What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

I was just kicked out of a league. (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The commish is an idiot. Sounds like keeping more players next year would not benefit him for some reason. So he used your suggestion against you by saying the only reason you want to vote for next year is because it helps you only. But he was really watching his own back only. Total loser commish.
This is an asinine statement.While the thread creator does have the right to question the rules etc... Ultimately the commish is trying to keep the balance of the league and letting people draft knowing that they will be upping the keeper limit.

People will draft differently knowing that they will be keeping x amount of players next year.

 
You're better off leaving that league. I'm constantly amazed by the a-holes I hear about commishing leagues. Being a commish should be nothing more than being the guy that facilitates the league running smoothly, everything in terms of rules and future direction should be open for debate and majority rule IMHO.
but the rule change proposed by the original poster was unfair.an unfair rule should not be open to debate or a vote. it's ridiculous.
 
Here's how I read it:- You wanted a rule change which would have a major impact on this year enacted in mid-season (yes, it wouldn't kick in until next year, but the impact would be felt this year -- I'm sure people had already made trades while considering the current keeper limit)- The commish said no, we'll talk about it next year, but for this year it stays as is. The correct call, I'd say. You do not change rules mid-season without 100% agreement. Not a majority, but 100%.- You didn't like it, and tried to show up the commish with your poll, making you look like a dink.- He didn't like that, and the whole thing descends into a flame war, making him look like a dink.Now I'm not saying you should have been kicked out just for disagreeing with him, but on the voting issue the commish was right and you were wrong. A simple majority is not enough to make a major mid-season rule change. End of discussion.From there, it turns into a flame war that doesn't make either of you look good. But to be honest, it sounds like you're the sort of owner who's just more trouble than they're worth (in a free league, especially). I'm not surprised he kicked you out.

 
Hey I think it should have stopped a long time ago. Both are at fault for having a pissing contest. He is ultimately the commish and for you to go do a poll on your own about a rule change is wrong. Sorry man if you would have left it alone you would have been ok

 
You're better off leaving that league. I'm constantly amazed by the a-holes I hear about commishing leagues. Being a commish should be nothing more than being the guy that facilitates the league running smoothly, everything in terms of rules and future direction should be open for debate and majority rule IMHO.
Well said. The commish is just one member of the league who got things rolling and makes sure things go smoothly. It's not HIS/HER league.I haven't participated in a league like that and never will. There are way to many leagues out there for anyone to have to settle for that.However, when looking at your argument. I wonder why someone, anyonelse in that league didn't jump on there and back you up.I mean, if I saw my commish saying those things to one owner and I didn't disagree with what was being said I'd tell him to ease up and explain that it is our league. Since I didn't see that in your post I feel like there's more to the story.
 
Here's how I read it:- You wanted a rule change which would have a major impact on this year enacted in mid-season (yes, it wouldn't kick in until next year, but the impact would be felt this year -- I'm sure people had already made trades while considering the current keeper limit)- The commish said no, we'll talk about it next year, but for this year it stays as is. The correct call, I'd say. You do not change rules mid-season without 100% agreement. Not a majority, but 100%.- You didn't like it, and tried to show up the commish with your poll, making you look like a dink.- He didn't like that, and the whole thing descends into a flame war, making him look like a dink.Now I'm not saying you should have been kicked out just for disagreeing with him, but on the voting issue the commish was right and you were wrong. A simple majority is not enough to make a major mid-season rule change. End of discussion.From there, it turns into a flame war that doesn't make either of you look good. But to be honest, it sounds like you're the sort of owner who's just more trouble than they're worth (in a free league, especially). I'm not surprised he kicked you out.
:thumbup: :goodposting:a perfect summary
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just FYI, here was my roster. Standard scoring + 0.5 pt per reception. I was 4-1 so far & about to be 5-1 after a crucial division game.
How do you know you weren't about to be 4-2??
yeh, your team is not even that good.
A lot better than the guy I was facing. :yawn: So Moss, Walker & AJ in a points per recep league is not good eh? :rotflmao:
Those three WRs are great.Its not having a starting RB that makes your team subpar...
RB T. Henry BUF 3 RB T. Duckett ATL 9 RB S. Jackson STL 8 RB C. Perry CIN 5 RB T. Hollings HOU 7 RB R. Anderson DAL 4
:no:
 
You're better off leaving that league. I'm constantly amazed by the a-holes I hear about commishing leagues. Being a commish should be nothing more than being the guy that facilitates the league running smoothly, everything in terms of rules and future direction should be open for debate and majority rule IMHO.
Well said. The commish is just one member of the league who got things rolling and makes sure things go smoothly. It's not HIS/HER league.I haven't participated in a league like that and never will. There are way to many leagues out there for anyone to have to settle for that.However, when looking at your argument. I wonder why someone, anyonelse in that league didn't jump on there and back you up.I mean, if I saw my commish saying those things to one owner and I didn't disagree with what was being said I'd tell him to ease up and explain that it is our league. Since I didn't see that in your post I feel like there's more to the story.
I value the opinions of both you and Woods, but I don't see how you guys can not agree with the commish. Especially with what others have pointed out.If the discussion had been for changing the scoring system starting next week, how would it have been any different? A good commish should not allow rules to be changed without sufficient advanced notice, regardless of whether a majority of the league wants the change now or not.
 
Uh, no rules for THIS year would have been changed. This was for NEXT year.
IMO, changing the number of players someone can keep for the year directly following this year constitutes as a rule change for THIS year, not next. Why? Because there is a chance that at least one person in the league (it may not be you) took into consideration the number of players they can keep for next year when they determined their drafting strategy at the beginning of this year, and drafted based on that. Changing the number of keepers would be unfair to that person. Even if you allow people to make trades so that they can make moves to accomodate this rule change, that person would be trading from a disadvantaged position.Here is an extreme example: Person A knows that the league is a 3 man keeper. He already has three top tier young studs (eg. Tomlinson, Moss, Culpepper). Looking over the players available in the 2004 draft, he doesn't think anyone will be good enough to keep over these three guys. So he decides to go with a strategy of drafting older veterans and ignoring young players, because even if the older players bomb, he still has arguably the best keeper trio for next year. So he goes and fills his team with guys like Jerry Rice and Charlie Garner. Then, the league decides mid-season that for 2005, you can keep 4 players. Suddenly, Person A has one more keeper spot to fill and, unlike the majority of other owners who voted for the rule change, does not have a viable player to fill it. Sure, he screwed himself by bad drafting. But if he knew ahead of time that he could keep 4 players, he would have definately not drafted all veterans.Thus, IMO, if there is a rule change concerning keepers, it should never be made based on THIS year's rosters unless you are making the change before THIS year's draft, which in your case has already passed.
This is exactly the point I was going to make and it is the only real issue here.You were wrong, the commish was right. You chose to be an ### about it, and the commish had every right to boot you.
 
You're better off leaving that league. I'm constantly amazed by the a-holes I hear about commishing leagues. Being a commish should be nothing more than being the guy that facilitates the league running smoothly, everything in terms of rules and future direction should be open for debate and majority rule IMHO.
....at the end of or during the off season! :yes:
 
If I was the commish I would have stopped replying to you as soon as you stepped over the line, which you did. You shouldnt have been kicked out, but stop kidding yourself that you are some innocent victim
No, I did acknowledge that I stepped over the line.
By the way, you are doing the same thing in this thread... belittling anyone who disagrees with your point of view instead of taking it as constructive criticism. Why as for opinions? Just ask for people to post only if they agree with you.
Not "belittling" anyone.
Counting down to some little wisecrack in response now...
Yea, because that helps.
Yeah - you acknowledged it but you are still acting like the commish is the only one with a problem in this whole thing.Either you are fishing or you dont understand the word "belittling" or you simply dont know how to discuss things without acting like the child you have proven to everyone to be. I suspect you have what you believe to be a sharp, sarcastic wit which fails you when delivered electronically. A few of your gems from this thread alone...

How about you be constructive instead of a #####?

Right, just let him abuse the members.

Thanks for your input, though.

Ok, thanks for the post

I practically dared you to show your ### and you took the bait hook, line and sinker.

 
I commish a redraft league. At the end of every season it seems at least one owner with a strong team wants to turn it into a keeper. I will not do it at the end or middle or after the draft of the league. You wouldn't necessarily draft the same way in a redraft as in a keeper. For example in a redraft Marshall Faulk, at this point, would draft earlier than in a keeper. I always tell them if you want to make it a keeper we need to do it before the draft not after it. Of course then no one wants to change it later.It would be same thing increasing the league from say 3 to 6 keepers. Even though you started the draft with 3 keepers the earlier rounds of the draft would be affected if you knew you were drafting 3 more keepers.That is why the commish is correct in his decision here. It is a change that needs to be done before the next seasons draft, not after this one.

 
Twisted, your real name isn't Bob Millaway, is it?That guy got booted from one of my baseball leagues for behavior similar to yours.I wouldn't have kicked you out myself, but I side with your commish. You were being obnoxious and were promoting an unfair change.

 
I only read thru the replies on the first page, I didn't bother reading the last three pages... so excuse me if some of what I say is a :honda:But I'm REALLY surprised at how many people I read that sided with the commish. From reading the original post, this did NOT start out as a pissing match. Sounded to me like Twisted was just asking for a simple vote, and the commish was the one that got out of line to begin with.I totally agree with Jason Wood - the commish's only role is to make sure the league runs smooth. I would never be in a league with a commish who was a dictator and said "it's my league and I make the rules."And I do Commish leagues - I've commished both redraft and full Dynasty leagues. In every league I've ever commished I put ALL proposed rule changes to a vote - exactly as they are presented to me by the owner. Now I'll never change a rule mid=season, but if the majority of my owners want to make a change for the next season, I abide by their wishes. I may be the "control freak" commish, but without the other eleven owners in my league it would be pretty boring on draft day!I have a very strong suspision that this commissioner had his own interests in mind when he so strongly against a simple vote. Even if the results of the vote were in favor of a change for the 2005 season - they could still debate the nature of the change... it just smells fishy to me on the part of the commish.Twisted, I'd say you're better off out of that league and away from that commish.

 
You're better off leaving that league. I'm constantly amazed by the a-holes I hear about commishing leagues. Being a commish should be nothing more than being the guy that facilitates the league running smoothly, everything in terms of rules and future direction should be open for debate and majority rule IMHO.
....at the end of or during the off season! :yes:
:yes: How can anyone not recognize that the rule change proposed by Twisted impacts the draft that was just held by his league?

 
I only read thru the replies on the first page, I didn't bother reading the last three pages... so excuse me if some of what I say is a :honda:But I'm REALLY surprised at how many people I read that sided with the commish. From reading the original post, this did NOT start out as a pissing match. Sounded to me like Twisted was just asking for a simple vote, and the commish was the one that got out of line to begin with.I totally agree with Jason Wood - the commish's only role is to make sure the league runs smooth. I would never be in a league with a commish who was a dictator and said "it's my league and I make the rules."And I do Commish leagues - I've commished both redraft and full Dynasty leagues. In every league I've ever commished I put ALL proposed rule changes to a vote - exactly as they are presented to me by the owner. Now I'll never change a rule mid=season, but if the majority of my owners want to make a change for the next season, I abide by their wishes. I may be the "control freak" commish, but without the other eleven owners in my league it would be pretty boring on draft day!I have a very strong suspision that this commissioner had his own interests in mind when he so strongly against a simple vote. Even if the results of the vote were in favor of a change for the 2005 season - they could still debate the nature of the change... it just smells fishy to me on the part of the commish.Twisted, I'd say you're better off out of that league and away from that commish.
I don't know that what you posted is a Honda, but along with missing three pages, you missed the point. Changing the rule now, in mid-season affects teams this year in this league because it's a KEEPER league. By the way, if you read the other 3 pages, you'll soon learn that TWISTED is being a tool here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top