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.
Commissioner Collusion - what say you? - Update - I’m playing the sketchy commish in the semi’s and Thomas is out (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Judge Smails
- Start date
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Again, forget the OP and just look at what i posted.
I also was not trading FOR a player, i was trading a player away.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Yes but I personally did not view the lineup as my best lineup. The player I used for the Thursday game was NOT a player who would be in my best lineup.
Because you (alone) were trying to improve your team by trading someone. That all factors into what constitutes your "best" lineup.
DropKick
Footballguy
So, its ethical to renege on an agreement?
I don't believe this is a case of collusion but I think you're arguing the wrong point. Should the trade have been allowed? Can you have conditions attached above and beyond players, picks and/or budget.
habsfan
Footballguy
I think this is the most "practical" basis on which to disallow the trade. You have a trade which includes "currency" that isn't permitted. Today I'm agreeing to bench someone. Tomorrow I'm agreeing to wash and detail your car. Conceptually there is really no difference.
I do not think the trade should be allowed. It was clearly collusion due to having a secret agreement to play what the owners believed was an inferior lineup to give one team a perceived better chance to win.
DropKick
Footballguy
So if a trade partner asks that you not use the player he is trading to you immediately due his paranoia, nervousness, trepidation, etc., Aren't you also capable evaluating whether you need that player in your line-up and decide if you want to go forward with the trade? I believe both teams are acting independently and not in a collusive manner.
Again, the question should be the validity of the trade.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I disagree. Making another team (by one team making this stipulation part of the trade) play a perceived inferior lineup crosses the line. Both teams have now colluded. It is strengthened by by them keeping this agreement secret and not included in the trade acceptance only strengthens the case of collusion.
In your other example it is one team making their own decisions not influenced by anybody else.
DropKick
Footballguy
It meets the textbook definition of collusion.
Collusion: Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
Two owners secretly made an agreement and then deceived the other league members about the agreement.
How is that not collusion?
Last edited by a moderator:
DropKick
Footballguy
They made a trade. The "condition" that was attached may or may not have been against league rules, but I'll assume it wasn't or that would have been stated in the OP. This is not necessarily "cooperation" or "conspiracy". Further, the agreement they made impacted their head to head match-up. I would venture there was no intent to cheat the league. Nor do I think anyone was cheated per se.
Of course, they would have been better off with full disclosure of the terms, especially with significant money on the line. However, I could speculate why this was neglected. The fact they denied initial accusations may have a lot to do with how they were approached or attacked, as the case may be.
I believe each team was operating independently and in its own self interests. They were not working in tandem to defraud the league.
He was indeed forced to bench MT. That is the whole subject of this now 21 page thread.
DropKick
Footballguy
DropKick
Footballguy
Please explain in painful detail how he was "forced" to bench NT. Feel free to type 50 pages. I need the laugh.
TheWinz
Footballguy
You know what I noticed? The folks that think this deal was OK (or even close to it) seem to think of it as a trade and a condition, as if they are 2 separate things. They are not. If you went to a yard sale, saw a wrench for $1, brought it to the owner and agreed on the price, then you hand them a $20, does that means the wrench costs $20? No, the deal is not complete until he gives you $19 in return.
styleride85
Footballguy
Again, as Gally mentioned, no one was directing you/making you/asking you to do that. This has nothing to do with "tanking"... but in this case, another owner was directing him to start his line up a certain way. That is textbook collusion.
habsfan
Footballguy
You are attempting to play both sides of this now and/or move the goal posts. You suggest they made a legal trade then turn around and suggest the one receiving MT was not obligated ("forced") to comply with the terms of that trade? I don't know about the leagues you play in but in mine, if you don't comply with the terms of the trade, you don't have a trade at all. You can't defend the trade itself and then argue that conditions of it were optional.
voiceofunreason
Footballguy
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
JB said it succinctly a long time ago and there are many of us who agree and many of us who don't. As said earlier by another poster, there is no black n white here it is a grey area that some see no problem with and others do see a problem. As for VORs question have I have ever seen this in real life league I would say hell ya, I have been playing for almost 25yrs now and pretty sure I have been on both ends of this particular contingency. The owners should have been up front when questioned but they didn't need permission imho.
Those that disagree with me have valid points, lets agree to disagree and go back to sharing the love here on this board like we usually do
Those that disagree with me have valid points, lets agree to disagree and go back to sharing the love here on this board like we usually do
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Again, as I mentioned about 7 times now, I was not making an analogy with the OP. I was asking a different question about a different situation.
In the OP it was definitely without a doubt 100% collusion. I dont know what this Dropkick dude is trying to say about this not being collusion. It certainly was.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
So in the OP, who is more at fault? If you do penalize anyone, who? Both of them? Or was one of them more worthy of a penalty?
I dont know the answer to that, but the mastermind of the condition certainly seems to be more at fault as opposed to the other guy who simply agreed to the condition of the trade.
Or maybe the condition was that guys idea. Who knows.
I dont know the answer to that, but the mastermind of the condition certainly seems to be more at fault as opposed to the other guy who simply agreed to the condition of the trade.
Or maybe the condition was that guys idea. Who knows.
TheWinz
Footballguy
The commish is a weasel and needs to step down. But, since he is a weasel, I have to guess he won't go willingly. Hey, this reminds me of something...
habsfan
Footballguy
I think all roads lead to the commish here. If he suggested the condition, that's not a good look (IMO). If it was suggested to him he could have handled it differently, also not a good look. Every league has its own relationship dynamics that come into play but in terms of ethics, metaphorically speaking, if you "tell a joke" and everyone laughs except the commish and even after you explain it to him, he still doesn't "get it", do you want that guy as your commish?
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
They’re equally at fault for colluding. The punishment should be a reversal of the trade & a hiatus on trades between these two teams ROS.
the commish should face the additional penalty of not being commish any more.
That doesn’t mean he’s more at fault, but he’s proven to be unworthy of the league’s trust as a steward of that league.
An argument could be made that commish should have known better as commish.
Agreed.Those that disagree with me have valid points, lets agree to disagree and go back to sharing the love here on this board like we usually do
Side note, some of you folks would love the political forum.
TheWinz
Footballguy
Found this snippet online...
Collusive activity doesn’t necessarily have to be that ambitious. Two friends may simply make a deal to help one of them win a specific game and nothing more. Winning that one game however, could ensure a playoff run.
Sounds like this is exactly what happened here, doesn't it?
Collusive activity doesn’t necessarily have to be that ambitious. Two friends may simply make a deal to help one of them win a specific game and nothing more. Winning that one game however, could ensure a playoff run.
Sounds like this is exactly what happened here, doesn't it?
dhockster
Footballguy
So why is Owner A having to sit MT for a game different from having to sit Mahomes for a game? In both examples Owner B is asking owner A to sit a would be starter for a back-up player as a condition for the trade. Why does the fact that MT was part of the trade make a difference in the condition of the trade being reasonable or not?
And I wasn't trying to be funny.
There are people here that obviously know football. The board would be tons better off if people dropped this and talked about what they think players will do on the field this weekend.
Or playoff strategies.
Or roster management strategies.
Or pretty much anything that can help people win at Fantasy Football.
Thanks.
There are people here that obviously know football. The board would be tons better off if people dropped this and talked about what they think players will do on the field this weekend.
Or playoff strategies.
Or roster management strategies.
Or pretty much anything that can help people win at Fantasy Football.
Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheWinz
Footballguy
So, he had to bench MT because of the timing of the trade, but he was able to start Mattison? Weren't both players part of the same trade?
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I agree. Some folks have tried to make this personal saying things like “you’re saying everyone who disagrees with you is unethical!” or other such projection.Those that disagree with me have valid points, lets agree to disagree and go back to sharing the love here on this board like we usually do
To me it’s putting my commish hat on, looking at a set of known facts and making a determination.
People are welcome to disagree with my determination. If their argument isn’t logical, I’ll point that out. If it’s irrelevant to the topic I’m not going to sugar coat that either. It is what it is.
But there’s no love lost. Nothing I’ve typed in here has been with malice. Occasionally sarcasm, but I’m a sarcastic person, so that happens sometimes.
people are entitled to “plant their flag” on this subject like any other. As a decades-long commish of FF & FBB (going back to using USA Today box scores to calculate scoring days) I find topics like this fascinating - the spirit of the law vs letter of the law, ethics, judgement, transparency.
On a fascinating topic this has been one of the more interesting and intense discussions for sure. FWIW I don’t think a poll was necessary since this is clearly collusion, but it’s equally interesting to me that several will point to a close poll as though that argumatum ad populum proves the point of the topic one way or another, sort of like Trump yesterday, claiming he won the election because in a poll of his Twitter followers, 180k said he did (with 80,000,000 actual votes saying he didn’t). Yet another interesting element of this topic. What the masses believe vs the truth. Sometimes they’re the same, sometimes they’re not. But polls aren’t actually truth, they’re just what the respondents believe to be true.
The OP told us what the truth was. In my opinion, we can argue over who’s at fault, whether the league should have a specific rule or if it’s in the unwritten rules of every league to not collude, or whether the team getting MT was intending to throw the game or not. But it is indisputable that they colluded in this trade with a secret side agreement.
But if anyone disagrees with that, I’m not going to love them any less, and if people agree with that I’m not gonna love them any more. We’re just having a discussion.
They’re all just like, our opinions, maaaaaaan.
at the end of the day we all love fantasy football, which is why we’ll go 137 pages arguing over whether some trade in some random league that doesn’t affect any of us in the slightest is problematic or not. If that’s not love, I dunno what is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Not enough Tylenol in the world for the political forum, but I get what you’re saying.
I see commish-related topics as helping people win at FF (because not every commish knows what to do in what situations) but this one’s been beaten pretty well to death.
Might not be the worst idea to have a shark sub for “commissioner discussions” for topics like league constitution, ethical concerns, how to handle various scenarios like this though.
Not sure how much love such a forum would get but it seems like it could be useful.
But yeah, consider this one dropped.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
That seems like it would present it's own set of problems considering being a commish sucks and nobody probably wants it.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
In my long-time redraft that disbanded a few years back we had a rotation. Co-commish would be commish the next year, and someone else would step up as co-commish. The OG commishes were always available for interface tech support.
Off-topic but it was an excellent system. The unexpected result was that with the experience of being commish under their belts, all league members gained perspective of the work behind the scenes & they were more respectful of the commishes in the future.
I think that would be a terrible idea in every league I have been in. There are guys that are great guys in my leagues but they would make terrible commish's because they only view topics based on how it affects them in the now and not what would be better for the overall league as a precedent for future similar situations.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
That’s why there’s always a co-commish. Some years the “commish” is a ceremonial title & the co-commish does all the work. It’s just a lesson in perspective.
DropKick
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
DropKick
Footballguy
Fixed this for you. He was not forced. That is an absurd assertion.
I am out of the conversation.
Your marks up are flawed based on the facts as presented by the OP. The facts are not in dispute by the actual people that participated in the collusion. It is baffling that you keep trying to change what they actually admitted to.
He was not forced - he willingly agreed to the action as a condition of the trade. If he was not willing to do that, he would not have willingly entered into the trade agreement. To my knowledge no one forced him to accept any trade at all.
The condition not being disclosed to the league is where the issue is - that way this situation could have been handled upfront by the league as it is apparent it is a gray area at best in their rules as it seems conditional trades and trades involving non-assets (my definition of asset being player, pick or bid dollars, non-asset being anything other than that, whether part of the league such as this lineup condition or outside the league, such as washing someone's car) are allowed, or at the very least had never been addressed. If this condition had been announced at the time of the trade, then the league members could have voiced their displeasure (or acceptance) prior to it being an issue. Whether that means emergency vote to decide if such conditions are acceptable to the league or not and reversing the trade right away and amending the league rules accordingly, or agreement to address/firm up the rules to clarify in the offseason, that would be up to the league.
In the leagues that I ran, I included rules that only picks, players and bid dollars could be traded (so no outside cash, buying of lunch, etc. or such as this, lineup requirements), and no conditional trades were allowed - the trade had to be complete and final at the time of initial execution. This was partly to help alleviate the logistical nightmare of tracking conditional picks - for example if a trade involved a teams future 3rd but it became a future 2nd if the player scored X points, I then had to track and be sure that team did not do any additional trades involving either of those picks until the condition had been met and the pick conveyed. Yes, this is a real life example, we didn't have a rule to address it and remedied that in the offseason as the logistics of allowing those types of moves became clearer.
The condition not being disclosed to the league is where the issue is - that way this situation could have been handled upfront by the league as it is apparent it is a gray area at best in their rules as it seems conditional trades and trades involving non-assets (my definition of asset being player, pick or bid dollars, non-asset being anything other than that, whether part of the league such as this lineup condition or outside the league, such as washing someone's car) are allowed, or at the very least had never been addressed. If this condition had been announced at the time of the trade, then the league members could have voiced their displeasure (or acceptance) prior to it being an issue. Whether that means emergency vote to decide if such conditions are acceptable to the league or not and reversing the trade right away and amending the league rules accordingly, or agreement to address/firm up the rules to clarify in the offseason, that would be up to the league.
In the leagues that I ran, I included rules that only picks, players and bid dollars could be traded (so no outside cash, buying of lunch, etc. or such as this, lineup requirements), and no conditional trades were allowed - the trade had to be complete and final at the time of initial execution. This was partly to help alleviate the logistical nightmare of tracking conditional picks - for example if a trade involved a teams future 3rd but it became a future 2nd if the player scored X points, I then had to track and be sure that team did not do any additional trades involving either of those picks until the condition had been met and the pick conveyed. Yes, this is a real life example, we didn't have a rule to address it and remedied that in the offseason as the logistics of allowing those types of moves became clearer.
styleride85
Footballguy
He was forced. How is "don't play him against me" a currency in fantasy? Back to the other examples, could you not say "he willingly agreed to the action as a condition of the trade" if the condition of the trade was to start the Jets D every time he played against him for 5 years? Honestly, would you be okay with this condition?
Manster
Footballguy
TheWinz
Footballguy
Don't be silly. We all know one owner didn't approach the other owner with a tire iron demanding the trade and benching of MT. If I offered you $1M to kiss the girl of your dreams, then kiss the ground, you would do it in a heartbeat. You wouldn't want to kiss the ground, but you would, and you know it. In this case, I am forcing you to kiss the ground, because you don't get your prize unless you do. The only difference is there isn't a tire iron over your head.
DropKick
Footballguy
Amazing to watch you guys make this stuff up.TheWinz said:
ETA: I guess the good news is we've concluded its not collusion now that one owner is being forced to do things against his will. Seems like the vitriol has been against the wrong owner after all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
