owner playing duds instead of studs

[shawngee03]

i have one owner, who happens to be my cousin, so this could get ugly, has lost 4 in a row after going 5-0....so he is a little upset and disgruntled. last week, burleson and nate washington(on his bench) outscored calvin johnson and travis henry(in his starting lineup).

he commented that his bench outscored his starters...i might play my bench next week. well, this is now next week, and he has done just that. he is playing someone who is out of contention, kind of, so its not teh biggest of deals now, but next week he plays a playoff contender. is there anything i should do as commish. i have told him its ok this week, but if this happens next week i will have to utuilize some commish powers, locking his team and setting his lineup due to yahoo projections

here are the players he has benched and who is playing

bench-
peyton manning, colston, lendale white, dallas clark, travis henry(which is probably good, since he will be questionable)

playing- jason cambell, nate burleson, calvin johnson, roy williams, deangelo williams, najeh davenport, devin hester, and greg olsen(te)

i realize that some of thase are good potentially good moves, but peyton, clark, and now colston should never be on teh bench, lendale is almost a sure play these days...and davenport got 2 pts each of teh last weeks


if he gets killed and insists on doing it next week do i have to lock him down?

[dream_017]

I think your 1st mistake is saying this:

...i have told him its ok this week...

That is a bad precident to set. I would ask him for a valid reason for starting the guys he is and if it not good(which it won't be) ask him to play he best players. He should be warned with the notion that if he doesn't play to win he will not be invited back next year.

[treat24]

I think your 1st mistake is saying this:

...i have told him its ok this week...

That is a bad precident to set. I would ask him for a valid reason for starting the guys he is and if it not good(which it won't be) ask him to play he best players. He should be warned with the notion that if he doesn't play to win he will not be invited back next year.

I agree, you can't let him even blow off one week. Doing so would be just about an automatic bye bye for next year in my leagues. I understand his anger. I don't get it, but I see it all the time in the forums. I'm running a little over 90% efficiency this year (total points scored vs total points could have scored). If you think it's not going to affect the outcome of his game then I guess you can let him blow off his steam this week. I can easily see his studs having nice games and your cousin saying "no matter who I bench scores..."

[RCR]

He's 5-4? He's still in the playoff hunt, right? He'll likely cost himself any post-season hopes if he continues-- let him do what he wants "cutting off his nose to spite his face." Maybe someone should offer some trades, he might bite. I don't like "freezing" or locking his roster since he is at least an active owner. He's free to start who he wants, just don't invite him back next year.

[THEOT]

I'm 5-4 in my league after a 1-3 start. In 5th place, first in points and got my 4th loss last week to the last place team that was 1-7. I was bitter too, and still am.

But to tank the season with a shot at the playoffs still is stupid. I think you did make a mistake by saying you'll allow it this week but I guess my other thought is that if he wants to tank and allow others to get in instead of himself that's his problem, let him pout and don't worry about it. Hopefully then at least somebody who wants to play will get in. And I wouldn't invite him back next year.

[dgan]

He obviously doesn't care, which is often the worst kind of owner. At least someone purposely trying to damage the league can be locked out...someone who is participating but doesn't care about the outcome is often more damaging.

I'd try to reason with him. Say, I know you're frustrated by this losing skid and you just want to throw in the towel (and your scrubs) for the fun of it. But you are still in the playoff hunt and all the other owners are depending on you to stay competitive so that we don't have a warped playoff bracket and fluke champion. If you want to sit a guy on a hunch, fine, but don't just bench your whole team automatically. Look at the matchups and make the best decision. We're counting on you! If you're not trying, it's like beating a girl at 1-on-1.

If he's a reasonable guy, he will respect the integrity of the league and at least put Manning in. Playing Campbell over Manning is just flat out tanking on purpose. I wouldn't stand for it, and tell him so if he insists on this nonsense.

[flotsamnjetsam]

He obviously doesn't care, which is often the worst kind of owner. At least someone purposely trying to damage the league can be locked out...someone who is participating but doesn't care about the outcome is often more damaging.

I'd try to reason with him. Say, I know you're frustrated by this losing skid and you just want to throw in the towel (and your scrubs) for the fun of it. But you are still in the playoff hunt and all the other owners are depending on you to stay competitive so that we don't have a warped playoff bracket and fluke champion. If you want to sit a guy on a hunch, fine, but don't just bench your whole team automatically. Look at the matchups and make the best decision. We're counting on you! If you're not trying, it's like beating a girl at 1-on-1.

If he's a reasonable guy, he will respect the integrity of the league and at least put Manning in. Playing Campbell over Manning is just flat out tanking on purpose. I wouldn't stand for it, and tell him so if he insists on this nonsense.

Exactly.

If I was 0-9 right now and had no chance to make the playoffs, I still try my best to win every game. It sucks that you're playing for nothing but I always like to "upset" some of the playoff teams if possible. This guy sounds like an idiot because all he needs to do is get on a little winning streak and he'll make the playoffs. That's like the Redskins giving up after today's tough loss and starting 2nd stringers at every position for the rest of the season.

[shawngee03]

i contacted him, and he started the "right" people. he still got killed, so he is prolly still a little hot.

funny thing is cambell beat out peyton by 9 pts, and clark didnt play...awesome. he would have lost anyways...but i guess i will be less forward w telling people who they should play. i understand he was tanking...but it is a little funny that the "studs" didnt outperform teh "duds"....except for colston....boy i wish i would have traded for that guy a month ago

[RCR]

i contacted him, and he started the "right" people. he still got killed, so he is prolly still a little hot.

funny thing is cambell beat out peyton by 9 pts, and clark didnt play...awesome. he would have lost anyways...but i guess i will be less forward w telling people who they should play. i understand he was tanking...but it is a little funny that the "studs" didnt outperform teh "duds"....except for colston....boy i wish i would have traded for that guy a month ago

Which goes along with my argument earlier of "making" him start his "best" starters. This column on ESPN--> http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football/ffl/story?id=3106238 covers a very similar problem and points out that :

But even if common sense tells me that I have a better chance to win against a team that has Jason Campbell, Ryan Grant and James Thrash in their lineup than a team featuring Peyton Manning, Adrian Peterson and Chad Johnson, I have absolutely no control over how those players will perform when I face them. This past weekend proved that old axiom "on any given Sunday" as Campbell, Grant and Thrash severely outplayed their more highly feared counterparts.

I still maintain that an active (albeit uncaring) owner is better than an absentee owner.

[SLAMLLC]

I just have to agree with the other guys here. You can't allow it for "just this week." We had an owner throw the first game of the season just to get a better waiver wire choice. Most owners didn't have a problem with it because they said it was just the first week of the season and he "only hurt himself." I was extreemely pissed about this move. I asked other owners if he tanked a game on purpose the last week or so of the season would they have a problem with it. Most did. I said there is no difference. He is handing a win to another owner. The other owner possibly then bumps someone else out of the playoffs with that one win. It doesn't matter if the win was in week 1 or week 13. One win is one win. It does affect more than just the team tanking the game. It affects the standings of the whole league.