What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal? (Dynasty League) (1 Viewer)

Should The Commissioner Have Nixed This Deal?

  • Total voters
    28
the lone star said:
I can get down with that. Some people say that collusion only occurs when there is an agreement to split earnings. But I kinda like the way "The League" framed collusion, even though sometimes I didn't 100% agree with it.

Defining collusion can be very tough at times iyam.
Click to expand...
:doh:

 
the lone star said:
I can get down with that. Some people say that collusion only occurs when there is an agreement to split earnings. But I kinda like the way "The League" framed collusion, even though sometimes I didn't 100% agree with it.

Defining collusion can be very tough at times iyam.
Click to expand...
Collision is not tough to define.  It is tough to prove.  Collusion is any time multiple teams agree to make one team superior at the expense of other teams.  Essentially trying to make one team out of two.

 
Gally said:
Collision is not tough to define.  It is tough to prove.  Collusion is any time multiple teams agree to make one team superior at the expense of other teams.  Essentially trying to make one team out of two.
Click to expand...
I like that definition, but sometimes people say it's anytime teams make an agreement that involves exchanging money under the table. Other times people say its when teams make an agreement to collectively get around the rules, when one person himself cannot do so.

I've heard A LOT of definitions, that's why I say it's hard to define. But I guess what I really mean is that it is hard to nail it down to something where everyone agrees.

And yes, I do agree, it is hard to prove.

 
the lone star said:
I like that definition, but sometimes people say it's anytime teams make an agreement that involves exchanging money under the table. Other times people say its when teams make an agreement to collectively get around the rules, when one person himself cannot do so.

I've heard A LOT of definitions, that's why I say it's hard to define. But I guess what I really mean is that it is hard to nail it down to something where everyone agrees.

And yes, I do agree, it is hard to prove.
Click to expand...
All of those are correct when it leads to one team getting better at the purposeful expense of other teams.  For example, when a team offers to share part of the winnings (money) if Team A trades player X to Team B for essentially nothing.  This is where Team A is not trying to compete and is purposefully helping Team B get better without also trying to improve Team A. 

Anytime one team is improving while another team is purposefully not getting better it is collusion.  It can take many forms as you have outlined but the definition remains the same.

 
Gally said:
All of those are correct when it leads to one team getting better at the purposeful expense of other teams.  For example, when a team offers to share part of the winnings (money) if Team A trades player X to Team B for essentially nothing.  This is where Team A is not trying to compete and is purposefully helping Team B get better without also trying to improve Team A. 

Anytime one team is improving while another team is purposefully not getting better it is collusion.  It can take many forms as you have outlined but the definition remains the same.
Click to expand...
I can get down with that. 

If there is some sort of agreement or understanding between two teams that will run to the detriment of another team, then I think that's collusion too. 

 
BassNBrew said:
I'll go with the minority and say YES.  As soon as a team announces their intent to leave a dynasty league, all trading involving that team should cease.
Click to expand...
Also, in regards to this, isn't it still his team until the season ends? He did pay dues after all, and no replacement owner had been found or announced just yet.

 
I said this a day or so ago. Lone Star needs to get a life and a new league. Something that happened 3 years ago is not going to be changed.

 
beerbuff said:
I said this a day or so ago. Lone Star needs to get a life and a new league. Something that happened 3 years ago is not going to be changed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for being so kind. Just to clarify, I'm not asking for it to be changed, let's not misconstrue the point. I am just asking if the deal should have been nixed or not.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nirad3
Trade advice - giant 32-teamer
Replies
3
Views
178
FairWarning
FairWarning
eighsse2
Should I Offer This Big Trade?
Replies
7
Views
331
eighsse2
eighsse2
J
Large PPR Trade
Replies
1
Views
163
Gally
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top