"Caveat Emptor", "Laissez Faire", or Neo-Socialism Commissioner Model. Which one do you prefer? (1 Viewer)

[Deadweight19]

I have been commissioner for several leagues over the years and I am curious to learn how others approach their role as commissioner.  The three choices above are just to start the conversation.  Please, don't take these as the only options.  In regards to Neo-Socialism, I am referencing modern socialism as seen in Western Europe and Canada (not the writings of Engels or Marx).  Thanks in advance for your responses.  

 

[rockaction]

King. When I'm commissioner, they'll be first against the wall/with their opinion which is of no consequence at all. 

What's this?

 

[Catbird]

I want a Commish who cares about the league and that it runs fairly. The worst are guys on an ego trip that want control. This includes people who want to make a thousand rules. Second worst, in my  experience, are guys who knowingly or unknowingly don't make fairness their highest priority. I have never had an insufferable Commish that put fairness first. The other main thing I can think of off hand is diligence and focus. There is a sense of timing and dedication that makes a huge difference. When problems arise, often the solution only works if nearly immediate and even if it isn't a crisis, a focussed watch dog can eliminate nearly any porblem, or lead to the best resolution still possible. Give me someone who will do that and we're in good hands.

 

[KChusker]

Milton Friedman style with a short but clearly listed/specified set of rules and punishments in the event of those rules being broken to ensure I can keep it that way without having to intervene

I don't veto even in the case of some clearly unfair trades and one that was suspicious in that it was accepted a week before the guy who clearly lost the trade dropped out of the league.

Maybe I should be more hands on but I find that opens a new set of problems. I suppose there is a threshold of trade that would require a veto but even then I would consult the rest of the league first

IDK just in general (without getting political) I feel every team has its interests in mind and has no incentive to weaken their own teams (without long term payoff) and thus diminish the quality of the league, so I prefer just to focus on finding stable, knowledgeable, committed members with a healthy degree of competitiveness and pride.

The weakness of this model of management is that I have a hard time kicking out someone who clearly has no idea what he is doing and does stuff like give injured Saquon for Mixon and Ingram to a 1-11 team that had already done unbalanced trades to become a top 3 team, give DJ Moore and an early 2nd round pick for Julio despite being 3-7 and eliminated from playoff contention--only for the guy who initially had Barkley and Moore to reveal at the time of the draft that he didn't realize dynasty (and the rules I listed out!) meant you kept the same players 

The guy doesn't even have a full roster because he doesn't know enough players and pushes to get the rosters trimmed every few weeks to redraft sizes. By the 3rd and 4th round he was drafting rookies by how fun their names sounded and refuses to trade in the offseason because he doesn't see the point (again it's dynasty!)

And I can't kick him out without looking like a hypocrite and jerk

So take what you will of that: besides the occasional unbalanced trade that can be attributed to different player evaluations, my laissez faire commissioning works great when people are informed and competitive. When you have even one member who is only one of those two it hurts, can be exploited by other owners and is hard to fix

 

[nittanylion]

I've been running Leagues for at least 25 Years. I believe very strongly that human beings thrive on structure and discipline, administered with a firm, but gentle hand. So, I'd say: Benevolent Dictator. I put the best interests of the League as a Whole, above all else, to a fault.  At one point several years ago, after I had spent years crafting a Magnum Opus of a League, with a group of sharp, and ultra-competitive Owners, who actively looked for any edge they could exploit to their advantage, I actually dropped out and acted as a non-playing Commissioner for several Seasons, as the entry fees and prize pool had gotten so large, that I was policing myself so hard (adding extras to trades, not making sharp moves), I was making it impossible for me to win. It  actually hurt a little, being on the outside of a League that my guys were enjoying so much, but I got a lot of satisfaction out of their enjoyment, much of which was derived from having an unquestionably neutral party running the show. That League is now defunct (it started becoming work), but I still play in various Leagues with many of my guys, and every now and then one of them tells me it was the best League they'd ever been in. That feels pretty good. If I could find the rules, I'd sure like to update them, and see if someone else would run it, so I could play in it. Ah, memories :sigh:

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

As long as the only ambition is integrity of the league, you'll do fine.

 

[rockaction]

That feels pretty good. If I could find the rules, I'd sure like to update them, and see if someone else would run it, so I could play in it. Ah, memories :sigh:

That would be interesting. But I would have had to like this and get you off of 666 likes regardless, though. Just because.

 

[habsfan]

One league and 13 years for me. My style has evolved - very "busy" and democratic initially until it became apparent that few managers wanted to be involved to the extent I was inviting them too. In my league at least, they don't want to develop the recipe or be in the kitchen. They just want to "eat the food". I open the floor every off season to new ideas or changes to settings but seldom receive any. We have simple rules and drama is virtually non-existent. Philosophically the league belongs to everyone but the day to day reality is that it's mine.

 

[JohnnyU]

It's a crappy job with no benefits, except I try and run our leagues to have less issues, better owners, and more fun, which is the only benefit I require.  More importantly I hope to learn from my mistakes.  I've been doing this for many years and have made my share of mistakes, but through education from my peers I believe I run some of the more stable leagues out there.   There will always be some turnover in dynasty leagues and it comes and  goes in spurts.  Just try to find the best owners possible and roll with it.  I don't mind league changes if the majority agrees with them and they benefit the league long term.  I think the best trait of a commissioner is to know how to listen and not always believe they know what's best for the league, but sometimes you have to make hard decisions.  Hopefully as you gain more knowledge from past experiences you do a better job with those hard decisions going forward.  

 

[barackdhouse]

I probably can't distill my approach down to a concise nugget here, but there is one concept that I think can go a long way to helping a commissioner (or supervisor, manager, teacher, parent or other types of leaders) do their job more efficiently. I'll get to it in a second. 

I have only been commish of one league for 4 years now. But it is a doozy. I didn't create the league, I took over for a guy that did an incredible job setting it up but made a couple fatal flaws (for himself) and I ended up taking over for him when he burned out at one point. This is unique AF. 96 teams. 8 subleagues of 12 teams each operating independently. Top 4 make a combined points race playoff in weeks 15 and 16. Half of annual buyins go into escrow for 2020 jackpot season. I've written about this league before.

Thing is, there are soooooo many rules and nuances that I inherited. I have simplified, I have clarified, I have fixed, I have led major information campaigns so as to inform voting decisions on new rules, all in the name of making things better, more fair, etc., and with an eye to insuring our 2020 jackpot season was set up for success (sigh). 

Ok so *here* is the thing. In every industry we try to improve best practices and then codify and document those into things we call "rules" or "laws", but nuance and exceptions to the rule pop up all the time.

And it IS UP TO THE COMMISSIONER or relevant leader(s) to interpret and apply those rules as best they can. But sometimes the situation is so unique that the rules either contradict each other or simply do not address the issue. In such cases, and it is often, the task is to:

Figure out the SPIRIT OF THE LAW vs THE LETTER OF THE LAW. And that can be tricky as heck. 

I have taken a dictator approach when it comes to making *clarifying* decisions that are necessary for the integrity of the league. I have interpreted the SPIRIT of the law in order to better codify the written rules for owners. In matters where a legitimate fork in the road laid before us, I take it to the crowd. 

I never veto trades and had one owner quit in protest a couple years ago because I refused to unilaterally veto a bad trade. Against a backdrop of 30 other owners screaming don't you dare veto it. 

Anyway TLDR version is there is a difference between clarifications and changes to the rules, but many people struggle with that. The spirit of a rule should carry more weight than many realize, and best practices should constantly be assessed.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

What is an example of a commissioner act that would be considered neo-socialist?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

also, how different are caveat emptor and laissez faire?

 

[rockaction]

also, how different are caveat emptor and laissez faire?

I was thinking neo-socialism was sort of a misnomer and we should stick with social democrat (not democratic socialist) but I didn't want to get hung up in minutiae.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I was thinking neo-socialism was sort of a misnomer and we should stick with social democrat (not democratic socialist) but I didn't want to get hung up in minutiae.

that doesn't really help me much, unless we are really just talking about a dichotomy between the commissioner being basically hands-off completely vs. a commissioner trying to continually make adjustments for the perceived fairness or greater good of the league or something.

 

[rockaction]

that doesn't really help me much, unless we are really just talking about a dichotomy between the commissioner being basically hands-off completely vs. a commissioner trying to continually make adjustments for the perceived fairness or greater good of the league or something.

Well hot damn. You're actually taking the exercise seriously. Kudos to you.

I think if I were really to talk about it seriously, I'd go laissez-faire. That's how I commish the league that I commish by default now as asst. commissioner (I do everything but invite and turn the year over because the league began in 2012 and the original commissioner wants the league, but doesn't want those duties. Which is fair. I'm willing. This year will be hella interesting though, if our league doesn't just outright fold. It's redraft.)

 

[higgins]

It depends on the makeup of the team owners.

I've been in two long-term dynasties for a very long time.

 - One is a group of long-term friends that warrant essentially no policing whatsoever.

 - Two is a group of long-term friends that are uber competitive with each other and regularly try to screw each other in order to gain advantages (I mean that in a "good way"). The commish, by necessity, has had to rule with an iron fist on occasion (with good/fair results).

I prefer a laissez faire commish but "extremist" owners can sometimes necessitate an iron fist.

 

[The Frankman]

I have been a commish for 8 years of the SLAENT FF Play or Die League (shameless plug!), a double flex non-PPR league with the rule that you must start a player in every spot (no leaving a spot blank and taking a zero due to Byes/shenanigans). I believe in not being overbearing as long as there is no collusion, but I'll be omnipresent as Hell if people aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing and take as much action to fix stuff. I'd had to do many things... mediate a drunken trade where the owner tried to rescind it 2 days later and threatened to hold up the league, to instances where due to a late W-L ruling screwing up waivers I had to manually re-order waiver priority so people got the players they were supposed to get... I believe you do everything in your power to make sure people follow the rules of your league.

 

[Deadweight19]

What is an example of a commissioner act that would be considered neo-socialist?

 An example of a "Neo-Socialist" act by a commissioner would be something akin to the last place team getting 1st pick in weekly waivers each week as opposed to the rotating method (make a waiver move, you move to bottom of list).  Another example is diluting the league fees with too many payout options (Top 5 in a 10 team $50 league finish in the money).  Institutional Parity, so to speak.  The reason I chose the term "Neo-Socialist" as opposed to "Social Democrat" is a much lengthier discussion which I would be happy to share but probably should put in the requisite forum.

also, how different are caveat emptor and laissez faire?

In relation to their use regarding a commissioner's philosophy I would say this:

Caveat Emptor (Basically buyer beware):  Owner who gets short end of the stick can't complain and request a reversal (or to the extreme want a refund) because the players they received in a trade were injured prior to the trade occurring (The owner was ignorant to the status of those players)

Laissez Faire (non-interference):  An owner dials it in and does not turn in a lineup for multiple weeks then suddenly turns in a lineup for one week in order to assist another team in making the playoffs.  Commissioner would not interfere with this scenario.  A twist would be a team owner that has dialed it in for several weeks suddenly makes a waiver move (redraft leagues only) to keep one team from picking up a player then trades that player to another team that is competing for a playoff spot with the team who had 2nd waiver position.

 

[Deadweight19]

The main reason for this topic was to see if I could use concepts I teach in Economics and Government and apply them to fantasy football.  I am very thankful for the great discussion that has taken place so far.  It helps a great deal to see these ideas from someone else's lens.  Most students are just trying to get through my class to graduate.  The goal is to use what I gather here to make these theories more relatable to the students and (trick them?) get them to reason out these ideas into practical terms (may even enjoy it?)  Thanks again for the responses, keep them coming!

 

[Blackbear]

I put rules out in print. Then discussed rules in Q&A during pre draft. Some things I let league decide through polls. A key was just good feedback from the league members. It has worked out well enough so far. This is my first time being commish online and with members from everywhere. My only other experiences was when I commished local leagues with live onsite drafts. That is easier in a lot of respects. I did have to remove two players due to lack of speed in getting their dues paid. I describe this as just being reasonable and I’m not sure it is classified by the terms you mentioned. I think the key is getting people engaged and having a voice but not letting inmates run the asylum.

 

[rockaction]

 An example of a "Neo-Socialist" act by a commissioner would be something akin to the last place team getting 1st pick in weekly waivers each week as opposed to the rotating method (make a waiver move, you move to bottom of list).  Another example is diluting the league fees with too many payout options (Top 5 in a 10 team $50 league finish in the money).  Institutional Parity, so to speak.  The reason I chose the term "Neo-Socialist" as opposed to "Social Democrat" is a much lengthier discussion which I would be happy to share but probably should put in the requisite forum.

Sounds more like a redistribution issue. I'm planting my flag here on the use of neo-socialism. Won't allow it in my classroom.