This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I'd rather keep my friends than win a few dollars in a fantasy league. And it's not about the money anyway. It's about the Championships.My advice on "ethical" questions in fantasy football is this:If you're in a league amongst friends or coworkers, err on the side of playing it straight. The edge you're gaining by holding onto your worst player for an extra week is almost none. This applies even more to benching your players so you can dictate who makes the playoffs.If you're in an anonymous league, all bets are off. Do ANYTHING the league software allows you to do to win.
Probably shtick, but in case you're serious, fantasy football is about a lot of things. I'm in a league with friends that's been going for 20+ years. In that time, we've all gotten married, had kids, moved all over the country. The league is the primary way we all stay in touch. Fantasy football gives us an excuse to all get together at least once a year on draft day. We play for money but usually the champ ends up using most of his winnings to pay for stuff (food, beer, entertainment) for the following year's draft. Not everyone plays with a bunch of strangers for the sole purpose of winning as much money as possible. Though to the OP, I don't see anything wrong with that move.
I really dislike this idea. Why should roster management stop for the playoffs? Teams that suffer injuries shouldn't be able to replace players with the best the wire has to offer? Emergent players shouldn't be able to be picked up? I disagree.
I like the mentality of someone having to win with the horses that got them there. If a player gets hurt and the owner doesn't have a backup already rostered, they're SOL.
Yeah...I can see both sides of this. Personaly, I like a setup where the rosters lock EXCEPT that players listed OUT or placed on IR can be replaced by teams still alive. (IE: You don't force playoff teams to carry an extra kicker to cover)I wouldn't make a stink about it, but I do think dropping a kicker just to hold a player for a week, ONLY because you're on a bye, is a bit shady. COuldn't blame the person who did it if legal, but I'd want to close that loop-hole off-season.
WW bids should still be allowed but we stop free agent acquisitions after the playoffs start.
LOL how is it even remotely unethical? But I see no tactical advantage in letting a player go for a empty spot on your roster. I might be missing something here. At least fill the roster spot on a speculative add now for free.'SameSongNDance said:
This was the example I was going to post. Maybe you want to grab Grant and have the luxury of a week to see if anything shakes out? You are improving your team whether it's for 10 minutes or a week.
"oof" all you want, there is no reason I see to do it, and there is no way it is unethical to do it.
Perhaps you should re-read the OP. It seems you're missing some info that everyone else has.
Why are you insinuating that rules are being changed? In our league, everyone knows this from the outset. Manage your roster accordingly.
This is how we been doing it for years. Rosters lock at playoffs. If you can not field a position due to injury then you can make a move but if you have a guy on your roster you have to use him. SO basically you lost your top back but still have Ronnie Hillman on your roster you have to use him.We did implement 1 pickup over the playoffs not due to a full roster a couple years ago, though'renesauz said:
I like this less than both other methods. If you're locked out, everyone is out of luck if something happens. If you're not, everyone has the same chance to grab players.In your method, someone could benefit just because they happened to have a guy declared out.'renesauz said:
In one of my leagues we have a rule like this, but the player you add must play the same position and be from the same NFL team. So if you have LeSean McCoy, and he gets injured, you can pick up Bryce Brown. But if you have some scrub RB5 from Cleveland who gets hurt, you can't. You could just replace him with some other RB from Cleveland.
Rules being changed refers to changing the structure of your league setup. Not referring to going into the written copy and making edits.Your league was structured one way, with waivers, which impacted value of players by position and partially drove decisions.Changing to a different structure for the playoffs is far from sticking with the horse that brought you. It's switching to a different horse, one that requires reallocating roster space to backups at positions where an equal backup is normally available on waivers.If a league wants to do that, they can of course. But let's not say it's enforcing keeping things the same. It isn't, it's changing the league structure.
How do you do waivers? Playoffs create a clean slate IMO. All teams are 0-0Say you have 8 teams make the playoffs in a 16 team league.#1 seed wins with the lowest point total of the winners for that given week. Should #1 seed get first dibs on the WW? Doesn't seem fair. Bids might work, but start the dollars over again? Only use what's left over from regular season?Plenty of flaws in any system.
winning a Championship is great, but I'll take the $$$$'Air Stich said:
But if every team knows that the rosters lock and some choose to carry TE, QB, K etc... depth and some don't then that's their choice. The roster lock rule is known to everyone prior to the draft so some teams can play it one way because maybe they may have more success using that method and some may like the other, or maybe a mix. Either way, if the rules are known in advance the only reason to "change horses" is because you chose to go a different route during the regular season, some people might not have & thus they aren't changing anything.
Agreed. The "horses that got me there" were different every week: Buffalo Defense, Cardinals Defense, Andre Brown, Kyle Rudolph while Aaron Hernandez was out, Vick Ballard for a couple of weeks, Colts Defense, Brandon Meyers, Alex Green, Jonathan Stewart, Jermaine Gresham... not a single one of those guys is on my team anymore. But they all contributed to getting me a W that put me in the postseason. If I had to lock my rosters for the playoffs, it'd be a bunch of new horses with maybe-good-matchups at DST, WR, and TE to run out the season. None of the old horses. In week 12 I'd just pick up any defense that might be usable and drop my old ones with bad matchups. Fine, it's within the rules that locks the rosters, but they're no more the "horses that got me there" than leaving an open waiver wire in the postseason would get me.
This has worked well for us. It allows owners to legitimately replace their injured players when necessary, while mostly preventing owners from picking up the hot FA just because they lucked into having one of their bench players injured.
I'm the Bryce Brown owner in my league, and have been enjoying the ride. I was ranked #1 before picking him up, with most total points and the best record. He slipped through the waiver wire to my slot when I picked him up, everyone else passed on him. I don't see why if I ride him from weeks 12-16 to a championship, it's any different if I rode him to 13-16 only (in the playoffs only). Picking the guy up the week before the playoffs doesn't change that I'd be benefiting from his points in the playoffs despite him not being the horse that got me to that point.
i can see your pointit just didn't sit well with my league if the guy was not on your roster for one second of the regular season then became your playoff MVPi certainly think this is something that can go either way. The important thing is getting a consensus and making sure everyone knowsas an unrelated side note my league uses a depth chart for starters too, which seems almost unheard of but we REALLY like it.
I hear you in a way, but isn't weekly roster management also part of FF? Why not reward those who do it well, whether during the playoffs or regular season?
i think because there are less teams in each round of the playoffs contending for the players, so roster management actually becomes easier.Now at the time we did not use bidding, but even with bidding i think the above still stands. The closer you get to your goal the easier it becomes to grab free agents because the less people there are that need them. This seems wrongThough I will grant you that the other playoff teams do share an equal advantage, so maybe it doesn't matter. But it seems to to me.
In each of my leagues we have a rule that requires a full active roster at all times.
