policyvote Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) As I stated previously, there are several reasons for owners to elect to not drop a player on their roster for a bye-week fill-in. In these cases, doing so has nothing to do with "bad ownership" and has everything to do with being a savvy owner who is more concerned about the rest of the season than one particular week. Why should an owner care about inadvertently "throwing another owner a bone"? He's supposed to care about HIS team and HIS team alone. Yeah, and when he gets screwed by another "savvy owner" starting players on their bye against his division rival, you can guarantee he'll come in here steamed as hell and asking how he can best kick that dude out of the league. Again, if your league is set up so that you'd have to drop a good player to hold a second kicker on your roster, or if starting a mediocre defense is worse than starting no defense at all, then there's a huge problem with the league setup and/or scoring system. Those things should then be changed. No excuse. Rules that penalize bye-week starts are for leagues with lazy or corrupt owners. You can avoid this mess simply by playing with better people. Yeah, like people that understand you put in your best lineup every week to make the whole league as fair and even as possible. Peace policy Edited October 2, 2006 by policyvote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 A better owner would not intentionally leave a bye week player in the game. Dude, your missing the point, the better owner WANTS to WIN, if starting a bye week players helps him to accomplish this, then saying that he's a bad owner is flat out the dumbest comment i've ever heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Dude, your missing the point, the better owner WANTS to WIN, if starting a bye week players helps him to accomplish this, then saying that he's a bad owner is flat out the dumbest comment i've ever heard. If starting a player on a bye helps you win, you're playing in a retarded league. No application to FF in general. You do not start players on a bye, end of story. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 As I stated previously, there are several reasons for owners to elect to not drop a player on their roster for a bye-week fill-in. In these cases, doing so has nothing to do with "bad ownership" and has everything to do with being a savvy owner who is more concerned about the rest of the season than one particular week. Why should an owner care about inadvertently "throwing another owner a bone"? He's supposed to care about HIS team and HIS team alone. Well said, some people just don't get the direction of this post obviously. The want to try to tie an owner starting a bye week player as a "bad" or "non-active" owner, when it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Yeah, and when he gets screwed by another "savvy owner" starting players on their bye, you can guarantee he'll come in here steamed as hell and asking how he can best kick that dude out of the league. Unless there's evidence of collusion, it's not the bye-week owner's job to beat other teams for you. Owners need to act in THEIR best interest, not yours. Dropping Jerious Norwood or Bernard Berrian into the FA pool to pick up a bye-week kicker is obviously not in their best interest. Again, if your league is set up so that you'd have to drop a good player to hold a second kicker on your roster, or if starting a mediocre defense is worse than starting no defense at all, then there's a huge problem with the league setup and/or scoring system. Those things should then be changed. No excuse. Agreed that more roster spots might not be a bad idea, but I disagree with your totalitarian approach to running leagues. Where do you draw the line? Do you reject trades when you SUSPECT that one owner is getting taken advantage of? Do you call out other owners when they start what you believe are the "wrong" players on a particular weekend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Well said, some people just don't get the direction of this post obviously. The want to try to tie an owner starting a bye week player as a "bad" or "non-active" owner, when it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point here. Uh, the title of this thread is "starting bye week players". Your first post just asks if people have rules against it in their leagues, and you outline a scenario where you'd rather draft and bid on sleeper skill players than be forced to pick up a second kicker or defense. All of this is, then, absolutely on topic. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 If starting a player on a bye helps you win, you're playing in a retarded league. No application to FF in general. You do not start players on a bye, end of story. Peace policy You must be correct sir, i suppose i'm playing with a bunch of retards. List of Huddler owners in our league that allow a bye week player to be started Perchoutofwater Sgt.Ryan URLACHERisGOD rbmcdonald Droobie42 thecerwin Gonkis List of owners in our league that would rather start a bye week D then their own D yo mama TDFFFreak BigMikeinNY tonorator Kid Cid PantherDave JoJoTheWebToedBoy Apocalypse ksu70 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 My local plays with Mandatory Minimums, and limited waiver moves. You MUST carry 2 Pks and Ds at all times, in addition to 2 QB's, and 4 RBs & 4 WR/TEs. 4 spots are 'open.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) With some of the comments here, it appears that some our in favor of teams having to forfeit a weeks game if they can't line up and active full roster. Many leagues have ALL starting QB's and RB's taken as well as Defenses. Am i to assume since you can't obtain an ACTIVE starter you are a "bad" owner, trying to tank games I play in 32 Homers league and bye week players are started virtually every week, still no disqualifications there thankfully I suppose in the BCS or Bling Bling league i'm in, if i run out of free agent money before week 10 trying to improve my team and don't have a bye week kicker for week 9 , then i should ask the league to give me 0 and a forfeit. Edited October 2, 2006 by theeohiostate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) If your rules are set up where starting a D that isnt even playing will help you more then starting a D that is playing something is terribly wrong with your scoring system..You can throw all the huddle names you want at me . It essentially takes a lot of competition out of the league IMO..Instead of someone being forced to actually act like a competitive owner and seek out a better D or trade for one you are giving the option of sitting it out ..Im using a D as examples this could apply for any position. Edited October 2, 2006 by whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) Many leagues have ALL starting QB's and RB's taken as well as Defenses. Am i to assume since you can't obtain an ACTIVE starter you are a "bad" owner, trying to tank games No, no. Different story. If your D is on a bye and there is no other D to pick up, all are owned, there's nothing you can do. But to leave the spot on a bye when you can but won't make a move is not cool. There is a difference between not being able to make a move and not making one because you don't want to. Just my opinion. Seems that there are many leagues who don't have a problem with this. I know in mine, it would be a hugh issue. Edited October 2, 2006 by The Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giants56 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I am in a league that has negatives for a defense and it is absolutely NOT allowed to start a bye week defense for that very reason. But you also have to draft two defenses so drop/adds don't really come into play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 You must be correct sir, i suppose i'm playing with a bunch of retards. List of Huddler owners in our league that allow a bye week player to be started Perchoutofwater Sgt.Ryan URLACHERisGOD rbmcdonald Droobie42 thecerwin Gonkis List of owners in our league that would rather start a bye week D then their own D yo mama TDFFFreak BigMikeinNY tonorator Kid Cid PantherDave JoJoTheWebToedBoy Apocalypse ksu70 Whoa there chachi, don't pretend to speak for me. While I think the defensive scoring sucks (I STILL blame DMD for this) don't even begin to think I'll start a bye week D. That's not FF IMO and I want no part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 You must be correct sir, i suppose i'm playing with a bunch of retards. List of Huddler owners in our league that allow a bye week player to be started Perchoutofwater Sgt.Ryan URLACHERisGOD rbmcdonald Droobie42 thecerwin Gonkis List of owners in our league that would rather start a bye week D then their own D yo mama TDFFFreak BigMikeinNY tonorator Kid Cid PantherDave JoJoTheWebToedBoy Apocalypse ksu70 LOL @ TOS throwing Huddlers under the bus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I don't feel a league should mandate you field an active player.. I agree, if I want to field an inactive player I should have the right to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 LOL @ TOS throwing Huddlers under the bus... Shut up pencildyk, you've no ideal what your talking about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 Whoa there chachi, don't pretend to speak for me. While I think the defensive scoring sucks (I STILL blame DMD for this) don't even begin to think I'll start a bye week D. That's not FF IMO and I want no part of it. Note Kid, i said would RATHER start. I think we would all rather start a bye week D and take a 0 rather then i wavier D and get -10 to -20 points. That was the point of my post when linking some league members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I don't belong on that list either. I understand the intent of our defensive scoring and was not looking for a way to circumvent it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Shut up pencildyk, you've no ideal what your talking about Do you feel threatened? No reason to resort to name calling TOS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Unless there's evidence of collusion, it's not the bye-week owner's job to beat other teams for you. Owners need to act in THEIR best interest, not yours. Dropping Jerious Norwood or Bernard Berrian into the FA pool to pick up a bye-week kicker is obviously not in their best interest. Agreed that more roster spots might not be a bad idea, but I disagree with your totalitarian approach to running leagues. Where do you draw the line? Do you reject trades when you SUSPECT that one owner is getting taken advantage of? Do you call out other owners when they start what you believe are the "wrong" players on a particular weekend? Absolutely not. Just the opposite, in fact. Trades should never be disallowed unless there is PROOF of collusion. Starting lineups should never be questioned unless inactive players are started when active players are available. One man's steak is another man's poison and vice versa. However, starting an inactive player is always bad, it's bad for the league, it's bad ownership, and it's bad sportsmanship. For the millionth time, if a league is set up so that it truly is a competitve disadvantage to have a second kicker or defense, or it truly is worse to start a mediocre player than no player at all, then the league is broken and needs to be fixed. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Absolutely not. Just the opposite, in fact. Trades should never be disallowed unless there is PROOF of collusion. Starting lineups should never be questioned unless inactive players are started when active players are available. One man's steak is another man's poison and vice versa. However, starting an inactive player is always bad, it's bad for the league, it's bad ownership, and it's bad sportsmanship. For the millionth time, if a league is set up so that it truly is a competitve disadvantage to have a second kicker or defense, or it truly is worse to start a mediocre player than no player at all, then the league is broken and needs to be fixed. The best way to solve this problem, IMO, would be to expand roster to, say, 18 players. However, one also runs into the stacking-rosters-with-players problem then as well. Unless there is obvious collusion, an owner should be allowed to set the roster however he/she desires. I've played in leagues with smaller (12-player) rosters and have seen many owners not bother replacing their bye-week kickers and DTs because they don't want to drop a player from their bench. I never won a championship in that league and I'm sure that one of these other owners inadvertently helped an opponent beat me. And it never really bothered me. JMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 With some of the comments here, it appears that some our in favor of teams having to forfeit a weeks game if they can't line up and active full roster. Many leagues have ALL starting QB's and RB's taken as well as Defenses. Am i to assume since you can't obtain an ACTIVE starter you are a "bad" owner, trying to tank games I play in 32 Homers league and bye week players are started virtually every week, still no disqualifications there thankfully I suppose in the BCS or Bling Bling league i'm in, if i run out of free agent money before week 10 trying to improve my team and don't have a bye week kicker for week 9 , then i should ask the league to give me 0 and a forfeit. For starters, 32 Homers is a totally different proposition. For seconds, I'm not repeating myself anymore. Everyone should have two kickers and two defenses, or your WW system should allow for the picking up of bye week covers. Starting an inactive player on purpose should never be an advantageous play, and if it is, then your rules are set up badly--you're not playing FF at that point. You might as well stop drafting kickers and defenses entirely. Hell, why stop there? Stop drafting QBs, WRs, and TEs, and just play Fantasy Running Backs. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) List of owners in our league that would rather start a bye week D then their own D yo mama TDFFFreak BigMikeinNY tonorator Kid Cid PantherDave JoJoTheWebToedBoy Apocalypse ksu70 I can't speak for anyone else in our league, but I'd rather start a DEF that plays. I just wish I wasn't punished for doing so, relative to starting a DEF on a bye. Edited October 2, 2006 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Did I mention that this is all DMD's fault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) The best way to solve this problem, IMO, would be to expand roster to, say, 18 players. However, one also runs into the stacking-rosters-with-players problem then as well. Not if you require two defenses and two kickers be on the roster, or make WW transactions easy. In Dynasty Wars, I only carry one kicker, Jason Elam. This year, the week before his bye, I picked up Morten Andersen for $2 our of a $70/yr allotment, and Andersen when out and kicked five field goals. Any owner with a pulse should be able to handle this concept. But no, some would rather throw a game than have to deal with the most basic of FF concepts: pay attention, and turn in your best lineup every week. Unless there is obvious collusion, an owner should be allowed to set the roster however he/she desires. I've played in leagues with smaller (12-player) rosters and have seen many owners not bother replacing their bye-week kickers and DTs because they don't want to drop a player from their bench. I never won a championship in that league and I'm sure that one of these other owners inadvertently helped an opponent beat me. And it never really bothered me. JMO. Uh, well, yay for you, I guess. I'd rather play in a well-run, well-set-up, fair league. Peace policy Edited October 2, 2006 by policyvote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.