I always liked the idea of All Play format. I'd jump
in that league. Personally, I hate the H2H format, and none of my FF friends like it either.So I guess it's really popular in Aruba (and Yahoo leagues).
Throwing in the towel
Throwing in the towel
Old school,
I think an all play league would be fun. If it seriously goes off I will seriously consider it.
Back to the topic of the thread... does anyone care to discuss the issue of quitter teams?
-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).
-Some think if a team owner quits we just let it go and whoever is lucky enough to draw the quitter team later in the season gets a benefit.
How do people feel about this? Seems like a worthy discussion to have. Maybe the league can send out an email to an owner who has started a bye week player or injured player that requires a reply explaining if they are or are not intending to manage their team.
Just throwing out topics for discussion. It has been a long Tuesday.
I think an all play league would be fun. If it seriously goes off I will seriously consider it.
Back to the topic of the thread... does anyone care to discuss the issue of quitter teams?
-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).
-Some think if a team owner quits we just let it go and whoever is lucky enough to draw the quitter team later in the season gets a benefit.
How do people feel about this? Seems like a worthy discussion to have. Maybe the league can send out an email to an owner who has started a bye week player or injured player that requires a reply explaining if they are or are not intending to manage their team.
Just throwing out topics for discussion. It has been a long Tuesday.
Throwing in the towel
Question for those who think there should be an automated system for replacing a player on a bye...
How do you deal with this situation?
I've got a player on bye and a couple other injuries so my choices are playing flotsam or playing jetsam.
Or...
What if just leave the guy on bye in?
I am guaranteed the highest point total and don't have to take the chance of choosing poorly.
Heck, I can argue it might be a viable strategy to FAAB a 5th string WR for $1 on a bye just to put him in that week.
How do you deal with this situation?
I've got a player on bye and a couple other injuries so my choices are playing flotsam or playing jetsam.
Or...
What if just leave the guy on bye in?
I am guaranteed the highest point total and don't have to take the chance of choosing poorly.
Heck, I can argue it might be a viable strategy to FAAB a 5th string WR for $1 on a bye just to put him in that week.
"No one cares about your team but you."
Throwing in the towel
Todd,
Though I have no idea what you just tried to decribe... this is why we are having the conversation. Isn't it a worthy topic to discuss?
How does assuring yourself a zero (by starting a player on a bye) guarantee you the highest point total over a viable option on the bench who is playing in an NFL football game that Sunday?
Though I have no idea what you just tried to decribe... this is why we are having the conversation. Isn't it a worthy topic to discuss?
How does assuring yourself a zero (by starting a player on a bye) guarantee you the highest point total over a viable option on the bench who is playing in an NFL football game that Sunday?
-
Ted's Cracked Head
- Posts: 2817
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Throwing in the towel
I still think that if a team tanks it ANY year in this challenge you tell them NO THANKS next year.
You play to the end or you do not get to come back. Call it the FU clause.
Maybe we lose a few players but who wants them anyway?
You play to the end or you do not get to come back. Call it the FU clause.
Maybe we lose a few players but who wants them anyway?
My mama says she loves me but she could be jiving too! BB King
Throwing in the towel
When did I imply this wasn't a topic worthy of discussion? I'm, like, discussing it....
-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?
-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?
"No one cares about your team but you."
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
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]Great point Todd.
The only way to administer what you've just said is by hand.
I run dynasty leagues with draft picks. I understand exactly where you are coming from.
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]Great point Todd.
The only way to administer what you've just said is by hand.
I run dynasty leagues with draft picks. I understand exactly where you are coming from.
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Throwing in the towel
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 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.
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 agree Shawn, as it is always interesting how people complain when people "tank" against an opponent.
I have yet to see ANYONE put up a thread that says, "Dammit, the guy I was playing this week didn't field a full lineup! You gotta do something about this, Greg!" :rolleyes:
If someone wants to throw down $1,300 and "lay down", then so be it. Over many years, it will most likely work for you AND against you.
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 agree Shawn, as it is always interesting how people complain when people "tank" against an opponent.
I have yet to see ANYONE put up a thread that says, "Dammit, the guy I was playing this week didn't field a full lineup! You gotta do something about this, Greg!" :rolleyes:
If someone wants to throw down $1,300 and "lay down", then so be it. Over many years, it will most likely work for you AND against you.
Throwing in the towel
Originally posted by BillyWaz:
If someone wants to throw down $1,300 and "lay down", then so be it. Over many years, it will most likely work for you AND against you. Very good argument for letting guys lay down.
Nice Job Billy.
If someone wants to throw down $1,300 and "lay down", then so be it. Over many years, it will most likely work for you AND against you. Very good argument for letting guys lay down.
Nice Job Billy.
Hakuna Matata!