Have story / question for you commissioners...

[Motown Blues]

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.

[Matthias]

Get a divorce: end your association with Bill.

Ok? Honest opinion? Bill is being a chowderhead. If he wanted to keep some dignity, he should have told his son that he had some inactives playing.

[dupree]

makes me think that Bill was playing both teams....if not then he still seems like a...chowderhead works for me...

[Dan Lambskin]

Bill=douchebag. "congradulate" him on his cheap win. continue to ask him if he'd like to help you take candy from babies, push old ladies out of the way in checkout lines, play some hoops aginst some kindergartners, etc...just continue to make him feel like the douche that he is

...and dont invite Joe back next year

[Timopolis]

I would have never let that happen, if it was the leauge I run I would have told the kid that if he don't take out the inactive players....I will. I love this game and It makes me sick when someone plays it half assed. Of course the kid would not be invited next year and I would seriuosly consider not letting his dad play next year either. I think I would rather thow him out than risk lossing other players because of this B.S. I hope the dad is proud of himself and his offspring.....what a puke.

[ABA316]

Maybe it's just me but I can't really find a whole lot of blame with the helper on this one.

Would it have killed him to say "play someone active"? Of course not. That said, when and where has he obligated himself to continue to do so at any time? I agree he COULD have said something, but he doesn't HAVE to do so.

The helpee should take a little more initiative. Even something as base as reading the inactives would have led him to address this situation.

I agree with the recent poster..I HATE when people don't even give a damn enough to start players that are expected to play.

[Angry_Amish]

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.

Chowderhead is right! First off, I think he might have played both teams, but either way - don't invite kids to play! I mean he is 16, how serious can he be?!?! Lesson learned eh? Joe is not invited back next year and his dad ...well, my dad would have told me to start active players and I would tell my son - even if that means I would take a loss.

I actually contact my managers if they have a bye ... a quick call would have solved the issue. Did you ever talk to Joe to see if he is actually playing and not just taking his dad's advice?!?

[spodog]

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.

A 5-8 team in the playoffs?

#8 seed?

You probably need to fix your playoff format before you go to fixin' your owners. Unless you have 20 or more teams in your league, you really don't need 8 teams in the playoffs. Obviously, your playoff set-up is allowing inferior teams into the playoffs, which could have prevented this whole scenario. A #1 seeded team who managed their team actively all year obviously doesn't want to get busted out of the playoffs by a 5-8 team due to one lucky week and a huge game by Antonio Bryant.

If you are running a 12 or 14 team league, cut your playoffs back to the top 4 or top 6 at MOST.

[Motown Blues]

Thanks for all the input...

I will add a couple of things:

1) I have spoken further to Bill, and he has claimed that he told his son to check (not specifically about inactives) his lineup to make sure it was as he (Joe) wanted it. I honestly do not think he was running both teams, but I think he approach was lame. He could have mentioned that Garcia and Addai were hurt.

2) He LOST in the finals, thank goodness. We all made fun of him at length, during the week and after the outcome, which brought some satisfaction.

3) I have let him know that Joe will not be back in the league. I will be debating instituting a rule for future situations that may allow for commissioner (me) intervention, but how this would manifest I do not know. Bill is family, so he will remain in the league. There has been no real league unrest, and we will all harass him for probably many years about this. There is a certain justice with that.

4) As far as 8 teams in the playoffs...Believe me, I understand the rationale that this minimizes the importance of the regular season / too many teams / upsets, etc. And I respect other league setups. But for years, I have specifically crafted the league in this manner. My own feeling - it keeps EVERYONE interested / active to the very end (and even this year it worked outside of Joe). Last year, all 12 teams were mathematically in it going into week 13. I has prevented, say, the relative disinterest of an 0-4 start. If an upset occurs (fairly) in the playoffs, so be it. We have all liked this, and it is really just a preference.

Again...thanks for the input. Merry Christmas!

[joejlitz]

Maybe it's just me but I can't really find a whole lot of blame with the helper on this one.

Would it have killed him to say "play someone active"? Of course not. That said, when and where has he obligated himself to continue to do so at any time? I agree he COULD have said something, but he doesn't HAVE to do so.

The helpee should take a little more initiative. Even something as base as reading the inactives would have led him to address this situation.

I agree with the recent poster..I HATE when people don't even give a damn enough to start players that are expected to play.

I agree. I find no fault with the dad on this one. He never had any responsibility to help his son. He chose to do so and he can choose when to stop. It is Joe's team to manage. Not his dad's. The ultimate liability lies with Joe.