Like many leagues, one that I participate in has a coachless team. The guy hasn't done a thing since before the start of the season. Subsequently, since week 4 when the byes started kicking in, the other teams in my league have played this easy win against a team that always has empty positions due to byes, not to mention players in his roster that might be injured. All but two of us have played this coachless team (8 team league).
This week, I'm tied at second place with the league commissioner. Suddenly, he's chimed in that he talked with that team's owner, got him to unlock commissioner control, and the commissioner wants to drop the dead wood, pick up players, and basically run a second team...
To me, there are two problems with this. First, as to me and my match-up this week, I would not be competing on the same playing field five of my opponents have played on--just last week the league commissioner's team played the coachless/ownerless team when the latter had 4 empty bye positions, on top of the players that just aren't playing, like a Trung Canidate. Now I'm to play this team, and he wants to over-haul it first?
The second issue I have is, to me, running two teams is a clear conflict of interest. He can bench twice the amount of players, in effect playing "keep away" with available and emerging players.
Is it me, or is this completely inappropriate? He's receiving my objections by calling me "cowardly," not wanting the added competition...
I've tried to take the high road in saying I wanted the same cowardly opportunity to play this team that he had just last week, or we aren't playing on a level playing field.
This is his latest reply on the subject:
by: The Defilers (eviljason497) Oct 29, 10:16 pm EST
"Well, it wasn't really cowardly because it was out of anyone's control those weeks....
"If you feel threatened by his team without holmes and gonzo, then you obviously have some weird problems.
"I suppose I could do this though, if he did beat you, I could re-adjust his lineup for that week back to the old one and rerun the stats so you get the cheap as heck win you so covet, since you've been creaming your pants over this since you saw his name on your schedule."
The Holmes/Gonzo reference is because the coachless team has Holmes and Gonzalez on his roster and this week they're on a bye. If he takes over that team now and makes it more competitive for my match-up (mind you, in all likelihood, I'd still win because I have a very good team and there's only so much he has to work with), he's basically making my schedule harder than his has been, since he didn't feel motivated to do all this last week when he played that team. But, that's all beside the point of a conflict of interest.
yeah, i'm not a fan of that. i've been a commissioner for a couple years, and there's always at least one dead team a season. it's a real pain in the ass for a commish.
but this is my view -- i put up notice at the beginning of the season that dead teams and lazy owners hurt the league. i don't penalize people for not setting lineups (although, i'm thinking about coming up with a plan for next season) and i don't harrass them if they slack off. i just say it once or twice at the beginning of the season to the group.
after that, if an owner goes AWOL, i won't contact them. the reason is exactly what's happening to you. you have to be very sensitive to the balance of power in a league when you're commish. you can't let a team go 8 weeks on auto-pilot then decide to harrass the owner of the dead team in the 9th week. it's not fair to the teams that played him before vs. after that 9th week. it's a conflict of interest BECAUSE THE COMMISH IS HAVING A HAND IN WHO WINS AND LOSES. if the commish of your league can't see that, then he's a loser and has no business running a league.
it doesn't matter if it would've been a "cheap as heck win" for you -- it's still a win. if this is a money league, i'd probably walk. if money's involved, then the commish needs to be EXTRA sensitive to this kind of stuff. if it were me, i'd tell him to F-off, then i'd probably drop all my players to the WW or trade them off to everyone in the league BUT him. then i'd walk.
20 Team League | 11-3 | 5th Place
Q: Kitna, Flutie
R: Henry, Portis, T. Jones, Rudi, Griffin, Burns
W: Chambers, Ward
He should leave the lineup as is without making any changes until week 11, then he can put all the team's best players in the starting lineup and then leave the team alone the rest of the year making no additional changes and certainly no trades. I also am in a similar situation this week. One team in my league has been playing with players on bye every week or with Randy Moss and Steve McNair on the bench. He gave at least one team a win that would have been a sure-fire loss. Now all of a sudden he puts all his best players in for this week's matchup against yours truly. I don't mind playing against his best team, but it's not fair for other teams to get a free win and then for me to have to face his best squad. The fact that your commissioner is interfering like that especially the week after he schooled the same team with 4 players on bye week is inappropriate. He is the coward for not making those changes sooner, if he wanted to make them at all. Basically, if he goest through with his plan, he should be banned from the league. Paste a link to this discussion on your league's message board and see what happens.
Well, for one, I'd accuse the guy of 'creaming in his pants to get the opportunity to run a second team'.
I've never understood why so many commissioners feel compelled to make the leap from revivng a dead team to ruining the league by committing the biggest fantasy crime of managing two teams in one league. The guy cheesed on the league by not running his team. Big deal. His line-up should not be submitted 'all of a sudden' by the commish.
Just for fainess' sake everybody should face the dead team once. I wouldn't be opposed to a league vote to adjust his line-up after that point based on a pre-determined formula or some other such decree. Having the commish run a second team is ruining the league more than the dead team itself. League integrity survives a dead team. It doesn't survive an owner with 2 teams. That would be a collusive league. How does he decide which player He wants to pick up for which team? Once he gets a thought to pick up a player, he gets to decide which team to place him on. He gets twice the moves, and can use them defensively. Even if he doesn't intentionally cheat, there are going to be a differences in the way he runs his second team. He isn't going to rush to the wire to pick up the hot back of the week to play against himself.
There is no possible way for one person to manage 2 teams indepedant from one another in the same league. I'd tell him, here, you can now manage 3 teams in one league, I quit as&%$e. HAVE FUN!
The meek ain't gonna inherit $#!%....'cuz I'll TAKE IT!
One other point, I'm in one league where a pretty lopsided trade was made. It went thru (the commish was the one benefitting) and afterwards there were some very tame comments like 'what did you guys think of the trade? - I didn't understand why Team B would do it, but I guess I give him the benefit of the doubt'. Not one person hit the 'protest' button. It was simple, civil discussion after the trade.
The commish sees these comments, and starts calling the others in the league names, calling them babies, etc. A couple teams quit participating after wards, one team benched all his players and quit. The league sucks because the commish was too immature.
Judging from his response, your commish sounds similar. It's proabably some 14 year old on his parents computer and he has no friends to play in his league with him.
The meek ain't gonna inherit $#!%....'cuz I'll TAKE IT!
He should leave it alone. Like many have said before me it is a major violation because he is running 2 teams in the same league and ther is no way to not have a conflict of interest when running either team.
Stewie: [hitting on some co-eds] I must say, the most recent campus sporting event was quite spectacular.
Co-ed: Aw. Are you in a fraternity, little boy?
Stewie: Not yet, but I'm thinking of joining I Felta Thigh.
> "Judging from his response, your commish sounds similar. It's proabably some 14 year old on his parents computer and he has no friends to play in his league with him."
That's about my take on the situation. Worse part is, none of the other players have chimed in. Thing is, of the 7 active team, 5 know each other. Me and one other both spotted the commish's classified here back in early August and joined (he was having problems filling the league). I wanted to try a league that was using individual defensive players, as this one does.
Thus far, he hasn't made a move. This was my last post on the subject, on Thursday: "Some lame shit, your trying to to take over a second team. You want to talk about cowardly. If you start messing with that team, it's basically cheating. There's no way around the fact that it is a conflict of interest. Show a little class and move on."
Based on this guy's actions and words, I'm not sure my argument has won the day or not. He may not have touched it because his friends read my arguments and realized it IS pretty lame, and said something. Or, this is a Yahoo league, and they have a contact link to complain about abuses, etc., which I did. Now that I see there's universal condemnation, I suppose it's possible that Yahoo has quietly re-locked that team so he can't mess with it.
Or, maybe he's waiting to 12:55 tomorrow to make his moves. I'll be looking for that, and if he does, I WILL bench all my players, change my team name to "N/A," and his league will have essentially gone to shit with just 3 or 4 competitive teams left.