Hey Guys, I seem to have a few owners that think that there isnt a pro (1 Viewer)

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

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.

Well thats why i use Power Rankings to decide the rookie order of the non playoff teamsI takes account of your bench pts as well....Im sure most know you can subtle tank. well as i call it....starting your worst matchups or guys that arent projected to do well.

 

[Knobs]

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.

Really, if all their other options are on a bye then okay. But you really think someone is going to have all their players on a bye the same week? And if they do, so what? That means their team is that much stronger in all the other weeks.I've actually built teams before that are designed to have as few bye week issues as possible, but when they do hit my team is pretty much guaranteed a loss. It hurts me for that one week (or two) but my team is at 100% every other week. Other teams prefer to operate at say 85% throughout all the bye weeks.

Again, who's to say which one is better? It's just a matter of preferences. Both imo are very valid strategies even if I prefer one over the other.

I really think you're fooling yourself if you think you can prevent cheating/tanking with a million rules. I don't have a problem with your requirements if that's how you want to organize your league - it just becomes a part of the strategy. But to think it's going to prevent tanking if that's what someone really wants to do is untrue.

 

[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.

Well thats why i use Power Rankings to decide the rookie order of the non playoff teamsI takes account of your bench pts as well....Im sure most know you can subtle tank. well as i call it....starting your worst matchups or guys that arent projected to do well.

There are ways around that as well, if someone is truly inclined. Drop/trade some scrubs for other scrubs. Say you're going for the 'upside'. And unless you have the tiniest of rosters, every owner has scrubs.

 

[SlaX]

FWIW, it is possible to start a guy on bye and take a zero and still win. I've done it many times, and I've also had it fail before. It's not always about tanking. Of course, this doesn't apply to leagues where playing playing an illegal roster automatically scores a zero for the entire team.

 

[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.

Really, if all their other options are on a bye then okay. But you really think someone is going to have all their players on a bye the same week? And if they do, so what? That means their team is that much stronger in all the other weeks.I've actually built teams before that are designed to have as few bye week issues as possible, but when they do hit my team is pretty much guaranteed a loss. It hurts me for that one week (or two) but my team is at 100% every other week. Other teams prefer to operate at say 85% throughout all the bye weeks.

Again, who's to say which one is better? It's just a matter of preferences. Both imo are very valid strategies even if I prefer one over the other.

I really think you're fooling yourself if you think you can prevent cheating/tanking with a million rules. I don't have a problem with your requirements if that's how you want to organize your league - it just becomes a part of the strategy. But to think it's going to prevent tanking if that's what someone really wants to do is untrue.

I agree that subtle tanking is almost impossible to prove/prevent, but we can at least avoid obvious tanking.

 

[paydrt]

FWIW, it is possible to start a guy on bye and take a zero and still win. I've done it many times, and I've also had it fail before. It's not always about tanking. Of course, this doesn't apply to leagues where playing playing an illegal roster automatically scores a zero for the entire team.

Certainly, you can still win your game with an incomplete lineup. For me however this is as much about maintaining a level playing field with respect to the lineup requirements that your league has. And someone not fielding a complete lineup is not keeping with the spirit of competition that exists when playing fantasy football. Obviously there are countless leagues out there with an infinite number of systems for scoring and rostering players but there should be at least a few hard and fast rules which all leagues observe. Complete or competitive lineups I would hope would be one of them. As we see here some leagues have loose rules regarding lineup submissions, however this has the potential for some to take advantage of this "loop hole" and leaves it open to interpretation which could possiblly compromise the integrity of your league.

 

[j3r3m3y]

It is their team, if they decide to take a zero let them.

What's next? They start a WR as their flex and you disagree so you start one of their RBs?

 

[j3r3m3y]

FWIW, it is possible to start a guy on bye and take a zero and still win. I've done it many times, and I've also had it fail before. It's not always about tanking. Of course, this doesn't apply to leagues where playing playing an illegal roster automatically scores a zero for the entire team.

Certainly, you can still win your game with an incomplete lineup. For me however this is as much about maintaining a level playing field with respect to the lineup requirements that your league has. And someone not fielding a complete lineup is not keeping with the spirit of competition that exists when playing fantasy football.

Bold claim... how exactly do you justify this statement? Are they doing what they believe is their best to be successful over the course of the season?

 

[SlaX]

FWIW, it is possible to start a guy on bye and take a zero and still win. I've done it many times, and I've also had it fail before. It's not always about tanking. Of course, this doesn't apply to leagues where playing playing an illegal roster automatically scores a zero for the entire team.

Certainly, you can still win your game with an incomplete lineup. For me however this is as much about maintaining a level playing field with respect to the lineup requirements that your league has. And someone not fielding a complete lineup is not keeping with the spirit of competition that exists when playing fantasy football.

Sometimes the choice to drop the player on bye just to pick up a lesser player who isn't on bye who may only score 1 - 3 points that week isn't the best choice for your team for the rest of the season. Especially when that player you just dropped is now on waivers and now at the mercy of the league.

 

[moleculo]

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

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

Collusion is an event that takes place between two players - that's something that should be regulated. IMO, the league has no business dictating day-to-day operations of how a team should be run, including line-up requirements, etc.

 

[j3r3m3y]

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

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

Collusion is an event that takes place between two players - that's something that should be regulated. IMO, the league has no business dictating day-to-day operations of how a team should be run, including line-up requirements, etc.

ostinggood:

 

[Goldalene]

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.

Sometimes, you keep all your cards and just start the injured player / bye week guy to keep it strong for the rest of the season.

 

[moleculo]

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.

Sometimes, you keep all your cards and just start the injured player / bye week guy to keep it strong for the rest of the season.

Debate the merits of this all you want; bottom line IMO is that taking a zero at a particular position is a strategic move that any owner worth his salt should consider from time to time. It may or may not be in the owners best interest to do so, but taking away the decision from the owner is unconscionable.

In my main league, we have a weekly $10 bonus to the high scorer. I was faced with this decision this week and even made a shark pool thread to discuss my options. I chose to cut a player I really didn't want to vs taking the zero, and the high score bonus played a small part in my decision. I currently am weekly high score by about 12 points, with the next highest score running w/ RBrown and BEdwards still playing. It's very possible that the 4.2 points I got from a WW TE filler ends up being the difference between weekly high score and not, so not taking the 0 this week might be worth $10 to me.

My point behind all of this is that if you want to discourage collusion and tanking, there are other ways to go about it without resorting to heavy handed regulations.

 

[TheAssassin]

Wow,

Makes me glad I'm in the leagues I'm in. Forcing roster moves. 3 pickups for the year!? 1 pickup per week? What is the point of these rules?

Stop Anal Retentive Football!

 

[fsufan]

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...

but a dynasty roster should be big enough so the owner does not have to drop players for bye week fill ins

 

[j3r3m3y]

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...

but a dynasty roster should be big enough so the owner does not have to drop players for bye week fill ins

Don't tell me how to use my roster, thanks in advance.

 

[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...

but a dynasty roster should be big enough so the owner does not have to drop players for bye week fill ins

Even at a position like TE or PK or DT (11-starter IDP leagues)? I wouldn't count on it...

 

[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'...

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

that doesn't sound very well thought out...A warning still doesn't sound like a punishment. How does that deter them from the action you're trying to discourage?So, you'll change their lineup for them? That opens a can of worms or three. Consider: You're just going to willy-nilly decide who you think he --should've-- started? What if he started Miles Austin Over Randy Moss in week 5? Would you over rule him and make him start Moss (at a loss of dozens of points?) Or maybe you'll wait until after the games and start the guys that scored the most for him? I'm sure that'll go over well with the winning franchises who make incorrect lineup decisions...

 

[FUBAR]

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

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

Collusion is an event that takes place between two players - that's something that should be regulated. IMO, the league has no business dictating day-to-day operations of how a team should be run, including line-up requirements, etc.

sure, and the reason we regulate it is to ensure a fair playing field, correct?if a team decides to tank the season either to get a better draft pick or to help those he's playing against, is that fair to the rest of the league? The effect is the same regardless of the motive. I'm not going to suggest we "ensure" every team has the best lineup going, but blatantly throwing games is against the spirit of the game. It's a hard line and an imperfect science, but when something looks like a team is throwing a game or the season for no good immediate reason, that's an issue.

 

[fsufan]

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...

but a dynasty roster should be big enough so the owner does not have to drop players for bye week fill ins

Don't tell me how to use my roster, thanks in advance.

then join a dynasty league that allows an owner to start a player on a bye or hurt. then watch the tanking being and the league go underas a commissioner of 3 dynasty leagues starting a player on a bye and/or knowingly not playing due to injury is not allowed

 

[FUBAR]

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...

but a dynasty roster should be big enough so the owner does not have to drop players for bye week fill ins

Even at a position like TE or PK or DT (11-starter IDP leagues)? I wouldn't count on it...

I'm in some huge leagues with deep rosters and we even have times when teams can't start a viable option at some of those "lesser" positions.

 

[FUBAR]

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...

but a dynasty roster should be big enough so the owner does not have to drop players for bye week fill ins

Don't tell me how to use my roster, thanks in advance.

then join a dynasty league that allows an owner to start a player on a bye or hurt. then watch the tanking being and the league go underas a commissioner of 3 dynasty leagues starting a player on a bye and/or knowingly not playing due to injury is not allowed

Every one of my leagues allow teams to manage their own roster. The only problem is when a team starts someone on a bye or known to be out when they have options on his roster.ETA: we have never had an owner throw games, that I know of anyway.

 

[fsufan]

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...

but a dynasty roster should be big enough so the owner does not have to drop players for bye week fill ins

Don't tell me how to use my roster, thanks in advance.

then join a dynasty league that allows an owner to start a player on a bye or hurt. then watch the tanking being and the league go underas a commissioner of 3 dynasty leagues starting a player on a bye and/or knowingly not playing due to injury is not allowed

Every one of my leagues allow teams to manage their own roster. The only problem is when a team starts someone on a bye or known to be out when they have options on his roster.ETA: we have never had an owner throw games, that I know of anyway.

i have never had an issue in my 3 leagues and the main league is 10 years old. there has been times someone forgets to check his line up and leaves a player in on a bye or out due to injury, some FF owners are not as die hard as us. dynasty leagues do need a tanking rule in place.

 

[moleculo]

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

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

Collusion is an event that takes place between two players - that's something that should be regulated. IMO, the league has no business dictating day-to-day operations of how a team should be run, including line-up requirements, etc.

sure, and the reason we regulate it is to ensure a fair playing field, correct?if a team decides to tank the season either to get a better draft pick or to help those he's playing against, is that fair to the rest of the league? The effect is the same regardless of the motive. I'm not going to suggest we "ensure" every team has the best lineup going, but blatantly throwing games is against the spirit of the game. It's a hard line and an imperfect science, but when something looks like a team is throwing a game or the season for no good immediate reason, that's an issue.

If tanking is what you want to prevent, regulate tanking. Taking a 0 during a bye-week is not necessarily tanking, it's a sound, often discussed strategy. It can be done for a good immediate reason. I'd suggest that if one wanted to tank, there would be more effective ways of doing it than submitting an "illegal" line-up.

 

[tim_whatley]

worser

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

worser

This thread couldn't get any worser.

 

[massraider]

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.

Exactly.In a dynasty, you can't account for a bye week. As long as the owner is active and involved, no problem. I don 't want my commish telling me how to run my team, and certainly not deciding that I have droppable players on my team.

 

[fsufan]

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.

Exactly.In a dynasty, you can't account for a bye week. As long as the owner is active and involved, no problem. I don 't want my commish telling me how to run my team, and certainly not deciding that I have droppable players on my team.

as a dynasty commish I agree with this. starting a player on a bye/hurt when an owner has a startable player sitting on his bench is unacceptable. I would not have have an issue if an owner does not want to drop a player just to pick up a bye week fill in

 

[FUBAR]

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

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

Collusion is an event that takes place between two players - that's something that should be regulated. IMO, the league has no business dictating day-to-day operations of how a team should be run, including line-up requirements, etc.

sure, and the reason we regulate it is to ensure a fair playing field, correct?if a team decides to tank the season either to get a better draft pick or to help those he's playing against, is that fair to the rest of the league? The effect is the same regardless of the motive. I'm not going to suggest we "ensure" every team has the best lineup going, but blatantly throwing games is against the spirit of the game. It's a hard line and an imperfect science, but when something looks like a team is throwing a game or the season for no good immediate reason, that's an issue.

If tanking is what you want to prevent, regulate tanking. Taking a 0 during a bye-week is not necessarily tanking, it's a sound, often discussed strategy. It can be done for a good immediate reason. I'd suggest that if one wanted to tank, there would be more effective ways of doing it than submitting an "illegal" line-up.

maybe I need but I'm not sure if you're trying to disagree with me here. We're saying the same thing.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Really depends on bench size imo

I am in one league where we have a penalty for starting a player on BYE, or listed as Out on the official injury report - but it is a 16-team league with 40-man rosters (and IR slots)- so there is enough roster space for you to manage around Bye's and injuries.

Another league has 3 bench slots - I'd take a 0 before I gave up a good performer in that league.

 

[moleculo]

maybe I need but I'm not sure if you're trying to disagree with me here. We're saying the same thing.

could be. Are you for or against allowing owners to take an intentional 0?

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

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.

 

[wudaben]

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.

I completely agree with most of this except the bolded part. In our league it can be common for a defense to get you negative points so a strategy I employ is to spot start 2-3 defenses throughout the year to take advantage of matchups but we also only allow 8 add/drops in a year so you cannot just drop people all the time. This week with my main defense on a bye I started Jacksonville and got a -9, if I had started my bye week defense I would have won. Now... maybe I should rethink owning Jacksonville's D but they have a few matchups throughout the year that I want to keep them for!

 

[bonesman]

The arguments against allowing intentional zeros seem pretty weak (prevents tanking, preserves competitive balance)... and there are strong counter arguments to those points.

I think it should be pretty evident on a case by case basis who's being sharky and who's being neglectful in these situations anyway.

 

[moleculo]

here's another place where you might want to take an intentional 0:

Lets say that heading into MNF, you are up by 0.5 points. You have a RB playing, your opponent has no one. The only way you can possibly lose that game is if your RB gives you negative points.

wouldn't it be in your best interest to bench the RB and take the intentional 0, thereby guaranteeing you the victory?

It's all about strategery.

 

[AcerFC]

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.

So it would not bother you if you and Team B were going down to the wire to make the playoffs. Team B plays Team C in week 8 where 8 of 9 players were on bye and he chose to leave them in. Team C picks up easy win. You lose to Team C the next week when he has no bye week players. The purpose of the rule is to make sure that everyone is playing a lineup each week. In a game where every week matters, it is not fair for one team to walk to a win. Even if Team C plays backups, its better then no one.

I am in a league with the bye week rule and it is a redraft. Wouldnt have it any other way.

 

[AcerFC]

here's another place where you might want to take an intentional 0:Lets say that heading into MNF, you are up by 0.5 points. You have a RB playing, your opponent has no one. The only way you can possibly lose that game is if your RB gives you negative points.wouldn't it be in your best interest to bench the RB and take the intentional 0, thereby guaranteeing you the victory?It's all about strategery.

You are right, that is a strategic play but I would not do it and would not want to be in leagues that allow it. To each its own

 

[moleculo]

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.

So it would not bother you if you and Team B were going down to the wire to make the playoffs. Team B plays Team C in week 8 where 8 of 9 players were on bye and he chose to leave them in. Team C picks up easy win. You lose to Team C the next week when he has no bye week players. The purpose of the rule is to make sure that everyone is playing a lineup each week. In a game where every week matters, it is not fair for one team to walk to a win. Even if Team C plays backups, its better then no one.

I am in a league with the bye week rule and it is a redraft. Wouldnt have it any other way.

why not just to a total points league then?

 

[AcerFC]

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.

So it would not bother you if you and Team B were going down to the wire to make the playoffs. Team B plays Team C in week 8 where 8 of 9 players were on bye and he chose to leave them in. Team C picks up easy win. You lose to Team C the next week when he has no bye week players. The purpose of the rule is to make sure that everyone is playing a lineup each week. In a game where every week matters, it is not fair for one team to walk to a win. Even if Team C plays backups, its better then no one.

I am in a league with the bye week rule and it is a redraft. Wouldnt have it any other way.

why not just to a total points league then?

No fun in that. The object of the rule is not to run someones team but to allow for competitive balance over the course of a season. Of course there will be trades and moves that will affect this along the way, but there is no equality in a team that can bench 8 guys due to a bye giving the other team an easy win. I know if I missed the playoffs by a game I would be fuming about that week

 

[habsfan]

I speculate that most of the people in this thread who are strongly against being told how to manage their team don't need to be told to manage their team in the first place. These rules are not for you and never will be.

For me it's about establishing intent. If an owner assesses the situation and intentionally takes a zero for whatever reason, I have no problem with that. When you can't establish that intent (either through their history as an active manager or the lack of apparent logic), you are left to conclude that they simply didn't tend to their line-up issue that week.

 

[moleculo]

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.

So it would not bother you if you and Team B were going down to the wire to make the playoffs. Team B plays Team C in week 8 where 8 of 9 players were on bye and he chose to leave them in. Team C picks up easy win. You lose to Team C the next week when he has no bye week players. The purpose of the rule is to make sure that everyone is playing a lineup each week. In a game where every week matters, it is not fair for one team to walk to a win. Even if Team C plays backups, its better then no one.

I am in a league with the bye week rule and it is a redraft. Wouldnt have it any other way.

why not just to a total points league then?

No fun in that. The object of the rule is not to run someones team but to allow for competitive balance over the course of a season. Of course there will be trades and moves that will affect this along the way, but there is no equality in a team that can bench 8 guys due to a bye giving the other team an easy win. I know if I missed the playoffs by a game I would be fuming about that week

One year I made a strategic decision before the draft to only select players who had the same bye-week. I figured that if 8 out of 9 weeks I never had to deal with bye weeks but everyone else did, I'd be stronger for it. It didn't really work out as I planned - the bye week date I went with was late in the season and by then I had enough free agency moves that it was all spread out so it didn't matter in the end, but it could work.Yeah, it might not be fair to give a guy an easy win because his opponent has lots of players on bye. Are you suggesting that if someone has lots of bye-week issues and he starts 2nd stringers to fill out a line-up and loses anyways, that is more fair?

In H2H, there will be inequities built into the system - can't get around that. #### happens, sometimes you benefit, sometimes you don't. If you want everything to be even, go total points.

 

[Phurfur]

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.

So it would not bother you if you and Team B were going down to the wire to make the playoffs. Team B plays Team C in week 8 where 8 of 9 players were on bye and he chose to leave them in. Team C picks up easy win. You lose to Team C the next week when he has no bye week players. The purpose of the rule is to make sure that everyone is playing a lineup each week. In a game where every week matters, it is not fair for one team to walk to a win. Even if Team C plays backups, its better then no one.

I am in a league with the bye week rule and it is a redraft. Wouldnt have it any other way.

why not just to a total points league then?

No fun in that. The object of the rule is not to run someones team but to allow for competitive balance over the course of a season. Of course there will be trades and moves that will affect this along the way, but there is no equality in a team that can bench 8 guys due to a bye giving the other team an easy win. I know if I missed the playoffs by a game I would be fuming about that week

I am in 2 H2H leagues and 2 total point leagues and enjoy the total point leagues a lot more. THis is a non issue in total point league.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

In our 12 man keeper league there is a loser's bracket that runs at the same time as the playoffs. The last 6 teams in the league play for next year's draft spots. If you win the loser's bracket you get to pick where you want to draft 1-12. This eliminates any reason to dump. It aslo is helpful in less BS trades for future draft picks that sway the end of the year standings.

I do not like any rules that prevent me from running my team the way I want. I have my K and my only TE on by in week 8 and I will most likely not churn my roster for that week. I am in first place, leading the league in scoring and it makes no sense to force me to churn my roster when it is painfully obvious that I am not dumping on purpose. I understand why people/leagues would make rules like you have but I think you just need to be more creative to deter it.

 

[FUBAR]

maybe I need but I'm not sure if you're trying to disagree with me here. We're saying the same thing.

could be. Are you for or against allowing owners to take an intentional 0?

as I stated before:

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.

The first part is not taking MNF and even SNF if you've already locked up the win into account. Basically, try to win using the players on your roster.Your roster should be managed as you see fit. Your team, your strategy.

 

[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.

I completely agree with most of this except the bolded part. In our league it can be common for a defense to get you negative points so a strategy I employ is to spot start 2-3 defenses throughout the year to take advantage of matchups but we also only allow 8 add/drops in a year so you cannot just drop people all the time. This week with my main defense on a bye I started Jacksonville and got a -9, if I had started my bye week defense I would have won. Now... maybe I should rethink owning Jacksonville's D but they have a few matchups throughout the year that I want to keep them for!

the basics remain, try to win each week using the players on your roster. I don't play in any leagues where the D can score that poorly or ever has anyway (I suppose it's possible).

 

[the_sig]

The problem I have is that most of the dynasty leagues I'm in, rosters either have no 'scrubs' to drop, or who am I to say who is a scrub on someone else's team? I've seen some head scratchers on some guys rosters that turn into gold. Half the recent hot pick-ups being debated in the shark pool were very recently considered 'scrubs'. Let's say I was using the last spot on my roster for Mike Sims-Walker, because I thought he had real talent. Many would have said he was the 'scrub' I should have cut long ago; the current landscape would say I was wise to keep him over a very marginal 1 week WW fill-in. Maybe I lost one game last year because I didn't want to drop him to pick up a WW flier TE, but I won two games this year using him as a flex?

Why should you be able to tell me I have to trade future value (high upside rookie, developing situation guy, or scrub as some may call it) for current value (a 1 week starter)?

 

[GregR_2]

Been thinking about this one for awhile. I think the reason there is a lot of disagreement is that there are three good, worthwhile principles or goals at play here, but they can conflict with each other when you work them into the rules.#1: Leagues want to discourage tanking games (i.e. intentionally trying to lose a game), whether it be to better draft pick, to aid a friend's team, or any other reason. This is a legitimate reason to have a rule, and requiring teams to field an active team does aid in combating this though it isn't enough by itself.#2: Major strife and hard feelings can erupt in a league, especially during the final drive to the playoffs, when an owner sees a team he's competing with get a "free win" because someone started a bunch of bye players. Especially when the owner had to play a full squad when he faced that same opponent. Avoiding such unnecessary strife through league rules is another legitimate reason for having a rule, and not allowing bye week players to be started does combat this issue very well.#3: Owners want to be able to manage their own rosters and make decisions based on what they perceive to be the long term benefit of their team. This is also a very good principle to try to craft into your rules.So the main problem here is that some of the ways of dealing with the problems from #1 and #2 end up restricting #3. I don't think the options that have been discussed here are necessarily right or wrong, but are mainly a result of how important each of those 3 areas is to a given individual. I also think it's worth noting that many of us as individuals may focus on #3, but a commissioner who has to deal with the strife that can erupt in a league may put more focus on #1 and #2 than the average owner would. I'd also argue that isn't wrong for a commissioner to do by any means, part of his job is to look out for the integrity of the league as a whole, and sometimes that means pushing to close loopholes even if the means has some negatives. You just want to try to find ways to avoid the negatives as much as possible.Ok, so that said, I think there are some middle ground solutions to be had. I think a big part of finding that happy middle ground is going to key off of roster size. If the bench is too small, then restricting starting bye week players really cuts hard into #3. To the point that I personally wouldn't want the no-bye week rule in a small bench dynasty league. A larger bench and it isn't as big of a deal.So really I think the goal here needs to be to find a number of roster spots that owners feel they have enough for necessary management of their team, and then a couple extra so the no-bye week rule doesn't chafe.If it were me designing a league, I'd have the league decide on your starting lineup and scoring system. Decide on how many roster spots the league needs to have an appropriate amount of space for teams to be able to hang onto their young players for long enough, and get agreement from the owners.Now the owners have agreed that is enough roster spots to be able to make the kind of decisions they want to make in having control of their team as per my #3. Then you say:

"Ok, so we all agree that X is enough spots to maintain a dynasty roster and run it the way you want. Now we can play with just those roster spots, but there is increased chance of problems because of (#1 and #2). "So I'll propose that we ban starting bye week players, but we add a couple more roster spots beyond X, enough to cover an average amount of players you'd need to pick up in a week to cover byes at positions people wouldn't normally want to waste a spot on a backup. If we don't do this, we only get X spots and we have an increased risk of the league having problems and hard feelings. "If we do this, we still have the same X spots to use exactly the same way as before. But we also have a couple more to make up for the no-bye week player rule, and as a result we get less opportunities for strife. We gain league integrity by doing it, without impacting your use of those X roster spots."

I think that's a compromise that really doesn't have much in the way of detriment. You probably aren't talking about more than a couple of extra roster spots being needed in most leagues.I'll note that I didn't do this formally as a group activity or discussion when I set up my dynasty league... but I did go through that thought process of figuring out how many spots we needed to develop players, and then added more roster spots for use in covering byes at positions like kicker where it wasn't likely teams would carry more than one. And as a result we have MFL set to not allow lineups with bye week players in my league. None of our owners have seemed to have any problems with that aspect, but we do have plenty of roster space for it.

 

[AcerFC]

Good post Greg

 

[bollocks28]

To the OP... I can see the argument for redraft where every year you are building a team from scratch and can control bye week issues but I think your "rule" is unrealistic in a keeper or dynasty format. If I have 2 or even 3 stud WRs on my team am I to drop one or more just because next year they happen to share a bye week? Of course not.

 

[Instinctive]

To the OP... I can see the argument for redraft where every year you are building a team from scratch and can control bye week issues but I think your "rule" is unrealistic in a keeper or dynasty format. If I have 2 or even 3 stud WRs on my team am I to drop one or more just because next year they happen to share a bye week? Of course not.

But what happens when you get a guy who drafts in order to have players on the same bye week?I rather like ending up with my starters all having the same bye, b/c I can take one loss and then be full strength when everyone else is at a -1 or -2 starter lineup. I totally ignore bye weeks unless drafting my backup QB, in my drafts.And then what happens when your defenses can score negative? If I have a win in a close game, I'm probably not playing a defense if the opponent has nobody left and I'm done. Secures the win. Who are you to make me start that player when i believe I'm running a solid winning strategy?