Patrick proposes a 4 person review commmittee to review disputes generated by "...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."

If this game advocates a salary cap (PB VALUE CAP) that would force dynasties to make difficult decisions regarding their personnel, we would see unfair trades such as the Millwood for Estrada trade in MLB. Why would a trade like that have to be reviewed?

To prove collusion/conspiracy, evidence would need to be marshalled. Who would be responsible for obtaining proof? I offer the same rationale for cheating. Replays should be subject to the rule of "tough luck." I lost a playoff game when I yelled a my team's game winning home run. My dog Elway jumped and pulled out the telephone cord before the game could be reported. In thoses days, the game could not be retrieved. In the robot replay, my team lost. Tough luck Tom.

Are 5 heads better than one on these issues? How long would it take to get five persons together? Who's responsibility would that be? If each owner had 2 challenges, he/she would likely exercise both. Multiply 2 by the number of teams (you do the math), and the whole mini-Supreme Court would be quite time consuming for the committee-court. Think of the delays in the playoffs, and think the unthinkable, would an owner sue the committee if the owner thought that the committee was arbitrary and capricious.

Events over the last few day have proven to me that games should remain games, and important stuff should be appealed. Let's keep ours a game.