I'm stepping down as commish of Fantasy Legends II after this season. I've been doing it for 17 years in that league. For the Bengals game that I was in the title game, behind by 6 with 3 to play (Allen, Mixon, Davis) and my opponent has none and won't concede and rejects my solution. So I will split the money ($300) if the game is cancelled, but will apply week 18 stats for those players to week 17 to determine the champion. Obviously If the game isn't cancelled I will apply the stats from the make-up game to week 17 and winner takes the full prize $300. Either someone will take over or the league will fold. I'll stay on as an owner. The way this has gone down with the guy I'm playing I wouldn't feel right staying on as commish of that league any longer. It has left a bitter taste in my mouth.
Why is this person making the decision for the league? Are they the commissioner? It's you, right? Why aren't you making this decision? Not trying to be harsh, but isn't that your job? Would you allow this if it was two other teams and one wouldn't concede?
As the commish he’s in the worst position. As making any decision other than having those 3 get zero means he wins. Maybe let the assistant commish decide if there is one?
As commish I’d have no problem making any other decision. But Johnny is in a ****ty spot.
I think it's a really easy spot. If there's no league rule that covers the situation, the commissioner must recuse himself. If there's an assistant, it falls on that person. Otherwise, probably a league vote to make a one-time decision (with the two parties involved not voting). In the off-season, the commissioner can use whatever process to institute new rules for these situations in the future.
The burden of doing the difficult but correct thing falls on his opponent: he should gracefully concede the championship and not force everyone else into an uncomfortable spot.
Couldn't disagree more. If two other teams were in this situation, what would the Commissioner do? Whatever that is, that's what he should do. Being fair doesn't mean hurting your own team so you "appear fair." It means being fair and treating all teams the same, including your own.
The opponent shouldn't make the decision because the commissioner doesn't feel empowered to do his job. Should we make the opponent the commissioner because they're better at making tough decisions? There shouldn't be a league vote because the league already has a commissioner. If they can't handle the job, they shouldn't be there.
If he would grant a different team with three players the winner, he should do the same for himself. I think any objective person would agree. If they refuse to use scores from week 18 or the playoffs (a better choice imo), then make a decision. Don't be held hostage by an opponent who senses weakness.
I truly don't mean any disrespect to the original poster. I get that it's a tough call. But commissioners sometimes have to do tough things to be fair to the league. I understand he said he doesn't want to be commissioner anymore. I think that might be a good idea. If you're going to let an opponent dictate what you decide, maybe it's not the right job for you.