Commish Question: Team not starting full lineup (1 Viewer)

[Addai's Adidas]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.

I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

 

[David Yudkin]

Tell him to submit a full lineup or he runs the risk of getting booted from the league.

 

[TxBuckeye]

Tell him to submit a full lineup or he runs the risk of getting booted from the league.

Except take out the "runs the risk" part.

 

[Arm Chair Express]

Tell him to submit a full lineup or he runs the risk of getting booted from the league.

Then if he don't put a lineup in for him. Use the players he used on a regular basis. It's not fair for one team to get handed a playoff spot because of this. We have rules for this in our league.

 

[Mr. Pink]

Tell him to submit a full lineup or he runs the risk of getting booted from the league.

Then if he don't put a lineup in for him. Use the players he used on a regular basis. It's not fair for one team to get handed a playoff spot because of this. We have rules for this in our league.

He must put in a full line-up. To not do so alters the competitive balance of your league. If he doesn't you do it for him, but alert the rest of the league as to your actions so there are no questions. The job of commissioner is to prevent these occurrences. The other owners should agree.

 

[BigTuna]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

It depends. Did he put in a full lineup all the previous weeks? If this is the first week he's done it, then have him put in a lineup. If someone else in the league has already reaped the benefits of him submitting a partial lineup. Then it would not be fair to this person to make a lineup change. IMO you have to catch it the first time, or leave it alone.

 

[fsufan]

There seems to be a lot of tanking threads in the past week or so. If you have a rule in place email him and ask him to set his best possible line, if he doers not do it, do it for him. I am in the same boat as commish.

 

[Stoneys]

In our league, if a lineup is not submitted, the team reverts to his previous weeks lineup. So, if only has one starting receiver, and he does not submit 2 other starting receivers, revert to his previous weeks receivers for starters.

 

[Billcheats]

I see nothing wrong with tanking. A couple of years back the Colts "tanked" their last regular season game against the Broncos so they could get the Broncos again in the first round (I forget what team lost out because of the Colts tank) - in any event that "altered the competitive balance of the league" but somehow the NFL still manages to go on. Nothing wrong with strategy.

 

[fsufan]

I see nothing wrong with tanking. A couple of years back the Colts "tanked" their last regular season game against the Broncos so they could get the Broncos again in the first round (I forget what team lost out because of the Colts tank) - in any event that "altered the competitive balance of the league" but somehow the NFL still manages to go on. Nothing wrong with strategy.

and your user name is Billcheats

 

[-OZ-]

I see nothing wrong with tanking. A couple of years back the Colts "tanked" their last regular season game against the Broncos so they could get the Broncos again in the first round (I forget what team lost out because of the Colts tank) - in any event that "altered the competitive balance of the league" but somehow the NFL still manages to go on. Nothing wrong with strategy.

and your user name is Billcheats

seems appropriate sarcasm

 

[Addai's Adidas]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

It depends. Did he put in a full lineup all the previous weeks? If this is the first week he's done it, then have him put in a lineup. If someone else in the league has already reaped the benefits of him submitting a partial lineup. Then it would not be fair to this person to make a lineup change. IMO you have to catch it the first time, or leave it alone.

The owner in question i s my step dad. He is competitive and always (until now) starts a good lineup. He play sin several money leagues besides this one.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

Don't you have rules or guildelines to go by? Most leagues have something in place to prevent tanking.If you don't have existing principles or rules, then let the lineup stand. If you dont like tanking, FIX IT IN THE OFFSEASON. Add incentives to not tank. You can't complain about unfair when you are basing your decisions on the rules that everyone accepted before the season began. That's a good lesson for everyone for next year, including the commissioners.If you DO have rules or guildelines that apply to tanking, apply them appropriately. Ask him to change his lineup or do it for him IF that's something that's written up in your RULES.This doesnt sound like collusion or anything, it sounds like an owner playing by the rules to the benefit of his team. That's not his fault, it's the league's fault for having a crappy system. That can be fixed in the offseason easily enough, but that shouldn't happen in the middle of a week.

 

[fsufan]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.

I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

Don't you have rules or guildelines to go by? Most leagues have something in place to prevent tanking.If you don't have existing principles or rules, then let the lineup stand. If you dont like tanking, FIX IT IN THE OFFSEASON. Add incentives to not tank. You can't complain about unfair when you are basing your decisions on the rules that everyone accepted before the season began. That's a good lesson for everyone for next year, including the commissioners.

If you DO have rules or guildelines that apply to tanking, apply them appropriately. Ask him to change his lineup or do it for him IF that's something that's written up in your RULES.

This doesnt sound like collusion or anything, it sounds like an owner playing by the rules to the benefit of his team. That's not his fault, it's the league's fault for having a crappy system. That can be fixed in the offseason easily enough, but that shouldn't happen in the middle of a week.

the incentive should be, playing in the league next year

 

[BigTuna]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

It depends. Did he put in a full lineup all the previous weeks? If this is the first week he's done it, then have him put in a lineup. If someone else in the league has already reaped the benefits of him submitting a partial lineup. Then it would not be fair to this person to make a lineup change. IMO you have to catch it the first time, or leave it alone.

The owner in question i s my step dad. He is competitive and always (until now) starts a good lineup. He play sin several money leagues besides this one.

Well, if this is the first time he is doing it, then nip it in the bud and make him put in a respectable lineup. The reason I mentioned that is because in one of my leagues there is a guy that lost about every game the first 7 weeks or so. I played him a few weeks back and noticed he wasn't picking up players for his bye week and played an injured player. I won easily. Now I'm noticing that the guy behind me is playing him. He's still tanking, but I'm not going to complain because I already got a feebie off him.

 

[Black]

Tell him to submit a full lineup or he runs the risk of getting booted from the league.

No reason not to put guys in. That is tanking...which is grounds for removal from league.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

Well, it is just Friday AM. Did he leave any good Cowboys/Packers out of his lineup?

If you're worried about it, you might send a message reminding/suggesting each owner submit a complete lineup and establish rules to prevent the problem next year. Setting his lineup for him might set a bad precedent and open a can of worms...

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Well, it is just Friday AM. Did he leave any good Cowboys/Packers out of his lineup?If you're worried about it, you might send a message reminding/suggesting each owner submit a complete lineup and establish rules to prevent the problem next year. Setting his lineup for him might set a bad precedent and open a can of worms...

He left Crayton and Reggie Brown on the bench, his regular starters.. Started Only Heath miller.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.

I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

Don't you have rules or guildelines to go by? Most leagues have something in place to prevent tanking.If you don't have existing principles or rules, then let the lineup stand. If you dont like tanking, FIX IT IN THE OFFSEASON. Add incentives to not tank. You can't complain about unfair when you are basing your decisions on the rules that everyone accepted before the season began. That's a good lesson for everyone for next year, including the commissioners.

If you DO have rules or guildelines that apply to tanking, apply them appropriately. Ask him to change his lineup or do it for him IF that's something that's written up in your RULES.

This doesnt sound like collusion or anything, it sounds like an owner playing by the rules to the benefit of his team. That's not his fault, it's the league's fault for having a crappy system. That can be fixed in the offseason easily enough, but that shouldn't happen in the middle of a week.

the incentive should be, playing in the league next year

Again, IS THERE A GUIDELINE OR ESTABLISHED RULE PREVENTING TANKING?If there's no guildelines written down about this, why are you going to kick someone out of the league? He's not colluding. He's acting in his own best interest. Why force him to act AGAINST his own best interest if there's no rules or guidelines to follow? If there's a problem not covered by the rules, that's maily the commissioners fault.

Essentially you're saying that you did such a terrible job of commissioner that you forgot to include a basic, standard, no-tanking clause as a guildeline. On top of that, you are going to kick someone out of a league for no reason other than you can't let owners manage games for themselves according to the rules that you came up with.

That's pathetic. You wrote the rules, you apply them fairly and evenly all season long. Deal with it in the offseason and learn from your mistake if you messed up. You never arbitrarily change a rule midseason.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.

I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

Don't you have rules or guildelines to go by? Most leagues have something in place to prevent tanking.If you don't have existing principles or rules, then let the lineup stand. If you dont like tanking, FIX IT IN THE OFFSEASON. Add incentives to not tank. You can't complain about unfair when you are basing your decisions on the rules that everyone accepted before the season began. That's a good lesson for everyone for next year, including the commissioners.

If you DO have rules or guildelines that apply to tanking, apply them appropriately. Ask him to change his lineup or do it for him IF that's something that's written up in your RULES.

This doesnt sound like collusion or anything, it sounds like an owner playing by the rules to the benefit of his team. That's not his fault, it's the league's fault for having a crappy system. That can be fixed in the offseason easily enough, but that shouldn't happen in the middle of a week.

the incentive should be, playing in the league next year

Again, IS THERE A GUIDELINE OR ESTABLISHED RULE PREVENTING TANKING?If there's no guildelines written down about this, why are you going to kick someone out of the league? He's not colluding. He's acting in his own best interest. Why force him to act AGAINST his own best interest if there's no rules or guidelines to follow? If there's a problem not covered by the rules, that's maily the commissioners fault.

Essentially you're saying that you did such a terrible job of commissioner that you forgot to include a basic, standard, no-tanking clause as a guildeline. On top of that, you are going to kick someone out of a league for no reason other than you can't let owners manage games for themselves according to the rules that you came up with.

That's pathetic. You wrote the rules, you apply them fairly and evenly all season long. Deal with it in the offseason and learn from your mistake if you messed up. You never arbitrarily change a rule midseason.

Wow, you sound more upset than I do.The rules are set up so that you can start anywhere from 0-3 TE's and 0-3 WR's. He really didn't even have to leave Heath Miller in the lineup.

 

[Stealthycat]

what are the rules concerning this ? I mean, your league DOES have rules right ?

I Commish a league, and our rules say you cannot tank, fire sale or collusion - and its the Commish decision to make sure lineups fall are fair and teams are TRYING to win - always

Many instances come up - I've allowed partial lineups when teams didn't want to drop/add for a kicker in the longterm best interest of their teams, I'm adjusted lineups when i thought a owner was maybe out of town or had issues doing it, and I've kicked out 2 owners for their nonchalant attitudes that affect every team in the league.

Your league MUST have rules on this. If they don't ? Pandora's Box is wide open

 

[erymer]

Tell him to submit a full lineup or he runs the risk of getting booted from the league.

Except take out the "runs the risk" part.

that's how we handle the situation. we also started a draft lottery for the bottom 5 teams. So the worst team isn't a lock to get the #1 pick.

 

[fsufan]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.

I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

Don't you have rules or guildelines to go by? Most leagues have something in place to prevent tanking.If you don't have existing principles or rules, then let the lineup stand. If you dont like tanking, FIX IT IN THE OFFSEASON. Add incentives to not tank. You can't complain about unfair when you are basing your decisions on the rules that everyone accepted before the season began. That's a good lesson for everyone for next year, including the commissioners.

If you DO have rules or guildelines that apply to tanking, apply them appropriately. Ask him to change his lineup or do it for him IF that's something that's written up in your RULES.

This doesnt sound like collusion or anything, it sounds like an owner playing by the rules to the benefit of his team. That's not his fault, it's the league's fault for having a crappy system. That can be fixed in the offseason easily enough, but that shouldn't happen in the middle of a week.

the incentive should be, playing in the league next year

Again, IS THERE A GUIDELINE OR ESTABLISHED RULE PREVENTING TANKING?If there's no guildelines written down about this, why are you going to kick someone out of the league? He's not colluding. He's acting in his own best interest. Why force him to act AGAINST his own best interest if there's no rules or guidelines to follow? If there's a problem not covered by the rules, that's maily the commissioners fault.

Essentially you're saying that you did such a terrible job of commissioner that you forgot to include a basic, standard, no-tanking clause as a guildeline. On top of that, you are going to kick someone out of a league for no reason other than you can't let owners manage games for themselves according to the rules that you came up with.

That's pathetic. You wrote the rules, you apply them fairly and evenly all season long. Deal with it in the offseason and learn from your mistake if you messed up. You never arbitrarily change a rule midseason.

Wow, you sound more upset than I do.The rules are set up so that you can start anywhere from 0-3 TE's and 0-3 WR's. He really didn't even have to leave Heath Miller in the lineup.

If the opponent of the owner who is starting only 1 WR out of 3 wins he is in the playoffs. Am I reading this right?

 

[bigbrother]

In my main leage we have a rule that charges fines for people not submitting a complete lineup or by playing people who are definitely out for the week. The money from fines is figured into the winnings at the end of the year.

 

[coachjim]

If I were you I would change the rule about how next years first round pick is earned.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.

I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

Don't you have rules or guildelines to go by? Most leagues have something in place to prevent tanking.If you don't have existing principles or rules, then let the lineup stand. If you dont like tanking, FIX IT IN THE OFFSEASON. Add incentives to not tank. You can't complain about unfair when you are basing your decisions on the rules that everyone accepted before the season began. That's a good lesson for everyone for next year, including the commissioners.

If you DO have rules or guildelines that apply to tanking, apply them appropriately. Ask him to change his lineup or do it for him IF that's something that's written up in your RULES.

This doesnt sound like collusion or anything, it sounds like an owner playing by the rules to the benefit of his team. That's not his fault, it's the league's fault for having a crappy system. That can be fixed in the offseason easily enough, but that shouldn't happen in the middle of a week.

the incentive should be, playing in the league next year

Again, IS THERE A GUIDELINE OR ESTABLISHED RULE PREVENTING TANKING?If there's no guildelines written down about this, why are you going to kick someone out of the league? He's not colluding. He's acting in his own best interest. Why force him to act AGAINST his own best interest if there's no rules or guidelines to follow? If there's a problem not covered by the rules, that's maily the commissioners fault.

Essentially you're saying that you did such a terrible job of commissioner that you forgot to include a basic, standard, no-tanking clause as a guildeline. On top of that, you are going to kick someone out of a league for no reason other than you can't let owners manage games for themselves according to the rules that you came up with.

That's pathetic. You wrote the rules, you apply them fairly and evenly all season long. Deal with it in the offseason and learn from your mistake if you messed up. You never arbitrarily change a rule midseason.

Wow, you sound more upset than I do.The rules are set up so that you can start anywhere from 0-3 TE's and 0-3 WR's. He really didn't even have to leave Heath Miller in the lineup.

I get upset with people advising other commissioners not to follow their own rules and make wild changes that arent based on the leagues constitution. That's should be insulting to any decent commissioner. You have a huge resposibility as a commish. You have be the authority for the league to keep things running smoothly, apply rules fairly, and to let owners run their own teams as they see fit. That's easier said than done.Lots of people think that they know better than someone else how to run someone else's team. That's never the case. An owner should always be allowed to run his team as he sees fit unless he's breaking the rules or cheating. In a case like this, it sounds like the owner is actually behaving in his own best interest. Maybe you need to adjust the rules next year. Until then, didnt your whole league review the rules before the season and agree that those rules were fine? If anyone complains about this, you should point out that the rules were up during the offseason and anyone could have pointed this issue out beforehand. In my league I'd say "Hey, I'm not happy about this, but these are the rules and I'm not going to penalize Steve for running his team in his own best interest. Anyone else that doesnt like it, help me review the rules in the offseason to keep things more competative."

If you really have the same owners from year to year, it should be easy to fix things in the offseason. I'd add incentives to play your best starters every week. We pay out $60 for the high scoring team each week. Or just remove the benefit of a better draft pick for the TB loser. I'd avoid anything that has you adjusting another owners lineup.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.

I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

Don't you have rules or guildelines to go by? Most leagues have something in place to prevent tanking.If you don't have existing principles or rules, then let the lineup stand. If you dont like tanking, FIX IT IN THE OFFSEASON. Add incentives to not tank. You can't complain about unfair when you are basing your decisions on the rules that everyone accepted before the season began. That's a good lesson for everyone for next year, including the commissioners.

If you DO have rules or guildelines that apply to tanking, apply them appropriately. Ask him to change his lineup or do it for him IF that's something that's written up in your RULES.

This doesnt sound like collusion or anything, it sounds like an owner playing by the rules to the benefit of his team. That's not his fault, it's the league's fault for having a crappy system. That can be fixed in the offseason easily enough, but that shouldn't happen in the middle of a week.

the incentive should be, playing in the league next year

Again, IS THERE A GUIDELINE OR ESTABLISHED RULE PREVENTING TANKING?If there's no guildelines written down about this, why are you going to kick someone out of the league? He's not colluding. He's acting in his own best interest. Why force him to act AGAINST his own best interest if there's no rules or guidelines to follow? If there's a problem not covered by the rules, that's maily the commissioners fault.

Essentially you're saying that you did such a terrible job of commissioner that you forgot to include a basic, standard, no-tanking clause as a guildeline. On top of that, you are going to kick someone out of a league for no reason other than you can't let owners manage games for themselves according to the rules that you came up with.

That's pathetic. You wrote the rules, you apply them fairly and evenly all season long. Deal with it in the offseason and learn from your mistake if you messed up. You never arbitrarily change a rule midseason.

Wow, you sound more upset than I do.The rules are set up so that you can start anywhere from 0-3 TE's and 0-3 WR's. He really didn't even have to leave Heath Miller in the lineup.

If the opponent of the owner who is starting only 1 WR out of 3 wins he is in the playoffs. Am I reading this right?

Yes. The opponent is 5-6-1. A win puts him at 6-6 and probably in.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

If I were you I would change the rule about how next years first round pick is earned.

Winner of the toilet bowl gets first round pick. Loser get s second.

 

[fsufan]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.

I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

Don't you have rules or guildelines to go by? Most leagues have something in place to prevent tanking.If you don't have existing principles or rules, then let the lineup stand. If you dont like tanking, FIX IT IN THE OFFSEASON. Add incentives to not tank. You can't complain about unfair when you are basing your decisions on the rules that everyone accepted before the season began. That's a good lesson for everyone for next year, including the commissioners.

If you DO have rules or guildelines that apply to tanking, apply them appropriately. Ask him to change his lineup or do it for him IF that's something that's written up in your RULES.

This doesnt sound like collusion or anything, it sounds like an owner playing by the rules to the benefit of his team. That's not his fault, it's the league's fault for having a crappy system. That can be fixed in the offseason easily enough, but that shouldn't happen in the middle of a week.

the incentive should be, playing in the league next year

Again, IS THERE A GUIDELINE OR ESTABLISHED RULE PREVENTING TANKING?If there's no guildelines written down about this, why are you going to kick someone out of the league? He's not colluding. He's acting in his own best interest. Why force him to act AGAINST his own best interest if there's no rules or guidelines to follow? If there's a problem not covered by the rules, that's maily the commissioners fault.

Essentially you're saying that you did such a terrible job of commissioner that you forgot to include a basic, standard, no-tanking clause as a guildeline. On top of that, you are going to kick someone out of a league for no reason other than you can't let owners manage games for themselves according to the rules that you came up with.

That's pathetic. You wrote the rules, you apply them fairly and evenly all season long. Deal with it in the offseason and learn from your mistake if you messed up. You never arbitrarily change a rule midseason.

Wow, you sound more upset than I do.The rules are set up so that you can start anywhere from 0-3 TE's and 0-3 WR's. He really didn't even have to leave Heath Miller in the lineup.

If the opponent of the owner who is starting only 1 WR out of 3 wins he is in the playoffs. Am I reading this right?

Yes. The opponent is 5-6-1. A win puts him at 6-6 and probably in.

So the owner who is out of the playoffs is only starting 1 WR out of 3 to help another owner make the playoffs. Sound like tanking and collusion to me. Even if there is not a rule in place there is still a thing called ethics and just doing the right thing.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

A team out of contention is starting 1 out of three receivers. If his opponent wins, he is in. There are three other teams on the bubble. The winner of the toilet bowl gets the first pick. This is the last week of the regular season, so he can "tank" this week to make his record worse, then make a push for the toilet bowl next week.

I am not one for intervening in lineup decisions, but it doesn't seem fair to the other bubble teams to have one team basically lay down at such a critical time. Do we (the 3 co-commishes) change his lineup?

Don't you have rules or guildelines to go by? Most leagues have something in place to prevent tanking.If you don't have existing principles or rules, then let the lineup stand. If you dont like tanking, FIX IT IN THE OFFSEASON. Add incentives to not tank. You can't complain about unfair when you are basing your decisions on the rules that everyone accepted before the season began. That's a good lesson for everyone for next year, including the commissioners.

If you DO have rules or guildelines that apply to tanking, apply them appropriately. Ask him to change his lineup or do it for him IF that's something that's written up in your RULES.

This doesnt sound like collusion or anything, it sounds like an owner playing by the rules to the benefit of his team. That's not his fault, it's the league's fault for having a crappy system. That can be fixed in the offseason easily enough, but that shouldn't happen in the middle of a week.

the incentive should be, playing in the league next year

Again, IS THERE A GUIDELINE OR ESTABLISHED RULE PREVENTING TANKING?If there's no guildelines written down about this, why are you going to kick someone out of the league? He's not colluding. He's acting in his own best interest. Why force him to act AGAINST his own best interest if there's no rules or guidelines to follow? If there's a problem not covered by the rules, that's maily the commissioners fault.

Essentially you're saying that you did such a terrible job of commissioner that you forgot to include a basic, standard, no-tanking clause as a guildeline. On top of that, you are going to kick someone out of a league for no reason other than you can't let owners manage games for themselves according to the rules that you came up with.

That's pathetic. You wrote the rules, you apply them fairly and evenly all season long. Deal with it in the offseason and learn from your mistake if you messed up. You never arbitrarily change a rule midseason.

Wow, you sound more upset than I do.The rules are set up so that you can start anywhere from 0-3 TE's and 0-3 WR's. He really didn't even have to leave Heath Miller in the lineup.

If the opponent of the owner who is starting only 1 WR out of 3 wins he is in the playoffs. Am I reading this right?

Yes. The opponent is 5-6-1. A win puts him at 6-6 and probably in.

So the owner who is out of the playoffs is only starting 1 WR out of 3 to help another owner make the playoffs. Sound like tanking and collusion to me. Even if there is not a rule in place there is still a thing called ethics and just doing the right thing.

He isn't trying to help the other team. I'm guessing he just wants to make his overall record worse. I had the worst record last year and didn't win the toilet bowl (and the first pick) and I ended up picking 3rd. I didn't tank either

 

[top dog]

In my main leage we have a rule that charges fines for people not submitting a complete lineup or by playing people who are definitely out for the week. The money from fines is figured into the winnings at the end of the year.

In our league moves cost $3.. Having an not-complete lineup results in a $10 fine.

 

[-OZ-]

Well, it is just Friday AM. Did he leave any good Cowboys/Packers out of his lineup?

If you're worried about it, you might send a message reminding/suggesting each owner submit a complete lineup and establish rules to prevent the problem next year. Setting his lineup for him might set a bad precedent and open a can of worms...

He left Crayton and Reggie Brown on the bench, his regular starters.. Started Only Heath miller.

that's problematic. now, he can't even submit the lineup with Crayton in, you'll have to do it as commish and prepare for the outcry from the opponent.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Thanks everyone for your input. It was my fault all along it turns out. Our rosters lock (no transactions till after the season). I failed to turn off claims, but did turn off waivers and free agents (fanball.) He ( and one other owner) picked up two guys off of claims and started them within hours. About 4 hours later I reversed the transactions for the 2 teams.

When I did this I got rid of two of his starters. No one even realized it. I talked to the co-commishes; we were in unanimous agreement to put Crayton and Reggiee brown back in. I posted a message with full culpability and details. I think it all legit now.

Human error. It happens.

 

[DropKick]

I see nothing wrong with tanking. A couple of years back the Colts "tanked" their last regular season game against the Broncos so they could get the Broncos again in the first round (I forget what team lost out because of the Colts tank) - in any event that "altered the competitive balance of the league" but somehow the NFL still manages to go on. Nothing wrong with strategy.

In the NFL, at least teams reap the benefit of resting key or dinged players late in the season. Tanking in fantasy football however is lame.

 

[BigTuna]

Thanks everyone for your input. It was my fault all along it turns out. Our rosters lock (no transactions till after the season). I failed to turn off claims, but did turn off waivers and free agents (fanball.) He ( and one other owner) picked up two guys off of claims and started them within hours. About 4 hours later I reversed the transactions for the 2 teams.When I did this I got rid of two of his starters. No one even realized it. I talked to the co-commishes; we were in unanimous agreement to put Crayton and Reggiee brown back in. I posted a message with full culpability and details. I think it all legit now.Human error. It happens.

getting us all upsetnoob