Message Board Braggin' Rights League

[TREFF]

Yep - in most leagues you cannot leave a starting position totally blank. Results in 'illegal lineup' and zero points for the week. Doesn't seem any of our should be different. ... just saying.

I'm guessing measures will be taken in our next offseason to address that.

 

[obxyankeefan]

I'm guessing measures will be taken in our next offseason to address that.

I have noticed it more this year than in the past.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

I have noticed it more this year than in the past.

this ^^^^

first off, want to say I don't really care - if someone thinks leaving a roster spot empty gives them some kind of advantage, go for it.

secondly, if we vote on a rule change, I'd prob vote that you have to at least roster all positions by kickoff.
even if that means you have a DST or K on bye that leave in your lineup cause you don't want to drop them.

I try not to do it as often in MBBRL leagues since I know some don't approve, but I'll routinely drop my K for a waiver wonder/waiver lotto ticket and see how practice weeks play out before dropping that player or a different one for a K by sunday. I don't think that should be illegal, but understand if some do.

 

[TREFF]

this ^^^^

first off, want to say I don't really care - if someone thinks leaving a roster spot empty gives them some kind of advantage, go for it.

secondly, if we vote on a rule change, I'd prob vote that you have to at least roster all positions by kickoff.
even if that means you have a DST or K on bye that leave in your lineup cause you don't want to drop them.

I try not to do it as often in MBBRL leagues since I know some don't approve, but I'll routinely drop my K for a waiver wonder/waiver lotto ticket and see how practice weeks play out before dropping that player or a different one for a K by sunday. I don't think that should be illegal, but understand if some do.

Well, yes I in particular do frown upon that, BUT, you don't leave the spot open for the week, you fill it before the deadline...this a different beast. leaving a spot empty to avoid making a tough roster decision is beneath the spirit of the MBBRL, end of discussion.

A simple tweak to the amount of allowable bench spots will rectify this. A nod to Bandit for the credit on the simple solution

 

[SmokingMonkey]

A simple tweak to the amount of allowable bench spots will rectify this. A nod to Bandit for the credit on the simple solution

my preference would be to leave the bench size the same, and just make illegal rosters result in 0 pts for the team that week if they don't have a K or DST (or any other position) not on their roster.

That way it would be a better year over year comparison of the leagues, imo.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I know my team is awful, but is it just me, or does most of the NFL suck now too??

 

[TREFF]

my preference would be to leave the bench size the same, and just make illegal rosters result in 0 pts for the team that week if they don't have a K or DST (or any other position) not on their roster.

That way it would be a better year over year comparison of the leagues, imo.

Bench will remain the same, 5 players,but capping it at five, meaning you can't leave a starting roster spot, say kicker, D, or TE empty, and stashing a 6th positional player in the bench instead. theoretically, you could still roll with no K or D, but you'd be down a roster spot to do so since there's no sixth spot in the bench. ESPN no longer has an "illegal lineup" option

We never considered this as we assumed it would never be an issue

 

[SteelersPride]

rams left a lot of openings. in various leagues

 

[leftypower]

rams left a lot of openings. in various leagues

Hasn't (I don't think) in any of ours. Using a kicker or DST or whatever that is on a bye-week (don't want to drop them) to fill the lineup is totally different in my estimation. ..... we do have short benches so that could be understood.

 

[TREFF]

rams left a lot of openings. in various leagues

Dynasties are a different animal altogether, and as for KOTF, as Lefty said, keeping them in on a bye can be understood, even if I don't agree, but doing them to add another? that's a different ballgame

 

[TKOSpikes]

Hasn't (I don't think) in any of ours. Using a kicker or DST or whatever that is on a bye-week (don't want to drop them) to fill the lineup is totally different in my estimation. ..... we do have short benches so that could be understood.

If it wasn't the Bengals I might agree.

 

[SteelersPride]

Dynasties are a different animal altogether, and as for KOTF, as Lefty said, keeping them in on a bye can be understood, even if I don't agree, but doing them to add another? that's a different ballgame

poor form
either way

 

[TKOSpikes]

Ram has had an off year.... availability wise. Unlike him. Hope all is well.

After double checking, he made a move on Sunday, so that leaves me even more perplexed. Bengals had 1, -1, and 1 in three of their last four and only double digits twice. (Dolphins and Browns)

...something tells me he "made a move", but missed/forgot/thought he hit submit?

Only harping on it because he's 3-5 so there is no reason to strategically keep them, imo.


(not trying to discredit you, Rammy, just curious is all)

 

[TREFF]

poor form
either way

Agreed, %100, but there's intent to maintain an advantage on one, and "my season is fragged so why bother" on the other, that's where I see the difference.

 

[Yellow Fuzzies]

my preference would be to leave the bench size the same, and just make illegal rosters result in 0 pts for the team that week if they don't have a K or DST (or any other position) not on their roster.

That way it would be a better year over year comparison of the leagues, imo.

0 points on purpose does not work in these leagues with relegation a factor.
Just saying...

 

[tlance]

Yep - in most leagues you cannot leave a starting position totally blank. Results in 'illegal lineup' and zero points for the week. Doesn't seem any of our should be different. ... just saying.

I disagree.

CBS does the illegal lineup thing. THe other main sites don't.

I think it is pretty stupid. If I want to leave a position empty, there is already a consequence. WHy should I Be required to drop an important player for a bye week TE that will get me 3 points?

 

[Chef99]

I disagree.

CBS does the illegal lineup thing. THe other main sites don't.

I think it is pretty stupid. If I want to leave a position empty, there is already a consequence. WHy should I Be required to drop an important player for a bye week TE that will get me 3 points?

Well, because the point of the exercise is that you are the GM of a football team. I'm not getting into a debate about this, I will just say that I think it's a cop-out. Win or lose with the players you have acquired. Barring unforeseen changes or circumstances, everyone should be obligated to start a full lineup each week, imo.

Ok, I'm off the soapbox now.

 

[averagejoe]

Yep - in most leagues you cannot leave a starting position totally blank. Results in 'illegal lineup' and zero points for the week. Doesn't seem any of our should be different. ... just saying.

I think tlance nailed it. I think CBS is the only site where this is enforced with consequences.

A simple tweak to the amount of allowable bench spots will rectify this. A nod to Bandit for the credit on the simple solution

After running several leagues on ESPN, I'm not sure this idea is enforceable.
Waiver added players go to your bench. Not into your starting lineup.
So if you drop/added all 9 starters, you could conceivably have 14 players on your 5-man bench.
Not saying I agree or disagree. Just pointing out an obvious ESPN flaw.

Bench will remain the same, 5 players,but capping it at five, meaning you can't leave a starting roster spot, say kicker, D, or TE empty, and stashing a 6th positional player in the bench instead. theoretically, you could still roll with no K or D, but you'd be down a roster spot to do so since there's no sixth spot in the bench. ESPN no longer has an "illegal lineup" option

We never considered this as we assumed it would never be an issue

Again not agreeing or disagreeing, as this was an issue in one of my leagues last year.
There is nothing in ESPN's Rules of Play nor on their Fair Play and Conduct rules regarding this.
The way I resolved it is I eliminated the D/ST and K and added 2 more positions.

 

[TREFF]

After running several leagues on ESPN, I'm not sure this idea is enforceable.
Waiver added players go to your bench. Not into your starting lineup.
So if you drop/added all 9 starters, you could conceivably have 14 players on your 5-man bench.
Not saying I agree or disagree. Just pointing out an obvious ESPN flaw.

Not sure I follow...if the bench limit is five, doesn't really matter where they go, as long as whomever you dropped left vacated a bench spot. not only is that enforceable, but the site would govern it all automatically, I wouldn't have to do a thing. Sure it's a minor inconvenience of making sure whomever you drop is on the bench when you drop them, but it's about the only problem I can forsee, if what you're saying is the case. Sucks, but if the current honor system is going to be abused, that's where we are.

There is nothing in ESPN's Rules of Play nor on their Fair Play and Conduct rules regarding this.
The way I resolved it is I eliminated the D/ST and K and added 2 more positions.

Well this isn't necessarily about ESPN standards, or CBS's or anyone else's..it's about our standards, and I'm sorry, but I feel pretty confident in saying that we should have higher standards than that. if pushing the boundaries of the rules is the way you feel you need to go to get an edge, your in the wrong league. we've always been setup to simply see who the better fantasy player was, not who was best at manipulating the scoring system, or the waiver wire, or the roster rules, that's why everything is very vanilla and standard. we're competing against each other based on our knowledge of the game, plus or minus a heaping portion of luck from time to time, not who can use the rules to their advantage if they don't mind bending them a little.


Okay now I'm off my soapbox...nothing geared towards you Joe, just stating in general how I feel that actions such as these violate the principles the league was founded on

 

[averagejoe]

Not sure I follow...if the bench limit is five

If you have players that were in "starting" spots on your roster and you decided to replace them with waiver wire players, ESPN puts the new players in your bench, regardless of the bench-limit.

You will still have the same amount of players. And (after the transaction) you will have a couple of open "starter" positions to fill. But the new players will be on your bench.

Call it an ESPN flaw, but that's why I think it is not enforceable using ESPN bench options.