Discussion - Rules & Settings - Fantasy Basketball Cafe 2014
Fantasy Basketball Cafe


Return to FBC Octagon

Discussion - Rules & Settings

Moderators: jphanned, samo

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby samo » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:03 pm

Rounders Block wrote:It is better to have one team receive the unfair advantage and solve the problem of the dead team than letting it go on and having multiple teams reap the benefits. samo's example where he played 3 dead teams at the end of the season is just simply unacceptable. I would say the latter is much, much worse than the first situation.

Possibly, but not necessarily. In our h2h live draft league last season (which had 3 dead teams), there were effectively 5 teams fighting for the Top 4 spots. Two of the 5 teams (thelimey and statsman) had virtually guaranteed themselves a Top 4 spot due to the strength of their record. One of the 5 teams (Netsfan5) was in total freefall due to a combination of injuries and the fact it had become one of the inactive teams not setting its roster. That left two other teams (Dynasty Deacon and samo) to hold their position and make sure they passed Netsfan5 to gain the final two spots, who was losing 1-8 literally every single week. I played all 3 of the inactive teams and crushed them; DD played at least 2 of the inactive teams and crushed them. We both sailed past Netsfan5 and advanced to the upper league.

Last season we had 4 managers from each league advancing. What if it had been only 3 advancing? In that case, the only two managers the issue of inactive teams would have had any real effect on would have been DD and samo. If I'd been the only manager to benefit from playing an inactive team (even for part of a week), then I'd had the responsibility for setting the inactive team's (my opponent) lineup as I saw fit (remember, I was gonna kill him either way 'cause my team was bangin and I wanted his TO count as high as possible), THEN I had the ability to set the lineups for the inactive teams who were lined up to play DD in the final weeks before the playoffs, it strikes me as both a conflict of interest AND a benefit to the single manager (me) over the other guy competing for a spot in the upper league. As it was, we both had a chance to play some inactive teams and we both advanced.

Something in my gut doesn't like the concept of a weekly check-in for every manager in the league. It could be done I suppose, but I've never heard of it in a fantasy league and I'm not sure thats the sort of "groundbreaking" rule we want to create and enforce. I guess it strikes me as micro-management in the extreme. Perhaps I'm wrong and league members would appreciate the requirement as a way to deal with the dead team issue.

I'm more inclined to advocate a restricted commissioner discretion rule, if we do anything at all. Due to the inherent conflict of interest between a commissioner's double role as competitor and lineup setter for dead teams, I'd prefer a commish have hardly any discretion at all (thus, no add-drops, no "strategic" sitting of players, no deciding when to set and when not to set lineups, etc.).

I'd propose something along the following lines: If a team has been effectively (not necessarily mathematically) eliminated from competition (i.e. finishing Top 3 in First Division leagues, Top 6 in the Champion's League) and the manager of that team has failed for a period of 10 consecutive days to either (i) make a change to its daily lineup, (ii) add or drop a player, or (iii) initiate or accept a trade, any other manager (including the commissioner) in such inactive manager's league may publicly request on the league's Yahoo message board that the commissioner take over the management of the inactive team. The commissioner should, within 24 hours of the request, confirm the inactivity and may either (i) place the Top 10 (as ranked by bbm) uninjured players into active roster spots and leave them there, or (ii) rotate bench players into active roster spots on a daily basis. A commissioner may choose to freeze the inactive manager for the remainder of the season, or allow the inactive manager to return to the league upon request and reasonable explanation. Whether a commissioner chooses the "leave bbm Top 10 active" method or the "rotate daily" method, he must continue to use the same method for the duration of the season for all inactive teams league members have requested he manage.
samo
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 2476
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby Chrisy Moltisanti » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:32 pm

(iii) initiate or accept a trade, [with]any other manager (including the commissioner)


Active teams trading with inactive rosters? I don't think that's legit.
Image
Chrisy Moltisanti
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 4027
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Garden of Oden

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby samo » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:46 pm

Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:
(iii) initiate or accept a trade, [with]any other manager (including the commissioner)


Active teams trading with inactive rosters? I don't think that's legit.

Well, I think the idea would be that by clicking the "accept trade" button, the "inactive" manager would in fact be showing himself to be present and had not abandoned his team. If he's trading just to be a putz and the trade is clearly imbalanced, it'll just get vetoed and the guy looking to ditch his team will most likely get banned.

We're just looking for signs of activity, and trading is generally a sign of activity. My proposal is just a starting place. The more I think about it, the more I think this only should apply to teams out of contention. Teams that go inactive that are still in contention probably need to suffer the consequence of their inactivity, regardless of the cause, and the teams they're fighting for a top spot need to benefit from their own continued activity by having the opportunity to jump ahead of the inactive team, if they can.
samo
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 2476
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby Chrisy Moltisanti » Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:14 pm

samo wrote:
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:
(iii) initiate or accept a trade, [with]any other manager (including the commissioner)


Active teams trading with inactive rosters? I don't think that's legit.

Well, I think the idea would be that by clicking the "accept trade" button, the "inactive" manager would in fact be showing himself to be present and had not abandoned his team. If he's trading just to be a putz and the trade is clearly imbalanced, it'll just get vetoed and the guy looking to ditch his team will most likely get banned.

We're just looking for signs of activity, and trading is generally a sign of activity. My proposal is just a starting place. The more I think about it, the more I think this only should apply to teams out of contention. Teams that go inactive that are still in contention probably need to suffer the consequence of their inactivity, regardless of the cause, and the teams they're fighting for a top spot need to benefit from their own continued activity by having the opportunity to jump ahead of the inactive team, if they can.


I don't know. I would just handle everything on a case by case basis. I know you guys want clearly defined rules and all, but I think we can keep each other in check and make competent decisions without a users manual. Sure there should be time limits to moves, i.e. notifying managers of proposed roster changes for inactive teams, but telling everyone a good system for dealing with inactive managers is in place probably will lead to more inactive managers in the long run because people either won't feel guilty for leaving their teams and/or will feel the league will be fine without them. My instinct is that just telling people you need to stay active or don't join the league, and if you do go inactive you won't get to compete again, is the best route. In fact I'd just give an inactive team to the next manager on the octagon waiting list, have him earn his (or her, WNBA fantasy is next ;-) ) spot for the next season and place a 1-3 year ban on the inactive manager. It's not hard to put your starters in for the week on Monday by clicking ahead for each day and optimizing your lineup. Really you only need to manage your team once a week.

Again, forced trades between inactive, out of contention teams and active managers doesn't seem legit.
Image
Chrisy Moltisanti
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 4027
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Garden of Oden

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby jaytizy » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:59 pm

Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:I don't know. I would just handle everything on a case by case basis... but telling everyone a good system for dealing with inactive managers is in place probably will lead to more inactive managers in the long run because people either won't feel guilty for leaving their teams and/or will feel the league will be fine without them. My instinct is that just telling people you need to stay active or don't join the league, and if you do go inactive you won't get to compete again, is the best route.


Obviously I'm in agreement with this.

I think thats a good point Chrisy has made about this rule possibly having an ill affect and leading to more dropouts. The proposed rule makes dropping out highly convenient and without punishment no less.
Image
a goal without a plan is a wish
jaytizy
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 4399
Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Zona Zoo

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby Netsfan5 » Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:49 pm

jaytizy wrote:
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:I don't know. I would just handle everything on a case by case basis... but telling everyone a good system for dealing with inactive managers is in place probably will lead to more inactive managers in the long run because people either won't feel guilty for leaving their teams and/or will feel the league will be fine without them. My instinct is that just telling people you need to stay active or don't join the league, and if you do go inactive you won't get to compete again, is the best route.


Obviously I'm in agreement with this.

I think thats a good point Chrisy has made about this rule possibly having an ill affect and leading to more dropouts. The proposed rule makes dropping out highly convenient and without punishment no less.


To agree, I say that for the final month during the example samo was talking about when my team became inactive, if this rule was in place than I could of possibly been rewarded for being inactive. Now obviosuly, I learned my lesson and dropped a significant number of leagues to be able to participate to my full ability and preven inactiveness. But who says that someone may drop out for two weeks saying they were "on vacation w/ no computers" and then come back in 3rd place because of the new rule.

I say, have a monthly, tri-weekly, whatever check in for the league. If the person doesn't check in a few days after, then pm/aim/email the person. If they don't respond then replace them/ or do the top 10 bballmon rule. Plugging in bench players would be too nice.
Image
By Netsforce at realgm
Netsfan5
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3998
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby jphanned » Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:02 pm

I'm not really in agreement with your solution either samo. I kind of feel like we're going in opposite directions here. Anyways...

1) A team can go inactive at any point in the season. Throwing the clause in the solution that "if a team is effectively been eliminated" doesn't sit well with me. Like I said before -- "With a competitive dead team, the commissioner should manage it the same way as he would if the team was in dead last. It would defeat the whole purpose if we did a softer job of managing the competitive dead team than the one in dead last."

2) I appreciate you throwing out the situations that occurred already but you didn't address other issues that come along with it. Let me present you with a couple points/situations:

samo wrote:If I'd been the only manager to benefit from playing an inactive team (even for part of a week), then I'd had the responsibility for setting the inactive team's (my opponent) lineup as I saw fit (remember, I was gonna kill him either way 'cause my team was bangin and I wanted his TO count as high as possible), THEN I had the ability to set the lineups for the inactive teams who were lined up to play DD in the final weeks before the playoffs, it strikes me as both a conflict of interest AND a benefit to the single manager (me) over the other guy competing for a spot in the upper league. As it was, we both had a chance to play some inactive teams and we both advanced.


- I don't understand the issue with this. If you don't think you can be trusted to act in a fair manner and set lineups the same way for every team on any given week then you shouldn't be a commissioner. The solution we came up with is pretty black and white -- the highest ranked players play. There should be no conflict of interest at all if you do your job correctly.

- What if DD didn't play an inactive team during the end of the season? I think you are implying that 'Oh well, it all worked out in the end because we both played inactive teams and the inactive team effect cancelled each other out'. It doesn't work like that. We need to put a system in place where we can effectively spot the inactive teams to minimize the effect of the inactive team(s) and even the playing field.

- I really think having a check-in would be the best and most simple way to go. It will be nearly impossible for me to always be able spot an inactive team within a week, and it is inefficient to have the league members just 'keep an eye out' and report it whenever. The check-in is effective in that it 1) gets rid of the situation where a manager just keeps quiet while he plays the inactive team and 2) it also puts forth a consistent and set amount of maximum days per week a possible advantage of playing an inactive team could be in effect (3 or 4 days, depending if we do it Tuesday or Wednesday).

- And I don't see why a team that goes inactive for the last 2 weeks of a season who has been a top 3 or top 6 team for the first 22 weeks shouldn't 'deserve' to stay in that position. It's sort of like the whole H2H playoffs thing we discussed originally, but to a worse degree. If we feel like the team doesn't deserve to make it into the top 3 or top 6, I suggested a solution to it yesterday and will also reiterate it again here.

"I understand it is unfair that the competitive dead team makes the top 3 or top 6, and hope you can trust the EC to make the correct judgment call. We will make a case-by-case decision whether to keep this team in this top 3 or top 6 group, demote it to a lower division league, or remove the manager from the league all together. It will be determined by things like how long the team was inactive for, the reason for inactivity, and the overall reliability of the manager before this incident. The deserving manager(s) will advance."
Find me on Twitter
jphanned
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
EditorModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 ChampionTrivia Time Trial ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 7578
(Past Year: 427)
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: The Bay to LA

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby jaytizy » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:38 am

Rounders Block wrote:- What if DD didn't play an inactive team during the end of the season? I think you are implying that 'Oh well, it all worked out in the end because we both played inactive teams and the inactive team effect cancelled each other out'. It doesn't work like that. We need to put a system in place where we can effectively spot the inactive teams to minimize the effect of the inactive team(s) and even the playing field.

The problem I have with this is that the problem still exists. Sure we are minimizing the appearance of the problem... But we are in no way eliminating it. It's quite possible that a team that has had the luxury of winning one or two weeks against random inactivity will be pushed into the winners circle because of it.

I dont think Samo is implying that 'Oh well, it all worked out in the end because we both played inactive teams and the inactive team effect cancelled each other out' is ok... I think what hes saying is that it's the nature of the beast and at least its within the realm of possibility that it still can/will work itself out.

If we tamper with this, controversy over who caught 'small breaks' from inactive teams will be just as prominent as it was last season with the people who caught 'big breaks'. IMO there is no grey area here, we either have to find a full proof solution or nothing at all.
_______________________________
Rounders Block wrote:I really think having a check-in would be the best and most simple way to go.

I don't mind the idea of a monthly check-in... Or maybe even a weekly check in. But those present several problems within themselves; What if someone randomly just forgets to check in and goes inactive for awhile but has every intention to resume his duties whenever possible. Or what if someone does check in, continues to stay active for 3 days thereafter, and then randomly goes inactive. Depending on how often we will require check-ins, a scenario like that could absolutely throw a wrench the harmony that we are striving to achieve . Say we only have monthly check ins, then we have 4 teams getting 4 free weeks... or say we even have weekly check-ins, then we have 1 team standing as a lone beneficiary of an inactive week. Which IMO is just as devastating to the final standings of the league as it would be had we had several/all our teams having had that same chance to reap the benefits from the inactivity.
Image
a goal without a plan is a wish
jaytizy
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 4399
Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Zona Zoo

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby jphanned » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:01 am

jaytizy wrote:The problem I have with this is that the problem still exists. Sure we are minimizing the appearance of the problem... But we are in no way eliminating it. It's quite possible that a team that has had the luxury of winning one or two weeks against random inactivity will be pushed into the winners circle because of it.

I dont think Samo is implying that 'Oh well, it all worked out in the end because we both played inactive teams and the inactive team effect cancelled each other out' is ok... I think what hes saying is that it's the nature of the beast and at least its within the realm of possibility that it still can/will work itself out.

If we tamper with this, controversy over who caught 'small breaks' from inactive teams will be just as prominent as it was last season with the people who caught 'big breaks'. IMO there is no grey area here, we either have to have full proof solution or nothing at all.


I don't understand why we have to have that attitude towards it though -- that there can't be any gray areas. Taking your point into account, I think it would be better if we made the check-in on Sunday so it would encompass the entire upcoming matchup week. This would eliminate these 'small breaks' a team would gain. There is really no way to solve the problem, and I'm not looking to solve it either. I brought up the idea of global warming earlier and I think it relates to this. Would you be okay with this attitude -- well, we're going to get screwed by it eventually so why take any action to minimize the effect it will have on future generations. I say if we can minimize and for the most part eliminate the inactive team edge we do it.


jaytizy wrote:I don't mind the idea of a monthly check-in... Or even maybe a weekly check in. But those present several problems within themselves; What if someone randomly just forgets to check in and goes inactive for awhile but has every intention to resume his duties whenever possible. Or what if someone does check in, continues to stay active for 3 days thereafter, and then randomly goes inactive. Depending on how often we will require check-ins, a scenario like that could absolutely throw a wrench the harmony we are striving to achieve . Say we only have monthly check ins, then we have 4 teams getting 4 free weeks... or say we even have weekly check-ins, then we have 1 team standing as a lone beneficiary of an inactive week. Which IMO is just as devastating to the final standings of the league as it would be had several/all the teams had that same chance to reap the benefits of that same inactivity.


I am not asking much more from a manager than a one word post once a week. I assume we're all adults here and can handle that responsibility. Temporary inactivity will be treated the same as permanent inactivity, because unless it is specified by the manager, there is no way to distinguish between the two initially. The weekly check-in at the beginning of the week should eliminate the problem of 1-week beneficiaries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've also been going back and forth about what would be the fairest solution to how we manage these inactive teams. Weekly or daily lineup changes? I'm not too sure which one strikes the best balance between leaving the team inactive and giving the team an advantage of an 'actual active manager'. Maybe we can do a lineup change at the beginning of the week and one in the middle of the week. Thoughts?
Find me on Twitter
jphanned
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
EditorModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 ChampionTrivia Time Trial ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 7578
(Past Year: 427)
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: The Bay to LA

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby samo » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:51 am

jaytizy wrote:I think thats a good point Chrisy has made about this rule possibly having an ill affect and leading to more dropouts. The proposed rule makes dropping out highly convenient and without punishment no less.

Given that at least 5-6 of our 24 h2h managers (roughly 25%) dropped out last season, it was pretty darn convenient to ditch a team last season w/o any rule in place. The punishment going forward, rule or no rule, would be barring the drop-out from returning the following season. The rule I proposed probably won't have any effect on the number of managers who go inactive, the only point to it is to try to address the situation I faced last season when I realized my opponent was sitting freaking Lebron James and a top tier Center, had been doing the same the week before me, and would likely be keeping Bron bron on the bench against his next opponent, my good friend and primary competitor last season, Dynasty Deacon. At the time, it actually seemed the fairest result (and most appropriate thing for me to do given the lack of a rule) to leave the dead team dead, let the Deacon have the same shot at pummelling the team I did, and just make sure the punishment was to not invite the manager back into the league.

Rounders' team went inactive for a large portion of last season but (a) he was invited back for obvious reasons, and (b) I didn't get a sense from anyone in his league that the final results were skewed by his inactivity or any of the other dead teams in the league, since everyone active presumably got at least some shot at going for a big win (not that a big win is always the result of playing a dead team, which can be VERY frustrating).

Netsfan5's team went inactive for the last several weeks of the regular season and the playoffs and (a) he dropped from 2nd to 6th place as a result (largely due to a failure to react to injuries), (b) he was invited back in part b/c the inactivity was not due to abandoning a team with no chance, but rather due to some inexplicable head injury he must have suffered to give up a shot at the Champion's league the way he did, and (c) the only team that got screwed by his inactivity was his own.

All of this is leading me to suspect that Chrisy (while continuing to misinterpret my proposed rule as advocating the trading of players from dead teams to active teams, which I believe is both physically and morally impossible in our league) is actually right on the money in his suggestion that we simply say (and I paraphrase) "DON'T JUST BAIL YOUR TEAM EVEN IF YOU THINK IT SUCKS OR ELSE YOU WON'T GET INVITED BACK AND WE'LL SEND DARIUS MILES AND HIS BUDDIES OUT TO HUNT YOU DOWN AND PUMMEL YOU!!"

How's that for a proposed rule?

Honestly, I want no part of "checking in" once a week, or if I was commish, keeping a weekly tally of who checked in and who didn't. Like jaytizy said, if we made it a league requirement, I'd hold my nose and do it (maybe), but that smacks of having a curfew and I never did well with those. Always got my straight A report cards, but don't tell me to be home by 11 on a Fri night when I got me Betty's all the way out in at some house party in North Hollywood. Come on now.
samo
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 2476
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball

PreviousNext

Return to FBC Octagon

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues




  • Fantasy Basketball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact