Why do leagues lock rosters for playoffs? (1 Viewer)

[Dr. Awesome]

So, a league member just dropped 6 players the week of the finals. He dropped Romo, Vernon Davis, Ahmad Bradshaw, Sea Bass, Lance Moore, and Miles Austin. He has been, for some reason, grouchy all year at one of the teams in the finals. Also, this guy didn't make the playoffs. The guy that has gotten under his skin has pulled off some great trades and went from 0-5 to winning out and having a great team. I think he dropped his players to help the other guy in the finals. I called him out on it and he said "I'm giving everyone a chance to get players." I smell a rat!!!On one side I think this is total B. S. , but on the other side I can see people can do what ever they want to do. I like the lock out non-playoff teams alot, never really thought of that. I'm wondering what the take from the board is on guys dropping players durning playoffs to give others an advantage.

This is an easy fix. Reverse the moves. Lock his roster. Kick him out. Don't let one tool ruin the league. I've played for years and have only had one player pull a similar stunt. We don't lock rosters. And we have no trade deadline as long as you're still in the running for a championship. It's very competitive. Do whatever works for you and your league but don't let one idiot ruin whatever your league style may be. There are always some jerks that can ruin whatever rule you have in place if they're that determined.

 

[Jersey35]

There's a hundred different ways you could do it, and most of those ways would work just fine as long as your league is happy with it. It all depends upon roster size, requirements, playoff system, and league dynamics.

Our dynasty league stops all waiver bidding at the onset of the playoffs. Our stated reason for doing this is to prevent a playoff team from "lucking" into the flavor of the week and riding off into the sunset with a championship for it. Of course, we have 33 player rosters and all of us know that we must plan ahead.

Since we still allow trading through the playoffs, which allows playoff teams, in a pinch, to make a change that way. The non-playoff team usually has the advantage in these trades and it ultimately serves to encourage even more parity.

 

[GregR]

This rule allows for a major injury.......but doesn't allow teams to pick up the "flavor of the week kicker/defense"

Why is this a problem?

I guess this is a personal preference, but our league was founded on the principle of planning ahead and making the draft more important. We also charge for transactions so if teams want to play weekly matchups.....they can, but it will cost them. We like the NFL General Manager aspect better.But, I know each league is different and that's ok.

This is the problem I have with this. To me you haven't made the draft more important. Instead you've done the opposite and made it less important.I'm sitting in first place because in the draft I correctly valued various offensive players over carrying backup TEs and kickers and defenses. And I judged better which players were more likely to be sleepers and could be drafted late. I used my roster space wisely on positions I can't just fill easily from waivers, unlike some other owners in the league. As a result I have lots of starter caliber players on my roster, who I am denying my opponents the use of.

Now your rule comes along and changes fundamentally how the league has worked all season. It changes the correct utilization of my roster space which changes player value. It makes me have to jettison more valuable players for backup kickers and tight ends, which allows teams who used their roster space and draft picks more poorly in the draft to benefit by picking those players up.

I don't see that making the draft more important at all. I love having rules that create a lot of strategic thinking. But this isn't one of them. This just hurts the teams who do things wisely by changing the rules on them midstream.

 

[glumpy]

There's a hundred different ways you could do it, and most of those ways would work just fine as long as your league is happy with it. It all depends upon roster size, requirements, playoff system, and league dynamics.

Without having read through the thread for the inevitable back and forth--this is the answer. In our league active teams can make waiver moves until kickoff as always. Once a team is eliminated their team is frozen. Longstanding, 10-team redraft league with only 150 rostered so there's plenty of play on the wire. And--all transactions of any sort are charged, so it all adds to the pot.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Should waivers be locked in dynasty leagues? Players may be dropped by teams in the playoffs that could improve a weak/non-playoff team next year, but they instead go to an already strong team just because they are still playing. This doesn't make sense to me.

 

[doeseatplace]

Each league obviously does things differently, and I wouldn't want to say one way is better than another, but we encourage owners in our reddraft league to stay active (and spend $3 per waiver move) until the bitter end, even if there is nothing at stake.

The great bulk of our prize payout (90%) goes to the top 3 in total points through week 17, and you only win minimal amounts ($300 for 1st, $100 for 2nd and $50/$25 for making playoffs) and we also pay out $20 for weekly high scorer. Also, there is a losers playoff bracket, but there are no disincentives for finishing last in H2H or total points except shame. So there are built-in incentives to keep playing

But we've been doing this since 1991, and there is a sense of pride in performing well all season. E.G.-I was knocked out of head to head playoffs and have almost no shot to finish in the top 3 in total points, but if I can climb up to #4 or 5 after a miserable start of the season, that means something

I can't help thinking about the seemingly annual November Pool post that ask for ideas on how to keep owners engaged throughout the season. From my perspective, if you essentially shut down owners once they officially are eliminated from contention, what's to stop owners to shut themselves down mid-season when they view their chances to win as an extreme long shot to win anything? I think its better to keep everyone competing all season

An NFL parallell (while not exact) could be seen in last night's game. The Texans had everything to play for, and the Colts had nothing to play for (in fact, many argue that the Colts would be better off giving the game to Houston). But these are division rivals, and during this down year, Indy played hard and pulled a win against an up-and-coming division rival who they have owned in recent years. It wouldn't make sense to have rules that limit the Colts' ability to be competitive in this situation.

The same could be said for fantasy. While a team that has been eliminated from contention is not playing head-to-head against a playoff team, they still may want to "beat" them by preventing them from grabbing the free agent of their choice. This could be done as a result of a long standing rivalry, or maybe Team A knocked Team B out of the playoffs, etc.

The point is that our owners sign up and pay for a 17 game fantasy football season, and if they want to keep playing until the end, even if it harms a team that has something at stake, we think that's a good thing.

Just our experience....I do understand and appreciate the alternative view that once you're out, you're out and shouldn't interfere with teams that are still vying for the championship

 

[LowBb]

I'm hearing good logical arguments for both locking teams and playing through to the bitter end. I guess It really depends on the league you are in. We've had this league since 04 and never had a problem. I have a feeling that jealousy and alcohol are a bad combination in ff. I've decided, in this case, to voice my protest about the manager dropping good players the week before the final game and will address the situation in the off season. I'd always hoped that this would be a "gentlemen's league" but I can see that it is not always the case. I'd rather not have to lock out non-playoff teams, as we do a loser bowl with the idea of giving no- playoffs teams something to fight for. This should be a fun past-time, but owners that do this kind of crap won't play in the league.

 

[LowBb]

By the way, the owner in the finals that this yo-yo is trying to help opted not to buy into the "fire sale." Good form