Was This Rule Change A Mistake? - Dynasty League Tanking

[the lone star]

Let's say the commissioner of a dynasty league discovered that someone tanked during a few games at the end of the season (Year 2 of the league) to get a better draft pick in this year's upcoming rookie draft. There aren't any explicit anti-tanking rules and the way the rookie draft order is calculated for the upcoming draft has been posted since the league started (i.e. it has been posted and disclosed to the owners for over two years). The owner that tanked had a screenshot of a text message where he and the commissioner discussed starting inactive (bye week, injured, suspended, free agent, retired) players. The tanking owner asked if it was something he could do, and the commissioner said that "if you don't have anybody else to start, then yes, but if you just don't want to, then I don't know." The tanking owner then pointed out that the site did not prevent someone from starting inactive players, to which the commish responded "Cool. Yeah." The tanking owner understood this as a grant of permission to start such inactive players, and a pro-tanking position in general. The commissioner claims that the owner never explicitly asked about tanking, and as it turns out, the commish is actually strongly against tanking (something that was not known until now). 

 

The commissioner collected dues for the upcoming season (the season for which the rookie draft will take place), but he did not like the fact that somebody tanked. On the other hand, the tanking owner had a screenshot of conversation where the commissioner says that the order of the draft "must" be the way that it is currently posted in the league's bylaws. However, the commissioner still decided to change the draft order regardless, because he is really anti-tanking. He changed one of the tiebreakers from total points scored by starting lineups, to total points scored by each team's optimal lineups. This rule change actually violated the league's bylaws, as he was supposed to announce such a change on the league's internal boards and allow for a review period where teams could vote on the rule. The rule was not posted on the boards, and therefore it was not reviewed or voted on.

 

For what it is worth, the tanking owner has played in leagues where tanking has occurred, specifically, leagues where teams were allowed to bench their star players in order to lose a game (to get themselves a better matchup in the first round, a better draft pick, etc.), or to bench players in order to secure a win (prevent someone from scoring negative points). However, the commissioner has never seen this tactic in 10+ years of playing. The tanking owner also believes that tanking happens in real life, but the commissioner is of the firm opinion that it does not. On top of that, the tanking owner has hard evidence that tanking happened in Year 1 of the league, but the commissioner is unaware of this. 

 

It is also worth noting that in the final game of the season, the commissioner did spot the tanking and after a brief exchange, the tanking owner agreed to set a new lineup because, although he thought it was fair game, he just didn't want to "start any drama" among the league members. During this exchange, the tanking owner showed the commissioner the text message exchange they had about starting inactive players. After receiving the message, the commissioner said that he was fine with people starting weak lineups, just not inactive players. So maybe the commish is more anti-inactive players than he is anti-tanking. Many league members complained about the tanking owner during the last week of the season because it either affected their chances of securing a top draft slot, or their playoff hopes. Some owners are upset that it wasn't caught earlier, because other games where the owner tanked are now in the books. 

 

The commish and vice-commish apparently agreed to create different tie-breakers for this coming season, but never updated the rulebook or disclosed such a change to the rest of the league. Even so, the commish still thought that he was perfectly within his rights to implement the unposted order now. He is really concerned with the integrity of the league.

 

But as of right now, there is no rule against tanking, the league has never discussed tanking, and the tanking owner thought it was fine based off of previous experiences, his own self-interest, and the text message exchange he had with the commish. The commish doesn't think an anti-tanking rule is needed, nor is one needed to tell people that they must only start active players each week.

 

Considering all of this, do you think the commissioner made a mistake? Was it wrong for him to unilaterally implement any "corrective" measures after dues were paid? Please explain below.

Edited October 22, 2018 by the lone star

[Big Country]

Yes, it was a wrong thing to change - your long thread on the other FF site where the vote clearly went with the "it was wrong" side should be enough.

[sambo]

The commissioner was wrong that is clear.  Not for trying to stop tanking which I am personally against, but he was wrong for changing the rule without telling the league.  It would have been OK not prefered, to change the rules in season with the leagues approval. 

 

It sounds like you need to make your tanking rules clear for next season.  I have found if  you make it clear that tanking is not accepted and you explain why it is bad for everyone in the league it will in general not happen.   

[the lone star]

On 5/21/2018 at 3:30 PM, sambo said:

The commissioner was wrong that is clear.  Not for trying to stop tanking which I am personally against, but he was wrong for changing the rule without telling the league.  It would have been OK not prefered, to change the rules in season with the leagues approval. 

 

It sounds like you need to make your tanking rules clear for next season.  I have found if  you make it clear that tanking is not accepted and you explain why it is bad for everyone in the league it will in general not happen.   

 

Yeah, I tried explaining that to this commish, but he strongly felt that such rules "weren't needed." And that as soon as we prohibit the behavior, then you give other owners a "reason to turn someone in." Finally, he'd rather handle matters on a "case-by-case basis."

 

lol.

[Sunday Couch Potatoe]

It sounds like you need to find new leagues to play in. I mean two threads asking if this is ok or that is ok move on from the drama of the shltty commissioner  

[slambo]

Fantasy Football is supposed to be fun, to much drama, new league time.

[the lone star]

15 minutes ago, Sunday Couch Potatoe said:

It sounds like you need to find new leagues to play in. I mean two threads asking if this is ok or that is ok move on from the drama of the shltty commissioner  

 

Agreed, but I still want answers to this question, as weird as that sounds, lol.

[the lone star]

4 hours ago, slambo said:

Fantasy Football is supposed to be fun, to much drama, new league time.

 

Pretty much.

 

In situations like this though, do you think it is better to just walk away quietly, or to voice your concerns and MAYBE put the commish on blast?

[tazinib1]

Is it just me or are all your posts about this damn league that there seem to be so many problems with? 

 

Leave the league man. I'm not sure you are going to be happy with the answers you get since you keep on asking the same damn ones in a different manner expecting a different result. 

 

Leave the league. Simple. 

[FWmaker]

What he said.

What the other he said.

What another he said.

What the other two he's said.

 

BC, you crack me up

[the lone star]

1 hour ago, tazinib1 said:

Is it just me or are all your posts about this damn league that there seem to be so many problems with? 

 

Leave the league man. I'm not sure you are going to be happy with the answers you get since you keep on asking the same damn ones in a different manner expecting a different result. 

 

Leave the league. Simple. 

 

They're actually different leagues.

[the lone star]

@Shorttynaz, why no?

[buddahj]

Wonder he's the commish of these bush leagues? 

[jamesplante11]

The only logical answer to all of your league related questions:

 

Stop running leagues and hand over all your commish duties to someone else. You are clearly not cut out to run a league. You are "that guy" that I cant stand having in my leagues because you think everything is a problem

[stevegrab]

3 minutes ago, jamesplante11 said:

The only logical answer to all of your league related questions:

 

Stop running leagues and hand over all your commish duties to someone else. You are clearly not cut out to run a league. You are "that guy" that I cant stand having in my leagues because you think everything is a problem

 

Better yet stop polluting the Huddle forums with your crapola. I can ignore the fool posting, but not all the responses which make it appear to be an active discussion that may have value. 

[jamesplante11]

6 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

Better yet stop polluting the Huddle forums with your crapola. I can ignore the fool posting, but not all the responses which make it appear to be an active discussion that may have value. 

 

I am unsure if this is directed at me or lone star

 

[jamesplante11]

21 minutes ago, LordOpie said:

yes

also, how about you guys who are easily triggered just ignore OP?

 

You cant be ignored, its not an option on your profile. I wouldn't do it because it breaks the flow of the threads, but its impossible to. Sometimes you drop some gems too, wouldn't wanna miss those

 

[stevegrab]

4 hours ago, jamesplante11 said:

 

I am unsure if this is directed at me or lone star

 

 

It was directed at lone start.

 

Dopie's only nuggets smell and leave brown marks. 

 

PS  I already ignore Lone Star because they post nothing but these silly topics.  

[stethant]

This is literally how/why TL;DR came into existence many years ago

[tazinib1]

I like frogs

[the lone star]

@Shorttynaz & @stevegrab, why no?

[stevegrab]

2 hours ago, the lone star said:

@Shorttynaz & @stevegrab, why no?

 

Because you offered that as an option, if you don't want people to pick no don't allow that option. 

 

But basically I don't read your silly posts any more there have been far to many "is this wrong for my league", either you're trolling or just play in a lot of crappy leagues and have no clue what is the proper way to handle fantasy football. 

[stevegrab]

Just now, jamesplante11 said:

 

stevegrab blocked you boss

True but I can see the post, and chose to read it and reply. 

 

Not trying to be a total dick, just tired of these threads where people have a million issues with their leagues, don't listen to the advice they requested or worse yet never even come back to read the responses. This isn't Dear Abbey for fantasy football. 

[Shorttynaz]

9 hours ago, stevegrab said:

 

Because you offered that as an option, if you don't want people to pick no don't allow that option. 

 

But basically I don't read your silly posts any more there have been far to many "is this wrong for my league", either you're trolling or just play in a lot of crappy leagues and have no clue what is the proper way to handle fantasy football. 

Gotta say I agree with @stevegrab on this one.  If yo don't want people to pick no, don't offer it.

[the lone star]

On 10/24/2018 at 9:27 AM, stevegrab said:

 

Because you offered that as an option, if you don't want people to pick no don't allow that option. 

 

But basically I don't read your silly posts any more there have been far to many "is this wrong for my league", either you're trolling or just play in a lot of crappy leagues and have no clue what is the proper way to handle fantasy football. 

 

Wait, who said I didn't want people to pick that? Why are you jumping to that conclusion? What if I am just genuinely curious as to what your reasoning is?