While we are throwing out ideas for changes...I propose a Player Review Board comprised of Mike (the Commish) and 4 Owners. Run-of-the-mill trade approvals, replay decisions, etc. would still be handled by Mike alone. But each team would get 2 Red Flag reviews throughout the playing season AND playoffs. Then, the case is reviewed by 4 Review Board Members and if there is a split, Mike casts the deciding vote. This would mean that Mike's decision would only be overturned if 3 of 4 Review Board members would disagree with him. Review Board Members would be randomly chosen each season and could decline if not interested. If you use your 2 reviews before the end of the season, then you don't have any in the playoffs. Even if you save both for the playoffs, you can only use 1 during Post-Season. It would allow some owners who have been grumbling (some for a long time) about unfair trades, collusion, conspiracy, cheating, or what have you to stop their complaining. It would also allow other owners who feel at the mercy of 1 person making decisions which can have a dramatic impact on season endings some sort of relief. Once the Review Board decides, then that's it...no more debate. This seems to me to be a much needed asset to this game if we are actually ever going to feel like part of a playing community, basically because it just seems fair. In Mike's defense, let me say that most of his Commish decisions relating to my team or opponent have seemed fair but that on occassion I just totally disagreed with him as probably others have. The Review Board idea goes a long way toward mitigating those feelings. The argument against this proposal would probably be that potentially a league competitor could be involved in the Review Board and make a decision about a team in his league. But that makes the assumption that owners are all ruthless and can't be fair but you can overcome that by keeping the teams involved anonmously. Am I alone on this?