This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I assume waiver order is determined by weekly score(?) That's a bit unusual.What rules do you have in place regarding complete line-ups?
Waiver resets weekly by standings, tie breaker is points forward so since he scored the least (because he sat them) he got the first. I joined this league with my friend, its just a regular ESPN prize eligible league for ESPN.
Actually, I believe Herm Edwards said: "You play to win the game!"
If I were to be upset, i'd be upset at the Commish of the league for allowing behavior like this. That said, i'd not worry about it this week. Morris is tainted Shanny trash and will quickly be discarded after the first bad game he has in favor of Royster, Helu, or some other RB. Let the man pick up a Washington RB and laugh all the way to the bank when he's pulling up a donut because Shanny started someone else.
What about someone leading by one point going into MNF whose opponent is done benching the CIN DEF in order to avoid a possible negative score and tie/loss?
Simple, it is giving the other owner an easy win which has an affect on the entire league. What if DMC and Smith put up 30pts each and he could have came back? He is improving his team at the expense of the competitive balance of the league - not just at the expense of his week 1 record.
And that will earn him another high waiver claim. Oh the irony...
Personally, I think that is equally as lame. I've been in that situtaion, started my Def, but have never been burned by a negative score...with that said, a proper league should have a rule in place to prevent things like this, and if it does not, it is on you for not recognizing this when you joined.
I'm the commissioner of the league and I allowed the move. As it turned out, CIN scored a -1 so a win would have become a tie for the owner that benched the CIN defense. I didn't see anything wrong with it.
That's a scenario covered by the rule, so it would result in the penalty. The purpose is to avoid an extra advantage for teams who have players in late games and Monday night games over the teams whose players play in the early games.
Anything goes in a league like that.
I don't see the "easy win" here. It sounds like the other team already had an easy win based on what happened Sunday. If the guy could have won the game, I'm sure that would have been preferable. This doesn't sound like tanking in week 1.It sounds like his options were "lose" or "lose by a lot." I guess two record-shattering performances could have changed things, but if it's unrealistic (don't know the exact circumstance) I think it's unfair to label it an "easy win" when there was only a lottery chance-type shot that he could win the game. It sounds to me like he's being competitive, by improving weeks 2-14 when week 1 was already a loss. If he didn't care he could have just left the guys in and received a worse waiver slot. I'm not sure that's a better owner.
I think my main problem is that in sitting the players he isn't the bottom team. Since the guy that would have had the #1 lost Jackson with no Spiller he could have at least used Morris til somebody else emerged.
this.'bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
this.
If his best lineup would have scored more points than someone else's then he screwed that other owner out of priority. Obviously, reverse standings waivers are intended to help the worst teams get better. If he's sandbagging, he isn't the worst team. So even if he would have lost, he's still violating the spirit of the rule. He's basically the fantasy football equivalent of someone who gets paid cash under the table so they can remain eligible for food stamps.That said, standings waivers are flawed in that a team in a hole will be better even as their standings ranking may still lag behind. So I am a big fan of blind bid waivers. Standings waivers don't necessarily work as intended even when everyone does what they should and they are certainly susceptible to unethical manipulation to boot.As for what should be done? If there isn't a rule against it, I don't think you should punish the guy. Whether as a league you want to vote on a new rule and re-set his lineup and re-score his game to fix the priority, that's up to your league. Some things just have to be dealt with as they happen. Just make sure that everyone going forward knows how it is.'Neil Beaufort Zod said:
It's week 1. Every team in the league is either tied for first or tied for last. So waiver priority is going to come down to scores.McFadden had a good PPR game. So in a H2H format, this guy might have been the 2nd highest scoring team had he started McFadden and Smith but still got blown away by the other team (who might have had Ryan, Spiller, Julio and Graham for example).Allowing him to throw the game and torpedo his scoring intentionally allows him to trump several other teams who really aren't that good.So why do we do prioritize waivers by standings again? To help the weak teams get competitive, right? If McFadden is on your bench and you are using an empty slot, you aren't as weak as your score indicates. There's no reason to use standings for priority and then allow this to go on.'Purple_King said:
That's different than trying to "throw" a game for postional purposes. This is the same as "ducking" for a better playoff matchup or better draft pick the following year (in dyno/keepers). Many leagues have rules about not trying to field a viable lineup - obviously pulling players to try to lose is pretty obvious.Personally, I'd let him - and then giggle my ### off when the guy he pickups blows out his knee a week from now.'Evilgrin 72 said:
This guy knows what he's talking about.
