Commisioner question

[eagles2010]

Here's the deal. We start 2 RB's and a flex RB/WR/TE. Well this owner started Forte in his Flex position Thursday night. Jacobs and Lynch are his starting RB's at the start of Thursday Night games. Now the news is out that Jacobs has been ruled out and he requested that I change Forte to his RB position so he can insert Torry Holt into his Flex. Without making any changes he is stuck starting Ahmad Bradshaw or another back-up RB. I know me and other owners have been able to use our judgement in regards to a Flex position player incase a change needed to be made. I have never left myself without a viable options when I knew a player was questionable or had his status in doubt. Does anyone think he should have seen that Jacobs was questionable and has been dealing with a bum knee? If he knew this player had a chance to be inactive, wouldn't you prepare your line-up accordingly? Just wondering if I should make the change for him this week. It's the semi -finals and its my opponent. I am holding no type of feelings for the situation even if he was another teams opponent. Ahmad Bradshaw may have a better game than Torry Holt, so it's not a matter of me wanting to help myself. It's a matter of doing the right thing and not giving anyone else an excuse next season or next week if I make the change this week. Dont want to open a can of worms. What do you think I should do? Make the change and make him happy with his commisioner, OR state that his line-up locked in Forte at his Flex when league rules specified he was locked 5 minutes before kick-off? If I dont make the change, I risk being the Bad guy commisioner trying to help himself. Not sure what to do

[Zooty]

I say yes on semantics.

 

My leagues on MFL are setup with 2-3 RBs, 3-4 WRs for example allowing you to make a change at any time between positions.

 

Some websites are setup 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 flex (assuming your is something like this). I personally don't like this since it causes this type of problem with I think is unfair and restrictive. So I'd let him change and make a ruling that it can be done in the future.

 

I guess there could be a problem with owners who have been screwed by this in the past.

[Wolverines Fan]

he should have seen that Jacobs was questionable and has been dealing with a bum knee? If he knew this player had a chance to be inactive, wouldn't you prepare your line-up accordingly

 

I think this quote says it all.

 

Unless your league has some kind of rule about making switches in this kind of situation, I think he is s.o.l.

 

The Thursday games are a pain in the neck sometimes when you have a backup in the game and injury worries about another player who is playing Sunday, I get this. I respectfully think he should have planned accorindingly though.

[eagles2010]

I contacted another owner in the league that I have played with for years and he thinks the rules are the rules and this owner failed to realize the tool he had at his disposal in this position, the flex spot. Why not make Jacobs your flex just incase he wasnt active? Then you can make the change if need be. It's a failure to manage your team and not the commish's job to help fix mishandling of line-ups for owners. I appreciate the responses from owners from MFL, but fact is, we played all season with our league rules the way they are, and have to agree with sticking to our league rules on this issue. Week 15 probably isnt the time to make a change . I would be alot more comfortable if the owner wasn't my opponent, but that 's the breaks. Initially, I wasn;t sure what to do. I think a poll would be 50/50 on this one.

 

My eyes were opened to the idea of having options for 2-3 RB's or 3-4 WR's next season, as when I noticed that post it really made me think about it for a minute. I've always played CBS leagues, so I never had that option. I just think it comed down to finishing the season as is, and discussing the issue after the season. Besides Bradshaw could outplay Holt anyways, then maybe the owner will thank me when Bradshaw busts a 65 yard TD in the 3rd quarter!!!

 

Hopefully, in the end it wont be a factor win or lose for either of us, as these situations could make an owner have to make a decision on returning. Its a dynasty and we all want our owners to continue on for many seasons. I have to go with my initial gut feeling when I read his post, it's too late to change it now, but I'm not happy it came down to pissing in his cereal either

[Henry Muto]

You should be allowed to move your flex position to another starting spot. If your flex was Forte then he should be allowed to move Forte to a RB spot and put in a WR flex or whatever he wants. That is how it works in all leagues I play in with a flex.

[BeachBum]

IF you actually have a lineup position called "flex", and others called "RB", then I would think you have to pick that way when you make your lineup. In this case, Forte was in the Flex position and has already played his game. So you cannot change him to some other poition after the fact.. If you are allowed either 2 or 3 RB and 2 or 3 WR, you would have played Forte as a RB and still could start either 1 RB 3 Wr or 2 RB 2 WR.

 

You should not allow the change.

 

Or so I think!

[BeachBum]

You should be allowed to move your flex position to another starting spot. If your flex was Forte then he should be allowed to move Forte to a RB spot and put in a WR flex or whatever he wants. That is how it works in all leagues I play in with a flex.

 

This is just wrong. If this is the case, why would you ever do anything but name your Thursday (or Saturday) starter as a 'flex'. Then AFTEER you know what else is going on you can change your mind and start a different mix. This actually gives an advantage to those with a Thursday RB/WR.

[Henry Muto]

This is just wrong. If this is the case, why would you ever do anything but name your Thursday (or Saturday) starter as a 'flex'. Then AFTEER you know what else is going on you can change your mind and start a different mix. This actually gives an advantage to those with a Thursday RB/WR.

 

Actually doing it that was is the RIGHT way. Doing it the way you guys think is wrong. Makes no sense at all actually to tell a guy he can't move his player who he started from flex to RB...it is a flex which means RB WR or TE. Wheather the slot he started him is called flex or RB does not make a difference. If your rules actually force the guy to keep his player at the flex then that is pretty dumb. He is starting his player as a RB and it doesn't make a difference if it is under flex or not. You can start 2 RB's 2 WR's and a flex (RB, WR or TE)...so he started 1 RB so far this week...he can now still start 2 RB's and 2 WR's or 1 RB and 3 WR's...seems pretty simple to me and stupid to force the guy to start someone he doesn't want to just because he accidently left him in at the so called "flex" name. Sometimes you have to actually think about what your saying before you say it then you don't make a fool of yourself by saying it.

[Henry Muto]

Umm and how does that give you an advantage to start a player on Thur/sat ? Again that makes no sense...if the rules force you to play the guy as a "flex" then he just starts him at RB...wow that really changes alot ? Again you made 0 sense with your logic and statement. Give me 1 example of how that gives you an advantage and I will blow it up by telling you how it is not an advantage.

[BeachBum]

Actually doing it that was is the RIGHT way. Doing it the way you guys think is wrong. Makes no sense at all actually to tell a guy he can't move his player who he started from flex to RB...it is a flex which means RB WR or TE. Wheather the slot he started him is called flex or RB does not make a difference. If your rules actually force the guy to keep his player at the flex then that is pretty dumb. He is starting his player as a RB and it doesn't make a difference if it is under flex or not. You can start 2 RB's 2 WR's and a flex (RB, WR or TE)...so he started 1 RB so far this week...he can now still start 2 RB's and 2 WR's or 1 RB and 3 WR's...seems pretty simple to me and stupid to force the guy to start someone he doesn't want to just because he accidently left him in at the so called "flex" name. Sometimes you have to actually think about what your saying before you say it then you don't make a fool of yourself by saying it.

 

You obviously missed the original discussion. IF the lineup requirements are for, as an example, 2 RB, 2 WR, an 1 either RB/WR/TE, then you would play any RB as a RB, etc. IF instead, you have a starting position called FLEX, which can be either a RB, WR, or TE, then once you select your FLEX player you cannot decide to change him to some other position.

 

To quote somebody, "Sometimes you have to actually think about what your saying before you say it then you don't make a fool of yourself by saying it."

 

[BeachBum]

Umm and how does that give you an advantage to start a player on Thur/sat ? Again that makes no sense...if the rules force you to play the guy as a "flex" then he just starts him at RB...wow that really changes alot ? Again you made 0 sense with your logic and statement. Give me 1 example of how that gives you an advantage and I will blow it up by telling you how it is not an advantage.

 

I start Forte at Flex, then Jacobs who I was going to use as my RB is hurt and cannot start, and my next bext player is Holt, a WR, but I cannot use him cause I only have a position open for a RB.

 

Now if I had started Forte as a RB, I could still choose to use either a RB or WR as my Flex.

 

Oh, but that is what has been said all along. Have yo missed reading his thread?

 

[rhippens]

poor lineup management. he obviously wanted to play forte, he should've started him at the hard RB position and figured out the mess as the weekend went on.

 

you absolutely should not open this can of worms.

 

while the flex spot can a rb, wr, te, etc., it should still be viewed as a position, not a wild card. he choose to start forte at his flex position, so forte is his flex player this week.

[Scooby]

50/50 Sure, he should be allowed to change. Blame the NFL for this Thursday mess. Flex is short for flexible, being that it is a wildcard player sitting in as a special athelete. ON THE OTHER HAND...I do feel that you should never start a flex player before any other positions though. Always start your "real" positions first (thursday game being first), therefore Forte would have been a RB under my rule of thumb. Keep the "flex" position flexible. But put it in your rules for next year what your league wants to interpret this as. This could go either way 50/50.

[yellowdog]

IF you actually have a lineup position called "flex", and others called "RB", then I would think you have to pick that way when you make your lineup. In this case, Forte was in the Flex position and has already played his game. So you cannot change him to some other poition after the fact.. If you are allowed either 2 or 3 RB and 2 or 3 WR, you would have played Forte as a RB and still could start either 1 RB 3 Wr or 2 RB 2 WR.

 

You should not allow the change.

 

Or so I think!

I agree with this.

[ts]

IF you actually have a lineup position called "flex", and others called "RB", then I would think you have to pick that way when you make your lineup. In this case, Forte was in the Flex position and has already played his game. So you cannot change him to some other poition after the fact.. If you are allowed either 2 or 3 RB and 2 or 3 WR, you would have played Forte as a RB and still could start either 1 RB 3 Wr or 2 RB 2 WR.

 

You should not allow the change.

 

Or so I think!

 

 

IMHO this is the correct interpretation.

[whomper]

That game is over and Forte was his flex player when it started. Its an open and shut case. Forte is his flex for this week.

[Grits and Shins]

If you actually designate a player to be your flex player (which I think is ludicrous) then after that player has played you can not change him out of the flex spot. I fail to understand why a league would require that a flex player be specifically identified.

 

If the rules don't specifically state that flex players have to be identified seperately but the software requires the flex player be named then I say the owner is not being unreasonable in his request.

[eagles2010]

Glad to see some extra input on this issue. My league mates agreed that he mismanaged his line-up this week. We are sorry it happened, and like I said before " I hate pissing in his cereal " but that's the breaks. It all could have been avoided with a simple adjustement to his line-up before the Thursday game. Like another reader posted, " I use my flex as my last position to fill, not as my first start of the week for these reasons " is exactly how owners who are on the ball and ahead of the game manage their line-ups. I am sure the owner with the line-up request will have his own argument, but as commisioner, we cannot open this issue up week 15. We can discuss it in the off-season and decide what to do. Even now a few owners are allready against changing anything. They like the flex against say a 2-3 RB, 3-4 WR set-up from what they have said so far.

 

In the end, I hope it doesnt decide the game and then it won't be as painful a mistake. Thats all I'm hoping for at this moment

[Grits and Shins]

Glad to see some extra input on this issue. My league mates agreed that he mismanaged his line-up this week. We are sorry it happened, and like I said before " I hate pissing in his cereal " but that's the breaks. It all could have been avoided with a simple adjustement to his line-up before the Thursday game. Like another reader posted, " I use my flex as my last position to fill, not as my first start of the week for these reasons " is exactly how owners who are on the ball and ahead of the game manage their line-ups. I am sure the owner with the line-up request will have his own argument, but as commisioner, we cannot open this issue up week 15. We can discuss it in the off-season and decide what to do. Even now a few owners are allready against changing anything. They like the flex against say a 2-3 RB, 3-4 WR set-up from what they have said so far.

 

In the end, I hope it doesnt decide the game and then it won't be as painful a mistake. Thats all I'm hoping for at this moment

 

Why does your league require the flex player be specifically identified in the first place ... that seems pretty silly to me.

[eagles2010]

The league is what is is. We have the entire season started 1 QB, 2 RB's, 3 WR's, 1 TE and 1 FLEX. For the argument, the IDP's and kicker are not really relevant. So, this owner played all season knowing that he had to manage his line-up accordingly. The FLEX is a designated spot an owner can choose between any rb/wr/te available. He should have noticed Jacobs was questionable, and in all likelyhood going to miss the game or play at a limited capacity. Jacobs knee injury just didnt come up , it's been ongoing. The rest of the league has managed to not leave themselves in a position to ask the commisioner to move a player all season. Why would it be OK week 15? Grits mentioned it being Ludicrous to have to designate a player a FLEX. CBS leagues are like that. I dont ever remember seeing an option to make it 2-3 RB's or 3-4 WR's when we all made the rules together, in fact it never came up. The rules were designed with help from polls and the entire league participated in every aspect of the league rules/rosters/scoring. It's a great league, good owners. No slackers, but this week one guy made a mistake. He didnt use his tool the "FLEX" to manage his line-up as best as he could have in my opinion and in my league mates opinion.

 

Another reader here mentioned I might be biased. Cant remember who, but to be honest, the first thing I did was consult with other owners, and even questioned owners in my 2 player keeper league. There is no Bias here. I am a fair commisioner. Then on top of that requested the input from many owner/commisioners here at the Huddle for a clear answer before proceeding. I really need to be careful with what I do as I don't want to have another situation in the future and have my decision this time haunt me or the league

[eagles2010]

I don't have a clear cut answer Grits. CBS sets it up with the FLEX a designated position. On our line-up page, FLEX is one of the 13 spots we start each week. We have a defensive Flex too. I don't think I saw an option to set it up with 2-3 RB, or 3-4 WR's from what I remember. I could be wrong about that, but the league has been run the same way all season. I understand that there will be some disagreement on this subject. What I do know is that this entire argument could have been avoided had the owner managed his line-up accordingly, right? Should commisioners fix an owners mistake when he doesnt manage his line-up?

[ts]

...Should commisioners fix an owners mistake when he doesnt manage his line-up?

 

Nope.

[Grits and Shins]

The league is what is is. We have the entire season started 1 QB, 2 RB's, 3 WR's, 1 TE and 1 FLEX. For the argument, the IDP's and kicker are not really relevant. So, this owner played all season knowing that he had to manage his line-up accordingly. The FLEX is a designated spot an owner can choose between any rb/wr/te available. He should have noticed Jacobs was questionable, and in all likelyhood going to miss the game or play at a limited capacity. Jacobs knee injury just didnt come up , it's been ongoing. The rest of the league has managed to not leave themselves in a position to ask the commisioner to move a player all season. Why would it be OK week 15? Grits mentioned it being Ludicrous to have to designate a player a FLEX. CBS leagues are like that. I dont ever remember seeing an option to make it 2-3 RB's or 3-4 WR's when we all made the rules together, in fact it never came up. The rules were designed with help from polls and the entire league participated in every aspect of the league rules/rosters/scoring. It's a great league, good owners. No slackers, but this week one guy made a mistake. He didnt use his tool the "FLEX" to manage his line-up as best as he could have in my opinion and in my league mates opinion.

 

Another reader here mentioned I might be biased. Cant remember who, but to be honest, the first thing I did was consult with other owners, and even questioned owners in my 2 player keeper league. There is no Bias here. I am a fair commisioner. Then on top of that requested the input from many owner/commisioners here at the Huddle for a clear answer before proceeding. I really need to be careful with what I do as I don't want to have another situation in the future and have my decision this time haunt me or the league

 

So it seems as if your software requires you designate a flex player.

 

Do your rules say that you must specify a flex player? "We have the entire season started 1 QB, 2 RB's, 3 WR's, 1 TE and 1 FLEX." doesn't equate to a flex player must be specifically stated. In fact that rule looks just about the same as the rule in all my leagues that allow flex players. So if it is the software forcing you to specifically name a flex player and not your rules then I think your owner isn't being unreasonable.