How does your league handle backup players? (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

There's no issue. Once Eli played he was locked in as the backup. Good, bad, whatever, he was locked. There's no advantage here.

Locked in as Brees' backup. The advantage is you know what Eli scored so you have illegitimate advantage in determining Brees vs. Dalton. The starter is not locked!So if I know Brees is a scratch, and I know Eli scored 50... am I starting Dalton?

I'd like such info for all my sit/start decisions.

Yes, because why wouldn't you? You'd take a donut? Tell me what advantage you get here?

Whether you know Eli's score in advance or not, you're still choosing between Brees and Dalton. What about when Eli has a 1:00 game and Dalton and Brees both play at 4:15? How is this any different?

What donut? I get 50 if I start Brees. One of us is obviously completely misreading the rule.

And you get 50 if you start Dalton. Again, Eli has no impact on the decision between Brees and Dalton. You're still going to start the one you think will score the most points between them, in this case to see if either can surpass the 50 Eli has already posted. If Eli got 4, you're STILL going to start the one you think will score the most points between Brees and Dalton.

No. If the owner starts Dalton and he plays, the owner gets whatever Dalton gets him. The backup points come into play only if the starter is out. Once Brees was ruled out, the owner could take Eli's points (by leaving Brees as starter) OR take his chances with Dalton. As JB said...if Eli puts up a huge game, his owner could exploit the loophole to get those points.

Seems simple enough. Eli is locked in as backup. Sure if you have 3 QBs you might get lucky enough to be in this position.

The only three good options imo are

1. Remove the rule

2. Lock in the starter if the backup is also locked

3. Let it go

I'd go 1 or 3

 

[TakiToki]

OP is not discussing having to make a ruling this week. He's talking about the obvious opportunity for angle-shooting that isn't in the spirit of the game.

There is no angle with backup players! wow, this concept is not that difficult. The player must be OUT for a backup player to be used. This is not "I want the better of the two"

1. If Eli scores 50, you only get that IF you start brees AND he is OUT. If Eli gets 15 you only get that IF you start Brees AND he is OUT.

2. If Eli scores 50, and you start Brees and he breaks his head on first play and throws a pick 6, you get -1 for Brees!

You have 3 QBs: Brees, Eli and Dalton.

Eli plays on Thursday, and you have named him the back-up QB this week. Scenario 1 he scores 50. Scenario 2 he scores 5.

If Brees is listed as an inactive Sunday before your line-up is due, what do you do in each scenario deciding between Brees and Dalton as a starter?

 

[Hankmoody]

Note to self: do not institute a backup provision in the league you commish.

We use ours as a tie-breaker, works nicely on MFL because it's an automatable TB option.

 

[MIMN]

The 3 options above are good. I would try to remove the rule. Nothing to stop you from slotting in a boom/bust in the backup and carry/pick up a hurt player in case of a boom.

If they don't want to remove then exploit until they do.

 

[pinequick]

OP is not discussing having to make a ruling this week. He's talking about the obvious opportunity for angle-shooting that isn't in the spirit of the game.

There is no angle with backup players! wow, this concept is not that difficult. The player must be OUT for a backup player to be used. This is not "I want the better of the two"1. If Eli scores 50, you only get that IF you start brees AND he is OUT. If Eli gets 15 you only get that IF you start Brees AND he is OUT.

2. If Eli scores 50, and you start Brees and he breaks his head on first play and throws a pick 6, you get -1 for Brees!

You have 3 QBs: Brees, Eli and Dalton.Eli plays on Thursday, and you have named him the back-up QB this week. Scenario 1 he scores 50. Scenario 2 he scores 5.

If Brees is listed as an inactive Sunday before your line-up is due, what do you do in each scenario deciding between Brees and Dalton as a starter?

Good grief. You guys make this out like somebody could actually PLAN to do this. This is purely coincidental and provides no consistent benefit to any one owner... ever. Trust me, I have played in a league with backups for 17 years. It doesn't happen. If by accident this eventuality happens for me this week, but happens for you next week, and for 3rd owner the week after that, this isn't an "unfair advantage."

To call this "unfair" is just fantasy whining after the fact.

 

[TakiToki]

It's very easy to manufacture. You always keep a hurt WR and list a Thursday WR as a back-up. Thursday guy blows up, you start the hurt guy. Thursday guy sucks, you start someone else.

 

[pinequick]

It's very easy to manufacture. You always keep a hurt WR and list a Thursday WR as a back-up. Thursday guy blows up, you start the hurt guy. Thursday guy sucks, you start someone else.

Again, dopey analogy. Who's on your waiver wire that you're going to pick up for THIS Thursday's game to serve as your backup? Who are you going to cut in order to pick him up (keeping in mind that you've already got to keep that IR'd wideout on your roster as your "starter")? You could try this for 17 weeks, and it would not pay off once. Seriously. Only if you've got benches that have 20+ players on them and unlimited transactions would this even be feasible... and if you've got benches THAT deep, what are the chances that the WRs playing on Thursday are even available? Once, maybe twice a season?

I can imagine a world in which the sky is pink and it rains lemon drops. But it doesn't exist in the real world.

My point is that this is coincidental--not "unfair." Stupid to whine about.

 

[MIMN]

It's very easy to manufacture. You always keep a hurt WR and list a Thursday WR as a back-up. Thursday guy blows up, you start the hurt guy. Thursday guy sucks, you start someone else.

Again, dopey analogy. Who's on your waiver wire that you're going to pick up for THIS Thursday's game to serve as your backup? Who are you going to cut in order to pick him up (keeping in mind that you've already got to keep that IR'd wideout on your roster as your "starter")? You could try this for 17 weeks, and it would not pay off once. Seriously. Only if you've got benches that have 20+ players on them and unlimited transactions would this even be feasible... and if you've got benches THAT deep, what are the chances that the WRs playing on Thursday are even available? Once, maybe twice a season?

I can imagine a world in which the sky is pink and it rains lemon drops. But it doesn't exist in the real world.

Pretty fair point to question the feasibility of doing this. Of course if you add in noon games and save an IR spot then you might get it to pay off a once or twice a year, maybe.

To the OP, if the benefit of using a backup outweighs the risk of someone taking advantage then keep the rule. It would help with the 50-50 Monday night players that we all lose sleep over. Also, keep in mind most of us play this for fun. Commissioners often also have a "spirit of the rule" clause to let them deal with loopholes/a**holes.

I changed my mind and would likely let it go.

 

[pinequick]

It's very easy to manufacture. You always keep a hurt WR and list a Thursday WR as a back-up. Thursday guy blows up, you start the hurt guy. Thursday guy sucks, you start someone else.

Again, dopey analogy. Who's on your waiver wire that you're going to pick up for THIS Thursday's game to serve as your backup? Who are you going to cut in order to pick him up (keeping in mind that you've already got to keep that IR'd wideout on your roster as your "starter")? You could try this for 17 weeks, and it would not pay off once. Seriously. Only if you've got benches that have 20+ players on them and unlimited transactions would this even be feasible... and if you've got benches THAT deep, what are the chances that the WRs playing on Thursday are even available? Once, maybe twice a season?

I can imagine a world in which the sky is pink and it rains lemon drops. But it doesn't exist in the real world.

Pretty fair point to question the feasibility of doing this. Of course if you add in noon games and save an IR spot then you might get it to pay off a once or twice a year, maybe.

To the OP, if the benefit of using a backup outweighs the risk of someone taking advantage then keep the rule. It would help with the 50-50 Monday night players that we all lose sleep over. Also, keep in mind most of us play this for fun. Commissioners often also have a "spirit of the rule" clause to let them deal with loopholes/a**holes.

I changed my mind and would likely let it go.

Agreed, but again--you've got to keep that IR'd guy *active* as your starter so that you can make this work... so you've got to have a ton of extra roster spots (which thins the pool of viable players to even take a chance on) AND unlimited transactions. And, to make this more than academic, you would have to guess right. And guess right a bunch, to make this "unfair." Frankly, if you're that good at fantasy football to be able to do all that and make this rule work for you, more power to you--you earned it.

I echo the same message to the OP--this week was one of those fantasy football coincidences. If the same owner or two were somehow jobbing the system a bunch of times, then I would consider changing the rule. But I think you'll find that isn't going to happen.

 

[humpback]

It's very easy to manufacture. You always keep a hurt WR and list a Thursday WR as a back-up. Thursday guy blows up, you start the hurt guy. Thursday guy sucks, you start someone else.

Again, dopey analogy. Who's on your waiver wire that you're going to pick up for THIS Thursday's game to serve as your backup? Who are you going to cut in order to pick him up (keeping in mind that you've already got to keep that IR'd wideout on your roster as your "starter")? You could try this for 17 weeks, and it would not pay off once. Seriously. Only if you've got benches that have 20+ players on them and unlimited transactions would this even be feasible... and if you've got benches THAT deep, what are the chances that the WRs playing on Thursday are even available? Once, maybe twice a season?

I can imagine a world in which the sky is pink and it rains lemon drops. But it doesn't exist in the real world.

My point is that this is coincidental--not "unfair." Stupid to whine about.

It doesn't have to be someone on the WW, it could be someone already on your roster. You don't think someone who owns Dez could pull this off a few times pretty easily?

 

[Arodin]

Doesn't have to be from Thursday either. Most weeks I have someone on my team playing at 4, or on Sun/Mon night.

Whichever skill position I am weakest at, I am likely carrying multiple reserves at for streaming purposes. Easy enough to find a 1PM reserve to list each week as "backup." Then, whichever week one of them has his 150/2 game, it becomes worthwhile to clear a roster spot for that inactive guy and load up 27 automatic fantasy points.

I could see myself attempting this most weeks with guys I have on my roster already...even using it as a WDIS tiebreaker. Only has to hit once to give me an edge on a close playoff chase, and doesn't require me to carry a dead player all season long. For the week it works though...how many of you wouldn't trade someone off your bench for 20+ points on a given week?

 

[jerry jones]

I hate the Thursday games for what they have done with roster decisions, but this is pretty simple.

Backup players in fantasy football emulate the NFL. It's not like the Saints said, "Oh, well Brees is out--guess we play with 10 on offense this week!" I think that's one of the sillier features of fantasy football--playing with an empty roster spot because a guy is hurt. That's not how it works in the NFL; quality depth matters.

Except in the NFL the teams sub in a less talented back up player, not a starter from another team.

It's a dumb rule in my opinion....promotes laziness from owners

 

[Skoo]

Is it 1996? Craziest concept I've heard of in years of doing this. Pay attention on Sunday and set your lineup. That's how this game works. Doesn't everyone walk around with a pocket device these days?

Inactives come out over an hour before games start. Anyone can get on their phone for a minute and check their lineup. It's part of the game and always has been.

Back-up rule seems like it would cause a lot more problems than it solved.

 

[matttyl]

The backup rule is the issue. You might as well do best ball and avoid the potential headache. A backup I'm assuming isn't considered a roster position so you can interchange as you please unless they've played already.

It's not a "starting" roster position. Eli is still one of the 31 roster spots on the team's roster.

The rule says that the backup can be used in place of the starter if the starter is deemed "out" due to injury - which Brees later was. The issue is that Brees could have been swapped out for Dalton in this case - with the knowledge of how many Eli has already scored, right up until their games on Sunday.

Back to my point though what is the difference between Eli being on Thursday or Sunday morning? What about at RB/WR though? Couldn't Lamar Miller be the backup and play a noon game and the team decide to put someone else in from Monday night instead then when Lamar Miller has a suck game and Lynch is ruled out?

You're banking on Lynch being ruled out. That could backfire like it did last week with Chris Ivory, who was "active" (not out), but didn't get a single carry.

 

[matttyl]

With TNF this seems to me to be a potential issue every week. If a someone deems a player as a backup that plays on TNF and they have a good game, then an owner could just not fill the roster spot if their starter is ruled out on Sunday.

Does your league have a rule stating that the spot must be filled? If so then doesnt that take care of it? If not then it seems this issue could come up anytime the deemed backup plays on TNF.

My leagues don't use backup rules and I'm not in favor of it b/c of situations like this where it seems to create more problems than it solves. Just my personal preference though.

Its more than TNF that this causes an issue with as there is 5 different start times normally and 6 different start times this week. Any time you have multiple players at a later time you could over rule your backup plan by just subbing someone new in.

Good point.

How was this not thought of when this rule was put in place?

We didn't have nearly as many Thursday games (if any 10+ years ago when we started the league), and 9:30 EST London games didn't exist. Also it seemed that news about players availability was more readily available.

I mean this week alone we still don't know if Drew Brees, McCoy, Murray, Foster, Lynch, Ellington, J Stew, Ivory, Britt, Decker, T Benjamin, Cooks, Jeffery, Watkins, Freeman, Adams, Cruz, and a whole slew of IDP players are going to play on Sunday or Monday....and quite a few alternatives are going to play in a few hours this evening. We won't know the status of those other players for another few days most likely.

 

[matttyl]

Sounds like the rules work fine and there will be a time or two where this issue will come up. There is nothing you can do about it because the coach should not be forced to make Dalton his backup simply because Eli plays on Thursday.

I guess what is the point of backups in general though? If you know a guy is not going to start why not just bench him to begin with? This same case could be made if Eli played at 12pm on Sunday and Dalton/Brees had games at 3PM or later....

This is what I was curious about as well. Is the purpose of the rule simply to protect an owner against a zero in the case of a very late scratch? Otherwise, yeah, I don't see why its not on the individual owner to remove a player deemed "out" from his starting lineup.

But you don't know if a guy is going to be out or not still game time in a lot of cases. I listed out like 20 players above.

 

[matttyl]

The catch is that this team also had Andy Dalton on his roster, and the system allowed for him to have simply swapped Brees (the starter) out and put Dalton in his place right up until game time Sunday.

You are making an issue where none exists. The guy didn't rely on the "backup rule" he switched out Brees as his starter for Dalton BEFORE each had played (or not played). I guess he also had the option to leave Brees in and go with Eli per the "backup rule" if he wanted to, but chose not to.

I don't see any issue here at all. Think about it.

No, he went with Eli. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. He asked the commish to swap out Brees for Eli if Brees was deemed out, but didn't request that until Friday (after knowing how many Eli had already scored). He had listed Eli as the backup prior to the Thursday kickoff. The issue would have come up if Eli had a bad game - as in that case he would have simply swapped Brees for Dalton.

 

[matttyl]

There's no issue. Once Eli played he was locked in as the backup. Good, bad, whatever, he was locked. There's no advantage here.

Correct, but no starter has been locked in. He could have rolled with Brees (if he played), Dalton (in any scenario), or potentially Eli already knowing what he had scored (assuming Brees was later ruled out, which he was).

 

[matttyl]

The back up option on mfl is a joke. This is the first time I have actually seen a league that uses it. If you can't check on your players before kickoffs on Sunday maybe you should just be in a best ball league...

But now you have to check on your players before the Thursday game, before the 9:30 AM EST Sunday game, before the 1 PM Sunday games, before the 4 PM Sunday games, before the Sunday night game, and then before the Monday night game (which week 1 there could be two of). That's asking a bit much for folks who have kids and jobs and such.

 

[humpback]

There's no issue. Once Eli played he was locked in as the backup. Good, bad, whatever, he was locked. There's no advantage here.

Correct, but no starter has been locked in. He could have rolled with Brees (if he played), Dalton (in any scenario), or potentially Eli already knowing what he had scored (assuming Brees was later ruled out, which he was).

It's already been mentioned, but it sounds like you know the answer- you have to lock in both the starter and the back-up prior to kick-off in order to avoid this loophole.

 

[matttyl]

We don't do backups, never will.

But if we did, I'd say that "locking in" your backup guy should also lock in your starter at the same time, i.e. before both of their games start. So if Eli is designated as the backup to Brees, then as soon as the Giants game starts then Brees is locked in with Eli as the backup.

We would do this if it were automatic, but it isn't.

Another potential issue with our league specifically is that we have a WR/RB/TE flex. If a backup player at any of those positions goes on Thursday, would all of your starting RBs, WRs, TE, and flex be locked as well? That would potentially discourage you from having a backup go on Thursday.

 

[matttyl]

There's no issue. Once Eli played he was locked in as the backup. Good, bad, whatever, he was locked. There's no advantage here.

Locked in as Brees' backup. The advantage is you know what Eli scored so you have illegitimate advantage in determining Brees vs. Dalton. The starter is not locked!

So if I know Brees is a scratch, and I know Eli scored 50... am I starting Dalton?

I'd like such info for all my sit/start decisions.

Yes, because why wouldn't you? You'd take a donut? Tell me what advantage you get here?

Whether you know Eli's score in advance or not, you're still choosing between Brees and Dalton. What about when Eli has a 1:00 game and Dalton and Brees both play at 4:15? How is this any different?

Again, because if Brees is out (which he was), you're not choosing between Brees and Dalton at that point. You're choosing between Dalton and 50. I'd take 50.

 

[matttyl]

Shark move would have been to pick up Thad Lewis and start him.

Aside from something blatantly ridiculous like that, I don't think that it's that big of a deal, in the end.

I think that the weird thing is that MFL doesn't have an automatic mechanism for the backup player, and it requires manual intervention anyway to alter it. So you might want to put in a rule about the use of backup players (based on what you want it to be) and that backup players who played prior to the player who ended up being out cannot be used.

The intent of the rule is to keep people from getting totally ####ed if they can't be at their computers from 11-1 on Sunday. Last year was the first year I've ever played with that rule and I don't actually recall anyone enactin it.

I'm pretty sure that every guy in our league would like to be glued to the couch (and the laptop) all day, every Sunday. Families, jobs, life doesn't always allow for that.

Exactly. It's only a 10 team league, but we have two ER doctors, 1 military guy (was deployed all of last year), and I think 7 guys with kids.

 

[bonscott]

Just a note that MFL really has nothing to do with this. As noted in a previous post MFL simply allows a spot to submit "backup players" with your lineup. What you as a league do with it is up to you but nothing is automatically enforced in terms of backups. What you can do is make it your rule that once a backup player plays then you can't switch out the starter, simple. You'd have to keep track of it manually but then you are doing that anyway with this backup stuff. So just enforce your league rule and if someone violates that then you put the lineup back the way it was, fine the team and again remind everyone what the rule is and they'll keep being fined if they violate it.

The "loophole" is there because you have this backup rule which personally I don't like. Why not just use "team QB" then and you'll get points if your guy is out. Players being out is just part of the game. Yea, there are a lot of guys going into this weekend that are questionable but guess what, I take that into account when setting my lineups if I'm not going to be around, it's just a part of the game. So I need to make the gamble if Lynch will play Monday night or not and perhaps start someone else instead. Getting a gimmie with a backup player....wouldn't want that at all.

Having said all that, if a league wants it more power to them and I get that it it may be needed. Just know it's not very common and there isn't anything automatic to enforce what you want to have done on any site that I'm aware of (locking in a starter before they even play). Personally I'd be looking for other options like Team positions or best ball where you won't have these types of issues. Best ball would probably be the best option, you still have to draft a good team but it takes the starting lineup aspect out of the equation for the ER doctors and deployed members of the league. Best ball is still fun, I've played in several of them in the past.

Good luck!

 

[matttyl]

In this instance, I don't see the issue. Apparently according to the league in question's rules, a team is free to make roster moves all the way up until a player's game starts. If the owner wants Eli's production, he hopes/prays Brees doesn't take a snap. If he wants to roll the dice with Dalton instead, he can do that. It's not really an advantage, unless he knows what Dalton will do... which he doesn't. Not sure what the problem is?

Would you play in a money pick'em qb game where you start 1 of 3 QBs per week, your opponent gets to know ahead of time one of his QB scores, and you don't get to know any of your QB scores ahead of time, and he gets to choose (highest of A/B) or C, and you choose D or E of F? Of course not. It's a rigged game.

It is an advantage. Not a weekly thing but there's a huge loophole here.

This is a dopey analogy. You're presuming that you readily have on your roster

1) a QB who is always injured AND

2) an option to start a QB on Thursday night (or an early game) to "see how he'll do" AND

3) a late-start QB to throw in if the first guy disappoints.

Exactly how many QBs would you need to have rostered to play a strategy of actually taking advantage of this "rigged game"?? This is an anomaly, the advantage of which would cycle during a season. Sounds like fantasy whining to me...

I'll use my own team as an example this week, and yes I am the OP with the original question.

RB - Ivory plays at 9:30 AM eastern Sunday. I list him as my backup. I say he's my flex backup to Sammy Watkins who plays at 1 PM. If Ivory has a dud, I can still swap Sammy out (no matter if he plays or not) for any other RB,WR, or TE playing at 1PM Sunday or later already knowing that my backup had a dud. If Ivory has a big game in London, keep Watkins as my starter and ask that he be switched out for Ivory's big score.

LB - Levy is currently questionable and doesn't play till Monday. Preston Brown plays at 1 PM Sunday. If he has a huge game, I roll with him as my backup and "hope" Levy is ruled our prior . If Brown has a poor game, I swap out Levy and put in Stephone Anthony. I could still be burned, though, if Levy has a huge game Monday.

DB - Eric Berry and A Rolle both play at 1 PM Sunday. List either as a backup. Morgan Burnett doesn't play till 4 PM and is currently questionable - list him as starter. If the listed backup has a bad game, swap Burnett for A Bethea.

 

[matttyl]

There's no issue. Once Eli played he was locked in as the backup. Good, bad, whatever, he was locked. There's no advantage here.

Locked in as Brees' backup. The advantage is you know what Eli scored so you have illegitimate advantage in determining Brees vs. Dalton. The starter is not locked!

So if I know Brees is a scratch, and I know Eli scored 50... am I starting Dalton?

I'd like such info for all my sit/start decisions.

Yes, because why wouldn't you? You'd take a donut? Tell me what advantage you get here?

Whether you know Eli's score in advance or not, you're still choosing between Brees and Dalton. What about when Eli has a 1:00 game and Dalton and Brees both play at 4:15? How is this any different?

What donut? I get 50 if I start Brees. One of us is obviously completely misreading the rule.

And you get 50 if you start Dalton. Again, Eli has no impact on the decision between Brees and Dalton. You're still going to start the one you think will score the most points between them, in this case to see if either can surpass the 50 Eli has already posted. If Eli got 4, you're STILL going to start the one you think will score the most points between Brees and Dalton.

No you don't. You get whatever Dalton scored.

 

[matttyl]

The catch is that this team also had Andy Dalton on his roster, and the system allowed for him to have simply swapped Brees (the starter) out and put Dalton in his place right up until game time Sunday.

You are making an issue where none exists. The guy didn't rely on the "backup rule" he switched out Brees as his starter for Dalton BEFORE each had played (or not played). I guess he also had the option to leave Brees in and go with Eli per the "backup rule" if he wanted to, but chose not to.

I don't see any issue here at all. Think about it.

THIS above is the answer... some are forgetting clear rules... once a player on your roster has begun a game he is IN your lineup.... whether that is as a starter or a backup player....therefore, as already stated, once eli game started if he was NOT taken out of lineup, OR not removed from message board (depending on how you use backup, most have to specify so board is used).....he IS the backup player IF and only IF Drew Brees is the starter in his lineup once Drew Brees game began. This really isnt that difficult

That's the issue. That game didn't happen for 3 more days (Thursday to Sunday) in which time Brees could still be removed from the starting lineup and Dalton inserted.

 

[matttyl]

OP is not discussing having to make a ruling this week. He's talking about the obvious opportunity for angle-shooting that isn't in the spirit of the game.

There is no angle with backup players! wow, this concept is not that difficult. The player must be OUT for a backup player to be used. This is not "I want the better of the two"

1. If Eli scores 50, you only get that IF you start brees AND he is OUT. If Eli gets 15 you only get that IF you start Brees AND he is OUT.

2. If Eli scores 50, and you start Brees and he breaks his head on first play and throws a pick 6, you get -1 for Brees!

And if Eli scored -1 for himself, and Brees is out....you can still swap out Brees for Dalton. That's the issue.

 

[matttyl]

It's very easy to manufacture. You always keep a hurt WR and list a Thursday WR as a back-up. Thursday guy blows up, you start the hurt guy. Thursday guy sucks, you start someone else.

Again, dopey analogy. Who's on your waiver wire that you're going to pick up for THIS Thursday's game to serve as your backup?

Vick, D Will, DHB, Taliaferro, Pittsburgh's kicker, and more defensive players than I want to list. They are there.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

In this instance, I don't see the issue. Apparently according to the league in question's rules, a team is free to make roster moves all the way up until a player's game starts. If the owner wants Eli's production, he hopes/prays Brees doesn't take a snap. If he wants to roll the dice with Dalton instead, he can do that. It's not really an advantage, unless he knows what Dalton will do... which he doesn't. Not sure what the problem is?

Would you play in a money pick'em qb game where you start 1 of 3 QBs per week, your opponent gets to know ahead of time one of his QB scores, and you don't get to know any of your QB scores ahead of time, and he gets to choose (highest of A/B) or C, and you choose D or E or F? Of course not. It's a rigged game. The information is an advantage. Not a big week to week thing for sure, but it's real.

This isn't going to come up all that often. It's only in a rare case where the "backup" has already played, the "starter" sits out with injury and the team has a third option. Even in this exact scenario it really wasn't any big advantage (although, yes it could have been in your extreme example) - Manning had a pretty decent game. There was no guarantee Dalton would have a better week.

 

[matttyl]

Is it 1996? Craziest concept I've heard of in years of doing this. Pay attention on Sunday and set your lineup. That's how this game works. Doesn't everyone walk around with a pocket device these days?

Inactives come out over an hour before games start. Anyone can get on their phone for a minute and check their lineup. It's part of the game and always has been.

Back-up rule seems like it would cause a lot more problems than it solved.

Yes, and hour before the game on Sunday afternoon or evening or even Monday. Their replacement may have played days before.

 

[Art_VanDalay]

Longtime Commish who has had the backups in our league on MFL for the whole time. We have run into this issue since the new every Thursday game which is part of the issue. We have it set to actually lock your player in as either a backup or starter once their game starts. MFL works well for this BUT had a new guy try to pull something just this past week that was addressed already in our rules to prevent this situation. Guy basically had Sanders, WR as backup who blew up last week. Sunday he says hey can I start Jordy Nelson at WR, thus getting Sanders points as a result after the fact? I said no because our rule is backups are a privilege and only for those last minute scratches. If you start a guy in our league that is not locked but KNOWN well in advance to be OUT that week, (i.e. IR, Suspension, ruled out, etc.) then you don't get benefit of backup and get a 0.0.

While this works for us, I have to say we have talked about simply eliminating the backup courtesy entirely next season given the enormous amount of info available now which was not the case 5-10 years ago. Hope that helps.

 

[pinequick]

In this instance, I don't see the issue. Apparently according to the league in question's rules, a team is free to make roster moves all the way up until a player's game starts. If the owner wants Eli's production, he hopes/prays Brees doesn't take a snap. If he wants to roll the dice with Dalton instead, he can do that. It's not really an advantage, unless he knows what Dalton will do... which he doesn't. Not sure what the problem is?

Would you play in a money pick'em qb game where you start 1 of 3 QBs per week, your opponent gets to know ahead of time one of his QB scores, and you don't get to know any of your QB scores ahead of time, and he gets to choose (highest of A/B) or C, and you choose D or E of F? Of course not. It's a rigged game.

It is an advantage. Not a weekly thing but there's a huge loophole here.

This is a dopey analogy. You're presuming that you readily have on your roster

1) a QB who is always injured AND

2) an option to start a QB on Thursday night (or an early game) to "see how he'll do" AND

3) a late-start QB to throw in if the first guy disappoints.

Exactly how many QBs would you need to have rostered to play a strategy of actually taking advantage of this "rigged game"?? This is an anomaly, the advantage of which would cycle during a season. Sounds like fantasy whining to me...

I'll use my own team as an example this week, and yes I am the OP with the original question.

RB - Ivory plays at 9:30 AM eastern Sunday. I list him as my backup. I say he's my flex backup to Sammy Watkins who plays at 1 PM. If Ivory has a dud, I can still swap Sammy out (no matter if he plays or not) for any other RB,WR, or TE playing at 1PM Sunday or later already knowing that my backup had a dud. If Ivory has a big game in London, keep Watkins as my starter and ask that he be switched out for Ivory's big score.

LB - Levy is currently questionable and doesn't play till Monday. Preston Brown plays at 1 PM Sunday. If he has a huge game, I roll with him as my backup and "hope" Levy is ruled our prior . If Brown has a poor game, I swap out Levy and put in Stephone Anthony. I could still be burned, though, if Levy has a huge game Monday.

DB - Eric Berry and A Rolle both play at 1 PM Sunday. List either as a backup. Morgan Burnett doesn't play till 4 PM and is currently questionable - list him as starter. If the listed backup has a bad game, swap Burnett for A Bethea.

Right--weren't you concerned about another owner "exploiting" this rule last week? This week it now plays in your favor. That's my point--this is a function of your rule that cycles advantage. Somebody trying to play it "strategically" from week-to-week is just betting like anybody else. There is no consistent "advantage" here.

For this to be "unfair," the same owner would have to be hoarding injured players as "starters" from week-to-week, with replacements for sure playing early and late games. Oh, and that owner would have to be guessing right. I have yet to see that in 17 years.

Is it theoretically POSSIBLE to game this rule? Sure. Likewise, time travel is theoretically POSSIBLE.

 

[Shawn]

The back up option on mfl is a joke. This is the first time I have actually seen a league that uses it. If you can't check on your players before kickoffs on Sunday maybe you should just be in a best ball league...

But now you have to check on your players before the Thursday game, before the 9:30 AM EST Sunday game, before the 1 PM Sunday games, before the 4 PM Sunday games, before the Sunday night game, and then before the Monday night game (which week 1 there could be two of). That's asking a bit much for folks who have kids and jobs and such.

Don't play in serious leagues if you don't have time for them. Back ups just create problems like this.

 

[Hankmoody]

No you don't. You get whatever Dalton scored.

Again, because if Brees is out (which he was), you're not choosing between Brees and Dalton at that point. You're choosing between Dalton and 50. I'd take 50.

Correct, but no starter has been locked in. He could have rolled with Brees (if he played), Dalton (in any scenario), or potentially Eli already knowing what he had scored (assuming Brees was later ruled out, which he was).

You might wanna get current in the thread before you go all over the place, I misunderstood the original post and revised my stance.

 

[renesauz]

Situation came up in our league last week, kinda an exploit of our current rule structure.

We use MFL, which has lot of options which we love. One is backup players. Rules states that you list your backup players, and if your starter is "out", you can plug that backup in the starters place. Seems easy enough.

Here's what happened: This past week, team A had Eli Manning as his QB backup, and Brees listed as the starter. Eli played on Thursday and had a pretty good game. Brees was later deemed out for his Sunday game. The catch is that this team also had Andy Dalton on his roster, and the system allowed for him to have simply swapped Brees (the starter) out and put Dalton in his place right up until game time Sunday. The issue is that the team is making that call with the knowledge of what Eli has already scored.

So lets say Eli blew up on Thursday for like 400 yards. Nothing in the rules prevents owner from requesting he be used instead of Brees (once Brees was deemed out). Alternatively, if Eli had a duck, nothing in the system prevents the team from swapping Brees with Dalton with the thought that Dalton would do better than Eli's duck (which he did).

Any thoughts?

I would suggest that if a STATED backup has already player, the player he's backing up should also be locked. No change should be allowed. He always had the Dalton option.

I like backup rules and wish more leagues used them, but you guys obviously need to clarify your rules. IN the absence of clarity, you might have to let it go this time...but I'd change/clarify that rule ASAP. And it's an easy clarification. If the stated backup is locked, the stated starter is locked.

 

[renesauz]

Situation came up in our league last week, kinda an exploit of our current rule structure.

We use MFL, which has lot of options which we love. One is backup players. Rules states that you list your backup players, and if your starter is "out", you can plug that backup in the starters place. Seems easy enough.

Here's what happened: This past week, team A had Eli Manning as his QB backup, and Brees listed as the starter. Eli played on Thursday and had a pretty good game. Brees was later deemed out for his Sunday game. The catch is that this team also had Andy Dalton on his roster, and the system allowed for him to have simply swapped Brees (the starter) out and put Dalton in his place right up until game time Sunday. The issue is that the team is making that call with the knowledge of what Eli has already scored.

So lets say Eli blew up on Thursday for like 400 yards. Nothing in the rules prevents owner from requesting he be used instead of Brees (once Brees was deemed out). Alternatively, if Eli had a duck, nothing in the system prevents the team from swapping Brees with Dalton with the thought that Dalton would do better than Eli's duck (which he did).

Any thoughts?

Slightly modify the rule to negate the situation. "Backups for a roster position must be declared before both the starter's game and the backup's game begins. Once either player's game of each starter/backup pair begins, further roster changes are not allowed for that roster position."

Basically, just as a roster spot "locks" once the player's game begins, lock the backup too.

Under this rule, he'd have to declare Eli as Brees' backup before the Thurs game starts. And, he can only swap Brees for Eli, and Dalton can't go anywhere. This also covers Sunday backups, or Monday night players, or whatever.

I mean, surely this has come up before with one guy playing an early game on Sunday and other guy on Monday Night Football, right?

Same thing I said. It's really not that darn hard people.

And backups are a great rule more leagues should utilize....provided they are done properly.

 

[belljr]

So if Daulton put up a turd no one would have said a thing?