The League

meant to get this in earlier... disregard if too late.

So this was really too late? Less than 2 hours over the 24 hour mark?


If so I'd like to propose a rule change where we have until the start of the players next game (or something) to place a contract on them.

Didn't we have a conversation similar to this one last season or am I imagining things again (like that time I imagined Vit winning after his mega-trade)? My preference is to get contracts submitted before Thursday kickoffs rather than player kickoffs, but I agree that 24 hours seems like it could be expanded.

LB you brought this up last year. You pointed out that we needed to be more strict after someone posted a time that was late. So we discussed it and changed the rule to allow for a 48 hour window in the off season and 24 during the season. So exactly 24 hours is the rule for now.

For what it's worth, the intent was to assign years at the same time as you sign the player, like the NFL. You also have the option of adding notes to your bid if its during blind bidding. That will "timestamp" your contract as well.

Yep, I remember throwing a little hissy fit over it last year with DD and Dwyer. I figured that would get brought up.

I suppose the 24 hrs is sufficient. I doubt I'd let any guy that I was really excited about acquiring (L. Green baby! ) go without a contract... but with multiple leagues with waivers that run the same as ours, it can get overlooked.

The note in the bid is probably the best way to go, gonna have to start utilizing that.

Ironic, not so eager to be so strict about the rule when its you that's late...

Nothing ironic about it at all, I don't think you know the proper meaning of that word.


I don't think the two situations are even comparable (under 2 hrs vs over 16?), especially since I noted that it was probably late.


So did that episode conclude with us agreeing on a hard 24 hr period? I thought I remember us deciding to vote for 48 in the offseason but keeping inseaon 24ish based on Brandon's discretion (to which he said an hr or two was acceptable but 16 wasn't)


was there any discussion beyond this?
http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic ... 3260#p3260

bonesman wrote: was there any discussion beyond this?
http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic ... 3260#p3260

I think there was at least a vote and probably some discussion in that thread but I'm not sure, I couldn't find it when I looked yesterday.

I looked around and didn't see anything about the 24hr thing being set in stone. So I suppose this move would be a prescient setter.

bonesman wrote:
I don't think the two situations are even comparable (under 2 hrs vs over 16?), especially since I noted that it was probably late.

So do tell me, what is the time that is unacceptable to be late? Obviously its somewhere between 2 hours and 16, but I'm not sure where.

Here is the link where we voted on it:

http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1189

And here is a quote from you:

bonesman wrote: I like my FF leagues run by the book... not sometimes it's a rule, sometimes it isn't.

So yes, it is ironic. Ironic that someone that likes their leagues run by the book and caused a ruckus over this same issue last year is now asking for leniency because "its only 2 hours late".

This is a bit off topic from the current back and forth..
But I was wondering if the contract assignments timeline should be amended a bit?

If a player is picked up Sunday morning, you can wait until Monday morning to assign a contract to them. Should contracts be assigned before games begin Sunday morning?

Wascawy Wabbits wrote:This is a bit off topic from the current back and forth..
But I was wondering if the contract assignments timeline should be amended a bit?

If a player is picked up Sunday morning, you can wait until Monday morning to assign a contract to them. Should contracts be assigned before games begin Sunday morning?

We actually already have that in the constitution:

* Salary for FCFS is league minimum ($425,000). Contracts beyond 1 yr must be declared within 24 hours or before kickoff of the players game, whichever comes first

Devil Dogs wrote:

bonesman wrote:
I don't think the two situations are even comparable (under 2 hrs vs over 16?), especially since I noted that it was probably late.

So do tell me, what is the time that is unacceptable to be late? Obviously its somewhere between 2 hours and 16, but I'm not sure where.

Here is the link where we voted on it:

http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1189

And here is a quote from you:

bonesman wrote: I like my FF leagues run by the book... not sometimes it's a rule, sometimes it isn't.

So yes, it is ironic. Ironic that someone that likes their leagues run by the book and caused a ruckus over this same issue last year is now asking for leniency because "its only 2 hours late".

You don't know the definition of ironic and you apparently can't read very well either

braven112 wrote:For the offseason only. Should we extend the time we have to declare contracts to 48 hours?

This is all about getting clarification. It's actually in my best interests for Brandon to deny my contract request as I'll save a bit of cap room when I inevitably cut Ginn and get the hard 24 hr clock that I've always wanted.

My reading comprehension is "for the offseason only" to mean that we extended the current rule of 24 hours to 48 hours for the offseason only. For the season, the 24 hour rule remained. But hey, I could certainly be wrong.

Now its in your best interest that he not allow this? LOL whatever man.

bonesman wrote:This is all about getting clarification. It's actually in my best interests for Brandon to deny my contract request as I'll save a bit of cap room when I inevitably cut Ginn and get the hard 24 hr clock that I've always wanted.

Dude, that blatantly contradicts what you posted in your second comment...

bonesman wrote:So this was really too late? Less than 2 hours over the 24 hour mark?


If so I'd like to propose a rule change where we have until the start of the players next game (or something) to place a contract on them.

If you wanted a hard 24-hour clock, you wouldn't be asking if two hours was "really" too late, and you DEFINITELY wouldn't be proposing a rule change to extend the limit. Plus, you obviously weren't looking for Brandon to deny your request when you made it or a message board thread entitled "Ted Ginn, WR, 3 years" would have never been created and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Personally, I don't have a problem with someone contradicting themselves from one year to another as situations and perspectives change, but trying to have a conversation about a possible rule change that at least a couple people have expressed interest in becomes difficult when the original poster says he didn't say what we can all see he said and then says he doesn't want the rule change that he specifically requested. Even more frustrating is that you're telling people they can't read very well when it seems like a lot of people are reading the same thing.

So... can we get back to discussing the pros/cons of pushing back the 24-hour clock? It seems like Wascawy and I are both interested in it, and Brandon and bonesman are for leaving it as-is. I'd be curious to see what others think, and it sure seems like that became the point of this thread (although it's possible I'm not reading it very well).

Personally, I'm all for extending the time and also being a bit courteous for those that may be a bit late in posting on the message boards as long as no big news or injury hit that would give an unfair advantage.

I just find it amusing that Bonesman is the one who now wants leniency and to extend the timer after basically calling me a cheater last year for the same thing.

Devil Dogs wrote: I just find it amusing that Bonesman is the one who now wants leniency and to extend the timer after basically calling me a cheater last year for the same thing.

Not the same thing at ALL as I notified in the post that is was late, questioning it's legitimacy. Which begs the question, had I mentioned it at all would Brandon even have noticed/cared? What if it was someone else even, who hadn't mad this an issue in the past? Would the hour and a half late contract been granted to them?

bocious wrote: If you wanted a hard 24-hour clock, you wouldn't be asking if two hours was "really" too late, and you DEFINITELY wouldn't be proposing a rule change to extend the limit. Plus, you obviously weren't looking for Brandon to deny your request when you made it or a message board thread entitled "Ted Ginn, WR, 3 years" would have never been created and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

It's good that we are having this conversation though. Our contract system isn't perfect. From the way we ended the conversation last year the clock sounded like it was flexible... if that's the case, the rules can't be selectively applied to those who do and don't like it. I admit, it's pretty hypocritical of me and that misapplied definition of ironic is very fitting.


But yea, as much of a even bigger jackass this makes me in league perception, I think it's worth it as it's helped highlight some issues and bring some clarity to the rulebook (more so with the question Wabs asked and the invalid contract on Hoyer that went through)

I overlooked Hoyer's contract and updated it to one year.

I like 24 hours as a rule but the problem is the time it takes to verify each contract. Especially now that we have a FCFS waiver period where each player has their own deadline. I'm definitely open to suggestions as long as it makes the verification process easier and more efficient.

I'm too busy to put fantasy football as a high priority in my life. I, as much as anybody, need as much time as possible to declare contracts. Yet, I see 24 hours or before player's kickoff as extremely reasonable.

I would add that a rule needs to be a rule. Why have rules if they won't be enforced? If any flexibility is allowed, it turns into an issue like this one has.

So keep it at 24, extend it to 48...whatever. But we should stick to whatever we decide to avoid conflict like this.