Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Borrowing/Loaning (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Wrigley
- Start date
PizzaDeliveryGuy
extra sausage
It is not cool.
Short Corner
Footballguy
definition of collusion
seatownfavorite
Footballguy
The waiver wire is for borrowing. 
TitusIII
Footballguy
Depends on the rules, imo...as it happens all the time in the professional soccer universe. Most are against it, and in a re-draft I am as well, but it doesn't bother me in dynasty formats. The team receiving the player on loan certainly has to pay in some form or another(draft pick/salary cap/waiver money/prospect/etc), or it is certainly collusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrigley
Footballguy
My thoughts too.
Wrigley
Footballguy
redraft, non-keeper
It is wrong. If a player gets dealt back to the previous owner for the same thing, I veto it without question.It is a favor deal, and favor deals are collusion.Trade for some, do not borrow them.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Definition of collusion.
Resident A
Footballguy
Every league should have a rule against player rentals. If yours doesn't, you may get your ###### kicked for doing it, depending on your league of course. 
Last edited by a moderator:
belljr
Footballguy
One league we have a 4 week period.Our other league they cannot be traded back to the original team
Oh Yes!
Footballguy
how is it cheating exactly?team A has a need for this weekteam B has a need for this weekthey both winnote: this isnt me trying to trade, but it might go down and i wanna be armed with reasons as to WHY its actually wrong. instead of "because its cheating"
Johnny Ice
Footballguy
If two owners want to share rosters they should co-manage ONE team.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
This question comes up several times a year and the answer is always the same - it depends on your league's rules. If the rules allow it, it is perfectly acceptable and I think even adds a good strategy element to the game. The concept of collusion necessarily requires that a deal be both secret and illegal. If your league allows rentals or trade-backs, such trades are neither secret nor illegal.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Roster sharing = collusion.
I know it comes up every year, but this is a simple no-brainer policy that should be covered by every league rulebook, regardless of league type.
I know it comes up every year, but this is a simple no-brainer policy that should be covered by every league rulebook, regardless of league type.
John Mamula
Moderator
Because 2 or more teams can potentially pool rosters to beat another team.For example, Team A and Team B are rivals. Team B is playing Team C who is either a friend of Team A, in another Division as Team A, or is just in need of some extra help.Team A has an extra stud RB who is not playing (maybe he drafted RB/RB/RB and you start 2 RB no flex). Team A lends Team C one of his RBs for one week so Team B has a better chance of losing.Team B is now not only playing against Team C, but temporary good players from Team A who Team A will have back when Team B plays him as well.This is inheriently collusion and is the quickest way to implode a league.
Riffraff
Footballguy
And the other 8 to 30 teams in the league lose?When two owners conspire together to get an advantage over the other owners: it's collusion.
So a straight-up trade is collusion as well? Isn't that the very definition of a trade? Two owners benefiting?
Why in the world would team A trade their stud RB? You've yet to specify any benefit for Team A in this situation. If Team A were dumb enough to do this, and I were Team B, I would try to trade for the aforementioned stud RB. If Team C were unwilling to trade, then I wouldn't worry about them - because they obviously don't care about winning.
Wrigley
Footballguy
It's a one week player rental.Heads need to roll.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh Yes!
Footballguy
yup, this is what i was looking for. this guy is fairly new to FF and loves trading and doesnt always understand how things work. i knew that it was wrong, but just not how to word it to himIf two owners want to share rosters they should co-manage ONE team.
Riffraff
Footballguy
The original question is if two owners do two straight up trades.In a normal trade scenario, usually a player being traded is open for trade amongst all owners (for the right price), not for trading and snag back a week later. Collusion is the conspiring part where the two owners agree to dupe the league and agree behind the scenes to give the players back. In a normal trade, there is no conspiring to get the player(s) back.
The situation is inherently flawed though. I don't think you are grasping that concept. One team loses when they trade the player back. Why would they do that?
cubbie5150
Footballguy
My redraft league has been together for 14 years now, and this used to be a major problem for us. The problem w/ using the idea of a trade veto is that only the second trade (where the players are re-exchanged) is really scrutinized. How can one objectively veto a trade simply because it helps a team? So we decided to take the subjectivity out of it as much as possible--we use blind bidding (starting w/ a bank of $120 fantasy money); every trade trade costs each involved team $10. Of course, all trades are also still subject to veto, but a trade hasn't been disallowed in 10 years.
John Mamula
Moderator
You don't seem to get it.big0mar said:
SSOG
Moderator
The easiest way to make player renting illegal is to add a very simple rule to your league rulebook. Nothing fancy, just 5 little word: No trades with future considerations.
All trades must be complete and final IMMEDIATELY after consummation. This doesn't mean you can't trade future assets (such as your first rounder next year), it just means that all assets change hands immediately upon acceptance of the trade. If someone trades a player with the stipulation that a week later that player be traded back, that is a future consideration. If you say "If you trade me your first rounder, I'll give you RB X and next week I'll give you WR Y, but I won't give you WR Y this week because I need him to cover a bye first", then that's a future consideration. If you say "I'll give you my 1st rounder right now if you give me QB Z right now", then that's a legit trade, since there are no future considerations.
All trades must be complete and final IMMEDIATELY after consummation. This doesn't mean you can't trade future assets (such as your first rounder next year), it just means that all assets change hands immediately upon acceptance of the trade. If someone trades a player with the stipulation that a week later that player be traded back, that is a future consideration. If you say "If you trade me your first rounder, I'll give you RB X and next week I'll give you WR Y, but I won't give you WR Y this week because I need him to cover a bye first", then that's a future consideration. If you say "I'll give you my 1st rounder right now if you give me QB Z right now", then that's a legit trade, since there are no future considerations.
John Mamula
Moderator
% of winnings?He is a friend and doesn't really care?There are a number of reasons as to why.big0mar said:
John Mamula
Moderator
In my leagues it is stipulated that once you trade a player away you cannot get him back the rest of that year.
belljr
Footballguy
big0mar said:
Forget about studs - I have 3 serviceable RB's but due to byes or injury my WR's can't start this week and anyone on the Waiver Wire is a flyer.Team B - has 3 serviceable WR's but needs an RB this week.You don't see what is wrong with swapping a RB#3 for a WR#3??? Then getting them back the next week? 
Godsbrother
Footballguy
In our league we do not allow a team to required a traded player via another trade for 4 weeks. Pretty much eliminates the problem...
SSOG
Moderator
I don't like that stipulation in the slightest. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for a swap-back that have nothing to do with collusion or player renting, ESPECIALLY if you happen to play in a dynasty league. Yes, no swap-backs fixes the problem, but it also fixes a lot of things that weren't problems to begin with (just like the "excessive celebration" penalty in college fixes the truly excessive celebrations... but it also penalizes perfectly legitimate spontaneous outpourings of emotion).I could see a "no swap-backs for 1 week" rule, although that wouldn't prevent all renting, it'd just make it longer term. "no swap backs for 2 weeks" would do better, but still wouldn't be perfect. "No swap-backs for 4 weeks" makes swap-backs effectively impossible in redraft, since the trade deadline is so early. Really, the "No trades with future considerations" rule is the best, because it makes renting *AND ONLY RENTING* illegal, rather than making plenty of legitimate trades illegal just for the sake of stopping renting. Of course, "no future considerations" requires an element of judgment, but I think everyone knows what constitutes a "trade-back" and what constitutes a completely different trade that happens to involve one particular player who's already been traded. If you have a deal where all of the primary players are the same as a previous deal, that's a trade back. If you have a deal where at least 50% of the primary players are different than the previous trade, that's a new trade.
GregR_2
Footballguy
Been trying to not be overly wordy, which is a fault of mine. But since you're wanting to arm yourself with things to say to deal with this situation, I will get more detailed.First, I think it's worth realizing that "collusion" is a very loaded word definition-wise in this kind of circumstance. A lot of people use it as a catchall for unethical actions that involve two teams cooperating or conspiring. I think this usage of it is widespread enough I assume that's the way it's being used in FF discussions, barring other context to make me think otherwise.But other people go strictly by the dictionary definition. And then there's a third group who even go beyond the dictionary definition and think that collusion means one party hurts itself in order to help another party (or at least they argue it that way, I often question if they really believe it or are just misconstruing the meaning to argue their side). Which isn't even a requirement in the dictionary version, let alone in the way it's generally used in FF. In the vast majority of collusive acts in the real world, all involved parties benefited in some way from the collusive action. Otherwise why would they do it? Even in the FF world this is the case, such as if I pay you $ to do a bad trade. You benefited, it just wasn't an FF game-time benefit. Example in the real world of collusion that came from an NFL.com article... the feds are investigating members of the NFLPA for having secret meetings with the NFL without the knowledge of the rest of the NFLPA, presumably giving the NFL information on the upcoming labor negotiations in exchange for the participants getting increased influence in the NFL, which could possibly turn into jobs, etc, down the road. So anyway, I say that as a heads up that I have learned from scores of these threads that avoiding the word collusion helps you get to the point of the issue faster, because otherwise you can waste a lot of time with people arguing because they have different definitions for the key word being used (or are intentionally distorting the meaning). Instead of just trying to say "collusion" and hope they'll know what you mean, give the full description of what is wrong and avoid the word. In this case I'd say:"This is an example of two teams cooperating together at a level that violates the spirit of individual competition upon which both football and a game like FF are founded. The problem is that they are working together too collectively trying to gain benefits that you can't get from competing individually. That they both benefit from this cooperation doesn't make it ok."Then I'd give some other examples that they can see being based on that same principle of too much cooperation between teams, and make each one gradually more blatant so they can easier see the effects of letting this kind of thing happen. * Two owners get together and jointly agree to draft backups that can cover for both teams without conflict, and share them all season. Both teams gain an advantage of needing less roster spots to cover bye weeks allowing them to be used on upside players. This is an advantage that cannot be gained by the other teams who compete as individual teams rather than working collectively.* Two owners agree that on a week either of them plays the best team in their division, they'll stock that team with their best starters from both teams in the hopes of knocking him out of the division title, something they aren't likely to do competing individually as separate teams. The remaining division team is a cellar dweller, so even trading away some better players for the week is still likely to result in a win for both teams on those division weeks.Both of those are examples of both teams getting a net benefit. The crux of the problem then isn't whether one, some, or all teams involved benefit or not. It's that they are cooperating at a level beyond what the game is based on, and in an attempt to gain advantages that can only be gained through such cooperation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I'm the fish. Let me "borrow" a player for one week, and see if you get him back
Last edited by a moderator:
nerangers
Footballguy
Ours was a four week period...Plus why would you want to help out a team you are competing against?
Bluesbomber
Footballguy
We have a 3 week no trade back policy. We also have a 5 dollar pu fee so some use the trades to save bux.
