Proposing a rule change to prevent empty line-up spots (1 Viewer)

[DeeJayK]

We had a situation last week in a league I manage that has caused some discontent. I'm thinking of proposing a rule change to prevent this from occurring in the future.

Here's the situation:

Team A is in the playoffs as the #1 seed regardless of what happens in the game. He also has an insurmountable lead in total points scored for the season.
Team B (owned by A's brother-in-law) is in the playoffs as the wildcard (#4 seed) if he beats Team A in the final week of the regular season (week 14). If B loses to A, then a team owned by A's brother would likely get the wildcard slot.
Going into Monday night, A has a 1.7 point lead, with the Tampa Bay defense left to play -- B has no players in the MNF game.
Team A chooses to pull his defense (leaving an empty roster spot) prior to kick-off of the MNF game. This is done to prevent the chance that Tampa's D scores negative points (in our scoring system there are on average about 3 Def/ST's that score negative points each week). This move effectively ended the game and kills any chance for B to make the playoffs.
In the end, Tampa's D scored -1, which would not have swung the game, but Team B remained upset by the gamesmanship.The move that Team A made was within the rules of our league, but it seems to me a bit "bush league". Since it's within the rules (and it didn't actually impact the final outcome of the game) obviously it will stand. However, I'd like to prevent this scenario from recurring. [Full Disclosure: I own neither A nor B and was not directly impacted by this decision. Team A explained to me that since he had previously lost to Team B, he wanted to ensure he wouldn't go 0-2 to him and then face him in the playoffs the following week with the prospect of going 0-3 -- this is understandable since B can be a bit insufferable. Team A's brother (who he now faces in the playoff game) has a subjectively stronger team than Team B, so Team A didn't necessarily gain an advantage w/r/t his playoff match-up]

This situation has been discussed previously on this board (e.g. here), but the only discussion I've seen regarding a rule to prevent it is a rule whereby an incomplete roster is given ZERO points for the week, which strikes me as extreme. I'd like to come up with a rule to prevent this scenario which is less drastic.

The rule I am envisioning would impose a 5-point penalty for each empty line-up (edited: previously stated "roster") spot. While this wouldn't completely eliminate this practice, it would make it much less likely, since very few performances worse than -5 are posted (only 8 performances worse than -5 have been posted through 14 weeks, with the worst being -7).

Obviously, this rule would be relatively simple to circumvent simply by picking up and inserting a player who is injured or is on a bye. For this reason, I would want to expand it to penalize starting players who are on byes or injured. I see the extension to byes as an added benefit, since it provides a penalty for failing to make substitutions during bye weeks. I realize sometimes owners choose to leave their players in during a bye, which they could still do, albeit with the penalty.

However, extending it to injured players gets a little dicey. As the commish, I don't want to have to make judgement calls on who is or is not injured. I would write the rule to state the penalty applies players on IR or listed as "Out" on the official NFL Wednesday injury report.

This rule could still be circumvented by a wily owner by simply inserting a player who is unlikely to have any fantasy impact. I think I'm okay with that, since our benches are not so deep that an owner could make such a move without some sacrifice. Also, this type of move can't be made for a team Def/ST, which is the position most likely to compile negative points in our scoring system.

The only other real pain point that I have as a commish (beyond the complexities described above), is that our current league host (ESPN) doesn't offer the flexibility to set up such a rule to be scored automatically. Therefore I would have to manually monitor each game and add the penalty after the fact.

Do you feel this rule would be a good one? Do you feel it's even necessary? Does anyone else have a similar rule in their league? Is it worth the effort required to implement?

 

[Fantasy Strategist]

We had a situation last week in a league I manage that has caused some discontent. I'm thinking of proposing a rule change to prevent this from occurring in the future.

Here's the situation:

Team A is in the playoffs as the #1 seed regardless of what happens in the game. He also has an insurmountable lead in total points scored for the season.
Team B (owned by A's brother-in-law) is in the playoffs as the wildcard (#4 seed) if he beats Team A in the final week of the regular season (week 14). If B loses to A, then a team owned by A's brother would likely get the wildcard slot.
Going into Monday night, A has a 1.7 point lead, with the Tampa Bay defense left to play -- B has no players in the MNF game.
Team A chooses to pull his defense (leaving an empty roster spot) prior to kick-off of the MNF game. This is done to prevent the chance that Tampa's D scores negative points (in our scoring system there are on average about 3 Def/ST's that score negative points each week). This move effectively ended the game and kills any chance for B to make the playoffs.
In the end, Tampa's D scored -1, which would not have swung the game, but Team B remained upset by the gamesmanship.The move that Team A made was within the rules of our league, but it seems to me a bit "bush league". Since it's within the rules (and it didn't actually impact the final outcome of the game) obviously it will stand. However, I'd like to prevent this scenario from recurring. [Full Disclosure: I own neither A nor B and was not directly impacted by this decision. Team A explained to me that since he had previously lost to Team B, he wanted to ensure he wouldn't go 0-2 to him and then face him in the playoffs the following week with the prospect of going 0-3 -- this is understandable since B can be a bit insufferable. Team A's brother (who he now faces in the playoff game) has a subjectively stronger team than Team B, so Team A didn't necessarily gain an advantage w/r/t his playoff match-up]

This situation has been discussed previously on this board (e.g. here), but the only discussion I've seen regarding a rule to prevent it is a rule whereby an incomplete roster is given ZERO points for the week, which strikes me as extreme. I'd like to come up with a rule to prevent this scenario which is less drastic.

The rule I am envisioning would impose a 5-point penalty for each empty roster spot. While this wouldn't completely eliminate this practice, it would make it much less likely, since very few performances worse than -5 are posted (only 8 performances worse than -5 have been posted through 14 weeks, with the worst being -7).

Obviously, this rule would be relatively simple to circumvent simply by picking up and inserting a player who is injured or is on a bye. For this reason, I would want to expand it to penalize starting players who are on byes or injured. I see the extension to byes as an added benefit, since it provides a penalty for failing to make substitutions during bye weeks. I realize sometimes owners choose to leave their players in during a bye, which they could still do, albeit with the penalty.

However, extending it to injured players gets a little dicey. As the commish, I don't want to have to make judgement calls on who is or is not injured. I would write the rule to state the penalty applies players on IR or listed as "Out" on the official NFL Wednesday injury report.

This rule could still be circumvented by a wily owner by simply inserting a player who is unlikely to have any fantasy impact. I think I'm okay with that, since our benches are not so deep that an owner could make such a move without some sacrifice. Also, this type of move can't be made for a team Def/ST, which is the position most likely to compile negative points in our scoring system.

The only other real pain point that I have as a commish (beyond the complexities described above), is that our current league host (ESPN) doesn't offer the flexibility to set up such a rule to be scored automatically. Therefore I would have to manually monitor each game and add the penalty after the fact.

Do you feel this rule would be a good one? Do you feel it's even necessary? Does anyone else have a similar rule in their league? Is it worth the effort required to implement?

Our league has this rule...1st offense of not submitting a full lineup costs you 20.00 of your 100.00 blind bidding purse. 2nd offense is 20.00 and two roster spots...third offense is being kicked out of the league. We only have 14 man rosters as it is. We don't have any problems now.

 

[ratbast]

A problem with the rule is the penalty itself. The same thing could happen but when a guy has a 6 point lead.

League Integrity should be expressed strong and loud, no matter which rule you go with.

A simple solution would be a deadline at kickoff Sunday for weekly lineups. (Thur and Sat are handled different because they are not after the bulk of the Sunday games)

I didnt vote because I don't like that rule. I do belive you need to change something here.

 

[renesauz]

Your wording is wrong. Clearly you mean lineup must be full, not roster must be full.

FWIW, many leagues have a rule requiring a complete lineup to cover exactly this contigancy. In many, if an incoplete lineup is submited, the last complete lineup is used. In this case, the comisioner would add the missing DST back in.

Every league should have an integrity clause allowing the commissioner to change things like this, even when there is not a specific rule. (After all, it's difficult to write enough rules to vover every boneheaded contingincy which some low-lifes will come up with) This really is an integrity issue since any league which has negative points possible has the potential for negative points for an individual player. AND THIS MAKES SENSE since not every real player impacts the outcome of thier game in a positive manner.

ETA: The poll is flawed also. The five point penalty clearly wouldn't have mattered. Your "solution" wouldn't perform the intended purpose.

The real option is a rule which forces a complete lineup, and commissioner authority to make it happen.

 

[Bandit]

I think the best solution for this kind of a problem is to have a "zero minimum" rule. Even if certain plays can score negative points, the worst any player or defense can score is zero. It's not a perfect solution because a missed field goal, interception, fumble, etc. won't cost a team if that player is already at zero, but it certainly does prevent any empty lineup spot controversies.

 

[Pots]

Am I the only one that thinks Team A's move was legit? IT was within the rules and gaurenteed a win. I can see would be dishonest if he THREW the game by not starting someone, but that was a strategic move that benifited his chances of winning that week (which should be the intent of every lineup decission).

The only way I can see this being a good rule is if it is to prevent collusion via throwing games or lazy owners not putting in full lineups.

 

[DeeJayK]

A problem with the rule is the penalty itself. The same thing could happen but when a guy has a 6 point lead.

League Integrity should be expressed strong and loud, no matter which rule you go with.

A simple solution would be a deadline at kickoff Sunday for weekly lineups. (Thur and Sat are handled different because they are not after the bulk of the Sunday games)

I didnt vote because I don't like that rule. I do belive you need to change something here.

I agree that my proposed rule is that this wouldn't absolutely prevent this from happening. However, my logic is that it's highly unlikely for a player to score worse than -5, so it's unlikely that such a move would be made if the penalty were in place. In this particular instance, the owner would obviously have acted differently were this rule in place.I don't like your proposal of locking rosters, because I like to give owners as much flexibility in setting their line-ups as possible.

 

[habsfan]

I think it will be very difficult to "legislate away" the behaviour you are trying to avoid.

 

[DeeJayK]

Your wording is wrong. Clearly you mean lineup must be full, not roster must be full.

Agreed. I edited my original post to correct the wording.

FWIW, many leagues have a rule requiring a complete lineup to cover exactly this contigancy. In many, if an incoplete lineup is submited, the last complete lineup is used. In this case, the comisioner would add the missing DST back in.

Every league should have an integrity clause allowing the commissioner to change things like this, even when there is not a specific rule. (After all, it's difficult to write enough rules to vover every boneheaded contingincy which some low-lifes will come up with) This really is an integrity issue since any league which has negative points possible has the potential for negative points for an individual player. AND THIS MAKES SENSE since not every real player impacts the outcome of thier game in a positive manner.

I don't want to allow the commish the discretion to impose this type of penalty at his will without it being defined in the rules. This was not a blatant case of collusion, merely an owner taking advantage of a rule/scoring quirk.

ETA: The poll is flawed also. The five point penalty clearly wouldn't have mattered. Your "solution" wouldn't perform the intended purpose.

The real option is a rule which forces a complete lineup, and commissioner authority to make it happen.

I realize that my proposed rule would not be perfect, but it would have changed the behavior in the scenario described.

 

[DeeJayK]

I think the best solution for this kind of a problem is to have a "zero minimum" rule. Even if certain plays can score negative points, the worst any player or defense can score is zero. It's not a perfect solution because a missed field goal, interception, fumble, etc. won't cost a team if that player is already at zero, but it certainly does prevent any empty lineup spot controversies.

I don't like this solution. I think it's completely valid for players to score negative points.

 

[Wrigley]

Am I the only one that thinks Team A's move was legit? IT was within the rules and gaurenteed a win. I can see would be dishonest if he THREW the game by not starting someone, but that was a strategic move that benifited his chances of winning that week (which should be the intent of every lineup decission). The only way I can see this being a good rule is if it is to prevent collusion via throwing games or lazy owners not putting in full lineups.

 

[DeeJayK]

Am I the only one that thinks Team A's move was legit? IT was within the rules and gaurenteed a win. I can see would be dishonest if he THREW the game by not starting someone, but that was a strategic move that benifited his chances of winning that week (which should be the intent of every lineup decission).

The only way I can see this being a good rule is if it is to prevent collusion via throwing games or lazy owners not putting in full lineups.

I agree that the move was completely within the rules. Had I been in a similar situation I may have made the same decision as Team A did. There is no evidence that this decision involved any collusion. That said, I'm not convinced that such a move should be legitimate and that is why I'm thinking of proposing a rule change. I agree with others who've pointed out that you can't legislate away ALL negative behavior. I just feel that this proposed rule would help to limit this particular type of behavior. If my proposed rule were in effect, an owner could still make such a move, the cost of doing so would just be higher.

In fact, I almost like the impact on the lazy owner who fails to bench his players on byes MORE than the impact on the particular edge case described.

 

[renesauz]

I don't want to allow the commish the discretion to impose this type of penalty at his will without it being defined in the rules. This was not a blatant case of collusion, merely an owner taking advantage of a rule/scoring quirk.

Who said anything about punishing? Forcing a complete lineup is NOT punishing...it's maintaining the integrity of the league. Punishing would be forcing a forfeit, or taking away a draft pick, etc. Making the guy play his DST is NOT a "penalty".Since nothing was really effected this time, it's really not much of an issue. I would issue a statement to league mates stating complete lineups are required for league integrity, and make sure you have a written rule to that effect for next year.

 

[SuperJohn96]

Am I the only one that thinks Team A's move was legit? IT was within the rules and gaurenteed a win. I can see would be dishonest if he THREW the game by not starting someone, but that was a strategic move that benifited his chances of winning that week (which should be the intent of every lineup decission). The only way I can see this being a good rule is if it is to prevent collusion via throwing games or lazy owners not putting in full lineups.

That'd be like if it was legal to leave the game at the end of the 3rd quarter with the lead and count it as a win.It's still unethical.

 

[DeeJayK]

I don't want to allow the commish the discretion to impose this type of penalty at his will without it being defined in the rules. This was not a blatant case of collusion, merely an owner taking advantage of a rule/scoring quirk.

Who said anything about punishing? Forcing a complete lineup is NOT punishing...it's maintaining the integrity of the league. Punishing would be forcing a forfeit, or taking away a draft pick, etc. Making the guy play his DST is NOT a "penalty".Since nothing was really effected this time, it's really not much of an issue. I would issue a statement to league mates stating complete lineups are required for league integrity, and make sure you have a written rule to that effect for next year.

I don't necessarily think your proposal is bad. I guess I'm just not crazy about making line-up decisions as the commish. I don't want to be deciding (after the fact) which player a team should have played. I suppose that it it's stated that an empty roster spot is filled with the player who was in the spot the previous game then there's no judgement call. But what about the case where that player has been dropped or traded to another team?Also, with your solution, the odds are just as good that the change could impact the team in question postively. I'm not sure I like sort of rewarding an owner that doesn't submit a complete line-up. I feel my proposed solution is simpler to implement and more likely to encourage the desired behavior (i.e. each team submits a full roster of non-injured, non-bye players each week).

 

[ratbast]

A problem with the rule is the penalty itself. The same thing could happen but when a guy has a 6 point lead.

League Integrity should be expressed strong and loud, no matter which rule you go with.

A simple solution would be a deadline at kickoff Sunday for weekly lineups. (Thur and Sat are handled different because they are not after the bulk of the Sunday games)

I didnt vote because I don't like that rule. I do belive you need to change something here.

I agree that my proposed rule is that this wouldn't absolutely prevent this from happening. However, my logic is that it's highly unlikely for a player to score worse than -5, so it's unlikely that such a move would be made if the penalty were in place. In this particular instance, the owner would obviously have acted differently were this rule in place.I don't like your proposal of locking rosters, because I like to give owners as much flexibility in setting their line-ups as possible.

You don't really need a penalty. You need a rule that can't be broken. "lineups must be complete" If someone breaks the rule, well you get pissed and place the worst player on their roster for the hassle and complaining in public the whole time, charge that person a fine and show the whole league you will not tolerate empty lineup slots. You won't get an argument and then the league will avoid doing it.The simple strategy problem with this is the proposed penalty that can be less than a possible infraction. if you make the penalty -5, well folks will do it if they are winning by more than 5 going into Monday night with their defense. That would be a streaming def tactic that can't be ignored.

Leave the injury issue out of it, for now. That's a different animal.

 

[DeeJayK]

A problem with the rule is the penalty itself. The same thing could happen but when a guy has a 6 point lead.

League Integrity should be expressed strong and loud, no matter which rule you go with.

A simple solution would be a deadline at kickoff Sunday for weekly lineups. (Thur and Sat are handled different because they are not after the bulk of the Sunday games)

I didnt vote because I don't like that rule. I do belive you need to change something here.

I agree that my proposed rule is that this wouldn't absolutely prevent this from happening. However, my logic is that it's highly unlikely for a player to score worse than -5, so it's unlikely that such a move would be made if the penalty were in place. In this particular instance, the owner would obviously have acted differently were this rule in place.I don't like your proposal of locking rosters, because I like to give owners as much flexibility in setting their line-ups as possible.

You don't really need a penalty. You need a rule that can't be broken. "lineups must be complete" If someone breaks the rule, well you get pissed and place the worst player on their roster for the hassle and complaining in public the whole time, charge that person a fine and show the whole league you will not tolerate empty lineup slots. You won't get an argument and then the league will avoid doing it.The simple strategy problem with this is the proposed penalty that can be less than a possible infraction. if you make the penalty -5, well folks will do it if they are winning by more than 5 going into Monday night with their defense. That would be a streaming def tactic that can't be ignored.

Leave the injury issue out of it, for now. That's a different animal.

Your approach does have some appeal. However, I'd like to have the penalty for submitting an incomplete line-up spelled out in the rules. And as I previously stated, I don't want that penalty to be "team gets 0 points for the week". If the penalty is spelled out in advance then there's no ambiguity and no one is able to complain about the ruling, which could be the case if I just "place the worst player on their roster" into their line-up. What if they don't have any players at a particular position ON their roster, for example?

 

[Fantasy Strategist]

For what it's worth here is our wording in our bylaws...

1.****If you are unable to field a full lineup the commissioner will drop the lowest rated player at the position needed to be filled and add the highest rated free agent in said position to assure a full lineup. It makes no difference if the player is LT or Jason Elam, he will be dropped...plan accordingly. You will also lose $20.00 of your bidding purse for free agents. If you do not have $20.00 left in your bidding purse you will lose what does remain and be unable to pick up free agents the following week. To be clear, this is intended for the blatant disregard of putting in a lineup to uphold the integrity of the league. Sure there will be times a starter gets scratched prior to kickoff or a player is downgraded during the week while you are out of touch. But there is no excuse for a player that is on a bye week or injured and listed as out. Be sure to put in a full lineup each week and you won't have to worry about the wrath of the commissioner.****

2. If you just happen to forget to set your lineup the Commish with put in a required lineup for you and deduct $20.00 from your bidding purse for your first offense. I will use FBG's weekly rankings to determine the starters. If you do not have $20.00 remaining in your bidding purse you will lose what you do have and be unable to pick up free agents the following week during the FCFS time frame. If there is a 2nd offense in addition to the aforementioned consequences, you will lose 2 roster spots for the remainder of the year. A 3rd offense would be termination from the league and we will find a replacement for you ASAP. THREE STRIKES AND YOU ARE OUT!

 

[RudeDog]

In our league that is defined as an illegal lineup. Illegal lineups get 0 points for the entire team.

 

[ratbast]

A problem with the rule is the penalty itself. The same thing could happen but when a guy has a 6 point lead.

League Integrity should be expressed strong and loud, no matter which rule you go with.

A simple solution would be a deadline at kickoff Sunday for weekly lineups. (Thur and Sat are handled different because they are not after the bulk of the Sunday games)

I didnt vote because I don't like that rule. I do belive you need to change something here.

I agree that my proposed rule is that this wouldn't absolutely prevent this from happening. However, my logic is that it's highly unlikely for a player to score worse than -5, so it's unlikely that such a move would be made if the penalty were in place. In this particular instance, the owner would obviously have acted differently were this rule in place.I don't like your proposal of locking rosters, because I like to give owners as much flexibility in setting their line-ups as possible.

You don't really need a penalty. You need a rule that can't be broken. "lineups must be complete" If someone breaks the rule, well you get pissed and place the worst player on their roster for the hassle and complaining in public the whole time, charge that person a fine and show the whole league you will not tolerate empty lineup slots. You won't get an argument and then the league will avoid doing it.The simple strategy problem with this is the proposed penalty that can be less than a possible infraction. if you make the penalty -5, well folks will do it if they are winning by more than 5 going into Monday night with their defense. That would be a streaming def tactic that can't be ignored.

Leave the injury issue out of it, for now. That's a different animal.

Your approach does have some appeal. However, I'd like to have the penalty for submitting an incomplete line-up spelled out in the rules. And as I previously stated, I don't want that penalty to be "team gets 0 points for the week". If the penalty is spelled out in advance then there's no ambiguity and no one is able to complain about the ruling, which could be the case if I just "place the worst player on their roster" into their line-up. What if they don't have any players at a particular position ON their roster, for example?

Spell it out then....0 points for the week. You say that is harsh but the fact is this is a hole in your lineup submitting rules that is because you believe in l/u control. You can't put a number on it so don't. Whats the most that can be lost by a player in any given game? One more than that is your answer for the penalty. Whats the $ value of the whole championship? That +$1 is your fine. See what I am getting at? This needs to NOT be done at all and if it is then there needs to be ramifications. Unless your league is one that has owners that dont touch their rosters consistantly through the year then I see no reason why anyone would argue a strict penalty.

 

[WisWolvrns]

Am I the only one that thinks Team A's move was legit? IT was within the rules and gaurenteed a win. I can see would be dishonest if he THREW the game by not starting someone, but that was a strategic move that benifited his chances of winning that week (which should be the intent of every lineup decission). The only way I can see this being a good rule is if it is to prevent collusion via throwing games or lazy owners not putting in full lineups.

I'll second that The object is to win the game. If sitting your last Monday night starter does it, then that should work. I liken it to taking a knee at the end of the game when the other team is out of time outs. Same scenario. The team is winning and the other team has no more players to score, so in lieu of running up the score, the leading team just "takes a knee" and benches his remaining player. As a commish, I would love more owners like this. They are the ones who are involved, and manage their team. I wouldn't want to try and curtail such owner activity. The bigger problem with non-full lineups is before kickoffs by lazy/defunct owners who don't put in bye week replacements or injury replacements. Those are the much much bigger issues to league continuity, since the lazy owner might have had a decent team early in the year and if you played him early and lost you get screwed, where the late season opponents get cream puff wins...

 

[golfguy]

i have an easy one for you, don't allow people to change their freakin lineups after the games have started, what the heck is that about? you shouldn't be able to pull out a player on monday night. that isn't fair to the teams that play on sunday, what if their defense scores (negative) on sunday.

 

[WisWolvrns]

Actually, it adds some more strategy by allowing lineup changes upto kickoff time of a player's game. With more choices. Do you sit the Sunday guy over the Monday night guy when they seem a close choice? Will it push more late game players into starting lineups? Sometimes it would be the smart choice, sometimes not. I doubt the bench your last guy scenario will frequently come up, but the handful of times it does, let the owner manage his team and bench the player. Active owners are gold in FF. In a 12 team league, be thankful if you have 8+ active owners... (ie. do waivers each week, put in obvious lineup changes all season long, join in smack talk, talk trades, etc...)

 

[stevegamer]

I have 3 thoughts:

1. Make sure that your rosters are large enough to handle this. I'm an a league where I'm allowed to carry 3 RB's & 3 WR's maximum. If i have a guy on bye, and guy who is hurt, but is ruled out on Saturday, I get to choose between taking a zero, or dropping a very good player. If you decide to enforce a team getting a zero total score, or a forfeit, you need to make sure you aren't overburdening people with small rosters and doing that.

2. There is no good reason, as some have suggested, to lock rosters earlier than game time kickoff. If you've say both TE's in a MNF contest, there should be no reason you still couldn't play whichever one you want going up unitl kickoff.

3. Another possible option is for you to simply tweak your defensive scoring. If defenses get negative points for giving up tons of points/yards - adjust the numbers all up by the same increment, and alleviate the problem by removing zeroes. It shouldn't impact the defenses, relative to one another, and it handles the negative points in that manner.

 

[renesauz]

I don't want to allow the commish the discretion to impose this type of penalty at his will without it being defined in the rules. This was not a blatant case of collusion, merely an owner taking advantage of a rule/scoring quirk.

Who said anything about punishing? Forcing a complete lineup is NOT punishing...it's maintaining the integrity of the league. Punishing would be forcing a forfeit, or taking away a draft pick, etc. Making the guy play his DST is NOT a "penalty".Since nothing was really effected this time, it's really not much of an issue. I would issue a statement to league mates stating complete lineups are required for league integrity, and make sure you have a written rule to that effect for next year.

I don't necessarily think your proposal is bad. I guess I'm just not crazy about making line-up decisions as the commish. I don't want to be deciding (after the fact) which player a team should have played. I suppose that it it's stated that an empty roster spot is filled with the player who was in the spot the previous game then there's no judgement call. But what about the case where that player has been dropped or traded to another team?Also, with your solution, the odds are just as good that the change could impact the team in question postively. I'm not sure I like sort of rewarding an owner that doesn't submit a complete line-up. I feel my proposed solution is simpler to implement and more likely to encourage the desired behavior (i.e. each team submits a full roster of non-injured, non-bye players each week).

It has nothing to do with rewarding or punishing the team in question, and everything to do with league integrity. All too often, guys forget that the results of their particular game can have an impact well beyond THAT game or the owners involved in that game.And who said anything about making a lineup decision? Just use the last player (DST in this case) used in that slot.

Should that be impossible (dropped/trasded, etc.).... IN any league where a commish may have to make a lineup decision, I've always sugested that commissioners have a separate service to determine that lineup to ensure integrity. (Something which can be independantly verified such as Friday night FBG cheetsheet.)

 

[renesauz]

In our league that is defined as an illegal lineup. Illegal lineups get 0 points for the entire team.

While this is fair for the ofending team...it is patently unfair to the rest of the league EXCEPT the guy who got a free win.In these types of cases...it's better to simply make surre it never happens.

 

[renesauz]

Am I the only one that thinks Team A's move was legit? IT was within the rules and gaurenteed a win. I can see would be dishonest if he THREW the game by not starting someone, but that was a strategic move that benifited his chances of winning that week (which should be the intent of every lineup decission).

The only way I can see this being a good rule is if it is to prevent collusion via throwing games or lazy owners not putting in full lineups.

I'll second that The object is to win the game. If sitting your last Monday night starter does it, then that should work. I liken it to taking a knee at the end of the game when the other team is out of time outs. Same scenario. The team is winning and the other team has no more players to score, so in lieu of running up the score, the leading team just "takes a knee" and benches his remaining player. As a commish, I would love more owners like this. They are the ones who are involved, and manage their team. I wouldn't want to try and curtail such owner activity. The bigger problem with non-full lineups is before kickoffs by lazy/defunct owners who don't put in bye week replacements or injury replacements. Those are the much much bigger issues to league continuity, since the lazy owner might have had a decent team early in the year and if you played him early and lost you get screwed, where the late season opponents get cream puff wins...

The QB taking a knee has already played 59 minutes. He's had a significant impact (positive or negative) on his particular game. Since he's kneeling, his team likely won, and he likely had a positive impact. If you're allowed to take out your DST...then you're taking away the potential of a negative impact...which is IMPOSSIBLE in a real game.In fact...I believe DST's should be able to score a much wider range of scores then we typically allow them in fantasy. Points and yardage allowed should have a bigger play...with bigger possible negatives. AS it stands, DST's are pretty much "bonus spots" which can yield big positives which are largely random, and only small negatives rarely.

That's beyond the scope of this thread though...the point is that the possibility of a negative score not only should exist...but the risk of such must be taken on. You shouldn't get the option to not play a DST just because your DST plays on MNF...that's patently unfair.

 

[belljr]

illegal roster - zero points. That's what we do in our league No one has submitted a bad lineup in years. However the occasional BYE starter happens without penalty.

 

[Butters]

Am I the only one that thinks Team A's move was legit? IT was within the rules and gaurenteed a win. I can see would be dishonest if he THREW the game by not starting someone, but that was a strategic move that benifited his chances of winning that week (which should be the intent of every lineup decission). The only way I can see this being a good rule is if it is to prevent collusion via throwing games or lazy owners not putting in full lineups.

I'll second that The object is to win the game. If sitting your last Monday night starter does it, then that should work. I liken it to taking a knee at the end of the game when the other team is out of time outs. Same scenario. The team is winning and the other team has no more players to score, so in lieu of running up the score, the leading team just "takes a knee" and benches his remaining player. As a commish, I would love more owners like this. They are the ones who are involved, and manage their team. I wouldn't want to try and curtail such owner activity. The bigger problem with non-full lineups is before kickoffs by lazy/defunct owners who don't put in bye week replacements or injury replacements. Those are the much much bigger issues to league continuity, since the lazy owner might have had a decent team early in the year and if you played him early and lost you get screwed, where the late season opponents get cream puff wins...

Pulling players out of the lineup when the game is out of reach for the opponent is good gamesmanship and strategy. An owner's ethical responsibility to the league is to maximize his own team's chances of winning: 1) The league championship, first and foremost 2) Individual gamesTeam A did this.

 

[Butters]

You shouldn't get the option to not play a DST just because your DST plays on MNF...that's patently unfair.

Disagree here. There's nothing about this that is unfair. It's not like they just announced who was playing on Monday Night Football the day before. The schedule has been posted for months for all to see. Everyone has the information.

 

[FUBAR]

the rule only makes sense for those positions that often score negative points. I realize Brees could have thrown 5 INTs yesterday, but most QBs won't be in the negative points in any given week.

for team D, I can go with it, as long as you don't change it retroactively.

the upset dude should be mad at himself for poor management, not his opponent here.

 

[puckalicious]

In our league that is defined as an illegal lineup. Illegal lineups get 0 points for the entire team.

We have this too, but I constantly worry about a team doing this on purpose to tank for a better draft spot. So basically I operate with the manta, "submit a valid lineup or the commissioner will do it for you".

 

[tdog]

Absent a penalty for doing so, I would always pull a Monday night defense with scoring possibilities like that. In my league, defenses can get up to -6 each week, and we have a rule that you are assessed -6 if you fail to start a defense that plays that week.

Not that a rule book should need to be 100 pages long, but pulling a D when no penalty is provided is far above any ethical line and is far from sneaky or poor sportsmanship in my opinion. This was entirely predictable. You are trying to win by scoring the most points.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think it was a smart move. Why should team A give team B charity by letting them have a shot at winning? It would be like eliminating the kneeldown because the losing team needs a chance to strip the ball and get a turnover.

The guy isn't trying to tank. He's trying to win. Good call imo.

 

[The Shizzle]

You play to win the game.

 

[super sleeper]

Lots of unethical players in this thread trying to rationalize their behavior. You have to be pretty pathetic to jump through all these hoops to justify what is essentially being afraid to play the game. Sack up. You are not a very good FF player if your starting lineup features players who are projecting negative points.

I play in no leagues that allow you to take out a player without putting in another. This is the simple solution. No lineup change on Monday night unless you have another option. Take out TB, but only if Car is your other option, for example. End of problem. If that is the rule, and the player submits or manipulates their lineup illegally, automatic loss for the week.

 

[LuckyOne]

Let's say team XYZ drafts 4 players with the same bye week (might be part of his strategy). Do you think he should HAVE to drop some of his quality players for scrubs in order to put in a full lineup that week.

If you make the rule, you may want to make it effective only after NFL bye weeks are complete. Everyone is trying to win that early in the season anyway, and you wouldn't penalize the player that has several players on bye.

 

[tonystrong]

The move that Team A made was within the rules of our league, but it seems to me a bit "bush league". Since it's within the rules (and it didn't actually impact the final outcome of the game) obviously it will stand. However, I'd like to prevent this scenario from recurring. [Full Disclosure: I own neither A nor B and was not directly impacted by this decision. Team A explained to me that since he had previously lost to Team B, he wanted to ensure he wouldn't go 0-2 to him and then face him in the playoffs the following week with the prospect of going 0-3 -- this is understandable since B can be a bit insufferable. Team A's brother (who he now faces in the playoff game) has a subjectively stronger team than Team B, so Team A didn't necessarily gain an advantage w/r/t his playoff match-up]

If its not in the rules that a team has to start a certain number of players at each posistion, then I think team A did nothing wrong. You even state that it was within the rules. I don't think you should add a negative 5 points because that may backfire on you in the future. (i.e. an owner who's out of the playoff race throwing a game to allow another owner to secure a spot in the playoffs).

I think the most efficient thiing would be to:

1. Change the rule to state you must start a player at each position. If not, then the roster is illegal and no points are awarded. Its not harsh at all, everyone needs to play by the rules.

2. switch to a hosting site that accounts for minimum starting lineups at each position. (i.e. Rtsports.com)

3. If a owner starts a player on a bye when he has other viable options, then impose a monetary penalty.

 

[Boltz Boy]

Lots of unethical players in this thread trying to rationalize their behavior. You have to be pretty pathetic to jump through all these hoops to justify what is essentially being afraid to play the game. Sack up. You are not a very good FF player if your starting lineup features players who are projecting negative points.

It's about as unethical as a team taking a knee at the end of a game or kicking a 30 yard field goal in overtime on second down. Did anyone think it was unethical or bush league for the Bears to kick the field goal Thursday? In a league where the rules allow it, it would be BAD team management to leave in a player who could cost a game that is already won. As a few previous posters have mentioned, the bigger problem here is the lax owner who doesn't change his team and keeps inactive and bye week players in the lineup, throwing off competitive balance. The fix is simple, set the league rules to reject any lineup that isn't complete. Not too hard. This is what I do in my leagues, and I think most sites have an option to set the rules like that. In response to the bolded statement: no player PROJECTS to negative points. The fact is, projecting fantasy defenses is a crapshoot, and you can be the most experienced fantasy player in the world and still not be able to pick a defense with 100% certainty. I actually had a "guinea pig" league where we didn't draft kickers or defenses, and the feedback I'm getting is that most prefer it. Okay, kicker & defense free thread hijack over.

 

[Rev]

You're crazy to consider docking team A points. That was a nice move that many wouldn't have thought of, and it was done in the spirit of winning, much like an NFL team takes a kneel (and the resulting 2 yard loss) at the end of a game to prevent a more negative result and preserve the victory.

Here's when my league needed a rule for submitting lineups:

Team X (in dynasty) is not a contender, and therefore it's owner has become uninvolved and isn't starting his best lineup, or isn't starting a complete lineup, all with the assumption that he'll have a nice low pick in next year's draft. This created many problems for the playoff race, as well as determining the draft order for the following year, as it really screwed up our win/loss records.

In addition to replacing the owner, our solutution was to create a process where teams could challange such games, whereby we would retroactively reinsert the best possible lineups for both teams to determine the winner. We set up the rule to ensure that team x wouldn't benefit from such a move, and we worked to replace him as soon as possible.

 

[WisWolvrns]

Am I the only one that thinks Team A's move was legit? IT was within the rules and gaurenteed a win. I can see would be dishonest if he THREW the game by not starting someone, but that was a strategic move that benifited his chances of winning that week (which should be the intent of every lineup decission).

The only way I can see this being a good rule is if it is to prevent collusion via throwing games or lazy owners not putting in full lineups.

I'll second that The object is to win the game. If sitting your last Monday night starter does it, then that should work. I liken it to taking a knee at the end of the game when the other team is out of time outs. Same scenario. The team is winning and the other team has no more players to score, so in lieu of running up the score, the leading team just "takes a knee" and benches his remaining player. As a commish, I would love more owners like this. They are the ones who are involved, and manage their team. I wouldn't want to try and curtail such owner activity. The bigger problem with non-full lineups is before kickoffs by lazy/defunct owners who don't put in bye week replacements or injury replacements. Those are the much much bigger issues to league continuity, since the lazy owner might have had a decent team early in the year and if you played him early and lost you get screwed, where the late season opponents get cream puff wins...

The QB taking a knee has already played 59 minutes. He's had a significant impact (positive or negative) on his particular game. Since he's kneeling, his team likely won, and he likely had a positive impact. If you're allowed to take out your DST...then you're taking away the potential of a negative impact...which is IMPOSSIBLE in a real game.In fact...I believe DST's should be able to score a much wider range of scores then we typically allow them in fantasy. Points and yardage allowed should have a bigger play...with bigger possible negatives. AS it stands, DST's are pretty much "bonus spots" which can yield big positives which are largely random, and only small negatives rarely.

That's beyond the scope of this thread though...the point is that the possibility of a negative score not only should exist...but the risk of such must be taken on. You shouldn't get the option to not play a DST just because your DST plays on MNF...that's patently unfair.

Taking a knee EXACTLY removes the possibility of a negative impacting play in a real game. You're logic is flawed. In the old NFL days, teams used to just run up the gut at the end of the game, till one game someone fumbled, the other team returned it for a TD and they lost! Ever since then, teams now take a knee to kill the remaining clock so they don't have a negative impacting play (ie. fumble/int).Fantasy football <> real football. As with any scoring rules, they are just made up systems using the actual game stats, but they aren't trying to implement an actual NFL game. Thus, taking a person out of your lineup when you already won, is on the same wavelength as an NFL team taking a knee.

Just add a points wildcard as one of the playoff teams. It would be another reason to give pause about benching a player in a winning situation early in the year, since you could risk not scoring more points which you might need for a points wildcard tie-breaker.

 

[Local303]

You play to win the game.

Lots of unethical players in this thread trying to rationalize their behavior. You have to be pretty pathetic to jump through all these hoops to justify what is essentially being afraid to play the game. Sack up. You are not a very good FF player if your starting lineup features players who are projecting negative points.

Unethical ? It's been said a lot on this thread, but this is not unethical, cut-throat maybe, but unethical nope. Good clock management and taking a knee, 2nd down Field Goals in OT. Using 300+ linemen to punch through 1yd to the goalline, kicking off to touchbacks to avoid great returners. and even great FF players get caught in positions where You a - defense has an unholy matchup, you b - defense has been destroyed by injury, and the waiver Wire has Detroit Def as the only available option, sometimes you go with the lesser of two evils.

 

[Jimmy James]

What team A did is not unethical, and anybody who thinks otherwise needs to gain a better understanding of ethics.

I play in a league where negative scores are far more rare. I have encountered this situation in the past but always played the player in question because I felt the potential for getting extra points for the total points tiebreaker was more important than the very small chance of a loss (it would have to be a turnover early in the game with injury, more or less).

I don't think there should be a zero minimum rule for team defense, but I would suggest changing the scoring for team defense to keep it in the positive range. It sounds like your problem would be solved if every team's defense started its game at 10 points instead of zero and the scoring went from there. If a team chooses not to play a defense, they get 0 points. This would tend to accomplish what you'd like to accomplish involving the team D without creating a situation where somebody who did want to throw things could rack up huge negative points by playing no players on the team.

I tend to dislike the idea of a complete roster rule. If a team has a strategic reason to not play somebody or to play a guy on a bye, let him do it. I think it increases the value of strategic planning in the game that way.

 

[puckalicious]

Hm, I have never been offered nor have I ever expected or wanted anything for being commish. I don't think it is difficult and I actually enjoy it quite a bit.

You're crazy to consider docking team A points. That was a nice move that many wouldn't have thought of, and it was done in the spirit of winning, much like an NFL team takes a kneel (and the resulting 2 yard loss) at the end of a game to prevent a more negative result and preserve the victory.Here's when my league needed a rule for submitting lineups: Team X (in dynasty) is not a contender, and therefore it's owner has become uninvolved and isn't starting his best lineup, or isn't starting a complete lineup, all with the assumption that he'll have a nice low pick in next year's draft. This created many problems for the playoff race, as well as determining the draft order for the following year, as it really screwed up our win/loss records.In addition to replacing the owner, our solutution was to create a process where teams could challange such games, whereby we would retroactively reinsert the best possible lineups for both teams to determine the winner. We set up the rule to ensure that team x wouldn't benefit from such a move, and we worked to replace him as soon as possible.

I don't think it is anything like taking a knee. He didn't play with all the starting positions he is supposed to. It's like putting in 10 players when you are afraid the only guy you have left to play is a liability. That is a penalty in the NFL.

 

[DropKick]

Am I the only one that thinks Team A's move was legit? IT was within the rules and gaurenteed a win. I can see would be dishonest if he THREW the game by not starting someone, but that was a strategic move that benifited his chances of winning that week (which should be the intent of every lineup decission). The only way I can see this being a good rule is if it is to prevent collusion via throwing games or lazy owners not putting in full lineups.

I can understand some not taking issue with the tactic; No rules against it... no ulterior motives (collusion, etc.).However, my fundamental issue is sportsmanship and the somewhat unfair advantage of being able to pull someone from your line-up based on the timing of the weekend's games. Personally, I wouldn't do it.I have no problem with a set negative score for an empty line-up spot. You need to define that clearly. I would consider a kicker on bye an "empty" spot. However, a player who misses the game unexpectedly or through injury is not.

 

[RudeDog]

In our league that is defined as an illegal lineup. Illegal lineups get 0 points for the entire team.

We have this too, but I constantly worry about a team doing this on purpose to tank for a better draft spot. So basically I operate with the manta, "submit a valid lineup or the commissioner will do it for you".

In the case of our league this is not going to affect next year. We have a 3 player keeper and draft position is set in reverse order of points scored by your keepers from the previous year.As for the other poster who considered this unfair to the rest of the league, we don't have this happen for the sole reason that the penalty is harsh and it guarantees a loss.It has worked for our league. A bye week placement is not included in this rule as another poster stated also.