Fantasy Football 32

We need to constantly be evaluating our managers and replacing those who fall below our expectations of what we think is a good manager. Bad managers, even if just a few, will always hold the league back on its full potential.

I suggest at the end of the season, each conference holds a vote. Each manager chooses who they think was the least active manager that season (not least successful - LEAST ACTIVE) and if a manager collects a certain amount of votes say like 10 then they should be booted and replaced. Odds are if 10 of their 15 peers voted for them then it would be quite obvious that they were the weakest link in the conference as far as being active.

NOTE: This would NOT be an automatic boot/kick from the league; however, if 10 of your peers all point to you then there is obviously some sort of red flag there that needs to be discussed. So with this would be is 1) If the Commissioner believes the manager with 10+ has been grossly inactive and has completely fallen below the manager expectations of the league then he reserves the right for an auto-kick of the manager but 2) the Commissioner also has the right to have a serious conversation with said manager and present the results of the vote. The manager and Commissioner will then discuss what can be done to improve the manager's participation and if both seem optimistic of a chance then the manager may be allowed to stay.

This vote would be confidential so votes would not influence other votes. The Commissioner could then tell us the overall results.

This vote would help keep all of us accountable and if there was ever a clear sign someone sucked at being active then this would open the door for their removal. It would also help avoid putting the Commissioner in an awkward spot of having to ask people to be more active and be the sole determination if and when someone is removed.

This would start for the current 2020 Season.

Discuss Below.

Feels unnecessary and like it has some execution flaws. Doesn’t really change anything so I’m kind of indifferent. I’ll vote against because it just introduces another vote and process to be managed that I don’t think will achieve anything.

Beau, read the last paragraph that James typed. This helps the commissioner not have the sole burden of removing an owner. This is more to about relieving the burden of the commish than it is about removing teams.

I’m certainly in favor of removing that burden, Ben. Will think about how it might be structured to accomplish that. As I said, I just don’t think this will actually do that. If there are 3 managers of interest, all get 5 votes (that’s generous to assume 3 being so obvious), none come close to the 10 vote threshold.

Could we have a committee?

Not a fan of this rule change.
I have a hunch that it’ll create unnecessary conflict and create further divisions in our league.

I did not submit this rule proposal, but I do find it interesting.

Two PROS and two CONS I see...

PROS....

1) It does provide some insightful feedback from the managers and as the rule said it is confidential so other managers won't know how others voted. You'll just know 10+ of your conference peers pointed the finger at you so there must be some reason for that?

2) It would give me some leverage to approach a manager about this issue in that the league's response has dictated it and not just what I think.

CONS...

1) I wouldn't want to necessarily be confined to this vote in order to approach an inactive manager. If I feel a manager is sliding I usually ask the opinion of a few others to see what they think. If we passed this rule would that mean I would be confined to it in that I couldn't approach someone unless they had 10+ votes from their peers?

2) I could easily see a situation where you have 2+ inactive managers and they split the vote so neither team gets 10+ votes and both continue their ways.

I understand the sentiment behind the rule, but after much thought I see too many flaws in it. I do think this is an important issue though and it's something we have to stay on top of. We have 32 spots (well 31 not including me) in a great league that we should be proud of. We should see it as a privilege to be here and not some default right that you get to stay just because you signed up and were given a franchise. it is a privilege meaning it can be taken away if you are not performing up to the standards we have for our team owners.

When you put it like that, it makes me against. I don't want to do anything to hinder your ability to remove casual owners.

I think a committee of yourself, 2 NFC owners, and 2 AFC owners should be formed. Hold committee discussions and a vote to remove owners. Make it have to be unanimous 5-0 to have an owner removed.

The goal is to help the commissioner, yet he is against it. Then there is no point. Voted yes before, will change it.

lets face we are all men here..... We should as Gm's of our franchises know who is the least active.... James Should appoint a co-commish to over see the Afc. That will take some of the burden off of him.... he will over see the final decision... I just think it would wrong to have a vote and have somebody ousted because they are not well like or something like that.... in a dynasty we all put a lot of time an effort and to be voted out because your not popular would be ashame

Whatever we can do to reduce some of the burden on Commish to identify and replace GMs is likely a good idea. That way James wouldn’t need to the the bad guy all the time. Small committee for each conference that consults the commish before making any moves might be the way to go

im still in favor of this... cause its very unconfortable to call someone out for not being active enough. we already saw some tension recently about it. so we need a time in the year to stop e evaluate our owners.

I'm against this just from a libertarian stand point. We all know when a manager isn't pulling his weight but I think that it's different for each person. Clearly there are some managers that feel being active means commenting in the groupme message every day. Just think everyone's opinion would be different.

If James is approached by any owners with concerns or he sees concerns on his own he should be the one to approach that owner. The extra vote would be extra work when I think he could deduce what owners are problem owners.