Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

Just now, Joe Mama said:

My main league has always done this


that is terrible if true. All trick plays are eliminated?  Well done.
 

Do you also dictate that any plays not run out of the wishbone shouldn’t count either? 

  • Like 2
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

8 minutes ago, jagsfan05 said:

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 about how unfair it was towards me and were even ok putting together a vote or if I wanted to change the settings to alter how Taysom Hill scored points. I decided against it because it would have been unfair for my opponent and especially with me being the Commish as his opponent to "cheat the system". I decided against it and figured I would have to just take the loss in a must win game for me.


I won last night by .3 of a point and am glad I didn't alter anything. Sometimes doing the right thing is doing what doesn't benefit you the most.

All well and good. You think it was the ‘right thing’ and you got lucky and won. Not sure what that has to do with anything really.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rizon said:


that is terrible if true. All trick plays are eliminated?  Well done.
 

Do you also dictate that any plays not run out of the wishbone shouldn’t count either? 

Yeah I can see why people wouldn’t like this. We actually implemented this rule many years ago and no one has asked for it to be changed, guess we all figure things even out over time

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Flyman75 said:


In my 12-team league, nobody voted against him staying as a WR. Albeit, that’s different than TE. 


Every league is different, you might play with more mature, thoughtful players who don't only vote in their own self interest but I can assure you, that is not all leagues 😹

Edited by Gandalfthecat
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gandalfthecat said:


Every league is different, you might play with more mature, thoughtful players who don't only vote in their own self interest but I can assure you, that is not all leagues 😹


I disagree about more mature, thoughtful owners. Haha! But yeah, that was my point...every league is different and that’s okay. 

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


No you don’t, if something is “wrong”, you change it. You don’t ruin the integrity of the league, 11 other players, because something is blatantly wrong. So it’s wrong for 1 week, let’s just let it be wrong for the next 7 weeks as well. That’s terrible IMO. 

Then why let it be wrong last week. That's my whole point, it's not consistent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ajs723 said:

Then why let it be wrong last week. That's my whole point, it's not consistent.

 

There was no way to know if he was actually going to play the whole game at QB when Payton never came out and said he would and even responded to media reports by saying he hadn't named a starter yet. There was no way to know what Payton was going to do with him...whether he was going to start and play the first series before going back to his go-go-gadget norm, or not start at all, or start and play the whole game, or alternate series. Now we know. 

I think ESPN, FleaFlicker, and FanDuel did the right thing this weekend. Instead of giving into a knee-jerk reaction, they waited to see what would actually happen. Shefty and others have been wrong or mislead by coaches in the past in regard to the role of a player. Now that we have witnessed him playing the entire game at QB, I don't believe it would be inconsistent to remove the TE and/or WR tag from him, as long as they're returned when Brees comes back. 

Edited by Flyman75
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Flyman75 said:

 

There was no way to know if he was actually going to play the whole game at QB when Payton never came out and said he would and even responded to media reports by saying he hadn't named a starter yet. There was no way to know what Payton was going to do with him...whether he was going to start and play the first series before going back to his go-go-gadget norm, or not start at all, or start and play the whole game, or alternate series. Now we know. 

I think ESPN, FleaFlicker, and FanDuel did the right thing this weekend. Instead of giving into a knee-jerk reaction, they waited to see what would actually happen. Shefty and others have been wrong or mislead by coaches in the past in regard to the role of a player. Now that we have witnessed him playing the entire game at QB, I don't believe it would be inconsistent to remove the TE and/or WR tag from him, as long as they're returned when Brees comes back. 

Fair enough. I still don't think he ever should have been listed at TE, but this is really beating a dead horse at this point.

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

I just cannot get behind the logic of… Everybody says it’s OK to do some thing wrong so that means we can do it.

That is what is happening here. 
 

Are you guys in capable of thinking for yourselves…

Then why weren't you banging the drum against Taysom Hill having TE eligibility for this entire season?  Why didn't you as the commish raise the issue at the draft and pondered what would happen? 

Didn't your league have the foresight to think this might happen?  Or did you all (except for the one lucky Taysom Hill owner) think that it was an impossibility that Brees would get injured and something like this might actually happen?  And that therefore rostering Hill would be a waste of a roster spot, would handicap that team, but let it happen anyway because that silly owner is just hoping for a miracle?

If ESPN allows it, then he gets to play as a TE.

What I don't agree with is that ESPN can choose to remove the TE designation.  It needs to stay for the entire rest of the season.  Yahoo never removes designations.  Where was the uproar when Joe Webb was a QB/WR?  Where was the uproar when Jaylen Samuels was a RB/TE?  Samuels won me the playoffs in Yahoo for that.  I don't recall people being so angry at the time like they are about Hill.

I also however don't agree that if ESPN should remove the TE designation, that an owner can leave Hill in the TE slot and just have a locked roster and be unable to make any lineup changes or waiver moves.  That's wrong.  The platform should force you to have a valid lineup every week based on the current designations.  I know that if you have a guy on IR, and he comes off IR, you can choose to leave him in IR, you just won't be able to make any moves.  That's wrong too, but it's not as if the platform can force you to make a change or autodrop another player.  In my league, we have a league rule that says if a player comes off IR, you have 24 hours to move him out of IR onto your active roster, otherwise the commish will autodrop your guy in IR.  That I think is very fair.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ajs723 said:

Fair enough. I still don't think he ever should have been listed at TE, but this is really beating a dead horse at this point.

 

You might be right about that. However, he's been a guy who played all over the field in his first three seasons, on offense and STs. And last year when Brees missed five games, Bridgewater was the guy. So coming into this year, I think it made sense to assume Winston and his 5000 yards and 33 TDs in 2019 would be the next-man-up if Brees was injured again. Given past info and assumed potential role, I think it made sense to add a TE tag to him or maybe a WR tag to him for 2020. Tbh, I think ESPN giving him TE eligibility for 2020 made more sense than FleaFlicker giving him WR eligibility, based on 2019 usage. 

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

I raised this issue above and haven't seen any examples yet, so allow me to ask it clearly here:

Can anyone give me an example of a player "losing" a positional eligibility during the season on any major platform... ever?

 

You did ask it clearly earlier, and the reason there are no responses is because there are no examples. But I suspect you already know this. 

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

I raised this issue above and haven't seen any examples yet, so allow me to ask it clearly here:

Can anyone give me an example of a player "losing" a positional eligibility during the season on any major platform... ever?

Not sure if that is a fair question in this example though.  Never have we been in a position where a player is playing fantasy's most consistent scoring position having eligibility for it's least consistent.  We are in new waters here. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

Not sure if that is a fair question in this example though.  Never have we been in a position where a player is playing fantasy's most consistent scoring position having eligibility for it's least consistent.  We are in new waters here. 

 

Agreed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thebadferret said:

How would you handle the following situation or how are the rules for your dynasty league.

There is one team (Team A) which after 3 weeks decided there's no chance he gets anywhere this season so he decided to tank. He traded nearly all his valuable pieces for picks or players that are on IR (Saquon, Dak, etc). He - as expected - went 1-9 till this week. Which imho is a totally fine decision to make in a dynasty league.

There are 2 more teams which had bad luck with injuries and are 2-8 (Team B) and 3-7 (Team C). Now Team C realised that it's just a few losses from potentially the #1 overall.

Team C played Team A this week. Left Melvin Gordon, Michael Thomas and Aaron Rodgers on the bench and started backups and also had 3 players in the lineup who are on bye. Of corse Team A won. Meanwhile Team B lost because it's just a bad team lol.

Now Team A is rightfully pissed, because he made sure that he isn't tanking by setting empty/bad playerslots.

 

I - as a team that is fighting for the playoffs - am pissed, because my playoff race rival plays against Team C next week. I fear that he pulls the same stunt again and gives away a free win, while I play a team that's actual trying to win, too.

 

I fear that if I don't interfere the teams going for the #1 pick will set up empty (garbage) starters just to keep losing and that next year this will maybe start even earlier. Ruins the fun I my eyes.

 

So, how du you handle that?
What are your rules?
As long as an active player is in every starter slot it's okay?
You have to set the best starters you have? If so, do you go after prediction? Do you leave some room for discussion (startin TreQuan Smit over MT is not for discussion, starting Cousins over Rodgers could be discussed)? And how do you punish that? Do you administrative change the lineups afterwards?

Don't know how strict I should be. 🤷‍♂️

I want to keep the league competitive but still fun!

regarding tanking for a pick in a dynasty--

In the dynasty league I play in you have to start a full team every week. No injured or IR guys, no guys on bye. If you don't start a full team your team gets a 0 for the week and you get a warning. If you do it again you are removed from the league and replaced with somebody on the wait list. Since waivers only run every evening and there's not real-time add/drops the commish allows for a lot of wiggle room about good faith attempts to start a full team. If you have one TE on your roster and he's questionable but looks like he's going to start and then ends up not playing last minute or even due to something that happens saturday evening (most of the guys have families, etc at this point--generally a committed and knowledgeable group but sometimes you don't have the time you did when you were 22), it's not a big deal. You just get a 0 at the TE spot but everything else is fine. This league has been like this for a decade + and there's only been 3 or 4 warnings due to not starting a full team. 

We're also supposed to start the best team we can, every week. But of course that's to our discretion. If you bench Davante Adams for the 3rd string WR on the Pats, somebody's going to notice and raise a stink and you'll get a warning first, league ejection if you do it again. Any start/sit decisions that are at all reasonable or defensible though are fine. This has never been an issue in the league and I can't recall even one instance where anybody had to defend any start/sit decisions. We also have punishments for getting last place so even though you get the 1.1 draft pick there's still a price to pay (dumb license plate, stupid picture somewhere public--just something embarrassing). 

In general it just helps to have a league full of grown ups. It's also helpful that we don't have "that one guy" who thinks he's fantasy football Bill Belichick and is always trying to do some shady **** that's technically not against the rules but still somehow shady and pisses the league off. I've been in leagues with guys like that and at some point everybody just reaches a point where they don't want to deal with it anymore and either the guy stops doing it, isn't invited back, or the league dissolves. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

Not sure if that is a fair question in this example though.  Never have we been in a position where a player is playing fantasy's most consistent scoring position having eligibility for it's least consistent.  We are in new waters here. 

 

My question is neither fair nor unfair because it does not suggest whether a change should be made or not.  In fact, I haven't made a normative statement on this matter anywhere.  And I understand that it is a unique situation.

But the fact that they've never taken away a player's positional eligibility midseason is probative evidence that they are unlikely to do so here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thebadferret said:

How would you handle the following situation or how are the rules for your dynasty league.

There is one team (Team A) which after 3 weeks decided there's no chance he gets anywhere this season so he decided to tank. He traded nearly all his valuable pieces for picks or players that are on IR (Saquon, Dak, etc). He - as expected - went 1-9 till this week. Which imho is a totally fine decision to make in a dynasty league.

There are 2 more teams which had bad luck with injuries and are 2-8 (Team B) and 3-7 (Team C). Now Team C realised that it's just a few losses from potentially the #1 overall.

Team C played Team A this week. Left Melvin Gordon, Michael Thomas and Aaron Rodgers on the bench and started backups and also had 3 players in the lineup who are on bye. Of corse Team A won. Meanwhile Team B lost because it's just a bad team lol.

Now Team A is rightfully pissed, because he made sure that he isn't tanking by setting empty/bad playerslots.

 

I - as a team that is fighting for the playoffs - am pissed, because my playoff race rival plays against Team C next week. I fear that he pulls the same stunt again and gives away a free win, while I play a team that's actual trying to win, too.

 

I fear that if I don't interfere the teams going for the #1 pick will set up empty (garbage) starters just to keep losing and that next year this will maybe start even earlier. Ruins the fun I my eyes.

 

So, how du you handle that?
What are your rules?
As long as an active player is in every starter slot it's okay?
You have to set the best starters you have? If so, do you go after prediction? Do you leave some room for discussion (startin TreQuan Smit over MT is not for discussion, starting Cousins over Rodgers could be discussed)? And how do you punish that? Do you administrative change the lineups afterwards?

Don't know how strict I should be. 🤷‍♂️

I want to keep the league competitive but still fun!

This is exactly why we don't set draft order based on reverse standings like the real NFL.

We have a consolation bracket.  Winner of the bracket gets #1 pick.  So thus there is no tanking at all.  You play out the string, even if you're not playing for money, you're playing for that #1 pick.

Also would recommend setting a rule at next year's draft saying you have to field a valid lineup.  Obviously sometimes things are going on and people forget to replace injured players, leave players in on a bye, etc.  Commish gives a warning if it happens.  After multiple warnings, then there is a vote by the league to boot the player from the league next season.  It's only happened once in our league history so not common.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's a question.

ESPN has stated that they will remove eligibility for this week. The owner in my league is saying "Well, I just won't move him out of the TE spot". I know the website will restrict your moves that you can make until you fix your lineup (similar to having an ineligible player in the IR), but will he continue to get the points with having a QB in the TE spot? Do you think I have any grounds to step in as commish?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, afl5013 said:

So here's a question.

ESPN has stated that they will remove eligibility for this week. The owner in my league is saying "Well, I just won't move him out of the TE spot". I know the website will restrict your moves that you can make until you fix your lineup (similar to having an ineligible player in the IR), but will he continue to get the points with having a QB in the TE spot? Do you think I have any grounds to step in as commish?

 

You’re the Commish, edit his lineup to make it legal and explain why. 

Anyway, I’ve been reading this and my guess is he’ll PROBABLY get the points. I just can’t imagine myself in a league with people like this though. They complain about the “crybabies” having an issue with a FT QB in the TE slot, yet they then turn around and blatantly cheat the system when the platform itself acknowledges the mistake. Good luck, but it sure does say a lot about the person you’re playing with. I see a lot of friendships ruined and leagues being dismantled over this. 

Edited by Sonny_D
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, afl5013 said:

So here's a question.

ESPN has stated that they will remove eligibility for this week. The owner in my league is saying "Well, I just won't move him out of the TE spot". I know the website will restrict your moves that you can make until you fix your lineup (similar to having an ineligible player in the IR), but will he continue to get the points with having a QB in the TE spot? Do you think I have any grounds to step in as commish?

I would bring it to the league’s attention and have a vote. You can definitely just do it yourself but that may cause some bad blood. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, afl5013 said:

So here's a question.

ESPN has stated that they will remove eligibility for this week. The owner in my league is saying "Well, I just won't move him out of the TE spot". I know the website will restrict your moves that you can make until you fix your lineup (similar to having an ineligible player in the IR), but will he continue to get the points with having a QB in the TE spot? Do you think I have any grounds to step in as commish?


Yes.  
 

I was fully on-board with him being  eligible for use at TE last week as long as the platform had him listed as such, but now that the change has been made, the owner has an illegal lineup.

 

If he refuses to move Hill himself, I would step in as commissioner and do it for him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sonny_D said:

 

You’re the Commish, edit his lineup to make it legal and explain why. 

Anyway, I’ve been reading this and my guess is he’ll PROBABLY get the points. I just can’t imagine myself in a league with people like this though. They complain about the “crybabies” having an issue with a FT QB in the TE slot, yet they then turn around and blatantly cheat the system when the platform itself acknowledges the mistake. Good luck, but it sure does say a lot about the person you’re playing with. I see a lot of friendships ruined and leagues being dismantled over this. 

 

1 minute ago, MyFistYourFace said:

I would bring it to the league’s attention and have a vote. You can definitely just do it yourself but that may cause some bad blood. 

 

1 minute ago, SkinsChargersFan said:


Yes.  
 

I was fully on-board with him being  eligible for use at TE last week as long as the platform had him listed as such, but now that the change has been made, the owner has an illegal lineup.

 

If he refuses to move Hill himself, I would step in as commissioner and do it for him.


Thanks for the confirmation. It winds up that I'm playing him this week, so I wanted to make sure it wasn't internal bias clouding my judgement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, lolcopter said:

Yardage bonuses are more egregious than Hill at TE

I am in one ... and I hate it. 300-399 5 bonus over 400 10 bonus .... 100-199 5 bonus . Over 200 10 bonus

bogus **** 

56 minutes ago, afl5013 said:

So here's a question.

ESPN has stated that they will remove eligibility for this week. The owner in my league is saying "Well, I just won't move him out of the TE spot". I know the website will restrict your moves that you can make until you fix your lineup (similar to having an ineligible player in the IR), but will he continue to get the points with having a QB in the TE spot? Do you think I have any grounds to step in as commish?

I am going to assume ESPN if Hill is left in the TE spot with only QB designation the team will get ZERO points 

  • Like 1
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...