|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Nov 16, 2017 21:14:50 GMT -5
I have gone through and edited teams' lineups to account for inactive and IR players in the lineups this week. There were still a fair amount where this was the case (Fewer than 10 this time though). However, live scoring is not currently working, and some of those changes I have made have yet to be updated in the live scoring tab. Therefore, be patient, and don't freak out if Fantrax updates that retroactively. These changes were already made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Houston Texans (Ryan) on Nov 16, 2017 21:39:23 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew) on Nov 16, 2017 22:35:48 GMT -5
To be honest it’s probably a ton of work to go through and check 32 lineups already. I don’t think its necessary to make an itemized list too. If teams have inactive players in their lineups then it needs to be fixed. Why wait several weeks before intervening? If we set a rule that says we won’t intervene for the first 4 weeks of inactivity but will take action on the 5th week, how is that fair? The teams who faced that opponent the first 4 weeks would get a competitive advantage. It’s way better if all the lineups are set every week.
Chris I appreciate you taking the initiative to set lineups.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Nov 16, 2017 23:04:20 GMT -5
Chris, I think we would benefit from more transparency in this process where you change people's lineups. Have you done this every week? If not, why did you do it the weeks you did? Posting a list of the changes you made would also help. Replacing an inactive RB with the only other RB on a person's team seems pretty straightforward, but as soon as you start having to make judgment calls (who fills an IDP spot out of 2 or 3 players, for instance), it becomes kind of problematic imo in that the owner now has the benefit of someone else's judgment in setting their lineup. Although it's my view that we shouldn't have the league setting lineups (the owner should simply be kicked if there is a pattern of inactivity), at a minimum there should be a record of the changes that you've made. I started doing it for every team when I noticed it was a problem (Over half the teams were not setting their lineups to account for inactives, players on bye or Injured Reserve). Most of those teams, by the way, have a very high incentive to NOT set their lineup, as those teams are most often the ones who find themselves at the bottom of the standings. Therefore, this is very much to protect against intentional tanking, and to prevent a team from scoring a top pick in that manner. I totally agree that the league SHOULDN'T HAVE TO be doing it, and therefore shouldn't be doing it, but we can't just kick over half the league (Or even 10 teams) out. That's not sustainable to the league, as the most I think we've ever replaced in an off-season was 8 (With several league-run teams among those until we got them settled with the season already underway). And that also includes the fact that at least half of the new owners we install, flake. So we have to balance against that. As for the metrics and accounting of it, I never make a call about should it be this guy or that guy or make my own call. I just take the active player with the highest scoring average at that position and plug him in (Though usually with the teams in question, there is only one option, so there's no real decision to make). And I would be glad to make a list of those changes for the league to view, but didn't want to embarrass anyone (And we've seen how teams like Atlanta and Tampa Bay have reacted to calls about their inattentiveness in past posts). So I'm open to anything, other than promoting teams not setting their lineups and just tanking their way to the top pick. |
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Nov 16, 2017 23:05:16 GMT -5
To be honest it’s probably a ton of work to go through and check 32 lineups already. I don’t think its necessary to make an itemized list too. If teams have inactive players in their lineups then it needs to be fixed. Why wait several weeks before intervening? If we set a rule that says we won’t intervene for the first 4 weeks of inactivity but will take action on the 5th week, how is that fair? The teams who faced that opponent the first 4 weeks would get a competitive advantage. It’s way better if all the lineups are set every week. Chris I appreciate you taking the initiative to set lineups. No sweat man. As long as every team is getting the benefit of the doubt with that, I think it's egalitarian as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Houston Texans (Ryan) on Nov 16, 2017 23:28:52 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Nov 16, 2017 23:43:04 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with the league setting inactive lineups. While I don't think it necessarily solves the problem (if the ultimate goal is to incentivize people to set their lineups, what incentive do they have to do so if they know that the league will set their lineup for them?), as you said, it wouldn't be fair if I got to play a team with 11 active players, when the person I'm competing for a playoff spot with has to play a full squad. And I recognize that finding replacement members in a league this big is difficult, and so kicking members out (or even sanctioning them by docking draft picks) is not a realistic option. So having the league set lineups might be the best option. But what I have a problem with is that I'm not sure this has been done consistently throughout the season, which itself would be unfair. If you only set inactive lineups some weeks, that means some people throughout the season got the benefit of competing against inactives, while other people did not, when they should have. That's why I think the process should at a minimum be consistent and transparent, with no discretion on the league's part. They should either do it every week, or not at all. And they should have some objective method (yours is fine, replacing with the highest average scoring player). But if you haven't done this consistently throughout the season, I don't think you should start now. Yeah, I totally understand what you're saying. And yes, we've been doing this dating back to at least Week 2 of last year, after we noticed several teams that started the year with lineups that prominently contained players that weren't employed by NFL teams (ATL in particular). Also, we have at least twice docked a team a draft spot for tanking, but in both instances that I can remember, both of those teams left the league when we did (Whether the docking of the pick was related or not). So there's not really one good and clear answer for what to do other than nothing, and like you are saying above, nothing isn't really a good option either, as relying on some of these parties to set their lineups in the past hasn't worked. |
|
|
|
Post by Carolina Panthers (Justin) on Nov 17, 2017 0:39:42 GMT -5
Same issue we had with another 32 team dynasty league I ran... to many inactive owners. We eventually had to cut the league down in size because I was tired of trying to find owners and changing lineups like Chris is doing. Keeping 32 owners active is a challenge, so kudos to all involved!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Nov 17, 2017 1:24:42 GMT -5
Same issue we had with another 32 team dynasty league I ran... to many inactive owners. We eventually had to cut the league down in size because I was tired of trying to find owners and changing lineups like Chris is doing. Keeping 32 owners active is a challenge, so kudos to all involved! Wow, I had forgotten you were also in a previous 32 team as well Justin. I thought we were perhaps the only one. There aren't many, that's for sure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 19:16:43 GMT -5
This is something that needs to be addressed this offseason as well. This will be two years in a row that teams have "tanked" their seasons. It is not fair to the other active owners in this league.
Take ATL for example, PHI has made some good moves and filled the roster with active players and picked up a few wins.
|
|
