Adam Harstad
Moderator
The risk is not evenly distributed, though.I think it's weak. I don't think there is anything unfair about an early GTD vs a late one. Part of playing fantasy football is taking risk. In this case, people can have two TEs on their team. You can either play it safe and play the TE with the earlier game, or take the risk with the GTD player with the late game. Roll the dice or don't.Kool-Aid Larry said:that might be the best rule I ever heardAdam Harstad said:Slightly off topic, but one league I run has a rule allowing conditional lineup requests for situations just like this. On Saturday, you submit a request designating a starter and a backup. If the starter is inactive, you get the backup's score, instead. If the starter is active but puts up a zero, you're out of luck.
I've never thought it was fair that someone whose player was a game-time decision in an early game had an advantage over someone whose player was a game-time decision in a late game.
Imagine owner A has two tight ends- Rob Gronkowski and Jared Cook. Jared Cook is 100% healthy and plays on Thursday. Rob Gronkowski is a game-time decision and plays Sunday night.
Owner B has two tight ends- Grob Bronkowski and Jarius Crook. Jarius Crook is 100% healthy and plays on Sunday night. Grob Bronkowski is a game-time decision and plays on Thursday.
Obviously in this situation, Owner B has a big advantage. He can check the inactives list prior to the Thursday game, and if Grob is playing owner B can start him, but if Grob is inactive owner B can roll with Crook on Sunday, instead. Owner B has the advantage of full access to all information before making his decision. There is no risk at all.
Owner A, on the other hand, is operating at a big disadvantage. He can either play it safe and start his inferior option on Thursday (Cook), or he can gamble on his better player (Gronkowski) and risk potentially taking a zero at the position. While Owner B gets the luxury of seeing whether his best TE is active before making his decision, Owner A is not afforded the same luxury unless he manages to get his hands on a time machine. Owner A is playing at a disadvantage owing to nothing other than the order in which the NFL scheduled its games. As I said, the risk is not evenly distributed.
Conditional lineups solve that unequal distribution of risk. Owner B gets to start Bronkowski if he's healthy, and Crook if he's not. Owner A gets to start Gronkowski if he's healthy, and Cook if he's not. Neither owner has an information advantage for the week. Balance is restored to the universe.