What Would You Do? (1 Viewer)

[Dark Matter]

I have been approached by the owner and good friend that I play in the Super Bowl to take the proceeds of the winnings and split it 50/50. The winners take is 6/12 and 2nd place is 2/12. It's a pretty good sum of money but then everyone has their own opinion as to what a lot of money is. For me, getting the trophy and taking a heaping from it is worth more than the cash so I'll probably hedge my bet.

Good Luck to all still playing this weekend

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Only if I knew he had the better team.

 

[Dark Matter]

Only if I knew he had the better team.

This guy has won 3 of the last 4 years

 

[belljr]

I've hedged in the past and sometime decided not too, no real reasoning, the couple times I did hedge I ended up winning.

Anytime we did split though it was 60/40 to keep it a "little more interesting"

 

[Quibbler]

Split it for sure. If you win, you're still going to feel great. If you lose, you'll feel better knowing you split the cash.

 

[Warrior]

If he wants to split it 50/50, you do so if your team is weaker than his. You don't if you're the favorite. Just like poker, this will work out best for you in the long run.

 

[donkshow]

I agree with the general consensus. If you think you're team is the underdog, do the split.

For me, the money is always good but winning the 'ship is what feels best. Getting more money out of a loss will make you feel better about it. You'll have enough joy out of winning that losing that little bit extra money isn't the end of the world.

If you think you're the favourite but want to cut your losses if you lose, offer a 60/40 split.

 

[steveski]

Given that you still "win" by placing 2nd, I'd play for the title. My league has 1st at 55% and 2nd at 25%. Even if I end up in 2nd, I still win 3 times the money I put in.

If it was a league where all the money went to 1st, then I'd probably split it 50/50. I'd hate to make it to the finals and walk away with nothing.

 

[SSOG]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.

This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".

Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

 

[Billy Bats]

I would never ask to split but have been asked several times in the past to split the pot, and have always said no. It's not about the $ for me, and IMO it shows a sign of weakness and what's more important to the other player. I'm in the championship game this weekend, Sunday's games weren't even official yet and my opponent was already asking how much was in the pot. He already lost the Championship. Karma.

 

[Area51Inhabitant]

Could set a squirrly precedent going forward imo. I would leave the payouts as it is stated in the league constitution.

 

[Pipes]

I could see changing the allocation a little bit in favor of the runner up but a 50/50 split is lame even if your team is the "underdog".

 

[SSOG]

Actually, this gives me an idea for a payout distribution. When the league collects dues, it sets aside a certain percentage of the pot (say, 66%) for the championship game, but does not allocate how much goes to the winner and how much goes to the loser. Instead, each participant before the game picks a number between 50 and 100, and then you average those two numbers and pay out that percentage to the winner. This allows for a bit more flexibility- if both participants want to make it 50/50, they can. If both want to make it 100/0, they can. It'll even open the door to some ribbing- picking 50 becomes the coward's way out when he knows his team is overmatched. If anyone picks 100 and then loses, he has to live with the fact that he drove up the average all offseason.

Probably not for everyone, but it sounds like fun to me.

 

[Warhogs]

In leagues I have been in before we have had owners agree to split the winnings and I am OK with that. It is not effecting the balance of the league. Two owners make it to the championship and decide they will play the game but the winnings will be shared equally. Not a big deal at all.

 

[Quibbler]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.

This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".

Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

No, this isn't even remotely collusion. Collusion is an agreement between two teams designed to give them an unfair advantage over the other teams in the league. In this case, no other teams are affected by the agreement, so it's not collusion.

 

[Sweet Love]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.

This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".

Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

No, this isn't even remotely collusion. Collusion is an agreement between two teams designed to give them an unfair advantage over the other teams in the league. In this case, no other teams are affected by the agreement, so it's not collusion.

I agree...this has nothing to do with competitive balance of the league...right now, the league consists of two teams, and if they want to do this, then fine. Would you think of stepping in if Team A won and cut a check for the difference to Team B a week later? Frankly, unless I am in the championship, it is none of my business how they split the money.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.

This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".

Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

No, this isn't even remotely collusion. Collusion is an agreement between two teams designed to give them an unfair advantage over the other teams in the league. In this case, no other teams are affected by the agreement, so it's not collusion.

Not only that, but these 2 dudes could post their agreement on their league's message boards, to completely get rid of the secretive aspect that is entailed with the word "collusion".

 

[Warrior]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

You're pretty simple-minded if you don't understand the difference. As long as you both try your best to win, there's absolutely no hint of collusion involved. You're still both trying just as hard for the championship.I generally consider you a pretty sharp poster, so this surprised me.Perhaps you should spend 12 seconds researching the definition of 'collusion' before posting next time.

 

[I Am Rick James]

Who the hell plays fantasy football for money?

Even in a big money league, that would be about $.05 an hour

Slap him in the face with a glove and start pacing or your a wuss

 

[SSOG]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

You're pretty simple-minded if you don't understand the difference. As long as you both try your best to win, there's absolutely no hint of collusion involved. You're still both trying just as hard for the championship.I generally consider you a pretty sharp poster, so this surprised me.Perhaps you should spend 12 seconds researching the definition of 'collusion' before posting next time.

A secretive agreement whereby two owners decide to ignore the league rules and instead substitute their own? Sounds like collusion to me. The league decided that the pot would be split one way. Two owners secretly decided to split it another. I'm not saying the rest of the league would (or should) care, I'm just pointing out how much of a boogeyman collusion has become. If the two owners had agreed in week 1 that if one of them had won the championship, both owners would split the prize, would people have had a problem with it?

 

[kegger]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

You're pretty simple-minded if you don't understand the difference. As long as you both try your best to win, there's absolutely no hint of collusion involved. You're still both trying just as hard for the championship.I generally consider you a pretty sharp poster, so this surprised me.Perhaps you should spend 12 seconds researching the definition of 'collusion' before posting next time.

A secretive agreement whereby two owners decide to ignore the league rules and instead substitute their own? Sounds like collusion to me. The league decided that the pot would be split one way. Two owners secretly decided to split it another. I'm not saying the rest of the league would (or should) care, I'm just pointing out how much of a boogeyman collusion has become. If the two owners had agreed in week 1 that if one of them had won the championship, both owners would split the prize, would people have had a problem with it?

Dude you are trying to make up stuff that is not there.And for 1 most of the time when people split up the potthe rest of league is also aware of it, there is no secret.2 guy's in the championship decide to split there moneythat they an only they have a chance to win no one else.(it affects no one else in the league in any way possible)There is not an ounce of collusion in splitting the pot up.----------And as to splitting, I've done it in other things besides FFand quite often will offer to split a pot in some tournament..

 

[jim k]

What someone decides to do with their winnings AFTER they get it is nobody else's business. The winner still gets the same amount from the commissioner. It is not like they are asking to be co champions without playing the last week. This is about money pure and simple.

 

[belljr]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

You're pretty simple-minded if you don't understand the difference. As long as you both try your best to win, there's absolutely no hint of collusion involved. You're still both trying just as hard for the championship.I generally consider you a pretty sharp poster, so this surprised me.Perhaps you should spend 12 seconds researching the definition of 'collusion' before posting next time.

A secretive agreement whereby two owners decide to ignore the league rules and instead substitute their own? Sounds like collusion to me. The league decided that the pot would be split one way. Two owners secretly decided to split it another. I'm not saying the rest of the league would (or should) care, I'm just pointing out how much of a boogeyman collusion has become. If the two owners had agreed in week 1 that if one of them had won the championship, both owners would split the prize, would people have had a problem with it?

Have you ever gambled?suicide pools, chopping pots in poker, hedging bets it's the same thing.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'm doing this in one league. League rules are $250/$0 and we've agreed to split it $150/$100. I'm probably a small favorite but also went 1-7 in semi-finals last week so decided the new structure looked pretty good. If I were in a bunch of finals I might have passed.

 

[=Smackdown=]

Here's an idea you can counter with . . .

Winner takes all

2nd place gets what they deserve - nothing

Hope this helps

 

[Dark Matter]

If he wants to split it 50/50, you do so if your team is weaker than his. You don't if you're the favorite. Just like poker, this will work out best for you in the long run.

I want to with Warrior! I like his matchups beter than mine and so does he. We going 60/40 to keep it interesting.

 

[Dark Matter]

Here's an idea you can counter with . . .Winner takes all2nd place gets what they deserve - nothingHope this helps

 

[Area51Inhabitant]

Here is the potential problem that I see. This season lets say you're the underdog and it looks like a pretty good proposition. You wind up losing the game but the winning owner agrees to the 50/50 split. Fast forward to next season and lets say you're in the finals again and this time you're a prohibitive favorite. The other owner will certainly remember 2012 and will propose a similar agreement for the 2013 finals with another 50/50 split. Now how do you handle this one? Turn it down and you will be looked at as an opportunist looking only for your own self interests. You're pretty much obligated to agree to it on principle.

 

[Dark Matter]

Here is the potential problem that I see. This season lets say you're the underdog and it looks like a pretty good proposition. You wind up losing the game but the winning owner agrees to the 50/50 split. Fast forward to next season and lets say you're in the finals again and this time you're a prohibitive favorite. The other owner will certainly remember 2012 and will propose a similar agreement for the 2013 finals with another 50/50 split. Now how do you handle this one? Turn it down and you will be looked at as an opportunist looking only for your own self interests. You're pretty much obligated to agree to it on principle.

The other owner and I both have the same attitudes when it comes to FF. If we can break even when all the dust settles that's like winning. If we get the chance to throw some more coin in our pockets because we managed our teams well or just plain got lucky, that's the gravy. I'm in it to win it for sure it's just about more than the Every year is going to be different. This is my 3rd trip to our SB and this is the first time it's been proposed.

 

[SayWhat?]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.

This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".

Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

You're pretty simple-minded if you don't understand the difference. As long as you both try your best to win, there's absolutely no hint of collusion involved. You're still both trying just as hard for the championship.

I generally consider you a pretty sharp poster, so this surprised me.

Perhaps you should spend 12 seconds researching the definition of 'collusion' before posting next time.

A secretive agreement whereby two owners decide to ignore the league rules and instead substitute their own? Sounds like collusion to me. The league decided that the pot would be split one way. Two owners secretly decided to split it another. I'm not saying the rest of the league would (or should) care, I'm just pointing out how much of a boogeyman collusion has become. If the two owners had agreed in week 1 that if one of them had won the championship, both owners would split the prize, would people have had a problem with it?

This may be the dumbest take that I've ever read on these boards, which is truly saying something. Two owners, whom have made it to the championship game, deciding how much each wants to risk of the total payout remaining for those two teams, isn't even remotely in the stratosphere of collusion.

 

[SSOG]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.

This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".

Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

You're pretty simple-minded if you don't understand the difference. As long as you both try your best to win, there's absolutely no hint of collusion involved. You're still both trying just as hard for the championship.

I generally consider you a pretty sharp poster, so this surprised me.

Perhaps you should spend 12 seconds researching the definition of 'collusion' before posting next time.

A secretive agreement whereby two owners decide to ignore the league rules and instead substitute their own? Sounds like collusion to me. The league decided that the pot would be split one way. Two owners secretly decided to split it another. I'm not saying the rest of the league would (or should) care, I'm just pointing out how much of a boogeyman collusion has become. If the two owners had agreed in week 1 that if one of them had won the championship, both owners would split the prize, would people have had a problem with it?

This may be the dumbest take that I've ever read on these boards, which is truly saying something. Two owners, whom have made it to the championship game, deciding how much each wants to risk of the total payout remaining for those two teams, isn't even remotely in the stratosphere of collusion.

Collusion is a secret agreement between two parties that is either fraudulent or against the rules. The situation described in the original post was a secret agreement between two parties to split the winnings in a manner which is contrary to the rules set forth by the league. I'm not saying this impacts anyone else, because it doesn't. I'm not saying anyone else should care, because they shouldn't. I'm just saying, two parties are conspiring to change the rules. That's collusion. The fact that nobody cares should illustrate that collusion, despite it's reputation as a fantasy boogeyman, isn't really a problem in leagues unless and until it begins to upset the competitive balance of the league. The problem isn't collusion, it's upsetting the competitive balance.

 

[GregR]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

You're pretty simple-minded if you don't understand the difference. As long as you both try your best to win, there's absolutely no hint of collusion involved. You're still both trying just as hard for the championship.I generally consider you a pretty sharp poster, so this surprised me.Perhaps you should spend 12 seconds researching the definition of 'collusion' before posting next time.

A secretive agreement whereby two owners decide to ignore the league rules and instead substitute their own? Sounds like collusion to me. The league decided that the pot would be split one way. Two owners secretly decided to split it another. I'm not saying the rest of the league would (or should) care, I'm just pointing out how much of a boogeyman collusion has become. If the two owners had agreed in week 1 that if one of them had won the championship, both owners would split the prize, would people have had a problem with it?

What you're doing here is one of the most frustrating things for me in this whole topic of ethics in FF. It's clinging to a definition and completely avoiding why the definition exists and what the intent was.There is a type of action FF leagues want to stop. And to do that they came up with a definition of collusion that tries to include those actions. But the definition is never going to be all-encompassing, nor properly exclude everything else that wasn't trying to be prohibited. Heck, it was borrowed from other sources even and doesn't address a wide range of similar things because of it being a poorly worded definition for our needs in FF.Collusion was meant to stop teams from conspiring to give them an advantage that negates fair competition between the teams in the league. Since no one has any stake in the dispersal of the champ and 2nd place monies other than these 2 teams, neither of them is gaining an advantage over anyone else. What they are doing is not really any different on an ethical level than if an entire league agrees unanimously to change a rule.It doesn't even come close to fitting the type of things we wanted to stop for which we came up with a definition in the first place. So long as they play the game out fairly and don't change whose name goes on the trophy (since things like claims to how many championships you won do matter to the rest of the league as a whole), they aren't doing anything remotely along the lines of what we set out to stop. Whether they split the money 50/50 or the predetermined amount really doesn't affect anyone but the two of them.But too many times people just point to the definition with no care for what the goal was in making the rule. This is like a judge following the letter of the law and totally ignoring what is just. It's misusing the collusion rule not taking the reason for it being there into account. It actually bothers me more when people try to take the definition of the rule and use it in other circumstance to justify unethical stuff. I'm so tired in other topics of seeing, "well he was open that he hurt his team to help another win so he was open about it and it's therefore not collusion", or "the team he helped by tanking didn't know about it, so there weren't 2 teams involved so it's not collusion". Both of which completely ignore what the rules are trying to accomplish and not.Which is the point you just draw a line against rules lawyers and kick them out of the league so you don't have to deal with them. But I'm old and jaded. Get off my lawn!!!(Not calling SSOG a rules laywer, just think he's trying to use the rule poorly here.)

 

[SSOG]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

You're pretty simple-minded if you don't understand the difference. As long as you both try your best to win, there's absolutely no hint of collusion involved. You're still both trying just as hard for the championship.I generally consider you a pretty sharp poster, so this surprised me.Perhaps you should spend 12 seconds researching the definition of 'collusion' before posting next time.

A secretive agreement whereby two owners decide to ignore the league rules and instead substitute their own? Sounds like collusion to me. The league decided that the pot would be split one way. Two owners secretly decided to split it another. I'm not saying the rest of the league would (or should) care, I'm just pointing out how much of a boogeyman collusion has become. If the two owners had agreed in week 1 that if one of them had won the championship, both owners would split the prize, would people have had a problem with it?

What you're doing here is one of the most frustrating things for me in this whole topic of ethics in FF. It's clinging to a definition and completely avoiding why the definition exists and what the intent was.There is a type of action FF leagues want to stop. And to do that they came up with a definition of collusion that tries to include those actions. But the definition is never going to be all-encompassing, nor properly exclude everything else that wasn't trying to be prohibited. Heck, it was borrowed from other sources even and doesn't address a wide range of similar things because of it being a poorly worded definition for our needs in FF.Collusion was meant to stop teams from conspiring to give them an advantage that negates fair competition between the teams in the league. Since no one has any stake in the dispersal of the champ and 2nd place monies other than these 2 teams, neither of them is gaining an advantage over anyone else. What they are doing is not really any different on an ethical level than if an entire league agrees unanimously to change a rule.It doesn't even come close to fitting the type of things we wanted to stop for which we came up with a definition in the first place. So long as they play the game out fairly and don't change whose name goes on the trophy (since things like claims to how many championships you won do matter to the rest of the league as a whole), they aren't doing anything remotely along the lines of what we set out to stop. Whether they split the money 50/50 or the predetermined amount really doesn't affect anyone but the two of them.But too many times people just point to the definition with no care for what the goal was in making the rule. This is like a judge following the letter of the law and totally ignoring what is just. It's misusing the collusion rule not taking the reason for it being there into account. It actually bothers me more when people try to take the definition of the rule and use it in other circumstance to justify unethical stuff. I'm so tired in other topics of seeing, "well he was open that he hurt his team to help another win so he was open about it and it's therefore not collusion", or "the team he helped by tanking didn't know about it, so there weren't 2 teams involved so it's not collusion". Both of which completely ignore what the rules are trying to accomplish and not.Which is the point you just draw a line against rules lawyers and kick them out of the league so you don't have to deal with them. But I'm old and jaded. Get off my lawn!!!(Not calling SSOG a rules laywer, just think he's trying to use the rule poorly here.)

Words mean what they mean. You can't create a rule that says "collusion is illegal, and by collusion I mean making bad trades". That's not what collusion is. Leagues have vested interests in preventing bad trades, but the way to do that isn't to outlaw collusion and then just call every bad trade collusion, whether it is or not. Believe it or not, we actually agree 100% here on what should or should not be allowed, you'd just rather call everything that's not allowed "collusion", while I'd rather restrict that word for actual collusion. The league has a vested interest in preventing a lot of actions that hurt the competitive balance. When a team starts cutting all his good players, a league needs to be able to stop that. I'm just saying the way to stop that isn't calling it what it's not. We've reached a point where everyone has decided that everything is either collusion, or it's fine. This means if they see something that's not fine, they have to call it collusion- but as you pointed out, it's NOT collusion! Collusion has a very specific meaning, and that meaning isn't "anything that hurts competitive balance"! This is why leagues must be able to say that there are more things that are not fine than just collusion. Leagues want to protect balance, so they create rules against collusion, but that's a tortured and twisted way to achieve the result. They'd be better off if they stopped trying to turn collusion into a catch-all evil and instead made rules specifically to protect competitive balance. In other words, if your rules say "everything flies except collusion", then your rules have a lot of problems, not the least of which is how tortured and confused everyone's definition of collusion is bound to become. As I said, words mean what they mean, and we should not lightly set about redefining them. One of the biggest keys to communication is precision, and such precision is impossible if we're demonizing words and turning them into catch-alls rather than just directly legislating against whatever behavior we wish to prevent.

 

[Rushmore]

If you do a split, I think a 60/40 is preferable.

 

[rickyg]

Fwiw -

I have done this split 2 times in the past in 2 different leagues and I'm doing it this year in my main redraft league.

Winner is supposed to get $1200 loser gets $600. We agreed to go 50/50 take $900 a piece and rest easy on Sunday.

One of us will still be the champ. One of us will still have bragging rights and a trophy.

It's The smart way to go. There is so much luck involved in fantasy football. Why not hedge your bets once you make it to the big game. Ill take a guaranteed higher floor payout even if it means lowering my ceiling by and equal amount to get it.

Anyone who thinks differently isn't looking at it logically and is letting pride get in the way.

I was the 6th seed. My team went on a crazy hot streak and snuck into the playoffs with a 7-6 record and middle of the Road in points. Week 14 I knocked off the 3 seed, week 15 I knocked off the #1 seed who had a 10-3 record and scored the most total points in the history of our 15 year league. If that's not luck then I don't know what is. That is why you spilt the championship game pot and you don't look back.

IMHO of course

 

[Hang 10]

Hedging is for poosies.

Maybe you should just split the pot 12 ways before the season starts. Everyone gets a trophy!

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Go ahead and split the money and enjoy your weekend. Drown out any criticism by crinkling all that money against your ear.

 

[Dark Matter]

Hedging is for poosies. Maybe you should just split the pot 12 ways before the season starts. Everyone gets a trophy!

Obama is not our League Commisioner.

 

[dennis.moore]

GB playing in leagues where there is no money involved...

Nothing better...

 

[Dark Matter]

Fwiw -I have done this split 2 times in the past in 2 different leagues and I'm doing it this year in my main redraft league. Winner is supposed to get $1200 loser gets $600. We agreed to go 50/50 take $900 a piece and rest easy on Sunday. One of us will still be the champ. One of us will still have bragging rights and a trophy. It's The smart way to go. There is so much luck involved in fantasy football. Why not hedge your bets once you make it to the big game. Ill take a guaranteed higher floor payout even if it means lowering my ceiling by and equal amount to get it. Anyone who thinks differently isn't looking at it logically and is letting pride get in the way. I was the 6th seed. My team went on a crazy hot streak and snuck into the playoffs with a 7-6 record and middle of the Road in points. Week 14 I knocked off the 3 seed, week 15 I knocked off the #1 seed who had a 10-3 record and scored the most total points in the history of our 15 year league. If that's not luck then I don't know what is. That is why you spilt the championship game pot and you don't look back. IMHO of course

This is me. After a 1-5 start, I ended up 7-6 squeeking in as the 6th seed. Once I got into the semi's I was playing with house money even with the most transactions against. I used my WW priority wisely, got on a got streak, beat the #2 & #1 seed to get to the SB where I face a team that has won 3 of 4. I know, cool story Good debate between SSOG and Greg Russell in here. It really is not collusional as much as an agreement between two owners to do what they want with their money. IMHO

 

[MDSkinner]

Actually, this gives me an idea for a payout distribution. When the league collects dues, it sets aside a certain percentage of the pot (say, 66%) for the championship game, but does not allocate how much goes to the winner and how much goes to the loser. Instead, each participant before the game picks a number between 50 and 100, and then you average those two numbers and pay out that percentage to the winner. This allows for a bit more flexibility- if both participants want to make it 50/50, they can. If both want to make it 100/0, they can. It'll even open the door to some ribbing- picking 50 becomes the coward's way out when he knows his team is overmatched. If anyone picks 100 and then loses, he has to live with the fact that he drove up the average all offseason.Probably not for everyone, but it sounds like fun to me.

It looks like I am in the minority, but I pretty much agree with your entire take on the collusion boogeyman and that the OP is talking about collusion (just not the kind that changes the competitive balance in any way). And I very much like this idea of what to do with the payout distribution. It sounds like fun to me.

 

[Warrior]

GB playing in leagues where there is no money involved...Nothing better...

yeah, teams that are abandoned after wk 2 and managers not setting lineups....so much fun.

 

[dennis.moore]

GB playing in leagues where there is no money involved...Nothing better...

yeah, teams that are abandoned after wk 2 and managers not setting lineups....so much fun.

Maybe you should be in better leagues then, but I have never had that problem...

 

[renesauz]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

This makes no sense. There's a huge differance between colluding to move players around and an agreement to split the pot. Unbelievable that a smart guy like you can't see the differance. One effects league parity (read: potential winnings to a third or fourth party)...the other doesn't. Not the same at all.

 

[renesauz]

If the league meant for the pot to be split 50/50, the league would have set up a 50/50 pot. I think it's interesting that any lopsided trade immediately gets labeled as collusion, even when it's not... But when the SP is presented with an honest, admitted, textbook case of collusion, nobody steps up to call it what it is.This really demonstrates that people don't care one whit about collusion. They care about things that impact their chances of winning, not secret agreements that have no bearing on their teams. Collusion is just a fancy buzzword they can substitute for "something I don't like".Edit: to be clear, I'm not disparaging either owner involved in the potential split. If the timeline presented is correct (i.e. the approach was made only after the spots were secured), then It doesn't impact the rest of the league, so I don't see why the rest of the league should care. Just saying, this is the textbook definition of collusion, which is something of a boogeyman in fantasy circles.

You're pretty simple-minded if you don't understand the difference. As long as you both try your best to win, there's absolutely no hint of collusion involved. You're still both trying just as hard for the championship.I generally consider you a pretty sharp poster, so this surprised me.Perhaps you should spend 12 seconds researching the definition of 'collusion' before posting next time.

A secretive agreement whereby two owners decide to ignore the league rules and instead substitute their own? Sounds like collusion to me. The league decided that the pot would be split one way. Two owners secretly decided to split it another. I'm not saying the rest of the league would (or should) care, I'm just pointing out how much of a boogeyman collusion has become. If the two owners had agreed in week 1 that if one of them had won the championship, both owners would split the prize, would people have had a problem with it?

What you're doing here is one of the most frustrating things for me in this whole topic of ethics in FF. It's clinging to a definition and completely avoiding why the definition exists and what the intent was.There is a type of action FF leagues want to stop. And to do that they came up with a definition of collusion that tries to include those actions. But the definition is never going to be all-encompassing, nor properly exclude everything else that wasn't trying to be prohibited. Heck, it was borrowed from other sources even and doesn't address a wide range of similar things because of it being a poorly worded definition for our needs in FF.Collusion was meant to stop teams from conspiring to give them an advantage that negates fair competition between the teams in the league. Since no one has any stake in the dispersal of the champ and 2nd place monies other than these 2 teams, neither of them is gaining an advantage over anyone else. What they are doing is not really any different on an ethical level than if an entire league agrees unanimously to change a rule.It doesn't even come close to fitting the type of things we wanted to stop for which we came up with a definition in the first place. So long as they play the game out fairly and don't change whose name goes on the trophy (since things like claims to how many championships you won do matter to the rest of the league as a whole), they aren't doing anything remotely along the lines of what we set out to stop. Whether they split the money 50/50 or the predetermined amount really doesn't affect anyone but the two of them.But too many times people just point to the definition with no care for what the goal was in making the rule. This is like a judge following the letter of the law and totally ignoring what is just. It's misusing the collusion rule not taking the reason for it being there into account. It actually bothers me more when people try to take the definition of the rule and use it in other circumstance to justify unethical stuff. I'm so tired in other topics of seeing, "well he was open that he hurt his team to help another win so he was open about it and it's therefore not collusion", or "the team he helped by tanking didn't know about it, so there weren't 2 teams involved so it's not collusion". Both of which completely ignore what the rules are trying to accomplish and not.Which is the point you just draw a line against rules lawyers and kick them out of the league so you don't have to deal with them. But I'm old and jaded. Get off my lawn!!!(Not calling SSOG a rules laywer, just think he's trying to use the rule poorly here.)

Said it much better than I did

 

[Dark Matter]

I have been approached by the owner and good friend that I play in the Super Bowl to take the proceeds of the winnings and split it 50/50. The winners take is 6/12 and 2nd place is 2/12. It's a pretty good sum of money but then everyone has their own opinion as to what a lot of money is. For me, getting the trophy and taking a heaping from it is worth more than the cash so I'll probably hedge my bet.

Good Luck to all still playing this weekend

I've said this a few years now off and on, but I think the best thing to do is to take X percentage of the winnings and buy youth sports equipment for your local high school or middle school. It's something I've progressively pushed all of the big money leagues I'm in to do and I think personally ALL fantasy football leagues period in the US should do it as a standard.

There are a lot of hurting youth sports programs out there, not just football, and a lot of them need new and improved and safer equipment. One of the things I love about football or it's multi dimensions across so many age groups is that the game, and youth sports, saves lives. There are kids out there who no parenting, no guidance, no discipline and not much hope and youth sports teaches team work, leadership, confidence and often humility and the means under which meritocracy matters.

I would suggest to the other owner , that instead of a 50/50 split, that

You give 60 percent for youth sports in your area. Cut the red tape, find out what those kids need and buy it. Saves you the trouble later of having to put a Glock in the mouth of some gravy train desk driving pencil pusher bureaucrat who lied to you if you just give a check.

Take an advance on 10 percent and buy stuff for Toys For Tots.

Take 20 percent and have a little party for you and your league mates.

Give 10 percent to the winner.

The old man says taking a little trophy makes you a winner this year, but giving back to local kids in your area makes you a winner forever.

Ryan Bingham: You know why kids love athletes?

Bob: Because they screw lingerie models.

Ryan Bingham: No, that's why we love athletes. Kids love them because they follow their dreams.

Memorable quotes for Up in the Air

for the suggestions, GG

 

[eoMMan]

Don't chop. Chopping is for little girls. Are you a little girl?

 

[bigums]

Words mean what they mean.

And collusion means a secret agreement for a deceitful purpose or to gain an unfair advantage over others. How are they being deceitful? How have they kept anyone in the league from competing fairly? What if the 2 owners agree to give anything they win to charity? Is that a collusive act? I don't think any league has rules around what can be done with the money as long as they line up and play according to the rules. Winner takes his share and loser takes his. What they do after that (whether they agreed on it after the game or 2 years ago) is their business and has no tie to any rules the league has established. I usually put a lot of stock in your posts, but I'm sort of baffled that you're continuing this line of reasoning. I get your missive on the boogeyman aspect, but this example is not supporting your cause at all.

 

[butcher boy]

Quite the successful trip for SSOG here.

 

[Hang 10]

Yes, split the pot. Go ahead and suck all the life and excitement out of your super bowl.