Fantasy Etiquette (Collusion) (1 Viewer)

[ToySoldier13]

I know all is fair in love and war and that everyone is always gunning for the king of the hill, but at what point does it get out of hand? Still sitting in first in my big money league even after two bad beats as the second highest scorer, but this week I'll be without Demarco from his injury and Charles (and Demaryius) to his bye. In desperation I put my entire remaining waiver budget of $78 on Felix to fill in for the week. I awoke to two texts this morning along the line of "haha, good luck without running backs!" I logged in to see that 3 different owners had put $79 on Felix, Powell (ARI), and even Starks. The dollar amound and texts from two of them made it clear that their purpose was to stick it to me. It is one thing when [the two who sent the texts] try to unload their talent to each other if one won't make the playoffs; we put a stop to that seemingly every year. But this move is perfectly legal, however in bad taste it is. Any recourse for me other than smashing their genitals or knocking them out this Sunday? Anyone here ever experience this, how did you cope? Is it worth complaining or should I feel flattered that I am that much of a threat (never finished first, although nearly always leading scorer)?

Also, rather than making an additional thread in the assistant forum - while you are here I could use a hand this week. I have started Tate alongside Foster with great success last year but not the best matchup this week. Free agents available with the best chance to vulture a td or get more than 3-4 carries are:

Kuhn

Ogbonnaya

Jennings

Howling

Both Brown and Wilson, but I already have Eli and Cruz and would prefer to not be utterly reliant on one team.

 

[Ghost Rider]

This isn't collusion; this is a smart move. It's not their fault that you spend the rest of your WW money, and knowing you could only spend $78, them all bidding $79 ensured that the first place team didn't get stronger. That is strategic and a smart move. Granted, bidding that much on Starks seems silly, but I would just laugh at them wasting money on a guy like that for one week. They'll be wishing they had that money back when the times comes when they need a player whom they can no longer afford.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

No, not collusion.

 

[KCitons]

Take collusion out of your title. This is far from that.

 

[glumpy]

This isn't collusion; this is a smart move. It's not their fault that you spend the rest of your WW money, and knowing you could only spend $78, them all bidding $79 ensured that the first place team didn't get stronger. That is strategic and a smart move. Granted, bidding that much on Starks seems silly, but I would just laugh at them wasting money on a guy like that for one week. They'll be wishing they had that money back when the times comes when they need a player whom they can no longer afford.

Thie bolded is my first thought. Halfway through the season and they've blown their budget.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Also, rather than making an additional thread in the assistant forum - while you are here I could use a hand this week.

 

[Ace zero1]

Roll with tanner. Felix got cramps and had to sit out for ivs in the game.

 

[SonnyD]

Let me guess, since you own DeMarco naturally you should have been given Felix. Sounds to me like you're a bit butthurt.

 

[Mistabishi]

I'd call this more of an alliance against you winning easily rather than collusion. Collusion is basically two teams deciding to be one.

For example, I tipped an owner to pickup another owner's only chance at a QB this week due to bye week hell. I only did that because I'm tired of the guy winning and would like to see him lose a game or two and give more people a chance at a bye in the playoffs. That was just me presenting information to another owner.

At least be happy that you are the top dog they are after. That means you are a great player.

 

[SonnyD]

I'd call this more of an alliance against you winning easily rather than collusion. Collusion is basically two teams deciding to be one.

For example, I tipped an owner to pickup another owner's only chance at a QB this week due to bye week hell. I only did that because I'm tired of the guy winning and would like to see him lose a game or two and give more people a chance at a bye in the playoffs. That was just me presenting information to another owner.

At least be happy that you are the top dog they are after. That means you are a great player.

Or lucky.

 

[RUSF18]

This is no different than during an auction, bidding what another person's remaining budget is, so they can't go $X plus 1. Using public information to your advantage. This would be a different story if you told a buddy that you bid $X on Felix Jones, and that person, in an attempt to screw you, told another owner that information so that he could bit $1 more.

Go enjoy that shirt.

 

[Please See Mine]

This is an idiotic post, even for the SP.

 

[Please See Mine]

But this move is perfectly legal, however in bad taste it is.

Why is it in bad taste?This must be fishing.

 

[Mello]

I'd guess that the 3 people that did this did collude. Either that or you've scared everyone in the league so much that they are all more worried about your record than their own. If they colluded and admit it, the commish should undo things. If they don't admit it and it bothers you, find another league. If your team is just that good, beat them without a RB.

 

[Shutout]

I would just have to smile and be flattered that you have the entire league sitting up at night trying to scheme ways to stop you.

You must be a really good owner and I would just have to laugh knowing that many people put their real life time into toppling my fake football team.

 

[dollarbill13]

I guess I'm a little more sympathetic to the OP since it seems pretty obvious that those other three owners got together and decided that each was going to bid on a specific back. It's fine that they bid $79 to ensure that you couldn't win your guy but it's sketchy that each of them bid on three separate players.

 

[shadyridr]

Actually, guys if the 3 owners got together and each discussed each bidding $79 on a different RB for the sole purpose of screwing you, then that it pretty much the EXACT definition of collusion. If they each did it without discussing as a strategy then it is NOT collusion.

 

[Amused to Death]

I guess I'm a little more sympathetic to the OP since it seems pretty obvious that those other three owners got together and decided that each was going to bid on a specific back. It's fine that they bid $79 to ensure that you couldn't win your guy but it's sketchy that each of them bid on three separate players.

I agree with this. Collusion doesn't have to mean trading players to one team. Its owners acting together against another. IMO, 3 different owners discussing ways to buy up all the FAs to block another could certainly be looked at as "sketchy".

 

[RUSF18]

I guess I'm a little more sympathetic to the OP since it seems pretty obvious that those other three owners got together and decided that each was going to bid on a specific back. It's fine that they bid $79 to ensure that you couldn't win your guy but it's sketchy that each of them bid on three separate players.

They each could have bid on all of them. The league software will first go by highest bids (all tied) and then go by the next tiebreaker (maybe record, most recent waiver claim, etc). I needed a new defense this week cause of byes, so I bid on four of them. Obviously only one gets processed if you set it up to drop the same player each time.

 

[ToySoldier13]

Far from butthurt, and of course I know I am not "entitled" to anyone. Just uncomfortable with alliances (probably a better word, thanks Mistabishi) in what should be a free for all type of game. They essentially pooled their waiver dollars to block me. They'll get laid out, I'll hand them a cold beer to hold to their face when they wake up, and that'll be the end of it. The issue raised here is if it is ok to team up like this? Not quite up there with one sided trades/talent dumps when out of it, but still IMO sketchy at best.

 

[solorca]

There was some possible collusion in my league where Demarco Murray is hurt and another owner put in a waiver claim for him. They were ahead of me in the order.

While we're here (no point in posting an AC thread!), should I start Marshawn Lynch or Stevie Johnson in my flex?

 

[RUSF18]

They essentially pooled their waiver dollars to block me.

No they didn't.

They'll get laid out

No they won't.

 

[Ace Matherton]

Brilliant move, though I would not rub it in your face had I done it. Although I'd never do it for that player, but for the right player I'd have no problem with it.

 

[ToySoldier13]

Snippet from text a few minutes ago "We got tired of your ****-talking, thought we'd take you down a peg..."

 

[Chaka]

Worst collusion thread ever.

 

[Rick James]

I would be laughing hysterically that these three morons spent $79 each on Felix Jones, Powell, and Starks.

 

[doeseatplace]

Brilliant move, though I would not rub it in your face had I done it. Although I'd never do it for that player, but for the right player I'd have no problem with it.

Agreed. The move is brilliant in terms of a screw job of the OP, but bidding $79 for William Powell and James Starks is the opposite of brilliant

 

[imagroid]

Actually, guys if the 3 owners got together and each discussed each bidding $79 on a different RB for the sole purpose of screwing you, then that it pretty much the EXACT definition of collusion. If they each did it without discussing as a strategy then it is NOT collusion.

Can't say I've ever been in a league where there was a no collusion rule with regard to waiver bidding. OP, move on. This happens all the time, they are just rubbing it in your face. Which is what makes playing in leagues with friends awesome.

 

[Area51Inhabitant]

Is Montario Hardesty available? No guarantees about his opportunity this week but my gut feeling says that he'll be asked to take a percentage of the handoffs this week with Richardson dealing with his rib cartilege injury. Clevelands matchup vs the run is even better than Dallas's and I would expect Richardson/Hardesty to be in line for a big day. Costs a lot less that $78 I would imagine.

 

[Amused to Death]

Actually, guys if the 3 owners got together and each discussed each bidding $79 on a different RB for the sole purpose of screwing you, then that it pretty much the EXACT definition of collusion. If they each did it without discussing as a strategy then it is NOT collusion.

Especially when they follow it up with "We got tired of your ****-talking, thought we'd take you down a peg...". Demonstrates they all discussed for the expressed purpose of keeping players from one team. Collusion in my book.ETA: if they it happened as a coincidence then you're SOL. But to brag about it makes it collusion.

 

[ToySoldier13]

Actually, guys if the 3 owners got together and each discussed each bidding $79 on a different RB for the sole purpose of screwing you, then that it pretty much the EXACT definition of collusion. If they each did it without discussing as a strategy then it is NOT collusion.

Can't say I've ever been in a league where there was a no collusion rule with regard to waiver bidding. OP, move on. This happens all the time, they are just rubbing it in your face. Which is what makes playing in leagues with friends awesome.

I have and I agree. And while this specific situation isn't too big of a deal with the basically bench slot wasting players they grabbed (although I still could have used them this week), I am still curious about dealing with situations like this in the future; those that could have more lasting/impactful consequences. How should we treat these kinds of things? The last place guy burning a budget on someone a playoff team wants then trading, multiple teams blocking a top tier team (like this), etc., etc. Should we start treating this game like survivor and make it more based on your alliances than on your team? That is where I was trying to send the thread, instead we had 20+ posts arguing semantics.

 

[solorca]

Snippet from text a few minutes ago "We got tired of your ****-talking, thought we'd take you down a peg..."

That's what happens when you #### talk. There is an owner in my league who constantly brags about how great his team is...anytime I can do something to screw him over (without hurting my team), I do it. I love to see him fail because it shuts him up for a few days.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Actually, guys if the 3 owners got together and each discussed each bidding $79 on a different RB for the sole purpose of screwing you, then that it pretty much the EXACT definition of collusion. If they each did it without discussing as a strategy then it is NOT collusion.

Especially when they follow it up with "We got tired of your ****-talking, thought we'd take you down a peg...". Demonstrates they all discussed for the expressed purpose of keeping players from one team. Collusion in my book.ETA: if they it happened as a coincidence then you're SOL. But to brag about it makes it collusion.

Absolutely collusion. This is the same as a few owners consolidating FA dollars in one team and letting that owner bid for three players. That would be collusion, no doubt about it. That said, seems like you have no options for recourse.But to pay that much for those guys was just plain dumb. Who's the idiot who got talked into $79 for Starks?

 

[ToySoldier13]

Guy in dead last got stuck with Starks, his team is bad enough that he may actually start him though. That Graham and Gronk choice at the 12-13 turn hurt him. 3rd place got Felix, 5th got Powell.

 

[SonnyD]

Actually, guys if the 3 owners got together and each discussed each bidding $79 on a different RB for the sole purpose of screwing you, then that it pretty much the EXACT definition of collusion. If they each did it without discussing as a strategy then it is NOT collusion.

Can't say I've ever been in a league where there was a no collusion rule with regard to waiver bidding. OP, move on. This happens all the time, they are just rubbing it in your face. Which is what makes playing in leagues with friends awesome.

I have and I agree. And while this specific situation isn't too big of a deal with the basically bench slot wasting players they grabbed (although I still could have used them this week), I am still curious about dealing with situations like this in the future; those that could have more lasting/impactful consequences. How should we treat these kinds of things? The last place guy burning a budget on someone a playoff team wants then trading, multiple teams blocking a top tier team (like this), etc., etc. Should we start treating this game like survivor and make it more based on your alliances than on your team? That is where I was trying to send the thread, instead we had 20+ posts arguing semantics.

$2000 entry fee, $25 for each add drop, continuous season long waiver wire order (no FAAB money), and trade value calculator system if trades are veto'd works just fine for us. 9 years and still not a single issue.

 

[SonnyD]

Guy in dead last got stuck with Starks, his team is bad enough that he may actually start him though. That Graham and Gronk choice at the 12-13 turn hurt him. 3rd place got Felix, 5th got Powell.

LOL.....reading too many message board geniuses huh?

 

[Sarnoff]

I logged in to see that 3 different owners had put $79 on Felix, Powell (ARI), and even Starks. The dollar amound and texts from two of them made it clear that their purpose was to stick it to me.

Um, this is exactly the point of free agent bidding leagues, dummy.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Snippet from text a few minutes ago "We got tired of your ****-talking, thought we'd take you down a peg..."

That's what happens when you #### talk. There is an owner in my league who constantly brags about how great his team is...anytime I can do something to screw him over (without hurting my team), I do it. I love to see him fail because it shuts him up for a few days.

Exactly. When you talk ####, it makes the others want to do whatever is possible to beat you.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Any recourse for me other than smashing their genitals or knocking them out this Sunday?

They'll get laid out, I'll hand them a cold beer to hold to their face when they wake up, and that'll be the end of it.

Guys, we forgot to take into consideration how tough he is when answering his thread. Lets start over. Dude, between this and your alleged "####-talking", its obvious why they did this to you. They think you're a doosh.

 

[Amused to Death]

Snippet from text a few minutes ago "We got tired of your ****-talking, thought we'd take you down a peg..."

That's what happens when you #### talk. There is an owner in my league who constantly brags about how great his team is...anytime I can do something to screw him over (without hurting my team), I do it. I love to see him fail because it shuts him up for a few days.

Exactly. When you talk ####, it makes the others want to do whatever is possible to beat you.

Agree but collusion should never be tolerated. 3 owners get together and figure out a way to keep players from one team is collusion. Grounds for league dismissal.

 

[Sarnoff]

"In my auction league draft, I blew $80 on Ray Rice, another $70 on Drew Brees, and $40 on Calvin Johnson. This left me $10 to fill my last 10 roster spots. Wouldn't you know it, everyone then opened bidding on all the remaining players at $2. I couldn't get anyone else until the end!!! "

 

[SonnyD]

Get rid of waiver wire budget money, problem solved. I always thought FAAB money was stupid anyway. If you insist on FAAB money, my buddy plays in a league that bids ACTUAL money that then goes towards the top 3 prizes. Another way to solve the problem.

 

[This_Guy]

I know all is fair in love and war and that everyone is always gunning for the king of the hill, but at what point does it get out of hand? Still sitting in first in my big money league even after two bad beats as the second highest scorer, but this week I'll be without Demarco from his injury and Charles (and Demaryius) to his bye. In desperation I put my entire remaining waiver budget of $78 on Felix to fill in for the week. I awoke to two texts this morning along the line of "haha, good luck without running backs!" I logged in to see that 3 different owners had put $79 on Felix, Powell (ARI), and even Starks. The dollar amound and texts from two of them made it clear that their purpose was to stick it to me. It is one thing when [the two who sent the texts] try to unload their talent to each other if one won't make the playoffs; we put a stop to that seemingly every year. But this move is perfectly legal, however in bad taste it is. Any recourse for me other than smashing their genitals or knocking them out this Sunday? Anyone here ever experience this, how did you cope? Is it worth complaining or should I feel flattered that I am that much of a threat (never finished first, although nearly always leading scorer)?

Why would you continue to be in a league where these shenanigans happen every year?

 

[Ryan99]

It's clearly collusion, now whether that is against the rules is another matter. Find solace in the fact that these 3 idiots blew 80% of their waiver budget on 1 week fill-ins. It sounds like two of the guys just circle jerk each other every year ... why are they still allowed in the league?

I don't view this type of collusion as especially damaging, since one of their teams isn't getting better at the expense of another. They all hurt themselves to hurt you. Would the results not have been identical if all 3 owners bid $78 on all 3 RBs? Do you have a system where if you get a waiver player and don't have enough for your other bids they're withdrawn, or do you need enough waiver dollars to fully cover all your bids?

 

[habsfan]

Don't cry out loud OP, just keep it inside...

If this happened to me, I would tell these guys if they were half as sharp managing their own teams as they were trying to slow you down, they might not be in this situation in the first place.

 

[Quibbler]

If someone had gone on your league message board, and posted a message encouraging everyone to bid $79 on all the available decent RBs to block you, would you have a problem with it? Because this seems effectively the same thing to me.

I don't think I'd call it collusion, exactly, since there's neither deception, nor is it unfair/against the rules for teams to try to block each other's waiver pickups or recommend that strategy to other teams. But I'd certainly be annoyed if I were the OP.

 

[netnalp]

It is one thing when [the two who sent the texts] try to unload their talent to each other if one won't make the playoffs; we put a stop to that seemingly every year.

Bigger question is why they are kept in the league when they seek to disrupt the fair play each year?

 

[yellowdog]

So, each agree to bid $79 on a RB. How did they decide who would bid on which RB? The guy that got Felix screwed you and the other two dopes.

 

[Bronco Nation]

No guarantee any one of those three will be the pick of the week, anyway. Prove your mettle as a fantasy manager and go pick up the guy who will win you the week out of the blue - maybe it's Tanner, maybe Hardesty, maybe someone else. Make them look stupid for wasting their money. What they did wasn't 'wrong' to do, just probably dumb.

 

[RUSF18]

So, each agree to bid $79 on a RB. How did they decide who would bid on which RB? The guy that got Felix screwed you and the other two dopes.

They each could have bid on all of them. The league software will first go by highest bids (all tied) and then go by the next tiebreaker (maybe record, most recent waiver claim, etc). I needed a new defense this week cause of byes, so I bid on four of them. Obviously only one gets processed if you set it up to drop the same player each time.

.