Roster app updated again, however...

[Preds]

I've updated the app through this afternoon, however there are 2 major conflicts this week.

First and foremost, while updating the app, I realized that the roster moves for the Detroit Wyverns were all made under the soft cap section, when they belonged in the hard cap area. AS a result of this correction, it became clear that the Wyverns are actually EXCEEDING their cap by 63cb's, thus, a roster move MUST be made to get under. I won't instill a penalty for the time period they've been exceeding the cap, however if they fail to get under within say 72 hours I will release the last player they acquired.

Also, there is no excuse for the following since the roster app was updated less than a week ago, so some penalties will be applies, the question is how severe. Here's the deal, 3 teams have exceeded the time limit or are near exceeding the time limit to clear roster/cap space after winning bids. The rules are very harsh in this area and specifically state:

Exceeding roster size:
Teams cannot exceed the 16 man roster limit at ANY time... any acquisition that places you over the 16 man roster limit without a move to get back to 16 or below will be placed in "pending" status for no longer than 24 hours. Teams will have a 24 hour grace period from the time of the acquisition that places them over 16 to get back down to 16 or fewer on the roster before penalties start to kick in. If a move isn't made within the 24 hour grace period the player will be released, and the team will be assessed a penalty equal to 25% of the contract(s) in question (with a minimum penalty of 250cb's and a max of 500cb's) IN ADDITION to the 20% cap release penalty. Further the team will no longer be able to bid on the player(s) that are released as a result of the infraction.

Exceeding the Salary Cap:
If a team makes an acquisition (trade or free agent signing) which places them over the salary cap, they must release appropriate personnel to meet the cap restriction. If a team fails to get under the cap within 24 hours of the acquisition, the transaction will be ruled null and void and the player(s) will be released, further, the team will be assessed a penalty equal to 25% of the contract(s) in question (with a minimum penalty of 250cb's and a max of 500cb's) IN ADDITION to the 20% cap release penalty. Additionally, the team will no longer be able to bid on the player(s) that are released as a result of the infraction.

The teams in violation (all for eceeding the roster size) are:
Nittany Dodgers - Won the bid for WR Ron Dixon for 115 on 11/1 at 9:31am (now exceeding the 24 hour period)
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers - Won the bid for WR Travis Taylor for 115 on 11/1 at 12:13pm (now exceeding the 24 hour period)
Wonder Mutts - Won the bid for RB Ricky Williams for 775 on 11/1 at 7:49pm (in danger of exceeding the 24 hour period)

How do you all want to handle the situation. I said earlier I was going to enforce the rules from here on out... but the rules are quite severe. I do feel some kind of penalty should be imposed as a 1 time warning however... anyone got some suggestions?

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

I'm willing to accept any penalties that the rules state. However I do think they are a bit severe. From now on when I bid I will state which players I plan to cut and assign contract years during the bid so this can be avoided for me later on. Also, if this grace period had happend during the week this probably would not have happend. I do not regularly check my bids on weekends. I know that's not a good excuse but I'm sure its similar for everyone. Does the 24 hour rule apply even during the weekends? Anyway, let me know what the final decision is.

[Preds]

1st off, the 24 hour rule applies from the minute a player is won.

As for my decision, I'm awating more input, however my initial thoughts are to follow the rules with the exception of assessing the major cap penalty of 250cb's or 25% of the contract whichever is higher.

Therefore, the involved players, WR Travis Taylor, WR Ron Dixon, and RB Ricky Williams Jr will be released back to free agency and the clubs who attempted to pick them up will be assessed the normal 20% penalty to release a player. The penalty will be assigned to the active squad. Further, the involved players may no longer be bid upon by the disciplined teams.

I said in the past that I would enforce the rules more strictly, and the app was updated less than a week before these claims were won, so there really were no excuses IMO. If you're close to winning a bid on a player, you should make sure you check in. On the flip side, you could do what the Squirrels suggested and announce a cut and contract years right with your bids.

Anyone have a major issue with this decision?

Mike

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

I dont see why we wouldnt be allowed to bid again on the players we lost in this manner. Taking the cap penalty is enough punishment IMO.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers
I dont see why we wouldnt be allowed to bid again on the players we lost in this manner. Taking the cap penalty is enough punishment IMO.

I have to respectfully diagree with my esteemed colleague from the left coast.

The real penalty IS the inability to rebid on a player, not the minisquele 20% cap penalty that will be imposed for these infractions equaling a palty 23 cb's in 2 out of the 3 infractions. That is why the 250cb or 25% of the winning bid rule was also in place, but I feel that portion in combination with the above is a bit harsh for 1st time infractions.

The Board in a 2-0 vote (Jake hasn't voted, but he's involved so he shouldn't anyhow) has decided to go with the suggestion I made last night/this morning.

Therefore the involved players will be released back in to free agency, the teams will be assessed a 20% penalty based on the winning price against their active rosters, and the involved teams will not be allowed to rebid on these players.

[Nittany Dodgers]

First and foremost, as I stated in the bidding thread for Ron Dixon, I took responsibility for not monitoring the thread and stating my resulting cuts/contract assignment.

My first question would be how long are we prohibited from bidding on a player? The only other bid for Dixon was by you, Mike, who admitted were only bidding to keep the player alive. If no one else opens up the bidding (and if someone else does, then this point is moot), how long would I have to wait to acquire him again, or is his permanently forbidden from my team?

Also, I do think the prohibition of him from my roster is severe, especially considering if the rules committee members bid "to keep him alive" was not made, I would have checked the thread in time to assign a contract and place him on the DS. Had multiple teams been making bids, or the only other bid made on him been made in good intentions, I would have felt different. However, since no one else was interested in the player, and a bid was made in bad intentions prevented me from assigning a contract, I think the prohibition is harsh.

That said, I will again state that I knew the rules going in and willingly abide by the ruling. I am simply voicing my objection.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I know I'm not on the rules committee... and I'm not one affected by the most recent rules violation... but one of the things I love about the bidding system is that we CAN make a bid, even if we have no intention on acquiring a player. I've done it a bunch of times! It's a way to make sure other owners don't get players too cheaply... but sometimes, it backfires (has happened to me a couple of times, too!) and we have to deal with that, too. So I don't think the argument about a bid "not being serious" holds water. That's part of the strategy of the league.

Now, as for how long a player is banished from a roster goes... I have no clue. I'll leave that up to the rules committee.

[Preds]

Well, why I kept him alive has nothing to do with this, but regardless I did so to keep my own options open at the time and later decided I wasn't interested. It had nothing to do with intentionally screwing you, just keeping players I had an interest in in-play.

As for the moratorium on rebidding on players, I think you bring up a good point on a lifetime ban, but a month would seem reasonable to me.

Any objections?

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally posted by Parkwood Predators


I have to respectfully diagree with my esteemed colleague from the left coast.

Who are you calling 'esteemed'? Should I be insulted? I'm not quite sure...........:p

Anyway, I can see how real penalty is not being able to reaquire the player. So will I ever be able to aquire Taylor again in FA? Is there a cool down period where I cannot bid for him? Or can he never be on my roster? Well regardless, time for me to look for another WR.

[Nittany Dodgers]

No objection from me on the month timeframe Mike.

Originally posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi
I know I'm not on the rules committee... and I'm not one affected by the most recent rules violation... but one of the things I love about the bidding system is that we CAN make a bid, even if we have no intention on acquiring a player. I've done it a bunch of times! It's a way to make sure other owners don't get players too cheaply... but sometimes, it backfires (has happened to me a couple of times, too!) and we have to deal with that, too. So I don't think the argument about a bid "not being serious" holds water. That's part of the strategy of the league.

My respone to this would not be based in the rules or brief hostory of the league, as they are both obviously on your side. My reponse is based only on my opinion, and my opinion is that I disklike that aspect of the structure. I dislike teams bidding on players (outside of the RFA period) soley to jack the price up of that player, having no interest. I would rather we have a system that you need to have the available cap space and roster spot for any player you are bidding on after the RFA period and during the season. But thats only my opinion from what I've seen. I disklike a system where you need to pick up a player for a bye week, injury, whatever, yet you can't because teams come in at the last minute to up your bid, just to raise the price, and then you are out of time to sign that player for the weeks games. I just don't like how that works.

[Preds]

I hear you on this Dodgers, it's an imperfect system in that sense. Hell I think I bid on 5 defenses the week I needed one until I finally won the Saints.

I learned from that however, and planned ahead for Elam's bye by bidding on Gramatica late the week BEFORE I needed him just in case others chose to play games, and won him on Tuesday which worked out well.

Perhaps we should look into allowing 1 week bye substituions at nc on a waiver wire basis, but then again, that rewards teams that shortchange their roster at TE, K, and D and screws teams who plan accordingly.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally posted by Parkwood Predators
Perhaps we should look into allowing 1 week bye substituions at nc on a waiver wire basis, but then again, that rewards teams that shortchange their roster at TE, K, and D and screws teams who plan accordingly.

I dont like the idea of bye week subs. Make teams either plan or add more roster slots so they can prepare for this themselves. I think someone suggested this before, how about increasing total roster size but allowing those slots for TE, K, or Def only.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Yep, it's an imperfect system... but that's part of any league, isn't it? We have rules, and we have to learn how to play by them, and maneuver around them, too. There's strategy all over.

As for not allowing a team to bid on a player unless they have cap room... that's already built into the system. Just because I don't appear to have cap room available, doesn't mean I can't tweak my roster if I get the player I'm bidding on to adjust. If I can't, then I get penalized! Simple as that.

And I also don't like the idea of bye week subs. Takes the planning out of it.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Because the roster size is less than twice the size of the starting lineup, choosing who to back up becomes a critical aspect of your strategy. It makes putting a successful roster together a little more tricky and subtle than just stock-piling the biggest guns.

I like the current system as it is: it should be a challenge to find a guy at the last minute that you can plug into your starting line-up! The current system rewards owners who a) plan ahead or b) maintain the cap space to out-muscle any challengers who are just jacking up the price.

In reality, you wouldn't have much success bringing a FA into camp for less than a week and then starting him on Sunday. Yet it is possible in our league. Why should we make it any easier? If I wanted this to be easy, I wouldn't be in a league with damn 24-hour deadlines!

[Flaxwless]

Agree with Hudson on this BUT...

When this whole ordeal came up earlier and a suggestion was we add more roster spots for back up TE, PK, and DEF.

I believe that we should add 2 additional slots and teams must carry a combo of TE, PK, and DEF in 5 spots reserved for those positions only. We wouldn't add 5 more but just add 2 more and force people to carry two backups for those three positions. IF they choose not too then those spots cannot be assigned to QB, WR, or RB.

This way there is still the strategy involved of finding a back up for one of those positions but we would still have two for sure backups. This does not allow players to "stash" position players.

So not sure what were are doing next year but I think we voted on this subject already. Not sure if the roster expansion passed and what were the terms but I do feel we should implement the above rules: Add 2 spots and $300 to the cap, 150 for each backup and the guidelines listed.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi
Yep, it's an imperfect system... but that's part of any league, isn't it? We have rules, and we have to learn how to play by them, and maneuver around them, too. There's strategy all over.

As for not allowing a team to bid on a player unless they have cap room... that's already built into the system. Just because I don't appear to have cap room available, doesn't mean I can't tweak my roster if I get the player I'm bidding on to adjust. If I can't, then I get penalized! Simple as that.

Actually, I was re-reading the rules for in season free agency, and this is not allowed. I have not been closely following all of the free agency, so I don't know if there have been instances where this has arisen, but I would suspect there has. I quote from the rules link on the league web site:

"Teams will not be allowed to place single bids which exceed their remaining cap room. Meaning that a team with 1,000 CBs left cannot place a single bid for 1,200 CBs, though they may place two bids for 600 each. The single bid could not possibly fit into their cap and therefore is not considered to have been made in good faith (they couldn't honor it). The two 600 CB bids are allowable because it is not unreasonable to assume that only one of them will be a winner and would therefore fit under the cap. Of course, if they both are winners, the penalties above will apply. Further, a team MAY make a single bid that exceeds their cap limit if they also list a cut that will give them enough room (after the cap penalty) to fit the new player under their team cap. Also, since teams will be allowed a 24 hour period after winning a bid to get under the cap, you can potentially exceed the cap without making a cut until the bid is won (as detailed in 8B.2), however if you fail to get under the cap within 24 hours of winning the bid harsh penalties will apply. "

Thus, any bid made that would result in that team going over their salary cap, that does not contain in the text the player to be cut, is an illegal bid. The rules do not seem to specify the same for the roster size limit, just that these transactions are pending for the 24 hours. I would imgaine that teams are bidding over their salary cap, with plans of cutting players to fit. However, if that is not pre specified, it is against the rules. Thus, going forward Rules Committee people, I would think that this should be enforced as stringently as the other rules.

Correct me if I am wrong and this rules has been changed/altered, or if I am reading it incorrectly.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I guess it had to come to this. A league full of sharks can only play "in the honeymoon" stage for so long! lol Now it seems that all of Mike's hard work on making the rules clear and comprehensive will pay off. Seems like we're now in the "make sure we're all playing by all of the rules" period... which means Mike, as the rules chair, has a heck of a lot of more work to do! (But that's why they pay you the big bucks, right?!?)

Technically, Dodgers, you're correct. And I will from henceforth abide by this. Although I'd like to petition that this portion of the rules be changed next season (the part about having to post who you'll cut if you ge the bid). Seems to me that it gives too much of one's strategy away. Or maybe I should ask for a clarification: If we place a bid over our current cap space and indicate a player to drop, should we win the bid, are we bound to drop that player, or can we change our mind within the 24 hour post bid time, as long as we're still under the cap in the end? If the answer is "yes" to this, then I withdraw my request to have this rule examined for next season!

Dang, we're all going to need law degrees by the end of this season! :Banghead

[Preds]

OK let me give you newbies some background.

The rulesbook we use originates from a similar league I was in many years ago. Last year when we started the league we majorly modified the rules in many areas, however there are still sections that don't make sense and only applied to the intiial auction and whatnot (which ended up as a draft with pre-assigned salaries due to time constraints, but I digress).

Last season, we DID require a cut be listed with all bids that exceeded the cap or roster size. However, we had a different bid setup, where your bids had a section hardcoded for how many contract years you would assign if you won as well as who would get cut.

Unfortuately, this system required the use of a cgi-database and required a ton of work to maintain it. Further, we were having difficulties with the server placing a timestamp on the posts since the we had a a free host that SUCKED.

When we transitioned in to year 2, we added this message board which offers many more features, but does not allow the hardcoding for the type of bidding we do. I also opened up server space from my other league for this league to eliminate the server problems we were having.

What's happened is, whithout the hardcoding we've all gotten lazy. It was easy to make a bid, post years, and list a cut when you were basically prompted for the info. But we can't and won't do that anymore since it was majorly labor intensive to keep the old cgi pages clean and updated, and the vbb board won't allow that kind of customization for posts.

To help the situation from last year we created the 24 hour transition period (which DID NOT exist a year ago). Basically we added the transitional period to resolve other issues that arose when teams f'd up their bids by not listing cuts and whatnot.

In the off-season, I'll have to clean up that section of the rulebook (your help is MUCH appreciated), however the intent of the rules for 2002 was to allow a 24 hour period to make any cuts and whatnot to stay within the cap and roster size, and that's how we'll enforce them.

I apologize for the piss-poor wording in that section, but I'm NOT a lawyer , and it's HARD to catch EVERYTHING !

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Wow... thanks for the history lesson re: rules, Mike. Appreciate it! Now I have a better sense of how they have "evolved." Will no longer post who I might cut, then!

And I just want to say, for the record, I don't envy the job of the rules committee. You've all done a good job of trying to keep this league fair, competative, and fun. Kudos. :toast:

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers

"...Also, since teams will be allowed a 24 hour period after winning a bid to get under the cap, you can potentially exceed the cap without making a cut until the bid is won (as detailed in 8B.2), however if you fail to get under the cap within 24 hours of winning the bid harsh penalties will apply. "

Seems to me that this clause, already present in the rules as quoted by Dodgers, specifically allows the practice that we have been using. So I don't see how anyone has been violating th erules as long as they make cuts within the 24-hour period.

The current text of the rules may be a little confusing, but I think it works!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Hudson Valley Undead GM


Seems to me that this clause, already present in the rules as quoted by Dodgers, specifically allows the practice that we have been using. So I don't see how anyone has been violating th erules as long as they make cuts within the 24-hour period.

The current text of the rules may be a little confusing, but I think it works!

I'll have to disagree with you here. The section 8B2 that the quote references refers to making multiple bids. Ie, if I had 500cb space, I could make 6 seperate 100 cb bids on different players without listing a single cut, and theoretically I could expect not to win all those. Now, if I did, then I would have to cut someone, and I'd have 24 hours to do so.

Mike, if thats your explanation for the history of the rules, then I'll take it. I'll admit that I'm a newbie, and haven't experienced all the rules in detail, so I'm still feeling things out. I'm not trying to be a trouble maker and instigator, just want to make sure all is running smoothly. You'll have to forgive me, as in my local league, we have a team we all call "team screw attack." He is the guy that is always looking for the loophole in the rules to exploit. Since our rules are pages long, there can be plenty of loopholes, and I'd love to help close them all.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers


I'll have to disagree with you here. The section 8B2 that the quote references refers to making multiple bids. Ie, if I had 500cb space, I could make 6 seperate 100 cb bids on different players without listing a single cut, and theoretically I could expect not to win all those. Now, if I did, then I would have to cut someone, and I'd have 24 hours to do so.

Ah, I see. For someone who works in a library, you'd think I could follow a cross-reference! Well I guess I'm not law school material after all.

Anyway, I like the system as it's currently operating, and I agree that listing cuts with bids reveals too much strategy.

And good job to the rules authors. They're quite a heap, and they work!

[Preds]

I know the rules are complex, but this sort of league necessitates it. I apologize for the inevitable errors and greatly appreciate any help you'd be willing to give in closing up any loopholes that may exist.

Regardless, the intent of the 24 hour rule this year was to allow bidding the way it has occurred during In-Season Free Agency.


I believe Off-Season Free Agency ws handled as you stated, although we should probably stick to 1 method for ease on our fried brains :smoke

[Preds]

Well, shit, I'm wrong. After reading the in-season rules the Dodgers interpretation is technically correct, however, none of us have adhered to it since day one this year.

I think the way we've been doing things with the 24 hour window makes more sense as you can somewhat mask stratedy, although on the flip side posting cuts and bidding only with your available cap space could help eliminate the superfluous bids.

Regardless, we're over halfway through the season and have basically misfollowed that portion of the rules. I think we should stay consistent for the rest of the year and follow what we've been doing with the 24 hour window to release players (thus along bids that exceed your cap space for a limited period of time)and re-address things come the off-season.

In the off-season, I'll pool the Dodgers and Freedom together to edit the rulebook with me and clean up these deficiencies.

Sound OK?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Parkwood Predators
Regardless, the intent of the 24 hour rule this year was to allow bidding the way it has occurred during In-Season Free Agency.


Well, shit, I'm wrong. After reading the in-season rules...

Thanks for reading the rules before smacking my hands with the ruler, mike. :p

Actually, my remedy for the process would be to invalidate all in season signings. Every player signed since 8/15 should be immediately release to the free agent pool, and we'll let havoc rule. Hmm....*dreams of havoc*....maybe that isn't a great idea.

Mike, I'll agree with you that we should keep going the way we've been doing things. We haven't had any problems up to this point, so no need fixing what isn't broke.

I'll gladly help you out editing the rules to clarify a few things. Maybe the 2, 3, 4 of us can hash out what needs clarifying, then present the final document to the league for acception/modification. That should take care of any standing issues with the rules, and we can just deal with the meddling owners who constantly want to change things (such as myself ).

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

works for me... thanks for clarifying things!

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally posted by Parkwood Predators

Last season, we DID require a cut be listed with all bids that exceeded the cap or roster size. However, we had a different bid setup, where your bids had a section hardcoded for how many contract years you would assign if you won as well as who would get cut.

Unfortuately, this system required the use of a cgi-database and required a ton of work to maintain it. Further, we were having difficulties with the server placing a timestamp on the posts since the we had a a free host that SUCKED.

Ahhh........the good ol days. I remember the old web site with the old bid system where we had to time stamp ourselves. Good times. Can I bring forth a motion to bring that old system back? I miss the old days where the Rabid Dogs would bitch endlessly. I'm sure you miss him the most Mike. ;)

[Preds]

Originally posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers


Ahhh........the good ol days. I remember the old web site with the old bid system where we had to time stamp ourselves. Good times. Can I bring forth a motion to bring that old system back? I miss the old days where the Rabid Dogs would bitch endlessly. I'm sure you miss him the most Mike. ;)

Joe, we've sure come a LONG way since then eh!

As for Tim (Garbage Dogs), we certainly butted heads last year, he just loved to bitch and moan. Funny thing is, Tim's in the auction dynasty league I'm in that Skippy runs. He's not doing so well over there however, I think he's 3-6 or 2-7... he's been real QUIET as a result !

I'm blowing them all away in that league with a 9-0 record so far... and these are experienced FootballGuys members too. I just had a bit more experience with an auction style league and got a few studs (Brooks, Holmes and A Green) surrounded by some very good value players I got cheap (Bledsoe, Price, Booker, Toomer, Staley, etc) .

Errr, must've missed this one somehow..

Well, K Faulk I guess was the last one signed, so I guess since I didn't notify in the 72 hour grace period, he's gone..
Would've preferred dropping Lockett, hehe, but ahh well..

[Preds]

I'll allow Lockett... it wasn't your fault I entered your cuts into the app wrong.