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.

"Sub Rule" for Players on Injury Report (1 Viewer)

satch

satch

Footballguy
The league I'm in has been using this rule for a couple years, and it's worked out well, but only been needed a few times.

Many of us simply can't be sitting in front of a tv and/or on our phones all day every Thursday, Sunday, and Monday. We have families, jobs, etc. things more important than ff. We got fed up with being tricked by coaches playing games with the injury report, and last minute announcements.

Coach lists RBX as questionable, says he should play, we start RBX, he doesn't play. We get screwed.

Or, 2 minutes before kickoff, while we're outside playing with our kids, player X is unexpectedly ruled out. We get a zero for player X. Sucks.

So we implemented a simple system where each owner posts a message before kickoff(s) stating if player X is out, player Y subs in. Problem solved.

For example, you have Julio starting but he's questionable. You have Calvin on your bench. You've got plans and won't be able to monitor Julio's status all day. Simply post a message stating if Julio is out Calvin gets the start. Commish makes the change if/when necessary. Doesn't matter what time the games are. So each week most owners post a message with subs listed, and we don't have to worry about taking a zero for player X. I haven't seen any downside, and it eliminates a major frustration.

It's more realistic as well. I mean, if an NFL team's WR is ruled out last minute, another WR simply steps into his position. The team isn't forced to play without that position.

Also want to add that it's up to owners to manage their subs appropriately. You can come up with all kinds of unlikely scenarios that could be problematic, but we've yet to have a problem. If there were to be a problem, a good commish would sinply have to make a ruling.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The overwhelming majority of people will probably disagree with you, but I agree with it and wish leagues allowed it.

It's simple. if player X is inactive then player Y is in.

I imagine the software could make this work if sites wanted to do it.

And like you, the reason is not being able to be at a computer right before games much of the time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can see this being good for leagues that have owners spread out over a number of timezones.

 
brun said:
I can see this being good for leagues that have owners spread out over a number of timezones.
Click to expand...
Or people who work night shift.

Or people who work weekends.

Or people who work at any point while a game is starting.

Or people who have kids.

Or one of 1000 other reasons you can't get to a computer right before a game.

Not sure why owners in different timezones is any more relevant than the 1000s of other reasons.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
The overwhelming majority of people will probably disagree with you, but I agree with it and wish leagues allowed it.

It's simple. if player X is inactive then player Y is in.

I imagine the software could make this work if sites wanted to do it.

And like you, the reason is not being able to be at a computer right before games much of the time.
Click to expand...
Software/apps could easily do this. A simple drop down menu listing sub options. Slot player X as the starter, then click the drop down menu for sub options.
 
I mentioned this in the other threads as well- the easy solution to avoid that scenario is that those players are locked in at kickoff of either team.

 
Walking Boot said:
The downside you don't see has been mentioned in other threads:

Say you have 3 QBs
Click to expand...
I myself had this exact situation in week 14. Michael Floyd was listed as my sole backup, and he played Thursday that week - getting 22 points. In hindsight I should have started him rather than having him listed as a backup. I had set my lineup earlier in the week (actually maybe a week prior to see what my playoff lineup would look like), and Ingram was listed as a starter. On Wednesday, Ingram was placed on the NFL IR. I never changed my lineup. Commish wouldn't allow for that swap as "Ingram was known to be out prior to Floyd's game." I was still able, though, to swap out Ingram for Lacy - who ended up scoring more than Floyd did that week. Had another player been ruled out after Thursday, though, he would have allowed a switch (he said), till Stevie Johnson was ruled out on Friday or Saturday and the commish said "but you wouldn't have started him anyway."

Whatever you do with a "sub rule", you have to make the rules extremely clear. Especially when it comes to subbing in players who've already played.

 
Walking Boot said:
The downside you don't see has been mentioned in other threads:

Say you have 3 QBs (maybe so many because 1 is questionable, naturally). Andrew Luck is your #1, but he's dealing with an injury. On Wednesday, he's listed as questionable for the Sunday morning game. You post your message on Wednesday that if he can't go, you are backing him up with Blake Bortles, who plays on Thursday. You also have Eli Manning on your bench, who plays Monday night, but he's not the named backup.

Say on Thursday, Bortles explodes in garbage time and gets 45 points. Friday, it's officially announced Luck is Out. Normally if you know on Friday a player is out, you'd switch him for someone else, but you don't want to here because you know what Bortles has scored already.

Conversely, say Bortles sucks hard Thursday night and gets only 5 points... No TDs and 3 INTs. Friday Luck is declared out. So on Friday afternoon you bench him, and swap in Eli figuring he can outscore Bortles's 5.

Either way is going to cause someone to be upset in the league. There have been whining threads all season from both sides. Guys angry their opponents are leaving known Out players active to score gimme points, other guys angry that their rule forces them to keep the guy they think could score the most on the bench even though they have better info on their guys health before kickoff than they did when they set the lineup on Wednesday.

Believe me, there's plenty on here from both.
Click to expand...
When posting "subs", it's up to the owner to be very clear. If the owner leaves room for interpretation, he gets a zero at the position in question. In your scenario, the owner would simply have to prioritize his QB subs prior to Thursday kickoff.

 
ghostguy123 said:
I imagine the software could make this work if sites wanted to do it.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it's coming.

Having to be tied to my computer/phone Thursday night, Saturday Night, all day Thanksgiving, Sunday morning, afternoon, and evening to await news to make lineup decisions has made me miss a lot of real life opportunities. I'm growing tired of it and am reconsidering if the enjoyment I get from fantasy football is worth missing these opportunities. The two issues I see are (1) more work for the Commissioner and (2) the need for strict rules on conditional substitutions.

 
matttyl said:
Walking Boot said:
The downside you don't see has been mentioned in other threads:

Say you have 3 QBs
Click to expand...
I myself had this exact situation in week 14. Michael Floyd was listed as my sole backup, and he played Thursday that week - getting 22 points. In hindsight I should have started him rather than having him listed as a backup. I had set my lineup earlier in the week (actually maybe a week prior to see what my playoff lineup would look like), and Ingram was listed as a starter. On Wednesday, Ingram was placed on the NFL IR. I never changed my lineup. Commish wouldn't allow for that swap as "Ingram was known to be out prior to Floyd's game." I was still able, though, to swap out Ingram for Lacy - who ended up scoring more than Floyd did that week. Had another player been ruled out after Thursday, though, he would have allowed a switch (he said), till Stevie Johnson was ruled out on Friday or Saturday and the commish said "but you wouldn't have started him anyway."

Whatever you do with a "sub rule", you have to make the rules extremely clear. Especially when it comes to subbing in players who've already played.
Click to expand...
I think you would have to specify the starter/backup combination as a "set", which is locked as soon as either player's game kicks off. In the above situation, Floyd would lock in as a starter in Ingram's place, due to the IR. In the OP (Luck/Bortles), the Luck/Manning swap would not be allowed after the Thursday game kicked off, even if Bortles stunk it up.

I don't know if there would be a way to have a "floating" backup in this scenario (e.g., my top 3 WRs are all "questionable", and I want to specify a backup to cover any one of them that doesn't play).

 
This seems to be a problem with two logical end points. One end point being "set your lineup" (traditional Fantasy Football) and the other being "no lineups, we just use your highest scoring players" (like the FBG contest). What if we take it to the other extreme?

Your suggestion is part of the way there, to prevent against people who are game time decisions, but there are other frustrating scenarios as well. What if your stud WR plays but is a decoy? (it doesn't help out your other WR, like it might in real football) What if your stud gets injured on the 2nd play? (real teams can put in their backup mid-game). Why not just take lineup decisions out all together? I think some might feel like the lineup decisions are a fun or important part of the game and I'd respect that opinion, but I think it might be just as fun to turn fantasy football into a GM type role with the perfect coach, the draft, waiver, and bench makeup become the important focus points. it changes strategy up a little bit too. Your bench matters, someone like Woodhead this year could be a super valuable Boom/Bust bench player. Maybe rostering 2 defenses is an acceptable strategy?

I've contemplated approaching this with my league because it solves another problem (people who get disinterested and don't set their lineups late in the season).

 
I'd also like to point out that my league once had an IR that was based on injury reports that caused a bunch of drama because of the games some coaches play (avoiding putting players there to hide injuries or putting players with minor stuff on there). We ultimately did away with the IR and added 1 extra bench slot to compensate. I could see basing the sub off the IR report causing similar issues.

 
I've seen this mentioned a few times, IMO your league would need very clear, precise rules (i.e. Can only sub for inactive players day of game). I like the concept but if rules not clear this could lead to issues.

 
heckmanm said:
matttyl said:
Walking Boot said:
The downside you don't see has been mentioned in other threads:

Say you have 3 QBs
Click to expand...
I myself had this exact situation in week 14. Michael Floyd was listed as my sole backup, and he played Thursday that week - getting 22 points. In hindsight I should have started him rather than having him listed as a backup. I had set my lineup earlier in the week (actually maybe a week prior to see what my playoff lineup would look like), and Ingram was listed as a starter. On Wednesday, Ingram was placed on the NFL IR. I never changed my lineup. Commish wouldn't allow for that swap as "Ingram was known to be out prior to Floyd's game." I was still able, though, to swap out Ingram for Lacy - who ended up scoring more than Floyd did that week. Had another player been ruled out after Thursday, though, he would have allowed a switch (he said), till Stevie Johnson was ruled out on Friday or Saturday and the commish said "but you wouldn't have started him anyway."

Whatever you do with a "sub rule", you have to make the rules extremely clear. Especially when it comes to subbing in players who've already played.
Click to expand...
I think you would have to specify the starter/backup combination as a "set", which is locked as soon as either player's game kicks off. In the above situation, Floyd would lock in as a starter in Ingram's place, due to the IR. In the OP (Luck/Bortles), the Luck/Manning swap would not be allowed after the Thursday game kicked off, even if Bortles stunk it up.

I don't know if there would be a way to have a "floating" backup in this scenario (e.g., my top 3 WRs are all "questionable", and I want to specify a backup to cover any one of them that doesn't play).
Click to expand...
Commish didn't allow it as Ingram was placed on IR Wednesday, and Floyd went Thursday. Said I had ample time (which I did) to make the switch myself. We didn't have to specify who subs were for - but we likely will this coming year.

 
It works great except for the time you thought you won but the other team started an "OUT" player and the next day the commish makes the substitution and you lose.

 
spreagle said:
It works great except for the time you thought you won but the other team started an "OUT" player and the next day the commish makes the substitution and you lose.
Click to expand...
Subs are posted on league website before games, emailed to owners.
 
matttyl said:
Walking Boot said:
The downside you don't see has been mentioned in other threads:

Say you have 3 QBs
Click to expand...
I myself had this exact situation in week 14. Michael Floyd was listed as my sole backup, and he played Thursday that week - getting 22 points. In hindsight I should have started him rather than having him listed as a backup. I had set my lineup earlier in the week (actually maybe a week prior to see what my playoff lineup would look like), and Ingram was listed as a starter. On Wednesday, Ingram was placed on the NFL IR. I never changed my lineup. Commish wouldn't allow for that swap as "Ingram was known to be out prior to Floyd's game." I was still able, though, to swap out Ingram for Lacy - who ended up scoring more than Floyd did that week. Had another player been ruled out after Thursday, though, he would have allowed a switch (he said), till Stevie Johnson was ruled out on Friday or Saturday and the commish said "but you wouldn't have started him anyway."

Whatever you do with a "sub rule", you have to make the rules extremely clear. Especially when it comes to subbing in players who've already played.
Click to expand...
The idea is that a guy that's hurt not screw you, not get a best lineup scenario going.

"Floyd if Ingram is out."

Now Ingram is your starter and Floyd is his injury replacement. No other funny business. If Floyd goes for 4 you are screwed, no taking Ingram out and putting Lacy in to avoid it.

 
We have this rule in our league. If a player is listed as questionable on the official Injury report you may name a player as the backup. If the injured player does play even one play you get his points. If he does not play at all, the player you named is substituted in. If you would like to use a player on Sunday and you name a back up from Thursday night then you can do that but you must do so by the full hour before kickoff (game is at 8:30- lineup with sub info is due at 7:59).

 
I like it but I've always had an idea that was taking it a step further but an idea I'm sure that even if the software was not an issue would never gain traction.

And that idea is simply introducing a very tiny portion of draftsmasters/best ball to typical set your lineup leagues. By tiny I mean one spot in your lineup where the worst producer was replaced by the best producer on your bench.

This to me would accomplish the following:

1. Protect you from surprise inactive.

2. Protect you from early in-game injury, which I typically find to be biggest killer of weeks.

3. Take a little sting of those lineup calls where you start a turd or don't start a stud.

But I know I'm wasting my time mentioning this, will never happen but I'd sign up for this format all day if it ever did.

 
I wrote about this a couple of weeks back. Conditional lineups are my favorite rule in all of fantasy football. It's not about avoiding bad beats or anything, it's just about making fantasy fit better within everyone's busy lives. An example I use is Thanksgiving; I play with a couple Canadians, and Thanksgiving isn't a holiday there, so they have to work that Thursday. Why should they be at a competitive disadvantage just because they can't stay by the computer to see gameday inactives for the 1 PM game?

 
Adam Harstad said:
I wrote about this a couple of weeks back. Conditional lineups are my favorite rule in all of fantasy football. It's not about avoiding bad beats or anything, it's just about making fantasy fit better within everyone's busy lives. An example I use is Thanksgiving; I play with a couple Canadians, and Thanksgiving isn't a holiday there, so they have to work that Thursday. Why should they be at a competitive disadvantage just because they can't stay by the computer to see gameday inactives for the 1 PM game?
Click to expand...
I think sitting by your computer on gameday is a thing of the past. That shouldn't be an excuse for not making lineup changes. People practically can't live without a cell phone in their possession. Couple that with Twitter, Facebook and all the info provided via social media and the like its hard not to find out something. If you really want to find info it does not take more than a couple of clicks and the info is readily available.

Personally, I haven't used a personal computer for any fantasy football interaction in about 4-5 years. Everything is done on an iPhone.

 
Deuceman said:
Adam Harstad said:
I wrote about this a couple of weeks back. Conditional lineups are my favorite rule in all of fantasy football. It's not about avoiding bad beats or anything, it's just about making fantasy fit better within everyone's busy lives. An example I use is Thanksgiving; I play with a couple Canadians, and Thanksgiving isn't a holiday there, so they have to work that Thursday. Why should they be at a competitive disadvantage just because they can't stay by the computer to see gameday inactives for the 1 PM game?
Click to expand...
I think sitting by your computer on gameday is a thing of the past. That shouldn't be an excuse for not making lineup changes. People practically can't live without a cell phone in their possession. Couple that with Twitter, Facebook and all the info provided via social media and the like its hard not to find out something. If you really want to find info it does not take more than a couple of clicks and the info is readily available.

Personally, I haven't used a personal computer for any fantasy football interaction in about 4-5 years. Everything is done on an iPhone.
Click to expand...
So you have an iPhone but still no life?

It isn't the technology - some people have commitments/interests that prevent them from playing geek at 1:00 PM on Sunday.

Long standing league has a substitute rule. Adopted in another league; compromise was just a single position (one sub for the week). Even that was an improvement.

 
Deuceman said:
Adam Harstad said:
I wrote about this a couple of weeks back. Conditional lineups are my favorite rule in all of fantasy football. It's not about avoiding bad beats or anything, it's just about making fantasy fit better within everyone's busy lives. An example I use is Thanksgiving; I play with a couple Canadians, and Thanksgiving isn't a holiday there, so they have to work that Thursday. Why should they be at a competitive disadvantage just because they can't stay by the computer to see gameday inactives for the 1 PM game?
Click to expand...
I think sitting by your computer on gameday is a thing of the past. That shouldn't be an excuse for not making lineup changes. People practically can't live without a cell phone in their possession. Couple that with Twitter, Facebook and all the info provided via social media and the like its hard not to find out something. If you really want to find info it does not take more than a couple of clicks and the info is readily available.

Personally, I haven't used a personal computer for any fantasy football interaction in about 4-5 years. Everything is done on an iPhone.
Click to expand...
That might be the most dense post I've ever seen here.

 
Walking Boot said:
The downside you don't see has been mentioned in other threads:

Say you have 3 QBs (maybe so many because 1 is questionable, naturally). Andrew Luck is your #1, but he's dealing with an injury. On Wednesday, he's listed as questionable for the Sunday morning game. You post your message on Wednesday that if he can't go, you are backing him up with Blake Bortles, who plays on Thursday. You also have Eli Manning on your bench, who plays Monday night, but he's not the named backup.

Say on Thursday, Bortles explodes in garbage time and gets 45 points. Friday, it's officially announced Luck is Out. Normally if you know on Friday a player is out, you'd switch him for someone else, but you don't want to here because you know what Bortles has scored already.

Conversely, say Bortles sucks hard Thursday night and gets only 5 points... No TDs and 3 INTs. Friday Luck is declared out. So on Friday afternoon you bench him, and swap in Eli figuring he can outscore Bortles's 5.

Either way is going to cause someone to be upset in the league. There have been whining threads all season from both sides. Guys angry their opponents are leaving known Out players active to score gimme points, other guys angry that their rule forces them to keep the guy they think could score the most on the bench even though they have better info on their guys health before kickoff than they did when they set the lineup on Wednesday.

Believe me, there's plenty on here from both.
Click to expand...
Huh?

This isn't license to just play whoever you want.

If you say "luck if active, if not Bortles" you cant go back after the fact and change things.

If you dont want to make that distinction on a thursday then don't.

You are making this seem way too complicated than it really is

 
matttyl said:
Walking Boot said:
The downside you don't see has been mentioned in other threads:

Say you have 3 QBs
Click to expand...
I myself had this exact situation in week 14. Michael Floyd was listed as my sole backup, and he played Thursday that week - getting 22 points. In hindsight I should have started him rather than having him listed as a backup. I had set my lineup earlier in the week (actually maybe a week prior to see what my playoff lineup would look like), and Ingram was listed as a starter. On Wednesday, Ingram was placed on the NFL IR. I never changed my lineup. Commish wouldn't allow for that swap as "Ingram was known to be out prior to Floyd's game." I was still able, though, to swap out Ingram for Lacy - who ended up scoring more than Floyd did that week. Had another player been ruled out after Thursday, though, he would have allowed a switch (he said), till Stevie Johnson was ruled out on Friday or Saturday and the commish said "but you wouldn't have started him anyway."

Whatever you do with a "sub rule", you have to make the rules extremely clear. Especially when it comes to subbing in players who've already played.
Click to expand...
How much more clear is this:

"Luck if active, Bortles if not". It would not matter what day or when kickoff is.

If some reason Bortles gets hurt before the thursday game, seems pretty clear you would not be starting him, in which case the "Luck if active, Bortles if not" becomes void.

 
Walking Boot said:
It is clear, but read mattyl's post above yours, where it was also clear yet the commish refused to let him swap.

Say you clearly say: "Luck in at QB, he's questionable. Bortles as sub if he does not play" on Wednesday. Yet on Friday the software still allows for swapping Luck for Manning, which the owner could do after seeing how Bortles does on Thursday night. He can start a known OUT player after the Friday injury update or avoid a bad performance by the sub by changing the starter.
Click to expand...
Seems extremely clear that would not be allowed.

 
Rooster said:
This seems to be a problem with two logical end points. One end point being "set your lineup" (traditional Fantasy Football) and the other being "no lineups, we just use your highest scoring players" (like the FBG contest). What if we take it to the other extreme?

Your suggestion is part of the way there, to prevent against people who are game time decisions, but there are other frustrating scenarios as well. What if your stud WR plays but is a decoy? (it doesn't help out your other WR, like it might in real football) What if your stud gets injured on the 2nd play? (real teams can put in their backup mid-game). Why not just take lineup decisions out all together? I think some might feel like the lineup decisions are a fun or important part of the game and I'd respect that opinion, but I think it might be just as fun to turn fantasy football into a GM type role with the perfect coach, the draft, waiver, and bench makeup become the important focus points. it changes strategy up a little bit too. Your bench matters, someone like Woodhead this year could be a super valuable Boom/Bust bench player. Maybe rostering 2 defenses is an acceptable strategy?

I've contemplated approaching this with my league because it solves another problem (people who get disinterested and don't set their lineups late in the season).
Click to expand...
Active, or not active. Simple.

Guys, there is no need to make this so complex.

 
spreagle said:
It works great except for the time you thought you won but the other team started an "OUT" player and the next day the commish makes the substitution and you lose.
Click to expand...
You would know. It would either be clear on the message board or some other way.

It would have to be time stamped somewhere prior to a player in questions game, or right there on his lineup if the software allowed it.

Just realize that if you are playing someone and they have an INactive guy in their lineup, there will be a swap coming.

 
Deuceman said:
Adam Harstad said:
I wrote about this a couple of weeks back. Conditional lineups are my favorite rule in all of fantasy football. It's not about avoiding bad beats or anything, it's just about making fantasy fit better within everyone's busy lives. An example I use is Thanksgiving; I play with a couple Canadians, and Thanksgiving isn't a holiday there, so they have to work that Thursday. Why should they be at a competitive disadvantage just because they can't stay by the computer to see gameday inactives for the 1 PM game?
Click to expand...
I think sitting by your computer on gameday is a thing of the past. That shouldn't be an excuse for not making lineup changes. People practically can't live without a cell phone in their possession. Couple that with Twitter, Facebook and all the info provided via social media and the like its hard not to find out something. If you really want to find info it does not take more than a couple of clicks and the info is readily available.

Personally, I haven't used a personal computer for any fantasy football interaction in about 4-5 years. Everything is done on an iPhone.
Click to expand...
That doesnt change the fact that a huge number of people are still not able to take the time to do this on their phones, either.

 
Best Ball fixes all of this. Our league has used it for years now. None of the owners would go back to picking line-ups.

 
Deuceman said:
Adam Harstad said:
I wrote about this a couple of weeks back. Conditional lineups are my favorite rule in all of fantasy football. It's not about avoiding bad beats or anything, it's just about making fantasy fit better within everyone's busy lives. An example I use is Thanksgiving; I play with a couple Canadians, and Thanksgiving isn't a holiday there, so they have to work that Thursday. Why should they be at a competitive disadvantage just because they can't stay by the computer to see gameday inactives for the 1 PM game?
Click to expand...
I think sitting by your computer on gameday is a thing of the past. That shouldn't be an excuse for not making lineup changes. People practically can't live without a cell phone in their possession. Couple that with Twitter, Facebook and all the info provided via social media and the like its hard not to find out something. If you really want to find info it does not take more than a couple of clicks and the info is readily available.

Personally, I haven't used a personal computer for any fantasy football interaction in about 4-5 years. Everything is done on an iPhone.
Click to expand...
Not everyone's bosses are cool with them checking their fantasy lineups at work. Not everyone works in an area that gets cell reception. Sometimes people are driving when games kick off. Sometimes people go on vacation. When I wrote the article, I had a bunch of guys who contacted me on Twitter and said they lived in Australia or New Zealand and loved fantasy football; kickoff over there is somewhere around 3-5 AM. Should they just wake up in the middle of the night, check their lineup, and then go back to bed?

Again, to me, this is a no brainer. We can either contort our lives around an extremely inconvenient, at times, schedule... or we can make a tiny rule change that levels the playing field and actually makes fantasy football fit within our lives better. I play fantasy football because it's fun, it's recreation. I don't want my recreation to be dictating how I live my life. That's sort of the opposite of recreation.

I went on vacation with my family during Denver's bye week. I was in the middle of a 6-hour drive during kickoff Sunday. Dion Lewis, who was questionable but who had been questionable and played the week before, was declared inactive. In two of my leagues, I took a zero. In one of my leagues, I got his backup's score. The lesson I take away from this is not "don't go on vacation" or "spend less time with my family". It's that conditional lineups are my favorite rule of all time precisely *because* I can go on vacation with my family and it's NBD.

 
Jedi Knight said:
Best Ball fixes all of this. Our league has used it for years now. None of the owners would go back to picking line-ups.
Click to expand...
The most common criticism I get when I mention conditional lineups, (and for some reason it's a *really* controversial suggestion that gets people really, really angry, judging by my Twitter mentions when I bring it up), is that it's basically just best ball.

It's not best ball, though. It's not close. In one of my leagues without conditional lineups, the average "coach rating" (i.e. percentage of optimal points each team scored every week), was 80%. In my league with conditional lineups, it was 75%. (In best ball, by definition, it is 100%.) Conditional requests didn't move the league any closer to best ball- which makes sense, because conditional requests were only claimed twice all year, if I recall correctly.

Leagues with conditional lineups are still all about setting lineups, which is great because I happen to like that aspect of fantasy football. My goal is never to do away with it, it's just to open up the schedule and let me play fantasy football when it's convenient rather than tying me to a strict schedule that may or may not work for me.

I want to set lineups. I want to agonize over the decisions. I want the gut punch of losing a game because I blew a start/sit decision, or the thrill of getting one exactly right. I just want the ability to set my lineups whenever I choose, rather than having to do it at 12:45 EST every Sunday. Sometimes Sunday at 12:45 EST doesn't work for me.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Rooster said:
This seems to be a problem with two logical end points. One end point being "set your lineup" (traditional Fantasy Football) and the other being "no lineups, we just use your highest scoring players" (like the FBG contest). What if we take it to the other extreme?

Your suggestion is part of the way there, to prevent against people who are game time decisions, but there are other frustrating scenarios as well. What if your stud WR plays but is a decoy? (it doesn't help out your other WR, like it might in real football) What if your stud gets injured on the 2nd play? (real teams can put in their backup mid-game). Why not just take lineup decisions out all together? I think some might feel like the lineup decisions are a fun or important part of the game and I'd respect that opinion, but I think it might be just as fun to turn fantasy football into a GM type role with the perfect coach, the draft, waiver, and bench makeup become the important focus points. it changes strategy up a little bit too. Your bench matters, someone like Woodhead this year could be a super valuable Boom/Bust bench player. Maybe rostering 2 defenses is an acceptable strategy?

I've contemplated approaching this with my league because it solves another problem (people who get disinterested and don't set their lineups late in the season).
Click to expand...
Active, or not active. Simple.

Guys, there is no need to make this so complex.
Click to expand...
As I was reading the responses before you showed up, I was wondering what I wasn't understanding about this type of rule that was driving people so crazy.

 
Walking Boot said:
ghostguy123 said:
Walking Boot said:
The downside you don't see has been mentioned in other threads:

Say you have 3 QBs (maybe so many because 1 is questionable, naturally). Andrew Luck is your #1, but he's dealing with an injury. On Wednesday, he's listed as questionable for the Sunday morning game. You post your message on Wednesday that if he can't go, you are backing him up with Blake Bortles, who plays on Thursday. You also have Eli Manning on your bench, who plays Monday night, but he's not the named backup.

Say on Thursday, Bortles explodes in garbage time and gets 45 points. Friday, it's officially announced Luck is Out. Normally if you know on Friday a player is out, you'd switch him for someone else, but you don't want to here because you know what Bortles has scored already.

Conversely, say Bortles sucks hard Thursday night and gets only 5 points... No TDs and 3 INTs. Friday Luck is declared out. So on Friday afternoon you bench him, and swap in Eli figuring he can outscore Bortles's 5.

Either way is going to cause someone to be upset in the league. There have been whining threads all season from both sides. Guys angry their opponents are leaving known Out players active to score gimme points, other guys angry that their rule forces them to keep the guy they think could score the most on the bench even though they have better info on their guys health before kickoff than they did when they set the lineup on Wednesday.

Believe me, there's plenty on here from both.
Click to expand...
Huh?

This isn't license to just play whoever you want.

If you say "luck if active, if not Bortles" you cant go back after the fact and change things.

If you dont want to make that distinction on a thursday then don't.

You are making this seem way too complicated than it really is
Click to expand...
You must be new here. Welcome aboard! I hope you find the Shart Pool a valuable resource in the future as you learn more about the hobby of Fantasy Football. There are many knowledgeable and intelligent people on here, I'm sure you'll like it.

Might I suggest starting with the dozen threads that have already been posted in just this season where this exact scenario came up and was discussed and argued about passionately by both sides. Maybe you'll learn things aren't nearly as cut-and-dried as you might think at first glance.
Click to expand...
If they aren't, then make them that way.

This is a very easy rule. I wish I could have seen some discussion about it in other threads, but I didn't. I would have helped clear it up pretty easily.

If you want to keep making it way too complicated, cool .

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder what the chances are that the people that are against this rule are the same people who are consistently able to check fantasy 24/7 and rarely if ever have problems with last minute inactives.

I will go out on a limb and say................high.

I can see why you guys would be upset about losing a small advantage you have over the majority of fantasy owners. It does make a little sense at least.

 
ghostguy123 said:
I wonder what the chances are that the people that are against this rule are the same people who are consistently able to check fantasy 24/7 and rarely if ever have problems with last minute inactives.

I will go out on a limb and say................high.

I can see why you guys would be upset about losing a small advantage you have over the majority of fantasy owners. It does make a little sense at least.
Click to expand...
I'm one of those people able to be at my computer for most game days, and I still like this rule because then I wouldn't feel any need to be.

The differential advantage I'd stand to lose is made up for by the increased flexibility I would allow myself in return.

(Yeah, yeah...I can chose not to be at the computer even without conditional lineups. But the opportunity cost is higher.)

 
matttyl said:
Walking Boot said:
The downside you don't see has been mentioned in other threads:

Say you have 3 QBs
Click to expand...
I myself had this exact situation in week 14. Michael Floyd was listed as my sole backup, and he played Thursday that week - getting 22 points. In hindsight I should have started him rather than having him listed as a backup. I had set my lineup earlier in the week (actually maybe a week prior to see what my playoff lineup would look like), and Ingram was listed as a starter. On Wednesday, Ingram was placed on the NFL IR. I never changed my lineup. Commish wouldn't allow for that swap as "Ingram was known to be out prior to Floyd's game." I was still able, though, to swap out Ingram for Lacy - who ended up scoring more than Floyd did that week. Had another player been ruled out after Thursday, though, he would have allowed a switch (he said), till Stevie Johnson was ruled out on Friday or Saturday and the commish said "but you wouldn't have started him anyway."

Whatever you do with a "sub rule", you have to make the rules extremely clear. Especially when it comes to subbing in players who've already played.
Click to expand...
I don't know that yours is a problem of clear rules or a commish that makes up things as he goes. If you set Floyd as your sub and the starter doesn't play - you get Floyd. Period. Shouldn't matter if the starter is announced inactive 5 minutes or 5 hours or even the day before the game. This is a very arbitrary decision by your commish and he should be punched in the face in front of his dog or cat...

 
Walking Boot said:
satch said:
Walking Boot said:
The downside you don't see has been mentioned in other threads:

Say you have 3 QBs (maybe so many because 1 is questionable, naturally). Andrew Luck is your #1, but he's dealing with an injury. On Wednesday, he's listed as questionable for the Sunday morning game. You post your message on Wednesday that if he can't go, you are backing him up with Blake Bortles, who plays on Thursday. You also have Eli Manning on your bench, who plays Monday night, but he's not the named backup.

Say on Thursday, Bortles explodes in garbage time and gets 45 points. Friday, it's officially announced Luck is Out. Normally if you know on Friday a player is out, you'd switch him for someone else, but you don't want to here because you know what Bortles has scored already.

Conversely, say Bortles sucks hard Thursday night and gets only 5 points... No TDs and 3 INTs. Friday Luck is declared out. So on Friday afternoon you bench him, and swap in Eli figuring he can outscore Bortles's 5.

Either way is going to cause someone to be upset in the league. There have been whining threads all season from both sides. Guys angry their opponents are leaving known Out players active to score gimme points, other guys angry that their rule forces them to keep the guy they think could score the most on the bench even though they have better info on their guys health before kickoff than they did when they set the lineup on Wednesday.

Believe me, there's plenty on here from both.
Click to expand...
When posting "subs", it's up to the owner to be very clear. If the owner leaves room for interpretation, he gets a zero at the position in question.In your scenario, the owner would simply have to prioritize his QB subs prior to Thursday kickoff.
Click to expand...
It is clear, but read mattyl's post above yours, where it was also clear yet the commish refused to let him swap.

Say you clearly say: "Luck in at QB, he's questionable. Bortles as sub if he does not play" on Wednesday. Yet on Friday the software still allows for swapping Luck for Manning, which the owner could do after seeing how Bortles does on Thursday night. He can start a known OUT player after the Friday injury update or avoid a bad performance by the sub by changing the starter.
Click to expand...
Why is this difficult? Written rules always take precedence over the software. If the sub has played, the starter is locked.

People are trying very hard to make the rule and it's implemention much harder than it should be, and I can't for the life of me figure out why....actually...I think I can.

Some guys HAVE all the time needed to track stuff on the weekend, and are ALWAYS able to be on line at 1230 PM EST Sunday morning, so figure it's to their advantage to fight a substitute rule tooth and nail.

 
I mentioned this when I first started in a dynasty league about 10 years ago. I called it the "if-then"rule. Which was basically this. If a guy was ruled out, another guy would take his place, and all you had to do specify on the message board:

"If hopkins is ruled out then Marshall takes his place" or something like that.

Nobody else in the league even entertained it and made it seem as though I was insane. Many of the snide remarks were similar to this:

"if you cant get to a computer to set your lineup, then too bad"

ALL, repeat ALL of those guys I still talk to (about 8 of them) are currently in favor of a rule like this. It just took some time, but they came around. They were sick of having to check things 5-6 times per week at specific times.

Fantasy isn't meant to run your life people. It's fun and all, but come on. It should't have to feel like a chore, and it does to a lot of people, even for people who have all the free time in the world.

 
I think such a 'practice' does two things..

1) It would make for less dumbed down games.. Im sure some managers need to be smarter, because they wont be able to account for last minute lineup changes.. So yeah you catch a break from time to time, but dont let that fool ya into thinking "we" cant set a lineup..

2) It takes away the reward for following, and following up on every tidbit of NFL news.. "so and so" was seen leaving the stadium in a boot? No rest for me, until I have some clue as to why and what (IF its important)

In some ways, such a change would probably effect the need for some board work.. I mean,, Should I really give two chits about my bn players? IF I know I can submit my starter w/ backup option.. It eliminates the need to even consider starting the backup..

Personally, I believe Set a Lineup (Step -UP) or Go play 'best ball" in multiple Leagues...

 
Dismattle said:
I think such a 'practice' does two things..

1) It would make for less dumbed down games.. Im sure some managers need to be smarter, because they wont be able to account for last minute lineup changes.. So yeah you catch a break from time to time, but dont let that fool ya into thinking "we" cant set a lineup..

2) It takes away the reward for following, and following up on every tidbit of NFL news.. "so and so" was seen leaving the stadium in a boot? No rest for me, until I have some clue as to why and what (IF its important)

In some ways, such a change would probably effect the need for some board work.. I mean,, Should I really give two chits about my bn players? IF I know I can submit my starter w/ backup option.. It eliminates the need to even consider starting the backup..

Personally, I believe Set a Lineup (Step -UP) or Go play 'best ball" in multiple Leagues...
Click to expand...
This makes no sense whatsoever. The starter is who you pick to start. You can choose the backup to start over your usual starter. Whoever you pick, starts, if they are active.

So no, it does not eliminate the need consider starting the backup at all. Makes no sense you would even think that.

 
Arodin said:
ghostguy123 said:
I wonder what the chances are that the people that are against this rule are the same people who are consistently able to check fantasy 24/7 and rarely if ever have problems with last minute inactives.

I will go out on a limb and say................high.

I can see why you guys would be upset about losing a small advantage you have over the majority of fantasy owners. It does make a little sense at least.
Click to expand...
I'm one of those people able to be at my computer for most game days, and I still like this rule because then I wouldn't feel any need to be.

The differential advantage I'd stand to lose is made up for by the increased flexibility I would allow myself in return.

(Yeah, yeah...I can chose not to be at the computer even without conditional lineups. But the opportunity cost is higher.)
Click to expand...
This is me. I'm a stay-at-home dad who writes part-time for a fantasy football website. I watch ten hours of football every Sunday and then wind up re-watching half of the week's action on game rewind, anyway. I derive a tremendous competitive advantage simply from the fact that I play in fewer leagues than most people who spend as much time as I do on the hobby, and I spend more time on the hobby than most people who play in as few leagues as I do. If anything, conditional lineups only wind up giving back some of that advantage.

But they also mean that I can take a vacation, or go to brunch with my family. If my 3-year-old is sick and scared and wants me to cuddle with him and comfort him, I can do that instead of telling him to wait for a minute until daddy checks the inactives. (That happened earlier this season. Not the "wait a minute while I check the inactives" part, but he spiked a fever and had some aches and just wanted to be rocked because when you're three and you're sick, you have no idea what's going on and it's kind of terrifying.)

And I don't want to win any games because my Canadian leaguemate had to pull a double shift on Thursday and missed the Thanksgiving triple-header, anyway. I want to win because I'm better than they are. And when I do win, I want to leave no trace of doubt whatsoever that it was simply because I was better than they were.

 
Dismattle said:
I think such a 'practice' does two things..

1) It would make for less dumbed down games.. Im sure some managers need to be smarter, because they wont be able to account for last minute lineup changes.. So yeah you catch a break from time to time, but dont let that fool ya into thinking "we" cant set a lineup..

2) It takes away the reward for following, and following up on every tidbit of NFL news.. "so and so" was seen leaving the stadium in a boot? No rest for me, until I have some clue as to why and what (IF its important)

In some ways, such a change would probably effect the need for some board work.. I mean,, Should I really give two chits about my bn players? IF I know I can submit my starter w/ backup option.. It eliminates the need to even consider starting the backup..

Personally, I believe Set a Lineup (Step -UP) or Go play 'best ball" in multiple Leagues...
Click to expand...
It may be helpful to realize that, in my oldest dynasty league, there were about 230 conditional lineup requests made, and either two or three were actually claimed all season long. People think it somehow changes the league, but something like 99% of our requests wind up being unnecessary, anyway. 99% of the time, the league behaves exactly like a normal league with no conditional lineups rule. And then two or three times a season, one player gets moved into someone's starting lineup.

The biggest benefit isn't all the times the rule comes into play. The biggest benefit is the peace of mind knowing that, on the exceedingly rare occasions when you actually will need it, it will kick in. That peace of mind is powerful.

 
Adam Harstad said:
The biggest benefit isn't all the times the rule comes into play. The biggest benefit is the peace of mind knowing that, on the exceedingly rare occasions when you actually will need it, it will kick in. That peace of mind is powerful.
Click to expand...
Some people like to be miserable or something, who knows.

So far it seems like the only people against a lineup wrinkle like this are the people who don't seem to fully understand it and are making it out to be something its not. Or the people who want an advantage over others who occasionally take a zero because life happens.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
Dismattle said:
I think such a 'practice' does two things..

1) It would make for less dumbed down games.. Im sure some managers need to be smarter, because they wont be able to account for last minute lineup changes.. So yeah you catch a break from time to time, but dont let that fool ya into thinking "we" cant set a lineup..

2) It takes away the reward for following, and following up on every tidbit of NFL news.. "so and so" was seen leaving the stadium in a boot? No rest for me, until I have some clue as to why and what (IF its important)

In some ways, such a change would probably effect the need for some board work.. I mean,, Should I really give two chits about my bn players? IF I know I can submit my starter w/ backup option.. It eliminates the need to even consider starting the backup..

Personally, I believe Set a Lineup (Step -UP) or Go play 'best ball" in multiple Leagues...
Click to expand...
This makes no sense whatsoever. The starter is who you pick to start. You can choose the backup to start over your usual starter. Whoever you pick, starts, if they are active.

So no, it does not eliminate the need consider starting the backup at all. Makes no sense you would even think that.
Click to expand...
I will make an attempt to illustrate my concern..

In my League..

I need to start who I believe will provide the most points at a position..

IF that one person has a boo boo? I may wanna look into how I, and a few others expect my 2nd choice player to perform..

I sometimes go against the grain.. Dont worry though, it is often that I post what I believe to be True.. Im kinda a believer in "Stud must-start players"

So yeah w/ this "similiar to best ball Leagues rule" I could just as easily say to myself: Okay I will start the player w/ said boo-boo But IF the Coachs decide at the last minute to shut him down? Then I choose to start My RB2 (naxt man up) IF said boo boo player plays on Monday night? Id already feel victorious LOL

But yeah if you men wanna believe its all Good? Be my guest,, But I feel its dumbed down for people who just play Fantasy everything, and have no real Love for Football :2cents:

Hope this helps!

 
That didn't help at all.

It's nothing like best ball. You still have to make a lineup decision.

So it is "dumbed down" because you aren't sure if a player will be active or not?

You are one of the people just not understanding the rule it seems.

As someone said before, this isn't even something that would happen more than a few times a year league-wide.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
While in my current League I need to choose a player whose active too have any chance at making points..

Im not sure YOU, my Commish, anyone besides me cares that my Thursday RB played, but My Monday RB was inactive..

But, I will make note of this.. I missed the SB because some QB went on IR in the first Qtr.. My teams points the following week also bested the 2nd place Winner.

Im here to tell ya.. I dont think ya wanna give smart intelligent Fans of the game extra breaks..

Between the gym, work, and Online gaming? I wasnt able too watch much football this year. I only watched a couple College games too.

This Fantasy Football is supposed to be FUN.. I think your choice to include IF/Then in lineups isnt trully beneficial..

Id suggest playing Best Ball Leagues,, Im just trying to be honest with ya..

Heck you could very well be one of them guys who takes all the Fun out of the League

Watchs every game College/Pro, and subscribes too all the papers..

Would you trully enjoy Leagues w/ only Pro Fantasy -managers.

Fudge the SB is most likely decided on draft day.. Do you get that? I mean yeah the Team may need to make some good WW additions, but I think some see a Champion team form during the draft.

fwiw I think I seen my opponents play inactive players a few times this yr.. Its sometimes the result of quality players w/ byes n injuries..

Im not sure I wanna know that I could fix some issues by adding a "bn player" ..

I probably could go on and on, but it doesnt appear that my choice of wording is well understood :(

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

@
Generations Fantasy Sports
Replies
22
Views
476
@GregoryLKellogg
@
V
“Revenge Games”
Replies
8
Views
509
FFWhiskey
F
JohnnyU
League integrity: Starting players who are OUT
Replies
4
Views
416
JohnnyU
JohnnyU

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top