Is it unethical to help a fellow owner? (1 Viewer)

[TommyGilmore]

I'm in a league that features mostly friends from college. One owner basically abandoned his team after an 0-5 start, so I gave him a call and tried to encourage him to maintain his lineup, try to improve his team, etc. He initially resisted, but finally agreed on the condition that I help him.

So, for the past 4-5 weeks I've been calling him once or twice a week, making suggestions for players to add/drop and also helping with his starting lineup. There were even times when he would call me on his cell phone and ask me to log into his account to change his lineup for him.

I called him Sunday morning to tell him that his QB (Garcia) wasn't playing and that he needed to pick someone up. He asked who was available, and I suggested Frerotte. He agreed and Frerotte ended up giving him a victory over a playoff-bound team.

Now to the problem: the guy that he beat is livid. He's claiming that my assistance falls under "collusion", and he wants the add/drop nullified (thus giving him a victory and a better playoff seed). To make matters worse, my own opponent had Bulger as his QB and now he is upset too.

What do you guys think? Collusion? Unethical?

 

[NoCheese]

No, I don't think it's collusion, but I understand how the other owner would be upset. It's like he's got 2 people working against him. But on the other hand, I think it's common to get advice from other owners. You were consistent in your efforts to help him (at least in the last 4-5 weeks), but I feel you did it to "help your cause" since the 0-5 owner was not a factor in the playoffs. Again, definitely not collusion. Probably not unethical, either, but since it's a bunch of buddies I don't think it's worth it to help a guy who was that disinterested.

 

[BILLY_THE_BULL]

No, and tell your friends to grow some and to stop crying.

 

[Dodge]

No, and tell your friends to grow some and to stop crying.

 

[wudaben]

Not collusion at all. I am commish and on occasion I will give a couple pointers to members who seem to be falling behind....I may have an ulterior motive at times but that isn't collusion.

 

[mggoilers]

So you encouraged an owner to take an interest in his own team? It's not collusion, but the owner you helped needs to be left off the 2008 league owner roster.

Dead teams are horrible for any league, but ultimately every decision made by the lazy, apathetic owner is his and his alone.

Collusion and Gus Frerotte in the same sentence? Your fellow owners need to get over it, these aren't inspired adds...just a injury fill-in.

Good luck.

 

[TommyGilmore]

The complainers are claiming that I went "above and beyond" simply giving friendly advice, and are alleging that I'm running the guy's team. I mean, I guess I can see their point because my friend wouldn't have made those moves without my influence. But still, it's not like we were trading players between teams.

 

[Wadsworth]

I hate losing so I can kinda understand the upset owners anger. But an abandon team is awful for a fantasy league. If you were not helping the absent owner someone else would have needed to manage that team anyways. If the league is run online, an alternative solution might have been using the "Looking For Leagues" forum on this site to find a fill in owner. I'm sure lots of folks would have offered to finish out the season for the abandon team. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, just offering an alternative if it happens again.

 

[Black]

What do you guys think? Collusion? Unethical?

No and No. Collusion would be if you said "here, I'll give you ADP if you start managing your team again, and if you win, give me some of the booty."Unethical would be changing a lineup after you saw Ferrotte throw his first 2 TDs.You seem to have to baby the guy a bit, but (as commish/friend) I have often emailed someone when they have a player in the lineup who was ruled out last minute.

 

[jscout]

The fact that you didn't mix/trade player among the two teams helps your cause. In the grand scheme of things, you made free agent/waiver moves on behalf of the other owner. So what? Those other owners could have made the same moves. Sure, you did go above and beyond your role as an owner/competitor. But none of the moves that were made were unreasonable. In fact, they should have been made.

I was in one no money buddy league this year where 4 of the 10 teams checked out. It sucked, because other owners got cheap wins, especially during the bye weeks. The league was a joke.

 

[teet0]

Just because he got the information from you doesn't make it collusion. Technically all of us are "guilty" of collusion under his definition of collusion. The culprit? FBG's.

 

[nflguru]

I'd have to ask - did the team the player was going against have anything to do with where your current team is (from a playoff perspective).. Did making the other player lose because of your advice benefit your team?

If so, its a bad move... If not, I'd like to think you did this because you want the league to be better.. but maybe should have done this weeks ago as to not impact the playoffs with the "above and beyond" approach..

 

[teet0]

Now to the problem: the guy that he beat is livid. He's claiming that my assistance falls under "collusion", and he wants the add/drop nullified (thus giving him a victory and a better playoff seed). To make matters worse, my own opponent had Bulger as his QB and now he is upset too.

AND he's in the playoffs. Who put sand in his ######?

 

[Wrigley]

Just because he got the information from you doesn't make it collusion. Technically all of us are "guilty" of collusion under his definition of collusion. The culprit? FBG's.

FBG's runs a team in your league?Collusion, without looking up the business definition, is when two teams conspire to make one team better.I'm interested to know, does Tommy have anything to gain by having the playoff bound team lose?

 

[Wrigley]

I'd have to ask - did the team the player was going against have anything to do with where your current team is (from a playoff perspective).. Did making the other player lose because of your advice benefit your team?If so, its a bad move... If not, I'd like to think you did this because you want the league to be better.. but maybe should have done this weeks ago as to not impact the playoffs with the "above and beyond" approach..

Beat me to it.

 

[BusterTBronco]

Advice <> Collusion

 

[GregR_2]

I don't know that you completely crossed the line to having more influence over a second franchise than an owner should.

But if the wording you used is accurate, you at least walked it extremely close if not crossed over. It's one thing if an owner asks you a direct question and you answer it. It's also one thing if you mention once, "Did you notice you have an injured player starting this week?"

But if you are the one that goes to him to give advice that wasn't asked for (and from the wording used that sounds the case), and if it is more than a rare occurence that you offer up that he needs to make some move, then I think you're crossing that line. If the nature of your communication is you saying, "you need to do this or that"... whether or not it's still his decision if he does it, I think you're crossing the line and advocating too strongly not THAT he run his team, but HOW he run his team. You can say "Hey, you haven't set your lineup" without saying, "Hey, you need to drop your QB and Gus Frerotte is the best QB available to replace him". Especially if the bit about Gus Frerotte wasn't solicited by him.

I don't know that what you did was done with bad intentions, but I think you went further than good judgment should have had you go. I'm wary about giving too much advice to a person. Wary about giving an opinion on a counteroffer when the friend already asked me my opinion about the initial offer.

Frankly I don't know what your league could or should do about it, even assuming that you did cross the line. I doubt you did it with bad intentions, and it sucks as a commish having to come up with something that is fair for the entire league. Best thing your commish can do (and that you can help him with) is to get your league discussing this stuff so it doesn't happen again, so everyone has heard people's thoughts on what is too much so they are conscious of it.

 

[teet0]

Just because he got the information from you doesn't make it collusion. Technically all of us are "guilty" of collusion under his definition of collusion. The culprit? FBG's.

FBG's runs a team in your league?Collusion, without looking up the business definition, is when two teams conspire to make one team better.

I'm interested to know, does Tommy have anything to gain by having the playoff bound team lose?

No, and Tommy from his story didn't run his team either. He didn't make a trade, didn't make a move. He gave advice. And yes, if you want to defend the collusion angle, maybe you should look up the definition.

col·lu·sion /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy:

 

[TommyGilmore]

I'd have to ask - did the team the player was going against have anything to do with where your current team is (from a playoff perspective).. Did making the other player lose because of your advice benefit your team?If so, its a bad move... If not, I'd like to think you did this because you want the league to be better.. but maybe should have done this weeks ago as to not impact the playoffs with the "above and beyond" approach..

I'm 10-3 and have been locked into the #3 seed for the past 3 weeks. The other two guys were fighting for playoff seeding. Ironically, I would have had a much better playoff matchup if I had let the Bulger owner beat me.Although I guess in the long run it was to my advantage to keep Frerotte off a playoff team. But if I really wanted to do that, I could have added Frerotte myself.

 

[GregR_2]

Just because he got the information from you doesn't make it collusion. Technically all of us are "guilty" of collusion under his definition of collusion. The culprit? FBG's.

FBG's runs a team in your league?Collusion, without looking up the business definition, is when two teams conspire to make one team better.

I'm interested to know, does Tommy have anything to gain by having the playoff bound team lose?

No, and Tommy from his story didn't run his team either. He didn't make a trade, didn't make a move. He gave advice. And yes, if you want to defend the collusion angle, maybe you should look up the definition.

col·lu·sion /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy:

We all realize that the Websters definition has it as a secret agreement.I should hope that we also all know that people frequently use it in FF discussions in discussions about tanking, about one owner having too much influence over another team, etc, in situations where the Websters definition is not the way it is being used here. It's used because people understand the intent that the word is used (i.e. that something is going on between the teams that is beyond the scope of individual competition) and there isn't a word that gets that meaning across better than collusion. Whether it's secret agreement or not.

So can we please just drop the posting of the definition in every single thread like this, and realize the meaning of the word as it is frequently used in FF discussions and that doesn't exactly match the Websters one.

 

[BLOX]

It is definitely collusion. The definition is clear. The reason that there is always this fine line is because people tend to interpret the definition differently, or don't know the actual meaning in the first place.

It's collusion and the owner has a case. Two opponents from the same league cannot help each other make decisions. However, if it was just random NFL talk then it becomes two owners opinions during a conversation.

The fact that you call him and keep up with his team shows that you basically run two teams. I agree with the team that lost.

 

[teet0]

Just because he got the information from you doesn't make it collusion. Technically all of us are "guilty" of collusion under his definition of collusion. The culprit? FBG's.

FBG's runs a team in your league?Collusion, without looking up the business definition, is when two teams conspire to make one team better.

I'm interested to know, does Tommy have anything to gain by having the playoff bound team lose?

No, and Tommy from his story didn't run his team either. He didn't make a trade, didn't make a move. He gave advice. And yes, if you want to defend the collusion angle, maybe you should look up the definition.

col·lu·sion /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy:

We all realize that the Websters definition has it as a secret agreement.I should hope that we also all know that people frequently use it in FF discussions in discussions about tanking, about one owner having too much influence over another team, etc, in situations where the Websters definition is not the way it is being used here. It's used because people understand the intent that the word is used (i.e. that something is going on between the teams that is beyond the scope of individual competition) and there isn't a word that gets that meaning across better than collusion. Whether it's secret agreement or not.

So can we please just drop the posting of the definition in every single thread like this, and realize the meaning of the word as it is frequently used in FF discussions and that doesn't exactly match the Websters one.

I'll agree to disagree. I'll drop the definition posting but the secret agreement part is intergral to this discussion, and that's the part that oversteps the line IMO. We all get information from other sources whether we solicit it or not. There's nothing individual about it.

 

[TommyGilmore]

It's collusion and the owner has a case. Two opponents from the same league cannot help each other make decisions. However, if it was just random NFL talk then it becomes two owners opinions during a conversation.

So, if I would have just disguised my advice in the form of "Hey, I'm really high on Gus Frerotte this week and I bet he could be quite an asset to someone's fantasy team," then this wouldn't be collusion at all?

 

[Phurfur]

The complainers are claiming that I went "above and beyond" simply giving friendly advice, and are alleging that I'm running the guy's team. I mean, I guess I can see their point because my friend wouldn't have made those moves without my influence. But still, it's not like we were trading players between teams.

You were doing more than managing this guys team, you were running it. You should only have given advise when asked. There is nothing illegal about what you did but I wouldn't play with you. I think you crossed the line for your own benefit.

 

[Wrigley]

Just because he got the information from you doesn't make it collusion. Technically all of us are "guilty" of collusion under his definition of collusion. The culprit? FBG's.

FBG's runs a team in your league?Collusion, without looking up the business definition, is when two teams conspire to make one team better.

I'm interested to know, does Tommy have anything to gain by having the playoff bound team lose?

No, and Tommy from his story didn't run his team either. He didn't make a trade, didn't make a move. He gave advice. And yes, if you want to defend the collusion angle, maybe you should look up the definition.

col·lu·sion /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy:

Settle down sparky, can you point out where I said it was collusion?I simply pointed out what collusion is.........If he did help his own team, by helping the other team, it may very well be collusion.

That is why I asked if the lose by the playoff team helped Tommys team.

 

[Wrigley]

I'd have to ask - did the team the player was going against have anything to do with where your current team is (from a playoff perspective).. Did making the other player lose because of your advice benefit your team?If so, its a bad move... If not, I'd like to think you did this because you want the league to be better.. but maybe should have done this weeks ago as to not impact the playoffs with the "above and beyond" approach..

I'm 10-3 and have been locked into the #3 seed for the past 3 weeks. The other two guys were fighting for playoff seeding. Ironically, I would have had a much better playoff matchup if I had let the Bulger owner beat me.Although I guess in the long run it was to my advantage to keep Frerotte off a playoff team. But if I really wanted to do that, I could have added Frerotte myself.

Not collusion. You didn't give your team any advantage by helping this owner out.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I'd be uncomfortable with this in my league. Owners having access to other owners' accounts and making lineup changes, unless its like a "oh crap I can't get to computer and kickoff is in 10 minutes" type thing is beyond the line, IMO.

 

[Sharpie]

Did the crybaby know you were helping the other coach 4-5 weeks ago? If so, he should have brought it up right away not when it's convenient for him.

I'm assuming you either clearly or casually let the league know you were keeping the team going in some manner. If not, and the other coach found out in the end, he has a gripe but not one that should make you remove Frerotte's points.

I'm in several leagues, like many, and consider myself a good player, like many, and do contact another coach, who I respect, for advice. We talk and help even in the league I commish and he's another coach. However, I do know not to bother if my matchup affects him in any way.

If I were you, I would just say "sorry you see it that way but it is what it is"..."I'll run these things past you in the future should you decide to stay in the league".

I certainly hope you not considering altering the outcome.

Good Luck

 

[TommyGilmore]

I'm assuming you either clearly or casually let the league know you were keeping the team going in some manner. If not, and the other coach found out in the end, he has a gripe but not one that should make you remove Frerotte's points.

It's not like I made a public announcement or anything, but it wasn't a total secret either. I'd had previous conversations with other owners (and the Commish) where I made comments like "Joe called me this morning and asked me to pick up a defense for him".And a couple years ago we had a different owner quit mid-season, and the Commish took over control of the guy's team. No one complained at the time, even if some of the Commish's moves could have ultimately helped the Commish's own team.

 

[BLOX]

It's collusion and the owner has a case. Two opponents from the same league cannot help each other make decisions. However, if it was just random NFL talk then it becomes two owners opinions during a conversation.

So, if I would have just disguised my advice in the form of "Hey, I'm really high on Gus Frerotte this week and I bet he could be quite an asset to someone's fantasy team," then this wouldn't be collusion at all?

Come on now, you know what I was talking about...In a normal conversation with two people just talking about football, I'd assume a common occurance for most of us, if something were to come up like for instance:"Did you see that game on Monday? Yeah, Robinson looked pretty good. That slant route where he got under Jefferson was a thing of beauty."It's just football talk. If the other guy then went and checked it out based on what HE heard, then it's not collusion because he's making a decision based on information he heard and/or investigated himself.Whereas:"Hey man, you don't have a QB in this week and Frerotte is on the waiver wire. I was going to pick him up to make sure so and so didn't get him but seeing you need him I left him there. Hurry up and go get him"or even:"John, you need to pick up a new QB for this week. McNabb got hurt again and Lemon lost his job a few weeks ago."The last two are collusion, the first is not because the other owner is just talking about the same things he always talks about. The 2nd and 3rd examples show another owner taking an interest in the management of the other team, which is why the comments were made.It's not about disguising the way you say things, it's about the focus of the conversation. Like I said before a fine line, some people don't get it and some do. This is why league rules HAVE TO be clear, VERY CLEAR. Give examples so everyone understands!

 

[ChromeWeasel]

I'm in a league that features mostly friends from college. One owner basically abandoned his team after an 0-5 start, so I gave him a call and tried to encourage him to maintain his lineup, try to improve his team, etc. He initially resisted, but finally agreed on the condition that I help him.

So, for the past 4-5 weeks I've been calling him once or twice a week, making suggestions for players to add/drop and also helping with his starting lineup. There were even times when he would call me on his cell phone and ask me to log into his account to change his lineup for him.

I called him Sunday morning to tell him that his QB (Garcia) wasn't playing and that he needed to pick someone up. He asked who was available, and I suggested Frerotte. He agreed and Frerotte ended up giving him a victory over a playoff-bound team.

Now to the problem: the guy that he beat is livid. He's claiming that my assistance falls under "collusion", and he wants the add/drop nullified (thus giving him a victory and a better playoff seed). To make matters worse, my own opponent had Bulger as his QB and now he is upset too.

What do you guys think? Collusion? Unethical?

Are you the commissioner? There's a commissioner issue if a guy goes 0-5 and just gives up on the league altogether. Its obvious this guy was going to completely tank the season unless you stepped in to help him. You league probably needs more incentives to prevent tanking like this. This should be addressed in the offseason. How has the commissioner addressed this situation so far this year? If you arent the commish, there's got to be a stance that the league has on this. Is the stance that it's perfectly ok to tank? Has the league ever dealt with this before?For this year, I'd say you're handled it wrong by helping your 0-5 start buddy out in the way that you did. Honestly, this person sounds like a jerk for saying that he was only going to keep running his 0-5 team IF you agreed to help him out. That's a real creepy move on his part. In my league I'd bring in a new owner to run the team for him at that point. I have it written right into my constitution that all owners are expected to field competative teams every week. As commish I have the right to boot any owner who doesnt try to stay competative.

That much said, this isnt collusion in any reasonable league. Advice is fine between owners. Adults are allowed to solicit any advice they want, and choose advice that makes sense to them. It's not an issue to help a team stay competative with everyone. Its only an issue if you're making deals that arent competative or you start splitting the pot. I don't like the sound of you calling this owner to tell him who to pick up on the waiver wire, but I wouldnt call it illegal or collusion. It IS extremely distasteful though. Other owners should object to this practice on principle. Good leagues wont have this happen on a regular basis.

The 0-5 owner has got to go, either this year or next. That owner doesnt deserve to field a team in a well-run league. Unfortunately it sounds like your league needs a more involved or more hard-nosed commish.

 

[BLOX]

I'd have to ask - did the team the player was going against have anything to do with where your current team is (from a playoff perspective).. Did making the other player lose because of your advice benefit your team?If so, its a bad move... If not, I'd like to think you did this because you want the league to be better.. but maybe should have done this weeks ago as to not impact the playoffs with the "above and beyond" approach..

I'm 10-3 and have been locked into the #3 seed for the past 3 weeks. The other two guys were fighting for playoff seeding. Ironically, I would have had a much better playoff matchup if I had let the Bulger owner beat me.Although I guess in the long run it was to my advantage to keep Frerotte off a playoff team. But if I really wanted to do that, I could have added Frerotte myself.

Not collusion. You didn't give your team any advantage by helping this owner out.

See, this is what I'm talking about?What does his team have to do with collusion? They are both owners in ONE league. Any help for any other team is collusion. Just because he didn't help his own team does not make it OK.The owner who lost, lost his right to play against the other owner straight up. That is at the core of what collusion is. He lost his chance to play against this owner. Instead he was playing against the other owner AND the OP!

 

[ChromeWeasel]

I'm assuming you either clearly or casually let the league know you were keeping the team going in some manner. If not, and the other coach found out in the end, he has a gripe but not one that should make you remove Frerotte's points.

It's not like I made a public announcement or anything, but it wasn't a total secret either. I'd had previous conversations with other owners (and the Commish) where I made comments like "Joe called me this morning and asked me to pick up a defense for him".And a couple years ago we had a different owner quit mid-season, and the Commish took over control of the guy's team. No one complained at the time, even if some of the Commish's moves could have ultimately helped the Commish's own team.

Add to my last reply that your league probably needs a new commish. No league should ever allow an owner to field more than one team. This post made me cringe.

 

[TinHat]

I think it the other guys win should stand, but I do think the OP may have crossed the line a bit.

He may have not been as anxious to recommend add/drops involving players/positions he himself had an eye on. Conversely he may have encouraged 0-5 to pick up players/positions needed by opponents.

 

[TommyGilmore]

The Commish's response is that it may have violated the spirit of the rules, but it wasn't illegal and there will be no punishment or scoring changes. Three owners are still complaining that the response is too lenient.

 

[TommyGilmore]

He may have not been as anxious to recommend add/drops involving players/positions he himself had an eye on. Conversely he may have encouraged 0-5 to pick up players/positions needed by opponents.

If this happened, it was not a deliberate effort on my part. In fact, I regularly suggested that he get players that I myself wanted (Priest Holmes, Ron Dayne).

 

[Statcruncher]

Would you have told the deadbeat owner to pickup Frerotte if he was playing you that week? If you can honestly say yes then you did nothing wrong and can continue to provide advice to anyone at anytime. If you wouldn't have told him the week he played you then you are guilty. Not of collusion as this is not collusion, but tampering. If you are tampering then you need to zip it and simply manage your team.

 

[CommuterMan]

Would you have told the deadbeat owner to pickup Frerotte if he was playing you that week? If you can honestly say yes then you did nothing wrong and can continue to provide advice to anyone at anytime. If you wouldn't have told him the week he played you then you are guilty. Not of collusion as this is not collusion, but tampering. If you are tampering then you need to zip it and simply manage your team.

My guess is that you played this team early on during the season while he was on his way to an 0-5 start. Now you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by 'helping' a team that clearly would not make the playoffs into a spoiler for everyone else in the league that had yet to face this team.To me that is totally out-of-line boardering on colusion.

 

[proninja]

If this is a "friendly" league for 100 bucks or something, your friends need to grow some hard bark - helping a beginner to help him is totally cool. Helping a beginner only to beat an opponent is not cool, however. The fact that you'd been doing this for 4-5 weeks and you got a less desireable playoff seed means your league-mates need to cram it.If this league is for serious $, it should be assumed there are no beginners.Either way, if you get beat by a guy who doesn't know what he's doing, had abandoned his team, and is starting Gus Frerotte, you shouldn't be complaining about anything.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Would you have told the deadbeat owner to pickup Frerotte if he was playing you that week? If you can honestly say yes then you did nothing wrong and can continue to provide advice to anyone at anytime. If you wouldn't have told him the week he played you then you are guilty. Not of collusion as this is not collusion, but tampering. If you are tampering then you need to zip it and simply manage your team.

My guess is that you played this team early on during the season while he was on his way to an 0-5 start. Now you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by 'helping' a team

Actually, we did not play each other until after I started helping him. I still helped him set his lineup that week, although I can't say for sure whether I tried as hard to help him that week as in other weeks.But let's say for a moment that this does indeed qualify as "collusion" or "tampering" or whatever. What should the penalty be?

 

[Beggin4Par]

Would you have told the deadbeat owner to pickup Frerotte if he was playing you that week? If you can honestly say yes then you did nothing wrong and can continue to provide advice to anyone at anytime. If you wouldn't have told him the week he played you then you are guilty. Not of collusion as this is not collusion, but tampering. If you are tampering then you need to zip it and simply manage your team.

My guess is that you played this team early on during the season while he was on his way to an 0-5 start. Now you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by 'helping' a team that clearly would not make the playoffs into a spoiler for everyone else in the league that had yet to face this team.To me that is totally out-of-line boardering on colusion.

I strongly agree! How many wins did he get BEFORE you started "helping". How many wins did he get with your help? Did your "help" ever aid him in beating YOU?If he started 0-5, then 5 teams had easy wins against him. If he lost 2 more games when you were NOT hleping him, then 7 teams had easy games against him.If in the last 6 weeks, he won MORE than ZERO games due to your "help", then YOU have corrupted your league with your infuence over another team. (It would have been fair for all teams to beat him every week, since he was winless for some time).I'd like to see a week by week breakdown of his wins, losses, and also indicate which weeks you helped him.

 

[TommyGilmore]

I strongly agree! How many wins did he get BEFORE you started "helping". How many wins did he get with your help? Did your "help" ever aid him in beating YOU?If he started 0-5, then 5 teams had easy wins against him. If he lost 2 more games when you were NOT hleping him, then 7 teams had easy games against him.If in the last 6 weeks, he won MORE than ZERO games due to your "help", then YOU have corrupted your league with your infuence over another team. (It would have been fair for all teams to beat him every week, since he was winless for some time).I'd like to see a week by week breakdown of his wins, losses, and also indicate which weeks you helped him.

Just because 5 opponents got wins, that doesn't mean that he should roll over and let everyone beat him. What the hell kind of philosophy is that? It's not like he gave up BEFORE the season.The guy had a decent team but was beset by injuries and bad luck. He's #1 in points against and TWICE lost with the 2nd highest weekly point total.He went 4-5 after I started helping him, and at least 2 of the wins had nothing to do with players that I helped him acquire. I don't see how you can call that "corrupting the league" when it would have been much worse for the league to let him become inactive.

 

[anguskahn]

It cant be collusion as you have nothing to gain personally by helping the other owner.

 

[BLOX]

Would you have told the deadbeat owner to pickup Frerotte if he was playing you that week? If you can honestly say yes then you did nothing wrong and can continue to provide advice to anyone at anytime. If you wouldn't have told him the week he played you then you are guilty. Not of collusion as this is not collusion, but tampering. If you are tampering then you need to zip it and simply manage your team.

My guess is that you played this team early on during the season while he was on his way to an 0-5 start. Now you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by 'helping' a team

Actually, we did not play each other until after I started helping him. I still helped him set his lineup that week, although I can't say for sure whether I tried as hard to help him that week as in other weeks.But let's say for a moment that this does indeed qualify as "collusion" or "tampering" or whatever. What should the penalty be?

No penalty as you were acting in good faith. You didn't think you were doing anything wrong.What I would do is make sure the rulebook has a policy for owners who leave or owners who aren't into it. The part I don't like is that an owner lost a game he should have won. It's over though since your Commish ruled. So, I'd just move on to fixing the issue and not really worry about it anymore.

I also think we need to have a thread here defining collusion and tampering and how they apply to fantasy football. I think it would be an important tool for the FBG community to have something concrete that they can cut and paste to put in their rule book.

 

[Phurfur]

I'm assuming you either clearly or casually let the league know you were keeping the team going in some manner. If not, and the other coach found out in the end, he has a gripe but not one that should make you remove Frerotte's points.

It's not like I made a public announcement or anything, but it wasn't a total secret either. I'd had previous conversations with other owners (and the Commish) where I made comments like "Joe called me this morning and asked me to pick up a defense for him".And a couple years ago we had a different owner quit mid-season, and the Commish took over control of the guy's team. No one complained at the time, even if some of the Commish's moves could have ultimately helped the Commish's own team.

But you don't really say that it was you who picked the defense. This is not your place, if you had a problem with the dead team you should have turned it over to the commissioner. I don't believe you were doing this to help the league or your friend. You were helping yourself and now that you were called out you want sympathy. As I stated earlier I would not play with you next year. I think something smells real bad here. Was your team name "Snake in the Grass"?

 

[TommyGilmore]

The part I don't like is that an owner lost a game he should have won.

I think this is a grey area. We don't know what would have happened if the Commish had given the team to a different owner, or if the Commish had just told my friend, "Hey, pay attention to your team or we're kicking you out."

 

[TommyGilmore]

I don't believe you were doing this to help the league or your friend. You were helping yourself

Again, I think this is a gray area. My closest rivals already played him, and most of his remaining games were intra-division games (with little impact on my own playoff seeding). He beat 2 weaker teams that might have faced me in the playoffs if they had won.

 

[crimsonrebel]

if he set his own lineups and made his own add drops its not collusion, uless you were picking up players you told him to drop

 

[TommyGilmore]

if he set his own lineups and made his own add drops its not collusion, unless you were picking up players you told him to drop

Never happened.

 

[thecardiackid]

Without reading the replies, (only the OP) this guy (the complainer) sounds like one of those college friends who would visit the keg too often and progress to (pointlessly) hitting on the other guys girlfriends.

I'm in a similar league w/ frat. bros., and I'll send a 'note' like this on occasion. Some guys have lives, jobs, families, etc. and don't live on MBs like this 24x7. You say it's a *friendly* league, but there's also a "Big$" faction too.

Regardless, not "COLLUSION" - just advise and maybe a little help. Tell the whiner to calm down and draft better.