Fantasy Dispute

Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:50 PM

Text of dispute is :
Trade: Tim Hightower, Ike Bruce and Brady Quinn (Team A) for Brandon Marshall (Team B) As an attorney, I drafted the rules which state that if you are mathematically alive you can make trades. Further, a $100 penalty is issued for finishing in last place. Our league is ultra competitive. Hence, no one wants to lose. Our league starting lineup requires 1qb, 2rb, 3wr, 1te, Team B has Portis on a bye this week and Team B can only start Lendale White, since his other rbs are injured for the year. Also, Team B does not have a QB to start since it lost Schaub to injury and Derke Anderson to demotion. This is a 12 team league with 20 roster spots and 4 IR spots. hence, no one worth salt is avilable via free agency. Further, Team B’s record is 3-6 and is 4 games out of the wild card or division with 5 games to play. Hence, Team B is still mathmatically alive. Further, Team B does not want to lose and be subject to the $100 basement fee. Team B views this trade as follows: It will get Hightower, which as of now is averaging 11.2 ppg and is the 21st ranked rb in our league, with only starting last weeks game, where he scored 18.2 points. (portis is the #1 rb in our league and is avging 18 points ppg) now, hightower is the definite starter on arguably one of the best offenses in football. Plus, Arizona is in the weakest div. in football (ease of schedule) and they play San Fran this week. Thus, Team B loves Hightower for this week and the remainder. Team B’s plan is to trade Lendale White next week after Portis gets off the bye. however, Team B is not thrilled with lendale since he doesn’t get that many carries and has to split with chris johnson. Also, team B is getting Brady Quinn who will start for his team. Quinn plays this week against Denver Dee, which is an easy matchup. Plus, Quinn has a nice repoire with Braylon and Winslow. While Hightower is the main reason for the trade, Quinn serves a huge need since Team B has no qb to play this week or for the remainder of the year, due to the injuries and demotions. Also team B is getting Ike Bruce, who is the 34th ranked receiver (12 team league that requires 3 starting wrs) and is avging 9.5 ppg. Ike while not a stud is a serviceable #3 wr in our league on a pass happy team. Clearly, he has some value and is nto a throw-in that won;t be started. As to Brandon Marshall, he is the 11th ranked wr in our league and is averaging 15.2 points per game in our league. However, in the last 4 games Brandon Marshall has scored 3.7, 11.4, 13.3 and 4 pts in our league. this trade comes on the heels of reports that Marshall is pouting about being double teamed the last 4 games. Based on Hightower’s performance this last week and his potential, he will probably equal or exceed marshall’s production, plus Team B is gettign a starting QB (that he doesn;t have) and a starting #3wr. Now, we understand the argument that Hightower is a rookie and has only had one big game, but this argument fails for couple reasons. A, Hightower while a backup was averaging 11.2 ppg and last week was not his first big game, as a backup he had several big game. B. Fanatsy Football is about predicting the future (e.g. in week 8 last year Ryan grant was a nobody that ended up being 1 of the best rbs in ff)and Team B shoudl be able to predict the future with Hightower. Now, team A is doing the trade because it is in first place and is weak at wr and has alot of depth at rb. team A has barber, MJD, Torain, Ray Rice. 7 of 12 teams in our league suspiciously are against the trade (our league rules permit fantasy dispute to decide). They say main reason is that Team B is virtually out of the playoffs. however, (a) the rules permit trades by teams as long as they are not mathmatically out. and (b) not 1 team objected to trade by a 1-5 team’s APeterson for Slaton and Cotchery. (Slaton was unproven) Real reason for objection is b/c they don’t want best team to get better
END——– Text of response is :
This trade is simply not fair, and should be rejected – See the facts below Team B 3-6 – One more loss and he will be mathematically eliminated with 5 regular season games to play. Team A 8-1 – Leading his division and the overall league leader 1st of all, Team B does need a QB, however there are several free agent QB’s available via FA pick that are clearly more viable than Quinn: Flacco, Ferotte, Rosenfels (fyi – He has Schaub on IR) – So Team B in the oppositions’ view is actually receiving little to no value by acquiring Quinn is this deal. 2nd – Team B receives Ike Bruce – Besides Marshall his current WR’s are – T Holt, K Walter, Nate Washington and a bunch of scrubs – So again Team B in the oppositions’ view receives little to value by acquiring Bruce in this deal , as he is clearly at best on the same level as the other WR’s on his team. Obviously nowhere near the level of Marshall, and he would obviously be weaker at WR position going forward. We start 3 WR vs 2 RB – No flex option 3rd – Taking the 1st 2 points into account this trade really boils down to – Hightower for Marshall – 3a – Marshall is clearly the better fantasy player, thus we the opposition believe the trade can be rejected on this basis – no need for me to throw stats out at you 3b – Hightower when compared to Portis/Lendale White may at best be a slight upgrade to White (Questionable at best – who leads the league in TD’s? oh White) – Portis is again clearly a better option than Hightower – So Team B really gains nothing in the long-term while giving up his best WR by a significant margin – Another clear reason to reject this trade. 3c – The view from the 2 parties involved, that this helps him this week – This may be true, he does only have Edge James and Pierre Thomas to replace Portis on a bye. That being said, How does that justify him giving up Marshall, and not really improving his team for the remaining 5 games? 3d – Team B also has a reputation of trading for the sake of trading down the stretch when he is not really in contention. Conclusion, this trade is clear example of bottom feeding from a top team. Team B is all but eliminated, and not receiving anywhere close to value he should for Marshall. Some additional info – We are a 12 team league with an entry of $500, so the $100 for last is a joke – Also there is no weekly prize or money for winning your division – 3rd place does not even get their money back – It is all about 1st and 2nd place – 2 rounds in the playoffs – Weeks 15 & 16 – 4 teams make it 3 division winners and 1 wild card Thank you for your time and enjoy making your decision.
END——– THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS: Team B IS mathematically alive.  No rules were broken here, unless the trade was done without the intent by B to improve his own team.  I don’t put much credence in the argument that Team B will be trading another RB after his bye week—anything can happen, and I can only look at this trade for what it is. Team A getting better (and he will) is of no concern.  Presumably, another pro-active team could have offered more for Marshall, and apparently no one did.   I agree this is primarily a trade of Hightower for Marshall, and the other Bozo’s are waiver fodder, but at least these are Bozo’s with some upside.  Really though, I would loooooove to have Hightower on my team going down the stretch, regardless of my place in the standings.  I’d look for several 15+ point games from him now that he’s replaced Edge, given the potency of the Cardinal’s offense. The point that Team B already has Portis/White in a 2 RB league is well taken, but in fantasy, you can’t have enough healthy running backs.  And everyone concedes this is a good move for Team B this week. Most importantly, there is no evidence of collusion by either team, other than the scurrilous assertion that Team B has a reputation for “trading down.” There are good reasons for both sides of this trade, and no foul play has been proven. The trade should be allowed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 5:19 PM

Text of dispute is :
We are in the 3rd year of a Fantasy Football League (I’m a co-commish) on Sportsline, we use IDP’s. Sacks count as 5 points. For the first two years, 1/2 sacks were scored as 2.5 points. Before the season started our Commissioner sent out one email regarding scoring changes and the only item being changed was tackles, nothing else. In week 2, the commish and another co-commish noticed 1/2 sacks weren’t scoring any points. I believe the co-commish wanted to investigate further but the commish stated “I guess the site isn’t counting those points this year”. They never brought it to my attention or the League’s attention. During Week 5, I watch my player on TV record a 1/2 sack and I notice that my 2.5 points didn’t come up. I spoke to my opponent later that evening and I told him I wanted my 2.5 points but I did not call the Commish yet. After the MNF game happens, I wind up tying the game but my 2.5 points never hit. I sent an email to the League stating I wanted my points and all hell breaks loose and I wind up getting into a huge fight with the Commish. I try emailing sportsline on why this happens and they don’t give us a lot of info, they just tell us how to fix the problem and there were some “fixes” in the system. We are using the “ranges” formula, not the “scoring” formula which they recommend. We didn’t touch the formula since it was set up prior to year 1. Here is the formula: From “0″ to “+”, award “5″ points for every “1″ sack. This is the same formula that counted 1/2 sacks the first two years. A 1/2 sack (.5) is definitely more than “0″ so you should get credit for 2.5 points. The commish said I should call everyone and get a League Vote. The first 5 people I speak side with me stating the points should be awarded retroactively. My vote would make 6. Commish speaks to a few other people and the vote is 8-4 in favor of going retroactive with the points. A day after this, Commish emails everyone stating some people have changed their votes and it’s now 7-5 in favor of not going retroactive with the points. When I speak to someone, they side with me. When they speak to Commish, they side with Commish. Commish’s main argument is that “you can’t change scoring in the middle of the year”. I argue that you’re not changing the scoring, we’re correcting a system glitch, we’re not changing the scoring system. The 1/2 sacks have been in our scoring for the first 2 years so I see no reason why they should not go retroactive. I am a commish in another league in year 13 and I wouldn’t even have put this to a vote in my other league, I would have automatically updated the points the first time I recognized it. I spoke to 2 other commish’s with 10+ years of experience and they 100% agreed with me that the points should go retroactive. Bottom Line: IDP League Sacks are 5 points This is the 3rd year of our League, 1/2 sacks were 2.5 points the first two years The only documented scoring change sent out by the Commish was tackles, nothing about sacks were ever mentioned Formula on site never changed – From “0″ to “+”, award “5″ points for every “1″ sack. Issue noticed in week 2 by commish and another co-commish that 1/2 sacks weren’t registering. Commish decides to take no action and League is NOT informed The first time a 1/2 sack comes up in my game whether registered by me or my opponent was week5. I noticed this as it happened that I did not get my 2.5 points. Wind up tying the game and raising the issue. If you ask the commish, “Should 1/2 sacks count”, he says Yes Should we count the 2.5 points for 1/2 sacks retroactively?
END——– THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS: Shame on the Commish and Co-Commish for not speaking up in Week 2 when they noticed the scoring discrepancy.  The Commish needs to bend over backwards to be forthright and open with everyone in the league.  It is unfortunate that some owners may have been playing with a misunderstanding of the true scoring system.  But I have a few observations—first, the scoring issue is irrelevant to how teams have set their lineups.  You can’t convince me that an owner would have set their weekly lineups differently had they known ½ sacks wouldn’t be scored.  You might be able to make an argument that it would affect the draft positions (or bid values) of IDP’s versus other positional players.  However, you admit that all players were the under same understanding (or misunderstanding) prior to Week 2 (when rosters were selected), so everyone was equally effected. Second, the “true” (no ½ sack) scoring system, although perhaps not accurately explained, was equally available to all owners under the CBSSporstline “Rules” link.  Finally, I don’t like league votes… unless they are unanimous.   Turning to the issue at hand, it wouldn’t be fair to change the scoring retroactively to Week 1, since this may affect the results of individual games, and therefore the standings.  Teams make add/drop, waiver, and trade (or not to trade) decisions based on the standings.  Therefore given this type of “mistake,” it’s not fair to go back retroactively to Week 1.  The decision on whether to change the scoring for only this most recent week is more difficult, but still the same.  It is not fair to change the existing (as calculated each week this season) scoring system without bringing the issue up to the ENTIRE league through a PUBLIC announcement BEFORE the scoring change (and it is a change) will take effect.  Basically, by not bringing up this particular issue sooner, you have waived the right to complain for this one week.  Your league should not count ½ sacks retroactively. IT IS SO ORDERED.