Bye Week Blues

mikeybok · Post by **mikeybok** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:49 am

Originally posted by Diesel:
no to benching players who are out for the week. [/b]Remember this would only be done on Friday for teams with no owner activity yet that week ... active owners will not be effected ... people who wait to make changes on Saturday will still get to put in whom ever they want in ... it make sense to put in players who might play for players who are declared OUT on the Friday injury report (only for teams that are not being managed anymore).

Why not take as many dead guys as you can off an unmanaged team if we know in plenty of time they definitely will not play and Greg and Tom can come up with an easy system to implement it ... just put in the player that has scored the most points at that position the last game or last two games with tie breakers going back additional games to get a guy currently playing ... makes sense doesn't it?

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:50 am

This one has merit, GG, if you play a team who is trying the first 6 weeks and lose to that team only to have that team quit after going 1-5 with the teams in front of you in the standings still to play. Integrity of the game gets lost with the "dead money" teams. I think it is a good idea with Diesel's stipulations of replacing bye week or IR players. I think it is a bad idea to put up $1250 for a team you are going to quit on instead of donating the money to a good charity, like me.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:57 am

Originally posted by Tamuscarecrow:
This one has merit, GG yes, it has some merit. i don't think this one has been thought out fully. i don't have the time to do it either.

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:01 am

I'm not a computer guy, but this seems as if it would take a bit of work, and a bit of Greg's money to upgrade the system to do something like this. I also think that if this new system was implemented, we'd be at the mercy of the company that supplies the software to where the option limitations end.

No matter which way this goes, any owner that goes week(s) without starting his team should be banned. $hit happens, and God forbid a death in the family occurs or something that serious, I could understand forgetting to start you lineup for a week, but when an owner leaves a team to die, he should be banned form playing again.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:09 am

The idea has merit, but a contest like this really can't allow it.

It would take a bit of work, and what ever criteria is used, many will have issues with it. A lose-lose.

Greg really can't get involved with the lineups with a $100k prize. There's just too many scenarios where this could go south in a hurry.

The only solution is to ban someone from future play.

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:26 am

Why not take as many dead guys as you can off an unmanaged team if we know in plenty of time they definitely will not play and Greg and Tom can come up with an easy system to implement it ... just put in the player that has scored the most points at that position the last game or last two games with tie breakers going back additional games to get a guy currently playing ... makes sense doesn't it?Too many teams are going the route of Belichek, Shanahan, and Parcells in that they say one thing and do another and have owners who don't mind paying the fines. Wouldn't want the possibility of the system replacing someone who plays and goes off for 25 points. That possibility does not exist with bye week or IR players as you KNOW they aren't playing.

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:55 am

Easy to ban someone from this league under his own name, hard to ban someone from this league, period. Two examples that I know of: (1) guy has two teams in a city, one under his name and the other under his name and his wife's or partner's name. The team with his name goes south and he abandons that team but the other team stays in contention for a money finish. You might ban him from going solo but you won't stop him from partnering, even if it is under the table with his wife or partner. Matter of fact, it's $100 cheaper. (2) GEKKO. No way of detecting aliases. I could play under my neighbor's name if I give him a check or cash for the entry fee.

That's why anything that improves the integrity of the game needs to be looked at and the fact Greg and Tom are open to doing that speaks highly for the integrity of the NFFC. I'm not sure it would cost STATS any more for that upgrade which would in turn translate into costing Greg more. But it is certainly worth looking into as this isn't the first time this problem has been discussed on these boards.

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:51 am

Maybe we should just go "old school". First offense, you get ridiculed on the league and NFFC messageboards. The 2nd offense, he gets a an old fashioned beat down.

Shrink Attack · Post by **Shrink Attack** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:56 am

This idea is very workable, as long as it's kept reasonable.

Doing it for byes is simple because those weeks are known before the season begins and the software can be easily programmed to perform this task with no additional work. The IR idea is appealing because it is a one-time adjustment that lasts all year. The OUT idea is one I agree with in principle, but would most likely require too much work and can turn sour due to Head Coach dishonesty. Therefore, I strongly like it for byes, I think it's workable for IR, but I'm against it for OUT.

To address a couple of other points brought up in this thread...

1) There's a difference between "fishes" and dead money. Fish can swim all they want and are harmless. Dead money players who dishonorably quit tarnish the integrity of a Head-to-Head contest such as this fine one. In a Total Points contest it wouldn't matter.

2) IMO Greg is not going to be in the business of banning people from playing unless they do something grossly unethical. While we would all like the quitters to be banished, failing to fill out a starting lineup will probably not fall under that category, although obviously I don't speak for Greg.

3) UFS mentioned that Greg can't get involved with lineups in a 100k contest, but that's exactly what had to be done in our league last year. The situation that Tamuscarecrow outlined was unfolding, with Teams in the hunt having lost earlier in the season to Teams that were now quitting. The complaints were so bad that the NFFC administrators had to go in and set some generic lineups in order to provide some balance.

So in conclusion, it appears that most players would support this change if handled properly. Let's hope it's given some serious consideration.

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:08 pm

So a beat down is out of the question?