Commissioner problem? (1 Viewer)

[JShare87]

So I am the commish in our big money league. I'm playing my brother this week if I win I get the number one seed. I'm up 2 points and he has Hernandez tonight obviously he going to win. Here Is the problem and I'm not sure what to do. He wants to sit Hernandez so he would end up playing a weaker team in the playoffs. Is this ok to do because he is doing this to benefit his team. At the same time it looks bad because I'm his brother and he is letting me win. The 4 playoff teams are set the only thing this will affect is the seeding. Also the number one seed wins 50.00. I'm all about doing what is fair and I told him I don't think he should sit Hernandez because its not right. He insists its his team and he would rather play the weaker opponent. So my question is should he be allowed to do this? Again I'm the commissioner and he is my brother so what's the call?

 

[pantagrapher]

My link

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You don't have a rule about illegal lineups?

 

[JShare87]

You don't have a rule about illegal lineups?

No

 

[Bronco Nation]

I think it is perfectly okay. I think it is reasonably likely to backfire on him, too.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

wouldn't the #1 seed play the weaker team?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You don't have a rule about illegal lineups?

No

OK. You should, btw, but that's neither here nor there.So your brother thinks the 3 seed is weaker than the 4 seed?

 

[Dentist]

is he subbing in a different TE?

you should definitely have a rule against illegal lineups

however, if he actually has someone like Shiancoe, then that's a much tougher call

 

[kegger]

If there is nothing in the rules against it then even though

it doesn't look good to some people there is nothing to do here.

 

[JShare87]

You don't have a rule about illegal lineups?

No

OK. You should, btw, but that's neither here nor there.So your brother thinks the 3 seed is weaker than the 4 seed?

Yes the guy he would play if he losses currently has the 2nd lowest point total and is starting Vick Ballard and turner at rb. My team who he will play if he losses has most points in league and have Brees spiller lynch trich Megatron jimmy graham........

 

[JShare87]

Sorry the second team is the one he'd play if he starts Hernandez and wins

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You don't have a rule about illegal lineups?

No

OK. You should, btw, but that's neither here nor there.So your brother thinks the 3 seed is weaker than the 4 seed?

Yes the guy he would play if he losses currently has the 2nd lowest point total and is starting Vick Ballard and turner at rb. My team who he will play if he losses has most points in league and have Brees spiller lynch trich Megatron jimmy graham........

Curious that the 2nd lowest point total team is the 3 seed, and the points leader is the 4 seed. Some kind of wonky divisional setup, or aberrant H2H tiebreaker or something?Anyway, I don't think I'd let him bench Hernandez. For one, it sort of violates the spirit of the game to submit an illegal lineup. You should have a rule against this; the fact that you don't doesn't totally excuse it. It may technically be legal but that doesn't necessarily mean it conforms to the spirit of the rules. Furthermore, assuming Hernandez does in fact give your brother the win tonight, 1/3 of the time this will end up screwing one of the other two owners (e.g. if the 3 seed outscores you next week but doesn't outscore your brother, he gets knocked out of the playoffs when otherwise he would have advanced to the championship if you didn't let your brother tank). To the extent that we can infer the purpose of seeding, the 3 seed has earned the right over the 4 seed to play the lower of the top two seeds, which will (likely) be you. Artificially changing the playoff brackets by allowing your brother to submit an illegal lineup changes this dynamic. You are basically colluding with him to fix the seeds. I'd tell him to start Hernandez and let nature take its course.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

why not change it next year to top seed can pick who he plays. if that rule were in place now, he'd be starting hernandez.

 

[JShare87]

why not change it next year to top seed can pick who he plays. if that rule were in place now, he'd be starting hernandez.

That's a great idea but does nothing for the problem we have now

 

[AtomicFalcon]

If you do not have rules in place against illegal lineups, then it sounds like you have to let your brother sit Hernandez.

You can even post to your league that your hands are tied because no rules are in place, and that next year steps will be taken to ensure something like this is avoided in the future.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Sorry the second team is the one he'd play if he starts Hernandez and wins

Maybe I'm missing something but how is it possible that if he wins he's the 4th seed (and faces you, the No. 1 see) but if he loses he's 3rd seed (playing the second seed).Anyway you're going to face a #### storm from the league if you let this happen, especially since it's you brother "letting" you get the top seed and trying to control who he plays.

 

[Prinefan]

I'd give my brother first shot at being straight up. Then I'd probably post it to the message board that while what he is doing within the rules, you don't condone it. Then vote in the offseason so it doesn't happen again.

 

[CalBear]

Is your brother this guy?

Don't be that guy.

 

[JShare87]

Sorry the second team is the one he'd play if he starts Hernandez and wins

Maybe I'm missing something but how is it possible that if he wins he's the 4th seed (and faces you, the No. 1 see) but if he loses he's 3rd seed (playing the second seed).Anyway you're going to face a #### storm from the league if you let this happen, especially since it's you brother "letting" you get the top seed and trying to control who he plays.

Ok right now I am the one seed he is the 3. If he Beats me I drop down to the 3 he gets the 2 seed and the current 2 seed the one with Vick Ballard and turner will move up to the one seed. Therefore I would rematch my brother as the 2 plays the 3. However if he losses I will remain the one and he would be the 3 seed playing the current 2 seed with Vick Ballard and turner. This whole thing has gotten really outta hand. My brother is extremely fired up that I won't let this slide and its causes a pretty ugly even throughout the league not good at all.

 

[dhockster]

Sorry the second team is the one he'd play if he starts Hernandez and wins

Maybe I'm missing something but how is it possible that if he wins he's the 4th seed (and faces you, the No. 1 see) but if he loses he's 3rd seed (playing the second seed).Anyway you're going to face a #### storm from the league if you let this happen, especially since it's you brother "letting" you get the top seed and trying to control who he plays.

Ok right now I am the one seed he is the 3. If he Beats me I drop down to the 3 he gets the 2 seed and the current 2 seed the one with Vick Ballard and turner will move up to the one seed. Therefore I would rematch my brother as the 2 plays the 3. However if he losses I will remain the one and he would be the 3 seed playing the current 2 seed with Vick Ballard and turner. This whole thing has gotten really outta hand. My brother is extremely fired up that I won't let this slide and its causes a pretty ugly even throughout the league not good at all.

If there are no rules against what your brother is trying to do, and he is ultimately doing what he considers is in the best interest of his team, you cannot prohibit this. Just e-mail everyone in the league what he is doing, why he is doing it, and why you can't prohibit it, before the game tonight.The one unfortunate thing about this situation is two brothers are going from probably having to play each other in the semi-finals, to a situation where they can both make it to the finals. Some people might thing you guys are colluding to make things better for both of you and increase the likelihood that one of you wins the championship. I don't think that is a reason to prevent you guys from doing it, it just makes it look a little fishier.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Sorry the second team is the one he'd play if he starts Hernandez and wins

Maybe I'm missing something but how is it possible that if he wins he's the 4th seed (and faces you, the No. 1 see) but if he loses he's 3rd seed (playing the second seed).Anyway you're going to face a #### storm from the league if you let this happen, especially since it's you brother "letting" you get the top seed and trying to control who he plays.

Ok right now I am the one seed he is the 3. If he Beats me I drop down to the 3 he gets the 2 seed and the current 2 seed the one with Vick Ballard and turner will move up to the one seed. Therefore I would rematch my brother as the 2 plays the 3. However if he losses I will remain the one and he would be the 3 seed playing the current 2 seed with Vick Ballard and turner. This whole thing has gotten really outta hand. My brother is extremely fired up that I won't let this slide and its causes a pretty ugly even throughout the league not good at all.

This is potentially even worse, because now you're fixing to guarantee one of you a spot in the finals. Not sure what your payout structure is like, but if there's a payout to the runner-up, for example, you guys are basically colluding to ensure that one of you gets it. That may not directly be your intention, but that's a consequence of artificially fixing the playoff seeding. ETA: Think I got that backwards, I lost track of who you're talking about in each scenario. In any case, you're letting two teams fix the playoff seeds, which isn't a feature of your league. Next year you might want to add a rule that allows the top seeds to pick their first round opponents or something, but that's not a rule you currently have and you can't artifically manufacture that rule on the fly by benching players.Tell your brother to stop being a #####.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If there are no rules against what your brother is trying to do, and he is ultimately doing what he considers is in the best interest of his team, you cannot prohibit this.

Please stop with this (not just you, everyone who always posts this in these types of threads). It has been repeatedly debunked, most recently in this thread, and is just piss-poor reasoning. There are lots of things that there are no rules against, which are in the best interest of an individual's team, that should obviously not be allowed in a fantasy football league. This may or may not be one of those things, but claiming that it's ok because "there's no rule against it" and "it's in the best interest of his team" is not an argument for why it should be allowed.

 

[JShare87]

I could care less who I play. I honestly feel me and him have the best teams hands down. Total points for the league we are both up by about 150 on the next closest. Next year we will vote on having a rule to prevent this but I called every league member and explained what was going on and about have thought he should be able to do what he wanted to benefit his team. I called the owner of the guy who would win 50.00 for being the one seed and told him I would give him the 50.00 dollars for that since he is being cheated out of that. I also explained that he was doing this for the sole reason to benefit his chances at winning it all. He understood but was still kinda upset.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I also explained that he was doing this for the sole reason to benefit his chances at winning it all.

Should owners be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it benefits their chances at winning?

 

[Yitbos69]

is collusion against your rules? How do you benefit from winning?

 

[kegger]

Sorry the second team is the one he'd play if he starts Hernandez and wins

Maybe I'm missing something but how is it possible that if he wins he's the 4th seed (and faces you, the No. 1 see) but if he loses he's 3rd seed (playing the second seed).Anyway you're going to face a #### storm from the league if you let this happen, especially since it's you brother "letting" you get the top seed and trying to control who he plays.

Ok right now I am the one seed he is the 3. If he Beats me I drop down to the 3 he gets the 2 seed and the current 2 seed the one with Vick Ballard and turner will move up to the one seed. Therefore I would rematch my brother as the 2 plays the 3. However if he losses I will remain the one and he would be the 3 seed playing the current 2 seed with Vick Ballard and turner. This whole thing has gotten really outta hand. My brother is extremely fired up that I won't let this slide and its causes a pretty ugly even throughout the league not good at all.

If there are no rules against what your brother is trying to do, and he is ultimately doing what he considers is in the best interest of his team, you cannot prohibit this. Just e-mail everyone in the league what he is doing, why he is doing it, and why you can't prohibit it, before the game tonight.The one unfortunate thing about this situation is two brothers are going from probably having to play each other in the semi-finals, to a situation where they can both make it to the finals. Some people might thing you guys are colluding to make things better for both of you and increase the likelihood that one of you wins the championship. I don't think that is a reason to prevent you guys from doing it, it just makes it look a little fishier.

This guy has the same reaction I do, you shouldn't prevent anyone from doing what they want if within the rules, regardless of whether it is your brother or anyone else.(if what there doing they believe benefits there team)And do as the above poster says, with email your league before the game to state it.(maybe state that a ruling for next year should be put up for discussion)

 

[dmb359]

completely shady move to leave an empty roster spot. Replacing him with a ####tier TE isn't so shady I guess since he at least fills his roster.

I don't know how you can't let him do it, if you didn't have a rule requiring full rosters every week.

It is gonna look like collusion though, which is basically an unwritten rule for all leagues, and you're bound to piss a lot of people off.

You got yourself in a ####ty situation since you didn't have these rules all along.

Karma will probably aid in handling this issue though....

 

[Warrior]

You don't have a rule about illegal lineups?

No

OK. You should, btw, but that's neither here nor there.So your brother thinks the 3 seed is weaker than the 4 seed?

Obviously.

 

[JShare87]

I called everyone spoke to everyone and the league is split on it. We don't have a rule against it (although we should, but you live and learn). It doesn't benefit me in any way. Sure I would play the 4 seed but I could care less who I play. The only way it would benefit me is that we give 50 dollars to the person that finishes as the top seed. I explained to the owner that I would give home the 50 if Hernandez scores more than 2 points. Only because one owner said that he agrees that my brother should be able to do what he wants but feels its messed up for the other guy to get cheated outta 50 dollars. I don't know if he's starting or sitting him as of now I told the league It's his team he will do what he wants so we will see and vote next year to change the rule

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

you shouldn't prevent anyone from doing what they want if within the rules, (if what there doing they believe benefits there team)

Should the commissioner be allowed to use his website access to take someone else's best players and move them to his own team?

 

[dhockster]

If there are no rules against what your brother is trying to do, and he is ultimately doing what he considers is in the best interest of his team, you cannot prohibit this.

Please stop with this (not just you, everyone who always posts this in these types of threads). It has been repeatedly debunked, most recently in this thread, and is just piss-poor reasoning. There are lots of things that there are no rules against, which are in the best interest of an individual's team, that should obviously not be allowed in a fantasy football league. This may or may not be one of those things, but claiming that it's ok because "there's no rule against it" and "it's in the best interest of his team" is not an argument for why it should be allowed.

Perhaps I should have said "you should not prohibit this" vs. "you cannot prohibit this". I agree with you that there may be situations where a commissioner has to make a ruling for the intergrity of the league that goes outside the scope of the rules. In my opinion, these times should be very rare, and I don't think this is one of those situations where the commissioner should step in and overrule an owner. I actually think the commissioner in this situation should recuse himself since his team is directly affected by his decision, and appoint someone to make the decision or have the league vote on the decision. Then in the off-season modify the rules to prevent this from happening in the future.I, for one, am against overzealous commissioners who step in all the time to make decisions that they feel are to "protect the integrity of the league". Obviously the most common occurence of this is disallowing trades, where no collusion is involved. If both sides have a reasonable argument as to why they think a trade is helping their team, even if it flys in the face of conventional wisdon, who is the commissioner to decide that it upsets the competitive balance of the league? We have seen many times where someone on this board complains about an unbalanced trade and the board responds by seeing the trade as either fair or unbalanced to the other teams side.

So I stand by my assertion that when owners follow the rules as they are written, and are making decisions that are in the best interest of their team, the commissioner, except for in extreme circumstances should not get involved. If you still consider that piss-poor reasoning, then we probably should never be in a league together.

 

[dhockster]

you shouldn't prevent anyone from doing what they want if within the rules, (if what there doing they believe benefits there team)

Should the commissioner be allowed to use his website access to take someone else's best players and move them to his own team?

Is that in the rules as a way to acquire players? If not, then the commissioner is violating the rules and therefore this is disallowed.

 

[Alkahsu]

You don't have a rule about illegal lineups?

No

OK. You should, btw, but that's neither here nor there.So your brother thinks the 3 seed is weaker than the 4 seed?

Yes the guy he would play if he losses currently has the 2nd lowest point total and is starting Vick Ballard and turner at rb. My team who he will play if he losses has most points in league and have Brees spiller lynch trich Megatron jimmy graham........

Curious that the 2nd lowest point total team is the 3 seed, and the points leader is the 4 seed. Some kind of wonky divisional setup, or aberrant H2H tiebreaker or something?

Could just be bad luck in H2H. In my league I had 2nd most points scored, but most points against and I barely made the playoffs as the #6 seed needing a win last week to make it in. Almost all of my loses were when my opponenet had their highest scoring week of the season, really frustrating.OT: This is why you should have bylaws for your league, especially if there is any kind of money on the line.

 

[steveski]

If there wasn't money involved in getting 1st place then I'd say it isn't an issue. However, since there is a reward for getting in 1st, I'd say he has to play Hernandez. If he wanted to throw the match then maybe he should have made some questionable starts/sits from the beginning. You can't pull your TE on Monday night to throw the game if you want your league to be back next year.

 

[JShare87]

If there wasn't money involved in getting 1st place then I'd say it isn't an issue. However, since there is a reward for getting in 1st, I'd say he has to play Hernandez. If he wanted to throw the match then maybe he should have made some questionable starts/sits from the beginning. You can't pull your TE on Monday night to throw the game if you want your league to be back next year.

The 50.00$ is no longer a problem as I said I will give it to the guy. As to commissioners stepping in when they are not needed I'm not that guy. The only reason I did was because owners had a problem with what was going on.

 

[dhockster]

I called everyone spoke to everyone and the league is split on it. We don't have a rule against it (although we should, but you live and learn). It doesn't benefit me in any way. Sure I would play the 4 seed but I could care less who I play. The only way it would benefit me is that we give 50 dollars to the person that finishes as the top seed. I explained to the owner that I would give home the 50 if Hernandez scores more than 2 points. Only because one owner said that he agrees that my brother should be able to do what he wants but feels its messed up for the other guy to get cheated outta 50 dollars. I don't know if he's starting or sitting him as of now I told the league It's his team he will do what he wants so we will see and vote next year to change the rule

I do think you should recuse yourself and let league vote decide since you benefit from your decision to let him leave an open starting spot his own roster (your decision would put you against the 4th seed which is a worse team than your brother's team).

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If there are no rules against what your brother is trying to do, and he is ultimately doing what he considers is in the best interest of his team, you cannot prohibit this.

Please stop with this (not just you, everyone who always posts this in these types of threads). It has been repeatedly debunked, most recently in this thread, and is just piss-poor reasoning. There are lots of things that there are no rules against, which are in the best interest of an individual's team, that should obviously not be allowed in a fantasy football league. This may or may not be one of those things, but claiming that it's ok because "there's no rule against it" and "it's in the best interest of his team" is not an argument for why it should be allowed.

Perhaps I should have said "you should not prohibit this" vs. "you cannot prohibit this". I agree with you that there may be situations where a commissioner has to make a ruling for the intergrity of the league that goes outside the scope of the rules. In my opinion, these times should be very rare, and I don't think this is one of those situations where the commissioner should step in and overrule an owner. I actually think the commissioner in this situation should recuse himself since his team is directly affected by his decision, and appoint someone to make the decision or have the league vote on the decision. Then in the off-season modify the rules to prevent this from happening in the future.I, for one, am against overzealous commissioners who step in all the time to make decisions that they feel are to "protect the integrity of the league". Obviously the most common occurence of this is disallowing trades, where no collusion is involved. If both sides have a reasonable argument as to why they think a trade is helping their team, even if it flys in the face of conventional wisdon, who is the commissioner to decide that it upsets the competitive balance of the league? We have seen many times where someone on this board complains about an unbalanced trade and the board responds by seeing the trade as either fair or unbalanced to the other teams side.

So I stand by my assertion that when owners follow the rules as they are written, and are making decisions that are in the best interest of their team, the commissioner, except for in extreme circumstances should not get involved. If you still consider that piss-poor reasoning, then we probably should never be in a league together.

Didn't mean to come off so harshly. I see this a lot (including several instances of it in this thread) and it frustrates me. I agree with most of what you've written here, and in particular I agree there's a big, meaningful difference between "commissioner should not prohibit this" and "commissioner cannot prohibit this." The former is a perfectly valid stance to take (it may even be one I agree with in this particular case). I stand by my assertion that the latter is piss-poor reasoning though. Arguing that a commissioner shouldn't intervene in a specific situation that isn't explicitly covered by the rules is fine, that's dependent on all the factors of whatever specific situation you're discussing. Arguing that a commissioner can't intervene when there's no specific rule (which is what people sometimes do) is absurd. In this case it boils down to how you define "extreme circumstances." Intentionally setting an incomplete lineup to impact playoff seeding may or may not fall in that category. But it's certainly something a commissioner could step in on, even if you think he shouldn't.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

you shouldn't prevent anyone from doing what they want if within the rules, (if what there doing they believe benefits there team)

Should the commissioner be allowed to use his website access to take someone else's best players and move them to his own team?

Is that in the rules as a way to acquire players? If not, then the commissioner is violating the rules and therefore this is disallowed.

Which rule is it a violation of? Is there a rule stating that the commissioner is not allowed to use his website access to move players from other teams onto his own roster?

 

[coachbobbyfinstock]

First thing you should do is take the fact that hes your brother out of the equation, then ask yourself the question again..

 

[pantagrapher]

After thinking about it, now that you and he have discussed this strategy and its repercussions, I almost feel like you have to make him keep Hernandez in his lineup to avoid it being collusion. That might not have been his intent, but the moment he asked permission or expressed his intention to you, it created a situation where two teams are discussing making a questionable roster move to manipulate their playoff seeding. Either that or recuse yourself from the decision, as another poster suggested.

 

[JShare87]

I called everyone spoke to everyone and the league is split on it. We don't have a rule against it (although we should, but you live and learn). It doesn't benefit me in any way. Sure I would play the 4 seed but I could care less who I play. The only way it would benefit me is that we give 50 dollars to the person that finishes as the top seed. I explained to the owner that I would give home the 50 if Hernandez scores more than 2 points. Only because one owner said that he agrees that my brother should be able to do what he wants but feels its messed up for the other guy to get cheated outta 50 dollars. I don't know if he's starting or sitting him as of now I told the league It's his team he will do what he wants so we will see and vote next year to change the rule

I do think you should recuse yourself and let league vote decide since you benefit from your decision to let him leave an open starting spot his own roster (your decision would put you against the 4th seed which is a worse team than your brother's team).

Tried to do the league vote but to many people have chips in play. I ask the 4 seed and he voted against it cuz now he'd have to play me (best team in league). Then a couple people voted in favor of my brother because they just downright can't stand the other guy.

 

[dhockster]

If there are no rules against what your brother is trying to do, and he is ultimately doing what he considers is in the best interest of his team, you cannot prohibit this.

Please stop with this (not just you, everyone who always posts this in these types of threads). It has been repeatedly debunked, most recently in this thread, and is just piss-poor reasoning. There are lots of things that there are no rules against, which are in the best interest of an individual's team, that should obviously not be allowed in a fantasy football league. This may or may not be one of those things, but claiming that it's ok because "there's no rule against it" and "it's in the best interest of his team" is not an argument for why it should be allowed.

Perhaps I should have said "you should not prohibit this" vs. "you cannot prohibit this". I agree with you that there may be situations where a commissioner has to make a ruling for the intergrity of the league that goes outside the scope of the rules. In my opinion, these times should be very rare, and I don't think this is one of those situations where the commissioner should step in and overrule an owner. I actually think the commissioner in this situation should recuse himself since his team is directly affected by his decision, and appoint someone to make the decision or have the league vote on the decision. Then in the off-season modify the rules to prevent this from happening in the future.I, for one, am against overzealous commissioners who step in all the time to make decisions that they feel are to "protect the integrity of the league". Obviously the most common occurence of this is disallowing trades, where no collusion is involved. If both sides have a reasonable argument as to why they think a trade is helping their team, even if it flys in the face of conventional wisdon, who is the commissioner to decide that it upsets the competitive balance of the league? We have seen many times where someone on this board complains about an unbalanced trade and the board responds by seeing the trade as either fair or unbalanced to the other teams side.

So I stand by my assertion that when owners follow the rules as they are written, and are making decisions that are in the best interest of their team, the commissioner, except for in extreme circumstances should not get involved. If you still consider that piss-poor reasoning, then we probably should never be in a league together.

Didn't mean to come off so harshly. I see this a lot (including several instances of it in this thread) and it frustrates me. I agree with most of what you've written here, and in particular I agree there's a big, meaningful difference between "commissioner should not prohibit this" and "commissioner cannot prohibit this." The former is a perfectly valid stance to take (it may even be one I agree with in this particular case). I stand by my assertion that the latter is piss-poor reasoning though. Arguing that a commissioner shouldn't intervene in a specific situation that isn't explicitly covered by the rules is fine, that's dependent on all the factors of whatever specific situation you're discussing. Arguing that a commissioner can't intervene when there's no specific rule (which is what people sometimes do) is absurd. In this case it boils down to how you define "extreme circumstances." Intentionally setting an incomplete lineup to impact playoff seeding may or may not fall in that category. But it's certainly something a commissioner could step in on, even if you think he shouldn't.

Completely agree with the bolded. I don't think my reasoning was piss-poor, I think I misunderstood what you meant specifically was piss-poor reasoning.A good league has rules that cover 99% of situations that could occur. That, by itself, makes it very rare that a commissioner will be able to step in because most situations are taken care of by the rules. A good commissioner should strive to be involved in as few judegement decisions as possible.

 

[JShare87]

First thing you should do is take the fact that hes your brother out of the equation, then ask yourself the question again..

Been there done that believe me when I tell you guys I would do the same no matter who it was (my brother or total stranger). The only reason I agree with him is because he has a valid point he said " it's my team I can do what I want I'm not playing Brees and graham at home vs Tb I'm playing Ballard and turner" I would not let this go if I though he was doing this to cheat someone else. He is just trying to get the better matchup and he has the power to do that who am I to stop him?

 

[dhockster]

I called everyone spoke to everyone and the league is split on it. We don't have a rule against it (although we should, but you live and learn). It doesn't benefit me in any way. Sure I would play the 4 seed but I could care less who I play. The only way it would benefit me is that we give 50 dollars to the person that finishes as the top seed. I explained to the owner that I would give home the 50 if Hernandez scores more than 2 points. Only because one owner said that he agrees that my brother should be able to do what he wants but feels its messed up for the other guy to get cheated outta 50 dollars. I don't know if he's starting or sitting him as of now I told the league It's his team he will do what he wants so we will see and vote next year to change the rule

I do think you should recuse yourself and let league vote decide since you benefit from your decision to let him leave an open starting spot his own roster (your decision would put you against the 4th seed which is a worse team than your brother's team).

Tried to do the league vote but to many people have chips in play. I ask the 4 seed and he voted against it cuz now he'd have to play me (best team in league). Then a couple people voted in favor of my brother because they just downright can't stand the other guy.

I would probably go by vote of all the non-playoff owners. If owners vote based on personal feelings and not the facts of the situation, there is nothing you can do about that. I think you will have done everything you could as commissioner to come to a fair decision with the rules written as they are.

 

[B-Deep]

Hey brother, 2 things

1 - doing this is dooshy

2 - by doing it not only will you look dooshy but so will I

don,t be a doosh

Love always,

JShare87

 

[B-Deep]

alternately challenge his manhood

tell him if he is that afraid to play the other team perhaps fantasy chess is more his style

\

 

[JShare87]

After thinking about it, now that you and he have discussed this strategy and its repercussions, I almost feel like you have to make him keep Hernandez in his lineup to avoid it being collusion. That might not have been his intent, but the moment he asked permission or expressed his intention to you, it created a situation where two teams are discussing making a questionable roster move to manipulate their playoff seeding. Either that or recuse yourself from the decision, as another poster suggested.

Collusion would mean 2 people are banding together to do something wrong. This is just one person has nothing to do with anyone else besides him and what's best for his team. May it be wrong yes but not collusion. I got a text from another league member saying " blank is sitting Hernandez tonight u gonna let that fly" I text my bro saying he can't do that yadda yadda yadda...... He goes off talking about y he should be allowed to do this and I see his points. I also see the other guys points. I'm not colluding or taking sides just getting your opinions on what's right and wrong and it seems that's a fine line between the 2.

 

[B-Deep]

After thinking about it, now that you and he have discussed this strategy and its repercussions, I almost feel like you have to make him keep Hernandez in his lineup to avoid it being collusion. That might not have been his intent, but the moment he asked permission or expressed his intention to you, it created a situation where two teams are discussing making a questionable roster move to manipulate their playoff seeding. Either that or recuse yourself from the decision, as another poster suggested.

Collusion would mean 2 people are banding together to do something wrong. This is just one person has nothing to do with anyone else besides him and what's best for his team. May it be wrong yes but not collusion. I got a text from another league member saying " blank is sitting Hernandez tonight u gonna let that fly" I text my bro saying he can't do that yadda yadda yadda...... He goes off talking about y he should be allowed to do this and I see his points. I also see the other guys points. I'm not colluding or taking sides just getting your opinions on what's right and wrong and it seems that's a fine line between the 2.

intentionally losing games is wrongi understand it can be strategically smart, but it is wrong

 

[JShare87]

I called everyone spoke to everyone and the league is split on it. We don't have a rule against it (although we should, but you live and learn). It doesn't benefit me in any way. Sure I would play the 4 seed but I could care less who I play. The only way it would benefit me is that we give 50 dollars to the person that finishes as the top seed. I explained to the owner that I would give home the 50 if Hernandez scores more than 2 points. Only because one owner said that he agrees that my brother should be able to do what he wants but feels its messed up for the other guy to get cheated outta 50 dollars. I don't know if he's starting or sitting him as of now I told the league It's his team he will do what he wants so we will see and vote next year to change the rule

I do think you should recuse yourself and let league vote decide since you benefit from your decision to let him leave an open starting spot his own roster (your decision would put you against the 4th seed which is a worse team than your brother's team).

Tried to do the league vote but to many people have chips in play. I ask the 4 seed and he voted against it cuz now he'd have to play me (best team in league). Then a couple people voted in favor of my brother because they just downright can't stand the other guy.

I would probably go by vote of all the non-playoff owners. If owners vote based on personal feelings and not the facts of the situation, there is nothing you can do about that. I think you will have done everything you could as commissioner to come to a fair decision with the rules written as they are.

Been there done that 2-2 split

 

[JShare87]

alternately challenge his manhoodtell him if he is that afraid to play the other team perhaps fantasy chess is more his style\

Haha I already have since it would be me he is scared to play. He is so scared of the Strait Cash Homeys