Commissioner dilemma -- what would you have done? (1 Viewer)

[gianthater]

Hi all. I want to get an idea of what the world thinks of this.

In the league I commish, when the regular season ended, I made a mistake and ranked the playoff teams using head-to-head as the first tie breaker, instead of total points. There had been a discussion at the beginning of the year about changing it to head-to-head, but ultimately the issue was dropped. But I stupidly misremembered.

Anyway, this led to the #5 and #6 teams being reversed -- the team that should have been #5 was #6 and vice versa.

Round one of the playoffs happened with the mistake in place, and the #6 seed beat the #3 seed, while the #5 seed lost to the #4 seed. The #3 seed would have beaten the #5 seed, whom he should have been playing.

So, with the mistake in place, the #6 seed moves on to play the #2 seed and the #4 seed moves on play the #1 seed. If the seeding is retro-corrected, the #3 seed would move on to play the #2, and the team that was wrongly made the #6 would be playing the #1.

The mistake was discovered Monday night after MNF ended and the results of round 1 were in. And now the brackets are totally wrong for round 2, and importantly, the #3 seed is out with no chance at the prizes. The #4 seed is alive with a guaranteed minimum of 4th place and a shot to finish 1st, when he should have been out.

Complicating the situation, in a huge way -- I was the #3 seed, and I was the one who realized the mistake and brought it to the league's attention.

If the team that got shortchanged was any team other than me, I feel the decision would be automatic -- correct the seeding and apply it so the playoffs reflect what the bylaws dictate. I'd feel bad for the #4 seec, who believed Monday night that he had moved on. But I couldn't let the #3 seed get shafted because of my mistake.

I brought the mistake to the league's attention and 3 of the 4 people who responded said they think I need to leave the mistake in place. The one who thought we should correct the mistake is not in the playoffs, but the other 3 are the 3 other teams involved. So, I felt I had to honor their thoughts, and I left the mistake in place, and now I'm out when I should still be in it.

Also, moving forward, now the #1 seed plays the #4 seed when he should be playing the #5 seed, and the #2 seed gets to play that team instead of me. If #4 beats #1 but #1 would beat #5, or if #5 loses to #2 but would beat #1, then I won't be the only team that ended up getting compromised.

All in all, it's a cluster you-know-what. The mistake was mine and therefore I decided to take the hit, but I'm interested to hear how the rest of world would have handled it.

Thanks.

 

[Maelstrom]

I think you have to leave it, and solidify in your rules that is the playoff seeding. If it was any other team but yours, or even maybe if someone else had "caught" it, you might be able to reverse it, but because of the situation it looks like, even though you are technically in the right, that you are being shady so you can continue to advance. Sorry charlie, let the chips lie where they fell for the good of the league.

 

[glumpy]

You leave it in place. You being the party who loses makes it even more sure, but had it been otherwise your only legitimate response is that once the games have been played there is no recourse. Everyone had a chance to review and correct before results were in. That chance is gone.

given that you were the one at fault, and the one who suffered--the answer is twice as definitive.

imho

eta--you being the commish this isn't really a consideration, is it? No way you can change it to your benefit....Now.

....the #3 seed is out with no chance at the prizes.

Complicating the situation, in a huge way -- I was the #3 seed

 

[BobbyLayne]

Leave it in place.

Or blow up the league.

Your call, that's why you're the Commish.

You need to be the bigger person, admit you made the mistake, accept that you are out of the playoffs, and stop trying to screw over a league mate.

Technically, yes, you should move on. But once the games begam that wondow closed. Now you're just being self-serving and seilfish. You're trying to tee it up like it's the right thing to do, but the question to ask is what's best for the league?

Do the right thing. Let it go.

ETA: typo

 

[Short Corner]

Mistake should have been brought up before the results were in. Too late now.

 

[Sudoku_in_the_Bathtub]

Leave it in place. Or blow up the league.

 

[CalBear]

The mistake was discovered Monday night after MNF ended and the results of round 1 were in. And now the brackets are totally wrong for round 2, and importantly, the #3 seed is out with no chance at the prizes. The #4 seed is alive with a guaranteed minimum of 4th place and a shot to finish 1st, when he should have been out.Complicating the situation, in a huge way -- I was the #3 seed, and I was the one who realized the mistake and brought it to the league's attention.

If the #3 seed was someone else, I'd say it's a correctable mistake up until the point that your game results are final (which you should have codified in your league rules). Monday night, it's a correctable mistake. One problem with this interpretation: the #6 seed could claim that the team he was playing might have affected his lineup decisions; if you have Calvin Johnson he might have decided to start Stafford over Ryan or something like that. But I think that's a minor effect and getting the pairings correct via your league rules takes precedence.But with the wronged team being you, I think you have to suck it up and take the loss. If you had set the pairings for another owner, that owner could be excused for not noticing that the matchups were wrong before the weekend games. But since you're the owner, it's on you for not noticing it earlier.I had an analogous situation in our in-person auction last year. I was one of two players left with significant cash when we got to our rookie auction (we auction first-round NFL rookies in a block late in the auction), and when the most desirable remaining player came up, the other guy was distracted and didn't bid, so I got the player for $3 and the auction closed. After it closed he noticed and wanted to reopen the auction so he could at least bid me up.If it were anyone else in the league, I would have said caveat emptor, a closed auction is closed. But because I was involved, I opened it up to a league vote, and it went 6-5 in favor of reopening the auction. I wound up paying $12 for the player. (It was Mark Ingram, so the joke was on me).Then at this year's auction I made it clear before we started that when an auction is closed, it's closed, and if you didn't notice the player you wanted was up for auction, too bad.As a commish you have to bend over backwards not to create the appearance of impropriety. You did the right thing.

 

[gianthater]

Leave it in place. Or blow up the league.Your call, that's why you're the Commish.You need to be the bigger person, admit you made the mistake, accept that you are out of the playoffs, and stop trying to screw over a league mate.Technically, yes, you should move on. But once the games begam that wondow closed. Now you're just being self-serving and seilfish. You're trying to tee it up like it's the right thing to do, but the question to ask is what's best for the league? Do the right thing. Let it go.ETA: typo

Did you read the pot correctly? I said I left it as is -- that was the decision I made. So you telling my I'm trying to screw a leaguemate makes no sense. I just came here to see what others would have done -- maybe this has happened to other people, etc. I'm interested to see what everyone thinks. But I already decided to take the hit before I posted.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It's RIDICULOUS to think that, as Commissioner, you have to treat your team differently. 11 teams get treated one way, and you have to punish yours so you "look" fair to everyone else? I don't understand this packmule mentality.

You should treat your team no better and no worse than any other team. That's fair. If other owners have such a suspicious eye on you that you have to always hurt your own team to maintain the integrity of the league...leave the league. They don't trust you as a person and you shouldn't be commissioner. But you should NEVER treat a team unfairly...even if it's your own.

That being said, the right thing to do is to leave it the way it is. Why? It's up to the teams involved to catch the error, too. If they didn't, then nobody caught it and the results are final. If you, as an owner, didn't bother to check your own seeding, you get what you get after the games start. Sure, it was a mistake but you should be checking your own team and seeding. if you never bothered, you have to live with the consequences. That should go for ALL teams.

But the idea that "you could reverse it for anyone else but not for your team" is so short-sighted and absurd, I'm not sure how these people function under any system where someone has power over them. It's silly to think the person with power has to prove themselves by hurting their own chances instead of simply being fair and doing what they'd do for any other team. Just silly. You'd have to be a masochist to run a league with owners like that.

 

[jon_mx]

Without any consideration for what team is whose, I would leave it in place. It was not caught by anyone until after the fact and the games played out. It is correctable, but any one of the affected teams should have discovered the mistake before the results of the game.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The mistake was discovered Monday night after MNF ended and the results of round 1 were in. And now the brackets are totally wrong for round 2, and importantly, the #3 seed is out with no chance at the prizes. The #4 seed is alive with a guaranteed minimum of 4th place and a shot to finish 1st, when he should have been out.

Complicating the situation, in a huge way -- I was the #3 seed, and I was the one who realized the mistake and brought it to the league's attention.

If the #3 seed was someone else, I'd say it's a correctable mistake up until the point that your game results are final (which you should have codified in your league rules). Monday night, it's a correctable mistake. One problem with this interpretation: the #6 seed could claim that the team he was playing might have affected his lineup decisions; if you have Calvin Johnson he might have decided to start Stafford over Ryan or something like that. But I think that's a minor effect and getting the pairings correct via your league rules takes precedence.But with the wronged team being you, I think you have to suck it up and take the loss. If you had set the pairings for another owner, that owner could be excused for not noticing that the matchups were wrong before the weekend games. But since you're the owner, it's on you for not noticing it earlier.

I had an analogous situation in our in-person auction last year. I was one of two players left with significant cash when we got to our rookie auction (we auction first-round NFL rookies in a block late in the auction), and when the most desirable remaining player came up, the other guy was distracted and didn't bid, so I got the player for $3 and the auction closed. After it closed he noticed and wanted to reopen the auction so he could at least bid me up.

If it were anyone else in the league, I would have said caveat emptor, a closed auction is closed. But because I was involved, I opened it up to a league vote, and it went 6-5 in favor of reopening the auction. I wound up paying $12 for the player. (It was Mark Ingram, so the joke was on me).

Then at this year's auction I made it clear before we started that when an auction is closed, it's closed, and if you didn't notice the player you wanted was up for auction, too bad.

As a commish you have to bend over backwards not to create the appearance of impropriety. You did the right thing.

Your league is lucky to have you. They don't have to respect you, your team never gets treated like the others and you always have to prove your innocence. They eye you like an ex con with a felony on his record and you dance the dance to prove you're above board.Seriously, did you ever think that you're actually being UNFAIR with these decisions? In your example, the bidder who dropped the ball got a second crack at a player because they had the good fortune of bidding against the league's red-headed stepchild (your team). If they had bid against a "normal" team they wouldn't have gotten a second chance. You said so yourself. Is that really fair to the other 10 teams who bid against other "normal" teams?

Or is your team the league lottery, and any dealings with them you get special privileges? Can a team negate a trade with you after it's gone through if they complain enough? Can they force you to drop a waiver wire pickup if they imply you had a special advantage? How far must you "bend" to prove you're worthy of the title of commissioner?

 

[gianthater]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. It was an unfortunate situation, but I'm glad to see what I did makes sense to people. If anyone else has a perspective, please weigh in.

Question though -- if the results in round 2 mean that different teams make the finals than would have if the mistake wasn't made, and someone complains, what's the best thing to do?

Thanks!

 

[CalBear]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. It was an unfortunate situation, but I'm glad to see what I did makes sense to people. If anyone else has a perspective, please weigh in.Question though -- if the results in round 2 mean that different teams make the finals than would have if the mistake wasn't made, and someone complains, what's the best thing to do?Thanks!

I think you play out the rest of the playoffs as if the first-round pairings were correct.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Do you have the rules documented anywhere?

 

[Alkahsu]

Leaving it as is, is the only option since the games have already been played and it appears you don't have bylaws to reference.

 

[Hooper31]

Get some feedback from league members. Make a decision and own that decision. Don't apologize for doing what you think is right. A commissioner exists because odd situations occur. Its not a position that is put in place to run a democracy.

 

[Jersey35]

The mistake was discovered Monday night after MNF ended and the results of round 1 were in. And now the brackets are totally wrong for round 2, and importantly, the #3 seed is out with no chance at the prizes. The #4 seed is alive with a guaranteed minimum of 4th place and a shot to finish 1st, when he should have been out.

Complicating the situation, in a huge way -- I was the #3 seed, and I was the one who realized the mistake and brought it to the league's attention.

If the #3 seed was someone else, I'd say it's a correctable mistake up until the point that your game results are final (which you should have codified in your league rules). Monday night, it's a correctable mistake. One problem with this interpretation: the #6 seed could claim that the team he was playing might have affected his lineup decisions; if you have Calvin Johnson he might have decided to start Stafford over Ryan or something like that. But I think that's a minor effect and getting the pairings correct via your league rules takes precedence.But with the wronged team being you, I think you have to suck it up and take the loss. If you had set the pairings for another owner, that owner could be excused for not noticing that the matchups were wrong before the weekend games. But since you're the owner, it's on you for not noticing it earlier.

I had an analogous situation in our in-person auction last year. I was one of two players left with significant cash when we got to our rookie auction (we auction first-round NFL rookies in a block late in the auction), and when the most desirable remaining player came up, the other guy was distracted and didn't bid, so I got the player for $3 and the auction closed. After it closed he noticed and wanted to reopen the auction so he could at least bid me up.

If it were anyone else in the league, I would have said caveat emptor, a closed auction is closed. But because I was involved, I opened it up to a league vote, and it went 6-5 in favor of reopening the auction. I wound up paying $12 for the player. (It was Mark Ingram, so the joke was on me).

Then at this year's auction I made it clear before we started that when an auction is closed, it's closed, and if you didn't notice the player you wanted was up for auction, too bad.

As a commish you have to bend over backwards not to create the appearance of impropriety. You did the right thing.

Your league is lucky to have you. They don't have to respect you, your team never gets treated like the others and you always have to prove your innocence. They eye you like an ex con with a felony on his record and you dance the dance to prove you're above board.Seriously, did you ever think that you're actually being UNFAIR with these decisions? In your example, the bidder who dropped the ball got a second crack at a player because they had the good fortune of bidding against the league's red-headed stepchild (your team). If they had bid against a "normal" team they wouldn't have gotten a second chance. You said so yourself. Is that really fair to the other 10 teams who bid against other "normal" teams?

Or is your team the league lottery, and any dealings with them you get special privileges? Can a team negate a trade with you after it's gone through if they complain enough? Can they force you to drop a waiver wire pickup if they imply you had a special advantage? How far must you "bend" to prove you're worthy of the title of commissioner?

Its pretty apparent that there is a lot you don't understand about human interaction, trust building, and how best to use the power and trust people voluntarily give you.

 

[CalBear]

Or is your team the league lottery, and any dealings with them you get special privileges? Can a team negate a trade with you after it's gone through if they complain enough? Can they force you to drop a waiver wire pickup if they imply you had a special advantage? How far must you "bend" to prove you're worthy of the title of commissioner?

Commissioner is a position of power, and whenever you're in a position of power, you have a responsibility to not abuse that power. To avoid accusations of abuse of power, you have to avoid creating the implication of abuse of power. If you're the boss, you can't schtoop your secretary, so if you want to schtoop the secretary, don't take the job as her boss. Is it unfair to the boss that he doesn't get a fair shot at schtooping the secretary? Maybe, but that's part of his responsibility as the boss.A high-level administrator at Cal was caught having an extramarital affair with someone who worked for her. The guy had gotten a number of raises over a several-year period. Other people who worked for her also got raises, but the appearance of impropriety was enough; she was fired.If you're the board of directors of Hostess, it looks really bad when you fire all the workers and give yourselves bonuses. It might be "fair" in some abstract way, but it's wrong.

 

[Quibbler]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. It was an unfortunate situation, but I'm glad to see what I did makes sense to people. If anyone else has a perspective, please weigh in.

Question though -- if the results in round 2 mean that different teams make the finals than would have if the mistake wasn't made, and someone complains, what's the best thing to do?

Thanks!

Just make sure everyone in your league (or at least in the playoffs) agrees now (i.e. before this weeks games start) that the current seeding is final. Since you've already played one round based on the incorrect seeding, it's too late to re-seed the teams, IMO. You screwed up, but fortunately it really only hurt your team. So nobody else should really object to the current seeding.

 

[Hopeless Lions Fan]

The right thing to do it quit, cause you suck as a commish.

 

[Pipes]

The right thing to do it quit, cause you suck as a commish.

 

[jerry jones]

See...now i think you should change the results, so you made a mistake in the bracketing...big deal. It doesn't change what each team scored. The league i play in while someone MIGHT be unhappy they would all certainly support an honest mistake being changed, but we all have been in this league for 14+ years, so maybe that's different.

It's a couple thousand at stake to win though...

I dunno...just my opinion

 

[Pantherz]

There is one major problem with changing it after the games have been played. A less than trustworthy person could see the mistake before the games started, but then wait for the results before they decide whether or not to bring it up. Hence they would get two shots at winning.

 

[socrates]

There is one major problem with changing it after the games have been played. A less than trustworthy person could see the mistake before the games started, but then wait for the results before they decide whether or not to bring it up. Hence they would get two shots at winning.

Agreed. Moreover, owners adjust their starting rosters based on their opponent (i.e. inserting a higher-risk, higher-ceiling player in a more difficult matchup), so changing the results now is not a very good option. I would suggest polling your league members for their opinion on bracketing moving forward, but if there is no consensus, I would proceed in accordance with the first round as it was played and (presumably) allowed.

 

[Ray_T]

Hi all. I want to get an idea of what the world thinks of this.In the league I commish, when the regular season ended, I made a mistake and ranked the playoff teams using head-to-head as the first tie breaker, instead of total points. There had been a discussion at the beginning of the year about changing it to head-to-head, but ultimately the issue was dropped. But I stupidly misremembered.Anyway, this led to the #5 and #6 teams being reversed -- the team that should have been #5 was #6 and vice versa. Round one of the playoffs happened with the mistake in place, and the #6 seed beat the #3 seed, while the #5 seed lost to the #4 seed. The #3 seed would have beaten the #5 seed, whom he should have been playing. So, with the mistake in place, the #6 seed moves on to play the #2 seed and the #4 seed moves on play the #1 seed. If the seeding is retro-corrected, the #3 seed would move on to play the #2, and the team that was wrongly made the #6 would be playing the #1. The mistake was discovered Monday night after MNF ended and the results of round 1 were in. And now the brackets are totally wrong for round 2, and importantly, the #3 seed is out with no chance at the prizes. The #4 seed is alive with a guaranteed minimum of 4th place and a shot to finish 1st, when he should have been out.Complicating the situation, in a huge way -- I was the #3 seed, and I was the one who realized the mistake and brought it to the league's attention. If the team that got shortchanged was any team other than me, I feel the decision would be automatic -- correct the seeding and apply it so the playoffs reflect what the bylaws dictate. I'd feel bad for the #4 seec, who believed Monday night that he had moved on. But I couldn't let the #3 seed get shafted because of my mistake.I brought the mistake to the league's attention and 3 of the 4 people who responded said they think I need to leave the mistake in place. The one who thought we should correct the mistake is not in the playoffs, but the other 3 are the 3 other teams involved. So, I felt I had to honor their thoughts, and I left the mistake in place, and now I'm out when I should still be in it.Also, moving forward, now the #1 seed plays the #4 seed when he should be playing the #5 seed, and the #2 seed gets to play that team instead of me. If #4 beats #1 but #1 would beat #5, or if #5 loses to #2 but would beat #1, then I won't be the only team that ended up getting compromised. All in all, it's a cluster you-know-what. The mistake was mine and therefore I decided to take the hit, but I'm interested to hear how the rest of world would have handled it.Thanks.

I think you gotta let it go. As it was your mistake in the first place. Leave it and fix for next year.Fixing now would give the appearance of unfairness (because you are effectively preventing yourself from being eliminated from the playoffs) In this case, what you are doing is precedent setting, so you need to tread carefully.You could choose to put it to a vote (effectively taking it out of your own hands) to prevent yourself from looking like you are changing the rules to suit your own needs, but if it were me, I'd say it's my own fault, let the playoffs run their course and fix the settings for next year.and explain the mistake in an email to the league and how you resolved it. Probably necessary as some may question it.

 

[HurryUpSundays]

That sucks, man.

I agree with the SP, gotta let it go, lick your wounds and tighten up the rules and regs for next season.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The mistake was discovered Monday night after MNF ended and the results of round 1 were in. And now the brackets are totally wrong for round 2, and importantly, the #3 seed is out with no chance at the prizes. The #4 seed is alive with a guaranteed minimum of 4th place and a shot to finish 1st, when he should have been out.

Complicating the situation, in a huge way -- I was the #3 seed, and I was the one who realized the mistake and brought it to the league's attention.

If the #3 seed was someone else, I'd say it's a correctable mistake up until the point that your game results are final (which you should have codified in your league rules). Monday night, it's a correctable mistake. One problem with this interpretation: the #6 seed could claim that the team he was playing might have affected his lineup decisions; if you have Calvin Johnson he might have decided to start Stafford over Ryan or something like that. But I think that's a minor effect and getting the pairings correct via your league rules takes precedence.But with the wronged team being you, I think you have to suck it up and take the loss. If you had set the pairings for another owner, that owner could be excused for not noticing that the matchups were wrong before the weekend games. But since you're the owner, it's on you for not noticing it earlier.

I had an analogous situation in our in-person auction last year. I was one of two players left with significant cash when we got to our rookie auction (we auction first-round NFL rookies in a block late in the auction), and when the most desirable remaining player came up, the other guy was distracted and didn't bid, so I got the player for $3 and the auction closed. After it closed he noticed and wanted to reopen the auction so he could at least bid me up.

If it were anyone else in the league, I would have said caveat emptor, a closed auction is closed. But because I was involved, I opened it up to a league vote, and it went 6-5 in favor of reopening the auction. I wound up paying $12 for the player. (It was Mark Ingram, so the joke was on me).

Then at this year's auction I made it clear before we started that when an auction is closed, it's closed, and if you didn't notice the player you wanted was up for auction, too bad.

As a commish you have to bend over backwards not to create the appearance of impropriety. You did the right thing.

Your league is lucky to have you. They don't have to respect you, your team never gets treated like the others and you always have to prove your innocence. They eye you like an ex con with a felony on his record and you dance the dance to prove you're above board.Seriously, did you ever think that you're actually being UNFAIR with these decisions? In your example, the bidder who dropped the ball got a second crack at a player because they had the good fortune of bidding against the league's red-headed stepchild (your team). If they had bid against a "normal" team they wouldn't have gotten a second chance. You said so yourself. Is that really fair to the other 10 teams who bid against other "normal" teams?

Or is your team the league lottery, and any dealings with them you get special privileges? Can a team negate a trade with you after it's gone through if they complain enough? Can they force you to drop a waiver wire pickup if they imply you had a special advantage? How far must you "bend" to prove you're worthy of the title of commissioner?

Its pretty apparent that there is a lot you don't understand about human interaction, trust building, and how best to use the power and trust people voluntarily give you.

If you think hurting your team and penalizing it in a way you would never do to a different team is necessary in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety...you're right. I do not understand the humans you interact with, nor the methods by which you build trust with them. Rather than enable people who demand unfair advantages (by you putting your own team at a disadvantage) I choose to have commissioners treat their teams EXACTLY as they would treat any other. If someone wants more than that, they are the ones in the wrong. Trust is not "guilty until proven innocent" and "bend over backwards to prove there's no advantage." It's being fair and treating all teams equally. All teams-- not 11 out of 12.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Or is your team the league lottery, and any dealings with them you get special privileges? Can a team negate a trade with you after it's gone through if they complain enough? Can they force you to drop a waiver wire pickup if they imply you had a special advantage? How far must you "bend" to prove you're worthy of the title of commissioner?

Commissioner is a position of power, and whenever you're in a position of power, you have a responsibility to not abuse that power. To avoid accusations of abuse of power, you have to avoid creating the implication of abuse of power. If you're the boss, you can't schtoop your secretary, so if you want to schtoop the secretary, don't take the job as her boss. Is it unfair to the boss that he doesn't get a fair shot at schtooping the secretary? Maybe, but that's part of his responsibility as the boss.A high-level administrator at Cal was caught having an extramarital affair with someone who worked for her. The guy had gotten a number of raises over a several-year period. Other people who worked for her also got raises, but the appearance of impropriety was enough; she was fired.If you're the board of directors of Hostess, it looks really bad when you fire all the workers and give yourselves bonuses. It might be "fair" in some abstract way, but it's wrong.

Your first sentence makes complete sense...and then you completely abandon it. Yes, you have a responsibility to not abuse your power. You do NOT have a responsibility to hurt your team in order to prove you're not abusing that power. A commissioner is a team owner. They're allowed to try and win, and do everything a regular owner can do. If someone accuses a commish of cheating, they'd better be right. The commish can't be on perpetual probation, constantly proving they're hurting their teams to make sure they're being fair. You either trust the commish or you don't. If they're not trustworthy, replace them or quit the league. But a commish should never feel guilty for trying to win, and taking advantage of anything a regular owner could do.In your example with the bidding, you did something to punish a team that you wouldn't have done to any other team. It doesn't matter that you're the owner of that team. You weren't fair to all owners. You treat 11 teams one way...and one a different way. That's not fair, and-- excuse me for saying so-- a sign of a poor commissioner. If you have to constantly prove yourself by hurting your team, you're doing a poor job of managing the league. Unless you're just a shady guy and they have good reason to suspect you're a cheater. But I don't think that's the case here. I think you're a completely honest, above-board, weak commissioner. I would never accept or tolerate a commissioner using their commissioner powers to help their team. That's unfair. But using that same power to hurt a team? Equally unfair. "You have to do something to your team you would never to another team to avoid the appearance of being unfair" makes absolutely no sense. I guess having a commish like that would be good because you could push them around (like when they put something dumb like the bidding issue to a league vote, you can vote to screw them over) but I don't think it's good for the league. I'm completely in favor of a commissioner being fair. I just don't see how being purposely unfair to your own team somehow makes you look fair.

 

[voiceofunreason]

Hi all. I want to get an idea of what the world thinks of this.In the league I commish, when the regular season ended, I made a mistake and ranked the playoff teams using head-to-head as the first tie breaker, instead of total points. There had been a discussion at the beginning of the year about changing it to head-to-head, but ultimately the issue was dropped. But I stupidly misremembered.Anyway, this led to the #5 and #6 teams being reversed -- the team that should have been #5 was #6 and vice versa. Round one of the playoffs happened with the mistake in place, and the #6 seed beat the #3 seed, while the #5 seed lost to the #4 seed. The #3 seed would have beaten the #5 seed, whom he should have been playing. So, with the mistake in place, the #6 seed moves on to play the #2 seed and the #4 seed moves on play the #1 seed. If the seeding is retro-corrected, the #3 seed would move on to play the #2, and the team that was wrongly made the #6 would be playing the #1. The mistake was discovered Monday night after MNF ended and the results of round 1 were in. And now the brackets are totally wrong for round 2, and importantly, the #3 seed is out with no chance at the prizes. The #4 seed is alive with a guaranteed minimum of 4th place and a shot to finish 1st, when he should have been out.Complicating the situation, in a huge way -- I was the #3 seed, and I was the one who realized the mistake and brought it to the league's attention. If the team that got shortchanged was any team other than me, I feel the decision would be automatic -- correct the seeding and apply it so the playoffs reflect what the bylaws dictate. I'd feel bad for the #4 seec, who believed Monday night that he had moved on. But I couldn't let the #3 seed get shafted because of my mistake.I brought the mistake to the league's attention and 3 of the 4 people who responded said they think I need to leave the mistake in place. The one who thought we should correct the mistake is not in the playoffs, but the other 3 are the 3 other teams involved. So, I felt I had to honor their thoughts, and I left the mistake in place, and now I'm out when I should still be in it.Also, moving forward, now the #1 seed plays the #4 seed when he should be playing the #5 seed, and the #2 seed gets to play that team instead of me. If #4 beats #1 but #1 would beat #5, or if #5 loses to #2 but would beat #1, then I won't be the only team that ended up getting compromised. All in all, it's a cluster you-know-what. The mistake was mine and therefore I decided to take the hit, but I'm interested to hear how the rest of world would have handled it.Thanks.

Sounds like you're looking for permission to let yourself win. You can't change the results afterwards no matter what. It was a mistake, and it's over.

 

[bizkliz]

Leave it in place. Or blow up the league.

yes. this.-biz-

 

[jomar]

I'm completely in favor of a commissioner being fair. I just don't see how being purposely unfair to your own team somehow makes you look fair.

I was a commish for 15 years. In cases where there was no precedent, I wouldn't set one that benefited my team even if I would have for any other team. You cannot give even the appearance of impropriety.

 

[Sea Duck]

If it was any other team besides you that was affected, then I would change the playoff results and reinstate the #3 seed. It wouldn't be that difficult to do.

It's no different than applying a stat correction.

 

[CalBear]

Commissioner is a position of power, and whenever you're in a position of power, you have a responsibility to not abuse that power. To avoid accusations of abuse of power, you have to avoid creating the implication of abuse of power. If you're the boss, you can't schtoop your secretary, so if you want to schtoop the secretary, don't take the job as her boss. Is it unfair to the boss that he doesn't get a fair shot at schtooping the secretary? Maybe, but that's part of his responsibility as the boss.A high-level administrator at Cal was caught having an extramarital affair with someone who worked for her. The guy had gotten a number of raises over a several-year period. Other people who worked for her also got raises, but the appearance of impropriety was enough; she was fired.If you're the board of directors of Hostess, it looks really bad when you fire all the workers and give yourselves bonuses. It might be "fair" in some abstract way, but it's wrong.

Your first sentence makes complete sense...and then you completely abandon it. Yes, you have a responsibility to not abuse your power. You do NOT have a responsibility to hurt your team in order to prove you're not abusing that power. ...I'm completely in favor of a commissioner being fair. I just don't see how being purposely unfair to your own team somehow makes you look fair.

What is fair in a previously undefined situation is a matter of interpretation. If you're the one providing that interpretation, and you have personal involvement, you need to either recuse yourself (as a judge would do), or bend over backwards to make sure there's no way your actions can be interpreted as biased. As I said, that's part of your responsibility for being in a leadership position, and if you don't like it, you shouldn't be in a leadership position. (Like most U.S. CEOs).

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I'm completely in favor of a commissioner being fair. I just don't see how being purposely unfair to your own team somehow makes you look fair.

I was a commish for 15 years. In cases where there was no precedent, I wouldn't set one that benefited my team even if I would have for any other team. You cannot give even the appearance of impropriety.

In this example the guy said if it was any other team, he would have reversed it. In other words, he used his best judgment with other teams...and his second-best judgment with his own team. That's either a poor commissioner, a naive team owner or both. Not sure how it could be any other way.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Commissioner is a position of power, and whenever you're in a position of power, you have a responsibility to not abuse that power. To avoid accusations of abuse of power, you have to avoid creating the implication of abuse of power. If you're the boss, you can't schtoop your secretary, so if you want to schtoop the secretary, don't take the job as her boss. Is it unfair to the boss that he doesn't get a fair shot at schtooping the secretary? Maybe, but that's part of his responsibility as the boss.A high-level administrator at Cal was caught having an extramarital affair with someone who worked for her. The guy had gotten a number of raises over a several-year period. Other people who worked for her also got raises, but the appearance of impropriety was enough; she was fired.If you're the board of directors of Hostess, it looks really bad when you fire all the workers and give yourselves bonuses. It might be "fair" in some abstract way, but it's wrong.

Your first sentence makes complete sense...and then you completely abandon it. Yes, you have a responsibility to not abuse your power. You do NOT have a responsibility to hurt your team in order to prove you're not abusing that power. ...I'm completely in favor of a commissioner being fair. I just don't see how being purposely unfair to your own team somehow makes you look fair.

What is fair in a previously undefined situation is a matter of interpretation. If you're the one providing that interpretation, and you have personal involvement, you need to either recuse yourself (as a judge would do), or bend over backwards to make sure there's no way your actions can be interpreted as biased. As I said, that's part of your responsibility for being in a leadership position, and if you don't like it, you shouldn't be in a leadership position. (Like most U.S. CEOs).

He knew what he would have done if it was any other team. He knew the "right" things to do in his opinion. He interpreted it to the best of his ability...and then reversed course out of fear he would have the "appearance of impropriety." He purposely did the wrong thing because he was afraid to do the right thing. That's weakness. Nobody will complain because he's only hurting himself. Still weakness.Your actions in the bidding situation were biased-- against your own team. Maybe you think that's okay (and I'm sure the other owners are thrilled when you get guilted into it) but you are, by definition, not being fair to all teams. And your CEO example is a poor analogy because they aren't in competition with their employees. They manage them. No CEO would ever tell you he or she purposely makes what they think is the wrong decision out of fear it will be criticized. If they do, they're a weak CEO. By the way, CEOs shouldn't sleep with their employees. They did wrong, unlike the commissioner in this example. If a commissioner makes a lopsided trade with their spouse, they're shady, too. But if a commish is willing to do what they think is wrong so they can "appear fair," I'm not sure what to call it besides weakness. And contrary to some opinions in this thread, it is neither an effective management style nor a way to build authentic trust. In fact, I would argue the opposite-- it teaches others that your honesty is subject to question whenever they want, and it's up to you to prove it to everyone's satisfaction. I believe that is the opposite of trust. If you have to keep hurting your team to continue proving how fair you are...they don't trust you. Otherwise you could treat your team, like, you know, a team.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

Some people are taking the retroactive change of a playoff result far too lightly.

If I were the team getting knocked out of the playoffs after the hypothetical seeding change, I would quit the league. It is that severe. No way could you justify giving team #3 two cracks at the win even if it weren't your own team. As it was your team, the conflict of interest is undeniable. You made the right call but in my opinion you would have made the wrong call in a big way for any other team. What if the mistake was discovered after the week 15 games? Would you still go back and make everything "right"? What if the team pointing out the mistake benefits from fixing the mistake? Would they have pointed it out if the mistake favored them? Once the games start it is too late to change the seeding. I nearly quit my league this year when the commissioner meddled with and ultimately cancelled a trade I made because bad news came out about one of the players the day AFTER we made the trade. That was too late. If the news had been reversed, I would have been stuck with the bad side myself but as it was the other guy got a free chance to see what the news would be and reverse the trade when it turned out bad for him. Reversing a playoff result is this times a hundred. I cannot stress enough the importance of timing on these things. Retroactive changes are terrible and should be avoided at all costs.

 

[socrates]

We have a rule that sets time parameters to challenge any action of the Commissioner, and this would clearly fall outside of that time frame. You published the playoff bracket. That was the time for anyone to raise an objection. Since nobody timely objected to the improper seedlings, those are the seedlings you should proceed with for the entire duration of the playoffs.

 

[GregR]

I'm completely in favor of a commissioner being fair. I just don't see how being purposely unfair to your own team somehow makes you look fair.

I was a commish for 15 years. In cases where there was no precedent, I wouldn't set one that benefited my team even if I would have for any other team. You cannot give even the appearance of impropriety.

In this example the guy said if it was any other team, he would have reversed it. In other words, he used his best judgment with other teams...and his second-best judgment with his own team. That's either a poor commissioner, a naive team owner or both. Not sure how it could be any other way.

If it was any other team, the other owner would not have been in a situation that he could "accidentally" use the wrong playoff tiebreaker, so that if he lost but would have beat his correct opponent he could suddenly pull that fact out right after results are done in an attempt to win.Note: I'm not at all saying the OP did this intentionally. I'm saying it is entirely reasonable for a league to have doubts that it could have been done intentionally. You say he is treating his team differently because he didn't treat them like a team who lacks the power to abuse this situation. I say he is treating his team how any team would be treated who had such power and found himself in this situation.Let's say the commish is off dealing with a child in the hospital or something like that, and someone else comes up with the tiebreakers for him during his absence. The commish is not even in the playoffs, and that other owner who "helped" him did the seedings wrong and then points it out after he's lost when correcting it will help his team.As commish, I would not reverse the seedings in such a hypothetical. I would come up with the same result if the situation was the exact same for a non-commish team. The difference is when the OP says "he'd have done it for any other team" you're treating it like those other teams are in the same situation his team is in. They definitely are not. Those other teams lack the ability to willingly misapply the rules to gain unfair advantage. If they did, they would lose the benefit of the doubt as well.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I'm completely in favor of a commissioner being fair. I just don't see how being purposely unfair to your own team somehow makes you look fair.

I was a commish for 15 years. In cases where there was no precedent, I wouldn't set one that benefited my team even if I would have for any other team. You cannot give even the appearance of impropriety.

In this example the guy said if it was any other team, he would have reversed it. In other words, he used his best judgment with other teams...and his second-best judgment with his own team. That's either a poor commissioner, a naive team owner or both. Not sure how it could be any other way.

If it was any other team, the other owner would not have been in a situation that he could "accidentally" use the wrong playoff tiebreaker, so that if he lost but would have beat his correct opponent he could suddenly pull that fact out right after results are done in an attempt to win.Note: I'm not at all saying the OP did this intentionally. I'm saying it is entirely reasonable for a league to have doubts that it could have been done intentionally. You say he is treating his team differently because he didn't treat them like a team who lacks the power to abuse this situation. I say he is treating his team how any team would be treated who had such power and found himself in this situation.Let's say the commish is off dealing with a child in the hospital or something like that, and someone else comes up with the tiebreakers for him during his absence. The commish is not even in the playoffs, and that other owner who "helped" him did the seedings wrong and then points it out after he's lost when correcting it will help his team.As commish, I would not reverse the seedings in such a hypothetical. I would come up with the same result if the situation was the exact same for a non-commish team. The difference is when the OP says "he'd have done it for any other team" you're treating it like those other teams are in the same situation his team is in. They definitely are not. Those other teams lack the ability to willingly misapply the rules to gain unfair advantage. If they did, they would lose the benefit of the doubt as well.

Explain again why the commish has automatically lost the benefit of the doubt? What has he done in his history as commish to raise such suspicions? This isn't a server at a restaurant or a stranger you hired to grout your tub. It's someone you know, possibly a friend, but someone who you don't think is a cheater (otherwise I'd assume you'd have left the league).The commish didn't cheat. The commish knows he didn't cheat. You're saying that because he *could have* cheated (being commish), he's obligated to hurt his own team and rule differently than he would have for every other team? Seriously?You said "I say he is treating his team how any team would be treated who had such power and found himself in this situation." Are you saying that you would automatically assume that the commish-- someone you know and never suspected of cheating-- is now a cheater? And if they don't prove it by hurting their own team, you'd think they were cheating?Perhaps this is what I didn't understand earlier. It seems absurd to me because I wouldn't automatically assume he's guilty. I wouldn't need him to "bend over backwards" (in reality, these guys are just bending over because they're afraid) to prove he didn't cheat. I expect the commish to be fair and treat all teams the same. That includes his own.If a league member said "I want the commish to forfeit the game or re-do the bidding because...well, he's the commish!" I'd tell them to leave the commish alone and not make accusations unless you think he's cheating. If I have no reason to suspect they're cheating and I know them, I wouldn't need them to hurt their own team to prove their innocence to me. Maybe that's what I wasn't understanding.People whine and cry about everything in our society. As a commish, I guess you can bend over and try to appease them, or you can call them out. As a commish or just as an owner I'd opt for the latter. I wouldn't play in a league where I didn't trust the commish.When you play at gaming tables, the dealer shows his hands when he exits. He doesn't re-do the hand if you whine to prove to you he's playing fairly. There's fair and there's hurting your own team to prove your innocence. I don't understand doing or demanding the latter.

 

[Jersey35]

Commissioner is a position of power, and whenever you're in a position of power, you have a responsibility to not abuse that power. To avoid accusations of abuse of power, you have to avoid creating the implication of abuse of power. If you're the boss, you can't schtoop your secretary, so if you want to schtoop the secretary, don't take the job as her boss. Is it unfair to the boss that he doesn't get a fair shot at schtooping the secretary? Maybe, but that's part of his responsibility as the boss.

A high-level administrator at Cal was caught having an extramarital affair with someone who worked for her. The guy had gotten a number of raises over a several-year period. Other people who worked for her also got raises, but the appearance of impropriety was enough; she was fired.

If you're the board of directors of Hostess, it looks really bad when you fire all the workers and give yourselves bonuses. It might be "fair" in some abstract way, but it's wrong.

Your first sentence makes complete sense...and then you completely abandon it. Yes, you have a responsibility to not abuse your power. You do NOT have a responsibility to hurt your team in order to prove you're not abusing that power. ...

I'm completely in favor of a commissioner being fair. I just don't see how being purposely unfair to your own team somehow makes you look fair.

What is fair in a previously undefined situation is a matter of interpretation. If you're the one providing that interpretation, and you have personal involvement, you need to either recuse yourself (as a judge would do), or bend over backwards to make sure there's no way your actions can be interpreted as biased. As I said, that's part of your responsibility for being in a leadership position, and if you don't like it, you shouldn't be in a leadership position. (Like most U.S. CEOs).

He knew what he would have done if it was any other team. He knew the "right" things to do in his opinion. He interpreted it to the best of his ability...and then reversed course out of fear he would have the "appearance of impropriety." He purposely did the wrong thing because he was afraid to do the right thing. That's weakness. Nobody will complain because he's only hurting himself. Still weakness.Your actions in the bidding situation were biased-- against your own team. Maybe you think that's okay (and I'm sure the other owners are thrilled when you get guilted into it) but you are, by definition, not being fair to all teams. And your CEO example is a poor analogy because they aren't in competition with their employees. They manage them. No CEO would ever tell you he or she purposely makes what they think is the wrong decision out of fear it will be criticized. If they do, they're a weak CEO.

By the way, CEOs shouldn't sleep with their employees. They did wrong, unlike the commissioner in this example. If a commissioner makes a lopsided trade with their spouse, they're shady, too. But if a commish is willing to do what they think is wrong so they can "appear fair," I'm not sure what to call it besides weakness.

And contrary to some opinions in this thread, it is neither an effective management style nor a way to build authentic trust. In fact, I would argue the opposite-- it teaches others that your honesty is subject to question whenever they want, and it's up to you to prove it to everyone's satisfaction. I believe that is the opposite of trust. If you have to keep hurting your team to continue proving how fair you are...they don't trust you.

Otherwise you could treat your team, like, you know, a team.

I don't understand why it would be wrong for a CEO to sleep with his or her employees? Everyone else would be allowed to, why should the CEO not be allowed to operate on the same playing field if he or she wants to?

 

[Sea Duck]

We have a rule that sets time parameters to challenge any action of the Commissioner, and this would clearly fall outside of that time frame. You published the playoff bracket. That was the time for anyone to raise an objection. Since nobody timely objected to the improper seedlings, those are the seedlings you should proceed with for the entire duration of the playoffs.

I disagree. There was still plenty of time to do the right thing.

 

[CalBear]

I don't understand why it would be wrong for a CEO to sleep with his or her employees? Everyone else would be allowed to, why should the CEO not be allowed to operate on the same playing field if he or she wants to?

Because he's not operating on the same playing field. He's the CEO. That's exactly the point.

 

[GregR]

...Explain again why the commish has automatically lost the benefit of the doubt?

Anyone in such a situation loses the benefit of the doubt as I said, whether commish or another owner.A) He made a mistake which benefited his team, giving himself a better seed and a worse ranked opponent.B) He is the one who points out the mistake. After results are known and his team has lost. And correcting the error will give his team a win.Seriously, you can't see how that would be something someone could easily do intentionally to try to benefit his team?Again, I'm not saying the OP did anything intentionally. I'm saying some things look so much like they could be an intentional unethical act you shouldn't expect the benefit of the doubt of a resolution in your favor when you were the one who created the situation. This is an example of such.

 

[Jersey35]

I don't understand why it would be wrong for a CEO to sleep with his or her employees? Everyone else would be allowed to, why should the CEO not be allowed to operate on the same playing field if he or she wants to?

Because he's not operating on the same playing field. He's the CEO. That's exactly the point.

Right... But I really wanted NBZ to say those words.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I don't understand why it would be wrong for a CEO to sleep with his or her employees? Everyone else would be allowed to, why should the CEO not be allowed to operate on the same playing field if he or she wants to?

Because he's not operating on the same playing field. He's the CEO. That's exactly the point.

Right... But I really wanted NBZ to say those words.

Are you serious? It's because they could get sued. This is exactly why your example is a poor one. In a fantasy football league, "the appearance of impropriety" is a catch-all for people who expect a commish to hurt their team for no proven reason. In a company, "the appearance of impropriety" could cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars. If employees were not allowed to file sexual harassment lawsuits, you wouldn't see rules against it. Not because a CEO would use his "CEO powers" to do wrong. It's because just the threat can cost six figures, whether it's true or not. On the other hand, you can't sue a league because you think something looks bad. You can cry and take your ball and run home, but that's about it. So as long as the commish is being fair, there's no reason to purposely hurt your team to prove you're not guilty of something. There's no reason why you have to hurt your team if you're being fair and honest.Now, let's use a better analogy: Suppose a company manager is also part of the sales staff. They make the exact same commission, have the same rights to prospect, and can even work a territory. They don't have to relinquish their commissions because someone else wonders if it "looks bad" that they made a big sale. They don't have to give someone else their referral because "butbutbut they're the manager!"Some companies don't want the manager to sell because they think they can make more $ having him or her motivate the staff. But if they can sell they don't have to hurt their prospects for sales. They're allowed to sell, and "win" by making money from their sales. Part of the staff might grumble because they're less successful, but that's on them. As long as the manager isn't taking leads or shorting the staff of their opportunities, there's nothing wrong with "playing the game." If they're fair, they're allowed to compete and they don't have to tank sales or give out their referrals to prove how fair they are.Same with a commish.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

...

Explain again why the commish has automatically lost the benefit of the doubt?

Anyone in such a situation loses the benefit of the doubt as I said, whether commish or another owner.A) He made a mistake which benefited his team, giving himself a better seed and a worse ranked opponent.

B) He is the one who points out the mistake. After results are known and his team has lost. And correcting the error will give his team a win.

Seriously, you can't see how that would be something someone could easily do intentionally to try to benefit his team?

Again, I'm not saying the OP did anything intentionally. I'm saying some things look so much like they could be an intentional unethical act you shouldn't expect the benefit of the doubt of a resolution in your favor when you were the one who created the situation. This is an example of such.

Your post giveth...and your post taketh away. Yes, you are saying just that. You don't trust your commish. It looks like they could have done it intentionally, so saying they didn't isn't good enough. They have to prove they didn't by doing something they wouldn't do to any other team. Then MAYBE we'll believe them. Absurd.

Ironically, I agree with you about this scenario, but for different reasons. The commish is an owner, and allowed to play and win like any other. But they also have the same responsibility to check their seeding. If they don't...too bad. The games started and whatever happens happens.

I would expect the commish to let completed games stand whether they're involved or not. But I don't expect them to treat their team differently.

There's only ONE reason someone should lose the benefit of the doubt: They haven't earned your trust. If that's the case then I think you should leave the league. But if you trust the commish and they said they didn't do it intentionally, that should be good enough.

Now, I don't play in 50 leagues so I don't know what it's like to play in a league where you don't know the commish from Adam. Maybe I'd feel differently in that situation. But I doubt I'd put myself in it. Either you trust your commish or you don't. If it's the former, they should have the benefit of the doubt without hurting their team to prove how fair they are. And, in my opinion, just because some commishes are packmules whose motto is "thank you sir, may I have another?" doesn't make it right. I wouldn't expect it from a commish I trusted.

 

[CalBear]

Now, let's use a better analogy: Suppose a company manager is also part of the sales staff. They make the exact same commission, have the same rights to prospect, and can even work a territory. They don't have to relinquish their commissions because someone else wonders if it "looks bad" that they made a big sale. They don't have to give someone else their referral because "butbutbut they're the manager!"

That's not analogous at all. We're talking about a manager who is in a position to make a judgement call which could benefit himself at the expense of one of his employees. Let's say the company has a rule that if two people are working on a sale, they split the commission, with the manager deciding which percentage goes to which employee. And the manager is one of the employees. And the decision he makes is to give himself 100% of the commission.There's a higher level of responsibility in making that call when you are personally involved than when you're not.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Hi all. I want to get an idea of what the world thinks of this.In the league I commish, when the regular season ended, I made a mistake and ranked the playoff teams using head-to-head as the first tie breaker, instead of total points. There had been a discussion at the beginning of the year about changing it to head-to-head, but ultimately the issue was dropped. But I stupidly misremembered.Anyway, this led to the #5 and #6 teams being reversed -- the team that should have been #5 was #6 and vice versa. Round one of the playoffs happened with the mistake in place, and the #6 seed beat the #3 seed, while the #5 seed lost to the #4 seed. The #3 seed would have beaten the #5 seed, whom he should have been playing. So, with the mistake in place, the #6 seed moves on to play the #2 seed and the #4 seed moves on play the #1 seed. If the seeding is retro-corrected, the #3 seed would move on to play the #2, and the team that was wrongly made the #6 would be playing the #1. The mistake was discovered Monday night after MNF ended and the results of round 1 were in. And now the brackets are totally wrong for round 2, and importantly, the #3 seed is out with no chance at the prizes. The #4 seed is alive with a guaranteed minimum of 4th place and a shot to finish 1st, when he should have been out.Complicating the situation, in a huge way -- I was the #3 seed, and I was the one who realized the mistake and brought it to the league's attention. If the team that got shortchanged was any team other than me, I feel the decision would be automatic -- correct the seeding and apply it so the playoffs reflect what the bylaws dictate. I'd feel bad for the #4 seec, who believed Monday night that he had moved on. But I couldn't let the #3 seed get shafted because of my mistake.I brought the mistake to the league's attention and 3 of the 4 people who responded said they think I need to leave the mistake in place. The one who thought we should correct the mistake is not in the playoffs, but the other 3 are the 3 other teams involved. So, I felt I had to honor their thoughts, and I left the mistake in place, and now I'm out when I should still be in it.Also, moving forward, now the #1 seed plays the #4 seed when he should be playing the #5 seed, and the #2 seed gets to play that team instead of me. If #4 beats #1 but #1 would beat #5, or if #5 loses to #2 but would beat #1, then I won't be the only team that ended up getting compromised. All in all, it's a cluster you-know-what. The mistake was mine and therefore I decided to take the hit, but I'm interested to hear how the rest of world would have handled it.Thanks.

Honestly--I think either you are being waaaay too nice or the players in your league lack moral integrity. From what you say, it sound absolutely obvious that you made an honest mistake and there was absolutely no malice intended. The NBA and NFL both rescind fouls and make statistical adjustments all of the time. It should be no different to you. Your league knew and understood the rules about playoff seeding--- these rules shouldn't change because you made a mistake inputting them. You caught the mistake with plenty of time to correct it--and it should be corrected regardless of if anybodys feelings get hurt. The problem with not fixing it is that the entire dynamic of the remaining playoffs is now contaminated. Let's say in the next round, your team would have scored 110 points--but the team that you let continue in your place scores 120--and let's assume that the team you guys would be playing against scores 115--what then? That owner could claim that if he he was playing the proper team based upon the agreed upon rules in the league--he should have won. By not sticking to the agreed upon league rules--you are opening up a Pandora's box of problems. Unless there is a stipulation in your league rules that addresses mistakes in seeding--you have to stick to the agreed upon original league rules. It honestly sounds like you are just rolling with the punches because you don't want to raise a stink--which is not what your motivation should be. You are disregarding the rules in your own league which is a far worse offense than upsetting a couple of the owners. If the other owners in your league don't understand this, then it's their morality that should be checked--not yours.

 

[pantagrapher]

...Explain again why the commish has automatically lost the benefit of the doubt?

Anyone in such a situation loses the benefit of the doubt as I said, whether commish or another owner.A) He made a mistake which benefited his team, giving himself a better seed and a worse ranked opponent.B) He is the one who points out the mistake. After results are known and his team has lost. And correcting the error will give his team a win.Seriously, you can't see how that would be something someone could easily do intentionally to try to benefit his team?Again, I'm not saying the OP did anything intentionally. I'm saying some things look so much like they could be an intentional unethical act you shouldn't expect the benefit of the doubt of a resolution in your favor when you were the one who created the situation. This is an example of such.

I agree with this. And the key problem is that someone who did it intentionally will say the same thing as someone who didn't: that it was an accident and you should trust them. Had he won and someone else caught it, he could likewise say that he thought they agreed in preseason they were switching to a HTH tiebreaker.Even beyond that, I tend to agree that the game should stand solely because the mistake wasn't caught until after the game was complete.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

It's RIDICULOUS to think that, as Commissioner, you have to treat your team differently. 11 teams get treated one way, and you have to punish yours so you "look" fair to everyone else? I don't understand this packmule mentality. You should treat your team no better and no worse than any other team. That's fair. If other owners have such a suspicious eye on you that you have to always hurt your own team to maintain the integrity of the league...leave the league. They don't trust you as a person and you shouldn't be commissioner. But you should NEVER treat a team unfairly...even if it's your own.That being said, the right thing to do is to leave it the way it is. Why? It's up to the teams involved to catch the error, too. If they didn't, then nobody caught it and the results are final. If you, as an owner, didn't bother to check your own seeding, you get what you get after the games start. Sure, it was a mistake but you should be checking your own team and seeding. if you never bothered, you have to live with the consequences. That should go for ALL teams. But the idea that "you could reverse it for anyone else but not for your team" is so short-sighted and absurd, I'm not sure how these people function under any system where someone has power over them. It's silly to think the person with power has to prove themselves by hurting their own chances instead of simply being fair and doing what they'd do for any other team. Just silly. You'd have to be a masochist to run a league with owners like that.