What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

How do you feel about incomplete lineups (1 Viewer)

E

eBrian

Footballguy
Personally, I can't stand it but as commish I'm not sure how to enforce it without giving myself a whole bunch of added work.

In my league, in the semi-finals, a team was up by 1 point and had Mark Ingram playing on Monday night. He opted to bench Ingram in fear of a negative score (we have -3 for fumbles) that could cost him a berth in the Championship. To me, after 15 years of fantasy football, this is a complete and utter travesty. I hate it.

I'm trying to think of a way to enforce this next season but there will always be loopholes -- like putting in an injured player instead, a bye week player, or a suspended player. Sometimes someone might have had a game-time decision player who ended up not playing. How would I differentiate between this scenario and the scenario where someone intentionally benched a player to secure a win? Etc.

I'd like to hear some opinions and thoughts on this. Thanks guys.

 
As long as you have a rule that detracts points for turnovers and no rule that bans incomplete lineups, you're stuck. Do away with the negative points would be my best advice.

 
One rule for all cant worry about intention.

Either large negative or my favorite if you are doing it where you give the team missing a player a loss but his team can still give his opponent a loss as well.

Hard to say the other option is putting the highest rated ESPN weekly ranked player in the lineup but this could give the AFK owner a win... So a downside.

 
whiskey7 said:
Do away with the negative points would be my best advice.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Every year there are threads about league problems, where the basic issue is that an owner is incentivized to do something contrary to the spirit of the game (e.g. submit an incomplete lineup, tank for a better playoff seed, whatever). The proper solution isn't to try to legislate against it, because that rarely works. Just remove the incentive.

 
If an owner does this to tank a game or out of sheer incompetence then it would be an issue but as long as teams are doing it for legit reasons (not wanting a negative when having a lead, or not wanting to drop players in leagues with short benches) then why does it bother you so much?

And if it does bother you that much I guess you should put forward a rule proposal to deal with it. The league I commish has no such rule and its not one that I would support.

 
I agree with VaTerp. If a guy has built a strong enough team and picked good enough players to start that week that he can win staying on solid ice close to shore and without risk, why create rules that artificially push him out onto thin ice and a potential loss. So that you can watch him squirm or maybe beat him with a worse effort from your 8 than he got from the 7 he chose to play? He still have to put the high score out there and any fair way to do that seems like a well coached win to me.

 
VaTerp said:
If an owner does this to tank a game or out of sheer incompetence then it would be an issue but as long as teams are doing it for legit reasons (not wanting a negative when having a lead, or not wanting to drop players in leagues with short benches) then why does it bother you so much?

And if it does bother you that much I guess you should put forward a rule proposal to deal with it. The league I commish has no such rule and its not one that I would support.
Click to expand...
OP said he's not looking to make additional work for himself and I suspect getting involved in determining intent would be considered "work" he doesn't want. And I don't blame him. I have been commissioner for a long time and its often a thankless job whereby you only hear from people who are #####ing.

Two ways for OP to go as I see it. Make a rule that outlaws incomplete lineups or do away with negative points. I prefer the latter. Any sort of conditional interpretation of intent (ie one team submitted incomplete lineup out of incompetence but another team did it as a legit tactic) is not the commissioner's job and just begs for trouble, IMO.

 
You're right.. that's why I've started this thread. To find out if people have ways to prevent it and see if those ways could work in my league.

I've actually already implemented a penalty. We have weekly pots (highest score wins money) -- you can't win the pot if you field an incomplete lineup. But this guy wasn't going to be highest scorer.

I like the suggestion of an automatic loss while still having the ability to make the other team lose. Works for regular season at least. Not sure how to handle for playoffs. Another one I could is automatic +X points for the other team. But I don't really want to add/remove points.

 
I have a bunch of negative scorings, particularly for defense where you can go low as -10 if you have really bad defense. I've done it this way to make sure people aren't just doing grabbing any random defense and actually being smart about who they pick up and use. It should be a conscientious decision on who you are putting in there. The big negative score on fumbles (lost) were put there because in reality, when you fumble the ball you're costing your team and I wanted that to be reflected in the fantasy score.

Anyway, I think the debate for incomplete/complete is subjective.

The way I'm thinking now is that it's an automatic loss if you intentionally bench a player to preserve a win. That will be the new rule next year. Playing any player is a risk every week. I don't care if you started a bye week player or injured player, to me you have already made the risk of doing so. In fact if this guy had left his RB2 spot open since Sunday morning, I would have been fine with it. It's the act of removing the risk of losing that annoys me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
eBrian said:
I have a bunch of negative scorings, particularly for defense where you can go low as -10 if you have really bad defense. I've done it this way to make sure people aren't just doing grabbing any random defense and actually being smart about who they pick up and use. It should be a conscientious decision on who you are putting in there. The big negative score on fumbles (lost) were put there because in reality, when you fumble the ball you're costing your team and I wanted that to be reflected in the fantasy score.

Anyway, I think the debate for incomplete/complete is subjective.

The way I'm thinking now is that it's an automatic loss if you intentionally bench a player to preserve a win. That will be the new rule next year. Playing any player is a risk every week. I don't care if you started a bye week player or injured player, to me you have already made the risk of doing so. In fact if this guy had left his RB2 spot open since Sunday morning, I would have been fine with it. It's the act of removing the risk of losing that annoys me.
Click to expand...
It sounds like this is working exactly as you intend and I don't understand the issue. This owner is doing the same thing as a real NFL team taking a knee to run out the clock rather than run a play. Or calling running plays rather than passes to keep the clock running. Your rules are what leads to these actions. If you like the rules then keep them.

 
Do not attempt to manage someone else's team. If they want to take zero from a position so be it, if it is a valid strategy for them to have the best chance for them to win their game. The only time I would get ticked was if incomplete lineups were due to apathy, in which case first time it happened would be a warning and next time would be expulsion from the league.

 
Assuming people are doing it to try and preserve a win (as opposing to tanking), I don't see why people get in such a fuss over this. What is with the obsession over a "complete" lineup? Probably the same people that make sure to draft one player at every starting position before considering any player that wouldn't be a week 1 starter.

 
eBrian said:
The big negative score on fumbles (lost) were put there because in reality, when you fumble the ball you're costing your team and I wanted that to be reflected in the fantasy score.
Click to expand...
In reality, when you fumble your team doesn't lose points. You just (temporarily) lose the opportunity to accumulate more points. That's exactly what happens in fantasy football, too - if Mark Ingram fumbles, he has lost the opportunity (temporarily) to continue to accumulate fantasy points. If you're trying to get fantasy football to reflect real football, I don't see why you'd introduce negative scoring, since that doesn't exist in the real game in any way.

I don't care if you started a bye week player or injured player, to me you have already made the risk of doing so. In fact if this guy had left his RB2 spot open since Sunday morning, I would have been fine with it. It's the act of removing the risk of losing that annoys me.
Click to expand...
This is totally irrational, and reading your thoughts on the issue I'm honestly concerned that you're not really cut out to be a commissioner.

If you don't want people to submit incomplete lineups, remove the incentive that exists for them to submit incomplete lineups, don't compound the problem by inventing even more convoluted rules. Fantasy football is a game of strategy and you're trying to invent ways to punish teams for playing strategically. What purpose does that serve?

 
eBrian said:
Personally, I can't stand it but as commish I'm not sure how to enforce it without giving myself a whole bunch of added work.

In my league, in the semi-finals, a team was up by 1 point and had Mark Ingram playing on Monday night. He opted to bench Ingram in fear of a negative score (we have -3 for fumbles) that could cost him a berth in the Championship. To me, after 15 years of fantasy football, this is a complete and utter travesty. I hate it.

I'm trying to think of a way to enforce this next season but there will always be loopholes -- like putting in an injured player instead, a bye week player, or a suspended player. Sometimes someone might have had a game-time decision player who ended up not playing. How would I differentiate between this scenario and the scenario where someone intentionally benched a player to secure a win? Etc.

I'd like to hear some opinions and thoughts on this. Thanks guys.
Click to expand...
It is a smart play, I don't see the problem.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Assuming people are doing it to try and preserve a win (as opposing to tanking), I don't see why people get in such a fuss over this. What is with the obsession over a "complete" lineup? Probably the same people that make sure to draft one player at every starting position before considering any player that wouldn't be a week 1 starter.
Click to expand...
Years ago while running a league I hated incomplete lineups because I would keep extensive league records. For instance, I would document all the points we scored from our wide receivers. If somebody had an "Inc" somewhere it would affect the numbers.

That was just anal retentive stuff though. It doesn't bother me anymore and I am still a commissioner.

In 2009, though, a guy kept Chris Gamble in his starting lineup when Carolina had a bye. He lost by 3 points. 69 DBs on the wire would have given this guy a win. The team he lost to by 3 points ended up making the playoffs by one game. Fights during the week of the incident and bigger fights when the playoffs started. That league was folded shortly thereafter.

 
OP just really doesn't want this guy to beat him so the OP can go to the finals.

It's none of your business whether he starts guys or not. That's not your job as commissioner.

 
I had our league vote in a rule that you have to field a full line-up or you forfeit the match up. My reasoning was that kickers could get you a negative score, people would go a bye week without picking up a kicker and take the 0, thought process was this could affect the outcome if they picked up a kicker that missed a fg. League agreed and passed this.

 
I knew this would end up sparking a debate! :shrug:

I like that your league put it to a vote and passed it as just something you shouldn't do. Most owners agree. Overall that's really I want.. I prefer to just not have a penalty and say let's just not do that.

Thanks for all the input, as always.

 
Give 10 points for every player (or defense) that gets onto the field. That eliminates virtually any risk of negative points for a player while managing for inactives and bye weeks. Add in that a player to get the 10 points has to attempt a pass, have a carry, or have a target, and you should eliminate people starting scrubs as well. The new risk you have is a receiver that doesn't get the ball thrown to them, or a RB that is active, but never gets on the field because they are a "decoy" (Demarco Murray this coming week?). It will also be a pain to monitor.

 
as long as everyone in the league is actively managing their team and trying to win, i don't know why i should care about incomplete lineups. If you have an opportunity to ensure the win by fielding an incomplete lineup why wouldn't you? As someone said above, in real football it is perfectly legitimate to decline any attempt to score so as to clinch victory. Let people try to win as they see fit.

 
eBrian said:
Personally, I can't stand it but as commish I'm not sure how to enforce it without giving myself a whole bunch of added work.

In my league, in the semi-finals, a team was up by 1 point and had Mark Ingram playing on Monday night. He opted to bench Ingram in fear of a negative score (we have -3 for fumbles) that could cost him a berth in the Championship. To me, after 15 years of fantasy football, this is a complete and utter travesty. I hate it.

I'm trying to think of a way to enforce this next season but there will always be loopholes -- like putting in an injured player instead, a bye week player, or a suspended player. Sometimes someone might have had a game-time decision player who ended up not playing. How would I differentiate between this scenario and the scenario where someone intentionally benched a player to secure a win? Etc.

I'd like to hear some opinions and thoughts on this. Thanks guys.
Click to expand...
Sportsline has a rule: illegal lineups score 0 points. So you have to field a full team at every position. I'm sure most leagues have that option and it prevents your scenario without having to do any commissioner work.

 
TDorBust said:
By the way I would laugh if the Ingram owner losses on stat correction hahaha
Click to expand...
thats what I was thinking HAHA that would be funny and I guarantee he never does that again... I mean please come on he was scared ingram was gonna blow his lead, I mean even if he fumbled he will get more then 30 yards

 
In the OP's scenario, this should be perfectly legal. The owner in question was actively involved, knew the rules, and opted to bench a player on a Monday night to ensure a win. I wish I played with 100% of owners who were this attentive.

This is a separate issue than owners that start an incomplete lineup due to laziness/lack of attention. Pulling Ingram on Monday night is very different than starting bye week players going into the first NFL game of the week. It's not fair to other owners if Joe never looks at his team and leaves Ellington in his RB slot even though he's on IR. It's also not fair to other owners if Joe is given a 0 (guaranteeing his opponent a win) for doing this. Maybe I played Joe in Week 4 and he beat me, but then went on a cold streak and gave up after Week 10. So I'm punished but other owners that play him after Week 10 are given easy wins? No thank you. In my opinion, Joe would be kicked out of the league the first week he knowingly started a bum lineup, and all of Joe's opponents after that would have to play the avg. score of the remaining teams each week.

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
eBrian said:
The big negative score on fumbles (lost) were put there because in reality, when you fumble the ball you're costing your team and I wanted that to be reflected in the fantasy score.
Click to expand...
In reality, when you fumble your team doesn't lose points. You just (temporarily) lose the opportunity to accumulate more points. That's exactly what happens in fantasy football, too - if Mark Ingram fumbles, he has lost the opportunity (temporarily) to continue to accumulate fantasy points. If you're trying to get fantasy football to reflect real football, I don't see why you'd introduce negative scoring, since that doesn't exist in the real game in any way.

I don't care if you started a bye week player or injured player, to me you have already made the risk of doing so. In fact if this guy had left his RB2 spot open since Sunday morning, I would have been fine with it. It's the act of removing the risk of losing that annoys me.
Click to expand...
This is totally irrational, and reading your thoughts on the issue I'm honestly concerned that you're not really cut out to be a commissioner.

If you don't want people to submit incomplete lineups, remove the incentive that exists for them to submit incomplete lineups, don't compound the problem by inventing even more convoluted rules. Fantasy football is a game of strategy and you're trying to invent ways to punish teams for playing strategically. What purpose does that serve?
Click to expand...
In reality you don't get points for running the ball 10 yards either.

 
I'm in a league where an owner missed playoffs and dumped his non-keepers for potential keepers that could emerge. Pissed me off because he dropped his kicker, defense, some stud IDPs etc since he didn't want to keep them but were made available for teams still in the playoffs.

 
slackjawedyokel said:
I'm in a league where an owner missed playoffs and dumped his non-keepers for potential keepers that could emerge. Pissed me off because he dropped his kicker, defense, some stud IDPs etc since he didn't want to keep them but were made available for teams still in the playoffs.
Click to expand...
I would like to know the specifics.Number of keepers?

When is the date to announce keepers?

I like announcing keepers shortly after the season. If not, then you open up the possibility where an also-ran cuts a guy like Andre Johnson for a guy like Shaq Evans. "Johnson is old and I sucked with him, so. Evans might do something in mini-camp."

 
I'm not reading all the comments here because the solution seems so simple, but why not just have a rule that every team must submit a full complete lineup. No IR players. No bye week players. No incomplete lineups. No mess. No hassle. Easy. Make the penalty harsh (loss of 1st round pick, expulsion from league etc... and you'll never have a problem).

 
Its kinda interesting what can be insinuated and/or worded differently among FF fans..

If I were to say "Hey, I believe this guy is trying to hedge bets that he gets a loss this week..." We would see quite a bit of static along the lines of Rule 1: No Collusion 2) No Dumping

Basically this guy has no benefit (or very little benefit) in playing every player on his roster. Id say hes showing responsibility for the two most important (only?) Rules.

Its possible that some may need to consider scoring that is present in some Leagues.. ie. Id rather risk a corrected score (loss) than play my Team Defense/ Kicker which can turn into a large negative number quickly.

p.s. Some managers allow for certain aspects of matchups for future games (if not during the Draft) ie. You manage your team, I Will manage mine (Its all about the Chamionship!)

 
If owners manage their teams to maximize their chances of winning, I think you should leave them alone.

 
eBrian said:
Personally, I can't stand it but as commish I'm not sure how to enforce it without giving myself a whole bunch of added work.

In my league, in the semi-finals, a team was up by 1 point and had Mark Ingram playing on Monday night. He opted to bench Ingram in fear of a negative score (we have -3 for fumbles) that could cost him a berth in the Championship. To me, after 15 years of fantasy football, this is a complete and utter travesty. I hate it.

I'm trying to think of a way to enforce this next season but there will always be loopholes -- like putting in an injured player instead, a bye week player, or a suspended player. Sometimes someone might have had a game-time decision player who ended up not playing. How would I differentiate between this scenario and the scenario where someone intentionally benched a player to secure a win? Etc.

I'd like to hear some opinions and thoughts on this. Thanks guys.
Click to expand...
so what uhhhhhh, whats the problem here??

 
I can't believe that making a lineup move to secure a playoff win is frowned upon. Jesus.

If that guy was forced to play someone and lost because of it, he should have to right to hit you in the crotch with a crowbar.

 
I'd like to know what the OP thinks the owner should do if Ingram was GTD or declared inactive before the game. Would that be an illegal lineup? Would he have to drop Ingram for the Saints fullback (assuming PT and Khyrie are rostered).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spin
Down 14 with under 5 minutes and you score, do you go for 2?
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
Brunell4MVP
B
ChiefD
Your Homer Team, Who Have They Played, How Do You Feel?
Replies
45
Views
1K
jon_mx
J
Crash and Walk Away
How do you think playoff ties should be resolved?
2 3
Replies
121
Views
2K
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top