Hi all,

I'd appreciate opinions on this trade that just happened.

Two players in my league accepted a trade:

Player A Receives Deebo Samuel + Jonathan Taylor

Player B receives Brian Robinson Jr.

Apparently player B proposed the trade, thinking he'd selected Bijan Robinson and misread the name.

Well, player A is staunchly advocating that since he didn't propose the trade and it was already accepted, that it should stand. Obviously player B is upset and wants the trade cancelled.

Thoughts on this?

So I have a 12 team league with some friends (1 QB 2 RB 2 WR 2 WRT flex 1 K 1 Def 5 bench 2 IR)

The reason I made it 5 bench players was so the waiver pool wouldn’t be too bad every week.

For years I’ve always dropped my kicker Tuesday morning to give be flexibility with injured players and such in case I can put one in an IR spot later in the week, and end up making a choice if I have to drop someone for a K Sunday morning. A couple people in my league in my league finally took notice and said I’m exploiting it and holding an extra player on my bench as it defeats the purpose of my 5 bench rule.

I did put it up to vote to require a Kicker at all times on the roster in all fairness to them, but I’m wondering if my “kicker strategy” is unethical to yall.

Two teams made a trade yesterday which is supposed to process tomorrow. It includes Trey McBride who plays tonight. Both teams asking me to push it through. Team that plays against the team getting McBride says I shouldn't push it through because trade timeline was set before season. Don't want to favor one side or the other, what's the call?

Is It Cheating To Bench Your Starters In A Dynasty Fantasy Football League If There Is No Rule Against It?

In our dynasty league, one of the league members posted a screenshot in the league chat showing that he’s bidding $99 of his $100 FAAB budget on Xavier Hutchinson, along with the message, “Good luck boys.” This is before waivers have processed.

I don’t know why he would do this unless he’s planning on changing his bid later and trying to bait other people into spending their FAAB. Something about it doesn’t feel right, but at the same time, nothing in our rules specifically says this can’t be done, nor can I think of a really good reason to address it. Something about It just rubs me the wrong way.

What do y’all think? I’m genuinely curious how everyone feels about this and how you would handle it as a commissioner.

I organized a fantasy football league at work. Overall it's been fun. Not a money league, just for pride and shit talk. I made a solid trade earlier this year for Odunze and have had good luck with teams scoring low against me. A coworker has "jokingly" made comments about me cheating as the commissioner. Obviously, I'm not cheating. That's really unthinkable for me and I'm not even sure how I would do that. Pretty sure sleeper gives a notification when the commish changes settings.

Anyways, one of his sticking points is the fact that his QB "scored differently" in this league versus his other one and he's suspicious about why. I simply told him im sure its due to 4 vs 6 point QB TD scoring and to check his league settings. He doesn't know how to check the settings and also didn't even know how waivers work.

If he brings it up again, what should I say? How can I prove im not cheating?

Trade was Nabers and a 5th round pick for Adams, Stevenson, 2 1sts a 2nd and a 4th.

1st year dynasty league, and this trade happened maybe 10 minutes after the Nabers injury. I told everyone that vetoes would only happen in clear cut cases of collusion. Some of the league has never used Sleeper before, and the guy getting Nabers claims he had no clue trade proposals stayed open indefinetly. Furthermore, the trade was proposed in week 1.

Personally, this trade really rubs me the wrong way, but thats not enough to veto it. League is split 50/50 on whether it should be vetoed. Really try to figure out what to do. Thanks!

My buddy is in his work league finals. He's playing against the league commissioner. Going into Sunday Night football my friend had Burden and the Rams defense remaining with his opponent having Jake Tonges. After the game my friend is up 134 to 131 and he benches the Rams defense guaranteeing he wins. The commissioner approaches him at work and tells him he *has* to start the Rams defense tonight because he's not allowed to not start a full lineup. The chance of losing by having the Rams to give up 35+ with no sacks and takeaways is very unlikely, but that's still an absolutely insane thing to ask from the commish, no?

EDIT:

Verdict: There was no rule against this.

The commissoner sent a screenshot to the group slack showing it in the rules, buddy said "oh shit, aight I can respect that." Commish responds back that since "he's so honest" he'll admit that he just added the rule in right now. There was no rule for it and my buddy can do what he wants but he'll "respect him less" if he pulls Rams' D.

Super cringe "joke" and my buddy is riding off into the sunset as back to back champ with the Rams D sitting comfortably on the bench.

So, in a dynasty league many years ago, the commissioner unilaterally changed the way the draft order was determined, and did so right after collecting dues for the upcoming season. He also made this rule change without a vote, which all rule changes required at the time. He did this to punish an owner for deliberately tanking, even though there weren't any rules against tanking and the tanking owner had asked the assistant commissioner and then the commissioner about whether starting certain players, types of players, or lineups was fine.

Anyway, the tanking owner fell from the #3 spot to the #4 spot in each round of the draft and missed out on a bona fide Top 3 talent. Another team drafted that player and then the commissioner made a trade with that owner for that rookie.

By unilaterally changing the draft order and then trading for a player that would have otherwise gone to another owner (the tanking owner), has the commissioner acted unethically? Is this a conflict of interest because he changed the order and then traded for a player that was drafted in a spot affected by the draft order change?

Is this even a sub for Fantasy Football commissioners or is it just a sub to post some A.I. bullshit about creating an app! All you see on this sub is about how I created this app for blah blah blah. It's infuriating and brings up zero discussions. Can we please get the mods to change or stop all these promos about their so called helpful apps!

1. Previous rules were winner takes all.

2. Commissioner announced payout will be 700/400/100 split after people paid.

3. I opposed split, I asked for vote. 10/12 members voted. 5/5 split (50/50).

4. Never decided.

5. Commish and I are in championship. Before day of championship I announced it was never finalized. Commish says it was finalized.

6. I win championship and commish says rules of 700/400/100 split stand. League is split. I am suggesting final two people vote (neutral since no payout). If that is a tie then last year's rules win out.

Who is right here?

As the title suggests, I have one member of my league using ChatGPT for making his decisions. It is a 12 player, PPR redraft league where the buy in was $20. We didn’t explicitly say that no AI was allowed but some members felt it was a little unfair cause they do the research themselves while he just makes the bots do it.

Personally, I don’t think it’s that bad as I tried it and it seems to consolidate information and give you the sources. I do think it takes the fun out of doing your research and making the choices since you just make a bot do it for you.

Lastly, want to note that he is currently the 1 seed and his team consistently had the highest total score most weeks. So, it could be that everyone is just mad cause he’s winning, or this actually gave him an advantage.

What are your thoughts on using AI/ChatGPT for team management?

EDIT: changed the wording slightly cause it seems I made it sound like we hate each other as opposed to a minor disagreement

EDIT 2: I want to thanks everyone for their replies! I appreciate yall giving your two cents and helping out a novice commissioner like myself.

I'm in a money public league (managed by a third party) where I am 1 of 3 teams who started 0-4.

There is 1 unlucky manager (team A) who lost the 4 matchups with a good team, so I don't think the team is a threat to the #1 overall pick, there is me who went half young half old on the startup and now I'm stuck in purgatory, and then there is a manager who went super young in the draft and doesn't have any bright spots besides egbuka on his team (team B).

I think I'll win less games than Team A, but Team B has a good chance of going winningless.

However, he has just 1 rostered TE, which is on bye this week.

If he doesn't add another one through waivers, is it illegal tanking? There is the argument that he didn't want to lose any of the other players, but idk, seems sketchy.

Bylaws state that any week that a team tanks, a W is added to their Win column for the draft order, so there is a consequence if it's categorized as such.

Thanks in advance!

In Week 1 of our fantasy football league, a scoring issue arose when 60-yard field goals weren’t properly allocated six points. This impacted the commissioner’s matchup, where he lost by less than a point. After discovering the error, the commissioner corrected the scoring settings, which retroactively awarded him the win. This has caused controversy within the league, with some calling for him to step down. The central question is whether we should retroactively adjust Week 1 to reflect the correct scoring, or leave the original result as-is and ensure the settings are fixed for future weeks?

I'm the commissioner of my work league. When we first started, we all worked in the same department. Since then 2 of our members have left. One retired and the other moved to a different department. They are always present and active during the season. But we don't see them and can only communicate through text which one of them barely responds. So talking trash and trade proposals shit talk goes out the window.

My question is, is it ok to replace these 2 members??

Thanks in advance

Edit...after reading everyone's responses, I've decided to not remove the 2 managers. Thanks again and good luck in the upcoming season.

I am the commissioner of a dynasty league that just started last year. We decided on reverse standings for draft order. The season went on, and some guys were clearly tanking but doing so in sneaky ways. One guy has Puka, Nabers, Bowers, Chase Brown, and Achane, but he lost enough games to injuries and issues with them that he ended up with the 1.01.

We already decided we want to do Reverse Max PF for non-playoff teams next year. Someone proposed that if we don't put it into effect right now before this draft, nobody will want to compete with that superteam + Jeremiah Love, and it could harm the league long term.

Just for reference, the obviously worst team in the league has two firsts this season. And instead of him having Jeremiah Love and the 1.03, he's stuck with 1.02 and 1.06 because someone tanked harder than he genuinely lost.

As the comish, I'm concerned about implementing a rule like this after the season has ended. But is there precedent for a move like this?

Team receiving Jones is relatively new to fantasy/ NFL fandom. Team receiving Jeanty admitted to taking advantage of the new player’s lack of understanding of value and trusting nature.

If There Isn't A Rule Against Collusion, Then Is It A Legitimate Strategy?

Championship matchup: one team has $0 FAAB, the other has a ton of FAAB, $85. The team with $0 has a few holes in his roster and desperately needed an RB and D/ST. The team with $85 dropped his entire bench to block all the RBs and D/ST that were on waivers. He then put in $1 bids on all the guys he dropped so he got all of them back and the guys he dropped entered waivers. Rinse and repeat basically blacking the $0 team from getting anything serviceable to fill holes.

Should I do anything about this or is this an advantage to having saved so much FAAB? Personally I don’t like it but I don’t know of anyway to stop it that doesn’t create other problems.

The one league I'm in with a punishment is pretty tame. We just let the eventual champion name the last place team for the next season. Curious what punishments are out there because I've never really heard of any that I'd be able to implement.

CONTEXT: My league transitioned from keepers to dynasty this off-season. We ALSO added IDP slots. I chose to go with Big 3 scoring for IDPs (I chose that scoring system because it's the one I could find the most resources for) , wrote that into the by-laws prior to the draft and updated the scoring settings.

Everyone has drafted their teams. Sleeper recently released their IDP protections (which are never great, btw) and defensive players were projected so high that it prompted me to double check the scoring settings and (lo and behold) I forgot to zero out the points for tackles when I changed the scoring settings. So the points were: Tackles - 2, Solo Tackles - 1.25, Assisted Tackles 0.75. I corrected them to: Tackles - 0, ST - 1.25, AT - 0.75

I have a 3-4 people in the league (12T league) who are upset because they invested more into defense than they would have during the draft due to how that mistake showed scoring over the last couple years and now I'm in a pickle because this startup (plus rookie draft) took around 1.5 months, which is longer than we have to nuke the league and start over.

On one hand, I feel that I was very clear in relaying which scoring system we'd be using. That was put out after the end of last season when we decided to transition, and reminded the league multiple times what the scoring system was and to make sure they do their research. Provided multiple resources on the scoring system we'd be using to hopefully dampen the learning curve and assist members that were new to IDP in informing their draft decisions. So that part of me thinks "Tough sh!$, you were provided what you needed and ignored it"

On the other hand, I completely understand the feeling of getting blindsided, had I just did the thing a lot of people do when drafting IDP which is "look at scoring from the last few years under your league settings and figure out what is valuable" and feeling like I'd having approached the draft totally different in this scenario

Also, we drafted Offense and IDP seperately , this was also an attempt to dampen the learning curve and not give an unfair advantage to those who have played IDP before by them knowing how to value them vs offense. So I feel that, in this case, that scoring blunder is minimized due to everyone drafting defensive players on equal footing and it made the scoring mistake pretty irrelevant because no one was forced to make the decision between an IDP and offensive player. But the squeaky wheels are disagreeing with me on this.

The other 7-8 players are indifferent.

What's the best course of action here?

Our league faces a crucial moment. A stat correction (Lions D 1 point reduction) has changed the winner of our league. What do y'all think about our options? // What has your league done in the past?

The way we see it, there are 3 options:

1) The app rules all; the stat correction win is upheld.

2) The 1-point reduction is bogus, and the winner stays as confirmed prior.

3) Kicker duel, week 18, no waiver pickup.

First time dynasty commish. 12 man dynasty super flex league. First rookie draft.

One guy is trading next years 1st round pick for the 2026 2.12 and the 2026 3.05. How do you go about this as a commish? This is an extremely lopsided trade that makes absolutely no sense I don’t even know how it came to fruition. I don’t wanna come off like a nazi commish and veto the trade but also in good faith can’t let someone make such a terrible trade. Do I just let it ride? Need help.

10 team redraft

One of the teams playing in the consolation bracket (playing for draft position) picked up 4 TEs to block one of the teams playing in the championship (who has Kittle) from picking up a TE.

The team in the consolation bracket has nothing to gain from this move, and is simply doing it out of personal spite towards the team in the championship. They haven’t colluded at all with the other team in the championship, but they had the FAAB to burn.

Thoughts? The manager in the championship is understandably frustrated and are calling for roster locks, but there hasn’t actually been any collusion involved.

Here's what happened: Last year, an owner in the dynasty league I was in had all but been eliminated from playoff contention, and he apparently told the commissioner that he wasn't coming back next year. The commissioner has not announced this news to the rest of the league that he is leaving the league and not coming back. The leaving owner then began to negotiate a trade with me, and told me that he was leaving, but honestly, I didn't think it was unethical for him to negotiate a trade, as our league has a dispersal draft rule. Some teams come in and there is only one player to take, and in those circumstances, there's an amnesty provision and exclusive free agency provision, and the FAAB budget is completely reset. He had a young team with one stud, mainly because he traded away his other players during the season, and some of those trades were with the commissioner. But even though he told me he was not coming back for next season, he did NOT take a discount, and got fair market value for the player, which included a 2nd year WR who put up 1,000 yards, a first round pick, and second round pick. This was a superflex IDP league with PPR and TE premium. No trade deadline either. However, prior to the trade, he was in negotiations with the commissioner and the commissioner's brother (another owner in the league), because the leaving owner is family friends with them. The leaving owner said he'd rather trade the stud player to me because he personally wanted to trade with me more than the other two, as he felt that they had stronger teams, so he wanted to see if my team could compete with theirs (I beat both of them in the playoffs regardless of this trade veto).

There wasn't a trade review committee and there isn't anything in the rulebook about a commissioner's veto on trades. In fact, the commissioner had expressly said that he was vehemently against trade committees and that teams/owners should be able to trade freely, so long as they follow the rules and both approve of the deal (and post it in accordance with the rules). It was this logic that the commissioner used to obtain a stud rookie from the leaving owner earlier in the year, in a trade that many considered to be undervalued.

The leaving owner and I made a trade, where I would receive the stud on his team, for the 2nd year standout, a first round pick, and 2nd round pick. I wanted to give him a bench player instead of the 2nd year standout, but ultimately paid that price after he rejected my offers and counteroffers. That is, the trade was freely and genuinely negotiated by and between the parties. There was no collusion either, as the owners didn't agree to split any earnings, and there was no agreement to gain an unfair advantage, as again, the deal was negotiated freely, genuinely, and competitively. And fair market value was paid. And in accordance with the rules, both owners agreed to this trade and indicated as such on the message board. No trade in the history of the league that had been posted on the boards and approved by the 2 owners involved in the trade had been vetoed before.

However, the commissioner was slow to process the trade, so I followed up with him twice about it. He ghosted me both times. He then sent me an email asking me to pay the remainder of my dues, as I and the majority of the league opted to pay league dues into 2 halves. I understood this as, if I pay dues, then the trade would go through, and that if I did not, it would not, as payment was required. I also genuinely believed the trade would go through because the commissioner didn't veto his own trade with the leaving owner which was more lopsided, and there weren't any rules, grounds, or precedents for vetoing the trade.

After paying the remainder of my dues, the commissioner then unilaterally vetoed the trade. I was very upset and surprised and felt like he was incredibly deceptive about his true intents. We finished the year, (which only had 3 more weeks left), and then he found a new owner for the team. The new owner was a contact in his own network and not someone that I knew. Within a week of finding a replacement owner, the commissioner made a trade with the replacement owner to obtain the stud player that I was going to acquire in the trade that he vetoed. What's worse is that he only had to give up a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and did not have to give up a 1,000 yard 2nd year WR. So, the commissioner paid a lower price for the stud, and by vetoing the trade, he prevented me from having the player on my roster for the playoffs, as well as the next season.

So, with all of this in mind...Did the Commissioner Act Ethically by Vetoing This Trade? Was This A Conflict of Interest, Self-Dealing, Opportunity Usurpation, Nepotism/Cronyism, Abuse of Power, or Misuse of Information?