Bronco Billy said:
All trades are collusion.
Not sure why you keep reiterating this patently false position. Do you understand the definition of the term "collusion"?Weren't you the one berating another poster in a different thread - wrongly, I might add - because you considered his acumen substandard?
All trades are de facto collusion.
You like those words better?
It's true. There is no workable rule that would forbid collusion that does not also forbid trades. There is no way to construct a rule that would eliminate collusion in any league in which trading is allowed.
You're free to think otherwise, I can't help it that you decide to be wrong.
A nickel's worth of free advice:When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think collusion means?
Why don't you tell me your rule that will avoid collusion, and I'll show you the flaw in it. It's impossible to draft a workable collusion ban rule in fantasy football.
Different discussion, but thanks for changing the subject to avoid a direct question.I'll ask again - what is the definition of collusion as applied to FF? It can't be that difficult to answer.
I'm the one saying it's impossible to precisely define in fantasy football. That any definition either has gaps, or, would define trading as collusion.Instead of being a tool, try reading comprehension.
I'm the tool?Okay, since you seem incapable of a simple answer - the inability to provide it certainly speaks to the position you've taken - try this out:
Two or more owners agree to a transaction where the owners mutually attempt to improve one or more teams while simultaneously having no intent to improve at least one of the others.
Now if you want to argue that it's virtually impossible to absolutely prove intent without a confession, I'll agree with you. But that does not preclude being able to define what collusion is, and explains your inability to comprehend that all trades are not collusive - which you repeatedly assert as indisputable fact.
Here's a situation:
Team A is solid, and has been running hot with 2 QBs. In this league, Defenses also score a lot of points, and Team B is just as hot running with 2 DSTs and rotating them in well.
The problem is, Team A's 2 QBs both have the same bye week. And, coincidentally, Team B's 2 DSTs both have the same bye week. Neither wants to drop a player to cover the bye.
So, Team A sends an email to every owner in the league: "I'm trading a Defense to Team B, and he's going to trade me a QB, and then after the week is over we're going to trade back." (This is to make sure the agreement isn't "secret", which everyone seems to think qualifies it as collusion.)
They then do so.
This trade, by your definition, is not collusion. They have agreed to a transaction, the intent of which is indeed to improve
both teams. Therefore it fails your collusion test because they do
not have "no intent to improve at least one of the others."
Would anyone else agree with you there's no collusion here? Doubtful.
