Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
madd futher mucker

Commish Question

Recommended Posts

I am commish in a friendly $30 buy-in 12 team league where the top 6 make the playoffs. Many of the owners are friends or know each other socially.

 

We have a rule against 'tanking' the season by intentionally not making weekly lineup changes. A team that was 2-7 fielded a team last week with 3 bye week players because he did not change out his team from the week before. If he had put in his worst available team, he would have won. As a result, the team he played moved to 6-4 - ahead of 3 other teams tied at 5-5 for spots 6-8. With 3 games to play, this gives him a huge unearned play-off advantage.

 

I talked to the player who didn't change out his line-up and I don't believe that he INTENTIONALLY tanked - he assures me that he 'has been very busy' and due to his record it was not his highest priority, but that he would like to be invited back next year, and would field a competitive team the rest of the way. He was very sorry that he did not consider the effect on the rest of the league.

 

I am inclined to award the 2-7 player the win. It is very doubtful that he will make the playoffs at 3-7, but he would surely lose at least 1 draft position next year as a result of the extra win (which is an unearned advantage he gets by taking the loss. And the unearned win results in an unlevel playing field for the teams competing for the last spots.

 

I talked to the player who benefited from the move, letting him know that I was thinking of reversing the game results. He expressed that he did his best to win and did not think it was right for me to reverse his win. It is within my power as commishioner to do so - we have an appeal procedure in place to over-rule me, but I doubt that any oter owner except teh windfall winner would vote to reverse.

 

(I personally am NOT affected by the outcome of this decision as I am comfortabley in 1st place in this league.)

 

 

Other commishioners - help me out here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am commish in a friendly $30 buy-in 12 team league where the top 6 make the playoffs. Many of the owners are friends or know each other socially.

 

We have a rule against 'tanking' the season by intentionally not making weekly lineup changes. A team that was 2-7 fielded a team last week with 3 bye week players because he did not change out his team from the week before. If he had put in his worst available team, he would have won. As a result, the team he played moved to 6-4 - ahead of 3 other teams tied for spots 6-8. With 3 games to play, this gives him a huge unearned play-off advantage.

 

I talked to the player who didn't change his line-up and I don't believe that he INTENTIONALLY tanked - he assures me that he 'has been very busy' and due to his record it was not his highest priority, but that he would like to be invited back next year, and would field a competitive team the rest of the way. He was very sorry that he did not consider the effect on the rest of the league.

 

I am inclined to award the 2-7 player the win. It is very doubtful that he will make the playoffs at 3-7, but he would surely lose at least 1 draft position next year as a result of the extra win (which is an unearned advantage he gets by taking the loss. And the unearned win results in an unlevel playing field for teams competing for the last spots.

 

I talked to the player who benefited from the move, letting him know that I was thinking of reversing the game results. He expressed that he did his best to win and did not think it was right to reverse his win.

 

(I personally am NOT affected by the outcome of this decision as I am comfortabley in 1st place in this league.)

Other commishioners - help me out here!

 

You gotta let it stand unless there is a written rule that the commish can change a players roster that starts bye week players. I doubt you have one or you wouldn't be asking about it here.

 

Live with it this year and change the rule for next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have to let the original win stand. I understand where the frustration comes from, but you can't change the rules mid-stream.

 

You've talked to the offending owner, so let it be. Continue to monitor the situation so that it doesn't occur again and, if the offender continues to be a problem with this, don't invite him back for next year.

 

You may want to institute a fine policy for leaving bye players in when you have other options on your bench. Just a thought.

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it'd be helpful if you quoted the entire rule to which you referred, including what (if any) consequences result from its violation. If your rule refers to intentional failure to substitute players, though, and as you said you don't believe it was intentional, you might be SOL unless there's another rule giving the Commissioner discretion about the rules and their interpretation. You're obviously in a tough position, but I continue to believe that a mid-season rule change, or a mid-season interpretation of a rule that isn't clear--even if done to try to ensure fairness to all--sets a bad precedent in almost all cases (unless everyone in the league agrees as far as what the result should be and how the rule should be changed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the two rules that apply here. i believe that I have the authority to act in this case because of the unfair result to the rest of the league. The rules don't provide for any specific 'remedies', which by omission leaves the commishioner to decide the remedy, subject to the written appeal procedure. I agree that perhaps this rule should be clarified in the off-season.

 

1.The commissioner has the authority to approve all trades and establish additional rules as necessary for the conduct of the league, subject to the following appeal process. Any two owners may appeal a commissioner's ruling. In that event, the remaining (non-protesting) members will be polled, and if the majority vote against the ruling, it will be reversed. In the event of a trade appeal, the commissioner, the 2 appealing members, and the participants of the trade will be excluded from participating in the vote, and the remaining majority rules. Trade appeals may only be filed within 24 hours after the trade is posted.

 

2.Sportsmanship Rules:

a.You MAY start a player who is on a bye week to avoid messing up your roster. However, intentionally 'tanking' a game is NOT allowed. The commissioner will decide if 'tanking' has occurred and the standard rules for protesting the commissioner's decision will apply.

b.Collusion: 'Tanking' a game in order to help a friend make the play-offs is Collusion. In the event of collusion, the commissioner will ban the player from the league and the player will forfeit his entire fee, prize money, and any remaining games. Trades where the sole intent is to help another team with no benefit to your own is also collusion. 'Fire Sales' type trades made because a team has given up will also result in immediate expulsion from the league and the trades will be reversed.

c.Picking up a free agent or a player from waivers and then dropping them just before the weekend's games - solely to deny them to another team - will not be permitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are the two rules that apply here. i believe that I have the authority to act in this case because of the unfair result to the rest of the league. The rules don't provide for any specific 'remedies', which by omission leaves the commishioner to decide the remedy, subject to the written appeal procedure. I agree that perhaps this rule should be clarified in the off-season.

 

1.The commissioner has the authority to approve all trades and establish additional rules as necessary for the conduct of the league, subject to the following appeal process. Any two owners may appeal a commissioner's ruling. In that event, the remaining (non-protesting) members will be polled, and if the majority vote against the ruling, it will be reversed. In the event of a trade appeal, the commissioner, the 2 appealing members, and the participants of the trade will be excluded from participating in the vote, and the remaining majority rules. Trade appeals may only be filed within 24 hours after the trade is posted.

 

2.Sportsmanship Rules:

a.You MAY start a player who is on a bye week to avoid messing up your roster. However, intentionally 'tanking' a game is NOT allowed. The commissioner will decide if 'tanking' has occurred and the standard rules for protesting the commissioner's decision will apply.

b.Collusion: 'Tanking' a game in order to help a friend make the play-offs is Collusion. In the event of collusion, the commissioner will ban the player from the league and the player will forfeit his entire fee, prize money, and any remaining games. Trades where the sole intent is to help another team with no benefit to your own is also collusion. 'Fire Sales' type trades made because a team has given up will also result in immediate expulsion from the league and the trades will be reversed.

c.Picking up a free agent or a player from waivers and then dropping them just before the weekend's games - solely to deny them to another team - will not be permitted.

 

Your rules, as you noted, definitely could use some clarification. The term "conduct of the league" is ambiguous, and I'd suggest removing from the rule the words "for the conduct of the league", and adding the words "at any time" (to avoid a claim that a rule can't be changed, clarified, or amended until the following year), but I do think it gives you the right to assert that the guy who failed to substitute players for those on a bye week should be awarded the win (and thereby possibly forfeit a more advantageous draft position) while other owners are not penalized because of a fortuitous or unwarranted win by the owner that guy played last week. In my opinion, the issue is not solely whether the guy who played bye week players intentionally "tanked", but rather whether you have the authority to establish additional rules as necessary, subject to the appeal process you cited. In my opinion, you do. It seems unfair for the guy who failed to substitute players to possibly obtain a benefit from his failure to do so, and for his opponent to gain an advantage at the expense of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what you said, the owner did not "Tank" - tanking is when an owner gives up, and intentionally drops all of his players or trades them away at little or no value. That was lame of your owner to not set his line-up, but he did not tank. As commish, you should NOT make line-up changes on his behalf, and he should get the loss. If he is a friend, you might want to ask him to not be a d!ck and set his lineup even if he thinks he is out of the race.

 

Most importantly, your league should have some kind of weekly pay-out to keep things interesting for all teams. Face it - most leagues are gambling pools, and if there is no further hope to win $$, then it's hard to remain interested. Your league should change the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were going to make this move you should have done it prior to kickoff on Sunday.

 

 

Being that you've waited until the outcome is known would not be acceptable to me as an owner. If you were that concerned about tanking you should have checked lineups prior to kickoff. You are punishing the wrong player. The winning owner did nothing wrong.

 

I've had this happen before and I usually let it go once, but after that I'll take over the team if an onwer isn't paying attention and boot them next year. I've had to do this twice in 9 years because it does screw up the standings when guys tank or don't pay attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that he didn't tank his game. On things like this you really need to establish a pattern of offenses. If he continues to not send in his lineup then he's not invited back. But one game, so what. If you have a rule that states explicitly that all bye weeks must be covered if a player of that position is available on your roster then yeah he would be in violation. I didn't see that rule so just slap him for being a dweeb and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres an idiea..

 

Team A (wining team) Team B (losing team)

 

Since team B did not fill his bye weeks, why dont you calculate what points he WOULD have gotten by using the other players on his team that he would have used to fill in the byes....If team A's score still would have won, then let him keep the win, but if team B WOULD have won, then give it to team B...

 

Im not a comish or anything, just puttin in some advice......tell me what u think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heres an idiea..

 

Team A (wining team) Team B (losing team)

 

Since team B did not fill his bye weeks, why dont you calculate what points he WOULD have gotten by using the other players on his team that he would have used to fill in the byes....If team A's score still would have won, then let him keep the win, but if team B WOULD have won, then give it to team B...

 

Im not a comish or anything, just puttin in some advice......tell me what u think.

 

You would need to decide up front at the beginning of the season that is how you would handle these situations. You can't just invent that in week 10. How do you know which reserves the owner would have started?? As commish, you would be opening up a new can of worms - and the NEXT GUY who doesn't set his lineup will expect the same resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would need to decide up front at the beginning of the season that is how you would handle these situations. You can't just invent that in week 10. How do you know which reserves the owner would have started?? As commish, you would be opening up a new can of worms - and the NEXT GUY who doesn't set his lineup will expect the same resolution.

 

It was just a suggestion that he can ASK the entire leauge if its ok........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have to ask.....as the comish, why did you not spot this before it happened????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with changing the guy's roster is that you are doing it after the fact, so you can put in all the top scorers on his bench. Unless those were his only options, you can't be sure of who he might have started. Just leave it alone. You are begging for trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Commissioner dropped the ball on this one. The last thing I do each week is check starting lineups and I remind everyone on pretty much a weekly basis to mind their rosters and their starters.

 

I don't think you can do anything about it now except to stay on top of the owners from here on out. You have a clusterfuck either way... so I suggest you apologize for not noticing sooner, but you will be diligent going forward. Consider writing a rule that will automatically insert the player in a given position who scored the least from an owner's bench to replace an "inadvertant" bye-week start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a commish, I have enough responsibilities... I don't think I have to babysit the league to ensure their rosters are set. I can't blame you there.

 

Your rules explicitly state you can start a player on bye. Seems like that is enough of a precedent not to mess with this situation.

 

Thats a funny rule. It says you can give less than your best effort to protect your roster. In other words, sacrifice the short term for the long term. It's a little stretch, but that is the essence of tanking.

 

You also have a rule to prohibit tanking. If you believe this was an isolated issue, again, my advice is to let it ride. Of course, if it happens again you won't owe him the benefit of the doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree that the commishioner dropped the ball by not checking the pre-game lineups of all teams in the league. SOMETIMES even I have a life on Sunday outside of FF. Where I DID drop the ball, however, was in not issuing a league warning right before our trade deadline, warning all the owners of their responsibility to field a competitive team each week REGARDLESS fo where they are in the standings, and the consequences of not doing so.

 

I'm actually suprised that this hasn't come up before, because it is very easy for a 1-8 or 2-7 team to give up and autopilot his team, and when he does it when teams are still in their bye weeks, it can lead to this situation quite easily.

 

I want to thank you all for your comments. It was a close decision. I believe that I do have the authority to reverse the results if I feel it is in the best interest of the league to do so. But based partially on your comments, I'm no sure that it is, and I have decided to let the results stand.

 

Lesson learned, and thanks again all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would need to decide up front at the beginning of the season that is how you would handle these situations. You can't just invent that in week 10. How do you know which reserves the owner would have started?? As commish, you would be opening up a new can of worms - and the NEXT GUY who doesn't set his lineup will expect the same resolution.

 

I don't agree. His league's rules indicate that the Commissioner has the authority, as necessary, to establish additional rules and to take action. It's almost impossible to try to anticipate in advance all possible situations that might arise during the course of the season, which presumably is why the Commish here is granted some discretion about rulings on an issue, subject to the appeal process of league members that he noted. Also, he indicated that the guy's WORST team (had he not started players on a bye week) still would've won the game. I don't think it's fair or appropriate (given the discretion afforded to the Commish under the rules) to allow a guy to fail to replace bye week players (whether intentional or not) and likely gain an advantage as far as draft position, while also providing a benefit to the team that he played while simultaneously penalizing 3 other teams as far as playoff chances. I also think the guy who won the game should "man up" and acknowledge he should lose the game (which he would've if his opponent had done anything as far as his roster) and agree that the 3 other teams shouldn't suffer a disadvantage simply because his opponent for that week made a mistake that can be corrected by the Commish. If there were any question about the outcome of the game depending upon what players were substituted, then I'd say let the result stand--but that's not the case here. Just my opinion.

Also, (as brought up by comments by other posts here) I don't think it's the Commissioner's responsibility to babysit everyone each Sunday. If Madd wants to let the result stand, that's within his discretion, and he certainly could point out to the 3 owners that were affected that they should've brought up the "bye guy's" (whoops, that almost sounds like a politically incorrect comment) roster before the start of the games, presuming those 3 have access to the rosters of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must let the game result stand or it would be grossly unfair to the winning team as well as jeopardize the integrity of the league; it would be the commissioner's (GOD-LIKE) judgment of whether an owners effort to win was adequate. A reversal would open a nasty can of worms. I (as commissioner) put in place a couple rules in our league a few years back to deal with just such a situation because we really do want every owner to field his most competitive team every week.

 

INTEGRITY OF THE LEAGUE

a. The commissioner and/or owners of the XXXXXXXX league have the power to question any conduct or behavior deemed to be unethical, unsportsman-like(violating accepted standards or rules), or detrimental to the competitive nature and balance of the league. The commissioner shall investigate any such behavior brought into question; corrective action or restraint deemed necessary shall be put before the team owners for a vote.

 

THE DEATH PENALTY

 

This is a rule that has been incorporated to encourage and protect the competitive and equitable nature of our league.

1. Any team owner that plays a “bye-week” player will be forgiven the first time.

2. Any team owner that plays a “bye-week” player a second time and in a different week than the first time shall be fined $10.00 per “bye-week” player played. The fine MUST be paid before the owner can compete in another game. If the fine is not paid prior to the beginning of the next game the team will be confiscated and the **league shall run the team until the completion of the season (the team is ineligible for post-season play).

3. Any team owner that plays a “bye-week” player a third time and in a different week than the first and second time shall be deemed a rogue owner and ousted from the league thereby forfeiting any and all entry fees/transaction fees or other monies paid to the league; THERE WILL BE NO REFUNDS.

** The commissioner will submit a lineup each week for any confiscated team by playing the players necessary to complete a legal lineup with each position being filled by the player with the most fantasy points to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You must let the game result stand or it would be grossly unfair to the winning team as well as jeopardize the integrity of the league; it would be the commissioner's (GOD-LIKE) judgment of whether an owners effort to win was adequate. A reversal would open a nasty can of worms. I (as commissioner) put in place a couple rules in our league a few years back to deal with just such a situation because we really do want every owner to field his most competitive team every week.

 

INTEGRITY OF THE LEAGUE

a. The commissioner and/or owners of the XXXXXXXX league have the power to question any conduct or behavior deemed to be unethical, unsportsman-like(violating accepted standards or rules), or detrimental to the competitive nature and balance of the league. The commissioner shall investigate any such behavior brought into question; corrective action or restraint deemed necessary shall be put before the team owners for a vote.

 

THE DEATH PENALTY

 

This is a rule that has been incorporated to encourage and protect the competitive and equitable nature of our league.

1. Any team owner that plays a “bye-week” player will be forgiven the first time.

2. Any team owner that plays a “bye-week” player a second time and in a different week than the first time shall be fined $10.00 per “bye-week” player played. The fine MUST be paid before the owner can compete in another game. If the fine is not paid prior to the beginning of the next game the team will be confiscated and the **league shall run the team until the completion of the season (the team is ineligible for post-season play).

3. Any team owner that plays a “bye-week” player a third time and in a different week than the first and second time shall be deemed a rogue owner and ousted from the league thereby forfeiting any and all entry fees/transaction fees or other monies paid to the league; THERE WILL BE NO REFUNDS.

** The commissioner will submit a lineup each week for any confiscated team by playing the players necessary to complete a legal lineup with each position being filled by the player with the most fantasy points to date.

 

You make some good points and your league's rules appear to be good ideas, but I think you're not giving enough consideration to Madd's league rule, as follows:

 

1.The commissioner has the authority to approve all trades and establish additional rules as necessary for the conduct of the league, subject to the following appeal process [etc]

 

Under this rule, what prevents the Commish from establishing a new rule that any owner who fails to replace a bye week player will be deemed to have replaced the bye week player with the player on his roster at that position who has the lowest score for that week, and if there is no such replacement player, then the score remains at zero for that position? Personally, I think it's much more unfair to allow the "bye guy" to obtain a better draft position and to penalize the other 3 owners whose playoff chances were affected than to take the win from the lucky owner whose opponent didn't pay attention, at least in a situation in which--as here--the worst roster of the bye team would've won the game. I don't see it as being "grossly unfair" to the winning team at all; to the contrary, I think letting the result stand is unfair to allow the bye team to likely get a better draft position and to reduce the chances of the other 3 teams vying for the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You make some good points and your league's rules appear to be good ideas, but I think you're not giving enough consideration to Madd's league rule, as follows:

 

1.The commissioner has the authority to approve all trades and establish additional rules as necessary for the conduct of the league, subject to the following appeal process [etc]

 

Under this rule, what prevents the Commish from establishing a new rule that any owner who fails to replace a bye week player will be deemed to have replaced the bye week player with the player on his roster at that position who has the lowest score for that week, and if there is no such replacement player, then the score remains at zero for that position? Personally, I think it's much more unfair to allow the "bye guy" to obtain a better draft position and to penalize the other 3 owners whose playoff chances were affected than to take the win from the lucky owner whose opponent didn't pay attention, at least in a situation in which--as here--the worst roster of the bye team would've won the game. I don't see it as being "grossly unfair" to the winning team at all; to the contrary, I think letting the result stand is unfair to allow the bye team to likely get a better draft position and to reduce the chances of the other 3 teams vying for the playoffs.

I think Madd's league rule is fine EXCEPT I don't like the idea of making "additional rules" once the season starts; let's have some foresight and live by the rules with which we begin the season; identify changes that need to be made and implement "new" rules after the season ends. The bye situation really should have been addressed before the game was played and the owner encouraged to put in a competitive lineup ; I believe commissioners need to monitor their leagues for potential problems.

Finally though can you imagine the NFL making up "new" rules during the middle of the season? Teams would be outraged!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respectfully disagree that the commishioner dropped the ball by not checking the pre-game lineups of all teams in the league. SOMETIMES even I have a life on Sunday outside of FF. Where I DID drop the ball, however, was in not issuing a league warning right before our trade deadline, warning all the owners of their responsibility to field a competitive team each week REGARDLESS fo where they are in the standings, and the consequences of not doing so.

 

I'm actually suprised that this hasn't come up before, because it is very easy for a 1-8 or 2-7 team to give up and autopilot his team, and when he does it when teams are still in their bye weeks, it can lead to this situation quite easily.

 

I want to thank you all for your comments. It was a close decision. I believe that I do have the authority to reverse the results if I feel it is in the best interest of the league to do so. But based partially on your comments, I'm no sure that it is, and I have decided to let the results stand.

 

Lesson learned, and thanks again all.

 

That is the right decision man. :o

As per your rules it says that you can start a player on a bye, you just can't intentionally "tank" your game for the week. By the sounds of it he did not intentionally tank the game so nothing should have been done.

 

I would however talk to the owner and let them know it is unacceptable, (sounds like you did this), and keep an eye on the situation and make sure he is going to maintain his team.

As others have mentioned, I would tweak those rules a little prior to next season as well.

 

I too disagree that the commissioner dropped the ball. I commish a couple leagues as well and I sure as he!! don't check everyone's roster, at least not until an issue arises that I feel I should be checking, but I guess I'm fortunate that I haven't had too do that yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You gotta let it stand unless there is a written rule that the commish can change a players roster that starts bye week players. I doubt you have one or you wouldn't be asking about it here.

 

Live with it this year and change the rule for next year.

:lol:

 

I don't like doing it after the fact. At best you should have changed his lineup before the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2.Sportsmanship Rules:

a.You MAY start a player who is on a bye week to avoid messing up your roster. However, intentionally 'tanking' a game is NOT allowed. The commissioner will decide if 'tanking' has occurred and the standard rules for protesting the commissioner's decision will apply.

I realize this question has already been decided (correctly, in my opinion). But, as for the particular rule above, I have an idea for next year. Instead of saying "to avoid messing up your roster," why not change it to say "if you have no other active options on your roster"? Then add a statement like: "The commissioner will replace any selected starters who are on a bye week with active bench players at that position in the order in which they were drafted/selected." That would eliminate intentional tanking as well as unintentional tanking due to loss of interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule states that "INTENTIONALLY tanking a game is not permitted." You, yourself, state that you "do not believe he INTENTIONALLY tanked." How was a rule violated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Madd's league rule is fine EXCEPT I don't like the idea of making "additional rules" once the season starts; let's have some foresight and live by the rules with which we begin the season; identify changes that need to be made and implement "new" rules after the season ends. The bye situation really should have been addressed before the game was played and the owner encouraged to put in a competitive lineup ; I believe commissioners need to monitor their leagues for potential problems.

Finally though can you imagine the NFL making up "new" rules during the middle of the season? Teams would be outraged!

 

I understand your position, and I also generally don't like any mid-season rule addition, but in my opinion it would be the fairest thing to do in this particular situation--given the effects upon the teams mentioned--where the guy's team would've won even with his worst team. It's also a very unusual situation from the standpoint that the team that didn't intentionally tank apparently isn't seeking the win but likely will benefit from the loss. If the losing team stood to benefit from having his bye week players replaced, that'd be entirely different. Additionally, his league's rules grant the Commish authority to implement a rule addition "as necessary"--I bet the 3 owners who saw their playoff hopes decreased because of the screw-up/inaction by another team might think this rule should be utilized here.

As far as the NFL initiating a new rule during the middle of the season, some NFL teams might be outraged, but if the NFL's rules allowed for such an event due to an unanticipated situation they'd have to live with it. The NFL comparison also doesn't really apply to this situation--I think NFL teams would be much more outraged if an NFL coach didn't play a QB or RB (or whatever other positions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rule states that "INTENTIONALLY tanking a game is not permitted." You, yourself, state that you "do not believe he INTENTIONALLY tanked." How was a rule violated?

 

It appears the "tanking rule" was not violated, but that's not the only issue. The Commish here has authority to add a rule, as necessary, so the question is whether he should seek to add one to rectify the adverse results to the 3 teams unlucky enough not to be playing the inattentive owner last week and addressing the unearned benefit to the guy who did play him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×