Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I'll do everyone a favor and change the subject now. I have to power to do it!![/QB]While we're correcting grammar (or typos), "I have THE power to do it."
Quitters ruin this contest....
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 36387
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:00 pm
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by Sandman62:
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I'll do everyone a favor and change the subject now. I have to power to do it!!While we're correcting grammar (or typos), "I have THE power to do it." [/QB][/QUOTE]Good catch Mike. I stand corrected!! But at least the topic head now makes grammatical sense!!
quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
I'll do everyone a favor and change the subject now. I have to power to do it!!While we're correcting grammar (or typos), "I have THE power to do it." [/QB][/QUOTE]Good catch Mike. I stand corrected!! But at least the topic head now makes grammatical sense!!
Founder, National Fantasy Football Championship & National Fantasy Baseball Championship
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Quitters ruin this contest....
Greg,
The best idea I saw so far was the one from King of Queens where on Tuesday morning the system sets each teams highest scoring lineup among players who are not listed as OUT or on BYE that coming week.
After that, owners are welcome to change lineups any way they see fit. I don't think anyone is now asking game operators to make any "calculated decisions" for lineups. As a matter of fact, the game operators would make zero decisions and would have nothing to do with it. It would be automated based on player averages or projections (like so many sites do weekly anyway).
All we are looking to do is clean up the problem of a 2-7 owner bailing on a league and leaving bye week or players on IR or listed as OUT in their lineups, with viable replacements on the bench, and thus providing free wins to teams who happened to draw them later in the season.
This doesn't have anything to do with forcing owners to make good lineup moves, or be more active on the waiver wire... If they want to be bad owners, so be it. But if we can lessen the chances of their quitting hurting league competitive integrity (and ultimately creating the possibility that you absolutely turn off some future customers) I say do it because there is ZERO DOWNSIDE that I can see.
The best idea I saw so far was the one from King of Queens where on Tuesday morning the system sets each teams highest scoring lineup among players who are not listed as OUT or on BYE that coming week.
After that, owners are welcome to change lineups any way they see fit. I don't think anyone is now asking game operators to make any "calculated decisions" for lineups. As a matter of fact, the game operators would make zero decisions and would have nothing to do with it. It would be automated based on player averages or projections (like so many sites do weekly anyway).
All we are looking to do is clean up the problem of a 2-7 owner bailing on a league and leaving bye week or players on IR or listed as OUT in their lineups, with viable replacements on the bench, and thus providing free wins to teams who happened to draw them later in the season.
This doesn't have anything to do with forcing owners to make good lineup moves, or be more active on the waiver wire... If they want to be bad owners, so be it. But if we can lessen the chances of their quitting hurting league competitive integrity (and ultimately creating the possibility that you absolutely turn off some future customers) I say do it because there is ZERO DOWNSIDE that I can see.
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 36387
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:00 pm
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by Renman:
Greg,
The best idea I saw so far was the one from King of Queens where on Tuesday morning the system sets each teams highest scoring lineup among players who are not listed as OUT or on BYE that coming week.
After that, owners are welcome to change lineups any way they see fit. I don't think anyone is now asking game operators to make any "calculated decisions" for lineups. As a matter of fact, the game operators would make zero decisions and would have nothing to do with it. It would be automated based on player averages or projections (like so many sites do weekly anyway).
All we are looking to do is clean up the problem of a 2-7 owner bailing on a league and leaving bye week or players on IR or listed as OUT in their lineups, with viable replacements on the bench, and thus providing free wins to teams who happened to draw them later in the season.
This doesn't have anything to do with forcing owners to make good lineup moves, or be more active on the waiver wire... If they want to be bad owners, so be it. But if we can lessen the chances of their quitting hurting league competitive integrity (and ultimately creating the possibility that you absolutely turn off some future customers) I say do it because there is ZERO DOWNSIDE that I can see. I understand that James but by setting the highest scoring players at those positions we are making decisions for those owners. Maybe those highest scoring players are day-to-day with injuries and won't play that week. Maybe we end up helping teams more than they would have helped themselves just as casual owners rather than deadbeat owners.
What happens in Weeks 11-13 when we're not there to improve his lineup during the non-bye weeks?? Should we be changing everyone's lineups during those weeks too to make sure they have their highest scoring players in their starting lineup each week? Or are teams that play these guys during the byes the only ones being affected?
I understand the passion against deadbeat owners, but interjecting any input into their starting lineup going forward isn't as casual as you suggest. It affects everyone when those decisions are made for these owners.
Anyone putting up this kind of dough should be attentive all year long. Unfortunately, sometimes things come up that prevents some owners from changing their lineups. I guess we could do that for them and everyone else, but I'm not sure it's the best policy with this much money on the line.
Again, we'll look at the default settings and see what we can do. Defaulting to the highest possible scoring team with no byes I guess is one suggestion to consider.
Greg,
The best idea I saw so far was the one from King of Queens where on Tuesday morning the system sets each teams highest scoring lineup among players who are not listed as OUT or on BYE that coming week.
After that, owners are welcome to change lineups any way they see fit. I don't think anyone is now asking game operators to make any "calculated decisions" for lineups. As a matter of fact, the game operators would make zero decisions and would have nothing to do with it. It would be automated based on player averages or projections (like so many sites do weekly anyway).
All we are looking to do is clean up the problem of a 2-7 owner bailing on a league and leaving bye week or players on IR or listed as OUT in their lineups, with viable replacements on the bench, and thus providing free wins to teams who happened to draw them later in the season.
This doesn't have anything to do with forcing owners to make good lineup moves, or be more active on the waiver wire... If they want to be bad owners, so be it. But if we can lessen the chances of their quitting hurting league competitive integrity (and ultimately creating the possibility that you absolutely turn off some future customers) I say do it because there is ZERO DOWNSIDE that I can see. I understand that James but by setting the highest scoring players at those positions we are making decisions for those owners. Maybe those highest scoring players are day-to-day with injuries and won't play that week. Maybe we end up helping teams more than they would have helped themselves just as casual owners rather than deadbeat owners.
What happens in Weeks 11-13 when we're not there to improve his lineup during the non-bye weeks?? Should we be changing everyone's lineups during those weeks too to make sure they have their highest scoring players in their starting lineup each week? Or are teams that play these guys during the byes the only ones being affected?
I understand the passion against deadbeat owners, but interjecting any input into their starting lineup going forward isn't as casual as you suggest. It affects everyone when those decisions are made for these owners.
Anyone putting up this kind of dough should be attentive all year long. Unfortunately, sometimes things come up that prevents some owners from changing their lineups. I guess we could do that for them and everyone else, but I'm not sure it's the best policy with this much money on the line.
Again, we'll look at the default settings and see what we can do. Defaulting to the highest possible scoring team with no byes I guess is one suggestion to consider.
Founder, National Fantasy Football Championship & National Fantasy Baseball Championship
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
Twitter: @GregAmbrosius
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by Renman:
Greg,
The best idea I saw so far was the one from King of Queens where on Tuesday morning the system sets each teams highest scoring lineup among players who are not listed as OUT or on BYE that coming week.
After that, owners are welcome to change lineups any way they see fit. I don't think anyone is now asking game operators to make any "calculated decisions" for lineups. As a matter of fact, the game operators would make zero decisions and would have nothing to do with it. It would be automated based on player averages or projections (like so many sites do weekly anyway).
All we are looking to do is clean up the problem of a 2-7 owner bailing on a league and leaving bye week or players on IR or listed as OUT in their lineups, with viable replacements on the bench, and thus providing free wins to teams who happened to draw them later in the season.
This doesn't have anything to do with forcing owners to make good lineup moves, or be more active on the waiver wire... If they want to be bad owners, so be it. But if we can lessen the chances of their quitting hurting league competitive integrity (and ultimately creating the possibility that you absolutely turn off some future customers) I say do it because there is ZERO DOWNSIDE that I can see. I understand that James but by setting the highest scoring players at those positions we are making decisions for those owners. Maybe those highest scoring players are day-to-day with injuries and won't play that week. Maybe we end up helping teams more than they would have helped themselves just as casual owners rather than deadbeat owners.
What happens in Weeks 11-13 when we're not there to improve his lineup during the non-bye weeks?? Should we be changing everyone's lineups during those weeks too to make sure they have their highest scoring players in their starting lineup each week? Or are teams that play these guys during the byes the only ones being affected?
I understand the passion against deadbeat owners, but interjecting any input into their starting lineup going forward isn't as casual as you suggest. It affects everyone when those decisions are made for these owners.
Anyone putting up this kind of dough should be attentive all year long. Unfortunately, sometimes things come up that prevents some owners from changing their lineups. I guess we could do that for them and everyone else, but I'm not sure it's the best policy with this much money on the line.
Again, we'll look at the default settings and see what we can do. Defaulting to the highest possible scoring team with no byes I guess is one suggestion to consider. [/QUOTE]Some good points here, Greg. If a situation arises and a well-intentioned owner (not a 2 month deadbeat) is unable to make a lineup change between Tuesday at 9am and kickoff, he or she might have the "wrong" lineup set for them. This is about the only true negative to the Lineup Optimizer idea -- teams are FORCED to put in a lineup each and every week. Most owners do this anyway, but it would take some adjustment for those who like to Let It Ride...
The most important point to remember: people will have complaints no matter what system is (or isn't) implemented. I do think this idea is a step in the right direction, and is probably the best solution that doesn't involve retroactive human decision-making.
quote:Originally posted by Renman:
Greg,
The best idea I saw so far was the one from King of Queens where on Tuesday morning the system sets each teams highest scoring lineup among players who are not listed as OUT or on BYE that coming week.
After that, owners are welcome to change lineups any way they see fit. I don't think anyone is now asking game operators to make any "calculated decisions" for lineups. As a matter of fact, the game operators would make zero decisions and would have nothing to do with it. It would be automated based on player averages or projections (like so many sites do weekly anyway).
All we are looking to do is clean up the problem of a 2-7 owner bailing on a league and leaving bye week or players on IR or listed as OUT in their lineups, with viable replacements on the bench, and thus providing free wins to teams who happened to draw them later in the season.
This doesn't have anything to do with forcing owners to make good lineup moves, or be more active on the waiver wire... If they want to be bad owners, so be it. But if we can lessen the chances of their quitting hurting league competitive integrity (and ultimately creating the possibility that you absolutely turn off some future customers) I say do it because there is ZERO DOWNSIDE that I can see. I understand that James but by setting the highest scoring players at those positions we are making decisions for those owners. Maybe those highest scoring players are day-to-day with injuries and won't play that week. Maybe we end up helping teams more than they would have helped themselves just as casual owners rather than deadbeat owners.
What happens in Weeks 11-13 when we're not there to improve his lineup during the non-bye weeks?? Should we be changing everyone's lineups during those weeks too to make sure they have their highest scoring players in their starting lineup each week? Or are teams that play these guys during the byes the only ones being affected?
I understand the passion against deadbeat owners, but interjecting any input into their starting lineup going forward isn't as casual as you suggest. It affects everyone when those decisions are made for these owners.
Anyone putting up this kind of dough should be attentive all year long. Unfortunately, sometimes things come up that prevents some owners from changing their lineups. I guess we could do that for them and everyone else, but I'm not sure it's the best policy with this much money on the line.
Again, we'll look at the default settings and see what we can do. Defaulting to the highest possible scoring team with no byes I guess is one suggestion to consider. [/QUOTE]Some good points here, Greg. If a situation arises and a well-intentioned owner (not a 2 month deadbeat) is unable to make a lineup change between Tuesday at 9am and kickoff, he or she might have the "wrong" lineup set for them. This is about the only true negative to the Lineup Optimizer idea -- teams are FORCED to put in a lineup each and every week. Most owners do this anyway, but it would take some adjustment for those who like to Let It Ride...
The most important point to remember: people will have complaints no matter what system is (or isn't) implemented. I do think this idea is a step in the right direction, and is probably the best solution that doesn't involve retroactive human decision-making.
Quitters ruin this contest....
Greg,
I guess I don't see an automated system setting the lineups each week (which Ugly yellow tomatos accurately pointed out the NFFC does anyway by automatically starting the previous weeks starters each week) as YOU or the game operator making any decisions at all. It would be automated, based on numbers and it immediately cleans up this problem.
If those players are day to day with injuries the owners who actually manage their teams (which is 98% of them) will make the appropriate moves. We are talking about a system that HELPS (obviously can't totally eliminate) the problem of absentee or quitter owners that can negatively impact competitive integrity during the home stretch of a league race.
Why would this automated default system not be in place during weeks 11-13? It should be in place for every single week of the fantasy season. starting in week 2. This isn't about changing peoples lineups to make sure they have the highest scoring players... first of all, no one knows who the highest scoring players are going to be. This is about making sure a bye week or injured (declared OUT) player is not in a starting line up. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree that anyone putting up that kind of dough SHOULD be attentive all year. But we know this comes up every single year because unfortunately not everyone does play it out properly. I believe over time we will weed out the yahoo type fantasy genius wannabe types and the more/most skilled fantasy players will be filling up this event and we will see less and less of the quitting anyway.
I just can't see the downside of defaulting to the highest scoring active lineup each week and then allow the owners to adjust their teams accordingly. All this does is clean up the one specific problem that seems to bother people every year.
I guess I don't see an automated system setting the lineups each week (which Ugly yellow tomatos accurately pointed out the NFFC does anyway by automatically starting the previous weeks starters each week) as YOU or the game operator making any decisions at all. It would be automated, based on numbers and it immediately cleans up this problem.
If those players are day to day with injuries the owners who actually manage their teams (which is 98% of them) will make the appropriate moves. We are talking about a system that HELPS (obviously can't totally eliminate) the problem of absentee or quitter owners that can negatively impact competitive integrity during the home stretch of a league race.
Why would this automated default system not be in place during weeks 11-13? It should be in place for every single week of the fantasy season. starting in week 2. This isn't about changing peoples lineups to make sure they have the highest scoring players... first of all, no one knows who the highest scoring players are going to be. This is about making sure a bye week or injured (declared OUT) player is not in a starting line up. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree that anyone putting up that kind of dough SHOULD be attentive all year. But we know this comes up every single year because unfortunately not everyone does play it out properly. I believe over time we will weed out the yahoo type fantasy genius wannabe types and the more/most skilled fantasy players will be filling up this event and we will see less and less of the quitting anyway.
I just can't see the downside of defaulting to the highest scoring active lineup each week and then allow the owners to adjust their teams accordingly. All this does is clean up the one specific problem that seems to bother people every year.
-
Gordon Gekko II
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:00 pm
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by King of Queens:
This is about the only true negative to the Lineup Optimizer idea -- teams are FORCED to put in a lineup each and every week. owners with R.Brown, M.Turner, Westy, Cooley, etc...would need to take them out of lineups or else they get zeros. you know that sooner or later "emergencies" pop up and some owners will be unable to attend to their teams for a few days. if owners lost money because the NFFC took Snelling out of their lineup and activated M.Turner in his place, i imagine the complaints would start pouring in.
on a separate note, a STATS programming change of this nature probably requires a small fortune!
This is about the only true negative to the Lineup Optimizer idea -- teams are FORCED to put in a lineup each and every week. owners with R.Brown, M.Turner, Westy, Cooley, etc...would need to take them out of lineups or else they get zeros. you know that sooner or later "emergencies" pop up and some owners will be unable to attend to their teams for a few days. if owners lost money because the NFFC took Snelling out of their lineup and activated M.Turner in his place, i imagine the complaints would start pouring in.
on a separate note, a STATS programming change of this nature probably requires a small fortune!
Quitters ruin this contest....
Glenn,
As I have said, your idea is the best one I have seen yet. Even if an owner somehow doesn't or can't make lineup adjustments for an entire week before kickoff, the "wrong" lineup is better than one with bye week or injured players who are getting a zero.
As I have said, your idea is the best one I have seen yet. Even if an owner somehow doesn't or can't make lineup adjustments for an entire week before kickoff, the "wrong" lineup is better than one with bye week or injured players who are getting a zero.
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
This is about the only true negative to the Lineup Optimizer idea -- teams are FORCED to put in a lineup each and every week. owners with R.Brown, M.Turner, Westy, Cooley, etc...would need to take them out of lineups or else they get zeros. you know that sooner or later "emergencies" pop up and some owners will be unable to attend to their teams for a few days. if owners lost money because the NFFC took Snelling out of their lineup and activated M.Turner in his place, i imagine the complaints would start pouring in.
on a separate note, a STATS programming change of this nature probably requires a small fortune! [/QUOTE]Why would Snelling be removed from a lineup for a player that is listed as OUT or on BYE? Cooley is listed a "out" so Cooley would automatically be out of the lineup based on King of Queens idea. Any player listed as OUT or on BYE would be on the bench. Players that are questionable are an entirely different matter. This is designed to clean up only the most blantant examples of an owner ignoring a team and starting players who are in no way going to be in a game.
[ November 18, 2009, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Renman ]
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
This is about the only true negative to the Lineup Optimizer idea -- teams are FORCED to put in a lineup each and every week. owners with R.Brown, M.Turner, Westy, Cooley, etc...would need to take them out of lineups or else they get zeros. you know that sooner or later "emergencies" pop up and some owners will be unable to attend to their teams for a few days. if owners lost money because the NFFC took Snelling out of their lineup and activated M.Turner in his place, i imagine the complaints would start pouring in.
on a separate note, a STATS programming change of this nature probably requires a small fortune!
[/QUOTE]Why would Snelling be removed from a lineup for a player that is listed as OUT or on BYE? Cooley is listed a "out" so Cooley would automatically be out of the lineup based on King of Queens idea. Any player listed as OUT or on BYE would be on the bench. Players that are questionable are an entirely different matter. This is designed to clean up only the most blantant examples of an owner ignoring a team and starting players who are in no way going to be in a game.[ November 18, 2009, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Renman ]
Quitters ruin this contest....
Team has its automated lineup set for a few weeks. Team gets more points. Team gets hot and wins consolation bracket because they had a larger foundation of in-season points.
Hmm...
Hmm...
"No one cares about your team but you."