Commish Corner - Revisiting the Bills-Bengals MNF situation and planning for the future (1 Viewer)

[Keith R]

Forgive me for starting a new thread on this rather than continuing the original thread, but this is more about planning for the future than the actual original situation.

While everyone hopes this situation will never happen again, I am the type who likes to be prepared. So now that we have had awhile to process what happened and can look at things more analytically and less emotionally, how should FFL commissioners deal with a postponement/cancellation of an NFL game in the future, especially when said postponement/cancellation occurs after kickoff?

What worked in how your league(s) handled the situation? What didn't work? What is there to learn from these experiences? And is the ideal resolution different during the FFL regular season, or if the game in question isn't the MNF game?

In the leagues I was involved in where this was still an issue at the time of the game, two involved one team conceding victory to the other (I was one of those owners who conceded). The last one used Week 18 stats for the Bills and Bengals players. While that wasn't everyone's preferred method, it seemed to satisfy everyone involved.

Very interested to see others' experiences and opinions. TIA

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I was trailing in the score with Higgins playing. The projected score gave me odds of 48%.

Really thankful that there was no push by my commish or my opponent to say tough luck, the official score is the score. The commish pushed it in a co-champ direction decisively, very early. He said he didn't want to do any kind of replacement score. Personally, I don't think it was his decision to dictate. I would have left the possibility of a replacment score up to my opponent, who had the slight lead in the projection.

I was definitely okay with it given my standing. I offered to go 48-52 on the pot, but it was so close that the other parties decided on 50-50. If Cincy would have won, I was actually prepared to circle back with my opponent to see if he was still okay with where everything landed. As an empire league, there are big implications for next year. While I'm still okay with the co-champ solution, if my opponent was feeling robbed in any way, I was definitely going to offer that we use Higgins Super Bowl score as the replacement week 17 score to determine a true champion.

While I'm okay with the co-champion resolution, I will always wonder what would have been the actual outcome. Week 18 or first week of playoffs replacement score would have been an L for me. It really feels like a tear in the timeline of the history of our league. However, it becomes pretty inconsequential if neither of us wins the championship next year. Just a matter of who would have won another $50 at that point.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I successfully advocated for replacement scores in the redraft league that I commission. I would've let the affected teams settle it any way they agreed to though. I let them choose any Bills playoff game or week 18 for their replacement score. My decision to offer such flexibility was based on the high scoring potential (as indicated by vegas) in the week 17 game.

Luckily the championship outcome was already decided, so it was really about getting all the teams to the finish line with a final score more than anything. Kind of glad that we lucked out and don't have a co-champ year in our league's 17-year history.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

So….

My league used the week 18 stats for all impacted players (Bengals & Bills) and retroactively applied them to the week 17 score.

It was a completely lame solution because the Bills/Bengals game was shaping up to be a shootout with both teams having marched down and scored, and the Bengals looking to do so again before what, 6 mins of game time had elapsed?

Meanwhile week 18 had tougher matchups for the impacted players, especially for the IDP guys.

I had a ~40% chance of winning with the original matchup, and that dropped to something like 20% with the solution we worked out.

That said, it was a fluke, and even flukier was the timing - to be in the last game of the week, and last week of the season is something that is unlikely to ever happen again.

As commish, and having a team in that matchup, I felt the onus was on me to be the bigger person and offer my opponent a few options and let them pick the one they felt was most fair.

I suggested we could
• take the average score of those players impacted and plug that into week 17
• use week 18 stats and retroactively apply them to week 17
• chop the pot according to the % chance of victory (CBS had us 62%/38%)

My opponent chose option #2, and I lost. 25% worked out to around $600, and I can live with the imperfect solution.

Just very very happy that the best case scenario transpired for Damar Hamlin.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

^^^^^ Really tough spot for you to be in as the commish. From an analytical standpoint, I really feel it was fair to let the affected teams with offensive players choose any week (week 18 or postseason) for their replacement score. Even then, it's still a tough break losing a 50 degree game in Cincy with no winds and all kinds of shootout potential.

That said, if you present that as the solution as the commish, you look like the bad guy trying to cherry pick a high-scoring week. I still like that you at least gave yourself a chance in week 18. I know some commissioner's in similar spots who felt pressure to throw themselves on the sword and concede defeat, despite having a real possibility of winning week 17.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I know some commissioner's in similar spots who felt pressure to throw themselves on the sword and concede defeat, despite having a real possibility of winning week 17.

Thanks, and yeah - that was the offer to split according to % likely to win. It would have given me an extra 13% of the pot, but I was more concerned with my opponent’s satisfaction that a fair solution was implemented.

Of all the suggestions on the original topic, those seemed like the 3 best, so that’s what I offered. I think it was the right move to put the decision in their hands.

As you said, had I unilaterally implemented a solution, it could have been perceived as cherry picking the best one for me.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I have heard this suggestion a couple of times, but I can't fathom why any league would agree to plug in the average score for affected players. That's not exactly a complicated formula to determine.

If I'm on the short end of that and offer it as a solution, I'm an idiot.

If it's favorable to my outcome and I offer it, my opponent thinks I think that they're an idiot.

Probably the most puzzling solution that I heard offered to this dilemma.

 

[Dizzy]

We already have a kind of force majeure rule in place. Simply put, if your player ultimately puts up a donut because his game is cancelled, postponed, whatever beyond that game week... them's the breaks. You're eating a goose egg.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If it's favorable to my outcome and I offer it, my opponent thinks I think that they're an idiot.

Let's be clear - my suggesting a solution & thinking a leaguemate is an idiot are mutually exclusive.

lol

kidding - my leaguemates are all pretty sharp. I only suggested that as one solution because that was one of the proposals by my opponent. Neither of us had looked at average scoring for those players yet nor did we know if either had an advantage.

In the land of the blind, the man with 1 eye is king, and we were just doing the best we could under extremely unprecedented circumstances. The whole point was to avoid an unfair solution, so we explored options.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

We already have a kind of force majeure rule in place. Simply put, if your player ultimately puts up a donut because his game is cancelled, postponed, whatever beyond that game week... them's the breaks. You're eating a goose egg.

Yeah - that's not the worst solution, but it's hardly the best. I know that's how the big money contests handled it, and for them, it's probably the right call.

For home leagues, I like the week 18 points for those players, as it still keeps the action alive. Especially in circumstances where the game is close & there's an imbalance of players (e.g. one team has 5 active YTP, the other has 3 YTP)

The simple fact is that no solution is perfect. It's an imperfect problem.

 

[Gally]

We used the week 18 scores for the affected players and it worked out just fine. We also had a provision that if one of those affected players were injured or inactive prior to the week 18 game then the owner could substitute an eligible player in their place provided that player was not already in the week 17 lineup. Essentially you couldn't use double points for a player but if he was on your bench week 17 and the affected player was ruled out you could sub.

It worked great and nobody had any issues at all. You got an actual game for a player rather some average or a zero.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

If it's favorable to my outcome and I offer it, my opponent thinks I think that they're an idiot.

Let's be clear - my suggesting a solution & thinking a leaguemate is an idiot are mutually exclusive.

lol

kidding - my leaguemates are all pretty sharp. I only suggested that as one solution because that was one of the proposals by my opponent. Neither of us had looked at average scoring for those players yet nor did we know if either had an advantage.

In the land of the blind, the man with 1 eye is king, and we were just doing the best we could under extremely unprecedented circumstances. The whole point was to avoid an unfair solution, so we explored options.

pssssst --- if your league software is relatively accurate and was giving your opponent a 62% win probability, and your opponent was the one who floated that solution, there's a pretty good possibility that they..... well....

Just kidding You're definitely not an idiot, as evidenced by your wisdom in bold. Good for you on being the bigger person. In a perfect world your opponent gives you some more favorable options that don't swing the win probability as much as they did. But yeah, bad situation all around. All you could do is make the fairest ruling possible. Great thing that we can lament stuff like this instead of the loss of human life on the playing field.

 

[wlwiles]

In the moment it felt very wrong to just call W17 scores final as the game was halted, and just let that score count. I know a lot of leagues and contests did it that way, and at the time I thought that was the worst option. But the more I think about it, the more I think that's actually the best option.

It was unprecedented in that an injury stopped a game completely, and that so many fantasy relevant players then had their game halted. But what if Josh Allen was the player who got hurt that day, and the game was stopped? Josh Allen owners wouldn't be asking for a redo. And he wouldn't have had W18 to rely on as a makeup score either. No different than Trey Lance getting injured and leaving the game...you get the points he scored, tough break that he went down.

How is using W18 scores any fairer than using W16 scores for the "affected players"? It's just as arbitrary to use W12, or W5, we just used W18 because it hadn't happened yet so it wouldn't have been an automatically "known outcome". Maybe instead of defaulting to W18 scores applying, we should have just put all Week #'s in a bucket and drew one at random, and that's the week's score that was applied. In my case, I held a slim lead against my opponent's Higgins. Using his W18 score meant I won. If we'd used any of 6 other week's random scores, I'd have lost. Arbitrary.

The more I think about it, the more I think we should use the points scored in that week. A fantasy starter goes down early and you get stuck with a bagel in your lineup, it's happened to almost all of us. That's the game. It felt weird this time because a non-fantasy relevant player (except deep IDP) went down and it tanked several fantasy relevant players at once.

Maybe having one special roster slot (taxi slot maybe?) where each team can designate a "next man up" if one of their starters gets COVID or gets their game canceled due to injury/weather/power outage/whatever is something that could be a consolation. But then you'd have to do it for every position, because what if it's a TE or a QB affected? If it's redraft does that force me to have to carry a backup at every position? What if my MNF kicker gets his game cancelled due to lightning?

Feels too convoluted to have a whole list of "if A happens, then....if B happens, then...." contingencies. Let the scores stand in the week they happen. JMO.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

We used the week 18 scores for the affected players and it worked out just fine. We also had a provision that if one of those affected players were injured or inactive prior to the week 18 game then the owner could substitute an eligible player in their place provided that player was not already in the week 17 lineup. Essentially you couldn't use double points for a player but if he was on your bench week 17 and the affected player was ruled out you could sub.

It worked great and nobody had any issues at all. You got an actual game for a player rather some average or a zero.

Good clause here. I definitely had fear as the guy playing Higgins that I would be granted a week 18 replacement score and he wouldn't even get a chance to play. Either distraught over a tragedy that he was apart of or Bengals resting starters.

 

[Keith R]

It looks like in this particular case, using the Week 18 scores was the least flawed method in the majority's opinion.

Would this be different if the game had been sometime before Week 17, or if this hadn't been the MNF game? What would be the absolute best rule to have in place if this situation was to happen again? Would it be this, or Dizzy's rule, or something else entirely?

 

[Keith R]

We already have a kind of force majeure rule in place. Simply put, if your player ultimately puts up a donut because his game is cancelled, postponed, whatever beyond that game week... them's the breaks. You're eating a goose egg.

What if Team A had been down 2 points going in and had Tyler Bass against Team B who was spent. Bass kicked the field goal to (seemingly) give Team A the win, only for the game to be cancelled later. Who would have / should have won?

 

[Gally]

How is using W18 scores any fairer than using W16 scores for the "affected players"? It's just as arbitrary to use W12, or W5, we just used W18 because it hadn't happened yet so it wouldn't have been an automatically "known outcome".

That is exactly the reason to use week18. The game had not been played yet. That is how this game works. You set a lineup and then they play the game. That is why using week 18 worked nicely. It wasn't an auto 0. It wasn't a known outcome favoring one side or the other and you got an actual game played to use for scoring.

 

[Keith R]

We used the week 18 scores for the affected players and it worked out just fine. We also had a provision that if one of those affected players were injured or inactive prior to the week 18 game then the owner could substitute an eligible player in their place provided that player was not already in the week 17 lineup. Essentially you couldn't use double points for a player but if he was on your bench week 17 and the affected player was ruled out you could sub.

It worked great and nobody had any issues at all. You got an actual game for a player rather some average or a zero.

Good clause here. I definitely had fear as the guy playing Higgins that I would be granted a week 18 replacement score and he wouldn't even get a chance to play. Either distraught over a tragedy that he was apart of or Bengals resting starters.

Going forward, do you think it would be best to only allow substitutions if said player(s) was ruled out, or for any reason including preferred matchup?

 

[Gally]

Good clause here. I definitely had fear as the guy playing Higgins that I would be granted a week 18 replacement score and he wouldn't even get a chance to play. Either distraught over a tragedy that he was apart of or Bengals resting starters.

The only apprehension I had was for the Hamlin owner since he actually did get injured. We ended up allowing him to put in a replacement player since he was ruled out of week 18 and nobody had any issue with it. It does make it simple for a rule moving forward but I supposed you could put a clause that if a player was injured in the cancelled game that you got the points he had accrued to that point and no sub. The grey area to that would have been what if someone else had been dinged and questionable to return. Do you get that players points at that point or do you let the next week's scores count or get a sub? Because of that "gray" area I think it's easier to just say if a game gets cancelled you get the following week's points with the caveat of a player being ruled out the following week you can put in a sub.

 

[Gally]

We used the week 18 scores for the affected players and it worked out just fine. We also had a provision that if one of those affected players were injured or inactive prior to the week 18 game then the owner could substitute an eligible player in their place provided that player was not already in the week 17 lineup. Essentially you couldn't use double points for a player but if he was on your bench week 17 and the affected player was ruled out you could sub.

It worked great and nobody had any issues at all. You got an actual game for a player rather some average or a zero.

Good clause here. I definitely had fear as the guy playing Higgins that I would be granted a week 18 replacement score and he wouldn't even get a chance to play. Either distraught over a tragedy that he was apart of or Bengals resting starters.

Going forward, do you think it would be best to only allow substitutions if said player(s) was ruled out, or for any reason including preferred matchup?

We made it be ruled out but had discussion about allowing a substitution regardless but that was because there was talk about Buf/Cin resting players if the game in week 18 was meaningless. Since the games mattered we stuck with the "had to be ruled out" in order to make it simple.

If I was trying to make a permanent rule change I think I would leave it as is and take it on a case by case basis if there happened to be some unforeseen circumstance as to why a fee substitution should be allowed. Really, if this happened week 5 then it wouldn't be an issue as everyone is playing full in week 6.

 

[wlwiles]

How is using W18 scores any fairer than using W16 scores for the "affected players"? It's just as arbitrary to use W12, or W5, we just used W18 because it hadn't happened yet so it wouldn't have been an automatically "known outcome".

That is exactly the reason to use week18. The game had not been played yet. That is how this game works. You set a lineup and then they play the game. That is why using week 18 worked nicely. It wasn't an auto 0. It wasn't a known outcome favoring one side or the other and you got an actual game played to use for scoring.

Still doesn't make it any better or fairer than drawing any other Week # from a hat and applying the score(s) from that week. Just because W18 hadn't happened yet at that moment in time doesn't mean it's the right week to apply scores from. I get that's the reason we all did it, and my league did it too. But what if this happened in W13 and the Bengals had a bye Week 14? Should we use Buffalo's W14 scores but wait and use Cincinnati's W15 scores to retroactively finish W13? At that point of the season, there's playoff seeding implications so you can't wait two weeks to finalize Bengals players scores.

Not trying to argue with you, my point I guess is that an automatic "just use the following week's score for affected players" isn't any better a solution. And there's a million what if's that could throw a wrench into contingency plans.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

We used the week 18 scores for the affected players and it worked out just fine. We also had a provision that if one of those affected players were injured or inactive prior to the week 18 game then the owner could substitute an eligible player in their place provided that player was not already in the week 17 lineup. Essentially you couldn't use double points for a player but if he was on your bench week 17 and the affected player was ruled out you could sub.

It worked great and nobody had any issues at all. You got an actual game for a player rather some average or a zero.

Good clause here. I definitely had fear as the guy playing Higgins that I would be granted a week 18 replacement score and he wouldn't even get a chance to play. Either distraught over a tragedy that he was apart of or Bengals resting starters.

Going forward, do you think it would be best to only allow substitutions if said player(s) was ruled out, or for any reason including preferred matchup?

Honestly, for the way this particular situation played out, I favored allowing the affected lineups to use any week in the playoffs or week 18 for the replacement score. I didn't go down the substituting different players route. It was more of a, we're giving you the flexibility to start your affected player in any week you choose, if you don't start him in week 18 and they get injured and are out for the playoffs, that's the risk you take deferring the start for a more favorable matchup in the future. Likewise, if you hold out for the Super Bowl or an indoor AFC Conf Championship game and the Bills get eliminated before you declare your start, that's the risk you're assuming and you're SOL. Certainly not perfect, and still left open the possibility that the owner of the player feels like they got robbed.

I explained to my league that this was my proposed solution to maintain the closest win probabilities and matchups that were commensurate with where things stood at the point that the week 17 game was lost. Furthermore this suggestion wasn't to be construed as anything other than a proposal to deal with this specific situation in week 17. The precedent isn't this is exactly what we're going to do if this happens in the future. The precedent is that we're going to try to agree on the fairest way to preserve the win probabilities if something like this happens in the future.

For the majority of leagues that insisted on week 18 as the only option for a replacement score, I appreciate that this one had a substitution clause to attempt to deal with the challenges that the last week of the regular season can present.



Really commendable that you're trying to put together the correct bylaws for your league to deal with unprecedented situations in the future that I guess are now precedented. I might get there at some point this offseason, but this far removed from it I kind of feel like it might be time to find a new hobby if we're dealing with any more of these situations in the next handful of years. Or at least one where there's not a reasonable solution people can agree on. I'm a couple of years removed from writing up detailed Championship Points Standings for declaring a fantasy champion in the event that the fantasy season can't be completed as a result of COVID. I'm getting pretty exasperated by all of it. If this situation would have led to two owners arguing that they deserve 100% of the pot, unwilling to compromise on a fair solution to resolve the championship, I probably cut them both a check for the full amount and find something better to do with my time next Fall (or at least have one less league to deal with). Thankfully, it seems that compromise, fairness, and goodwill triumphed in most leagues.

 

[jm192]

I had this wind up mattering in 3 leagues.

1 I was blown out, I conceded.

1 I was farther ahead than the difference in the league in which I conceded. He wanted to use week 18 scores. I had Josh Allen to his Diggs, Buffalo Defense, McPherson. We used week 18 scores, and he still wound up blown out.

1--I think I was going to win if the game was finished. Buf/Cin was looking like a shoot out. I had Burrow/Chase/Higgins/Logan Wilson vs his Diggs/Mixon--and the projections had me narrowly losing. There were stat corrections on Wednesday that swung 4.5 points in my favor. If the game plays out, I honestly think I steal that one. Using week 18 stats wouldn't have given me the W. Just one of those things.

He had the most points in the regular season by a good bit. I battled through a lot of injuries and traded my depth for stronger starters. I think with both teams fully health, I could have taken it home. BUT he was the best team in the regular season. I ultimately conceded that one.

 

[jm192]

I think there's a stupid high likelihood we never see anything like this again.
That being said, having a plan going in probably is worth while to prevent the issues that we had.

I think the season averages is very fair to both sides. I also think it's important to have it agreed upon beforehand. Because the guy that's ahead isn't going to want to agree to this solution if it flips the result.

I saw in 1 thread back during that week--someone said their league designated back up players. I don't hate it. But I also think it's a common strategy in Fantasy Foobtall to sell your depth to build the best starting roster you can. There are leagues I don't even hold a backup QB or TE or Defense--I'm sure many of you are the same.

 

[Dizzy]

We already have a kind of force majeure rule in place. Simply put, if your player ultimately puts up a donut because his game is cancelled, postponed, whatever beyond that game week... them's the breaks. You're eating a goose egg.

What if Team A had been down 2 points going in and had Tyler Bass against Team B who was spent. Bass kicked the field goal to (seemingly) give Team A the win, only for the game to be cancelled later. Who would have / should have won?

All games are final approximately one hour after the last game of the week (MNF typically).

Final means final – a zero is a zero – a cancelled game is a zero.

 

[Keith R]

If a rule about this was to be written into your rulebook, would you be most comfortable about it being the application of the next week's scores for the players involved?

 

[Gally]

If a rule about this was to be written into your rulebook, would you be most comfortable about it being the application of the next week's scores for the players involved?

Yes. This game is supposed to be fun by rooting for players that actually play. Having an unfortunate cancelled game sucks for everyone. Make it fun and use an actual game that is played for the stats. It settles things on the field where it should be settled.

 

[BassNBrew]

I think there's a stupid high likelihood we never see anything like this again.
That being said, having a plan going in probably is worth while to prevent the issues that we had.

I think the season averages is very fair to both sides. I also think it's important to have it agreed upon beforehand. Because the guy that's ahead isn't going to want to agree to this solution if it flips the result.

I saw in 1 thread back during that week--someone said their league designated back up players. I don't hate it. But I also think it's a common strategy in Fantasy Foobtall to sell your depth to build the best starting roster you can. There are leagues I don't even hold a backup QB or TE or Defense--I'm sure many of you are the same.

I don't.

What if I'm using a guy like Mike White who only has one huge game posted to date?

What if I'm starting Perine because Mixon is out. Perine had averaged around 5 ff pts and posted scores of 28, 18, and 20 as the starter. I wouldn't start Perine unless Mixon was out.

 

[Gally]

I don't.

What if I'm using a guy like Mike White who only has one huge game posted to date?

What if I'm starting Perine because Mixon is out. Perine had averaged around 5 ff pts and posted scores of 28, 18, and 20 as the starter. I wouldn't start Perine unless Mixon was out.

I agree. Using averages is too broad and can be very skewed just as you have mentioned. Trying to figure out a way to use an actual game played is the much better option IMO.

 

[CalBear]

I really don't see how you can do anything other than these two options:

1. Go with the NFL official scores (zero)
2. Go with what happened in the game until it was cancelled

Allowing someone to choose another player, or the league average, or another week, creates a situation which advantages the person whose player didn't finish the game. If Higgins got knocked out on that play and the game continued, would you let Higgins' owner choose another player to sub in after the fact?

If not (and I really hope you wouldn't), you can't let them choose someone to sub in after the fact, here, either.

Our league had this discussion before the 2020 season when there was a lot of COVID uncertainty; what happens if your player is out with COVID, or a game gets cancelled because of COVID? The answer was clear: Nothing happens. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I really don't see how you can do anything other than these two options:

1. Go with the NFL official scores (zero)
2. Go with what happened in the game until it was cancelled

Allowing someone to choose another player, or the league average, or another week, creates a situation which advantages the person whose player didn't finish the game. If Higgins got knocked out on that play and the game continued, would you let Higgins' owner choose another player to sub in after the fact?

If not (and I really hope you wouldn't), you can't let them choose someone to sub in after the fact, here, either.

Our league had this discussion before the 2020 season when there was a lot of COVID uncertainty; what happens if your player is out with COVID, or a game gets cancelled because of COVID? The answer was clear: Nothing happens. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

There's plenty of debate on the main thread on this topic, so there's no need to go through the same points.

I do think zeroes are just fine if there was previous discussion (ideally documented) explaining that's exactly what would happen in this situation. Even if that discussion didn't take place, I can definitely see how that's going to be the right default decision for a number of leagues. Draftkings, yahoo public league, high stakes leagues with strangers run by a bookie, leagues composed entirely of contract lawyers, and many others. Zero, "thems the breaks" makes perfect sense for these and many other leagues.

In my personal experience within longstanding home leagues amongst mostly friends, NOBODY -- whether they were winning, losing, or had no dog in the fight, was advocating for "just take a zero".

If this situation went in a different way, do you think the average person would feel good about cashing in on an auto-championship with full payout because somebody died when they had a narrow lead in a fantasy contest that was up in the air? You don't think it's possible that both parties would rather have the fantasy season end with actual football, after reaching agreement on a fair replacement score, rather than accepting an asterisk championship?

I can't see how someone can't see more than those two solutions.

Big kudos to @Joe Bryant with some fantastic advice when this whole thing went down.

 

[CalBear]

I really don't see how you can do anything other than these two options:

1. Go with the NFL official scores (zero)
2. Go with what happened in the game until it was cancelled

Allowing someone to choose another player, or the league average, or another week, creates a situation which advantages the person whose player didn't finish the game. If Higgins got knocked out on that play and the game continued, would you let Higgins' owner choose another player to sub in after the fact?

If not (and I really hope you wouldn't), you can't let them choose someone to sub in after the fact, here, either.

Our league had this discussion before the 2020 season when there was a lot of COVID uncertainty; what happens if your player is out with COVID, or a game gets cancelled because of COVID? The answer was clear: Nothing happens. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

There's plenty of debate on the main thread on this topic, so there's no need to go through the same points.

I do think zeroes are just fine if there was previous discussion (ideally documented) explaining that's exactly what would happen in this situation. Even if that discussion didn't take place, I can definitely see how that's going to be the right default decision for a number of leagues. Draftkings, yahoo public league, high stakes leagues with strangers run by a bookie, leagues composed entirely of contract lawyers, and many others. Zero, "thems the breaks" makes perfect sense for these and many other leagues.

In my personal experience within longstanding home leagues amongst mostly friends, NOBODY -- whether they were winning, losing, or had no dog in the fight, was advocating for "just take a zero".

If this situation went in a different way, do you think the average person would feel good about cashing in on an auto-championship with full payout because somebody died when they had a narrow lead in a fantasy contest that was up in the air? You don't think it's possible that both parties would rather have the fantasy season end with actual football, after reaching agreement on a fair replacement score, rather than accepting an asterisk championship?

I can't see how someone can't see more than those two solutions.

Big kudos to @Joe Bryant with some fantastic advice when this whole thing went down.

My league is a friends and family league, been running for 25+ years, and no one had a serious suggestion other than the two above. And as I said, we'd specifically discussed a similar scenario prior to the 2020 COVID season. To be relevant to this thread, which is about what to do in the future, I don't think there's any moral justification for giving someone points in the case of their player's game getting cancelled, if we don't give them points in any other scenario where their player gets a zero for situational reasons.

Sure, it doesn't feel great to win a game that way. I'm sure if you were playing in a playoff league and you beat the guy who started Purdy you don't feel great about it. But that's the game. If you're not going to give the Purdy owner a do-over I don't see why you'd give the Burrow owner a do-over.

 

[habsfan]

For next year I'm recommending we add a rule around postponed / rescheduled / cancelled games.

If the situation is foreseeable (weather, COVID etc.) you'll be allowed to submit a list of alternates prior to kick-off of the alternate's game. If the affected game isn't played within the "fantasy week", I'll retroactively plug in the alternates.

If the situation is unforeseeable, I will retroactively plug in the next highest projected bench player eligible for the position. If you don't have an eligible player on your bench, you take the zero.

 

[Joe Bryant]

FWIW, I was initially open to the ideas of somehow creating scores for the players who missed the game by taking previous weeks or average or different things.

Having thought of it for a bit, I think that feels just fundamentally wrong. If a game is canceled, it's terrible for those players, but I think the uncomfortable right answer is do what the. league did and just not have the stats.

Think about if Joe Burrow had been going for the regular season passing yardage record and was 400 yards short of it going in to the game. Would they just give him the record anyways? No.

It's unfortunate, but we've built our game around using the stats the players produce each week. If they don't produce stats, it doesn't seem right to start creating the stats for them.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Where I can see needing extra clarity is on a game that is rescheduled.

If a game is Postponed in week 3 and rescheduled for Week 8, that becomes a trickier thing.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Having thought of it for a bit, I think that feels just fundamentally wrong. If a game is canceled, it's terrible for those players, but I think the uncomfortable right answer is do what the. league did and just not have the stats.

Commissioners who chose this path were called "lazy" and "dumb" by a few different posters in the main thread on this issue. I handled it with the bolded way because, as you're implying here, that was the most logical approach and most closely in line with how our game is played - yet some very judgmental people on here could only see it the way they thought it should be. I lost a ton of respect for those that called me "lazy" and "dumb" - but those are probably the type of people not worth listening to in the first place.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Commissioners who chose this path were called "lazy" and "dumb" by a few different posters in the main thread on this issue. I handled it with the bolded way because, as you're implying here, that was the most logical approach and most closely in line with how our game is played - yet some very judgmental people on here could only see it the way they thought it should be. I lost a ton of respect for those that called me "lazy" and "dumb" - but those are probably the type of people not worth listening to in the first place.

I hear you but that was a wild time and one I think called for a lot of grace. Nobody knew exactly what to do. I certainly didn't. It was rough too in that there were people on both sides of it where any decision would be negative for some and positive for others. It was tough.

It just struck me recently as I was open to the idea of somehow substituting stats in for the players that missed but now after having thought about it for a while, I think that's a bad idea and while it sucks for those GMs, just not counting the stats was the right call. I hope we don't have that again but I do think it's wise to prepare for it so it's clear if it happens again.

 

[habsfan]

Commissioners who chose this path were called "lazy" and "dumb" by a few different posters in the main thread on this issue. I handled it with the bolded way because, as you're implying here, that was the most logical approach and most closely in line with how our game is played - yet some very judgmental people on here could only see it the way they thought it should be. I lost a ton of respect for those that called me "lazy" and "dumb" - but those are probably the type of people not worth listening to in the first place.

I hear you but that was a wild time and one I think called for a lot of grace. Nobody knew exactly what to do. I certainly didn't. It was rough too in that there were people on both sides of it where any decision would be negative for some and positive for others. It was tough.

While it shouldn't matter from a rules perspective, it was also championship week for many. The "trophy was in the building" as they say in hockey and then... nothing. Had this happened week 3 or 9 or what have you, people would have faced zeros more stoically.

 

[CalBear]

For next year I'm recommending we add a rule around postponed / rescheduled / cancelled games.

If the situation is foreseeable (weather, COVID etc.) you'll be allowed to submit a list of alternates prior to kick-off of the alternate's game. If the affected game isn't played within the "fantasy week", I'll retroactively plug in the alternates.

If the situation is unforeseeable, I will retroactively plug in the next highest projected bench player eligible for the position. If you don't have an eligible player on your bench, you take the zero.

I like the first idea but not the second. It's natural to have a preference for games that got played over games that didn't. But retroactively bailing out an owner by putting in a bench player basically gives him the chance of playing best ball against someone who had to make a starting decision.

 

[habsfan]

For next year I'm recommending we add a rule around postponed / rescheduled / cancelled games.

If the situation is foreseeable (weather, COVID etc.) you'll be allowed to submit a list of alternates prior to kick-off of the alternate's game. If the affected game isn't played within the "fantasy week", I'll retroactively plug in the alternates.

If the situation is unforeseeable, I will retroactively plug in the next highest projected bench player eligible for the position. If you don't have an eligible player on your bench, you take the zero.

I like the first idea but not the second. It's natural to have a preference for games that got played over games that didn't. But retroactively bailing out an owner by putting in a bench player basically gives him the chance of playing best ball against someone who had to make a starting decision.

In terms of "best ball", they would get the highest projected bench player which may or may not end up being the highest actual bench scorer (on our league host you can still see original projected points after the games are played). For what it's worth, they made starting decisions too and presumably preferred the player(s) that didn't end up playing. Regardless of actual results, they obviously perceived their bench players to be a downgrade or else they would have started them.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I really don't see how you can do anything other than these two options:

1. Go with the NFL official scores (zero)
2. Go with what happened in the game until it was cancelled

Allowing someone to choose another player, or the league average, or another week, creates a situation which advantages the person whose player didn't finish the game. If Higgins got knocked out on that play and the game continued, would you let Higgins' owner choose another player to sub in after the fact?

If not (and I really hope you wouldn't), you can't let them choose someone to sub in after the fact, here, either.

Our league had this discussion before the 2020 season when there was a lot of COVID uncertainty; what happens if your player is out with COVID, or a game gets cancelled because of COVID? The answer was clear: Nothing happens. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

There's plenty of debate on the main thread on this topic, so there's no need to go through the same points.

I do think zeroes are just fine if there was previous discussion (ideally documented) explaining that's exactly what would happen in this situation. Even if that discussion didn't take place, I can definitely see how that's going to be the right default decision for a number of leagues. Draftkings, yahoo public league, high stakes leagues with strangers run by a bookie, leagues composed entirely of contract lawyers, and many others. Zero, "thems the breaks" makes perfect sense for these and many other leagues.

In my personal experience within longstanding home leagues amongst mostly friends, NOBODY -- whether they were winning, losing, or had no dog in the fight, was advocating for "just take a zero".

If this situation went in a different way, do you think the average person would feel good about cashing in on an auto-championship with full payout because somebody died when they had a narrow lead in a fantasy contest that was up in the air? You don't think it's possible that both parties would rather have the fantasy season end with actual football, after reaching agreement on a fair replacement score, rather than accepting an asterisk championship?

I can't see how someone can't see more than those two solutions.

Big kudos to @Joe Bryant with some fantastic advice when this whole thing went down.

My league is a friends and family league, been running for 25+ years, and no one had a serious suggestion other than the two above. And as I said, we'd specifically discussed a similar scenario prior to the 2020 COVID season. To be relevant to this thread, which is about what to do in the future, I don't think there's any moral justification for giving someone points in the case of their player's game getting cancelled, if we don't give them points in any other scenario where their player gets a zero for situational reasons.

Sure, it doesn't feel great to win a game that way. I'm sure if you were playing in a playoff league and you beat the guy who started Purdy you don't feel great about it. But that's the game. If you're not going to give the Purdy owner a do-over I don't see why you'd give the Burrow owner a do-over.

That's fair. For me, the takeaway from all of this was that there were different leagues with different backgrounds, past precedent, previously established bylaws, and lack thereof. Within this rainbow of league dynamics, there was an endless array of scenarios of where exactly did the fantasy matchup stand at the point of the cancellation. Which offensive players, IDPs, and DSTs were affected? I just don't think there was any one size fits all solution for all leagues. If there absolutely had to be? Official NFL week 17 results say zero probably had to be it, but why?

Let's take these two options:

1) official NFL scoring for week 17 says zero
2) whatever stats were accumulated in the game prior to the cancellation

If Team A was trailing by 2 points at the start of the game and had Burrow playing, I would sincerely hope that Team B conceded the match (given the TD pass to Boyd) regardless of NFL official scoring for week 17. IF Team B doesn't concede and latched on to Rule 1, I would assume that your inclusion of Rule 2 indicates that you would rule in favor of Team A (favoring Rule 2) if you're the commish in this situation?

I would assume that you're going that way because it's the right, fair, and just ruling, in my very subjective opinion. Yet such a ruling is going to fly in the face of anyone "going by the book", which says that everyone in that game recorded a zero.

I am curious for anyone who holds firmly to Rule 1 as the universal truth, if Team A and Team B both agree that Team A is the rightful winner and Team B concedes, are you overruling that mutual agreement and proclaiming that Team B is the champion? After all, that's what the official NFL stats are saying, and Team B would technically prevail as the rightful champion in the court of law.

 

[UncleZen]

In our championship game, it happened to be that both of us had no one in the Monday night game so it was no big deal. It did affect 3rd place but with no money on the line, no one cared. That said, the rule we are considering is plugging in the highest scoring bench player of the same position. If you don't have another player in that position, such as a kicker, then those are the breaks.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

Commissioners who chose this path were called "lazy" and "dumb" by a few different posters in the main thread on this issue. I handled it with the bolded way because, as you're implying here, that was the most logical approach and most closely in line with how our game is played - yet some very judgmental people on here could only see it the way they thought it should be. I lost a ton of respect for those that called me "lazy" and "dumb" - but those are probably the type of people not worth listening to in the first place.

I hear you but that was a wild time and one I think called for a lot of grace. Nobody knew exactly what to do. I certainly didn't. It was rough too in that there were people on both sides of it where any decision would be negative for some and positive for others. It was tough.

It just struck me recently as I was open to the idea of somehow substituting stats in for the players that missed but now after having thought about it for a while, I think that's a bad idea and while it sucks for those GMs, just not counting the stats was the right call. I hope we don't have that again but I do think it's wise to prepare for it so it's clear if it happens again.

If there's anything that illustrates what a (potentially) awful situation this was for commissioners, this has to be it.

Joe Bryant's message of grace, and trying to remember why you're playing in your league in the first place, was for me, the best articulation of any fantasy insider on how to proceed in this difficult situation. My very subjective interpretation of that was, let's try to reach a mutual agreement with the affected parties that's as fair as possible, that decides a fantasy champion based on actual NFL competition.

I was ready to copy, paste, and recite Joe's every word in anticipation of a fractured league with strong opinions to the contrary from affected and unaffected owners alike. The surprise for me was that there was no need for debate; nobody in my leagues was championing for the official week 17 results are what they are, take a zero (again, not saying that opinion is wrong).

But the fact that my personal rallying call for concocting a replacement score from week 18 or a playoff matchup, is coming from someone who appears to be siding towards the "a zero is a zero" perspective.... Well again, while I don't think there's a universal right or wrong answer for all leagues, this definitely speaks volumes to the nature of this beast

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

FWIW, I was initially open to the ideas of somehow creating scores for the players who missed the game by taking previous weeks or average or different things.

Having thought of it for a bit, I think that feels just fundamentally wrong. If a game is canceled, it's terrible for those players, but I think the uncomfortable right answer is do what the. league did and just not have the stats.

Think about if Joe Burrow had been going for the regular season passing yardage record and was 400 yards short of it going in to the game. Would they just give him the record anyways? No.

It's unfortunate, but we've built our game around using the stats the players produce each week. If they don't produce stats, it doesn't seem right to start creating the stats for them.

I agree that the concept of plugging in averages or the previous week's score for the player would have been fundamentally wrong--- provided that the league didn't previously agree to that policy.

If there was no prior agreement, I think I would have preferred just taking the unbiased projected score from the platform as a better option than plugging in averages, but I hate that option almost as much. It's basically the same thing, just factoring in the matchup and what has transpired in the first 9 minutes and change (if the platform's projected score is a reliable snapshot).

So while I think plugging in a previous week's score, or an average (or even projected) score is tantamount to declaring a winner, I am curious why using an unknown score in a future week, that more or less preserves the win probability of the affected fantasy teams at the point of impact, why would that be a worse option than bringing down the hammer and declaring the week 17 official stats as king? Not that there's anything wrong with going that route. It would be the ultimate resolution for any dispute that escalated to the court of law.

For me, I'm playing something called "fantasy football". In this fantasy of mine, the championship game that's my fantasy equivalent of the real world Super Bowl wouldn't just get cancelled in the middle of play if something terrible happened. Some might think it's wrong, but I can't see the NFL cancelling their Super Bowl if this happens in their championship game. Eventually they're taking the field and determining a champion.

 

[CalBear]

I really don't see how you can do anything other than these two options:

1. Go with the NFL official scores (zero)
2. Go with what happened in the game until it was cancelled

Allowing someone to choose another player, or the league average, or another week, creates a situation which advantages the person whose player didn't finish the game. If Higgins got knocked out on that play and the game continued, would you let Higgins' owner choose another player to sub in after the fact?

If not (and I really hope you wouldn't), you can't let them choose someone to sub in after the fact, here, either.

Our league had this discussion before the 2020 season when there was a lot of COVID uncertainty; what happens if your player is out with COVID, or a game gets cancelled because of COVID? The answer was clear: Nothing happens. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

There's plenty of debate on the main thread on this topic, so there's no need to go through the same points.

I do think zeroes are just fine if there was previous discussion (ideally documented) explaining that's exactly what would happen in this situation. Even if that discussion didn't take place, I can definitely see how that's going to be the right default decision for a number of leagues. Draftkings, yahoo public league, high stakes leagues with strangers run by a bookie, leagues composed entirely of contract lawyers, and many others. Zero, "thems the breaks" makes perfect sense for these and many other leagues.

In my personal experience within longstanding home leagues amongst mostly friends, NOBODY -- whether they were winning, losing, or had no dog in the fight, was advocating for "just take a zero".

If this situation went in a different way, do you think the average person would feel good about cashing in on an auto-championship with full payout because somebody died when they had a narrow lead in a fantasy contest that was up in the air? You don't think it's possible that both parties would rather have the fantasy season end with actual football, after reaching agreement on a fair replacement score, rather than accepting an asterisk championship?

I can't see how someone can't see more than those two solutions.

Big kudos to @Joe Bryant with some fantastic advice when this whole thing went down.

My league is a friends and family league, been running for 25+ years, and no one had a serious suggestion other than the two above. And as I said, we'd specifically discussed a similar scenario prior to the 2020 COVID season. To be relevant to this thread, which is about what to do in the future, I don't think there's any moral justification for giving someone points in the case of their player's game getting cancelled, if we don't give them points in any other scenario where their player gets a zero for situational reasons.

Sure, it doesn't feel great to win a game that way. I'm sure if you were playing in a playoff league and you beat the guy who started Purdy you don't feel great about it. But that's the game. If you're not going to give the Purdy owner a do-over I don't see why you'd give the Burrow owner a do-over.

That's fair. For me, the takeaway from all of this was that there were different leagues with different backgrounds, past precedent, previously established bylaws, and lack thereof. Within this rainbow of league dynamics, there was an endless array of scenarios of where exactly did the fantasy matchup stand at the point of the cancellation. Which offensive players, IDPs, and DSTs were affected? I just don't think there was any one size fits all solution for all leagues. If there absolutely had to be? Official NFL week 17 results say zero probably had to be it, but why?

Let's take these two options:

1) official NFL scoring for week 17 says zero
2) whatever stats were accumulated in the game prior to the cancellation

If Team A was trailing by 2 points at the start of the game and had Burrow playing, I would sincerely hope that Team B conceded the match (given the TD pass to Boyd) regardless of NFL official scoring for week 17. IF Team B doesn't concede and latched on to Rule 1, I would assume that your inclusion of Rule 2 indicates that you would rule in favor of Team A (favoring Rule 2) if you're the commish in this situation?

I would assume that you're going that way because it's the right, fair, and just ruling, in my very subjective opinion. Yet such a ruling is going to fly in the face of anyone "going by the book", which says that everyone in that game recorded a zero.

I am curious for anyone who holds firmly to Rule 1 as the universal truth, if Team A and Team B both agree that Team A is the rightful winner and Team B concedes, are you overruling that mutual agreement and proclaiming that Team B is the champion? After all, that's what the official NFL stats are saying, and Team B would technically prevail as the rightful champion in the court of law.

I do happen to be the commish of my league, and I was Team B (though, slightly different situation, we do a two-week Super Bowl and I was well ahead, not within 2 points). I put it out to the league with the suggestion that we do Rule 2 (count Burrow's partial score), which people were generally in agreement about, and which we did. It didn't change the outcome of the game, but some of the other suggestions, like substituting in a bench player, might have.

The way I think about it is, if Team B started Foles (who went out in the first half), we'd all expect to get his partial score. It's a little different for Team A because the NFL officially cancelled the score, but, Burrow did rack up his stats in a real NFL game and it seems appropriate to count them even if the NFL zeroes them. But if you deal with Team A's problem by promoting, say, Tom Brady from the bench (432 yards, 3 TD), what do you do for Team B who had Daniel Jones (177/2 passing, 91/2 rushing) on the bench? If Team B might feel bad about beating Team A because of the cancellation, for sure Team A should feel bad about beating Team B because he got credit for a player he chose to bench.

 

[Gally]

I hear you but that was a wild time and one I think called for a lot of grace. Nobody knew exactly what to do. I certainly didn't. It was rough too in that there were people on both sides of it where any decision would be negative for some and positive for others. It was tough.

It just struck me recently as I was open to the idea of somehow substituting stats in for the players that missed but now after having thought about it for a while, I think that's a bad idea and while it sucks for those GMs, just not counting the stats was the right call. I hope we don't have that again but I do think it's wise to prepare for it so it's clear if it happens again.

I am really surprised this is where you are leaning after thinking about it for awhile. The fun of this activity is watching the games and rooting for your choices to do well. You seem to generally lean towards fun and flexibility as long as it is fair to everyone. It shocks me that you lean to taking the zero as the fairest way rather than actually having a played game as the outcome.

I don't think there is a single right answer at all as everyone can see things differently but I don't think giving people a zero for players in a game that was cancelled due to a completely unforeseen event is fair. Their player didn't get injured. Their player wasn't benched while the rest of the game happened. The game was cancelled by the NFL. I don't see why allowing for a future game's stats that hasn't been played yet so doesn't favor anyone over anyone else is the wrong thing. To me it fits the purpose of this hobby. Allowing the game on the field to dictate the winner's. By assigning a zero to a player doesn't allow that to happen. Just my 2 cents.

 

[rockaction]

I think there's a fundamental unfairness to deciding a championship by awarding a team with guys going on Monday night a zero because of a near-death experience. What if a team was down by two and had Higgins, Mixon, and Allen or something like that? Surely the ease with which the inflexibility is doled out and the expectations that it settles isn't worth the expense of a result that seems unjust.

I get how when big-time money comes into play that you need hard-and-fast, often times inflexible rules, but if we're talking local leagues, then the best result is probably the most just result, which is not taking zeros across the board no matter what.

 

[CalBear]

I think there's a fundamental unfairness to deciding a championship by awarding a team with guys going on Monday night a zero because of a near-death experience. What if a team was down by two and had Higgins, Mixon, and Allen or something like that? Surely the ease with which the inflexibility is doled out and the expectations that it settles isn't worth the expense of a result that seems unjust.

I get how when big-time money comes into play that you need hard-and-fast, often times inflexible rules, but if we're talking local leagues, then the best result is probably the most just result, which is not taking zeros across the board no matter what.

Taking zeroes, or the partial scores for the played game, is the most just result. It might not feel nice, but it's what happened that week with the players you chose to start. If it had been Higgins who'd been carted off the field, and the game went on, no one would have thought twice about taking zeroes for the rest of Higgins game. Or the recent Niner game where both QBs got hurt and everyone got more or less zeroed across the board. We deal with unforeseen and unpredictable situations all the time in fantasy; it's not unfair except in the sense that life is unfair.

 

[rockaction]

it's not unfair except in the sense that life is unfair.

I was waiting for this argument. We create rules all the time to ensure fairness. Almost all the basic rules aside from scoring concerns are designed for fairness' sake. Why throw that notion out because of a massively unforeseen and unfortunate event? Simply for concerns about bright lines and dependability? No, we create rules all the time to ensure justice for everyone.

Nope. Won't do. It's not the just result and arguing that life is not fair isn't going to cut it with me. I don't play fantasy football because I'm enthralled with the unjustness of life and want to see it embodied in the game I play.

How are you going to tell me a guy that started eleven guys one week and had their scores count isn't given an unfair advantage over a guy that might have started eight scoring players and had three rotting with fetid zeros because of a near-death?

You can't. Because all you can say is "life is unfair." Well, that's not why we're here.

 

[Gally]

Taking zeroes, or the partial scores for the played game, is the most just result. It might not feel nice, but it's what happened that week with the players you chose to start. If it had been Higgins who'd been carted off the field, and the game went on, no one would have thought twice about taking zeroes for the rest of Higgins game. Or the recent Niner game where both QBs got hurt and everyone got more or less zeroed across the board. We deal with unforeseen and unpredictable situations all the time in fantasy; it's not unfair except in the sense that life is unfair.

But the entire game was played for those scenarios. That is the big difference between an injured player getting zero because they got injured and 21 guys not getting to play their game because one player got injured. While we may deal with unforeseen situations all the time in fantasy, taking away a game that a healthy player should have played does not seem right when there were ways to get them an actual game played. Again, there is no correct answer that fits for every league. But for my 2 cents I would much rather give the players a chance to use their performance based on a completed game then just default to zero because the game didn't get finished.