Yahoo Fantasy Football League

[codizzle]

Im in

[CARavensFan]

We need you in NBA, btw.

 

I misspoke, it is BaltimoreFlacco, not gabe, that is the commish of the NBA Franchise Game.

[flaccopoe]

I misspoke, it is BaltimoreFlacco, not gabe, that is the commish of the NBA Franchise Game.

No harm, no foul.

Anyone interested in making an nfl.com league, let me know. I hate Yahoo.

[Guest Mr. Nobody]

set me up too please

[Guest Mr. Nobody]

No harm, no foul.
Anyone interested in making an nfl.com league, let me know. I hate Yahoo.

search Transylvania and you find my league

[flaccopoe]

search Transylvania and you find my league

Could you just link to it, lol?

[Guest Mr. Nobody]

Could you just link to it, lol?

you lazy so and so, not fair to post it here - check our pm

[ravensdan]

As a commissioner of my own money league for many years now I strongly suggest you investigate espn's league set up. It is very easy to use as well as being free. Also someone mentioned nfl.com but their commissioner tool was not free unless they changed it this year.
So I just have one question, regardless of what site this is played on, who can veto a trade and on what basis?

If you say only commish can veto and it will only be based on collusion and value will not be considered then I will join.

[Sizzlebshu]

As a commissioner of my own money league for many years now I strongly suggest you investigate espn's league set up. It is very easy to use as well as being free. Also someone mentioned nfl.com but their commissioner tool was not free unless they changed it this year.
So I just have one question, regardless of what site this is played on, who can veto a trade and on what basis?

If you say only commish can veto and it will only be based on collusion and value will not be considered then I will join.

Honestly there shouldn't be a veto system with no money on the line

[gabefergy]

As a commissioner of my own money league for many years now I strongly suggest you investigate espn's league set up. It is very easy to use as well as being free. Also someone mentioned nfl.com but their commissioner tool was not free unless they changed it this year.
So I just have one question, regardless of what site this is played on, who can veto a trade and on what basis?

If you say only commish can veto and it will only be based on collusion and value will not be considered then I will join.

I havent really given much thought to veto. Normally I just do a vote, but I agree that veto should only happen due to collusion. I am not sure if everyone would be comfortable with only myself having power to veto though. I would almost lean towards no veto at all, but sometimes the trades can be really sketchy...

[flaccopoe]

Honestly there shouldn't be a veto system with no money on the line

There could still be collusion, potentially. Like if Cam Newton got traded for Danny Woodhead or something else outlandish.

[flaccopoe]

I havent really given much thought to veto. Normally I just do a vote, but I agree that veto should only happen due to collusion. I am not sure if everyone would be comfortable with only myself having power to veto though. I would almost lean towards no veto at all, but sometimes the trades can be really sketchy...

I would recommend just having a vote. If something outrageous happens, the other Owners will just rise up and filibuster the trade.

[gabefergy]

I would recommend just having a vote. If something outrageous happens, the other Owners will just rise up and filibuster the trade.

That doesnt always happen though. A lot of people tend to ignore the votes in my experience.

[CARavensFan]

That doesnt always happen though. A lot of people tend to ignore the votes in my experience.

 

That has been my experience as well, unless people get a rally cry to motivate people to vote.

[The Oakland Cathedral]

There could still be collusion, potentially. Like if Cam Newton got traded for Danny Woodhead or something else outlandish.

But that's a completely fair deal...

[Dubs]

Where can you search for leagues...Yahoo is frustrating me already!

[gabefergy]

Where can you search for leagues...Yahoo is frustrating me already!

I havent published it as of yet. I am waiting to get 16 people then I will send out a PM with the league URL.

[Dubs]

I havent published it as of yet. I am waiting to get 16 people then I will send out a PM with the league URL.

makes sense

[Yatagarasu]

I want to join the fleaflicker league.

[Gordo52]

I hope we all do a espn league again like last year.....which I won btw. ;)

[Sizzlebshu]

I havent really given much thought to veto. Normally I just do a vote, but I agree that veto should only happen due to collusion. I am not sure if everyone would be comfortable with only myself having power to veto though. I would almost lean towards no veto at all, but sometimes the trades can be really sketchy...

Wow what a turnaround from last year

[Sizzlebshu]

I would recommend just having a vote. If something outrageous happens, the other Owners will just rise up and filibuster the trade.

No because then essentially 14 other owners get to run your team

[gabefergy]

Wow what a turnaround from last year

How is that a turnaround? That has always been my opnion. If a trade is so lopsided it makes no sense, collusion seems to be the case, especially if one of the owners coudnt justify why the trade happens.

[flaccopoe]

No because then essentially 14 other owners get to run your team

 

It's not a $$$ League, people aren't going to filibuster just to be spiteful.

[SecretAgentMan]

Count me out. I'm too busy to be in ANOTHER league.

I would if I could, but I can't so I shan't.

I'm willing to help anyone who needs it tho.

[gabefergy]

It's not a $$$ League, people aren't going to filibuster just to be spiteful.

People will vote a trade down if it is horribly imbalanced and cant be justified. This happened in a trade last year which I assume is what Sizzle is referring to. There was no "evidence" of collusion, but it was so one-sided it didnt make sense and if I recall correctly there werent good reasons to justify it from the owners.

[flaccopoe]

People will vote a trade down if it is horribly imbalanced and cant be justified. This happened in a trade last year which I assume is what Sizzle is referring to. There was no "evidence" of collusion, but it was so one-sided it didnt make sense and if I recall correctly there werent good reasons to justify it from the owners.

 

Oh yeah, I know what you're talking about!  It created quite a buzz.

[ravensdan]

Here is the problem, there is no chance the majority of owners will follow the true rules for a trade to be vetoed. Just because you feel a trade is "lopsided" doesn't mean it should be vetoed. Only if two owners get together and make a deal to strengthen one team donut can win. This can also be assisted with a trade deadline. I have had my own experience where the other owners tried to veto my trade because the felt I was getting ripped off. I started off that season 1-4 and was trading with a 4-1 team. Luckily I had a good commissioner who vetoed the veto and let it go through. Well I went on a 5 game win streak after that and missed the playoffs by .2 points. So my point in all this is nothing will ruin a league more than self righteous owners thinking they can determine who is getting ripped off in a trade.

I will join the league only if gabe gives himself the only trade veto power and only uses it if two owners are proved to be cheating.

[CARavensFan]

Here is the problem, there is no chance the majority of owners will follow the true rules for a trade to be vetoed. Just because you feel a trade is "lopsided" doesn't mean it should be vetoed. Only if two owners get together and make a deal to strengthen one team donut can win. This can also be assisted with a trade deadline. I have had my own experience where the other owners tried to veto my trade because the felt I was getting ripped off. I started off that season 1-4 and was trading with a 4-1 team. Luckily I had a good commissioner who vetoed the veto and let it go through. Well I went on a 5 game win streak after that and missed the playoffs by .2 points. So my point in all this is nothing will ruin a league more than self righteous owners thinking they can determine who is getting ripped off in a trade.

I will join the league only if gabe gives himself the only trade veto power and only uses it if two owners are proved to be cheating.

 

I would agree with this, sometimes voting can be twisted. I have had guys who just vote simply because they don't want another team to improve because it wouldn't help them or so that the other team will be forced to accept a trade with them.

[flaccopoe]

Here is the problem, there is no chance the majority of owners will follow the true rules for a trade to be vetoed. Just because you feel a trade is "lopsided" doesn't mean it should be vetoed. Only if two owners get together and make a deal to strengthen one team donut can win. This can also be assisted with a trade deadline. I have had my own experience where the other owners tried to veto my trade because the felt I was getting ripped off. I started off that season 1-4 and was trading with a 4-1 team. Luckily I had a good commissioner who vetoed the veto and let it go through. Well I went on a 5 game win streak after that and missed the playoffs by .2 points. So my point in all this is nothing will ruin a league more than self righteous owners thinking they can determine who is getting ripped off in a trade.

I will join the league only if gabe gives himself the only trade veto power and only uses it if two owners are proved to be cheating.

 

Maybe a filibuster should require a 2/3 majority.