2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Gee... I might have to quit this league becuase it's taking too much of my day to read these REALLY LONG threads!

I think I'm now in favor of the rules committee deciding how to deal with tanking... and leaving the system the way it is.

(But I might change my mind, for the sake of the league, if it came to that)

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Gee... I might have to quit this league becuase it's taking too much of my day to read these REALLY LONG threads!

I think I'm now in favor of the rules committee deciding how to deal with tanking... and leaving the system the way it is.

(But I might change my mind, for the sake of the league, if it came to that)

Cool.

What is you opinion of a Toilet Bowl vs. Playoff Expansion... I feel they may still push a Toilet Bowl and just wanted to know where you stood Jim.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Cool.

What is you opinion of a Toilet Bowl vs. Playoff Expansion... I feel they may still push a Toilet Bowl and just wanted to know where you stood Jim.

"they"? Frank. Do you think there is a totalitarian system against you here? You're the one unwilling to consider any outside the box thinking. It's 6 team playoff for you or else.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Fine with me, but tanking is not a big issue to risk a Toilet Bowl. It won't take effect for 08, but why should I lose my #1 pick b/c of Joel's tanking (not trying to point fingers). Why should future bad teams suffer?

IMO... it's toilet bowl AGAINST expanded playoffs. Those against a Toilet Bowl are against it b/c it sacrifices the bottom teams. They are not agaisnt it b/c it does not prevent tanking, which it does, but so will expanded playoffs + lottery.

Also if you issue is the bottom teams tanking (ie not setting their best line up) then count me in with Jake and league wide vote would be the best solution.

I could support..

No change.
Expanded playoffs + bottom 3 lottery.
Expanded playoffs + league wide vote on tanking.

Either way for me and I'm sure most of the others in support of playoff expansion it's ether playoff expansion or toilet bowl... not playoff expansion AND toilet bowl.

Any Toilet Bowl, Extra Balls,, or anything that grants draft seeding on WINS... I am against.

I think Jake and Popes would support... PLayoff Expansion + league wide vote on tanking any others?

IMO... seems like Toilet Bowl is losing out.

Frank, you keep trying to lump in those that are most adamant ... I hate the idea of a playoff expansion in any form. I think its terrible. I think its a huge blow to the quality of this league, and a huge step towards fantasy league mediocrity. I can't explain to you how much I despise the idea of playoff expansion. Is that clear enough? Honestly, I despise the idea of any of these changes. I think the league is great the way it is. Its an incredible league, actually, that we're all priviledged to be a part of. Those that can't get up for the competition shouldn't be around IMO.

Brian and I have been discussing this, but I have no problem with long term strategies. I would not have won my championship if I hadn't began preparing a championship team during the previous season. To be clear, though, I don't agree with an owner submitting a starting lineup that includes non-starters, if that team's roster has empty slots and cap space. Short of that, though, I don't think we should be trying to influence differing strategies among truly competitive owners.

Implementing a sever penalty, levied by the rules committee and ratified by a 75% vote takes care of the blatant tanking issue we've seen with Amish. I'm not sure we should be more aggressive than that.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Frank, you keep trying to lump in those that are most adamant ... I hate the idea of a playoff expansion in any form. I think its terrible. I think its a huge blow to the quality of this league, and a huge step towards fantasy league mediocrity. I can't explain to you how much I despise the idea of playoff expansion. Is that clear enough? Honestly, I despise the idea of any of these changes. I think the league is great the way it is. Its an incredible league, actually, that we're all priviledged to be a part of. Those that can't get up for the competition shouldn't be around IMO.

Brian and I have been discussing this, but I have no problem with long term strategies. I would not have won my championship if I hadn't began preparing a championship team during the previous season. To be clear, though, I don't agree with an owner submitting a starting lineup that includes non-starters, if that team's roster has empty slots and cap space. Short of that, though, I don't think we should be trying to influence differing strategies among truly competitive owners.

Implementing a sever penalty, levied by the rules committee and ratified by a 75% vote takes care of the blatant tanking issue we've seen with Amish. I'm not sure we should be more aggressive than that.

I'll just share the thoughts I've exhanged with Jake on this one. I just think the rules committee idea is futile. The only scenario this would solve is the Joel scenario where a team blatantly does not start its best players. No one has come out and defended that strategy, and Joel admits it was a mistake. I sincerely doubt that will ever happen again, barring a new owner who's not aware of the history.

However, the rules committee idea would not solve the more subtle tanking by a team phoning in his season. Is the rules committee going to move to penalzie a player because they didn't sign a particular free agent, or sign a second defense when theirs was on the bye, or make any other move to make their team more competitive? I would certainly think not, but all of these things are the signs of either owners not caring about their teams, owners trying passively to get a higher pick next year, or owners who are just not interested in competing on a weekly basis. A toilet bowl not only solves the Joel issue (sorry to have to name if after you), but it goes further and solves the other issues as well. To some, those aren't issues that needs to be solved, and so be it, I can't make people agree with me on that. But, to those of you who agree those are issues that need to be addressed to some point, the rules committee idea just doesn't come close to solving.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Frank, you keep trying to lump in those that are most adamant ... I hate the idea of a playoff expansion in any form. I think its terrible. I think its a huge blow to the quality of this league, and a huge step towards fantasy league mediocrity. I can't explain to you how much I despise the idea of playoff expansion. Is that clear enough? Honestly, I despise the idea of any of these changes. I think the league is great the way it is. Its an incredible league, actually, that we're all priviledged to be a part of. Those that can't get up for the competition shouldn't be around IMO.

Brian and I have been discussing this, but I have no problem with long term strategies. I would not have won my championship if I hadn't began preparing a championship team during the previous season. To be clear, though, I don't agree with an owner submitting a starting lineup that includes non-starters, if that team's roster has empty slots and cap space. Short of that, though, I don't think we should be trying to influence differing strategies among truly competitive owners.

Implementing a sever penalty, levied by the rules committee and ratified by a 75% vote takes care of the blatant tanking issue we've seen with Amish. I'm not sure we should be more aggressive than that.

Agreed. 100%. Not submitting your best line up, sure. So why should we choose Toilet Bowl or playoff expansion if we simply wants teams to submit the best lineup possible? The league vote on possible tanking would fix that.

However, others have turned it into an issue of improving league quality b/c teams are not "trying" hard enough and needing to make cuts, sign FA, etc. Thus pushing a win incentive based seeding, in which I countered with a playoff expansion of win based seeding.

And Mike I have been thinking outside of the box... thus the playoff expansion + lottery proposal. You have been the one slamming playoff expansion w/o offering any thing other than the fact that you "hate" the idea.

I can support 4 measures.

1. No change
2. Playoff expansion + lottery
3. Playoff expnasion + league vote on tanking w/ penalties
4. League vote on tanking w/ penalties

Ideally, I'd like 6 team playoffs + league vote or bottom 3 lottery. However, I can settle with no change or simply a league vote on tanking w/ penalties. Anything but a win based system for draft seeding.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'll just share the thoughts I've exhanged with Jake on this one. I just think the rules committee idea is futile. The only scenario this would solve is the Joel scenario where a team blatantly does not start its best players. No one has come out and defended that strategy, and Joel admits it was a mistake. I sincerely doubt that will ever happen again, barring a new owner who's not aware of the history.

However, the rules committee idea would not solve the more subtle tanking by a team phoning in his season. Is the rules committee going to move to penalzie a player because they didn't sign a particular free agent, or sign a second defense when theirs was on the bye, or make any other move to make their team more competitive? I would certainly think not, but all of these things are the signs of either owners not caring about their teams, owners trying passively to get a higher pick next year, or owners who are just not interested in competing on a weekly basis. A toilet bowl not only solves the Joel issue (sorry to have to name if after you), but it goes further and solves the other issues as well. To some, those aren't issues that needs to be solved, and so be it, I can't make people agree with me on that. But, to those of you who agree those are issues that need to be addressed to some point, the rules committee idea just doesn't come close to solving.

.

I don't think most want the rules commitee to be deciding the issues you suggest. They just want people to simply start their best lineup.

If you want to improve league play... a 6 team playoff expansion will do so, without hurting the bad teams. Everyone will be much more competitive with a better shot at playoffs.

Jake and Mike seem to think it ruins the exclusivity of a 4 team playoff... but past history has shown that only once would a 7-7 seed have made playoffs. The rest of the 5th and 6th seeds needed 8-6 or better. Again... #1 or #2 seed just need to win 2 games to be crowned champions. Seeds 3-6 have to win 3 games in a row. This enhances competitivness between teams fighting for playoff spots, but also the Top 4 teams as the jockey for the bye week.

The bottom teams can be taken care of with a simple league voting to prevent tanking or a lottery (60/30/10)

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'll just share the thoughts I've exhanged with Jake on this one. I just think the rules committee idea is futile. The only scenario this would solve is the Joel scenario where a team blatantly does not start its best players. No one has come out and defended that strategy, and Joel admits it was a mistake. I sincerely doubt that will ever happen again, barring a new owner who's not aware of the history.

However, the rules committee idea would not solve the more subtle tanking by a team phoning in his season. Is the rules committee going to move to penalzie a player because they didn't sign a particular free agent, or sign a second defense when theirs was on the bye, or make any other move to make their team more competitive? I would certainly think not, but all of these things are the signs of either owners not caring about their teams, owners trying passively to get a higher pick next year, or owners who are just not interested in competing on a weekly basis. A toilet bowl not only solves the Joel issue (sorry to have to name if after you), but it goes further and solves the other issues as well. To some, those aren't issues that needs to be solved, and so be it, I can't make people agree with me on that. But, to those of you who agree those are issues that need to be addressed to some point, the rules committee idea just doesn't come close to solving.

Why not implement a very straight-forward rule that a team must field a full, active roster unless that team has no empty roster slots or cap room? That's one line added to the rules, easily interpreted. It just doesn't seem hard ... why influence owners beyond that?

We put in a second passage regarding a league vote and severe penalties against obvious tanking, and I think we've gone a long way to solving the problem. I'd rather deal with this thing directly with the offending owners, than build an infrastructure around the problem.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Why not implement a very straight-forward rule that a team must field a full, active roster unless that team has no empty roster slots or cap room? That's one line added to the rules, easily interpreted. It just doesn't seem hard ... why influence owners beyond that?

We put in a second passage regarding a league vote and severe penalties against obvious tanking, and I think we've gone a long way to solving the problem. I'd rather deal with this thing directly with the offending owners, than build an infrastructure around the problem.

B/c that doesn't fix the idea of passive tanking or phoning in the season... which they want to "fix".

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

B/c that doesn't fix the idea of passive tanking or phoning in the season... which they want to "fix".

Abso****inglutely right. Passive tanking and phoning in a season is disgraceful in a league as competitive as the Frenzy is, or used to be at least.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

Abso****inglutely right. Passive tanking and phoning in a season is disgraceful in a league as competitive as the Frenzy is, or used to be at least.

The 6 team playoff + Bottom 3 Lottery/Mutt's Rule >>> Toilet Bowl, Extra Balls, etc... is that's the issue you want to fix.

More playoff spots, more teams fighting for a spot = more competitive play. Issue fixed... no harm done to bad teams.

Toilet Bowl - spot remained unchanged, middle of the pack (get better or suck enough to get into toilet bowl and get #1 pick?), bottom teams get screwed.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

.
If you want to improve league play... a 6 team playoff expansion will do so, without hurting the bad teams. Everyone will be much more competitive with a better shot at playoffs.

This is your opinion. Not a fact. The conversation/debate would be more productive if people would start to recognize there are no "facts" or certainties in this whole debate. Just opinions.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Abso****inglutely right. Passive tanking and phoning in a season is disgraceful in a league as competitive as the Frenzy is, or used to be at least.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

This is your opinion. Not a fact. The conversation/debate would be more productive if people would start to recognize there are no "facts" or certainties in this whole debate. Just opinions.

May not be a fact but the reasoning/logic has been explained for playoff expansion. The knocks against it many of which are OPINIONS (I hate this... I hate that...) have not been explained and are really matters of preference/experience.

Both Toilet Bowl and Playoff Expansion will fix passive tanking. I hope we can agree on that, you just feel Toilet Bowl is more effective despite sacrificing bad teams getting better. I feel Playoff expnasion + Lottery/Mutts Rule does the same yet does not sacrifice bad teams.

Mike and Jake said they areagainst playoff expansion b/c of unworthiness, diluting the playoffs etc.... I pointed out it this year Mike lost out due to the the 4th tiebreaker!! and past history has shown that only ONE TIME has a .500 team made playoffs. Not only that but a #1 or #2 seeds only have ot win 2 games for the Frenzy Bowl while seeds #3-6 have to win 3 games. How many games/obstacles would #3-6 need to win/face to be considered worthy of that crown? So there goes that argument/opinion.

In the end Mike and Jake are against playoff expansion and for toilet bowl b/c they would rather avoid double headers (only 1 week for the season against non-divisonal foes) and have 1 extra week of the regular season (# games would be the same, though) rather than maintianing competitive balance with bad teams getting the best picks. That's their choice. I just hope others do not feel the same way.

I'm done here.

Just make sure Playoff Expansion is head to head with Toilet Bowl come voting time.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Why not implement a very straight-forward rule that a team must field a full, active roster unless that team has no empty roster slots or cap room? That's one line added to the rules, easily interpreted. It just doesn't seem hard ... why influence owners beyond that?

We put in a second passage regarding a league vote and severe penalties against obvious tanking, and I think we've gone a long way to solving the problem. I'd rather deal with this thing directly with the offending owners, than build an infrastructure around the problem.

Since your first paragraph deals with much more than late-season tanking, what would be the penalty for breaking this rule? There'd have been a good number of weeks this year where we'd have had infractions. I can remember a week when 6 players (over 5% of the 108 guys we start each week) were started who were guaranteed zeroes, and all the teams starting them had roster spots/cap room to avoid it.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Just make sure Playoff Expansion is head to head with Toilet Bowl come voting time.

I know you think they are linked, but not all of us do. I support playoff expansion to increase middle-tier competiveness! It will have little-to-no effect on tanking for the #1 draft pick. If you insist on linking them in the vote proposal, then you've lost my support for playoff expansion.

Why can't I just for my own perferences, instead of voting for yours?

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

I know you think they are linked, but not all of us do. I support playoff expansion to increase middle-tier competiveness! It will have little-to-no effect on tanking for the #1 draft pick. If you insist on linking them in the vote proposal, then you've lost my support for playoff expansion.

Why can't I just for my own perferences, instead of voting for yours?

Fine with me.

I have explained millions of times. Those against Toilet Bowl offer the Playoff Expansion as an alternative BECAUSE WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA OF AWARDING DRAFT SEEDING BASED ON WINS!!! Pretty simple.

I will support any idea that does not "fix" tanking by linking it to wins... and so far the only proposal is my playoff expansion or Mutt's Rule. I will support either.

You done arguing for them to be sperate? I think you maybe the only one who want's both anyways.

[Popes]

I'm done arguing for them to be separate as soon as you stop insisting that they must be linked because that's the way you'd like the vote to come out.

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

I will support any idea that does not "fix" tanking by linking it to wins... and so far the only proposal is my playoff expansion or Mutt's Rule. I will support either.

Interesting. For many pages, the lottery proposal was the main argument countering the toilet bowl. Now it doesn't even merit mention (apparently it never existed at all).

Updating to include Mutts' idea, this type of voting is fair to everyone:

Re teams tanking: [note: I'm fine if there's a "is there a problem?" vote first, to get down to 3 choices if that vote says "yes"]
1. no change
2. Rules Cmte deals with and sanctions offender
2. lottery
3. toilet bowl

Re increased competitiveness generally:
1. no change to playoffs
2. expand playoffs to 6

With a separate vote, EVERYONE gets to vote their preferences, including you. Go ahead and vote for lottery + playoffs. I'm not stopping you. Yet you seem intent on stopping me from voting for what I think is the best solution. So what if I'm the only one who votes for toilet + expansion? My suggestion allows everyone to vote for what they want and the majority (or plurality) will rule.

I'm starting to think you insist on linking the two because you've seen the support for the playoff expansion and decided it's the best why to prevent the toilet bowl from passing. Which is why your lottery idea dropped away so quickly.

[Popes]

Re toilet bowl:

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Yes, but then it compromises the fact that the worst teams should get the best draft picks. In the end the worst teams are the worst teams... this year Joel just was jockeying for poistion with me thus the "tank" job. But I don't think the league will contest that we had the worst teams in the league. Would Joel have really tanked knowing even at 2nd place he has a 30% chance of getting 1st? I think not.

I'd like to point out that for all the bluster that "the worst teams must get the best picks", the lottery idea sacrifices this principle too, just like the toilet bowl does. Under your lottery suggestion the 3rd worst team (5-9 this year) gets a shot at the #1 pick. As you said, you and Joel clearly had the worst teams. So how can a toilet bowl, which give the 4th worst team (also 5-9) a shot, be the arrival of the anti-Christ to the league, yet the lottery, which allows the 3rd worst team a shot, does not sacrifice the principle at all?

It seems to me that you have to be arguing that there can be no change at all to the bottom if you really care about the principle so much.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

This is getting a bit rediculuous... all of this verbage.

Here's where I stand:
1) We should have a league where everyone tries every week. Period. If you're heart is not in it, then for the sake of the integrity of the league, resign.
2) I like the setup the way it is right now.
3) After hearing many opinions, I'm not in favor of a toilet bowl.
4) I'm not in favor of a lottery.
5) I could be talked into a 6 team playoff, but for the competativeness of this league, I believe our current 4 team playoff is best. It rewards the teams that fought through the regular season with excellence (and I'd like to think I'd say the same thing when I wasn't in the playoffs).
6) It's obvious that some of the owners feel a decision must be made on the tanking admission for this year.

In the meantime... I'm starting to prepare for the playoffs.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Please make Jim read more so that he will be distracted. TIA!!!

Actually, this is getting to be one our longer threads and I am honestly not sure we are any closer to a resolution.

[Urza's Ragers]

No kidding huh?

MY VOTE: No change, submit NO BS lineup!!!!!

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

I
With a separate vote, EVERYONE gets to vote their preferences, including you. Go ahead and vote for lottery + playoffs. I'm not stopping you. Yet you seem intent on stopping me from voting for what I think is the best solution. So what if I'm the only one who votes for toilet + expansion? My suggestion allows everyone to vote for what they want and the majority (or plurality) will rule.

I'm starting to think you insist on linking the two because you've seen the support for the playoff expansion and decided it's the best why to prevent the toilet bowl from passing. Which is why your lottery idea dropped away so quickly.

We can add a 3rd or 4th option for you... Expand playoff + Toilet Bowl. However, how are you going to put playoff expansion and Toilet bowl in sperate categories when one was raised as a counter to the other? You may see them as sperate entities, fine, but do not sperate Playoff Expansion and Toilet Bowl into different categories.

We can vote as follows:

1. No Change
2. Toilet Bowl
3. Playoff Expansion + anything other than Toilet Bowl or Extra balls (anythign tying wins to draft seeding).
4. Playoff Expansion + Toilet Bowl
5. Mutts Rule
6. Other

The main purpose of the thread is not some much to force a lottery, but to avoid a Toilet Bowl. I have thought of playoff expansion + lottery as the best way to avoid tanking without affecting the bottom teams.

Originally Posted by Popes

Re toilet bowl:


I'd like to point out that for all the bluster that "the worst teams must get the best picks", the lottery idea sacrifices this principle too, just like the toilet bowl does. Under your lottery suggestion the 3rd worst team (5-9 this year) gets a shot at the #1 pick. As you said, you and Joel clearly had the worst teams. So how can a toilet bowl, which give the 4th worst team (also 5-9) a shot, be the arrival of the anti-Christ to the league, yet the lottery, which allows the 3rd worst team a shot, does not sacrifice the principle at all?

It seems to me that you have to be arguing that there can be no change at all to the bottom if you really care about the principle so much.

You state that a lottery and toilet bowl both sacrifice the worst team getting the best pick, but you could not be anymore wrong.

In a lottery the WORST TEAM STILL HAS THE BEST ODDS at the #1 draft pick (60% vs 40%, we can fudge with numbers later but I think 1st should go no lower than 60%). In a Toilet Bowl, when will the worst team EVER HAVE THE BEST ODDS OF winning the #1 pick? NEVER. That is the reason they are the worst team.

If you institute a Toilet Bowl.. medocirty will be championed, league activity will die, and the bottom teams get screwed in the end. You want to know why? In-season, the only ways to improve outside of player performance is via trading or FA signings. If you link wins to draft seeding.... guess what? Barely any trades will occur. Mediocrity will be rewarded.

The Top 6 teams will stay steady... b/c they are in playoff hunt. The middle tier teams have no incentive to trade with the lower teams or higher teams b/c they want to have a "good enough" team to enter and win Toilet Bowl, and the bottom teams get screwed as no one will trade with them. They then have to rely on FA signings which can be hit or miss. They get stuck with the worst team... yet cannot win the #1 draft pick b/c the middle tier teams are naturally better than them.

Really I'm for any proposal that does not link wins and draft seeding. Thus the reason I have been so flexible with the 2nd stipulation in additon to playoff expansion to curb the bottom teams from tanking (not setting lineup late in season) - bottom 3 lottery, Mutt's Rule, no change in bottom of the league, or anything else you can think of.

If you guys were in last place and you had to win to 2 games in a row or 3 games in a row to get the #1 pick, how crazy would that sound? You had to IMPROVE you team in order to IMPROVE you draft slot? Doesn't make sense.

I just think those against the Toilet Bowl need to stick together b/c the last thing we want to see is Toilet Bowl win with 4 votes and the rest of the league spread amonst the other choices. Again I am for anything that does not tie WINS to draft seeding.

[Mutts]

I think the Opihi has become the wise old sage of the Frenzy. Well said.

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

This is getting a bit rediculuous... all of this verbage.

Here's where I stand:
1) We should have a league where everyone tries every week. Period. If you're heart is not in it, then for the sake of the integrity of the league, resign.
2) I like the setup the way it is right now.
3) After hearing many opinions, I'm not in favor of a toilet bowl.
4) I'm not in favor of a lottery.
5) I could be talked into a 6 team playoff, but for the competativeness of this league, I believe our current 4 team playoff is best. It rewards the teams that fought through the regular season with excellence (and I'd like to think I'd say the same thing when I wasn't in the playoffs).
6) It's obvious that some of the owners feel a decision must be made on the tanking admission for this year.

In the meantime... I'm starting to prepare for the playoffs.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Mutts

I think the Opihi has become the wise old sage of the Frenzy. Well said.

However, I don't get how adding more playoff spots will DECREASE competitiveness. It will only increase competitiveness. Most teams have a shot at playoffs. The top teams will fight to get a bye week (only goes to #1 or 2 seed). The 3 bad teams can trade their players to the stud teams or teams figting for playoffs in exchange for draft picks or young players to help rebuild. The cyle repeats.... every year.

[Popes]

Things are pretty clear at this point. I'm done. I know how I'm voting - you can structure the poll any way you want, it doesn't matter. Don't make a toilet + playoffs option.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Mutts

I think the Opihi has become the wise old sage of the Frenzy. Well said.

I did just turn forty, you know! ;)

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

Things are pretty clear at this point. I'm done. I know how I'm voting - you can structure the poll any way you want, it doesn't matter. Don't make a toilet + playoffs option.

So what is clear? That you perfer no change, toilet bowl, or playoff expansion? Please explain especially since you seem on the fence as a proponent for BOTH playoff expansion and toilet bowl.

[Popes]

It's clear that no one wants to listen to you and me argue anymore. And that we're talking past each other anyway.

[Amish]

Well as I read all this, I again apologize for my single week of poor judgement. I by no means meant to cause this massive committment of time and heated discussion on the subject.

I know that this will not be an issue for me again in Frenzy and if an "Amish" or "Joel" rule needs to be implemented I understand. (You don't have to be sorry Brian for calling it that, it was deserved.) Just please know that this was a one-time mistake. I feel as though some owners want to say that I'm the total problem. My question is what is the difference between actively tanking and passively tanking. If you don't submit a lineup consectutive weeks or refuse to add players, that's just as bad. If you look all year, I was active in trying to make my team better. I added and dropped numerous players, traded picks, and traded in looking at next year. I just happened to make poor GM decisions this year, but it wasn't a year long thing. The one week it happened was the ONLY time it crossed my mind and again I apologize.

It seems like the issue has happened before but I was the one who finally admitted it. I understand the hostility but like Opihi said "It's obvious that some of the owners feel a decision must be made (based) on the tanking admission for this year."

Amish - Joel
Road Kill of the "Amish Rule" Bandwagon