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

1 minute ago, FooserX said:

 

Nah - it's bush league all the people in here clinging to FF loopholes for wins. 

Are you comparing a utility player like Cordelle and Taysom to a full blown starting QB who will get to touch the ball almost every snap?

 

There is no world in which this play makes any sense in terms of fairness. I'm sorry all you dudes want to cheat your way to victory under the guise of "it's allowable!" lol...but as Commissh of my league, I'm not going to do this to the rest of the owners. 

 

Just because something is allowable, doesn't mean it's right. 

 

 

Nah, what's bush league is abusing commissioner powers in order to create new rules mid season because something legal and justified doesn't benefit you.

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

 

Nah, what's bush league is abusing commissioner powers in order to create new rules mid season because something legal and justified doesn't benefit you.

 

A commish is in charge of making sure the league is fair.

Just because ESPN dropped the ball, doesn't mean I'm going to drop the ball.

This is a very unique scenario that requires special care and treatment. To lump it in with all the other weird instances and history would be taking the easy way out and not using your brain. 

 

BTW - this is how ALL fraud ever happens. People think loopholes and cheatcodes are allowable because there aren't black and white exact rules for the specific thing they are doing, and so they use that logic to justify their unethical decisions to themselves. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fried Pork Grind said:

He is listed on the Saints depth chart as a QB, he is starting at QB. I am having a hard time understanding your logic. 

 

-Ty Montgomery was listed on the Packers depth chart as a RB and qualified both at RB, WR

-Cordarrelle Patterson is currently listed on the Bears depth chart as a RB, but qualifies at both RB & WR.

 

That's what happens when a player earns eligibility at one position and then goes to another position.

Based on your perspective, neither Montgomery nor Patterson should have/had dual position eligibility and no player in any fantasy sports should qualify at multiple positions..

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

 

Haha, ok there champ.

 

Look I'm on your side with this for the most part.  But you don't have to live up to your name and kill every thread by constantly repeating yourself in the most combative tone possible.

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

Everyone complaining about Taysom having TE eligibility for this week are acting like he's going to go out there and absolutely slay your team with 30 fantasy points this week. 

Let the owners that had the insight to take a flier on Taysom have their gamble pay off. If Taysom does indeed start at QB for this week and has a QB role, he'll lose TE eligibility next week as it's only fair if he is indeed the QB until Brees gets back. 

Honestly, I think 90-95% of us Taysom holders were just thinking about which TE Taysom would be a good start over and where he slotted in for this week. Such a crazy thing that Hill is starting over Jameis Winston; its like they forgot he threw for 5,000 yards (and 30 INT) last season 😶.

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

 

 

image.png.cfec2007d77235051238058db8d77618.png

 

Patterson is listed as a RB. Should he not qualify at WR?

 

 

Nobody cares because the dude averages like 5 points a game. Hill is going to play the position that averages the most points and his score will count for the position that averages the least points. You are comparing a complete non factor to a game changer. 

If Patterson was getting 20 touches a game at RB then yes lets talk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 season is lame as hell.  You deal with it this year and change in the offseason. There are a few guys with dual eligibility,  at least in yahoo. But to get threatened during the season and change it is a loser mentality. 

 

Furthermore,  Brees got hurt last year and hes 43. It had to be known he was a threat to get hurt again. Next time, do your due diligence.  If he's clearly on the depth chart why didnt anyone think of the possibility prior to now?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fried Pork Grind said:

Nobody cares because the dude averages like 5 points a game. Hill is going to play the position that averages the most points and his score will count for the position that averages the least points. You are comparing a complete non factor to a game changer. 

If Patterson was getting 20 touches a game at RB then yes lets talk. 

 

Oh I see. So rules only apply when the player is deemed relevant by you. Rather than consistent objectivity, it's all about being subjective! Got it!

 

"I'm not worried about Patterson scoring a bunch of points against me so he can keep any position he wants even though he doesn't play it."

"Taysom Hill is going to score a bunch of points so he absolutely can't keep his dual position eligibility! Let's recreate the rules just for this one player because it doesn't benefit me!"

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

Commissioners choose position eligibility now? That's a good one.

Whatever position the player is drafted the player should remain. The draft, 10 weeks of add/drops trades etc... and all of a sudden the Commish decides he doesn't like a player's positional eligibility? Even though he was available for 11 weeks with it? 

Slippery slope if you ask me. 

Edited by fantasymad
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GarrettHasTheClap said:

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 season is lame as hell.  You deal with it this year and change in the offseason. There are a few guys with dual eligibility,  at least in yahoo. But to get threatened during the season and change it is a loser mentality. 

 

Furthermore,  Brees got hurt last year and hes 43. It had to be known he was a threat to get hurt again. Next time, do your due diligence.  If he's clearly on the depth chart why didnt anyone think of the possibility prior to now?

 

What's even more hilarious is that some people are ok with other players keeping their eligibility only "because he only gets like 5 points" but must change Hill's because he might have a lot of value.

 

Hypocritical and inconsistent if you ask me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who is completely biased as a hill owner, I think a big factor into how fair this is, is what method of waivers your league runs. In my league we use faab and waivers reset every day, so theres no first come first serve, its simply whoever is willing to bid the most faab. In these leagues it seems fair that an owner who was willing to put down the most money and take on the risk that maybe hill is useless, should have the reward of their investment. I do however play a few leagues with more standard waivers and it is a bit annoying to see him added early this morning right after the news broke and i see this as a completely different situation.

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

 

Nah - it's bush league all the people in here clinging to FF loopholes for wins. 

Are you comparing a utility player like Cordelle and Taysom to a full blown starting QB who will get to touch the ball almost every snap?

 

There is no world in which this play makes any sense in terms of fairness. I'm sorry all you dudes want to cheat your way to victory under the guise of "it's allowable!" lol...but as Commissh of my league, I'm not going to do this to the rest of the owners. 

 

Just because something is allowable, doesn't mean it's right. 

 


I see both sides here.  Clearly I'm on the Taysom Hill TE bandwagon for my team's sake.  But in the sake of fairness I get it, he's over powered.  But so is CMC (until he gets injured) there's only 1 CMC, there's only 1 Alvin Kamara.  Draft and FA adds need to be adjusted accordingly to the rules in the game.  I saw Taysom Hill had TE eligibility to start the season I instantly realized what that could mean for him in terms of getting QB production out of that.  The rest of the league should have been with that as well.  

 

Had this concern been brought up at the beginning of the season I'd have a lot more sympathy for it.  Had it even been brought up upon Taysom getting picked up last week.  Or even brought up before it was announced he was the starting QB then sure.  But not now that you just realized how insane it is.  It isn't cheating and if it's that bad ESPN themselves will take care of it.  So there's no need for commissioners to step in on this, the right thing to do as a commissioner is just let it play itself out.  The platform will fix it or you just let it ride out.  Taysom Hill loses all this value when Brees comes back, hell he loses all this value if Winston takes the starting job over.  

 

But everything is fair in fantasy.  Everyone had the same opportunity at Taysom.  He sat as a free agent for over half the fantasy season.  Most leagues he just got picked up this last week.

 

Taysom Hill is still only owned in 26% of ESPN Leagues so I don't get the complaining.  Where does it stop?  "Hey comish I didn't realize how good Alvin Kamara is so we need to outlaw him".  "Hey comish James Robinson took a snap out of the Wildcat, he needs to be QB only eligible"  "Hey comish Tyreke Hill got an end around he shouldn't have WR eligibility"   "Cam Newton got hurt and Jakobi Meyers went off in the 4th quarter playing QB, take those points away"

 

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but essentially that's the argument here.  The potential for this to happen has been there all season long.  Now 48 hours before Sunday games start in week 11 it's all of a sudden an emergency to everyone?  That's where I have a problem with it.  You should have said something earlier in the year.

 

What is extremely hilarious with my leagues is that multiple owners who are complaining about Hill's TE eligibility, I personally had the conversation with them earlier in the season how Taysom Hill could be the pick up if Brees ever went down.  They all agreed and are now just mad that I pulled the trigger a week earlier than they would have.

Edited by FouLLine
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy spends more snaps at TE than any other position in 2019 and people complain he has TE eligibility.  I don't get it. What I do get is that changing rules and eligibility mid-season is 100% exploiting commissioner power. If they were so worried about it they should have changed it before week 1, not now after draft picks,waiver moves and rosters have all been changed. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Guy spends more snaps at TE than any other position in 2019 and people complain he has TE eligibility.  I don't get it. What I do get is that changing rules and eligibility mid-season is 100% exploiting commissioner power. If they were so worried about it they should have changed it before week 1, not now after draft picks,waiver moves and rosters have all been changed. 

 

This is the best post I've seen on the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, this Hill issue is extremely cut and dry. 

The fact that he has TE eligibility in any league is a joke.  I fully believe that. 

He does though and as far as I know he's had it all year.  We play fantasy by the rules we are given to start the year...nothing has changed.  Does it suck to not get Hill and potentially have to face him this week.  Yea it does.   Do any owners that are whining to the commish about it need to stop being little whiners...yes they do.  This is all within the realm of possibility since the start of the season.  Hill was able to be drafted or picked up at any point by any owner to stash in case this happened.  If any owner didn't do that then stop b*itching. 

 

For the record I'm in a Yahoo league so this has no impact on me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see how ESPN goes forward with it.  From their customer service site:

 

Quote
  • Once the season has begun, ESPN cannot change the primary position. However, a player can gain additional eligibility for other positions (done by ESPN) during the season if circumstances warrant it.

 

His primary position on the site was TE until this week.

 

 

Edited by MrMartyBarrett
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FooserX said:

 

A commish is in charge of making sure the league is fair.

Just because ESPN dropped the ball, doesn't mean I'm going to drop the ball.

This is a very unique scenario that requires special care and treatment. To lump it in with all the other weird instances and history would be taking the easy way out and not using your brain. 

 

BTW - this is how ALL fraud ever happens. People think loopholes and cheatcodes are allowable because there aren't black and white exact rules for the specific thing they are doing, and so they use that logic to justify their unethical decisions to themselves. 

 

 

Unilaterally dictating what is and isn't fair as commissioner is entirely bogus. Just because you think ESPN dropped the ball doesn't establish that they did. All managers are playing by the same rules in the ESPN platform, whether you like them or not and that's what they signed up for. Preventing a manager from using a player as they are allowed to under the rules would amount to an arbitrary and capricious abuse of power that sets a terrible and indefensible precedent. The standard that this is "a very unique scenario that requires special care and treatment" is fraught with ambiguity and is ripe for abuse.

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

Listen, this Hill issue is extremely cut and dry. 

The fact that he has TE eligibility in any league is a joke.  I fully believe that. 

He does though and as far as I know he's had it all year.  We play fantasy by the rules we are given to start the year...nothing has changed.  Does it suck to not get Hill and potentially have to face him this week.  Yea it does.   Do any owners that are whining to the commish about it need to stop being little whiners...yes they do.  This is all within the realm of possibility since the start of the season.  Hill was able to be drafted or picked up at any point by any owner to stash in case this happened.  If any owner didn't do that then stop b*itching. 

 

For the record I'm in a Yahoo league so this has no impact on me. 

 

Why though? It was the position he took the most snaps at last year. By definition, platforms list each player under the position with which they take the most snaps the prior season. He 100% should have been listed at TE going into this season. 100%. Are you suggesting it should be removed now, mid season just because he is going to start at QB? If that's the case, then for consistency, that should apply to ALL PLAYERS when they have position changes. And that's just nonsense.

 

EDIT: And yes, it is very cut and dry. Just not in the way some of you seem to think.

He deserved TE eligibility based on his snaps last season. Period.

Edited by ThreadKiller
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MrMartyBarrett said:

It'll be interesting to see how ESPN goes forward with it.  From their customer service site:

Once the season has begun, ESPN cannot change the primary position. However, a player can gain additional eligibility for other positions (done by ESPN) during the season if circumstances warrant it.

 

This is great to know!

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

 

Why though? It was the position he took the most snaps at last year. By definition, platforms list each player under the position with which they take the most snaps the prior season. He 100% should have been listed at TE going into this season. 100%. Are you suggesting it should be removed now, mid season just because he is going to start at QB? If that's the case, then for consistency, that should apply to ALL PLAYERS when they have position changes. And that's just nonsense.

 

EDIT: And yes, it is very cut and dry. Just not in the way some of you seem to think.

He deserved TE eligibility based on his snaps last season. Period.

Clearly you didn't actually read my post because I thought i was pretty straightforward saying that no, it shouldn't be changed mid-season and that people should stop whining about it. 

  • Haha 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...