Mid season rule change by commish!

[golferdoc]

I am in a private Yahoo league that has had the same rules for 2.5 seasons. The commish doesn't like the fact that some of the players make a large number of moves...75 for me and 130 for another player so far this season. We have had had an unlimited number of moves for the last 2.5 years. In this league I have on occassion, picked up a player so that my competitor can't use him against me...which is within the rules in our non-public league...but is frowned upon. He talked about changing the rule to prevent so many moves last year...but never did. We pay $20 each to play and the money is split between the top finishers...12 managers in our league. He has changed the rules (this morning) without a league vote so that everyone now only has 40 more moves left and all players are on waivers from the time there game is scheduled to begin...supposedly. However, I just checked and all players are now on waivers?

I don't have a problem with the rule change per se (seems fair for everyone) but I am concerned with it being done in mid season without some kind of vote. It also markedly changes the way we have been playing in this league & many of the players have years of FFB experience while four of us have only played for the last 2.5 years. I feel this puts some of us at a marked disadvantage. Your input would be greatly appreciated & I plan on showing it to the commish. Thanks. By the way, this is a IDP league that has the following positions and is a live snake draft...QB,RB,RB,WR,WR,TE,W/R/T,K,DEF,DB,DB,DL,DL,LB,LB.

[Patriots]

You should not make rule changes mid season.

[Patriots]

Also, we had the same problem so we charge $5 a transaction now. That makes it fair.

[golferdoc]

There are not many decent players left so it seems I have to use a committee approach dependant on the matchup for any particular week...which increases the number of moves I make. The league has no limit to the number of players you can pick up for any particular position so there tends to be some hoarding of the best players by some managers. That approach isn't possible if the number of moves is limited.

[detlef]

I think there should always be a vote in cases like these. However, unlike most, I think that any rule change that does not effect any team more than another (basically scoring changes) should not have to be unanimous.

 

This is just such an instance because nobody is singled out. Nobody drafted WRs early because the scoring system favored them only to have the PPR reduced or something.

 

And, btw, I think roster churning to keep your opponent from getting players is poor form, so I'd be a vote in favor of anything that limits that. "All's fair" and all that, but the rest of that saying is "in love and war" and I don't feel FF is either.

 

None the less, a vote does need to happen.

[golferdoc]

I am 100% in agreement with the roster churning but it is too subjective to enforce a rule against it. Unlike most people, I am one of hte few that would admit I have done it...and it never worked out when I did either! My opponent picked up someone else that player did better than the guy I kept from him. My biggest problem with the rule change is that I use a position by committe approach and that requires a lot of moves. That apporach won me the league last year but now...in the middle of the season I suddenly can't use it anymore. Managers with great players don't need to bench their players for certain weekly matchups but those of us with mediocre players can't depend on our guys every week. Steve Jackson just isn't going to help me some weeks while the guy with A. Foster will play his guy every week but the bye.

[golferdoc]

My entire strategy for the year is ruined by the mid season rule change. I would not have drafted the same way if these new rules were in place at the beginning of the season!

[detlef]

So, had you known you couldn't make 150 moves, you would have drafted better players? Is that your angle?

 

And, again, I agree that the change should have been put to a vote. However, if a vote was proposed to cap the number of moves for the 2nd half of the season at 40 (which is 5 per week even if you make the SB) and someone complained that it should have to be unanimous because they were being singled out, I would point out how woefully flawed their logic was.

[golferdoc]

I have no idea how to play with these new rules. When can I pick up players? What happens when others want the same players? If my players get hurt late in the week and can't play on Sunday can I get a substitute? What happens to players I need for THursday night games? I am suddenly thrown into a situation that is familiar to only several of the managers including the commissioner. He admits he is already in another league that uses similar rules. Yes, I am used to making tons of moves and now suddenly I am not allowed to do that...it changes the playing field markedly for myself and several other players in our league.

As far as the committe approach thing goes...you do draft worse players in some positions...just more of them with that approach. It isn't a good strategy if your moves for the season are limited either.

[Big Country]

So, the main issue is not neccessarily the cap on moves, but a change from what was apparently a FCFS at all times system to a waiver system?

 

I guess a little clarification on what changes (other than the cap on moves) were made is in order as it is not exactly clear.

[golferdoc]

Sorry...waiver rule: Game time until Tuesday. THe other rule is the maximum moves from now until the end of the season is 40.

The commish says that works well in another league he is in. So he changes two rules.

[Savage Beatings]

I can't imagine being in a league (especially with money on the line) where a Commissioner would unilaterally make a major mid-season rule change like this. I agree that some mid-season rule changes can be allowed under the right circumstances, but even then you've got to have a vote. Demand a vote. If you don't get one, then for only a $20 loss I would walk on principle.

[bostonsoxandy]

Well put, Savage Beatings...this would ruin FF for me. Either get it back to the way it was before, have a vote where it is unanimously agreed to change the rule (that means NO ONE opposes it, not just a simple majority), or walk away and ask for your money back...

[Seahawks21]

I don't understand what could possibly be problematic about having unlimited moves in football, where nobody plays more than one game in a week. I certainly see it in basketball and baseball, but I don't see the advantage in football. I'm quite certain the better teams in the league aren't the teams doing this, correct? What am I missing?

[stevegrab]

Agree with what most of the others said, no rule change like that should be done without a vote. Sounds like your commissioner thinks he is the dictator of the league.

 

I can see your issue with roster moves, both with capping and changing from FCFS to waivers. No way should that be done without a vote, and I really don't think it is a good idea to change that kind of a rule midseason (even with a vote, unless it is unanimous).

[delusions of grandeur]

Sounds like the commish got sick of people rushing to the computer to pick up the latest hot player (this is the exact reason you should have waivers run from gametime until Tuesday, so the ones who are by a computer aren't rewarded over those who aren't). 150 moves is rather excessive, and with you admittedly roster churning, I can see the need to take action.

 

However, it absolutely needs to be brought to a vote, and I disagree with Detlef about unanimity. I think it should have to be almost if not completely unanimous (or even absent a good, and not just selfish argument to keep it the same).

 

To the OP, I have to seriously doubt that you drafted lesser players jsut because of a comittee approach that would only be more sound by drafting better players.... And no one drafts with the idea that they plan to drop any of the players, or why would you draft them?

 

As for you not understanding the waiver rules, talk to your commish and find out: What is the process for waiver priority? Is it a rolling waiver order (go to the end of the list when you use it)? Is it worst-is-first in priority? All this means is that players will be locked down until waivers happen on Tuesdays, and then you can add/drop as you please the rest of the week (within your 5 moves a week). Is that really that burdensome to your strategy (if you can call it that. I think being the quickest to a computer to roster churn isn't exactly admirable strategy).

[detlef]

Unless I'm not understanding you correctly, switching from FCFS to game time to Tuesday waivers (which is likely the most common way it is handled) will not get in the way of you picking up players later in the week. Provided a player's game has not begun, he's available.

 

Typically, how it works is that players are locked from the start of their game to Tuesday, at which point waivers are done and then there is a FCFS period.

 

However, to echo BC, it's not exactly clear what happened.

 

If I had to guess, it would be as such. These guys had a league going for some time and everything was cool. Then, you and your buddy joined and started using the waiver system in a manner that they thought was bush league. So, a number of them talked to the commish (let's just guess that number amounted to 7 or more) and they changed it. Not cool, mind you. But I guess that's what happened.

 

Perhaps it's a less than subtle message?

[detlef]

Sounds like the commish got sick of people rushing to the computer to pick up the latest hot player (this is the exact reason you should have waivers run from gametime until Tuesday, so the ones who are by a computer aren't rewarded over those who aren't). 150 moves is rather excessive, and with you admittedly roster churning, I can see the need to take action.

 

However, it absolutely needs to be brought to a vote, and I disagree with Detlef about unanimity. I think it should have to be almost if not completely unanimous (or even absent a good, and not just selfish argument to keep it the same).

 

To the OP, I have to seriously doubt that you drafted lesser players jsut because of a comittee approach that would only be more sound by drafting better players.... And no one drafts with the idea that they plan to drop any of the players, or why would you draft them?

 

As for you not understanding the waiver rules, talk to your commish and find out: What is the process for waiver priority? Is it a rolling waiver order (go to the end of the list when you use it)? Is it worst-is-first in priority? All this means is that players will be locked down until waivers happen on Tuesdays, and then you can add/drop as you please the rest of the week (within your 5 moves a week). Is that really that burdensome to your strategy (if you can call it that. I think being the quickest to a computer to roster churn isn't exactly admirable strategy).

 

The only reason why I don't like to overuse the unanimous bit is that it stands in the way of making the league a better one now as opposed to later. Mostly because it just takes one contrairan dick to hold things up.

 

That said, I've always played in leagues where I trusted the integrity of the core group of guys. So, I have no fear of the tyranny of the majority in this case and don't think everyone would unjustly gang up on one guy just because he was winning or something stupid like that. On the other hand, I have been in leagues where some a-hole friend of a friend joined and found some effing loophole. So, I want to be able to address that sort of thing.

 

Thus, I do think that majority should be fine unless it can truly be proven that you would have drafted differently had the rule been in place. Which basically means scoring and line-up requirements. There may be others, of course.

[golferdoc]

THe managers with the best players don't need to make nearly as many moves. I did roster churn to prevent someone else from using a player...one time! And I might do it again in the future as long as it isn't one of our league rules. The waiver priority is worst in league is first on waivers...and it rotates. It perhaps doesn't even ruin my strategy. What is worse...a player that admits he has made a legal move to prevent someone else from using a player against him or the commish that changes the rules mid season using the circumstances I have described above?

Why does it bother him so much that some of us make a lot of moves? The waiver rule doesn't prevent roster churning at all...so why limit the number of moves? It makes no sense to me. THere are three of us newbies that have made tons of moves the last 2.5 years and we have all done very well in the league. That seems to be his issue because he has said more than once that he has never seen managers make as many moves as some of us do in this league.

[delusions of grandeur]

THe managers with the best players don't need to make nearly as many moves. I did roster churn to prevent someone else from using a player...one time! And I might do it again in the future as long as it isn't one of our league rules. The waiver priority is worst in league is first on waivers...and it rotates. It perhaps doesn't even ruin my strategy. What is worse...a player that admits he has made a legal move to prevent someone else from using a player against him or the commish that changes the rules mid season using the circumstances I have described above?

Why does it bother him so much that some of us make a lot of moves? The waiver rule doesn't prevent roster churning at all...so why limit the number of moves? It makes no sense to me. THere are three of us newbies that have made tons of moves the last 2.5 years and we have all done very well in the league. That seems to be his issue because he has said more than once that he has never seen managers make as many moves as some of us do in this league.

 

 

As we said above, we are in full agreement that not bringing it to a vote is more problematic than the rule in question.

 

However, people rushing to computers and making endless moves is not good for the league either, particularly when it's used to prevent other owners from making moves jsut because they don't happen to be sitting by a computer when the active owners are. Waivers need to be used in all leagues for this purpose to ensure that all owners have equal access (depending on waiver priority) to the hot pickups of the week. After that you still have on average 5 moves a week you can still make. Methinks that's not unreasonable at all.

 

Maybe it doesn't have to be unanimous, since as Detlef said it doesn't single anyone out or place too many restrictions (5 moves a week is still a lot at this stage in the season when the waiver-wire should be pretty shallow anyway), but the league needs to weigh in on any major changes midseason. That's FF league 101.

[golferdoc]

I started using this site when I started playing FFB in 2010 & it is has been great...better than all the others for one reason. The forum! I appreciate the input & knew I could catch h-ll for admitting to picking up a player once to prevent the other guy from playing him against me. But I couldn't expect you to give honest input without knowing all the facts. I really appreciate the time you have spent reviewing this stuff and giving your input.

Thank you! Also, I can't imagine I am the only one on here that has had problems with midseason rule changes in a league. I hope your responses can help others as well.

 

BTW...I really have no plans to ever pick someone up to prevent someone else from playing them against me. I felt horrible after I did it the first time & even worse after it backfired. I love FFB and I want to kick everyones rear within the rules as well as while being ethically sound!

[Big Country]

Clarify your definition of roster churning..

 

If you pick up a player to prevent another owner from getting him and you hold that player for the week, then that is not a problem, is it a legitimate and viable strategy.

 

If your league is such that dropped players are locked from being picked up until the following week, but you can just go in and pick up, then drop and pick up a different player, and rinse/repeat theoretically through every possible free agent, than there is a problem.

 

It sounds like you are describing the first scenario which is neither against the rules nor unethical.

 

If it is the latter, than it is unethical, and at least in the leagues I have run, would be illegal as I always put in rules that say that a player that is picked up can not be dropped until the following week, just to prevent such shenanigans.

[detlef]

But what if you pick a guy up on Tuesday and then learn he's doubtful on Thursday or Friday?

[Big Country]

But what if you pick a guy up on Tuesday and then learn he's doubtful on Thursday or Friday?

 

 

Calculated risk of early waiver moves.

[golferdoc]

The Yahoo site automatically puts a player back into FA if you hold them less than 24 hours. If you hold them more than 24 hours they go into waivers. In may particular case, I kept a player for several weeks as a backup...but I was partially motivated by the fact I thought my opponent was going to pick him up and use him against me. He ended up picking up someone else that played far better than the guy I picked up. So I actually was in your first scenario...but my decision was partially motivated by not wanting the player used against me. In Yahoo publis leagues...what I did could be considered illegal. THe problem with the rule is it is too subjective and who is going to admit they picked someone up to prevent someone else from playing them against them? THat is why most private league use differnet methods to avoid the problem of roster churning...like charging $ for moves. It was only after I admitted to my commish that I had done that before that he changed the rules.