Commissioner Collusion - what say you? - Update - I’m playing the sketchy commish in the semi’s and Thomas is out (1 Viewer)

[TheWinz]

The condition of the trade was not to start Mattison in place of MT. You’re repeating that implication over and over again also does not make it true. 
 

He was simply told who not to start, he was not told who to start. There is a huge difference between the two conditions. 

Are you sitting in a big comfy chair, laughing hysterically as you type?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

No, starting Mattison was his mistake. He wasn’t told to start Mattison  

1. We don’t know that. Based on what we do know, I’m starting to suspect that he was.  but again; neither of us knows this. 

2. I find your assertion of some alleged random waiver player being likely to outscore MT to be laughably disingenuous. If that were the case then why bother trading for MT? Don’t answer that - it’s rhetorical. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

Do you understand that this owner believed Michael Thomas was his best option for the week?  Better than Mattison, better than all the other players on his bench, better than all the players available on the WW.

Simple yes or no please.

I’m sure he believed MT was, in his opinion the best option but does that mean Mattison was the only or required option to meet the condition s of the trade. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

1. We don’t know that. Based on what we do know, I’m starting to suspect that he was.  but again; neither of us knows this. 

2. I find your assertion of some alleged random waiver player being likely to outscore MT to be laughably disingenuous. If that were the case then why bother trading for MT? Don’t answer that - it’s rhetorical. 

Based on what we do know starting Mattison was not the condition of the trade. 
 

Im not asserting that some WW addition would be better than MT but I am certain that they would be better than Mattison. But up until this very week MT has not proven to be a reliable and productive fantasy player. Can you point to MTs success this year and state that he has been a must start?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I’m sure he believed MT was, in his opinion the best option but

everything after this is irrelevant. You just  agreed that he was tanking. 

 

[SayWhat?]

I’m quite comfortable with people having different opinions than mine. 

i’m quire uncomfortable when people have opinions aren’t in concert with reality. 

As a self-employed person I’m stuck indoors packing today’s 40 web orders & taking breaks to hang out with my puppy, replying to what I believe is a fascinating discussion of ethics & FF.  I have that luxury, 

I was planning on not replying, but then I was quoted and asked questions. So it pulled me back into the convo. Thanks for your keen observation. 

Perhaps you should consider making fewer personal attacks on other members and spending more time discussing the topic at hand.

It’s just an idea. 

Amazing that so many other posters in here aren’t in concert with reality. Isn’t it?  What an out of touch bunch that believe in those damned sunglasses-wearing penguins.

As for the bolded, not all that keen, really.  Pretty clear ten pages back that the last word is important enough that you simply can’t help but respond with the same opinion, per your own words, “for the 50th time.”  Simply pointing out it might be healthy to take a break.  Godspeed.

 

[I Am the Stig]

everything after this is irrelevant. You just  agreed that he was tanking. 

No, I don’t believe he was tanking. One, I don’t agree with the term tanking in this short term but that is just semantics. I feel tanking is a longer more deliberate process to lose. 
 

By that definition, no, this ain’t tanking. He is trying to win a championship. The very notion that trading for such a high caliber player, according to you, kind of flys in contrast to the motivation to lose. 
 

Who trades for last years top WR expecting and planning to lose?

 

[davearm]

I’m sure he believed MT was, in his opinion the best option but does that mean Mattison was the only or required option to meet the condition s of the trade. 

Eureka!  A breakthrough!

MT was this owner's best option for the week.  He knew it.  I knew it.  And now with you finally onboard, everyone knows it.

And it necessarily follows that since he wasn't allowed to start his best option, he had no other choice but to start a lesser player, and a weaker lineup.

 

[TheWinz]

No, I don’t believe he was tanking. One, I don’t agree with the term tanking in this short term but that is just semantics. I feel tanking is a longer more deliberate process to lose.

Do you think losing 1 game in order to have a better shot at winning the whole thing should be allowed?

This is the question at hand.  We can remove all player names and get right to the point.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Eureka!  A breakthrough!

MT was this owner's best option for the week.  He knew it.  I knew it.  And now with you finally onboard, everyone knows it.

And it necessarily follows that since he wasn't allowed to start his best option, he had no other choice but to start a lesser player, and a weaker lineup.

Nobody has denied that but MT was his flex not his TOP player. 

He was not told to start Mattison. There were certainly better options than Mattison and knowing MTs score that week there were better options than MT too. 
 

MTs season rank is 326. One can believe what they want to about him but it doesn’t make it true. What he has been this season is not what he was last season. 

You may want to believe MT is a must start but he  has been far from that production. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

Do you think losing 1 game in order to have a better shot at winning the whole thing should be allowed?

This is the question at hand.  We can remove all player names and get right to the point.

Your objective when playing fantasy is to win a championship. 
 

If you are competing to win the league within the rules of the league then losing a game to win the league is acceptable. 
 

This has been debated here before years ago. If you want to win every week then play daily to your hearts content. 
 

If you want to require the best, optimal lineup possible then play best ball. 
 

If you want to eliminate these kinds of trades or tactics in season long fantasy then award the championship based on points and eliminate head to head entirely. 
 

There are lots of options and lots of various rules to play the game the way you want to play. Find one and then find 10 folks who agree with you and you’ve got a league. 

 

[TheWinz]

Nobody has denied that but MT was his flex not his TOP player. 

He was not told to start Mattison. There were certainly better options than Mattison and knowing MTs score that week there were better options than MT too. 
 

MTs season rank is 326. One can believe what they want to about him but it doesn’t make it true. What he has been this season is not what he was last season. 

You may want to believe MT is a must start but he  has been far from that production. 

Why do you keep on adding Mattison to the conversation?  Who cares who he started?  It only matters who he COULDN'T start.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I’m quite comfortable with people having different opinions than mine. 

i’m quire uncomfortable when people have opinions aren’t in concert with reality. 

As a self-employed person I’m stuck indoors packing today’s 40 web orders & taking breaks to hang out with my puppy, replying to what I believe is a fascinating discussion of ethics & FF.  I have that luxury, 

I was planning on not replying, but then I was quoted and asked questions. So it pulled me back into the convo. Thanks for your keen observation. 

Perhaps you should consider making fewer personal attacks on other members and spending more time discussing the topic at hand.

It’s just an idea. 

Do not feel bad or shamed for posting several times on a thread. There are different topics where we all might feel more strongly about than others and there is nothing wrong with that.  The OP started this thread for the sole purpose of starting a discussion and creating a think tank environment where thoughts and angles are shared. Nobody should be clowned for contributing.   Not only that-- the amazingness of your hot sauces gives you more freedom to talk in my opinion.  I just tried the peach one---that one is legit bro. Lol. 

 

[TheWinz]

only 25 more minutes to argue before kickoff...

 

[I Am the Stig]

Why do you keep on adding Mattison to the conversation?  Who cares who he started?  It only matters who he COULDN'T start.

The implication is he was told to lose. He could have started any number of players to win and it would have met the condition of the trade. 

 

[Penguin]

What if a team drafted all their starters to have the same bye week? They'd be basically giving away one game but enabling them to be at full strength (barring injury) the rest of the season, an advantage over teams with 10-20% of their starters on a bye from weeks 4 thru 13

 

[I Am the Stig]

What if a team drafted all their starters to have the same bye week? They'd be basically giving away one game but enabling them to be at full strength (barring injury) the rest of the season, an advantage over teams with 10-20% of their starters on a bye from weeks 4 thru 13

The only answer is they are tanking

 

[styleride85]

What if a team drafted all their starters to have the same bye week? They'd be basically giving away one game but enabling them to be at full strength (barring injury) the rest of the season, an advantage over teams with 10-20% of their starters on a bye from weeks 4 thru 13

But they still started the best line up they could every week.  What is everyone missing here?  

 

[habsfan]

What if a team drafted all their starters to have the same bye week? They'd be basically giving away one game but enabling them to be at full strength (barring injury) the rest of the season, an advantage over teams with 10-20% of their starters on a bye from weeks 4 thru 13

If a team did that as a condition of a trade, it's problematic. Otherwise it's pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Gally]

MT has 29.4 .5PPR points on the season. 
 

This is not 2019 but 2020. MT is anything but a slam dunk stud this year. I know, I’m a MT owner. Antonio Brown has been more productive. So let’s get off the idea that he is now this guys TOP player. By the sounds of it he has been doing fine and just views MT as a final piece to finish the job but not necessarily the best player on his team. 
 

Im told to sit a guy who up till that point in the season has 10 points in two games? Oh I’m shaking, how will I ever get by without the average production of Larry Fitzgerald?  What an outrageous demand. 

It does not matter who the players involved are or how they had been performing!  It is irrelevant to the collusion and secret agreement.  

A specific trade happen.  It had a secret agreement to sit a player that the new owner believed to be his best starting option (this fact was confirmed).  It doesn't matter who that player is.  

This action is collusion and should not have happened based on how that particular league functions.  

Changing the players or saying they aren't good or that in a different league where you cab buy players in trade for money or favors is irrelevant to what actually happened.  

 

[jvdesigns2002]

The only answer is they are tanking

Not at all--that is a decision they made without a handshake agreement with another owner. The difference between tanking and collusion is the involvement of another party.  The second you alter your starting roster decision to be weaker because of input or a condition from another owner ----that is really entering the world of collusion. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

It does not matter who the players involved are or how they had been performing!  It is irrelevant to the collusion and secret agreement.  

A specific trade happen.  It had a secret agreement to sit a player that the new owner believed to be his best starting option (this fact was confirmed).  It doesn't matter who that player is.  

This action is collusion and should not have happened based on how that particular league functions.  

Changing the players or saying they aren't good or that in a different league where you cab buy players in trade for money or favors is irrelevant to what actually happened.  

When there is no league requirement to divulge the conditions there are no secrets kept from the league. 
 

The league has had a hands off approach to trades so there is no secret and no league violation. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Amazing that so many other posters in here aren’t in concert with reality. Isn’t it?  What an out of touch bunch that believe in those damned sunglasses-wearing penguins.

I didn’t say the posters weren’t in concert with reality. I said some of the things they were saying were not in concert with reality. There is a huge difference. One is a personal attack, as you continue to engage in, the other is taking issue with changing the facts to suit an argument. 

Simply pointing out it might be healthy to take a break.  Godspeed.

worry about your own health, friend. I’ll put you on ignore so I don’t have to. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I just tried the peach one---that one is legit bro. Lol. 

Glad ya dig it. 

Fun aside; I recently learned that sauce was an inch away from being the one on Hot Ones. I had no idea.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Not at all--that is a decision they made without a handshake agreement with another owner. The difference between tanking and collusion is the involvement of another party.  The second you alter your starting roster decision to be weaker because of input or a condition from another owner ----that is really entering the world of collusion. 

It’s kind of both. Collusion is the agreement. Tanking is the result.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

What if a team drafted all their starters to have the same bye week? They'd be basically giving away one game but enabling them to be at full strength (barring injury) the rest of the season, an advantage over teams with 10-20% of their starters on a bye from weeks 4 thru 13

No issue whatsoever.

That is a personal decision, effecting a random TBD opponent, and would not be conditional of an agreement with another team.

The playoff implications would also not be of concern for anyone because this only peripherally impacts the random team on the schedule and was not something deliberately agreed upon that did have direct playoff implications.

seems completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

Glad ya dig it. 

Fun aside; I recently learned that sauce was an inch away from being the one on Hot Ones. I had no idea.  

Uugggh. Soooo close. 
 

They tend to mix them up a little every year so hopefully next year.

 

[Gally]

Nobody has denied that but MT was his flex not his TOP player. 

He was not told to start Mattison. There were certainly better options than Mattison and knowing MTs score that week there were better options than MT too. 
 

MTs season rank is 326. One can believe what they want to about him but it doesn’t make it true. What he has been this season is not what he was last season. 

You may want to believe MT is a must start but he  has been far from that production. 

It doesn't matter that MT was flex or WR or QB.  The only thing that matters was that he was the perceived best player to start from all the available options (bench, waiver, etc) according to his owner and the ONLY reason he could not play him was a secret agreement that he could not play him.  He therefore played a perceived lesser lineup.  That is collusion.  Nothing else matters.

 

[Gally]

When there is no league requirement to divulge the conditions there are no secrets kept from the league. 
 

The league has had a hands off approach to trades so there is no secret and no league violation. 

In no league I have ever been has it been ok to have secret agreements and none of my leagues have trade committees.

Every trade must be transparent with all conditions included (yes we allow conditional trades of picks - not players).

Just because there is no trade committee doesn't mean you can have secret agreements.

 

[Babooya]

In no league I have ever been has it been ok to have secret agreements and none of my leagues have trade committees.

Every trade must be transparent with all conditions included (yes we allow conditional trades of picks - not players).

Just because there is no trade committee doesn't mean you can have secret agreements.

Yes, all fair points. Another way to phrase the transaction that makes foolish the ethical personal attacks is that the MT element of the trade transacts at the last day of the week, while the balance of the trade goes into effect immediately. League software doesn’t allow it, so it would require the personal ethical behavior of the two willing to trade partners to abide by their fair arms length trade and sit MT

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Uugggh. Soooo close. 
 

They tend to mix them up a little every year so hopefully next year.

Oh, no - they had my Year of the Dog on instead.  Season 9, Trevor Noah said it danced on his tongue like Fred Astaire.  

But thank you nonetheless for the well wishes.  

 

[davearm]

Nobody has denied that but MT was his flex not his TOP player. 

He was not told to start Mattison. There were certainly better options than Mattison and knowing MTs score that week there were better options than MT too. 
 

MTs season rank is 326. One can believe what they want to about him but it doesn’t make it true. What he has been this season is not what he was last season. 

You may want to believe MT is a must start but he  has been far from that production. 

All irrelevant.

Relevant: would have started MT if he was able to.

 

[davearm]

The implication is he was told to lose. He could have started any number of players to win and it would have met the condition of the trade. 

Except the one that gave him the best chance to win.

 

[ratbast]

Still hung up on tanking I see. Was benching MT a legal condition? Yes? Then no tanking. No? Then no trade. Nothing at all matters beyond that except that the checks and balances were non existent. The commish approved his own trade. 

 

[habsfan]

In no league I have ever been has it been ok to have secret agreements and none of my leagues have trade committees.

Every trade must be transparent with all conditions included (yes we allow conditional trades of picks - not players).

Just because there is no trade committee doesn't mean you can have secret agreements.

An important aspect of trading conditional picks is that the underlying "currency" (the pick) is a concrete and enduring thing. Either "pick A" or "pick B" is changing hands at a specific time and it's enforceable by the commissioner or league. You literally can't "renege" on a valid trade. Influence over someone's behaviour will never be valid trade currency in any league I play in.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Oh, no - they had my Year of the Dog on instead.  Season 9, Trevor Noah said it danced on his tongue like Fred Astaire.  

But thank you nonetheless for the well wishes.  

I’ll rewatch that episode. My favorite episode was Charlize Theron. She gave the best critiques of the sauces and I laughed out loud when she flipped off The Bomb. 
 

But I digress. 

 

[I Am the Stig]

In no league I have ever been has it been ok to have secret agreements and none of my leagues have trade committees.

Every trade must be transparent with all conditions included (yes we allow conditional trades of picks - not players).

Just because there is no trade committee doesn't mean you can have secret agreements.

Well, this league had no review process if it did we wouldn’t be on page 18 as this would be cut and dry otherwise. 
 

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Well, this league had no review process if it did we wouldn’t be on page 18 as this would be cut and dry otherwise. 
 

If you truly believed this--then the commssioner could literally "loan" his players away to teams that he needs to win to make the playoffs and then trade for them back a week later---because there is no review process--and he's effectively the decision maker.  According to your logic--this tactic would be legal and just fine because there is no literature against it in the rules and there is no review process.   Is this really a position that you want to defend as it's rather baseless. 

 

[Titans_fan]

I didn't read 20 pages, so this may have already been covered.  Nonetheless, despite the admittance of being asked to bench Michael Thomas it's not like he started somebody who was GUARANTEED a zero.  Mattison may not have been the best option, but if he gets some garbage-time work or busts a 20-yard run then this isn't even a conversation.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I didn't read 20 pages, so this may have already been covered.  Nonetheless, despite the admittance of being asked to bench Michael Thomas it's not like he started somebody who was GUARANTEED a zero.  Mattison may not have been the best option, but if he gets some garbage-time work or busts a 20-yard run then this isn't even a conversation.

So you think its okay for another owner to dictate to another owner who they can start or bench and keep it a secret from the rest of the league?   That's called collusion. 

 

[Titans_fan]

So you think its okay for another owner to dictate to another owner who they can start or bench and keep it a secret from the rest of the league?   That's called collusion. 

For the record, I voted "collusion".  My point was the owner receiving Thomas didn't obviously throw the game.  I think if the trade value was fair then neither owner has any right to demand/request/suggest a condition of the trade is to not play a recently traded player.

If Mattison scores 2 points, is there 20 pages of a thread regarding collusion?  I seriously doubt it.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

For the record, I voted "collusion".  My point was the owner receiving Thomas didn't obviously throw the game.  I think if the trade value was fair then neither owner has any right to demand/request/suggest a condition of the trade is to not play a recently traded player.

If Mattison scores 2 points, is there 20 pages of a thread regarding collusion?  I seriously doubt it.

The result of the matchup has no bearing on whether or not there was collusion. You don't use the ends to justify the means.  The issue here is that a commissioner felt it was okay to make a trade that involved including a collusionary condition--which he abided by--and kept it a secret from the league.  He agreed to start an inferior lineup--the moment he did that--it made no difference what the actual result of the match was.  

 

[Titans_fan]

The result of the matchup has no bearing on whether or not there was collusion. You don't use the ends to justify the means.  The issue here is that a commissioner felt it was okay to make a trade that involved including a collusionary condition--which he abided by--and kept it a secret from the league.  He agreed to start an inferior lineup--the moment he did that--it made no difference what the actual result of the match was.  

Those are all good points.  Again, I don't deny it is collusion and I voted as such and would have treated it as such in my league.  I guess I don't know what the "punishment" should be.  Revoke the trade?  Does that affect the outcome of the game and, as such, the playoff positioning?  What if those 2 teams elected to process the trade before the following week?  Does that trade get approved then?  The variables involved are terribly intriguing...

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Those are all good points.  Again, I don't deny it is collusion and I voted as such and would have treated it as such in my league.  I guess I don't know what the "punishment" should be.  Revoke the trade?  Does that affect the outcome of the game and, as such, the playoff positioning?  What if those 2 teams elected to process the trade before the following week?  Does that trade get approved then?  The variables involved are terribly intriguing...

The punishment is up to the league. If that happened to two team owners in a league that I was commissioner of--any trade that involves a collusionary condition is by nature an illegal trade.  This means that both owners attempted to start illegal lineups--and hence--both would be awarded losses and the trade would be revoked.   That's what I would do.  Being that one of the involved parties here was the commish--I would recommend relieving him of his duties and having the rest of the league vote for another new commish to finish out the season--as the current commish just exposed that his judgement cannot be trusted. That's just my two cents. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I’ll rewatch that episode. My favorite episode was Charlize Theron. She gave the best critiques of the sauces and I laughed out loud when she flipped off The Bomb. 
 

But I digress. 

Sadly that was the next season. I Charlize. I had Jonas Bros, Hale Berry, Jay Pharoah, Adam Divine & the lovely and charming Aubrey Plaza (she didn’t say anything about the sauces but she did snort milk)  

 

[habsfan]

I suspect there are lots of leagues that just take a heuristic approach to these situations as they arise. This is supposed to be fun so forget the letter and spirit of the law debate, determine what the "remedy" is and move on.

I find "the law" aspect interesting and as a commissioner I'm always looking for ways to avoid these "thin edge of the wedge" situations. If your commissioner is supposed to embody trustworthiness and sportsmanship to the highest standards, this person should not be one.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If you truly believed this--then the commssioner could literally "loan" his players away to teams that he needs to win to make the playoffs and then trade for them back a week later---because there is no review process--and he's effectively the decision maker.  According to your logic--this tactic would be legal and just fine because there is no literature against it in the rules and there is no review process.   Is this really a position that you want to defend as it's rather baseless. 

Even beyond this. The commish could, per this precedent, make a series of trades all year long where either he or his opponent either started or benched certain players as conditions of the trade.

That seems...problematic. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

For the record, I voted "collusion".  My point was the owner receiving Thomas didn't obviously throw the game. 
 

even boxers who take a dive wait until the 4th round.

no one wants to obviously cheat. Subtlety is how they might get away with it. In this case, they got caught. 

Personally I see Mattison starting over a healthy MT after going out and trading for MT to be pretty obvious. 

Whenever I trade for a player I can’t wait to plug him into my lineup. It’s like the last step of the trade, tbh. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I suspect there are lots of leagues that just take a heuristic approach to these situations as they arise. This is supposed to be fun so forget the letter and spirit of the law debate, determine what the "remedy" is and move on.

I find "the law" aspect interesting and as a commissioner I'm always looking for ways to avoid these "thin edge of the wedge" situations. If your commissioner is supposed to embody trustworthiness and sportsmanship to the highest standards, this person should not be one.

All of this. 

I know my posts in here come off like I have a stick up my butt. It’s just FF and they just made a deal and whatever. 

 But like you, I see all of this with my commish eyes. I can’t read about this situation without taking it personally, like that commish gave us all a bad name by acting unethically.

I think you’re spot on - most leagues won’t have stipulations for every possible way someone can cheat because we play this game for fun & we expect those we play with to not try to walk that razor’s edge between ethical and unethical behavior. 

II dont see this situation as particularly subtle. Rather than the poll asking if it’s collusion, OP should have skipped that question & started the topic with “so this collusion happened, what’s the remedy?” 

 

[I Am the Stig]

Sadly that was the next season. I Charlize. I had Jonas Bros, Hale Berry, Jay Pharoah, Adam Divine & the lovely and charming Aubrey Plaza (she didn’t say anything about the sauces but she did snort milk)  

Halle Berry was the most boss I have ever seen anyone on that show. She was a great interview and she owned every sauce. She is my Queen.