What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Commish with a ruling dilemma (1 Viewer)

soulman15

Footballguy
I am the commish of a 12 team, re-draft, 2 division, performance league, of which I use www.myfantasyleague.com. I have ran into an issue regarding the playoffs and I could really use the a bit of advise.

It has to do with playoff seeding. We have a 6 team SuperBowl Playoff along with a 6 team Toilet bowl playoff, where the division winners and division losers get a 1st round bye in there respected playoff brackets. I know this is an oversight in organization on my part, but there are no seeding instructions spelled out in out rulebook for some reason. Last year was the first year using MyFantasyLeague. Before that we used FLM and a web site I put together.

Enough background, here is the issue......

While using FLM in 2004, division winners got the 1st round bye, and I seeded the remaining 2 teams, in that division, #2 and #3, keeping all division teams on the same side of the bracket. Like the NFL.

Then the switch to MyFantasyLeagues.com happened last year, 2005 season. Since the seeded was not in the rulebook, I somehow did not seed the same way, for reasons that I have no clue. I left the division winners with byes, but I put the other 4 teams in a pool and seeded them based on record, using the following tiebreakers (which are the same tiebreakers used to determine the playoff teams);

Level 1 Head-to-Head

Level 2 Division Record

Level 3 Total Points Scored

Level 4 Most Salary Cap Money remaining

Level 5 Coin Flip

I did not take into account the divisional split that we had the previous years. No one noticed, I issued the payouts at the end of the year accordingly and we went on our way.

2006 season. Recently, I sent an email a week before the playoffs, stating all the playoff scenarios and a description of how the seeding works. I use the previous year's format just because that is the way I did it the year before. Once again with no complaints or issues from any of the owners.

Now, one week into the playoffs, one of the Division winners pointed out that I have done the seeding wrong and that I should fix it.

As the commissioner, I feel that changing this mid-stream, after the 1st round of playoffs are completed and the results are known, is not the way to handle this.

Obviously I can't ask for a vote because there are 8 teams involved in the 1st round of the SB and TB and their own agendas could sway their true stance on this issue, and I can't let a 4 person minority determine their fate. This decision will directly seal the fate of 4 of those 8, and my team is one of them, so even though I believe changing in mid stream is wrong, I need to be fair so that the teams in the league don't think my stance on this is being reflected by my Playoff survival.

I plan on sharing your point of view with everyone before making any decisions.

I am in a nasty little pickle here and I didn't know what else to do.

 
Any time you as commish rule in favor of yourself, it's going to raise eyebrows regardless of whether or not it's right. Anyway, I always say once rules, scheduling, etc. are set, you don't change them.

 
2006 season. Recently, I sent an email a week before the playoffs, stating all the playoff scenarios and a description of how the seeding works. I use the previous year's format just because that is the way I did it the year before. Once again with no complaints or issues from any of the owners.

Now, one week into the playoffs, one of the Division winners pointed out that I have done the seeding wrong and that I should fix it.
(1) You have no explicit rules on the books about seeding(2) You sent an email to the league describing how they would be seeded, in effect defining the rules, before the playoffs began

(3) If I understand correctly you are now being asked to change those rules, after week 1 is in the books

In your case I would argue that the email you sent was the rule clarification and without any debate from the league before the playoffs began became the defacto rule for this year...if its wrong/bad that issue should be raised during next years rule review period where you will make sure to add an explicit rule about seeding to the rulebook...good luck...

 
Yeah you can't change it now that the playoffs have started. No-one complained before hand about the seedings and it appears they had ample opportunity to do so. I'd stick with the initial seedings and any changes for 2007 can be addressed in the off-season.

 
2006 season. Recently, I sent an email a week before the playoffs, stating all the playoff scenarios and a description of how the seeding works. I use the previous year's format just because that is the way I did it the year before. Once again with no complaints or issues from any of the owners.

Now, one week into the playoffs, one of the Division winners pointed out that I have done the seeding wrong and that I should fix it.
(1) You have no explicit rules on the books about seeding(2) You sent an email to the league describing how they would be seeded, in effect defining the rules, before the playoffs began

(3) If I understand correctly you are now being asked to change those rules, after week 1 is in the books

In your case I would argue that the email you sent was the rule clarification and without any debate from the league before the playoffs began became the defacto rule for this year...if its wrong/bad that issue should be raised during next years rule review period where you will make sure to add an explicit rule about seeding to the rulebook...good luck...
yeah but he sent it out a week before, and it was playoff scenarios, not actual playoff seeds. owners took his word for it cause he's the commish. it's the commish's responsibility to make sure those are done right.seeding should be set to what the "right" way is, regardless of whether it seals your fate or not. would you have dressed a different lineup based on what seed you were? the answer is most likely no, so seeding should be changed to the right way and then played out from there.

you are in a HUGE conflict of interest here and should not even be the one ruling on this. an owner could in fact accuse you of manipulating the system so that it got you in and in the hopes that nobody would notice. I'm not saying you did that, but I've seen some crazy owners and ideas during my tenure as a commish of multiple leagues.

i know most people may not agree with me here, but the fact that you as the commish made the mistake, and then on top of that it benefits your team, jeez, that's not right. you should do the right thing and set it to what the proper and right way is.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
here is the exact email i sent out to the league reagrding the playoff picture and seeding. Just so you can see the exact bit of info that everyone was about to read.....

Well, we are almost there. The playoffs! Below is the scenarios for every team to make the playoffs!

1) Tiebreakers...

Level 1 Head-to-Head

Level 2 Division Record

Level 3 Total Points Scored

Level 4 Most Salary Cap Money remaining

Level 5 Coin Flip

2) Division winners have a 1st round bye and get the #1 and #2 seed based on Record, Tiebreakers will be determined from the above information.

3) The 2nd and 3rd place teams in EACH division will be put together and seeded 3-6 based on Record, with the same tiebreaker scenarios listed above.

4) All seeds above will be placed on the Playoff Brackets that are on the web site as of now.

Shiner Bock Division

Finger Lickin' - With a win he will be division champs and receive a 1st round Bye. With a loss he still makes the playoffs based on a level 1 or 2 tiebreaker.

Big Dogs - with a win and a BLTs and Finger Lickin loss, Big Dogs will win the division. With a loss, the Big Dogs will lose a level 3 tiebreaker with the Muskies, so if the Big Dogs lose, they need the BLTs to lose as well.

BLTs - Can win the division if they win and Finger and big Dogs both lose. If the BLTs win, they make the playoffs. if they lose, they will need help from Big Dogs and Finger to make the playoffs.

Muskies - Muskies must win and the BLTs must lose to make the playoffs.

MITs - Mathematically eliminated from the playoffs

Night Hawks - Mathematically eliminated from the playoffs

Pete's Wicked Ale Division

Lepers - win or loss, he will be division champ in the Pete's Division. He will be getting a 1st round bye in the playoffs.

NADs - Win or loss, he will be the 2nd in the division and secured a spot in the Super Bowl Playoffs

TPC - A win solidifies the 3rd in the division and a playoff spot. A loss opens the door for the Champs only if they beat the Piss Boys.

Champs - Champs must win and TPC must lose for the Champs to make the playoffs.

Piss Boys - Almost mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. TPC loss and PissBoys win, leaves both at 6-7 with a Div record of 5-5, They split 1-1 on heads up, so a 3rd level Tie Breaker is needed, Total Points. PissBoys must win, TPC must lose and PissBoys must gain 39 or more points on TPC, to make the playoffs.

Softball Legends - Mathematically eliminated from the playoffs.

 
pinda raised an important question...what is the owners concern?

(a) that you seeded the 6 teams wrong?

(b) that you organized the playoff brackets wrong?

© that you incorrectly computed the seeds?

If it's (a) then I assume he's griping about the tiebreakers in which case (assuming you applied them correctly) I stand by my assessment above

If it's (b) then I assume he's griping about the bracket you created and assuming it was clear on the website you mention in item #4, I also stand by my assessment above

Only in case © would I say you have an error that needs to be resolved by changing the seeds...

Otherwise this email summarized the tiebreakers, means of determining seeds, and references the bracket that will be used...again, you clarified the rule and once the playoffs began it should stand until next year when it can be changed...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pinda raised an important question...what is the owners concern?(a) that you seeded the 6 teams wrong?(b) that you organized the playoff brackets wrong?© that you incorrectly computed the seeds?If it's (a) then I assume he's griping about the tiebreakers in which case (assuming you applied them correctly) I stand by my assessment aboveIf it's (b) then I assume he's griping about the bracket you created and assuming it was clear on the website you mention in item #4, I also stand by my assessment aboveOnly in case © would I say you have an error that needs to be resolved by changing the seeds...Otherwise this email summarized the tiebreakers, means of determining seeds, and references the bracket that will be used...again, you clarified the rule and once the playoffs began it should stand until next year when it can be changed...
code i agree with your assessment, this situation is murky and needs further explanation, cause I was under the assumption that he sent out a tiebreaker process then did not follow it and let the games play out.however, if the tiebreaker scenario was put out the week before, and then followed, hmm, that's a pretty grey issue and you could go either way on this one.if you applied the tiebreakers correctly, and they are mad about the way that was done but you were correct, then leave it as is.if the bracket is wrong, that means you calculated the seeding wrong, and the tiebreakers are wrong, then you must change it back to what the right way is supposed to be.after reading code's 2nd post and looking back at your original posts, correct me if i'm wrong here but is it that you are using last year's tiebreaker, but the tiebreaker that was used last year was not the correct one? meaning before you guys started using MFL there was some other tiebreaker in place? but since you started to use MFL you did something different, and then this year you just followed last year's model?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You sent out that email ahead of time, which reads pretty clear to me. And the tiebreaking process looks fair.

Also, as far as we know, only 1 person is complaining - which may mean the other 11 are happy with it?

I don't get why you don't keep the divisions separate in the playoff brackets. I'm curious what your reasoning is on this one.

I think what I would do is explain that the seeding logic was given in advance - giving everyone plenty of time to read it and understand it before the playoffs started - and it would be strange at least to change it now that the playoffs have already started. But you could put this up for a vote now, and I wouldn't worry about hidden agendas too much. The division winners already have their byes, and that's the main advantage of the seeding. Shuffling the 3-6 seeds won't matter too much, unless this guy complaining is angling for some specific matchup, in which case he would probably be voted down.

The most important thing to do is to open the process up for debate in the offseason and have the league vote on your playoff/seeding system. You really shouldn't be deciding the rules for seeding on your own - especially when they're counterintuitive.

 
This league has beet together since 1991. We adopted a conference and playoff system un 1998. in 98-2004 we did seed teams by confernces like the nfl.

So yes i seeded them wrong. the issue is, last year, when we went to a full online service like myfantasyleague.com, somehow i screwed up and seeded the teams by the way i described and not the way we used to, basically because it was not on the rule book.

so the senarios is that i did itthe way i did last year even though last year was wrong. Obviously i didnt know that until just a few days ago someone decided to say something.

the issue with me, even if i was not involved, is changing the seeding after results of the 1st round are known.

What do you think?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now, one week into the playoffs, one of the Division winners pointed out that I have done the seeding wrong and that I should fix it.
I think I didn't grasp this at first. If you're one week into the playoffs, then the other 4 teams have already played their games? I don't see how you can go back and change the seedings now - that's gotta make people really unhappy. The time for this guy to complain was before the playoffs started, not after.
 
so the senarios is that i did itthe way i did last year even though last year was wrong. Obviously i didnt know that until just a few days ago someone decided to say something.
So the owners complaint is that the new bracket, while the same as last year and as you defined in an email to the league to clarify the rulebook, is not the same as it was two years ago?...in that case I say, you published what the bracket would be this year and no concerns were raised, further the bracket is based on the 2005 precedent...so the current brackets stand for '06...I would follow up this "ruling" with the olive branch to review/revisit the rules for 2007...
 
so the senarios is that i did itthe way i did last year even though last year was wrong. Obviously i didnt know that until just a few days ago someone decided to say something.
So the owners complaint is that the new bracket, while the same as last year and as you defined in an email to the league to clarify the rulebook, is not the same as it was two years ago?...in that case I say, you published what the bracket would be this year and no concerns were raised, further the bracket is based on the 2005 precedent...so the current brackets stand for '06...I would follow up this "ruling" with the olive branch to review/revisit the rules for 2007...
yup i agree, now that it is clarified, if you used the same tiebreaker as last year and it just happens to be that the last 2 years have not been the same as the tiebreaker 3 years ago is irrelevant. the time to complain wasn't even last week, or the week before, it was last year once the tiebreaker was changed. if you are using the same tiebreaker as last year, then you are doing the right thing and it should be left as is.
 
Yeah you can't change it now that the playoffs have started. No-one complained before hand about the seedings and it appears they had ample opportunity to do so. I'd stick with the initial seedings and any changes for 2007 can be addressed in the off-season.
:thumbup: Live and learn.
 
This is pretty cut and dry imo.

1) You have a precedent for this system (last year's playoffs)

2) Nobody said anything before the playoffs started

Fix it next year. Do NOT think that just because it helps your team you have to automatically do something that hurts your team so it won't "look" like you're abusing your power. Cowardly owners who demand masochistic commissioners are just looking for an edge.

Do what you would have done if your team wasn't in the playoffs. If that's "leave it alone and address it next year" then that's what you do. If it makes you feel better, donate your winnings to charity if you win.

 
Yeah, this is pretty easy since there are no league rules regarding how to seat the teams.

Since you actually made the change last season and nobody complained until after the first round this year, dont change anything this year. Keep it like you set it up. There is nothing right or wrong about either seating arrangement but changing it now after using it for a year and a half would be wrong.

As far as next year goes there is all of the offseason for you and your owners to discuss a more permanent format.

 
seems like this owner that is complaining may have known this before and decided if I lose I can bring this up and if the teams were reseeded I would have won. So he kept this information in his back pocket so he had 2 chances at winning.

I say it's too late now.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top