OK...so, I am not really upset, I am planning no reaction, not fielding league problems, etc. I am just curious about what you think of this situation. Suffice it to say that I am IRKED at my brother-in-law...a bit chafed that he would do this. Tell me what you think:
I run a league that is VERY competitive, comprising of family and friends that get together every year at my place for a much-anticipated draft. The day is a holiday to us. We get an empty spot in the league, and my brother-in-law Bill convinces me to let his son (my nephew) to join. The kid is 16 years old, but plays football himself, and seems to be interested and knows the NFL (or so I think). Fine.
My nephew (we'll call him Joe), turns out to be not a great choice. He forgets to show up to the draft, never sets his lineup, is the only inactive member, etc. In fact, Bill TELLS me that he has to advise him all season long. Again...fine. He tells me he isn't running his team, just giving him some advice. When I talk to Joe, he is completely apathetic. His saving grace? The default picks at the draft (we have a system), garners him a somewhat competitive team. The kid actually squeaks into the playoffs at 5-8, and with the #8 seed, actually wins round #1 against the 11-2, first place team.
He is vaulted by Antonio Bryant's amazing game in week 14. I am not sure my nephew even realizes that he wins.
Mind you, this is the DEFENDING CHAMP that he knocks off. To all of us, this is a big deal.
I should add that Bill is very consistent about stating how great his team is ALL SEASON, every season. Even when he loses, he is the just the best and will hoist the trophy, that sort of thing. The guy does not let up. I love the guy...but holy cow...you have no idea. So, Bill tells me on the morning of week 15 that he was the one that told Joe to put in Bryant, and his son would have lost had he not advised him personally. FINE.
(meanwhile, I have been ousted myself).
Bill wins his first round match-up, and is to play his own son, Joe in round 2 - the semifinals. He says to me - "Mark, I told Joe that my advising is over, that's it. I am done helping him. He is on his own." OK...fine.
I go home...look at Joe's lineup. He has an inactive Jeff Garcia and Joseph Addai starting. He gets amazing games out of everyone else, BUT STILL LOSES...amazingly, but only 5 points. Had he payed ANY sort of attention....I mean READ THE @#$%@#$% injury report ONSCREEN, he would have played Roethlisbergher and Dunn and won by 15. Now Bill is in the finals.
All I posted: "Imagine if the rookie would have played a QB and RB that actually played in a game on Sunday..." To which, Bill blustered: "Well, if I would have played MJD and Jay Culter, this would be already be over." As if this was the same thing.
Sorry for the long-winded story, but I wanted to paint the whole picture. I am irritated, as the cynical side of me believes that Bill CONVENIENTLY chose to not help him in week 15, because he knew full-well that his son would leave to inactive players in. Regardless of the help, I am surprised that he would even feel good about beating his own son in a cheap way. After all that, he didn't just say, hey, Joe...you've got two inactive guys. You might want to change that. Not even give advice beyond this. Now, if I give Bill the benefit of the doubt, he was backing away at what could be argued the appropriate time - when he faced him in the playoffs...after all, why should he help his opponent, regardless of who he is?
What do you guys think? As commissioner, I am not sure how to avoid this, other than to make sure that a league member is not completely inactive.