Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

  • 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

3 minutes ago, GottaGetTheWin said:


 

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

 

 

 

This is the crux of the debate - you are right - there is nothing against the rules allowing this to happen.

Things change man. To be so stuck in "rules" while things go arwy is just silly. Man up. 

 

To me, this is the logic of the Umpires and MLB when it comes to the Armando Galarraga play. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armando_Galarraga's_near-perfect_game

 

Dude pitches a perfect game. Umpire BLOWS the last call of the last out of the last inning. Reversing the call would have been the "right" thing to do...but MLB won't do it because it's "not in the rules" and has never been done before. What happened in the years after? They instituted instant replay because everyone was tired of blown calls messing up the integrity of the game. 

The logic here is the same. The rules allow for this to happen - doesn't make it right. 

Evolve and use your head. You can't have a starting QB playing in a TE slot when the coach just said he's not going to be playing TE...because he's playing QB. lol 

I just see a bunch of people trying to justify a cheat code here at the expense of their friends and league mates. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

This is the crux of the debate - you are right - there is nothing against the rules allowing this to happen.

Things change man. To be so stuck in "rules" while things go arwy is just silly. Man up. 

 

To me, this is the logic of the Umpires and MLB when it comes to the Armando Galarraga play. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armando_Galarraga's_near-perfect_game

 

Dude pitches a perfect game. Umpire BLOWS the last call of the last out of the last inning. Reversing the call would have been the "right" thing to do...but MLB won't do it because it's "not in the rules" and has never been done before. What happened in the years after? They instituted instant replay because everyone was tired of blown calls messing up the integrity of the game. 

The logic here is the same. The rules allow for this to happen - doesn't make it right. 

Evolve and use your head. You can't have a starting QB playing in a TE slot when the coach just said he's not going to be playing TE...because he's playing QB. lol 

I just see a bunch of people trying to justify a cheat code here at the expense of their friends and league mates. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 You honestly just made my point and the point of many people in this thread.  This is an anomaly.  Look back up the pages and you will see I am 100% against him having TE eligibility to begin with BUT he does.  Using your Armando example, nothing was done in the current year because it had never been done before so hands were tied for that year. The change happened NEXT YEAR.  

Well Hill has opened a loophole THIS YEAR.  Yes, it sucks but hands are tied.  Changes need to be made NEXT YEAR.   After this season is over, league owners/commissioners can eliminate multi position eligibility until the cows come home, I could care less but it has to be done at the start of the year. You can't do it with 3 weeks left in the regular season. 

 

You say people are trying to justify a cheat code at the expense of their league mates.  I argue that league mates are trying to justify cheating a single owner because that owner is playing within the established rules. 

 

I 100% believe that integrity of leagues is being compromised by any commish who is changing rules now instead of the other way around. 

 

You want an example of when a commish should step in mid-season and change eligibility.  Let's say the Chiefs kicker went down with an injury early in the game and for some reason Pat Mahomes is the emergency kicker and he finishes the game knocking through extra points and short field goals.  Now ESPN decides to give Mahomes kicker eligibility even though the Chiefs sign a replacement and that is now their starting kicker.  THAT is when I'm fine with a commish stepping in because this is an obvious and egregious error for K eligibility to be added mid-season. 

Hill has had TE eligibility ALL season.  Every owner in those leagues had a chance to pick up him and stash him for this type of scenario.  If they didn't that's on them and it's no place for the commish to bail them out. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

Also, I think we've all learned a very valuable lesson here. 

 

ESPN has been a sh*t fantasy service forever and everyone should transfer to literally anything else. 

I can find fault in every platform not just ESPN. They all have flaws..

Fantasy baseball fans were very upset with yahooo giving Anthony Rizzo second base eligibility  ...  

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

I can find fault in every platform not just ESPN. They all have flaws..

Fantasy baseball fans were very upset with yahooo giving Anthony Rizzo second base eligibility  ...  

100%.  I just can't stand ESPN so I'm using this time to bash them lol. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also going to go further out with this.  

 

IF(and it's more likely when) ESPN takes away his TE eligibility after this week I don't think any Hill owners have anything to b*itch about.  ESPN is the game master and unless decided upon before the year all owners have agreed to live under their umbrella.  If the game masters pull the eligibility then Hill owners have agreed to play under that ruling and have no right to complain. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

 

 

Well Hill has opened a loophole THIS YEAR.  Yes, it sucks but hands are tied.  Changes need to be made NEXT YEAR.   After this season is over, league owners/commissioners can eliminate multi position eligibility until the cows come home, I could care less but it has to be done at the start of the year. You can't do it with 3 weeks left in the regular season. 

 

 

 

No my hand, yo! lol

I'm going to be proactive. I don't need to wait for a committee. I'm Han Solo, you guys are Leia. 😛

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all are bringing down commissioners corner. 

 

This isn't 3-4 page debatable. 

 

If you'd been here previous years you'd already know the answer. 

 

1) ESPN is dumb 

2) The guy that has Hill has won the weekly prize 

3) Get over it

4) Don't make reactionary rules mid season because something 100% legal doesn't benefit you 

5) Discuss and vote on how to rectify this next offseason PREVIOUS to the start of the next year (if you truly believe it needs to be rectified) 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t seen anyone post this..

I have Taysom Hill as my TE this week.

He is also in my TE spot for every weekly lineup for the rest of the season.

Even if they take away TE eligibility, he is still going to be in my TE spot. The question is. What happens then? If my lineup is set in advance with all of the proper starters, I don’t need to make a move and ESPN isn’t going to make me adjust my lineup. However, if I try to sub in a different DST for another DST, it’ll likely tell me my lineup is invalid.

 

What are you commissioners going to do next week when people don’t need to make a lineup change and he is still in the TE spot with only QB eligibility? Are you going to manually change the owners lineup and remove him so he has to put a TE in there?

Edited by Steve226
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steve226 said:

I haven’t seen anyone post this..

I have Taysom Hill as my TE this week.

He is also in my TE spot for every weekly lineup for the rest of the season.

Even if they take away TE eligibility, he is still going to be in my TE spot. The question is. What happens then? If my lineup is set in advance with all of the proper starters, I don’t need to make a move and ESPN isn’t going to make me adjust my lineup. However, if I try to sub in a different DST for another DST, it’ll likely tell me my lineup is invalid.

 

What are you commissioners going to do next week when people don’t need to make a lineup change and he is still in the TE spot with only QB eligibility? Are you going to manually change the owners lineup and remove him so he has to put a TE in there?

Interesting, hadn't thought about that either.  I would assume it would be similar to the IR slot.  Won't be able to make other moves until the ineligible player is addressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Steve226 said:

I haven’t seen anyone post this..

I have Taysom Hill as my TE this week.

He is also in my TE spot for every weekly lineup for the rest of the season.

Even if they take away TE eligibility, he is still going to be in my TE spot. The question is. What happens then? If my lineup is set in advance with all of the proper starters, I don’t need to make a move and ESPN isn’t going to make me adjust my lineup. However, if I try to sub in a different DST for another DST, it’ll likely tell me my lineup is invalid.

 

What are you commissioners going to do next week when people don’t need to make a lineup change and he is still in the TE spot with only QB eligibility? Are you going to manually change the owners lineup and remove him so he has to put a TE in there?

 

At that point if I'm commish, I'm forcing the owner to make a change.  If a player isn't eligible for that spot based on the software's parameters then he shouldn't be able to be played in that spot. 

Edited by GottaGetTheWin
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Steve226 said:

I haven’t seen anyone post this..

I have Taysom Hill as my TE this week.

He is also in my TE spot for every weekly lineup for the rest of the season.

Even if they take away TE eligibility, he is still going to be in my TE spot. The question is. What happens then? If my lineup is set in advance with all of the proper starters, I don’t need to make a move and ESPN isn’t going to make me adjust my lineup. However, if I try to sub in a different DST for another DST, it’ll likely tell me my lineup is invalid.

 

What are you commissioners going to do next week when people don’t need to make a lineup change and he is still in the TE spot with only QB eligibility? Are you going to manually change the owners lineup and remove him so he has to put a TE in there?

 

I let it go. 

 

Just like cletis said below your post. Same as IR rule for yahoo. 

 

Several GMs in my league have realized you can exploit it for an extra bench slot until a new O / IR designation is created, but you are not allowed to make additional roster add / drops until this is rectified. 

 

It's just a small loophole that hasn't caused enough fuss to be voted on in my league. 

 

If and when it does though, we'll vote on it on the offseason and resolve it then. As of today, it would be allowable though for MY league. 

 

I'd implore your owner to do the same, but I'm not him / her. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

 

At that point if I'm commish, I'm forcing the owner to make a change.  If a player isn't eligible for that spot based on the software's parameters then he shouldn't be able to be played in that spot. 

So you would force someone to drop a guy from an IR spot too?

Edited by GarrettHasTheClap
Took a word out
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GarrettHasTheClap said:

So you would force someone to drop a guy from an IR spot too? Wow.

 

Actually yes.  The league I play in, IF the player isn't on IR then he can't be used in an IR spot.  For whatever reason Yahoo allows players listed as O to be put in IR.  Every so often an owner forgets tries to get away with it and the commish has to come down on them.  If they don't remove the player or are a repeat offender then they are fined FAAB.  

 

Please explain why a player who ISN'T listed as position eligible should be allowed to be in that position?  Should I just be allowed to put Mahomes to my RB2 as long as I let him sit there the whole year?

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

 

Actually yes.  The league I play in, IF the player isn't on IR then he can't be used in an IR spot.  For whatever reason Yahoo allows players listed as O to be put in IR.  Every so often an owner forgets tries to get away with it and the commish has to come down on them.  If they don't remove the player or are a repeat offender then they are fined FAAB.  

 

Please explain why a player who ISN'T listed as position eligible should be allowed to be in that position?  Should I just be allowed to put Mahomes to my RB2 as long as I let him sit there the whole year?

Their lineup is locked. That should be punishment enough. I didn't know there were commissioners this serious about their jobs🤣

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

 

Actually yes.  The league I play in, IF the player isn't on IR then he can't be used in an IR spot.  For whatever reason Yahoo allows players listed as O to be put in IR.  Every so often an owner forgets tries to get away with it and the commish has to come down on them.  If they don't remove the player or are a repeat offender then they are fined FAAB.  

 

Please explain why a player who ISN'T listed as position eligible should be allowed to be in that position?  Should I just be allowed to put Mahomes to my RB2 as long as I let him sit there the whole year?

If Mahomes was RB eligible when you placed him in there then sure why not? Odds are someone wouldn't be able to do that all year because of injuries/bye weeks they would be forced to make roster moves.

Edited by Silkk1211
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GarrettHasTheClap said:

Their lineup is locked. That should be punishment enough. I didn't know there were commissioners this serious about their jobs🤣

Why would my lineup being locked be punishment enough?  If my bye weeks are cleared and I don't have any injuries then why would I care at all if my lineup is locked?  My lineup is locked anyway unless I'm streaming defenses.  

 

Yes, commissioners actually being commissioners is what happens when you play in quality leagues. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Silkk1211 said:

If Mahomes was RB eligible when you placed him in there then sure why not? Odds are someone wouldn't be able to do that all year because of injuries/bye weeks they would be forced to make roster moves.

Am I in the twilight zone right now?

 Are people really telling me that seeing this isn't a problem? TE - Taysom Hill, QB, NO

If you don't then you aren't trying to play and enjoy some friendly competition,  you are trying to exploit and you are the worst type of owner who sucks the fun out of competition so you can feed your ego to win a fantasy league.  

Every single person above that is complaining about Taysom being put at TE right now WHILE HE IS ELIGIBLE should stop whining because it's within the rules BUT THE MINUTE HE IS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE THAT CHANGES.  It's no longer in the rules for him to be at that position.  Am I the crazy one here?  Is the concept of someone not being able to play a position they aren't listed to be able to play that foreign? 

If a player has eligibility at that position from the software then that player should be allowed to play there.  If that player doesn't have that eligibility then they shouldn't.  I don't think it's that complicated. 

Should I be able to continue to collect unemployment because I was out of work for 3 weeks due to COVID, even though I'm back to work?  

What happened to common sense?

 

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

Am I in the twilight zone right now?

 Are people really telling me that seeing this isn't a problem? TE - Taysom Hill, QB, NO

If you don't then you aren't trying to play and enjoy some friendly competition,  you are trying to exploit and you are the worst type of owner who sucks the fun out of competition so you can feed your ego to win a fantasy league.  

Every single person above that is complaining about Taysom being put at TE right now WHILE HE IS ELIGIBLE should stop whining because it's within the rules BUT THE MINUTE HE IS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE THAT CHANGES.  It's no longer in the rules for him to be at that position.  Am I the crazy one here?  Is the concept of someone not being able to play a position they aren't listed to be able to play that foreign? 

If a player has eligibility at that position from the software then that player should be allowed to play there.  If that player doesn't have that eligibility then they shouldn't.  I don't think it's that complicated. 

Should I be able to continue to collect unemployment because I was out of work for 3 weeks due to COVID, even though I'm back to work?  

What happened to common sense?

 

Sounds like you are in the twilight zone. Go to bed.

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

 

Tremendous response to validate your point and try to give detail into why your point makes sense.

 

 

 

haha okay okay i'll be fair. I truly see both sides and I couldn't fault a commish either way. If you're in a league with an IR spot and it is able to be used to keep guys in even if they're not currently on IR or labelled out than this is no different IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

Am I in the twilight zone right now?

 Are people really telling me that seeing this isn't a problem? TE - Taysom Hill, QB, NO

If you don't then you aren't trying to play and enjoy some friendly competition,  you are trying to exploit and you are the worst type of owner who sucks the fun out of competition so you can feed your ego to win a fantasy league.  

Every single person above that is complaining about Taysom being put at TE right now WHILE HE IS ELIGIBLE should stop whining because it's within the rules BUT THE MINUTE HE IS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE THAT CHANGES.  It's no longer in the rules for him to be at that position.  Am I the crazy one here?  Is the concept of someone not being able to play a position they aren't listed to be able to play that foreign? 

If a player has eligibility at that position from the software then that player should be allowed to play there.  If that player doesn't have that eligibility then they shouldn't.  I don't think it's that complicated. 

Should I be able to continue to collect unemployment because I was out of work for 3 weeks due to COVID, even though I'm back to work?  

What happened to common sense?

 

 

You seem passionate about this so I won't attack, just state. 

 

See my post above about in season rules. 

 

If you are passionate and you have a long standing league you'll have either 

 

A) seen this coming and be ready or

B. now see this as something to curb in the future and create an off-season rule to rectify this next year

 

Whatever you do though, it's your league. Good luck. Just keep the masses happy. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Silkk1211 said:

haha okay okay i'll be fair. I truly see both sides and I couldn't fault a commish either way. If you're in a league with an IR spot and it is able to be used to keep guys in even if they're not currently on IR or labelled out than this is no different IMO.

 

I'll quickly say that I don't think players who aren't on IR should be allowed to be in IR spots, but all that allows is a team to carry an extra bench player who is likely an end of bench type guy.  Having a guy playing QB in the TE spot when he isn't even listed as a TE is 1000x more impactful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dreams And Dwightmares said:

 

You seem passionate about this so I won't attack, just state. 

 

See my post above about in season rules. 

 

If you are passionate and you have a long standing league you'll have either 

 

A) seen this coming and be ready or

B. now see this as something to curb in the future and create an off-season rule to rectify this next year

 

Whatever you do though, it's your league. Good luck. Just keep the masses happy. 

 

 

 

Agree with everything you said, but allowing someone who is listed as a QB to be played in a TE spot is exponentially more impactful than a guy carrying an extra bench player.  To your point, Yahoo allowing O to be in IR isn't really THAT big of an exploit.  My league takes it seriously..others don't but regardless that exploit is having very minimal impact on a week to week basis. 

 

Conversely, the potential exploit of allowing a QB to play TE when he isn't eligible at TE is a huge, influential swing on a week to week basis.  

 

TE - Taysom Hill, QB/TE, NO.......this would be 100% fair and in the right of the owner to use.  As you said, after the season rules can be put in place to figure a solution if it's really an issue.

 

TE - Taysom Hill, QB, NO....this is a complete exploit and the commish needs to step in for fairness of the league IMO

 

Honestly, I play in Yahoo and none of this impacts me one way or the other, I just don't understand how people can say with a straight face that a player should be allowed to be slotted into a position they aren't listed to be at and call that fair. 

If we are letting people with one position eligibility play in other positions then why can't I just start QBs at every position I have? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

 

I'll quickly say that I don't think players who aren't on IR should be allowed to be in IR spots, but all that allows is a team to carry an extra bench player who is likely an end of bench type guy.  Having a guy playing QB in the TE spot when he isn't even listed as a TE is 1000x more impactful. 

And I’ll quickly say from personal experience I myself have had extremely valuable end of bench guys I was able to keep and had I dropped them I would of lost out big time (typically rb handcuffs). Also have seen this happen with fellow competitors in the past.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...