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

[Mushu]

As a Commish, I just LOVE it when owners tell me how it's going to be!

This may sound a bit "controlish"...but....It's MY dam league! I wrote every word of our rules...I laid it out and ran it side by side with another league I was in for a full year before I started it up. I spent all kinds of time tweaking the scoring rules to that complete parity was acheived. I set it ALL UP!! IT'S MY LEAGUE GUDDAMMIT!!

That being said.....I don't mind input at all. Some of the best ideas have come from other owners...but the bottom line is...that when it comes to running the league...I aint going to do anything that I don't want to do.

I've had people come up with all kinds of rules...but I dont' want to track 'em...so they ain't going to happen. Someone comes up with a scoring change, I plug it in to see what it affects...if I don't like it...it don't happen.

I'm not the only game in town. You don't like the league I'm runnin'.....find another one.

 

[Eagle Eye]

You don't make a rule change like that in mid-stream. I agree that it shouldn't go to a vote. People vote their self-interest so a majority vote says nothing about the fairness of the rule change. You are pushing this for your own self-interest whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[Mrskoal333]

His league... his rules. I would have kicked you out too. It's fine and dandy for you as an owner to offer up suggestions, but it's not your place to impose your opinions on the league. You got in a pissing match and lost. Try running your own league sometime, and you'll quickly see how you were in wrong and at fault.TXBF

Scroll back a few posts. I already said I do run a league

I feel bad for the players in the league you run because I can tell you make rules to benefit your team. I think you should kick yourself out of that league too and make fantasy football fair again.

 

[Twisted]

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.

Although I agree the commish sounds like a moron and overreacted, He has a point. Even if the league (10 team?) voted 6-4 in favor of voting on this. Its still the Commish's job to look out for the entire league not just the 6 that voted for the increase. Votes like this should be conducted before you draft so you can draft accordingly. My league voted prior to our draft this year for a roster increase next year so teams could draft with that in mind. You also overreacted by calling the commish out with a poll AKA vote after he said he'd do it in the offseason. Your both in the wrong, but I don't believe he should have booted you for this crap!

14 teams

 

[Twisted]

His league... his rules.  I would have kicked you out too.  It's fine and dandy for you as an owner to offer up suggestions, but it's not your place to impose your opinions on the league.  You got in a pissing match and lost. Try running your own league sometime, and you'll quickly see how you were in wrong and at fault.TXBF

Scroll back a few posts. I already said I do run a league

I feel bad for the players in the league you run because I can tell you make rules to benefit your team. I think you should kick yourself out of that league too and make fantasy football fair again.

:rotflmao: Ok, thanks for the post

 

[mbuehner]

If you think this problem has anything to do with it being a "free" vs "money" league, you've fooled yourself.

There are jerk offs in both types of leagues, but in a free league you dont get much sympathy. Its the commish's show, he's the one putting in the leg work. What do you have at stake? A money league is different. When there is gambling everyone is 'invested' in the league and has to be treated with a level of respect. That doesnt mean you get to have your poll on the website necessarilly, but booting you out would be a big problem for the rest of the league if there was cash on the line. I have seen people not asked to return to leagues, but I dont know that i've seen anyone thrown out of money leagues mid-season for anything short of non-payment or cheating. Dont play in free leagues, its a waste of time and invitation for BS.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Hindsight is 20/20, but you probably should have informally polled the other league owners before you & the commish started throwing Gerbers at each other from your high chairs; not overtly, but seemingly in passing. This accomplishes a couple of things:1. If everyone's with you, then when you go to the commish you have the full (or at least majority) support of the other owners.2. It doesn't look to the commish (& apparently, other owners since they didn't rush to your defense) like your trying to show him up.3. If no one likes your idea, then it never gets to the point where you & the commish are fighting. Right or wrong, he almost had no choice but to throw you out.

 

[Eagle Eye]

As soon as you started your own poll on whether to have more keepers or not you shoulda been booted because that was not your job to do so. For 1 thing you have to be straight about how many keepers you will have BEFORE the season starts so everyone can determine axactly which guys they draft (young, old, or indefifferent). You trying to change it half way thru the season is a terrible mistake by you. Your not the commishioner and should have just brought it up and let it go after his decision, he is the commish and not you. You want to run the league and change the rules as the season goes along, run your own league, which will be a lousy run league and unfair if you change the rules after the season starts and not have solid rules from the beginning.

Uh, no rules for THIS year would have been changed. This was for NEXT year.

But it is about keeping guys who are on your roster THIS YEAR.

 

[Marvelous]

I think I am in the minority here. Twisted clearly acted out of line and slapped the commish in the face. The commish said no rule change for 05. Yet he puts up a poll with very predictable results. Half of the owners will benefit and vote for. Half of the owners will be hurt and vote against. The commish is pissed for having to deal with an issue that has already been settled.Good way to divide the league and make people grumble.The league I am in is all friends and friends of friends. So in any email, suggestion, and trash talk, you have to be cognizant of the fact that I personally know half of the people and the commish knows all of them personally, not just a fantasy football GMs. This makes everyone a little more careful on how far to push issues.

 

[CerealKillerz]

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 victimBy 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.Counting down to some little wisecrack in response now...

 

[middleweightcontender]

at first glance I think it is something I would have let go until the end of the season.The reason being that people will make trades and manage their team this year based on the fact that the majority voted in a poll to have more spots next year. If the poll wasn't brought up then everyone will procede as if the rule was staying the same, which it very well may be even if half+one vote for more spots.I think the commish is there for a reason, which is to keep order in the league, and sometimes that means not appeasing the members sometimes if it conflicts with the interest of the league.That being said, I've never been a commish, but I wouldn't have kicked you out either.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Dude, have you ever been a commish?Your pissing and moaning is ridiculous. Commish's don't need to put up with #### like that. The whole thread reeks of a schoolyard pissing match. You are wrong in this instance.

I agree, you are the crybaby here. Seems to me the commish try to handle this with some maturity, and you kept acting like a baby. People like you are no good for any league, and this league will be better off without you.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

I side with the Commish on this issue:#1 You wouldn't drop the issue and tried to do an end run via a poll to prove your point.#2 Changing structural rules in the middle of the season (or for next year in a keeper league) colors the issue with self-interest. Teams with quality and quantity in terms of young studs will vote to increase the number of keeper for next year because it helps them, while teams with grizzled vets will not want it expanded. The Commish was rightfully trying to remove "self interest" from the issue which is what deferring it an additional year (a long time in football years) accomplishes.#3 All leagues are not the same. Some charters are you basic "peace, love and acid" commune, in which every piece of minutia is put up for vote. Other leagues bestow authority to a Commish, who handles administrative issues, may be busy and play in several leagues, and not want to be berated by someone who won't let go of an issue.#4 Kicking you out may be extreme, but in a low $ league its important that the league is fun and folks get along, so the Commish decided to cut his losses with someone that he viewed as overly "argumentative".

 

[Utter Chaos]

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??

 

[Mrskoal333]

As soon as you started your own poll on whether to have more keepers or not you shoulda been booted because that was not your job to do so. For 1 thing you have to be straight about how many keepers you will have BEFORE the season starts so everyone can determine axactly which guys they draft (young, old, or indefifferent). You trying to change it half way thru the season is a terrible mistake by you. Your not the commishioner and should have just brought it up and let it go after his decision, he is the commish and not you. You want to run the league and change the rules as the season goes along, run your own league, which will be a lousy run league and unfair if you change the rules after the season starts and not have solid rules from the beginning.     

Uh, no rules for THIS year would have been changed. This was for NEXT year.

But it is about keeping guys who are on your roster THIS YEAR.

It would have made a difference when you drafted your team this year if you would have known you were keeping more players.

 

[Twisted]

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.

 

[Burning Sensation]

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.

 

[Twisted]

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. So Moss, Walker & AJ in a points per recep league is not good eh? :rotflmao:

 

[Utter Chaos]

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. So Moss, Walker & AJ in a points per recep league is not good eh? :rotflmao:

On any given Sunday..........

 

[jonboltz]

...

 

[Burning Sensation]

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. So Moss, Walker & AJ in a points per recep league is not good eh? :rotflmao:

You made it sound as if your team was fantastic, but your RB's are HORRIBLE.

 

[jonboltz]

Upon further review...I think the commish should have kicked you out a long time ago. I've followed this thread for 30 minutes and I'm already annoyed and sick of you.

 

[aardball44]

If it's a free league, what does the $5.00 go towards? How much does the commish rake in? $50.00 just to run the league?

You appear to be a bigger fish than the others and you should look for a bigger pond.

:twocents:

The $5 was for site fees.I have been thining about going to some money leagues & doing away w/these free ones. Looks like next year I will do just that after this bs!

It's ashame, though, my team had a very good shot at winning it all this year.

Yeah, well...so did the Red Sox. Boo hoo.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Upon further review...I think the commish should have kicked you out a long time ago. I've followed this thread for 30 minutes and I'm already annoyed and sick of you.

:rotflmao:

 

[glumpy]

Adding # of keepers is a drastic change and shouldn't be taken lightly.

I'm siding with your commish on this one, as I feel you were being a whiney brat when he decided to wait until after the year to make any drastic changes to the league.

I'm in agreement here. I actually would not have had a problem with the vote, but given that it would indeed be a major change to the planning for this year's rosters--it would not have mattered to me if the vote was 11-1 in favor. In that case, despite the majority, having it negatively affect even just one team makes it unacceptable as a 'mid year' change.

 

[Sagan]

My take:He was wrong for denying the other members of the league a chance to discuss and/or do an informal poll on the matter. I believe that the role of a commissioner is facilitation and making executive decisions only on very weird and vague issues.However, you were wrong to escalate it to the flames that it became, regardless of what a jerk the commish was being. You should have gotten the other owners to chime in as well, without you becoming involved ina pissing match with the commish.

 

[Ray]

"...I am commish, your not."

Its like beinga senator, theya re senator because they were elected, whether by your silence or your vote. DOnt expect them to try and make everyone happy. You said they could be in charge.

Terrible analogy. So when is the next election, Mr. Senator?What I would do in Twisted's shoes is try to pull the whole league down. I would try to get some of the other owners to bail too and start a new league. If none of the sheep will follow, they deserve the slaughter.

 

[hxperson]

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.

 

[corpcow]

#1 - the Commish is an ###. He has an ego, but you both overreacted and handled the situation like children #2 - I do agree with him that certain rule changes should not be enacted - EVEN if a majority agrees - after decisions have been made in reliance of those rules. I guess part of it depends on how much you are changing the keeper rules and structure, but you have to remember that people make draft and waiver decisions based on one set of rules - and thus those rules shouldn't suddenly be changed mid-season.If you have 3 keepers, someone like S.Smith isn't too valuable and may well have been dropped. If you have 6 keepers, though, you are signficantly affecting the keeper landscape - and my guess is that the owner wouldn't have dropped Smith. Similarly, it affects the value of certain up-and-coming guys a lot too - someone may have traded away a Colbert/Calico/Clayton/Evans thinking that it was unlikely that he would ever be a keeper. A rule change mid-season that makes him a good keeper is unfair.I think certain changes like this would be fine if EVERYONE in the league agrees, but if anyone relied on the rules as is it shouldn't go through until the following year.

 

[Mrskoal333]

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.

Exactly what I was saying earlier but he cant understand it. :X

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Twisted, I think you've gotten your vote.Per my unofficial count it appears thatAgree with Commish: 17Agree with You: 6Neutral: 6

 

[Bandit]

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.

Excellent example hxperson.No league should ever change rules during the season, except in the very rare case when the vote is unanimous. Since the commissioner was against the current year change, he knows that it can't be unanimous and thus there is no reason to vote on it.

 

[muffl_commish]

As a Commish, I just LOVE it when owners tell me how it's going to be!

This may sound a bit "controlish"...but....It's MY dam league! I wrote every word of our rules...I laid it out and ran it side by side with another league I was in for a full year before I started it up. I spent all kinds of time tweaking the scoring rules to that complete parity was acheived. I set it ALL UP!! IT'S MY LEAGUE GUDDAMMIT!!

That being said.....I don't mind input at all. Some of the best ideas have come from other owners...but the bottom line is...that when it comes to running the league...I aint going to do anything that I don't want to do.

I've had people come up with all kinds of rules...but I dont' want to track 'em...so they ain't going to happen. Someone comes up with a scoring change, I plug it in to see what it affects...if I don't like it...it don't happen.

I'm not the only game in town. You don't like the league I'm runnin'.....find another one.

THANK YOU!!I couldn't have said it better myself. I am Commish of a league I started from scratch and do all the work. I'll always listen and consider input from other owners but a change isn't going to be made unless I decide to make the change.

I've been Commish for 6 years and early on we were a "democracy". Any change request was voted on and majority ruled. We had major changes each year and alot of fights. The last 2 years, the league has become a "dictatorship" with me the dictator...and I think everyone is having more fun and my job as Commish is actually easier and smoother.

I've got to side with the Commish here.

 

[Twisted]

Not that it matters, but I was the most active owner in that stinking league.

 

[middleweightcontender]

active doesn't always mean better, I've got a guy in my league that has made 68 acquisitions/drops (34/34) this year already. I wish I was joking. No one ever tries to trade with him, they just wait a week for him to drop someone. He's 1-4.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

Twisted, you missed the whole point. You were booted for your awful behavior. Even in the selective e-mail quotes the commissioner came across as polite and reasonable and you came off as horrible. I also happen to agree with the commish's decision on not allowing the rule change regardless of vote. But even if I thought his decision was wrong I would still say you should be booted. Commissioners have to make decisions and they are not always perfect. They don't deserve abuse when they make a mistake in judgement. I think any commissioner that would allow you to stay in their league must just like to fight and argue.

 

[BlueOnion]

Interesting...Does anyone see any similarities to Twisted's behavior on the FFL message board he described in the beginning and his behavior is here in this thread?And can I :honda: somebody even if the post\activity was first cited on another message board?

 

[cjack]

NOTE TO TWISTED: I'm not siding with you here, so you can just ignore the text below and proceed to disagree and post your sarcasm in a reply.As many have stated, but to whom you apparently aren't listening, changing the number of keepers this year does affect next year. Deciding to draft Isaac Bruce versus Andre Johnson can be dependent on whether a league is a keeper or not. As the commissioner stated, it wouldn't matter if a majority voted with you, it wouldn't be fair to other owners who drafted with a certain number of keepers in mind. You can't make that rule change in the middle of the year. His decision to vote in the off-season for 2006 was appropriate.Personally, I think he may be a little anal, but after reading this entire thread, I would have little patience for you too. We almost added a guy this year to our league who is a bit of a deuche, but as it turns out he didn't join. I'm glad, because I could see him behaving the same way as you.You can disagree with the commish and let him know, but you pushed it too far with several responses after he told you the decision. He then warned you once last time to drop it or leave the league. You didn't drop it.Good riddance!I'm wondering if you are in fact fishing, because you've come off in this thread (not necessarily in your original post, but in your replies) as an *ss.Yes, I'm also a commish. No, it doesn't matter here.And who cares if you were allowed to stay in and win it all, there was nothing to be won, except for bragging rights and it sounds like you'll be doing that regardless.

 

[Memorex40]

Yep. I'm a commish as well and would have to agree with Perfect Tommy.

 

[denver90]

Not that it matters, but I was the most active owner in that stinking league.

Not anymore!

 

[Cobra Kahn]

Our league rules are simple:Mid season rule change - 100% acceptance. If one person veto's. Rules doesn't pass.Off season Rule change - 75% acceptance. This makes issues like this soooo easy.

 

[falconeyed]

Is this league's webpage a public page? If so, I say we all invade!

 

[Memorex40]

No doubt. Good rule. I think I'll start implementing that in my league next year.

 

[DragonFire]

Our league rules are simple:Mid season rule change - 100% acceptance. If one person veto's. Rules doesn't pass.Off season Rule change - 75% acceptance. This makes issues like this soooo easy.

Is this a Zealots league? I know they require 75% for rules changes after the season.

 

[Browns]

You should suck it up, appologize to the league, and get back in the league. IMO, he didn't want you out of the league, he said to drop it, but you didn't, he said he wanted you to drop it, but you thought you were above listening to autority in the league. The commish has to be there or you will have major chaos, the commish is in charge, and has the right to make decisions. State your case, then drop it, you kept it up way to long, and in my opinion, you realize you wish you would have done things different. I think an appology would probably get you back in if the commish was reasonable.

 

[placeholder10391]

Thanks for sharing your personal Peyton Place with us. I would have kicked you out before you joined.

 

[Apu]

Twisted =

 

[GregR_2]

Others have already said it well, but I'll add my voice to them.A vote was a moot point unless it would have been unanimous. It's the commish's job to make sure rule changes don't go into effect when they are going to impact decisions that were previously made. If just 1 owner was affected like that, it's the commish's job to protect that owner. The veteran player example is a perfect example. I took Garner in the early third this year in a league... if the league had 3 keepers I'd have taken Thomas Jones there over Garner. It isn't fair to change keeper rules without 1 draft's advance notice.As for how it all was handled, I didn't bother reading the rest of it. Looked like it was just a pissing contest after that. I give the commish kudos for doing his job, though it would have been nice if he'd explained to you WHY bringing it to a vote wouldn't matter.

 

[mbuehner]

Man its a slow news day

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

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.

you do understand that it's patently unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game right?the 2004 players were drafted under certain assumptions about who they'd keep. It wouldn't be fair to change those assumptions.