quote:Originally posted by Route C:
quote:Originally posted by UFS:
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. John....I would think someone of your intelligence wouldn't be so quick to close the discussion. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ but I think the guys idea deserves more than a 4 or 5 sentence response...then...game over go home. You did say the idea has merit which alot of us agree on. Maybe you can help us find some pros to this and let Greg speak for himself on the cons.
[/QUOTE]Close the discussion? Where did that come from? Glad to see the "other" 9 posts after mine so far. 
There are many pros and cons.
I have a ton of experience with this issue with lifetime leagues that use college draft picks, but my scenario isn't the same as Greg's. Mine is more of guys losing on purpose to get a higher draft pick.
The same problem occurs though, it's not fair to the owners the tanking team has already played. I detest that and am very proactive about eliminating it.
At the same time, the vast majority of the time (95%), a one week thing is due to a family or work emergency. You really can't or shouldn't do anything about just one week. Owners are very quick to jump on the "quitting" excuse before they even think about other reasons, and that's not fair to the owner involved.
There's plenty of issues that come up if a program moves players in and out.
Using highest average could throw out a player that had a good week last week and has a better matchup this week late in the bye season.
Using highest average early in the bye season could throw is a WR scrub that scored 2 TD's last week as an injury replacement and he's back on the bench this week. Can you say Frisman?
That's just two of many I can come up with....
This is why no computer program like this will ever work well, even with a well thought out system. FB player performances, especially WR's, vary greatly from week-to-week.
What does work well is probably what Greg is doing. Look over each situation as unique, research the facts, and then act accordingly.
When I have to adjust a lineup, I use the "weekly" cheatsheets from 3 of the top industry services. Anything close gets broken by whichever player is higher on two of the lists. I like this, because the best lineup would be the one "a reasonable owner would input" for the week. [/QUOTE]Your points are well-taken, since no solution is perfect. But I'm puzzled by your conclusion that the current system is better than this proposed improvement.
Do you really think that allowing Teams to start multiple players on byes is somehow better than the examples you listed above? I agree that there are situations where anomalies will occur, but this proposal is a thousand times better than the havoc these quitters can produce in a Head-to-Head league under the current system. There is no way that Greg can monitor hundreds of players and dozens of Leagues. And nobody is talking about the player that is unable to set his lineup because of a family emergency. We're talking about multiple offenders here. Plus, if for whatever reason I myself was unable to set my own lineup for the week (family emergency, loss of computer access, work emergency, etc.) then I would APPRECIATE that this system was in place so that I had a decent Team out there playing instead of a roster full of byes.
In addition, these transgressions are only brought to Greg's attention after multiple injustices have already transpired, and then he's left to make a "judgment call" as to how to adjust the starting lineups going forward. This then produces an inequity between the teams that have already played the quitter vs. the Teams that will play him after his lineup has been adjusted. That's very subjective at best, and is much more vulnerable to criticism than a set system that treats everyone equally by applying a posted formula evenly across leagues for the entire year.
Honestly, I just don't see a major downside, especially when you compare it to what's already in place. And of course, I'm always open to hearing alternative suggestions, but there's got to be a better way than the current system.
