Fantasy Etiquette (Collusion) (1 Viewer)

[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.

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.

.

But they still would've known who would get whom, assuming they understand the waiver rules.

 

[Quibbler]

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.

.

But they still would've known who would get whom, assuming they understand the waiver rules.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that. Personally, I find the auction waiver tiebreaker rules utterly mysterious on yahoo.

 

[dhockster]

I think this situation is collusion, but like others have said I don't think you can do anything about it.

For me collusion comes down to two things: Did multiple owners work together and subjectively, did one owner clearly not benefit from the working together. For instance, in trade situations, owners are always working together, but they usually agree on a deal that both feel benefits their team. Even if a trade looks lopsided, if an owner can explain his rationale for making the deal, and it makes sense, then it should not be voided. If however, an owner does something that they can't explain how they feel it would benefit their team, and they were working in conjunction with another team, then collusion is a lot more likely conclusion. In this case, if I were commissioner and someone complained about collusion, I would have each owner who picked up a RB explain their rationale for their pick-up and how much they paid. "I wanted to screw the top team in the league" would only be a valid reason for an owner if in some way that benefited his team (i.e. if he was playing the top team in the league that week, and it improved his chances of winning).