fucked up commish move?

[orangemonk]

short story is we play in a league where there are head coaches. a Win is +6, a loss is -6. I had SD last night with a lead on my opponent who had danny woodhead. I chose to sit my head coach, not wanting to risk getting -6 points. I ended up winning by two points. I woke up this morning seeing that the commish had put the SD HC into my lineup after the game had ended because the other team posted a message that I fielded an "illegal lineup", so I lost by 4.

am I going crazy or is this fucked up? There is no precedent for this happening in this league, no rule stating that you have to start someone in each position every week. There is also evidence of a team starting a TE on bye in week 12 last year and his lineup was not changed. Do I have a right to be furious? I don't know many other people in the league, but they're saying the other guys should win (they know him). Doesn't help that I was in first at 8-0, this guy is 2nd at 7-1, first place of reg season gets $300, and first tiebreaker is head to head.

 

[orangemonk]

Playing a Head Coach


[h=2]chad barrett[/h]Point@Pierre- Paul

Playing a Head Coach
Posted: Nov 9, 11:40 PM
I get the strategy of not playing a head coach, but i feel the position is there for a reason. It should always be filled because its plus 6 or minus 6. If you are to bench any other position it's never going to benefit you. Have to play a full line up. If you don't, then why do we even have a Head coach position.







[h=2]orangemonk[/h]Gronk Goes Steady

Edit
Re: Playing a Head Coach
Posted: Nov 10, 7:09 AM
That's not true, as many players have gotten negative points over the years. Blount did it recently, and QBs can throw a pick then get hurt, and defenses do it all the time. I've sat defenses multiple times on Sunday/Monday night in past leagues and no one has ever batted an eye. If I started an injured player would you make a thread? If I sat my HC and they won could I then ask for my 6pts later in the year if they counted as a tiebreaker? Also interesting how you waited until after the Chargers (5 pt favorites at home vs shitty bears) lost before making this post that would've given you the win.
That said, somehow, someone or something inserted my head coach into my lineup as I look this morning. This is unfair and should be reversed. I strategically left the coach out of my lineup for a reason, and it would be equally unfair had I left them off, Chargers won, and I asked for the points. Not sure extent of commish tools, but if unable to adjust score/records I believe it should be handled manually outside of the league. I should've won this game...







[h=2]Chris Clark[/h]Marshawn Of The Dead

RE: Playing a Head Coach
Posted: Nov 10, 7:51 AM
This happened to me last year, I strategically left out a head coach. Ant hit me up and had me add a coach, IDK if the same rules apply. But it does seem fair. You either gain or lose 6 points







[h=2]orangemonk[/h]Gronk Goes Steady

Edit
Re: Playing a Head Coach
Posted: Nov 10, 8:40 AM
so we have three people saying they understand the strategy and nowhere within the rules that says a HC must be played or else one will automatically be put in place for you.

why is it fair that you have to play a position if you don't want to risk losing the points? I risked not gaining 6 points. This could've hurt me as well. What if I didn't have a HC on my roster? There's nothing I've found that states a HC must be played.

All HC are not equal, so it's not "you gain 6, you lose 6" like a coinflip. You have to play the percentages and expected point return from each coach. I strategically picked up a coach for MNF to have this flexibility. If I thought SD had a 60% chance to win (6*.6) + (-6*.4) = 1.2 expected point gain from SD HC. If I was in position to where I didn't need to take the risk, I could then sit said HC and not risk taking a -6. Because of how the Chargers use Woodhead, who my opponent had, I thought if they were in danger of losing he would likely have a better game, so I didn't want to risk playing HC and let it ride, even though by Vegas's account, it was a net negative move given the moneyline (in the example above I "lost" 1.2 pts of value but made the variance less, which I thought was more valuable. This as a part of the game as anything, and unless someone can find something in the rules where it says a HC must be started, I deserve the win.







[h=2]T dap[/h]Bill Cosby's Sleepers

RE: Playing a Head Coach
Posted: Nov 10, 8:52 AM
You must have a legal lineup, which means starting every position. If you dont, I'll pick someone from your bench to put in. if no one is available on your bench, I can adjust the score to give you a loss.







[h=2]orangemonk[/h]Gronk Goes Steady

Edit
Re: Playing a Head Coach
Posted: Nov 10, 8:57 AM
Where in the rules does it state this?







[h=2]Josh Osborne[/h]Gotta catch Jamaal!

Re: Playing a Head Coach
Posted: Nov 10, 12:33 PM
So we need rules telling people to have players in their starting lineups? Does everyone also need a rule saying they are required to start a QB every week? What about Kickers? RBs?

I need to know cause I was thinking about benching my QB and possibly my kicker just in case they get me negative points. Matter of fact is it ok if I bench my whole team? The way my season is going I'd rather just get zero points rather than have the possibility of getting any negative points from my players.







[h=2]Joshua Edelbrock[/h]Multiple Scoregasms

RE: Playing a Head Coach
Posted: Nov 10, 12:43 PM
I cal foul play. It's an illegal roster and in my leagues, that's a penalty of $$. So at the minimum, the head coach on his bench should be placed into his lineup. Switching that was the right move. For as long as I have been in this league, anytime someone has had an illegal lineup or roster has had to fix it. You're no exception mr. Undefeated. The long explanations are not going to be able to convince people who have been playing for a long time that the move you made was legit. Nice win chad.







[h=2]Josh Osborne[/h]Gotta catch Jamaal!

Re: Playing a Head Coach
Posted: Nov 10, 12:51 PM
Agreed Edelbroham, if this were our CBS league that me and the commish play in, illegal roster lineups whether intentional or unintentional result in a 1st time offense of $25, second time offense of $40 on top of a required vote to potentially remove that person from the league. We can vote on making something to that affect the standard rule next year but we never thought this league needed harsh penalties. Clearly we were wrong.







[h=2]orangemonk[/h]Gronk Goes Steady

Edit
Re: Playing a Head Coach
Posted: Nov 10, 2:44 PM
the fact that you have fines in your other league shows that it is a specific rule in that league that you came to the conclusion of within your league.

If you want to not start a QB or K because you think if gives your team a better chance at winning, that's your prerogative. The goal is to get the most points and win the week, which I did. Whether or not I want to go for more points should be up to me, not the person who waits until after the game to make a post bitching about it after a late score.

"Foul play" is fucking hilarious, as is the fact that people have played bye week players before and no one said shit (ball busters week 12 2014). But since I'm not friends with anyone in the league I guess it's easy to make up a rule on the fly that even the challenger didn't know about and apply it favorably to the person who is more popular in the league.









[h=2]orangemonk[/h]Gronk Goes Steady

Edit
Re: Playing a Head Coach
Posted: Nov 10, 3:00 PM
falling on deaf ears, but this also shouldn't be a discussion of how YOU want to play going forward, but how the rules were laid out prior to this instance, which there is no trace of at all, as evidenced by ball busters bye week last year. you can't pick and choose when the rules apply. but apparently we're going to. would've been funny to see what you guys would've said if I would've lost by 3 with SD on my bench and they won I asked for the points. you would've laughed in my face.

unless there's collusion or inactivity, there should be no reason to tell someone how to manage their team.

 

[orangemonk]

there's the chat log, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills I'm so fucking confused by their logic

 

[Schrute]

Makes sense that a rule should be in place but since their isn't one I would side with you

 

[Gyno]

I would side with you. Is a player on a bye an illegal move?

 

[Lareux]

This is a tough one. If there isn't a rule in place, I think I would side with you. I know in the league I'm in, an illegal lineup would be one where there isn't a player at each position, and just assumed it was like that everywhere...you can't have a legal lineup without having the lineup completely full.

As for the guy on a bye being in someone's lineup...same thing as above...they do technically have someone in their lineup, it's just someone who will not be getting them points. It certainly isn't to their advantage to do so. In your case, it would be to your advantage if you had a coach in that spot who was on a bye, but it seems precedent has already been set with that situation.

As long as you have someone in that lineup spot (eligible at that position, of course), your lineup wouldn't be illegal. If you leave the spot open, it's an illegal lineup. Again, if your league didn't have a rule saying so, it seems unfair to punish you. CBS Sports will just show the lineup as illegal if you have an open spot, so it would have been discovered as soon as the week started.

I just would have figured it was assumed you had to have a player in each position each week. You can have that guy be on a bye if you'd like, but you aren't gaining an advantage so I don't know why anyone would...outside of this coaching position, that is, since it's either +6 or -6. It would just be an illegal lineup without having each position filled out....isn't it like that on every fantasy site?

 

[tipyerbartender1]

The rule change this league really needs is to get rid of the HC position. Stupid.

I think monk is in the right, but only 51% or so, just because the rule wasn't clear. Guy injured or on a bye is different than an empty spot though. Guy injured or on a bye is always a case of a lazy owner who doesn't care or has packed it in. A deliberate empty position is different. In leagues I've been in and commished, a full line-up is an understood requirement. We don't allow the MNF benching of a guy from a team with a fractional lead. We like when that guy fumbles, gets hurt, and turns a win into a loss. Because it's funny and interesting. Not sure it's "written" in my leagues though.

 

[Lareux]

Reading through that chat, someone mentioned he was required to put a coach in his lineup last year. If that's true, it seems the precedent was set, regardless of whether or not it's written in the rules.

 

[Lareux]

The rule change this league really needs is to get rid of the HC position. Stupid.

I think monk is in the right, but only 51% or so, just because the rule wasn't clear. Guy injured or on a bye is different than an empty spot though. Guy injured or on a bye is always a case of a lazy owner who doesn't care or has packed it in. A deliberate empty position is different. In leagues I've been in and commished, a full line-up is an understood requirement. We don't allow the MNF benching of a guy from a team with a fractional lead. We like when that guy fumbles, gets hurt, and turns a win into a loss. Because it's funny and interesting. Not sure it's "written" in my leagues though.

Having the coach position worth 6 points each week is crazy. I like the idea of a coach, but would add some points for challenges won or lost, and reduce the points for a win from 6 to like 2 or 3.

 

[orangemonk]

Reading through that chat, someone mentioned he was required to put a coach in his lineup last year. If that's true, it seems the precedent was set, regardless of whether or not it's written in the rules.

i did see that, but it seems as if it was done on the side, not posted for the league as rule since multiple other people were not aware of it (including the guy who started the thread that was I playing). I was never given this heads up. I'm also very interested that this all happened AFTER the game, instead of leading up to it or during. Underdog Bears won late after losing all game. I wonder if I get my HC added back in if it helps me win. Impossible to know of course.

I've never heard of an illegal lineup in my 10 years of playing fantasy football on yahoo and espn. was always my understanding that you manage your team however the f you want to as long as you aren't colluding, but at it's good to at least hear that other people outside of this league have played under those rules, so I don't feel as mad.
However, I feel those rules should be clearly stated.

 

[orangemonk]

and if we're talking technicalities with a bye, I could've picked up a bye week coach and put him in my lineup as rosters are not locked.

 

[KJ]

I think you should be able to bench your whole team if you like, especially if the guy you're playing against flips you a fifty spot

Not in the rules, you're right. If it becomes a rule, it needs to be treated the same as playing someone on a bye. Injured guy I can live with if it happened that week, on IR is the same as a bye.

 

[tipyerbartender1]

In leagues with "strangers", I'm not sure. I'm in that CTG2 league on yahoo, and I assume I could probably bench players on MNF with a slight lead against an opponent who is done for the week. Haven't seen it addressed.

 

[Lareux]

and if we're talking technicalities with a bye, I could've picked up a bye week coach and put him in my lineup as rosters are not locked.

Right. That's what you should have done.

Honestly though, I find it hard to believe you've never heard of an illegal lineup. Seems pretty basic that you need a player in each eligible position. I figured all sites just automatically made the lineup illegal like CBS Sports. If I'm not mistaken, Yahoo does the same thing. I've never played at ESPN but it seems odd it wouldn't be the same there.

 

[Lareux]

I think you should be able to bench your whole team if you like, especially if the guy you're playing against flips you a fifty spot

Not in the rules, you're right. If it becomes a rule, it needs to be treated the same as playing someone on a bye. Injured guy I can live with if it happened that week, on IR is the same as a bye.

I know you're being facetious, but that's exactly why illegal lineups are in place to begin with.

 

[Lareux]

In leagues with "strangers", I'm not sure. I'm in that CTG2 league on yahoo, and I assume I could probably bench players on MNF with a slight lead against an opponent who is done for the week. Haven't seen it addressed.

I honestly doubt you would be able to. If your team doesn't have someone at each position, it would be illegal.

It's so strict on CBS Sports, that if you don't have the correct number of guys on your bench, your starting lineup is illegal and your team gets 0 points for the week.

 

[tipyerbartender1]

Having the coach position worth 6 points each week is crazy. I like the idea of a coach, but would add some points for challenges won or lost, and reduce the points for a win from 6 to like 2 or 3.

-6 is tough to swallow. Belichick must be a 2nd-rounder in this league.

 

[Lareux]

-6 is tough to swallow. Belichick must be a 2nd-rounder in this league.

Haha. Lots of fantasy games are decided by 6 points or less. It seems crazy to have that many points attributed to a coach.

 

[orangemonk]

I honestly doubt you would be able to. If your team doesn't have someone at each position, it would be illegal.

It's so strict on CBS Sports, that if you don't have the correct number of guys on your bench, your starting lineup is illegal and your team gets 0 points for the week.

literally have never heard of this. not saying it's untrue, I just have never played in a league where the website forced you to roster a full squad.

 

[tipyerbartender1]

Haha. Lots of fantasy games are decided by 6 points or less. It seems crazy to have that many points attributed to a coach.

You could beat a guy by a healthy 10 (or 11.99), and lose because you have Mike Pettine and he has Marvin Lewis.

 

[Lareux]

literally have never heard of this. not saying it's untrue, I just have never played in a league where the website forced you to roster a full squad.

I guess it's just assumed you have to field a full team. I don't understand why someone would think they couldn't. This is a different situation, as you guys have head coaches, which 99% of leagues do not, but even still it should be assumed you need to fill out the roster fully.

Maybe you've just never been in a league where a guy tried to not field a full roster, so it never came up for you to know? That would make sense, because it seems that it would very, very rarely happen where someone would try to leave a roster spot empty.

 

[orangemonk]

i have not fielded a full roster in leagues before. have sat defenses on sunday/monday night with a slim lead to avoid negative points. no one has ever said anything.
have also played in leagues where people have started injured/bye week players. nothing happened. if you're an idiot and forget to set your lineup, you're an idiot who forgot to set your lineup.

 

[Lareux]

i have not fielded a full roster in leagues before. have sat defenses on sunday/monday night with a slim lead to avoid negative points. no one has ever said anything.

How many times has someone ended a game with negative points that it's that big of a concern though?

I guess you've just been lucky OM, it seems like common knowledge that you need to field a full roster.

Starting injured/bye players is completely different though. I realize that at the end of the day it isn't, because you get 0 points, but you DO have a player in that lineup spot. If someone wants to sacrifice a player, then I guess you let them..but the roster still needs to be completely filled.

 

[orangemonk]

How many times has someone ended a game with negative points that it's that big of a concern though?

I guess you've just been lucky OM, it seems like common knowledge that you need to field a full roster.

Starting injured/bye players is completely different though. I realize that at the end of the day it isn't, because you get 0 points, but you DO have a player in that lineup spot. If someone wants to sacrifice a player, then I guess you let them..but the roster still needs to be completely filled.

failing to see the difference outside of literal interpretation of the rule. defenses score negative often enough to make me not take the risk of starting one if I'm up 1 point with no one else left to play.

 

[tipyerbartender1]

Yeah, I've had a handful of negative scores across leagues this year. Mostly defenses, but at least one emergency scrub position player who tallied negative yards.

 

[Lareux]

failing to see the difference outside of literal interpretation of the rule. defenses score negative often enough to make me not take the risk of starting one if I'm up 1 point with no one else left to play.

Sounds like you guys need to move to CBS...haha.

In the league I'm in, it's impossible for a defense to get negative points. You start with 35 before the game, based on 0 pts allowed and 0 yards allowed. The points are tiered for pts/yds allowed taking you down to zero. Once your defense let up 32 points, you get 0 for that...once you let up 400 yds, you get 0 for that. If you didn't record a sack or turnover, you would end up with 0 pts from your defense. I've never heard of negative points for a defense...not saying one is right or wrong, just letting you know where my comments are coming from.

 

[Lareux]

failing to see the difference outside of literal interpretation of the rule. defenses score negative often enough to make me not take the risk of starting one if I'm up 1 point with no one else left to play.

The difference I guess may just be the website, because it's a coding issue. When the site sees a spot on a roster empty, it invalidates the entire lineup. There isn't a way around it, it's coded into the website.

You're right that there is no difference (again, outside of this head coach, where you either get +6 or -6) outside of having a full roster. It doesn't really fly with guys putting players on byes into their lineups, unless they have no choice with their roster at the time. The object is to prevent collusion..and if someone sees something shady, it's almost always brought to someone's attention so that the commissioner can make sure nothing shady is going on, and to have that bye player replaced.

 

[tipyerbartender1]

Thing I don't like about cbs (to go WAY off the subject, sorry OM), is that they still charge money to host a league, and they're really not any better than free yahoo or free ESPN that I can see. I'm still in a couple cbs leagues because some guys in them insist on "preserving the history", but I'm surprised they still get away with charging 160 bucks.

 

[KJ]

The league I've been in for the longest time and for the most money is CBS and I hate it. Having to field a full team is bogus if you don't want to. And they charge a fucking arm and a leg.

 

[Lareux]

Thing I don't like about cbs (to go WAY off the subject, sorry OM), is that they still charge money to host a league, and they're really not any better than free yahoo or free ESPN that I can see. I'm still in a couple cbs leagues because some guys in them insist on "preserving the history", but I'm surprised they still get away with charging 160 bucks.

Apparently they are better than the others with this one issue....having an illegal lineup is not allowed, and your team will get 0 points if you have one. When you go to the scores for the week, it doesn't even list your players, it just says ILLEGAL LINEUP so that you know it has to be corrected.

:tiphat:

 

[Lareux]

The league I've been in for the longest time and for the most money is CBS and I hate it. Having to field a full team is bogus if you don't want to. And they charge a fucking arm and a leg.

Why is it bogus that you have to field a full lineup? The reason is obviously to stop collusion between owners, one of whom may be out of the playoffs or whatever and just wants to lay down for another team for a financial incentive. I just don't see the reasoning for wanting it to be allowable to leave roster spots open, outside of trying to lose.

 

[KJ]

If I have 5 guys on bye and can't field a full team... would rather keep my roster in tack than replace someone, I should be allowed to do that and leave one spot empty(maybe you can just play one with a bye? That should be illegal as well to be consistent). If I want to bench my kicker and not face negative points, I should be allowed to do that. Same with defense. Strategies are strategies...

CBS Sports promotes socialism!

 

[Lareux]

If I have 5 guys on bye and can't field a full team... would rather keep my roster in tack than replace someone, I should be allowed to do that and leave one spot empty(maybe you can just play one with a bye? That should be illegal as well to be consistent). If I want to bench my kicker and not face negative points, I should be allowed to do that. Same with defense. Strategies are strategies...

CBS Sports promotes socialism!

But in that case you are filling out a roster with guys on a bye. The roster spots are not empty. It should be illegal, you're right...and it doesn't fly in every league. If you have that situation, where you don't want to make roster moves, it may be "approved" as you aren't trying to collude with another owner, you're just in a shitty spot.

How does a kicker get you negative points? You lost points for missed kicks? Jeebus, you guys have this negative point issue come up more than I've ever seen. The league I'm in has been running for 15 years now...I could count on one hand the # of players total who have even finished a week with negative points. Again, not right or wrong, just shocked to hear so many guys worried about getting negative points from a guy each week.

 

[KJ]

In one league missed xp and missed fg are negative points, josh scobee could have killed you

 

[Lareux]

In one league missed xp and missed fg are negative points, josh scobee could have killed you

Even with his missed XP (he missed one this year) and FGs, there wasn't a week this season where Scobee would have finished with negative points (with that scoring system, even if missed FGs are -3).

I think we're exaggerating just a bit on how often players get negative points in a fantasy game.

 

[KJ]

I've never sat anyone, but should be allowed to. And yes, there are -4 and -5 points for missed FG based on distance (we changed it at one point, but it exists). It's arguing to argue, I understand you're worried about collusion. I'm worried about BIG government!

 

[Lareux]

I've never sat anyone, but should be allowed to. And yes, there are -4 and -5 points for missed FG based on distance (we changed it at one point, but it exists). It's arguing to argue, I understand you're worried about collusion. I'm worried about BIG government!

Haha. Me too.

 

[Gyno]

In leagues with "strangers", I'm not sure. I'm in that CTG2 league on yahoo, and I assume I could probably bench players on MNF with a slight lead against an opponent who is done for the week. Haven't seen it addressed.

Didn't mama tell you not to talk to strangers?

 

[ScopeY]

I am with you orangemonk.

As long as someone isn't adjusting a roster based off colluding with another team, than who cares? It is that owners choice.

Its one thing if a guy is done with the league and isnt changing players, I have no problem with the commish making that persons team have to force start the players that have highest projections via their position on his team. (commish being the one who is making the changes, and not add/dropping anyone).

But if a guy is doing it without the intention of hurting/helping anyone else but themselves, then why is it a problem? It was also never fully stated properly anywhere from my understanding, and if they validate that bye players are ok, but keeping an empty spot when you dont have bye players, than that is just dumb to me too......

Sidenote, I have played on CBS once, about 8 years ago, never did it again, and honestly have never heard of invalid lineups. And I am in roughly 8 leagues a year with probably 5 different commissioners in total.

I have seen teams winning by barely anything (lets say 1 point) with nobody having a player left except the winning teams defense for monday night, or even except the winning teams kicker, and they have benched them to avoid negative points. why's that a problem? they also have the opportunity to get stat corrected and I wouldnt feel bad for them, nor would anyone else if it screwed them.

Not sure if my rambling made any sense.

In hindsight OM you are tied for first record wise, just win the regular season and make sure that this problem doesn't affect anything :shake:

 

[orangemonk]

to cap it off, I found this from week 8 and posted in the thread. interested to hear their responses now....

Champ2Chump started an injured played in week 8. This is an illegal lineup and an active running back should be put in his place per commish in post 5. He lost by 16 points. His only active RB on the bench was CJ Anderson, who scored 19 points that game. C2C should be awarded a week 8 victory over Not So Angry Pips.

Why were the rules not applied in this instance?

 

[orangemonk]

and I completely agree with Scopey obv, your job should be to win the week however you choose to do so. I don't get why I have to start a full lineup, especially when there's no specific rule against it. ESPN allows me to do it. They don't allow me to add more players over roster size, start a QB at RB, have a non-injured guy at IR, etc.

 

[twinkie13]

"coach position"

what in the fuck

 

[RetroVK]

First, I love the concept of the coach position.

If anything, your situation should be used as an example to create a NEW rule. As it sits, you have not broken a rule and as such, your team should not have been manipulated by an outside source. Also, I don't believe for a second that a guy sitting at 7-1 (or whatever) was not tracking the game. As such, he should have raised the issue PRIOR to the monday night game being played.

To me .... it sounds like he free-rolled you on it. If San Diego wins or loses and he is leading he won't say a word, but if San Diego loses and it matters to the final score then he is going to raise a stink. I just can't believe that he didn't know the coach situation prior to the game starting. Even if you were forced to start the Coach, the issue should have been raised before the monday night game and not afterwards.

 

[Lareux]

to cap it off, I found this from week 8 and posted in the thread. interested to hear their responses now....

Champ2Chump started an injured played in week 8. This is an illegal lineup and an active running back should be put in his place per commish in post 5. He lost by 16 points. His only active RB on the bench was CJ Anderson, who scored 19 points that game. C2C should be awarded a week 8 victory over Not So Angry Pips.

Why were the rules not applied in this instance?

Because he had a player in the position, so his lineup was complete and not illegal. The lineup is only illegal when there is an open spot with no one starting.

Again, I agree with you simply for the fact that a rule wasn't in place, but that's why that lineup wasn't illegal. Yes, it certainly is a technicality, but his lineup did not have an empty spot, so it's legal.

 

[orangemonk]

Missed this one...

HC...cracks me up, we had it for a few years in my main league. Suffice it to say, I took that league over.

The worst though was a league I was in that gave you 5 points for being the 'home team' WTF. I lost 3 games one year being 'the road team'

i have never heard of this. the worst.


anyway, I ended up losing 1st place in the regular season to this guy by one game, so $300 missed out on then lost to a crappy team in the playoffs starting david johnson because this league is dumb and 8 teams get in.

 

[RetroVK]

In leagues with no regular season payouts, the 5 pt hfa is a mild reprieve and a good idea.