambers to the WR slot from his locked FLEX spot and put in a "3rd RB" into the FLEX spot

Sorry 3INT, there is no way greg will change this!

[/QUOTE]Fi$sher,

Again. Great team. You should be hugging those two guys with the Draft Doiminator! They left some great players and you scooped them up every time.

I have to believe that Greg will make this right. There is no arguing that FLEX is a spot in your lineup. Makes no sense.

GG- You cannot question the use of software. If this was any kind of possiblility, I would have been on it.
You cannot question something you don't know is even a problem.

And again, if this has been discussed as an issue before, then where was it clearly spelled out? That I need to maniuplate, not manage my placement of players.

I never mentioned lawyers either. FF is fun, and I want wins/points.

I am always glad to keep it in perspective.

This should be adjusted, now, for my benefit and the others that do not know that this is a "problem"

3'

Jersey Dawg · Post by **Jersey Dawg** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:14 am

3-INT - I believe you are wrong. Once a game starts, the position you have a player "playing" is locked. I see no reason why Flex is different.

Week to week I have been placing my "last player to play" in the Flex spot simply for this reason. I'll bet others have been "locked" into a flex spot more than once only to find out that a player going Monday night or late Sunday has been declared inactive.

I would be shocked and disappointed if Greg allows you to move a player you have alread "locked" from flex to WR. What did you think the word "locked" meant?

Pete

Superpion · Post by **Superpion** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:17 am

Originally posted by 3INTBOY:
quote:Originally posted by FI$HER:
quote:Originally posted by 3INTBOY:
I have Holt(of course)

I had Chambers as my Flex guy. The lineup submission will not allow me to take Holt out and put in a 3rd RB.

Gotta go and have not heard back on my e-mail.

Anyone know how to correct this?

Thanks.

3' He wasnt trying to put in a WR obviously as his post stated. He was looking to move Chambers to the WR slot from his locked FLEX spot and put in a "3rd RB" into the FLEX spot

Sorry 3INT, there is no way greg will change this!

[/QUOTE]Fi$sher,

Again. Great team. You should be hugging those two guys with the Draft Doiminator! They left some great players and you scooped them up every time.

I have to believe that Greg will make this right. There is no arguing that FLEX is a spot in your lineup. Makes no sense.

GG- You cannot question the use of software. If this was any kind of possiblility, I would have been on it.
You cannot question something you don't know is even a problem.

And again, if this has been discussed as an issue before, then where was it clearly spelled out? That I need to maniuplate, not manage my placement of players.

I never mentioned lawyers either. FF is fun, and I want wins/points.

I am always glad to keep it in perspective.

This should be adjusted, now, for my benefit and the others that do not know that this is a "problem"

3' [/QUOTE]3', as you make your case, I understand your viewpoint and your desire to field the lineup that you had intended. I also think that you are "keeping it in perspective".

Having said that, I personally never questioned why the logistics of lineup submission were not specifically addressed in the rules. Combining the lineup requirements specified in the rules with the drop down box technology in the software (showing 2 different choices for the position players: RB vs RB/WR/TE), I found the outcome that you are questioning to be EXTREMELY INTUITIVE.

There are differing viewpoints on this message board so it is not as if you are a lone soldier but I consider myself to be a rational thinker and I have difficulty believing that the vast, vast majority of the competition did not find this process to be intuitive as well.

When you are submitting a starting lineup, you are expliciting stating who your FLEX player is and if that player has played, then that FLEX position is locked in. This seems logical to me.

If, on the other hand, there was no special designation of FLEX in lineup submission process, then it would be intuitive and logical that you would have the desired results that you have expressed in this thread. I don't think that it's an oversight on the contest that it is not listed in the rules. At that point, I believe we are stepping into the realm of CAUTION: COFFEE IS HOT.

Enjoy the little nugget of wisdom that I have imparted to all of you. Tom and Greg, you are welcome. Now, all you have to type is: What Superpion said.

Now, if anyone wants to give me some advice on how an obese middle-aged, middle income guy such as myself can score a hot chick, I am all ears.

basanders · Post by **basanders** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:22 am

If you are indeed an obese middle-aged, middle income guy who wants to score a hot chick, I suggest you start by winning the $100,000 top prize.

[ October 24, 2005, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: basanders ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:22 am

Originally posted by 3INTBOY:
I have Holt(of course)

I had Chambers as my Flex guy. The lineup submission will not allow me to take Holt out and put in a 3rd RB.

Gotta go and have not heard back on my e-mail.

Anyone know how to correct this?

Thanks.

3' Lou, the Flex is a set position and when you put Chambers in there you could not move him back to WR. That's the way STATS has it set up right now. I can't change your lineup after the fact as there's no telling how many other people may have had the same problem in the past but didn't go on the boards to tell me about it.

I will admit that this is more of a computer setup snafu than a Rules snafu. From a programming standpoint, I will ask STATS to change this going forward if that's possible, but for now everyone should be aware that the Flex is its own position and you can't change that player's position once you have him in the Flex position.

Was this clearly defined beforehand for all NFFC owners? No. Should the Flex position be more flexible for your game management? Yes, if we can program the system to allow it. I'll work with STATS to get that done. But I can't go backwards to change the setup as all NFFC owners were playing under the same setup.

Just an FYI: I have called Lou and explained my position on this. He is not finding out about my decision from the Message Boards. The NFFC had no intention of taking game management away from anyone; in fact, we are unique from the WCOFF in that we allow you to change your starting lineup five minutes before each game. We want you to have more flexibility in your game management, not less.

Let me see if I can get that done going forward.

Ted's Cracked Head · Post by **Ted's Cracked Head** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:46 am

Well put Greg and thanks for waiting until 8 pages of "classic message board" fodder was posted before Splaining' the NFFC's side of the discussion and I mean that seriously. It is always fun to see what the "gang" is going to say when confronted with a question or concern that is not specifically addressed in the "Rules" somwewhere.

I guess this answers the 50+ posts from folks who think that the "FLex" position is an actual position.

Lou, thanks for raising this topic as it will surely make the game better from here on out even if it is a change that cannot be made until next year.

3INTBOY · Post by **3INTBOY** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:58 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by 3INTBOY:
I have Holt(of course)

I had Chambers as my Flex guy. The lineup submission will not allow me to take Holt out and put in a 3rd RB.

Gotta go and have not heard back on my e-mail.

Anyone know how to correct this?

Thanks.

3' Lou, the Flex is a set position and when you put Chambers in there you could not move him back to WR. That's the way STATS has it set up right now. I can't change your lineup after the fact as there's no telling how many other people may have had the same problem in the past but didn't go on the boards to tell me about it.

I will admit that this is more of a computer setup snafu than a Rules snafu. From a programming standpoint, I will ask STATS to change this going forward if that's possible, but for now everyone should be aware that the Flex is its own position and you can't change that player's position once you have him in the Flex position.

Was this clearly defined beforehand for all NFFC owners? No. Should the Flex position be more flexible for your game management? Yes, if we can program the system to allow it. I'll work with STATS to get that done. But I can't go backwards to change the setup as all NFFC owners were playing under the same setup.

Just an FYI: I have called Lou and explained my position on this. He is not finding out about my decision from the Message Boards. The NFFC had no intention of taking game management away from anyone; in fact, we are unique from the WCOFF in that we allow you to change your starting lineup five minutes before each game. We want you to have more flexibility in your game management, not less.

Let me see if I can get that done going forward. [/QUOTE]I remeber when the USFL sued the NFL for Monopolizing football.
The USFL Lawer won the case and the USFL was awarded $1.
The USFL lawyer walks out of the court room and says "We won the case, and got half a loaf"

That's me. Winner. But Greg delivers half a loaf.

I believe, I should get the points. Based upon the acknowledgement of the Software causing my lineup to be incomplete.

At the least I should get Pattens points added as a WR because had my e-mail been answered by Stats they could have told me it had to be done that way. I would not have waisted 20 minutes figuring it out.

The VAST MAJORITY who were wrong, the Flex is NOT a position. Can show me some love by at least agreeing that it would be FAIR for Greg to make this change.

But, I probably won't here from them now.....

3'

[ October 24, 2005, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: 3INTBOY ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:01 am

Lou, we don't even need to go to court. I'll pay you the $1 right now!