another "Is this collusion" thread (1 Viewer)

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

FINALLY a trade thread with ACTUAL Collusion

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Borrowing players may be considered cheating but unless it gives a team a clear advantage it is *NOT* collusion. If Team A were getting Warner to start in week 9 to cover his bye week and then promptly trading him back, I would agree that would be collusion. To say that having Carney (or any kicker) for a week would give someone an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Team A doesn't want to trade Warner until week 10. Team B needs a quarterback in week 9 so offers to cover the cost of having to pick up a kicker from waivers by offering to additionally trade a kicker for Team B to start in week 8. They then agree to trade Rodgers for Warner and the kicker. Team A already had Warner so no collusion. Team B actually has a disadvantage with Rodgers in week 9 @ Tennessee, so also no collusion (no unfair advantage). If team B were gaining some advantage by having Rodgers in week 9 and then again gaining an advantage by swapping for Warner in week 10, I could see the call for collusion but this is simply a two part trade that includes a kicker swap.

I think it's fair to call this cheating the system to avoid paying transaction fees, but it certainly is not Collusion.

lol this has to be one of the traders...

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Borrowing players may be considered cheating but unless it gives a team a clear advantage it is *NOT* collusion. If Team A were getting Warner to start in week 9 to cover his bye week and then promptly trading him back, I would agree that would be collusion. To say that having Carney (or any kicker) for a week would give someone an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Team A doesn't want to trade Warner until week 10. Team B needs a quarterback in week 9 so offers to cover the cost of having to pick up a kicker from waivers by offering to additionally trade a kicker for Team B to start in week 8. They then agree to trade Rodgers for Warner and the kicker. Team A already had Warner so no collusion. Team B actually has a disadvantage with Rodgers in week 9 @ Tennessee, so also no collusion (no unfair advantage). If team B were gaining some advantage by having Rodgers in week 9 and then again gaining an advantage by swapping for Warner in week 10, I could see the call for collusion but this is simply a two part trade that includes a kicker swap.

I think it's fair to call this cheating the system to avoid paying transaction fees, but it certainly is not Collusion.

People, say hello to TEAM B!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Borrowing players may be considered cheating but unless it gives a team a clear advantage it is *NOT* collusion. If Team A were getting Warner to start in week 9 to cover his bye week and then promptly trading him back, I would agree that would be collusion. To say that having Carney (or any kicker) for a week would give someone an unfair advantage is ridiculous. Team A doesn't want to trade Warner until week 10. Team B needs a quarterback in week 9 so offers to cover the cost of having to pick up a kicker from waivers by offering to additionally trade a kicker for Team B to start in week 8. They then agree to trade Rodgers for Warner and the kicker. Team A already had Warner so no collusion. Team B actually has a disadvantage with Rodgers in week 9 @ Tennessee, so also no collusion (no unfair advantage). If team B were gaining some advantage by having Rodgers in week 9 and then again gaining an advantage by swapping for Warner in week 10, I could see the call for collusion but this is simply a two part trade that includes a kicker swap.

I think it's fair to call this cheating the system to avoid paying transaction fees, but it certainly is not Collusion.

Do you have a rule against "unfair advantage" or "collusion"?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

People, say hello to TEAM B!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Regardless of who I am, it doesn't change the facts. The facts are that neither team is gaining an unfair advantage over an opposing team through this trade and therefore not collusion as the title of your post suggests? Again, perhaps it was a player swap but to say that it would give me a benefit in week 8 with Carney or him a benefit in week 9 with Rodgers @ Tennessee is simply ######ed. You came crying here to these boards about and then had to make it personal so obviously you had a problem with the trade, we acknowledged that, and adjusted it to what you considered fair ( the trade went Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward for Cassell, Forte, and Dunn with nothing changing hands in week 10)Team A and I never tried to hide what we were doing or conspire to beat other teams and the trade wasn't rigged to give one team an unfair advantage over another so you can't call it Collusion. End of story.

typing "end of story" rarely ends the story.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Here's why it is collusion. Collusion doesn't have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Collusion involves two (or more teams) working together (that's the "co" in collusion) to get around the rules of your league. By "lending" each other players, you are getting around the rules of your league, therefore it is collusion.

You are wrong, sir.Collusion is by definition is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, defraud, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties.1) Our league has no official rule against "player swapping"2) We didn't make this trade secret since we discussed it with two_dollars who came crying foul here.3) Neither player gained any sort of advantage from this that would give either team an unfair advantage in any of the weeks involvedBy the very definition, it is not collusion.

so according to your definition as long as you are openly colluding with another team is it ok? You have removed the element of secrecy?2 teams "roster sharing" is forbidden in any league I've ever heard of.

 

[PoolShark]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too.

Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.

That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!"

Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

sharing players = collusion. You can't say it's sharing players but not collusion.

As I said, I guess it depends on your definition & interpretation of collusion, especially as it relates to fantasy football. Directly & specifically as it relates to FF, in fact. Personally, I've never seen an online Bible of fantasy football. Collusion is a pretty vague term when you get right down to it. Rules however can be quite specific. If a league has no rules about trading a player back later in the season, exactly what rule is being broken? I've seen numerous posts about leagues that DO allow tradebacks, just not within a specific period of time (I think someone posted 4 weeks earlier in this thread, as one example). Does the fact that this trade back takes place in 2 weeks instead of 4 suddenly make it collusion? Does the fact that it was agreed upon ahead of time make it collusion? What it the owners didn't decide until later to perform the additional trade? Would simply trading Rodgers back to a team he had already been traded from constitute collusion? Collusion is a completely unspecific term. You can't just put "no collusion" in your rules & walk away. I'm not arguing FOR this specific trade & saying it's ok (it's not IMO). I don't want trades like this taking place in my league, therefore we have rules that prevent them. If every league had specific rules, not simply a vague "no collusion" rule or nothing at all, these annoying "is this collusion" threads wouldn't be all over the board every week. Do scoring rules say "WRs get points for receiving yards" or do they specify exactly how many points they get? This is no different. Rules need to be specific.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

It is collusion, end of story.. neither you or (Team A) see it, but it is.. you are lending him rodgers in place of warner just to get the trade done so you have a bigger advantage over a rival due to a matchup, when that is done, you will give him the player he wanted. You are COLLUDING against that rival!

 

[hove]

Best. Thread. Ever.

/Really happy one of the teams showed up to post here. Hoping for more drama.

 

[MCguidance]

Collusion. Team B can sit here all day and say, "It's not collusion because..." The fact of the matter is, you're not only involved in the trade, making your judgment faulty, it's also wrong since your definition of collusion is off base. You're assuming everyone always benefits from the trade, but that's assuming perfect information and an absence of irrational thinking. The trade should be voided and you should be put on probation, since clearly you cannot operate under the "good faith" standard.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too. Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!" Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

you are right. they could have done the first trade. waited two weaks, and done the next trade. And that would be cheating. I think the attacks on the integrity of the teams was out of line, but I think that they just didn't understand what colluison was frankly.

 

[PatsFanCT]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too.

Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.

That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!"

Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

sharing players = collusion. You can't say it's sharing players but not collusion.

As I said, I guess it depends on your definition & interpretation of collusion, especially as it relates to fantasy football. Directly & specifically as it relates to FF, in fact. Personally, I've never seen an online Bible of fantasy football. Collusion is a pretty vague term when you get right down to it. Rules however can be quite specific. If a league has no rules about trading a player back later in the season, exactly what rule is being broken? I've seen numerous posts about leagues that DO allow tradebacks, just not within a specific period of time (I think someone posted 4 weeks earlier in this thread, as one example). Does the fact that this trade back takes place in 2 weeks instead of 4 suddenly make it collusion? Does the fact that it was agreed upon ahead of time make it collusion? What it the owners didn't decide until later to perform the additional trade? Would simply trading Rodgers back to a team he had already been traded from constitute collusion? Collusion is a completely unspecific term. You can't just put "no collusion" in your rules & walk away. I'm not arguing FOR this specific trade & saying it's ok (it's not IMO). I don't want trades like this taking place in my league, therefore we have rules that prevent them. If every league had specific rules, not simply a vague "no collusion" rule or nothing at all, these annoying "is this collusion" threads wouldn't be all over the board every week. Do scoring rules say "WRs get points for receiving yards" or do they specify exactly how many points they get? This is no different. Rules need to be specific.

Listen Team A, You guys are trading for bye week fill in's so you can beat the team you're playing against with a good starting QB, rather than having to pick up Dan Orlovsky. If you can't see that as collusion, you can't see anything.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The problem with these discussions is the definition of the term "collusion" - which always involves an element of secrecy and fraud or deceit. If all terms of a proposed trade are announced in full, publicly to the entire league (including any player loan or "trade-back" elements of the deal), then the trade by definition is absolutely not "collusion".

The question then becomes whether the league rules allow the trade or not. Many/most league rules prohibit player loans or "trade-backs" of this nature.

 

[PoolShark]

you are right. they could have done the first trade. waited two weaks, and done the next trade. And that would be cheating. I think the attacks on the integrity of the teams was out of line, but I think that they just didn't understand what colluison was frankly.

Please explain how it's "cheating" if the league rules allow a player to be traded back to his original team.

 

[khenn]

Collusion. Team B can sit here all day and say, "It's not collusion because..." The fact of the matter is, you're not only involved in the trade, making your judgment faulty, it's also wrong since your definition of collusion is off base. You're assuming everyone always benefits from the trade, but that's assuming perfect information and an absence of irrational thinking. The trade should be voided and you should be put on probation, since clearly you cannot operate under the "good faith" standard.

READ THE THREAD. THE TRADE NEVER HAPPENED.Seriously, I know it's two pages long, but it really irritates me when people like you stop after reading the 3rd post of a 2 page thread, jump to conclusions, and then offer up some unrelated opinion.For those of you who do read, the point of the thread was to discuss whether or not this trade, had it gone through, would be considered collusion.AGAIN:THE TRADE NEVER HAPPENED.The final trade was:Rodgers, Ward, and JacobsforForte, Cassell, and DunnEnd of trade. No week 10.

 

[khenn]

The problem with these discussions is the definition of the term "collusion" - which always involves an element of secrecy and fraud or deceit. If all terms of a proposed trade are announced in full, publicly to the entire league (including any player loan or "trade-back" elements of the deal), then the trade by definition is absolutely not "collusion".The question then becomes whether the league rules allow the trade or not. Many/most league rules prohibit player loans or "trade-backs" of this nature.

Finally someone who understands my point of view =)

 

[PoolShark]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too.

Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.

That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!"

Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

sharing players = collusion. You can't say it's sharing players but not collusion.

As I said, I guess it depends on your definition & interpretation of collusion, especially as it relates to fantasy football. Directly & specifically as it relates to FF, in fact. Personally, I've never seen an online Bible of fantasy football. Collusion is a pretty vague term when you get right down to it. Rules however can be quite specific. If a league has no rules about trading a player back later in the season, exactly what rule is being broken? I've seen numerous posts about leagues that DO allow tradebacks, just not within a specific period of time (I think someone posted 4 weeks earlier in this thread, as one example). Does the fact that this trade back takes place in 2 weeks instead of 4 suddenly make it collusion? Does the fact that it was agreed upon ahead of time make it collusion? What it the owners didn't decide until later to perform the additional trade? Would simply trading Rodgers back to a team he had already been traded from constitute collusion? Collusion is a completely unspecific term. You can't just put "no collusion" in your rules & walk away. I'm not arguing FOR this specific trade & saying it's ok (it's not IMO). I don't want trades like this taking place in my league, therefore we have rules that prevent them. If every league had specific rules, not simply a vague "no collusion" rule or nothing at all, these annoying "is this collusion" threads wouldn't be all over the board every week. Do scoring rules say "WRs get points for receiving yards" or do they specify exactly how many points they get? This is no different. Rules need to be specific.

Listen Team A, You guys are trading for bye week fill in's so you can beat the team you're playing against with a good starting QB, rather than having to pick up Dan Orlovsky. If you can't see that as collusion, you can't see anything.

If you seriously want to argue a point, you might want to actually contradict at least something that the other poster has to say. You quote my post, then say absolutely nothing about anything I wrote. I'm still not Team A. I play in 2 leagues & own Rodgers in both, and I'm relatively certain no trade is taking place with him involved.

Please provide a link to this mythical place where collusion in fantasy football is defined, so I can "see it" as you do.

 

[two_dollars]

Easy there (Team B) Khenn! We still like to discuss principle based on what the original trade was. I know you finally came around, and glad you guys adjusted the trade.

For the record, Team A is not in this thread, but talking to him on the phone, he thinks it's a grey area, and he's the commish. We agreed to define this for next year in case this scenario comes up again.

 

[PoolShark]

The problem with these discussions is the definition of the term "collusion" - which always involves an element of secrecy and fraud or deceit. If all terms of a proposed trade are announced in full, publicly to the entire league (including any player loan or "trade-back" elements of the deal), then the trade by definition is absolutely not "collusion".The question then becomes whether the league rules allow the trade or not. Many/most league rules prohibit player loans or "trade-backs" of this nature.

Amazing...someone else with common sense. Feel free to contribute, but bear in mind that I got here first & therefore have dibs on being Team A*** ***Disclaimer: I'm not really Team A, but I play one on a message board.

 

[khenn]

Easy there (Team B) Khenn! We still like to discuss principle based on what the original trade was. I know you finally came around, and glad you guys adjusted the trade.For the record, Team A is not in this thread, but talking to him on the phone, he thinks it's a grey area, and he's the commish. We agreed to define this for next year in case this scenario comes up again.

I don't mind discussing principal, but that's not what half of the people in this thread are doing. They are simply attacking me for something that never happened.As for "coming around", I still don't think it's collusion I just gave up my argument because I understand why you think it is.

 

[Christo]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage.

I stopped reading here.

 

[khenn]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage.

I stopped reading here.

Then why are you still posting?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage.

I stopped reading here.

Then why are you still posting?

 

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

THIS week 2 players are trading.

Team A is sending Forte, Dunn, Carney, and Cassel

Team B is sending Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward

THEN they agreed in week 10 to continue the trade:

Team B is sending Rodgers because he wants Warner for the next few weeks, when he will then trade Warner to Team A for Rodgers, who team A originally wanted. He will also send Carney back to Team A because he has Tynes and needs Carney to cover Crosby's (Team B's current kicker) BYE week.

Here's why this is not Collusion. First of all, Collusion would have to involve one team getting a clear advantage.

I stopped reading here.

Then why are you still posting?

Maybe you should answer that question too...

 

[Sweeper]

Until two_dollar pointed out that I was gaining a clear advantage in having Forte in week 9, I hadn't heard an argument that made this a clear case of Collusion. Regardless of what you think, the attacks on my integrity are unfair since we acknowledged that one of the players in our league had a beef and we DIDN'T MAKE THIS TRADE.

While I can see how this could be construed as collusion now, I still don't think it is since our intent was never to "gang up" or unfairly stack up our teams to beat another team in the league. Collusion does imply intent. Even two_dollar will agree that both Team A and I play by the rules and tend to be fair about things. I could make the argument that Warner and Rodgers are pretty much a wash, but I can't make the argument that Forte and Jacobs are so therefore I will concede this argument.

Regardless of you intentions and honesty about the terms of the trade, this is collusion. I understand you were honest and don't think collusion was your intention but the terms of this trade are. Yes, collusion is usually secretive but trades are not supposed to include the future acts, agreements or conditions of any kind. Once the trade is over, it is over. To have a condition that does not happen for a few weeks is unfair.

Also, this condition is unenforceable. If the other team refuses to swap back players in a few weeks, there is no way to make him.

 

[Sweeper]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too.

Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.

That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!"

Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

sharing players = collusion. You can't say it's sharing players but not collusion.

As I said, I guess it depends on your definition & interpretation of collusion, especially as it relates to fantasy football. Directly & specifically as it relates to FF, in fact. Personally, I've never seen an online Bible of fantasy football. Collusion is a pretty vague term when you get right down to it. Rules however can be quite specific. If a league has no rules about trading a player back later in the season, exactly what rule is being broken? I've seen numerous posts about leagues that DO allow tradebacks, just not within a specific period of time (I think someone posted 4 weeks earlier in this thread, as one example). Does the fact that this trade back takes place in 2 weeks instead of 4 suddenly make it collusion? Does the fact that it was agreed upon ahead of time make it collusion? What it the owners didn't decide until later to perform the additional trade? Would simply trading Rodgers back to a team he had already been traded from constitute collusion? Collusion is a completely unspecific term. You can't just put "no collusion" in your rules & walk away. I'm not arguing FOR this specific trade & saying it's ok (it's not IMO). I don't want trades like this taking place in my league, therefore we have rules that prevent them. If every league had specific rules, not simply a vague "no collusion" rule or nothing at all, these annoying "is this collusion" threads wouldn't be all over the board every week. Do scoring rules say "WRs get points for receiving yards" or do they specify exactly how many points they get? This is no different. Rules need to be specific.

Listen Team A, You guys are trading for bye week fill in's so you can beat the team you're playing against with a good starting QB, rather than having to pick up Dan Orlovsky. If you can't see that as collusion, you can't see anything.

If you seriously want to argue a point, you might want to actually contradict at least something that the other poster has to say. You quote my post, then say absolutely nothing about anything I wrote. I'm still not Team A. I play in 2 leagues & own Rodgers in both, and I'm relatively certain no trade is taking place with him involved.



Please provide a link to this mythical place where collusion in fantasy football is defined, so I can "see it" as you do.

There used to be a thread that was pinned that was titled "RULES TO HAVE - How to avoid problems" that did an excellent job of listing most rules and had a fantastic definition of collusion. Let me look for it.

 

[Wreckincrew]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too.

Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.

That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!"

Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

sharing players = collusion. You can't say it's sharing players but not collusion.

As I said, I guess it depends on your definition & interpretation of collusion, especially as it relates to fantasy football. Directly & specifically as it relates to FF, in fact. Personally, I've never seen an online Bible of fantasy football. Collusion is a pretty vague term when you get right down to it. Rules however can be quite specific. If a league has no rules about trading a player back later in the season, exactly what rule is being broken? I've seen numerous posts about leagues that DO allow tradebacks, just not within a specific period of time (I think someone posted 4 weeks earlier in this thread, as one example). Does the fact that this trade back takes place in 2 weeks instead of 4 suddenly make it collusion? Does the fact that it was agreed upon ahead of time make it collusion? What it the owners didn't decide until later to perform the additional trade? Would simply trading Rodgers back to a team he had already been traded from constitute collusion? Collusion is a completely unspecific term. You can't just put "no collusion" in your rules & walk away. I'm not arguing FOR this specific trade & saying it's ok (it's not IMO). I don't want trades like this taking place in my league, therefore we have rules that prevent them. If every league had specific rules, not simply a vague "no collusion" rule or nothing at all, these annoying "is this collusion" threads wouldn't be all over the board every week. Do scoring rules say "WRs get points for receiving yards" or do they specify exactly how many points they get? This is no different. Rules need to be specific.

Listen Team A, You guys are trading for bye week fill in's so you can beat the team you're playing against with a good starting QB, rather than having to pick up Dan Orlovsky. If you can't see that as collusion, you can't see anything.

If you seriously want to argue a point, you might want to actually contradict at least something that the other poster has to say. You quote my post, then say absolutely nothing about anything I wrote. I'm still not Team A. I play in 2 leagues & own Rodgers in both, and I'm relatively certain no trade is taking place with him involved.



Please provide a link to this mythical place where collusion in fantasy football is defined, so I can "see it" as you do.

There used to be a thread that was pinned that was titled "RULES TO HAVE - How to avoid problems" that did an excellent job of listing most rules and had a fantastic definition of collusion. Let me look for it.

OK, go ahead. But raise your hand next time.

 

[Sweeper]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too.

Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.

That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!"

Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

sharing players = collusion. You can't say it's sharing players but not collusion.

As I said, I guess it depends on your definition & interpretation of collusion, especially as it relates to fantasy football. Directly & specifically as it relates to FF, in fact. Personally, I've never seen an online Bible of fantasy football. Collusion is a pretty vague term when you get right down to it. Rules however can be quite specific. If a league has no rules about trading a player back later in the season, exactly what rule is being broken? I've seen numerous posts about leagues that DO allow tradebacks, just not within a specific period of time (I think someone posted 4 weeks earlier in this thread, as one example). Does the fact that this trade back takes place in 2 weeks instead of 4 suddenly make it collusion? Does the fact that it was agreed upon ahead of time make it collusion? What it the owners didn't decide until later to perform the additional trade? Would simply trading Rodgers back to a team he had already been traded from constitute collusion? Collusion is a completely unspecific term. You can't just put "no collusion" in your rules & walk away. I'm not arguing FOR this specific trade & saying it's ok (it's not IMO). I don't want trades like this taking place in my league, therefore we have rules that prevent them. If every league had specific rules, not simply a vague "no collusion" rule or nothing at all, these annoying "is this collusion" threads wouldn't be all over the board every week. Do scoring rules say "WRs get points for receiving yards" or do they specify exactly how many points they get? This is no different. Rules need to be specific.

Listen Team A, You guys are trading for bye week fill in's so you can beat the team you're playing against with a good starting QB, rather than having to pick up Dan Orlovsky. If you can't see that as collusion, you can't see anything.

If you seriously want to argue a point, you might want to actually contradict at least something that the other poster has to say. You quote my post, then say absolutely nothing about anything I wrote. I'm still not Team A. I play in 2 leagues & own Rodgers in both, and I'm relatively certain no trade is taking place with him involved.



Please provide a link to this mythical place where collusion in fantasy football is defined, so I can "see it" as you do.

There used to be a thread that was pinned that was titled "RULES TO HAVE - How to avoid problems" that did an excellent job of listing most rules and had a fantastic definition of collusion. Let me look for it.

OK, go ahead. But raise your hand next time.

I think it went boom.

 

[Wreckincrew]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't agree that this is "collusion" either. I guess it depends on your definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football. If you want to say it's "shady," ok, I might buy that. Sharing players, ok I'll buy that too.

Realisticly, they could have went through with the first trade today, and the 2nd a few weeks from now, and everyone would have said "it's fine...all trades should be allowed." Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think either portion of the deal is heavily lopsided one way or another.

That said, the league I run has rules in place that prevent this type of deal: trading back players, trades that also include future deals that are agreed upon now but don't take place until later, etc. I don't agree that this type of thing should take place, but I think everyone is going a little overboard with the cries of "Collusion! Collusion!"

Someone posted earlier that the "secretive" part wasn't essential, but I disagree. If this had been worked out & agreed upon in secret, it probably would have went through & no one would have cared. They're up front about the deal, and they're called "cheaters," etc. That's kind of excessive for simply trying to cover a couple byes within the trade they're putting together, IMO. If you don't want trades like this to be legal, set rules that prevent it.

sharing players = collusion. You can't say it's sharing players but not collusion.

As I said, I guess it depends on your definition & interpretation of collusion, especially as it relates to fantasy football. Directly & specifically as it relates to FF, in fact. Personally, I've never seen an online Bible of fantasy football. Collusion is a pretty vague term when you get right down to it. Rules however can be quite specific. If a league has no rules about trading a player back later in the season, exactly what rule is being broken? I've seen numerous posts about leagues that DO allow tradebacks, just not within a specific period of time (I think someone posted 4 weeks earlier in this thread, as one example). Does the fact that this trade back takes place in 2 weeks instead of 4 suddenly make it collusion? Does the fact that it was agreed upon ahead of time make it collusion? What it the owners didn't decide until later to perform the additional trade? Would simply trading Rodgers back to a team he had already been traded from constitute collusion? Collusion is a completely unspecific term. You can't just put "no collusion" in your rules & walk away. I'm not arguing FOR this specific trade & saying it's ok (it's not IMO). I don't want trades like this taking place in my league, therefore we have rules that prevent them. If every league had specific rules, not simply a vague "no collusion" rule or nothing at all, these annoying "is this collusion" threads wouldn't be all over the board every week. Do scoring rules say "WRs get points for receiving yards" or do they specify exactly how many points they get? This is no different. Rules need to be specific.

Listen Team A, You guys are trading for bye week fill in's so you can beat the team you're playing against with a good starting QB, rather than having to pick up Dan Orlovsky. If you can't see that as collusion, you can't see anything.

If you seriously want to argue a point, you might want to actually contradict at least something that the other poster has to say. You quote my post, then say absolutely nothing about anything I wrote. I'm still not Team A. I play in 2 leagues & own Rodgers in both, and I'm relatively certain no trade is taking place with him involved.



Please provide a link to this mythical place where collusion in fantasy football is defined, so I can "see it" as you do.

There used to be a thread that was pinned that was titled "RULES TO HAVE - How to avoid problems" that did an excellent job of listing most rules and had a fantastic definition of collusion. Let me look for it.

OK, go ahead. But raise your hand next time.

I think it went boom.

Fine. See if I let you look for anything again.

 

[hellz_fireflies]

I bet Team A and Team B be pissed off if other teams in that league pulled this stunt against them!

Believe all in that league are reading this thread...you guys can do it too..trade your bye week players for another and get them back on an agreed week...

Must be fun playing in the idiotic league!!!!

 

[PoolShark]

There used to be a thread that was pinned that was titled "RULES TO HAVE - How to avoid problems" that did an excellent job of listing most rules and had a fantastic definition of collusion. Let me look for it.

This is pretty much my whole point. There is a definite need for "having rules to avoid problems." The issue is that the league in question apparently doesn't. "Collusion" isn't a FF term, it's just a word (with a general definition). A rule simply prohibiting "collusion" is far too vague & open to interpretation. You may as well not have a rule at all if it's not going to prevent/solve problems. Obviously whatever rules this league had do not properly address the situation, or this thread wouldn't exist. I don't remember a specific pinned thread, but the rules we use in my league came from somewhere on this board (actually, the old board), and that's going back quite a few years. It shouldn't be too difficult to come up with something solid given the 1000s of combined leagues the members here play in.

 

[AB in DC]

Anything trade involving future considerations should be considered collusion. Just like if you trade a player for cash or something else outside of the game.

Each trade has to stand on its own merits, based on just the players involved in the trade.

 

[GregR_2]

There used to be a thread that was pinned that was titled "RULES TO HAVE - How to avoid problems" that did an excellent job of listing most rules and had a fantastic definition of collusion. Let me look for it.

OK, go ahead. But raise your hand next time.

I think it went boom.

Nah, it didn't go boom. I still update it as I see new stuff. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=272290Here's the applicable section for here. Note that in the thread I'm trying to point out things people should cover, and what loopholes exist in common wordings. It isn't meant to be a definitive set of rules as I would set them up, which would definitely spell this stuff out. But here's what I have in it on this topic:

11) There is a class of issues which depending on your league may or may not be considered acceptable behavior/sportsmanship. Be specific as to if they will be allowed or not. They include:

1. Starting a player on bye week

2. Tanking a game (such as to get a better playoff matchup. In some leagues situations can arise where an owner may have a better chance at making the playoffs himself by losing which changes division and wildcard tiebreaks to ones he can win.)

3. Making trades that result in worsening your team in order to stock another team who plays a rival you want/need to lose.

4. Firesales (in keeper/dynasty leagues)

5. Using waivers to make a trade after the trade deadline.

6. "Loaning" players. (i.e. "I'll trade you my backup defense, but you have to give it back after your bye week.").

7. Two-part trades. ("You give me LT this week and I'll give you LJ next week," or, "Here's a 3 player for 3 player trade, but I don't want to give you my RB until next week. Let's trade the other 2 for 2 now and agree to swap the remaining players next week")

-- The biggest problem here isn't whether you allow them or don't. It's that some owners may think they are fine while others consider them questionable at best or cheating at worst. The conflict is worse when both sides have a different expectation of whether it is allowed. Be explicit if you allow it, and what the consequences are for doing it if not allowed. Put it out there so your owners have to accept they chose to play in a league that allows/doesn't allow it, and that you resolved the situation exactly as the rules indicated you should.

 

[daveR]

It seems to me that you have to consider the negative side to establish collusion. That is, is someone intentionally hurting his team? If not -- if you are doing what you consider best for your chances to win, then cooperation must exist in all trades. It can be argued that portions of this agreement do not benefit each team and therefore portions are collusive.

 

[treat88]

Seems like a lot of lawyers in this thread.

Does a league really need an ironclad, airtight definition of every potential scenario that might constitute collusion?

I get the trade didn't happen, but the teams involved knew what they were doing was questionable.

It was honorable to withdraw the move. It would have been more honorable never to have proposed the move cause they knew it was basically unethical to begin with.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Would this still be considered collusion in a total points league? If both sides think they're helping their team and getting a great deal, and no opponents "lose their game" because team A or B had a player on their roster just for that week, are the teams conspiring against the rest of the league?

I always thought that if two teams both genuinely think they're getting a good deal and helping their team, it's not collusion. But I can see the argument that some opponents could lose their game as a result of the timing of such a trade.

I don't need the "it's collusion just because it is" arguments that have nothing behind it. We get enough of that during the election season. I just want to know if anyone thinks the format of the league could make it a different scenario.

 

[John Facenda]

Here's why it is collusion. Collusion doesn't have to involve one team getting a clear advantage. Collusion involves two (or more teams) working together (that's the "co" in collusion) to get around the rules of your league. By "lending" each other players, you are getting around the rules of your league, therefore it is collusion.

You are wrong, sir.Collusion is by definition is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, defraud, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties.

1) Our league has no official rule against "player swapping"

2) We didn't make this trade secret since we discussed it with two_dollars who came crying foul here.

3) Neither player gained any sort of advantage from this that would give either team an unfair advantage in any of the weeks involved

By the very definition, it is not collusion.

How do you sleep at night?

I would say with "Team A"

 

[MCguidance]

Collusion. Team B can sit here all day and say, "It's not collusion because..." The fact of the matter is, you're not only involved in the trade, making your judgment faulty, it's also wrong since your definition of collusion is off base. You're assuming everyone always benefits from the trade, but that's assuming perfect information and an absence of irrational thinking. The trade should be voided and you should be put on probation, since clearly you cannot operate under the "good faith" standard.

READ THE THREAD. THE TRADE NEVER HAPPENED. Seriously, I know it's two pages long, but it really irritates me when people like you stop after reading the 3rd post of a 2 page thread 40 or 46th post, jump to conclusions, and then offer up some unrelated opinion.

For those of you who do read, the point of the thread was to discuss whether or not this trade, had it gone through, would be considered collusion.

AGAIN:

THE TRADE NEVER HAPPENED.

The final trade was:

Rodgers, Ward, and Jacobs

for

Forte, Cassell, and Dunn

End of trade. No week 10.

Fixed. I read enough in the first 39 posts for me to make a decision that you were colluding. It's the number one rule in FF. You either were too dumb to know it was collusion or thought you could get away with it. And for the record, I still don't think you really get what it means by this sentence:

As for "coming around", I still don't think it's collusion I just gave up my argument because I understand why you think it is.

No, it was collusion the second you guys combined rosters for someone's benefit. Why didn't the trade ever happen? Oh right, because your case was brought before people that actually know FF and told you that you were flat out wrong. /end rant

 

[GregR_2]

Would this still be considered collusion in a total points league? If both sides think they're helping their team and getting a great deal, and no opponents "lose their game" because team A or B had a player on their roster just for that week, are the teams conspiring against the rest of the league?I always thought that if two teams both genuinely think they're getting a good deal and helping their team, it's not collusion. But I can see the argument that some opponents could lose their game as a result of the timing of such a trade. I don't need the "it's collusion just because it is" arguments that have nothing behind it. We get enough of that during the election season. I just want to know if anyone thinks the format of the league could make it a different scenario.

It isn't about whether it's "collusion", it's about whether it is unethical. As a commish I can go change my lineup to my optimum one. It isn't collusion, but it's unethical by most people's beliefs of what constitutes fair play and the spirit of a game, and should still be stopped.No different here. People spend half the thread debating if it's "collusion" and never bother to focus on the real question that should be asked, is it unethical to pool your roster space. There's plenty of ways to commit acts that others would generally consider cheating, where everyone involved benefits in some way.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Would this still be considered collusion in a total points league? If both sides think they're helping their team and getting a great deal, and no opponents "lose their game" because team A or B had a player on their roster just for that week, are the teams conspiring against the rest of the league?I always thought that if two teams both genuinely think they're getting a good deal and helping their team, it's not collusion. But I can see the argument that some opponents could lose their game as a result of the timing of such a trade. I don't need the "it's collusion just because it is" arguments that have nothing behind it. We get enough of that during the election season. I just want to know if anyone thinks the format of the league could make it a different scenario.

It isn't about whether it's "collusion", it's about whether it is unethical. As a commish I can go change my lineup to my optimum one. It isn't collusion, but it's unethical by most people's beliefs of what constitutes fair play and the spirit of a game, and should still be stopped.No different here. People spend half the thread debating if it's "collusion" and never bother to focus on the real question that should be asked, is it unethical to pool your roster space. There's plenty of ways to commit acts that others would generally consider cheating, where everyone involved benefits in some way.

I see what you're saying. "unethical" is definitely the right standard as opposed to "collusion." But I don't reaslly see it as true roster sharing. I see it as one guy going "Yes, I'll make this trade but only under the parameters that I get this player until this week." It's not like they both can pick through a pool of players; that's roster sharing. here it's limited to one guy keeping a certain player for a certain number of weeks in order to agree to the deal.I think the key is, if both parts of the trade can stand on their own then they should be considered separate and allowed to be executed separately. I mentioned total points leagues because nobody faces a more dificult opponent as a result of the timing. In this case, I think both teams honestly thought they were helping their team. But the "victims" would be the opponents who have to face a more talented team as a result due to the parameters. In total points that's not the case so it might be different. I can see why people have a problem with it. But if they weren't trying to screw the league over I don't think they should be treated like enemies or bad owners. I wonder how those "if it's not in the rules you have to allow it" folks feel about this.

 

[treat88]

It isn't about whether it's "collusion", it's about whether it is unethical.

Exactly.However some folks would seem to require written bulletproof definitions of both ethical and unethical in the league rules to comply.Be honorable and there are no problems.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Would this still be considered collusion in a total points league? If both sides think they're helping their team and getting a great deal, and no opponents "lose their game" because team A or B had a player on their roster just for that week, are the teams conspiring against the rest of the league?

I always thought that if two teams both genuinely think they're getting a good deal and helping their team, it's not collusion. But I can see the argument that some opponents could lose their game as a result of the timing of such a trade.

I don't need the "it's collusion just because it is" arguments that have nothing behind it. We get enough of that during the election season. I just want to know if anyone thinks the format of the league could make it a different scenario.

It isn't about whether it's "collusion", it's about whether it is unethical. As a commish I can go change my lineup to my optimum one. It isn't collusion, but it's unethical by most people's beliefs of what constitutes fair play and the spirit of a game, and should still be stopped.No different here. People spend half the thread debating if it's "collusion" and never bother to focus on the real question that should be asked, is it unethical to pool your roster space. There's plenty of ways to commit acts that others would generally consider cheating, where everyone involved benefits in some way.

BINGO! We need to stop dissecting the word collusion. Just simply ask yourself, "If I wasn't the one doing this - would I feel cheated? Actually I take that back - after some of the posts I've read here, not everyone is able to muster that level of self honesty.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Would this still be considered collusion in a total points league? If both sides think they're helping their team and getting a great deal, and no opponents "lose their game" because team A or B had a player on their roster just for that week, are the teams conspiring against the rest of the league?

I always thought that if two teams both genuinely think they're getting a good deal and helping their team, it's not collusion. But I can see the argument that some opponents could lose their game as a result of the timing of such a trade.

I don't need the "it's collusion just because it is" arguments that have nothing behind it. We get enough of that during the election season. I just want to know if anyone thinks the format of the league could make it a different scenario.

It isn't about whether it's "collusion", it's about whether it is unethical. As a commish I can go change my lineup to my optimum one. It isn't collusion, but it's unethical by most people's beliefs of what constitutes fair play and the spirit of a game, and should still be stopped.No different here. People spend half the thread debating if it's "collusion" and never bother to focus on the real question that should be asked, is it unethical to pool your roster space. There's plenty of ways to commit acts that others would generally consider cheating, where everyone involved benefits in some way.

BINGO! We need to stop dissecting the word collusion. Just simply ask yourself, "If I wasn't the one doing this - would I feel cheated? Actually I take that back - after some of the posts I've read here, not everyone is able to muster that level of self honesty.

This makes no sense. The thread title reads, "Is this collusion"? In order to discuss that topic, you necessarily have to understand what the word means. Under the common understanding of that word, the trade listed here is quite plainly not collusive in any respect, as there is no secrecy, fraud or deceit involved. Such things can't possibly be present when all essential terms of the deal are publicly announced in advance for the whole league to see and consider. Whether someone not party to the deal "feels cheated" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. OF COURSE THIS DOESN'T MEAN THE TRADE IS LEGAL, ETHICAL OR GENERALLY A GOOD IDEA.We all agree that trades of this nature may be illegal in some leagues, but to have that discussion we have to have the league rules in question, or the discussion is entirely meaningless. If we want to discuss ethics, that seems to be an entirely different discussion. For example, in some leagues we can trade players for draft picks the following year. In other leagues that is not allowed. Does that mean this is an ethical issue? Of course not, it all depends on what the league rules say.

 

[duece2626]

Would this still be considered collusion in a total points league? If both sides think they're helping their team and getting a great deal, and no opponents "lose their game" because team A or B had a player on their roster just for that week, are the teams conspiring against the rest of the league?

I always thought that if two teams both genuinely think they're getting a good deal and helping their team, it's not collusion. But I can see the argument that some opponents could lose their game as a result of the timing of such a trade.

I don't need the "it's collusion just because it is" arguments that have nothing behind it. We get enough of that during the election season. I just want to know if anyone thinks the format of the league could make it a different scenario.

It isn't about whether it's "collusion", it's about whether it is unethical. As a commish I can go change my lineup to my optimum one. It isn't collusion, but it's unethical by most people's beliefs of what constitutes fair play and the spirit of a game, and should still be stopped.No different here. People spend half the thread debating if it's "collusion" and never bother to focus on the real question that should be asked, is it unethical to pool your roster space. There's plenty of ways to commit acts that others would generally consider cheating, where everyone involved benefits in some way.

BINGO! We need to stop dissecting the word collusion. Just simply ask yourself, "If I wasn't the one doing this - would I feel cheated? Actually I take that back - after some of the posts I've read here, not everyone is able to muster that level of self honesty.

This makes no sense. The thread title reads, "Is this collusion"? In order to discuss that topic, you necessarily have to understand what the word means. Under the common understanding of that word, the trade listed here is quite plainly not collusive in any respect, as there is no secrecy, fraud or deceit involved. Such things can't possibly be present when all essential terms of the deal are publicly announced in advance for the whole league to see and consider. Whether someone not party to the deal "feels cheated" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. OF COURSE THIS DOESN'T MEAN THE TRADE IS LEGAL, ETHICAL OR GENERALLY A GOOD IDEA.We all agree that trades of this nature may be illegal in some leagues, but to have that discussion we have to have the league rules in question, or the discussion is entirely meaningless. If we want to discuss ethics, that seems to be an entirely different discussion. For example, in some leagues we can trade players for draft picks the following year. In other leagues that is not allowed. Does that mean this is an ethical issue? Of course not, it all depends on what the league rules say.

Doesn't have to be "secretive" in order to be collusion.

 

[GoldenBear]

Collusion is like pornography: in the words of Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material but I know it when I see it.”

 

[GregR_2]

Would this still be considered collusion in a total points league? If both sides think they're helping their team and getting a great deal, and no opponents "lose their game" because team A or B had a player on their roster just for that week, are the teams conspiring against the rest of the league?

I always thought that if two teams both genuinely think they're getting a good deal and helping their team, it's not collusion. But I can see the argument that some opponents could lose their game as a result of the timing of such a trade.

I don't need the "it's collusion just because it is" arguments that have nothing behind it. We get enough of that during the election season. I just want to know if anyone thinks the format of the league could make it a different scenario.

It isn't about whether it's "collusion", it's about whether it is unethical. As a commish I can go change my lineup to my optimum one. It isn't collusion, but it's unethical by most people's beliefs of what constitutes fair play and the spirit of a game, and should still be stopped.No different here. People spend half the thread debating if it's "collusion" and never bother to focus on the real question that should be asked, is it unethical to pool your roster space. There's plenty of ways to commit acts that others would generally consider cheating, where everyone involved benefits in some way.

BINGO! We need to stop dissecting the word collusion. Just simply ask yourself, "If I wasn't the one doing this - would I feel cheated? Actually I take that back - after some of the posts I've read here, not everyone is able to muster that level of self honesty.

This makes no sense. The thread title reads, "Is this collusion"? In order to discuss that topic, you necessarily have to understand what the word means. Under the common understanding of that word, the trade listed here is quite plainly not collusive in any respect, as there is no secrecy, fraud or deceit involved. Such things can't possibly be present when all essential terms of the deal are publicly announced in advance for the whole league to see and consider. Whether someone not party to the deal "feels cheated" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. OF COURSE THIS DOESN'T MEAN THE TRADE IS LEGAL, ETHICAL OR GENERALLY A GOOD IDEA.We all agree that trades of this nature may be illegal in some leagues, but to have that discussion we have to have the league rules in question, or the discussion is entirely meaningless. If we want to discuss ethics, that seems to be an entirely different discussion. For example, in some leagues we can trade players for draft picks the following year. In other leagues that is not allowed. Does that mean this is an ethical issue? Of course not, it all depends on what the league rules say.

In understanding what the word means, shouldn't we realize that many people use "collusion" as a very general term for a range of unethical actions, not all of which fit the more specific dictionary definition? And recognizing this, then answer the question it seems the OP was trying to ask (or should have asked) which is, "is this action unethical?"

ETA: To use a wording that MT uses which seems appropriate... "I'm going to answer the question I think you meant to ask..."

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Would this still be considered collusion in a total points league? If both sides think they're helping their team and getting a great deal, and no opponents "lose their game" because team A or B had a player on their roster just for that week, are the teams conspiring against the rest of the league?

I always thought that if two teams both genuinely think they're getting a good deal and helping their team, it's not collusion. But I can see the argument that some opponents could lose their game as a result of the timing of such a trade.

I don't need the "it's collusion just because it is" arguments that have nothing behind it. We get enough of that during the election season. I just want to know if anyone thinks the format of the league could make it a different scenario.

It isn't about whether it's "collusion", it's about whether it is unethical. As a commish I can go change my lineup to my optimum one. It isn't collusion, but it's unethical by most people's beliefs of what constitutes fair play and the spirit of a game, and should still be stopped.No different here. People spend half the thread debating if it's "collusion" and never bother to focus on the real question that should be asked, is it unethical to pool your roster space. There's plenty of ways to commit acts that others would generally consider cheating, where everyone involved benefits in some way.

BINGO! We need to stop dissecting the word collusion. Just simply ask yourself, "If I wasn't the one doing this - would I feel cheated? Actually I take that back - after some of the posts I've read here, not everyone is able to muster that level of self honesty.

This makes no sense. The thread title reads, "Is this collusion"? In order to discuss that topic, you necessarily have to understand what the word means. Under the common understanding of that word, the trade listed here is quite plainly not collusive in any respect, as there is no secrecy, fraud or deceit involved. Such things can't possibly be present when all essential terms of the deal are publicly announced in advance for the whole league to see and consider. Whether someone not party to the deal "feels cheated" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. OF COURSE THIS DOESN'T MEAN THE TRADE IS LEGAL, ETHICAL OR GENERALLY A GOOD IDEA.We all agree that trades of this nature may be illegal in some leagues, but to have that discussion we have to have the league rules in question, or the discussion is entirely meaningless. If we want to discuss ethics, that seems to be an entirely different discussion. For example, in some leagues we can trade players for draft picks the following year. In other leagues that is not allowed. Does that mean this is an ethical issue? Of course not, it all depends on what the league rules say.

In understanding what the word means, shouldn't we realize that many people use "collusion" as a very general term for a range of unethical actions, not all of which fit the more specific dictionary definition? And recognizing this, then answer the question it seems the OP was trying to ask (or should have asked) which is, "is this action unethical?"

ETA: To use a wording that MT uses which seems appropriate... "I'm going to answer the question I think you meant to ask..."

I would not assume the OP was trying to ask a different question than he asked, but I understand the desire to do so. Not to be cute or trite at all, just noting that in many cases a given trade does suggest collusion (meaning, a trade that on its face suggests fraud or deceit). In those cases, the opinions of a large group of disinterested people can be helpful. In this case, I think the answer is clearly no - there is no collusion here - and I think being precise with terminology is helpful in these discussions because some trades are offensive specifically because they are collusive, while others may be non-collusive but nonetheless offensive because they are illegal or unethical. Therefore, I think it is misleading and confusing to say this trade should not be allowed because it amounts to collusion. The reason it is important is because, if you are in a league where this type of thing might happen, it is important to have written rules that set forth was is and is not allowed in clear terms.

 

[GoldenBear]

Would this still be considered collusion in a total points league? If both sides think they're helping their team and getting a great deal, and no opponents "lose their game" because team A or B had a player on their roster just for that week, are the teams conspiring against the rest of the league?

I always thought that if two teams both genuinely think they're getting a good deal and helping their team, it's not collusion. But I can see the argument that some opponents could lose their game as a result of the timing of such a trade.

I don't need the "it's collusion just because it is" arguments that have nothing behind it. We get enough of that during the election season. I just want to know if anyone thinks the format of the league could make it a different scenario.

It isn't about whether it's "collusion", it's about whether it is unethical. As a commish I can go change my lineup to my optimum one. It isn't collusion, but it's unethical by most people's beliefs of what constitutes fair play and the spirit of a game, and should still be stopped.No different here. People spend half the thread debating if it's "collusion" and never bother to focus on the real question that should be asked, is it unethical to pool your roster space. There's plenty of ways to commit acts that others would generally consider cheating, where everyone involved benefits in some way.

BINGO! We need to stop dissecting the word collusion. Just simply ask yourself, "If I wasn't the one doing this - would I feel cheated? Actually I take that back - after some of the posts I've read here, not everyone is able to muster that level of self honesty.

This makes no sense. The thread title reads, "Is this collusion"? In order to discuss that topic, you necessarily have to understand what the word means. Under the common understanding of that word, the trade listed here is quite plainly not collusive in any respect, as there is no secrecy, fraud or deceit involved. Such things can't possibly be present when all essential terms of the deal are publicly announced in advance for the whole league to see and consider. Whether someone not party to the deal "feels cheated" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. OF COURSE THIS DOESN'T MEAN THE TRADE IS LEGAL, ETHICAL OR GENERALLY A GOOD IDEA.We all agree that trades of this nature may be illegal in some leagues, but to have that discussion we have to have the league rules in question, or the discussion is entirely meaningless. If we want to discuss ethics, that seems to be an entirely different discussion. For example, in some leagues we can trade players for draft picks the following year. In other leagues that is not allowed. Does that mean this is an ethical issue? Of course not, it all depends on what the league rules say.

In understanding what the word means, shouldn't we realize that many people use "collusion" as a very general term for a range of unethical actions, not all of which fit the more specific dictionary definition? And recognizing this, then answer the question it seems the OP was trying to ask (or should have asked) which is, "is this action unethical?"

ETA: To use a wording that MT uses which seems appropriate... "I'm going to answer the question I think you meant to ask..."

I would not assume the OP was trying to ask a different question than he asked, but I understand the desire to do so. Not to be cute or trite at all, just noting that in many cases a given trade does suggest collusion (meaning, a trade that on its face suggests fraud or deceit). In those cases, the opinions of a large group of disinterested people can be helpful. In this case, I think the answer is clearly no - there is no collusion here - and I think being precise with terminology is helpful in these discussions because some trades are offensive specifically because they are collusive, while others may be non-collusive but nonetheless offensive because they are illegal or unethical. Therefore, I think it is misleading and confusing to say this trade should not be allowed because it amounts to collusion. The reason it is important is because, if you are in a league where this type of thing might happen, it is important to have written rules that set forth was is and is not allowed in clear terms.

On the contrary, since we're nitpicking semantics here, here's a definition of collusion in financial marketsefinition

In the study of economics and market competition, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit. Collusion most often takes place within the market form of oligopoly, where the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole. Cartels are a special case of explicit collusion. Collusion which is not overt, on the other hand, is known as tacit collusion.

Seems if we're speaking metaphorically, the definition above describes the situation in this thread to a tee.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Would this still be considered collusion in a total points league? If both sides think they're helping their team and getting a great deal, and no opponents "lose their game" because team A or B had a player on their roster just for that week, are the teams conspiring against the rest of the league?

I always thought that if two teams both genuinely think they're getting a good deal and helping their team, it's not collusion. But I can see the argument that some opponents could lose their game as a result of the timing of such a trade.

I don't need the "it's collusion just because it is" arguments that have nothing behind it. We get enough of that during the election season. I just want to know if anyone thinks the format of the league could make it a different scenario.

It isn't about whether it's "collusion", it's about whether it is unethical. As a commish I can go change my lineup to my optimum one. It isn't collusion, but it's unethical by most people's beliefs of what constitutes fair play and the spirit of a game, and should still be stopped.No different here. People spend half the thread debating if it's "collusion" and never bother to focus on the real question that should be asked, is it unethical to pool your roster space. There's plenty of ways to commit acts that others would generally consider cheating, where everyone involved benefits in some way.

BINGO! We need to stop dissecting the word collusion. Just simply ask yourself, "If I wasn't the one doing this - would I feel cheated? Actually I take that back - after some of the posts I've read here, not everyone is able to muster that level of self honesty.

This makes no sense. The thread title reads, "Is this collusion"? In order to discuss that topic, you necessarily have to understand what the word means. Under the common understanding of that word, the trade listed here is quite plainly not collusive in any respect, as there is no secrecy, fraud or deceit involved. Such things can't possibly be present when all essential terms of the deal are publicly announced in advance for the whole league to see and consider. Whether someone not party to the deal "feels cheated" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. OF COURSE THIS DOESN'T MEAN THE TRADE IS LEGAL, ETHICAL OR GENERALLY A GOOD IDEA.We all agree that trades of this nature may be illegal in some leagues, but to have that discussion we have to have the league rules in question, or the discussion is entirely meaningless. If we want to discuss ethics, that seems to be an entirely different discussion. For example, in some leagues we can trade players for draft picks the following year. In other leagues that is not allowed. Does that mean this is an ethical issue? Of course not, it all depends on what the league rules say.

In understanding what the word means, shouldn't we realize that many people use "collusion" as a very general term for a range of unethical actions, not all of which fit the more specific dictionary definition? And recognizing this, then answer the question it seems the OP was trying to ask (or should have asked) which is, "is this action unethical?"

ETA: To use a wording that MT uses which seems appropriate... "I'm going to answer the question I think you meant to ask..."

I would not assume the OP was trying to ask a different question than he asked, but I understand the desire to do so. Not to be cute or trite at all, just noting that in many cases a given trade does suggest collusion (meaning, a trade that on its face suggests fraud or deceit). In those cases, the opinions of a large group of disinterested people can be helpful. In this case, I think the answer is clearly no - there is no collusion here - and I think being precise with terminology is helpful in these discussions because some trades are offensive specifically because they are collusive, while others may be non-collusive but nonetheless offensive because they are illegal or unethical. Therefore, I think it is misleading and confusing to say this trade should not be allowed because it amounts to collusion. The reason it is important is because, if you are in a league where this type of thing might happen, it is important to have written rules that set forth was is and is not allowed in clear terms.

 

[massraider]

People, say hello to TEAM B!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Regardless of who I am, it doesn't change the facts. The facts are that neither team is gaining an unfair advantage over an opposing team through this trade and therefore not collusion as the title of your post suggests? Again, perhaps it was a player swap but to say that it would give me a benefit in week 8 with Carney or him a benefit in week 9 with Rodgers @ Tennessee is simply ######ed. You came crying here to these boards about and then had to make it personal so obviously you had a problem with the trade, we acknowledged that, and adjusted it to what you considered fair ( the trade went Rodgers, Jacobs, and Ward for Cassell, Forte, and Dunn with nothing changing hands in week 10)Team A and I never tried to hide what we were doing or conspire to beat other teams and the trade wasn't rigged to give one team an unfair advantage over another so you can't call it Collusion. End of story.

typing "end of story" rarely ends the story.

Man, that's true.On the bright side, whenever anyone instructs me to 'mark it down', I always do.