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

[The Future Champs]

Once again, 

col·lu·sion

/kəˈlo͞oZHən/

noun

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

There was a secret agreement that is not acceptable in that league.   The fact that both teams might have benefitted from the trade is irrelevant.   Everything else is just noise.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You mean by not playing Thomas, a player he wouldn't have if he didn't meet the trade demands?

The trade demanded him to tank that week; so yes. 

I’m not sure how your attempt at a chicken and the egg scenario is important. The facts are clear. He tanked as a condition of the trade. It was collusion. 

 

[DropKick]

I’m saying it. He didn’t need the W, so he agreed on a condition to not field his best lineup. He admitted he would have started MT had that not been a condition.

therefore he clearly was not trying to win the game. 

it’s a binary. There are only two options here. He’s either trying to win the game or he’s not trying to win the game. There’s no grey area nor is there a 3rd nebulous option where he “tried to win” with a lesser lineup. That would be a preposterous assertion, so out of respect I’ll assume you’re not making it. 

Since the purpose of playing FF is winning games, in essence, in practice, in reality he threw the game. 

Calling it anything else is putting lipstick on a pig, as grandpa used to say. 

No, he did not. You’re assuming his intention was to win. but we don’t know that was his intention. 

All we know is

1. he didn’t need the W.

2. his opponent did need the W

and

3. to obtain the player he wanted via trade he agreed to a condition that forced him to start a less potent lineup.

#3 is him explicitly taking action to not try to win. To the contrary, it is the opposite. Again; if he’s not trying to win, then he’s trying to lose.

You keep attempting to make this a situation where somehow he was trying to win by benching the top asset he literally just traded for, and again as granddad used to say; that don’t won’t hunt. 

Disagree.  At this point in the season, your thought process can and should go beyond one week.  Of course he would have started MT but it was a condition - no trade, no MT.

Your binary options are not all inclusive.  One can try to position themselves for the play-off run and try to win at the same time.  Again, couldn't the same owner have made the same trade with the only change in circumstance being that MT was on bye?  He would be lessening his chance of winning that week, right?  No one would blink.  No one would question his desire to win.

 

[DropKick]

The trade demanded him to tank that week; so yes. 

I’m not sure how your attempt at a chicken and the egg scenario is important. The facts are clear. He tanked as a condition of the trade. It was collusion. 

The trade stipulated he not use Thomas; not that he intentionally throw the game.  Agreed?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Disagree.  At this point in the season, your thought process can and should go beyond one week.  Of course he would have started MT but it was a condition - no trade, no MT.

Your binary options are not all inclusive.  One can try to position themselves for the play-off run and try to win at the same time.  Again, couldn't the same owner have made the same trade with the only change in circumstance being that MT was on bye?  He would be lessening his chance of winning that week, right?  No one would blink.  No one would question his desire to win.

But it is a binary. 

The condition was literally a demand that he tank a week in exchange for a player. 

All due respect, but your detailed psychoanalysis of who intended to do what is completely irrelevant. 

As for the BYE, also irrelevant because MT was not on the BYE. He was benched by the team that just traded for him. 

Adding layers of hypotheticals doesn’t change the facts. They made a conditional deal for a player with a demand that said player would be benched. Not on a BYE, not injured. Not suspended. A healthy, active MT was benched as a condition of the deal.

Another accurate way to phrase that is that in order to get MT in trade, the team getting him, who did not need a W, agreed to tank the week for the team dealing him.

whether that was the intention or the byproduct of their shady deal, that was the result.

Your entire hypothetical goes out the door with the fact that he wasn’t on a BYE. It’s not remotely the same circumstance.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The trade stipulated he not use Thomas; not that he intentionally throw the game.  Agreed?

I see no functional difference in those two stipulations: functionally they are the same.

 

[DropKick]

I see no functional difference in those two stipulations: functionally they are the same.

I guess I have more confidence... I can secure the player I want for the stretch run and win one game without him.

Am I tanking?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I guess I have more confidence... I can secure the player I want for the stretch run and win one game without him.

Am I tanking?

Yes. 100%. If that if a condition you accept by making the deal to acquire him. You and the other team are colluding, and you are actively, deliberately fielding a worse lineup, which gives your opponent a better chance of getting the W he desperately needs. And if you lose, there’s no penalty since you didn’t need the W.

ETA: keeping it on point for the topic scenario, you’re actively starting a backup RB with a healthy Cook. So you’re deliberately playing a RB who might get ~5 touches over a WR who’s likely yo get ~10 targets. 

100% unquestionably tanking by literally any definition of the term. 

 

[DropKick]

Your entire hypothetical goes out the door with the fact that he wasn’t on a BYE. It’s not remotely the same circumstance.  

It is exactly the same from a trade evaluation perspective.  I understand the difference if you want to question the ethics of the trade. 

 

[shadrap]

I see no functional difference in those two stipulations: functionally they are the same.

not in my humble opinion.

 

[Gally]

I guess I have more confidence... I can secure the player I want for the stretch run and win one game without him.

Am I tanking?

If that is a decision based solely on your decision and not a stipulation by another owner - then no you are not tanking.  

The tanking comes into play when you agree to field an inferior lineup to help the other team win.

 

[Gally]

It is exactly the same from a trade evaluation perspective.  I understand the difference if you want to question the ethics of the trade. 

The whole point of this is questioning the ethics of the trade.  That is what this discussion is all about.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If that is a decision based solely on your decision and not a stipulation by another owner - then no you are not tanking.  

The tanking comes into play when you agree to field an inferior lineup to help the other team win.

Exactly. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

not in my humble opinion.

Then we can agree to disagree. Because based on the scenario, they’re the same. 

 

[DropKick]

Yes. 100%. If that if a condition you accept by making the deal to acquire him. You and the other team are colluding, and you are actively, deliberately fielding a worse lineup, which gives your opponent a better chance of getting the W he desperately needs. And if you lose, there’s no penalty since you didn’t need the W.

Your opinion... I'm lessening the chance I might win this week for tomorrow.  It is a calculated risk.  And, if my record is good enough that I don't need the W, then I earned that luxury.  But I'm acting in my team's best interest.

 

[Gally]

Your opinion... I'm lessening the chance I might win this week for tomorrow.  It is a calculated risk.  And, if my record is good enough that I don't need the W, then I earned that luxury.  But I'm acting in my team's best interest.

So you have no issue if you were fighting for a playoff spot with another team and their opponent agreed to play an inferior lineup against them?  You think that is good for the league?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Your opinion... I'm lessening the chance I might win this week for tomorrow.  It is a calculated risk.  And, if my record is good enough that I don't need the W, then I earned that luxury.  But I'm acting in my team's best interest.

That doesn’t justify cheating & letting the other team win. 

your “luxury” only extends so far as your own comfort level. 

 By benching the top asset you just acquired by trade, you’re extending that luxury to your opponent, creating an unfair advantage for him, seemingly as a condition of the trade.

that’s cheating. It’s tanking, however you wish to name It. It’s deeply unethical, and any league I’ve ever played in would throw you both out for it. 

Because the teams competing for that playoff spot would be put at a disadvantage because of the move. They would be watching a team they’re competing with get an unfair advantage by your benching that top asset.

It’s collusion, cut and dry. Claiming some sort of immunity against unethical behavior because you don’t need the W is beyond the pale.

 

[ratbast]

If he played anyone other than MT he was tanking? He might have thought garbage time Mattison would be just fine. 
 

No tanking, playing anyone over MT this year is a smart play, literally he’s caught more than 2 passes once. Possibly a trade rule breach but no way it’s tanking unless trading points away is tanking. 

 

[DropKick]

If that is a decision based solely on your decision and not a stipulation by another owner - then no you are not tanking. 

The tanking comes into play when you agree to field an inferior lineup to help the other team win.

Hard to separate what is your own decision from the trade conditions.  You accept the trade to get Thomas.  Ironically, that could blow up on the guy...

It isn't a check and the egg scenario, but he wouldn't have Thomas if it weren't for the trade.

I don't see this as a tanking issue.  To me, that is misdirection.  Not playing Thomas was a result of the trade conditions and whether trades should be allowed with strings attached is truly the heart of the matter.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If that is a decision based solely on your decision and not a stipulation by another owner - then no you are not tanking.  
 

the interesting thought experiment there is how the rest of the league would see such an action.

team A trades with team B to obtain MT, presumably their new WR1. 

Come Sunday, team A benches MT completely independent of the trade, because “eh, I wanted to see if I could win without him, and besides, I didn’t need the W anyway”. 

Likely outcome: rest of league is exactly as pissed, and probably assumes they had a secret handshake deal anyway, even if they didn’t.  

 

[DropKick]

So you have no issue if you were fighting for a playoff spot with another team and their opponent agreed to play an inferior lineup against them?  You think that is good for the league?

Depends.  If the guy intentionally fielded his worse team as an attempt to get a "lesser" team into the play-offs, that's not cool.  But if a guy bad a bye/injury depleted team and opted not to fully utilize the waiver in favor of keeping his current roster intact, I could understand his choice.

 

[Gally]

If he played anyone other than MT he was tanking? He might have thought garbage time Mattison would be just fine. 
 

No tanking, playing anyone over MT this year is a smart play, literally he’s caught more than 2 passes once. Possibly a trade rule breach but no way it’s tanking unless trading points away is tanking. 

The owner admitted he wanted to play MT over Mattison and the only reason he did not was due to the stipulation.  So the fact MT has been underperforming is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Gally]

Depends.  If the guy intentionally fielded his worse team as an attempt to get a "lesser" team into the play-offs, that's not cool.  But if a guy bad a bye/injury depleted team and opted not to fully utilize the waiver in favor of keeping his current roster intact, I could understand his choice.

You are avoiding the question to suit your narrative. 

This situation is your option #1.  The owner intentionally fielded an inferior team in an attempt to give the guy an advantage for the week.  This fact is not in dispute.  It was admitted.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Hard to separate what is your own decision from the trade conditions.  You accept the trade to get Thomas.  Ironically, that could blow up on the guy...

It isn't a check and the egg scenario, but he wouldn't have Thomas if it weren't for the trade.

I don't see this as a tanking issue.  To me, that is misdirection.  Not playing Thomas was a result of the trade conditions and whether trades should be allowed with strings attached is truly the heart of the matter.

The strings...are....the unethical part. And the string was to tank. 

cmon. You’re dancing around this point like angels on the head of a pin. Your defense of this doesn’t make sense, and you are attempting to make this into a chicken and egg scenario.

if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. That doesn’t change the fact that the team that obtained MT agreed to the conditional roster move to complete the deal. 

That conditional roster move was, in effect, tanking. Clearly. It’s not debatable that agreeing to start an inferior lineup (Mattison over MT) is making every attempt to win. You simply can’t assert that. 

And the asserted belief that maybe team MT thought he could win anyway is totally irrelevant. 

mall that matters is that as part of the deal, one team that didn’t need a W agreed to field a less competitive team against the team that needed a W.

and that’s just based on what we know for certain.

The more I think about it, and since they lied about it, I’m starting to suspect that’s just the PR spin they put on it when they got caught.  Because it sure sounds a whole lot like dude agreed to throw a game he didn’t need to win in order to acquire MT. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You are avoiding the question to suit your narrative. 

This situation is your option #1.  The owner intentionally fielded an inferior team in an attempt to give the guy an advantage for the week.  This fact is not in dispute.  It was admitted.

This exactly. 

 

[DropKick]

The strings...are....the unethical part. And the string was to tank. 

cmon. You’re dancing around this point like angels on the head of a pin. Your defense of this doesn’t make sense, and you are attempting to make this into a chicken and egg scenario.

if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. That doesn’t change the fact that the team that obtained MT agreed to the conditional roster move to complete the deal. 

That conditional roster move was, in effect, tanking. Clearly. It’s not debatable that agreeing to start an inferior lineup (Mattison over MT) is making every attempt to win. You simply can’t assert that. 

And the asserted belief that maybe team MT thought he could win anyway is totally irrelevant. 

mall that matters is that as part of the deal, one team that didn’t need a W agreed to field a less competitive team against the team that needed a W.

and that’s just based on what we know for certain.

The more I think about it, and since they lied about it, I’m starting to suspect that’s just the PR spin they put on it when they got caught.  Because it sure sounds a whole lot like dude agreed to throw a game he didn’t need to win in order to acquire MT. 

I'm not dancing.  I'm not losing on purpose.  My goal is to acquire Thomas and Mattison to back up Cook.  Really strengthens my team .  Can't get the deal done.  Other owner won't pull the trigger unless I promise not to use MT against him this week.  Think about it... OK, an unusual request but I have a good team.  Played all year without MT, it's worth it for one week and maybe Thomas isn't completely up to form yet.

As for "every attempt to win", I am certainly doing that in acquiring MT and Mattison.  I just care more about the championship than I do week 10.

But feel free to exaggerate this one point loss into claims of throwing a game.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'm not dancing.  I'm not losing on purpose.  My goal is to acquire Thomas and Mattison to back up Cook.  Really strengthens my team .  Can't get the deal done.  Other owner won't pull the trigger unless I promise not to use MT against him this week.  Think about it... OK, an unusual request but I have a good team.  Played all year without MT, it's worth it for one week and maybe Thomas isn't completely up to form yet.

As for "every attempt to win", I am certainly doing that in acquiring MT and Mattison.  I just care more about the championship than I do week 10.

But feel free to exaggerate this one point loss into claims of throwing a game.

All you’re saying is the ends justify the means and you’re willing to cheat to get the trade done. 

There’s literally no other way to interpret this statement. 

 

[DropKick]

You are avoiding the question to suit your narrative.

This situation is your option #1.  The owner intentionally fielded an inferior team in an attempt to give the guy an advantage for the week.  This fact is not in dispute.  It was admitted.

Bull ####.  I said it depended on the situation and gave you two distinct example of teams doing something unacceptable and acceptable.

And this situation is not #1. 

 

[DropKick]

All you’re saying is the ends justify the means and you’re willing to cheat to get the trade done. 

There’s literally no other way to interpret this statement. 

Who am I cheating?

 

[Gally]

I'm not dancing.  I'm not losing on purpose.  My goal is to acquire Thomas and Mattison to back up Cook.  Really strengthens my team .  Can't get the deal done.  Other owner won't pull the trigger unless I promise not to use MT against him this week.  Think about it... OK, an unusual request but I have a good team.  Played all year without MT, it's worth it for one week and maybe Thomas isn't completely up to form yet.

As for "every attempt to win", I am certainly doing that in acquiring MT and Mattison.  I just care more about the championship than I do week 10.

But feel free to exaggerate this one point loss into claims of throwing a game.

I again ask you if you are ok with this deal if you were fighting for a playoff spot against the team that won because the other team purposely played an inferior lineup because of a secret trade stipulation.

Are you ok with that?

 

[Gally]

Bull ####.  I said it depended on the situation and gave you two distinct example of teams doing something unacceptable and acceptable.

And this situation is not #1. 

We are discussing one specific situation.  There is no need to speculate on other situations which is why you are changing the question to suit your narrative.

How is this not the first situation you outlined? He purposely played an inferior lineup to help the other guy win.  That was the situation you outlined.

 

[Manster]

It’s not tanking. You can’t even begin to justify that benching MT is tanking this year. It’s also ridiculous to expect it to be announced to the league. Either it’s within the rules or not. What does announcing it to the league change? 
 

Ive stated that I see how it can possibly be considered against the rules but that’s it. No other aspects matter. It’s either against the rules or not. 

 

This scenario should not have to be in the rules.  It's unethical, period.  Owner A, the commish, no less, promised to bench a player to make his matchup against owner B better for owner B that week, to make the trade go thru.......again, if it's a two man league, no big deal, these two are the only affected, and are both trying to better their teams chances......since there are other owners whose standings could be affected negatively by a win/loss based on a lineup stipulation between two of the owners, it's a no-go.

I really can't believe there are as many people who play FF who think this ok.....I mean where does it stop?  Next time he sits two studs?  I mean basically by allowing this you are opening a can of worms that will lead to all out tanking to make a trade go thru.....I mean why couldn't you agree to sit multiple players if this is ok?

 

[Gally]

Who am I cheating?

The rest of the league not involved in the trade.  Specifically the team fighting for a playoff spot with your opponent that won because you played an inferior lineup.

 

[DropKick]

Hypothetical..

Thomas is on bye... I make the same trade, no clause necessary... I've reduced my chance of winning and, consequently, given my opponent a better chance of victory. 

Any complaints that I didn't do my best to win in week 10?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The rest of the league not involved in the trade.  Specifically the team fighting for a playoff spot with your opponent that won because you played an inferior lineup.

Yup. This seems pretty clear, especially since it’s been mentioned several times. Once by me on this very page. 

 

[DropKick]

The rest of the league not involved in the trade.  Specifically the team fighting for a playoff spot with your opponent that won because you played an inferior lineup.

Maybe those teams need to worry about winning their own games?

 

[Gally]

Hypothetical..

Thomas is on bye... I make the same trade, no clause necessary... I've reduced my chance of winning and, consequently, given my opponent a better chance of victory. 

Any complaints that I didn't do my best to win in week 10?

But that hypothetical is not what happened.  You are changing the facts to suit your narrative.

Nobody has an issue making a trade for a guy on bye.  It happens all the time.  The issue here is trading for a guy with the stipulation you cannot play him even though you think he is the best option on your roster.  That is the problem.  It's the only problem.  It is collusion and should not be allowed.

 

[Gally]

Maybe those teams need to worry about winning their own games?

So you don't have an issue fighting for a playoff spot against a team that gets gifted a win due to collusion?

 

[Kevrunner]

If he played anyone other than MT he was tanking? He might have thought garbage time Mattison would be just fine. 
 

No tanking, playing anyone over MT this year is a smart play, literally he’s caught more than 2 passes once. Possibly a trade rule breach but no way it’s tanking unless trading points away is tanking. 

Let’s see, Micheal Thomas misses week 2 thru week 8, in week 9, his first game back, he scores just just over 10 points in PPR leagues and you are saying benching Thomas in week 10 was smart/fine play for a backup RB who might get some points in garbage time.  Mattison had scored barely over 10 points total in his 3 previous games combined.   I’ll just have to disagree with your opinion on benching Thomas for Mattison was a smart move for week 10.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Hypothetical..

Thomas is on bye... I make the same trade, no clause necessary... I've reduced my chance of winning and, consequently, given my opponent a better chance of victory. 

Any complaints that I didn't do my best to win in week 10?

Asked and answered a page back. 

 

[DropKick]

So you don't have an issue fighting for a playoff spot against a team that gets gifted a win due to collusion?

Don't believe the win was gifted or collusion, but wins/losses in head to head fantasy football are incredibly random.  I've had weeks where I scored twice as many points as another team but lost while they won... and I've seen competition gifted wins against injury or bye depleted teams.

These guys made a trade.  It was a one point game.  Had MT played it still would have been a one point game.  If you want to call that gifted, knock yourself out.

 

[Gally]

Let’s see, Micheal Thomas misses week 2 thru week 8, in week 9, his first game back, he scores just just over 10 points in PPR leagues and you are saying benching Thomas in week 10 was smart/fine play for a backup RB who might get some points in garbage time.  Mattison had scored barely over 10 points total in his 3 previous games combined.   I’ll just have to disagree with your opinion on benching Thomas for Mattison was a smart move for week 10.

This is irrelevant to this situation.  It has already been confirmed that the owner wanted to play MT over Mattison and the only reason he did not was because of the secret agreement.  So in his view MT was the superior option that he sat because of the secret agreement.

 

[DropKick]

Asked and answered a page back. 

Actually, you opted not to answer the question.

 

[Gally]

Don't believe the win was gifted or collusion, but wins/losses in head to head fantasy football are incredibly random.  I've had weeks where I scored twice as many points as another team but lost while they won... and I've seen competition gifted wins against injury or bye depleted teams.

These guys made a trade.  It was a one point game.  Had MT played it still would have been a one point game.  If you want to call that gifted, knock yourself out.

The randomness of wins/losses is not the point and you are still avoiding the question.

The fact is the team would have lost without the secret agreement (collusion).  

 

[DropKick]

The randomness of wins/losses is not the point and you are still avoiding the question.

The fact is the team would have lost without the secret agreement (collusion).  

I did answer the question.  I worry about my games and not things outside of my control.

I don't know who would have won if the trade wasn't made.  Do you?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Actually, you opted not to answer the question.

I answered it accurately by pointing out that it was irrelevant to the subject at hand. 

 

[Gally]

I did answer the question.  I worry about my games and not things outside of my control.

I don't know who would have won if the trade wasn't made.  Do you?

Well the team that won would not have had the players they acquired in the trade and would have replaced them with a 2 pt MT.   I can go back and look at what the full trade was but that is really irrelevant to the question of collusion.  

So you have no issue with teams in your league colluding to manipulate the standings.  Good to know.  

ETA:  the team trading away MT received Juju and Lindsay.  I believe they significantly outscored Thomas so the outcome would have flipped without the trade.  This means that the only way the guy fighting for the playoff spot wins was due to the secret agreement that was made.  All other ways would have resulted in a loss.......not that the outcome has anything to do with this being collusion or not.

 

[DropKick]

Well the team that won would not have had the players they acquired in the trade and would have replaced them with a 2 pt MT.   I can go back and look at what the full trade was but that is really irrelevant to the question of collusion.  

So you have no issue with teams in your league colluding to manipulate the standings.  Good to know.  

Said it more times than I care to count.  I think both teams were acting in their own self interests; no games were lost on purpose and this isn't collusion.

Got it?

 

[Gally]

Said it more times than I care to count.  I think both teams were acting in their own self interests; no games were lost on purpose and this isn't collusion.

Got it?

Collusion: Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

This secret agreement and subsequent lying by the parties about it is the definition of collusion. 

Got it?

 

[DropKick]

Collusion: Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

This secret agreement and subsequent lying by the parties about it is the definition of collusion. 

Got it?

I think we can debate illegal cooperation, conspiracy and cheating till the cows come home.

Not collusion.