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!
Commissioner Collusion - what say you? - Update - I’m playing the sketchy commish in the semi’s and Thomas is out (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Judge Smails
- Start date
there......
here.....good discussion topic on a fantasy football message board with a lot of commish's where stuff like this comes up on occasion.....
DropKick
Footballguy
Most people advocate a laissez faire attitude toward trades. Why does a trivial condition of not using the player for one week cause people to lose their minds?there......
here.....good discussion topic on a fantasy football message board with a lot of commish's where stuff like this comes up on occasion.....
It is definitely not collusion or tanking, it is simply whether you allow conditional trades or not. My league specifically outlaws them, but the bigger reason is just a practical one that league software doesn’t support it and it could be a pain to track the endless iterations you can come up with. Bonus is avoiding these situations
One more thought is that MT has been pure trash this year. What did he give up(likely better immediate option) maybe weighing a blow up game changing value equation in determining whether to wait a week or accept the condition
One more thought is that MT has been pure trash this year. What did he give up(likely better immediate option) maybe weighing a blow up game changing value equation in determining whether to wait a week or accept the condition
DropKick
Footballguy
Judge Smails
Footballguy
JuJu, Lindsay and an insta cut scrub. Most would pick the Thomas side, but that wasn’t the debate or issue. The issue to most in our league was a team purposely, admittedly not fielding his best team against an opponent. Integrity of the league.
Judge Smails
Footballguy
DropKick
Footballguy
Disagree with your take on integrity. Without the condition, the trade isn't made. Best team can be interpreted as one Sunday or for rest of the season. Team is playing to win. Bottom Line,
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
People would really be much better off if they simply worried about their own teams and not other people’s trades or rosters.
wlwiles
Footballguy
Agree to disagree on “lack of integrity.” Team A is operating in his teams best interest, for the duration of the season. Unless this league has some specifically and carefully worded rule that says you must always field your most competitive lineup (never mind the million X over Y arguments for flex players every week), I don’t have an issue with Owner A’s integrity. He paid a price willingly to acquire a player he wanted. That price included not being able to use Thomas that week.
the two owners only admitting the “side deal” after heavy questioning tells me that they both thought what they were doing was shady. Which is fine. I don’t see it that way but it tells me they do/did.
Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
Why does this matter? In fact, it got me thinking about the fact that even without the trade this is still collusion.
Team A secretly asks Team B, who they are playing, to sit a top-ranked fantasy player and play a back up instead. Unless there was some benefit, Team B would not do it (I mean, would you?). So let's say that benefit was $100 cash.
Does that seem kosher to you? That alone is collusion to me.
Now throw in the fact that sitting Thomas was a compelling factor for the trade to be made and completed, that's even smellier.
I don't see anyone losing minds in here, do you?
But I don't think it's trivial.
This isn't caveat emptor over a lopsided trade. This was a bargain, made in secret, that spilled over from the simple exchange of players to also involving decreasing the chances of a team losing to the other party that week.
Trading players should just be trading players. Nothing more.
Kevrunner
Footballguy
Every game has an impact on who makes the playoffs and seedlings. Nothing I dislike more in playing fantasy football is when owner doesn’t submit his/her’s best lineup to compete each week. All games have ramifications for who makes the playoffs and the seedings. Though this particular instance of an owner agreeing to sit a top fantasy option in order for a trade to occur looks harmless at first for some of you, hopefully it backfires on the owner in the future and the tables will be turned where he misses the playoffs because another owner sits a stud that they just got in a trade.
The dude started Alexander Mattison (with Dalvin Cook fully healthy) over Michael Thomas. He clearly wasn't fielding his best team. There can be no disputing that much. The OP showed the huge disparity in where the two guys were ranked for the week.
Basic principles of fairness, integrity, etc. dictate that at a bare minimum, each team must field its best lineup every week.
DropKick
Footballguy
Take a look at the bias in the poll options... or the spin you chose with the word "secrecy". Trade negotiations are inherently private in nature. You make it sound covert.
Am I a big fan of such conditions? No, but it wouldn't deter me from making a deal to acquire an important piece. A little unusual but not egregious.
The only pertinent fact is this:
Dude benched the guy ranked #25 and started the guy ranked #170.
DropKick
Footballguy
No one disputed that... and rankings are irrelevant.
He wouldn't have Thomas if not for the trade... and the trade wouldn't happen without the condition.
So, it was strategic... less chance of winning a single game vs having Thomas from here on out.
ETA: Note - And with the Brees injury, this could have back-fired. Part of the game.
Last edited by a moderator:
"I won't try and win against you this week" isn't valid currency to be used in a trade.
DropKick
Footballguy
It absolutely, 100% is. He started the #170 ranked guy and benched the #25 guy. He wouldn't have done that if he was trying to win.
DropKick
Footballguy
I suspect he did his best to win without Thomas in his line-up. A player he wouldn't have without the trade. So, if the trade isn't made, he still trots out Mattison in the flex?
Sorry but nothing says "trying to lose"... in fact, just the opposite.
The guy received both Thomas and Mattison in the trade. He started Mattison and benched Thomas. He wouldn't have done that if he was trying to win. This is not anything a reasonable person would dispute.
DropKick
Footballguy
The Future Champs
Footballguy
I skimmed the thread, and I couldn't find the full details of the trade. That said,
If the owner receiving Thomas traded away a better starting option than Mattison :X , which is likely, then that owner tanked. Period.
DropKick
Footballguy
The Future Champs
Footballguy
Also, voted to impeach, fine, and overturn. Their initial denials is the deciding factor.
The Future Champs
Footballguy
1. Didn't see league info- tanking owner might be locked into a playoff spot.
2. His loss, and team B's win, probably effects the playoff chances for other teams. That's why people get riled up.
3. It's possible to tank a single game and improve your chances in the playoffs. Like, for example, if you get a stud player in return for tanking.
4. Period.
DropKick
Footballguy
ratbast
Footballguy
He played the lineup he would have played if he didn’t make the trade. I see no problem with this at all. Frankly being open about it has no merit either. It’s none of anyone’s business.
If he played Duke Johnson would you have raised this issue? Maybe he thought Mattison was due?
Also, who’s to say what’s anybody’s “best lineup”? And the dude also lost, and his new toy also lost his hall of fame QB.
And tell me what week this year Thomas should have been in anyone’s lineup?
Mountains from molehills
If he played Duke Johnson would you have raised this issue? Maybe he thought Mattison was due?
Also, who’s to say what’s anybody’s “best lineup”? And the dude also lost, and his new toy also lost his hall of fame QB.
And tell me what week this year Thomas should have been in anyone’s lineup?
Mountains from molehills
DropKick
Footballguy
No evidence that he tanked. He would'nt have Thomas if he didn't agree to sit him for a week. Beyond that, I imagine he did his best to win with that much money at stake.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Future Champs
Footballguy
Who did he give away?
This is important. If he didn't have anyone to play, then it's not such a big deal, as he got Thomas and Mattison in the trade. If he traded away a player that's better than Mattison then it's plainly collusion.
The Future Champs
Footballguy
It's refreshing to carry on a conversation with someone who completely ignores what I've said. Were we ever married? Seems like it.
DropKick
Footballguy
Incidentally, I get your second point - teams are impacted by things like this but with so much money at stake, it is dog eat dog. End of the day, the guys is doing his best to win the league, if not the week. That isn't collusion.
No, it isn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
DropKick
Footballguy
The Future Champs
Footballguy
And your reasoning is...?
I'll tell you my reasoning why it is important: if he traded away a better player (for last week's purposes) than Mattison, and agreed to start Mattison, then he deliberately weakened himself for that week's game. The trade might help his team win in the long run, but tanking a game still isn't OK, and doing so once you've wrapped up a playoff spot in return for a stud player is collusion.
It's really not important. What's important is that he agreed to bench a better player and start a worse player. According to the OP, the guy readily admitted that Thomas was the better start that week.
However the answer to your question is JuJu Smith-Schuster and Phillip Lindsay.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Future Champs
Footballguy
Missed that. Yeah, he would have started Smith- Schuster, and he would have won his game. He tanked, it's collusion.
Judge Smails
Footballguy
#2 is really, really important. We play for enough to keep it interesting, $500 entry fee to start and then ways to buy extra FAAB if playoff bound, etc. But hey, we're typical older FBGs. It's not game changing money. May buy a new set of golf clubs if we win. We play more for bragging rights and pride. We lessen our playoff chances naturally by bad choices (like I did alternating Brady and Brees the last 2 weeks). We accept that. Lessen our playoff chances by tanking in a given week to a team we're fighting for a wild card and it gets western. Which it did in this case. Couple hundred WhatsApp posts last night. Commish resigned by the way. Still in the league, but passed the commish torch to someone else.
The Future Champs
Footballguy
The $ really just guarantees the bragging rights, imo.
I voted earlier to impeach, fine, and overturn. With the commish resigning I'd skip the fine portion. I'd still overturn the win/loss.
When these two guys' initial reaction was to hide the truth instead of taking a "yeah so what" attitude illustrates that they knew it was wrong (along with the rest of the league, apparently).
Mark Football
Footballguy
Team A did everything in their power to win the game. It was not in their power to play Thomas, that was part of the trade. No collusion.
Just reverse the trade, put JJSS and Thomas in their original owners' starting lineups, recompute the game score, and be done with it.
If they want to execute the same trade to be effective week 11, go for it.
The Future Champs
Footballguy
Btw, if you guys don't have an established system for fines, I strongly advocate you don't fine.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
As described, it’s literally collusion. They collided to arrange a roster/lineup decision as a condition of the trade.
what’s unusual is that it’s not what I would think of as traditional collision - meaning, no one threw a game intentionally.
But that feels a bit like splitting hairs. The trade is whack since it has a side condition that effects their respective rosters.
as commish I would never allow such a thing in my league. Once a trade is completed, lineup decisions are up to the owners. Conditional trades & side deals = collusion.
I think you need a new commish if that’s how stuff goes down in that league. I haven’t read any of the other replies - I’m sure some folks will be fine with this but it sounds shady AF to me.
what’s unusual is that it’s not what I would think of as traditional collision - meaning, no one threw a game intentionally.
But that feels a bit like splitting hairs. The trade is whack since it has a side condition that effects their respective rosters.
as commish I would never allow such a thing in my league. Once a trade is completed, lineup decisions are up to the owners. Conditional trades & side deals = collusion.
I think you need a new commish if that’s how stuff goes down in that league. I haven’t read any of the other replies - I’m sure some folks will be fine with this but it sounds shady AF to me.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
The Future Champs
Footballguy
It was in Team A's power to start Smith-Schuster, but he deliberately gave that up and accepted a lesser option (starting Mattison) in order to acquire a stud WR, in a game that was meaningless to Team A. And then lied about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Future Champs
Footballguy
The coverup is worse than the crime, imo.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Yeah, I agree with the latter. I didn’t see anything to indicate that a player was throwing a game.Fantasy Football leagues do tons of things real NFL teams don't allow.
Starting with letting regular people like us run the teams and make the rules.
My only point was it's entirely reasonable for a GM to not want to face a player he traded away and it felt like the opposite of tanking.
But...in my experience, typically when someone is considering a trade, and they don’t want to face the player they're reading away, they wait a week to make the trade rather than hash out some shady side deal where someone agrees to bench a top asset.
it might not be collusion in a traditional sense, and it may not even be unethical. but it also doesn’t quite pass the ethical smell test and I could see teams in my leagues having an issue with it.
In decades of playing FF I’ve never seen this come up, and at one point I was in 7 leagues. I would think if it were a normal thing it would have happened a few times.
I dunno. It feels unclean. lol
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Similar threads
