|
Post by Munich Barons GM on Jan 23, 2012 13:29:20 GMT -5
Hmm OK I'll remember that for if at some point my team crashes down and I want to rebuild, I won't have to set my lineups either then to balance out the years before that I set them everyday, good stuff. We don't need a new discussion on this ... if they want to play like this, let them do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 13:50:44 GMT -5
I've stated my case. When we have owners for all 30 teams, and those owners are actively setting their lineup, my lineup will be set as well. I'm sure that's Denver's train of thought as well.
Again, I was more than active last year. Set my lineup even with a decrepit roster (by my own doing, I'll admit). Where did that get me? Based on an imbalanced schedule and several inactive owners, more or less nowhere. I didn't want to "tank," I diligently set my lineup the first half of last year, even won my first 2 games. Bully for me. My plan was devoid my roster of talent, save for a few potential cornerstones, and let nature take its course. That didn't happen.
I'm simply taking as much luck out of the equation as I can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 14:17:50 GMT -5
I've stated my case. When we have owners for all 30 teams, and those owners are actively setting their lineup, my lineup will be set as well. I'm sure that's Denver's train of thought as well. Again, I was more than active last year. Set my lineup even with a decrepit roster (by my own doing, I'll admit). Where did that get me? Based on an imbalanced schedule and several inactive owners, more or less nowhere. I didn't want to "tank," I diligently set my lineup the first half of last year, even won my first 2 games. Bully for me. My plan was devoid my roster of talent, save for a few potential cornerstones, and let nature take its course. That didn't happen. I'm simply taking as much luck out of the equation as I can. While I knew that this league was not in the best shape with the inactivity the past 2 seasons (sure this is an issue in every league), but it is highly disappointing to see teams tanking this early. It is particularly disgraceful that it's two of our founding Mods. While you might not be invested, you should at least do your due diligence and set your starters for the week/month and leave your bench players alone. I understand that it's frustrating when inactive teams get better draft position, but what team are you talking about that added to their superstar lineup by tanking last season? I certainly don't hear Chicago or New York celebrating about the all star teams that they inherited. Shoot, I would applaud them for even sticking around for a month. I am not a Mod and haven't started a league, but I'm sure that theirs something that can be done to set the rosters (at least full time starters) for those teams without owners. Is there not? I understand the rebuilding strategy (from the start) for someone like Pound that invested in the draft and in high risk/high (sometimes moderate) reward players. But he made an effort all season to set his lineups and at least try. The current lame, juvenile explanations we have heard are unacceptable. At the very least, some rule should be in place to prevent teams from deliberately tanking (and one should be ashamed to admit it). However, a better solution would be for the Mods to take ownership (a la David Stern....terrible example...I know) of the teams without owners and at least set their full time lineup and eliminate the cause of Meige's point of contention. Just my two cents...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 14:22:04 GMT -5
PS. I am currently at work and got a little worked up about the last few posts that I read. I might be out of the loop, missed the context, and overreacted. I apologize in advance if so. (Also only halfway functioning on 2-3 hours of sleep in the middle of a 12 hour workday)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 14:44:43 GMT -5
I've stated my case. When we have owners for all 30 teams, and those owners are actively setting their lineup, my lineup will be set as well. I'm sure that's Denver's train of thought as well. Again, I was more than active last year. Set my lineup even with a decrepit roster (by my own doing, I'll admit). Where did that get me? Based on an imbalanced schedule and several inactive owners, more or less nowhere. I didn't want to "tank," I diligently set my lineup the first half of last year, even won my first 2 games. Bully for me. My plan was devoid my roster of talent, save for a few potential cornerstones, and let nature take its course. That didn't happen. I'm simply taking as much luck out of the equation as I can. While I knew that this league was not in the best shape with the inactivity the past 2 seasons (sure this is an issue in every league), but it is highly disappointing to see teams tanking this early. It is particularly disgraceful that it's two of our founding Mods. While you might not be invested, you should at least do your due diligence and set your starters for the week/month and leave your bench players alone. I understand that it's frustrating when inactive teams get better draft position, but what team are you talking about that added to their superstar lineup by tanking last season? I certainly don't hear Chicago or New York celebrating about the all star teams that they inherited. Shoot, I would applaud them for even sticking around for a month. I am not a Mod and haven't started a league, but I'm sure that theirs something that can be done to set the rosters (at least full time starters) for those teams without owners. Is there not? I understand the rebuilding strategy (from the start) for someone like Pound that invested in the draft and in high risk/high (sometimes moderate) reward players. But he made an effort all season to set his lineups and at least try. The current lame, juvenile explanations we have heard are unacceptable. At the very least, some rule should be in place to prevent teams from deliberately tanking (and one should be ashamed to admit it). However, a better solution would be for the Mods to take ownership (a la David Stern....terrible example...I know) of the teams without owners and at least set their full time lineup and eliminate the cause of Meige's point of contention. Just my two cents... I'd agree with this 100%. The answer is to make some system for the teams that are not owned, not some move that compromises the integrity of the league. It is not an answer at all for teams to tank. If you need a volunteer, I'll take the time to set the line-ups. If the problem is no one wants the burden, I'll take it. I don't mind a rebuilding project and wouldn't quite because I got sick of trying to turn around a crappy team. But I will admit since this tanking stuff has come to light, it makes me question why I should spend time on a league where people are allowed and openly admit to tanking. It's the worst thing that can happen in the league imo.
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Oaks on Jan 23, 2012 16:07:56 GMT -5
Yep. Agree completely w/ CHI, GSW and AMS's sarcasm. Tanking in week 4 or 15 should not be permitted and is unfair to everyone involved. And i think their both right in pointing at the role of moderators, in our first full-blown PnR scandal, as a problem with the entire integrity of the league. If there is anybody who should be valuing the league over their individual teams it should be the moderators and staff.
Personally, I would add a rule that any owner who consistently doesn't set rosters (due to inactivity or strategy) should be replaced. If this seems too harsh then at the very least their own 1st rd. picks should be pulled from them as a consequence of using a backwards strategy like tanking. Judging from the above reactions, what we're dealing with is smart and active owners potenitally quitting over the poor decisions of a very small group of owners. the question then becomes - what really is the point of playing for the future here?
2 cents contributed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 16:31:02 GMT -5
I can't believe that this is even being debated. Listen, I had the number 1 overall pick when this league started. I took LeBron, he left Cleveland and with that, I decided, you know what, I want to have some fun and rebuild.
Not setting lineups is not due to a lack of time or not being dedicated... It is my choice (and Cleveland's choice) as to what we want to do with our teams.
My choice to sit my players is what I feel is best for the future success of my team. If I thought that I had a team that could compete right now, I would be playing my guys regularly. However, it is my assessment and opinion that it would be of benefit, for the long standing success of my team, that I forgo playing my players this season and concentrate on a quick rebuild through the draft.
This isn't something that I wanted to do, but it was something that I felt compelled to do based on the level of competition in this league. This was never a case of my team "crashing." No, it's quite the opposite. I elected to start over, tear it all apart and put myself in a position to rebuild for the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 17:47:00 GMT -5
Denver, you're not convincing anyone here I guess as you're defending tanking. As in all sports, there should be an obligation to compete for all teams in fantasy. The bad NBA teams are competing every night as well, when of course they would be better off just playing their bench warmers. That however, is not sports anymore, as sports involves competition. I think this should also be the case in fantasy sports.
Look, the source of the problem is clear; inactive teams/owners. We should find a solution for that, and letting teams tank to even it out is fighting evil with evil. We should put effort in replacing the bad/inactive owners, and just set their lineup to their best players on active, which should cover the largest part of their production. That way tanking isn't necessary for the balance, and of course we wouldn't punish anyone who forgets to set their lineups once in a while.
The league isn't running perfect yet, and in order for it to do so, we need to put effort in it. Frankly, I don't see that at all, as evidenced by the schedule in the East that hasn't been set up for weeks. Furthermore, after processing Free Agency for a while, I noticed that when I didn't do it, nothing got processed. Sure I want to help out, but I shouldn't be the only one doing things. Also, the Kings relocation request didn't get picked up by the commisioner (the official way) and no-one acted on that either.
There have been a number of people that offered to help out to lighten the burden, but it seemed even responding to those offers is too much of an effort.
Please tell me the reason for this is something other than you guys not caring about the league anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 18:23:38 GMT -5
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Quite frankly, I do not care if people have an issue with me sitting my players. It becomes an issue when people make it an issue. I'm doing whatever I feel like doing with my team. This is fantasy basketball... I understand we are all here to build a team to win a championship and my strategy (though you are against it) is different than your strategy.
This is a live and let live sort of circumstance. I have traded away almost everything that I built, because I wanted to do something different. Having the same strategy in 3 fantasy leagues like this would get boring. This is a strategy that myself (and Cleveland) have undertaken as part of what we want to do with our clubs.
I understand it is frustrating as a competing owner, but it is what it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 18:53:18 GMT -5
Hey, I have no problems setting my lineup against active owners. I just won't do it against teams without them.
In all honesty, its kind of pointless. Against good owners, my team isn't going to win anyway, so why bother? Hell, I've had more fun following all the teams who's draft picks I own. That gives me (usually) 6 matchups to pay attention to.
Denver's probably the same way. Richardson, tell me you don't enjoy checking out the scores more now with multiple games to care about.
|
|
|
Post by NAUHurdler on Jan 23, 2012 19:06:41 GMT -5
Yeah I don't see why its a big deal, let them do their thing. In the end of it all, they are trying to make their team better its just in a non-conventional way.
Here's an idea though for the teams who either don't have an owner or their owner is literally not putting in a lineup...once the year ends and they are whatever, 0-13 or however many games there are (who knows for us in the eastern conference still haha) then you just don't award them the top pick...top picks go to the worst "teams" not worst owner who just didn't set up his lineup. That way these dudes giving up already can relax and know that their hard work of sucking paid off.
|
|
|
Post by NAUHurdler on Jan 23, 2012 19:08:11 GMT -5
There are enough serious owners to where is something comes up after the year,I'm sure we can run a fair vote on it....
In the meantime, CAN WE GET A FULL SCHEDULE PLEASE!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 20:20:13 GMT -5
Hey, I have no problems setting my lineup against active owners. I just won't do it against teams without them. In all honesty, its kind of pointless. Against good owners, my team isn't going to win anyway, so why bother? Hell, I've had more fun following all the teams who's draft picks I own. That gives me (usually) 6 matchups to pay attention to. Denver's probably the same way. Richardson, tell me you don't enjoy checking out the scores more now with multiple games to care about. Exactly. Every day I am checking other scores, because I want a couple good picks!
|
|
|
Post by Munich Barons GM on Jan 24, 2012 5:13:28 GMT -5
As chicago said we could set the lineups for the 3 or 4 inactive teams if given the rights to. So you aren't "forced" to tank (as if someone believes this ). We have bigger problems ... there is still no schedule in the east! I want to see who I'm playing and what's the score... If someone gives me the rights to set the schedule I would do it for whoever doesn't do it ^^
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Mouse on Jan 25, 2012 1:01:54 GMT -5
There is a rule in place to discourage tanking. Its called the draft lottery. It works in the NBA (sorta). And it works here (sorta).
|
|