is it "bad form" to make waiver claims for meaningless consolation games?

[HowboutthemCowboys]

 

Fair enough, and to each his own. All I'm saying is that someone in that position shouldn't be able to acquire players that someone playing for money might have a chance at (at least that's my opinion). If people enjoy playing consolation matches (for bragging rights, or whatever), good for them. I just don't think it should interfere with the actual playoffs, and if the rules allow it to do so, that's kind of messed up.

 

 

 

Definitely agree. I stayed of WW once the regular season ended but that was by my choice.

 

I did pick up Wayne as a possibility as a keeper next yr..but obviously he's done for this season

Edited December 18, 2013 by HowboutthemCowboys

[HowboutthemCowboys]

I'm actually in favor of WW closing at end of regular season, but that's a whole other thread topic..

[Big Country]

I'm actually in favor of WW closing at end of regular season, but that's a whole other thread topic..

 

 

Yes, another topic completely but something I am also a fan of for most leagues.

[Joessfl]

You are absolutely within your rights to do the best you can for any week that you have a game. Otherwise, why have the consolation game?

 

If you are expected to put a lineup in, then it is your WW as much as the next guy. If it interferes with the championship, then remove those games and dont ask/allow me to put in a lineup.

[Gopher]

You are absolutely within your rights to do the best you can for any week that you have a game. Otherwise, why have the consolation game?

 

If you are expected to put a lineup in, then it is your WW as much as the next guy. If it interferes with the championship, then remove those games and dont ask/allow me to put in a lineup.

 

Do people who forget to set their consolation lineup (in leagues where the consolation bracket means nothing except bragging rights) actually get flack for forgetting? In other words, just because the consolation bracket is there (on MFL, Yahoo, or whatever) doesn't mean the rest of the league (or anybody, for that matter) is going to be disappointed if you don't set the best lineup possible (including waivers pickups).

 

If the consolation bracket means nothing, I would argue that it is your responsibility to NOT mess with the league's waiver wire, much more than it is your obligation/right to set a lineup... if nothing else, out of respect for those who are actually playing for something. It means NOTHING, and others have $$ on the line.

[keggerz]

I don't even know what purpose the Consolation games serve? If yer not playing for the Trophy, why are you still playing?

Unless, your league pays out the top 6 "winners"

 

We have 6 make the playoffs in my 16 team leagues...the two that lose in the semifinals play in the consolation game to determine 3rd place.

[BA Baracus]

We actually have rules to address this. Waiver priority is tiered so that playoff teams get first dibs. Then, as teams get eliminated from contention, their rosters get locked.

[delusions of grandeur]

Do people who forget to set their consolation lineup (in leagues where the consolation bracket means nothing except bragging rights) actually get flack for forgetting? In other words, just because the consolation bracket is there (on MFL, Yahoo, or whatever) doesn't mean the rest of the league (or anybody, for that matter) is going to be disappointed if you don't set the best lineup possible (including waivers pickups).

 

If the consolation bracket means nothing, I would argue that it is your responsibility to NOT mess with the league's waiver wire, much more than it is your obligation/right to set a lineup... if nothing else, out of respect for those who are actually playing for something. It means NOTHING, and others have $$ on the line.

 

 

And this is why, depending on the league, if you decide that the consolation game doesn't matter, then you collectively decide to lock waivers for those teams, and pretend it doesn't exist if you can't change it. No problem with that.

 

This is actually my first experience with consolation brackets, being the first Yahoo league (work league) I've done in several years. I actually wondered a week ago why my boss was still making waiver moves, and talked to the commissioner about locking non-playoff teams out (because of course if they weren't playing, they shouldn't be making moves, I don't care if you have a rule beforehand or not. It just makes no sense to allow).

 

However, once I saw that he was in the consolation games, I didn't have any problem with it at all. He'd had a rough season where he was one of the highest point-getters, but ran into teams blowing up every week. We're all really competitive about it, so obviously this was why he wanted to be able to say, "well, if I'd gotten into the playoffs, I could have beat..." or be the best of the rest or whaever.... Point is, it meant something to him, his pride.

 

(Plus, there was no way I was going to tell my boss he couldn't, of course).

 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, is that you don't have a right to all players on the WW just because your game has bigger stakes than others. Should we then say that teams fighting for 3rd place (let's hypothetically say there's no prize) can't improve their chances either? Have we gotten so wrapped up in the money that we're going to tell other people they can't do what they can to win every week they play? Isn't the point of competition to do your best even if it isn't for the biggest prize, or even just for pride?

 

Or does that all just go out of the window, because it could mess with someone with a bigger game having an easier time improving their team? IMO, that sounds anti-competitive.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with eliminating what I think is a worthless game or the waiever if you so choose, but if you're going to have these games, then it's up to that person how much it means to them.

 

(BTW, no people don't get flack for not trying in a consolation game, because it only affects themselves. Similarly, they shouldn't take flack for wanting to try their best)

[Gopher]

Sorry, but if I've got $500 (or more) riding on winning a championship, and some other goofball wants to make pickups, just for shlts and giggles, or because he's in a consolation bracket (for zero dollars), or because the rules don't say that he can't, I have a problem with that. It would probably be my last year in that league, frankly.

 

No, it's not all about money. But, again, how much pride/bragging rights can 7th (or 5th) place get you, really? And, to Keg's point, when I think consolation bracket, I guess I'm referring to teams that didn't make the playoffs (not 3rd place, which is often for $$).

 

To me, it's an unwritten rule... If others are playing for money, and I'm not, I'm not going to screw with their chances of winning, just because I can, or because I feel entitled to be a dlck. Just like I'm not going to trade kickers with somebody, then trade those same two kickers back two weeks later (to avoid bye weeks), just because it's not technically in the rules that we can't (and, yes, whether or not that is collusion is a matter of opinion. Because, unless it's spelled out as such, in the rules, it's OK, right?).

 

Maybe that's just me. And, I'm fine with that. There are plenty of leagues with rules to avoid this kind of thing. Luckily, all of mine have said rules in place (or just simply don't have meaningless games scheduled).

 

I guess the best analogy I can come up with is this... Would I play in a league where some people are paying to play, and others are playing for free? Heck no.

[delusions of grandeur]

Sorry, but if I've got $500 (or more) riding on winning a championship, and some other goofball wants to make pickups, just for shlts and giggles, or because he's in a consolation bracket (for zero dollars), or because the rules don't say that he can't, I have a problem with that. It would probably be my last year in that league, frankly.

 

No, it's not all about money. But, again, how much pride/bragging rights can 7th (or 5th) place get you, really? And, to Keg's point, when I think consolation bracket, I guess I'm referring to teams that didn't make the playoffs (not 3rd place, which is often for $$).

 

To me, it's an unwritten rule... If others are playing for money, and I'm not, I'm not going to screw with their chances of winning, just because I can, or because I feel entitled to be a dlck. Just like I'm not going to trade kickers with somebody, then trade those same two kickers back two weeks later (to avoid bye weeks), just because it's not technically in the rules that we can't (and, yes, whether or not that is collusion is a matter of opinion. Because, unless it's spelled out as such, in the rules, it's OK, right?).

 

Maybe that's just me. And, I'm fine with that. There are plenty of leagues with rules to avoid this kind of thing. Luckily, all of mine have said rules in place (or just simply don't have meaningless games scheduled).

 

I guess the best analogy I can come up with is this... Would I play in a league where some people are paying to play, and others are playing for free? Heck no.

 

 

In a league where $500 is on the line, I agree, I would not have meaningless consolation games, nor would I have waivers available for those teams. This would be spelled out in the rules. Nowhere did I say I have a problem with that, nor has anyone really.

 

However, this is silly: "If others are playing for money, and I'm not, I'm not going to screw with their chances of winning, just because I can, or because I feel entitled to be a dlck"

 

If your league decides to have consolation games, then 1) you're not screwing their chances anymore than I'm screwing you in the regular season; you have to compete against the teams still active for players; No one is screwed if they don't get someone. You don't own their rights over other active teams. 2) it's not just because they can or want to be a dick, it's because they're still playing to win games.

 

You have a problem with the games, that's fine, but you can't just call dibs on all available players because your game is more important.

 

If the league endorses the consolation game, then that game has meaning, and no one gets special privileges because their game is more important. If the game has no meaning, then you treat it as such and lock waivers. Simple as that.

[MikesVikes]

If you have a scheduled game against an opponent, there should be no reason to not be allowed to make waiver claims.

 

If you are eliminated from the playoffs and are finished for the season, you shouldn't be allowed to make waivers. An exception could be made. of course, for keeper leagues.

[heehawks]

I was out of contention in one of my long time locals way back in week 11 or so. We have a $10 penalty for lowest scoring team for each week of the regular season (called the "joey"). An extra $140 to the winner. Although I was technically out of the money, I worked the waiver wire down to the very last week of the regular season as to avoid the joey. Our league is a bit quirky like that, so the waiver gets heavily used. Each league will have their own rules, etiquette, and flavor and the wire should be accordingly used or not.

Edited December 19, 2013 by heehawks

[delusions of grandeur]

Each league will have their own rules, etiquette, and flavor and the wire should be accordingly used or not.

 

That is the simplest way to put it. Different leagues have different priorities.

 

I don't think we all disagree that much outside of preference.

[buddahj]

I'm in the 3rd place game in one of my locals. There are payouts for 1st thru 4th. Right now I might not have a TE. Gronk's on IR & Cameron is hurt. There's a $50 difference in the payouts for 3rd & 4th. I'm waiting for the teams in the championship to do there waivers before I consider doing mine.

[Thews40]

It's a dick move to make a waiver claim for a meaningless cause when you're out... and that's all I have to say about that.