This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
There will be a champ. Whoever has the QB that plays better this week. They obviously decided they were both okay with that.. it's their prerogative. Like I said before.. don't like it? Beat them. The rest is just a bunch of bitter whining and being far too emotionally invested in football dungeons and dragons
To be honest, I might care more if the teams in the championship did something like this. This is especially true if both QBs were playing at the same time. I'd probably be watching and doing some heckling.
I don't care how dungeouns and dragons it is. I know 12 people in my league invested their time and money to this hobby.
Ignoring the stupidity that you believe you have "my mindset" pegged, I will agree that I think it's pretty silly. I personally wouldn't do it and if someone proposed it to me I'd probably laugh them out of the room. But if the two guys that won the championship wanted to do it, they've earned the right. And like the guy above me said, it'd actually be quite interesting to watch, especially if there was some action on it.
Exactly.
If they're that contrarian that they have to prove a point about the basic tenets of competition and such for LOLZ, I wouldn't let them back either. There's a weird "eff you" element to this. I think inherited wisdom and sportsmanship trump logic in this case, because it leads one to wonder not only about their past dealings, but their future ones. "Yeah, we sat everybody but the quarterback and chopped the pot." Great, now please leave the league that I commish.
When I said "mindset" it wasn't mean to be an insult. You clearly have no problem with this scenario and thus that is what I take as your mindset for this situation.
Gotcha, all good.
I totally agree that we only have one side of the story. I'm taking that as sort of a given, which it clearly may not be. It had crossed my mind, and is a good point. There are reasons why this might happen.
Definitely agree with you there. Seems like it's not a good cultural fit for those two guys, regardless of which "side" you're on.
If that's in the league rules, then fine. I find in most leagues you have to submit a full lineup.
Think of the horror in the league archives when people look back at the Quarterback Conspiracy of 2014! They will think back how two guys came in crushed everyone in the league and then made a mockery of the championship!
Matt Ryan vs Tony Romo.
Yes, this is what they wanted.
I didn't even know it was possible to sit your entire lineup in ESPN settings. That is a glitch in the system. I clearly stated in the rules and reminded them when they signed up and during the season that they must start your entire lineup each week. They disobeyed the league rules after agreeing to them. I do this to avoid drama. Don't see the point in writing league rules when apparently it doesn't mean much.
That's where I am at with this. How long has the league been around and how long have these 2 been in it? If this is just an isolated case, big deal, chop your pot, no champion or highest scoring QB wins. I just wouldn't play in a league like that. Chopping, I'm ok with. The rest I'm not because it could get real ugly next year in the above scenario.
Yep. This is the part that bugs me. The finalists are being difficult (and breaking the rules) just to be difficult. They could easily accomplish whatever rational goals they are trying to achieve by complying with the rules but they're giving the rest of the league (including the Commish) the finger.SMH at those in this thread who say its the rest of the league that has the problem rather than point to the two owners intentionally going against not only the league rules but also the spirit of competition just to be difficult.
I pretty much disagree with all of this.TLEF316 said:Some REALLY strange responses in here....
I don't take fantasy football seriously at all, but something like this would bug me. It wouldn't bug me to the extent that I'd throw a fit about it, but I'd probably find a different league next year if these guys were in it again.
- I think chopping the pot is weird, but I think that's mostly because I don't see FF as some sort of money-making enterprise. I'd be totally ok with 2 guys doing it, but its not something I'd do. I'd rather just let the game play out. If I lose, I lose.
- I don't think what they're doing is at all funny (I guess they're just a couple of immature trolls who do things for "the lulz." Maybe they'll grow out of it some day).
- I do think what they're doing is really disrespectful to the other guys in the league. They earned their way to the finals and assuming the rules don't say otherwise, they're allowed to do what they want. But I do think its against the spirit of competition and kind of a "screw you" to the other guys in the league. FF is supposed to be friendly competition. Trolling 10 other guys just because your magic football players happened to do better than their magic football players is pretty silly.
How old are these guys? What do they do for a living? Are the members of the league friends or is it just a bunch of randoms.
He (as commish) is just trying to ensure the league rules are enforced. Two owners are intentionally trying to bypass the rules just to be difficult. I fail to see how the commish is the doosh here.
Of course, it just seems to me as though if the pot was split it would diminish whoever wound up scoring more since the big prize money wasn't at stake. I feel like if the pot was split that's all anyone would remember, they'd remember co-champions.Mr Anonymous said:
You can split the pot and still play for bragging rights, trophy, right to be called winner, etc.
ETA: Also you can do a partial or a pro-rated chop.
Is it in the league rules that incomplete lineups are invalid and result in a forfeit?tigerz said:
how is it colluding when the rest of the league is eliminated? who are they colluding against?
Collusion occurs when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position. Only one team is going to benefit from splitting the pot, the runner up.
Two teams working together for the betterment of one.
so they colluded to make each other's team better and they are both in the super bowl.
At the point in which the deal was struck the winner was unknown. It's a simple risk-adverse decision. It's not collusion. By your logic hedging a parlay bet at the last game is collusion with the casino because you're guaranteed to give up part of your money if you win.
