Message Board Braggin' Rights League

[tlance]

I think the Microwave issue is about as serious as it comes in fantasy. I think a vote as to "retain or dismiss" should be initiated. Probably a separate poll (or via pms) with voting limited to those league members who participated in D1 (for sure) and any other where the such an offense was committed. ....

I think that would be fair, but perhaps two separate votes. D1 vote should be made with D1 members. By the way, if you need someone to take over his team, I might be interested. Always wanted a rebuild task.

MBBRL will be easy. He is up for oblivion. Nothing needs to be done there. I can't imagine Micro beating out any of our top candidates. That vote will really suck though. Stomp and at least 4 of the candidates are highly deserving.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I think the Microwave issue is about as serious as it comes in fantasy. I think a vote as to "retain or dismiss" should be initiated. Probably a separate poll (or via pms) with voting limited to those league members who participated in D1 (for sure) and any other where the such an offense was committed. ....

I agree Lefty. I suggest we do this via pms. I can start one that everyone in D1.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Will not quite everyone, I can start a thread will 12 others, so perhaps Lefty and can speak for the Lefy/Fuzzy team?

 

[tlance]

Will not quite everyone, I can start a thread will 12 others, so perhaps Lefty and can speak for the Lefy/Fuzzy team?

Harold,

Since the same thing happened in D2, I think perhaps we need to take the same action. Not sure a vote is needed. The fireworks all occurred in D1, but I think if Micro is indeed voted out of D1 and MBBRL, that it would make sense to replace him in D2 as well.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Harold,

Since the same thing happened in D2, I think perhaps we need to take the same action. Not sure a vote is needed. The fireworks all occurred in D1, but I think if Micro is indeed voted out of D1 and MBBRL, that it would make sense to replace him in D2 as well.

Will I think it's a forgone conclusion that the outcome well be the same for both leagues, but they don't have exactly the same members. Fine by me either way.

 

[bksballer89]

Will I think it's a forgone conclusion that the outcome well be the same for both leagues, but they don't have exactly the same members. Fine by me either way.

I want in one of these dynasty leagues. Never been in one but they seem like fun

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I want in one of these dynasty leagues. Never been in one but they seem like fun

You'll be on the short list of candidates for any openings.

 

[Bandit]

I"m sorry Bandit, I glazed right over this. I'm at a loss as for putting a number on posts per week..what a nightmare to keep track of. But we all know who has and hasn't been around much. I guess there has to be SOMETHING, but I honestly couldn't say what a fair number would be, its the "I'll know it when I see it" syndrome.

It's actually not as hard as you think, especially since we are going to put everybody on one thread starting next year. All you have to do is go up to search in the top right and put in the member's name and check the box for search this thread only and every post they've made will come up. There are 20 per page, so they would need 3 full pages to meet the 60 number. You don't even have to look at posts, just count them. I only brought that up because the posting of some members has fallen way down in recent years and that is supposed to be one of the main parts of this league. Putting an actual number on it will make people post stuff. I know that Sam and OBX were being smart asses by just posting one word after I wrote that, but at least that is being interactive/funny so I wouldn't even care if somebody did that to get to their number. However, if you guys feel that putting a number on it is too extreme, then I honestly think that we should just get rid that rule altogether. If nobody is going to keep track of it and there are no repercussions for not posting, then what is the point of keeping rule #1 Keep posting.

As far as the lineup is concerned, the reasoning behind just saying that 3 lineup violations results in oblivion is that then you don't have to define all the different ways that your lineup can have an inactive player in it or a player with a bye week etc and have people try and plead their case to explain their logic because we will spend 5 pages arguing back and forth about whether it could have been avoided and whether they had a good reason, blah, blah, blah and we will get nowhere. I understand that there will be times that you have a guy that is supposed to play a late game and then is a late scratch and all of your bench played early games and there is no choice but to leave the inactive player in your lineup. Hell it even happened to Treff this year. There also might be a time that you accidentally either left someone in your lineup that was inactive or on bye, but if we just make a general rule that if any lineup mistakes happen 3 times for any reason then you are automatically up for oblivion, then we don't have to vote in a poll each time it happens to say if it was an acceptable lineup mistake because that is where this shit is headed. If you want to leave a guy in on bye or a guy that's inactive for "strategic" purposes that's fine, but if it happens three times for any reason you are up for oblivion. Let's take what @broncosmitty said earlier in one of the 1000 threads we have going right now. He drafted Gronk in the 1st round and didn't draft a backup tight end. He left Gronk in his lineup for the 1st three weeks even though he was inactive because he didn't want to drop any of the other guys he drafted, which was perfectly fine within the rules that we have now. However, next year if that happened that would be an offense that would put him up for oblivion. Now with that rule being in place, let's say that Smitty is smart (he is) and only lets it happen for two weeks and then the third week he drops somebody for a Gronk replacement in week 3. Then later in the season he accidentally leaves an inactive player that's a late scratch in his lineup. He would still be up for oblivion because it happened the third time. It doesn't matter that he had a legitimate excuse the third time because maybe he shouldn't have rolled the dice the first two weeks by not replacing Gronk. That's why I'm saying that it should be three offenses in the same season no matter the reason, because you start getting into major gray areas when an inactive player gets left in and trying to get that person to explain why it happened because some people are going to agree with why he was left in and some won't, so if there is just a rule for it happening three times, the reasoning behind these decisions doesn't matter.

 

[broncosmitty]

I'm gonna have to stop working on Sunday's... Lol

 

[tlance]

It's actually not as hard as you think, especially since we are going to put everybody on one thread starting next year. All you have to do is go up to search in the top right and put in the member's name and check the box for search this thread only and every post they've made will come up. There are 20 per page, so they would need 3 full pages to meet the 60 number. You don't even have to look at posts, just count them. I only brought that up because the posting of some members has fallen way down in recent years and that is supposed to be one of the main parts of this league. Putting an actual number on it will make people post stuff. I know that Sam and OBX were being smart asses by just posting one word after I wrote that, but at least that is being interactive/funny so I wouldn't even care if somebody did that to get to their number. However, if you guys feel that putting a number on it is too extreme, then I honestly think that we should just get rid that rule altogether. If nobody is going to keep track of it and there are no repercussions for not posting, then what is the point of keeping rule #1 Keep posting.

As far as the lineup is concerned, the reasoning behind just saying that 3 lineup violations results in oblivion is that then you don't have to define all the different ways that your lineup can have an inactive player in it or a player with a bye week etc and have people try and plead their case to explain their logic because we will spend 5 pages arguing back and forth about whether it could have been avoided and whether they had a good reason, blah, blah, blah and we will get nowhere. I understand that there will be times that you have a guy that is supposed to play a late game and then is a late scratch and all of your bench played early games and there is no choice but to leave the inactive player in your lineup. Hell it even happened to Treff this year. There also might be a time that you accidentally either left someone in your lineup that was inactive or on bye, but if we just make a general rule that if any lineup mistakes happen 3 times for any reason then you are automatically up for oblivion, then we don't have to vote in a poll each time it happens to say if it was an acceptable lineup mistake because that is where this shit is headed. If you want to leave a guy in on bye or a guy that's inactive for "strategic" purposes that's fine, but if it happens three times for any reason you are up for oblivion. Let's take what @broncosmitty said earlier in one of the 1000 threads we have going right now. He drafted Gronk in the 1st round and didn't draft a backup tight end. He left Gronk in his lineup for the 1st three weeks even though he was inactive because he didn't want to drop any of the other guys he drafted, which was perfectly fine within the rules that we have now. However, next year if that happened that would be an offense that would put him up for oblivion. Now with that rule being in place, let's say that Smitty is smart (he is) and only lets it happen for two weeks and then the third week he drops somebody for a Gronk replacement in week 3. Then later in the season he accidentally leaves an inactive player that's a late scratch in his lineup. He would still be up for oblivion because it happened the third time. It doesn't matter that he had a legitimate excuse the third time because maybe he shouldn't have rolled the dice the first two weeks by not replacing Gronk. That's why I'm saying that it should be three offenses in the same season no matter the reason, because you start getting into major gray areas when an inactive player gets left in and trying to get that person to explain why it happened because some people are going to agree with why he was left in and some won't, so if there is just a rule for it happening three times, the reasoning behind these decisions doesn't matter.

I am fine with the post count, but not fine with taking some of the gray area out of the lineup violations. IMO, the reason is vitally important. Guys get scratched unexpectedly and we can't all be expected to be on our computers around the clock on Sundays. Imposing a rule like that can and will eventually force good people out.

Better to let a guilty man go free than to punish an innocent one, IMO.

 

[SoShady]

What league did that happen in Smitty?

Seems like micro cooked his own goose. Now I could honestly see the reason for benching Cooper the way he was playing down the stretch coupled with Carr's finger injury. But more or less openly admitting to tanking because you had a rough go of things is not the answer. I could have accepted him saying I thought Maclin gives me a better chance to win. Who are we to say who should start or should be on someone's roster? Especially in dynasty leagues. I'll use @TREFF as an example for this I hope he doesn't mind . He benched A Abduallah and J Hill against me to play D Lasco and J Fergusson. That could be viewed as clear tanking. I asked him about it he made his case and we moved on. You should be able to run your roster how you want to run it. If that means someone is hurt all year if you feel that makes you better down the road go for it. Especially if you have a bad team.

 

[obxyankeefan]

What league did that happen in Smitty?

Seems like micro cooked his own goose. Now I could honestly see the reason for benching Cooper the way he was playing down the stretch coupled with Carr's finger injury. But more or less openly admitting to tanking because you had a rough go of things is not the answer. I could have accepted him saying I thought Maclin gives me a better chance to win. Who are we to say who should start or should be on someone's roster? Especially in dynasty leagues. I'll use @TREFF as an example for this I hope he doesn't mind . He benched A Abduallah and J Hill against me to play D Lasco and J Fergusson. That could be viewed as clear tanking. I asked him about it he made his case and we moved on. You should be able to run your roster how you want to run it. If that means someone is hurt all year if you feel that makes you better down the road go for it. Especially if you have a bad team.

In a D1 he admitted to tanking in that league. I believe D2 was the one with Cooper being benched for multiple weeks amongst other things leading people to believe he was tanking there also. BATG I don't know what happened, but it sounds like he abandoned his team.

 

[SoShady]

Yeah I was on the fence until he got into the long winded post. That 1st paragraph should be his death nail. But a few things out of that conversation could/should be addressed.

 

[bksballer89]

I'm gonna have to stop working on Sunday's... Lol

lol I don't work on sundays and it has happened to me in other leagues. I'm not normally home sunday mornings. By the time I get back in it is time for kickoff and too late for any other changes. I agree with @tlance on this issue

 

[broncosmitty]

In a D1 he admitted to tanking in that league. I believe D2 was the one with Cooper being benched for multiple weeks amongst other things leading people to believe he was tanking there also. BATG I don't know what happened, but it sounds like he abandoned his team.

If he'd admitted he admitted, Id be going to bat for him to stay.

But he didn't. (It was D1 with Cooper)

@SoShady this in response to you too.

 

[TREFF]

What league did that happen in Smitty?

Seems like micro cooked his own goose. Now I could honestly see the reason for benching Cooper the way he was playing down the stretch coupled with Carr's finger injury. But more or less openly admitting to tanking because you had a rough go of things is not the answer. I could have accepted him saying I thought Maclin gives me a better chance to win. Who are we to say who should start or should be on someone's roster? Especially in dynasty leagues. I'll use @TREFF as an example for this I hope he doesn't mind . He benched A Abduallah and J Hill against me to play D Lasco and J Fergusson. That could be viewed as clear tanking. I asked him about it he made his case and we moved on. You should be able to run your roster how you want to run it. If that means someone is hurt all year if you feel that makes you better down the road go for it. Especially if you have a bad team.

Naw don't mind at all..Abdullah was hurt, and I think Fergie was playing a crap D like the Aint's and he had been getting quite a few targets (for a back up)..figured what the hell, play a hunch..

Playing hunches is never looked down upon in my book, but when its week after week, regardless of results or matchups..it ain't a hunch any longer, it's tanking.

 

[obxyankeefan]

If he'd admitted he admitted, Id be going to bat for him to stay.

But he didn't. (It was D1 with Cooper)

@SoShady this in response to you too.

My better has corrected me. Thank you old wise one Rafiki.

 

[obxyankeefan]

@canesandfinsfanatic

In D2 we use inactives as one of our tiebreakers, but we need to have a discussion this year at some point o determine what an inactive is. To resolve the gray area, maybe have the members of MBBRL that are not in D2 participate in that discussion. Because D2 is a dynasty it will have more leeway than a redraft, but the discussion could be good for both leagues.

 

[Bandit]

I am fine with the post count, but not fine with taking some of the gray area out of the lineup violations. IMO, the reason is vitally important. Guys get scratched unexpectedly and we can't all be expected to be on our computers around the clock on Sundays. Imposing a rule like that can and will eventually force good people out.

Better to let a guilty man go free than to punish an innocent one, IMO.

Yes, but even if they were sent to oblivion, they could still be voted back in the next year it's not like they are automatically banished. Besides, is it really that freaking hard to field an all active starting lineup 12 of the 14 weeks we play. And here is the problem with the "reason" that guys have an inactive or bye week guy in their lineup. Some people are going to agree with it and some aren't. Do you guys really want to spend countless pages arguing or voting over whether the reason that somebody left that player in their lineup is good enough not to be punished in some way? I know that you want some kind of lineup flexibility Tlance and I agree with you, but there has to be some kind of rule of how many times you can do this. I know that everybody thinks that it's only one guy in a lineup, so how much difference can it actually make. Well, I'll tell you how much difference it can actually make and I'm very sorry @SoShady to bring this up again as I consider it a dead issue, but I have to in order to make my point. (Once again and I reiterate that what you did was completely within the rules that were in place) The week that Shady didn't play a defense he lost by 1.9 points to Harold. Harold ended up being the #1 seed by one game over Cheesehead and Cheesehead would have held the tie-breaker over him for the #1 seed. So, if Harold lost that game, then Cheesehead would have been the #1 seed instead of Harold and gotten to choose his first round opponent. So no matter what, the playoffs were already altered by that simple move. Now it turned out that none of this ended up mattering because Cheesehead ended up winning the Super Bowl to move up with OBX, so the move actually didn't hurt him any. But, let's say that OBX had won the Super Bowl. He was already moving up because he was the breakdown champ and if he would have been the Super Bowl champ as well, so in order to figure out who the other team moving up from the B league would be we have to move down to #3 in the rules for teams moving up which is the #1 seed. So, Harold would have been the team that moved up to the A league with OBX. So not only would not playing a defense have cost Shady the game, it would have cost Cheesehead the #1 seed, and it would have cost him his shot to move up to the A league since Harold was the #1 seed. That's how much difference it can make.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I'm fine with a three times your out rule. Lets face it, three times is to often and I'm with Bandit in I rather it just be a hard fast rule that doesn't entail discussion on whether it's justified or not, less drama.