Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Do you replace an absentee owner midseason? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bob Wiley
- Start date
WiDDoW_MaKeR
Footballguy
No. That isn't fair for the teams that are facing him in the second half of the season. The teams who played him in the first half, all probably got an easy win from him, as he wasn't replacing bye weeks, replacing injured players, starting the right guys, ect... Now it wouldn't be right to change it up on the guys he has yet to face.
trader jake
Footballguy
If you can't even reach him via PM, e-mail or phone and the new owner is likely to be around next year...then yes, replace the absentee owner.
blake
Footballguy
i think this is the right answer, unfortunately. not only this point, but the guy did pay his dues. he gets to manage (or not manage) his team how he feels appropriate. and if this isn't appropriate for your league (which it isn't, and isn't appropriate for any league), then do not invite him back for next season and do a better job going forward of recruiting owners to be in the league.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
I disagree completely. Paying your dues does not buy you the right to make a joke out of the league and hand out cheap wins. Leagues shouldn't be held hostage until "next season." If you abandon your team, you get the boot. Gimme wins at the end of the season are MUCH worse than gimme wins in the beginning. Absent owners need to be replaced immediately. If you can't find another owner, have that opponent face the league average. Those owners need to know that having nobody is better than having them. Commissioners need to have the stones to do what's right for the league, not hide behind "well, we weren't psychic and it's not in the rules." Passive leagues like that try so hard to be fair, they always screw themselves "this year" while resolving to fix everything for "next year." But next year brings its own troubles, so there's always a problem.Nobody should enable an absent owner. It's insulting to the league. Everyone should support booting that loser.
BigRed
Footballguy
....ONLY if that option is spelled out in the rules in the first place. Otherwise you're just making it up as you go, which isn't fair either, even if he had it coming.
Jersey35
Footballguy
Agreed. Obviously you don't have rules in place for this scenario, otherwise you wouldn't be asking. Here's the catch: since you have no rules in place, it is your duty as commissioner to establish PRECEDENT. You need to decide what option is in the best interest of your league. Nobody here can tell you what is best for your league, but my guess is that you'd be best served by removing the inactive owner and replacing him with a new one - or at worst removing the inactive owner and setting up a DEFINED method for setting their roster - it doesn't matter how as long as it's impartial.Rules are important, but what's more important is having an intelligent human being interpreting and applying them. In a scenario where there is no rule addressing the issue, you need to make a decision, defend it, and not look back.Good luck.I disagree completely. Paying your dues does not buy you the right to make a joke out of the league and hand out cheap wins. Leagues shouldn't be held hostage until "next season." If you abandon your team, you get the boot. Gimme wins at the end of the season are MUCH worse than gimme wins in the beginning. Absent owners need to be replaced immediately. If you can't find another owner, have that opponent face the league average. Those owners need to know that having nobody is better than having them. Commissioners need to have the stones to do what's right for the league, not hide behind "well, we weren't psychic and it's not in the rules." Passive leagues like that try so hard to be fair, they always screw themselves "this year" while resolving to fix everything for "next year." But next year brings its own troubles, so there's always a problem.Nobody should enable an absent owner. It's insulting to the league. Everyone should support booting that loser.
Last edited by a moderator:
blake
Footballguy
absolutely. if there is no rule, the guy paid his dues, and can manage or mismanage his team how he likes. it is up to the league to enforce inactive owners. if there are no rules, the guy paid his dues and is well within his rights and cannot be replaced. in addition, also because it's not fair to the teams that he hasn't played.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
I understand that you think he *should not* be replaced, but it's wrong to say he *cannot* be replaced. He sure can. You just do what's right for the league. If anyone doesn't like it, they can leave, too. The alternative is enabling losers to ruin your experience year in and year out. Rules aren't a handcuff for the good owners; they're barriers to prevent bad owners from ruining the game.We're not talking about changing scoring mid-year or changing how the waiver wire is run. We're talking about booting an absent owner who has a piece of driftwood for a team ruining the league. I just don't think hiding behind the rules is the right thing to do when the league's integrity is at stake. I understand you think it's wrong to make that move without it being spelled out, but I'd be VERY disappointed in a league where an abandoned team was allowed to keep messing with the standings because those in charge threw up their hands and shrugged their shoulders. I'm not sure I'd want to be in a league where everyone was afraid to preserve the integrity of the competition. That should be a goal; not something to fear.
Jersey35
Footballguy
Just because something isn't accounted for in the rules doesn't mean you're forced to allow it. This is the type of garbage CRAP I get so sick of. You people arguing this point sound exactly like the people who scour rulebooks looking for loopholes and then try to exploit them.We have commissioners because it's preferable to have an ACTUAL human being interpret rules and use COMMON SENSE in determining what is fair. Pieces of paper are incapable of running a league. When a rule isn't in place, it's up to the human being in charge to make the best decision he or she can. It certainly isn't their job to say, "Well, it isn't addressed in the rules, so it HAS TO BE ALLOWED".
Does your rulebook specifically address whether one owner can steal another owners login and password, and drop all of their players? If not, by your logic, if someone did that, they are "well within" their rights - after all, they've paid their dues and the rules don't forbid it. Oh really?
Boltz Boy
Footballguy
I'm faced with this right now in a league I co-commish. The owner was a first-year replacement for someone who left the league (9th year of this league, but it's redraft.) He didn't draft terribly well, which is probably due to the fact that he's a big Chiefs fan. (Not a good fantasy year to load up on Chiefs.) He's been getting crushed, and in a league where we play 2 games a week, he was 0-10. Last week he dropped another 2 games, but I noticed that he hasn't been on the site since Oct. 6. His lineup for week 6 had 3 starters on bye, and 2 starters who were backups and didn't play. This was the second time this year he'd started multiple people on their bye week. I am currently trying to reach this owner, but am really leaning towards replacing him. I did consider the fact that if the team now has an active owner it potentially is unfair to the teams playing him in the second half, but I personally don't find it fun to beat a team 145-19 (actual score from 2 weeks ago.)
Hoss_Cartwright
Footballguy
The right thing to do is replace an inactive owner in the off-season when you probably don't have to worry if he's paid up for the next season or not. There are cases where owners are paid up in the future because of trading #1 rookie picks, so in those cases you would need to refund that amount if you boot the owner for inactivity. If you want to replace an inactive owner in-season, you must refund at least a prorated amount of his entry fee if you don't have provisions in the rules for inactivity.
Bob Wiley
Footballguy
I got a hold of the guy, and he was fine with being replaced. So, we had a vote, and the league voted to replace him. But there was one dude in the league, who was making a big stink and actually asked for his money back if we replaced the inactive owner. We told him he wasn't getting his money back and he lost the vote. It looks like things have calmed down there though. We replaced the inactive owner with an active one who is constantly making moves now, and trash talking. The league is much better off.
blake
Footballguy
absolutely. just inventing rules in the middle of the season, such as replacing an owner, because you want to, is a terrible precedent and a league i would not want to be in, if it has no respect for rules.
Glatty
Footballguy
No - the guy paid his fee and he chose to participate by sitting on the sidelines. his loss. replace him next year.
we had a guy do this in one of my leagues a few years ago. he paid his dues, set his lineup for week 1, then never logged in again. He actually won a few games by luck, but that's how it goes. we treated his team like the Lions and laughed at anyone who lost to him.
also, as blake pointed out, it's not fair to the owners he hasn't played yet. why should those were fortunate enough to play him early in the season be rewarded with an easy win while those who are scheduled to play him later in the year be forced to 'fight' for a win? sure, it sux to have a lame-duck owner, but you have to be fair to all the teams in the league.
we had a guy do this in one of my leagues a few years ago. he paid his dues, set his lineup for week 1, then never logged in again. He actually won a few games by luck, but that's how it goes. we treated his team like the Lions and laughed at anyone who lost to him.
also, as blake pointed out, it's not fair to the owners he hasn't played yet. why should those were fortunate enough to play him early in the season be rewarded with an easy win while those who are scheduled to play him later in the year be forced to 'fight' for a win? sure, it sux to have a lame-duck owner, but you have to be fair to all the teams in the league.
Last edited by a moderator:
habsfan
Footballguy
I don't think "making up rules" is the same as encountering a new situation and dealing with it "in real time". I am dealing with an absentee owner as well. It's not in the rules because we haven't faced it before. I've notified him that he has until this Sunday at 1:00PM to grab the reigns. If he doesn't I said we would consider the team abandoned and I would lock it and manage it by default projections for the balance of the year or until I can replace him.
As far as griping about the "unfairness" of a forgotten team suddenly becoming managed, the reality is these people are assuming the missing owner would stay "missing". You don't know for sure that they'll stay away. Free wins are never a sure thing and it's not a reason to refrain from replacing someone.
As far as griping about the "unfairness" of a forgotten team suddenly becoming managed, the reality is these people are assuming the missing owner would stay "missing". You don't know for sure that they'll stay away. Free wins are never a sure thing and it's not a reason to refrain from replacing someone.
