Should I warn other owner? (1 Viewer)

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

As I've explained, this isn't about team management, unless the word management is going to lose all meaning. The guy changed his own lineup. It's about sharing information. Why should a commissioner not be allowed to discuss NFL information like any other owner?

How is calling an owner 15 minutes before kickoff to tell him that he has an inactive player in his lineup not about team management?

Owner A: Hey, how's the weather in Cleveland looking Sunday?Owner B: I'M NOT MANAGING YOUR TEAM FOR YOU!!!!

 

[Man In The Box]

As I've explained, this isn't about team management, unless the word management is going to lose all meaning. The guy changed his own lineup. It's about sharing information. Why should a commissioner not be allowed to discuss NFL information like any other owner?

How is calling an owner 15 minutes before kickoff to tell him that he has an inactive player in his lineup not about team management?

Owner A: Hey, how's the weather in Cleveland looking Sunday?Owner B: I'M NOT MANAGING YOUR TEAM FOR YOU!!!!

Obtuse much?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Because you're setting a precedent, and unless you intend to be glued to everyone's lineup for the entire season to make sure that nobody plays an inactive player, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

The commissioner, like any other owner, can choose to offer public information or not. The only "precedent" is he felt like telling the person. It's common, public knowledge. He doesn't have to be glued to lineups and he doesn't have to give you the same courtesy. He's acting just as any owner would do...and he is another owner.If he used his commissioner power to help another team, that's an abuse of his position. If he used ESPN, it's something any owner could do. Deal with it.

 

[Man In The Box]

...he doesn't have to give you the same courtesy.

So you're OK with the commissioner of your league doing things to benefit one owner and not another? Not a league I'd be playing in.

 

[ROBOPUNTER]

Another guy totally missing the point here.

Not at all. Why didn't you answer my question? In fact, why hasn't anyone on your side of the argument answered my question? The fact is that no reasonable person would knowingly, willingly leave an inactive player in his lineup if he had the opportunity to sub in an active player. That's a standard we should all be able to agree on. The logical assumption is that the owner didn't know, or didn't have an opportunity to make a change, not that he meant to start an injured guy, or just didn't care enough. We should also be able to agree that the "best" way to determine which team should advance in the playoffs would be for each team to submit a full, active lineup.

If I was stuck at work and left my stud RB in my lineup on a Monday night because he was declared inactive and I didn't get a chance to check, that's on me. No one is obligated to check up on my team and manage it for me. But if I found out the commissioner happened to notice that I was starting an inactive player, and was thinking about notifying me, but decided not to because it wouldn't be "fair" to my opponent, I'd be furious. Do you know how asinine that is? The "fair" thing is for both teams to field a full lineup, not for one owner to win on a technicality because the commissioner felt too scared to do the right thing.

Apparently this is really hard for all you college students to understand, but magic football takes a back seat to real life all the time. Someday if/when you have more important things going on in your lives, you'll understand. In the meantime, just trust that you're all being absolutely ridiculous here, and inventing standards that no reasonable adult would ever be held to.

Any time the phrase 'no reasonable person would' prefaces an argument, you can bet they are asking to circumvent the rules.You'd be mad? Be mad at yourself. YOU failed to check YOUR line-up. It's not FAIR that you need help, and certainly not fair that you'd be slighted that the help wasn't offered.

It's disingenous to say 'no one has answered my point' and then list a point that has been beaten to death to the point of ad nasuem...

Your life choices are your own. If you'd rather hang with your peeps and chill with your family then do 18-19 hour a day work, don't be an nfl coach. Simialrly how you choose to divide your fantasy time from your work/home time is up to you. But don't expect that others that take it more seriously/do put in the extra time and effort are going to hear what you are saying as nothing more than or as that's all it really is. Sour grapes dripping with blather.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

As a commish, I will encourage teams during the regular season to field a competent lineup, because regular season games effect everybody. Once teams make the playoffs, they are on their own. If I were the other owner, I'd be a little perturbed at the assist.

You'd want to win on some BS like a guy accidentally starting an inactive player?

Why is that a BS win? Shouldn't coaching competency count for something?

But being at work, and any number of other real-life obligations, aren't signs of coaching incompetence. They're just signs of priorities and maturity. If the owner said, "No, I know Peterson is inactive tonight, but I want him in my starting lineup anyway," that would be incompetence. But I think we all know that he didn't intentionally leave Peterson in his lineup, and that if he knew Peterson was inactive and could get to a computer, he'd replace him. Sometimes real life gets in the way of staying on top of your magic football team. No one should be punished for that, and there's nothing wrong with anyone - commissioner or otherwise - giving the guy a friendly heads-up about it. I've never been and can't imagine being in a league where that wouldn't be ok, because I honestly can't imagine associating with people who were that inconsiderate and dooshy about their fantasy football league. I mean, we're talking about pretend football here, so the standards we uphold are mostly arbitrary, but generally the idea is for one owner to put forth his best lineup against another owner's best lineup, and whoever scores more pretend football points wins. The commissioner's decision ensured that this is what happened. He wasn't obligated to, but out of the goodness of his heart and the sense of fairness for the league, he did. The fact that he has taken such a beating in this thread for it really says a lot about people, and it's not good.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a sample of the rule they have in their league that explains what the "place" of a commish/owner is and how this would be a violation. And don't just make up a rule. I want to see an actual written rule that covers "informs owner before kickoff that a player is inactive."

I personally think it's just a common sense approach to being a commish. Barring collusion you stay out of this business even though you think the result is what it should be. Maybe the owner that took care of his lineup should be rewarded.Another example, in my baseball league, we do alter lineups at the end of the year sometimes...but that's because owners stop making changes (so we're talking about bad teams, not playoff matchups) or they put in tanking lineups which we don't allow. The league knows this and we've set a precedent by always doing it.

IMO, this commish just set a precedence that he will be checking everyone's lineups before 1:00, 4:00, Sun/Mon night games each week and notifying owners of any inactive players being started or any type of news like that. But we all know this won't be happening.

Exactly.Where do you draw the line, and why?

What if that game had a bearing on which team made the playoffs? You would be taking money out of one guys hands, think that's right?

Once again a Commissioners job is not to babysit other owners.

If another owner can do it, the commissioner can do it. If it can't be done (or the information can't be known) without special commissioner power, the commissioner should decline to use that special knowledge or power. The commissioner IS a fellow owner and is allowed to act like one. Ask yourself "would another owner know this information?" In this example, even a person not in your league would know this. A person with basic cable would know this. Then ask yourself "could another owner do this?" In this case, no owner would be punished for calling up a fellow owner and saying "Hey man, Peterson is inactive." If they can do it, so can the commish. Even if there was $1,000 on the line.

Nobody has a birthright to a wall of silence so they can get "their" $1,000. If common knowledge that everyone has gets to their opponents' ear...deal with it. I have no problem wanting to win based on a technicality. A win is a win is a win. Hopefully the guy leaves Peterson in there. But if someone told him and he changed him out don't be mad at the one who told him. You weren't entitled to radio silence up until game time. It would have been a nice advantage, but you didn't get it. Now you'll have to actually win.

But if another owner can do it, so can the commish. He's an owner, too. That's where I draw the line.

So what happens next week when MJD is declared inactive 10 minutes before kickoff, and you as commish, are in church and can't inform the MJD owner that he has an inactive player in his lineup? That's where your line becomes a slippery slope.

Not at all. I could be sitting home and KNOW and still not say anything. Like I said before, I wouldn't be obligated to say anything or keep quiet, and I don't have to be consistent. It's common knowledge; everyone has it and can choose to share it or not. Hopefully a buddy called them and told them. If not, I could tell them if I wanted. Or not. Remember, I'm telling them as an owner, not commissioner. Not using any commissioner powers and not giving any info I gleaned as commissioner. I'm not changing their lineups for them. I think you guys are confused in that you think the commish doesn't get to be an owner. He does. He doesn't have to be "fair" as an owner. He doesn't have to offer everyone in the league his players if he wants to trade. If he gets the better end of a trade, he doesn't have to offer a public e-mail seeing if someone wants to offer the guy more.

The commish isn't your special packmule who burdens himself every time he turns around. He has to treat every team the same as commissioner-- make sure the waiver wire is working, make sure nobody changes lineups after the deadline and make sure everyone is treated the same when it comes to drafting before paying (You can't let your buddy slide on dues for a few weeks but come down on another guy).

But as an owner? He can be like any other owner. And if any owner can call up someone and say "Hey, Peterson's inactive" without obligating themselves for the whole season, then so can your commish. I think some of you guys are very spoiled and used to the commish not being allowed to play like everyone else.

 

[Man In The Box]

Not at all. I could be sitting home and KNOW and still not say anything. Like I said before, I wouldn't be obligated to say anything or keep quiet, and I don't have to be consistent.

I stopped reading here. Being consistent is a requirement of being a commissioner.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

...he doesn't have to give you the same courtesy.

So you're OK with the commissioner of your league doing things to benefit one owner and not another? Not a league I'd be playing in.

If any other owner can do it, so can the commissioner. Like I said, I'm happy to show any owner the door before they shed their first tear. The commissioner cannot ever abuse their commissioner power, but is allowed to act like any other owner. If they use their commissioner powers or act on knowledge they obtained as commissioner, I'd agree with you 100 percent.If they used ESPN and did what any owner in the league could do, that's perfectly allowed. You might think your league is made up of 11 teams and one robot, but it's not. There are 12 teams and 12 owners, and they're all allowed to talk about football, give each other a heads-up if they want or keep quiet and laugh at your stupidity. One owner has special powers as commissioner, and they should never use those powers (or information obtained from them) to give themselves or anyone else an advantage.But that's not what happened here. ESPN is not a commissioner power. Anyone can watch it, and tell someone what they heard on that channel. If you disagree, tell me what special position they were in as commissioner to change the outcome of this game. Were the rosters hidden and only he knew Peterson was still in? Is the commish the only one with this guy's phone number? Is he the only one with cable?

 

[Flash]

Because if he helped an owner get to the playoffs, that would be stealing from the guy that lost, right? I mean if there's money involved anyway..

What did the guy that lost have stolen?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Not at all. I could be sitting home and KNOW and still not say anything. Like I said before, I wouldn't be obligated to say anything or keep quiet, and I don't have to be consistent.

I stopped reading here. Being consistent is a requirement of being a commissioner.

Being consistent in your commissioner duties is a requirement. But unless you think ALL owners would be obligated all season if they said something once...you're the one being inconsistent. Why are there special restrictions for the commissioner as an owner that nobody else has to follow? "Another owner can do this but the commissioner can't, even though it has nothing to do with them being commissioner" is an absurd position, and I'm disappointed any commissioner would be willing to accept it. Either you get to be an owner or you don't.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would have never predicted this thread would go past 1 page.

Amazing.

 

[Flash]

I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if I repeat what others have said. I think the OP should have stayed out of it as the commissioner. I'm not saying you acted shady, or had any motive other than doing what you felt was right. If you were just an owner, and the AP owner is a friend, I'd have no problem with you letting him know that his player was inactive. That's what friends do. But as commissioner, it was wrong on your part. I don't know if the rest of your league was made aware of what happened. I would hope not, for your sake. You opened up a bit of a Pandora's box. What happens next week, or next year, when a similar situation occurs (believe me, it will) and you are not around to let an owner know that he has an inactive player in his lineup? Like I said, it looks like you were trying to be a good guy, and didn't have any ill intentions. I commish two leagues, and I let every owner know that they are responsible for their own teams. If they want to make a lineup change and can't get to a computer, I let them know that they can call me and I will make the change for them. I then post a message on the league home page letting the league know that Owner X called me and asked to make the change. That's the extent of the involvement I will ever have as far as another owner's team goes.

So any owner can discuss football with another owner before the game except the owner who is serving as commissioner? Don't commissioners eat enough #### already without having to play the entire season at that kind of disadvantage?

Yes if you are just an owner, you can tell your opponent he has a player out, and yes, except when you are the commissioner. Pure and simple, the commissioner should NEVER EVER affect the outcome of a game. The commissioner is at a disadvantage because he told someone one of their players was out?What?And yes a commissioner sometimes does get screwed. I have plenty of times, but I accept that as part of being a commish.

 

[Flash]

But you'd call an owner if you were just a regular owner?

Yes, and I have.But never ever as a commissioner.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Because if he helped an owner get to the playoffs, that would be stealing from the guy that lost, right? I mean if there's money involved anyway..

What did the guy that lost have stolen?

What was stolen from the guy that lost?

 

[Flash]

As I've explained, this isn't about team management, unless the word management is going to lose all meaning. The guy changed his own lineup. It's about sharing information. Why should a commissioner not be allowed to discuss NFL information like any other owner?

How is calling an owner 15 minutes before kickoff to tell him that he has an inactive player in his lineup not about team management?

When you get an alert from FBG informing you of late inactives and you act on that information, is FBG managing your team?

You have to be here. I know you're more intelligent than this.

 

[Flash]

As I've explained, this isn't about team management, unless the word management is going to lose all meaning. The guy changed his own lineup. It's about sharing information. Why should a commissioner not be allowed to discuss NFL information like any other owner?

How is calling an owner 15 minutes before kickoff to tell him that he has an inactive player in his lineup not about team management?

When you get an alert from FBG informing you of late inactives and you act on that information, is FBG managing your team?

FBG is not the commissioner of my league.

I still don't understand why it's okay for a regular owner to do that but the moment a commish does it it's forbidden.

Seriously?Come on man...........

 

[Man In The Box]

Not at all. I could be sitting home and KNOW and still not say anything. Like I said before, I wouldn't be obligated to say anything or keep quiet, and I don't have to be consistent.

I stopped reading here. Being consistent is a requirement of being a commissioner.

Being consistent in your commissioner duties is a requirement. But unless you think ALL owners would be obligated all season if they said something once...you're the one being inconsistent. Why are there special restrictions for the commissioner as an owner that nobody else has to follow? "Another owner can do this but the commissioner can't, even though it has nothing to do with them being commissioner" is an absurd position, and I'm disappointed any commissioner would be willing to accept it. Either you get to be an owner or you don't.

Yep, and my commissioner duties include staying the hell out of other owner's team management. I just don't get involved, ever. It's not something I'd think of ever getting involved in. Did the commissioner make the actual change in the lineup? If so, he most definitely abused his powers since no "regular" owner would be able to do that without a the guy's password.The main issue is that the commissioner made the call. I'd feel totally different if the AP owner called and asked the commish if AP was playing. If he called and said he was at work and didn't have access to make the change, I'd have no issue with it.

 

[Flash]

As I've explained, this isn't about team management, unless the word management is going to lose all meaning. The guy changed his own lineup. It's about sharing information. Why should a commissioner not be allowed to discuss NFL information like any other owner?

How is calling an owner 15 minutes before kickoff to tell him that he has an inactive player in his lineup not about team management?

Owner A: Hey, how's the weather in Cleveland looking Sunday?Owner B: I'M NOT MANAGING YOUR TEAM FOR YOU!!!!

I really have to believe you pantgrapgher and Dr. Awesome are doing some serious here.Congrats, you caught me hook, line and sinker.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

But you'd call an owner if you were just a regular owner?

Yes, and I have.But never ever as a commissioner.

No offense, but you are a packmule in that league. You are willing to be less of an owner because there are some things others can do as an owner that you cannot, and you accept it. Even if it has nothing to do with you being a commissioner.I hope you also play in leagues where you are not the commissioner so you get to experience what a real owner gets to do as well. I'm glad it works for you (and I'm sure your league loves having someone like you as commish) but I think dictating special rules for a commissioner that don't exist for anyone else is degrading.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Not at all. I could be sitting home and KNOW and still not say anything. Like I said before, I wouldn't be obligated to say anything or keep quiet, and I don't have to be consistent.

I stopped reading here. Being consistent is a requirement of being a commissioner.

Being consistent in your commissioner duties is a requirement. But unless you think ALL owners would be obligated all season if they said something once...you're the one being inconsistent. Why are there special restrictions for the commissioner as an owner that nobody else has to follow? "Another owner can do this but the commissioner can't, even though it has nothing to do with them being commissioner" is an absurd position, and I'm disappointed any commissioner would be willing to accept it. Either you get to be an owner or you don't.

Yep, and my commissioner duties include staying the hell out of other owner's team management. I just don't get involved, ever. It's not something I'd think of ever getting involved in. Did the commissioner make the actual change in the lineup? If so, he most definitely abused his powers since no "regular" owner would be able to do that without a the guy's password.The main issue is that the commissioner made the call. I'd feel totally different if the AP owner called and asked the commish if AP was playing. If he called and said he was at work and didn't have access to make the change, I'd have no issue with it.

If you feel the same way as a regular owner, I agree completely. But if a regular owner can do it, so can the commish. he's not using any part of his commish power or info obtained with that power. He's being a regular owner. If they can do it, so can he.

 

[Man In The Box]

Not at all. I could be sitting home and KNOW and still not say anything. Like I said before, I wouldn't be obligated to say anything or keep quiet, and I don't have to be consistent.

I stopped reading here. Being consistent is a requirement of being a commissioner.

Being consistent in your commissioner duties is a requirement. But unless you think ALL owners would be obligated all season if they said something once...you're the one being inconsistent. Why are there special restrictions for the commissioner as an owner that nobody else has to follow? "Another owner can do this but the commissioner can't, even though it has nothing to do with them being commissioner" is an absurd position, and I'm disappointed any commissioner would be willing to accept it. Either you get to be an owner or you don't.

Yep, and my commissioner duties include staying the hell out of other owner's team management. I just don't get involved, ever. It's not something I'd think of ever getting involved in. Did the commissioner make the actual change in the lineup? If so, he most definitely abused his powers since no "regular" owner would be able to do that without a the guy's password.The main issue is that the commissioner made the call. I'd feel totally different if the AP owner called and asked the commish if AP was playing. If he called and said he was at work and didn't have access to make the change, I'd have no issue with it.

If you feel the same way as a regular owner, I agree completely. But if a regular owner can do it, so can the commish. he's not using any part of his commish power or info obtained with that power. He's being a regular owner. If they can do it, so can he.

You're the AP owner, aren't you.

 

[Flash]

As a commish, I will encourage teams during the regular season to field a competent lineup, because regular season games effect everybody. Once teams make the playoffs, they are on their own. If I were the other owner, I'd be a little perturbed at the assist.

You'd want to win on some BS like a guy accidentally starting an inactive player?

Why is that a BS win? Shouldn't coaching competency count for something?

But being at work, and any number of other real-life obligations, aren't signs of coaching incompetence. They're just signs of priorities and maturity. If the owner said, "No, I know Peterson is inactive tonight, but I want him in my starting lineup anyway," that would be incompetence. But I think we all know that he didn't intentionally leave Peterson in his lineup, and that if he knew Peterson was inactive and could get to a computer, he'd replace him. Sometimes real life gets in the way of staying on top of your magic football team. No one should be punished for that, and there's nothing wrong with anyone - commissioner or otherwise - giving the guy a friendly heads-up about it. I've never been and can't imagine being in a league where that wouldn't be ok, because I honestly can't imagine associating with people who were that inconsiderate and dooshy about their fantasy football league. I mean, we're talking about pretend football here, so the standards we uphold are mostly arbitrary, but generally the idea is for one owner to put forth his best lineup against another owner's best lineup, and whoever scores more pretend football points wins. The commissioner's decision ensured that this is what happened. He wasn't obligated to, but out of the goodness of his heart and the sense of fairness for the league, he did. The fact that he has taken such a beating in this thread for it really says a lot about people, and it's not good.

By your attitude I take it you don't play in money leagues?What if you were playing in a poker tournament and you are about to money, but the dealer gave your opponent advice during the hand and that advice directly led to you not making the money, but your opponent did?

Would you be OK with that?

 

[ChromeWeasel]

I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if I repeat what others have said. I think the OP should have stayed out of it as the commissioner. I'm not saying you acted shady, or had any motive other than doing what you felt was right. If you were just an owner, and the AP owner is a friend, I'd have no problem with you letting him know that his player was inactive. That's what friends do. But as commissioner, it was wrong on your part. I don't know if the rest of your league was made aware of what happened. I would hope not, for your sake. You opened up a bit of a Pandora's box. What happens next week, or next year, when a similar situation occurs (believe me, it will) and you are not around to let an owner know that he has an inactive player in his lineup? Like I said, it looks like you were trying to be a good guy, and didn't have any ill intentions. I commish two leagues, and I let every owner know that they are responsible for their own teams. If they want to make a lineup change and can't get to a computer, I let them know that they can call me and I will make the change for them. I then post a message on the league home page letting the league know that Owner X called me and asked to make the change. That's the extent of the involvement I will ever have as far as another owner's team goes.

So any owner can discuss football with another owner before the game except the owner who is serving as commissioner? Don't commissioners eat enough #### already without having to play the entire season at that kind of disadvantage?

Yes if you are just an owner, you can tell your opponent he has a player out, and yes, except when you are the commissioner. Pure and simple, the commissioner should NEVER EVER affect the outcome of a game. The commissioner is at a disadvantage because he told someone one of their players was out?What?And yes a commissioner sometimes does get screwed. I have plenty of times, but I accept that as part of being a commish.

That's not the way I commish. I don't get paid for the job. All I do is set up the website and arbiter disputes. Other than that, I'm an owner too, just like everyone else. I don't take any special penalties for being the commish and I dont give myself any special benefits. Everyone expects me to act just like everyone else.I know there are leagues where the commish has to approve all transactions, and where the commish authorizes all kinds of things. That's a lousy way to run a league in my experience. If you treat everyone like adults you can expect good treatment back. Except for setting playoff matchups, I dont use a commish privilege for anything once the draft rosters are entered.I fully expect that owners talk to each other about who they are starting against me. I certainly do it with the other owners. That's part of the social aspect of the league. We're a bunch of buddies competing for fun and money.

 

[Flash]

Because if he helped an owner get to the playoffs, that would be stealing from the guy that lost, right? I mean if there's money involved anyway..

What did the guy that lost have stolen?

What was stolen from the guy that lost?

Playoff money?

 

[Flash]

But you'd call an owner if you were just a regular owner?

Yes, and I have.But never ever as a commissioner.

No offense, but you are a packmule in that league. You are willing to be less of an owner because there are some things others can do as an owner that you cannot, and you accept it. Even if it has nothing to do with you being a commissioner.I hope you also play in leagues where you are not the commissioner so you get to experience what a real owner gets to do as well. I'm glad it works for you (and I'm sure your league loves having someone like you as commish) but I think dictating special rules for a commissioner that don't exist for anyone else is degrading.

Dude, you are cracking me up here.

 

[Pura Vida]

One more question. AP was replaced with knox. Are you telling me AP was the flex rb? Has he been a flex rb all year or did he become a flex rb when he was inactive?

It seems to me that AP was probably not intended to be the flex player, but became a flex player after the commish meddled. I'd be doubly upset if I lost money because of that!

 

[CaptainHook]

lmao @ how long this thread is.

are people seriously arguing that its wrong for the commish to notify this guy? i dont think it should be a duty but how could there be anything wrong with it

 

[ChromeWeasel]

One more question. AP was replaced with knox. Are you telling me AP was the flex rb? Has he been a flex rb all year or did he become a flex rb when he was inactive?It seems to me that AP was probably not intended to be the flex player, but became a flex player after the commish meddled. I'd be doubly upset if I lost money because of that!

You don't designate a specific 'flex' slot in my experience. You just have max and minimum rosters. So if you pull out one of your RBs and plug in a WR or TE that's fine, no matter what order your players were entered in.It's really weird to see questions like this. I guess there's a lot of disgruntled owners looking for an ax to grind.

 

[Flash]

One more question. AP was replaced with knox. Are you telling me AP was the flex rb? Has he been a flex rb all year or did he become a flex rb when he was inactive?It seems to me that AP was probably not intended to be the flex player, but became a flex player after the commish meddled. I'd be doubly upset if I lost money because of that!

You don't designate a specific 'flex' slot in my experience. You just have max and minimum rosters. So if you pull out one of your RBs and plug in a WR or TE that's fine, no matter what order your players were entered in.It's really weird to see questions like this. I guess there's a lot of disgruntled owners looking for an ax to grind.

Not in one of the flex leagues I'm in. You have to designate the Flex player.So it's not uncommon, it depends where the league is hosted.

 

[Man In The Box]

One more question. AP was replaced with knox. Are you telling me AP was the flex rb? Has he been a flex rb all year or did he become a flex rb when he was inactive?It seems to me that AP was probably not intended to be the flex player, but became a flex player after the commish meddled. I'd be doubly upset if I lost money because of that!

You don't designate a specific 'flex' slot in my experience. You just have max and minimum rosters. So if you pull out one of your RBs and plug in a WR or TE that's fine, no matter what order your players were entered in.It's really weird to see questions like this. I guess there's a lot of disgruntled owners looking for an ax to grind.

I think what he's getting at is: Did the AP owner have AP in an RB slot, or in his flex spot? Meaning, the commish would have to take the RB he had in his flex spot and put him in the RB spot, then put Knox in at the flex.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

By your attitude I take it you don't play in money leagues?

I play in two leagues, both for substantial sums of money.

What if you were playing in a poker tournament and you are about to money, but the dealer gave your opponent advice during the hand and that advice directly led to you not making the money, but your opponent did? Would you be OK with that?

Not even close to being the same thing, of course. Alerting an owner that his player was declared inactive isn't giving advice.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What was stolen from the guy that lost?

Playoff money?

The guy that lost hadn't won any playoff money.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Here's the biggest disconnect for me: By saying that the commissioner wronged Owner B by alerting the Owner A about Peterson's status, you're implying that Owner B was supposed to face Owner A with a hole in his starting lineup; that by his actions, the commissioner robbed Owner B of his rightful opportunity to face an opponent with a missing RB. That's clearly not true.

Owner B has already had the good fortune that his opponent, who was going to start the best RB in the NFL, instead has to substitute in a mediocre Chicago WR at the last minute. But that's not enough! the naysayers cry. The commissioner owes it to Owner B to let him face Owner A with an inactive Peterson still in as a starter. That this is somehow fair, and that by alerting Owner A of the injury status, Owner B has been screwed.

Let's get real here. Owner B doesn't deserve any special considerations just because his opponent got stuck at work and didn't get a chance to make a lineup change (the lineup change he would obviously make if he knew about the status and could get online to make the change) before the game started at 5:30 PT. No one should be blaming the commissioner for anything because no injustice was done. The game played out exactly as it was supposed to. The only one who ends up with egg on his face in this situation is Owner B, if he decides to cry foul like he was treated unjustly. He wasn't.

not even close.

the 'naysayers' say the HE ALONE manages his team. You are saying that other SHOULD HELP him do so.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Here's the biggest disconnect for me: By saying that the commissioner wronged Owner B by alerting the Owner A about Peterson's status, you're implying that Owner B was supposed to face Owner A with a hole in his starting lineup; that by his actions, the commissioner robbed Owner B of his rightful opportunity to face an opponent with a missing RB. That's clearly not true.

Owner B has already had the good fortune that his opponent, who was going to start the best RB in the NFL, instead has to substitute in a mediocre Chicago WR at the last minute. But that's not enough! the naysayers cry. The commissioner owes it to Owner B to let him face Owner A with an inactive Peterson still in as a starter. That this is somehow fair, and that by alerting Owner A of the injury status, Owner B has been screwed.

Let's get real here. Owner B doesn't deserve any special considerations just because his opponent got stuck at work and didn't get a chance to make a lineup change (the lineup change he would obviously make if he knew about the status and could get online to make the change) before the game started at 5:30 PT. No one should be blaming the commissioner for anything because no injustice was done. The game played out exactly as it was supposed to. The only one who ends up with egg on his face in this situation is Owner B, if he decides to cry foul like he was treated unjustly. He wasn't.

not even close.

the 'naysayers' say the HE ALONE manages his team. You are saying that other SHOULD HELP him do so.

No I'm not.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Here's the biggest disconnect for me: By saying that the commissioner wronged Owner B by alerting the Owner A about Peterson's status, you're implying that Owner B was supposed to face Owner A with a hole in his starting lineup; that by his actions, the commissioner robbed Owner B of his rightful opportunity to face an opponent with a missing RB. That's clearly not true.

Owner B has already had the good fortune that his opponent, who was going to start the best RB in the NFL, instead has to substitute in a mediocre Chicago WR at the last minute. But that's not enough! the naysayers cry. The commissioner owes it to Owner B to let him face Owner A with an inactive Peterson still in as a starter. That this is somehow fair, and that by alerting Owner A of the injury status, Owner B has been screwed.

Let's get real here. Owner B doesn't deserve any special considerations just because his opponent got stuck at work and didn't get a chance to make a lineup change (the lineup change he would obviously make if he knew about the status and could get online to make the change) before the game started at 5:30 PT. No one should be blaming the commissioner for anything because no injustice was done. The game played out exactly as it was supposed to. The only one who ends up with egg on his face in this situation is Owner B, if he decides to cry foul like he was treated unjustly. He wasn't.

not even close.

the 'naysayers' say the HE ALONE manages his team. You are saying that other SHOULD HELP him do so.

No I'm not.

Orly? You aren't helping him with lineup calls? Absent your call he plays Ap and loses. With your call he plays knox and wins. You didn't help him?Love to hear how you rationalize that...

 

[Flash]

What was stolen from the guy that lost?

Playoff money?

The guy that lost hadn't won any playoff money.

You're right. Because of the commissioners decision to help the other owner out.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Orly? You aren't helping him with lineup calls? Absent your call he plays Ap and loses. With your call he plays knox and wins. You didn't help him?Love to hear how you rationalize that...

Helping with a lineup call: "Hey man, I see you have Peterson in your lineup. He's facing a pretty tough rush D tonight, while Knox's targets have been trending up the past three weeks in a row and he's going up against a depleted secondary. I'd probably start Knox."Not helping with a lineup call: "Hey man, I see you still have Peterson in your lineup - don't know if you saw this, but he was just declared inactive for tonight's game and won't be playing. Just a heads up."HTH

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What was stolen from the guy that lost?

Playoff money?

The guy that lost hadn't won any playoff money.

You're right. Because of the commissioners decision to help the other owner out.

Close, but it's actually because owners aren't preemptively awarded playoff money for games they haven't won.

 

[Man In The Box]

Orly? You aren't helping him with lineup calls? Absent your call he plays Ap and loses. With your call he plays knox and wins. You didn't help him?Love to hear how you rationalize that...

Helping with a lineup call: "Hey man, I see you have Peterson in your lineup. He's facing a pretty tough rush D tonight, while Knox's targets have been trending up the past three weeks in a row and he's going up against a depleted secondary. I'd probably start Knox."Not helping with a lineup call: "Hey man, I see you still have Peterson in your lineup - don't know if you saw this, but he was just declared inactive for tonight's game and won't be playing. Just a heads up."HTH

How in the world is your second point not helping someone with their lineup?

 

[Your Mom]

I would have never predicted this thread would go past 1 page.Amazing.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You're the AP owner, aren't you.

No, I'm not involved in the issue. Just jumping into the discussion.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Because I know you're dying for one more opinion from a guy who hasn't read the whole thread....

-.00001 points for a commish who inconsistently informs owners about issues pertaining to their lineups.

-8,000,000,000,000 points for an owner who complains or gets mad because he lost because his opponent was alerted not to start an inactive player.

 

[Ghost Rider]

One more question. AP was replaced with knox. Are you telling me AP was the flex rb? Has he been a flex rb all year or did he become a flex rb when he was inactive?

If you have to specifically specify a flex player, a smart owner will put a player who is questionable as the flex, especially if an alternate flex playing in the same MNF game is at a different position...which was the case here. So, yeah, it makes total sense.

 

[Pura Vida]

Because I know you're dying for one more opinion from a guy who hasn't read the whole thread....-.00001 points for a commish who inconsistently informs owners about issues pertaining to their lineups.-8,000,000,000,000 points for an owner who complains or gets mad because he lost because his opponent was alerted not to start an inactive player.

To the OP. No matter what you believe, I hope you learn from this experience that many,many,many people would have a huge problem with this. Remember that in the future if you want to avoid problems running your league.Also, how much was on the line? Did you ever tell the owner you screwed over?

 

[Pura Vida]

One more question. AP was replaced with knox. Are you telling me AP was the flex rb? Has he been a flex rb all year or did he become a flex rb when he was inactive?

If you have to specifically specify a flex player, a smart owner will put a player who is questionable as the flex, especially if an alternate flex playing in the same MNF game is at a different position...which was the case here. So, yeah, it makes total sense.

yea- but a smart owner doesnt need a call from the commish to learn that his questionable player is not playing. (Especially if that owner made the questionable player his flex because he was questionable)

 

[ROBOPUNTER]

Orly? You aren't helping him with lineup calls? Absent your call he plays Ap and loses. With your call he plays knox and wins. You didn't help him?

Love to hear how you rationalize that...

Helping with a lineup call: "Hey man, I see you have Peterson in your lineup. He's facing a pretty tough rush D tonight, while Knox's targets have been trending up the past three weeks in a row and he's going up against a depleted secondary. I'd probably start Knox."

NotAlso helping with a lineup call: "Hey man, I see you still have Peterson in your lineup - don't know if you saw this, but he was just declared inactive for tonight's game and won't be playing. Just a heads up."

HTH

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

One more question. AP was replaced with knox. Are you telling me AP was the flex rb? Has he been a flex rb all year or did he become a flex rb when he was inactive?

If you have to specifically specify a flex player, a smart owner will put a player who is questionable as the flex, especially if an alternate flex playing in the same MNF game is at a different position...which was the case here. So, yeah, it makes total sense.

I'm not sure I even understand this distinction. "Flex" isn't a position, it's a rule; specifically, it's a rule that states you can start 2 RB and 3 WR, or 3 RB and 2 WR, or whatever your individual league's setup is. You shouldn't ever have to desginate a specific player in the "flex" position, although I guess some league websites force you to...? I wouldn't ever punish an owner for a stupid software limitation, though.

 

[pantagrapher]

Because I know you're dying for one more opinion from a guy who hasn't read the whole thread....-.00001 points for a commish who inconsistently informs owners about issues pertaining to their lineups.-8,000,000,000,000 points for an owner who complains or gets mad because he lost because his opponent was alerted not to start an inactive player.

To the OP. No matter what you believe, I hope you learn from this experience that many,many,many people would have a huge problem with this. Remember that in the future if you want to avoid problems running your league.Also, how much was on the line? Did you ever tell the owner you screwed over?

The OP didn't break any rules. And nobody got screwed over.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

yea- but a smart owner doesnt need a call from the commish to learn that his questionable player is not playing.

Getting stuck at work, or any of the infinite number of other more important things in life, has no bearing on how "smart" of an owner you are. Sometimes you have a deadline to meet at the office, or your kid gets sick, or your water heater breaks - the last thing on your mind in times like those is whether or not one of the players on your pretend football team is inactive. That doesn't mean you're less of an owner, it just means you're a human.