The comments we're not directed at you. Nothing wrong with a little commiserating anyway ... I sometimes do it myself.
The idea of changing the rules midstream and crying about it in 100 different posts by a few others gets old. Why have "league rules" if we can change them. We could just call them "league suggestion or guide lines" if that is what they are.
I also don't have a problem reading ideas for rule changes for next year (but I do have trouble hearing them through all the whining if presented in a poor me context)
Originally posted by IT'S TIME AGAIN:
why is Matt Jones still playing football while all of these other players are already being suspended for a diaretic? Let's see Cocaine or a Diaretic without the substance listed on the box? How is this possible?)
Very good point BTW. We were talking about this at lunch today as a matter of fact.
UYT
Week 2 Revisited
Week 2 Revisited
Ugly,
I know you have this thing with me and to be honest, I still have no idea why. I have no interest in bickering back and forth with you. You are already one paragraph into your embarrassing rant making things up I never said. Some call that lying.. some call it other things. You can call it what you want. I call it boring. You are probably a super nice guy.. why not let the message board hostility go? I have absolutely no beef with you and you are amazingly nasty toward me all the time. Let it go.
I have clearly stated that I do not think Greg did a thing wrong and that the NFFC was put in a tough spot and I am PERFECTLY FINE with the outcome. Having said that... I believe we can use a situation like this to continue to make the NFFC an ever improving event.
To debate the small football portion of your post that was not a personal thing directed at me I will say the following...
-I believe everyone in the NFFC could have been notified in the same way everyone is notified on the home page of the league about other messages.
-I believe the teams who were hurt here could have been allowed to pick up replacement kickers/defenses even without everyone else being involved in a supplemental draft. If you did not lose a player from that game, why would you need to be part of the supplimental draft? If I was going against someone who needed a kicker or defense or scrap heap WR to cover for this I would have been perfectly fine with it because it is the fairest thing to do. Even if that replacement player scored high and I lost. I am not one looking to use the rules to win.. I want to win in the fairest way possible.
-Guys getting suspended and hurt is part of the NFL game and an accepted part of fantasy football. Cancelled games due to hurricanes are not.
-I am ABSOLUTELY ok with the Tom and Greg having the power to make executive decisions that may not be clearly outlined in the "rules" as long as they are in the best interests of the game for unforseen situations. Would you have said Bud Selig was wrong if he chose NOT to follow the "rules" on rain shortened games had the World Series ended that way? Was he wrong to "change the rules?"
GK does not need to "man up." You just have a problem with anyone who ever says anything positive that is related to me. You have some kind of fixation with me and I understand that. I am not going to fuel it by going back and forth with you on any of these things. Especially since you talk in such an anger filled way.
Gk,
People get "fixated" on certain posters on message boards all the time. He has it for me now. So no matter what is said regarding me he is going to go the other way. I can say "water is wet" or "the sky is blue" and he is going to argue otherwise. There is no point in trying to rationalize or go back and forth because, as we have seen on the boards before.. it is a never ending cycle and I am not going to be part of it anymore.
I am fine with the decision Greg and Tom made even if at the time I (as did you and several others) thought a different decision might have been fairest. I in no way blame that event for my season.. (I blame my decision to draft Bulger and Felix Jones) My overall season has been pretty good making the other main event finals and auction playoffs as well as cashing high or leading a few other events outside of the NFFC.
You are wasting your time trying to debate with him about anything that in any way includes me.
Sound advice,
No one is saying "change the rules every time someone takes a zero..." That kind of quantum leap from what is really being said is what confuses these kind of discussions that should be allowed to be cordial, friendly and simple.
What is/was being said is that every once in a while unforseen things will happen that the "rules" cannot cover. When that happens the people running the event have to have it built into the rules that they can make an executive decision. I hate to keep going back to it.. but some here come off like they think Bud Selig should have let the World Series end on the rain shortened 5 inning game. I bet everyone here thinks he was right to "make new rules" for the good of the game.
I am simply saying the same should and could apply to the NFFC because the guys running the event are hard core fantasy players themselves and not bean counters or basic business men. They are passionate fantasy players themselves and understand the game on an expert level. I trust they would make great judgements that are fair.
Am I so bad for having this opinion?
[ December 03, 2008, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Renman ]
I know you have this thing with me and to be honest, I still have no idea why. I have no interest in bickering back and forth with you. You are already one paragraph into your embarrassing rant making things up I never said. Some call that lying.. some call it other things. You can call it what you want. I call it boring. You are probably a super nice guy.. why not let the message board hostility go? I have absolutely no beef with you and you are amazingly nasty toward me all the time. Let it go.
I have clearly stated that I do not think Greg did a thing wrong and that the NFFC was put in a tough spot and I am PERFECTLY FINE with the outcome. Having said that... I believe we can use a situation like this to continue to make the NFFC an ever improving event.
To debate the small football portion of your post that was not a personal thing directed at me I will say the following...
-I believe everyone in the NFFC could have been notified in the same way everyone is notified on the home page of the league about other messages.
-I believe the teams who were hurt here could have been allowed to pick up replacement kickers/defenses even without everyone else being involved in a supplemental draft. If you did not lose a player from that game, why would you need to be part of the supplimental draft? If I was going against someone who needed a kicker or defense or scrap heap WR to cover for this I would have been perfectly fine with it because it is the fairest thing to do. Even if that replacement player scored high and I lost. I am not one looking to use the rules to win.. I want to win in the fairest way possible.
-Guys getting suspended and hurt is part of the NFL game and an accepted part of fantasy football. Cancelled games due to hurricanes are not.
-I am ABSOLUTELY ok with the Tom and Greg having the power to make executive decisions that may not be clearly outlined in the "rules" as long as they are in the best interests of the game for unforseen situations. Would you have said Bud Selig was wrong if he chose NOT to follow the "rules" on rain shortened games had the World Series ended that way? Was he wrong to "change the rules?"
GK does not need to "man up." You just have a problem with anyone who ever says anything positive that is related to me. You have some kind of fixation with me and I understand that. I am not going to fuel it by going back and forth with you on any of these things. Especially since you talk in such an anger filled way.
Gk,
People get "fixated" on certain posters on message boards all the time. He has it for me now. So no matter what is said regarding me he is going to go the other way. I can say "water is wet" or "the sky is blue" and he is going to argue otherwise. There is no point in trying to rationalize or go back and forth because, as we have seen on the boards before.. it is a never ending cycle and I am not going to be part of it anymore.
I am fine with the decision Greg and Tom made even if at the time I (as did you and several others) thought a different decision might have been fairest. I in no way blame that event for my season.. (I blame my decision to draft Bulger and Felix Jones) My overall season has been pretty good making the other main event finals and auction playoffs as well as cashing high or leading a few other events outside of the NFFC.
You are wasting your time trying to debate with him about anything that in any way includes me.
Sound advice,
No one is saying "change the rules every time someone takes a zero..." That kind of quantum leap from what is really being said is what confuses these kind of discussions that should be allowed to be cordial, friendly and simple.
What is/was being said is that every once in a while unforseen things will happen that the "rules" cannot cover. When that happens the people running the event have to have it built into the rules that they can make an executive decision. I hate to keep going back to it.. but some here come off like they think Bud Selig should have let the World Series end on the rain shortened 5 inning game. I bet everyone here thinks he was right to "make new rules" for the good of the game.
I am simply saying the same should and could apply to the NFFC because the guys running the event are hard core fantasy players themselves and not bean counters or basic business men. They are passionate fantasy players themselves and understand the game on an expert level. I trust they would make great judgements that are fair.
Am I so bad for having this opinion?
[ December 03, 2008, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Renman ]
Week 2 Revisited
James,
Your reality is really messed up my friend.
Get over yourself.
You think I am giving Glenn (GK) a hard time and you are trying to find an ally to side with you against me (I just had a flashback to junior high).
Glenn can speak for himself ... but I would bet money ... Glenn finds me nothing but a respectful MB participant towards him and is not at all put off or offended by any of my comments directed towards him in this thread or any thread (as it should be because I have always treated him with respect as he has me).
The problem is ... you see agreement as acceptance. When someone (I) doesn't agree with you ... you take it as a personal attack and feel the need to attack personally. I get it. Please understand it doesn't work that way for the rest of us. (I say your idea is a really bad one and you think/type "I have a problem with you" ... NOOOOOO ... If I say I have a problem with your idea ... I have a problem with your idea ... it's that simple).
Glenn ... it might be helpful if you chime in and set him straight on this.
UYT
Your reality is really messed up my friend.
Get over yourself.
You think I am giving Glenn (GK) a hard time and you are trying to find an ally to side with you against me (I just had a flashback to junior high).
Glenn can speak for himself ... but I would bet money ... Glenn finds me nothing but a respectful MB participant towards him and is not at all put off or offended by any of my comments directed towards him in this thread or any thread (as it should be because I have always treated him with respect as he has me).
The problem is ... you see agreement as acceptance. When someone (I) doesn't agree with you ... you take it as a personal attack and feel the need to attack personally. I get it. Please understand it doesn't work that way for the rest of us. (I say your idea is a really bad one and you think/type "I have a problem with you" ... NOOOOOO ... If I say I have a problem with your idea ... I have a problem with your idea ... it's that simple).
Glenn ... it might be helpful if you chime in and set him straight on this.
UYT
Hakuna Matata!
Week 2 Revisited
Upon further review, I would not hold 2 FAAB periods on a weekly basis throughout the year.
I would just put in a rule that allows for a "special" FAAB period in the event of a game cancellation.
That is in lieu of a free-for-all period after the weekly deadline, which I prefer.
I would just put in a rule that allows for a "special" FAAB period in the event of a game cancellation.
That is in lieu of a free-for-all period after the weekly deadline, which I prefer.
2008- Didn't finish last overall in the Classic.
2009- Didn't finish last overall in the Classic or Primetime.
2009- Didn't finish last overall in the Classic or Primetime.
-
Uncle Rico
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:00 pm
Week 2 Revisited
For those who are chiming and say things like "man up", I'm restating EXACTLY what I said when I started this thread.
I'm not whining in ANY way about how thgis was handled this year. Nor am I looking for any individual help that would only benefit me in the future.
This is simply a follow up to show the need to address any problems that might arise in the future and could affect any one of us.
No one could have anticipated the NFL doing a completely ridiculous thing like cancelling a game on the day before the game was scheduled. No precedent, yet it happened.
This was meant to be the start of a discussion for improving the rules going forward to prevent a similar scenario from playing out in the future.
Go Getta, I don't understand your attack on me here. I'm not crying over this year, I'm looking to prevent this in the future.
I'm not whining in ANY way about how thgis was handled this year. Nor am I looking for any individual help that would only benefit me in the future.
This is simply a follow up to show the need to address any problems that might arise in the future and could affect any one of us.
No one could have anticipated the NFL doing a completely ridiculous thing like cancelling a game on the day before the game was scheduled. No precedent, yet it happened.
This was meant to be the start of a discussion for improving the rules going forward to prevent a similar scenario from playing out in the future.
Go Getta, I don't understand your attack on me here. I'm not crying over this year, I'm looking to prevent this in the future.
Week 2 Revisited
Fudgie the Whale,
Ok, so You want what? A second ww pickup?
A just incase ww pickup?
Two ww to run every week?
?
John
PS. This hurt me as well, I say leave as is. But that's just me. So whata got?
Ok, so You want what? A second ww pickup?
A just incase ww pickup?
Two ww to run every week?
?
John
PS. This hurt me as well, I say leave as is. But that's just me. So whata got?
Week 2 Revisited
Originally posted by Fudgie the Whale:
For those who are chiming and say things like "man up", I'm restating EXACTLY what I said when I started this thread.
I'm not whining in ANY way about how thgis was handled this year. Nor am I looking for any individual help that would only benefit me in the future.
This is simply a follow up to show the need to address any problems that might arise in the future and could affect any one of us.
No one could have anticipated the NFL doing a completely ridiculous thing like cancelling a game on the day before the game was scheduled. No precedent, yet it happened.
This was meant to be the start of a discussion for improving the rules going forward to prevent a similar scenario from playing out in the future.
Go Getta, I don't understand your attack on me here. I'm not crying over this year, I'm looking to prevent this in the future. I agree with you my man, i see you were right at the cut off in the NBC event.. i was right on your heels.. am very upset at some of the stupid moves i made throughout the year that would have put in 100k tournament however your situation is bad luck.
- fact is and to answer Raiders.. yes, a waiver period wed night and one through Sat night would be fair. Rotobowl did it that way (first year i played in that league) and it was great.. there were times when a last minute injury on fri or sat came down pike and i added a late waiver pickup on sat. you still had to bid, (and when you have 2 periods people tend to spend more quicker) however it was fair, and alleviates what happened in week 2. Roto league ended up extended the waiver pickup period until sunday during week 2.. they chose to "change" their rules ..
i think greg did the only thing he could do however i would ask for a 2nd waiver period next year.. think it would be great for the league. Just an opinion.. im a keeper in this league no matter wat..
Hey greg, add an auction tournament this year like WCOFF ..thx. although i wouldn't have made it..lol..
For those who are chiming and say things like "man up", I'm restating EXACTLY what I said when I started this thread.
I'm not whining in ANY way about how thgis was handled this year. Nor am I looking for any individual help that would only benefit me in the future.
This is simply a follow up to show the need to address any problems that might arise in the future and could affect any one of us.
No one could have anticipated the NFL doing a completely ridiculous thing like cancelling a game on the day before the game was scheduled. No precedent, yet it happened.
This was meant to be the start of a discussion for improving the rules going forward to prevent a similar scenario from playing out in the future.
Go Getta, I don't understand your attack on me here. I'm not crying over this year, I'm looking to prevent this in the future. I agree with you my man, i see you were right at the cut off in the NBC event.. i was right on your heels.. am very upset at some of the stupid moves i made throughout the year that would have put in 100k tournament however your situation is bad luck.
- fact is and to answer Raiders.. yes, a waiver period wed night and one through Sat night would be fair. Rotobowl did it that way (first year i played in that league) and it was great.. there were times when a last minute injury on fri or sat came down pike and i added a late waiver pickup on sat. you still had to bid, (and when you have 2 periods people tend to spend more quicker) however it was fair, and alleviates what happened in week 2. Roto league ended up extended the waiver pickup period until sunday during week 2.. they chose to "change" their rules ..
i think greg did the only thing he could do however i would ask for a 2nd waiver period next year.. think it would be great for the league. Just an opinion.. im a keeper in this league no matter wat..
Hey greg, add an auction tournament this year like WCOFF ..thx. although i wouldn't have made it..lol..
-
Uncle Rico
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:00 pm
Week 2 Revisited
I would think the best option would be to add a second waiver run on Saturday evening.
Here is a valid opposition that needs to be considered.
Some do not feel it is fair/warranted to have to commit the additional time to planning for a second waiver period.
However, if you are really invested in managing your roster, there are more causes than the occasional natural disaster that might warrant you needing a late week addition to your roster.
For those that prefer to stand pat on Saturday, a safe guard could be built in. Namely, no player dropped in the first waiver period would be available until the following week.
Example:
Team A drops Antonio Bryant on Wednesday's waiver run. When the second waivers run on Saturday evening, Antonio Bryant would not be available. Only those players who were passed over on Wednesday would be available for bid.
The following Wednesday, Bryant would be added to the free agent pool and available to everyone - even those who choose not to scan the wire on the Saturday pick-up.
In this way, only the players that everyone in the lague had a chance to consider the first time through would be available on the second waiver run.
My theory is that the very best available free agents would be added the first waiver period. But for those faced with a choice of taking a zero or taking the best chance available, an option would at least exist.
When FF leagues were first formed, the original intent was to at least try to mimic the experience of running a franchise of your own. That, in reality might mean starting a player who is far less potential than the player normally scheduled to start. There is no scanario, however, that would leave a franchise an only option of not starting a running back.
That should be the same case here.
As my case illustrates from this season, sometimes even the sm,allest contribution can make a big difference in a season. It's far more fair to take a zero from a player who actually is competing in the gamers that week than from one who is not even playing.
Just my thoughts, as requested.
Here is a valid opposition that needs to be considered.
Some do not feel it is fair/warranted to have to commit the additional time to planning for a second waiver period.
However, if you are really invested in managing your roster, there are more causes than the occasional natural disaster that might warrant you needing a late week addition to your roster.
For those that prefer to stand pat on Saturday, a safe guard could be built in. Namely, no player dropped in the first waiver period would be available until the following week.
Example:
Team A drops Antonio Bryant on Wednesday's waiver run. When the second waivers run on Saturday evening, Antonio Bryant would not be available. Only those players who were passed over on Wednesday would be available for bid.
The following Wednesday, Bryant would be added to the free agent pool and available to everyone - even those who choose not to scan the wire on the Saturday pick-up.
In this way, only the players that everyone in the lague had a chance to consider the first time through would be available on the second waiver run.
My theory is that the very best available free agents would be added the first waiver period. But for those faced with a choice of taking a zero or taking the best chance available, an option would at least exist.
When FF leagues were first formed, the original intent was to at least try to mimic the experience of running a franchise of your own. That, in reality might mean starting a player who is far less potential than the player normally scheduled to start. There is no scanario, however, that would leave a franchise an only option of not starting a running back.
That should be the same case here.
As my case illustrates from this season, sometimes even the sm,allest contribution can make a big difference in a season. It's far more fair to take a zero from a player who actually is competing in the gamers that week than from one who is not even playing.
Just my thoughts, as requested.