Shut up already... I'm playing a guy who's starting Peterson (bye week) and Moreno (injured)

---

That sounds like a TERRIBLE idea to me. It's not really changing the rules but rather doing whatever is possible since certain people aren't keeping up their end of the bargain.

Free wins diminish the quality of the entire league significantly.

Also, for next year, it would be nice to have a injured reserve spot. Flea Flicker has a nice option for this and we use it in another league. It's nice.

Well, looks like the two week inactive is suddenly active again.. immediate issue is resolved in the A league.

---

If I change things now, then that shows I fail on sticking to my word. If it's a unanimous vote for one aspect through both leagues, I'm okay with changing it up.

doddpower, that is something we'll have to discuss for next year and I do like the idea.






I'm really not intentionally trying to be obtuse about this, but there's little that can be done, in my opinion.

If someone played against a team that has an injured starter already, why should the rest of the league not have that fair chance to get the freebie too? This is why I think rules need to be established before the season starts.

If dhazer got to play a team that had an injured starter, then we boot dhazer's opponent because of inactivity, how's that fair to the rest? Why should the other teams not have a fair crack at fools?

---

What do you suggest we do about it? Kick them from the league after 21 days of inactivity?

---

I think anything can be done if the majority of the league (somewhere between (70-80%) wants it.

Personally, I don't want a freebie. I don't care if person A, B, and C all got one. I'm not playing fantasy football to be given anything, I'm playing for the competition. If an opponent doesn't even have a starting lineup then the entire point of playing is negated, at least for that week. They'll be no anticipation or anxiety watching the score for that week if a person has 2 people on byes and one injured.

Just what I think, although I'm sure others feel differently.

What if someone who purposely set their team up like that and has a set it and forget it method until the final bye week has concluded.

I do think maybe if someone is inactive for 21 or more days, we drop them from the league, but then what becomes of their players and the schedule?

---

I am not in favor of having the commissioner setting the team at all. Unless the commissioner does not have a team in the league, its a conflict of interests.

Maybe at day 18, post there's a team available and if by day 21 they are still inactive, the team is awarded to the first person to put claim to it that is not already in either league?

---

I'm not concerned about a commissioner setting the team. C'mon now, I trust you dudes better than that, especially Pack. Plus, he even suggested that if anyone has a problem with it, it can be changed. They'd just be setting the most obvious starts, something as simple as putting an eligible person in for a bye week, etc. Most the people playing are pretty easy going so I don't really think it needs to be so politically correct, if you will. At least not for me.

A league has to be flexible in order to enjoy optimum success. I have run several leagues for years, mostly leagues involving money, and flexibility has been key. Sometimes things come up and a rigid governing system just doesn't work well my opinion. We're not talking about things like changing waiver orders or anything like that. Of course that should be static. But a situation that brings down the quality of the league needs to be addressed and in my experience most members are more than willing and want such actions to be taken.

You just alluded to the point. You said you trust us dudes, then singled Pack out in that, which is saying you trust him more than me.


This is supposed to be for fun.

---