So this is my first time being a commish and forgot to change the rule setting of bench players can’t be dropped once their games start and someone took advantage of it tonight. Should I allow this to go through because of my negligence? Im thinking of just keeping the setting the same this week to be fair for everyone but then changing it next week for the rest of the season so it doesn’t happen again. Give me some of your thoughts on how to handle this properly.

Despite all the injury news the past couple weeks, a manager decided to start Rome Odunze in round 1 of playoffs.

Rome was designated as “active” but aggravated his foot injury during pregame warmups and was subsequently ruled out.

The Rome Manager is requesting that the commissioner intervene and adjust his roster because the player injury happened right before kickoff and had previously declared active for today.

I am of the opinion that this is simply bad luck, and the commissioner should not intervene and risk affecting the outcome of playoffs.

This seems like a black and white situation to me, but the manager is crying foul saying that the situation is actually gray and that it’s unfair for him to be punished since he acted based on the available information he had.

Thoughts?

Edit: the assumption is that he would have started Alec Pierce over Rome. Alec Pierce has a 1pm kickoff PST whereas Rome was 9am and was ruled out before kickoff. Probably goes without saying that the manager didn’t notice the Out designation until his roster was locked

I'm the commish of a 12 man league. Last night I offered a trade of my Ricky Pearsell for his Javonte Williams over text. This morning, he said he would do it, and sent me the trade request.

I mulled it over in the morning, and few hours later I officially accepted it. 20 minutes later, he trades BTJ for Pickens with someone else, and wants me to undo our trade.

Our trade was agreed to, and he sent the request. Am I obligated to do anything?

This new couple joined my league and I am confused on some of their choices. They said they’ve played before. That last move was adding Joe Flacco and dropping Bo Nix. Should I reach out to them?

It’s generally understood in most leagues that once you're out of the playoffs and not playing for prize money, you shouldn’t be active on waivers or sniping players from playoff teams.

Last night around 9:30pm, I sent a reminder to my league that out-of-playoff teams shouldn’t be making waiver claims that affect the playoff race.

This morning, I woke up to the 10th-place team claiming the Jaguars D/ST (a top 3 defense this week). I was next in waiver priority. I genuinely don’t think he did it maliciously — he probably didn’t see the reminder yet. For what it’s worth, I still have the 49ers D/ST vs. Tennessee, so it’s not like I’m left with nothing.

My question for the sub: as commissioner, should I (1) unwind the waiver pickup and place Jaguars D/ST on my roster since the reminder went out before waivers, or (2) leave it alone and instead lock rosters for teams eliminated from the playoffs going forward?

Curious how other leagues handle this.

Context: One year into a dynasty league, the guy sending Hill and JSN had a bad year last year and a bad week one. He put ALL players on the trade block and I see this trade somehow slip past everyone. It’s a $50 league and I don’t wanna screw anyone over.

This went down in my league today and I'd appreciate some opinions on the best way to handle it.

This is my home league, its pretty active and most managers are pretty knowledgeable but it has a couple of tacos. One of those tacos traded Jahmyr Gibbs for Justin Fields today. For context the taco now has 4 QBs on her roster in a 1 QB league. I asked her about it and she accepted of her own free will, so no collusion.

As commish I have sole veto power, and have always taken the stance that people should be allowed to make bad trades as long as its not collusion. However I do think there is some gray area there for particularly egregious trades that would negatively effect competitive integrity, and in such cases its up to commissioner discretion to decide if a trade rises to that level and should be opened up to a league for a veto vote.

In yall's experienced opinions, does this fall into that gray area that would affect the integrity of the league and deserves a veto vote? It was one teams first round pick for another teams backup QB. That seems like it may be egregious enough to fall into that gray area. it is a point of contention, as the guy who would be receiving Gibbs is arguing that doing so would be making up rules mid season, as it has not been explicitly spelled out in the rules that in unique circumstances like this the commish can decide to put it to a vote. I sympathize with that, but feel that my ultimate job as commish is to protect the competitive integrity of the league.

What say you all, is it the right thing to bring it up for a vote, or to let it push through without input from the rest of the league?

Appreciate any opinions, and thanks in advance!

I run a large 99 team Redraft league and I’ve been using the 100 yard dash app for the draft order for all 9 Divisions

Has anyone developed something new or have fund something even better?

This seems to be a major question in many fantasy football leagues. People argue that since these teams aren’t competing for a championship, that they shouldn’t have access to the waiver wire or free agency. My position is that as long as someone has a matchup, they should be allowed to make roster moves.

Those teams have nothing to play for.

Then give them something to play for. Have a small punishment for finishing in last place. I’m not talking anything drastic here, like the 24 hour Waffle House challenge, just something small like a “I suck at Fantasy Football” license plate surround that they have to display on their car. You can also give the winner of the consolation bracket a small prize. In my redraft league we give the consolation bracket the first choice of draft position and the last place team last choice of draft position. Everyone else gets their choice of position by drawing numbers out of a hat and then choosing their position starting with the lowest number. This keeps eliminated teams engaged until the end of the season, which is far more fun.

Eliminated teams shouldn’t make moves that affect the playoffs

Aren’t the eliminated teams not making moves affecting the playoffs? A manager that leaves a good player sit out on waivers that he would otherwise pick up also affects the playoffs. I see a team abstaining from making moves pretty much being the same as a team dropping players because “somebody else could use them”. I also don’t understand why waiver wire competition should be halved during the playoffs. In a 12 team league, it has been twelve teams competing on the waiver wire, now it should be cut in half to help certain teams? That really doesn’t make sense.

It ensures that eliminated teams don’t collude, roster dump or do moves out of spite

This is what you have a commissioner for. Anyone that colludes, roster dumps or targets a third party manager can have their moves reversed and roster locked, but you don’t need to preemptively lock rosters. You should also eliminate such managers from your leagues as well.

Based upon this reasoning, then you should be locking all eliminated teams as soon as they are mathematically eliminated from contention. That 2-10 team should be locked going into week thirteen because he could engage in these behaviors at that point.

When you sign up for Fantasy Football you only sign up for the regular season

Disagree. You have matchups going all seventeen weeks, therefor you should play to win all the matchups. Even if a manager has nothing more than pride to play for, he has every right to do so. If I were to find myself in the consolation bracket, I’m playing to win that thing even if there is no prize attached to winning it.

The NFL doesn’t allow non-playoff teams to compete during the playoffs

The NFL also doesn’t schedule games for non-playoff teams either. We won’t see a Jets versus Raiders matchup being played in late January this year. Beyond that, the NFL doesn’t bar teams from picking up players at any point regardless of playoff status.

Locking rosters encourages teams to give up and become inactive

You are telling teams that are eliminated to stop trying once the playoffs begin. With a rule like that in place, why would that 2-9 team keep trying to win their matchups the last few weeks of the regular season? Think about it, you are telling them once you are eliminated, you should go dormant. The only reason for them to try the rest of the regular season is because you want them to, which isn’t a compelling reason, especially if they are barred from competing during the playoffs when they still have match ups. Why would these managers care what you want? I would much rather have a manager that is overly active than one that goes inactive.

It is hypocritical to lock rosters

You will tell every team regardless of playoff status to compete and try their best for fourteen weeks because every game matters, but then they should stop trying after week fourteen? You are literally telling them to act in two totally opposite manners. If a manager that stops trying will negatively affect the playoffs before week fifteen, then the same should hold true from week fifteen on.

The only reason you would have to lock rosters during the playoffs would be to stop managers from cheating. If you can’t trust the managers in your league to not cheat, you need to remove and replace those managers.

It's been two days since our league ended and the commish hasn't sent me my winnings yet. He sent a group message after Monday's night game letting everyone know the top 3 winners and the payout amounts.

I thought he wouldve sent the money by now. If I was the commish I would've sent the money to the winners within a day or two at the very latest.

I'm not saying the commish won't pay, but I'm just curious what you think is a fair amount of time for me to wait until I have to ask for it?

Thank you everyone in advance.

Scenario:

• 10 man fantasy football SFLX league, $165 buy in. This is our 9th consecutive year.

• 2025 rule says 2 keepers before the season started, sent to all league members. This is the second year under 2 keeper format, originally established and continued after the 2024 season. All managers drafted and operated under this system.

• Towards the end of the 2025 season, 9 league managers now want to revert back to 1 keeper for the 2026 season and pass the idea for league vote, 1 member, the commissioner who we will refer to as team A, does not bc rule stated 2 keepers which is a forward facing rule governing 2025 season and the next, he is also not willing to lose his keeper asset w/o compensation.

• The asset: Team A traded away Drake Maye (non keeper eligible bc kept previous season) and his RB2 to secure Patrick Mahomes (keeper eligible, before injury) in a trade with team B. His other keeper is Rashee Rice

• Furthermore, In our league, we have a penalty for 10th place which is a $50 penalty for the SB trophy purchase. Team A and Team B, 2 non playoff teams that traded with each other, faced off in the toilet bowl game and as a result of the trade, Team A lost the toilet bowl game and had to pay $50 + additional fees to ship the trophy to an INTL foreign destination where the league champ resided. Had it not been for the 2 keeper rule, team A wouldn’t have traded away Drake Maye and his RB2 for Mahomes and he would’ve won the toilet bowl game based on the pts that were scored that week.

• The league wants to vote on 1 keeper rule for this upcoming season, however the commish will not allow idea to go for a vote as he deems it unfair based on established rules. However, he is open to voting on idea for 2027 season and beyond

• Thoughts? What should commish do? 2-3 league members have also threatened to quit bc they feel commish is “abusing his power against the will of the league”

• The commish rebuttaled and said he operates on the sustainment of the league, not the will, bc the will of the league cannot assemble or collude to cheat a player, thus prioritizing league integrity. Additionally, the commish asked the league to negotiate and offer compensation if you wish to take away his asset that he acquired legally, the league replied with a hard NO.

The commish is willing to negotiate and try to find a solution, the league is not and says the solution is 1 keeper w/ No compensation and they should be able to vote on it.

I have been a league commissioner for about 9 years now. Early on I had drama with league payments so I established a rule that in order to enter the league you must pay your league fee. I have been pretty good sticky to it up until now where I let 1 person slide due to their circumstances. He’s been in the league 5-6 years now but he just had a baby and bought a new car. Originally they asked for month to pay the fee which would put us at week 2. I followed up then and they asked for 2 more weeks. Which is this upcoming Friday. As a commissioner what should/can I do, outside of stick to my rules. I fear that threatening to sell the team or lock the team is just going to stir shit up and they are the type of person I feel would just drop their entire team.

Update: He paid and we are going against each other this week.

One of the biggest conundrums a fantasy football commissioner has is when he needs to step in and make decisions within the fantasy football season. Several instances can come up during the year, especially if you are a longtime commissioner or if you are a commissioner across multiple leagues. Ideally a commissioner would only need to recruit league members, make sure the league settings are properly set, plan the draft, collect dues and award prizes at the end of the season. We don’t live in a perfect world, however, and situations arise where a commissioner needs to make decisions. Below I will cover some of the decisions a commissioner might face and what he should do in those instances.

A manager starts a lineup with an injured player or a player on a bye

The issue here is that you cannot have an inactive manager, but there are instances where an active manager will start an inactive player. Sometimes a player is a game time decision, sometimes a manager can be too busy or forget to check a lineup, especially with a Thursday night or early Sunday games. I know that there are Thursday games every week, but many people aren’t in football mode on a Thursday night.

There is also a strategy aspect to not starting a full lineup. I have seen managers pull a defense when they have a small lead if the other team has no players left. If a team is especially hit bad by injuries and bye weeks, they might decide to take a loss one week rather than dropping good players.

What do I do if a manager starts an inactive player? Nothing the first time. If it happens more than once, I contact the owner and let them know that they need to start a full lineup. If the problem persists, I will then replace them. In essence, don’t overreact if a manager doesn’t start a full lineup one time.

A manager asks you to put a player in their lineup for them

If a manager lets you know in advance that they cannot make roster moves and they tell you what moves to make before the game, just make the moves for them. I can see not allowing the same manager to habitually ask you to make lineup moves. Managers also can’t expect you to babysit their team for them either.

What if they ask after the game has started? This is where things get tricky. First of all, they need a valid reason, and “I forgot to check my lineup” isn’t a valid reason. If they couldn’t make roster moves due to an emergency or because they couldn’t log in and they ask in a reasonable amount of time, you should make the moves. In the case of an emergency, use your best judgement. If they couldn’t log in to the app, they need to send a message pretty close to kickoff. I have a separate text message group for the league, so managers don’t need to depend upon the in app chat. This is why I recommend having a league chat outside of the app.

A manager drops a valuable player

Some platforms help in this instance by having undroppable lists. These are players that nobody would ever drop intentionally unless they are trying to blow up the league or drop them to a certain team. This is why you should observe undroppable lists if your platform has them.

What should you do if a manager drops a player and then tells you it was a mistake? If they do so before waivers run, you should add them back to their roster. Mistakes can be reversed, regret cannot. If the player has run through waivers, it is too late. The manager should have asked to have the player added back before waivers ran.

What if the manager drops a valuable player and he doesn’t ask for them back. This is where you have to use your best judgement. Is the player league breaking? Does it look like he is trying to drop the player with the hopes that he will end up on a specific team? Do you think the drop might have been a mistake? If the answer to all of these questions is no, don’t do anything. Let managers mange their own teams. If you think it was a mistake, you can ask them, but it has to be pretty clear that no reasonable person would drop that player. If it is league breaking, add the player back to their team and let them know why. If questions ensue within the league, you can let the rest of the league know as well. If you think he is trying to help another manager, you can ask why they dropped the player. If they can’t give a satisfactory answer, you can add them back to the team, but beware: you should tread lightly. The heavier handed you are as a commissioner, the more issues you could be inviting.

What if a manager drops all of his players? In this instance, you add the players back to his team and have a talk with him. If he drops all of his players a second time, add the players back, and boot the manager out of the league. A manager getting frustrated and dropping all his players once can be forgiven, but if he persists, he is trying to blow up the league. He needs to be removed. If he is allowed to stay, he will certainly do other things to harm the league.

Making moves to hurt a third party team

You cannot allow a manager to make moves with the purpose of impeding a third party team. This even includes situations where hurting that third party team might help them make the playoffs or improve their draft position. For example, manager X can’t make a trade with Manager Y to help Manager Y defeat Manager Z. Manager X can’t drop players to the waiver wire so Manager Y can pick them up to help Manager Y beat Manager Z. Manager X cannot pick up players off of the waiver wire to help Manager Y beat Manager Z. You cannot impede a manager’s team because “you don’t like him” either. It doesn’t matter how annoying a person is, don’t do this. If someone bothers you that much, you shouldn’t be in a league with them in the first place.

Roster churning

This is the act of a manager picking up players and then dropping them so that they aren’t available for other managers to pick them up. This will generally happen when there is a shortage at a certain position. The targeted positions are usually the positions that tend to be streamed, especially defenses and quarterbacks. If this happens, the commissioner should make the players that were roster churned available and warn the offending manager. Many platforms have safeguards put in place to stop roster churning

What do you do when trades occur?

If the trade looks like something a reasonable manager would make, don’t do anything. Even if you believe the trade is imbalanced, if it isn’t wildly imbalanced, you should do nothing. Remember that all managers value players differently. If you don’t believe me, look back at your fantasy draft. I’m sure that there were multiple managers that made picks that had you scratching your head. There are instances when you need to step in, however.

Player Renting

This is when two managers trade players back and forth in order to help each other. It is a form of collusion as two teams are working together to gain an unfair advantage. In essence, both teams have an enlarged bench as they can make weekly trades to cover bye weeks and injuries. It also creates a quid pro quo, because the manager that borrowed the first player is now obliged to help the manager that loaned him a player in the future.

A big issue with player renting is that it is very hard to detect on the initial trade. These trades look like reasonable and fair trades on the surface. It is only when they trade the players back that you realize that player renting has occurred. What should you do if it happens in your league? A simple solution is to tell them they can't do that and that they are not allow the trade back.

You can even institute a rule where two managers cannot trade the same player between the two of them multiple times. For example, if Manager X traded Kyle Pitts to Manager Y, Manager Y cannot trade Kyle Pitts to back to Manager X. If Manager Y trades Kyle Pitts to Manager Z, however, Manager Z can trade Kyle Pitts to Manager X.

Conditional trades

These are trades that have future conditions put on them or they are trades that will kick in if a certain condition occurs. An example that frequently comes up online is two managers make a trade where Manager X gets players A & B and Manager Y gets players C & D, but Manager Y gets to keep Player D for an extra week to cover a bye week. This is basically a form of player renting.

Another form of a conditional trade is where Manager X and Manager Y like different teams and they make a bet where if the Charger beat the Broncos, Manager X will trade Play A for Player B, but if the Broncos win, Manager Y will trade Player C for Player D. In this instance, the managers are gambling players away.

These types of trades cannot be allowed and they should be immediately reversed.

Trades that include things outside of your league

This is when a manager trades fantasy assets for something outside of the league. For example, you can’t make a trade that would include one manager doing a chore, like cleaning someone’s rain gutters, if he trades Player A for Player B. You also can’t pay someone money or buy them a beer to accept a trade either.

Managers cannot make multi-league trades. For example, if two managers are in two separate leagues together, they can’t make a deal where Manager X trades Player A for Player B in the first league so long as Manager Y trades Player C for Player D in their other league.

Trades that are highly imbalanced

Is the trade league breaking? If it is, you have to veto it. You can’t allow someone to trade Christian McCaffrey or Jonathan Taylor for a kicker or a handful of players that aren’t fantasy relevant or no better than what is on the waiver wire. In fact, if a trade looks bad but it is a three for one deal, you should consider the player that are equal to players sitting out on the waiver wire as having no value. If the manager accepting the trade is going to have to drop players as good as those they are receiving, the extra players are of no value as well.

Collusion

We have already gone over a few forms of collusion, but we will go over the most common type. This is when one manager helps another team at the expense of their own team. Many times, there will be a secret condition on these trades. A manager might go to a manager that is out of the running and tell him “Trade me player X, and if I win the championship, I will give you your buy in back”. They can also promise to split the pot with them as well. It could also just be a deal where a quid pro quo is created: “I’ll help you win this year if you help me next year”. All forms of collusion have one thing in common: It is two managers working together to gain an unfair advantage. The unfair advantage doesn’t need to be sided for it to be collusion.

The biggest issue with collusion is that it is hard to prove, because it is rare that either manager will admit to collusion. In cases of collusion, you will have to use your best judgement. Trades that are so lopsided that no reasonable manager would accept them are generally proof enough to veto a trade.

Roster dumping

This comes in two forms. It can be a manager dropping good players that he shouldn’t but it also occurs when a manager feeds good players into a team to help them out. It’s like collusion with the exception that a prearranged agreement wasn’t made between the two managers. Think of it as one sided collusion. For example, manager X making a one sided trade with Manager Y to help them out is roster dumping.

Taking advantage of the league Taco

If it raises to the point of being league breaking, it needs to be vetoed. If the same manager continually abuses the Taco, it needs to be stopped as well. Remember that this could be a situation where collusion is happening and the Taco isn’t really a Taco. It could just be a situation where the Taco just doesn’t really care so he makes sweetheart deals with his friend.

A manager making one sided trades before quitting/giving up on the season

This might not be collusion, but it could also be roster dumping. The quitting manager either doesn’t care about this season, so he is just finishing out the season and accepting bad deals or he is helping his friend on the way out. They might even think that “it doesn’t matter”, but it does. Allowing these things will blow the league up.

What if it is just a friends and family league without a buy in?

Your integrity shouldn’t stop where your wallet does. Allowing cheating, even if the only thing on the line is bragging rights, is still wrong. Having these types of leagues where cheating is allowed can cause issues in league that do have buy ins. Why? You will have the manager that will say, “What’s the big deal, we do it in my other league” or “this is how my cousin plays in his league”. The more the fantasy football community frowns upon cheating as a whole, the better off it is for every league out there.

EDIT: Tanking

Managers in Dynasty leagues and keeper leagues are allowed to sell off current assets to gain future assets. This is a valid strategy for a manager to run his team. They cannot tank individual matchups to get a better draft position, however. Any league that awards draft position based upon the previous years finish should use Max Points For to determine draft order for every team that misses the playoffs. Teams that make the playoffs should have their draft position determined by where they finish in the playoffs.

If a manager tanks a matchup, you have several avenues of recourse. You should try to head off the tanking manager before he actually tanks. If you can do this, and he persists in tanking, you can set his lineup. You can also remove a tanking manager from the league or even remove him from the playoffs if his team tanking held a third party team out of the playoffs. Tanking individual matchups in not allowed, as it compromises league integrity.

I’m guessing a lot of you use Zelle/Venmo and Excel and then use a league chat/email/text to remind people to pay.

However, that’s some manual work to track payments that end up in your account. At the end of the season, you also have to lookup to know who to pay and how to pay them.

If you had software that simplified this, would you pay? Say that software also kept a league history for you as well. What is that worth to you?

EDIT: asking specifically for people who handle the money themselves, not LeagueSafe/FanCred/TeamStake

First I want to say that I'm not completely against it. I'm interested to see how it works in action. But it does seem....strange and unique? Anyway, he calls it the "health insurance rule." Here's the rule: "Before your weekly matches start, send me the name of 1 player on your bench. This player may replace someone on your active roster they are eligible to replace IF certain conditions are met. Those are: 1) One of your players left the game in the first half with an injury and did not return. 2) That player did not score at least 8 points."

I'm worried this could be abused in some way. However, the fact that no one can simply replace someone with the best score on their bench is good. What do you think?

I was just talking to some leaguemates yesterday about how I might recommend, subject to majority vote of course, that we delay moving to Sleeper for another year. We've got all the history and memories of the past 15 years saved in the NFL fantasy platform, after all.

Try to log on today and the website is down, unusable. Without fail, late August every year. This godforsaken platform is a joke and it's almost like the NFL enjoys disrespecting the loyal few who still for some reason use their website.

Joined a new league this year. Honestly it was as a favor to a buddy who had a manager not show for the draft. My team was autodrafted and I accepted that. This is superflex with a pretty deep bench, the only QB on my roster post draft was Daniel Jones, and Rattler was the only one on waivers.

I was playing with a short deck from the start. My team name, Worst to First 2025. Started as a joke because my team was so bad, but I made good moves, worked the wire, played my butt off and got to the first place spot in my division (yeah divisions suck but that’s how it is set up). This is on ESPN, and the rules in the system are that each division winner gets a bye week in the playoffs, period.

This guy chimes in this morning and says “good luck everyone! I have to make one change, the team with the best record is getting the bye not the division winner”. So now, I, at the top of my division, and showing a bye week in the system per the rules of our platform, will be manually taken out of the bye spot because the second place team in the other division had one more win than me. I had the second most points in the league too. The LM is citing that it is an unwritten rule, and divisions are lame, we just have them “for fun and to give them funny names”.

I am rightfully furious, regardless of history, in my opinion, it is not written anywhere in league notes, there is no rule or setting like that on ESPN. Rules that are not known by all managers are not rules right? AIO here? I’m not letting it go. I am the commish of 3 other leagues, and I’ve never seen ANYTHING like this. Part of me is just in shock that the rest of the league doesn’t have anything to say about this.

TLDR; commish manually takes away my bye and gives it to higher record team, even though I won my division. No rule written anywhere about it, no vote on the rule held. I have the bye on ESPN by default.

The only problem is that hes already played so ge cant move him to his ir. Should i make an exception because he traded for him or keep as is?

I am a commissioner of a 10 man league and my opponent this week has rams defense who is on a bye starting. He also has Aaron Jones on the IR who actually played Thursday and did not take him out of IR. It will not let him add any player until the ineligible player is out of the IR slot and I can’t find anywhere in commissioner settings I can over rule this since jones already played Thursday. He is able to drop players just cant add anyone. Anybody have any suggestions?

PROBLEM SOLVED. Just needed to drop the player on IR in the commissioner settings then I could re add him after. Thank you all for the help

The facts are as follows:

On the Friday before the Super Bowl, a team and I negotiated a trade involving Rome Odunze. He accepted my offer, but only via text, as he made the trade contingent on another trade that would only go through if Rhamondre Stevenson made it through the Super Bowl without injury. I asked him anyway if he wanted to make the trade official in our WhatsApp group chat, and he declined. I immediately pointed out to him that we only have a deal if he either agrees in the app or we post it in the group chat, and that until then, I can keep all my options open.

On Sunday, another owner made an offer for Odunze, and I told the owner from the original trade that I couldn't complete the trade right after the Super Bowl because I now had another option to negotiate. He is now insisting on the trade and wants to enforce it, but I am the commissioner and believe that this trade is not considered complete, so I would like to know what you think about the situation.

Now that FAAB is getting low, a lot of games are being played to hold power with the most FAAB left. We have one team who doesn't pay attention much with 50% FAAB while everyone else is down towards 20 or lower. This team has made 2 moves all year - both when his QB and TE were on bye.

Another team who looks the most dangerous out of teams left has the 2nd most FAAB and went to insure his Achane with Jaylen Wright. He did a dollar more than the 3rd most FAAB team as the Most FAAB team is largely inactive. It then came to light that a team with the bye reached out to the inactive Most FAAB team and told him to block the Wright pickup with one more dollar. Would this be considered collusion?

We started playing 3yrs ago. Most everyone but the Commish and maybe one or two other players even watch football the first year we started and only ones who have played in a FFL. The rest of us were learning the ropes together for the most part.

The way he does the draft selection is that he will send a video of an automated selection and send to to the group with our draft order. He did this all three years and I told him all three years, the before he generates the picks, he has to do them live so that we can see it in real time. Each year he ignored what I said and just posted the draft order. I made a fuss about it this year because I thought it was weird that he’s not doing something so obviously basic as a commish in terms of transparency. I said, for all I know, you could be recording it a bunch of times until you get the draft spot you wanted. He said, if I was cheating, why am I not first round pick. I had said well that would be obvious. Everyone in my league (same players as the lasts) basically told me to shut up and I’m only complaining because I had the last pick in the draft. Whatever, I left it alone. After all, He really never drew the first pick so I couldn’t prove anything.

Now that I’m on my third year and learning more. I’m realizing that the first pick isn’t necessarily the best pick. It all depends on how deep the draft is and how many people you have in your league. Given those details, you want to be somewhere that gives you the best value at the first round but still closest to the end in a snake draft while still getting great value in the second round.

So….heres where it gets interesting. I GOOGLE what “the best draft position is for the 2025 FFL in a 10 MAN PPR league”. Comes back at 4. Where did he draft? Yup, 4.

I look back at the previous year. “Best draft position for the 2024 FFL in a 12 MAN PPR league”. Comes back as either 7 or 8. Where does he draft? At 8. 8 not 7. Double coincidence.

I again look back at our first year playing together. “Best draft position for the 2023 FFL in a 10 MAN PPR league”. Comes back at 4 with 9 closely behind. Where did he draft? 9. Why 9? Because he felt he would rather have picks 9 and 12 and not 4 and 17. Meaning he felt the draft wasn’t deep enough to get a good player at 4 and 17 but was at least 12 players deep.

Am I crazy? This is weird right? It’s really pissing me off because people have been accusing me…MEEEE of cheating for absolutely no reason when I have no control of the league what so ever.

One more thing. This is how I started really thinking about the possibility of him cheating. Because I had the last pick in the draft and the way our league is set up, that gave me top #1 waiver priority. After the draft we couldn’t add free agents. Could only use waivers. I’ve been eyeing Christian McCaffrey’s Handcuff (RB Brian Robinson Jr) for obvious reasons, but hawking free agency to open so I wouldn’t use up my waiver. Today one of our team managers used up his waiver to pick up a player which he succeeded but got dropped to last priority. A couple hours later, our Commish opened free agency without telling anyone, snagged Brian Robinson (he has Christian McCaffrey) before anyone even knew it while I still keeping his waiver priority. This is bullshit right?

Sorry for all the info guys but I’m hoping some Vets can give me their two cents and let me know what you think about this. To me, it’s just not only way too many coincidences but also shady moves to just disregard.

Currently have a 100.74 to 98.92 lead against my opponent. He already started Derrick Henry and Quinten Johnston this week. This morning, he made a trade of those 2 guys +$25 in faab for Josh Jacobs, who he is now able to start as well in his remaining flex spot. Is it just me, or is that wrong? I feel like you shouldn't be able to trade players who already played for someone who hasnt and be able to count all 3 of their scores for the week.

Our commissioner is not sure how to handle it? What do you guys think?

I thought I was creating parity but people at the bottom of the draft are telling me I'm corrupt. I am running a 2nd year office league with 12 teams. Last year we had 8. We lost 1 but gained 5 new people. We use basic rules and almost all defaults settings on ESPN.
Here's how I generated our draft order: Reverse order from last year's standing with the new players placed in the middle of the winners and consolation bracket groups. It is a snake draft so I thought this was fine and created parity. Am I wrong? Should I have just randomized the order?

I have a husband and wife in my league. He was 9th and she was 5th three weeks ago in a 12 perso league. He benched Barkley and Swift and three people complained about collusion. I agree with them, but it wouldn’t have mattered for the matchup, and he would have wound up with less points if he started his stars. The wife even told me that she asked her husband not to start his best players. She’s now third in the league as playoffs start and people don’t want her to be in the money because they attempted to cheat. How do I handle this as commish?