Looking For Feedback from Commishioners on rules

[Radical]

Not sure this is the best place to post this but I'm sure some will provide feedback. I'll try not to rant too much as this is multi-layered.

I think this is my third year in this particular Keeper pool and I was asked mid-way through the year if I was interested in being Commish and I accepted.
Had I known some of the personality conflicts within the pool and the $***show that would happen I would not have accepted the role. What I'm trying to do now is put some rules in place so that we can all at least play nice in the sandbox.

Most of the issues revolve around perceived "buddy trades". We do have Veto rules however it seems that when put to a vote, the trade gets pushed through. Even guys who complain about it to me, vote to allow the trade to go through. It seems that if guys aren't in the $$ they don't care. Just to be clear, points follow the players that are traded, so the big blow up was at the trade deadline where it was a 123 point gain that pushed the 4th place GM to 1st, with an insurmountably lead. (oh yeah and the e-mail was received at 8:55 pm, 5 min before the end of the deadline. The two GMs who completed the trade, work together and have been friends since high school. The trade was in retaliation from another GM, who was the current 1st place GM apparently trading to keep this other GM in 4th...word of mouth/speculation...too much to get into).

Myself and a few others have been researching best practices for these scenarios and have made some proposals:
-I've also proposed that points do not follow players, but 50% are against it. Need a 70% yes vote to add/change rules.
-Moving the draft deadline ahead a few weeks or even to the All Star Break.

Another one I'm looking at is somehow having a point matrix or something where if there's an X number of pool pts (in season) gained, then draft picks must accompany such a trade.
-15+ pool point gain, must include a 1st round pick going back. 1st round pick not to exceed 2 draft years (example if you don’t have a pick this upcoming draft, it can and must be next years draft).
-25+ pool point gain, must include a 1st and 2nd round pick.
-40+ pool point gain, must include 2 x 1st round picks. Picks cannot exceed 2 years.

Looking for some feedback.

Thank you!

[lucafen4]

Not sure this is the best place to post this but I'm sure some will provide feedback. I'll try not to rant too much as this is multi-layered.

I think this is my third year in this particular Keeper pool and I was asked mid-way through the year if I was interested in being Commish and I accepted.
Had I known some of the personality conflicts within the pool and the $***show that would happen I would not have accepted the role. What I'm trying to do now is put some rules in place so that we can all at least play nice in the sandbox.

Most of the issues revolve around perceived "buddy trades". We do have Veto rules however it seems that when put to a vote, the trade gets pushed through. Even guys who complain about it to me, vote to allow the trade to go through. It seems that if guys aren't in the $$ they don't care. Just to be clear, points follow the players that are traded, so the big blow up was at the trade deadline where it was a 123 point gain that pushed the 4th place GM to 1st, with an insurmountably lead. (oh yeah and the e-mail was received at 8:55 pm, 5 min before the end of the deadline. The two GMs who completed the trade, work together and have been friends since high school. The trade was in retaliation from another GM, who was the current 1st place GM apparently trading to keep this other GM in 4th...word of mouth/speculation...too much to get into).

Myself and a few others have been researching best practices for these scenarios and have made some proposals:
-I've also proposed that points do not follow players, but 50% are against it. Need a 70% yes vote to add/change rules.
-Moving the draft deadline ahead a few weeks or even to the All Star Break.

Another one I'm looking at is somehow having a point matrix or something where if there's an X number of pool pts (in season) gained, then draft picks must accompany such a trade.
-15+ pool point gain, must include a 1st round pick going back. 1st round pick not to exceed 2 draft years (example if you don’t have a pick this upcoming draft, it can and must be next years draft).
-25+ pool point gain, must include a 1st and 2nd round pick.
-40+ pool point gain, must include 2 x 1st round picks. Picks cannot exceed 2 years.

Looking for some feedback.

Thank you!

Maybe base the amount of points that move in the deal on the time of year. if it's still 1st half of the season all points transfer in the trade. if you're past game 41 - 50% of points transfer

[Eskimo Brother]

I think you're looking in the right spots, and trying to get it at its source. The points following in a trade is your big problem. Your leaguemates are going to have to realize that if they want points to follow, then lopsided deals are going to happen at the last minute. Can't have it both ways, especially with "buddies" in the pool to exacerbate the issue.
Personally I would really vouch for not having points carry over (I don't have any pools where they do), as most other solutions just get over complicated.

Otherwise, you could cap the point increase at the deadline, or at least cap a percentage of points in vs points out, but there are still ways around those. It's a tough spot when you have leaguemates that want to have their cake and eat it too.

[mounD]

I think you're looking in the right spots, and trying to get it at its source. The points following in a trade is your big problem. Your leaguemates are going to have to realize that if they want points to follow, then lopsided deals are going to happen at the last minute. Can't have it both ways, especially with "buddies" in the pool to exacerbate the issue.
Personally I would really vouch for not having points carry over (I don't have any pools where they do), as most other solutions just get over complicated.

Otherwise, you could cap the point increase at the deadline, or at least cap a percentage of points in vs points out, but there are still ways around those. It's a tough spot when you have leaguemates that want to have their cake and eat it too.

Pretty much this. I feel like pools that transfer points in trades are just kind of asking for shenanigans, especially where there is a late deadline. I would try to communicate this to the league in the friendliest way possible, focusing on the fact that these last-minute trades basically decide the winners and losers of the league. Obviously when you have close friends doing deals with one another in the league, you've got to be extra diligent about these things because even a hint of impropriety could lead to the downfall of a league. I've seen it happen too many times.

Good luck to you, OP

[PenguinHunter]

I have hear this exact same story from another perspective... let me do a little search and see if I can find the thread!!

Possible collusion and what possible penalties should be enforced

As mentioned in the thread... the best way to prevent something like this to happen is to eliminate any accumulated points from transferring with the players when being traded!

The purpose of trading a player is taking on the risk of the unexpected.

So there should be some risk! There is no risk when you know you are getting the players points to date. In fantasy hockey you should only get the points that the players produces after the trade.

[GavinC]

Is this the same league as this? https://forums.dobbersports.com/show...ight=collusion

Sounds like a shit show. Unless i had a personal connection I'd just walk :P

That said, I know that's not what you're asking. One thing that stuck out to me is your threshold for rule changes. The league I run, rule changes only need a simple majority to pass as long as it's not one that would detrimentally effect the coming/current season. If it's a rule that in anyway does, it needs a further vote of 3/4 majority to be implemented immediately. If a rule passes the first vote, but not the second vote, then it would be implemented the following season. Example would be dropping the number of keepers during the offseason; that would require a secondary vote. Changing the way the draft order is determined a month into the season probably wouldn't.

I don't think you'll get much done needing a 3/4 majority for all rule changes, and personally I feel like it's overkill. If 50% + 1 of the league want a rule changed, that should be enough.

[PenguinHunter]

A concern I would have with the trading draft picks... make sure that if draft picks for future years are traded that the entry fee for the team giving up the pick must also be part of the trade.

So if Team A trades their first round pick for the next two drafts... then you MUST collect the entry fee from that team for the next two years.

This prevents Team A going all in for this year and trading those picks to make sure they win this year... and then come time to sign up for next year and pay entry fee... they have 0 interest in joining again. I have seen this happen... and now I always impose the rule of entry fees being attached to any future picks traded. The entry fee goes to you as the commish not the team they are trading with... and should be used for that team for the future years.. especially if that owner decides not to return.

[Radical]

GavinC and PeguinHunter are bang on. This is the league and honestly I am close to walking away, I've already asked a few of the other GMs if they want to to take over. There are a few reasons.

Having said that I am trying to put rules in place so that this can be minimized, as with any rule ppl find loop holes. I also don't believe a Commish should have unilateral power to make decisions outside the rules, thoughts?

For example the previous GM would not allow a veto to go to vote because he felt it wasn't veto worthy (there was a first and second to put forth the veto..honestly can't remember exact details and when I questioned him on it, privately, I was ignored). This previous GM was also constantly telling me to allow/not allow certain things which seemed more his personal opinion. Yes I have asked this GM if he wanted to step away and I'd have the league buy his team for a reasonable amount.

[PenguinHunter]

GavinC and PeguinHunter are bang on. This is the league and honestly I am close to walking away, I've already asked a few of the other GMs if they want to to take over. There are a few reasons.

Having said that I am trying to put rules in place so that this can be minimized, as with any rule ppl find loop holes. I also don't believe a Commish should have unilateral power to make decisions outside the rules, thoughts?

For example the previous GM would not allow a veto to go to vote because he felt it wasn't veto worthy (there was a first and second to put forth the veto..honestly can't remember exact details and when I questioned him on it, privately, I was ignored). This previous GM was also constantly telling me to allow/not allow certain things which seemed more his personal opinion. Yes I have asked this GM if he wanted to step away and I'd have the league buy his team for a reasonable amount.

I honestly think that the only way the league will be fixed (which is always hard to do if there has been significant controversy like in this league) is if these two things happens:

1) ALL the members of the league agree to let the past be the past and that any grudges are let go and that the league can have a fresh start.

2) That the points carry-forward rule be eliminated or drastically capped to prevent any temptation to screw over one buddy or to significantly help another buddy.


These are both big hurdles to get over and it might be best to end the league and start fresh with a new set of rules!

[Moses]

I think you're looking in the right spots, and trying to get it at its source. The points following in a trade is your big problem. Your leaguemates are going to have to realize that if they want points to follow, then lopsided deals are going to happen at the last minute. Can't have it both ways, especially with "buddies" in the pool to exacerbate the issue.
Personally I would really vouch for not having points carry over (I don't have any pools where they do), as most other solutions just get over complicated.

Otherwise, you could cap the point increase at the deadline, or at least cap a percentage of points in vs points out, but there are still ways around those. It's a tough spot when you have leaguemates that want to have their cake and eat it too.

Pretty much this. I feel like pools that transfer points in trades are just kind of asking for shenanigans, especially where there is a late deadline. I would try to communicate this to the league in the friendliest way possible, focusing on the fact that these last-minute trades basically decide the winners and losers of the league. Obviously when you have close friends doing deals with one another in the league, you've got to be extra diligent about these things because even a hint of impropriety could lead to the downfall of a league. I've seen it happen too many times.

Good luck to you, OP

Points following players in trades is a dance with the devil. It is the fantasy equivalent of "nothing good happens when you are out past 4:00 am" The simplest thing to do is have a rule in place where points are only accrued when the player is on your team.

[Daydream Nation]

I think you're looking in the right spots, and trying to get it at its source. The points following in a trade is your big problem. Your leaguemates are going to have to realize that if they want points to follow, then lopsided deals are going to happen at the last minute. Can't have it both ways, especially with "buddies" in the pool to exacerbate the issue.
Personally I would really vouch for not having points carry over (I don't have any pools where they do), as most other solutions just get over complicated.

Otherwise, you could cap the point increase at the deadline, or at least cap a percentage of points in vs points out, but there are still ways around those. It's a tough spot when you have leaguemates that want to have their cake and eat it too.

Completely agree with this. I have never been in a league like this and can't fathom why a league would be set up that allows one to trade for past performance. That just goes against the idea of making a trade. If the league agrees it is a problem then change that rule. If not then I would seriously consider leaving the league.

[LawMan]

So two things:

1. Your rules are bad and will cause this type of trade to happen!

First, it honestly does not make any sense in my mind to have points follow the player. The whole point of fantasy hockey is to predict what players will do in the future; you can use past stats to help but a guarantee is dumb in my opinion.
In fact, under your rules, the logical play if you are in the lead is to wait until right before the trade deadline to make a move, that way you have more information on how many points you will improve, likewise guys looking to sell off need to wait to the last minute to deal.
Next, the rules allow a guy with a mediocre player having a killer year to get a killing for him. If points don’t follow you have to consider whether or not the player will continue to score but when they do a past hot-streak is worth gold.
Even reading your description of the trade (123 point increase) it is very possible that both teams who “colluded” made the trade in the best interests of their own team because the rules called for them too.

Your idea about setting the market for players would handicap good and honest GMs and would simply set the market rate for all trades. A team who is out of it but has a guy with a career best season cannot shop him for the best rate because he’s going to be a +30 and he’s guaranteed a 1st and 2nd. I think this option would create more harm than good.

2. Veto votes should have names attached.

If a veto vote is called for every team must vote and the names should be attached to each vote. No chickens vetoing a deal only because it helps an opponent and anyone vetoing ought to be able to explain why.

[Godin]

I am not a commisioner, however, I have been involved in hockey pools for 32 years so i've pretty much seen it all.

IMO you have to eliminate the points being carried over in a trade or quit. Truthfully, i've never heard of this. There is no way this should be allowed in any pool. I'm quite sure the buddies split the winnings as well as this is a 'who you know, not what you know' pool.

As for the rest of the problems, I would think every pool has them. It's normal. Not eveyone is going to get along and managers will piss off other managers. Thats just life.

[als_revenge]

I'm in a pool only where points carry over with trades, and we have no veto system. And a token money league ($20 per manager). And we've never had a problem because we have 12 managers that want to win. There are crazy lopsided points deals, but the seller is always obtaining young stars, draft picks, or injured players that will bounce back the following year. But this only works if everyone is trying to win, or if people have the balls to use vetos when trades don't pass the smell test (i.e. selling points, but barely any futures attached to it). If these are the conditions in your league, I believe it's hopeless.

One other rule you could consider: make your tradeline date "soft". So if the soft deadline is Feb 10th at 5pm, extend the deadline for an hour from the last trade. So if someone wants to trade for 123 points in the last five minutes, the deadline gets extended for 55 more minutes. Basically, this ensure that anyone in you pool has time to react to any league changing trade.

[PenguinHunter]

I'm in a pool only where points carry over with trades, and we have no veto system. And a token money league ($20 per manager). And we've never had a problem because we have 12 managers that want to win. There are crazy lopsided points deals, but the seller is always obtaining young stars, draft picks, or injured players that will bounce back the following year. But this only works if everyone is trying to win, or if people have the balls to use vetos when trades don't pass the smell test (i.e. selling points, but barely any futures attached to it). If these are the conditions in your league, I believe it's hopeless.

One other rule you could consider: make your tradeline date "soft". So if the soft deadline is Feb 10th at 5pm, extend the deadline for an hour from the last trade. So if someone wants to trade for 123 points in the last five minutes, the deadline gets extended for 55 more minutes. Basically, this ensure that anyone in you pool has time to react to any league changing trade.

I like this on the premise... but I think it ends up with the same result.

If Team A and B weren't willing to make a trade happen before the deadline... but see that Team C and Team D make a trade 5 minutes before the deadline...what makes Team A and Team B willing to make the trade in the next 55 minutes? It would be reactionary trading and could be further collusion...

I think this solution works if you have a committed group to winning... but I don't think this solution works in a league where collusion is already an issue.