Boy Named Suh Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Not to derail...but that is an easy response right there. Just tell the guy he shouldn't suck so bad at fantasy that he can't make a lineup change within 4 days of getting news about a player going to IR. Yeah, but it still doesn't feel like a good win. I personally would rather at least make an effort to play against a full lineup. If I say something, and he still plays the invalid lineup, either because he isn't checking the boards, or just doesn't care, at least I tried. Where's the excitement if you beat a guy with holes in his roster. I don't want someone to give me a win. I want to take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fastdoc Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I'm not the Commissioner. Also, I don't think underhanded is the correct word. It's a bit shady and I would feel weird doing it, but I don't think it's cheating or collusion. I'm just making a suggestion that he manage his team in this critical time of the year. Maybe it would be better if I just told him that Ingram is out and I didn't bring up a specific replacement. It's really is an interesting dilemma. I'm glad it's your dilemma and not mine. I'd struggle too. Our league had the same issue with a guy starting multiple players on bye or injured. The week I was due to play him my team was a little weak and if someone had urged him to fix his line up it could have cost me the match. As it stands he's 0-13 and I'm 11-2. So I'm glad he was sleeping. Out of blue he woke up last week and actually plucked Parker and Osweiler off the wire. Add them to Johnson, who he's had for nearly the entire season for no good reason and he's actually projected to beat his opponent -- another guy who usually just checks in Sunday morning, Autodrafted and has never touched the wire. That guy has Ingram. So I debated telling him to check his roster but then decided to just let things play out. While I'm all for fair play, I'm also all for winning. Good luck with your decision. "Second place is just the first place loser." -Dale Earnhardt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Yeah, but it still doesn't feel like a good win. I personally would rather at least make an effort to play against a full lineup. If I say something, and he still plays the invalid lineup, either because he isn't checking the boards, or just doesn't care, at least I tried. Where's the excitement if you beat a guy with holes in his roster. I don't want someone to give me a win. I want to take it. Fair enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Some of you have some real dolts in your leagues, autodraft and never make a waiver move. Multiple weeks with guys out injured or on by in your line-up. One owner in our league had a week with all 3 WR scoring zero, 2 were on bye and the third was a scratch on Fri/Sat not a GTD). He also had his D on bye and no backup. The commish in his weekly message gave him a little grief about tanking. He sent a league wide message saying he doesn't tank or give up. All his other WR on his bench were out or on bye (a couple good guys on IR and its a keeper so I understand not droppng them). He chose not to spend $2 to add a D, which usually score about 5 points, maybe 10 for the good ones or with the occassional TD. Funny thing is the next week he makes 2 roster moves to shore up his WR which were having trouble. I responded to his message that it just looks bad to have nearly half (4 of 9 starting spots) filled with players who are not playing. Our bench is not short (9 start, 9 bench) so its not hard to cover for byes and injuries. He generally doesn't make a lot of moves, and sometimes has questionable decisions. But he won it all last year, so not a horrible team owner. We've never had to put in a "no tanking" or "must have complete line-up (no player on bye/OUT/IR)" rules, we hoped our cash prize for weekly high scores would keep all owners going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pun Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 What if a team has been starting full lineups all season, and then towards the end of the season when they're eliminated, suddenly stops? Then would it be OK to message them asking them to please replace their injured players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 You're absolutely ridiculous if you can't see that...it's actually pretty black and white if you were in a court of law - "Team A conspires with Team B to "urge" Team B to "set their lineup," in an attempt to defeat Team C, whereby Team B otherwise would not. How is that NOT collusion? Some of you guys really need a reality check, especially when you talk out of both sides of your mouth to suit your own perspective...just sayin'... It is definitely collusion. However the only instance which I think it would be okay, is if this is a really simple league, where it's a bunch of friends or family just having fun, not much is at stake, and other "heads up" moments have happened before to others in the league. I had a family league like that at one point, I would from time to time remind my younger brother about something cause he was just learning, or give my dad a heads up that a player was out. I see nothing wrong with it in that case. It was like an experimental league and everyone was cool with it. However, even in that league, as everyone got more seasoned, that rarely happened. Sometimes, you'd get the innocent, just want to see what you think question of, hey, who would you start out of these guys? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 If you're playing cards, the rule is no table talk. Only exception is when the host/dealer has to remind someone of house rules. In my mind, it's not any different in FF. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 In one of my leagues there was a team that started tanking. We had an owner who played that team , got his game and then complained about him the next week. That was f'd up. If I am out of things I still always play to win or be the spoiler it sucks when there are teams that lay down by not setting line ups. If it were up to me they wouldn't be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 (edited) You guys crack me up with your insecurities. OMG ... one owner talked to another and offered him advice on how to win his game this week and you guys scream COLLUSION, CONSPIRACY, CHEATING. What a bunch of whiners and crybabies You should always expect to face your opponent's best lineup and you should always try to put forth your best lineup. Man up and set you own lineup and stop crying about what your opponent this week is or is not doing If your team can't beat the team fielded by an owner who lacks enough interest to participate then your team doesn't deserve to be in the playoffs anyway. I can't believe you people are whining because now your team doesn't get to play an opponent who started an incomplete lineup. The problem here isn't that one owner talked to another owner with advice ... the problem here is that the league was content to let one team go dark and do nothing about it ... until somebody got butt hurt that the team returned to active status the week they were matched up. Owners should get to manage their own teams how they see fit. And if they go inactive, that is their choice (as much as the rest of us don't like it). And if they return to active status after being inactive, again it is their choice how and when they manage their team. We should ALWAYS encourage owners to be active. If you aren't happy with a particular owner's participation then boot him from the league. To label a simple conversation between owners about potential waiver wire pick ups and starting lineups with the goal of winning that week's match up, whether solicited or unsolicited, regardless of who initiated the discussion, as collusion is inane. Get the sticks out of your asses. [ETA] Would everybody be so butt hurt about the discussion if it had occurred between two owners that were 100% active for the whole season? Edited December 12, 2015 by Grits and Shins 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Named Suh Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 (edited) You guys crack me up with your insecurities. OMG ... one owner talked to another and offered him advice on how to win his game this week and you guys scream COLLUSION, CONSPIRACY, CHEATING. What a bunch of whiners and crybabies You should always expect to face your opponent's best lineup and you should always try to put forth your best lineup. Man up and set you own lineup and stop crying about what your opponent this week is or is not doing If your team can't beat the team fielded by an owner who lacks enough interest to participate then your team doesn't deserve to be in the playoffs anyway. I can't believe you people are whining because now your team doesn't get to play an opponent who started an incomplete lineup. The problem here isn't that one owner talked to another owner with advice ... the problem here is that the league was content to let one team go dark and do nothing about it ... until somebody got butt hurt that the team returned to active status the week they were matched up. Owners should get to manage their own teams how they see fit. And if they go inactive, that is their choice (as much as the rest of us don't like it). And if they return to active status after being inactive, again it is their choice how and when they manage their team. We should ALWAYS encourage owners to be active. If you aren't happy with a particular owner's participation then boot him from the league. To label a simple conversation between owners about potential waiver wire pick ups and starting lineups with the goal of winning that week's match up, whether solicited or unsolicited, regardless of who initiated the discussion, as collusion is inane. Get the sticks out of your asses. I agree that reminding someone to start a valid lineup isn't collusion, but it does fall into the realm of mind your own business. The decision that someone makes when they insert themselves into someone elses matchup can have ripple effects throughout the league, intended or not. You can say that people have the right to give unsolicited advice, but I say that they have to accept the consequences if they do. Most rational folks don't appreciate people butting into things that don't concern them. It's one of those just because you can doesn't mean that you should situations to me. Those situations are what separates the grown ups from the little kids. Edited December 12, 2015 by Boy Named Suh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willswear3 Posted December 12, 2015 Share Posted December 12, 2015 (edited) I'm a little late to the party and would like to say that I honestly didn't read any posts besides the first two or three so I may be repeating what someone has said already but here goes. I see absolutely nothing wrong with telling him he should set his lineup. If you're the commissioner and set his lineup for him, sure that's collusion, but if you tell a guy he should set it what is the problem? Its not like he has to do what you say, and its not like any other owner can't tell him the same thing whenever they want. I highly doubt this guy completely forgot he was in a fantasy football league, and that he has an app on his phone that would allow him to set his lineup in under 30 seconds which means he is choosing not to submit a lineup. Why would there be anything wrong with you saying, "hey set your lineup". If he chooses not to set it then too bad for OP, as he should have said something sooner, but if he does set it I don't see what the big deal is. His opponent should have said something weeks ago. Is it collusion if I text someone "hey you should trade me Adrian Peterson for Deandre Hopkins and Darren McFadden because I have a lot of depth at WR and need an upgrade at RB while you really need a strong WR and can take the loss at RB" I mean, I'm telling him to do something that would change his lineup and benefit me. Edited December 12, 2015 by willswear3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pun Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) What if a team has been starting full lineups all season, and then towards the end of the season when they're eliminated, suddenly stops? Then would it be OK to message them asking them to please replace their injured players? I'd really like to ask what the outlaw, stevegrab, boy named suh and everyone else who had really strong opinions about this earlier in the thread think about this, because I think the scenario I described above is significantly different from someone who hasn't been setting lineups all season. Let's say for the sake of argument that this is the first week this guy isn't starting a full lineup. This actually happened in my league, but it's more of a league like Irish described - casual, friendly, very low stakes. I had to win in order to make the playoffs and another team (who was playing my friend) had to lose. My friend was starting some backup RB who was hurt (may have been Ryan Mathews), and I "urged" him to pick up an RB. David Johnson was available and scored 17 pts that week. Would that be collusion to you guys? It doesn't really matter, because he didn't pick anyone up for whatever reason (maybe he was too high on waivers to get DJ and then just forgot about it after the first day) but he still won his match up that week without an RB (and so did I), so it all worked out, but I'm interested to know - had he picked up my suggestion, would that be collusion? Edited December 13, 2015 by pun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Named Suh Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) I'd really like to ask what the outlaw, stevegrab, boy named suh and everyone else who had really strong opinions about this earlier in the thread think about this, because I think the scenario I described above is significantly different from someone who hasn't been setting lineups all season. Let's say for the sake of argument that this is the first week this guy isn't starting a full lineup. This actually happened in my league, but it's more of a league like Irish described - casual, friendly, very low stakes. I had to win in order to make the playoffs and another team (who was playing my friend) had to lose. My friend was starting some backup RB who was hurt (may have been Ryan Mathews), and I "urged" him to pick up an RB. David Johnson was available and scored 17 pts that week. Would that be collusion to you guys? It doesn't really matter, because he didn't pick anyone up for whatever reason (maybe he was too high on waivers to get DJ and then just forgot about it after the first day) but he still won his match up that week without an RB (and so did I), so it all worked out, but I'm interested to know - had he picked up my suggestion, would that be collusion? Just to clarify, i tried to avoid a strong opinion on this one, because while I do think its shady, I wouldn't call it collusion as team B didn't solicit team C's advice. That applies to the scenario with your league as well. As Team A, who is playing B, I would not have as much of a problem with team C saying something if team B had fielded a full roster up to that point. My reasoning is that, in that scenario, team B hadn't been giving other teams an advantage by not fielding a full roster, so I would be playing the same team as the other teams had. If team B hadn't been fielding a full roster since week 7 and Team C pipes up when I'm about to play team B in week 12 with a playoff spot on the line, I would have more of a problem with team C saying something. For the record though, I wouldn't have enough of an issue to say anything about it, as I do believe that my team should be able to stand on it's own regardless of who i'm playing against. Edited December 13, 2015 by Boy Named Suh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pun Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) Just to clarify, i tried to avoid a strong opinion on this one, because while I do think its shady, I wouldn't call it collusion as team B didn't solicit team C's advice. That applies to the sceario with your league as well. As Team A, who is playing B, I would not have as much of a problem with team C saying something if team B had fielded a full roster up to that point. My reasoning is that in that scenario, team B hadn't been giving other teams an advantage by not fielding a full roster, so I would be playing the same team as the other teams had. I'm a little confused by who you say is team A, B, and C in my scenario, but I think I understand. You're saying that if my friend asked me who he should pick up off the wire to replace Mathews, and I said Johnson, that would be collusion, but if I just send him a message out of the blue saying 'hey man just so you know you're starting an RB that's out, you should pick up Johnson if you can" then it's not collusion? To me, I viewed it as not collusion because my friend was starting full, good lineups all season, so it's kinda bs IMO if he just says smoochie it that last week and totally blows the game (he still ended up winning without changing his roster at all, so it didn't matter, as I said, but I'm still interested in hypothetically, how people would view that, if for example it happens again in the future). Edited December 13, 2015 by pun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Named Suh Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) Yeah, i added a little to it becuse i saw that it was not super clear on that point. You read it right though. You would be team C and your buddy would be team B. I would hypothetically be Team A who is playing team B. I do believe that the fact that team B had nothing to do with the advice being given means that it can't be collusion. To me collusion requires two parties to conspire, and that isn't the case in this scenario. I do think that the bottom line is to let people manage their own teams, no matter what. If you aren't involved in the matchup, then mind your own business. Strategize based on trades or the waiver wire, but giving unsolicited advice is shady to me. Edited December 13, 2015 by Boy Named Suh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Named Suh Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) Thinking about it more, even if your friend did ask you who he should pick up, I wouldn't call that collusion either as he is asking you how to make his team better and win. To me, it would be collusion if your buddy (teamB ) asked you (team C) to use your waiver position to block team A from getting someone that he could use to beat team B. To me, asking for advice isn't collusion. Collusion to me implies conspiring to hurt someone, not asking how to help yourself. Otherwise proposing a trade would be collusion. Sorry if that is vague. I fully understand the distinction in my head, but am having a hard time enunciating it clearly. Edited December 13, 2015 by Boy Named Suh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.