First Year Commishioner Problem (1 Viewer)

[one time]

This year is the first full year for my 12 team dynasty league. In our league rules it is written as far as the playoffs go:

"Playoffs: The Three conference winners will get the first three seeds. The next two in record are in along with the highest scorer for the 6th seed. Any ties for record are broken by points scored. Week 15:1,2-bye week. 3V6, 4v5

Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

I updated the playoff situation last week stating who would be in if the playoffs ended before this week. We have two more weeks left.

"1. Panthers: 9-3 with 1477 points

2. HHH: 9-3 with 1416 points

3. Rusty's Regulars: 8-3-1 with 1299 points(Reminder: the top 3 teams are the 3 division leaders)

4. Dominator: 8-4 with 1350 points

5. SJF: 8-4 with 1341 points

6. Mad Demons: 2-10 with 1348 points.

It looks like a 7 team race with the team on the out looking in right now being Floody 3000 with an 8-4 record with 1256 points. Im sure everyone sees the suprising team in this. Mad Demons is the reason we have the sixth spot going to the points leader. A dismal record (worst in the league) and he still has a great shot at getting in the last spot. Theorhetically spots 1-5 and 7 could all finish pretty much in any spot though Panthers looks extremely safe."

Two owners (so far) took the high points part of the rules to mean that if the the league high points leader misses the playoffs, he gets the sixth seed but otherwise it is determined by record. One of the owners who thought the 2-10 team was eliminated due to the way he read the playoff information traded a couple of good players a week or two ago in order to get the 2-10 teams 1st round pick.Right now I'm at a loss of what to do. I realize and will fix after the year to state "The next two in record are in along with the highest scorer left for the 6th seed," just to clarify but I obviously cant reverse the trade and I can't change the rules due to a discrepency where a few owners read it a different way than intended.

Any opinions on what I should do? Here is the league website/topic for any further information. I hope you don't have to be in the league to see see everything.

League

Thanks

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Didn't you and the other owners discuss the rulebook when it was put together? What was the intent at the time the rulebook was written?

When I read this poorly phrased rulebook, it's pretty obvious that slot #6 goes to the highest scorer in the league who hasn't already made the playoffs. Otherwise, you would phrase it "The next three in record are in, unless the highest overall scorer in the league doesn't have a top-5 record." Or something stupid like that, you get the drift.

Suggestion -- in the off-season, go through your rulebook and be really deliberate about cleaning it up. Feel free to PM me if you want to see my league's extremely detailed rulebook.

Good luck.

 

[turnit643]

"Playoffs: The Three conference winners will get the first three seeds. The next two in record are in along with the highest scorer for the 6th seed. Any ties for record are broken by points scored. Week 15:1,2-bye week. 3V6, 4v5 Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

A red flag went up as I read through your rule as it is written. I'm mildly surprised that the possible problems it could cause didn't come up in discussion at any point earlier. "Mildly" because I know that most owners glance at the rules when they are first handed out and don't really dig into the details until it's crunch time.While "the highest scorer" isn't qualified with anything specifically stating it is among the remaining teams not already awarded a playoff spot, it is most logical to assume that (why would any of the teams already in a higher playoff spot be given the 6th seed?).

The rule needs to be written better or abandoned for next season, but for this year, if it finishes the way it is now, the Mad Demons need to be in the playoffs.

 

[Colin Dowling]

This is one of the more interesting situations I can recall seeing...

 

[quadcity]

It has to be the highest points of the remaining teams. It makes no sense otherwise. Plus, you stated that "Mad Demons is the reason we have the sixth spot going to the points leader." Sound like this IS he reason for the rule.

Our league is setup just like this. The last spot is based on total points....

 

[The Jerk]

It has to be the highest points of the remaining teams. It makes no sense otherwise. Plus, you stated that "Mad Demons is the reason we have the sixth spot going to the points leader." Sound like this IS he reason for the rule.Our league is setup just like this. The last spot is based on total points....

I agree with the consensus of the thread and specifically with this post. Another way to improve the clarity of your rulebook (in addition to more detail) is to use examples to illustrate how the rule will be implemented. You don't need to do this for every rule, but it will help eliminate confusion to the less legally inclined of your league.It's unfortunate that an owner misapplied the rule and used this misinformation to strategize for the playoffs, but one person's mistake cannot override the wording and intent of the rule.

 

[one time]

I took a lot of the rules from a very successful dynasty league im in. We did the draft about 1/2 way through the year last year. Before it i made sure everyone had no questions about the league.

Before the year, I held a rules discussion and at the time, no one brought anything up at all til after the changes would affect this current year.

 

[Wu-banger]

to clarify...more then 2 owners mistook the rule or disagree with the rule... he is what I osted on the league's board:

I understand not liking the "luck" factor in H2H games... one thing I do in one of my leagues is have a double record each week. If you win that week you get a W , if you score in the top 6 that week you get a W... thus the top scorer would be 2-0 for that week, if he played the 2nd highest scorer that week the 2nd highest scorer would get a L for losing and a W for being in the top 6.

It balances things out to elimante the luck some-what..!!!

Awarding a playoff spot to a 2-10 team just becasue he scored points is bad.... but I see what you are trying to accomplish.

BESIDES :

The rules state ---

"Playoffs: The Three conference winners will get the first three seeds. The next two in record are in along with the highest scorer for the 6th seed. Any ties for record are broken by points scored. Week 15:1,2-bye week. 3V6, 4v5

Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

and the standings are :

"Standings Setup

Standings Sort Criteria #1: Overall Winning Percentage

Standings Sort Criteria #2: Total Points Scored"

so given this criteria... how can a team who is:

NOT the "highest scorer" , which the rules clearly state but is 4th in scoring.

AND

Is dead last in the standings......

Be eligible for the playoffs....???

ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND WORDING IN THE BYLAWS "THE MAD DEMONS ONLY HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS IF THEY ARE THE HIGHEST SCORER".......WHICH THEY ARE NOT..PANTHERS ARE.

 

[Chaz]

I'm in a league that does it this way, so it seemed pretty clear to me. Highest remaining scoring team gets the last spot, regardless of record. The intent is to minimize the luck factor (playing against the highest scoring team every week) and get the "best" teams in the playoffs to compete for the championship.

 

[Bluestaples]

ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND WORDING IN THE BYLAWS "THE MAD DEMONS ONLY HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS IF THEY ARE THE HIGHEST SCORER".......WHICH THEY ARE NOT..PANTHERS ARE.

This guy sold me - the panthers should be the #6 seed!

 

[SteveUK]

This is a very poorly written rule, but that is just stating the obvious!

It reads as though the top scorer in the league goes to the playoffs as the 6th seed. That really doesn't make much sense as in most cases the league top scorer will have qualified on record alone as either a conference winner or one of the 2 teams with the best record.

However, since it does not say what happens if the top scorer is already qualified, the inference is that the intent was for the next best top scorer to be the 6th seed. At no point does it say that the 6th seed will be determined by w/l record.

Given this, I think there are only 2 interpretations from this rule:

1) The league's top scorer is the 6th seed - that team would then be excluded from consideration of one of the other seeds based on wl record

2) The 6th seed goes to the highest scoring team that did not qualify as one of the first 5 seeds.

Clearly, option 1 is ludicrous since you would be penalizing the top scoring team. Therefore, right now, the 6th seed should be Mad Demons.

I should declare a personal interest, since I personally know the owner of Mad Demons.

 

[GregR_2]

It has to be the highest points of the remaining teams. It makes no sense otherwise. Plus, you stated that "Mad Demons is the reason we have the sixth spot going to the points leader." Sound like this IS he reason for the rule.

Our league is setup just like this. The last spot is based on total points....

I agree with the consensus of the thread and specifically with this post. Another way to improve the clarity of your rulebook (in addition to more detail) is to use examples to illustrate how the rule will be implemented. You don't need to do this for every rule, but it will help eliminate confusion to the less legally inclined of your league.It's unfortunate that an owner misapplied the rule and used this misinformation to strategize for the playoffs, but one person's mistake cannot override the wording and intent of the rule.

This is a very good thing, I do it all over my rules whenever I think just reading the rule might not make it clear. Good thing to point out, I'll go add it to the pinned thread on things your rules should cover.For the original poster, there isn't really much you can do now with there having been a misinterpretation. I think most reasonably hardcore FF owners are familiar enough with the "and the last wildcard goes to the remaining team with the highest points" that we'd all read it that way, but someone else who wasn't might not. Often times in a dispute I'd say to go with the letter of it, but I don't think there's a problem with you sticking with the intent here since it is a pretty widely used playoff format and I don't think it's unreasonable for you to expect it to have been understood the intent.

 

[Nemesis]

Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

I'm surprised no one in this thread has questioned (or objected to) the Week 17 championship.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

I'm surprised no one in this thread has questioned (or objected to) the Week 17 championship.

i saw it & was ???as far as the rule set. man up & tell them all to #### off. as commish you must enforce the rules

it's obvious the rule is in place to reward a team who did well all sesaon but whose record doesn't reflect that. i commish a league where last year i had the highest scoring team & didn't make the playoffs tough #### for me. & also last year a guy missed out on his tiebreaker because the first one is total points, not head to head records. he can cry all he wants, but thems da rules. deal with it. re-word it after the season, give the guy who's gonna miss the playoffs a box of tissues & move on.

 

[nerangers]

"Playoffs: The Three conference winners will get the first three seeds. The next two in record are in along with the highest scorer for the 6th seed. Any ties for record are broken by points scored. Week 15:1,2-bye week. 3V6, 4v5

Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

It might be poorly written, but it is still clear enough I think.Three conference winners will get the first three seeds (#1, #2, #3)

The next two in record (#4, #5)

with the highest scorer for the 6th seed (#6)

Except for the word stating the remaining highest scorer, it seems implied. Why would the highest scorer be penalized if he is already in one of the top five seeds already?

 

[one time]

Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

I'm surprised no one in this thread has questioned (or objected to) the Week 17 championship.

That change to a week 16 super bowl will be voted on next off season and will likely be unanomous or pretty close to it. Believe me, we already went over that My main worry right now is the trade that went down:

"Fighting Irish gave up Brees, Drew NOS QB;Jones, Julius DAL RB; Year 2007 Round 2 Draft Pick from Fighting Irish

Mad Demons gave up Year 2007 Round 1 Draft Pick from Mad Demons"

At the time i didnt second guess this. There were many blockbuster trades this year and I hadnt looked at the playoff situation yet. I don't know what i say to the Irish but I don't know of anything I can do. Also, I dont know for 100% sure that the owner looked at the the rules completely and thoroughly before the trade even though I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it winds up the Demons is in the playoffs, this trade looks obviously horrible.

 

[one time]

to clarify...more then 2 owners mistook the rule or disagree with the rule... he is what I osted on the league's board:

I understand not liking the "luck" factor in H2H games... one thing I do in one of my leagues is have a double record each week. If you win that week you get a W , if you score in the top 6 that week you get a W... thus the top scorer would be 2-0 for that week, if he played the 2nd highest scorer that week the 2nd highest scorer would get a L for losing and a W for being in the top 6.

It balances things out to elimante the luck some-what..!!!

Awarding a playoff spot to a 2-10 team just becasue he scored points is bad.... but I see what you are trying to accomplish.

BESIDES :

The rules state ---

"Playoffs: The Three conference winners will get the first three seeds. The next two in record are in along with the highest scorer for the 6th seed. Any ties for record are broken by points scored. Week 15:1,2-bye week. 3V6, 4v5

Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

and the standings are :

"Standings Setup

Standings Sort Criteria #1: Overall Winning Percentage

Standings Sort Criteria #2: Total Points Scored"

so given this criteria... how can a team who is:

NOT the "highest scorer" , which the rules clearly state but is 4th in scoring.

AND

Is dead last in the standings......

Be eligible for the playoffs....???

ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND WORDING IN THE BYLAWS "THE MAD DEMONS ONLY HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS IF THEY ARE THE HIGHEST SCORER".......WHICH THEY ARE NOT..PANTHERS ARE.

Both SJF and Fighting Irish mistook the rule for something different which is what i stated. Someone else disagreed with the rule(HHH) but im not worried about that right now. Like I said, that can always be voted on before next year.

 

[Dave Stauff]

I'd agree with the majority that the rules "intend" to select the team with the most points AFTER the first five seeds are selected.

On the trade, I'd like to suggest the Commish review the rule on draft position very carefully. Does it specifically exclude the #6 seed from consideration for the first six picks in the draft even if they finished 2-12?

 

[SteveUK]

Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

I'm surprised no one in this thread has questioned (or objected to) the Week 17 championship.

That change to a week 16 super bowl will be voted on next off season and will likely be unanomous or pretty close to it. Believe me, we already went over that My main worry right now is the trade that went down:

"Fighting Irish gave up Brees, Drew NOS QB;Jones, Julius DAL RB; Year 2007 Round 2 Draft Pick from Fighting Irish

Mad Demons gave up Year 2007 Round 1 Draft Pick from Mad Demons"

At the time i didnt second guess this. There were many blockbuster trades this year and I hadnt looked at the playoff situation yet. I don't know what i say to the Irish but I don't know of anything I can do. Also, I dont know for 100% sure that the owner looked at the the rules completely and thoroughly before the trade even though I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it winds up the Demons is in the playoffs, this trade looks obviously horrible.

The trade was horrible regardless of where in the draft Demons ends up picking. As Commish, the only thing you should be concerned with is whether the trade was collusive, and it certainly is not. The fact that Irish was dumb enough to do this trade in the expectation of a top 3 draft pick is not your concern, unless you're the sort of league that protects owners from themselves?

 

[Marc Levin]

we have the EXACT same rule for the playoffs in my big $$ league (except H2H is the first tiebreaker, then points) - in my league the rule is designed to reward whichever team was not already in the playoffs but had the most points of all remaining teams.

Any other result is lunacy:

Two owners (so far) took the high points part of the rules to mean that if the the league high points leader misses the playoffs, he gets the sixth seed but otherwise it is determined by record.

I don't think there is any reasonable way to read your 6th seed playoff rule to mean the result bolded above. The way those owners interpreted it is foolish - and they were doubly foolish not to check with you (the commish) before making assumptions - and acting on those assumptions.

The lack of any criteria besides most points (like record) in the exact wording of your playoff rules for the 6th seed means there is no reason to assume that the 6th spot goes by anything other than points - the gfac that 4 and 5 are CLEARLY decoided by record, and there is NO MENTION of record for the 6th spot and only a mnetion of points means those owners interpreted it uinreasonably - they just assumed, without a rule, that the record ruled.

I would tell them: "I am sorry you acted on your interpretation of the 6th playoff spot without checking with me, but the intent of the rule is clear. In the future, please contact me about any ambiguities in the league rules."

And I'd leave it at that.

 

[Marc Levin]

BTW, I'd make that rule blatantly clear for next year, but you did nothing wrong this year.

 

[Marc Levin]

Didn't you and the other owners discuss the rulebook when it was put together? What was the intent at the time the rulebook was written?

I don't think I've ever been in a league where I get an input in the rulebook. I am often solicited by my commish for advice on phrasing and wording and whatnot, but the commish always decides what rules to put in.OTOH, at the beginning of the year, if there are any rule changes, the commish explains them with the league at the draft.

When I read this poorly phrased rulebook, it's pretty obvious that slot #6 goes to the highest scorer in the league who hasn't already made the playoffs. Otherwise, you would phrase it "The next three in record are in, unless the highest overall scorer in the league doesn't have a top-5 record." Or something stupid like that, you get the drift.

Complete agreement -I don't think a reasonably experienced FF player could interpret the rule, even as poorly written as it is, to mean what those owners thought it meant.

 

[Marc Levin]

use examples to illustrate how the rule will be implemented. You don't need to do this for every rule, but it will help eliminate confusion to the less legally inclined of your league.

Great suggestion.BTW, you really should check out the pinned thread regarding rules all leagues should have - it won;t take that long to thumb through it and find things you want to cut and paste directly into your rulebook.

 

[Marc Levin]

ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND WORDING IN THE BYLAWS "THE MAD DEMONS ONLY HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS IF THEY ARE THE HIGHEST SCORER".......WHICH THEY ARE NOT..PANTHERS ARE.

What the heck is this post?You aren't siding with the guys who misinterpreted the rule, are you?According to their interpretation, there is NO sixth seed in the playoffs - it is an open spot.

 

[Marc Levin]

Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

I'm surprised no one in this thread has questioned (or objected to) the Week 17 championship.

Why?We did a study a couple years ago that showed week 17 has a minimal impact on the 2 of 12 teams that end up in the week 17 SB.

I choose not to place my champ games in that week, but there is no reason to object to another league that sees another week of NFL football as another week to play fantasy football.

 

[Marc Levin]

Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

I'm surprised no one in this thread has questioned (or objected to) the Week 17 championship.

That change to a week 16 super bowl will be voted on next off season and will likely be unanomous or pretty close to it. Believe me, we already went over that My main worry right now is the trade that went down:

"Fighting Irish gave up Brees, Drew NOS QB;Jones, Julius DAL RB; Year 2007 Round 2 Draft Pick from Fighting Irish

Mad Demons gave up Year 2007 Round 1 Draft Pick from Mad Demons"

At the time i didnt second guess this. There were many blockbuster trades this year and I hadnt looked at the playoff situation yet. I don't know what i say to the Irish but I don't know of anything I can do. Also, I dont know for 100% sure that the owner looked at the the rules completely and thoroughly before the trade even though I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it winds up the Demons is in the playoffs, this trade looks obviously horrible.

A blockbuster trade like that and they didn't bother to double check the accuracy of their interpretation of the rule?I'd call it "first year learning pains" for those owners and go on without a second thought.

 

[quadcity]

We have a contorversial "team QB rule" that says if your starter gets hurt that you get the backups points assuming that the backup was not started by anyone else for that week. For this rule I say that the spirit or intent of the rule will always be the deciding factor if the rule ever come into question.

I thought that I had said that about all the rules! But I didn't and I will add this at the bottom or our rules next year:

"If any rule comes into question, the intent or spirit of the rule will be the deciding factor". I think every league should have that.

BTW, do you have a league committe? This is a group that usually involves the commish and can be used to rule on things like this. If not, you really have two options... Put your foot down as commish and say the rule is as you interpret it because it makes no sense at all to have the higest scoring team seeded 6th. Or, have a league vote on how each owner in the league interprets the rule. I am guessing that a league vote would be 10-2 in favor of your interpretation.

And lets face it, the Mad Demons probably have the highest points against and would be the "really pissed off Demons" if it werent for this rule.

As far as the trade, all I can suggest is a trade deadline in about week 10 or 11. Most league's playoffs begin in week 13 er.. 14, so week 10 is a good time to make them decide to fight for the superbowl or give up and play for next year. Now, the trade is ridiculous and probably viewed as bad for the league. We have had an unusual # of trades this year that were good, keepable players traded for a #1 pick. This is arguably 2 Keeper players AND a #2 for a #1. That is giving up WAY too much. We are now being forced to come up with new rules to help with this issue. Some suggestions we have are below, and I would love to here others that may help in a two person keeper league (sorry, not trying to thread jack!):

1. Trades for picks in rounds 1,2, or 3 can only be done hte week prior to the trade deadline. Reasoning....Trading away a high pick is a move for NOW and not the future. It is to make a playoff run. You cannot make a decision like thisin week 6. This is to help with teams that give up too early. Only 1,2,3 picks because we still want to be able to sweeten a deal by tossing in a 4th or 5th earlier in the year....

2. Owners involved in trading picks of rounds 1,2 or 3 three must pay 50% of the league fees upfront before the trade can be approved. This is to help assure the owner selling his soul for this year does'nt just leave next year when he realizes his team sucks next year without any good picks...

3. Only two players can be traded between the same teams for picks. This is to avoind letting one team sell out with another and refresh a third of his lineup by getting picks...

4. An Owner can only have two extra picks a year. This is similar to # 3 above.

5. The players traded for picks must be kept or dropped by the owner if during the offseason. You cannot trade that player. If during the same year, the player may be traded again. This is to avoid an owner receiving keeper like players from simply trading them in the offseason back to the original owner for his picks back, or even to other owners for picks. If you get 2 players for 1 pick and can trade those guys for 2 picks in the offseason, you are basically renting the players for FREE during the playoff year...

Anyway, sorry I got off topic with the bad trade stuff...

 

[Marc Levin]

As far as the trade, all I can suggest is a trade deadline in about week 10 or 11. Most league's playoffs begin in week 13 14, so week 10 is a good time to make them decide to fight for the superbowl or give up and play for next year.

This is week 13 we are currently playing and almost noone is in their FF playoffs - everyone's winding up the regular season this weekend.Otherwise

 

[one time]

ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND WORDING IN THE BYLAWS "THE MAD DEMONS ONLY HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS IF THEY ARE THE HIGHEST SCORER".......WHICH THEY ARE NOT..PANTHERS ARE.

What the heck is this post?You aren't siding with the guys who misinterpreted the rule, are you?According to their interpretation, there is NO sixth seed in the playoffs - it is an open spot.

Thats one of the owners who misinterpreted the rule and the post he posted on the topic from the link i posted in my first post.

 

[Marc Levin]

ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND WORDING IN THE BYLAWS "THE MAD DEMONS ONLY HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS IF THEY ARE THE HIGHEST SCORER".......WHICH THEY ARE NOT..PANTHERS ARE.

What the heck is this post?You aren't siding with the guys who misinterpreted the rule, are you?

According to their interpretation, there is NO sixth seed in the playoffs - it is an open spot.

Thats one of the owners who misinterpreted the rule and the post he posted on the topic from the link i posted in my first post.

Are you saying Wu-banger is in your league and misinterpreted the rule? If so, he's WAY in the minority - and he's been on these boards way too long to interpret that rule in that manner.

The interpretation by those two owners makes no sense - if only the highest point scorer can get the #6 seed, and the two owners agree that the league's highest points scorer gets the higher playoff spot he was originally awarded, then the 6th seed is EMPTY since there is, in effect, no rule covering who gets the 6th seed.

The rule does NOT have any statement on how the 6 seed is determined unless the rule is interpreted the way everyone else in this thread advocates - in short, the two owners' interpretation of the rule leaves a huge ambiguity in the rule to the point that the rule is invalid to determining the #6 seed.

Our interpretation closes the ambiguity, is in concert with both the wording and intent of the rule, and fills the # 6 seed.

There is a legal maxim in rule interpretation used by courts that favors an interpretation that upholds the validity of the rule and there is another one that favors interpreting rules to avoid ambiguities.

 

[darrin40]

We have a contorversial "team QB rule" that says if your starter gets hurt that you get the backups points assuming that the backup was not started by anyone else for that week. For this rule I say that the spirit or intent of the rule will always be the deciding factor if the rule ever come into question.

I thought that I had said that about all the rules! But I didn't and I will add this at the bottom or our rules next year:

"If any rule comes into question, the intent or spirit of the rule will be the deciding factor". I think every league should have that.

BTW, do you have a league committe? This is a group that usually involves the commish and can be used to rule on things like this. If not, you really have two options... Put your foot down as commish and say the rule is as you interpret it because it makes no sense at all to have the higest scoring team seeded 6th. Or, have a league vote on how each owner in the league interprets the rule. I am guessing that a league vote would be 10-2 in favor of your interpretation.

And lets face it, the Mad Demons probably have the highest points against and would be the "really pissed off Demons" if it werent for this rule.

As far as the trade, all I can suggest is a trade deadline in about week 10 or 11. Most league's playoffs begin in week 13 er.. 14, so week 10 is a good time to make them decide to fight for the superbowl or give up and play for next year. Now, the trade is ridiculous and probably viewed as bad for the league. We have had an unusual # of trades this year that were good, keepable players traded for a #1 pick. This is arguably 2 Keeper players AND a #2 for a #1. That is giving up WAY too much. We are now being forced to come up with new rules to help with this issue. Some suggestions we have are below, and I would love to here others that may help in a two person keeper league (sorry, not trying to thread jack!):

1. Trades for picks in rounds 1,2, or 3 can only be done hte week prior to the trade deadline. Reasoning....Trading away a high pick is a move for NOW and not the future. It is to make a playoff run. You cannot make a decision like thisin week 6. This is to help with teams that give up too early. Only 1,2,3 picks because we still want to be able to sweeten a deal by tossing in a 4th or 5th earlier in the year....

2. Owners involved in trading picks of rounds 1,2 or 3 three must pay 50% of the league fees upfront before the trade can be approved. This is to help assure the owner selling his soul for this year does'nt just leave next year when he realizes his team sucks next year without any good picks...

3. Only two players can be traded between the same teams for picks. This is to avoind letting one team sell out with another and refresh a third of his lineup by getting picks...

4. An Owner can only have two extra picks a year. This is similar to # 3 above.

5. The players traded for picks must be kept or dropped by the owner if during the offseason. You cannot trade that player. If during the same year, the player may be traded again. This is to avoid an owner receiving keeper like players from simply trading them in the offseason back to the original owner for his picks back, or even to other owners for picks. If you get 2 players for 1 pick and can trade those guys for 2 picks in the offseason, you are basically renting the players for FREE during the playoff year...

Anyway, sorry I got off topic with the bad trade stuff...

I am Mad Demons.Just for the record, there was no collusion in this trade. I traded away my first pick because the offer was too good to pass up, and because I already hold 3 other 1st round draft picks. I was aware of the points rule but I did really think about it when I accepted the trade. It was a non-issue for me.

 

[pettifogger]

This year is the first full year for my 12 team dynasty league. In our league rules it is written as far as the playoffs go:

"Playoffs: The Three conference winners will get the first three seeds. The next two in record are in along with the highest scorer for the 6th seed. Any ties for record are broken by points scored. Week 15:1,2-bye week. 3V6, 4v5

Week 16:1v4/5, 2v3/6. Week 17:Last two remaining"

I updated the playoff situation last week stating who would be in if the playoffs ended before this week. We have two more weeks left.

"1. Panthers: 9-3 with 1477 points

2. HHH: 9-3 with 1416 points

3. Rusty's Regulars: 8-3-1 with 1299 points(Reminder: the top 3 teams are the 3 division leaders)

4. Dominator: 8-4 with 1350 points

5. SJF: 8-4 with 1341 points

6. Mad Demons: 2-10 with 1348 points.

It looks like a 7 team race with the team on the out looking in right now being Floody 3000 with an 8-4 record with 1256 points. Im sure everyone sees the suprising team in this. Mad Demons is the reason we have the sixth spot going to the points leader. A dismal record (worst in the league) and he still has a great shot at getting in the last spot. Theorhetically spots 1-5 and 7 could all finish pretty much in any spot though Panthers looks extremely safe."

Two owners (so far) took the high points part of the rules to mean that if the the league high points leader misses the playoffs, he gets the sixth seed but otherwise it is determined by record. One of the owners who thought the 2-10 team was eliminated due to the way he read the playoff information traded a couple of good players a week or two ago in order to get the 2-10 teams 1st round pick.Right now I'm at a loss of what to do. I realize and will fix after the year to state "The next two in record are in along with the highest scorer left for the 6th seed," just to clarify but I obviously cant reverse the trade and I can't change the rules due to a discrepency where a few owners read it a different way than intended.

Any opinions on what I should do? Here is the league website/topic for any further information. I hope you don't have to be in the league to see see everything.

League

Thanks

I don't see how the sentance can be read as anything other than the highest scorer of the remaining teams. If it included the league's highest scoring team even if that team was one of the first five seeds, you'd be seeding a team twice. One issue this creates is that if two teams are tied in wins for the fifth seed, the one with fewer points is bumped and might miss the playoffs completely if another team with less wins has more points. But that's a risk the league took and the rule itself is clear.

 

[ExtraPoint]

In any contract or rulebook, intent is more important than actual wording. If you made this rule, your intent is all that matters. If another owner came up with the rule and the rest of the league agreed to it, the intent could either fall on that other owner or on whoever involved themselves in that particulair discussion.

It really sounds to me like the intent was to put the highest scoring team of whoever's left. However I didnt come up with the rule.

 

[Swamprat]

Stick with the intent of the rule...that the highest scoring team that does not qualify for any of the first 5 playoff spots is awarded the 6th seed.

 

[ExtraPoint]

Adding that the "trade" has no relation to the rule and has to be a non-factor in your decision. Dont use speculation to determine the value of a future draft pick. There was no guarantee that the 2-10 team would or wouldnt make the playoffs at the time of the trade.

 

[Wu-banger]

ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND WORDING IN THE BYLAWS "THE MAD DEMONS ONLY HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS IF THEY ARE THE HIGHEST SCORER".......WHICH THEY ARE NOT..PANTHERS ARE.

What the heck is this post?You aren't siding with the guys who misinterpreted the rule, are you?

According to their interpretation, there is NO sixth seed in the playoffs - it is an open spot.

Thats one of the owners who misinterpreted the rule and the post he posted on the topic from the link i posted in my first post.

Are you saying Wu-banger is in your league and misinterpreted the rule? If so, he's WAY in the minority - and he's been on these boards way too long to interpret that rule in that manner.

The interpretation by those two owners makes no sense - if only the highest point scorer can get the #6 seed, and the two owners agree that the league's highest points scorer gets the higher playoff spot he was originally awarded, then the 6th seed is EMPTY since there is, in effect, no rule covering who gets the 6th seed.

The rule does NOT have any statement on how the 6 seed is determined unless the rule is interpreted the way everyone else in this thread advocates - in short, the two owners' interpretation of the rule leaves a huge ambiguity in the rule to the point that the rule is invalid to determining the #6 seed.

Our interpretation closes the ambiguity, is in concert with both the wording and intent of the rule, and fills the # 6 seed.

There is a legal maxim in rule interpretation used by courts that favors an interpretation that upholds the validity of the rule and there is another one that favors interpreting rules to avoid ambiguities.

Your right but,,,,The first post he stated was biased in his nature by expressing his intent of the rule. when the rule was posted originally in our league.. I, nor anyone else, was aware of his intent, and misread it... it seems alot clearer after he expressed his meaning of the rule.

GB a 3-11 team in the playoffs. Hope I play 'em

We'll clear up the wording of the rule for next year....