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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Judge Smails
- Start date
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Everything here is post hoc analysis. the only thing that matters, ethically speaking, is that a side condition of a deal was struck. The owners colluded.
Every subsequent scoring or lineup scenario you bring up happened after that fact.
It’s cut and dry. It’s collusion. it is irrelevant what players scored how many points or who won the game or what they had for dinner after making the deal.
it’s still, literally, collusion.
Seems like we as a fantasy community shouldn't have too much trouble agreeing on a list of things you can and can't offer another owner in a fantasy football trade.
My CAN list would look something like this:
So my CAN'T list would be everything else, including (but obviously not limited to):
My CAN list would look something like this:
- players
- draft picks
- FAAB $$$
- waiver position
So my CAN'T list would be everything else, including (but obviously not limited to):
- half the prize money when I win the league
- I'll walk your dog for a week
- you can borrow my truck to move that refrigerator
- you can set my lineup when we play each other
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
How is that nonsense? You suggest that every possible unethical behavior should be included in the rules.
I merely provided an analogy. You can call it nonsense but it’s apples to apples.
You seem to believe that every action should be anticipated and have a clearly defined rule.
neither of my leagues - the one I commission and the dynasty I’m a manager in - have rules written that explicitly state, “collusion is not allowed” because everyone in the league knows collusion isn’t allowed.
just like everyone in the league knows stealing from a Salvation Army bucket isn’t allowed.
common sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
One more time: the owner involved in this fully admitted that Thomas was a better start than Mattison, and he would have started Thomas if the trade didn't stipulate he couldn't.
Try typing less and reading more.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
No. Not hardly. Negotiation is “coming to an agreement to trade players for players or players for picks”.
collusion is a secretive side deal where external conditions are applied, like say, benching a top player when the teams face each other.
the issue here seems to be that you don’t understand what collusion is.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
It's not. The one guy agreed to bench the better player and start a worse player. You don't do that if you're trying to win.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
They both collided, together. Which is technically a requirement for collusion. Again, we seem to have a definition issue.
If you have to conflate, straw man, and assign unsupported bad faith motives, it’s not really a debate. Just tyranny of the majority, which is why you don’t veto trades without collusion
are both teams trying to improve with this deal (yes/no answer)? If No => Collusion
if yes, than it isn’t collusion, it’s a determination of league rules concerning allowable compensation/conditional trades
this is simple
So you think that 46% if people responding to the poll in this thread lack common sense and think nothing of colluding? That in and of itself should be pretty ample data that this situation isn’t black and white.
Comparing it to stealing from the Salvation Army? Idiotic.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
No; that’s projection on your behalf.
I think 46% of people responding to the poll represent 46% of people responding to a poll.
I think that 46% either don’t truly care about the topic, don’tcare about ethical behavior, or don’t care about collusion.
Your “appeal to the masses” fallacy fails to convince me that unethical behavior is ok.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I’m not upset in the slightest by your lack of understanding what collusion means.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
They literally colluded. You narrowing the definition to suit your argument doesn’t change the absolute fact that there was collusion to incorporate a side condition in secret.
The poll results where 46% respond “no” to the question “collusion?” are a projection on my behalf? Wut in the actual hell are you talking about?
Manster
Footballguy
Here's the deal...
By not putting his best lineup in he affects not only his matchup, but potentially a ripple effect for other teams in the league..
Let's say the commish loses based on not starting the top 5 WR and it changes playoff seeding down the road......its not ok, especially if theres money involved......I know in my leagues this would not stand, man!
By not putting his best lineup in he affects not only his matchup, but potentially a ripple effect for other teams in the league..
Let's say the commish loses based on not starting the top 5 WR and it changes playoff seeding down the road......its not ok, especially if theres money involved......I know in my leagues this would not stand, man!
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
The definition was cut and pasted a page ago. I can quote if if you’d like. You should go read it though because you seem confused.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
You projection.
That’s what’s known as “projection”.
I ignored your ad hominem. It’s ok, not everyone understands analogies.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
You’re really reaching.
the analogy is “unethical behavior is unethical”
that’s it: there’s nothing more to understand. I wouldn’t force anyone to donate to charity, but I do frown upon those who steal from charity.
Pretty straightforward.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Then the league must institute a rule that requires starting the player with the highest projected points.
Every trade is collusion. Every trade is a private conversation with the results only being known after the trade. This was a condition of the trade that affected only those two players that week as mutual opponents.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
no, I’m not: I have a perfect understanding of collusion. This trade involved it. Clearly.
No, that’s projection. Kindly stop telling me what I think. I’ve very clearly stated my take. This wasn’t “trading strategy”, this was a secret conditional side deal.
it’s not that I’ve never “thought of” doing shady things, it’s that I choose not to because ethics.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
If one guy wants to trade Mahomes Kelce and Adams to your biggest rival for a car wash, a 6-pack, and $20 cash, then who are you to say that he can't? You don't get any say in other peoples deals.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
why would the league need to do that? That’s also irrelevant.
Again; who they started is after the fact. Collusion happened the moment the (figurative) ink was dry on their secret side deal.
Wrong. Deals are made, players are exchanged. The negotiations are private - a private negotiation =/= collusion.
collusion = collusion. A secret side condition to a player exchange = collusion.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
ALL
TRADES ARE SECRETuntil they are processed
MT sat on the bench. There was nothing secret about it. The league all saw it.
Read your post that my response was in regards to and let me know who was doing the “projection.”
Also, there’s lots of great back and forth from both sides going on in this thread. You’re one poster that’s always been a bit prone to hyperbole and letting your emotions shine through in your posts, which has never bothered me much because I appreciate your views and contributions. But for full disclosure, you’re acting like an (|) in this thread.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
*aggression
c’mon man
Manster
Footballguy
Dude you cant make a deal go through by saying you'll sit a stud so the other owner has a better chance at winning.....you can try to explain it anyway you want, but it's unethical at best, and imo, it's clearly collusion.
Think about it this way....
If it were a two man league then it's fine, because end goal is to beat the one other owner, which both are trying to do.....I'm assuming there are a bunch of other owners, as a two man league would be odd......if I was another owner in this league and shady #### like this was going on with the commish I'd be pissed.....it also sets a precedent for sketchy transactions to continue.....it's taking a dive, period!
Last edited by a moderator:
They literally negotiated in good faith. You substituting ‘collusion’ for negotiation doesn’t change the absolute fact both teams made the trade in pursuit of improving their teams.
If the rules on conditional trades aren’t defined, you (league) would prefer to be asked permission on it prior to consummation so tyranny of the majority could vote down trades that help the competition, and maybe that should have happened. it would tip off the trade owners to leave the league, as spot rules would be created mid season simply to deny them the ability to improve. That’s way bigger collusion than the trade
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Clap all you want.ALL
until they are processed
MT sat on the bench. There was nothing secret about it. The league all saw it.
secret is not the same as collusion.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
we actually don’t know their faith.
we do know that they lied about the secret condition they negotiated, which makes me question how good their faith was when negotiating.
that seems problematic to your assumption about their faith.
Ridiculous. Ethical behavior is expected. It is not “tyranny of the masses” to expect it, or call out transgressions against it.
It's not important because the part in question is secretly agreeing to sit a better player after the trade is made in order for the other team to get an edge in the matchup that week. In essence Team B was able to use players off of Team A while Team A was not able to use players off of Team B for the week. This is making one better team out of two (if even for a week). It was done in secrecy so the rest of the league did not know about the agreement. These things are the definition of collusion.
The fact it could help Team A in the long run does not excuse the fact a secret agreement was made to combine two teams into one to give a team an advantage that week. The players involved are irrelevant. The intent of the action is the problem.
Fair point, counter point is that commish thinks MT side won the trade (but trade is considered ‘fair’ outside of the condition being argued), so is colluding to tank or improving his team?we actually don’t know their faith.
we do know that they lied about the secret condition they negotiated, which makes me question how good their faith was when negotiating.
that seems problematic to your assumption about their faith.
Ridiculous. Ethical behavior is expected. It is not “tyranny of the masses” to expect it, or call out transgressions against it.
but now you aren’t arguing the condition, you are arguing the entire trade negotiation was done in bad faith, really can’t understand how you Intend to prove it given my above point. But if it was done in bad faith obv agree kick out the owners
Last edited by a moderator:
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Pipes
Footballguy
You forgot the part to why is was on the bench, you know the part where they colluded. I'm done nothing is going to change my mind this was a lousy thing to do and wouldn't be part on any league I'm in.ALL
until they are processed
MT sat on the bench. There was nothing secret about it. The league all saw it.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
If they lied you wouldn’t have found out about it.we actually don’t know their faith.
we do know that they lied about the secret condition they negotiated, which makes me question how good their faith was when negotiating.
that seems problematic to your assumption about their faith.
Ridiculous. Ethical behavior is expected. It is not “tyranny of the masses” to expect it, or call out transgressions against it.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Up until the game was decided by 1 point. So again, just force managers to simply roster based on point projections.
Last edited by a moderator:
They lied at first, then later came clean under mounting pressure from the rest of the league.
The outcome is irrelevant. But the whole 1 point thing works against your argument, since the guy lost by starting Mattison, but would have won if he had started Thomas.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
you were and obviously so. You keep trying to tell me what I think, how I’m feeling and/or drawing conclusions for me based on those things.
by definition, that’s projection. Just like by definition, this deal involved collusion.
No, I’m calling out illogical arguments and projection. If that upsets you, stop being illogical and projecting.
Last edited by a moderator:
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Maybe you just didn't know it happened. It was done in secret and only brought to the forefront when the guy was questioned about it and he begrudgingly confessed.
I agree though. I doubt this has happened much because it is unethical and fairly easy to spot (not starting an obvious starter that you just traded for as an example). As a commish I do allow conditional trades however all of the conditions must be in the comments of the acceptance on the website. Also, conditions cannot involve "players to be named later" or getting players back if conditions are not met. The only conditions we allow are change in draft pick rounds if certain conditions are met. For example, the pick becomes a first rounder if I win the league. It stays a 3rd rounder if I don't type of thing.
Bottom line everything has to be out in the open. Once you hide something then it becomes shady. If the trading partners would have made this condition public I am sure the league would have spoke up and it would never have gone through and the fact they kept it hidden leads me to believe they didn't think it was right either.
Manster
Footballguy
The trade, I'm assuming was legit. It's the side condition. Owner A clearly stated he would play a lesser lineup to entice owner B to make the trade. This could affect the playoff seeding or standings of other teams in the league.
So, it is NOT collusion to make only one team better, which I guess is how we would normally think of collusion in FF........what it is, is clearly unethical, and could affect the standings of other owners.
The guys arguing that this is ok would last one season in my long running leagues and be voted out......we've had guys who try to skirt the line of ethics, and the aggression doesn't stand, man! Especially since we pay a hefty buy-in.
Similar threads
