Commish question (1 Viewer)

[billrob]

I won't get into too much depth about the rules, but my league has a limit on how many free agent moves you can make during the year, and the less moves you make the more players you can resign during the off-season.

Now there are 2 teams that are currently only rostering 1 QB who play each other in week 5, and guess what...both QBs are on a bye. I'm hearing that they've made a friendly deal to not pick up a QB and waste a roster move and play each other with no QBs.

All the owners know each other which is why the word has spread already. Some owners don't have a problem with it and others are taking major issue. There's nothing in the rules about it, and the rulebook actually stats that you can leave a starting lineup spot empty at no penalty (most guys draft 1 kicker and never pick one up for the bye week)

I don't see this as collusion because they're both at a disadvantage that week, and it doesn't affect the rest of the year at all.

Thoughts?

 

[jobarules]

I won't get into too much depth about the rules, but my league has a limit on how many free agent moves you can make during the year, and the less moves you make the more players you can resign during the off-season.

Now there are 2 teams that are currently only rostering 1 QB who play each other in week 5, and guess what...both QBs are on a bye. I'm hearing that they've made a friendly deal to not pick up a QB and waste a roster move and play each other with no QBs.

All the owners know each other which is why the word has spread already. Some owners don't have a problem with it and others are taking major issue. There's nothing in the rules about it, and the rulebook actually stats that you can leave a starting lineup spot empty at no penalty (most guys draft 1 kicker and never pick one up for the bye week)

I don't see this as collusion because they're both at a disadvantage that week, and it doesn't affect the rest of the year at all.

Thoughts?

Actually an agreement between two teams is the exact definition of collusion

 

[texasheat]

I won't get into too much depth about the rules, but my league has a limit on how many free agent moves you can make during the year, and the less moves you make the more players you can resign during the off-season.

Now there are 2 teams that are currently only rostering 1 QB who play each other in week 5, and guess what...both QBs are on a bye. I'm hearing that they've made a friendly deal to not pick up a QB and waste a roster move and play each other with no QBs.

All the owners know each other which is why the word has spread already. Some owners don't have a problem with it and others are taking major issue. There's nothing in the rules about it, and the rulebook actually stats that you can leave a starting lineup spot empty at no penalty (most guys draft 1 kicker and never pick one up for the bye week)

I don't see this as collusion because they're both at a disadvantage that week, and it doesn't affect the rest of the year at all.

Thoughts?

Actually an agreement between two teams is the exact definition of collusion

I would personally welcome any moron that wants to take a goose egg at QB in any week.

 

[billrob]

I won't get into too much depth about the rules, but my league has a limit on how many free agent moves you can make during the year, and the less moves you make the more players you can resign during the off-season.

Now there are 2 teams that are currently only rostering 1 QB who play each other in week 5, and guess what...both QBs are on a bye. I'm hearing that they've made a friendly deal to not pick up a QB and waste a roster move and play each other with no QBs.

All the owners know each other which is why the word has spread already. Some owners don't have a problem with it and others are taking major issue. There's nothing in the rules about it, and the rulebook actually stats that you can leave a starting lineup spot empty at no penalty (most guys draft 1 kicker and never pick one up for the bye week)

I don't see this as collusion because they're both at a disadvantage that week, and it doesn't affect the rest of the year at all.

Thoughts?

Actually an agreement between two teams is the exact definition of collusion

Well in that case all trading should be outlawed as that is an agreement between teams too...no?

 

[jon_mx]

I would personally welcome any moron that wants to take a goose egg at QB in any week.

I started Leftwich in place of injured McNabb and got -1.2 points....still won by 0.6. lol....Starting a QB almost cost me the game.

 

[SigEp316]

starting a player that's OUT or on BYE in our league results in the loss of that owner's team for the remainder of the year. The COMMISH puts the best line-up together from then on. If that owner's team wins, any money is forfeited and thrown into the pot for the following season. The owner that lost his team has an opportunity to get back in the league the following year but has to pay double the entry fee of $500.

pretty stiff penalties...but everyone maintains their lineups

so...these douches not starting a complete line-up can have adverse effects on other teams.

 

[gianmarco]

Two teams agreeing to perform an act that puts them at an advantage over other owners is the definition of collusion. Trading is NOT the same thing because you trade to improve YOUR team.

This is collusion, plain and simple. No different than swapping/borrowing players.

 

[suchislife]

I won't get into too much depth about the rules, but my league has a limit on how many free agent moves you can make during the year, and the less moves you make the more players you can resign during the off-season.

Now there are 2 teams that are currently only rostering 1 QB who play each other in week 5, and guess what...both QBs are on a bye. I'm hearing that they've made a friendly deal to not pick up a QB and waste a roster move and play each other with no QBs.

All the owners know each other which is why the word has spread already. Some owners don't have a problem with it and others are taking major issue. There's nothing in the rules about it, and the rulebook actually stats that you can leave a starting lineup spot empty at no penalty (most guys draft 1 kicker and never pick one up for the bye week)

I don't see this as collusion because they're both at a disadvantage that week, and it doesn't affect the rest of the year at all.

Thoughts?

Actually an agreement between two teams is the exact definition of collusion

They are making an arrangement that provides a benefit to each other at the end of the year (re-signing more players) which has a negative effect on the rest of the league.I would disallow it and put the 2 owners on notice.

 

[Plaid Boxer]

Two teams agreeing to perform an act that puts them at an advantage over other owners is the definition of collusion. Trading is NOT the same thing because you trade to improve YOUR team. This is collusion, plain and simple. No different than swapping/borrowing players.

 

[stickboy]

It sounds like it's technically allowed by the rules, but clearly an end run to gain an advantage. In most friendly leagues, you disallow it saying it's not within the spirit of the rules. If it's a cut throat money league, then you are likely bound by the rules and can only make a rule change at the end of the season.

 

[VaCatFan]

I agree that it's collusion between the two teams because they made an agreement between them which benefits them at the end of the season and hurts all the other teams.

Now, to the bye week issue. Unless you have it specifically stated in your league rules about starting players on a bye, you can't do anything about it. I think most dynasty leagues allow it because otherwise you may be forced to drop someone from your team that you really want to keep to find a starter for one week. I find myself in this position in week 8 when my 3 qb's are on a bye (Brady, Rothlisberger, Cassel).

 

[Jack Burton]

If there is not a rule already in place that would force both teams to pick up a QB then you don't have much choice but to allow them to follow through with their plan. You can cry collusion all you want but it it doesnt appear they have broken any rules. They are taking advantage of a loophole in the league rules.

 

[jon_mx]

I kind of like a league where owners are active and making moves, so it is weird to me that you penalize people for that. But regardless, this is collusion. Owners should be trying to make the best possible score.

 

[Glatty]

I agree that it's collusion between the two teams because they made an agreement between them which benefits them at the end of the season and hurts all the other teams.

In my view it doesn't affect any other teams at all, and if the rules don't specifically disallow it, then i see no problem with it.

 

[Phurfur]

I won't get into too much depth about the rules, but my league has a limit on how many free agent moves you can make during the year, and the less moves you make the more players you can resign during the off-season.

Now there are 2 teams that are currently only rostering 1 QB who play each other in week 5, and guess what...both QBs are on a bye. I'm hearing that they've made a friendly deal to not pick up a QB and waste a roster move and play each other with no QBs.

All the owners know each other which is why the word has spread already. Some owners don't have a problem with it and others are taking major issue. There's nothing in the rules about it, and the rulebook actually stats that you can leave a starting lineup spot empty at no penalty (most guys draft 1 kicker and never pick one up for the bye week)

I don't see this as collusion because they're both at a disadvantage that week, and it doesn't affect the rest of the year at all.

Thoughts?

Personally I think this is a terrible rule but they are your rules so live with it.

 

[valhallan]

I agree that it's collusion between the two teams because they made an agreement between them which benefits them at the end of the season and hurts all the other teams.

In my view it doesn't affect any other teams at all, and if the rules don't specifically disallow it, then i see no problem with it.

It affects other teams because they're both saving a roster move that they would be using were it not for this agreement, thus giving them a free move where others would have to use one.Textbook collusion.

 

[billrob]

Thanks for the input guys.

It sounds like most of you would be against it, but let me ask you this:

If we were talking about the same thing but the 2 owners had kickers with the same bye week.

Would it matter less that we're not dealing with QBs? It shouldn't.

 

[TommyGilmore]

You have zero evidence that collusion exists. Only rumor. Nothing has happened yet and idiots on this board are screaming "collusion"!!!

Besides, what if Team A simply said "I'd rather take a loss than waste one of my valuable waiver wire moves."??? That would be perfectly legal, and not collusion since there was no agreement with Team B.

 

[Glatty]

I agree that it's collusion between the two teams because they made an agreement between them which benefits them at the end of the season and hurts all the other teams.

In my view it doesn't affect any other teams at all, and if the rules don't specifically disallow it, then i see no problem with it.

It affects other teams because they're both saving a roster move that they would be using were it not for this agreement, thus giving them a free move where others would have to use one.Textbook collusion.

I may just be stubborn, or maybe I don't properly understand the phrase "less moves you make the more players you can resign during the off-season", but I still don't see how that affects other teams.

 

[da_budman]

I agree that it's collusion between the two teams because they made an agreement between them which benefits them at the end of the season and hurts all the other teams.

In my view it doesn't affect any other teams at all, and if the rules don't specifically disallow it, then i see no problem with it.

It affects other teams because they're both saving a roster move that they would be using were it not for this agreement, thus giving them a free move where others would have to use one.Textbook collusion.

it runs along the same path as roster sharing (though obviously not the same thing at all) Kinda hard to force someone to make a roster move that may affect their team at the end of the year though. Its the gentlemens agreement part that makes it illegal. Had they not mutually decided this, it would not be collusion but as its stated, it most certainly is.

 

[TommyGilmore]

I agree that it's collusion between the two teams because they made an agreement between them which benefits them at the end of the season and hurts all the other teams.

In my view it doesn't affect any other teams at all, and if the rules don't specifically disallow it, then i see no problem with it.

It affects other teams because they're both saving a roster move that they would be using were it not for this agreement, thus giving them a free move where others would have to use one.Textbook collusion.

That's not what collusion is at all, let alone "textbook collusion".The fact that they'd be getting "free moves" is completely irrelevant. ANYONE can do that ANYTIME.

 

[suchislife]

I agree that it's collusion between the two teams because they made an agreement between them which benefits them at the end of the season and hurts all the other teams.

In my view it doesn't affect any other teams at all, and if the rules don't specifically disallow it, then i see no problem with it.

It affects other teams because they're both saving a roster move that they would be using were it not for this agreement, thus giving them a free move where others would have to use one.Textbook collusion.

That's not what collusion is at all, let alone "textbook collusion".The fact that they'd be getting "free moves" is completely irrelevant. ANYONE can do that ANYTIME.

I view it as 2 teams making an agreement that has a negative impact on the rest of the league. Seems like collusion to me. What's your definition out of curiosity?And yes, it would be the same if the 2 owners made and agreement not to start a kicker. Two owners making an agreement constitutes collusion, imo.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I don't see this as collusion....they are not breaking a rule.....they are chosing to use the rules to their advantage by improving their team later instead of right now.....it's their team, they can manage it however they want.....

to me collusion "usually" involves two teams where only one of those teams benefit......here you have two teams where both teams will benefit down the road.....don't hate them for using the rules to their advantage.....using the rules to your advantage is part of the game.....one could make a case for these guys being pretty savvy owners and the kind you would like to have in the league.....they are paying attention to their teams and looking down the road indicating they are invested in your league for the long term.....

 

[Sniper_1]

I won't get into too much depth about the rules, but my league has a limit on how many free agent moves you can make during the year, and the less moves you make the more players you can resign during the off-season.Now there are 2 teams that are currently only rostering 1 QB who play each other in week 5, and guess what...both QBs are on a bye. I'm hearing that they've made a friendly deal to not pick up a QB and waste a roster move and play each other with no QBs.All the owners know each other which is why the word has spread already. Some owners don't have a problem with it and others are taking major issue. There's nothing in the rules about it, and the rulebook actually stats that you can leave a starting lineup spot empty at no penalty (most guys draft 1 kicker and never pick one up for the bye week)I don't see this as collusion because they're both at a disadvantage that week, and it doesn't affect the rest of the year at all.Thoughts?

In our head to head league, if 2 teams have the same record when the playoffs arrive the fantasy points are used to decide the tie braker. By not starting a QB you are putting your team in jeopardy. I don't see any harm to it but it's just not smart play.

 

[GregR_2]

I think this is a case that the commish should probably step in and stop. Others have done a good job of stating why. They are acting in unison, beyond the normal limits of individual competition, to negate the disadvantage of worsening their starting lineups. A team acting in individual competition as intended cannot gain the advantage of re-signing more players without taking the detriment of the starting lineup being worse one week. Only through acting collectively are they able to achieve it, and I think that goes beyond the spirit of competing individually.

A very similar example which I think most people would immediately identify as being against the spirit/rules of the game would be two teams agreeing before the draft that one will handle drafting a good bye week kicker and the other a good bye week TE, that don't conflict with either team's starters, and then swap them after the first set of byes are done. So that way each team only spends 1 roster spot and also still has an earlier drafted backup for both positions than other teams will have at both positions.

The latter is a very good example of collusion, of teams working together outside the bounds of individual competition. The OP's example is very very similar, except in this case they are agreeing to negate the need for a backup at QB by agreeing to both worsen their lineup by not picking one up when playing each other.

 

[valhallan]

I agree that it's collusion between the two teams because they made an agreement between them which benefits them at the end of the season and hurts all the other teams.

In my view it doesn't affect any other teams at all, and if the rules don't specifically disallow it, then i see no problem with it.

It affects other teams because they're both saving a roster move that they would be using were it not for this agreement, thus giving them a free move where others would have to use one.Textbook collusion.

That's not what collusion is at all, let alone "textbook collusion".The fact that they'd be getting "free moves" is completely irrelevant. ANYONE can do that ANYTIME.

It's textbook collusion in regard to fantasy football, which is the arena in play here. It's pretty simple:No communication = independent choice between using a roster move or saving oneCommunication = dependent choice between using a roster move or saving oneWe're supposed to act independently in fantasy football competition. If they agreed to use the move and pick up players, it would still be collusion, though obviously less damaging to other owners.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I think this is a case that the commish should probably step in and stop. Others have done a good job of stating why. They are acting in unison, beyond the normal limits of individual competition, to negate the disadvantage of worsening their starting lineups. A team acting in individual competition as intended cannot gain the advantage of re-signing more players without taking the detriment of the starting lineup being worse one week. Only through acting collectively are they able to achieve it, and I think that goes beyond the spirit of competing individually.A very similar example which I think most people would immediately identify as being against the spirit/rules of the game would be two teams agreeing before the draft that one will handle drafting a good bye week kicker and the other a good bye week TE, that don't conflict with either team's starters, and then swap them after the first set of byes are done. So that way each team only spends 1 roster spot and also still has an earlier drafted backup for both positions than other teams will have at both positions.The latter is a very good example of collusion, of teams working together outside the bounds of individual competition. The OP's example is very very similar, except in this case they are agreeing to negate the need for a backup at QB by agreeing to both worsen their lineup by not picking one up when playing each other.

well said...looking at it this way would change my mind

 

[GregR_2]

I don't see this as collusion....they are not breaking a rule.....they are chosing to use the rules to their advantage by improving their team later instead of right now.....it's their team, they can manage it however they want.....

to me collusion "usually" involves two teams where only one of those teams benefit......here you have two teams where both teams will benefit down the road.....don't hate them for using the rules to their advantage.....using the rules to your advantage is part of the game.....one could make a case for these guys being pretty savvy owners and the kind you would like to have in the league.....they are paying attention to their teams and looking down the road indicating they are invested in your league for the long term.....

There are a lot of ways that teams can act collectively to the benefit of all involved, and still be outside of the spirit of individual competition. Remember the staff vs message board survivor contest where the staff got together and decided to try to create a QB run that would corner the QBs and leave the MB teams caught at the back end of the run with the worst players at the position? That's a great example of how 6 teams can get together and agree to act in unison and all gain a benefit. 2 teams can do it just as well. The example I gave about backups is one example, as are other types of roster sharing like multi-part trades where the individual parts wouldn't happen without the additional parts.

 

[JimmyD]

Question: Have other owners ever started someone OUT/BYE because they didn't want to waste a rosters move?

If so, then either/both can do it with in the rules and also based on history of the league regardless of the position.

However, I would send out an email letting those two know that a handshake to not pick up a QB is not allowed and either one of them would be allowed to pick up a QB in that week. So if one picks one up he has the advantage for the game. By doing this, then both will have to worry that the other is going to take the chance and pick one up for the advantage. Hell, with this out there they may both try and pick up a QB at the last minute just to gain the advantage.

 

[Jack Burton]

I agree that it's collusion between the two teams because they made an agreement between them which benefits them at the end of the season and hurts all the other teams.

In my view it doesn't affect any other teams at all, and if the rules don't specifically disallow it, then i see no problem with it.

It affects other teams because they're both saving a roster move that they would be using were it not for this agreement, thus giving them a free move where others would have to use one.Textbook collusion.

What rule are they breaking?

 

[GregR_2]

Thanks for the input guys.It sounds like most of you would be against it, but let me ask you this:If we were talking about the same thing but the 2 owners had kickers with the same bye week. Would it matter less that we're not dealing with QBs? It shouldn't.

Position shouldn't matter, no. The action is unfair to the other owners in the league regardless of the position.

 

[habsfan]

A very similar example which I think most people would immediately identify as being against the spirit/rules of the game would be two teams agreeing before the draft that one will handle drafting a good bye week kicker and the other a good bye week TE, that don't conflict with either team's starters, and then swap them after the first set of byes are done. So that way each team only spends 1 roster spot and also still has an earlier drafted backup for both positions than other teams will have at both positions.

First off, OP's dilemma doesn't pass the "sniff test" in that I don't like it and I would be amending the rules in the off-season but I disagree with this paragraph - this example is not similar at all where it counts. As soon as you refer to sharing players, you are bringing an advantage against the rest of the league into play. In OP's situation, these two teams are playing head-to-head. One will win and the other will lose so I'm not sure how it affects the rest of the league. Presumably they have decided that their QBs are roughly interchangeable (ie. "cancel each other out") and will not reasonably be expected to determine the outcome. If one had Brees and the other had Orton, it might be different.I would not want this happening in my league but I'm not sure on what basis I would be stepping in to stop it if my rules looked like theirs do.

 

[meatwad1]

Sorry, but this isn't collusion. As someone stated before, they are screwing themselves because unless their teams are in the top 2 or 3, there might be tiebreakers down the line that involve points.

Your rules allow this type of thing to happen...change your rules if you want it to stop. The only reason people are pissed is because they want them to have to drop a player onto waivers to pick up a qb.

 

[jon_mx]

Question: Have other owners ever started someone OUT/BYE because they didn't want to waste a rosters move?If so, then either/both can do it with in the rules and also based on history of the league regardless of the position.However, I would send out an email letting those two know that a handshake to not pick up a QB is not allowed and either one of them would be allowed to pick up a QB in that week. So if one picks one up he has the advantage for the game. By doing this, then both will have to worry that the other is going to take the chance and pick one up for the advantage. Hell, with this out there they may both try and pick up a QB at the last minute just to gain the advantage.

Yeah, that is probably how it should be handled. If they want to give up a QB spot to save a rooster move to benefit next season, so be it. Those are the rules, kind of weird rules but the rules. It is the agreement between owners not to field the best team that stinks.

 

[daveR]

If I were involved, I'd add a QB at the last minute & win the game.

 

[GregR_2]

A very similar example which I think most people would immediately identify as being against the spirit/rules of the game would be two teams agreeing before the draft that one will handle drafting a good bye week kicker and the other a good bye week TE, that don't conflict with either team's starters, and then swap them after the first set of byes are done. So that way each team only spends 1 roster spot and also still has an earlier drafted backup for both positions than other teams will have at both positions.

First off, OP's dilemma doesn't pass the "sniff test" in that I don't like it and I would be amending the rules in the off-season but I disagree with this paragraph - this example is not similar at all where it counts. As soon as you refer to sharing players, you are bringing an advantage against the rest of the league into play. In OP's situation, these two teams are playing head-to-head. One will win and the other will lose so I'm not sure how it affects the rest of the league. Presumably they have decided that their QBs are roughly interchangeable (ie. "cancel each other out") and will not reasonably be expected to determine the outcome. If one had Brees and the other had Orton, it might be different.I would not want this happening in my league but I'm not sure on what basis I would be stepping in to stop it if my rules looked like theirs do.

Both the OP's post and the example are motivated around gaining an advantage that no one else in the league has other than the colluding teams.According to the OP, agreeing to both not start a QB allows them to have more Keeper slots at the end of the season. That's an advantage over the rest of the league, same as the example of having better backups is an advantage over the rest of the league.

 

[Nate]

I won't get into too much depth about the rules, but my league has a limit on how many free agent moves you can make during the year, and the less moves you make the more players you can resign during the off-season.

Now there are 2 teams that are currently only rostering 1 QB who play each other in week 5, and guess what...both QBs are on a bye. I'm hearing that they've made a friendly deal to not pick up a QB and waste a roster move and play each other with no QBs.

All the owners know each other which is why the word has spread already. Some owners don't have a problem with it and others are taking major issue. There's nothing in the rules about it, and the rulebook actually stats that you can leave a starting lineup spot empty at no penalty (most guys draft 1 kicker and never pick one up for the bye week)

I don't see this as collusion because they're both at a disadvantage that week, and it doesn't affect the rest of the year at all.

Thoughts?

As others have said, the bolded part is your problem. If you are going to penalize GMs for making free agent moves, GMs will find ways not to make them.Your rules clearly state you don't have to start a full roster, and that you're penalized for free agent moves. I'm surprised this hasn't happened before.

You have to allow it, then change the rules if you don't want it to happen again.

 

[Nate]

If I were involved, I'd add a QB at the last minute & win the game.

 

[TommyGilmore]

I agree that it's collusion between the two teams because they made an agreement between them which benefits them at the end of the season and hurts all the other teams.

In my view it doesn't affect any other teams at all, and if the rules don't specifically disallow it, then i see no problem with it.

It affects other teams because they're both saving a roster move that they would be using were it not for this agreement, thus giving them a free move where others would have to use one.Textbook collusion.

That's not what collusion is at all, let alone "textbook collusion".The fact that they'd be getting "free moves" is completely irrelevant. ANYONE can do that ANYTIME.

I view it as 2 teams making an agreement that has a negative impact on the rest of the league. Seems like collusion to me. What's your definition out of curiosity?And yes, it would be the same if the 2 owners made and agreement not to start a kicker. Two owners making an agreement constitutes collusion, imo.

First off, there's NO EVIDENCE that the 2 teams have made an agreement. Just rumor.Furthermore, there's no proof that this would have a negative impact on the rest of the league. It's true that the teams would save a roster move. BUT, it also means that the 2 teams would not be picking up quarterbacks that week -- a clear POSITIVE IMPACT on the rest of the league. And what if the 2 teams never use that extra roster move?

Also, does the league use Total Points for any tiebreakers or weekly bonuses? If so, that's another POSITIVE IMPACT on the rest of the league.

 

[GregR_2]

Sorry, but this isn't collusion. As someone stated before, they are screwing themselves because unless their teams are in the top 2 or 3, there might be tiebreakers down the line that involve points.

Your rules allow this type of thing to happen...change your rules if you want it to stop. The only reason people are pissed is because they want them to have to drop a player onto waivers to pick up a qb.

I don't think that's a very accurate portrayal of the situation. People (or most) are not objecting to the ability to start a player on bye, which as you state, is allowed in the rules. They are objecting to them acting cooperatively to negate the downside of starting that player on bye in order to gain another advantage that cannot be gained without such cooperation without the downside. Cooperation that I and many would argue is outside of the bounds of a game of individual competition.

 

[whitem0nkey]

they are not breaking any rules. if you want to fix this change the rules next year.

 

[TommyGilmore]

According to the OP, agreeing to both not start a QB allows them to have more Keeper slots at the end of the season. That's an advantage over the rest of the league, same as the example of having better backups is an advantage over the rest of the league.

How is that an advantage? Doesn't every team have the same opportunity to not start a QB?

 

[billrob]

In this league starting players that are on a bye happens all the time.

It's usually done with a K or TE, it's never happened with a QB before and I can say 100% that this was not pre-determined by the owners before the season started.

It's actually a common practice that the teams that draft Witten or Gates won't draft a backup TE and if there's no good FA options on the bye week then they go without one. And kickers are rarely ever picked up to cover a bye week.

 

[GregR_2]

...

First off, there's NO EVIDENCE that the 2 teams have made an agreement. Just rumor.

Furthermore, there's no proof that this would have a negative impact on the rest of the league. It's true that the teams would save a roster move. BUT, it also means that the 2 teams would not be picking up quarterbacks that week -- a clear POSITIVE IMPACT on the rest of the league. And what if the 2 teams never use that extra roster move?

Also, does the league use Total Points for any tiebreakers or weekly bonuses? If so, that's another POSITIVE IMPACT on the rest of the league.

I think the motivation of all this, gaining an extra Keeper slot, is a huge advantage over the rest of the league. You'd have to have a severely negative impact to balance it out. Since the whole point of their acting in unison is to remove the biggest negative there is to their teams, so I don't see how the net result is anything other than a big disadvantage to the rest of the league.As for there being no evidence, yes, the commish has to investigate the matter and come to a belief on what the situation is that he's confident enough to act on.

 

[suchislife]

According to the OP, agreeing to both not start a QB allows them to have more Keeper slots at the end of the season. That's an advantage over the rest of the league, same as the example of having better backups is an advantage over the rest of the league.

How is that an advantage? Doesn't every team have the same opportunity to not start a QB?

Yes, but both owners made and agreement (allegedly) to do this so neither is at a disadvantage for the week while benefiting later. If one decided he would just take the 0 that's fine. But they agreed to both do it. And yes a rule change would be in order in the off season.And while it may be a rumor, it should be easy enough to just talk to the owners. The 2 involved plus whoever is doing the talking.

 

[taa455]

I would allow it (since no rules are broken), but after this year I would propose a rule change to prevent this in the future. These type of little "harmless" deals/agreements just seem to diminish a league's integrity. JMO

 

[TommyGilmore]

Also, the team with the better QB is putting himself at a clear disadvantage here. Going from Brees to zero is a much bigger hit than going from Orton to zero.

 

[GregR_2]

According to the OP, agreeing to both not start a QB allows them to have more Keeper slots at the end of the season. That's an advantage over the rest of the league, same as the example of having better backups is an advantage over the rest of the league.

How is that an advantage? Doesn't every team have the same opportunity to not start a QB?

Every team has the opportunity to not start a QB.Only teams who work cooperatively have the opportunity to not start a QB with the surety it won't lessen their chances of winning that game.

I'd argue that degree of cooperation is outside the bounds of individual competition which is the basis for fantasy football.

 

[TommyGilmore]

According to the OP, agreeing to both not start a QB allows them to have more Keeper slots at the end of the season. That's an advantage over the rest of the league, same as the example of having better backups is an advantage over the rest of the league.

How is that an advantage? Doesn't every team have the same opportunity to not start a QB?

Yes, but both owners made and agreement (allegedly) to do this so neither is at a disadvantage for the week while benefiting later.

The team with the better QB is at a disadvantage that week.

 

[GregR_2]

Also, the team with the better QB is putting himself at a clear disadvantage here. Going from Brees to zero is a much bigger hit than going from Orton to zero.

The "disadvantage" being discussed is getting a 0 at QB because you didn't start an active QB, compared to having an opponent who does start a QB.It has nothing to do with who your starting QB is some other week. He can't play this week, he has nothing at all to do with the situation.