When did ESPN change the add/drop rules? (1 Viewer)

[SCT]

Used to be that if your opponent needed a kicker and waited too long to add one, on Friday you could add and drop every available kicker and then he'd be stuck with nobody to add.....Just tried this and found out now if you drop a guy in the same 24 hours he's still a free agent.  LAME!!  There's only so much control you have over outcome and this used to be a fun strategy.  The rest is so much luck.

 

[Don't Noonan]

Used to be that if your opponent needed a kicker and waited too long to add one, on Friday you could add and drop every available kicker and then he'd be stuck with nobody to add.....Just tried this and found out now if you drop a guy in the same 24 hours he's still a free agent.  LAME!!  There's only so much control you have over outcome and this used to be a fun strategy.  The rest is so much luck.

You think that is bad.  On cbssports I was given commisioner authority earlier this year during the draft to help with owners picks that were not logged on to a computer.  The commish forgot to take off my authority so the first few weeks I would change my opponents line up right before kick off without him knowing.  It was working great until the Commish caught on and kicked me out of the league.  Lame!

 

[gopherit]

Used to be that if your opponent needed a kicker and waited too long to add one, on Friday you could add and drop every available kicker and then he'd be stuck with nobody to add.....Just tried this and found out now if you drop a guy in the same 24 hours he's still a free agent.  LAME!!  There's only so much control you have over outcome and this used to be a fun strategy.  The rest is so much luck.

This is a great rule to stop waiver wire churning.  Yahoo implemented this many many years ago.  Good to see that ESPN is doing it now.

 

[Skoo]

Busch League move.

 

[SCT]

To each their own.  it's a strategy and it's under my control.  It was within the rules so what's the problem?  Do what's best for your team within the rules I say.

 

[irish eyes]

Used to be that if your opponent needed a kicker and waited too long to add one, on Friday you could add and drop every available kicker and then he'd be stuck with nobody to add.....Just tried this and found out now if you drop a guy in the same 24 hours he's still a free agent.  LAME!!  There's only so much control you have over outcome and this used to be a fun strategy.  The rest is so much luck.

It's a D@@@ move and shouldn't be allowed. Are people really that hard up to win a game.

 

[iamkoza]

To each their own.  it's a strategy and it's under my control.  It was within the rules so what's the problem?  Do what's best for your team within the rules I say.

it's been the way it is now on ESPN for a long time. I dont even recall roster churning as you described it ever working on ESPN.

 

[SCT]

It's a D@@@ move and shouldn't be allowed. Are people really that hard up to win a game.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions.  Was listening to Footballers podcast yesterday and an email question was about if it's wrong to add guys you weren't intending to start just to block your opponent from getting them.  The unanimous response was "no, it's a strategy and it's within the rules".

Was listening to fantasy focus podcast this morning.....Berry needed to add a QB....Secret Squirrel, who is 1-9 and doesn't care about his team anymore added the maximum number of QBs his roster rules would allow of the wire so to screw over Berry and they weren't even playing each other.  Everybody got a big laugh out of it.  LIghten up.

 

[SCT]

it's been the way it is now on ESPN for a long time. I dont even recall roster churning as you described it ever working on ESPN.

Ya, I think you're right about it being a long time.  A buddy did with kickers in 2009 and I haven't seen it since.  Most owners don't wait to the end of the week to make their moves so the opportunity doesn't come up often.

 

[iamkoza]

Ya, I think you're right about it being a long time.  A buddy did with kickers in 2009 and I haven't seen it since.  Most owners don't wait to the end of the week to make their moves so the opportunity doesn't come up often.

i'd be lying if i didnt admit i've rostered players for 24 hours to block... but IMO that is fair game because im playing within the rules.

 

[[scooter]]

Everyone's entitled to their opinions.  Was listening to Footballers podcast yesterday and an email question was about if it's wrong to add guys you weren't intending to start just to block your opponent from getting them.  The unanimous response was "no, it's a strategy and it's within the rules".

There is a difference between "adding a player to block your opponent" and "churning every single available player to block your opponent".

There is NO WAY that any honorable Footballguy staffer would consider the latter move to be acceptable strategy.

 

[SCT]

i'd be lying if i didnt admit i've rostered players for 24 hours to block... but IMO that is fair game because im playing within the rules.

Exactly.  No difference, it's within the rules.  Or used to be.

 

[bryhamm]

To each their own.  it's a strategy and it's under my control.  It was within the rules so what's the problem?  Do what's best for your team within the rules I say.

"strategy".  huh, that's an interesting way to put it.

 

[Vanilla Guerrilla]

Shanking people in alleys and taking their wallets is a "strategy" for making some extra money.

 

[TLEF316]

Lol at this being a "strategy".  

Driving to your opponent's house and using a cell signal blocker to take away his internet access an hour before kickoff would be only SLIGHTLY lamer than this sort of churning.

 

[Spock]

Exactly.  No difference, it's within the rules.  Or used to be.

Your perception is your reality.

 

[SCT]

Society has really softened these days.

 

[[scooter]]

Society has really softened these days.

It's widely been considered to be a d-bag move for a long time

 

[SCT]

It's widely been considered to be a d-bag move for a long time

Looks like there's a healthy percentage of posters in there that see it like I do.  I'm going to do what I can, within the rules and parameters of the league platform, to give my team the best chance for success.   If you add Spencer Ware before the Kareem Hunt owner can add him as a handcuff, is that wrong?  What if you don't ever start Spencer Ware?  Aren't you adding him just as much so that someone else doesn't add him and use him against you as much as anything?  There's not a huge difference in my eyes.   It's a dog eat dog world out there fellas.

 

[[scooter]]

It's widely been considered to be a d-bag move for a long time

Looks like there's a healthy percentage of posters in there that see it like I do.

That thread is from 10 years ago.

All I can say if that if you were in my league and you tried that, the entire league would instantly vote to kick you out. And if you were in our circle of friends, you would immediately get shunned. It's the kind of thing that only a d-bag does, and no one wants to hang out with a d-bag.

 

[Kenag122002]

It's the kind of thing that only a d-bag does, and no one wants to hang out with a d-bag.

This.

 

[Dezbelief]

Is Lonestar in your league? 

 

[jimmy b]

This.

+1

 

[tricky92]

To each their own.  it's a strategy and it's under my control.  It was within the rules so what's the problem?  Do what's best for your team within the rules I say.

Back in the days of Sandbox we would do this all of the time in fantasy baseball... especially with relief pitchers.

 

[tricky92]

It's a D@@@ move and shouldn't be allowed. Are people really that hard up to win a game.

If it shouldn't be allowed, you make rules to prevent it. Period.

 

[tricky92]

Shanking people in alleys and taking their wallets is a "strategy" for making some extra money.

Thank God we have rules against it.

 

[tricky92]

Lol at this being a "strategy".  

Driving to your opponent's house and using a cell signal blocker to take away his internet access an hour before kickoff would be only SLIGHTLY lamer than this sort of churning.

Is it just me, or does this sound amazing??? LOL

 

[coyote5]

Used to be that if your opponent needed a kicker and waited too long to add one, on Friday you could add and drop every available kicker and then he'd be stuck with nobody to add.....Just tried this and found out now if you drop a guy in the same 24 hours he's still a free agent.  LAME!!  There's only so much control you have over outcome and this used to be a fun strategy.  The rest is so much luck.

  glad you can't be that guy any more.  And by that guy I mean a common women's feminine hygiene product.

 

[DropKick]

Used to be that if your opponent needed a kicker and waited too long to add one, on Friday you could add and drop every available kicker and then he'd be stuck with nobody to add.....Just tried this and found out now if you drop a guy in the same 24 hours he's still a free agent.  LAME!!  There's only so much control you have over outcome and this used to be a fun strategy.  The rest is so much luck.

Look at the bright side... Your little sister will be able to add a kicker.

 

[Mark Football]

Another vote for D Bag

 

[apalmer]

To each their own.  it's a strategy and it's under my control.  It was within the rules so what's the problem?  Do what's best for your team within the rules I say.

Which is why the rule change is good.  Now the scummy move isn't within the rules.

 

[Truebluey]

Was listening to fantasy focus podcast this morning.....Berry needed to add a QB....Secret Squirrel, who is 1-9 and doesn't care about his team anymore added the maximum number of QBs his roster rules would allow of the wire so to screw over Berry and they weren't even playing each other.  Everybody got a big laugh out of it.  LIghten up.

This is the most cringe- inducing couple of sentences I've read on these boards in several years. The worst thing is the poster seems to have no self-awareness of how he/she is making themselves look. 

"Secret squirrel" . . .

 

[Steeler]

To each their own.  it's a strategy and it's under my control.  It was within the rules so what's the problem?  Do what's best for your team within the rules I say.

They changed the rules, so stop complaining ?

 

[SCT]

Look, this thread could have ended a long time ago.  I asked a question and expressed my opinion.  Then we had a refreshing debate about the ethics of roster churning.  We don’t agree.  The end. 

 

[gopherit]

Everyone's entitled to their opinions.  Was listening to Footballers podcast yesterday and an email question was about if it's wrong to add guys you weren't intending to start just to block your opponent from getting them.  The unanimous response was "no, it's a strategy and it's within the rules".

This is totally different and when I played, I did this once in a while.

Churning is just being childish.

 

[gopherit]

Looks like there's a healthy percentage of posters in there that see it like I do.  I'm going to do what I can, within the rules and parameters of the league platform, to give my team the best chance for success.   If you add Spencer Ware before the Kareem Hunt owner can add him as a handcuff, is that wrong?  What if you don't ever start Spencer Ware?  Aren't you adding him just as much so that someone else doesn't add him and use him against you as much as anything?  There's not a huge difference in my eyes.   It's a dog eat dog world out there fellas.

Wow, if you can't tell the difference, then you have other issues.

 

[SCT]

This is the most cringe- inducing couple of sentences I've read on these boards in several years. The worst thing is the poster seems to have no self-awareness of how he/she is making themselves look. 

"Secret squirrel" . . .

I don't get it.  Unless you mean I'm a fool for listening to a ff podcast of people who the world leader in sports have hired and pay to research this stuff full time.  What about the fantasyfootballers podcast?  You know, the guys who have won multiple fantasy football and sports podcast awards and all 3 of whom are in the top 20 rankers on fantasypros?  Do their opinions count as much as you guys on this board that has plummeted in users and traffic over the last few years?  Haha, it's funny that the majority on here think I'm a d-bag for doing something that the above mentioned experts have no problem with....am i the fool or is it the guys who are playing a game for money who don't want to use all strategies WITHIN THE RULES to win said money?  I understand that it is no longer within the rules and that's great.  This has been a fun debate.

 

[SCT]

This is totally different and when I played, I did this once in a while.

Churning is just being childish.

How is it different?  What's the acceptable number of players you add to keep your opponent from getting them before it becomes childish officer?

 

[gopherit]

How is it different?  What's acceptable number of players you add to keep your opponent from getting them before it becomes childish officer?

There is nothing that I will say will change your mind because, for some reason, you think churning is okay.  It obviously isn't because if it was, they wouldn't have implemented the rule in the first place to stop this childish behavior.

 

[SCT]

There is nothing that I will say will change your mind because, for some reason, you think churning is okay.  It obviously isn't because if it was, they wouldn't have implemented the rule in the first place to stop this childish behavior.

You could absolutely change my mind!  Just tell me how what you did in the past is different and what the number is that makes it unacceptably immoral.

 

[gopherit]

I don't get it.  Unless you mean I'm a fool for listening to a ff podcast of people who the world leader in sports have hired and pay to research this stuff full time.  What about the fantasyfootballers podcast?  You know, the guys who have won multiple fantasy football and sports podcast awards and all 3 of whom are in the top 20 rankers on fantasypros?  Do their opinions count as much as you guys on this board that has plummeted in users and traffic over the last few years?  Haha, it's funny that the majority on here think I'm a d-bag for doing something that the above mentioned experts have no problem with....am i the fool or is it the guys who are playing a game for money who don't want to use all strategies WITHIN THE RULES to win said money?  I understand that it is no longer within the rules and that's great.  This has been a fun debate.

 @ fantasy football expert.  No one is an expert at a game that is mostly luck.

Are they an "expert" because they are getting paid to do something?  Is that what makes one an expert?

 

[SCT]

 @ fantasy football expert.  No one is an expert at a game that is mostly luck.

Are they an "expert" because they are getting paid to do something?  Is that what makes one an expert?

?@ you not able to answer my question.  The answer to your question is mostly yes, coupled with the high rate of success as rankers.  I'm sure you know more than they do about how fantasy football should work.

 

[SCT]

?@ you not able to answer my question.  The answer to your question is mostly yes, coupled with the high rate of success as rankers.  I'm sure you know more than they do about how fantasy football should work.

We agree that it's mostly luck though, hence my looking for all edges under my control within the rules.

 

[Andrew74]

You add players to your roster if you think they may be useful or valuable to you. If I pick up Malcom Brown and I’m not the Gurley owner, that’s not a #### move.  I’m doing it in the slight case Gurley goes down and now I have a starting RB.  

If you pick up and drop every back up RB in the league so someone else can’t field a team, that’s a #### move. It does nothing to improve your team or add future value. It’s just screwing with the competitive balance of the league IMO. 

 

[gopherit]

?@ you not able to answer my question.

I did.  I basically said that if you can't see the difference of picking up Spencer Ware as a handcuff for Kareem Hunt and never starting him and keeping him rostered all season versus waiver wire churning just so someone can't pickup a player to roster a complete starting lineup.  There is nothing that I can say will change your mind.

 

[Steeler]

How is it different?  What's the acceptable number of players you add to keep your opponent from getting them before it becomes childish officer?

The difference is using one roster spot to churn through several FAs to block them.  If you want to drop all your bench players, replace them all with kickers, and hold all those kickers through the games for the week, then that is not churning and would be ok.

 

[SCT]

You add players to your roster if you think they may be useful or valuable to you. If I pick up Malcom Brown and I’m not the Gurley owner, that’s not a #### move.  I’m doing it in the slight case Gurley goes down and now I have a starting RB.  

If you pick up and drop every back up RB in the league so someone else can’t field a team, that’s a #### move. It does nothing to improve your team or add future value. It’s just screwing with the competitive balance of the league IMO. 

Um, it absolutley improves my team's likelihood of WINNING and adding to my future chance of making the playoffs and WINNING money. 

 

[SCT]

The difference is using one roster spot to churn through several FAs to block them.  If you want to drop all your bench players, replace them all with kickers, and hold all those kickers through the games for the week, then that is not churning and would be ok.

Why would I do that back when the rules allowed me to accomplish same without dropping everyone?

 

[SCT]

I did.  I basically said that if you can't see the difference of picking up Spencer Ware as a handcuff for Kareem Hunt and never starting him and keeping him rostered all season versus waiver wire churning just so someone can't pickup a player to roster a complete starting lineup.  There is nothing that I can say will change your mind.

Ya, you're probably right.  Problem is I play in a capitalist league.

 

[SCT]

i'd be lying if i didnt admit i've rostered players for 24 hours to block... but IMO that is fair game because im playing within the rules.

iamkoza gets it at least.  The people I respect most in 20 years of FF, both local league mates and national "experts", see it the way I do so I'm gonna go ahead and move on in my life now.  The socialists won on the espn platform and changed rules to protect the weaker owners from themselves and that's ok.