How would you handle this situation?

[Grogansghost]

I also think that the team facing a "tougher" match-up by virtue of actually having to play a complete opponent is getting less screwed than another team vying for the same play-off spot possibly getting beaten out because another team got an easier path.

 

 

Sorry - this is probably a much longer response than you care to read - but the situation just struck me for some reason. I think because I usually agree with most of your posts I see, but differ in this case.

 

I sympathize with the team on the bubble - and understand if he's pissed at the team who can't count to 20 - but his bad luck seems to be a normal/expected part of FF (an owner's honest mistake) - whereas the guy facing the Aker's team suffers because of the commissioner changing the game - that's more unfair IMO.

 

I think the fair thing is to live with the agreed upon rules and then fix any perceived flaws the following year. Randomly benefiting (or suffering) from another team's mistake is part of FF.

 

 

A team might end up with an easy match-up any given week when his opponent makes an honest mistake - a manager misses news about an injury - forgets to change a lineup - manages the bye weeks poorly - or simply makes a boneheaded choice. These mistakes benefit one team in the league and potentially disadvantages the managers who don't face the easy match-up. That's part of FF. I don't think it changes anything that this guy's mistake was poorly navigating a rule.

 

He blew through his free moves and now wants to avoid a fine - he isn't tanking, or playing some angle. This benefits one team and hurts another. It's not a reason to suddenly ignore the agreed upon rules IMO. Luck - good and bad - which is often the result of an opponents mistake and its timing - is part of the game.

 

If the team on the playoff bubble loses out - no one manipulated anything, the result of an owner's mistake played out. It could've happened to anyone else in the league. Any owner could've tried to think through the possible downsides of a penalty system and suggested changes before the season started.

 

But if a team loses a close game because of the free move this week - that's unfair to the owner who should've benefited from the easier match-up and to any other team that loses to the now-advancing bubble team in the playoffs.

[detlef]

Sorry - this is probably a much longer response than you care to read - but the situation just struck me for some reason. I think because I usually agree with most of your posts I see, but differ in this case.

 

I sympathize with the team on the bubble - and understand if he's pissed at the team who can't count to 20 - but his bad luck seems to be a normal/expected part of FF (an owner's honest mistake) - whereas the guy facing the Aker's team suffers because of the commissioner changing the game - that's more unfair IMO.

 

 

 

But this is not a case of the commissioner realizing dude does not have a kicker and starting one on his behalf. This is a situation of a guy plainly telling everyone that, if they want his opponent to face a full roster, they'd better go ahead and waive the fee, 'cause he's not paying it.

 

In this case, the only guy getting "screwed" is the guy who is getting screwed out of an unfair advantage that everyone is aware of.

 

And, for the record, his opponent was on board with letting him grab a kicker.

 

And I think this addresses cdrudges question. The team who "benefited" from the free move is a team that doesn't give a crap one way or the other. He's just picking up the exact same player (actually, quite possibly a lesser player since he was locked out of priority waivers) he would have picked up if he didn't have to spend money he doesn't want to spend. It's not as if he's being afforded a move that each and every other player is able to make. So, if that move has any effect on the outcome of the game, it's the effect that it should have had all along.

Edited December 3, 2012 by detlef

[theprofessor]

A bit off subject but we charge $2.00 per transaction after a 24 hour blind bid period where you spend between $2 - $20. We use this money to pay high score of the week winners. It's typically $80 per week and keeps everyone interested.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

$2 ? all this is really over $2?

[Grogansghost]

But this is not a case of the commissioner realizing dude does not have a kicker and starting one on his behalf. This is a situation of a guy plainly telling everyone that, if they want his opponent to face a full roster, they'd better go ahead and waive the fee, 'cause he's not paying it.

 

 

 

 

Read too fast - I didn't realize everyone in the league agreed with the change. That's great for the league, easy fix.

 

Short of league-wide agreement, however, I would've let the rule stand - even if it resulted in an incomplete lineup simply because an owner chose to avoid a 2$ fine. To me, once everyone agrees on a rule, the league should stick with it unless it can be removed before it's had any effect. I would've viewed the bubble team as unlucky, but not the recipient of unfair treatment.

 

This particular rule has been affecting teams all season long and that's why I wouldn't have bent it for only one team. How do you gauge who has been hurt by this rule that didn't receive any special help. There could have been more than one occasion when a team missed out on a player to conserve their free moves that altered records in your league.

 

Again, fortunately, in this case, everyone agreed to change it. I just don't think it would've been unfair to let it play out.

 

Maybe it's a great thing that I'm not a judge.

 

 

 

 

It's an odd situation because the guy isn't tanking - so it really doesn't fit the "don't be a dick" rule.

[slinger]

In my league, low score of the week pays $2 bucks. Which is the same amount as a transaction fee. It encourages the owners to stay active or get dinged with low scores of the week fees. This fee goes away for playoffs obviously.