Shifting gears to discuss something interesting that happened yesterday in the Premier Fantasy Football League. Many of you might be familiar with this scenario, so the point here is to get conversation going on one of my favorite not-discussed-very-much subjects: ideal league rules.
What are "ideal" rules? You might have a pretty good sense of them. For years I've some of your stories about leagues with less-than-ideal rules. For example, they might disadvantage some managers at the outset. Suppose your commissioner works from home. Doesn't have kids. Isn't in a relationship. And is committed to fantasy football as an at-the-ready full-time occupation. In other words they can react when news breaks.
And suppose you work on a construction site. Or as a third-grade teacher. Or in retail. Or full-time parenting infant twins while shuttling your five-year-old back and forth to kindergarten each day. The only breaking news you care about is when you're out of diapers and need to make a Target run.
If your league rules allow managers to pick up and drop players whenever they want via free agency, then your commissioner--and other life-flexible people--have an advantage over you and other time-constrained folks. No judgment from me, by the way. I've lived both those lives, as I know some of you have, too. But if some people can pick up a handcuff RB five minutes after the starter's been knocked out of a game with a knee injury, that's an advantage. And it's not ideal for opponents who can't monitor the NFL in real time.
There are many other less-than-ideal rules. And in the PFFL, I've tried to design things so that everyone has a fair shake at the outset, and so that everyone has a fair shake in-season. It's far from perfect. There are changes that objectively need to be made, and others that are more subjective. The goal is to get closer to perfection.
And in the meantime, the goal is to head off the types of unfair rules that destroy leagues. Bad trades are a prime example. Have you witnessed a trade that's clearly not cool. I call it "egregiously unfair." Does it undercut the league's integrity? Does it make you not want to compete anymore?
I struggled with that when creating the PFFL in 2018. That first year, we had three divisions of 14 teams. I served as the commissioner, which meant I also ruled on all trades. Obviously, not optimal. But we got through it.
The next year, the league doubled to 84 managers. I asked longtime community member Greg Slack if he could help rule on trades, using the "egregiously unfair" guidepost to assess whether each trade passed the smell test. Greg had the final say on all trades in my division. I had the final say on all trades in his division, and the other four. So, a better policy. But still not ideal.
Beginning in Year 3, we had someone volunteer from each division--now totaling nine. Whenever a trade was ratified by two managers, I sent it to the other eight volunteers, or "trade commissioners." Whoever's division the trade was in, that commissioner had to abstain. Of the remaining eight of us (me included), five "nay" votes rejected the trade. Of the dozens and dozens of trades that went through that year, I believe one or two came close to getting rejected, but otherwise they all passed.
Because the point of trade commissioners, in my opinion, is not to stop managers from managing. It's to protect the league from itself. If a trade could realistically benefit each side--even if it clearly favors one side in the short term--that's okay. A 2-6 team trading with a 5-2 team might require more scrutiny. But if that 2-6 team is getting some "win-now" guys, and the 5-2 team is giving up some short-term value for an elite RB returning in three weeks from injured reserve, then that's a win-win. Each side has a legitimate reason to make the trade.
This season we have 13 divisions. Seven nay votes are needed to reject a trade. Each time one goes through, I text the other commissioners, and they respond. After six "yes" votes, I approve the trade online.
But yesterday, something different happened, and I think it was a good thing, even though I disagreed with the outcome. In my division, a trade went through. I sent it to the commissioners. The first five responses were "yes" votes. One more would ratify the deal. Then someone expressed concerns that it was too lopsided. I invited that commissioner and others to elaborate. Basically, this was too important to rush. This was a moment when the league might strengthen or weaken. That sounds like hyperbole, and maybe it is. But an egregiously unfair trade, once approved, can be toxic. It can undermine other managers' faith in the league.
We never got to seven no votes. Yet there was enough convincing criticism to void the trade. Again, I disagreed and thought the trade had enough risk/reward on each side to pass. But because it was my division, I had to abstain. And more importantly, because I run the league, it was more important for me to shut up and listen to others' concerns. Because this doesn't happen every day or every week or even every month. Our league needed to get this decision right, even if I felt the ultimate decision wasn't.
A fantasy league has to be bigger than any one person. It sounds cliched, etc. But yesterday reinforced that idea: a dozen people on a text chain protecting the integrity of a league on behalf of themselves and the other 146 managers. The ultimate decision mattered less than the fact that a dozen people care enough about the league to make a *thoughtful* decision. One that put the league above everything else.
If you've experienced any terrific league rules that should be emulated, or any terrible league rules that compelled you to walk away, looking forward to reading about it.
What are "ideal" rules? You might have a pretty good sense of them. For years I've some of your stories about leagues with less-than-ideal rules. For example, they might disadvantage some managers at the outset. Suppose your commissioner works from home. Doesn't have kids. Isn't in a relationship. And is committed to fantasy football as an at-the-ready full-time occupation. In other words they can react when news breaks.
And suppose you work on a construction site. Or as a third-grade teacher. Or in retail. Or full-time parenting infant twins while shuttling your five-year-old back and forth to kindergarten each day. The only breaking news you care about is when you're out of diapers and need to make a Target run.
If your league rules allow managers to pick up and drop players whenever they want via free agency, then your commissioner--and other life-flexible people--have an advantage over you and other time-constrained folks. No judgment from me, by the way. I've lived both those lives, as I know some of you have, too. But if some people can pick up a handcuff RB five minutes after the starter's been knocked out of a game with a knee injury, that's an advantage. And it's not ideal for opponents who can't monitor the NFL in real time.
There are many other less-than-ideal rules. And in the PFFL, I've tried to design things so that everyone has a fair shake at the outset, and so that everyone has a fair shake in-season. It's far from perfect. There are changes that objectively need to be made, and others that are more subjective. The goal is to get closer to perfection.
And in the meantime, the goal is to head off the types of unfair rules that destroy leagues. Bad trades are a prime example. Have you witnessed a trade that's clearly not cool. I call it "egregiously unfair." Does it undercut the league's integrity? Does it make you not want to compete anymore?
I struggled with that when creating the PFFL in 2018. That first year, we had three divisions of 14 teams. I served as the commissioner, which meant I also ruled on all trades. Obviously, not optimal. But we got through it.
The next year, the league doubled to 84 managers. I asked longtime community member Greg Slack if he could help rule on trades, using the "egregiously unfair" guidepost to assess whether each trade passed the smell test. Greg had the final say on all trades in my division. I had the final say on all trades in his division, and the other four. So, a better policy. But still not ideal.
Beginning in Year 3, we had someone volunteer from each division--now totaling nine. Whenever a trade was ratified by two managers, I sent it to the other eight volunteers, or "trade commissioners." Whoever's division the trade was in, that commissioner had to abstain. Of the remaining eight of us (me included), five "nay" votes rejected the trade. Of the dozens and dozens of trades that went through that year, I believe one or two came close to getting rejected, but otherwise they all passed.
Because the point of trade commissioners, in my opinion, is not to stop managers from managing. It's to protect the league from itself. If a trade could realistically benefit each side--even if it clearly favors one side in the short term--that's okay. A 2-6 team trading with a 5-2 team might require more scrutiny. But if that 2-6 team is getting some "win-now" guys, and the 5-2 team is giving up some short-term value for an elite RB returning in three weeks from injured reserve, then that's a win-win. Each side has a legitimate reason to make the trade.
This season we have 13 divisions. Seven nay votes are needed to reject a trade. Each time one goes through, I text the other commissioners, and they respond. After six "yes" votes, I approve the trade online.
But yesterday, something different happened, and I think it was a good thing, even though I disagreed with the outcome. In my division, a trade went through. I sent it to the commissioners. The first five responses were "yes" votes. One more would ratify the deal. Then someone expressed concerns that it was too lopsided. I invited that commissioner and others to elaborate. Basically, this was too important to rush. This was a moment when the league might strengthen or weaken. That sounds like hyperbole, and maybe it is. But an egregiously unfair trade, once approved, can be toxic. It can undermine other managers' faith in the league.
We never got to seven no votes. Yet there was enough convincing criticism to void the trade. Again, I disagreed and thought the trade had enough risk/reward on each side to pass. But because it was my division, I had to abstain. And more importantly, because I run the league, it was more important for me to shut up and listen to others' concerns. Because this doesn't happen every day or every week or even every month. Our league needed to get this decision right, even if I felt the ultimate decision wasn't.
A fantasy league has to be bigger than any one person. It sounds cliched, etc. But yesterday reinforced that idea: a dozen people on a text chain protecting the integrity of a league on behalf of themselves and the other 146 managers. The ultimate decision mattered less than the fact that a dozen people care enough about the league to make a *thoughtful* decision. One that put the league above everything else.
If you've experienced any terrific league rules that should be emulated, or any terrible league rules that compelled you to walk away, looking forward to reading about it.