Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Commissioner's Corner (2017 Edition)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 540
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

40 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

I see this league is a (family, married couples). A league that is in all intent purposes --- having fun. Some people ain't all hyped up into setting a full lineup every week they lose interest. it happens. Yea wouldn't it be all grand we were all fantasy crazy we spent hours upon hours scouring the waiver wire. But damnit that ain't going to happen in every league. That is a fact.

 

I believe you did as much as you should. You informed informed and informed they decided to ignore and played what they had on the team.

 

You want to enforce the penalty ... go ahead

While I agree that we are all "having fun" this is a very competitive league. Not to go into great detail, but the owner who did not set the full lineup is very detail oriented and not the type to just leave a spot open. They check online forums year round and bring spreadsheets to our draft. They are a very competitive player, so to see this, strikes more of a "wtf moment".

 

It isn't that they ignored, they argued for not playing a full roster. Can guarantee that wouldn't happen if they were in playoff race and not playing who they were. That is the part where the competitive fairness is lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Unbreakable said:

While I agree that we are all "having fun" this is a very competitive league. Not to go into great detail, but the owner who did not set the full lineup is very detail oriented and not the type to just leave a spot open. They check online forums year round and bring spreadsheets to our draft. They are a very competitive player, so to see this, strikes more of a "wtf moment".

 

It isn't that they ignored, they argued for not playing a full roster. Can guarantee that wouldn't happen if they were in playoff race and not playing who they were. That is the part where the competitive fairness is lost.

Who is the one in the playoff spot? If it's the woman, she more than likely withheld love making from the husband. At which point, you need to remind him bros before hoes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Unbreakable said:

While I agree that we are all "having fun" this is a very competitive league. Not to go into great detail, but the owner who did not set the full lineup is very detail oriented and not the type to just leave a spot open. They check online forums year round and bring spreadsheets to our draft. They are a very competitive player, so to see this, strikes more of a "wtf moment".

 

It isn't that they ignored, they argued for not playing a full roster. Can guarantee that wouldn't happen if they were in playoff race and not playing who they were. That is the part where the competitive fairness is lost.

If your league has a rule already in place for dealing with situations like this, you have to enforce it.  If not, you can't make up a new rule on the spot.  But you can and should address this situation in the off-season.

 

It looks like collusion, but you can't prove it was.  Not picking up a D because you don't want to drop a valuable player on a bye is a legit reason.  Is it the real reason?  Probably not.

 

Maybe this married couple should contract and partner up to co-manage the same team to prevent the appearance of collusion going forward.

 

That said, handle this situation with care.  You are accusing these team managers of cheating...it is the kind of thing that can destroy a league if allowed to get out of hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SharkSwimmer said:

If your league has a rule already in place for dealing with situations like this, you have to enforce it.  If not, you can't make up a new rule on the spot.  But you can and should address this situation in the off-season.

 

It looks like collusion, but you can't prove it was.  Not picking up a D because you don't want to drop a valuable player on a bye is a legit reason.  Is it the real reason?  Probably not.

 

Maybe this married couple should contract and partner up to co-manage the same team to prevent the appearance of collusion going forward.

 

That said, handle this situation with care.  You are accusing these team managers of cheating...it is the kind of thing that can destroy a league if allowed to get out of hand.

100% agree with this. I have been commish in several leagues. Two of them for close to 20 years, and when we run across any of this type of stuff or other things, I note and vote it for the next season. Our rule book constantly changes to avoid this kind of stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lolcopter said:

They’re husband and wife, of course they’re cheating 

Probably so.  But whether they are or not, they are certainly going to be offended by the accusation.  And if they have other close friends in the league who sympathize with their position or even take their side, well, there goes your league.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SharkSwimmer said:

Probably so.  But whether they are or not, they are certainly going to be offended by the accusation.  And if they have other close friends in the league who sympathize with their position or even take their side, well, there goes your league.

 

I wouldn’t want to play in a league like that anyway

 

if they were smart they would have just picked up and played some trash defense to avoid the accusations in the first place

Edited by lolcopter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your valuable input. We decided that yes, there has not been a rule in place, so we cannot enforce anything this year. I will be putting a note out to the league that we will vote on penalty after the year is done.

 

And yes... they did take offense to the accusation that they were cheating :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the masses:

 

My league has 3 random people vote to approve/reject trades.

 

Let's say that the first trade is rejected (in this case, Wentz and Mixon for McCoy). 2 of 3 voted no.

 

Now the trade is altered a bit (McCoy team offers up one other player). Should the vote go back to the same 3 people, or is this technically a new trade and 3 random people should be chosen all over again? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Unbreakable said:

Hey everyone, looking for advice for an issue that came up over the weekend. I will try to make it short.

 

We have a close group for our league (family, married couples. etc.) So one of our married couples played each other this week. One of them is in the playoff hunt and the other one is all but eliminated. So going into Sunday, the eliminated team did NOT have a full lineup (their defense was on bye). As the day got going, I messaged them about filling the lineup. They were aware of the vacant spot, but the owner would not make a change at all. The excuse was they did not want to drop anyone from their bench. I found this as a very thin excuse, as we just upped our bench spots to 6 (from 5), so that we will have plenty of room to make appropriate moves throughout the weeks. This discussing went throughout the day and into the evening. They never did pick up a defense and lost by 3 points (which would have been easily covered by the defenses that were available. This granted the team in the hunt with a "cheap win".

 

My question is, how can I enforce a penalty? This obviously creates and unfair competitive balance, especially since we only have a few weeks until playoffs. Myself and another commission the league and we are trying to think of what to do. We discussed that we have not had any type of punishment for this before (because well.... it shouldn't happen per fantasy football etiquette). This is a keeper league, so my suggestion is that we post a vote to the league, which would have to be passed unanimously by the other 8 owners. My thought is an infraction like this should have a heavy deterrent, so I am thinking of a loss of keeper rights for the following year.

 

Do any of you have suggestions? I obviously can't boot them from the league as it is my brother and his wife involved...

I would of acknowledged to them you understand about the bench, settings, etc much you have to make them understand that the optics of this scream collusion.  Its one thing to not pick a D up when you have no "rooting" interest in you losing, would you of not picked up a defense if say you were playing a team in contention with your spouse?  Not sure...bottom line, is whatever your intentions were (ethical or otherwise) the optics are bad, please pick up a defense.   If you have no rules in place, really nothing you can do on the spot other than really encourage them, but I would tell them even now it looked like crap.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, oliminator123 said:

Question for the masses:

 

My league has 3 random people vote to approve/reject trades.

 

Let's say that the first trade is rejected (in this case, Wentz and Mixon for McCoy). 2 of 3 voted no.

 

Now the trade is altered a bit (McCoy team offers up one other player). Should the vote go back to the same 3 people, or is this technically a new trade and 3 random people should be chosen all over again? 

Shouldnt be voting on trades, its kind of a re-work of an original deal, but then again some might view it as its own deal.  Not really a really right or wrong answer, whats wrong is voting on it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Unbreakable said:

Thank you all for your valuable input. We decided that yes, there has not been a rule in place, so we cannot enforce anything this year. I will be putting a note out to the league that we will vote on penalty after the year is done.

 

And yes... they did take offense to the accusation that they were cheating :)

I like to look for consistency in these situations, go back to previous seasons, has he EVER chosen not to insert a player because of waivers in the past?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, oliminator123 said:

Question for the masses:

 

My league has 3 random people vote to approve/reject trades.

 

Let's say that the first trade is rejected (in this case, Wentz and Mixon for McCoy). 2 of 3 voted no.

 

Now the trade is altered a bit (McCoy team offers up one other player). Should the vote go back to the same 3 people, or is this technically a new trade and 3 random people should be chosen all over again? 

It is a new trade.  3 different random team managers should be selected.

 

But definitely ditch that rule for next year.  The only workable system is commissioner veto.  Since every team manager values players differently, the commissioner should only excercise veto power when confronted with a case of obvious and blatant collusion.  Lev Bell in exchange for Kapri Bibbs type stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SharkSwimmer said:

It is a new trade.  3 different random team managers should be selected.

 

But definitely ditch that rule for next year.  The only workable system is commissioner veto.  Since every team manager values players differently, the commissioner should only excercise veto power when confronted with a case of obvious and blatant collusion.  Lev Bell in exchange for Kapri Bibbs type stuff.

What would suggest if the commissioner is involved in a trade?

 

and it was setup as LM only veto

Edited by shakestreet
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

What would suggest if the commissioner is involved in a trade?

 

and it was setup as LM only veto

Don't change the league settings until the offseason.  And give notice to everyone.

 

If the commish is involved, and someone raises an objection, we have a "council of the wise."  Three veteran team managers (or well respected former team managers) listen to the concerns and issue a decision.  Their decision is final.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BornandbredHeel said:

It's elementary to vote on trades. Get people in your league that care.

Having your opponents vote on your trades is an unresolvable conflict of interest.  A proper trade makes both of the trading teams better, therefore it gives all the other teams a strong incentive to veto such a trade.  Some fair minded team managers may not take advantage of this opportunity, but they probably have never studied game theory.

 

Would the real NFL let the Texans, Jags and Titans vote on whether the Colts could trade picks to the Patriots for Jacoby Brisett?  Think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SharkSwimmer said:

It is a new trade.  3 different random team managers should be selected.

 

But definitely ditch that rule for next year.  The only workable system is commissioner veto.  Since every team manager values players differently, the commissioner should only excercise veto power when confronted with a case of obvious and blatant collusion.  Lev Bell in exchange for Kapri Bibbs type stuff.

 

10 minutes ago, SharkSwimmer said:

Don't change the league settings until the offseason.  And give notice to everyone.

 

If the commish is involved, and someone raises an objection, we have a "council of the wise."  Three veteran team managers (or well respected former team managers) listen to the concerns and issue a decision.  Their decision is final.

 

7 minutes ago, SharkSwimmer said:

Having your opponents vote on your trades is an unresolvable conflict of interest.  A proper trade makes both of the trading teams better, therefore it gives all the other teams a strong incentive to veto such a trade.  Some fair minded team managers may not take advantage of this opportunity, but they probably have never studied game theory.

 

Would the real NFL let the Texans, Jags and Titans vote on whether the Colts could trade picks to the Patriots for Jacoby Brisett?  Think about it.

Trust me I agree with you 100%, and I am going to bring it up again next year. But when the majority of the league wants something, you kinda have to go with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SharkSwimmer said:

If your league has a rule already in place for dealing with situations like this, you have to enforce it.  If not, you can't make up a new rule on the spot.  But you can and should address this situation in the off-season.

 

It looks like collusion, but you can't prove it was.  Not picking up a D because you don't want to drop a valuable player on a bye is a legit reason.  Is it the real reason?  Probably not.

 

Maybe this married couple should contract and partner up to co-manage the same team to prevent the appearance of collusion going forward.

 

That said, handle this situation with care.  You are accusing these team managers of cheating...it is the kind of thing that can destroy a league if allowed to get out of hand.

 

This.  You cant institute a new rule mid season, unless they admitted that they didn't want the wife's team to win so they didn't pick someone up you cant do anything. 

 

I have played 3 games this year without a kicker because I didn't want to drop anyone on my bench and I am in the playoff hunt.  Kickers and most DST's are more easily replaced than RB/WR/TE/QB so I chose to risk the win by playing a man down.  Its a strategy whether you are in the playoffs or not.  That being said, unless your league rules state that "all spots on your roster must be filled with an active player or else" you cant do anything as of now.

 

I run a league with a few couples that each have separate teams and I made it a rule that the couples can not trade between husband and wife no matter what and they must have full starting lineups when they face off otherwise I will fill the spot for them with ESPN's highest projected player.  Obviously it limits them from making moves which is a disadvantage but I thought that was a better solution than having every thing they do analyzed and critiqued as collusion.  Its worked out so far.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my league we have a "no tanking" rule which states you must make a reasonable effort to set your lineup each week to avoid giving easy wins to potential playoff teams.

 

That being said, I don't like having a rule that says you must fill every roster spot every week.  Just this week I played with Ertz (on bye) in my TE spot, because I was going up against one of the worst teams in the league and I didn't want to drop a bench player to possibly get 3 points with a streamer TE for one week.  I calculated that I could win without a TE, and I did, by about 40 points.

 

I don't think teams should be forced to drop valuable players during the bye week crunch just to make sure they're playing a TE, D/ST or K, when streaming options at these positions often don't produce many points and can be difficult to predict.  It's possible to win without picking up a second K to replace Gostkowski when he's on bye, so teams should be allowed to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...