Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

"intentionally losing"


colkaos
 Share

Recommended Posts

In our league, the way we tried to tackle this issue this year is this. We are a 10 team league, 6 make the playoffs, then the 4 that dont go into a consolation playoff, the winner of the consolation tournament wins the first overall pick. This way there is always a reason to play.

We were going to implement that this year in my local dynasty, because of someone tanking last year (possibly for draft position, which he got removed before he could reap the reward anyway) but ironically, it might actually work better in redraft.

 

In a keeper/dynasty, this only hurts legitimately struggling teams, while really giving the top team to miss the playoffs the best shot at being even better next year... I suppose the idea would work fine if you have 12 owners who are extremely knowledgeable and dedicated, but otherwise it's likely going to help keep the bottom-dwellers at the bottom, and the fringe playoff teams improving moreso. If that's your prerogative to make it tougher to improve a bad team (that frankly might not be your fault), then go for it, but I like giving truly struggling teams the best chance to improve... As for those who are tanking or not dedicated enough, they will most likely be voted out and be replaced for not being a good fit for our format... A toilet bowl is not needed to see who fits and who doesn't, and the knowledge that owners have already been replaced for tanking/apathy serves as a good deterrent..

 

The idea might actually work better in redraft, but even there, I'm not crazy about rewarding someone for what a past, completely different team did the year before, just to keep people from giving up... Isn't the essence of redraft that everyone gets a clean slate to start over? Also, as Det said, this does not address someone tanking for playoff position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In our league, the way we tried to tackle this issue this year is this. We are a 10 team league, 6 make the playoffs, then the 4 that dont go into a consolation playoff, the winner of the consolation tournament wins the first overall pick. This way there is always a reason to play.

We talked about this at length in one of my pools a few years ago and concluded that it was a bad idea, for essentially the same reasons as noted by 'delusions'. Implementing this would make it more likely that the decent team that barely missed the playoffs will get the #1 pick, and less likely that the terrible team that went 3-13 and 'deserves' the #1 pick will get it.

Edited by nelsosi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the local money league I play in, the playoff participants are basically set. There were 2 teams that could have increased their chances by getting a win this week, but they both lost. The only thing really to play for at this point is the seeding. When the playoffs start - wk 14, the top 2 teams have a bye and the other matchups are 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5. I am currently in the 4 slot but would rather play out of the 6 slot. Assuming I would win my first round matchup I would then face our 2 seed instead of the 1 seed. Theoretically, giving me an easier path to the superbowl (3 seed has huge hole at RB after losing F Jax). I would have to lose this week to set this plan into motion, which i can do by sitting Jacobs and Graham.

 

Is this good strategy or poor sportsmanship. I personally wouldn't have a problem with it if another manager chose this route but I am a bit biased.

I am normally all for playing things out and NOT throwing a game especially if it affects other teams competing for a playoff spot, however, that does not appear to be the case in the OP's scenario (unless I am mis-reading the above paragraphs?). It looks to me as though by tanking the OP is not going to cause anyone else to miss the playoffs as the 6 playoff teams already appear to be locked in...if he then wants to improve (in his opinion anyway) his potential matchups and chances at a league title then I am okay with it. Again, if there are teams still fighting for a playoff spot then no way do I condone tanking.

 

All that being said...gaming the system rarely seems to work...FF Karma/gods seem to play a role in those kinds of things.

 

KO'd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am normally all for playing things out and NOT throwing a game especially if it affects other teams competing for a playoff spot, however, that does not appear to be the case in the OP's scenario (unless I am mis-reading the above paragraphs?). It looks to me as though by tanking the OP is not going to cause anyone else to miss the playoffs as the 6 playoff teams already appear to be locked in...if he then wants to improve (in his opinion anyway) his potential matchups and chances at a league title then I am okay with it. Again, if there are teams still fighting for a playoff spot then no way do I condone tanking.

 

All that being said...gaming the system rarely seems to work...FF Karma/gods seem to play a role in those kinds of things.

 

KO'd

While I think the move is pretty lame, it's hard to argue with this. And, yes, be careful what you ask for. I recall a number of times when I was the 1 seed and playing a 4 seed who limped into the play-offs, only to watch the hacks on his team double their weekly average and knock me out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think the move is pretty lame, it's hard to argue with this. And, yes, be careful what you ask for. I recall a number of times when I was the 1 seed and playing a 4 seed who limped into the play-offs, only to watch the hacks on his team double their weekly average and knock me out.

THIS + 1 Million....many has been the time I was licking my chops knowing I was about to dominate some weak (or so I thought) playoff opponent only to be unceremoniously ushered out of the playoffs by that "weaker" opponent.

 

KO'd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am normally all for playing things out and NOT throwing a game especially if it affects other teams competing for a playoff spot, however, that does not appear to be the case in the OP's scenario (unless I am mis-reading the above paragraphs?). It looks to me as though by tanking the OP is not going to cause anyone else to miss the playoffs as the 6 playoff teams already appear to be locked in...if he then wants to improve (in his opinion anyway) his potential matchups and chances at a league title then I am okay with it. Again, if there are teams still fighting for a playoff spot then no way do I condone tanking.

 

All that being said...gaming the system rarely seems to work...FF Karma/gods seem to play a role in those kinds of things.

 

KO'd

At first glance, I tended to agree that, IF it's purely a matter of seeding and not who makes the playoffs, then it's okay... But what if you have a situation where 1 team tanking for better playoff position doesn't affect who makes the playoffs, but another team tanking does affect the teams that make it? Do you then say it's okay for the first team to do what he thinks is best for his team, and not the second?

 

I think this is why you put it in the rules that blatant tanking is not an accepted practice and will not be tolerated, even though you probably can't enforce it outside of not inviting them back next year. In fact, I'm in favor of leaving that window open so that it's easier to sniff out the parties who are shifty enough to realize that they can get away with it that year, to sacrifice their future in the league.

 

It's just not in the spirit of the game, and I think coming up with contingencies where it may be okay, is disregarding the nature of the rule. It's not a matter of whether you ARE affecting other people, it's that it can. So I don't think it's valid to excuse it if you can find an instance where it only affects seeding. It's still manipulating the standings by doing something any idiot could do in pulling your players, just because you're lucky enough to be opportunistic. There's no skill involved in that, or at least not the skill that FF football is supposed to reward (i.e., point/stat accumulation).

 

This is pretty much the precise reason why most laws and rules are written in absolutes, and not usually loaded with contingencies that allow for situational loopholes around it. It's not right, no matter how many ways you figure out to justify it. It's a game based around accumulating points, not manipulation by conceding points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first glance, I tended to agree that, IF it's purely a matter of seeding and not who makes the playoffs, then it's okay... But what if you have a situation where 1 team tanking for better playoff position doesn't affect who makes the playoffs, but another team tanking does affect the teams that make it? Do you then say it's okay for the first team to do what he thinks is best for his team, and not the second?

 

I think this is why you put it in the rules that blatant tanking is not an accepted practice and will not be tolerated, even though you probably can't enforce it outside of not inviting them back next year. In fact, I'm in favor of leaving that window open so that it's easier to sniff out the parties who are shifty enough to realize that they can get away with it that year, to sacrifice their future in the league.

 

It's just not in the spirit of the game, and I think coming up with contingencies where it may be okay, is disregarding the nature of the rule. It's not a matter of whether you ARE affecting other people, it's that it can. So I don't think it's valid to excuse it if you can find an instance where it only affects seeding. It's still manipulating the standings by doing something any idiot could do in pulling your players, just because you're lucky enough to be opportunistic. There's no skill involved in that, or at least not the skill that FF football is supposed to reward (i.e., point/stat accumulation).

 

This is pretty much the precise reason why most laws and rules are written in absolutes, and not usually loaded with contingencies that allow for situational loopholes around it. It's not right, no matter how many ways you figure out to justify it. It's a game based around accumulating points, not manipulation by conceding points.

Pretty sure I covered this already but...in case I was not clear enough...IF tanking can in any way affect a team that may have a chance to make the playoffs (no matter who is doing the tanking) then I am against it. If, as the OP stated (and that is all I am responding to, not any other "what if" scenarios), the playoff participants are already determined and tanking by any other teams does not affect who gets into the playoffs but merely affects playoff seeds then I am not against it...wouldn't shock me if it backfired though on the person trying to tank.

 

Other than that I agree with you sir.

 

KO'd

Edited by KOKIDKOKID
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody seems to have a problem with owners who pick up another owner's handcuff or the replacement for another owner's injured starter, even if they have no intention of starting that particular player but simply want to keep them away from that owner or extort a return in a trade. In fact, I have often seen that type of action encouraged as a 'strategic move by a savvy owner'.

 

It's interesting that some of the arguments presented against tanking in this thread could equally be applied against that type of pickup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody seems to have a problem with owners who pick up another owner's handcuff or the replacement for another owner's injured starter, even if they have no intention of starting that particular player but simply want to keep them away from that owner or extort a return in a trade. In fact, I have often seen that type of action encouraged as a 'strategic move by a savvy owner'.

 

It's interesting that some of the arguments presented against tanking in this thread could equally be applied against that type of pickup.

You're really going to compare a person putting forth his best effort to accumulate valuable pieces and trade bait, to someone not putting forth their best effort in order to give another team a free win?

 

That's what it comes down too. You're not playing to win. You're playing not to win, which is not in the spirit of the game. Everything else is just semantics, and to me irrelevant to the action itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue will never go away.

 

As an owner in a FF league I expect other owners to put forth their best effort every week. If I tank, it may cause another owner to miss the playoffs because I am a selfish bag of dicks. This is not the NFL. It is a game played between friends for, relatively, small amounts of $$$.

 

An owner who works hard all year to try to make the playoffs should not have his fate determined by something out of his control. If someone tanked in any of my leagues, either they or I would not be back the following year.

 

Some of you say to drop the moral BS and win at all costs. That is your right ,but I choose to have some integrity.

 

Winning feels better if you truly earn it.

 

In the OP's post, he clearly states that his decision will not affect whether or not any other teams make the playoffs. It simply dictates the matchups that would take place once in the playoffs. For that reason, I see no problem with it. I see your point though if another team gets knocked out of the playoffs by virtue of a team not playing an optimal lineup on purpose.

 

So it is a questionable strategy, but certainly not immortal or unethical.

Edited by MTSuper7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody seems to have a problem with owners who pick up another owner's handcuff or the replacement for another owner's injured starter, even if they have no intention of starting that particular player but simply want to keep them away from that owner or extort a return in a trade. In fact, I have often seen that type of action encouraged as a 'strategic move by a savvy owner'.

 

It's interesting that some of the arguments presented against tanking in this thread could equally be applied against that type of pickup.

How is the back up to a player the defacto property of the guy who owns the starter? Regardless of which team has that player, they're tying up a roster spot for a guy who may go most, if not the entire season with marginal value or may be a solid FF play. When you get to a certain point in the draft, it makes sense for anyone to take a shot on this kind of player.

 

Do I take Ben Tate? Or do I take some dude mired in a RBBC on a crappy team? If you're confident about your starters, Tate might be the better play. And this could have absolutely nothing to do with "sticking it" to the guy with Foster. Rather, at some point, Tate makes more sense than, say Ryan Torain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the OP's post, he clearly states that his decision will not affect whether or not any other teams make the playoffs. It simply dictates the matchups that would take place once in the playoffs. For that reason, I see no problem with it. I see your point though if another team gets knocked out of the playoffs by virtue of a team not playing an optimal lineup on purpose.

 

So it is a questionable strategy, but certainly not immortal or unethical.

LOL - love it...I often type the wrong words too bro. :wacko:

 

KO'd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the back up to a player the defacto property of the guy who owns the starter? Regardless of which team has that player, they're tying up a roster spot for a guy who may go most, if not the entire season with marginal value or may be a solid FF play. When you get to a certain point in the draft, it makes sense for anyone to take a shot on this kind of player.

 

Do I take Ben Tate? Or do I take some dude mired in a RBBC on a crappy team? If you're confident about your starters, Tate might be the better play. And this could have absolutely nothing to do with "sticking it" to the guy with Foster. Rather, at some point, Tate makes more sense than, say Ryan Torain.

 

 

I'm talking about a situation where someone quickly grabs an FA or uses a waiver priority to get the backup to another owners recently injured starter, even if they have zero intention of actually using that player (i.e., they are only adding them to stop the other owner from getting them). For example, grabbing Spiller last week to screw the F-Jax owner. Or grabbing Jacobs to screw the Bradshaw owner a few weeks ago. This type of action is routinely condoned, but based on some of the arguments I'm reading here against tanking it should probably be frowned upon.

Edited by nelsosi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the OP's post, he clearly states that his decision will not affect whether or not any other teams make the playoffs. It simply dictates the matchups that would take place once in the playoffs. For that reason, I see no problem with it. I see your point though if another team gets knocked out of the playoffs by virtue of a team not playing an optimal lineup on purpose.

 

So it is a questionable strategy, but certainly not immortal or unethical.

So if it affects nothing beside seeding, then everyone should just tank to prevent that. Or further, then the teams who are out of the playoffs should just tank to make it harder for all them to tank. That sounds great, to have a week where nobody plays, to ensure that the seeding stays the same...

 

Doesn't that show how little legitimate skill is involved, when you could easily get to a situation where everyone figured out that it was only going to hurt them by playing the game to win? You might as well just cut the season short when playoff teams are set then, because all you're doing right now is rewarding a team who's shifty enough to be ahead of the curve in realizing that tanking can help them get their ideal position.

 

And people act like playoff seeding is completely inconsequential... If it's so inconsequential to allow tanking here, then why is the team tanking if the playoff position is so inconsequnetial? In life, you're supposed to be rewarded for earning what you put forth effort to get, not to be rewarded for actively and purposely putting forth less than your best effort in a manipulative ploy.

Edited by delusions of granduer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about a situation where someone quickly grabs an FA or uses a waiver priority to get the backup to another owners recently injured starter, even if they have zero intention of actually using that player (i.e., they are only adding them to stop the other owner from getting them). For example, grabbing Spiller last week to screw the F-Jax owner. Or grabbing Jacobs to screw the Bradshaw owner a few weeks ago. This type of action is routinely condoned, but based on some of the arguments I'm reading here against tanking it should probably be frowned upon.

 

It has nothing to do with screwing another owner.

 

If one perceives the available FA to have more value than a currently rostered player, they should make the move. If they don't, you let them go. THat value can be in the form of potential starter for you, potential depth should one of your starters get injured or potential trade bait to a team in need. An additional benefit is even if you are just adding to your depth and simultaneously hurting another team, you are doing nothing more than helping your team. The weakening of an opponent is a strengthening of my team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about a situation where someone quickly grabs an FA or uses a waiver priority to get the backup to another owners recently injured starter, even if they have zero intention of actually using that player (i.e., they are only adding them to stop the other owner from getting them). For example, grabbing Spiller last week to screw the F-Jax owner. Or grabbing Jacobs to screw the Bradshaw owner a few weeks ago. This type of action is routinely condoned, but based on some of the arguments I'm reading here against tanking it should probably be frowned upon.

So what, I have lots of players on my bench that I don't intend to use, and some that I might pick up even as trade bait... So what?

 

You're comparing apples to oranges here, when what you're talking about is part of the game, and there's absolutely no way to establish what an owner's intent is when they pick up a player anyway... However, there are very easy ways to recognize the intent of an owner actively giving a way a free win.

 

Can you really not see the difference between taking an action to help you win, and taking action to tank a game to help you win? Okay then, Pete Rose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if it affects nothing beside seeding, then everyone should just tank to prevent that. Or further, then the teams who are out of the playoffs should just tank to make it harder for all them to tank. That sounds great, to have a week where nobody plays, to ensure that the seeding stays the same...

 

Doesn't that show how little legitimate skill is involved, when you could easily get to a situation where everyone figured out that it was only going to hurt them by playing the game to win? You might as well just cut the season short when playoff teams are set then, because all you're doing right now is rewarding a team who's shifty enough to be ahead of the curve in realizing that tanking can help them get their ideal position.

 

And people act like playoff seeding is completely inconsequential... If it's so inconsequential to allow tanking, then why is the team tanking if it's inconsequnetial? In life, you're supposed to be rewarded for earning what you put forth effort to get, not to be rewarded for actively and purposely putting forth less than your best effort in a manipulative ploy.

 

 

SO now, in addition to the other thread where we concluded that divisions have no place in FF :wacko: we should also come ot another conclusion that I would be a proponent of... in playoffs, there are no seedings, it is essentially an all play where the top X teams each week advance. So if you have 4 teams make the playoffs, you have the top 2 high scorers in the first week of playoffs advance and then the high scorer the next week is the champion.

 

WIth 6 teams you could have the top 4 teams advance and then the top 2 the following week.

 

This way no one skates by on virtue of the seeding in the playoffs, and it completely eliminates any logical reasoning to tank for playoff seeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first glance, I tended to agree that, IF it's purely a matter of seeding and not who makes the playoffs, then it's okay... But what if you have a situation where 1 team tanking for better playoff position doesn't affect who makes the playoffs, but another team tanking does affect the teams that make it? Do you then say it's okay for the first team to do what he thinks is best for his team, and not the second?

 

I think this said it very well and explains why tanking should not be condoned. If you can make rules against, or it make it clear that it won't be tolerated great. Otherwise there will just be a lot of complaining "How come he was allowed to tank, but I wasn't."

 

As you said in your last post, you should be rewarded for making your best effort, not rewarded for trying to NOT do well.

 

And I'll have to disagree with nelosi (as I suspect most will) these arguments about tanking being wrong do not carry over to drafting or picking up players that another owner may desperately need. If you're really just doing it to screw them, and will never use that player it will probably backfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with screwing another owner.

 

If one perceives the available FA to have more value than a currently rostered player, they should make the move. If they don't, you let them go. THat value can be in the form of potential starter for you, potential depth should one of your starters get injured or potential trade bait to a team in need. An additional benefit is even if you are just adding to your depth and simultaneously hurting another team, you are doing nothing more than helping your team. The weakening of an opponent is a strengthening of my team.

Exactly.

 

Now, here's what I do think is a lame extension of this:

 

I've played in leagues where dropped players were either locked down for a couple of days or actually not able to be claimed until the following week. Guys who realized their opponent was thin at a position and may need to pick someone up but hadn't yet, would add, then drop, any viable option in consecutive moves. Thereby making them unavailable to the other player, even if only temporarily.

 

In that case, you are simply trying to hose somebody and taking advantage of a rule in a manner other than it was intended.

 

FWIW, the dropped players not being available until the next week was back before we used websites to do this. The rationale being that we didn't want to make the commish have to deal with manually updating the FA list more than once per week. Of course, when someone called the commish and told them they wanted to drop this dude for that dude, and then him for that guy, and so on, the commish (me in that case) was none too happy. And, no, I wasn't the person they were playing that week. It was some dude who worked his ass off and typically didn't get around to looking at his team until Saturday morning every week and hadn't realized he needed to pick up a player. I evoked commish privilege and released all the "tied up" players to the FA market and let dude take who he wanted.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if it affects nothing beside seeding, then everyone should just tank to prevent that. Or further, then the teams who are out of the playoffs should just tank to make it harder for all them to tank. That sounds great, to have a week where nobody plays, to ensure that the seeding stays the same...

 

Doesn't that show how little legitimate skill is involved, when you could easily get to a situation where everyone figured out that it was only going to hurt them by playing the game to win? You might as well just cut the season short when playoff teams are set then, because all you're doing right now is rewarding a team who's shifty enough to be ahead of the curve in realizing that tanking can help them get their ideal position.

 

And people act like playoff seeding is completely inconsequential... If it's so inconsequential to allow tanking, then why is the team tanking if it's inconsequnetial? In life, you're supposed to be rewarded for earning what you put forth effort to get, not to be rewarded for actively and purposely putting forth less than your best effort in a manipulative ploy.

 

We agree to disagree. If other teams want to react to a team that appears to be tanking by tanking themselves, I see no problem with that either. In the end, nobody knows whether or not the tanking is really going to help them win their first round playoff matchup, so either team in that scenario has to make a decision. I will say that outright tanking in any way is pretty cheesy... If I ever was in this situation, I might make it more subtle in my strategy (i.e. playing Kendall Hunter for the garbage time possibilities vs. Cedric Benson's tough matchup vs. PIT). In life, you are supposed to be rewarded for earning what you put forth effort to get - and I consider it an effort to analyze your team and its path to playoff success and to put into place the strategy that gets you there within the rules of the game.

 

And by the way, what is this "legitimate skill" you speak of? Fantasy football is 95% luck and 5% luck, right? (I apologize for using this phrase without CD's consent, and am hopeful it hasn't been trademarked yet so I can avoid facing legal action). In all seriousness though, people draft out of magazines and luck their way into great teams all the time. I think you are overestimating the skill required to win. Skill can help you beat other teams to waiver wire darlings or fleece someone in a trade, but injuries and other variables all factor in to make it more about luck than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

 

Now, here's what I do think is a lame extension of this:

 

I've played in leagues where dropped players were either locked down for a couple of days or actually not able to be claimed until the following week. Guys who realized their opponent was thin at a position and may need to pick someone up but hadn't yet, would add, then drop, any viable option in consecutive moves. Thereby making them unavailable to the other player, even if only temporarily.

 

In that case, you are simply trying to hose somebody and taking advantage of a rule in a manner other than it was intended.

 

FWIW, the dropped players not being available until the next week was back before we used websites to do this. The rationale being that we didn't want to make the commish have to deal with manually updating the FA list more than once per week. Of course, when someone called the commish and told them they wanted to drop this dude for that dude, and then him for that guy, and so on, the commish (me in that case) was none too happy. And, no, I wasn't the person they were playing that week. It was some dude who worked his ass off and typically didn't get around to looking at his team until Saturday morning every week and hadn't realized he needed to pick up a player. I evoked commish privilege and released all the "tied up" players to the FA market and let dude take who he wanted.

 

Isn't that referred to as "roster churning"? Yes, I feel that steps should also be taken to to eliminate that just the same as tanking (and even moreso, since it appears you can actually do something tangible about that).... Is there really any downfall to having a player become available immediately after he's been dropped (assuming it's during FCFS)? Or rather, is there really any legitimate reason to lock them down, when it allows for shifty behavior like this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the way, what is this "legitimate skill" you speak of? Fantasy football is 95% luck and 5% luck, right? (I apologize for using this phrase without CD's consent, and am hopeful it hasn't been trademarked yet so I can avoid facing legal action). In all seriousness though, people draft out of magazines and luck their way into great teams all the time. I think you are overestimating the skill required to win. Skill can help you beat other teams to waiver wire darlings or fleece someone in a trade, but injuries and other variables all factor in to make it more about luck than anything else.

I'm pretty much using skill and effort interchangeably here. You could look at it either way, but it doesn't change the fact the latter requires zero skill, luck or effort to execute, only a crappy enough bench or rules that allow the loophole of incomplete lineups. I don't think that changes that the practice shouldn't be rewarded, when the goal of the game is to accumulate (not actively decimate) stats and points to win games and gain position.

 

Perhaps you could make the argument that by virtue of them being in that position, that they've earned the right to manage their team as they see fit, but I see that as taking advantage of your standing to manipulate it in a Pete Rose selfish type fashion. To each his own, but I'm not going to allow people's personal interests and lack of effort to hurt the integrity of the leagues I care about playing in, or I won't anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that referred to as "roster churning"? Yes, I feel that steps should also be taken to to eliminate that just the same as tanking (and even moreso, since it appears you can actually do something tangible about that).... Is there really any downfall to having a player become available immediately after he's been dropped (assuming it's during FCFS)? Or rather, is there really any legitimate reason to lock them down, when it allows for shifty behavior like this?

I think the best approach is to lock players initially dropped during the priority waiver session until the next day. So, waivers happen Tuesday night, and any player dropped then goes into waivers that process Wednesday night. Then, everyone, including those dropped on Wednesday night are fair game.

 

I think the reason to lock them down at all is to give everyone a shot at seeing who is now out there. There have certainly been times when a stacked team had to drop someone of value to fill a bye week need and I'm not sure if you should reward the person who's waiting at his computer for the second waivers are processed to get him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best approach is to lock players initially dropped during the priority waiver session until the next day. So, waivers happen Tuesday night, and any player dropped then goes into waivers that process Wednesday night. Then, everyone, including those dropped on Wednesday night are fair game.

 

I think the reason to lock them down at all is to give everyone a shot at seeing who is now out there. There have certainly been times when a stacked team had to drop someone of value to fill a bye week need and I'm not sure if you should reward the person who's waiting at his computer for the second waivers are processed to get him.

 

Pretty much what we do, waivers run early Wed AM, players dropped at that time are on waivers until Saturday early AM for the second round of waivers. (And those dropped on Saturday are locked until next Wed.)

 

Yes I know this leaves an issue on Thursday night games, where you could do this roster churning. But then we also have a $2 fee per player added so that eliminates most completely pointless moves. (We debated adding another waiver run before Thursday games during that part of the season, but haven't felt that it was a big issue.) And in case anybody cares, our roster move money (which usually climbs over $200) is split 50/30/20 by the top teams in points during the regular season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information