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!
Commish question (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter billrob
- Start date
mlball77
Footballguy
Black
Footballguy
As a commish, I would say collusion is something that changes the competitive advantage of the whole league...like combining rosters or throwing games.
This seems to fall under sort of a gray area, as they are playing each other without QBs...I probably wouldn't force them to pickup players to play. If their rosters are full or they are at some cap limit, they that's the bed they lie in.
This seems to fall under sort of a gray area, as they are playing each other without QBs...I probably wouldn't force them to pickup players to play. If their rosters are full or they are at some cap limit, they that's the bed they lie in.
senor peso 2006
Footballguy
seems to me the issue isn't as much about the two trying to use the loop hole but the fact you have hole in your rules. If I were in league like this, I think I would make an effort (when possible) to stack all my byes in one week and just throw that game. Most years one game doesn't make or break me over the course of a season so I'm okay taking that lose. To me that could be a bigger issue.
dhockster
Footballguy
One team could be at a disadvantage depending on when each team picked their starting QB's. If Team A drafted a QB in round 1 and Team B drafted a QB in round 7, then Team A is playing with players drafted in rounds 2-7 and Team B is playing with players drafted in rounds 1-6.
Jersey35
Footballguy
Seems a lot of folks feel the need to chime in on this without actually reading the OP.
We are discussing two teams who have 1 QB on their roster. Those QB's both have byes on the same week. These owners have agreed (colluded) to NOT pick up a backup QB and play against each other without QB's so that they can each save a roster slot for after the end of the season. What is 100% not relevant is the quality of those two QB's on bye.
This IS collusion. This IS an advantage that each owner is agreeing to give the other in return for being afforded the same advantage. That advantage being the ability to start a player on bye (within the rules) WITHOUT suffering the disadvantage that every other team in the league would suffer if taking a zero at a position (because when other teams start someone on bye, the do not have the luxury of knowing that the other will also be starting a player on bye). The benefit to each of these teams is what essentially become an additional free agent pick up at some point during the season or later - because they do not have to use a free agent add (or draft choice) to pick up a backup QB. This IS against the spirit of group competition.
Ask yourself this. You are sitting at the draft Owner A says to owner B, "Hey dude, I noticed you drafted Matt Ryan. I got Warner. Their both on bye in week 4 when we play each other. What do you say we save ourselves a draft slot or free agent pickup and play each other without QB's that week."
How would you feel about that?
Yes the rules need to be adjusted to prevent this, but a commissioner needs the power to prevent collusion... and this is it.
We are discussing two teams who have 1 QB on their roster. Those QB's both have byes on the same week. These owners have agreed (colluded) to NOT pick up a backup QB and play against each other without QB's so that they can each save a roster slot for after the end of the season. What is 100% not relevant is the quality of those two QB's on bye.
This IS collusion. This IS an advantage that each owner is agreeing to give the other in return for being afforded the same advantage. That advantage being the ability to start a player on bye (within the rules) WITHOUT suffering the disadvantage that every other team in the league would suffer if taking a zero at a position (because when other teams start someone on bye, the do not have the luxury of knowing that the other will also be starting a player on bye). The benefit to each of these teams is what essentially become an additional free agent pick up at some point during the season or later - because they do not have to use a free agent add (or draft choice) to pick up a backup QB. This IS against the spirit of group competition.
Ask yourself this. You are sitting at the draft Owner A says to owner B, "Hey dude, I noticed you drafted Matt Ryan. I got Warner. Their both on bye in week 4 when we play each other. What do you say we save ourselves a draft slot or free agent pickup and play each other without QB's that week."
How would you feel about that?
Yes the rules need to be adjusted to prevent this, but a commissioner needs the power to prevent collusion... and this is it.
Last edited by a moderator:
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
Actually, the OP does not know if the owners have made an agreement or not. He's just speculating.
Indeed.
fantasyplayer
Footballguy
Very
I"m quite surprised how many people are responding that this is alleged agreement should not be considered collusion (if in fact it's true) because it is "within the rules." Most rule books probably don't have specific language regarding owners trading players to cover respecitve bye weeks with the agreement that they'll trade the players back the following week, but I suspect most would frown on this type of transaction.If these owners didn't have an pre-arranged agreement to both start a QB on a bye, I suspect both would use the roster move to pick someone up and avoid the 0 at that position. Because they've allegedly reached an agreement, they may save this transaction resulting in a relative gain over the rest of the league because of the league's rules about transactions and future keepers.
DropKick
Footballguy
For somebody so willing to call other people idiots, you're really missing the point here.My advice? Read the thread again and listen to GregR.
tomarken
Footballguy
GregR pretty much owned this thread.It is collusion. Sadly, it is also within the rules and without the two owners specifically admitting "yes we are colluding please punish us" there's not a whole lot the commissioner can do, other than to put this at the top of the list of rules to reevaluate at the end of the season. All you can do in these situations is credit the two owners for coming up with a clever way to give themselves an advantage and then make sure it never happens again.
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
GregR brings up some good points. But he's focused solely upon one perceived advantage, while dismissing numerous potential disadvantages for both teams. I would argue that those disadvantages neutralize the advantages.Another thing that everyone seems to be dismissing is the fact that precedent has already been set in this league. Owners routinely start players on BYE weeks to conserve waiver moves, and no one blinks an eye. Yet this time it's suddenly a scandal because of an unsubstantiated rumor.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR_2
Footballguy
The problem isn't "owners... starting players on BYE weeks to conserve waiver moves". The problem is "owners agreeing to both start players on BYE weeks to conserve waiver moves." There has not been a precedent set for the latter. The latter is the only thing about the situation that is a problem.We don't need to discuss the overall net benefits and negatives of whether gaining an extra keeper slot for starting a bye week player is a winning move or not by itself. The positives and negatives of starting a bye week player to gain a keeper slot are the same for teams who collude and who don't collude, except for one. The team who colludes doesn't have to face a potential lessened chance to win his game that week. All the other positives and negatives are the same.
And frankly, even that shouldn't matter. If someone is colluding because they THINK it gives them an advantage, that should be enough the league should stop it. Regardless of whether they pull off their collusion fabulously and to great effect, or are dumb about it and do worse than if they'd acted individually. The point is they should be acting as individual teams in the first place.
It's not a scandal because of being a rumor. It's a "scandal" because it's two teams working in collusive cooperation where in the past, presumably, teams did not do that because it isn't part of the spirit of the game.It being an unsubstantiated rumor doesn't seem to have any bearing on a discussion of whether such an action would be collusion or not if it happened.
Last edited by a moderator:
Great White Hope
Footballguy
I think that it should be allowed based on the league rules. However, I would change the rules in the offseason or at least put it to a league vote to do so at that time.
Both owners would rather not pick up Brady Quinn, I get that. However, does your league have negative points for Interceptions? If that is the case, it should not be allowed, because you should not be allowed to get a zero for a position where there is a possibility of negative points and that would be my argument if you wanted to make them pick up a player.
Both owners would rather not pick up Brady Quinn, I get that. However, does your league have negative points for Interceptions? If that is the case, it should not be allowed, because you should not be allowed to get a zero for a position where there is a possibility of negative points and that would be my argument if you wanted to make them pick up a player.
dwarfboy
Footballguy
There appears to be nothing specifcally in the rules to prevent this type of "collusion."
I would point out that there is nothing in the rules that can enforce this agreement and that if one owner decides to pick up a QB last minute the team that got caught without a QB would have zero recourse.
I would point out that there is nothing in the rules that can enforce this agreement and that if one owner decides to pick up a QB last minute the team that got caught without a QB would have zero recourse.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
I'd say this is over the line, however... if Owner A said publicly "Screw week 8, my QB is on a bye but I'm not wasting a roster move just for that week, so if I lose, I lose," and Owner B read that and said to himself "Well, if he's not starting a QB, maybe I don't have to start one to beat him, so, maybe I'll save a roster move myself and not pick one up for just one week either," you'd have the same end result (two teams with QB byes starting empty slots) without collusion.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Couldn't agree less. Neither will have a QB so nobody has an advantage this week. Since neither has to abide by this agreement (either can pick up a QB on Sunday morning) I don't see the big deal. It's going to cost someone a win this week.BOTH owners are trying to improve their team-- trying to win a game while not using a pickup. Since neither has an advantage...who does it benefit? It actually hurts both teams because they'll score less points and hurt themselves on potential tie-breakers. The potential gain in the off-season might or might not amount to anything. You know taking a zero costs you points that might be needed.You can't force a team to pick up a player (league rules state you can have a bye week guy in there). Since it's not an enforceable transaction (like a trade) they're gambling that the opponent isn't going to pick up a QB after all.
Last edited by a moderator:
It benefits both of them in draft picks next year. It hurts all other teams in the league because they might miss out on someone they wanted to draft. If they both decided by themselves to take the chance at QB, I would be with you. They made a tradeoff decision. But the fact that they made an agreement makes it dirty.
oso diablo
Footballguy
see no problem with this
habsfan
Footballguy
Where I am struggling with this is that it is collusion for "future considerations". Presumably there is no evidence that they are trying to manipulate the outcome of their match this week. In other words, setting aside the QB issue, they are both trying to win a head-to-head match-up and have no incentive to lose. If that's the case, it follows that they are not trying to manipulate the outcome of this season either. In that context they haven't affected who will hoist their trophy this year either. They may be manipulating who hoists it next year though.
In the end, this wouldn't pass through the rule set in my league and I wouldn't want it to. I also question the logic of a league format that would inspire people to go to these lengths in order to avoid transactions (or reward them for doing so).
In the end, this wouldn't pass through the rule set in my league and I wouldn't want it to. I also question the logic of a league format that would inspire people to go to these lengths in order to avoid transactions (or reward them for doing so).
daveR
Footballguy
Good point. Why tie the two together?This begets the question of how to fix this problem. You can't force someone to make a roster move. Do you refuse to allow bye week starts? If you do, you'd probably have to expand roster size.Bottom line: IMO, this is just a common sense tactic and not sanctionable. Collusion involves one team tanking for another's benefit. This sort of cooperation does not qualify.
GregR_2
Footballguy
One team tanking for another's benefit is indeed collusion, but it isn't the only kind of collusion. You don't have to have one participant be worsened to be collusion.Two teams working together for mutual benefit in ways they aren't supposed to is also collusion. A lot of collusion that happens outside of FF involves a benefit for everyone participating. Here's a real life example involving a report from the NFL about a federal investigation of collusion between the NFL and some leaders of the NFLPA,: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true
So in short, the investigation is about union members benefiting by getting influence in the NFL, which I'd assume means potential league jobs down the road, while the owners are getting information and influence with the NFLPA's leadership which will help them financially as they negotiate a CBA.If it's true, both sides benefit and it's collusion... leaders of one side of a negotiating team aren't supposed to be working in cahoots with the other side against the interests of those they are representing. And they are both benefiting.
