Messing with your opponents (1 Viewer)

[Dr. Octopus]

Why should the owner who suffered the injury avoid blame for not having a backup?

In the draft season, we constantly see people touting the need for depth. It's mostly at running back, but not entirely. Why is it player A's fault if player B didn't build a roster with better depth? 

Because “roster churning” for the sole purpose of thinning out the waiver wire vitolates the spirt of fair play and the wire wire system in general.

Once one person does it what’s to stop two, then three, then four teams doing it each week making the rest of the league needlessly worry about backing everything up as soon as FCFS add/drops starts. 

I mean sure everyone wants to win, but at what cost? This is also supposed to be a fun diversion. 

And sure allow “roster churning”, and them watch as two teams picking apart the rules and see “roster sharing” isn’t specifically called out so they trade players back and forth to screw division leading Team C down the stretch.

Sometimes the old adage “if you have to ask...” is pretty spot on.

 

[tackle for loss]

Dont put yourself in that situation to have someone churn the roster, make rules for that since some want rules for everything. How about a rule every owner must have a back up at each position? Since some like rules, make that a rule or have larger roster sizes. Why does the churning of a roster have to be the rule, why create the rules against strategy and not malpractice of running a team?

 

[Gally]

Some owners will look for any way to take any strategy or smart moves by owners out because it hurts them personally, never wanting other owners to take account for making sure that it dont happen to them so we want to protect them with rules so they dont have to do any extra work but set a lineup. Sportsmanship? Football teams run trick plays, fake punts, onside kicks and wildcat formations? Sometimes having tricks and a unique strategy works. If a guy doesnt want to cut a player for one he needs to set lineups, thats his fault. I would pick up and drop too if it helped me get the win. Winning is the point, isnt it? Dont like it, pick up the players before the other guy can do his strategy.

With technology and everyone cutting out strategy that they deem that "they dont like" has completely made this game about all luck and no skill or strategy, what so ever. At least back a few years ago some strategy worked before everyone had the same info at their finger tips. Where is the skill? Guessing which guy to play? Everyone uses the same draft sheets as the whole community uses the same info, no such things as sleepers anymore everyone knows about everyone. Just such a strange game anymore that no one wants anyone to have a leg up because of their strategy or they thought of something you didnt. I love the idea of people coming up with new ways to win, instead it looks like all we want is people who set lineups. Sounds like fun and something we need a million sites devoted to.

The difference is circumventing the INTENT of a rule.  I am all for being creative and trying to find advantages.  Exploiting scoring quirks or figuring out a better roster construction method or whatever.  However, purposely circumventing the intent of a rule because of a loophole is bad form and shouldn't be done. It damages a league in many instances to the point of ruining it.

The intent of the waiver system is to provide opportunity for an owner to improve their team or replace a player that injures themselves late in the week.  Purposely acquiring and dropping players just to keep them away from another team is breaking the intent of the waiver process and should not be done.  That is the issue here.  It's not about a "smart" owner coming up with a "clever" strategy.  Its about an owner circumventing the intent of the rule knowing what the intent of the rule is.  That is just wrong.

 

[tackle for loss]

Now we are down to deciding a fantasy football owners intent, thats a slippery slope and hard end to meet? Why do so many leagues decide for owners how they should run their teams and how to use their strategy. That is your interpretation of the waiver wire...dont teams claim players so others dont get them. Isnt that the point? Slippery slope.

 

[Hilts]

Because “roster churning” for the sole purpose of thinning out the waiver wire vitolates the spirt of fair play and the wire wire system in general.

Once one person does it what’s to stop two, then three, then four teams doing it each week making the rest of the league needlessly worry about backing everything up as soon as FCFS add/drops starts. 

I mean sure everyone wants to win, but at what cost? This is also supposed to be a fun diversion. 

And sure allow “roster churning”, and them watch as two teams picking apart the rules and see “roster sharing” isn’t specifically called out so they trade players back and forth to screw division leading Team C down the stretch.

Sometimes the old adage “if you have to ask...” is pretty spot on.

Nothing will stop 3-4 teams from doing it. And nothing should stop them, as long as they're not getting together and planning out the collusion. As most (I think all, but will hedge my bets) sites prevent insta-churning and instead require you to hold someone a day, it generally takes several days for them to churn through all the players. If you are one of the potentially affected owners, you should be able to see it coming a mile away. If you're not yet one of the potentially affected owners, well you should probably make sure you've got a backup or two and cut down on the lottery picks.

But there's a cost to the teams doing it - you have to drop talent. Be it decent backups or lottery picks, you're dropping pieces that other owners can now grab. 

Roster sharing seems like a clear case of collusion and doesn't really belong here, but I'm open to hearing your argument.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Dont put yourself in that situation to have someone churn the roster, make rules for that since some want rules for everything. How about a rule every owner must have a back up at each position? Since some like rules, make that a rule or have larger roster sizes. Why does the churning of a roster have to be the rule, why create the rules against strategy and not malpractice of running a team?

why have any rules at all? - just let people do whatever they want!

 

[Hilts]

The difference is circumventing the INTENT of a rule.  I am all for being creative and trying to find advantages.  Exploiting scoring quirks or figuring out a better roster construction method or whatever.  However, purposely circumventing the intent of a rule because of a loophole is bad form and shouldn't be done. It damages a league in many instances to the point of ruining it.

The intent of the waiver system is to provide opportunity for an owner to improve their team or replace a player that injures themselves late in the week.  Purposely acquiring and dropping players just to keep them away from another team is breaking the intent of the waiver process and should not be done.  That is the issue here.  It's not about a "smart" owner coming up with a "clever" strategy.  Its about an owner circumventing the intent of the rule knowing what the intent of the rule is.  That is just wrong.

If the intent of the rule is to provide an opportunity, but the affected owner has the opportunity but chooses not to use it, how is churning going against the intent of the rule? If an owner wants to wait until Sunday to grab someone, that's on them. But they had ample opportunity to grab someone long before. If they wait until it's too late, how does this violate any of those intents? Should the opportunity be forced to stay open a certain period of time past waivers?

 

[Gally]

Dont put yourself in that situation to have someone churn the roster, make rules for that since some want rules for everything. How about a rule every owner must gave a back up at each position? Since some like rules, make that a rule. Why does the churning of a roster have to be the rule?

Do you understand the concept of the intent of a rule?  I don't know if you have ever tried to create a new league and come up with by-laws to account for every possible scenario.  It is very difficult.  In many instances you come up with a framework of rules, many of which have clear intent but don't spell out every single possible loophole to get around the rule. 

Owners that search out ways to go around the intent of a rule aren't being clever.  They are being difficult and cause problems in the league because they aren't staying within the framework of how the league was meant to be.  Every time I have an owner try and circumvent the intent of a rule that is pretty clearly laid out I will allow that one instance (if it wasn't specifically forbidden) and then close the loophole in the by-laws.  It happens from time to time and I don't have an issue when it's something that was just missed.  My issue comes in with owners that seek out ways around the intent of rules.  If they know what the rule is in place for don't try to find a "legal" way to break it. 

 

[tackle for loss]

Next will be once a trade is made we will want them to be reversed because a player was hurt and the owner found out before others and unloaded him. Some leagues already have vetos, what about those owners who want to veto trades because they dont like another team getting a player. I see that happen....some want rules to prevent owners from gaining information and to get better. And did someone say "why have rules at all?" Terrible argument and its a kin to saying "why have any laws" just because you want to create a law for something you think should be a law.

This is a great topic, good discussion.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

How does your rule address this?

I agree every league should have a ww process. First come first serve is fine after the waivers run, but it's bs to have a league that allows someone sitting on the couch watching Sunday games to have a massive edge if an injury pops up over someone who has work/school/church/etc and can't sit there. I'm still in a couple leagues that don't have ww and it takes some of the fun out.

1. Waivers lock up all players 5 mins before games start, then don’t run until Tuesday night at 11:00 PM PT.  That eliminates the in-game transactions.

2. Add/drops cost $5 - most in my leagues won’t spent $50 to lock up 10 players mid-week when everyone’s a FA. 

3. If they did, we’d boot them the next year. And as commish I’d reverse the transactions to unlock those players. Because it’s right there in our league consisution. 

4. In my fantasy baseball league a player add/dropped doesn’t lock. You have to have them rostered overnight to lock them up. Unfortunately, my football hosting sites don’t do that. But that’s why we have rules. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Nothing will stop 3-4 teams from doing it. And nothing should stop them, as long as they're not getting together and planning out the collusion. As most (I think all, but will hedge my bets) sites prevent insta-churning and instead require you to hold someone a day, it generally takes several days for them to churn through all the players. If you are one of the potentially affected owners, you should be able to see it coming a mile away. If you're not yet one of the potentially affected owners, well you should probably make sure you've got a backup or two and cut down on the lottery picks.

But there's a cost to the teams doing it - you have to drop talent. Be it decent backups or lottery picks, you're dropping pieces that other owners can now grab. 

Roster sharing seems like a clear case of collusion and doesn't really belong here, but I'm open to hearing your argument.

Everyone can be in whatever type of league they choose - if this practice sits well with you, then I'm not one to say you're wrong to let it happen. I'm merely presenting why some leagues do not allow it.

As to the bolded my point is the same "argument" you make to allow "roster churning" can be applied to other situations deemed unethical if they are not spelled out specifically in the rules - people can always find loopholes. Collusion is not the only form of cheating.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

why have any rules at all? - just let people do whatever they want!

Come on, man. We all saw how that worked out in Always Sunny.  

https://goo.gl/images/qCVvLX

 

[Gally]

Now we are down to deciding a fantasy football owners intent, thats a slippery slope and hard end to meet? Why do so many leagues decide for owners how they should run their teams and how to use their strategy. That is your interpretation of the waiver wire...dont teams claim players so others dont get them. Isnt that the point? Slippery slope.

I am not saying to decide an owner's intent.  I am saying understand the intent of a rule in a league.  I have owners that ask about a rule and get the rule clarified for the intent but then try and circumvent that intent because there isn't  a specific rule preventing it. 

 

[tackle for loss]

Thats fine, if their is no rule for churning, then its allowed. Dont like it make a rule next year that way owners can decide if they want to leave or stay. I always look for rules that exist or dont so I can tell if my strategies will work.

 

[Hilts]

Do you understand the concept of the intent of a rule?  I don't know if you have ever tried to create a new league and come up with by-laws to account for every possible scenario.  It is very difficult.  In many instances you come up with a framework of rules, many of which have clear intent but don't spell out every single possible loophole to get around the rule. 

Owners that search out ways to go around the intent of a rule aren't being clever.  They are being difficult and cause problems in the league because they aren't staying within the framework of how the league was meant to be.  Every time I have an owner try and circumvent the intent of a rule that is pretty clearly laid out I will allow that one instance (if it wasn't specifically forbidden) and then close the loophole in the by-laws.  It happens from time to time and I don't have an issue when it's something that was just missed.  My issue comes in with owners that seek out ways around the intent of rules.  If they know what the rule is in place for don't try to find a "legal" way to break it. 

If the intent is to ensure everyone has a chance at players that's great. I agree with that. But churning these days doesn't violate that intent, as most sites require a player to be held a day. You can no longer insta-churn. Therefore churning through more than 1-2 options takes several days. Meaning everyone will have numerous chances to prevent being stuck with little to no ww options. 

If you pick up 2 guys today and drop them tomorrow, then repeat the process the next two days, you've removed half a dozen options. But everyone had a fair chance in that time, as well as before the fcfs started and in the initial ww process. 

 

[Gally]

If the intent of the rule is to provide an opportunity, but the affected owner has the opportunity but chooses not to use it, how is churning going against the intent of the rule? If an owner wants to wait until Sunday to grab someone, that's on them. But they had ample opportunity to grab someone long before. If they wait until it's too late, how does this violate any of those intents? Should the opportunity be forced to stay open a certain period of time past waivers?

What about the opportunity for a team that has a player injured Saturday and now has no available replacements because someone churned the player pool so nobody was available?  They didn't purposely wait and the intent of the system was taken away because of someone churning players. 

This started as a question as to why this should not be allowed.  The OP was looking for the reason he didn't like the strategy but wasn't sure if there was one.  The reason is that it circumvents the intent of the purpose of the waiver system.  Churning prevents ALL teams from being able to use the system as intended....not just the one team the churner is trying to block. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Some owners will look for any way to take any strategy or smart moves by owners out because it hurts them personally, never wanting other owners to take account for making sure that it dont happen to them so we want to protect them with rules so they dont have to do any extra work but set a lineup. Sportsmanship? Football teams run trick plays, fake punts, onside kicks and wildcat formations? Sometimes having tricks and a unique strategy works. If a guy doesnt want to cut a player for one he needs to set lineups, thats his fault. I would pick up and drop too if it helped me get the win. Winning is the point, isnt it? Dont like it, pick up the players before the other guy can do his strategy.

With technology and everyone cutting out strategy that they deem that "they dont like" has completely made this game about all luck and no skill or strategy, what so ever. At least back a few years ago some strategy worked before everyone had the same info at their finger tips. Where is the skill? Guessing which guy to play? Everyone uses the same draft sheets as the whole community uses the same info, no such things as sleepers anymore everyone knows about everyone. Just such a strange game anymore that no one wants anyone to have a leg up because of their strategy or they thought of something you didnt. I love the idea of people coming up with new ways to win, instead it looks like all we want is people who set lineups. Sounds like fun and something we need a million sites devoted to.

Ethics matter. 

What you’re describing as coming up with a new way to win or thinking of a strategy others didn’t, most describe as “cheating”. 

When you have 12 friends and money on the line, you collectively work to make the contest fair.

Playing keep-away by manipulating the waiver system to lock up players the rest of your league needs isn’t some genius creative strategy - it’s a poor sport move that screws up the league for the other 11 people. 

Maybe you run in less ethical, more cut-thrroat circles than I do, but there’s nothing creative, clever or original about roster churning. And it’s always been considered poor sportsmanship. 

Your slippery slope about preventing this with rules leading to the ruination of fantasy sports, dumbing it down so all anyone does is set rosters is patently ridiculous. 

In fact, with a legitimate waiver system it adds strategy - is that player you want to add really worth losing a high priority pick or a large % of FAAB over?  That’s much more strategic than add/dropping 15 kickers while your opponent is at work so your opponent can’t replace his kicker on a BYE week. That’snot creative - that’s bush league. 

You’re probably also ok with trade-backs, roster dumping, and just straight cheating? Hey, who cares that your 3-11 team traded Gurley & Mike Evans to your brother’s 11-3 team for his backup defense & Doug Baldwin. It’s not in the rules. You squares are just mad you didn’t think of it first, right?  

fair play means being ethical. Some leagues are run ethically, and some leagues are apparently the ones you play in. 

I’ll stick to the ethical ones, thanks. 

 

[Hilts]

Everyone can be in whatever type of league they choose - if this practice sits well with you, then I'm not one to say you're wrong to let it happen. I'm merely presenting why some leagues do not allow it.

As to the bolded my point is the same "argument" you make to allow "roster churning" can be applied to other situations deemed unethical if they are not spelled out specifically in the rules - people can always find loopholes. Collusion is not the only form of cheating.

I'm still not seeing how teams deliberately working together in coordinated manner like you described doesn't constitute collusion. 

Not trying to be obtuse I just don't quite grasp the point. 

 

[Hilts]

What about the opportunity for a team that has a player injured Saturday and now has no available replacements because someone churned the player pool so nobody was available?  They didn't purposely wait and the intent of the system was taken away because of someone churning players. 

This started as a question as to why this should not be allowed.  The OP was looking for the reason he didn't like the strategy but wasn't sure if there was one.  The reason is that it circumvents the intent of the purpose of the waiver system.  Churning prevents ALL teams from being able to use the system as intended....not just the one team the churner is trying to block. 

The newly injured team was not prevented from grabbing players. They were prevented from grabbing players when they wanted, but they had the same opportunities as everyone else to pick up some depth. The fact they chose to not exercise their option doesn't mean they didn't have one. They didn't think they'd need depth. Oops. We've all made gambles that didn't work out.

 

[Hilts]

You’re probably also ok with trade-backs, roster dumping, and just straight cheating. Hey, who cares that your 3-11 team traded Gurley & Mike Evans to your brother’s 11-3 team for his backup defense & Doug Baldwin. You squares are just mad you didn’t think of it first, right?  



fair play means being ethical. Some leagues are run ethically, and some leagues are apparently the ones you play in. 

I’ll stick to the ethical ones, thanks. 

This seems like we're getting too personal in attacks instead of just discussing the issue.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

A couple of years back we had a team not address their backup QB until week 7 when their starter was on a bye. By that time there were few starting QBs available. His opponent grabbed the last QB on ww and he tried to scramble to make a trade but couldn't make it happen. He took a donut at QB and a loss. The league was fine with this result since it was the owner's fault for not addressing earlier.

That’s perfectly ok. I’ve had it happen to me. I was 7-1 steamrolling the league. 

In the morning game Donovan McNabb broke his fibula. In the afternoon game, Jake Delhomme got KTFO. 

The following Tuesday, my opponent had a higher priority and claimed the last viable starting QB. 

That’s a fair and ethical means of strategically using a WW claim. 

That’s not the same as churning 5 FA QBs to lock them up on waivers. 

 

[Gally]

The newly injured team was not prevented from grabbing players. They were prevented from grabbing players when they wanted, but they had the same opportunities as everyone else to pick up some depth. The fact they chose to not exercise their option doesn't mean they didn't have one. They didn't think they'd need depth. Oops. We've all made gambles that didn't work out.

There is a difference in gambling that a player won't get injured and not drafting a backup and having a player injured Saturday and then not being able to pick up a free agent because someone churned through the available player pool that week to prevent anybody from getting a player at that position. 

This really comes down to ethics.  If you don't see the difference then I guess I am wasting my time coming up with examples. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This seems like we're getting too personal in attacks instead of just discussing the issue.

Wait, what?

That’s not a personal attack at all, in any way whatsoever.   I’m reading what the user posted and commenting on the lack of ethics in the “strategy” described.

That member said they scour the rules and look for ways to exploit them. 

Then described that as a strategy. 

Each to their own, but I’d never play with or host a person like that in my leagues. 

 

[FF Ninja]

I haven't read most of the thread responses, but upon first glance the guy with the roster need should've put in for a waiver claim instead of waiting. And if waivers only last 2 days then he'll still have time to do it (as the other guy is churning, the guys he's dropping will be available before Sunday) unless it's a faab system and he has zero dollars and the other guy keeps bidding $1 and dropping another. If that's the case, I kind of like this strategy. I'm not saying I'd ever use it (my roster spots are almost always too valuable to pull this) but seems smart and legit. The "hoarding" guy set himself up for this by not making a claim and the other guy took advantage. Pretty funny, IMO.

 

[Hilts]

There is a difference in gambling that a player won't get injured and not drafting a backup and having a player injured Saturday and then not being able to pick up a free agent because someone churned through the available player pool that week to prevent anybody from getting a player at that position. 

When you're gambling on having no depth, you're also gambling there may not be any decent options available if your starter gets hurt. Excluding quarterbacks, there's always going to be somebody out there on the ww. They're probably just going to be a garbage option. But again, when you gamble with no depth at a position you know this is a chance you're taking. Plan a better roster next week and hope your current options blow up this week to carry you through to the next ww run.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If you pick up 2 guys today and drop them tomorrow, then repeat the process the next two days, you've removed half a dozen options. But everyone had a fair chance in that time, as well as before the fcfs started and in the initial ww process. 

Sometimes the letter of the law & the spirit of the law matter.

regardless of whether this is written in the rules, your leaguemates will likely take issue with it.

The practice of roster churning has long been consideried poor sportsmanship in fantasy sports.

But hey, it’s your league - do what ya like. You asked for feedback on this, I gave mine. If you’re looking for reasons to justify the practice, you won’t find a sympathetic ear with me - I consider it bush league. 

 

[Hilts]

Wait, what?

That’s not a personal attack at all, in any way whatsoever.   I’m reading what the user posted and commenting on the lack of ethics in the “strategy” described.

That member said they scour the rules and lookmdor ways to exploit them. 

Then described that as a strategy. 

Each to their own, but I’d never play with or host a person like that in my leagues. 

OK, fair enough. I misunderstood. Apologies. Didn't mean to put some hot sauce on this situation, guy. 

 

[zftcg]

What about the opportunity for a team that has a player injured Saturday and now has no available replacements because someone churned the player pool so nobody was available?  They didn't purposely wait and the intent of the system was taken away because of someone churning players. 

Wait, so in this scenario someone churned the roster just in case an injury popped up for one of their opponents? I mean, by that logic they could just as easily screw themselves if their own player got injured. 

I still remain convinced that the stupidity of the strategy tempers the unethical-ness. If you want to twist your roster into a pretzel you are just as likely to hurt yourself as you are anyone else.

I also think that, outside of high-stakes leagues, there is a hidden cost to constantly layering on new rules to close loopholes. Makes the game less fun. If you can handle a situation without imposing a new rule, I would consider that preferable. Like @Hot Sauce Guy said, a lot of it comes down to the other owners you choose to play with.

 

[zftcg]

When you're gambling on having no depth, you're also gambling there may not be any decent options available if your starter gets hurt. Excluding quarterbacks, there's always going to be somebody out there on the ww. They're probably just going to be a garbage option. But again, when you gamble with no depth at a position you know this is a chance you're taking. Plan a better roster next week and hope your current options blow up this week to carry you through to the next ww run.

And then there's the TE position, in which whatever is on the WW will definitely be a garbage option. 

 

[Hilts]

Sometimes the letter of the law & the spirit of the law matter.

regardless of whether this is written in the rules, your leaguemates will likely take issue with it.

The practice of roster churning has long been consideried poor sportsmanship in fantasy sports.

But hey, it’s your league - do what ya like. You asked for feedback on this, I gave mine. If you’re looking for reasons to justify the practice, you won’t find a sympathetic ear with me - I consider it bush league. 

I think the spirit of the law is and was to ensure players had a fair and reasonable opportunity to grab guys on the ww.

I think it's been bush league, but that's in large part because you used to be able to insta-churn. That's utter nonsense. You should not be able to pick up a guy, immediately drop them, and have that player go through the ww process. I can 100% see how that violates the spirit of the rules. But if you have to hold a player and drop them a day later for them to go on the ww? I think that's significantly different context.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

What about the opportunity for a team that has a player injured Saturday and now has no available replacements because someone churned the player pool so nobody was available?  They didn't purposely wait and the intent of the system was taken away because of someone churning players. 

This started as a question as to why this should not be allowed.  The OP was looking for the reason he didn't like the strategy but wasn't sure if there was one.  The reason is that it circumvents the intent of the purpose of the waiver system.  Churning prevents ALL teams from being able to use the system as intended....not just the one team the churner is trying to block. 

This. 

Even if it’s not against the rules as written in your league constitution, it’s a great way to lose friends over FFB. 

But again, this is why we use waivers. This is why we have rules.

As commish for 14 years in a 12-person IDP league, I hope we never have to enforce the rules. The rules aren’t there to stifle anyone. The rules are there to provide a basic outline of what’s allowed.

In 14 years I’ve had to boot 2 people, brothers, for trying to pull a janky trade pre-playoffs. 

Those two used to be friends with the other 10 people in the league. Now they’re not. 

At the end of the day, it’s both for fun, and a contest for $.  In my experience rules help to keep it fun, and fair. 

Rules are not there to crush anyone’s dreams - they’re in place to keep the league harmonious so questions like this don’t pop up mid-season. 

Good luck with this one. It may not be against your rules, but it still might be considered unethical by the people you play with. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

But if you have to hold a player and drop them a day later for them to go on the ww? I think that's significantly different context.

It’s still roster churning though. 

Is it different to rob a bank all at once or go there 3 days in a row robing them of 1/3 each time? 

Seems like it’s tne same thing. 

I agree that your league-mate probably should have addressed their player needs prior to someone doing that. 

But people have lives - maybe they’re working 12 hours a day & not able to spend as much time looking at such things. And maybe they wouldn’t expect someone in the league to be so cut-throat as to do something like that over a 3-day period.

With your specific scenario there’s a little gray area, I agree. But when the dust settles you’ve still roster churned. Whether you did it all at once or over 3-4 days, the end result is the same. 

 

[Gally]

Wait, so in this scenario someone churned the roster just in case an injury popped up for one of their opponents? I mean, by that logic they could just as easily screw themselves if their own player got injured. 

I still remain convinced that the stupidity of the strategy tempers the unethical-ness. If you want to twist your roster into a pretzel you are just as likely to hurt yourself as you are anyone else.

I also think that, outside of high-stakes leagues, there is a hidden cost to constantly layering on new rules to close loopholes. Makes the game less fun. If you can handle a situation without imposing a new rule, I would consider that preferable. Like @Hot Sauce Guy said, a lot of it comes down to the other owners you choose to play with.

No.....the OP asked for reasons why churning shouldn't be allowed and he was having trouble trying to come up with one. 

My example was about an owner that was not the target of the churning but had an unexpected injury that now was affected by the churning.  The guy doing the churning was trying to prevent his opponent from having a chance to pick up a player because he was holding onto speculative players at a different position.  My example, was stating that because of roster churning an owner not specifically involved in the churn block was affected because the wavier process in place to provide an opportunity to replace a late injured player was circumvented.  Its an example of why I think roster churning is an unethical practice because it circumvents the intent of the waiver process - whether or not there are specific rules in place to prevent the churn activity.

 

[Football Jones]

You simply make a rule where if you pickup somebody, you have to keep them through the week (we have that rule in my main league & its worked great for 15+ years).

Picking up players just to drop them isn’t strategy, it’s horse####.

Sure, pick up all the players you want, but you’ll have to keep them for a week.

 

[TheWinz]

No one has mentioned the guy who waited until Sunday to pick up a bye week filler.  He is essentially doing the same thing, because he is waiting until the last minute to drop someone, making that dropped player locked on waivers for that week.  He tried getting cute, and got bit in the ###.

From the original post, I was hoping to hear some fun & inventive ways to mess with other owners.  Here are a few (no, I have never done any of these, but they would be hilarious)...

- Send an owner a fake Rotoworld blurb that his stud RB got injured and went on IR, then pick him up when he drops him

- Send out 1,000,000 bogus trade offers (your backup kicker for his stud RB).  Odds are someone will accidentally accept.  The accept/decline buttons are right next to each other.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Its an example of why I think roster churning is an unethical practice because it circumvents the intent of the waiver process - whether or not there are specific rules in place to prevent the churn activity.

And i’ll add to this that there’s a flip side to it. It not only circumvents the WW process, it manipulates the WW process and uses it as the opposite of how waivers are intended.

the intent of waivers is to allow all teams a fair shot at players, using whatever definition of “fair” the league agrees on. We used to use “worst to first” and reset every week, for example. Now we use the process where you burn your priority because we quickly saw the flaw in the former system (a stacked team has a bad 1st week, gets #1 claim & gets even more stacked). 

With roster churning, the waivers aren’t used to fairly make players available, they’re being manipulated to unfairly restrict players, imposing a lock on them to prevent anyone from getting them. 

That use is the opposite of the intent of the waiver system. That’s why it’s considered a shady practice. 

 

[Gally]

When you're gambling on having no depth, you're also gambling there may not be any decent options available if your starter gets hurt. Excluding quarterbacks, there's always going to be somebody out there on the ww. They're probably just going to be a garbage option. But again, when you gamble with no depth at a position you know this is a chance you're taking. Plan a better roster next week and hope your current options blow up this week to carry you through to the next ww run.

Sure, but I am also believing that the people in my league are ethical enough to not churn through the waiver wire to prevent other's from using the system as it is intended. 

You asked for a reason that churning shouldn't be allowed.  I gave you one.  Whether you want to believe that circumventing the intent of a system in place is ethical or not that is up to you.  For me, that is the reason why I thinking churning should not be allowed whether it is specifically written in the rules or not. 

 

[Gally]

No one has mentioned the guy who waited until Sunday to pick up a bye week filler.  He is essentially doing the same thing, because he is waiting until the last minute to drop someone, making that dropped player locked on waivers for that week.  He tried getting cute, and got bit in the ###.

From the original post, I was hoping to hear some fun & inventive ways to mess with other owners.  Here are a few (no, I have never done any of these, but they would be hilarious)...

- Send an owner a fake Rotoworld blurb that his stud RB got injured and went on IR, then pick him up when he drops him

- Send out 1,000,000 bogus trade offers (your backup kicker for his stud RB).  Odds are someone will accidentally accept.  The accept/decline buttons are right next to each other.

In a few of my leagues we have had people mistakenly drop players and accept trades.  They have immediately sent an email out stating their error.  We have then returned the player and/or voided the mistaken trade. 

Their punishment is they never live down the drop/trade error and have been reminded it many times.....maybe even had to supply beverage at the next draft...

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

No one has mentioned the guy who waited until Sunday to pick up a bye week filler.  He is essentially doing the same thing, because he is waiting until the last minute to drop someone, making that dropped player locked on waivers for that week.  He tried getting cute, and got bit in the ###.

A coupe people mentioned that, actually. 

But salting a wound by churning the FA list isn’t an ethical way to handle it. 

I could see adding the best FA QB to play keep-away. And hey, you get an extra backup. No issue there.

but manipulating waivers to lock up all the available QBs effects everyone in the league, not just the unprepared team. 

what if you’re one of the other 10 teams....your QB1 is on a BYE & your QB2 pops a hammy in Saturday practice? 

Now you go to add a scrub QB, and they’re all locked on WW because someone churned. 

That kind of collateral damage isn’t fair or fun. And it’s through no fault of yours that you weren’t prepared for that. You weren’t being cute, or getting bit by your own lack of depth. You had a backup QB. They got hurt. 

See how churning can impact others in the league as well? 

That practice has been frowned upon since I started playing fantasy sports some 20 years ago. 

 

[Hilts]

Sure, but I am also believing that the people in my league are ethical enough to not churn through the waiver wire to prevent other's from using the system as it is intended. 

You asked for a reason that churning shouldn't be allowed.  I gave you one.  Whether you want to believe that circumventing the intent of a system in place is ethical or not that is up to you.  For me, that is the reason why I thinking churning should not be allowed whether it is specifically written in the rules or not. 

You've said the intent of the ww system is to allow others reasonable and fair opportunities to acquire players from the ww. This scenario does not violate either of those. 

Perhaps you mean players should be available at all times for owners? If that's the case, why not have the ww process run until Saturday night? Or no fcfs, but two ww runs, one for TNF and another for SNF?

 

[Hilts]

what if you’re one of the other 10 teams....your QB1 is on a BYE & your QB2 pops a hammy in Saturday practice? 

I think we're getting a bit carried away with some of these hypotheticals. Most other owners are covered so the churning doesn't matter to them. But this scenario...can you give me an example of when a qb was suddenly and unexpectedly shut down the day before a game? 

 

[Interseptopus]

I'll admit I did this one year in my much younger days in FFB to force a guy out of the playoffs that I did not want to face (I wasn't even playing him) 

It came back to bite me in the rear end as the person he actually did pick up to fill in had a huge week. Lesson learned. I still beat him in the Super Bowl but it's just not worth it. It's not within the spirit of the rules. 

I get the argument that people shouldn't want until Sunday morning to manage their teams. But there are many counter points to that.

Now, when I make moves like this, I will keep that player/s on my roster through the week and then drop. That's fair game IMO. Churning the WW is a great way to be a complete ##### canoe. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think we're getting a bit carried away with some of these hypotheticals. Most other owners are covered so the churning doesn't matter to them. But this scenario...can you give me an example of when a qb was suddenly and unexpectedly shut down the day before a game? 

This has happened many times over the years - this isn't an out-there hypothetical. Consider a player who's being evauated for a concussion - maybe they've been optimistic all week, and the news has been positive, but they aren't cleared for the game. 

These things happen. And being a victim of collateral damage because someone decided to roster churn to "mess with" another team would make my blood boil if I were then screwed by their shenanigans. 

But then, I play in leagues with specific rules against this. Like, every league I've played in for 20 years. I can't help but think it's a problematic practice if every league I've ever been in doesn't allow it. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Now, when I make moves like this, I will keep that player/s on my roster through the week and then drop. That's fair game IMO. Churning the WW is a great way to be a complete ##### canoe. 

Exactly - as I'd posted before, I got bit by it. Lost both QBs on the same day, had a low WW priority & my leaguemate picked up the only half-way decent QB. I ended up with a complete scrub & got knocked out the 1st round of the playoffs (back then we had a 13 week season, & 2-weeks of playoffs, like a bunch of losers). 

There was nothing unethical there - dude added a QB fair & square, and kept him from me. He also kept him on his roster. That's not roster churning - zero issue with that. I mean, it sucked, but it was a legit strategic play. 

 

[Hilts]

I'll admit I did this one year in my much younger days in FFB to force a guy out of the playoffs that I did not want to face (I wasn't even playing him) 

It came back to bite me in the rear end as the person he actually did pick up to fill in had a huge week. Lesson learned. I still beat him in the Super Bowl but it's just not worth it. It's not within the spirit of the rules. 

I get the argument that people shouldn't want until Sunday morning to manage their teams. But there are many counter points to that.

Now, when I make moves like this, I will keep that player/s on my roster through the week and then drop. That's fair game IMO. Churning the WW is a great way to be a complete ##### canoe. 

This goes back to what people were talking about earlier in the thread. Maybe you try forcing an opponent into picking up a worse streaming option. Then they have a Trubisky vs Tampa blow up and now you've lost a backup all for nothing. Is it dumb to make this gamble for a few reasons? Sure. Is it unfair? I don't think so. 

 

[Godsbrother]

This has happened many times over the years - this isn't an out-there hypothetical. Consider a player who's being evauated for a concussion - maybe they've been optimistic all week, and the news has been positive, but they aren't cleared for the game. 

These things happen. And being a victim of collateral damage because someone decided to roster churn to "mess with" another team would make my blood boil if I were then screwed by their shenanigans. 

But then, I play in leagues with specific rules against this. Like, every league I've played in for 20 years. I can't help but think it's a problematic practice if every league I've ever been in doesn't allow it. 

As I said our league charges a fee for transactions so it is kind of self policing.  We don't have a rule that forbids it but we are a league of friends and if someone pulled this kind of a richard move he likely wouldn't be considered a friend for very long.  I can see maybe picking up (and keeping at least for one week) a single player to block an opponent but anyone that is churning is a jerk IMO.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

As I said our league charges a fee for transactions so it is kind of self policing.  We don't have a rule that forbids it but we are a league of friends and if someone pulled this kind of a richard move he likely wouldn't be considered a friend for very long.  I can see maybe picking up (and keeping at least for one week) a single player to block an opponent but anyone that is churning is a jerk IMO.

Yep - the $5 per add in our leagues tends to help prevent this. 

The block is a legit move. The churn is a Richard move. 

 

[chad in Indy]

The question isn't so much whether you find it unethical/immoral/etc, but why. 

When I saw it, my first reaction was to think it's unsportsmanlike. But after thinking it over I found myself at a loss to explain WHY I felt it's unsportsmanlike. If all owners have a fair chance to grab the players, that's not being unfair. If you can't 'blitz' through the ww and add/drop a million guys at once but instead need to hold them a day in order to 'lock them' on the ww, then again I think that's not unfair, as it's putting real talent in the pool and putting the potentially affected teams on notice they need to make an adjustment. What about this is unethical or unfair behavior? Is it a move I'd make? Probably not, as I value the players on my team and would rather gamble on a lottery ticket or two instead of doing this. But for the life of me I can't actually explain why I feel it's a poor move. There's no reason for me to actually feel this way if I look at the facts.

I'm wondering if the real reason I disliked it is simply because it's not something I'm familiar with, and new things are uncomfortable and even a little bit scary. Just because something breaks tradition doesn't necessarily mean it's unethical or unfair.

I used to be in a yahoo league really long time ago where a guy would churn through the waivers to lock players. The problem was there was no time that a player had to be on your roster. You could literally pick up a player and drop them immediately, and then that player would be stuck unavailable for 2 days. So, yes it is a problem when there is no holding requirement. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm still not seeing how teams deliberately working together in coordinated manner like you described doesn't constitute collusion. 

Not trying to be obtuse I just don't quite grasp the point. 

Pick some other shady tactic then, because that's just one example of some one circumventing the spirit of the rules by claiming "doing X" is not specifically against any rule so it should be fair game.

Maybe I can't stand "Joe" because he wins the league too much (and that jerk also churns the waiver wire every week), so I send an unsolicited offer of my DeAndre Hopkins and Todd Gurley to "Bob", who is playing Joe for the last playoff slot (I'm already eliminated), for his Rod Smith and Chris Hogan and Bob accepts. The rules state "no trades will be vetoed unless there is collusion" and there's a toilet bowl so teams not in the playoff chase can still make trades. The rules lawyer will argue there was no collusion therefore this trade MUST stand per the rules. Joe cries whines like a baby, even though he's ok with being a roster churner.

Now of course that's a more extreme example but my point is shady behavior begets shady behavior. There are hundreds of grey areas in any set of rules. A good commissioner will sometimes have to step in and try to reign in shady but technically legal behavior.

It seems we are going in circles here though - once again if something like this happened in one of my leagues, it's just not for me. If you see nothing wrong with it then that's fine as well. 

Some leagues will not overturn a trade where someone accidently hit accept and notifies the commissioner right away, some leagues will. Different strokes and all that. 

 

[Deamon]

This is ridiculous that some are supporting the owner doing this.  Completely unethical and bushleague.  No, I don't think finding a loophole like this is "smart" nor should be allowed. Leagues that lock players picked up/dropped should have rules in place to stop this (must keep for a week, owners can post on message board that they want a player that is picked up/dropped same week, etc).  Not having a rule in place for this, especially in a money league, is asking for trouble.  Change that rule next year asap. 

As for this year, the commish should step in on this one.  Clear roster churning.  He may not directly be colluding with this guys opponent this week, but he is taking actions to help the other guy win.  Not everything that isn't clearly laid out word for word in rules should be allowed. 

Many leagues don't have strict written conduct about dropping players.  If a guy drops gurley this week, but wasn't colluding with another owner, would you allow that?