Here I argue that the 11th seed FSB Zuggernauts (FSBZ) should be promoted to the 10th seed per rules established by the commissioner and as voted on by our board.
As the commissioner, Oneils made several decisions outside of the owners meeting (and its minutes) to establish reasonable rule changes. Hereby defined by rules where:
- Players did not immediately correct him
- His rules did not contradict rules he previously established
- Players had time to plan for the impact of his rules
Examples of reasonable rule changes made outside the voting of the owners meeting include:
- Interceptions worth -1 where last year they were -2.
- Defenses not receiving negative points for offensive yardage.
- The payout structure where he disregarded the votes during the owners meeting.
- Minimum $1 bids for waivers.
We all agreed whether we did so explicitly or implicitly that these became the unchallenged, accepted rules. While today I can’t remember the outcome of the vote on July 26th for the Zisman Rule, I remembered enough to bring it to Oneils’ attention on October 11th where he confirmed that was the rule. Whether that rule was approved or declined by the board should not impact your decision as we’ve established Oneils’ right as commissioner to make reasonable rules.
A timeline:
- On July 26th, Chris documented minutes to the best of his ability and could not capture all meeting minutes. Evidence thereof exists with the payout structure. The structure was discussed and verbally affirmed but not written down.
- On July 26th, as Treasurer, I wrote up the rules for the payout structure and posted them via GroupMe.
- On July 27th, Oneils proceeded to change the payout structure per John’s suggestion. Only the Honorable Trey Kennedy challenged Oneils’ power with the message, “Commish could you weigh in? Seems people think our meeting hasn’t concluded.” The Honorable Connor Lamb also said, “First big test for the commish.” Then Oneils said, “This will be the monetary payout structure for the season”. This ruling established the principle that the commissioner can override the meeting minutes or establish his own set of reasonable rules.
- On October 11th just after week 6, before the seeds were settled, I brought to the attention of the group rules that had not been established. I said, ” @oneils what are the playoff rules now that we’re down to 14 people?” And the commissioner responded back with rules for a 16-man playoff picture. Spencer replied by restating the rules from our 14-man league last year and our commissioner agreed. This establishes early that:
- Our commissioner makes mistakes which when immediately called out get corrected.
- Reestablishes he can create reasonable rules (we didn’t vote on whether we’d keep the same 14-man playoff structure as last year).
- On October 11, I asked, “Another curve ball…I’m certain we decided that next most points regardless of record automatically makes the playoffs at the lowest seed.” The commissioner responded, “We did.” Everyone saw these messages, and no one opposed them, just like the rules with the payout structure or with the playoff picture.
- Oneils pinned all the relevant messages from that conversation. Implication: this was an important league update to track in writing.
- On November 15, to clarify the rules the Honorable Trey Kennedy said, “Just want to get ahead of this — Zisman thinks he has a guaranteed playoff spot. Not real.” Ryan sent the rules Oneils’ pinned, Oneils did not respond.
- On November 16, Oneils sent a paragraph where he concluded quoting Zane’s idea for an 8-man playoffs winner’s bracket and 6-man TB bracket. He said, “8 teams make the playoffs, 6 teams play into the TB.” This would result in a week 17 TB, so the Honorable Trey Kennedy responded back, “I literally traded my entire team based on the idea from day 1 that weeks 15 and 16 are the toilet bowl.” This exchange highlights that teams can’t plan if the commissioner waffles his rules. It also highlights again our commissioner makes mistakes which when immediately called out get corrected.
- On November 16th, Oneils said, “It would make sense to have a rule that says no matter what, the spot goes to the highest scoring team of the season.”
- On November 17th, Oneils sent and pinned the message stating that, “The 10th spot going to the team with the most points out of the remaining teams.” He then pinned a playoff bracket sent by Chris.
- Back to the google doc. Chris noted all voting results in green. There is no documentation for the rule Spencer submitted. The best we have is what I sent in the group 2 months back, where because the rule had no immediate impact on teams at the time, no one said anything. Now that everyone stands to gain something, people are wanting to change the rules. But we’ve all been trading and operating with the “Zisman Rule” for at least 2 months.
- Our commissioner claimed today we shouldn’t keep the rule because he can’t remember it. But looking at point 4 above you’ll see at the time he pinned the post, he stated that he did remember the rule.
Speaking of what Oneils said today, let’s break it down. He said:
After looking at the Owner’s Meeting notes, and the rule change slides, I do believe we voted on the topic of “the 10th playoff spot going to the highest remaining points for out of the remaining teams.” But, I believe* it failed based on the notes that were taken. We have every line item accounted and are not missing notes on any of the topics. Meaning, the screenshot** that @aaronvanwormer shared above IS the ruling on playoff structure. I made a mistake. I propose that we proceed with the playoffs as the rule*** is written in the notes: The top 10 teams, based on record, will play for the championship.
*Oneils used his memory today to state the voting failed but on October 11th when his memory would have been better and when he stood less to lose, said he did remember the rule.
**The screenshot Aaron sent highlighted rules for a 16-man playoff picture and is NOT the ruling on our 14-man playoff picture.
***The rule Oneils refers to here is not from the meeting minutes but from a pinned message from November 16th.
Moreover, the only reason this was brought up today was because of messages from Zane who, with the second most total points scored, literally has the most to gain from my playoff absence.
Had I won on week 13 and the Honorable John Gilmore lost, he would have been the 11th seed but overtaken Spencer for the 10th seed by the Zisman Rule. Had that happened this uproar would not have happened. It’s fun to have a league villain and it’s a role I enjoy playing, but it’s only fun when the rules are consistent and fair. For better or worse, I read the rules and understand them deeply. This principle was highlighted last year when I shared an apple note of all the Honorable Connor Lamb’s rules during the year.
It’s worth stating that while other teams are indirectly impacted by the Zisman Rule, Spencer is directly impacted by the Zisman Rule. He supported the rule at the time it was initially brought up on October 11th.
In conclusion–before the rule had a significant impact, I made every effort to get what I remembered to be a rule in writing. I succeeded by getting it in writing and having our commissioner state “we did” vote on and approve that rule. Oneils and Zane have top tier programs with the 4th and 1st most points and selfishly have much to gain by unreasonably revoking the Zisman Rule. I urge the LJSC to make right on what the commissioner has previously pinned and to not allow him to steal the playoffs.
With love and respect,
Ryan Zisman, owner of the FSB Zuggernauts
P.S. While the above piece is funny…there is close to $1000 at play here and if roles were reversed with me using commissioner powers to change the rules in the 11th hour that indirectly benefit my team, there would be outrage. I raised a reasonable concern back on October 11th that was a legitimate question that I didn’t remember the answer to. Since Matt confirmed that rule, that’s how I and everyone paying attention assumed the league worked.
KC Guyz 