My Take On Boston And No-Show Owners

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:27 pm

Guys, this thread is so bizarre. Now John Reuss is arguing for the defense??? OMG. At least you have Glenn Karant who was nowhere near Boston as your partner in this debate. Wow.

I'm not sure what we've gained since I posted this morning and talked with Erick other than more piling on one way or the other. The facts are out there on how this was handled and how this could have been handled differently and how it most definitely will be handled in the future. The rest is he said-she said that isn't solving anything.

I'm not sure why folks are now invited to meet John Reuss to discuss. As Frankie and others have done, they can call me at anytime to discuss this situation and I'll tell them the facts and my opinions. Outside of that, I think we know what happened and it's time to play this baby out. And when Erick makes the Championship Round, then we'll have a story.

But until then, play out your own league and if you were in this league and still have problems, call me. We'll get on the same page as best we can.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:39 pm

Originally posted by GK:
...hey Greg, HOW would you feel IF YOU were able to start YOUR team off with MJD AND Calvin Johnson from the #9 hole?...better yet, HOW do you think that the hundreds of other owners looking to play on a level playing field and plucked down big buck$ to do so FEEL ABOUT IT!...simply answer that Q for me and all of the others who are THINKING but might not be POSTING this SAME thought here, that's all...thanks much...GK Glenn, I don't understand your question. Who's fault is it that someone started with MJD and Calvin Johnson?? The one owner or are you blaming everyone in that league? I assume you are calling out all of the owners in that league for being less than smart, right?

The Franchise · Post by **The Franchise** » Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:52 pm

Sounds like we shouldn't even play out the season. Any team that starts out MJD/Megatron is obviously going to win the 50K.... :rolleyes:

Everyone go home! GK said so.....

Eddie is a friend of mine, but I think my team will stick this one out. I'm sure others in this league feel the same way.

Can't crown a champion before week 1

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:13 pm

Originally posted by GK:
...hey Greg, HOW would you feel IF YOU were able to start YOUR team off with MJD AND Calvin Johnson from the #9 hole?...better yet, HOW do you think that the hundreds of other owners looking to play on a level playing field and plucked down big buck$ to do so FEEL ABOUT IT!...simply answer that Q for me and all of the others who are THINKING but might not be POSTING this SAME thought here, that's all...thanks much...GK Maybe you didn't get Nelson point, but this is a start from Eddie's 12 team league.

[ September 07, 2010, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: CC's Desperados ]

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:29 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
Guys, this thread is so bizarre. Now John Reuss is arguing for the defense??? OMG. At least you have Glenn Karant who was nowhere near Boston as your partner in this debate. Wow.

I'm not sure what we've gained since I posted this morning and talked with Erick other than more piling on one way or the other. The facts are out there on how this was handled and how this could have been handled differently and how it most definitely will be handled in the future. The rest is he said-she said that isn't solving anything.

I'm not sure why folks are now invited to meet John Reuss to discuss. As Frankie and others have done, they can call me at anytime to discuss this situation and I'll tell them the facts and my opinions. Outside of that, I think we know what happened and it's time to play this baby out. And when Erick makes the Championship Round, then we'll have a story.

But until then, play out your own league and if you were in this league and still have problems, call me. We'll get on the same page as best we can. Greg,

Not bizarre(Silly). Now you have a problem with me speaking well of the Contest and how it was handled in Boston? Greg you are always welcome to join us Players for a drink.

John

[ September 07, 2010, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Raiders ]

Shrink Attack · Post by **Shrink Attack** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:51 am

The bottom line is that it's done and there's no reversing it. Just play it out, and I'm 99% certain it'll be a non-issue by the end of the year. No amount of complaining is going to change it, although this discussion could and should trigger some rule changes for next year.

Look...I just drafted in a NFFC league where one team drafted four defenses in a row for picks 12, 13, 14, and 15. Can you imagine the screaming about that if this were done in this league? This kind of thing can happen in any league. It's neither fair nor unfair, it's just the way it is.

Two years ago I drafted in a live WCOFF league where one Owner failed to show. A facilitator sat in and drafted a strong team based on ADP. There was an avalanche of criticism that the WCOFF should have let this Owner suffer the consequences of no-showing by letting his team suck. You see, the game operators will be roundly criticized either way. If a weak team is drafted, it's "not fair" because the other 13 teams have an advantage in that league. If a good team is drafted, it's "not fair" because the game operators were complicit in helping an Owner in this contest. Can you imagine the storm that would ensue if this team that was drafted by the game operator actually won the league? Holy cow, the threat of lawsuits would be deafening.

The procedure in Boston should have been better clarified and implemented, but ultimately it's a no-win situation for the game operator because Owners will feel it's unfair either way.

I'm not condoning what happened. Players on IR shouldn't be drafted. But it's irreversible at this point and the game operators have explained themselves the best they can. You can agree or disagree with it, but it's done.

Rules should be clarified for future drafts, but it's time to move on now.