My league is falling apart, so I proposed some rules... (1 Viewer)

[Rev]

My non-fee dynasty league is becomming a joke because 1 or 2 teams are submitting bogus rosters and not keeping minimum roster requirements (1 team has only 1 defense and 1 TE when you need 2). I am proposing some rules that would penalize the teams and allow the rest of us to not get screwed in either the playoff race or the draft next year.

Thoughts?

Rule 1: The violation of roster requirements

If owner A's roster violates a specific requirement or rule (not having the minimum number of players for each position, having healthy players on IR, etc.), the commissioner will notify owner A by email that the violation must be corrected immediately. If the illicit roster effects a game or free agent during the season, the commissioner may give team A a loss in relation to the current year's playoffs but a win in relation to the following year's draft for each effected game. If the illicit roster can be shown to effect an off-season trade or draft, Team A will be penalized appropriately. If Team A fails to comply or demonstrates a tendency to disregard roster requirements, the commissioner may penalize Team A by removing draft picks or by relieving the owner of his post.

Rule 2: The submission of a substandard lineup

"At any point in the season, any owner may submit a complaint to the commissioner if he feels that Team A has started a substandard lineup for a game or series of games, at which point the commissioner will notify Team A that he has 7 days (or a shortened timeline if the commissioner deems it necessary) to justify his starting lineup from the week in question. If Team A cannot reasonably justify a particular lineup to the commissioner within the said period of time, Team A automatically receives a loss in relation to the playoff race but a win in relation to the next year’s rookie draft. The commissioner will then determine the winner of the game by retroactively inserting Team A’s highest scoring players into Team A’s lineup. Team A’s opponent, Team B, will receive a win or a loss depending on that outcome. An owner may submit any number of complaints to the commissioner for any number of games at any point in the season. However, once a particular lineup has been evaluated, it cannot be submitted in a second complaint.”

 

[Chaz]

Those rules seem fine, but I'm a little old fashioned in how you should handle it. If a commish is truly acting in the best interest of the league, there should be no problem with your just saying, "hey team A...thanks for being here the past three years, but I'm afraid we are going in a different direction." Tell the league that Team A is gone. If you acted properly they will likely thank you for it.

Every league is different though. I just think that it's impossible for a commish to cover every circumstance and has to be trusted here and there to act to benefit the league.

 

[Avery]

I like the spirit of the rules but I think the implementation needs to be tweaked.

Rule 1: Roster requirements

I think you should handle this issue from the front end (starting with and maintaining legal rosters) as opposed to the back end (penalties for illegal rosters). In my leagues with roster requirements, transactions are NOT PERMITTED that would result in an illegal roster. For example, if you only have 2 TEs and roster requirements mandate that you have at least 2 TEs then you can't drop a TE or trade a TE without getting one in return. If the commissioner is doing his job, he should look at all transactions (trades, FA wire claims, drops) to verify that rosters remain legal.

Rule 2: Substandard lineups.

A stickier situation. You can easily have a rule for submitted a lineup with an "empty" position (a specific penalty for an illegal lineup) but throwing a game with poorer starters is like pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. If you are simply asking an owner to justify a poor lineup choice, the answer could always be, "I really thought that player A was going to break out this week." In general, having upstanding team owners will prevent them from throwing games, but if you leave it up to the discretion of the commissioner if a team is throwing games or not, it better be pretty egregious if penalties are to be levied.

That my 2 cents worth... for what it's worth.

 

[[scooter]]

My non-fee dynasty league is becomming a joke

There's your problem right there. Adding more rules won't help.Personally, I'd rather play in a league with no lineup requirements -- I want the freedom to run my team in the best way I see fit. I want the option of having an extra backup RB instead of a TE that scores 1 point per game.

 

[Angrymutt]

Make it a-fee dyansty league. People have something to player for.

 

[billyjoe]

Free leagues are like play money poker. It's not real poker, no one takes it seriously, people go all in for fun then just get more play money.

Most people in free FF leagues, don't really care that much. Sure they'd like to win, they'll pay attention, but it's never their best effort. Sure there's some leagues where this isn't the case, but the vast majority of free leagues are a joke.

 

[GregR_2]

...Rule 1: The violation of roster requirements If owner A's roster violates a specific requirement or rule (not having the minimum number of players for each position, having healthy players on IR, etc.), the commissioner will notify owner A by email that the violation must be corrected immediately. If the illicit roster effects a game or free agent during the season, the commissioner may give team A a loss in relation to the current year's playoffs but a win in relation to the following year's draft for each effected game. If the illicit roster can be shown to effect an off-season trade or draft, Team A will be penalized appropriately. If Team A fails to comply or demonstrates a tendency to disregard roster requirements, the commissioner may penalize Team A by removing draft picks or by relieving the owner of his post.

Personally I think a better rule would be to get rid of the roster requirement. If a team feels their roster space can be better used to further their gametime efforts by taking another position, why not let them do it and let skill differentiate itself (or lack of skill if they were wrong).Otherwise, I think a better option is to host your league on a site that can enforce roster requirements and then you don't need to police it with rules like this. Roster requirements are common enough any site worth using should support them.

Rule 2: The submission of a substandard lineup "At any point in the season, any owner may submit a complaint to the commissioner if he feels that Team A has started a substandard lineup for a game or series of games, at which point the commissioner will notify Team A that he has 7 days (or a shortened timeline if the commissioner deems it necessary) to justify his starting lineup from the week in question. If Team A cannot reasonably justify a particular lineup to the commissioner within the said period of time, Team A automatically receives a loss in relation to the playoff race but a win in relation to the next year’s rookie draft. The commissioner will then determine the winner of the game by retroactively inserting Team A’s highest scoring players into Team A’s lineup. Team A’s opponent, Team B, will receive a win or a loss depending on that outcome. An owner may submit any number of complaints to the commissioner for any number of games at any point in the season. However, once a particular lineup has been evaluated, it cannot be submitted in a second complaint.”

If I don't have a problem with accepting the negatives, your rule as written basically gives me the option of making my opponent face my perfect lineup with his normal one. That's really unfair to the opponent. And there are several different scenarios under which those negatives either aren't a negative, such as a team already out of the playoff hunt who has traded his draft pick away or who has a big enough gap to the next team behind him that the draft-order "win" won't affect his draft order. Or at least where the team is ok with accepting the negative just to mess up his rival's chances.I would suggest you go with some other option for how to resolve the game. Use both team's perfect lineup. Or use Team B's lineup against Team A's season average, or against the league average. But don't give Team A a perfect lineup and Team B a normal lineup. That is just utterly unfair to Team B.For that matter, you might want to consider a penalty for Team A that would always be a negative for him, like worsening his draft position by 1 spot, or moving his earliest pick back 1 full round or something like that.

 

[EdwardCat]

I agree with the [scooter]. You have to give them something to play for. Money speaks volumes and keeps people in check.

 

[GregR_2]

I agree with the [scooter]. You have to give them something to play for. Money speaks volumes and keeps people in check.

I think money makes people more likely to pull unethical stuff. Just my 2 cents. All of my leagues are free and we don't have issues like this. It just comes down to the quality of owners.

 

[[scooter]]

I agree with the [scooter]. You have to give them something to play for. Money speaks volumes and keeps people in check.

I think money makes people more likely to pull unethical stuff. Just my 2 cents. All of my leagues are free and we don't have issues like this. It just comes down to the quality of owners.

How is it "unethical" for me to have only one defense on my roster?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I agree that with no money to play for it is hard to keep owners interested. Therefor I suggest that a penalty for a substandard lineup is a kick in the balls. It won't take that happening more than a few times to either wake the owner up or lead to a huge melee that you can video, and then sell for a tidy profit.

 

[GregR_2]

' date='Nov 11 2006, 10:29 PM' post='5890944']

I agree with the [scooter]. You have to give them something to play for. Money speaks volumes and keeps people in check.

I think money makes people more likely to pull unethical stuff. Just my 2 cents. All of my leagues are free and we don't have issues like this. It just comes down to the quality of owners.

How is it "unethical" for me to have only one defense on my roster?

I said money makes people pull unethical stuff. I wasn't necessarily referring to the 2 issues the poster is dealing with. Though since you ask the question, I think everyone would consider intentionally not following the rules of a game to be unethical. So if your league requires you to carry 2 and you intentionally don't follow the rules, yes, you're being unethical. Whether it's a good rule or not.

 

[Rev]

If I don't have a problem with accepting the negatives, your rule as written basically gives me the option of making my opponent face my perfect lineup with his normal one. That's really unfair to the opponent. And there are several different scenarios under which those negatives either aren't a negative, such as a team already out of the playoff hunt who has traded his draft pick away or who has a big enough gap to the next team behind him that the draft-order "win" won't affect his draft order. Or at least where the team is ok with accepting the negative just to mess up his rival's chances.

I would suggest you go with some other option for how to resolve the game. Use both team's perfect lineup. Or use Team B's lineup against Team A's season average, or against the league average. But don't give Team A a perfect lineup and Team B a normal lineup. That is just utterly unfair to Team B.

For that matter, you might want to consider a penalty for Team A that would always be a negative for him, like worsening his draft position by 1 spot, or moving his earliest pick back 1 full round or something like that.

Great points here. Having both teams submit the perfect lineup may be the best way to go.

Any other ideas as to deciding on the winner?

 

[Twilight]

If I don't have a problem with accepting the negatives, your rule as written basically gives me the option of making my opponent face my perfect lineup with his normal one. That's really unfair to the opponent. And there are several different scenarios under which those negatives either aren't a negative, such as a team already out of the playoff hunt who has traded his draft pick away or who has a big enough gap to the next team behind him that the draft-order "win" won't affect his draft order. Or at least where the team is ok with accepting the negative just to mess up his rival's chances.

I would suggest you go with some other option for how to resolve the game. Use both team's perfect lineup. Or use Team B's lineup against Team A's season average, or against the league average. But don't give Team A a perfect lineup and Team B a normal lineup. That is just utterly unfair to Team B.

For that matter, you might want to consider a penalty for Team A that would always be a negative for him, like worsening his draft position by 1 spot, or moving his earliest pick back 1 full round or something like that.

Great points here. Having both teams submit the perfect lineup may be the best way to go.

Any other ideas as to deciding on the winner?

Instead of using the perfect lineup, just rejigger the lineup with the best AVERAGE scoring players going into the week, excepting any injured players. That give the most likely lineup to be put in without it being unfairly scored.

 

[GregR_2]

I'd probably have the opponent play with his normal lineup against Team A's season average.

 

[fsufan]

Make it a-fee dyansty league. People have something to player for.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

I agree with the [scooter]. You have to give them something to play for. Money speaks volumes and keeps people in check.

I think money makes people more likely to pull unethical stuff. Just my 2 cents. All of my leagues are free and we don't have issues like this. It just comes down to the quality of owners.

How would you know money makes people do unethical stuff if all your leagues are free?I've played in probably 35 redrafts over 10 years with friends and ifriends. ALL money leagues. I've yet to see something truly "unethical" and while I have seen perhaps two unfair trades, I don't recall any owner letting his team fall apart with one exception.

Put some money on the line. That' the primary reason I am in FF. Yeah, I want to beat my pals but if there's no reward to winning, WGAF.

 

[lions327]

I play in both money leagues and free leagues. The common thing that makes a good league is good owners. If the owners are substandard, replace them.