Teams that aren't in the playoffs (1 Viewer)

[bonesman]

I've got an even better one.

Commish in one league hosted on ESPN forces through a trade this morning despite the setting saying the deadline was: Wednesday, November 23, 12PM ET.

Of course I'm the only one that says any thing and he tells me, "what part of there was no trade deadline unofficially dont you understand? "

"All of it, you grammar butcher."

The guy took the bait on the handicapping forum I met him on

http://www.ludawgs.com/showthread.php?4618-Look-at-this-dbag-move-a-commish-made

I probably look like the dbag now after all that drunken posting though.

 

[T J]

The only opposing take I'll throw out there is that some leagues award points for high week throughout all 17 weeks. We allow all teams to make waiver moves throughout the playoffs. To me, not allowing is akin to rubbing salt in the wound. Not only are you out of the running for the playoff money, but your shot at weekly high points is going to be limited as well.

I'm commish and still alive so I'm not affected, but rules like these seem awfully self-serving.

 

[GregR]

I'd check your rules. In our league, I have it written very clearly that no moves are allowed in the playoffs, unless you are in the playoffs. I can't actually lock the rosters though,so technically someone could make a move if they were unaware of the rule. I check weekly to make sure and if they did, I undo it and point to the written rule.

If no rule, I'd get the league to vote on one for next year.

As Commissioner of a MFL 12 Team 4 Player Keeper league, teams that are eliminated from the Playoffs (Championship & Toilet Bowl) are locked from making any WW moves. They can drop players & submit lineups just for fun, but they can not claim any players.

If I was the #1 playoff seed, I would be pretty pissed about competing for waiver wire players with teams that are out of the money.

Everyone had to compete on waivers with teams that were numerically eliminated from the playoffs during the regular season. If you're going to have a consolation bracket, run it normally which includes letting teams make waiver moves. Otherwise it sends the message they might as well not bother since the league doesn't take it seriously enough to treat them like actual fantasy teams.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

All rosters should be locked for playoffs whether you are in or out.

This.

 

[T J]

All rosters should be locked for playoffs whether you are in or out.

This.

I personally find this to a ridiculous way of doing things. Say hypothetically both your QBs get hurt in the first week of the playoffs. That's the way it goes? That's idiocy.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Redraft = yeah, there's no reason to.

Dynasty = getting ready for next year.

 

[Fensalk]

During the playoffs, free agents should have to clear waivers with all playoff teams each week before a non-playoff team is allowed to claim them. You can do it as playoff teams have first crack at a free agent for all of tuesday and wednesday. Starting thursday, they are fair game for everyone.

Its a good rule to punish laziness of the part of playoff teams, even if non-playoff teams have nothing to play for.

 

[Pipes]

All rosters should be locked for playoffs whether you are in or out.

This.

I personally find this to a ridiculous way of doing things. Say hypothetically both your QBs get hurt in the first week of the playoffs. That's the way it goes? That's idiocy.

A couple of my leagues lock rosters and I like this. We have more than enough roster spots to have 3 QB's, 2K's etc so with any amount of planning your fine.

 

[jb1020]

For the guys wondering if the guy that picked up Grant stands to win anything, the answer is no. He's out...there is absolutely nothing to play for after you've been eliminated in this league.

But, I did guilt the guy into Dropping Grant again. He basically said he was being a #### because the same thing happened to him in a baseball league this year (most of these same guys have a big baseball league). The difference is there its a dynasty league and they do have a consolation bracket.

I guess now my issue is do I really need Grant?

 

[Wadsworth]

t's pretty clearly collusive and you should raise it with the commish.

This is a surprising answer considering that you're (allegedly) a lawyer.There's no way to prove collusion since (by definition) only 1 team is involved.It's a jerk move, but it's not (necessarily) collusion.

WTF are you talking about. The collusion is between two guys who are buddies, one of whom is playing the OP in the playoffs. Other player doesn't make moves or set his lineups like everyone else in the league for weeks. Then this week when his buddy is playing the OP he up and snags a RB whom the OP needs to play the owner in questions buddy? If it was the guy he was playing fine. But he obviously had worse waiver WW position than the OP. So he gets his buddy who isn't playing for anything at this point, to pick up a guy so that he has an easier playoff match-up. And you can't see how this is collusive?

Even if the guy picked up Grant to help out his buddy, that does not mean it is collision. Collusion involved more than one person and it is entirely possible that the guy that picked up Grant just did it on his own to try and help his buddy out with no knowledge by the other owner. It is still a shady at best move, but not collusive.

 

[T J]

All rosters should be locked for playoffs whether you are in or out.

This.

I personally find this to a ridiculous way of doing things. Say hypothetically both your QBs get hurt in the first week of the playoffs. That's the way it goes? That's idiocy.

A couple of my leagues lock rosters and I like this. We have more than enough roster spots to have 3 QB's, 2K's etc so with any amount of planning your fine.

I guess this issue really speaks to the premise of "there is no 'right' answer". What works for one league is a) what that league should do and b) may not work for another league.

 

[chidoy]

There are no rules set in my league that prohibits it. The commish didn't lock any teams and didn't announce not to pick anyone up so IMO, it's fair game.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

t's pretty clearly collusive and you should raise it with the commish.

This is a surprising answer considering that you're (allegedly) a lawyer.There's no way to prove collusion since (by definition) only 1 team is involved.It's a jerk move, but it's not (necessarily) collusion.

WTF are you talking about. The collusion is between two guys who are buddies, one of whom is playing the OP in the playoffs. Other player doesn't make moves or set his lineups like everyone else in the league for weeks. Then this week when his buddy is playing the OP he up and snags a RB whom the OP needs to play the owner in questions buddy? If it was the guy he was playing fine. But he obviously had worse waiver WW position than the OP. So he gets his buddy who isn't playing for anything at this point, to pick up a guy so that he has an easier playoff match-up. And you can't see how this is collusive?

Even if the guy picked up Grant to help out his buddy, that does not mean it is collision. Collusion involved more than one person and it is entirely possible that the guy that picked up Grant just did it on his own to try and help his buddy out with no knowledge by the other owner. It is still a shady at best move, but not collusive.

I wish you guys would be on my juries. I love your view on the standard of proof. I think you guys confuse ' scintila of doubt with reasonable doubt. If a guy doesn't makes moves normally once eliminated , and has no prize to strive for, and it's a redraft league. You can't see the abusive precedent being set that players outside of the playoffs could swoop in a block the guys in the playoffs from players based on who their buddies are? Whether the dictionary definition of collusion (2 people agreeing by secret agreement) is met cannot be the standard in collusion. If it was necessary why not just openly collude. Tell guys "I am picking this up to cokc block you" or I am trading with betty cuz I like her and I hate you. That's why I traded maurice morris for Ray Rice. It's not a secret agreement, so it's not collusion right?

 

[killrobotkill]

According to the OP, this is a redraft league, so keeper/dynasty concerns are irrelevant. The league rule cited earlier doesn't say non-playoff teams can't make waiver pickups, and if the league software allows them to do it, I don't think there's any recourse here. Ask your commish to make a rule preventing this next year, but you're SOL this year.

(Unless, of course, you can *prove* that this move was collusion. And no, just saying "what other possible motivation could he have?" isn't the same thing as proof.)

 

[chidoy]

According to the OP, this is a redraft league, so keeper/dynasty concerns are irrelevant. The league rule cited earlier doesn't say non-playoff teams can't make waiver pickups, and if the league software allows them to do it, I don't think there's any recourse here. Ask your commish to make a rule preventing this next year, but you're SOL this year.(Unless, of course, you can *prove* that this move was collusion. And no, just saying "what other possible motivation could he have?" isn't the same thing as proof.)

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

According to the OP, this is a redraft league, so keeper/dynasty concerns are irrelevant. The league rule cited earlier doesn't say non-playoff teams can't make waiver pickups, and if the league software allows them to do it, I don't think there's any recourse here. Ask your commish to make a rule preventing this next year, but you're SOL this year.(Unless, of course, you can *prove* that this move was collusion. And no, just saying "what other possible motivation could he have?" isn't the same thing as proof.)

Luckily the guy reversed it on his own, tacitly admitting that is what he was doing. I think it's entirely possible that the other guy (his buddy in the playoffs) didn't know what was going on and when he saw it told him to reverse it. But the other recourse would have just been to ask him why he made the pick up, and to explain why he didn't make any the least 2-3 weeks but he decided to now, with nothing to play for. It's not like these guys can invoke the right to remain silent.

 

[QuizGuy66]

For the guys wondering if the guy that picked up Grant stands to win anything, the answer is no. He's out...there is absolutely nothing to play for after you've been eliminated in this league.But, I did guilt the guy into Dropping Grant again. He basically said he was being a #### because the same thing happened to him in a baseball league this year (most of these same guys have a big baseball league). The difference is there its a dynasty league and they do have a consolation bracket. I guess now my issue is do I really need Grant?

Ah the old ###### it forward move. You now have to do this to someone in your Fantasy Hockey league.-QG

 

[Manster]

I'm sure this has been discussed extensively here, but I didn't see a thread....feel free to link one. I'm just curious in your opinions.We're down to 4 teams left in our league. It's a redraft league and the teams that don't make the playoffs aren't playing for anything. Last week was the first round of the playoffs and the guys that didn't make it didn't even set their lineups...which is normal.Our of the blue this morning the team in dead last decides to make some roster moves. Just to throw the scenario out he picked up Grant. Im desperate for a rb this week. Guy who picked up Grant is best friends with the guy I play this week. I'm not making a huge stink with the league or anything, but I think that stuff is extremely bush league and it's the equivalent of colluding on a trade. Thoughts? What would your reaction be?

I didnt read all the posts.....FIrst of all, in all my leagues, there are no waivers in the playoffs, period.second, if waivers are allowed in the playoffs, the commish should be able to lock the teams that didnt make it, so they cant make waiver wire moves. third, the commish should have undone the move made by the guy not in the playoffs, and made it right. this kind of thing should not be tolerated, especially if money is involved.Personally, i like the no waiver wire thing for playoffs. you go in with what you have............

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I know you said there's nothing to play for...but is there a loser's bracket? If yes, some people actually play out the season for pride and because they like fantasy football. Maybe they're 7-7 and want to finish with a winning record.

I made a move in a league this week and I'm not in the playoffs. But I've never had a losing rcord in this league and I'd like to keep that streak intact. Maybe I'm nuts but I like to play as long as I can. Not trying to hurt anyone else, but I guess in my head I'm still playing.

 

[Chaka]

I really can't comprehend why there's even a debate here. Whether or not your league allows waiver moves for active teams during the playoffs is according to league setup and preferences. No problem. Once the league is into the playoff schedule, and a team is out of the playoffs--that team should be inactive. Don't care if it's redraft or dynasty, there should not be any moves made, either drop or add, by a team that is officially not playing. Why is this even a question???

Not if the league rules don't say as much. It doesn't have to be collusive, maybe he did it just to be a jerk. Either way if the rules don't forbid it, there is nothing to complain about.

 

[netnalp]

Redraft: if you're eliminated and have nothing left to play for, it is not ok.Dynasty: fair game

This

Keeper leagues too.

 

[Diamond One]

All rosters should be locked for playoffs whether you are in or out.

This.

Or allow all rosters to be unlocked. Just because you are not in the playoffs doesn't mean you can have some fun screwing with other teams who are in. If it's not in the league rules, wire moves by all are fair game IMO.

 

[urbanhack]

A guy in our league has picked up the following players in the last 2 weeks.

Bubba Franks

Brian Westbrook

Edgerin James

and

Warrick Dunn

 

[cr8f]

Here we have 8 teams still in incl Toillet Bowl. Teams that are out aren't making moves but teams in the TB get first priority and not sure that's a good idea.

 

[cr8f]

All rosters should be locked for playoffs whether you are in or out.

This is an overreaction to a problem that I think can be fixed better in other ways. Just design playoff waivers in a way that makes sense to your league.

 

[GregR]

I really can't comprehend why there's even a debate here. Whether or not your league allows waiver moves for active teams during the playoffs is according to league setup and preferences. No problem. Once the league is into the playoff schedule, and a team is out of the playoffs--that team should be inactive. Don't care if it's redraft or dynasty, there should not be any moves made, either drop or add, by a team that is officially not playing. Why is this even a question???

Not if the league rules don't say as much. It doesn't have to be collusive, maybe he did it just to be a jerk. Either way if the rules don't forbid it, there is nothing to complain about.

Rules don't expressly forbid many things that are common sense. Like I've never seen a league with a rule you can't hack your opponent's account and change his starting lineup.There's no legitimate reason for an eliminated redraft team to be picking up players. So written rule or not, there is no reason to expect one should be allowed to because of a shortcoming of the site software.

If someone tried in a league I was commissioning, I would say no, and if they chose to go find some other league where the commish would knuckle under to their rules lawyering, I would happily let the door hit them on the butt on the way out. That is the kind of thing a commissioner has to put a stop to for the integrity of his league. Unfortunately it can be a thin line with some situations. Luckily this isn't one of them. There's absolutely no claim that can be made the waiver move was improving his gametime roster, so no reason it need be allowed.

 

[Manster]

All rosters should be locked for playoffs whether you are in or out.

This is an overreaction to a problem that I think can be fixed better in other ways.

Just design playoff waivers in a way that makes sense to your league.

Not really. This is how all 3 of my leagues operate. I would assume this is fairly common. Maybe not, but it works for us.

 

[username]

I went back and read the "rules"

Keep in mind that players on teams that do not make the fantasy playoffs or are eliminated from the fantasy playoffs and are not released back to the Available Players pool.

To support the ideas of fair play and sportsmanship, we encourage all managers to retain their players even after they have been eliminated from championship contention.

So the guy he dropped can't be picked back up, but that's no help.

So in order to pick a player up he would have to drop another player so by not retaining him this is a clear violation of the rules and you should raise hells in the spirit of fair play and sportsmanship. Oh and Ryan Grant kind of sucks, you might be better off with Kuhn.

 

[jb1020]

Now a new wrinkle comes in.

Grant is back on waivers. I have a better priority than the guy I'm playing, but not the other two teams left.

Originally, they did not have a request in for Grant. Now that they know how desperate my situation is (very desperate) I think they might swoop in.

Is that fair? IMO, **** face caused me to miss out on him the first go around.

 

[grateful zed]

one league mate, who is out of the playoffs, keeps untying my shoelaces.

 

[Dez]

All rosters should be locked for playoffs whether you are in or out.

This is dumb. You lose both your TE's or your kicker and I guess you just take a zero. Like I said dumb.No moves for teams not in the playoffs because that is just dumb too.

 

[middleweightcontender]

Teams still play for pride. It would suck to join a league, pay your entry fee, and only play 12 games instead of 14 etc. If you have a problem with teams deliberately sabotaging your league then get rid of the owner. Instituting a heavy handed rule that exclude only part of the teams is just wrong. What about the guy who has only won 3 games by week 10? Should he be restricted as well? Should he just stop logging in?