Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron (http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi)
Featured Leagues >> GBRFL >> Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
(Message started by: Stegfucius on Jan 1st, 2018, 8:26am)

Title: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jan 1st, 2018, 8:26am
Heyas, fellas...  Right out of gate here in 2018 we have important business with which to deal regarding maintaining the competitive integrity of the league!  It regards the only rule we have in place that addresses chronic failure to submit a lineup, the 3-Strike Rule.  The rule is simply that if you fail to submit a lineup for three consecutive weeks, your membership in the league is subject to a simple, majority vote by the rest of the league members.  The "strike count" resets once a lineup is submitted (so, in theory, one could get away with submitting as few as five lineups in a season: Weeks 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15).  The rule has been broken not very many, but several times down through the years, and, frankly speaking, the violators are often repeat offenders, but we have never voted anyone out (in fact, no one has ever even made it to a vote).  Bottom line, it is a very liberal rule.

In recent weeks here toward the end of the 2017-18 season, we have had two GBRFLers break the 3-Strike Rule, moreover, with great impact on the championship run.  For one of the two teams making a run down the stretch THREE of his final FIVE games (one of which he would surely have lost) were against squads with lineups that were not current while for the other team, ZERO!  That is notably unfair, and it stinks! [smiley=nono.gif]  I mean...  Could you imagine the kind of fit Feder would be throwing if (he realized) this happened to him???  But, I digress... ;)

As unjust as this situation this season is, we are, I think, nevertheless unlikely to vote either of the members out, nor do I think we should.  They are both founding members of the league, who have never taken leave and have championships.  THAT SAID, especially in light of the aforementioned injustice that has occurred this season, we MUST hammer out a new rule regarding failure to submit lineups.  As I see it, there are two aspects we need to consider:

#1) Reducing the number of weeks that triggers the punitive measure from three down to two,
      and
#2) Changing the punitive measure from putting the violator's membership to a vote to something else.

Point #2 is where we have to do our heavy lifting.  Point #1 is a straightforward matter and probably depends on what we decide on regarding #2, anyway.

So, regarding #2, moving forward, it seems like the punishment should not regard continued membership (that motif has proven to have no teeth) but draft picks!  That is to say, if you break the rule, you lose, say, a 1st-round draft pick!  That seems about right!  There are complicating factors, however.  Of note, we allow draft picks to be traded, indeed, future draft picks (case in point, I do not pick until the 3rd round in 2018, and I do not have a 1st-rounder until 2021).  What to do? ?.?.?  The calculus on that is going to get a bit complicated.  What about free-agent picks (from the following year)?  Say, if, like one of our violators this season, you did not submit a lineup the last three weeks of the season, you then lose your ability to pick up free-agents in Weeks 1, 2 and 3 of the following season.  Or, maybe it is some combination of draft picks and free-agent picks, or something else...  I was also thinking that if the violator has to forfeit a draft pick, he would get one after the regular draft is complete in a supplemental 10th round.  But, let's say you do not get a 10th-rounder, and on top of that you lose your free-agent picks Week 1.  Then, you in essence have also lost a roster spot for a week.  I do not know...  I am just thinking aloud. [smiley=thinking.gif]

I want to hash this out, not rule from on high, and indeed I do not have a really clear vision on where to go with this.  I just know we need to do something. [smiley=yes.gif]  What road do we take?  Draft picks?  If so, thoughts on the calculus...???  Free-agent picks?  Roster spots?  Players?  Some combination thereof?  How about Point #1 from above?

Please chime in at your earliest possible convenience, but on the other hand, only after careful consideration. [smiley=uponreview.gif]  Let's get to work... on a better 2018! [smiley=builder.gif]  Thank you! [smiley=bow.gif]

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jan 1st, 2018, 5:59pm
So, I discussed this with my wife in detail.  She is a GREAT sounding board and brings to the table intelligent, objective commentary... [smiley=boobies.gif] ... [smiley=laugh.gif]  Really...  She pointed out that there are two sides of the equation here: the punitive and the reparative.  I have addressed the punitive, and she agrees with the kinds of measures I proposed.  WE STILL HAVE TO HAMMER THEM OUT, of course!  However, she aptly points out that that does nothing to repair the problem that has occurred.

In response to that reparative side of the ball, she thought that we should DEFINITELY reduce the number of weeks of dereliction submitting a lineup that triggers the punitive measure from three down to two.  Then, she said that after a team owner has missed submitting his lineup for just ONE week, there should be somebody/some body designated to submit a backup lineup (by private message to me) for that team owner just in case.  At that point in our conversation, we hit the obvious brick wall...  How to determine the designee?  After going around in circles with options for a while, a solution came to us: [smiley=gotanidea.gif] afford some privilege to those at the top of the standings!  In other words, the initial designee would be the guy in 1st place; if he is playing the team in question, it goes to the guy in 2nd place; if he too is playing the team in question, it goes to the guy in 3rd place.  If other (unlikely) factors are involved, it would continue to cascade down the standings.  Seems like a solid line of reasoning and a pretty awesome solution.

Thoughts?  About this?  About it all???

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by IbdFunk on Jan 1st, 2018, 7:02pm
Yeah. Keep your wife out of it

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DirkDiggler on Jan 1st, 2018, 7:06pm
Calling a spade a spade, it really sucks.   Players not participating has impacts not only on their team, but the rest of the league.  Not only in match ups and standings which are pretty obvious, but also in free agents which could impact future competitiveness of the league.   Below please see some of my thoughts.  I am not sure I have a 'solution' or even a recommendation at this point in time.  

I would strongly encourage NOT eliminating the possibility of removing a member of the league because of the 3-strike rule.   It should continue to be like all standard forms HR forms.....   action up to and including separation could occur.  While actiion may not be taken this time, I think it is always good to have it as an option.   Obviously the hope is this never happens......

In the message it was indicated the triggers need to be revisited from 3 down to 2 for consecutive weeks.   I would actually propose that we revisit the rule to include # of times line ups are missed for a season rather than having it only be consecutive weeks.   Missing line ups theoretically 6-8 times a season does not make it more bearable just because they are not consecutive.  

And while I agree something needs to be done, I am cautious about taking top draft picks away altogether.   The teams that are 'generally' neglected tend to be bottom dwellers.  You dont see teams in the playoff hunt ignoring their teams.   Teams at the bottom (who aren't picking up the top free agents to make their team better) would be totally screwed in trying to get competitive again if they lost their early draft picks outright.   This may perpetuate the problem.      

I would support whatever the league comes up with.   Other options could be losing 'lottery' chances combined with free agent picks.   Or mid round draft picks.   But like Steg pointed out, we trade picks so that may actually impact another owner more.   Wth all of the complexities of this league, I am struggling to think of a punishment that may not have an impact on another owner in addition to the owner it was intended to help.  

The one thing that would seem to have the least impact would be free agent picks.   Maybe automatically move them to the 10th and 20th free agent picks respectively?  Or the 19th and 20th?   Plus, it would be a friendly reminder to enter their line up

Ultimately, and being brutally honest, I would hope people decide they are committed to the league and we dont have to deal with 'punishments'    I am not sure what is reasonable when members miss 20% - 45% of their seasonal line ups.   Life happens, shit happens, work happens.   We are all getting older, kids are more involved in activities, and time is getting more precious.   My hope is that in 15-20 years from now when the kids are all in college, and we are all retired, that we will have all the time in the world again.   Until then.....I guess we have to deal with this crap  :(



[offtopic]I started this message before I saw Steg's second post and Danny's extremely insightful commentary.  [/offtopic]

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jan 1st, 2018, 7:15pm

on 01/01/18 at 19:02:35, IbdFunk wrote:
Yeah. Keep your wife out of it


[smiley=Imwithstupid.gif]



Let me now go read something that I am sure is much more thoughtful, Steve's... [smiley=mustread.gif]

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by IbdFunk on Jan 1st, 2018, 7:27pm
I knew you would like that comment. I like the idea of taking draft picks away . Perfect solution.  I always put in lineups ,  I hate losing even if I have shit teams   I enjoy the challenge of finding a diamond in the rough and rebuilding. I don't get why guys don't put lineups in and can't realy relate.  If they don't have time to put it in then maybe they should drop out to free up their time.  


[offtopic]Edit regards my fixing the presentation due to HTML code becoming exposed during Danny's evident copy-and-paste (from Word or something).  FYI, Danny...  In particular, the apostrophes were being replaced by HTML code.  Try to get that out of there before posting.  Also, since I am doing this, I will put my comment about your post in right here...  GOOD, THOUGHTFUL follow-up points, Danny!  Thank you! [smiley=bow.gif]  Now, go enjoy yourself a box of chocolates, Forrest Gump![/offtopic]

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jan 1st, 2018, 7:42pm

on 01/01/18 at 19:06:26, DirkDiggler wrote:
I would strongly encourage NOT eliminating the possibility of removing a member of the league because of the 3-strike rule.   It should continue to be like all standard forms HR forms.....   action up to and including separation could occur.  While actiion may not be taken this time, I think it is always good to have it as an option.   Obviously the hope is this never happens......


AGREED!!!


Quote:
In the message it was indicated the triggers need to be revisited from 3 down to 2 for consecutive weeks.   I would actually propose that we revisit the rule to include # of times line ups are missed for a season rather than having it only be consecutive weeks.   Missing line ups theoretically 6-8 times a season does not make it more bearable just because they are not consecutive.


AGREED!!!


Quote:
And while I agree something needs to be done, I am cautious about taking top draft picks away altogether.   The teams that are 'generally' neglected tend to be bottom dwellers.  You dont see teams in the playoff hunt ignoring their teams.   Teams at the bottom (who aren't picking up the top free agents to make their team better) would be totally screwed in trying to get competitive again if they lost their early draft picks outright.   This may perpetuate the problem.


Well, maybe your first point above would "solve", albeit harshly, that problem!  I am all for logically "implicit" rules that can remain unstated and unwritten doing the job of laboriously crafted "explicit" rules (there is only so much time in life to be doing this stuff) even if it means someone has to meet the grim reaper someday, [smiley=reaper.gif] which I will likely lament greatly if such time comes to pass (but to keep this thing going there is a greater good to which we have to respond).


Quote:
Other options could be losing 'lottery' chances combined with free agent picks.   Or mid round draft picks.


Like the lottery point.  As to the other point, I do not think a pick beyond the 3rd or 4th round is enough of a hit.


Quote:
Plus, it [removing or delaying free-agent picks] would be a friendly reminder to enter their picks.


Good point!


Quote:
Ultimately, and being brutally honest, I would hope people decide they are committed to the league and we dont have to deal with 'punishments'    I am not sure what is reasonable when members miss 20% - 45% of their seasonal line ups.   Life happens, shit happens, work happens.   We are all getting older, kids are more involved in activities, and time is getting more precious.   My hope is that in 15-20 years from now when the kids are all in college, and we are all retired, that we will have all the time in the world again.   Until then.....


AMEN!!!


Thanks, Steverino! [smiley=twothumbsup.gif]  Way to kick off what is going to be a lengthy conversation that I think I am going to be hounding you all about all offseason...  This one is a doozy, for sure. [smiley=stars.gif]

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jan 1st, 2018, 8:11pm

on 01/01/18 at 19:27:05, IbdFunk wrote:
If they don't have time to put it in then maybe they should drop out to free up their time.


Kind of to Danny's point here, there is a philosophical saying in Buddhism that kind of conversely applies: "If you do not have 15 minutes a day for meditation, you need 2 hours a day of meditation." [smiley=stilldunno.gif] ... [smiley=zenmaster.gif]

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DB on Jan 1st, 2018, 8:41pm
I don't think that anyone should be voted out this year but I do think that there are some guys who should be asked if they want to continue.  On one hand, it is really weak not to put in a lineup when it matters to others going for the championship yet it is funny as shit that someone going for a plaque has been playing a kicker who has been on IR for a month.  But there is a big difference between the two.

I also don't have a problem reducing the number of missed lineup weeks from 3 --> 2.  However, losing a 1st rounder seems harsh (plus some guys do not have 1st rounders).  I think the penalty should be the loss of a protection spot, which everyone has plenty of (and is more like losing a 2nd rounder).

Hopefully, this year's championship (which is totally up in the air right now) will not be determined by the failure to put in lineups.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jan 2nd, 2018, 1:30am

on 01/01/18 at 20:41:09, DB wrote:
I think the penalty should be the loss of a protection spot, which everyone has plenty of (and is more like losing a 2nd rounder).


GREAT IDEA, D!  Losing a protection spot could surely sting,[smiley=bee.gif]and making the penalty involve protection spots surely makes things easy logistically.  However, for a team low in the standings, I still fear that it is not harsh enough to make the penalty a real deterrent.  Bad teams at the bottom of the standings often really have only 10, 8, sometimes even as low as just 6 players truly worth protecting.  Logistical ease notwithstanding, I am still on the side that the price paid should be higher. [smiley=idontknow.gif]

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DB on Jan 2nd, 2018, 2:04pm
I don't know ... a first rounder seems harsh (and I am the aggrieved party this year), especially if we go from 3 missed lineups to 2 and considering that we pretty much have no penalty now.

I am more into it than most, and my team is good, but I could see a scenario I could miss a lineup or two when things are crazy at work or home and my team is out of it.

I definitely do not like the idea of the 1st place team picking the lineup. That will cause too much trouble.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jan 2nd, 2018, 4:26pm
While the comments below are for D (and someone else), the questions are not really to him, specifically...  I am just riffing off his post... [smiley=guitar.gif]  They are for anyone to reply to...


on 01/02/18 at 14:04:58, DB wrote:
I don't know ... a first rounder seems harsh (and I am the aggrieved party this year).


I know, and you are being REALLY cool about it!  Thank you for not making a stink, bro! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  "Someone", who is quick to cry foul when things do not go his way, should remember this season and could learn from you... ;)


Quote:
... especially if we go from 3 missed lineups to 2 and considering that we pretty much have no penalty now.


By the way, though, what about Warner's suggestion that we just go by cumulative lineup-submission failures, not consecutive ones?


Quote:
I definitely do not like the idea of the 1st place team picking the lineup. That will cause too much trouble.


What about that side of the ball then?  Just leave it as it?  Just leave the lineups noncurrent and potentially jacked up?

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Travistotle on Jan 2nd, 2018, 6:38pm
We should be mindful not to fall into the knee-jerk reaction of legislating to solve such problems.  It may in fact be that the best course of action is to tighten the requirements and increase the penalty.  But it may be that legislation is not the right course of action at all.  There are alternatives, depending on what it was that caused the omission of lineup submissions.  

It seems quite clear to me that the NFL schedule is a culprit: some weeks the first game is Thursday morning, some week it's Thursday evening, some weeks it's Saturday, and some weeks it's Sunday.  One non-legislative way to address this is to have reminders posted on the GBRFL thread (or reminder emails!) indicating when the first game is that week.  

Another culprit is the busy-ness of the holiday seasons.  The same non-legislative action -- reminders on the website or via email -- might be helpful in this case, also.  We might also think about being lenient when a lineup submission is missed during the holiday season.

(We should keep in mind the possibility that an owner forgoes submitting a lineup because he is ok with the lineup from the week prior and has no intention of picking up free agents.  Obviously, if he has the time, he should submit the lineup just to make it clear he is on top of things; but isn't it possible that sometimes he doesn't have much time that week, and is ok with the lineup from the prior week, and doesn't see any free agents to pick up, so he omits submitting a lineup in favor of doing whatever it is that needs to be done and is pressing him for time that week [work, family, whatever]?)

My point is that communication is critical here.  If one of us sees an owner failing to submit a lineup, drop him a line and see if all is well -- a gentle reminder, at most.   If an owner fails to submit a lineup twice during a season, perhaps the Commish can get on the phone and have a conversation.  If it becomes clear that the owner in question is so busy that he can't consistently get lineups in, or is so indifferent that he doesn't care to, THEN we get together and decide what to do.  Yes, this means deciding on a case-by-case basis, rather than instituting a hard-and-fast rule with automatic penalties; but this is a small community -- there's only 10 of us! -- and we're not complete strangers (some of us are close friends!), so I say be wary of the legislative hammer.

[offtopic] I might add that the knee-jerk legislative hammer approach is the bane of our political life, on both sides of the aisle.  "Oh, there was a shooting at a school/hotel/concert?  Gun regulation!"  "Oh, we need more intelligence to forestall attacks?  Big Brother surveillance!"  "A policeman shot and killed a man?  Cop cameras!"  When we are so insistent upon equality and rather indifferent about liberty, and when we want legislation to solve all our problems, this is what happens, and it is the tried-and-true path to tyranny.  We have been warned about this for centuries: Plato, the Founding Fathers, de Tocqueville, von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, etc. [/offtopic]

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Drew Rosenhaus on Jan 2nd, 2018, 9:38pm
I do sincerely apologize for my lack of participation this year. As I told DB and SW in text, it was not my intention to ruin a run/give an unfair advantage to another by my not putting a lineup in. It does suck, it hurts the run for those competing, and I sincerely apologize.

This league is and always has been a lot of fun and it's a real challenge to compete. I would like to stay and be active in GBRFL but making sure I abide by the rules set forth.

My humble apologies to everyone for my lack of participation this year.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jan 3rd, 2018, 5:02am

on 01/02/18 at 18:38:35, Travistotle wrote:
We should be mindful not to fall into the knee-jerk reaction of legislating to solve such problems.  It may in fact be that the best course of action is to tighten the requirements and increase the penalty.  But it may be that legislation is not the right course of action at all.  There are alternatives, depending on what it was that caused the omission of lineup submissions.


Of course, T, I am in general philosophical agreement with you, hence my comment regarding preferring implied "unwritten rules" to explicit rules for every little thing, which is labor-intensive and mind-numbing.  A proliferation of rules guarantees only one thing: more offenses and, therefore, more offenders (who, moreover, are subject to increasingly arbitrary enforcement), and after all, it always comes down to people's or at least some (courageous) person's having to have good judgment, anyway, amidst a forest of rules or just one.


Quote:
It seems quite clear to me that the NFL schedule is a culprit: some weeks the first game is Thursday morning, some week it's Thursday evening, some weeks it's Saturday, and some weeks it's Sunday.  One non-legislative way to address this is to have reminders posted on the GBRFL thread (or reminder emails!) indicating when the first game is that week.

Another culprit is the busy-ness of the holiday seasons.  The same non-legislative action -- reminders on the website or via email -- might be helpful in this case, also.  We might also think about being lenient when a lineup submission is missed during the holiday season.

(We should keep in mind the possibility that an owner forgoes submitting a lineup because he is ok with the lineup from the week prior and has no intention of picking up free agents.  Obviously, if he has the time, he should submit the lineup just to make it clear he is on top of things; but isn't it possible that sometimes he doesn't have much time that week, and is ok with the lineup from the prior week, and doesn't see any free agents to pick up, so he omits submitting a lineup in favor of doing whatever it is that needs to be done and is pressing him for time that week [work, family, whatever]?)

My point is that communication is critical here.  If one of us sees an owner failing to submit a lineup, drop him a line and see if all is well -- a gentle reminder, at most.   If an owner fails to submit a lineup twice during a season, perhaps the Commish can get on the phone and have a conversation.  If it becomes clear that the owner in question is so busy that he can't consistently get lineups in, or is so indifferent that he doesn't care to, THEN we get together and decide what to do.  Yes, this means deciding on a case-by-case basis, rather than instituting a hard-and-fast rule with automatic penalties; but this is a small community -- there's only 10 of us! -- and we're not complete strangers (some of us are close friends!), so I say be wary of the legislative hammer.

[offtopic] I might add that the knee-jerk legislative hammer approach is the bane of our political life, on both sides of the aisle.  "Oh, there was a shooting at a school/hotel/concert?  Gun regulation!"  "Oh, we need more intelligence to forestall attacks?  Big Brother surveillance!"  "A policeman shot and killed a man?  Cop cameras!"  When we are so insistent upon equality and rather indifferent about liberty, and when we want legislation to solve all our problems, this is what happens, and it is the tried-and-true path to tyranny.  We have been warned about this for centuries: Plato, the Founding Fathers, de Tocqueville, von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, etc. [/offtopic]


A few comments and mild, but significant critiques... and then a serious proposal...

Out of the 17 weeks of the NFL regular season, there are actually only three weeks when the kickoff for the week is not 8:25 p.m. (EST) Thursday night: Thanksgiving Thursday, Week 16 when it is on Saturday, and Week 17 when it is on Sunday (like old times).

It seems like a lot of what you suggest is,... well,... more work for me, or at least requires me to have to be more "on the ball" and moreover puts me on the spot (I would be set up to get the blame for the week(s) I forget to send out the reminder email). :-/  Whatever, though...  What I really question is the idealism and effectiveness of this tack.  One of this year's violators, in fact, was contacted about getting in a lineup, and the message was ignored or at least not heeded!  The other is an owner for whom we do not have very good contact information and who has generally become quite a bit difficult to get in touch with in late years.

Now, there is an easy fix for the instances when owners do not submit lineups because they have no changes to make and do not want to request any free-agents.  We could start a "No Change in Lineup" thread here on our message board on which owners, without accumulating a strike, can announce that they have no changes to make in their lineup for the week.  But, even for that, it seems like there should be a limit.  Heck, it seems like that could make things worse!  One could avoid submitting a real lineup all year long and never get penalized.  I do not know...

The bottom line, T, all, is that we have not really had a rule for this.  Vis-à-vis T's off-topic comments, the better policy analogy here would actually be sanctuary cities (and now states [smiley=yikes.gif] -- good job, Travis).  Indeed, while the lottery presents a slightly mitigating factor, not submitting lineups (and tanking games) is ultimately REWARDED with, at least, a higher chance of getting a better draft pick.

Now, speaking of the draft lottery, part of the idea behind the lottery was for it to act as a mild deterrent against throwing games.  While the lottery may be fun, I have noted that the lottery has failed in this respect.  Indeed, I have imagined alternatives, which I am realizing may solve our problem here in a way that is not so harsh and, quite frankly, more just!  I have thought that we could make the lottery unweighted so that each of the bottom five teams' chances is made the same.  That, however, just pushes the proverbial bulge in the carpet toward 5th place (perhaps in favor of plaque contention as, to my chagrin mind you, there are guys in this league like Danny who do not even want a plaque unless it is for 1st place), and while it does not give participants a reason to come in 10th place, it also does not give cellar dwellers incentive to move up.

So, how about a proportionally weighted, but multi-tiered lottery that goes as follows?  6th place upwardly through 3rd place (for which there would still be a plaque) vie for draft picks 1 through 4; 10th place upwardly through 7th place vie for draft picks 5 through 8; 2nd place and 1st place still just get the 9th and 10th draft picks, respectively.  WOW, no???  No suspense is lost.  Indeed, more people are involved!  That means more fun to be had.  Moreover, it really does incentivize always doing your best, minimize reasons for finishing low in the standings, and penalize those who have mailed it in, and it is NOT a harsh measure per se.

THOUGHTS?  On this?  On anything???


[offtopic]Yeah, but could you not read what Plato is suggesting as an alternative to incessant legislation as perhaps something worse?  A cabal of elite benefactors...  Gee, nothing could go wrong with that. [smiley=whistle.gif] ... [smiley=nervous.gif][/offtopic]

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DOLFAN on May 27th, 2018, 5:43pm
I agree that we need to re-visit this rule. After looking over all the ideas/feedback so far...maybe the total limit should be 3 times total a year.
1 offense = missing any give weeks submission.

1st offense: no foul

2nd offense(any 2 weeks total throughout the season): penalty options in no particular order or limited to these ideas:
( loss of pro spot which everyone has, Loss of week 1 free agent picks,
loss of or move down in (round 1 or 2 in group) ie: they would get last pick in that group(lottery, or 6-10),  1st or 2nd round picks-we know about trading away issues/could make it next avail year, but if 3 years out is  the pick does it have enough NOW teeth? (...another can of worms)
Miss any 3 weeks unless notify someone to input yours: loss of 1st rd draft pick / or and (possible league vote up to dismissal if 2 times in 5 years)
I am open to a few of these options, and see them along the lines of fair options going forward.  

I am also willing to listen to other ideas/options.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jun 2nd, 2018, 3:56am
I agree with Joe that this needs to be dealt with this year.  It should not be tabled.  That said, as we reopen this discussion, I want to reiterate my support for this specific remedy...


on 01/03/18 at 05:02:44, Stegfucius wrote:
So, how about a proportionally weighted, but multi-tiered lottery that goes as follows?  6th place upwardly through 3rd place (for which there would still be a plaque) vie for draft picks 1 through 4; 10th place upwardly through 7th place vie for draft picks 5 through 8; 2nd place and 1st place still just get the 9th and 10th draft picks, respectively.  WOW, no???  No suspense is lost.  Indeed, more people are involved!  That means more fun to be had.  Moreover, it really does incentivize always doing your best, minimize reasons for finishing low in the standings, and penalize those who have mailed it in, and it is NOT a harsh measure per se.


It addresses BOTH the participant -- punishes the individual -- AND the league as a whole -- encourages participation...  Indeed, it improves competition -- rewards competitiveness.  It is punitive -- pretty harsh, but not too harsh.  It is corrective -- you screw yourself out of the top six because of lack of participation, it is going to sting and you are not going to want to do that again.  After all, the two owners who pushed things most on this front last season in fact finished in 9th and 10th place!  Last but definitely not least, it is easy to implement and administer -- keeps it impersonal and does not add any new layers of rules, just tweaks what is already in place.  As an added bonus, it expands the relevance of the lottery from five teams to eight!  I see nothing but upside.

At any rate, it is specific, straightforward and its passage is the most efficient pathway to our dealing with this in a quick, but significant way...

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DirkDiggler on Jun 3rd, 2018, 11:53am
I like the creative thinking, but I think having  the two worst teams punished is not a good thing.   If there is neglect, this would make sense.   However, sadly, I have finished in the bottom two and submitted a line up every single week.   It would be extremely hard to ever truly get better if you only were guaranteed pick 5 though 8.    This year, to no surprise, the two guys who missed entering line ups  3 plus weeks finished in the bottom two.  But that just isnt always the case.    

While I agree some sort of 'penalty' is in order, I am not sure it solves the root of the problem.   At some point, you are either in, or you are out.  Non-participation has a detrimental impact on all other members.  

In regards to a penalty, I am for reduction of lottery chances, or forfeiture of protection spots.   Maybe losing a free agent pick?   I definitely think there needs to be more of a penalty, but at the end of the day, I would like to have active members.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jun 4th, 2018, 5:20am
The penalty needs to sting if it is going to be effective.  We just do not want it to sting too bad.  But, I digress...

Yeah, I too thought of that, Steve, all...  Finishing 7th or worse I think has happened to me more than anyone over the past decade and a half, and it surely has not been due to lack of effort and participation!  Heck, I know I have lost several times to teams who did not submit a lineup. :(  There will be collateral damage, unfortunately.  THAT SAID, serious culprits will almost always reap what they sow, and think of the upside for the league...  Think about how EVERY game will have more significance and how that incentivizes participation, especially toward the end of the season when we need people to be participating -- to have a reason and incentive to participate.  Think about how much more meaningful our Week 17 bumper week will be.  Consider how this incentivization deals with the problem of participation proactively!  This really makes participation in the GBRFL a 17-week commitment.  There is no perfect solution -- again, there will be collateral damage -- but this will probably be good for the league in the long run.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jun 4th, 2018, 3:22pm

on 06/04/18 at 05:20:53, Stegfucius wrote:
The penalty needs to sting if it is going to be effective.  We just do not want it to sting too bad.  But, I digress...

Yeah, I too thought of that, Steve, all...  Finishing 7th or worse I think has happened to me more than anyone over the past decade and a half, and it surely has not been due to lack of effort and participation!  Heck, I know I have lost several times to teams who did not submit a lineup. :(  There will be collateral damage, unfortunately.  THAT SAID, serious culprits will almost always reap what they sow, and think of the upside for the league...  Think about how EVERY game will have more significance and how that incentivizes participation, especially toward the end of the season when we need people to be participating -- to have a reason and incentive to participate.  Think about how much more meaningful our Week 17 bumper week will be.  Consider how this incentivization deals with the problem of participation proactively!  This really makes participation in the GBRFL a 17-week commitment.  There is no perfect solution -- again, there will be collateral damage -- but this will probably be good for the league in the long run.


A further point of clarification regarding the proposal that there will be some "collateral damage"...  That will only be in the beginning.  After a while, the lesson will anticipatively be learned, and participation, at least in terms of submitting and optimizing weekly lineups, will improve, and there will not be such casualties in the sense that we will get used to it, and it will just be business as usual.

A bottom line here is that one of the main, original intentions behind the institution of the draft lottery, as it is presently constituted, was that it would dissuade tanking and non-participation.  To that end, it has failed because the reward of finishing lower in the standings has not been eliminated but just reduced.  There is still a reward, though, for finishing as low as possible in the standings.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DirkDiggler on Jun 12th, 2018, 12:26pm
I am not a fan of hurting the two bottom teams with a worse pick.  With that being said, we could look at leveling out the odds of the picks.   So the bottom two would both get the same number of lottery picks, 7th and 8th getting the same, 5th and 6th, and even 7th and 8th getting 1 lottery chance.






Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Jun 16th, 2018, 10:37pm

on 06/12/18 at 12:26:08, DirkDiggler wrote:
I am not a fan of hurting the two bottom teams with a worse pick.  With that being said, we could look at leveling out the odds of the picks.   So the bottom two would both get the same number of lottery picks, 7th and 8th getting the same, 5th and 6th, and even [3rd] and [4th] getting 1 lottery chance.


I still like my proposal, but I also like this one, especially given its simplicity.  I could be down with something like 20 lottery tickets in the proverbial hat: 9th and 10th place get 4 each; 7th and 8th place get 3 each; 5th and 6th place get 2 each; 3rd and 4th place get 1 each.

Anyone else...???

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DirkDiggler on Jun 17th, 2018, 12:43pm

on 06/16/18 at 22:37:14, Stegfucius wrote:
I still like my proposal, but I also like this one, especially given its simplicity.  I could be down with something like 20 lottery tickets in the proverbial hat: 9th and 10th place get 4 each; 7th and 8th place get 3 each; 5th and 6th place get 2 each; 3rd and 4th place get 1 each.

Anyone else...???


Add in a penalty of losing picks for missed lineups and a protection spot, I think we are in the ball park for an appropriate penalty.

I still think it sucks if we have to resort to  a penalty- and should include verbiage similar to all HR forms, action up to and including separation  :)  



Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DB on Jun 17th, 2018, 7:19pm
Yeah maybe a tougher penalty for missing a line-up is warranted.  But don't think we need to treat this line a business with HR forms or any legal language like that.  I think we will need to hash this out at the draft.  The people we need to address this with are unlikely to participate before then.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Travistotle on Jun 18th, 2018, 5:02pm
I do think we should have punitive measures for not just missing consecutive weeks but a certain total number of weeks in a season.  But, we should be careful not to institute too many and too harsh punitive measures.  Let's start small with the rules and, if need be, increase them later.  So, we could say once you fail to submit a lineup for the third time in a season (not just the third time in a row), whatever measures we agree on go into effect.  

As for what these punitive measures should be, it looks like we have two kinds of proposals: (1) pre-emptive, general changes to the lottery structure applicable to all of us, and (2) specific punishments for inactivity applicable only to rule-breakers.  

We should be careful about the first kind of measures: in fact, it seems to me that altering the lottery/draft should be done NOT with an eye to punishment, since only a few actually deserve it, but rather with an eye to improving the league more generally, e.g., encouraging maximum effort even from those in the middle of the pack.  And, in fact, Steg's concrete proposal about modified lottery odds (based on Steve W's idea) does seem like an appropriate way to improve the league while also having the side-benefit of further de-incentivizing tanking and thus, roundaboutly, punishing failure to submit lineups.  

The second kind of measures should, I think, be decided upon on the basis of the same principle elucidated earlier, i.e., begin with small, rather than drastic, steps.  I agree that a 1st-round pick is drastic.  But a pro spot seems reasonable.  (I'm inclined to think just losing free-agent picks for a week is not sufficient.)

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DOLFAN on Jun 18th, 2018, 6:19pm
After reading/looking/reviewing both proposals/ideas. I think either is a viable option and we could vote on. At first I thought it may be a bit harsh, and it still may be...but if we are talking about missing 3 weeks (that's between 12-20%), as it could have been 4-6 games out of 29. That is a lot IMO.
Is 1/5 to 1/6 of the season enough of an infraction for a penalty? My opinion is yes it is. Again, missing 1 week: no biggie IMO, 2 or more some kind of penalty should be implemented, 3 definitely more harsh.

I'm not choosing one from the other as I find both solid options...
Steg's first idea does make it so everyone is always trying to not be at the bottom, but it does penalize for the bottom, and maybe it should.
Warners' idea is a bit more balanced/strung out without the severity by including more teams and reducing lottery chances if you are at the bottom.
....just my 2 cents


Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Aug 6th, 2018, 5:41am
I am starting to become sold on an amalgam of what has heretofore been proposed.

On the proactive side of the ball, I still do like the idea of rewarding the 6th-through-3rd-place finishers, indeed, at the expense of the 10th-through-7th-place finishers.  Sorry...  I just do not see the downside for the individual teams outweighing the upside for the LEAGUE!  I just foresee a very positive in-season impact.  Even as the season progresses and teams fall out of contention, I see owners of those bottom teams staying engaged and trying their hardest to get out of the bottom four... for if they do not, they will surely finish there and, frankly speaking, get their just deserts.  Likewise, teams in the upper-middle of the pack are going to be fighting to stay above 7th place.  Bottom line, I still want yous to really think this idea through.  We can always reverse out of it after a couple years.

That said, Steve's idea is a decent compromise that I could support.  Here that is...


on 06/16/18 at 22:37:14, Stegfucius wrote:
I still like my proposal, but I also like this one, especially given its simplicity.  I could be down with something like 20 lottery tickets in the proverbial hat: 9th and 10th place get 4 each; 7th and 8th place get 3 each; 5th and 6th place get 2 each; 3rd and 4th place get 1 each.

On the reactive/punitive side of the ball, here is where I am...  Let's change the sports metaphor from baseball [smiley=waitinforu.gif] to golf... [smiley=golf.gif]  When it comes to failing to submit a lineup, you get ONE mulligan.  After that, you lose ONE protection spot for EVERY lineup submission you miss.  That seems like a reasonable penalty between too harsh and not harsh enough, which seems to be what we are struggling to come up with.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DirkDiggler on Aug 14th, 2018, 12:29pm
I am good with the loss of a protection spot.   I hope this would encourage participation.

While I understand the thought of reworking the lottery to keep it 'competitive' all year and 'punishing' the bottom teams, I think since this is a deep keeper league that it would be difficult for the bottom teams to improve if they don't get the top picks.  

I am more amenable to modifying the lottery so everyone who didnt finish in the top 2 would get some sort of pick.   (I would honestly reduce the number of trophys too- and put the funds towards the website)  I think modifying the lottery would definitely change the value of 1st round draft picks.    

However, I am not sure the lottery needs to be reworked at this time as I dont see the lottery necessarily tying into non-participation.  


Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Aug 14th, 2018, 3:55pm

on 08/14/18 at 12:29:07, DirkDiggler wrote:
I am good with the loss of a protection spot.   I hope this would encourage participation.

While I understand the thought of reworking the lottery to keep it 'competitive' all year and 'punishing' the bottom teams, I think since this is a deep keeper league that it would be difficult for the bottom teams to improve if they don't get the top picks.

All of this, but most notably the assertion that bottom teams cannot lift themselves up over time through free-agency, trades and the good 1st-round picks they still have, sans ultrahigh draft picks, would require a study.  Though the change to the lottery I am proposing would surely present a challenge (that is the point), it would not at all be necessarily insurmountable.  In fact, I do not think it would be at all.  Moreover, a change to the lottery in the way I am proposing may encourage more trading of future 1st-round draft picks and, therefore, more trading and activity overall (because ALL 1st rounders have serious value -- heck, try getting just the #10 pick right now -- good luck).  Furthermore, trading (future or following-year) 1st-rounders may be a way for an owner anticipating a bad finish for his team to mitigate the damage, BUT that will take EFFORT and PARTICIPATION, which again is the point!



Quote:
I am more amenable to modifying the lottery so everyone who didnt finish in the top 2 would get some sort of pick.   (I would honestly reduce the number of trophys too- and put the funds towards the website)

Just an FYI, the amount of money we would save by removing a plaque or two, which I would be very against by the way because I think they do function as incentives (for some/many of us), which we surely do not want to reduce (see below for more on this), would amount to a drip in the bucket of what a true site upgrade would cost, like one that would bring the site more up to the times and fully alleviate the ongoing issue I am dealing with (which, by the way, has gotten much better after I spent a good part of last Friday with a techie via chat solving some things behind the scenes).  Mind you, the $100-$200 or so that we would save by removing a plaque or two would go nice in my wallet, but since it would not be a difference-maker for the site, I would RATHER put it toward plaques.  Bottom line, cutting a plaque or two is not going to even come close to providing a difference-making revenue stream.  Honestly, that the thought even entered someone's consciousness is somewhat disappointing to me.  What do you think?  Based on the baseline $50 league fee I have been charging for last 22 or so years, you think I am rolling in it over here, [smiley=greedy.gif] [smiley=money.gif] the cost of a couple plaques away from website bliss? [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] ... [smiley=LMFAO.gif]



Quote:
I think modifying the lottery would definitely change the value of 1st round draft picks.

Pre-lottery, sure, but not post-lottery.  And, change in and of itself is neither good nor bad.  Indeed, the one thing we know about change is that people do not like it.



Quote:
However, I am not sure the lottery needs to be reworked at this time as I dont see the lottery necessarily tying into non-participation.

Well, neither do protection spots.  In fact, protection spots have absolutely nothing to do with (non)participation.  At least, the inauguration of the lottery was done with participation partially in mind.  But, ultimately, solving this is about establishing intelligent reactive punishments (losing protection spots) and/or proactive incentives (which may be able to be created by tinkering with the lottery, but about which we will never know unless we try).  Again, not to get all Buddhist here, [smiley=zenmaster.gif] but nothing (in this world) is permanent.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DOLFAN on Aug 14th, 2018, 5:55pm
The Mulligan, then loss of a PS for each/every infraction after that is fine by me. Simple and to the point.

The person will get to fill his last roster spot/s back with the very last pick/s in draft.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Aug 18th, 2018, 7:26pm
I am quoting this content regarding the "reparative side" of the "nonparticipation issue" so as to help make sure you all consult it heading into meeting and draft day in two weeks.


on 01/01/18 at 17:59:50, Stegfucius wrote:
.. there are two sides of the equation here: the punitive and the reparative.  I have addressed the punitive, and she [Gino] agrees with the kinds of measures I proposed.  WE STILL HAVE TO HAMMER THEM OUT, of course!  However, she aptly points out that that does nothing to repair the problem that has occurred.

... she said that after a team owner has missed submitting his lineup for just ONE week, there should be somebody/some body designated to submit a backup lineup (by private message to me) for that team owner just in case.  At that point in our conversation, we hit the obvious brick wall...  How to determine the designee?  After going around in circles with options for a while, a solution came to us: [smiley=gotanidea.gif] afford some privilege to those at the top of the standings!  In other words, the initial designee would be the guy in 1st place; if he is playing the team in question, it goes to the guy in 2nd place; if he too is playing the team in question, it goes to the guy in 3rd place.  If other (unlikely) factors are involved, it would continue to cascade down the standings.  Seems like a solid line of reasoning and a pretty awesome solution.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Pakman on Aug 20th, 2018, 2:31pm
I'm in agreement with losing a protection spot for the failure to submit a lineup after the first time.  

With regards to having another team submit a lineup for someone who fails to do so, I am opposed to it as I think that this opens up too many potential issues and puts obligations on other team owners who may not want it.

I can discuss this in more detail at the draft.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Aug 23rd, 2018, 10:13pm

on 08/20/18 at 14:31:47, Pakman wrote:
I'm in agreement with losing a protection spot for the failure to submit a lineup after the first time.  

With regards to having another team submit a lineup for someone who fails to do so, I am opposed to it as I think that this opens up too many potential issues and puts obligations on other team owners who may not want it.

I can discuss this in more detail at the draft.


Heya, Rob!  Thanks for chiming in.  Just an FYI, though...  While there are no worries about your not being able to attend the lottery (after all, you had nothing at stake), it has to be said that your reply lacks responsiveness to the fairly in-depth discussion we had during the draft-lottery meeting.  Indeed, I brought the content I did to the fore not because I was trying to force it (which admittedly I have been known to do) but in specific response to how and where that discussion went.  That is to say, we ended up honing back in on "what the problem is" and how to deal with it directly and away from punitive measures that we would hope would act as deterrents.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by DB on Aug 24th, 2018, 10:04am
Although I think that I initially suggested the idea about the loss of a protection spot as the penalty for not putting in a lineup, I have since change my mind.  After our discussion during the lottery, I do not believe that there should be any penalty in our league for not putting in lineups.  

I think that when we encounter an owner that is not putting in lineups due to a lack of interest then we should address that owner individually.

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Aug 26th, 2018, 4:04am

on 08/24/18 at 10:04:48, DB wrote:
Although I think that I initially suggested the idea about the loss of a protection spot as the penalty for not putting in a lineup, I have since change my mind.  After our discussion during the lottery, I do not believe that there should be any penalty in our league for not putting in lineups.


While I remain interested in seeing what we can come up with for an in-season fix for a derelict lineup, I have actually come to think that punitive measures may not work the first time around (as DT suggested), BUT they may after they have been felt,... providing they are "severe enough" (whatever that means, which is what needs to be figured out).

Title: Re: Time Has Come To Revisit the 3-Strike Rule
Post by Stegfucius on Sep 9th, 2018, 2:20pm
Heyas, Fellas!  At the 2018 Summer Meeting & Draft we came to the determination that for any single week a lineup is missed we will let it cascade and for any consecutive week a lineup is missed we will defer to a website that provides weekly rankings/projections and just go down the list.  For the latter, the website I have chosen because they are (arguably) the biggest name in the business and they provide projections -- and specific fantasy points -- along with the rankings (which we need because, for one, we include tight ends as receivers) is NFL.com and their weekly projections/rankings available at: http://fantasy.nfl.com/research/projections.

Hopefully we never have to defer to this... [smiley=fingerscrossed.gif]



Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.1!
YaBB © 2000-2002,
Xnull. All Rights Reserved.