Jack Cust Is OF Eligible In The NFBC

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:00 am

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

I have no issues with that answer. Gordon move on- either leave the events in the future or let it go. So YOU have no issue with it so now it's okay for me to move on. Thanks dad. Just having some fun with you chest!

Yes, the nffc event is out. If I want to play fantasy football there is a competing event offering a 300K grand prize.

Brilee's Brigade · Post by **Brilee's Brigade** » Mon May 21, 2007 9:56 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

I have no issues with that answer. Gordon move on- either leave the events in the future or let it go. So YOU have no issue with it so now it's okay for me to move on. Thanks dad. Just having some fun with you chest!

Yes, the nffc event is out. If I want to play fantasy football there is a competing event offering a 300K grand prize. [/QUOTE]There is probably a much better chance now of the NFFC growing to much bigger numbers. Knowing that GG will not be in the event and won't be crying about everything that does not go his way each time the wind blows will make it easier for people to participate

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Mon May 21, 2007 10:34 am

First of all, I completely understand Gordon's concern about this. this is for real hard $$$. Gordon is right in it and at 3rd place has a reasonable chance of playing for serious money. Gordon has every right to want to play in an event where the rules are consistent.

Having said this, Greg has issued his ruling. I think that Greg will (as he almost always does), take the feedback on what happend here and update the rules. I am sure that somewhere there is a rule that says that as Commish, he has the right to make hard calls.

I also hope that Greg has STATS make sure that the position listed next to name is one of the elgible positions listed on the Profile Page. This will avoid the Reynolds fiaso's in the future.

Gordon, I like you a ton and you make the off months much more fun. I also hope you get past this small bugaboo and continue on here. BTW: just because there is another event doesn't mean that the grass is greener. I am sure they have had their share of mistakes as well. Probably more so, as Greg and Tom are very customer focused.

Regards,

Spy

Liquidhippo · Post by **Liquidhippo** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:20 pm

Gotta agree with Greg on this one. If fact, I think he's been pretty patient with all the noise about this on the boards. His argument makes sense to me. In handling the 'Cust Situation', he's handled it professionally, objectively, and consistently, as always.

Richie · Post by **Richie** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:30 pm

I have been commissioner in many leagues and mit is an impossibl;e jib to make everyone happy. Things come up all the time that is not exactly spelled out in written rules, as hard as you try to handle everything. That is why Greg is in charge. He has to make the tough decisions. He does this well and not everyone will agree. Gregg, you seem to have 374 approvals on this and one immature disapproval. I would not worry about the disapproval. I have no idea who he is but I can certainly tell you he probably doesn't belong with 374 other mature folks who love this. Let him go to the greener pastures and graze.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:16 am

As I said the last time this person quit the league in a flurry of posting glory, good bye, good luck. We all have serious family issues we must deal with in order to maintain balance in our lives. I sure these are the real issues, not another attempt to get notice and sympathy.

The event will go on.

I did not bid on Cust. I think therefore I can objectively look at the posts. IMHO, I think Greg's ruling was fair and clearly stated...over and over again.

Mudster · Post by **Mudster** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:31 pm

This ruling should be reconsidered. Here's why...

According to the rules, Cust SHOULD only be utility eligible. We can only assume what is listed in the rules for start of the year position eligibility remains constant through out the year. Just because this was overlooked for the most part (someone evidently questioned it) doesn't make it right to keep an error running as an error. That screws those who never bid on him in the first place because a team in every league is now able to use him illegally. The incorrect listing also screws those that bid on him with the intent of using him in the utility role but lost out to someone using him as an outfielder as the outfield bids most likely would've been different, but not the utility bids. I'm going to guess that at the end of the year this will have costed at least a couple people a divisional check and hopefully not more. Really, there is no "fair" way to resolve this to make everyone feel like someone's not getting an unfair ruling. NFBC and STATS need to get on the same page with everything so something like this doesn't happen again. I'm suprised Walla hasn't piped in about that.....

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:57 pm

Originally posted by Mudster:

This ruling should be reconsidered. Here's why...

According to the rules, Cust SHOULD only be utility eligible. We can only assume what is listed in the rules for start of the year position eligibility remains constant through out the year. Just because this was overlooked for the most part (someone evidently questioned it) doesn't make it right to keep an error running as an error. That screws those who never bid on him in the first place because a team in every league is now able to use him illegally. The incorrect listing also screws those that bid on him with the intent of using him in the utility role but lost out to someone using him as an outfielder as the outfield bids most likely would've been different, but not the utility bids. I'm going to guess that at the end of the year this will have costed at least a couple people a divisional check and hopefully not more. Really, there is no "fair" way to resolve this to make everyone feel like someone's not getting an unfair ruling. NFBC and STATS need to get on the same page with everything so something like this doesn't happen again. I'm suprised Walla hasn't piped in about that..... Mudster,

You don't seem to understand the facts regarding Cust. I would go back have a read. Greg made the decision based on the current rules and interests of the game prior to his FAAB status. Very few people had picked Cust up prior to his huge week. By then, everyone was quite aware of his value regardless of his position eligability.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:40 pm

Originally posted by Mudster:

This ruling should be reconsidered. Here's why...

According to the rules, Cust SHOULD only be utility eligible. We can only assume what is listed in the rules for start of the year position eligibility remains constant through out the year. Just because this was overlooked for the most part (someone evidently questioned it) doesn't make it right to keep an error running as an error. That screws those who never bid on him in the first place because a team in every league is now able to use him illegally. The incorrect listing also screws those that bid on him with the intent of using him in the utility role but lost out to someone using him as an outfielder as the outfield bids most likely would've been different, but not the utility bids. I'm going to guess that at the end of the year this will have costed at least a couple people a divisional check and hopefully not more. Really, there is no "fair" way to resolve this to make everyone feel like someone's not getting an unfair ruling. NFBC and STATS need to get on the same page with everything so something like this doesn't happen again. I'm suprised Walla hasn't piped in about that..... According to the rules, Cust played one game in the outfield last year in the majors and he pinch-hit three times. His outfield designation was based on the fact that the only position he played in the majors last year was outfield, thus he earned the position as stated in the rules. It was ruled correctly as stated in our rules.

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:46 pm

Holy cow! I think they are trying to vote GG off the island!!!

Mudster · Post by **Mudster** » Tue May 22, 2007 11:53 pm

Maybe I'm looking at things wrong, but there appears to have been some inconsistancies in the past then. Anyways, as it was mentioned before, pinch hitting only games shouldn't be used at any time to determine position eligibility.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Wed May 23, 2007 4:17 am

mudster- i will take you up on your offer- you are looking at things wrong. so now we all agree.