How to Prove Collusion? (1 Viewer)

[fantasycurse42]

Been in one league with the same group of guys for 5 season... Two teams, one good & one real ####ty:

The two teams (who happen to be cousins) made an interesting trade this morning - Bad team got Pierre Thomas, good team got Alshon Jeffrey... I didn't say anything and neither did anyone else. Then, about an hour ago the ####ty team gave the good team Steven Jackson and received Steven Ridley in return. After the second deal, I'm convinced this is collusion - apparently I'm not the only one as someone else posted their dismay with this trade.

What would your course of action be as a GM be here?

 

[eNdblu]

First trade wasn't great... Pierre isn't startable in most formats, IMO, sold low on Jeffrey

Second was meh... Both SJax and Ridley have been disappointments the first quarter of the season. Can't say there's any collusion there? SJax is probably out for a couple more weeks, Ridley is still Ridley even though he sucks this season... Who knows WTF happened to the Pats run game this season and how Blount has worked his way into that rotation.

Can't say there's anything here that tips anything off as collusion. Maybe you should try offering a disappointing back for an injured "stud" (if SJax is still considered that?) next time.

 

[Futz]

It's not collusion.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

Not collusion

 

[socrates]

C'mon, if this is the best they could cook up to collude, then I would not be too terribly concerned. This seems legitimate enough not to poison the league with accusations.

 

[NREC34]

You should bug their houses.

 

[fantasycurse42]

C'mon, if this is the best they could cook up to collude, then I would not be too terribly concerned. This seems legitimate enough not to poison the league with accusations.

Ridley isn't even flex consideration... Would anyone here honestly make that trade... How does it improve your team to trade two unstartable guys for two players (one of which can be pretty big) that are def startable?

Its a 2 for 2 where one owner clearly got 2 much better player and one got two awful players - Very questionable IMO...

Would you make that trade? The answer is going to be no for everyone, so why wouldn't it raise a red flag...

 

[Futz]

You really don't know what you are doing if you think you should accuse someone of cheating here. HTH

 

[shadyridr]

C'mon, if this is the best they could cook up to collude, then I would not be too terribly concerned. This seems legitimate enough not to poison the league with accusations.

Ridley isn't even flex consideration... Would anyone here honestly make that trade... How does it improve your team to trade two unstartable guys for two players (one of which can be pretty big) that are def startable?

Its a 2 for 2 where one owner clearly got 2 much better player and one got two awful players - Very questionable IMO...

Would you make that trade? The answer is going to be no for everyone, so why wouldn't it raise a red flag...

i offered the ridley owner sjax last week and he rejected it

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

Forget the cited example. In general, though, how do you prove collusion? Let's say on a much more lopsided trade like Peterson for Alshon.

 

[fantasycurse42]

C'mon, if this is the best they could cook up to collude, then I would not be too terribly concerned. This seems legitimate enough not to poison the league with accusations.

Ridley isn't even flex consideration... Would anyone here honestly make that trade... How does it improve your team to trade two unstartable guys for two players (one of which can be pretty big) that are def startable?

Its a 2 for 2 where one owner clearly got 2 much better player and one got two awful players - Very questionable IMO...

Would you make that trade? The answer is going to be no for everyone, so why wouldn't it raise a red flag...

i offered the ridley owner sjax last week and he rejected it

Really? You should thank him.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

C'mon, if this is the best they could cook up to collude, then I would not be too terribly concerned. This seems legitimate enough not to poison the league with accusations.

Ridley isn't even flex consideration... Would anyone here honestly make that trade... How does it improve your team to trade two unstartable guys for two players (one of which can be pretty big) that are def startable?

Its a 2 for 2 where one owner clearly got 2 much better player and one got two awful players - Very questionable IMO...

Would you make that trade? The answer is going to be no for everyone, so why wouldn't it raise a red flag...

I wouldn't make the trade but I also wouldn't accuse two owners of cheating based on this trade. If they have a history of doing this every year then maybe there's an issue but it's a pretty big deal to accuse them of cheating.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

C'mon, if this is the best they could cook up to collude, then I would not be too terribly concerned. This seems legitimate enough not to poison the league with accusations.

That's how they get you.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Forget the cited example. In general, though, how do you prove collusion? Let's say on a much more lopsided trade like Peterson for Alshon.

Nobody is going to do something that obvious... It will be something like this - Ridley who I wouldn't give Fred Jackson for and Pierre Thomas, who I probably wouldn't give Mike Wallace for - That is shady, that is how collusion happens - It won't be Charles and Dez for like Bilal Powell and Stevie Johnson

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Ah, good, the annual "two guys in my league made a trade that I believe is lopsided therefore collusion" thread.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

Forget the cited example. In general, though, how do you prove collusion? Let's say on a much more lopsided trade like Peterson for Alshon.

Nobody is going to do something that obvious... It will be something like this - Ridley who I wouldn't give Fred Jackson for and Pierre Thomas, who I probably wouldn't give Mike Wallace for - That is shady, that is how collusion happens - It won't be Charles and Dez for like Bilal Powell and Stevie Johnson

Believe me, there are plenty of folks in the Pool who believe the lopsided Charles & Dez trade you mentioned should stand if both owners denied collusion. They may kick the guys out of the league for the following year but the trade should stand for the current year goes their line of thinking.

 

[Insein]

I was expecting something crazy or outlandish. I wouldn't even bat an eye at those trades.

Guy in my league just traded cj spiller for deangelo, stewart and deandre hopkins. I think that's more lopsided than either of these two.

I think OP was just looking for someone to justify his crazy assertions.

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

Hey guys, one team in my league traded Zuerlein to another team for Steven Hauschka!!!

I would not have made that trade soooo....COLLUSION??

I'll be right back, I DEFINITELY NEED to make another thread about this in the AC forum.

Btw, don't try to be reasonable with me....my mind is made up so only chime in if you agree with my grave concerns. Thanx!!

 

[NREC34]

Why would anyone collude this early in the season anyway?

 

[Insein]

Forget the cited example. In general, though, how do you prove collusion? Let's say on a much more lopsided trade like Peterson for Alshon.

Nobody is going to do something that obvious... It will be something like this - Ridley who I wouldn't give Fred Jackson for and Pierre Thomas, who I probably wouldn't give Mike Wallace for - That is shady, that is how collusion happens - It won't be Charles and Dez for like Bilal Powell and Stevie Johnson

Believe me, there are plenty of folks in the Pool who believe the lopsided Charles & Dez trade you mentioned should stand if both owners denied collusion. They may kick the guys out of the league for the following year but the trade should stand for the current year goes their line of thinking.

The players in a trade are only a part of the equation. You have to take records, time of season, past trading history between the two and personal relationship into account.

What the OP needs to ask themselves, is this worth destroying the league for? Do you want to go down swinging with Ridley for Sjax as your accusation that makes everyone turn on each other?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

 

[Rhythmdoctor]

Not even close to collusion. Get a new hobby if this trade bothers you.

 

[socrates]

C'mon, if this is the best they could cook up to collude, then I would not be too terribly concerned. This seems legitimate enough not to poison the league with accusations.

Ridley isn't even flex consideration... Would anyone here honestly make that trade... How does it improve your team to trade two unstartable guys for two players (one of which can be pretty big) that are def startable?

Its a 2 for 2 where one owner clearly got 2 much better player and one got two awful players - Very questionable IMO...

Would you make that trade? The answer is going to be no for everyone, so why wouldn't it raise a red flag...

I get what you are saying, and I was not trying to be flippant. I honestly do not see that these deals, standing on their own, are convincing evidence of collusion. Is this a redraft? Dynasty? There are people here who would argue that Ridley has more upside than Jackson, or that Pierre Thomas, by virtue of being a RB, could be more valuable than Alshon Jeffery, who is well down the pecking order for touches. While I would not personally make either of those deals, they are not so lopsided as to make me think that there is necessarily collusion.

I understand, however, that there may be some history which lends itself to your claim. I just cannot see it based solely on these deals, and from reading other observations here, that seems to be the general consensus.

Raising the accusation of collusion can destroy a league. Such accusations should not be made lightly.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

No, did I say that?

 

[bonesman]

You should probably kidnap and torture these guys until they confess

 

[Shrek]

Collusion is a big stretch.

 

[socrates]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

In my dynasty league, collusion is not the only justification for overturning a trade. We also allow for a trade to be vetoed if it upsets the competitive balance of the league. This allows for a review of any deal which may seem questionable, without having to either accuse or prove wrongdoing by either or both of the participants. While I have generally been reluctant to overturn any deal, I believe such a rule can be very beneficial. With such a rule in place, even if both owners deny collusion, a trade could be vetoed and some semblance of peace maintained.

 

[Chaka]

Seems like the logical and practical first step would be to subpoena their internet service providers and obtain all of their emails.

You may have to go after phone and text message records too.

You also might want to contact the NSA and see if any of their telephone conversations triggered collusion warnings on their servers. If so you should be able to get the recordings of those conversations from the NSA. They are usually pretty helpful in matters of national fantasy football security.

Good luck and keep fighting the good fight.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

In my dynasty league, collusion is not the only justification for overturning a trade. We also allow for a trade to be vetoed if it upsets the competitive balance of the league. This allows for a review of any deal which may seem questionable, without having to either accuse or prove wrongdoing by either or both of the participants. While I have generally been reluctant to overturn any deal, I believe such a rule can be very beneficial. With such a rule in place, even if both owners deny collusion, a trade could be vetoed and some semblance of peace maintained.

Of course, I 100% agree with you, Socrates. However, my experience in these threads is that we are in the minority. There are many guys who maintain that if collusion can't be proven, then the trade has to stand and that it's not the league's business to interfere with a team's business (even if it screws over all the rest of the owners in the league). Whenever I ask about how to prove collusion I usually only get silence or insults from that side.

So, once again, is there a way to prove collusion if neither side of the deal admits to it?

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

No, did I say that?

It was a question. Care to take a crack at it: How do you prove collusion if neither owner admits to it?

 

[socrates]

Of course, I 100% agree with you, Socrates. However, my experience in these threads is that we are in the minority. There are many guys who maintain that if collusion can't be proven, then the trade has to stand and that it's not the league's business to interfere with a team's business (even if it screws over all the rest of the owners in the league). Whenever I ask about how to prove collusion I usually only get silence or insults from that side.

So, once again, is there a way to prove collusion if neither side of the deal admits to it?

I suppose if your only option is to prove or disprove "Collusion", then it comes down to your league rules for the procedure on trade vetoes. If the criteria is majority vote, as I suspect most are, then if a majority of owners believe the deal is so lopsided to warrant overturning, they are likely to find collusion, regardless of the participants' claims of innocence.

 

[fantasycurse42]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

In my dynasty league, collusion is not the only justification for overturning a trade. We also allow for a trade to be vetoed if it upsets the competitive balance of the league. This allows for a review of any deal which may seem questionable, without having to either accuse or prove wrongdoing by either or both of the participants. While I have generally been reluctant to overturn any deal, I believe such a rule can be very beneficial. With such a rule in place, even if both owners deny collusion, a trade could be vetoed and some semblance of peace maintained.

Of course, I 100% agree with you, Socrates. However, my experience in these threads is that we are in the minority. There are many guys who maintain that if collusion can't be proven, then the trade has to stand and that it's not the league's business to interfere with a team's business (even if it screws over all the rest of the owners in the league). Whenever I ask about how to prove collusion I usually only get silence or insults from that side.So, once again, is there a way to prove collusion if neither side of the deal admits to it?

It's impossible - if you saw the rosters of each team involved, the team that picked up two ####ty RBs has Charles & Murray & no WRs - it makes no sense for him & his defense on the message board is even more baffling.

Regardless of what anyone on this thread says, if 8 out of 10 teams in any league suspect something isn't right, then there is probably an issue.

 

[Captain Hook]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

In my dynasty league, collusion is not the only justification for overturning a trade. We also allow for a trade to be vetoed if it upsets the competitive balance of the league. This allows for a review of any deal which may seem questionable, without having to either accuse or prove wrongdoing by either or both of the participants. While I have generally been reluctant to overturn any deal, I believe such a rule can be very beneficial. With such a rule in place, even if both owners deny collusion, a trade could be vetoed and some semblance of peace maintained.

Of course, I 100% agree with you, Socrates. However, my experience in these threads is that we are in the minority. There are many guys who maintain that if collusion can't be proven, then the trade has to stand and that it's not the league's business to interfere with a team's business (even if it screws over all the rest of the owners in the league). Whenever I ask about how to prove collusion I usually only get silence or insults from that side.So, once again, is there a way to prove collusion if neither side of the deal admits to it?

It's impossible - if you saw the rosters of each team involved, the team that picked up two ####ty RBs has Charles & Murray & no WRs - it makes no sense for him & his defense on the message board is even more baffling.

Regardless of what anyone on this thread says, if 8 out of 10 teams in any league suspect something isn't right, then there is probably an issue.

IF 8 teams in your league think THIS trade is collusion you should all quit playing FF

If you spent as much time/energy on your team as you have in this thread your team would be much better off ...

 

[fantasycurse42]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

In my dynasty league, collusion is not the only justification for overturning a trade. We also allow for a trade to be vetoed if it upsets the competitive balance of the league. This allows for a review of any deal which may seem questionable, without having to either accuse or prove wrongdoing by either or both of the participants. While I have generally been reluctant to overturn any deal, I believe such a rule can be very beneficial. With such a rule in place, even if both owners deny collusion, a trade could be vetoed and some semblance of peace maintained.

Of course, I 100% agree with you, Socrates. However, my experience in these threads is that we are in the minority. There are many guys who maintain that if collusion can't be proven, then the trade has to stand and that it's not the league's business to interfere with a team's business (even if it screws over all the rest of the owners in the league). Whenever I ask about how to prove collusion I usually only get silence or insults from that side.So, once again, is there a way to prove collusion if neither side of the deal admits to it?

It's impossible - if you saw the rosters of each team involved, the team that picked up two ####ty RBs has Charles & Murray & no WRs - it makes no sense for him & his defense on the message board is even more baffling.Regardless of what anyone on this thread says, if 8 out of 10 teams in any league suspect something isn't right, then there is probably an issue.

IF 8 teams in your league think THIS trade is collusion you should all quit playing FFIf you spent as much time/energy on your team as you have in this thread your team would be much better off ...

You're right, the only time collusion happens is when it is Megatron for legatron...

It's always blatantly obvious!

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Email the NSA. Tell them you need the two people's emails and phone transmissions because you think their fantasy football trades might be an encoded national security threat.

 

[teamramrod]

Email the NSA. Tell them you need the two people's emails and phone transmissions because you think their fantasy football trades might be an encoded national security threat.

NSA is closed today homeslice.

Peace

 

[ghostguy123]

Jackson for Ridley is collusion??

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

No, did I say that?

It was a question. Care to take a crack at it: How do you prove collusion if neither owner admits to it?

I don't know, that seems like a highly situation-specific question to give anything more than a vague, "You consider the evidence."

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

No, did I say that?

It was a question. Care to take a crack at it: How do you prove collusion if neither owner admits to it?

I don't know, that seems like a highly situation-specific question to give anything more than a vague, "You consider the evidence."

I like that. Thanks.

 

[bigfeet_88]

Jackson for Ridley is collusion??

Well, in standard scoring, one has 18.8 points and the other has 19. Pretty big disparity if you ask me. Also, one was being drafted 10/11 and the other 12/13.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

In my dynasty league, collusion is not the only justification for overturning a trade. We also allow for a trade to be vetoed if it upsets the competitive balance of the league. This allows for a review of any deal which may seem questionable, without having to either accuse or prove wrongdoing by either or both of the participants. While I have generally been reluctant to overturn any deal, I believe such a rule can be very beneficial. With such a rule in place, even if both owners deny collusion, a trade could be vetoed and some semblance of peace maintained.

Of course, I 100% agree with you, Socrates. However, my experience in these threads is that we are in the minority. There are many guys who maintain that if collusion can't be proven, then the trade has to stand and that it's not the league's business to interfere with a team's business (even if it screws over all the rest of the owners in the league). Whenever I ask about how to prove collusion I usually only get silence or insults from that side.So, once again, is there a way to prove collusion if neither side of the deal admits to it?

It's impossible - if you saw the rosters of each team involved, the team that picked up two ####ty RBs has Charles & Murray & no WRs - it makes no sense for him & his defense on the message board is even more baffling.

Regardless of what anyone on this thread says, if 8 out of 10 teams in any league suspect something isn't right, then there is probably an issue.

IF 8 teams in your league think THIS trade is collusion you should all quit playing FFIf you spent as much time/energy on your team as you have in this thread your team would be much better off ...

Capn', I agree with you about this trade. As for the time/energy you mentioned, I think you'll find that, generally speaking, in these threads its the "If collusion can't be proven, then a trade must stand!" crowd that gets "energetic" about the issue. Doesn't matter if the trade is so ridiculously one-sided that it screws all the other owners in the league, it MUST stand. You hear stuff like: "Keep your hands off my team!" They really get worked up. Stick around and you'll probably see.

 

[Bad_Mo]

If you use CBS, just activate the "collusion" button so teams agreeing to trades can select it so they let everyone know their intent. So long racking your brain how to prove collusion.

 

[donkshow]

Where's the collusion?

 

[CoachJankySpanky]

Full cavity search. They may try to keester their trade napkin when the authorities show up.

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

In my dynasty league, collusion is not the only justification for overturning a trade. We also allow for a trade to be vetoed if it upsets the competitive balance of the league. This allows for a review of any deal which may seem questionable, without having to either accuse or prove wrongdoing by either or both of the participants. While I have generally been reluctant to overturn any deal, I believe such a rule can be very beneficial. With such a rule in place, even if both owners deny collusion, a trade could be vetoed and some semblance of peace maintained.

Of course, I 100% agree with you, Socrates. However, my experience in these threads is that we are in the minority. There are many guys who maintain that if collusion can't be proven, then the trade has to stand and that it's not the league's business to interfere with a team's business (even if it screws over all the rest of the owners in the league). Whenever I ask about how to prove collusion I usually only get silence or insults from that side.So, once again, is there a way to prove collusion if neither side of the deal admits to it?

It's impossible - if you saw the rosters of each team involved, the team that picked up two ####ty RBs has Charles & Murray & no WRs - it makes no sense for him & his defense on the message board is even more baffling.Regardless of what anyone on this thread says, if 8 out of 10 teams in any league suspect something isn't right, then there is probably an issue.

IF 8 teams in your league think THIS trade is collusion you should all quit playing FFIf you spent as much time/energy on your team as you have in this thread your team would be much better off ...

You're right, the only time collusion happens is when it is Megatron for legatron...

It's always blatantly obvious!

Yes, yes, you're absolutely right!! What were we possibly thinking?

You are the winner!

You have uncovered the secret, subtle collusion!!!!

Collusion so devious that it doesn't even look like collusion!

Well done, sir!! Why are you even wasting your time in this forum fishing for our silly opinions?

You should be out using your extraordinary sleuthing abilities for the benefit of mankind. Find out which members of your league are actually drug traffickers or jaywalkers and report back please.

 

[fantasycurse42]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

In my dynasty league, collusion is not the only justification for overturning a trade. We also allow for a trade to be vetoed if it upsets the competitive balance of the league. This allows for a review of any deal which may seem questionable, without having to either accuse or prove wrongdoing by either or both of the participants. While I have generally been reluctant to overturn any deal, I believe such a rule can be very beneficial. With such a rule in place, even if both owners deny collusion, a trade could be vetoed and some semblance of peace maintained.

Of course, I 100% agree with you, Socrates. However, my experience in these threads is that we are in the minority. There are many guys who maintain that if collusion can't be proven, then the trade has to stand and that it's not the league's business to interfere with a team's business (even if it screws over all the rest of the owners in the league). Whenever I ask about how to prove collusion I usually only get silence or insults from that side.So, once again, is there a way to prove collusion if neither side of the deal admits to it?

It's impossible - if you saw the rosters of each team involved, the team that picked up two ####ty RBs has Charles & Murray & no WRs - it makes no sense for him & his defense on the message board is even more baffling.Regardless of what anyone on this thread says, if 8 out of 10 teams in any league suspect something isn't right, then there is probably an issue.

IF 8 teams in your league think THIS trade is collusion you should all quit playing FFIf you spent as much time/energy on your team as you have in this thread your team would be much better off ...

You're right, the only time collusion happens is when it is Megatron for legatron...

It's always blatantly obvious!

Yes, yes, you're absolutely right!! What were we possibly thinking?

You are the winner!

You have uncovered the secret, subtle collusion!!!!

Collusion so devious that it doesn't even look like collusion!

Well done, sir!! Why are you even wasting your time in this forum fishing for our silly opinions?

You should be out using your extraordinary sleuthing abilities for the benefit of mankind. Find out which members of your league are actually drug traffickers or jaywalkers and report back please.

While some sarcastic comments in this thread brought a good laugh, you have just failed - the excessive use of punctuation marks brings you from failing to epic failure.

Go ahead, please try again.

 

[Johnny Blood]

You never need to prove collusion. You just need to believe there is sufficient evidence to sanction someone or kick them out.

These trades do not even raise an eyebrow.

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

OP, please edit the title to say "How to prove collusion where none exists." TIA

Ignoratio, what about some of the really lopsided trades mentioned in the thread? If both owners denied collusion, would that be enough for you? That nothing should be done until the season was over because the owners had paid their $ and it's not the league's business to legislate their trades?

In my dynasty league, collusion is not the only justification for overturning a trade. We also allow for a trade to be vetoed if it upsets the competitive balance of the league. This allows for a review of any deal which may seem questionable, without having to either accuse or prove wrongdoing by either or both of the participants. While I have generally been reluctant to overturn any deal, I believe such a rule can be very beneficial. With such a rule in place, even if both owners deny collusion, a trade could be vetoed and some semblance of peace maintained.

Of course, I 100% agree with you, Socrates. However, my experience in these threads is that we are in the minority. There are many guys who maintain that if collusion can't be proven, then the trade has to stand and that it's not the league's business to interfere with a team's business (even if it screws over all the rest of the owners in the league). Whenever I ask about how to prove collusion I usually only get silence or insults from that side.So, once again, is there a way to prove collusion if neither side of the deal admits to it?

It's impossible - if you saw the rosters of each team involved, the team that picked up two ####ty RBs has Charles & Murray & no WRs - it makes no sense for him & his defense on the message board is even more baffling.Regardless of what anyone on this thread says, if 8 out of 10 teams in any league suspect something isn't right, then there is probably an issue.

IF 8 teams in your league think THIS trade is collusion you should all quit playing FFIf you spent as much time/energy on your team as you have in this thread your team would be much better off ...

You're right, the only time collusion happens is when it is Megatron for legatron...

It's always blatantly obvious!

Yes, yes, you're absolutely right!! What were we possibly thinking?

You are the winner!

You have uncovered the secret, subtle collusion!!!!

Collusion so devious that it doesn't even look like collusion!

Well done, sir!! Why are you even wasting your time in this forum fishing for our silly opinions?

You should be out using your extraordinary sleuthing abilities for the benefit of mankind. Find out which members of your league are actually drug traffickers or jaywalkers and report back please.

While some sarcastic comments in this thread brought a good laugh, you have just failed - the excessive use of punctuation marks brings you from failing to epic failure.

Go ahead, please try again.

Actual recipe for epic failure:

1) Start a hilariously awful "Hurr Durrr Collusion Amirite?" thread.

2) Start that thread AGAIN, in another sub-forum, so as many people as possible can mock you.

3) When the inevitable "Wtf are you talking about? Where does an intelligent person see collusion here?" responses come raining down, do not acknowledge that you could be wrong. Stomp your feet and get defensive instead!

4) When all else fails, start "insulting" excessive exclamation points. Remember, you have no shame!

5) Go back to eating Silly Putty and solving crimes. Your work is done here!

 

[mbuehner]

Not collusion. Its never collusion. Not sure why I even read the posts before answering.

How can you tell- rent a player.