Commissioners: What do you do about an owner who has bye week players (1 Viewer)

[lion_crazz]

An owner in my league is still starting Jones Drew, Michael Turner, and Edgerrin James. I tried getting a hold of him but was unsuccessful.

His record is not the greatest but he is surely not out of it. It's only week 7. This is a money league, so it is not like there is nothing at stake. Even teams who do not make the playoffs compete for prizes at the end of the year.

What do you guys do?

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Let him be. Sometimes if I have that many guys on a bye week it's just not worth it to drop a ton a of players to cover one week.

 

[BigTex]

Set the roster to keep the league competitive. Find out later what happen, if it's a valid reason for not setting (sickness, death in family, net down) then just move on. If not, find a more competitive owner.

 

[lion_crazz]

This guy has two eligible players to sub in - Marques Colston and Patrick Crayton. He does not have a running back though, so he is definitely going to have to play one bye week running back. League rules are either 2-2, 1-3, 3-1 (RB/WR).

 

[[icon]]

That depends... are you going to wash his underwear for him when gets low too?

Attempt contact then let it be. Setting his roster and potentially earning him a win over another roster who had the foresight to set his roster is worse than "unfair balance of power" in the league.

If he doesn't have a good excuse after this weekend then explain he's got to get it set from here on out or he's going to lose his team.

 

[pghrob]

As commissioner in my league, we covered this issue with a rule during the off season. There is no surprise. In our league, we decided that part of the challenge of winning is managing the roster and lineup requirements. We put it to a vote and it with great controversy, if an owner sets a lineup that includes a bye week, that owner forfeits the win. Is it an extreme rule and consequence? Absolutely. But there were extreme feelings from both sides. We put it a vote, and we have legislated no bye week starters in my league. This rule certainly has added an interesting dimension to our league.

 

[millertyme1]

Let it be. If it were that much of a concern, you should of played best ball or an all-play league.

 

[CNUTZ]

Let the roster be. If he doesn't start players it is his issue.

 

[lion_crazz]

Setting his roster and potentially earning him a win over another roster who had the foresight to set his roster is worse than "unfair balance of power" in the league.

I feel the same way. I have no problem fixing your roster if you call me and tell me you have no access to a computer or you had to work all week and forgot about it but I do not just want to do it without any call or email.

 

[bcr8f]

No one did anything when I left bye players in.

 

[super sleeper]

As a commissioner, I have tried to contact owners that forget to make lineup changes during bye weeks. I do it as a courtesy to everyone, even have done it when they are playing me. But that's the extent of it. I would never change a lineup without someone asking me to, and no one would expect it or allow it.

Each year there is always someone who is called away on business, goes on vacation, has a family emergency, or just otherwise spaces out and leaves a hole in their lineup. I just chalk it up as part of the game. It's only one game.

 

[[scooter]]

We put it to a vote and it with great controversy, if an owner sets a lineup that includes a bye week, that owner forfeits the win. Is it an extreme rule and consequence? Absolutely. But there were extreme feelings from both sides. We put it a vote, and we have legislated no bye week starters in my league. This rule certainly has added an interesting dimension to our league.

Terrible rule and you should be ashamed of yourself. An owner must forfeit a win even if his 5 players outscores the entire rest of his opponent's team?? Where is the logic in that?You know what this rule really is? It's socialism. You're forcing the stronger teams to give up their wealth, which will then be redistributed to the weaker teams. You're penalizing the strong teams and rewarding the weaker teams.

 

[Fantaholic]

When you get into setting other people's rosters you open a can of worms. You just can't do that. Give him a warning and the next time it happens, he gets replaced. If does it again after being warned, he's not forgetting, he's ignoring. If you allow it to continue as is, then other players in the league have a legitimate argument that it can affect the outcome of the standings. That's not fair to the guys that pay attention. My $.02

 

[Ghost Rider]

Leave it alone. If he cannot take the time to put in players who are actually playing, then he deserves to lose. If I was his opponent and I lost a game because the commissioner put in players for him, I would be royally pissed.

 

[maccabees]

I would Let the roster be.Then I would talk to him about how important it is for him to put his best lineup in when I caught up with him.

 

[pghrob]

We put it to a vote and it with great controversy, if an owner sets a lineup that includes a bye week, that owner forfeits the win. Is it an extreme rule and consequence? Absolutely. But there were extreme feelings from both sides. We put it a vote, and we have legislated no bye week starters in my league. This rule certainly has added an interesting dimension to our league.

Terrible rule and you should be ashamed of yourself. An owner must forfeit a win even if his 5 players outscores the entire rest of his opponent's team?? Where is the logic in that?You know what this rule really is? It's socialism. You're forcing the stronger teams to give up their wealth, which will then be redistributed to the weaker teams. You're penalizing the strong teams and rewarding the weaker teams.

That is a great description. It was not my vote. The entire league voted this. I guess you can say the liberals in our league are turning it into league into a welfare league. We need to appoint more conservative judges to our fantasy league courts to challenge the constitutionality of thes types of rules.

 

[Fantaholic]

Leave it alone. If he cannot take the time to put in players who are actually playing, then he deserves to lose. If I was his opponent and I lost a game because the commissioner put in players for him, I would be royally pissed.

However, if you were not playing against him but needed him to win his game to take over first place in your division, would you not be pissed as well? The integrity of the league is in question whne you have owners not paying attention. Please explain to me the point of having a non-participating member in a league?

 

[Sweeper]

As commissioner in my league, we covered this issue with a rule during the off season. There is no surprise. In our league, we decided that part of the challenge of winning is managing the roster and lineup requirements. We put it to a vote and it with great controversy, if an owner sets a lineup that includes a bye week, that owner forfeits the win. Is it an extreme rule and consequence? Absolutely. But there were extreme feelings from both sides. We put it a vote, and we have legislated no bye week starters in my league. This rule certainly has added an interesting dimension to our league.

This is a terrible rule. So if someone starts a player during his bye week and wins, he is forced to forfeit? And the other owners get to vote on it, including the owner he just played? Well, I guess you know what that owner's motivation is. You've got all kinds of weak going on here.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Leave it alone. If he cannot take the time to put in players who are actually playing, then he deserves to lose. If I was his opponent and I lost a game because the commissioner put in players for him, I would be royally pissed.

However, if you were not playing against him but needed him to win his game to take over first place in your division, would you not be pissed as well? The integrity of the league is in question whne you have owners not paying attention. Please explain to me the point of having a non-participating member in a league?

I would be pissed at the owner who was too lazy to set a proper lineup, not at the commissioner, whose job is NOT to manage someone else's team. As for having a non-participating member in a league, kick him out when the season is over, but if he is too lazy to properly manage his team, he should not let someone hold his hand along the way. What if the commissioner does him lineup for him for a month, because he is too lazy, and the guy makes the playoffs as a result and ends up winning the league? That would not be fair at all. It would be an insult to the owners who take the team to properly manage their team, put their lineups in, etc.

 

[Sweeper]

Leave it alone. If he cannot take the time to put in players who are actually playing, then he deserves to lose. If I was his opponent and I lost a game because the commissioner put in players for him, I would be royally pissed.

However, if you were not playing against him but needed him to win his game to take over first place in your division, would you not be pissed as well? The integrity of the league is in question whne you have owners not paying attention. Please explain to me the point of having a non-participating member in a league?

Other owners are always going to piss you off but it's their team. You can't have the commish jumping in and and micro managing other owner's teams. It's a slippery slope that you have no right walking on, at least after (or even before) one game.

 

[Sweeper]

Leave it alone. If he cannot take the time to put in players who are actually playing, then he deserves to lose. If I was his opponent and I lost a game because the commissioner put in players for him, I would be royally pissed.

However, if you were not playing against him but needed him to win his game to take over first place in your division, would you not be pissed as well? The integrity of the league is in question whne you have owners not paying attention. Please explain to me the point of having a non-participating member in a league?

I would be pissed at the owner who was too lazy to set a proper lineup, not at the commissioner, whose job is NOT to manage someone else's team. As for having a non-participating member in a league, kick him out when the season is over, but if he is too lazy to properly manage his team, he should not let someone hold his hand along the way. What if the commissioner does him lineup for him for a month, because he is too lazy, and the guy makes the playoffs as a result and ends up winning the league? That would not be fair at all. It would be an insult to the owners who take the team to properly manage their team, put their lineups in, etc.

It's not the month that would bother me, it's the ONE GAME.What if the owner wins this game because of the "intervention" by the comish and the guy he plays this week misses the playoffs because of this one game? He doesn't make the playoffs because of the commish? I'd be pissed if I was that owner and that's why you can't mess with it.

 

[pghrob]

As commissioner in my league, we covered this issue with a rule during the off season. There is no surprise. In our league, we decided that part of the challenge of winning is managing the roster and lineup requirements. We put it to a vote and it with great controversy, if an owner sets a lineup that includes a bye week, that owner forfeits the win. Is it an extreme rule and consequence? Absolutely. But there were extreme feelings from both sides. We put it a vote, and we have legislated no bye week starters in my league. This rule certainly has added an interesting dimension to our league.

This is a terrible rule. So if someone starts a player during his bye week and wins, he is forced to forfeit? And the other owners get to vote on it, including the owner he just played? Well, I guess you know what that owner's motivation is. You've got all kinds of weak going on here.

You misinterpreted my post. I did a bad job explaining what I meant. There is no voting during the week. The vote I referred to was the vote made by league members during the offseason to enact a rule that means setting a starting lineup with a player on a bye week constitutes an illegal lineup and henceforth a forfeit for that week. League members participate in the rule setting through a voting process. They voted the rule in. The result of this rule? All particpants in our league know they better set a lineup (wrought from a need to draft a team and manage their roster in such a way) that allows them to field a team that will not result in starting players on a bye. Otherwise, the consequence is an illegal lineup that results in forfeit. Since our league moved in this direction, we have not had to deal with the issue of bye week players in lineups. Everyone is attentative and fully engaged.

 

[Black]

As you noted, if he has 'startable' guys on his roster (doesn't have to add/drop to get them), he should be starting them.

That being said, things happen...family stuff, Vegas, etc. He might have just forgotten.

I would NOT set the lineup, unless 1) I talked to the person on the phone and they asked me to do it 2) it's a repeat incident, in which case, I would effectively be taking over his team and replacing him the following week.

 

[Sweeper]

As commissioner in my league, we covered this issue with a rule during the off season. There is no surprise. In our league, we decided that part of the challenge of winning is managing the roster and lineup requirements. We put it to a vote and it with great controversy, if an owner sets a lineup that includes a bye week, that owner forfeits the win. Is it an extreme rule and consequence? Absolutely. But there were extreme feelings from both sides. We put it a vote, and we have legislated no bye week starters in my league. This rule certainly has added an interesting dimension to our league.

This is a terrible rule. So if someone starts a player during his bye week and wins, he is forced to forfeit? And the other owners get to vote on it, including the owner he just played? Well, I guess you know what that owner's motivation is. You've got all kinds of weak going on here.

You misinterpreted my post. I did a bad job explaining what I meant. There is no voting during the week. The vote I referred to was the vote made by league members during the offseason to enact a rule that means setting a starting lineup with a player on a bye week constitutes an illegal lineup and henceforth a forfeit for that week. League members participate in the rule setting through a voting process. They voted the rule in. The result of this rule? All particpants in our league know they better set a lineup (wrought from a need to draft a team and manage their roster in such a way) that allows them to field a team that will not result in starting players on a bye. Otherwise, the consequence is an illegal lineup that results in forfeit. Since our league moved in this direction, we have not had to deal with the issue of bye week players in lineups. Everyone is attentative and fully engaged.

So, if someone ended up with a player in his starting lineup during week 2's unscheduled bye at Houston, would they have forfeited?

 

[Phurfur]

Set the roster to keep the league competitive. Find out later what happen, if it's a valid reason for not setting (sickness, death in family, net down) then just move on. If not, find a more competitive owner.

This is the ONE thing you NEVER EVER want to do!

 

[pghrob]

As commissioner in my league, we covered this issue with a rule during the off season. There is no surprise. In our league, we decided that part of the challenge of winning is managing the roster and lineup requirements. We put it to a vote and it with great controversy, if an owner sets a lineup that includes a bye week, that owner forfeits the win. Is it an extreme rule and consequence? Absolutely. But there were extreme feelings from both sides. We put it a vote, and we have legislated no bye week starters in my league. This rule certainly has added an interesting dimension to our league.

This is a terrible rule. So if someone starts a player during his bye week and wins, he is forced to forfeit? And the other owners get to vote on it, including the owner he just played? Well, I guess you know what that owner's motivation is. You've got all kinds of weak going on here.

You misinterpreted my post. I did a bad job explaining what I meant. There is no voting during the week. The vote I referred to was the vote made by league members during the offseason to enact a rule that means setting a starting lineup with a player on a bye week constitutes an illegal lineup and henceforth a forfeit for that week. League members participate in the rule setting through a voting process. They voted the rule in. The result of this rule? All particpants in our league know they better set a lineup (wrought from a need to draft a team and manage their roster in such a way) that allows them to field a team that will not result in starting players on a bye. Otherwise, the consequence is an illegal lineup that results in forfeit. Since our league moved in this direction, we have not had to deal with the issue of bye week players in lineups. Everyone is attentative and fully engaged.

So, if someone ended up with a player in his starting lineup during week 2's unscheduled bye at Houston, would they have forfeited?

Yes, our rules would have designated a lineup that included a Houston or Baltimore player in a week 2 starting lineup as an invalid lineup.

 

[Weekend Warrior]

I have run my league for 15+ years and I woudl try to contact him and let them know but you can NEVER set a lineup for another team. It happens 1-2 times a year for some owners and then I implemented a weekly payout for wins ($5.00/win). This all but eliminated taking games and teams not paying attention.

Good Luck!

 

[Fantaholic]

Leave it alone. If he cannot take the time to put in players who are actually playing, then he deserves to lose. If I was his opponent and I lost a game because the commissioner put in players for him, I would be royally pissed.

However, if you were not playing against him but needed him to win his game to take over first place in your division, would you not be pissed as well? The integrity of the league is in question whne you have owners not paying attention. Please explain to me the point of having a non-participating member in a league?

I would be pissed at the owner who was too lazy to set a proper lineup, not at the commissioner, whose job is NOT to manage someone else's team. As for having a non-participating member in a league, kick him out when the season is over, but if he is too lazy to properly manage his team, he should not let someone hold his hand along the way. What if the commissioner does him lineup for him for a month, because he is too lazy, and the guy makes the playoffs as a result and ends up winning the league? That would not be fair at all. It would be an insult to the owners who take the team to properly manage their team, put their lineups in, etc.

I think my post was confusing. I am long time commish, and my point was that you never manage another team's roster. The owner that is not participating needs to be warned and then replaced in order to keep the integrity of the league intact.

 

[jeff1013]

As commissioner in my league, we covered this issue with a rule during the off season. There is no surprise. In our league, we decided that part of the challenge of winning is managing the roster and lineup requirements. We put it to a vote and it with great controversy, if an owner sets a lineup that includes a bye week, that owner forfeits the win. Is it an extreme rule and consequence? Absolutely. But there were extreme feelings from both sides. We put it a vote, and we have legislated no bye week starters in my league. This rule certainly has added an interesting dimension to our league.

This is a terrible rule. So if someone starts a player during his bye week and wins, he is forced to forfeit? And the other owners get to vote on it, including the owner he just played? Well, I guess you know what that owner's motivation is. You've got all kinds of weak going on here.

I have to agree here...that is a crazy rule. There are alot of circumstances that can play into it including injuries and trades and this year hurricane postponements. There should be other remedies if an owner completely mismanages however a blanket rule to forfeit is not the right way IMO.

 

[fsufan]

my biggest pet peeve as a commish

this rule is in my league rules

Every owner must try to field his or her best team each week, no players in starting line ups that are on byes or knowingly out due to injury

what if this happens week 13(last week of the regular season for most leagues). and that owners starts player(s) that are hurt. and him not paying attention cost someone a playoffs spot.

I have played in leagues were this has happened and the owner that missed the playoff b/c an owner quite managing his was pissed

 

[pghrob]

As commissioner in my league, we covered this issue with a rule during the off season. There is no surprise. In our league, we decided that part of the challenge of winning is managing the roster and lineup requirements. We put it to a vote and it with great controversy, if an owner sets a lineup that includes a bye week, that owner forfeits the win. Is it an extreme rule and consequence? Absolutely. But there were extreme feelings from both sides. We put it a vote, and we have legislated no bye week starters in my league. This rule certainly has added an interesting dimension to our league.

This is a terrible rule. So if someone starts a player during his bye week and wins, he is forced to forfeit? And the other owners get to vote on it, including the owner he just played? Well, I guess you know what that owner's motivation is. You've got all kinds of weak going on here.

I have to agree here...that is a crazy rule. There are alot of circumstances that can play into it including injuries and trades and this year hurricane postponements. There should be other remedies if an owner completely mismanages however a blanket rule to forfeit is not the right way IMO.

It definitely is a firm rule, but since its inception by our league 2 years ago, players on bye weeks in starting lineups have not been an issue. Every member in our league knows the ruel, and all have found a way to manage their team through bye weeks and remain compliant and competitve. While it may seem unforgiving, it seems to be working at setting a competitive field of play.

 

[painkiller]

The only time I would make a change as commish is if I know they're in the hospital or had a death in the family, etc. It's during those times that FF is the last thing on a person's mind and so they may not have made updates.

 

[atcdav]

This guy has two eligible players to sub in - Marques Colston and Patrick Crayton. He does not have a running back though, so he is definitely going to have to play one bye week running back. League rules are either 2-2, 1-3, 3-1 (RB/WR).

Our rule is a team does not have to spend money to pick up players off of waiver/FA, but they must start a competitive roster, meaning they cannot start a player on a bye if they have someone on the bench who could be playing. If he has players on the bench I would start those players for him and assess a fine. Our fine is $10.

 

[GoldenBear]

As commissioner in my league, we covered this issue with a rule during the off season. There is no surprise. In our league, we decided that part of the challenge of winning is managing the roster and lineup requirements. We put it to a vote and it with great controversy, if an owner sets a lineup that includes a bye week, that owner forfeits the win. Is it an extreme rule and consequence? Absolutely. But there were extreme feelings from both sides. We put it a vote, and we have legislated no bye week starters in my league. This rule certainly has added an interesting dimension to our league.

So if the current power outage in Buffalo results in a cancellation, the owner loses his game? Evil!

 

[Sister Havana]

Setting his roster and potentially earning him a win over another roster who had the foresight to set his roster is worse than "unfair balance of power" in the league.

I feel the same way. I have no problem fixing your roster if you call me and tell me you have no access to a computer or you had to work all week and forgot about it but I do not just want to do it without any call or email.

My feelings exactly. If someone in my league calls or emails me and tells me they have no access to a computer, or if there's an emergency and they need me to fix their roster, I'll do it, but I won't just go in and do it for them. That's not fair to anyone.