Hey Guys, I seem to have a few owners that think that there isnt a pro (2 Viewers)

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

Well im my league i have it set where you cannot start a player on a bye week.

I have had a long debate on how that if say one of the owners have 3 te's all on the same bye he wouldnt want to cut

a player that would be potentially picked up by another owner and kept.

I responded that EVERY owner should manage there own rosters and see the bye weeks coming and be ready to make the necessary adjustments.

I can see his case but in dynasty league with rosters over 22+ i see no reason for anyone not to cover there bye's or injuries. And we also have an IR spot as well.

And then i also have an owner that thinks there is nothing wrong with maybe starting a guy that is hurt.

Basically for the same reason for not wanting to cut a valuable player. I really dont understand this way of thinking.

But i guess they dont see my side of it as commish.

For one we use POWER RANKINGS to decided to order of the rookie draft. And i dont think it would be fair to the other

11 paying owners for an owner to start guys that are on bye/injured. Even if the guy is 5-0, i can see the case where he could say

how is he trying to tank when he in 1st place. True but even with that said ive seen some 4-1 teams i dont expect to win another game this yr and

this could potentially give him a lower power rank in the end to get a higher rookie pick.

Am i suppose to see the "grey area" here as these owners are telling me. I really dont think cause a team is in 1st the rules should be no different for them.

I kinda had a situation last yr where a guy with a one of the worser records did not want to pickup a qb to start when his other qb's where injured/bye.

Again i dont think thats fair wether you are trying or not trying to compete or tank.

I just think everyone should be able to manage there teams without trying to use the argument of i dont want to drop a valuable player.

Cause for one not "all" the players on most guys teams are undroppable.

How do your leagues handle this situation? I am in the FBG/STAFF HyperActive leagues and i like how they handle this.

You will be fined and could lose your team if it happens more than a few times. Solid owners keeps up with there teams.

Now with all that being said. The last minute scratch of Mike Walker i can see as that was last minute. And if you wasnt online to get that update then

you would have been screwed. Not so much a case of bad management rather bad timing on the inactives by the Jags.

 

[RushHour]

IMO, part of managing a team is deciding who you are and aren't willing to drop. I'm in an IDP dynasty league with max position limits and have just noticed that I have 3 LBs with the same bye week. The 4 LBs I have on my roster are all young, high upside guys and I don't really want to drop any of them so I'll probably just take a zero at that spot and hope I get lucky with the rest of my matchup.

I don't see why this isn't fair to other owners - if you have a player on your team, you either drafted him, traded for him or maybe had the foresight to pick him up waivers. It's up to indivudal managers to decide whether it is worth copping a zero in a bye week to keep a player. That's part of evaluating the worth of players, which is an aspect of being a good GM.

 

[FUBAR]

IMO, part of managing a team is deciding who you are and aren't willing to drop. I'm in an IDP dynasty league with max position limits and have just noticed that I have 3 LBs with the same bye week. The 4 LBs I have on my roster are all young, high upside guys and I don't really want to drop any of them so I'll probably just take a zero at that spot and hope I get lucky with the rest of my matchup.I don't see why this isn't fair to other owners - if you have a player on your team, you either drafted him, traded for him or maybe had the foresight to pick him up waivers. It's up to indivudal managers to decide whether it is worth copping a zero in a bye week to keep a player. That's part of evaluating the worth of players, which is an aspect of being a good GM.

If a team has a player on his roster who is playing and starts a player on bye instead, that's a problem.If he makes the decision to keep a player and is willing to take the zero for a game to keep his roster intact, that's a strategic choice. In redraft leagues this shouldn't even bother you. In dynasty leagues if you think the team is tanking to get a better draft pick, I see the issue and it should be covered in the rules. Overall it's probably too complicated and comes down to whether the evidence shows the team is tanking. If so, remove the owner.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Example: Peyton Manning and Jamarcus Russell are rostered by the same team. When Peyton is on his bye week, are you better of starting hm anyway instead of Russell?

 

[Fodasme69]

Example: Peyton Manning and Jamarcus Russell are rostered by the same team. When Peyton is on his bye week, are you better of starting hm anyway instead of Russell?

I don't think anyone will have that problem as Russell shouldn't be on ANYONE'S Roster....not even Oaklands

 

[FDC]

I leave roster spots empty all the time on purpose, even this week.

Leagues like you mentioned are especially likely for this as well (IDP dynasty leagues).

There is so much depth at IDP positions (especially DBs) I try to keep as low IDPs rostered as posssible so I can have more depth at the offensive positions. When a DB is on a bye, I simply role with an empty slot. If I find myself in a tight game I can add a DB playing on MNF.

Did it this week and I'm up by 90 pts right now and obviously will now be leaving my one DB spot empty. Was thinking about dropping guys like Miles Austin to do it. Glad I didn't after what Miles did. This is a good example of why you should just have a hands off aproach to this type of thing.

 

[JamesTheScot]

With the respect to the OP....

Your heart is in the right place in that you want owners to try their best to keep the league competitive.

However, your job as commish is to be an administrator, not second guess the other owners who are OBVIOUSLY doing what they think improves their chances to win. Think about it...players have byes once a season. I've got a bad situation with my LB byes in week 9, but they are kicking ### the other 16 weeks of the season. Explain to me why I should weaken myself for 16 weeks to better myself for one week?

As long as an owner is trying to run their team to get the most wins, it's really none of your business if the manner, philosophy or strategy they employ differs from yours. As a commish, it's bad form to use your commish power to bully someone else into running their team the way you would run yours.

Besides, this early in the season most owners are still in the hunt even if they have fallen behind or forged a lead in the standings. I wouldn't start looking for owners to intentionally tank for better draft slots until the last 3rd or 4th of the season.

 

[Dolfan]

If a team has a player on his roster who is playing and starts a player on bye instead, that's a problem.If he makes the decision to keep a player and is willing to take the zero for a game to keep his roster intact, that's a strategic choice.

Team I'm playing did this to me this week and I really don't have a problem with it -- I'd probably do the same if I was in his position...He has a 3-point lead going into tonight's game and I have no players left, and he still has his defense. Our league's defensive scoring is set up to where sometimes (hardly ever, but it does happen) defenses can score negative points. He originally had Miami as his starting defense, but after yesterday's game, with a 3-point lead and me being done, he switched it to San Diego (on bye this week)...

 

[habsfan]

In the league I run, "intentional zeros" are permitted provided the owner advises me that they're doing it. I want an active league but want people to be able to make these calls too. This communication rule allows both. If they don't notify me, I presume they simply haven't dealt with their line-up properly and I treat it as illegal for that week.

 

[caglassc]

Well im my league i have it set where you cannot start a player on a bye week.

I have had a long debate on how that if say one of the owners have 3 te's all on the same bye he wouldnt want to cut

a player that would be potentially picked up by another owner and kept.

I responded that EVERY owner should manage there own rosters and see the bye weeks coming and be ready to make the necessary adjustments.

I can see his case but in dynasty league with rosters over 22+ i see no reason for anyone not to cover there bye's or injuries. And we also have an IR spot as well.

And then i also have an owner that thinks there is nothing wrong with maybe starting a guy that is hurt.

Basically for the same reason for not wanting to cut a valuable player. I really dont understand this way of thinking.

But i guess they dont see my side of it as commish.

For one we use POWER RANKINGS to decided to order of the rookie draft. And i dont think it would be fair to the other

11 paying owners for an owner to start guys that are on bye/injured. Even if the guy is 5-0, i can see the case where he could say

how is he trying to tank when he in 1st place. True but even with that said ive seen some 4-1 teams i dont expect to win another game this yr and

this could potentially give him a lower power rank in the end to get a higher rookie pick.

Am i suppose to see the "grey area" here as these owners are telling me. I really dont think cause a team is in 1st the rules should be no different for them.

I kinda had a situation last yr where a guy with a one of the worser records did not want to pickup a qb to start when his other qb's where injured/bye.

Again i dont think thats fair wether you are trying or not trying to compete or tank.

I just think everyone should be able to manage there teams without trying to use the argument of i dont want to drop a valuable player.

Cause for one not "all" the players on most guys teams are undroppable.

How do your leagues handle this situation? I am in the FBG/STAFF HyperActive leagues and i like how they handle this.

You will be fined and could lose your team if it happens more than a few times. Solid owners keeps up with there teams.

Now with all that being said. The last minute scratch of Mike Walker i can see as that was last minute. And if you wasnt online to get that update then

you would have been screwed. Not so much a case of bad management rather bad timing on the inactives by the Jags.

First, I wouldn't play in a league that had a rule stating I couldn't play someone who was hurt or on a bye week. RushHour said it best - "IMO, part of managing a team is deciding who you are and aren't willing to drop" and I would add who you are or are not going to start. You said it yourself - everyone should be able to manage their teams - why do I need you or YOUR opinion regarding the management of my team? MY TEAM - not yours. I just played this week without a tight end - I was unwilling to drop any of the players on my roster to pick someone up. In the short term the few points I would potentially get from picking up and trading for a tight end did not outweigh the points I could possibly lose by dropping a player, depth on my roster, plus potential trade opportunities and the ability to play match-ups as they arise.

Sorry, if you can't see my side of it.

 

[Casting Couch]

IMO, part of managing a team is deciding who you are and aren't willing to drop. I'm in an IDP dynasty league with max position limits and have just noticed that I have 3 LBs with the same bye week. The 4 LBs I have on my roster are all young, high upside guys and I don't really want to drop any of them so I'll probably just take a zero at that spot and hope I get lucky with the rest of my matchup.I don't see why this isn't fair to other owners - if you have a player on your team, you either drafted him, traded for him or maybe had the foresight to pick him up waivers. It's up to indivudal managers to decide whether it is worth copping a zero in a bye week to keep a player. That's part of evaluating the worth of players, which is an aspect of being a good GM.

This makes total sense. Well said.

 

[SayWhat?]

With the respect to the OP....

Your heart is in the right place in that you want owners to try their best to keep the league competitive.

However, your job as commish is to be an administrator, not second guess the other owners who are OBVIOUSLY doing what they think improves their chances to win. Think about it...players have byes once a season. I've got a bad situation with my LB byes in week 9, but they are kicking ### the other 16 weeks of the season. Explain to me why I should weaken myself for 16 weeks to better myself for one week?

As long as an owner is trying to run their team to get the most wins, it's really none of your business if the manner, philosophy or strategy they employ differs from yours. As a commish, it's bad form to use your commish power to bully someone else into running their team the way you would run yours.

Besides, this early in the season most owners are still in the hunt even if they have fallen behind or forged a lead in the standings. I wouldn't start looking for owners to intentionally tank for better draft slots until the last 3rd or 4th of the season.

This is spot on, especially the bolded. It sounds as if the OP has great intentions, yet part of being the commish of a dynasty league should be allowing the other teams to actively manage their teams how they deem best. As long as they are fielding their most competetive lineup on a weekly basis, it shouldn't matter if there's an ocassional odd situation where they may be forced to go with a weak/short lineup due to injuries, bye weeks and/or roster management where they'd prefer not to drop a quality dynasty prospect for a one week filler. I think the key is that you need to be able to separate the times when situation warrants an injured or bye week player in a lineup versus those times when owners are setting their lineups, yet not playing their best players or fielding their most competitive lineup.

This may be a fine line at times, but most paying dynasty leagues I've been in don't seem to have any such problems.

 

[waiver wire]

in my leagues (keeper and dynasty) you can not start a player that is on a bye week or listed as out so you have to manage your teams accordingly

 

[moleculo]

why are you trying to regulate how owners run their teams?

 

[netnalp]

Your concern seems to be with teams tanking games and power ranking to get a better draft spot. Change your draft order to prevent this and then you can allow people the freedom of starting a bye week or injured player.

In my league to stop tanking, the draft order starts with the non-playoff team with the best regular season record to the worst and then worst to first for playoff teams. Also the top seed for each playoff week gets to select which of the other playoff teams they will play. Ever since this was implemented our teams haven't tanked games.

We also allow teams to select their draft spot too, though this probably doesn't prevent tanking games.

An additional benefit is it rewards teams that try to be competitive. The last place teams in my leagues are often the guys that don't put as much effort into the hobby.

 

[LittlePhatty]

If an owner simply isn't submitting a starting roster (but startable players ARE on their roster), then that is abandoning a team - especially if it continues for several weeks. It can ruin your league. We've had our commish take over for teams abandoned more than three weeks, setting rosters based on projected stats, but never dropping or adding players.

I don't think a commish should force drop/add moves in a keeper/dynasty league, or in redraft either for that matter.

As long as the owner is ACTIVELY managing his/her team, I say it is OK. Maybe that owner should send a note to the commish in advance, saying "I choose to play without a TE this week, taking my chances". Seems fine by me.

 

[FDC]

Your concern seems to be with teams tanking games and power ranking to get a better draft spot. Change your draft order to prevent this and then you can allow people the freedom of starting a bye week or injured player.

In my league to stop tanking, the draft order starts with the non-playoff team with the best regular season record to the worst and then worst to first for playoff teams. Also the top seed for each playoff week gets to select which of the other playoff teams they will play. Ever since this was implemented our teams haven't tanked games.

We also allow teams to select their draft spot too, though this probably doesn't prevent tanking games.

An additional benefit is it rewards teams that try to be competitive. The last place teams in my leagues are often the guys that don't put as much effort into the hobby.

I don't think that is the answer. Very good teams miss the playoffs all the time. It would be very hard to turn around a bad team with this format.I would rather have tanking than use this idea.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

With the respect to the OP....

Your heart is in the right place in that you want owners to try their best to keep the league competitive.

However, your job as commish is to be an administrator, not second guess the other owners who are OBVIOUSLY doing what they think improves their chances to win. Think about it...players have byes once a season. I've got a bad situation with my LB byes in week 9, but they are kicking ### the other 16 weeks of the season. Explain to me why I should weaken myself for 16 weeks to better myself for one week?

As long as an owner is trying to run their team to get the most wins, it's really none of your business if the manner, philosophy or strategy they employ differs from yours. As a commish, it's bad form to use your commish power to bully someone else into running their team the way you would run yours.

Besides, this early in the season most owners are still in the hunt even if they have fallen behind or forged a lead in the standings. I wouldn't start looking for owners to intentionally tank for better draft slots until the last 3rd or 4th of the season.

This is spot on, especially the bolded. It sounds as if the OP has great intentions, yet part of being the commish of a dynasty league should be allowing the other teams to actively manage their teams how they deem best. As long as they are fielding their most competetive lineup on a weekly basis, it shouldn't matter if there's an ocassional odd situation where they may be forced to go with a weak/short lineup due to injuries, bye weeks and/or roster management where they'd prefer not to drop a quality dynasty prospect for a one week filler. I think the key is that you need to be able to separate the times when situation warrants an injured or bye week player in a lineup versus those times when owners are setting their lineups, yet not playing their best players or fielding their most competitive lineup.

This may be a fine line at times, but most paying dynasty leagues I've been in don't seem to have any such problems.

Yeah i agree. I recall have a few owners have a problem with a losing team last yr not fielding a complete lineup. Which in turns (if he loses) makes his power rank lower for him to land a higher draft spot.

But i do agree at times where there may be a situation where you wouldnt want to cut someone in short roster leagues for a one week fix.

its all TEAM management. I myself had this issue pop up and didnt want to cut a young player. But instead of not starting anyone or a bye week guy i put in my 2nd te who

is a 2nd stringer. I knew i wouldnt get much but i rather play J.Cook than lose him for a Boss/Scaife pickup.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

in my leagues (keeper and dynasty) you can not start a player that is on a bye week or listed as out so you have to manage your teams accordingly

Yeah my other leagues i am in also have rules in place that you cannot play guys on bye or inactive. I dont think this is out of the norm.

 

[FDC]

in my leagues (keeper and dynasty) you can not start a player that is on a bye week or listed as out so you have to manage your teams accordingly

Yeah my other leagues i am in also have rules in place that you cannot play guys on bye or inactive. I dont think this is out of the norm.

It should be out of the norm. This week Mike Simms-Walker was started in 53% of ESPN leagues but was inactive. Should 50+% of players be disqualified this week? The examples go on and on. Just leave it alone or more issues will come up.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

in my leagues (keeper and dynasty) you can not start a player that is on a bye week or listed as out so you have to manage your teams accordingly

Yeah my other leagues i am in also have rules in place that you cannot play guys on bye or inactive. I dont think this is out of the norm.

It should be out of the norm. This week Mike Simms-Walker was started in 53% of ESPN leagues but was inactive. Should 50+% of players be disqualified this week? The examples go on and on. Just leave it alone or more issues will come up.

What does that mean?You dont get what i am saying i see. Now "IF" was deemed inactive line say the week before...think (DMAC) last week. We all knew he wouldnt be playing.

He was inactive well in time for guys to make changes. Now thats what i am getting at. Sure situations can come up like the situation with M.Walker.

There is nothing wrong with that like i say...it happens.

Now playing a guy on a bye or pronouced inactive well before hand is something completely different.

Reson for m posting on here to see how most of other leagues handle this issue.

 

[David Yudkin]

I have been in leagues where you could only make one waiver acquisition per week. So there were times with byes, injuries, etc. that even with great preplanning you could not get a player to cover a bye (especially if you had multiple people on byes at the same time). I remember trying to pick up players to cover the same bye week, but the players I put waiver claims on were gobbled up by other owners so I got no one each week. One time I tried to get replacements starting 3 weeks in advance and couldn't swing it. Is that worth penalizing an owner for when they already have to eat a zero?

 

[FUBAR]

If a team has a player on his roster who is playing and starts a player on bye instead, that's a problem.If he makes the decision to keep a player and is willing to take the zero for a game to keep his roster intact, that's a strategic choice.

Team I'm playing did this to me this week and I really don't have a problem with it -- I'd probably do the same if I was in his position...He has a 3-point lead going into tonight's game and I have no players left, and he still has his defense. Our league's defensive scoring is set up to where sometimes (hardly ever, but it does happen) defenses can score negative points. He originally had Miami as his starting defense, but after yesterday's game, with a 3-point lead and me being done, he switched it to San Diego (on bye this week)...

I've done the same thing and would this week if we had negative scoring for kickers. I have a 9 point lead with only Dan Carpenter left and he's done. We don't, so he's in. Now if he fumbles or throws INTs 5 times I'll be

 

[FUBAR]

why are you trying to regulate how owners run their teams?

take that to the extreme, why have rules for collusion?

 

[Knobs]

I've started guys who were on a bye before...I don't see the problem with it, as long as the person isn't doing simply because they're not paying attention.

One owner played Gates as his TE this weekend. His other option was Shockey. He didn't want to cut one, couldn't work out a trade, and dropping someone off his team would have hurt his roster for the season compared to taking a hit for one week.

 

[madd futher]

From our league rules:

10. Sportsmanship Rules:

a. You MAY start a player who is on a bye week to avoid messing up your roster. However, intentionally "tanking" a game is NOT allowed. The commissioner will decide if "tanking" has occurred and determine the appropriate penalty. "Tanking" or giving up, generally occurs when an owner feels that his team is 'out of it', but it unfairly affects all the other owners competing for play-off spots, as well as the draft order in the following year. So in general, anyone who does not change their line-ups to field a competitive team on a weekly basis will not be invited back into the league the following year.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

why are you trying to regulate how owners run their teams?

take that to the extreme, why have rules for collusion?

exactly, thats why i didnt respond to that.

 

[paydrt]

Our league has an "Incomplete Lineup Clause" The first time is a $20 fine, the second a $50 fine and a third...well we'll find a different owner. And this has no time frame either, and it's clearly understood. Now having said that we understand that players who are game time decisions coupled with bye weeks can make for some real headaches on Sunday morning but knowing in advance that your lineup is going to be in complete and not making an adjustment is unfair to the rest of your league.

I dont understand how anyone could deem it "OK" for a member of any league to submit an incomplete lineup or leave a position blank. This is equivalent to "tanking a game" and you run the risk of upsetting the competitive balance and or altering the standings. For those of us playing in a league with a substantial buy in and then to watch one team not make the necessary roster adjustments is total BS, everybody in your league runs the risk of being screwed here, except of course the ONE guy.

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

That's a horrible rule...Especially in a dynasty league, you don't have the ability to "draft for bye weeks". If the schedule comes out and 3 of your 4 WRs are on bye the same week, you shouldn't have to drop an otherwise MORE valuable player just to field a full lineup in a given week.

I fully agree that as a dynasty commissioner, you need to monitor people who seem to be actively throwing games (starting an injured player in place of a healthy player, etc.).

But a rule that dictates how you manage your roster week to week is overstepping the bounds.

As someone before me said, if I have to sacrifice 1 week in order to be better for 16 weeks (and in the years to come), I'm okay with that. Don't force me to weaken my team long-term just because of an unfortunate schedule conflict 1 week...

 

[jeter23]

I find it funny all of the guys on here acting as if the way their league does it is the only option. There are many types of leagues and one set of rules can't fit every league.

In the leagues I commish, this is how we have chosen to handle this issue. You HAVE to start players that are actually playing. If a player is on bye or has been ruled out prior to gameday, they can not be inserted into your lineup. If they are, you are fined. The 2nd time it happens, you are subject to being removed. A case like MSW from yesterday would not fall under these rules and the oener would not be penalized.

We have these rules in place for many reasons. It is a dynasty league and every win a loss affects each team, whether it is playoff seeding or the draft order for next year. I do not want one unprepared or careless owner negatively affecting the rest of the league. If this were a redraft or another type of league, I could imagine an entirely different set of rules being applicable.

 

[paydrt]

One owner played Gates as his TE this weekend. His other option was Shockey. He didn't want to cut one, couldn't work out a trade, and dropping someone off his team would have hurt his roster for the season compared to taking a hit for one week.

The guy had 5 weeks to sort this out!!!

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

Well im my league i have it set where you cannot start a player on a bye week. <snip>But i guess they dont see my side of it as commish. For one we use POWER RANKINGS to decided to order of the rookie draft. And i dont think it would be fair to the other11 paying owners for an owner to start guys that are on bye/injured. Even if the guy is 5-0, i can see the case where he could sayhow is he trying to tank when he in 1st place. True but even with that said ive seen some 4-1 teams i dont expect to win another game this yr andthis could potentially give him a lower power rank in the end to get a higher rookie pick.

So, the rule is in place why? To prevent teams from tanking/losing intentionally to improve their draft position, right?So what's the penalty for submitting an illegal lineup? Forfeit the game? Doesn't that give the cheaters exactly what they want, while potentially giving a try-hard team taking a calculated risk (leaving a zero in their lineup intentionally) a loss when they could have had a chance to win? Seems like the punishment in this case rewards the 'crime'...

 

[Akkum]

In my local league we had the same problem a couple of years ago. We solved it by lowering the entry fee and charging teams a fee for losing games.

 

[Breesisdaman]

IMO, part of managing a team is deciding who you are and aren't willing to drop. I'm in an IDP dynasty league with max position limits and have just noticed that I have 3 LBs with the same bye week. The 4 LBs I have on my roster are all young, high upside guys and I don't really want to drop any of them so I'll probably just take a zero at that spot and hope I get lucky with the rest of my matchup.I don't see why this isn't fair to other owners - if you have a player on your team, you either drafted him, traded for him or maybe had the foresight to pick him up waivers. It's up to indivudal managers to decide whether it is worth copping a zero in a bye week to keep a player. That's part of evaluating the worth of players, which is an aspect of being a good GM.

If a team has a player on his roster who is playing and starts a player on bye instead, that's a problem.If he makes the decision to keep a player and is willing to take the zero for a game to keep his roster intact, that's a strategic choice. In redraft leagues this shouldn't even bother you. In dynasty leagues if you think the team is tanking to get a better draft pick, I see the issue and it should be covered in the rules. Overall it's probably too complicated and comes down to whether the evidence shows the team is tanking. If so, remove the owner.

You mean like this week when I had Sims- Walker starting and Braylon Edwards on my bench.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

Well im my league i have it set where you cannot start a player on a bye week. <snip>But i guess they dont see my side of it as commish. For one we use POWER RANKINGS to decided to order of the rookie draft. And i dont think it would be fair to the other11 paying owners for an owner to start guys that are on bye/injured. Even if the guy is 5-0, i can see the case where he could sayhow is he trying to tank when he in 1st place. True but even with that said ive seen some 4-1 teams i dont expect to win another game this yr andthis could potentially give him a lower power rank in the end to get a higher rookie pick.

So, the rule is in place why? To prevent teams from tanking/losing intentionally to improve their draft position, right?So what's the penalty for submitting an illegal lineup? Forfeit the game? Doesn't that give the cheaters exactly what they want, while potentially giving a try-hard team taking a calculated risk (leaving a zero in their lineup intentionally) a loss when they could have had a chance to win? Seems like the punishment in this case rewards the 'crime'...

If i had to do anything i would probably warn him and subit a legal lineup for him.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

I find it funny all of the guys on here acting as if the way their league does it is the only option. There are many types of leagues and one set of rules can't fit every league.

In the leagues I commish, this is how we have chosen to handle this issue. You HAVE to start players that are actually playing. If a player is on bye or has been ruled out prior to gameday, they can not be inserted into your lineup. If they are, you are fined. The 2nd time it happens, you are subject to being removed. A case like MSW from yesterday would not fall under these rules and the oener would not be penalized.

We have these rules in place for many reasons. It is a dynasty league and every win a loss affects each team, whether it is playoff seeding or the draft order for next year. I do not want one unprepared or careless owner negatively affecting the rest of the league. If this were a redraft or another type of league, I could imagine an entirely different set of rules being applicable.

 

[jeter23]

Well im my league i have it set where you cannot start a player on a bye week.

<snip>

But i guess they dont see my side of it as commish.

For one we use POWER RANKINGS to decided to order of the rookie draft. And i dont think it would be fair to the other

11 paying owners for an owner to start guys that are on bye/injured. Even if the guy is 5-0, i can see the case where he could say

how is he trying to tank when he in 1st place. True but even with that said ive seen some 4-1 teams i dont expect to win another game this yr and

this could potentially give him a lower power rank in the end to get a higher rookie pick.

So, the rule is in place why? To prevent teams from tanking/losing intentionally to improve their draft position, right?So what's the penalty for submitting an illegal lineup? Forfeit the game?

Doesn't that give the cheaters exactly what they want, while potentially giving a try-hard team taking a calculated risk (leaving a zero in their lineup intentionally) a loss when they could have had a chance to win?

Seems like the punishment in this case rewards the 'crime'...

This is the big question for sure.

 

[MCguidance]

I dislike the practice but understand the logic.

I haven't started someone on a bye, I just can't stand the thought of losing by a small number of points that could have potentially given me a W.

I also don't play in dynasty, so I can not speak to the power points or future picks situation.

 

[glock]

In my auction-keeper league owners are limited to 3 free agent moves... for the season. We can also use an injury move to pick up a player any time a player on our roster is listed as "out" on the Friday injury report. That picked up player OR the one on "IR" must be cut once the injured player is no longer "out."

With limited moves like that, owners sometimes go without a TE, K or D and in very rare cases a QB, RB or WR.

 

[Short Corner]

Well im my league i have it set where you cannot start a player on a bye week. <snip>But i guess they dont see my side of it as commish. For one we use POWER RANKINGS to decided to order of the rookie draft. And i dont think it would be fair to the other11 paying owners for an owner to start guys that are on bye/injured. Even if the guy is 5-0, i can see the case where he could sayhow is he trying to tank when he in 1st place. True but even with that said ive seen some 4-1 teams i dont expect to win another game this yr andthis could potentially give him a lower power rank in the end to get a higher rookie pick.

So, the rule is in place why? To prevent teams from tanking/losing intentionally to improve their draft position, right?So what's the penalty for submitting an illegal lineup? Forfeit the game? Doesn't that give the cheaters exactly what they want, while potentially giving a try-hard team taking a calculated risk (leaving a zero in their lineup intentionally) a loss when they could have had a chance to win? Seems like the punishment in this case rewards the 'crime'...

Fines seem to work.

 

[Knobs]

One owner played Gates as his TE this weekend. His other option was Shockey. He didn't want to cut one, couldn't work out a trade, and dropping someone off his team would have hurt his roster for the season compared to taking a hit for one week.

The guy had 5 weeks to sort this out!!!

What's your point?

 

[paydrt]

One owner played Gates as his TE this weekend. His other option was Shockey. He didn't want to cut one, couldn't work out a trade, and dropping someone off his team would have hurt his roster for the season compared to taking a hit for one week.

The guy had 5 weeks to sort this out!!!

What's your point?

I'm assuming he would have known prior to the season starting that he had a bye week issue in week 5. We had the same situation in our league (Gates/Finley) He simply picked up a TE.

 

[SayWhat?]

I find it funny all of the guys on here acting as if the way their league does it is the only option. There are many types of leagues and one set of rules can't fit every league.

In the leagues I commish, this is how we have chosen to handle this issue. You HAVE to start players that are actually playing. If a player is on bye or has been ruled out prior to gameday, they can not be inserted into your lineup. If they are, you are fined. The 2nd time it happens, you are subject to being removed. A case like MSW from yesterday would not fall under these rules and the oener would not be penalized.

We have these rules in place for many reasons. It is a dynasty league and every win a loss affects each team, whether it is playoff seeding or the draft order for next year. I do not want one unprepared or careless owner negatively affecting the rest of the league. If this were a redraft or another type of league, I could imagine an entirely different set of rules being applicable.

Why is that a good posting? So it's automatically assumed that an owner potentially running into problems with bye weeks and injuries has been "unprepared or careless"? That's a pretty bold statement. It's one thing to actually be unprepared and start injured or bye week players when you have better options. It's another to have a QB trio of Brees, Rodgers and Stafford this current week and be expected to dump a good prospect from your roster so that you can add the likes of Kyle Boller simply because you got f'd by bad luck for one week. It's amazing to me that some leagues implement rules along the lines of 1st offense = fine, 2nd offense = larger fine and 3rd offense = booted. Sorry, one may run into bad luck on ocassion in a dynasty league and forcing those owners to drop a viable long-term prospect for the sake of adding some crap filler for a week seems ludicrous IMO.

 

[SayWhat?]

One owner played Gates as his TE this weekend. His other option was Shockey. He didn't want to cut one, couldn't work out a trade, and dropping someone off his team would have hurt his roster for the season compared to taking a hit for one week.

The guy had 5 weeks to sort this out!!!

What's your point?

I'm assuming he would have known prior to the season starting that he had a bye week issue in week 5. We had the same situation in our league (Gates/Finley) He simply picked up a TE.

Sure, but it's a DYNASTY league. You're going to force him to either (a) deal a TE that he doesn't want to deal or (b) add a crappy TE for 2 points just because the 2009 schedule has his two rostered TE's on the same bye for a single week in a single year? Granted, most owners would want to add a TE that they could insert into their lineup for this week. But to force an owner to make that call because rules dictate it? I don't agree with that at all.

 

[Knobs]

One owner played Gates as his TE this weekend. His other option was Shockey. He didn't want to cut one, couldn't work out a trade, and dropping someone off his team would have hurt his roster for the season compared to taking a hit for one week.

The guy had 5 weeks to sort this out!!!

What's your point?

I'm assuming he would have known prior to the season starting that he had a bye week issue in week 5. We had the same situation in our league (Gates/Finley) He simply picked up a TE.

In order to pick someone off the ww he would have had to drop someone. He didn't think a couple points for one week was worth dumping anyone that could help his roster for the entire season.He drafted both because that's where the value was. He hasn't been able to make a trade he thought was reasonable. If I were in his shoes I would have done the same thing.I don't have a problem with the OP running his league how he sees fit but I do think it's ridiculous. It's an entirely different matter if the guy were simply incompetent or a lousy owner starting a guy on a bye when there is someone else he could have started.

 

[paydrt]

One owner played Gates as his TE this weekend. His other option was Shockey. He didn't want to cut one, couldn't work out a trade, and dropping someone off his team would have hurt his roster for the season compared to taking a hit for one week.

The guy had 5 weeks to sort this out!!!

What's your point?

I'm assuming he would have known prior to the season starting that he had a bye week issue in week 5. We had the same situation in our league (Gates/Finley) He simply picked up a TE.

Sure, but it's a DYNASTY league. You're going to force him to either (a) deal a TE that he doesn't want to deal or (b) add a crappy TE for 2 points just because the 2009 schedule has his two rostered TE's on the same bye for a single week in a single year? Granted, most owners would want to add a TE that they could insert into their lineup for this week. But to force an owner to make that call because rules dictate it? I don't agree with that at all.

Listen I understand that with a Dynasty league you can have your hands tied in some situations. However I still see it as someone submitting a non-competitive lineup and that upsets the competitive balance and/or running the risk of altering the standings in the league. That is not fair to the other owners. Hey if that is how you and your league mates choose to govern your league thats your business. Myself, I couldn't see myself forking out $$$$ and then watch someone which in my view is potentially throwing a game.

 

[Knobs]

Listen I understand that with a Dynasty league you can have your hands tied in some situations. However I still see it as someone submitting a non-competitive lineup and that upsets the competitive balance and/or running the risk of altering the standings in the league. That is not fair to the other owners. Hey if that is how you and your league mates choose to govern your league thats your business. Myself, I couldn't see myself forking out $$$$ and then watch someone which in my view is potentially throwing a game.

On the flip side, dropping someone just to get the 2 or so points from some ww scrub could also affect the competitive balance by forcing an owner to weaken his roster.

 

[jeter23]

The other issue I see, again specific to dynasty is if I let an owner start Shockey on his bye week arguing he has no one to dump, then how can I stop a guy who is 2-9 from starting a bogus lineup later in the season? He could argue he has no one to drop and I already have set the precedent by allowing it. Then, it puts it on me to evaluate his team, looking for a drop. Not a position I want to be in. It is cut and dry to draw that line. Every owner, every week fields a competitive lineup.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

The other issue I see, again specific to dynasty is if I let an owner start Shockey on his bye week arguing he has no one to dump, then how can I stop a guy who is 2-9 from starting a bogus lineup later in the season? He could argue he has no one to drop and I already have set the precedent by allowing it. Then, it puts it on me to evaluate his team, looking for a drop. Not a position I want to be in. It is cut and dry to draw that line. Every owner, every week fields a competitive lineup.

My exact views as well Jeter23.To be honest, there are guys that will tank and will do this if its allowed when they can.

Im sure in a dynasty NOT everyone thinks there going to win and when your 2-8 its very obvious at that point you have no reason to try and field

a competitive lineup. Some may get to thinking...whats better a 1.03 range rookie pick or a 1.01 rookie pick. Which would be better for his team

in the long run?? So with that being said...how would the guys that think its "ok" to start a inactive/bye week guy think about him not wanting to drop

a player if his qb was on bye or injured? He very well could have a team of alot of upside youngster and want to hold all of them for next year.

Would it be cool for him to do this? What about to the other teams with bad records that could land a top pick as well?

I just think if you allow this you open yourself up to alot of possible issues down the road.

With alot of roster space and knowing your bye's well ahead of time it makes no sense one to not prepare themselves.

I myself played last year with 1 QB A.Rodgers and had to cut someone to play on his bye week...It was something i didnt want to do but

it was either trade for one or cut someone and pick up a one week replacement...and this was on a 4-9 team.

 

[Knobs]

If you want to tank it's easy enough to do it. Bench one guy for another who you think won't do as well.

If someone at the end of the year wants to tank they'll do it and you won't be able to prove they're doing it unless they're total idiots. Subtle tanking is really easy.