2014 SOI Keeper Fantasy Football League

[Kid]

As we figure out what, if anything, to do with the Gordon situation going forward (such as a keeper deadline), there is a league setting that would lock rosters for teams once they are eliminated from the playoffs (for playoff teams) or when the playoffs begin (for teams that don't make the playoffs).  Is there any objection to activating that setting?

[BT]

that's fine by me. 

[PcB]

I'm not so sure non playoff teams shouldn't be able to improve themselves if they can.


I mean that means they're still participating and trying to get better for next year right?

[Kid]

I'm not so sure non playoff teams shouldn't be able to improve themselves if they can.


I mean that means they're still participating and trying to get better for next year right?

 

That's the thing, they're not participating anymore for that season.  We are talking about after the regular season when a non-playoff team, at most, has consolation games that don't effect anything in this league.  Same for playoff teams once they are eliminated.

 

Putting aside the Gordon situation, I'd also say that available players should be left for those with something still left to play for.  

 

The way our waiver system works, not only could a team that missed the playoffs claim a player during the playoffs, but they would have priority over a team still in the playoffs.

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

Non-playoff teams still are playing for a better draft slot. I'd vote for the keeper date instead.

[Kid]

Non-playoff teams still are playing for a better draft slot. I'd vote for the keeper date instead.

 

No, they aren't.  With the exception of the 2 teams that make the championship game, all 8 other draft spots are based on regular season record only.  Consolation games and the 3rd & 5th place games have no bearing on anything.

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

Ah. That's what we do in my other league. I thought that was what happens here. It tends to make sense, as it gives people a reason to remain interested.

[Kid]

Ah. That's what we do in my other league. I thought that was what happens here. It tends to make sense, as it gives people a reason to remain interested.

 

The problem we were having is people not giving a shit in the regular season once their teams were eliminated and then tanking games (not necessarily as a strategy, but rather out of apathy) that had playoff implications.  2 years ago, I didn't get a bye because a team wasn't properly fielded against the then-3rd place team, which ended up passing me for 2nd place in the last week of the season.  That's why PcB got the 1st pick in the draft.  He had the best, rather than the worst, record of the non-playoff teams.

 

In any event, since non-playoff teams have nothing to play for when the playoffs start, and playoff teams have nothing to play for once eliminated, do you concur in locking their rosters?  This is not necessarily instead of imposing a keeper deadline.

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

The way my other league does it is similar in that the teams play for better draft seeding. In a 12-team league, the top 4 (3 division leaders and a WC) make the playoffs, the worst 4 records play for odd picks (1-3-5-7) in the following draft and the "Kiss Your Sister" teams play for the the even picks (2-4-6-8) over weeks 15 & 16 (week 17 is an All-Pro game, the losers of which have to spring for treats at the awards party). It gives all teams something to do as the season ends. I'm not saying that is what we need to do, but that explains why I was surprised that I had the 5th overall pick in our draft (I do get why, by the way).

 

I have to admit that I'm not wild about the idea that playoff teams can add FAs to their rosters while non-playoff teams cannot. I'd be fine with a league-wide roster lock come playoff time if we really felt it was necessary, but I'm not a fan of some teams having waiver wire privileges while others do not.

[Kid]

You don't see a distinction between teams with games that count having access to the waiver wire while teams that are done don't?

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

I don't--unless the keeper deadline were in effect. Without such a rule, I couldn't throw my support behind a setting that would effectively prevent some teams from having a chance to select keepable players. A keeper deadline would stress that anyone picked up during the playoffs would be good for only the post-season, which would be fine.

 

Of course, this all applies only to our current model of any team not eligible for the championship. In the model that I described above, all should have such access.

[PcB]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PcB" data-cid="289812" data-time="1473280172">
I'm not so sure non playoff teams shouldn't be able to improve themselves if they can.


I mean that means they're still participating and trying to get better for next year right?

 

That's the thing, they're not participating anymore for that season.  We are talking about after the regular season when a non-playoff team, at most, has consolation games that don't effect anything in this league.  Same for playoff teams once they are eliminated.

 

Putting aside the Gordon situation, I'd also say that available players should be left for those with something still left to play for.  

 

The way our waiver system works, not only could a team that missed the playoffs claim a player during the playoffs, but they would have priority over a team still in the playoffs.</blockquote>


Saving players that could help a playoff team could potentially eliminate a great keeper from a non playoff team. So they're not only not making the playoffs, but they're restricted from getting a good keeper as well.


Doesn't make sense to me.


It was a one off situation. Just make the rule, if a player didn't play the year before they cannot be kept if you're going to change it at all.

[PcB]

I don't--unless the keeper deadline were in effect. Without such a rule, I couldn't throw my support behind a setting that would effectively prevent some teams from having a chance to select keepable players. A keeper deadline would stress that anyone picked up during the playoffs would be good for only the post-season, which would be fine.

 

Of course, this all applies only to our current model of any team not eligible for the championship. In the model that I described above, all should have such access.

Exactly.

[BT]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="VanSlawAndCottoCheese" data-cid="289822" data-time="1473287344">
<div>
Ah. That's what we do in my other league. I thought that was what happens here. It tends to make sense, as it gives people a reason to remain interested.

 

The problem we were having is people not giving a shit in the regular season once their teams were eliminated and then tanking games (not necessarily as a strategy, but rather out of apathy) that had playoff implications.  2 years ago, I didn't get a bye because a team wasn't properly fielded against the then-3rd place team, which ended up passing me for 2nd place in the last week of the season.  That's why PcB got the 1st pick in the draft.  He had the best, rather than the worst, record of the non-playoff teams.

 

In any event, since non-playoff teams have nothing to play for when the playoffs start, and playoff teams have nothing to play for once eliminated, do you concur in locking their rosters?  This is not necessarily instead of imposing a keeper deadline.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

 

Just to be clear, that's NOT what happened. I was the "apathetic" party, and my crime was starting a wide receiver who was ruled out an hour before the game started. I was paying a lot of attention, especially for a 2-10 team at that point. The fact I didn't check my team at 11:45, and put in my terrible back up WR who happened to score that week is regrettable for you, but not indicative of a problem. 

 

That being said, it looks like the fairest option would be to set the end of the regular season as the keeper deadline, and then let only playoff teams pick players up free agents. At least in my opinion

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

I can't see anyone having a problem with that.