Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, FooserX said:

 

I don't know about abuse of power. If the commish isn't there to make sure things run fair, and trades are reasonable...why the heck is he here for?

He's there to make decisions for the good of the league. To stop collusion, and stop dumb stuff from happening because people will do anything to win. lol

This is one of those times, bro.

 


my league is built like the UN. Whoever decides to take the responsibility is the commish but we all vote on different adjustments in the offseason. I think most people are more against any leagues/commish taking action mid season 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 535
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm the Commish in my ESPN league. This weekend, I had to face my opponent who owned Taysom Hill. He slotted him in his TE spot and had Mahomes in his QB spot. Some other members in my league talked a

Heres my thing: it was well established Taysom's position eligibility before the season.  If a commissioner wanted to make a rule PRIOR to the season I get that. But to try to pull rank during the sea

Posted Images

I'm the Commish and I just happen to be playing against Taysom Hill this week in my ESPN league. My opponent has him slotted in the TE spot.

It sucks and seems unfair but I also don't see it fair for me to change the settings now. Just have to live with it.

Edited by jagsfan05
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2 hours ago, tusb said:

 

NEED ADVICE ON TRADE REVIEW, PLEASE:

I am the commissioner of a 12-team Superflex league on ESPN.  Playoffs are weeks 14-16, 6 teams make it in.  The players involved (names have been changed):

  "DAN" currently holds the #5 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "MIKE" currently holds the #6 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "CAL" is currently in the #7 position, with a decent chance to move up.

  "PETE" is currently in the #9 position, a long-shot to make the playoffs, but still trying.  His poor record is due to having missed Chubb, Thomas, and Golladay for much of the year.

 

I agree with a post up above.  Why all the fake names?  Just the seed.  This seems like a logic problem from grade school which on a Friday afternoon, I'm just too tired to figure out...

1 hour ago, FooserX said:

 

Uh - absolutely.

Allowing this ESPN glitch to alter the FF season is crazy.

So let's say ESPN changed their mind today, and only made him QB eligible. Would that trade be right?

No man.

 

Can't we all just use some common sense here.

 

 

Obviously FooserX, you don't own Taysom Hill.  I think it's nuts that he has QB/TE eligibility as well.  But you can't go changing the rules WHEN IT DOESN'T BENEFIT YOU.  You can't allow the guy in your league to have rostered Hill all this time, thinking he was wasting a roster spot, and only now when the magic comes to fruition and now this owner might actually benefit from TE eligibility, wield your mighty sword and say "NO, I'M NOT ALLOWING IT."

You as the commish and your entire league should have had a vote and discussion ON DRAFT DAY and said, "Hey look, Taysom has QB/TE eligibility.  What do we think of that?  Do we want to allow him to be played at TE?"  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GarrettHasTheClap said:

Kyler Murray should be split into two players: Kyler running back and Kyler quarterback.  Its not fair he is top 10 in rushing and passing 

 

A few people in here may remember but back when Michael Vick really broke out in his 2nd year maybe.  The following season there was an industry debate if Vick was too powerful and should be taken out of the player pool for fantasy.  Ultimately some leagues did remove Vick, thankfully my leagues all decided to keep Vick in the pool (Rich Gannon did have 4600+ yards that year) and for the record in both leagues I was in the Vick owner did not win. 

 

I was in a fantasy baseball league that voted to do this once with Barry Bonds.  Barry Bonds was far more OP than Taysom Hill at TE.  But nonetheless I am still not a fan of changing it to cater to some people thinking it's not fair.

 

Some years that is just the league wide landscape and all of that needs to be considered when building your team.  Taysom Hill has had eligibility at TE months before the season started... Now months into the season it's a problem because things look to be breaking right for him.  Sounds like a sore losers' argument to me. 

 

If it really ends up being that unfair the platform will make the change otherwise you can hold a league wide vote in the offseason.  You could even hold a vote this season.  But know that holding an in season vote when it's one person is being viewed as "getting the advantage" always end with only 1 to 2 votes saying they're okay with (of course 1 being the Taysom owner) everyone else who isn't benefiting from it generally votes no, in these cases.

 

Now let me make this caveat.  If Hill had just gained TE eligibility I'd see a lot more merit to the side of don't allow him to be played at TE.  But the guy had TE eligilibty before most people really even got into their draft research.  So know that every team complaining went through an entire draft, made weekly adds and drops, yet left Hill on the waiver wire week in and week out.

 

The above is why I say the "he's listed on the roster as a QB" argument holds little to no water.  This would have already been addressed if it was so over powered and as I said this on here before there was a conversation at one of my drafts about Taysom Hill with TE eligibility everyone laughed and said yeah if Hill was QB he'd be the best TE no one said we need to make a rule around that.  But now that it's come to fruition on someone else's team those same people are raising hell over it.  The commissioner in that one specific league already said it's whatever ESPN decides to do and cited the fact that we discussed this at the draft and everyone seemed to be okay with it then when it was a pipe dream.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember back in 2010, Danny Woodhead came out of nowhere to relevance at was listed as a WR instead of a RB. Some one got him, and the commissioner adjusted the settings with more WRs starting so Woodhead could be eligible to start since everyone knew he was being utilized as a RB. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, FouLLine said:

 

Honestly the most fair thing for ESPN to do at this point is reassess on a week to week basis.  I think Taysom will have to be the TE1 by more than 50% for them to do anything about it and it may need to happen for multiple weeks.  If Taysom only gets 35%-40% is he really better than a top 5 TE?  Say Hill does score 20 points, is that really that unfair if Kelsey scores 16 and Waller 14?  Or what if Gesicki or Geodert has a peak week of 28 to Taysom's 22?  

 

I don't think it's fair for any platform to take TE eligibility away until there are multiple weeks where he is clearly the TE1 by a wide margin.  Besides what happens when Brees comes back?  Or if Winston takes over at QB?  Now Hill can't be played at TE anymore?  That isn't fair either.  Waiver priority and FAAB were burnt up on this guy the last week or two... He is still only owned in 26% of ESPN leagues.  So most leagues still have a crack at him.

 

The Taysom Hill eligibility is an analyze and reassess issue right now. 

 

How well he plays should have nothing to do with it. If he starts and/or primarily plays QB and not TE, they should remove his TE eligibility - end of story.

If playing on ESPN, it blows my mind how anyone could think that's unfair. This is exactly what they said they would do before the year began, and it should have been factored in when spending FAAB or waiver priority.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MrCantaloupe said:

 

 

Why does it matter that he doesn't have QB eligibility?!

Nobody is playing this dude at QB.

The advantage of course is to be able to play him at TE.  And he obviously would have Flex eligibility if he has TE eligibility, since doesn't Flex imply RB/WR/TE?  Maybe you can set flex differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MrCantaloupe said:

 

How well he plays should have nothing to do with it. If he starts and/or primarily plays QB and not TE, they should remove his TE eligibility - end of story.

If playing on ESPN, it blows my mind how anyone could think that's unfair. This is exactly what they said they would do before the year began, and it should have been factored in when spending FAAB or waiver priority.

 

 

 

 

That is pretty much what they are saying when they say "we reserve the right to strip him of TE/Flex".  They didn't say they automatically will strip him of it if he starts at QB.  They said they reserve the right to do so.  If what you're saying is true they would have and should have said specifically "If Taysom Hill starts at QB he will be stripped of TE / Flex".  But they didn't say that and they have even come out and said Taysom will be allowed the TE tag this week and it will be further evaluated.

 

So that is exactly how they are playing it and it is the only really fair way.  They should before the games release their criteria for what would make Hill at TE over powered.  If he's the TE1 around double the points of TE2 say Hill scores 38 and Kelce scores 19 then yes I would agree they probably have to take TE / Flex away.  

 

But how is Hill really unfair if he is to average 16-17 points from here on out?  Sure that is likely the TE1 but by what 1 maybe 2 points a week?... What about when he scores 28 points this week but Winston starts next week?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CooL said:

Why does it matter that he doesn't have QB eligibility?!

Nobody is playing this dude at QB.

The advantage of course is to be able to play him at TE.  And he obviously would have Flex eligibility if he has TE eligibility, since doesn't Flex imply RB/WR/TE?  Maybe you can set flex differently.

 

The tweet was in April and Hill then was not eligible at QB.  But has since then gained it.

 

Which fundamentally following the logic of taking TE eligibility away from Hill at this point would mean that no player should ever have multi positional eligibility.  Some years the league has unicorns.  Why kill the unicorn when they are as rare as they are?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CooL said:

Why does it matter that he doesn't have QB eligibility?!

Nobody is playing this dude at QB.

The advantage of course is to be able to play him at TE.  And he obviously would have Flex eligibility if he has TE eligibility, since doesn't Flex imply RB/WR/TE?  Maybe you can set flex differently.

 

I think you misunderstood what this means

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FouLLine said:

 

Can you just post the trades all in a row.  Was it 2 trades between them or 3?

 

It's academic now.  I told CAL and PETE that the trade was being protested and they told me to go ahead and veto it.  After that happened, CAL traded Dalton to PETE for a TE (not Hill!).

Everyone is happy now.  Another day saved.  I wish all leagues were as easy to commission as this one - this has honestly been the only remotely head-scratching thing I've had to deal with in the last 4 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

While we're on the subject, though... would it be possible to get Rotoworld to open a specific forum for Commissioner questions and chat, rather than just this insanely long thread?  Having to sift through all this Taysom Hill debate just to get feedback on my trade review is a little annoying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FouLLine said:

 

That is pretty much what they are saying when they say "we reserve the right to strip him of TE/Flex".  They didn't say they automatically will strip him of it if he starts at QB.  They said they reserve the right to do so.  If what you're saying is true they would have and should have said specifically "If Taysom Hill starts at QB he will be stripped of TE / Flex".  But they didn't say that and they have even come out and said Taysom will be allowed the TE tag this week and it will be further evaluated.

 

So that is exactly how they are playing it and it is the only really fair way.  They should before the games release their criteria for what would make Hill at TE over powered.  If he's the TE1 around double the points of TE2 say Hill scores 38 and Kelce scores 19 then yes I would agree they probably have to take TE / Flex away.  

 

But how is Hill really unfair if he is to average 16-17 points from here on out?  Sure that is likely the TE1 but by what 1 maybe 2 points a week?... What about when he scores 28 points this week but Winston starts next week?

 

The mental gymnastics here are impressive, to say the least

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FouLLine said:

 

The tweet was in April and Hill then was not eligible at QB.  But has since then gained it.

 

Which fundamentally following the logic of taking TE eligibility away from Hill at this point would mean that no player should ever have multi positional eligibility.  Some years the league has unicorns.  Why kill the unicorn when they are as rare as they are?

I missed that it was in April that Clay tweeted.  I agree.  Jaylen Samuels had RB/TE eligibility in Yahoo two years ago and it was awesome.  I rostered for weeks hoping to take advantage and it paid off.  I think if ESPN allows position eligibility to be removed, then why even bother rostering these guys if your only purpose is to try to gain an advantage?  Plenty of better guys than Hill to have used a roster spot on if ESPN is going to possibly change the position designation.

4 minutes ago, MrCantaloupe said:

 

I think you misunderstood what this means

I misunderstood that it was from April.  But I certainly don't misunderstand multi-position eligibility and what scenarios are beneficial.  What do you mean I don't understand what it means?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MrCantaloupe said:

 

The mental gymnastics here are impressive, to say the least

 

More like common sense.  If the criteria were "Hill starts at QB he doesn't get TE tag" then the tweet would have read that.  Not "we reserve the right to stripe TE if he becomes a starter". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tusb said:

 

While we're on the subject, though... would it be possible to get Rotoworld to open a specific forum for Commissioner questions and chat, rather than just this insanely long thread?  Having to sift through all this Taysom Hill debate just to get feedback on my trade review is a little annoying.

 

How so you should be able to find it through your notifications... Unless they didn't quote your post of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CooL said:

 

 

I agree with a post up above.  Why all the fake names?  Just the seed.  This seems like a logic problem from grade school which on a Friday afternoon, I'm just too tired to figure out...

Obviously FooserX, you don't own Taysom Hill.  I think it's nuts that he has QB/TE eligibility as well.  But you can't go changing the rules WHEN IT DOESN'T BENEFIT YOU.  You can't allow the guy in your league to have rostered Hill all this time, thinking he was wasting a roster spot, and only now when the magic comes to fruition and now this owner might actually benefit from TE eligibility, wield your mighty sword and say "NO, I'M NOT ALLOWING IT."

You as the commish and your entire league should have had a vote and discussion ON DRAFT DAY and said, "Hey look, Taysom has QB/TE eligibility.  What do we think of that?  Do we want to allow him to be played at TE?"  

 

 

No one rostered Hill "all this time" - the majority of owners only ran to pick him up when the news broke, or when Brees went down. You do raise a good point - would I rule otherwise if someone had been burning a roster spot on Hill this whole time waiting for this to happen. 

I'm not changing rules - I am correcting loopholes.

Just because ESPN is the platform, doesn't mean they aren't making a mistake. Anyone who blindly follows authority when it doesn't make sense is a fool.

And no, I'm not going to "have a vote on draft day" over 1 in a million magic scenarios that have never happened before.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This Taysom Hill reminds me of when Anthony Rizzo. Rizzo gained second base eligibility. Rizzo is primarily a first baseman but on certain plays Rizzo switches his glove and Javier Baez takes over at first. So yahoooooo & CBS gave Rizzo second base eligibility (they have this weird eligibility rules) espn eligibility rules are a lot stricter. Rizzo never gained eligibility at second.  ... owners took advantage if your platform used those two sites. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FooserX said:

 

No one rostered Hill "all this time" - the majority of owners only ran to pick him up when the news broke, or when Brees went down. You do raise a good point - would I rule otherwise if someone had been burning a roster spot on Hill this whole time waiting for this to happen. 

I'm not changing rules - I am correcting loopholes.

Just because ESPN is the platform, doesn't mean they aren't making a mistake. Anyone who blindly follows authority when it doesn't make sense is a fool.

And no, I'm not going to "have a vote on draft day" over 1 in a million magic scenarios that have never happened before.

 

 

 

 

My opinion you leave it alone... you do not change rules in mid season unless all  100% leaguemates agree. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FouLLine said:

 

More like common sense.  If the criteria were "Hill starts at QB he doesn't get TE tag" then the tweet would have read that.  Not "we reserve the right to stripe TE if he becomes a starter". 

 

I don't think you know what common sense is. Clay didn't tweet a definitive if/then statement, because why the hell would he do that? What would have happened if Taysom Hill randomly started in the wildcat with Drew Brees lined up out wide?

Actual common sense tells me they were worried about his taking over at QB and remaining TE eligible, and only included this caveat in their tweet because they plan to remove his eligibility if he starts and/or primarily plays QB. I don't understand how you could see it any other way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, FooserX said:

 

No one rostered Hill "all this time" - the majority of owners only ran to pick him up when the news broke, or when Brees went down. You do raise a good point - would I rule otherwise if someone had been burning a roster spot on Hill this whole time waiting for this to happen. 

I'm not changing rules - I am correcting loopholes.

Just because ESPN is the platform, doesn't mean they aren't making a mistake. Anyone who blindly follows authority when it doesn't make sense is a fool.

And no, I'm not going to "have a vote on draft day" over 1 in a million magic scenarios that have never happened before.

 

 

 

 

But should that really matter?  So an owner beat everyone else to the punch, or used FAAB to get him, etc. 

My opinion is you can't make up or change a rule without getting the league to vote on it before the incident in question happens.  It might be a 1 in a million scenario, but it happened, didn't it?  It's happened with Joe Webb, Jaylen Samuels, Marques Colston, etc.  If you don't want to allow it to happen, then you guys should have discussed at the draft.  Now that you've seen it happen, you should allow it to go forward and then for next year's draft, you can talk about these scenarios.

To make a ruling after something has already occurred which will benefit you (and the rest of your league) at the expense of one league mate is not fair.

Would you be making your ruling if you had been lucky to roster Taysom Hill?  That's really what it boils down to.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem, of course, it there really is no difference between a TE and a WR that could survive legal scrutiny.

So the default has always been the website settings, although some of started playing fantasy football before there were websites designed to host leagues.

WR and TEs occasionally line up in the backfield and take handoffs.  RBs occasionally split out wide and run routes.

On trick plays, all of the above could throw forward passes.  Just have to stick to the existing eligibility settings.  No other fair way to play it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can’t believe there are leagues that are really manually changing his position eligibility. 
 

This is the most insane thing I’ve ever heard(right ahead of Hill even having TE eligibility). 
 

There is NOTHING against the rules of a guy being played in a position that he has been having eligibility for all year for.

 
I don’t care how unlikely this scenario was. I don’t care how “unfair” you think it is. This is 100% legal and within the rules of any established league(unless previously discussed and established by the league rules)

Any commish who is making rule changes now because of this is a fraud and any league owner who is whining is just a baby. 
 

All of you. I repeat ALL OF YOU had a chance to draft him. A chance to pick him up. And you are upset because you missed out and it might cost you a championship. 
 

Yes, it would absolutely suck to get knocked out of a playoff spot due to hill get 30 points at TE but it’s perfectly legal. 
 

Is it fair? Debatable. Guess what though. Sometimes life isn’t fair and sh*t happens.  
 

As a commish you are doing a disservice to your league if you are taking his eligibility away and if I was an owner in that league it is happening to I would quit the day after the league ended. 
 

You know when a commish can step in?  When it’s a clear cut error. Did a player not get points they earned due to a glitch?  Go in and fix it.  
 

Was a trade accepted by accident? Investigate and make a ruling. 
 

Any league changing the rules now is the only mistake being made in all of this. 
 

  • Like 5
Link to post
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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...