Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Judge Smails

Commissioner Collusion - what say you?

Collusion or not?   

232 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DropKick said:

Absolutely.  While some might favor a zero tolerance stance on trade conditions,  one could consider the inability to play MT as simply the timing of the players changing hands. Your examples clearly cross the line.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

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😉  

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.

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.  

:wub: 

 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

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.

 

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. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

the commish should face the additional penalty of not being commish any more.

That seems like it would present it's own set of problems considering being a commish sucks and nobody probably wants it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostguy123 said:

That seems like it would present it's own set of problems considering being a commish sucks and nobody probably wants it.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Gally said:

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.   

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dhockster said:

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?

The answer is blatantly obvious.

Edited by DropKick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gally said:

It will take 1 sentence.

 The other owner required asked him to sit MT as a secret condition of the trade in order to gain a perceived advantage in their matchup.

Fixed this for you.  He was not forced.  That is an absurd assertion. 

I am out of the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DropKick said:

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, acarey50 said:

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.

Yes, he willingly agreed to the secrecy and thereby collusion that occurred. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DropKick said:

Fixed this for you.  He was not forced.  That is an absurd assertion. 

 

6 hours ago, acarey50 said:

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.

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, styleride85 said:

 

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?

This guy gets it

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, acarey50 said:

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.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 2:31 AM, TheWinz said:

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.

Amazing to watch you guys make this stuff up.

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.

Edited by DropKick
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DropKick said:

Amazing to watch you guys make this stuff up.

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.

No, he wasn’t forced to do anything he wasn’t willing to do. He is the one who wanted MT. MT was not forced upon him. 
 

This was more a situation of “would you rather” and he would rather have MT for 3 out of 4 weeks or not at all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2020 at 4:30 PM, DropKick said:

The answer is blatantly obvious.

No, I don't think it is. If the condition of the trade is restricting another owner's ability to play his roster the way he wants, why does it matter what player you are restricting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2020 at 9:27 PM, styleride85 said:

 

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?

He could have said no to the deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 12:29 AM, Manster said:

This guy gets it

The issue of forced or not forced is completly irrelevant. You are arguing inside the "bubble" of collusion, as if the bubble itself isn't against any reasonable rules. It is. Influence was traded as a "sweetener" in addition to players and influence shouldn't be an accepted "currency" in any league.

Edited by habsfan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2020 at 6:09 PM, Gally said:

Yes, he willingly agreed to the secrecy and thereby collusion that occurred. 

No disclosure was required therefor nothing was kept secret. 
 

He willingly agreed to the terms to sit MT. He easily could have passed on the trade, nothing was forced upon him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, habsfan said:

The issue of forced or not forced is completly irrelevant. You are arguing inside the "bubble" of collusion, as if the bubble itself isn't against any reasonable rules. It is. Influence was traded as a "sweetener" in addition to players and influence shouldn't be an accepted "currency" in any league.

While in your league such “currency” may not be allowed in this league it was not expressly forbidden. 
 

You can’t look at this as what is right or wrong in your league. What only matters is how the affected league rules are and how they will address this moving forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, I Am the Stig said:

While in your league such “currency” may not be allowed in this league it was not expressly forbidden. 
 

You can’t look at this as what is right or wrong in your league. What only matters is how the affected league rules are and how they will address this moving forward. 

There things such as intent of rules.  That matters and obviously the intent of this leagues rules were broken or there wouldn't have been the uproar and issues.  The guy lied about the condition of the trade.  That is guilt for doing something he knew was against the intent of the rules.

 

Not everything has to be explicitly included to be against the rules.   For example, loaning another team your players.  It has never been "expressly" written in any rule set I have ever seen but everyone knows you cannot do it.  This is the exact same issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gally said:

There things such as intent of rules.  That matters and obviously the intent of this leagues rules were broken or there wouldn't have been the uproar and issues.  The guy lied about the condition of the trade.  That is guilt for doing something he knew was against the intent of the rules.

 

Not everything has to be explicitly included to be against the rules.   For example, loaning another team your players.  It has never been "expressly" written in any rule set I have ever seen but everyone knows you cannot do it.  This is the exact same issue. 

Sounds about right.

I dont think the NFL has a specific rule against pulling your pants down and urinating on the top of the pile after the play is over, but pretty sure they will throw a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gally said:

There things such as intent of rules.  That matters and obviously the intent of this leagues rules were broken or there wouldn't have been the uproar and issues.  The guy lied about the condition of the trade.  That is guilt for doing something he knew was against the intent of the rules.

 

Not everything has to be explicitly included to be against the rules.   For example, loaning another team your players.  It has never been "expressly" written in any rule set I have ever seen but everyone knows you cannot do it.  This is the exact same issue. 

Lots of things can be written to address the spirit of the unwritten rules to cover unforeseen scenarios. 
 

In fact several rules and procedures could have been put in place to prevent this type of trade from being processed. 
 

The reality this league was woefully short on rules and this is what happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, I Am the Stig said:

The reality this league was woefully short on rules and this is what happens. 

Owners determine how "thick" the by-laws are.  The shadier the owners, the thicker the by-laws.  And when the commish is one of the shady ones, the by-laws need to be as thick as War & Peace.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Sounds about right.

I dont think the NFL has a specific rule against pulling your pants down and urinating on the top of the pile after the play is over, but pretty sure they will throw a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Pretty sure this is called the "Romanowski Rule".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheWinz said:

Owners determine how "thick" the by-laws are.  The shadier the owners, the thicker the by-laws.  And when the commish is one of the shady ones, the by-laws need to be as thick as War & Peace.

How thick does a bylaw have to be to say: "All conditions of a trade beyond player currency, must be made available for league review." ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Sounds about right.

I dont think the NFL has a specific rule against pulling your pants down and urinating on the top of the pile after the play is over, but pretty sure they will throw a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct.

 

And yet there are laws against exposing oneself as well as public urination. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I Am the Stig said:

And yet there are laws against exposing oneself as well as public urination. 

And yet in some places there are no such laws.

There are also laws against many of the things that happen on a football field.

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2020 at 8:30 AM, Joe Bryant said:

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.

 

I’m good with shutting it down. Have the vote and input from many people was great. It’s a :deadhorse:

now and doesn’t feel right to have more pages here than the chili thread 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, I Am the Stig said:

How thick does a bylaw have to be to say: "All conditions of a trade beyond player currency, must be made available for league review." ?

You missed my point completely.  Show me the by-laws from any league, and I can find 10 ways to cheat that aren't listed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, I Am the Stig said:

How thick does a bylaw have to be to say: "All conditions of a trade beyond player currency, must be made available for league review." ?

This isn't necessary and is the intent of allowing trades.  If you allow trades it is understood that all conditions of the trade must be disclosed.  That did not happen here and then was lied about.  That is why this is an issue.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gally said:

This isn't necessary and is the intent of allowing trades.  If you allow trades it is understood that all conditions of the trade must be disclosed.  That did not happen here and then was lied about.  That is why this is an issue.

There was no requirement to disclose the conditions as there is no league vote on trades. 
 

Stop projecting your league rules and standards onto this league. 
 

It was a bad oversight but legal within the framework of the league. The trade would be collusion in your league. Both things can be true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, I Am the Stig said:

There was no requirement to disclose the conditions as there is no league vote on trades. 
 

Stop projecting your league rules and standards onto this league. 
 

It was a bad oversight but legal within the framework of the league. The trade would be collusion in your league. Both things can be true. 

You don't need league voting to understand that all conditions of a trade must be disclosed.  

 

None of my leagues have trade committee but all trades must have all the conditions of a trade disclosed.  Its not expressly written in the rules but is understood by everyone that it must be done.

 

Two owners had a secret agreement to require one team to play a perceived inferior lineup.  That is collusion.  It is the textbook definition of collusion (regardless of their being atrade committee or not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m offering to Venmo the Kendall Hinton owner (#3 seed) to Flex him over Cole Beasley and Nelson Agholar. 

Am I guilty of collusion? Yes, but it’ll probably backfire. It’d still be a hilarious way to lock up 5 playoff spots for all of us with a winning record. His #6 seed opponent will likely drop into a 4-way tie at 5-7 for the last spot.   

We’re fraternity brothers from 30+ years ago, anything goes. We play to have fun. #carryon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gally said:

You don't need league voting to understand that all conditions of a trade must be disclosed.  

 

None of my leagues have trade committee but all trades must have all the conditions of a trade disclosed.  Its not expressly written in the rules but is understood by everyone that it must be done.

 

Two owners had a secret agreement to require one team to play a perceived inferior lineup.  That is collusion.  It is the textbook definition of collusion (regardless of their being atrade committee or not).

I say you do and you say you don’t. That’s the beauty of different leagues with different opinions and rules. 
 

This league will decide for itself how to handle this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, I Am the Stig said:

I say you do and you say you don’t. That’s the beauty of different leagues with different opinions and rules. 
 

This league will decide for itself how to handle this. 

Is murder illegal if you don't get caught?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, TheWinz said:

Is murder illegal if you don't get caught?

It's Sunday morning.  Shouldn't you be busy monitoring line-ups in your league?

Edited by DropKick
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DropKick said:

It's Sunday morning.  Shouldn't you be busy monitoring line-ups in your league?

:lmao:

Thank you. Gonna email my buddy I’m whupping today rn to remind him to swap out Taylor (Covid) for Fournette. Poor bastard left Duke on the bench Thursday, I’d like it to be less lopsided. He’s DFL and probably not even thinking about football today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DropKick said:

It's Sunday morning.  Shouldn't you be busy monitoring line-ups in your league?

We have laws against murder. We also have laws that allow killing under specific circumstances. 

There was no rule either requiring disclosure of or forbidding extra conditions on trades. 
 

 

Edited by I Am the Stig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, I Am the Stig said:

I say you do and you say you don’t. That’s the beauty of different leagues with different opinions and rules. 
 

This league will decide for itself how to handle this. 

The league did decide how to handle it.  The commish stepped down and everyone has up in arms because of the secret agreement to not disclose all the trade conditions.

 

The requirement to disclose all aspects of a trade is not league dependent.  It is a universal understanding for all trades.  It is kind of the point of a trade - to disclose what is actually being traded.  This idea really isn't debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gally said:

The league did decide how to handle it.  The commish stepped down and everyone has up in arms because of the secret agreement to not disclose all the trade conditions.

 

The requirement to disclose all aspects of a trade is not league dependent.  It is a universal understanding for all trades.  It is kind of the point of a trade - to disclose what is actually being traded.  This idea really isn't debatable.

And The league ruled what they wanted to do. Another league may have done nothing. I’m not trying to convince you of anything and you aren’t going to change my mind. 
 

It is ok that we see this differently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TheWinz said:

Show me the by-laws from any league, and I can find 10 ways to cheat that aren't listed.

Remind me to invite you into some of my leagues next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.