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

[Hot Sauce Guy]

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. 

Loved her. She only commented on 2. She delightfully said “ooh, this one’s kinda sweet” for mine. Then she said Da Bomb was bitter & disgusting and no one should ever buy it.

But yeah; she said she came hungry for lunch. Cleaned every wing to the bone & didn’t take a sip of milk or water. And still smokin hot at 54. John Wick 3 was just incredible (she was 53 at the time) 

 

[I Am the Stig]

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. 

And yet a rule can be written to prevent this.

For me, we are in Prime Directive territory here. I am simply looking at this trade through the optics of the league rules and structure. For many leagues this trade is not ethical, legal etc. I get that and I am not arguing against any of that. But as far as this league is set up for now it is:

1. Not collusion because there is no stated review or disclosure process for the league.

2. Not tanking, because both teams made a move that both felt improved their teams. One for long term success and the other for short term success. That the results of the matchup had some league consequences none where greater than for the two teams playing and their results are what they are playing for.

I don't believe in universal league rules so when judging any debate like this I will always default to the rules specific to the league. In this case they were woefully deficient in rules especially considering the buy in price. Nothing that I have said means I agree with it necessarily but I am simply being as objective as possible with the information at hand. I am not bringing any bias into the discussion. In just about any other league this would be collusion but not in this particular league by the narrowest of margins. And that is where the Prime Directive comes into play. This is their league setup and their league consequence. They will have to figure out a solution that improves their league moving forward on their own. 

 

[Gally]

1. Not collusion because there is no stated review or disclosure process for the league.

Whether there is a trade committee or not has no bearing whether its collusion of not.  Thise two things have absolutely no relationship at all.

 

[Gally]

2. Not tanking, because both teams made a move that both felt improved their teams. One for long term success and the other for short term success.  That the results of the matchup had some league consequences none where greater than for the two teams playing and their results are what they are playing for.

Tanking doesn't necessarily have to be associated for multiple games.  You can tank for one game.  

For many of you the term tank seems to be a bit strong and requires an effort that goes into multiple games and a 100% active effort to lose.  If that is what is required for to consider it a tanking effort then let's use a different term.

Actively trying to win means you are doing everything in your power to win the game.  Every team should actively try and win every game based on the items you have in hand at the time you set a lineup.  This did not happen here because of the secret agreement to not play the player the owner wanted to play (this has been conceded as fact based on the OP statements).  Therefore the owner did not actively try and win the game.  When coupled with the secret agreement it is what makes this collision (regardless of there being no trade committee).

 

[ghostguy123]

Whether there is a trade committee or not has no bearing whether its collusion of not.  Thise two things have absolutely no relationship at all.

This is correct.  Even if collusion were allowed in the rules, it was still collusion.  

 

[ghostguy123]

Every team should actively try and win every game based on the items you have in hand at the time you set a lineup. 

One example I can think of where I dont agree.

I played a guy on a thursday once who was NOT a guy who would be in my best possible lineup because i was working on a trade where I deal a better player who played on Sunday for draft picks (I was in a rebuild).  

I did end up trading the player for picks (though that fact would be irrelevant based on your stance).

But what if my trade would have fallen through?  Was I tanking?

 

[Gally]

I don't believe in universal league rules so when judging any debate like this I will always default to the rules specific to the league. In this case they were woefully deficient in rules especially considering the buy in price. Nothing that I have said means I agree with it necessarily but I am simply being as objective as possible with the information at hand. I am not bringing any bias into the discussion. In just about any other league this would be collusion but not in this particular league by the narrowest of margins. And that is where the Prime Directive comes into play. This is their league setup and their league consequence. They will have to figure out a solution that improves their league moving forward on their own. 

There are some rules that have intentions behind them that can be enforced based on that.  There are also some rules that don't have to be written that are typically adhered to when it comes to playing fantasy football like don't sit the players you think will score the most that week.

 

[Gally]

One example I can think of where I dont agree.

I played a guy on a thursday once who was NOT a guy who would be in my best possible lineup because i was working on a trade where I deal a better player who played on Sunday for draft picks (I was in a rebuild).  

I did end up trading the player for picks (though that fact would be irrelevant based on your stance).

But what if my trade would have fallen through?  Was I tanking?

Why couldn't you have played the guy and traded him?  Once he has played he is locked into your lineup but it shouldn't prevent you from trading him to someone else.  I have done trades like this before.

But to answer your question, that is a grey area but the difference is that no other owner is telling you not to play him so there is no collusion.  I would not consider this tanking as much as trying to make a trade.

 

[Gally]

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 the participants disclosed all agreements of this trade and not colluded then we wouldn't be on page 18 of this thread and the league would have disallowed it right away.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why couldn't you have played the guy and traded him?  Once he has played he is locked into your lineup but it shouldn't prevent you from trading him to someone else.  I have done trades like this before.

I dont get it.

The other owner wanted to use the guy that week.

I have no idea what you are suggesting

 

[I Am the Stig]

Whether there is a trade committee or not has no bearing whether its collusion of not.  Thise two things have absolutely no relationship at all.

Sorry but it does. It was a condition of the trade and the trade is the transaction. IF there was no trade and they discussed roster lineups that is collusion because it was secret in every way possible. The trade was not secret but the full condition was not disclosed. The trade did not happen in secret but there was no requirement to disclose the extra condition based on current league rules.

 

[I Am the Stig]

If the participants disclosed all agreements of this trade and not colluded then we wouldn't be on page 18 of this thread and the league would have disallowed it right away.

That is why it is great discussion, but it is not collusion by only the slimmest of margins. 

 

[ghostguy123]

Sorry but it does. It was a condition of the trade and the trade is the transaction. IF there was no trade and they discussed roster lineups that is collusion because it was secret in every way possible. The trade was not secret but the full condition was not disclosed. The trade did not happen in secret but there was no requirement to disclose the extra condition based on current league rules.

??

 

[I Am the Stig]

??

They made a trade that was public knowledge to the league. 

The league, regardless of the players involved have no say and no recourse to either discuss, veto or question the trade. There simply is no league requirement to disclose the conditions of the trade. 

There was nothing "secret" about the trade. Everyone saw the trade. 

Where it went sideways was the league questioning the new MT owners decision to sit MT. Again, this is another question that is frankly none of the leagues business unless rules specifically state that all managers must start their most obvious players or best lineup based on projected points. 

 

[ghostguy123]

They made a trade that was public knowledge to the league. 

The league, regardless of the players involved have no say and no recourse to either discuss, veto or question the trade. There simply is no league requirement to disclose the conditions of the trade. 

There was nothing "secret" about the trade. Everyone saw the trade. 

Where it went sideways was the league questioning the new MT owners decision to sit MT. Again, this is another question that is frankly none of the leagues business unless rules specifically state that all managers must start their most obvious players or best lineup based on projected points. 

So its NOT collusion?

 

[habsfan]

And yet a rule can be written to prevent this.

For me, we are in Prime Directive territory here. I am simply looking at this trade through the optics of the league rules and structure. For many leagues this trade is not ethical, legal etc. I get that and I am not arguing against any of that. But as far as this league is set up for now it is:

1. Not collusion because there is no stated review or disclosure process for the league.

2. Not tanking, because both teams made a move that both felt improved their teams. One for long term success and the other for short term success. That the results of the matchup had some league consequences none where greater than for the two teams playing and their results are what they are playing for.

I don't believe in universal league rules so when judging any debate like this I will always default to the rules specific to the league. In this case they were woefully deficient in rules especially considering the buy in price. Nothing that I have said means I agree with it necessarily but I am simply being as objective as possible with the information at hand. I am not bringing any bias into the discussion. In just about any other league this would be collusion but not in this particular league by the narrowest of margins. And that is where the Prime Directive comes into play. This is their league setup and their league consequence. They will have to figure out a solution that improves their league moving forward on their own. 

I may appear to be contradicting myself but this is where spirit of the rules become important. Their rules may be woefully deficient, I don't know. What I do know is that no set of bylaws or rules will ever withstand the ingenuity of unethical players. Not only is it impractical to have a written rule for every situation it's impossible to stop people intent on bending rules simply by writing more of them.

 

[Judge Smails]

They made a trade that was public knowledge to the league. 

The league, regardless of the players involved have no say and no recourse to either discuss, veto or question the trade. There simply is no league requirement to disclose the conditions of the trade. 

There was nothing "secret" about the trade. Everyone saw the trade. 

Where it went sideways was the league questioning the new MT owners decision to sit MT. Again, this is another question that is frankly none of the leagues business unless rules specifically state that all managers must start their most obvious players or best lineup based on projected points. 

Where it went sideways was when the receiving Thomas owner admitted there was a condition he not play him this week - otherwise he would have started him.  How you can say there was nothing secret about the trade is mind blowing to me.  The questions didn't happen when the trade was announced.  They started when Thomas was not in the lineup with only Mattison as the alternative.  And everyone's suspicions proved to be true.

 

[Manster]

Where it went sideways was when the receiving Thomas owner admitted there was a condition he not play him this week - otherwise he would have started him.  How you can say there was nothing secret about the trade is mind blowing to me.  The questions didn't happen when the trade was announced.  They started when Thomas was not in the lineup with only Mattison as the alternative.  And everyone's suspicions proved to be true.

Well there you have it, a judge thinks it was bogus!  

Maybe the two owners should get nothing.......and like it?

 

[TheWinz]

Again, this is another question that is frankly none of the leagues business unless rules specifically state that all managers must start their most obvious players or best lineup based on projected points. 

Sounds like you don't believe there are unwritten rules that all FF'ers should abide by.  If you were a commish and saw a team had benched a healthy Mahomes and started his backup, Chad Henne, would you say anything?  What if the guy said he was doing it because he wanted to lose?

 

[Manster]

I may appear to be contradicting myself but this is where spirit of the rules become important. Their rules may be woefully deficient, I don't know. What I do know is that no set of bylaws or rules will ever withstand the ingenuity of unethical players. Not only is it impractical to have a written rule for every situation it's impossible to stop people intent on bending rules simply by writing more of them.

This 1000%!!!!

Sketcher gonna sketch

 

[Gally]

I dont get it.

The other owner wanted to use the guy that week.

I have no idea what you are suggesting

If he wanted to use him that week and he played on Thursday you would have had to make the deal before the Thursday game so you would know whether to have him in your lineup or not.  So I guess I don't follow your initial scenario.

 

[Babooya]

Where it went sideways was when the receiving Thomas owner admitted there was a condition he not play him this week - otherwise he would have started him.  How you can say there was nothing secret about the trade is mind blowing to me.  The questions didn't happen when the trade was announced.  They started when Thomas was not in the lineup with only Mattison as the alternative.  And everyone's suspicions proved to be true.

What was the commish’s position on the whole thing?

beyond belief you don’t include it, but keep the guy in the league. 
 

he’s just a dirty commish hell bent on cheating in the lightest way possible?

 

[habsfan]

he’s just a dirty commish hell bent on cheating in the lightest way possible?

Whether he didn't think there was anything wrong with what he did or knew there was, either way he doubled down by lying and clearly isn't your league's standard bearer in the fair play department going forward. The next time a transaction needs scrutiny, good judgment and a ruling, is that the person you want to entrust the outcome to?

 

[Babooya]

Whether he didn't think there was anything wrong with what he did or knew there was, either way he doubled down by lying and clearly isn't your league's standard bearer in the fair play department going forward. The next time a transaction needs scrutiny, good judgment and a ruling, is that the person you want to entrust the outcome to?

Because as mentioned. That trade could have been structured that the MT element of the trade transacts Sunday night or Monday night, the rest immediately, but given software limitation it’s processed at the same time with the agreement that the two trade partners follow the agreement.

no tank. No direction to start anybody. No ethics. Just parameters of a trade . 
 

you don’t know what his perspective is amongst the performative hysteria

 

[dhockster]

Did not read through all 20 pages, so if someone brought this up, I apologize. What if the condition of the trade for the week owner A was playing owner B was owner A had to sit Mahomes for his back-up QB (hypothetically) and not the player (MT) who was included in the trade. Would that change whether it was collusion of not? What if the condition of the trade was owner A had to sit all of his best players who would have started for their back-ups. Would that make it collusion? Not going to say what I think, interested to hear opinions.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Because as mentioned. That trade could have been structured that the MT element of the trade transacts Sunday night or Monday night, the rest immediately, but given software limitation it’s processed at the same time with the agreement that the two trade partners follow the agreement.

no tank. No direction to start anybody. No ethics. Just parameters of a trade . 
 

you don’t know what his perspective is amongst the performative hysteria

Respectfully this is preposterous. We do know the parameters, we do know what each of the owners was limited to as conditions of the deal.

could haves and would haves are irrelevant since we know exactly what happened.

it was collusion at best, throwing a game at worst, and likely a combination of the two. This isn’t hard. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Did not read through all 20 pages, so if someone brought this up, I apologize. What if the condition of the trade for the week owner A was playing owner B was owner A had to sit Mahomes for his back-up QB (hypothetically) and not the player (MT) who was included in the trade. Would that change whether it was collusion of not? What if the condition of the trade was owner A had to sit all of his best players who would have started for their back-ups. Would that make it collusion? Not going to say what I think, interested to hear opinions.

This has been eluded to, yeah. That’s the slippery slope of terrible things that can happen if this trade were allowed to set precedent.

it’s a ridiculous condition to add to a deal & amounts to roster tanking. The degree of tanking may be 1 player or as you correctly describe, it could be several players. It could also be a different week against a different team.

it’s why this condition should never be allowed in any format. 

 

[Ben & Jerry's]

The 3 elements necessary for a binding agreement are offer, acceptance and consideration. The first 2 are clearly present and a valid argument can be made that the willingness to sit MT for the week was part of the consideration.  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

the side condition disrupted the competitive balance of league that week.....it really stops there

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

and a valid argument can be made that the willingness to sit MT for the week was part of the consideration.  

doesn’t even require an argument. We know it for a fact. The MT owner (commish) admitted to the league that it was a condition of the deal.

not only was he willing to do so, he was obligated to do so to complete the trade. Also, he didn’t need the W & the team sending him MT with that condition did. 

56-44 seems really even for collusion this apparent.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

the side condition disrupted the competitive balance of league that week.....it really stops there

Flag thrown. Clear penalty. Thank you, Ref. 

 

[ghostguy123]

If he wanted to use him that week and he played on Thursday you would have had to make the deal before the Thursday game so you would know whether to have him in your lineup or not.  So I guess I don't follow your initial scenario.

The guy I was going to trade played on SUNDAY, but since I was trying to deal him I had to start a guy on thursday that I normally would not have started.

 

[ghostguy123]

56-44 seems really even for collusion this apparent.  

I think the poll should be run again.  Might have a hit different results.

We also need an option for "do nothing but add a rule to prohibit deals like this" (assuming the league votes for the rule)

 

[Gally]

The guy I was going to trade played on SUNDAY, but since I was trying to deal him I had to start a guy on thursday that I normally would not have started.

Oh.  I thought it was the reverse.  Regardless, nobody stipulated you couldn't play the guy on Sunday.  That was done of your own decision so no harm done.

 

[ghostguy123]

Oh.  I thought it was the reverse.  Regardless, nobody stipulated you couldn't play the guy on Sunday.  That was done of your own decision so no harm done.

I know.  But is it tanking?  I purposely played a lesser lineup.  Granted I was trying to deal a player, but an agreement had not been reached yet and easily could have ended up not happening.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I know.  But is it tanking?  I purposely played a lesser lineup.  Granted I was trying to deal a player, but an agreement had not been reached yet and easily could have ended up not happening.

I think there’s a difference between a deal that causes a player to be benched for logistic reasons (e.g. trade on weds, review period goes through Thursday; you don’t get him until next period) and a deal where a player is benched by mandate as a condition of the deal. 

 

[Gally]

Since no other person was directing you to play the Thursday guy over the Sunday guy, then in your opinion your team was better off playing the Thursday player with the option of trading the other guy so that was the best lineup when taking in all factors.....so it is not tanking.

 

[ghostguy123]

Since no other person was directing you to play the Thursday guy over the Sunday guy, then in your opinion your team was better off playing the Thursday player with the option of trading the other guy so that was the best lineup when taking in all factors.....so it is not tanking.

I agree it was not tanking.

However, I also believe I was not setting my best lineup and not giving every effort to win that week based on my current roster, something that many in here have said MUST be done.

 

[habsfan]

I know.  But is it tanking?  I purposely played a lesser lineup.  Granted I was trying to deal a player, but an agreement had not been reached yet and easily could have ended up not happening.

I'm not sure if you are comparing this to real teams that sit players "on the block" to avoid injury but obviously that doesn't translate to fantasy. One side handicaps themselves against the other. The simplest analogy I can think of that you and I are golfing. You are clearly a much better golfer than I am and you ask me if I want to bet on our game. I say, "No you'll cream me!". You say, "Okay what if I give you ten strokes?" Obtaining and sitting MT is effectively offering the strokes to your opponent. You haven't ensured you will lose but you have given something up to draw your opponent into a contract.

 

[ghostguy123]

I'm not sure if you are comparing this to real teams that sit players "on the block" to avoid injury but obviously that doesn't translate to fantasy. One side handicaps themselves against the other. The simplest analogy I can think of that you and I are golfing. You are clearly a much better golfer than I am and you ask me if I want to bet on our game. I say, "No you'll cream me!". You say, "Okay what if I give you ten strokes?" Obtaining and sitting MT is effectively offering the strokes to your opponent. You haven't ensured you will lose but you have given something up to draw your opponent into a contract.

I am not comparing this to anything.  I am just asking questions.

I hear people say ethics are ethics and you should start your best possible lineups every week without fail.  I am asking what people think of my scenario.  Was it unethical?  Was is tanking?  Was it hurting the integrity of the league?  Hurting competitive balance?

According to some yes it was.  I could not disagree more.

 

[habsfan]

I am not comparing this to anything.  I am just asking questions.

I hear people say ethics are ethics and you should start your best possible lineups every week without fail.  I am asking what people think of my scenario.  Was it unethical?  Was is tanking?  Was it hurting the integrity of the league?  Hurting competitive balance?

According to some yes it was.  I could not disagree more.

I think of tanking as "throwing in the towel". In redraft, you can really only lose to help someone else win. In dynasty, you are losing now to help you win later. In that sense, even tanking is not tanking.

 

[Kevrunner]

One example I can think of where I dont agree.

I played a guy on a thursday once who was NOT a guy who would be in my best possible lineup because i was working on a trade where I deal a better player who played on Sunday for draft picks (I was in a rebuild).  

I did end up trading the player for picks (though that fact would be irrelevant based on your stance).

But what if my trade would have fallen through?  Was I tanking?

Dynasty leagues are totally different than redraft leagues, when rebuilding this scenario can happen and hopefully if it did and an owner or the commissioner wanted to investigate why you played a turd , you have a good explanation. 

 

[ghostguy123]

I think of tanking as "throwing in the towel". In redraft, you can really only lose to help someone else win. In dynasty, you are losing now to help you win later. In that sense, even tanking is not tanking.

In dynasty I am in favor of tanking.  I have done it a couple times with great results.  

However, I always play my best lineup given my roster (minus the example I laid out).   I love trading for injured players or guys who suck because their QB got injured.   I dont care at all about roster makeup, for example I would load up on WR value and run two complete nobody's out there at RB if the value of the players made sense to do so.

Not trying to lose, but certainly not trying to win week in and week out.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I agree it was not tanking.

However, I also believe I was not setting my best lineup and not giving every effort to win that week based on my current roster, something that many in here have said MUST be done.

External pressure =/= internal decision

in your scenario you are making all the decisions. They are not conditional in any way. There is no external pressure on you to set your lineup one way or the other. You’re choosing to set your lineup the way it’s set.  You’re free to take a chance on any player you’d like. It’s your team, knock yourself out. I do it all the time. 

in the topic scenario, the pressure is external; as a condition of a trade. Someone else is choosing to set your lineup the way it’s set. They are the ones deciding who they will face when they play you. 

These two scenarios are not analogous. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I am not comparing this to anything.  I am just asking questions.

I hear people say ethics are ethics and you should start your best possible lineups every week without fail.  I am asking what people think of my scenario.  Was it unethical?  Was is tanking?  Was it hurting the integrity of the league?  Hurting competitive balance?

According to some yes it was.  I could not disagree more.

not at all because this isn’t remotely related to the original topic. 

A lineup condition placed on a team that the team dealing the asset is about to trade to his opponent in order to acquire a player is collusion. cut and dry.

your scenario is simply trading for a player & deciding to set your lineup.

the first one is unethical. Your scenario is ethical. There is a clear difference. 

 

[DropKick]

None of this matters.  Not a single word of it.

The only thing that matters is that this owner would have had MT in his starting lineup if he could have.

Instead, he was forced to bench MT and start what he felt was a lesser player, and therefore a weaker lineup.

Stop making things up.

He was not forced to bench MT.  The other owner, who had seller's trepidation, was afraid to have the trade blow up in his face.  So he asked for the trade condition, which the MT owner freely accepted.

I think its likely the MT owner still thought he could win and fielded his best line-up within the bounds of the trade. Sure, he accepted more risk for the week, but there is no evidence he gave the game away.

He made a trade.

 

[DropKick]

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 like this creative thinking.  Great point.

 

[Gally]

Stop making things up.

He was not forced to bench MT.  The other owner, who had seller's trepidation, was afraid to have the trade blow up in his face.  So he asked for the trade condition, which the MT owner freely accepted.

I think its likely the MT owner still thought he could win and fielded his best line-up within the bounds of the trade. Sure, he accepted more risk for the week, but there is no evidence he gave the game away.

He made a trade.

He was free to make the deal but once that deal was made he was forced to sit MT.  That is the collusion aspect.  Any owner is free to decide to collude with another owner but agreeing to do so does not take away the collusion.  In fact you need at least two owners involved to agree to collusion.  One team cannot collude.

 

[DropKick]

Did not read through all 20 pages, so if someone brought this up, I apologize. What if the condition of the trade for the week owner A was playing owner B was owner A had to sit Mahomes for his back-up QB (hypothetically) and not the player (MT) who was included in the trade. Would that change whether it was collusion of not? What if the condition of the trade was owner A had to sit all of his best players who would have started for their back-ups. Would that make it collusion? Not going to say what I think, interested to hear opinions.

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

 

[Gally]

I agree it was not tanking.

However, I also believe I was not setting my best lineup and not giving every effort to win that week based on my current roster, something that many in here have said MUST be done.

Your "best" lineup can be influenced by many factors.  It is something you are deciding with no outside influence as to what helps your team the best.   

You can also decide that you think player X has a bad matchup so you play player Y.  You may be the only person in the world that thinks that because of whatever independent reason you want.  That is your prerogative and there is nothing wrong with that.  On the surface someone will say you didn't play your "best" lineup but that is because they think differently than you.  Again, no issues with doing this.