Should The Commish Punish This Behavior In A Dynasty League?

[the lone star]

@The LBC, lemme know what you think of this. Same with you two, @thebestever6 and @Lions017

[thebestever6]

15 hours ago, the lone star said:

@The LBC, lemme know what you think of this. Same with you two, @thebestever6 and @Lions017

Everything should be league vote try to have a consensus on it as best as possible.  Hell, create a message board with it, or have a 3 person committee in the league that votes on trades, and discuss issues like this. 

Don't wanna make it seem like a dictatorship imo. Commissioner shouldn't have all that responsibility. 

3 of the most fair logical people in your league that run a counsel or committee is smart imo. Just have to decide if 2 to 1 is acceptable or 3 to 0.

Edited September 16, 2019 by thebestever6

[the lone star]

11 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

Everything should be league vote try to have a consensus on it as best as possible.  Hell, create a message board with it, or have a 3 person committee in the league that votes on trades, and discuss issues like this. 

Don't wanna make it seem like a dictatorship imo. Commissioner shouldn't have all that responsibility. 

3 of the most fair logical people in your league that run a counsel or committee is smart imo. Just have to decide if 2 to 1 is acceptable or 3 to 0.

So would you be fine with retroactively changing the way the draft order is calculated, even though it has been posted for about two years already? 
Also, since dues have been collected already, can any retroactive changes be made?

[thebestever6]

2 minutes ago, the lone star said:

So would you be fine with retroactively changing the way the draft order is calculated, even though it has been posted for more than a year? 
Also, since dues have been collected already, can any retroactive changes be made?

I would be fine with it if a 3 team counsel everyone respected came to that agreement. It's week freaking 2 if tanking is that much of an unfixable issue already do you really want those that have an issue in the league.

[the lone star]

Just now, thebestever6 said:

I would be fine with it if a 3 team counsel everyone respected came to that agreement. It's week freaking 2 if tanking is that much of an unfixable issue already do you really want those that have an issue in the league.

Oh my bad, this was something I posted last year and forgot about.

The tanking was discovered at the end of the season, so all 17 weeks had elapsed at the time.

[the lone star]

Personally, I think you gotta keep it the way it is, because some teams have made trades in reliance on the rules, and if they had known that the rules would abruptly be changed with a retroactive effect, then their strategy would have changed entirely.

[thebestever6]

2 minutes ago, the lone star said:

Personally, I think you gotta keep it the way it is, because some teams have made trades in reliance on the rules, and if they had known that the rules would abruptly be changed with a retroactive effect, then their strategy would have changed entirely.

Rules change in work, rules change throughout all walks of life, rules change in sports, etc. Adaptability is perfectly fine if it's majority of the league.

No matter what happens people should be able to adapt.I would never enter a dynasty league where tanking was accepted. I was in a league where Roddy white for Benjarvis green ellis created a big issue so I doubt I'd like tanking. 

[the lone star]

26 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

Rules change in work, rules change throughout all walks of life, rules change in sports, etc. Adaptability is perfectly fine if it's majority of the league.

No matter what happens people should be able to adapt.I would never enter a dynasty league where tanking was accepted. I was in a league where Roddy white for Benjarvis green ellis created a big issue so I doubt I'd like tanking. 

Rules change, sure, but what if the change now means it is a crime to post on these boards, and that people who have posted on it in the past must now be charged with felonies?

Or what if the new rule change is that if you worked 5 years ago, then you should have paid more in taxes 2 years ago, so now you're assessed a deficiency in back taxes, plus interest, and the IRS has already gotten a valid judgement against you?

More on point, what if the NFL plays this entire season under their current rules, and the Dolphins wind up with the worst record. But then, during the offseason, the Commish decides he likes a lottery instead, and just unilaterally creates the lottery so that a team like the Steelers can wind up with the #1 overall pick?

Flexibility and adaptability are important, sure, but there are some rules you just can't adapt to. And sometimes rules should only be proactive and not retroactive. And sometimes, I think rule changes should wait a season or two before implementation, so that teams are on notice.

[thebestever6]

@the lone star we're just going to disagree. We're not refinancing a mortgage on a house, or are an NFL franchise. I play for fun less for money. But I'm old school I get annoyed when a guy brings an excel spread sheet to the draft and takes forever to pick.

[the lone star]

1 minute ago, thebestever6 said:

@the lone star we're just going to disagree. We're not refinancing a mortgage on a house, or are an NFL franchise. I play for fun less for money. But I'm old school I get annoyed when a guy brings an excel spread sheet to the draft and takes forever to pick.

Haha that's fair. 

You described someone I know perfectly. I just hit ctrl + t super quickly and run Google searches if I have the time, lol.

[SSG]

I voted the first option.  After the season I'd have put out a league vote to make the rule adjustment going forward if that's what the league wanted but there is no way I'd punish an owner for following the rules.  It's not fair to punish a guy who asked questions and showed what his intentions were.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with tanking in dynasty leagues.  I like it nothing more to see owners looking ahead.  Those owners are A) committed going forward and B) are usually more active. 

 

I'm the commish of a 14 year keeper league that just went through "tank-gate" this last year.  A team accused the tanking team, his wk 12 opponent and myself of collusion.  I was irate and almost left the league which would have ended it.    

 

With these young rookie RBs becoming more and more valuable I don't like the idea of messing with a draft lottery.  If you punish an owner for actively tanking that's fine but what is difference between trading your best players for future draft picks and starting a lesser lineup to improve your next season draft position?  

[Leader]

Just now, SSG said:

I voted the first option.  After the season I'd have put out a league vote to make the rule adjustment going forward if that's what the league wanted but there is no way I'd punish an owner for following the rules.  It's not fair to punish a guy who asked questions and showed what his intentions were.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with tanking in dynasty leagues.  I like it nothing more to see owners looking ahead.  Those owners are A) committed going forward and B) are usually more active. 

 

I'm the commish of a 14 year keeper league that just went through "tank-gate" this last year.  A team accused the tanking team, his wk 12 opponent and myself of collusion.  I was irate and almost left the league which would have ended it.    

 

With these young rookie RBs becoming more and more valuable I don't like the idea of messing with a draft lottery.  If you punish an owner for actively tanking that's fine but what is difference between trading your best players for future draft picks and starting a lesser lineup to improve your next season draft position?  

Prima facia evidence why dynasty, legacy or "holdover leagues" are a waste of time.

If a guy wants to tank his season - hold on to his players and enhance his draft status the year following fine - get rid of it all.

No holding players over. All the available players go back into the general pool at the beginning of each year - and draft ranking is selected randomly.

Done.

That gives everybody equal shot at all the talent as well as potential to draft #1.

Easy as pie. FF has been made more complicated than it need be cause, well....thats what people do. Take a simple, fair and equitable system and glom it on with all sorts of extra, unnecessary stuff.

[SSG]

Just now, Leader said:

Prima facia evidence why dynasty, legacy or "holdover leagues" are a waste of time.

If a guy wants to tank his season - hold on to his players and enhance his draft status the year following fine - get rid of it all.

No holding players over. All the available players go back into the general pool at the beginning of each year - and draft ranking is selected randomly.

Done.

That gives everybody equal shot at all the talent as well as potential to draft #1.

Easy as pie. FF has been made more complicated than it need be cause, well....thats what people do. Take a simple, fair and equitable system and glom it on with all sorts of extra, unnecessary stuff.

I don't agree with that take.  I'm a fantasy football nut and I much prefer holdover leagues and the ability to plan for the future.  A couple injuries can destroy a season to a point that it's almost painful to log on and make a lineup in a redraft league.  In that same scenario, that owner could use this season's misfortunes as building blocks for the future or possibly use next year's assets to improve his chances at winning this year that might not have happened because of some bad luck. 

For instance, I was a Bell owner last year that missed out on Conner.  I'd imagine that there weren't many owners in competitive redraft leagues that ended up winning a championship after spending their top 3 pick on Bell (and missing out on Conner).  Being my league was a keeper league I was able to move Bell and a future pick for CMC which turned a sputtering team that wasn't going to make the playoffs into a team that had the ammo to win a championship.  

[Leader]

1 minute ago, SSG said:

I don't agree with that take.  I'm a fantasy football nut and I much prefer holdover leagues and the ability to plan for the future.  A couple injuries can destroy a season to a point that it's almost painful to log on and make a lineup in a redraft league.  In that same scenario, that owner could use this season's misfortunes as building blocks for the future or possibly use next year's assets to improve his chances at winning this year that might not have happened because of some bad luck. 

For instance, I was a Bell owner last year that missed out on Conner.  I'd imagine that there weren't many owners in competitive redraft leagues that ended up winning a championship after spending their top 3 pick on Bell (and missing out on Conner).  Being my league was a keeper league I was able to move Bell and a future pick for CMC which turned a sputtering team that wasn't going to make the playoffs into a team that had the ammo to win a championship.  

Thats fine. Your league and I'm not here to tell you how to run it.

I just prefer where everybody starts out even each season. Equal opportunity to draft any/all players based on draft slot - which is also evenly / randomly determined. 

[the lone star]

On 9/18/2019 at 10:38 AM, SSG said:

I voted the first option.  After the season I'd have put out a league vote to make the rule adjustment going forward if that's what the league wanted but there is no way I'd punish an owner for following the rules.  It's not fair to punish a guy who asked questions and showed what his intentions were.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with tanking in dynasty leagues.  I like it nothing more to see owners looking ahead.  Those owners are A) committed going forward and B) are usually more active. 

 

I'm the commish of a 14 year keeper league that just went through "tank-gate" this last year.  A team accused the tanking team, his wk 12 opponent and myself of collusion.  I was irate and almost left the league which would have ended it.    

 

With these young rookie RBs becoming more and more valuable I don't like the idea of messing with a draft lottery.  If you punish an owner for actively tanking that's fine but what is difference between trading your best players for future draft picks and starting a lesser lineup to improve your next season draft position?  

Yeah, that's kinda how I feel. Can't punish anyone for something that didn't even exist at the time. Retroactive rules suck.