Quote:
|
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.