Below is the response from Chris Corbett of the Bolingbrook Park District to the e-mail that I sent out on June 29. I blogged about this e-mail under the post title, “Bulldogs Respond to Bolingbrook Park District“.
I am much happier with the response in this e-mail, compared to the dismissive tone of his first e-mail. He offers up very good points from the perspective of a commissioner doing a thankless job and from other owners within the league. However, this goes to the point that all parties should be involved in a decision (especially one as unprecedented as this) affecting the whole league. It’s not about the point-of-view of the Bulldogs, Closers, Lincoln Mutual, the Bolingbrook Park District or any other team in the league. It’s about upholding the integrity of the league as a whole.
At this point, we need to make sure that we come to play on July 6 against Closers. However, I feel that Chris brings up good points below in regards to leaving the ‘forfeits’ or replacing the ‘forfeited’ games with games against the remaining teams in our league, which I feel is still the better option. It’s apparent that arguments can be made on both sides and that neither side is necessarily wrong. However, a decision on how to handle this situation in the future, in my opinion, needs to be documented.
Though I see Chris’ points, I still am of the opinion, that any ‘openings’ in the schedule created by a team that has ‘forfeited’ out of the league, should be replaced with additional games against one of the remaining teams within the league. This, in my opinion, is the most amicable solution of them all. This satisfies the BBPD’s desire to fulfill their commitments to providing as “full” a schedule as possible. In addition, this does not disrupt the overall “makeup” of the entire league by inserting a ‘new’ team that others may not have to play against or have had to play at all. Finally, I feel that the circumstances surrounding this situation were ’special’ in that a team happened to be available at the right place and time. As Chris stated below in response to my question about the replacement of Hussman Brawlers, he said there wasn’t an “available” team. I would venture to say that this would be the case ‘most’ of the time. I would still liked to have seen Chris replace the Hussman Brawlers remaining games with additional games against the remaining teams in our league.
I will be proposing these rule changes to Chris and the Bolingbrook Park District to be adopted for all upcoming seasons. Again, feel free to leave your comments and suggestions below.
I only included the portion of the e-mail where Chris responded. His responses are in “red” below.
First, you are replacing a team half-way through the season (8 games had passed) of which four teams received “free wins”. How is this fair to the remaining teams who hadn’t played Lincoln Mutual who now actually have to ‘win’ their games against this new team? How is it fair that there are teams that do not have to play the new team at all? What happens if the team you were supposed to play this Friday doesn’t show up and you get a forfeit win? Now say 2 weeks from now, that team you just got a forfeit win from plays the #1 team and beats them? Is that fair for the #1 team when ultimately that game could determine the #1 seed since earlier in the season you beat that #1 team and now you won the league? Forfeits are “unfortunate” and bad for leagues because at the end of any season, teams can always make the argument that one team got 4 forfeit wins while you had to earn those 4 wins…. Right?
I understand your logic in wanting to replace the team to honor the commitment of 14-games, however that’s a moot point once games have been forfeited. Automatically you are playing one less game in the year once a team forfeits. So in the case of Lincoln Mutual, there were 4-teams who were not going to have a full 14 game schedule regardless.
Based on the above logic, why aren’t we replacing Hussman Brawlers? Why are we not replacing those games? There was no team interested in taking over that specific team. Like stated in my previous email, Andy Christensen (who is the captain for Closers) is on the roster for Lincoln Mutual. That is how that team got involved while I called Andy trying to get the non-resident fees owed from Lincoln Mutual.
I think there was another way to avoid missing games without replacing the team that would have been a better solution. That would have been to replace all of the spots on the schedule where Lincoln Mutual was to play (and Hussman Brawlers now) with additional games against the teams that are already in our league. In my opinion, this is better then introducing an “unknown” team into a league and potentially changing the makeup of the league that was established for half a season. This would have also satisfied providing us with the 14-game schedule that we paid for. I can replace the spots by re-issuing game schedules but then that brings up other issues that if I were to do that, you, along with other captains could bark about. These issues that could happen include:
1) What happens if you hadn’t played that team that forfeited yet and only play the 1st place team once throughout the year? Where you were playing that team that forfeited out of the league, your “make-up game” could be against the #1 seed. Now is that fair for you to initially see that one game as an automatic win and now your faced with playing a team that may be an automatic loss?
2) If you want me to re-issue game schedules mid-season and confuse players with multiple schedules I can do that but is it worth the hassle for your players in case they look at the wrong schedule?
3) I could issue the “make-up game” without maneuvering other games but what happens if you already had a 6:30pm scheduled game and now the make-up game is scheduled for 9:30pm – would you like that to have to as a team sit there for 2 hours until your makeup game is played?
Which brings me to another point. You stated that it was not your fault that “my” guys made the assumption that we didn’t have to play on July 6th since Lincoln Mutual had forfeited 4-games. When it stipulates in the rule book “Any team that forfeits three (3) games will be dropped from the league with no refunds.” How is this an assumption on my teams part? How is my team to know that you are working on replacing that team, when no where in the rules it stipulates that you could or would possibly do this? If assumptions were made, they were made on both sides. I understand your point but if a team pays their “league fees,” along with their non-resident fees (which didn’t take place with this situation), I give the team a “last chance” opportunity to eliminate themselves from the league. I believe in the “good faith” principle where if a team pays their fee, I am going to try to work with them to play instead of taking their money and laughing while I basically “stole” their money. It’s in the best interest of the Park District as well as to the captain to allow flexibility to work with captains in that degree. I would suggest (maybe I didn’t make it clear at the meeting) that teams should not “assume” team’s status without having the Athletic Supervisor have the ultimate decision. I apologize and understand your concern regarding this but like I said, I believe in the “good faith” to give all captains the benefit of the doubt to help them out instead of “stealing” money and saying “tough luck.”
Also, you mentioned that Closers was going to pickup the remaining fee owed by Lincoln Mutual. How is it that Lincoln Mutual was allowed to play after week 3 without having paid their full dues? Once again, the league rules stipulate that the registration fee is due in full by the first week and the non-residents due by week 3. Lincoln Mutual was allowed to play 4-games and they forfeited the next 4 (over 3-weeks) yet they hadn’t paid their fee in full. How was that possible? The remaining fees are the non-resident fees that teams have until week three to pay (as you are aware). Lincoln Mutual was to bring the money the 3rd week and failed to and then after that they left the league leaving a void in the non-resident fees owed. They paid their league fees up front right away so they are out of the $590.00 they paid for league fees (no refund was disbursed in their favor for leaving the league).
You mentioned that you spoke with some of the captains in the league, but not all. In the future, I would like (as a paying customer) to have the “options” proposed to all captains. Every team’s circumstances are different and polling just a couple of teams is not sufficient. I would like to see that all captains are consulted on these types of situations and work with you to decide the best way that is amicable for all teams and the league to move forward.
I agree with you that this is recreational softball and that when money is involved it can get competitive. One reason many good teams come to Bolingbrook is because BBPD pays out money. It helps to offset costs for the fall or up coming season. However, that is why it is that much more important that all owners are consulted when it comes to changes like this in the league. We have a heated race going on for 1st & 2nd place. These are the two biggest payouts. Aftershock no longer has to play the new team and we may take a 2nd loss on a forfeit that shouldn’t have happened. This also affects the middle of the pack vying to make the playoffs, as well. Closers is certainly not out of reach of those teams and a team now can get bumped from the playoffs due to these changes, as well. Trust me when I tell you that if say the #1 team from Sunday wanted to join the league, I wouldn’t have done that. I am not going to put a team that is going to steam-roll over the current teams in that league just for the sake of “filling out your schedule.” Lincoln Mutual is 1-8 (5 remaining games) – yes they could win 5 straight and ultimately make the playoffs possibly but is it unlikely – yes…
We are going to do everything we can to ensure we have at least 9 players for next weeks game, but we are going to be handicapped. The points that I make above are to give you an “owners” perspective on the affects of the decision. I would certainly like to work with you in coming up with a process that can be inserted in the rules on how to handle this in the future. In fact, I will be insisting on it as a rule modification or addition for the fall and 2008 season. I can poll all teams at the captains meeting for the Fall but either way you look at it, forfeits are bad for any leagues… If there was a way I could eliminate teams from forfeiting I would but unfortunately its part of the game… That is why I told all captains to let me know the next morning if they had any issues with game times, dates etc so I could work around that when producing the schedule… I can provide you with multiple captains who I did this for…
I don’t mean to come across as not understanding your concerns. I totally do, but like I said, forfeits unfortunately are bad for any league. If there was a way I could avoid it I would but as stated, my job as the director of the league is to give all teams what they paid for. The last thing I want to do is “screw” you out of wins but then on the other hand “screw” other teams in a race against your team because you now have 4 forfeit wins where they had to earn those 4 wins (ultimately giving you a division and the $$ because of 4 automatic wins where its obviously tougher to have to actually legitimately win 4 games)….
Call me Monday if you want and we can discuss this further….