Quitters ruin this contest....

[BillyWaz]

Originally posted by Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by BillyWaz:
For YOU, it is perfect though!

On a side note, I'm sure Greg, Tom, Ryan (and the rest of Fanball) are gonna love you posting this! i took a brief look at the company/league YOU suggested.

i try not to deal with companies that have problems with their interface. been there, done that. i don't care if the league is straight points. it's not worth my time, and i'm sure many others agree. [/QUOTE]Of course many others agree.....the MAJORITY wants H2H games!!!

I was just suggesting a company which DIDN'T offer the components (H2H, people not allowed to have the same player- getting screwed by FAAB,etc.) that you have been complaining about for years.

Wasn't something I was endorsing, as I have been there, done that. It is all about points (actually roto if it is still the same).

Again.....PERFECT for you (minus the interface of course )

[ November 16, 2009, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: BillyWaz ]

[renman]

For the record, a team in my league started A. Bradshaw (on bye) over T. Owens and also started J. Norwood. He was playing one of the top teams in the standing and handed them a free week 10 win.

This is definately a problem that an event of this stature and magnitude needs to at least try to address.

[Max Factor]

It seems that the operators of this event are very aware of all the opinions regarding H to H and based upon that it appears it will continue.
Having said that, it seems they must also see the growing opinion that if they continue that component of the contest the need to address the issue of quitters, as it does compromise the results to some extent. While I agree the total points is the dominant feature, H to H is still a factor. Other high stakes events have addressed this issue and I am certain Tom and Greg are aware of that and will do so also is some fashion.

[Raiders]

Originally posted by Max Factor:
It seems that the operators of this event are very aware of all the opinions regarding H to H and based upon that it appears it will continue.
Having said that, it seems they must also see the growing opinion that if they continue that component of the contest the need to address the issue of quitters, as it does compromise the results to some extent. While I agree the total points is the dominant feature, H to H is still a factor. Other high stakes events have addressed this issue and I am certain Tom and Greg are aware of that and will do so also is some fashion. So how does Greg and Tom address 'the need to address the issue of quitters'?

If you come up with a Great idea or anyone I'm sure they will consired it. To be honest the one Contest that has 'address the quitters' has come under alot of firer.

So post if you have an answer, not that it needs to be fixed, we all know and agree with that.

I have no idea.

[Gordon Gekko II]

Originally posted by Renman:
For the record, a team in my league started A. Bradshaw (on bye) over T. Owens and also started J. Norwood. He was playing one of the top teams in the standing and handed them a free week 10 win.

This is definately a problem that an event of this stature and magnitude needs to at least try to address. Ren – If someone has given up on their team, nothing you can do will change THEIR minds. Greg/Tom calling EACH AND EVERY “violator” isn’t feasible, fines won’t work, weekly prizes won’t work, “shaming” owners won’t work, banning owners isn’t feasible, etc…

About the best I can think of is automatically replacing bye week players with the highest scoring non-bye week players. But even that won’t do anything for owners who have “checked out” and aren’t making any moves (ie still have O.Daniels on their roster, like in one of my leagues).

For those that LOVE H2H, deadbeat owners are a necessary evil. You need to embrace them!

[Raiders]

Originally posted by Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by Renman:
For the record, a team in my league started A. Bradshaw (on bye) over T. Owens and also started J. Norwood. He was playing one of the top teams in the standing and handed them a free week 10 win.

This is definately a problem that an event of this stature and magnitude needs to at least try to address. Ren – If someone has given up on their team, nothing you can do will change THEIR minds. Greg/Tom calling EACH AND EVERY “violator” isn’t feasible, fines won’t work, weekly prizes won’t work, “shaming” owners won’t work, banning owners isn’t feasible, etc…

About the best I can think of is automatically replacing bye week players with the highest scoring non-bye week players. But even that won’t do anything for owners who have “checked out” and aren’t making any moves (ie still have O.Daniels on their roster, like in one of my leagues).

For those that LOVE H2H, deadbeat owners are a necessary evil. You need to embrace them! [/QUOTE]Agree. This is were the luck comes in. As others have said no one comes on here and says I won this week because the Guy I played left 4 bye week players in with A.Peterson on the bench.

Contest needs the HTH format so don't kid yourself, HTH is going no were. Quitters are a good thing it makes your odds better, it always works out over time.

The better "skilled players" should hope there lucky enough to get 3 or 4 quitters in there League.

[renman]

Gekko,

A few points.

1- Is it (the issue of teams quitting and hurting competitive integrity) worth having a discussion about among intelligent fantasy football minds?

2- You listed fines, weekly prizes, shaming, banning, and "calling" each violator. I have advocated zero of these things. Though I applauded those who made efforts to at least throw out ideas.

3- I have advocated some kind of automated system where a viable replacement that is sitting on a teams bench be plugged into a lineup where a player listed on BYE or OUT is started.

4- Team owners who check out and do not manage their team to the best of their abilities are sadly part of the game. But with todays technology we can at least lessen the problem of players who are on BYE or listed as OUT that are in starting lineups. That singular issue can really cause problems as it relates to perception and overall enjoyment of the event. I guarantee this kind of thing could easily turn off someone and keep them from returing to the event the following season.

I think over the year I have always shows myself to be someone who wants to discuss things that can strengthen support for the NFFC.

[Gordon Gekko II]

Ren – Let’s explore the idea you like.

At what point in the week would you have bye week players replaced with non-bye week players? Tuesday at 9am? After Wednesday FAAB? After Friday FAAB? Sunday at 1pm?

Suppose an owner has Reggie Wayne in their lineup and Wayne has a bye week. Also suppose the owner has 3 WR’s, 2RB (Leon Washington and Larry Johnson) and 1TE (Owen Daniels) on his bench. How do you determine which player gets started? Does the player fill the flex spot?

What if the owner WANTS to start a bye week player?

[King of Queens]

Originally posted by Gekko:
Ren – Let’s explore the idea you like.

At what point in the week would you have bye week players replaced with non-bye week players? Tuesday at 9am? After Wednesday FAAB? After Friday FAAB? Sunday at 1pm?

Suppose an owner has Reggie Wayne in their lineup and Wayne has a bye week. Also suppose the owner has 3 WR’s, 2RB (Leon Washington and Larry Johnson) and 1TE (Owen Daniels) on his bench. How do you determine which player gets started? Does the player fill the flex spot?

What if the owner WANTS to start a bye week player? The best system would be an automatic lineup "optimizer" that runs every week on Tuesday at 9 a.m. Each week, the optimizer will place the highest average scoring players in your lineup. Anyone on a bye or IR will remain on the bench. After Tuesday at 9 a.m., owners are free to change their lineups as they see fit. If they want to start bye week players for strategic reasons, so be it.