Originally posted by Just Russ:
I'd also argue that if it doesn't have a dynamic effect on reducing "quitters" then that is even worse! You can argue a fact, but you are wrong. Zaleski has already stated that in his contest of 25 years it works.
Likewise, I am in a 32-team dynasty league, and I am 100% certain it works there too. If you put money in front of someone, they will reach for it.
[ November 25, 2009, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Quitters ruin this contest....
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Just Russ:
I'd also argue that if it doesn't have a dynamic effect on reducing "quitters" then that is even worse! You can argue a fact, but you are wrong. Zaleski has already stated that in his contest of 25 years it works.
Likewise, I am in a 32-team dynasty league, and I am 100% certain it works there too. If you put money in front of someone, they will reach for it. [/QUOTE]I'd love to hear John say that it is 100% effective. If not, then it doesn't benefit everyone.
quote:Originally posted by Just Russ:
I'd also argue that if it doesn't have a dynamic effect on reducing "quitters" then that is even worse! You can argue a fact, but you are wrong. Zaleski has already stated that in his contest of 25 years it works.
Likewise, I am in a 32-team dynasty league, and I am 100% certain it works there too. If you put money in front of someone, they will reach for it. [/QUOTE]I'd love to hear John say that it is 100% effective. If not, then it doesn't benefit everyone.
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.
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Just Russ:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Just Russ:
Quitters are going to happen, period. Trying to manage out quitters is an exercise in futility. And I will not risk another $100 (as proposed) to try to get quitters motivated.
This is not an all or nothing circumstance, less quitters is better than more; and it already has been proven (not to mention intuitive with any consideration of human nature) that less players will quit if they still have something to play for.
And as for not being willing to risk another $100 for a high weekly scrore prize, I'd bet a lot of money that both you and Gekko would still play (and you'd probably like it after the first year). [/QUOTE]KJ, while I may like it, I would not find out. I'm not willing to pay $100 for that reason. I'd pay $100 if i knew I got it back at season's end if I was active every week and set proper lineups. But, no, I'm not willing to make a side bet in the hopes that it has a few more stiffs hanging around.
I'd also argue that if it doesn't have a dynamic effect on reducing "quitters" then that is even worse! What if it only impacts my league next year? Then I have 14 owners pursuing FAAB every week, where in all other (or the majority) leagues do not. That now limits my ability to get late season help. I'm then at a competitive disadvantage against all other leagues.
No thanks. [/QUOTE]I think the truth slips out in your argument - you want quitters to help you win. You just don't want to come out and say it - which would explain why you're so against something that would reduce the number of teams that quit. [/QUOTE]KJ, your thinking is wrong. I do appreciate you trying to psychoanalyze my statements, however.
I'm not looking for that to help me win. I'm also not looking for a gimmick that will potentially put me at a disadvantage that also causes me to make a larger investment.
Keep up the good fight!
quote:Originally posted by Just Russ:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Just Russ:
Quitters are going to happen, period. Trying to manage out quitters is an exercise in futility. And I will not risk another $100 (as proposed) to try to get quitters motivated.
This is not an all or nothing circumstance, less quitters is better than more; and it already has been proven (not to mention intuitive with any consideration of human nature) that less players will quit if they still have something to play for.
And as for not being willing to risk another $100 for a high weekly scrore prize, I'd bet a lot of money that both you and Gekko would still play (and you'd probably like it after the first year). [/QUOTE]KJ, while I may like it, I would not find out. I'm not willing to pay $100 for that reason. I'd pay $100 if i knew I got it back at season's end if I was active every week and set proper lineups. But, no, I'm not willing to make a side bet in the hopes that it has a few more stiffs hanging around.
I'd also argue that if it doesn't have a dynamic effect on reducing "quitters" then that is even worse! What if it only impacts my league next year? Then I have 14 owners pursuing FAAB every week, where in all other (or the majority) leagues do not. That now limits my ability to get late season help. I'm then at a competitive disadvantage against all other leagues.
No thanks. [/QUOTE]I think the truth slips out in your argument - you want quitters to help you win. You just don't want to come out and say it - which would explain why you're so against something that would reduce the number of teams that quit. [/QUOTE]KJ, your thinking is wrong. I do appreciate you trying to psychoanalyze my statements, however.
I'm not looking for that to help me win. I'm also not looking for a gimmick that will potentially put me at a disadvantage that also causes me to make a larger investment.
Keep up the good fight!
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.
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by Just Russ:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Just Russ:
I'd also argue that if it doesn't have a dynamic effect on reducing "quitters" then that is even worse! You can argue a fact, but you are wrong. Zaleski has already stated that in his contest of 25 years it works.
Likewise, I am in a 32-team dynasty league, and I am 100% certain it works there too. If you put money in front of someone, they will reach for it. [/QUOTE]I'd love to hear John say that it is 100% effective. If not, then it doesn't benefit everyone. [/QUOTE]I have already said nothing is 100% effective. Things can be made better, not perfect.
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Just Russ:
I'd also argue that if it doesn't have a dynamic effect on reducing "quitters" then that is even worse! You can argue a fact, but you are wrong. Zaleski has already stated that in his contest of 25 years it works.
Likewise, I am in a 32-team dynasty league, and I am 100% certain it works there too. If you put money in front of someone, they will reach for it. [/QUOTE]I'd love to hear John say that it is 100% effective. If not, then it doesn't benefit everyone. [/QUOTE]I have already said nothing is 100% effective. Things can be made better, not perfect.
-
Moonlight Graham
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:00 pm
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by Moonlight Graham:
quote:Originally posted by Renman:
I want some feedback. I made this point earlier today but it was the last post on the previous page and I am not sure how many saw it...
We currently have AUTOMATED LINEUPS set for us each week. Each week, on Tuesday morning, we see our team and a lineup has been put in place. It is not like we have an empty team that requires us manually enter the players at each position to fill a lineup.
We all (or at least 99% of us) begin tinkering with our lineups (as early as Tuesday morning at work), often changing it countless times throughout the week. Why can't this automated Tuesday morning lineup be the highest averaging lineup among players that are not on BYE or listed as OUT? This immediately gets the one thing that drives people nuts about quitters cleaned up.
What is the downside to this? I am no expert, but why wouldn't this work? [/QUOTE]Can anyone tell me why this can't work? I haven't seen why this can't work yet.
quote:Originally posted by Renman:
I want some feedback. I made this point earlier today but it was the last post on the previous page and I am not sure how many saw it...
We currently have AUTOMATED LINEUPS set for us each week. Each week, on Tuesday morning, we see our team and a lineup has been put in place. It is not like we have an empty team that requires us manually enter the players at each position to fill a lineup.
We all (or at least 99% of us) begin tinkering with our lineups (as early as Tuesday morning at work), often changing it countless times throughout the week. Why can't this automated Tuesday morning lineup be the highest averaging lineup among players that are not on BYE or listed as OUT? This immediately gets the one thing that drives people nuts about quitters cleaned up.
What is the downside to this? I am no expert, but why wouldn't this work? [/QUOTE]Can anyone tell me why this can't work? I haven't seen why this can't work yet.
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by Just Russ:
I'm also not looking for a gimmick that will potentially put me at a disadvantage ...
And by gimmick you mean "a disincentive for other teams to quit", thus it is logically correct to rephrase your above statement as follows ...
"I'm also not looking for a disincentive for other teams to quit that will potentially put me at a disadvantage ...
The defense rests ...
I'm also not looking for a gimmick that will potentially put me at a disadvantage ...
And by gimmick you mean "a disincentive for other teams to quit", thus it is logically correct to rephrase your above statement as follows ...
"I'm also not looking for a disincentive for other teams to quit that will potentially put me at a disadvantage ...
The defense rests ...
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by Moonlight Graham:
quote:Originally posted by Moonlight Graham:
quote:Originally posted by Renman:
I want some feedback. I made this point earlier today but it was the last post on the previous page and I am not sure how many saw it...
We currently have AUTOMATED LINEUPS set for us each week. Each week, on Tuesday morning, we see our team and a lineup has been put in place. It is not like we have an empty team that requires us manually enter the players at each position to fill a lineup.
We all (or at least 99% of us) begin tinkering with our lineups (as early as Tuesday morning at work), often changing it countless times throughout the week. Why can't this automated Tuesday morning lineup be the highest averaging lineup among players that are not on BYE or listed as OUT? This immediately gets the one thing that drives people nuts about quitters cleaned up.
What is the downside to this? I am no expert, but why wouldn't this work? [/QUOTE]Can anyone tell me why this can't work? I haven't seen why this can't work yet. [/QUOTE]1. If I know my lineup is set with certain starters that I placed there, I don't want software changing it.
2. If I am going on vacation Monday, I don't software changing my lineup on Tuesday. As it stands now, we can set our lineup for any future week in advance, thus changing to an automated system would be a step backwards.
3. Owners don't want to get beat by a computer. This is a contest of skill, if you automate it and potentially reward lazy/incompetent owners, what's the point of having a competition? We could all just buy numbered ping pong balls and have Greg pick the league champion from an airblown sphere.
[ November 25, 2009, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
quote:Originally posted by Moonlight Graham:
quote:Originally posted by Renman:
I want some feedback. I made this point earlier today but it was the last post on the previous page and I am not sure how many saw it...
We currently have AUTOMATED LINEUPS set for us each week. Each week, on Tuesday morning, we see our team and a lineup has been put in place. It is not like we have an empty team that requires us manually enter the players at each position to fill a lineup.
We all (or at least 99% of us) begin tinkering with our lineups (as early as Tuesday morning at work), often changing it countless times throughout the week. Why can't this automated Tuesday morning lineup be the highest averaging lineup among players that are not on BYE or listed as OUT? This immediately gets the one thing that drives people nuts about quitters cleaned up.
What is the downside to this? I am no expert, but why wouldn't this work? [/QUOTE]Can anyone tell me why this can't work? I haven't seen why this can't work yet. [/QUOTE]1. If I know my lineup is set with certain starters that I placed there, I don't want software changing it.
2. If I am going on vacation Monday, I don't software changing my lineup on Tuesday. As it stands now, we can set our lineup for any future week in advance, thus changing to an automated system would be a step backwards.
3. Owners don't want to get beat by a computer. This is a contest of skill, if you automate it and potentially reward lazy/incompetent owners, what's the point of having a competition? We could all just buy numbered ping pong balls and have Greg pick the league champion from an airblown sphere.
[ November 25, 2009, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by Just Russ:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Just Russ:
I'd also argue that if it doesn't have a dynamic effect on reducing "quitters" then that is even worse! You can argue a fact, but you are wrong. Zaleski has already stated that in his contest of 25 years it works.
Likewise, I am in a 32-team dynasty league, and I am 100% certain it works there too. If you put money in front of someone, they will reach for it. [/QUOTE]I'd love to hear John say that it is 100% effective. If not, then it doesn't benefit everyone. [/QUOTE]You can read my early posts here on the numbers I posted for Week 11.
It certainly helps both lineups and FA pickups, but not 100%.
Nothing will ever be 100%, and I stated that in an earlier post.
IMO, an automated program would be worse than now. It can't choose the best player every time and what ever criteria set for that would never be the right criteria and people would bitch about the player(s) selected or not selected.
All of this said, I'll doubt you'll find anyone that has dealt with this issue longer than I have. Greg was right, it affects EVERY contest.
But at the end of the day, we're talking about less than 5 people IMO each year that TRULY make a 100% effort to abandon their teams. And I would put my money on even 2 or 3.
Like I said before, 90% of the time you think someone has quit, they haven't. They just had something come up unexpectantly.
The other thing that happens is people make honest mistakes. Most people lead insanely busy lives to keep up these days and they just make stupid mistakes.
I run lifetime leagues with college draft picks for next year. I review every lineup of any team under .500 every week starting week 3. By rule, no one can ever lose on purpose. Now because my owners know I do this and it's in the rules, I rarely see a bogus lineup, but I did see a few last week.
In this weekly review process, I see the mistakes people make all the time. I see the best owners leave in bye week players accidently. On average it's 8-12 teams out of 600 each week.
My problem here is that some of you are ratting out people that fall into this "8-12" category of honest mistakes or circumstances that arise that look like the end of the world to you.
And while KJ posts that 99% of these are guilty up front, I know from 25 years that only 10% are truly guilty of quitting when these things happen.
Getting back to high stakes, I have zero problem with how NFFC handles this. I'm in WCOFF and have zero problem with their rule also, other than they should add players "out" for the week to that rule.
Adding a TOW prize isn't going to make this go away. A TOW prize should only be added if they think it will make every aspect of the game better. And that's up for Greg to decide. I'm really against a TOW prize for some weeks and not all.
[ November 25, 2009, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: FantasyFactor ]
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Just Russ:
I'd also argue that if it doesn't have a dynamic effect on reducing "quitters" then that is even worse! You can argue a fact, but you are wrong. Zaleski has already stated that in his contest of 25 years it works.
Likewise, I am in a 32-team dynasty league, and I am 100% certain it works there too. If you put money in front of someone, they will reach for it. [/QUOTE]I'd love to hear John say that it is 100% effective. If not, then it doesn't benefit everyone. [/QUOTE]You can read my early posts here on the numbers I posted for Week 11.
It certainly helps both lineups and FA pickups, but not 100%.
Nothing will ever be 100%, and I stated that in an earlier post.
IMO, an automated program would be worse than now. It can't choose the best player every time and what ever criteria set for that would never be the right criteria and people would bitch about the player(s) selected or not selected.
All of this said, I'll doubt you'll find anyone that has dealt with this issue longer than I have. Greg was right, it affects EVERY contest.
But at the end of the day, we're talking about less than 5 people IMO each year that TRULY make a 100% effort to abandon their teams. And I would put my money on even 2 or 3.
Like I said before, 90% of the time you think someone has quit, they haven't. They just had something come up unexpectantly.
The other thing that happens is people make honest mistakes. Most people lead insanely busy lives to keep up these days and they just make stupid mistakes.
I run lifetime leagues with college draft picks for next year. I review every lineup of any team under .500 every week starting week 3. By rule, no one can ever lose on purpose. Now because my owners know I do this and it's in the rules, I rarely see a bogus lineup, but I did see a few last week.
In this weekly review process, I see the mistakes people make all the time. I see the best owners leave in bye week players accidently. On average it's 8-12 teams out of 600 each week.
My problem here is that some of you are ratting out people that fall into this "8-12" category of honest mistakes or circumstances that arise that look like the end of the world to you.
And while KJ posts that 99% of these are guilty up front, I know from 25 years that only 10% are truly guilty of quitting when these things happen.
Getting back to high stakes, I have zero problem with how NFFC handles this. I'm in WCOFF and have zero problem with their rule also, other than they should add players "out" for the week to that rule.
Adding a TOW prize isn't going to make this go away. A TOW prize should only be added if they think it will make every aspect of the game better. And that's up for Greg to decide. I'm really against a TOW prize for some weeks and not all.
[ November 25, 2009, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: FantasyFactor ]
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
-
Gordon Gekko II
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:00 pm
Quitters ruin this contest....
Originally posted by Moonlight Graham:
quote:Originally posted by Moonlight Graham:
quote:Originally posted by Renman:
I want some feedback. I made this point earlier today but it was the last post on the previous page and I am not sure how many saw it...
We currently have AUTOMATED LINEUPS set for us each week. Each week, on Tuesday morning, we see our team and a lineup has been put in place. It is not like we have an empty team that requires us manually enter the players at each position to fill a lineup.
We all (or at least 99% of us) begin tinkering with our lineups (as early as Tuesday morning at work), often changing it countless times throughout the week. Why can't this automated Tuesday morning lineup be the highest averaging lineup among players that are not on BYE or listed as OUT? This immediately gets the one thing that drives people nuts about quitters cleaned up.
What is the downside to this? I am no expert, but why wouldn't this work? [/QUOTE]Can anyone tell me why this can't work? I haven't seen why this can't work yet. [/QUOTE]OUT is never listed on Tuesday mornings. Reman must mean IR.
as soon as someone loses because they "thought" they had k.boss in the lineup (because the owner started him last week, but the NFFC automatically replaced him with c.cooley, s_it will hit the fan.
the NFFC will be in the bullseye.
quote:Originally posted by Moonlight Graham:
quote:Originally posted by Renman:
I want some feedback. I made this point earlier today but it was the last post on the previous page and I am not sure how many saw it...
We currently have AUTOMATED LINEUPS set for us each week. Each week, on Tuesday morning, we see our team and a lineup has been put in place. It is not like we have an empty team that requires us manually enter the players at each position to fill a lineup.
We all (or at least 99% of us) begin tinkering with our lineups (as early as Tuesday morning at work), often changing it countless times throughout the week. Why can't this automated Tuesday morning lineup be the highest averaging lineup among players that are not on BYE or listed as OUT? This immediately gets the one thing that drives people nuts about quitters cleaned up.
What is the downside to this? I am no expert, but why wouldn't this work? [/QUOTE]Can anyone tell me why this can't work? I haven't seen why this can't work yet. [/QUOTE]OUT is never listed on Tuesday mornings. Reman must mean IR.
as soon as someone loses because they "thought" they had k.boss in the lineup (because the owner started him last week, but the NFFC automatically replaced him with c.cooley, s_it will hit the fan.
the NFFC will be in the bullseye.
-
Moonlight Graham
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:00 pm
Quitters ruin this contest....
KJ Duke,
Thanks for actually providing some answers.
#'s 1 and 2 seem like fair points though I think almost no one sets their lineup and ignores it for more than a week. Also, if they knew this adjustment would be put in place to curb abandoned team problem, I think everyone will adjust their lineup how they see fit. Keep in mind we already get an automated lineup when the computer gives us the lineup from the previous week.
#3 doesn't make a ton of sense to me because the owners would not be getting beat by a computer. They would be getting beat by the team they are playing and by players that are on that roster and logically should have been in the lineup. The only reason they were not in the lineup was because the owner bailed on the league (which is unfair to the other 12 owners).
Thanks for the feedback on the question.
Gekko,
Thanks for the feedback. Unless I am understanding it wrong wouldn't Boss be replaced only if he himself were on a bye or designated as out/IR? Wouldn't we all know the rules and understand that each week players on bye or out/IR would not be in starting lineups?
[ November 25, 2009, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Moonlight Graham ]
Thanks for actually providing some answers.
#'s 1 and 2 seem like fair points though I think almost no one sets their lineup and ignores it for more than a week. Also, if they knew this adjustment would be put in place to curb abandoned team problem, I think everyone will adjust their lineup how they see fit. Keep in mind we already get an automated lineup when the computer gives us the lineup from the previous week.
#3 doesn't make a ton of sense to me because the owners would not be getting beat by a computer. They would be getting beat by the team they are playing and by players that are on that roster and logically should have been in the lineup. The only reason they were not in the lineup was because the owner bailed on the league (which is unfair to the other 12 owners).
Thanks for the feedback on the question.
Gekko,
Thanks for the feedback. Unless I am understanding it wrong wouldn't Boss be replaced only if he himself were on a bye or designated as out/IR? Wouldn't we all know the rules and understand that each week players on bye or out/IR would not be in starting lineups?
[ November 25, 2009, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Moonlight Graham ]