Age old question for The Commish: A non-playing team....

[longshots]

If it were me, I would just set his lineup each week from what he has. I am not a big fan of the redistributing his players to the league. I was in a league once that this happened. (not fball) It is not fair to the people in say 1st or 2nd place, who have worked hard to get that ranking. Just to have a 3rd,4th or 5th place guy get a great player by default. It can change the whole season. This paticular instance, the dead team's players were distributed in reverse order of the owners point totals. So the guys in the top 2 or so, had better players on their bench than they could get from the dead team.

[pangbones]

You can't sit his team every week. No one should get a free pass. Unfortunately some people probably already got a free pass so to speak, but you can't leave his lineup empty.

This happened in my league last year. When I realized he wasn't putting a lineup in anymore, I took over the team. I simply left his "best team" in there every week, and only made changes when a player had a bye, or if there was an injury. This way the team always had a full, legitimate lineup. Since he had McNabb, Alexander, and Portis, there was no decision for me to make, so there was no problems with people thinking I was being biased. He only had like 3 WR's left too, so I simply left that team in and only made necessary changes. This was the best solutiona I came up with.

And it actually was funny how it turned out. He had T Glenn as his 3rd WR, and he got hurt. So I had to pick up a WR so he would have a full lineup. I picked him up D Bennett, and he blew up at the end of the year, and this "ghost team" ended up making the playoffs. Since he also didn't pay, the money he won, which wasn't much since he lost in the 1st round, went towards what he owed.

Thats how I handled it.

[pangbones]

I just don't like the idea of a team getting a "free" win, if the team has no one in the lineup. Especially if some teams lost to this guy in the beginning of the year when he was still putting a lineup in.

Could you imagine missing the playoffs by 1 game, cuz the other guy got a free win in week 13? That would suck!!

[lsufan]

I vote just to leave the guys team alone. Don't do anything. It sucks when people quit but there is no good answer to this question.

Letting the commish run the team is a bad idea. To me it is a conflict of interest. I don't want my commish running two teams. Im trying to beat him. There is too many factors. Example: I need to lose for the commish to make the playoffs and Im up against the team were the guy quit. OR Commish needs a win to make the playoffs and is up against a team he runs.

I also do not bench all his players. I leave it the way it was when the person quit. I don't care if he has A. Green in his starting lineup. I have, and probably some of you guys have lost to a team that had injured players or players on a bye in there starting lineup. If he wins the league then pay him his money. I don't care if he beat you in Nov. and picked his lineup in Oct. He still beat you.

[Matthias]

agree 100% with pangbones. what he said.

re: conflict of interest concerns, it's not really a conflict of interest for the commissioner to be setting the ghost team's lineup if he's making it as good as he can. that's what (assumedly) the team owner would do themselves. if it seems like the commish is setting the team up soft in order for the commish to beat out the ghost team for the last playoff spot, that could be a conflict. and the week that the commish plays the ghost team, it makes sense to have another active owner decide the lineup because that's a conflict of interest.

but generally, i say it's the commish's interest to keep the league fair and balanced and happy. and that is best achieved by keeping the ghost team complete and competitive every week.

[lsufan]

Matthias, the only problem with your statement is everybody has there own opinion. The commish might believe he is making the team as good as possible by starting certain players but who he would start and who I would start could be completly different.

[Matthias]

yes, but disagreeing on who would be the best start is not a "conflict of interest." it's a "difference of opinion." a commissioner enacting a trade between their own team and a ghost team is a conflict of interest and something to worry about. a commissioner deciding that warrick dunn at miami is a better start than carnell williams at carolina is a judgment call that i would never lose any sleep over.

the example you gave earlier, "Example: I need to lose for the commish to make the playoffs and Im up against the team were the guy quit." is not a conflict of interest. your gripe is that the commissioner would be putting out what the commissioner believes is the best team. but that's the same thing that the player who owned the team would do if they were still around. there's no conflict. as i mentioned above, if the commissioner is setting up the ghost team to tank to help himself into the playoffs, that is a conflict.

what it comes down to is that the league is better served by having a dead team kept competitive rather than just leaving all the players status quo.