Brothers,
It appears we've touched on an issue, but not yet voted on it. I'll attempt to articulate the potential amendments as objectively as possible. Last year, each team was entitled to a 17-person roster, which provided ample room to store depth, and, in my opinion, made the waiver selections notably less than desirable. I propose that we reduce the rosters by one spot. I also move that we eliminate kickers from our scoring system. Kickers have become a disease-riddled scourge of our league. They are hated by all, without exception. Most belong in prison, and none should ever date any of our sisters. Now, if we rid ourselves of kickers, that would effectively reduce the rosters to fifteen spots. So, under the first proposal, we'll have 16 guys if kickers are in, and 15 guys if kickers are out. Please vote accordingly. Thank you.
1. Reduce rosters by one spot
2. Remove kickers from scoring system
2018-19 Conference Honors & Awards
7 years ago
1. Aye
ReplyDelete2. Aye
1. Yes
ReplyDelete2. Yes
1) yes, because of the point about the waiver wire, and I don't like Andrew Bynum.
ReplyDelete2) No, because I think it makes things interesting, and I do like Pau Gasol.
1) Yes
ReplyDelete2) No
1) Yes
ReplyDelete2) Hell yes
1. Yes
ReplyDelete2. Yes, but can I still draft Neil Rackers as a RB?
http://www.kswiss.com/tubes/
ReplyDeleteI haven't decided what to do with Jimmy's vote yet.
I vote
1. Yes.
2. No.
Speed Rope is where it is.
ReplyDeleteAlright, so the roster shrinkage is a go. The kicker vote will come down to the wire. So far, four out of five playoff teams voted against kickers. All votes are worth the same though. Democracy and whatnot.
ReplyDelete1. Yes
ReplyDelete2. Yes
Jim said he would rather not have kickers. But if we have to have them he would like them to be worth less points. That should settle it.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I'd like to see Jim's actual vote on here. Either that, or hear what the Commish has to stay, then Jim's vote might be moot.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Steven Hawking. I don't doubt that Woodrow wants to do away with kickers, but he needs to vote (if Luigi is no longer handling matters for him - and I'm not even sure if that was a serious arrangement). This whole "he told me how he feels" thing doesn't cut it in my opinion. That being said, it looks like the kickers are on their way out.
ReplyDeleteBut it did cut it when John voted for Jimmy?
ReplyDeleteI think Steve meant to say that depending on Tyler's vote, Jim's vote may be "moo." It's like something a cow says, it doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteInstead of Jim's ambiguous proxy situation, I think we should just consider him an abstention on all votes, make it a 9-man vote, and 5 gets a majority. That could be the rule going forward, anyway. I don't want to do that for this vote, because it would be transparently self-serving.
Seriously, though, we're on our way to having three or four votes on kickers, and that's a waste of our time. We could be doing important stuff like researching tight ends and defenses. Where is the Commissioner? Did one day of work cripple him this much? You're supposed to be the strongest, Tyler. The Highlander would never drop the ball like this.
HAL, look back at Luigi's post about voting for Woodrow. I didn't vote for it. You did. And Luigi hasn't voted for Woodrow to this point anyway.
ReplyDeleteIf you're suggesting I'm being self-serving here, I'd bring up the fact that I had a conversation with an individual last night who was willing to change his vote to make you mad. I told him he should vote his conscience and that there would be plenty of opportunities to make you angry throughout the fantasy season. Let's be honest - it doesn't take much. Not accepting a trade, protesting when you try to vote for someone else, not voting with enough conviction, etc.
Yes, I want kickers in our league. I think they make things more interesting, and they are a part of football. And they score...a lot. And made or missed field goals decide games...in real football. You may not like my reasoning, but there it is. That being said, I'm fine without them, too. If that's what the league decides, it works for me.
As for the Captain's recommendation that we allow 5 votes to constitute a majority in our ten-team league going forward, I don't like it. Yes, it would make things easier. But if you're not willing to vote in our league, you shouldn't be in our league. I really don't think that's asking too much. There are plenty of people who would like to be in our league and who would take the time to vote. I'm not trying to slam Woodrow, but, really, how hard is it to vote? Plus, I don't like the idea of half of our league being able to remove a position from our current scoring system. There's a simple solution to all of this, though - Woodrow votes.
So my take on all this is: I have no problem with the likely result of this vote. I have a problem with the way it's being conducted. Kickers may not be that important in the grand scheme of things, but expansion and keeper issues are. This is not a precedent I want to set.
And now...let the passive-aggressive attacks on my moralizing about fantasy football begin.
I can't read the last paragraph because Ben's heart bled all over my screen. If Rick Pitino was in our league, he would admonish all of us for talking about kickers on a day when NY police found a live cat in a man's car trunk.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100811/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_marinating_cat
Actually, it appears you did read the last paragraph despite all of the blood.
ReplyDeleteJim did vote. He voted no to kickers.
ReplyDeleteThe league did accept John voting for Jimmy in the first post asking to vote on four things.
I don't think it's a problem to vote outside of the blog, as long as someone records the vote on the blog so everyone knows. I'd rather not allow John's vote to just count as two (for him and Jim), but if Jim votes via someone else on the blog, I see no problem with that. Some people don't like the internet.
My final point is I don't see the problem with this vote. I sent Jim a text that said "Do you want kickers this year or not?" There was no coercion or anything else of the sort. He responded "I'd rather not." I reported that to the blog. I don't see what the big problem you have with the way this vote was conducted.
1. If people on the league, they need to vote on the blog. Is this a controversial position?
ReplyDelete2. There was no coercion? Last night you said to me, "I'm going to get in Jim's ear before John can vote." That happened last night. I'm not saying you didn't objectively explain to Jim what the options were, but your comment suggests that you had a dog in the fight. Again, last night you said, "I'm going to get in Jim's ear." Are you serious right now?
Come on, Navarro was covered in oil and peppers in the trunk of a car. His owner told police that Navarro, a neutered male cat, was pregnant. I'm talking about the real world, guys. I don't even know if fantasy football is for me anymore.
ReplyDeleteMeaning I was going to get Jim to vote before John voted in place of Jim, which no one but me made any comment about the first time John voted for Jim.
ReplyDeleteI still have the text message that I will show to everyone, although I quoted our exchange verbatim in my last comment.
I don't think it's necessary for someone to log in and vote on the blog in order to play in our fantasy league. Look, John voted on behalf of Jim earlier in July and you didn't say a word. Now, I text Jim to find out what he wants to do, report it to the blog, and you raise a red flag about how important it is for everyone to physically get on the blog and vote.
And by the way, I'm not saying people can't talk about their votes or try to influence one another. But, yes, I have a problem with someone saying "I'm going to get in his ear," explaining the vote to that person, relaying their vote back to the blog, and then acting like this is all beyond reproach.
ReplyDeleteI honestly like kickers. I think the fact that we had some matches last year come down to a kicker's performance is what makes a fantasy football matchup entertaining. To me, that is a big part of fantasy football.
ReplyDeleteI like the agonizing feelings of pure hatred that come to me when I look back and see that I lost a game because David Akers missed a 40-yard FG in the 2nd quarter...IT'S PART OF THE GAME.
Kickers don't get any respect anyways, I think we should at least let them have a voice in our league and on our blog. I made a mistake of voting against them in the first place and although it probably won't make a difference, I am going to change my vote to "Nay" on getting rid of kickers.
I couldn't find a link but I suggest that everyone listen to Adam Sandler's "The Lonesome Kicker" and that will hopefully sway your positions.
And Captain Montana, that is the CUTEST cat I have ever seen and I am glad someone will give it a good home.
1. Yes
ReplyDelete2. No
Does that settle it?
No, Tyler, that makes it 5 to 5, which doesn't technically settle anything, but thanks for trying, Commish. I'm all about impromptu motions, so I say if the proposed rule change doesn't get a majority, then it fails, i.e. kickers stay in the league.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone has a problem with that, I'll change my vote to keeping kickers, because I can't possibly tolerate more of this. Therefore, we reduce the rosters to sixteen players, and kickers stay in the league. We can discuss kicker scoring standards at a later time. Please submit proposals.
Was this mistake you made not seeing that I had also voted to get rid of kickers?
ReplyDeleteSo we're keeping kickers?
ReplyDelete