Say a team was led by Peyton Manning and Shaun Alexander all year, that owner should be penalized in wk 17 because the coaches are sitting them? The owners of that fantasy team shouldnt really be playing the game because this happens to them? Interesting
I must say, I don't know that it matters. Week 17 play is certainly a different animal from other play, but that just means that you have to adjust. It's generally not hard to see which guys will be sitting 2-3 weeks ahead of time. Did anyone really see a scenario in which Edge, Peyton, SA, Harrison, Wayne, etc. would be playing an entire game this week? If you know you are going to have a hole down the line, fill it.
I am in a free ESPN league this year with the 10 teams, 4 playoff teams, two weeks per round this year, and I like how it works. Even though you play in week 17, it keeps it interesting because you know that if you are down in the SB going into week 17, you can try to make better WW moves and come back (I happen to be ahead going into this week's play).
Anyway, I like to play in a lot of different leagues with different formats, so I don't mind the week 17 play as much.
If you can't handle a week 17 game, you aren't much of a fantasy player IMO.
That's what I posted and that's what I meant. Anyone can play FF - who am I to judge? But I think if you can't handle a week 17 game or are afraid of it, then you aren't much of a fantasy player.
I think you're missing the point. I think I can speak for most of the people that agree with me about week 17 sucking. It's not that we can't handle a week 17 game or are afraid of it. We'd prefer not to play in a week 17 game for all of the reasons given. There's a difference.
How good of a fantasy player we are has nothing to do with our opinion of week 17 games. I'll bet that there are plenty of the best fantasy players in the world that hate week 17 games, and that there are plenty of the best fantasy players in the world that love week 17 games. It's just an opinion and a preference. Skill has nothing to do with it.
Enjoy week 17 when you have to sit Palmer, Edge, SA, & Harrison for Frye, Morency, Arrington, & Hilliard in the Super Bowl.
Those that don't want to deal with week 17 don't belong in FF. Week 17 Superbowl just makes sure the winner is keeping up with football. The WW is an important part of FF and Week 17 Superbowls ensures it stays that way.
You're reason for thinking that "people who don't play week 17 don't belong in FF" is that it "makes sure people keep up with football?"
You can keep up with football and still have to bench Manning, Alexander, Chad Johnson, etc. for freaking Charlie Frye, Frank Gore, and Troy Williamson. What benefit does that bring to the league?
You're going to be very hard-pressed to make it to week 16 championship game without keeping up with football, is this really necessary?
Would it be okay if we, the legion of 16'ers who "don't belong in FF" decided to make it a rule that in the Super Bowl, each team had to bench their four best players? Would that be okay?
The fact is, playing in week 17 unnecessarily decimates teams that have earned their way to the post-season, and gotten lucky enough to make it the Super Bowl. As I said, luck already plays a large factor in the weeks prior to 17, taking that luck an expanding it by punishing owners for having players that are benched in Week 17 just seems to be overdoing it.
I've said before, and will say again, it's certainly your own preference if you want to play week 17 and start Kevin Faulk and Jerome Pathon. I'm sure that it takes a lot of "skill" and "football knowledge" to do that.
But to say that people who don't play in week 17 is just...stupid. Who are you to demean or degrade the value of everyone else's football format?
I would think that the better fantasy player you are, the more you would want to eliminate the role of luck in the super bowl, as it would give you a better chance of winning against players who are not as good.
The fact that there is even an arguement going on in this thread is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on these forums in the last 3 years.
Saying players sitting week 17 is just like injuries is hilarious. For starters, the players are sitting ON TOP OF all the injuries out there, so the number of players out is way above the mean. Further, I can't remember the last time I saw a team have every single one of their starters get injured on the same week.
Saying that people should just plan ahead for players sitting is equally out of place. Any respectable league had their trade deadline a month and a half ago, which means not only can you not predict who all would be sitting out that far in advance (I mean really, who was unloading their Chicago Bears 6 weeks ago because they thought they might sit?), but also it's too far from the end of the season to sacrifice the immediate for the distant future.
But the main problem I have with week 17 championships is that it is entirely unrepresentative of a team and their season. Half the game in FF championships in week 17 is guys that haven't started for those teams before. My current league has a week 17 championship this year by mistake (been doing the league for years now so when the commish accidentally set up the league w/ a week 17 championship no one caught it since everyone just assumed it would be week 16 like it always is) I am playing against a team that I was exponentially better than in the regular season (1600 total pts vs. 1100 total pts), yet this matchup is a complete and utter toss-up beccause we're both starting a bunch of guys that haven't played on our teams all year.
We have our RB1's, but beyond that I've got Morency and Faulk or Harris going against Peterson and Bettis. That's 4 guys that will be key to this game that have yet to see the field the last 16 weeks, how is that representative of the team's we've built the last 16 weeks? CJ, Wayne, Hass, etc will be sitting on top of that (and that's just from my team), with guys that haven't played a snap yet deciding our championship.
It's really the equivalent of the Colts going to the NFL superbowl against hte Seahawks and Sorgi and Seneca Wallace starting at QB for the two alongside Rhodes, Morris, etc....it's not representative of the teams that got them there. They're playing in the super bowl to see who has the best team, not the best backups who've barely seen a snap all year.