If you are eliminated from the playoffs with a regular season game to go, would you still pick up players? (1 Viewer)

[travdogg]

My redraft leagues have scaled payouts and toilet bowl playoffs. So teams are still making waiver moves all season, even in the final week, because it can be the difference between winning $0 or $5 at the bottom. Personally, I think that's the best way to do it. I like the idea of extending the season for everyone, even if its just a $5 difference.

 

[Gally]

My redraft leagues have scaled payouts and toilet bowl playoffs. So teams are still making waiver moves all season, even in the final week, because it can be the difference between winning $0 or $5 at the bottom. Personally, I think that's the best way to do it. I like the idea of extending the season for everyone, even if its just a $5 difference.

This is kind of the reason we don't do playoffs. We play a straight 18 weeks with the best record taking the title. We pay down 4 places and have high point winners out for the last 5 weeks (2% per week) for anybody that is eliminated from a money spot. You can take yourself out of a money spot even if it is mathematically possible for you to get into 4th but very unlikely to play for the 2%. There also has to be at least two teams eligible for the eliminated bonus to activate it. If there aren't two teams going into the first week of bonus payout then that 2% gets evenly distributed over the other four weeks.

This way everyone has something to play for the entire season.

 

[Lansdowne]

All depends if you have something to play for. If the opponent you're facing that week is also eliminated from the playoffs, then stand down. But if you have a chance to play spoiler against someone who still is contending for a playoff spot, you should do your best to take that opponent down with you. Once your league playoffs start then stand down so as to not manipulate the free agent pool. This is all assuming redraft. If it's keeper or dynasty then you should never stop trying to bolster your roster. Be ready to take advantage if any of the playoff managers drop potentially useful players.

 

[TampaMike19]

Hell yeah- researching and picking up is more fun than the actual results and games

 

[markrc99]

There have been some grumblings about people doing this the past couple of years in one of my leagues

In the broadest sense I agree with those who have essentially put forth the scenario where it's week 14 & one bubble team is playing a top team while another is matched against a team owner who's expected to serve up some half-baked effort. But I also agree with the more specific circumstance others mentioned. That in well established leagues where everyone agrees what the proper etiquette is in any given situation. Given that consistency, yeah, you might be up against it this time, but eventually it all evens out.

In custom leagues @nfl.com like mine, settings and/or rules that would tend to discourage owners from remaining engaged often result in abandonment. So, a lot of settings designed to pique the interest of every team owner. In the scenario you posed, in my leagues the owner would the option of placing a claim, just as he otherwise would. But, he could also auction it off to the highest bidder, if he felt that was his best move.

 

[-OZ-]

I’m only in dynasty now but I absolutely would keep trying to win / play spoiler in redraft. I don’t want a team to sneak into the playoffs by beating me only because I gave up late in the season.

 

[Boston]

Every year this comes up and every year the answer is the same...you do what the rules in your league allow you to do...if you don't like something then bring it up to the league and vote on whether to change it...pretty black and white.

 

[-jb-]

I TL;DR’d most of this thread so some of the below was likely already mentioned:

We have money tied to every week’s high point score

We have money tied to season long (1-17) point total

We have toilet bowl bracket with financial penalties tied to the loser

We increase move costs after week 14 to disincentivize rage moves.

All this gives people reason to continue to be engaged.

 

[da_budman]

My redraft leagues have scaled payouts and toilet bowl playoffs. So teams are still making waiver moves all season, even in the final week, because it can be the difference between winning $0 or $5 at the bottom. Personally, I think that's the best way to do it. I like the idea of extending the season for everyone, even if its just a $5 difference.

I think the BEST way to keep apathy from setting in and thus affecting who does and doesnt make the playoff (and the seeding) is give those teams who are either out of the playoffs or nearly so something to play for all year long. As such they should be allowed to make moves. If you want to restrict them from using the WW that makes some sense but as long as they have something to play for they certainly should be able to make FCFS moves after the WW runs.

 

[da_budman]

Every year this comes up and every year the answer is the same...you do what the rules in your league allow you to do...if you don't like something then bring it up to the league and vote on whether to change it...pretty black and white.

Well yeah isnt that the case with any rule though ? Doesnt mean we cant discuss specific situations and rules does it?

 

[ghostguy123]

Not in redraft, unless there some sort of actual incentive to win or score points due to a losers bracket, or lifetime standing type of deal.
Or if I need to field a full lineup

 

[ghostguy123]

I feel like people are talking about two different things here.

The original question, asked about when there are still regular season games left and other teams would still be competing for playoffs spots. In this case, yes, teams should still be allowed/encouraged to make transactions to keep the league as fair and competitive as possible, and I'd argue this is necessary to maintain league integrity as the outcome of this match up could have playoff implications for other teams in the league.

Once the playoffs start, I agree that teams that have nothing left to play for should stop making transactions.

In one dynasty I was in, once the playoffs started only the playoff teams could make transactions, however, any player picked up during that time went back into the FA pool after the title.

On occasion when players would come on super late in the year it also made for more interesting FA bidding in the offseason.

 

[Mongidig]

We have an owner who didn’t make any moves until the last couple games. Since then he has gobbled up a ton of players. We suspect collusion since he has been playing teams fighting for a playoff spot. He only has three wins. I think once you are eliminated there should be no trading or free agent pickups. The exception would be if you don’t have healthy player to put in your lineup. There is too much room for nonsense otherwise.

This pertains to redraft only.

But isn't that eliminated team still playing teams that are trying to get into the playoffs or fight for seeding. Why would you want the eliminated team to stop playing to win or put his best possible lineup out there? It's not fair for the other teams that are fighting for seeding that aren't playing against an auto win. I don't understand this philosophy

I would want this team to be competitive the whole year not just the last few weeks. We believe a certain person in the league is putting him up to it in order to beat his competition. prior to this this guy was a deadbeat owner. I’m just looking for consistency.

 

[Gally]

We have an owner who didn’t make any moves until the last couple games. Since then he has gobbled up a ton of players. We suspect collusion since he has been playing teams fighting for a playoff spot. He only has three wins. I think once you are eliminated there should be no trading or free agent pickups. The exception would be if you don’t have healthy player to put in your lineup. There is too much room for nonsense otherwise.

This pertains to redraft only.

But isn't that eliminated team still playing teams that are trying to get into the playoffs or fight for seeding. Why would you want the eliminated team to stop playing to win or put his best possible lineup out there? It's not fair for the other teams that are fighting for seeding that aren't playing against an auto win. I don't understand this philosophy

I would want this team to be competitive the whole year not just the last few weeks. We believe a certain person in the league is putting him up to it in order to beat his competition. prior to this this guy was a deadbeat owner. I’m just looking for consistency

That is a completely different issue. Deadbeat owners are terrible.

However, there is no way that a team eliminated from a playoff spot should stop making their team better because their games still matter. What happens if a team was eliminated from a playoff spot after week 7. Do you freeze his team at that point and not let him make any moves? Afterall, he is eliminated from the playoffs. That si the philosophical aspect I just don't understand. That guy should still be trying to win and knocking other teams out of the playoffs.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

We have an owner who didn’t make any moves until the last couple games. Since then he has gobbled up a ton of players. We suspect collusion since he has been playing teams fighting for a playoff spot. He only has three wins. I think once you are eliminated there should be no trading or free agent pickups. The exception would be if you don’t have healthy player to put in your lineup. There is too much room for nonsense otherwise.

This pertains to redraft only.

But isn't that eliminated team still playing teams that are trying to get into the playoffs or fight for seeding. Why would you want the eliminated team to stop playing to win or put his best possible lineup out there? It's not fair for the other teams that are fighting for seeding that aren't playing against an auto win. I don't understand this philosophy

I would want this team to be competitive the whole year not just the last few weeks. We believe a certain person in the league is putting him up to it in order to beat his competition. prior to this this guy was a deadbeat owner. I’m just looking for consistency.

If true, I think it's completely legal and appropriate. If I needed a team to lose against a deadbeat owner, I'd have no problem sending them an email saying "Hey man, you still have games to play. Why not set a valid lineup at least?"

I'm not offering them anything, and I'm not making any decisions for them. But encouraging an owner to be active? Totally acceptable.

Should they do it all season? Sure. But setting a valid lineup now helps me, and is totally up to them. Odds are it would fall on deaf ears, but mentioning they should be active isn't illegal nor is it unethical imo.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Do NFL teams decide to stop trying to win?

Yes they do.

Tell that to the players’ faces and let me know how that works out for you.

Tell that to to Titans and Giants

Chargers stopped trying last night. White flag well and truly waved.

 

[Ben & Jerry's]

We have an owner who didn’t make any moves until the last couple games. Since then he has gobbled up a ton of players. We suspect collusion since he has been playing teams fighting for a playoff spot. He only has three wins. I think once you are eliminated there should be no trading or free agent pickups. The exception would be if you don’t have healthy player to put in your lineup. There is too much room for nonsense otherwise.

This pertains to redraft only.

Describe the alleged collusion.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I TL;DR’d most of this thread so some of the below was likely already mentioned:

We have money tied to every week’s high point score

We have money tied to season long (1-17) point total

We have toilet bowl bracket with financial penalties tied to the loser

We increase move costs after week 14 to disincentivize rage moves.

All this gives people reason to continue to be engaged.

This. It's for the good of of the league if all teams continue to try and put their best roster out there every week.

 

[Mongidig]

We have an owner who didn’t make any moves until the last couple games. Since then he has gobbled up a ton of players. We suspect collusion since he has been playing teams fighting for a playoff spot. He only has three wins. I think once you are eliminated there should be no trading or free agent pickups. The exception would be if you don’t have healthy player to put in your lineup. There is too much room for nonsense otherwise.

This pertains to redraft only.

But isn't that eliminated team still playing teams that are trying to get into the playoffs or fight for seeding. Why would you want the eliminated team to stop playing to win or put his best possible lineup out there? It's not fair for the other teams that are fighting for seeding that aren't playing against an auto win. I don't understand this philosophy

I would want this team to be competitive the whole year not just the last few weeks. We believe a certain person in the league is putting him up to it in order to beat his competition. prior to this this guy was a deadbeat owner. I’m just looking for consistency.

If true, I think it's completely legal and appropriate. If I needed a team to lose against a deadbeat owner, I'd have no problem sending them an email saying "Hey man, you still have games to play. Why not set a valid lineup at least?"

I'm not offering them anything, and I'm not making any decisions for them. But encouraging an owner to be active? Totally acceptable.

Should they do it all season? Sure. But setting a valid lineup now helps me, and is totally up to them. Odds are it would fall on deaf ears, but mentioning they should be active isn't illegal nor is it unethical imo.

Legal yes, appropriate no. Especially if this dude didn’t say anything the week he played the dead beat owner. You should focus on your team only unless you are working out a trade. It’s bad karma.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

We have an owner who didn’t make any moves until the last couple games. Since then he has gobbled up a ton of players. We suspect collusion since he has been playing teams fighting for a playoff spot. He only has three wins. I think once you are eliminated there should be no trading or free agent pickups. The exception would be if you don’t have healthy player to put in your lineup. There is too much room for nonsense otherwise.

This pertains to redraft only.

But isn't that eliminated team still playing teams that are trying to get into the playoffs or fight for seeding. Why would you want the eliminated team to stop playing to win or put his best possible lineup out there? It's not fair for the other teams that are fighting for seeding that aren't playing against an auto win. I don't understand this philosophy

I would want this team to be competitive the whole year not just the last few weeks. We believe a certain person in the league is putting him up to it in order to beat his competition. prior to this this guy was a deadbeat owner. I’m just looking for consistency.

If true, I think it's completely legal and appropriate. If I needed a team to lose against a deadbeat owner, I'd have no problem sending them an email saying "Hey man, you still have games to play. Why not set a valid lineup at least?"

I'm not offering them anything, and I'm not making any decisions for them. But encouraging an owner to be active? Totally acceptable.

Should they do it all season? Sure. But setting a valid lineup now helps me, and is totally up to them. Odds are it would fall on deaf ears, but mentioning they should be active isn't illegal nor is it unethical imo.

Legal yes, appropriate no. Especially if this dude didn’t say anything the week he played the dead beat owner. You should focus on your team only unless you are working out a trade. It’s bad karma.

I don't think I could keep up with all the unwritten rules. Focus on your team only? So if a manager leaves in bye week players in a different game, and I notice it, I shouldn't inform the commissioner that we might have an abandoned team? That doesn't seem right to me.

I can't think of a time where it's better to let an abandoned team help determine a playoff spot by giving someone a cheap win. If someone did the same to me, and all they dd was reach out and encourage them to be active, I wouldn't like it. I'd be unhappy that I didn't get the free pass, but I wouldn't consider it inappropriate or unethical or something Ms. Karma would look down on in disapproval. I just didn't get the freebie. And really, did I deserve it? Is that the best way to play the game? Everyone is different, but I say no.

 

[Mongidig]

We have an owner who didn’t make any moves until the last couple games. Since then he has gobbled up a ton of players. We suspect collusion since he has been playing teams fighting for a playoff spot. He only has three wins. I think once you are eliminated there should be no trading or free agent pickups. The exception would be if you don’t have healthy player to put in your lineup. There is too much room for nonsense otherwise.

This pertains to redraft only.

Describe the alleged collusion.

Through the first 11 weeks the dead beat owner never changed his line up. Some weeks he had three or more players inactive players in his lineup. His record was 3-8. In weeks 13 and 14 we noticed this team picking up five or six free agents per week. Then we looked closer and saw that these pick ups were made by the commissioner for him. The dead beat owner was asked about it and said he was getting back into it. We’ve emailed the commish but he hasn’t responded. The commish is one of the potential playoff bound teams. The teams the dead beat played are in competition with the Commish.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

We have an owner who didn’t make any moves until the last couple games. Since then he has gobbled up a ton of players. We suspect collusion since he has been playing teams fighting for a playoff spot. He only has three wins. I think once you are eliminated there should be no trading or free agent pickups. The exception would be if you don’t have healthy player to put in your lineup. There is too much room for nonsense otherwise.

This pertains to redraft only.

Describe the alleged collusion.

Through the first 11 weeks the dead beat owner never changed his line up. Some weeks he had three or more players inactive players in his lineup. His record was 3-8. In weeks 13 and 14 we noticed this team picking up five or six free agents per week. Then we looked closer and saw that these pick ups were made by the commissioner for him. The dead beat owner was asked about it and said he was getting back into it. We’ve emailed the commish but he hasn’t responded. The commish is one of the potential playoff bound teams. The teams the dead beat played are in competition with the Commish.

I didn't see any of that info previously. In that case I must agree with you. The commish isn't supposed to be running two teams. Unless the manager didn't have access to the website and told the commish who to pick up for him (which seems wildly unlikely), this looks like illegal transactions by the commish.

I don't think the problem is who can pick up free agents. It's being in a league that has shady commissioner practices.