Fantasy Football Fair Play?

[drzeppelin 0]

Long story, but opinions valued --

 

A 2008-09 NFL fantasy football tournament for eight players (owners) was organized by a friend of mine and he convinced me to play (a first timer), along with himself and 6 of his buddies. The friend became the Commish, since he organized everything.

 

Rules were as follows:

 

- Each owner pays $150 ($1200 total) and draws a number (1-8) out of a hat and becomes Owner #1, #2, etc.

- 16 players from any NFL team (only QBs, RBs, WRs, TEs, or PKs) are drafted by each owner through a series of draft rounds.

- Each week for 17 weeks, an owner plays head-to-head against another owner based on a pre-determined schedule.

- Prior to the start of the first NFL game that week, lineups of 7 players (1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 PK) are e-mailed to the Commish and vice versa.

- Format is to accumulate more offensive points each week from your lineup than the other owner you’re playing against.

- The goal is to obtain the best win-loss-tie (no tie-breakers) record over the 17 weeks with the following payout:

 

1st $600

2nd $350

3rd $175

4th $ 75

5th-8th nothing

 

At any point during the season, you can buy additional players not already taken and use them in a lineup for the following weeks. Money from bought players goes to a playoff pool separate from the regular season pool.

 

After week 14 ended, things were tight with only three games to go:

 

Owner Record Games behind

 

5 9-4-1 -

4 8-4-2 0.5

8 8-5-1 1.0

1 (Commish) 8-6 1.5

6 6-8 3.5

3 6-8 3.5

2 5-9 4.5

7 4-10 5.5

 

The Commish (owner 1) just played owner 7 (last place guy & mathematically eliminated from a payout) in week 14 and would not play him again for the remaining 3 weeks. However, owner 7 played owners 4, 8, and 6 over the last 3 weeks.

 

What happened is owner 1, the Commish, goaded (his words “worked on”) owner 7 who is an old high school buddy, to buy 2 additional players prior to the start of week 15 and use them in his lineup against owners 4, 8, & 6 over the last three weeks.

 

The two bought players were from teams who were already eliminated from the NFL playoffs, but were definite scorers. Granted, owner 7 had drafted players who were injured a lot during the season and his lineup was weak, but he still had a full lineup prior to the buys. It makes no sense why owner 7 would pay extra money to buy players who were not going to be in the playoffs, especially since owner 7 had bought only one other player prior to this (according to the rules, he had to in order to have a full lineup due to players on a BYE week) and obviously wasn’t interested in the playoff pool.

 

To me, at the Commish’s pleading the only reason owner 7 bought the extra two players was to help out his old high school bud, the Commish, by hopefully winning over three other owners who were closest to the Commish. The Commish says owner 7 did it to be the ‘Spoiler’.

 

So a couple of questions to you experienced players out there:

 

Is this in the spirit of fair play?

Is this a role the Commish, as organizer & who has final say on disputes, should play?

 

Thanks for reading.

[Inspiration 0]

If your story is true, the commissioner's action do seem a bit unsporting. However, I don't think the offense is large enough to make a public issue of it. If you think this is an intentional attempt to cheat, I would consider not participating in any future leagues with him, but from the what you have stated in your post, I wouldn't call him out publicly (or even privately). Considering that the commissioner is a friend of yours, the gain likely isn't worth the potential fallout of your cheating accusations.

 

I will say this though: I have always appreciated owners who continued to manage their teams competitively even after they are eliminated from the playoffs. If an owner has the sportsmanship to stick around and make the final weeks of the regular season enjoyable for those still in contention, they will always have a spot in my leagues.

[drzeppelin 0]

Inspiration,

 

Thanks for reading the post and your input.....I agree it's not worth a friendship.

 

I did decide prior to week 15 that whatever happens, I would not play in this particular league again, although elsewhere would be fine.

 

Just miffed that this occurred (w/ a fair amount of $$ involved) as it was a maneuver that I would never consider doing, whether against friend or foe.

 

I was having a great time until week 14, then this kinda took the fun out of the whole thing for me.

[49ER MAN 0]

Inspiration,

 

Thanks for reading the post and your input.....I agree it's not worth a friendship.

 

I did decide prior to week 15 that whatever happens, I would not play in this particular league again, although elsewhere would be fine.

 

Just miffed that this occurred (w/ a fair amount of $$ involved) as it was a maneuver that I would never consider doing, whether against friend or foe.

 

I was having a great time until week 14, then this kinda took the fun out of the whole thing for me.

 

I totally agree w/Inspiration. Unfortunately, those things can happen sometimes and I believe it's a good idea to just walk away from the league.

[Mooseknuckles FF 0]

The whole situation sucks. Why the owner from 7 would buy players when he is out of contention is beyond me (depending on the cost). It is a pretty egregious act by the commissioner if indeed he influenced it, and I would definitely let him know that you do not belief it is in the spirit of the rules to help manage another persons team. Like you said, probably not worth a friendship, but it is certainly within your rights to make him uncomfortable about what he did.

[madd futher mucker 36]

I'm the kind of guy who would maintain a 'friendship' with the guy, but I would NOT re-join the league next year. What he did was definitely crossing a line as the commissioner. IMO the personal actions of the commissioner regarding his team management must be viewed by the league as above reproach, and 'coaching' an owner who is out of contention to buy players basically on his behalf could easily be considered a form of collusion.

 

When the commissioner would ask me to re-join the league next year, I would in a very nice way tell him why I decided to join a different league.

[drzeppelin 0]

Thanks for your input 49ER MAN, Mooseknuckles FF, madd futher mucker, & Inspiration.

 

Consensus I'm getting is that the collusion maneuver was technically (but not morally) 'legal', but no one really wants to play in that kind of league, myself included.

 

Thanks!

[jerryskids 5,209]

I'm the kind of guy who would maintain a 'friendship' with the guy, but I would NOT re-join the league next year. What he did was definitely crossing a line as the commissioner. IMO the personal actions of the commissioner regarding his team management must be viewed by the league as above reproach, and 'coaching' an owner who is out of contention to buy players basically on his behalf could easily be considered a form of collusion.

 

When the commissioner would ask me to re-join the league next year, I would in a very nice way tell him why I decided to join a different league.

Doesn't strike me as crossing the line as commish; rather it strikes me as crossing the line as an owner, in a league that has no dispute resolution procedures if said owner is also the commish and said commish has final say. Basically the league needs vetoes. Also a ban on late season transactions. Both of which, most leagues have.

[enis_44 0]

I think playing in some cobbled together Azz league where you email lineups to the commish crosses a major line. I'd quit immediately and join a league with guys who know what the internet is. Did the commish score the games using the paper? Does he drive a Trans Am?