Is this collusion? (1 Viewer)

[Makk]

I have one owner trading people to other teams which are facing the people with better records than him. When he does those trades, he improves the other team but doesn't necessarily improve his.

 

[Sup_Yo]

who are the players involved?

 

[top dog]

So this person is trading good players to teams that are playing teams ahead of him to try and make them lose? But he isn't getting value back so he is weakening his team in the process? I'd say the owner is more stupid than anything.

 

[BigTex]

So this person is trading good players to teams that are playing teams ahead of him to try and make them lose? But he isn't getting value back so he is weakening his team in the process? I'd say the owner is more stupid than anything.

^^^

 

[thayman]

So this person is trading good players to teams that are playing teams ahead of him to try and make them lose? But he isn't getting value back so he is weakening his team in the process? I'd say the owner is more stupid than anything.

 

[Slinger]

I don't know. You didn't include the players.

 

[Makk]

Hey - I didn't say it was smart.

He traded Boldin to get Fitzgerald. Basically, the other team was hurting with injuries so he traded a healthy player for an injured player such that it would increase the other guys chances of winning.

He has also told me he plans to do a similar trade next week. Find who is playing the guy he wants to take down, and upgrade his team somehow.

His thinking (he's told me this) is that the point of the game is not to just win your games, but to make it to the playoffs, and as such, it should be ok to make trades which, even though they don't improve your team, increase the chances of him making it to the playoffs by making stronger the teams which are playing against the other teams that have a slightly better record than he does.

 

[top dog]

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: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME (< MF) < L collūsiōn- (s. of collūsiō), equiv. to collūs(us) (ptp. of collūdere to collude) + -iōn- -ion]

—Synonyms 1. intrigue, connivance, complicity.

Just thought the definition may help out.

 

[tick dog]

[simpson's Comic Book Guy]

Worst.

Post.

Ever.

[/simpson's Comic Book Guy]

 

[fsufan]

these post should be moved to the AC

 

[GregR_2]

...Just thought the definition may help out.

Not really. In FF, the general use of the word goes beyond what the dictionary definition says.In short, if two teams agree "Hey, let's do a trade where you load up my team at the expense of yours," then it is collusion even by the dictionary definition, and obviously wrong for both teams involved to do.If the team benefitting didn't know the other guy was hurting his team intentionally, then that team is off the hook. But the team giving up the players intentionally is no less ethical for his action because he didn't discuss it with the other owner first. So general use of the word here is that many people would still say he's being collusive, despite the fact there isn't a second team involved. Maybe there's a better word, but that's the general use of it in FF.As for Makk... sounds like the guy already admitted to it, and that the issue is that he doesn't realize it violates the spirit of the game. Assuming you're the commish, it's time for you step in and clarify that transactions have to carry a reasonable expectation of improving each team's gametime performance, and as such stocking an opponent's team does not qualify.

 

[my man otis]

...Just thought the definition may help out.

Not really. In FF, the general use of the word goes beyond what the dictionary definition says.In short, if two teams agree "Hey, let's do a trade where you load up my team at the expense of yours," then it is collusion even by the dictionary definition, and obviously wrong for both teams involved to do.If the team benefitting didn't know the other guy was hurting his team intentionally, then that team is off the hook. But the team giving up the players intentionally is no less ethical for his action because he didn't discuss it with the other owner first. So general use of the word here is that many people would still say he's being collusive, despite the fact there isn't a second team involved. Maybe there's a better word, but that's the general use of it in FF.As for Makk... sounds like the guy already admitted to it, and that the issue is that he doesn't realize it violates the spirit of the game. Assuming you're the commish, it's time for you step in and clarify that transactions have to carry a reasonable expectation of improving each team's gametime performance, and as such stocking an opponent's team does not qualify.

I'd agree with this. While I wouldn't necessarily label it in the collusion camp, it does suck. As a commish I probably wouldn't invite him back in '07.

 

[Upchuck]

I don't have a problem with the strategy, especially if he is giving up his healthy depth for banged up players that may be better by the time playoffs come. In essence he is trading immediate production for future production and trying to hurt his competition at the same time. Do you think trades in the NFL don't consider such things??? Even if the players are all healthy, he could be looking at the SOS come the playoffs. When I make trades I also try to do it outside my division and to help the guys playing against my division rivals. He may or may not be screwing himself come playoff time, but I see nothing wrong with what he is doing. Now, if he is blatently giving away really good players for obvious bad players with no records, that's something else, but he is only screwing himself then anyway. Bolden for Fitz doesn't bother me.

 

[GregR_2]

I don't have a problem with the strategy, especially if he is giving up his healthy depth for banged up players that may be better by the time playoffs come. In essence he is trading immediate production for future production and trying to hurt his competition at the same time. Do you think trades in the NFL don't consider such things??? Even if the players are all healthy, he could be looking at the SOS come the playoffs. When I make trades I also try to do it outside my division and to help the guys playing against my division rivals. He may or may not be screwing himself come playoff time, but I see nothing wrong with what he is doing. Now, if he is blatently giving away really good players for obvious bad players with no records, that's something else, but he is only screwing himself then anyway. Bolden for Fitz doesn't bother me.

Assuming Makk is giving us the straight facts, the guy's admitted that his intent in doing this to improve the other team. This isn't a case of us having to divine intent. He confessed. He just doesn't realize it's not in the spirit of the game as most people see it. See the bold part below.

Hey - I didn't say it was smart.

He traded Boldin to get Fitzgerald. Basically, the other team was hurting with injuries so he traded a healthy player for an injured player such that it would increase the other guys chances of winning.

He has also told me he plans to do a similar trade next week. Find who is playing the guy he wants to take down, and upgrade his team somehow.

His thinking (he's told me this) is that the point of the game is not to just win your games, but to make it to the playoffs, and as such, it should be ok to make trades which, even though they don't improve your team, increase the chances of him making it to the playoffs by making stronger the teams which are playing against the other teams that have a slightly better record than he does.

 

[[scooter]]

In short, if two teams agree "Hey, let's do a trade where you load up my team at the expense of yours," then it is collusion even by the dictionary definition, and obviously wrong for both teams involved to do.

First off, if Boldin helps Team B win and that results in Team A making the playoffs, how can you argue that it was "at the expense" of Team A?Second, this would most definitely not meet the "dictionary definition" of collusion if Team A made his intentions known (as the original poster said he did). It can't be collusion if it's not a secret.

 

[my man otis]

' date='Nov 12 2006, 12:11 PM' post='5893109']

In short, if two teams agree "Hey, let's do a trade where you load up my team at the expense of yours," then it is collusion even by the dictionary definition, and obviously wrong for both teams involved to do.

First off, if Boldin helps Team B win and that results in Team A making the playoffs, how can you argue that it was "at the expense" of Team A?Second, this would most definitely not meet the "dictionary definition" of collusion if Team A made his intentions known (as the original poster said he did). It can't be collusion if it's not a secret.

so if you just tell everyone it's collusion it's not?

 

[Sweeper]

So this person is trading good players to teams that are playing teams ahead of him to try and make them lose? But he isn't getting value back so he is weakening his team in the process? I'd say the owner is more stupid than anything.

And here, I thought it is the thread that's stupid.

 

[[scooter]]

' date='Nov 12 2006, 12:11 PM' post='5893109']

In short, if two teams agree "Hey, let's do a trade where you load up my team at the expense of yours," then it is collusion even by the dictionary definition, and obviously wrong for both teams involved to do.

First off, if Boldin helps Team B win and that results in Team A making the playoffs, how can you argue that it was "at the expense" of Team A?Second, this would most definitely not meet the "dictionary definition" of collusion if Team A made his intentions known (as the original poster said he did). It can't be collusion if it's not a secret.

so if you just tell everyone it's collusion it's not?

By the dictionary definition, yeah.

 

[Makk]

Thank You for your inputs. It has helped me think through the problem.

What I am gathering is that if the other team isn't in on it, perhaps it is not collusion. However, it still may not be the right thing to do (and thus not allowed) since the point of trades is to directly benefit both teams in their ability to win their own games.

In regards to the specific trade that took place here, that's an ok trade. My concern is that this person has said they plan on doing more trades where the main focus is to make other teams (which have poorer records than his) better to knock off his competition for the wild card spot on the playoffs. What I am planning to do is make it clear to the person that I don't care if that is a factor in deciding who to trade with, but a trade must stand on it's own regarding improving his team's ability to win games.

 

[Sweeper]

Thank You for your inputs. It has helped me think through the problem.What I am gathering is that if the other team isn't in on it, perhaps it is not collusion. However, it still may not be the right thing to do (and thus not allowed) since the point of trades is to directly benefit both teams in their ability to win their own games. In regards to the specific trade that took place here, that's an ok trade. My concern is that this person has said they plan on doing more trades where the main focus is to make other teams (which have poorer records than his) better to knock off his competition for the wild card spot on the playoffs. What I am planning to do is make it clear to the person that I don't care if that is a factor in deciding who to trade with, but a trade must stand on it's own regarding improving his team's ability to win games.

I would say that you can't do that now, 1o weeks into the season. This is obviously part of his strategy and now, after you have consulted with the SP, have determined that it's not right? You can't change the rules mid season. If you want to set it up for next year, so be it. As far as this year goes, you've gotta let it ride. Especially if it is a money league. And if this guy ends up winning the league, then you might want to rethink your evaluation of questioning or restricing his ability to trade. Bottom line, you can not run his team for him.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I don't think this is unethical at all.

In rotiserrie baseball, this happens all the time. If you can give an opponent players that will help him overtake your closest competition in certain stat categories, you do it.

It doesn't apply quite so well to FF IMO, but if the owner really thinks that this strategy will increase his chances of making the playoffs, he should every right to execute it.

 

[[scooter]]

What I am gathering is that if the other team isn't in on it, perhaps it is not collusion. However, it still may not be the right thing to do (and thus not allowed) sincethe point of trades is to directly benefit both teams in their ability to win their own games.

I think that's a debatable point. Also, what if two teams decide to make a team that does not benefit either team? If I traded Kris Brown for Mike Nugent simply because I'm a Jets homer, would you disallow it because it didn't benefit either team?

 

[Tau837]

' date='Nov 12 2006, 12:11 PM' post='5893109']First off, if Boldin helps Team B win and that results in Team A making the playoffs, how can you argue that it was "at the expense" of Team A?

I'm surprised at so many who think this is unethical. I couldn't disagree more. Cue the Herman Edwards speech--you play to win the game. In this case, the "game" is the overall fantasy football season. That means making the playoffs and winning the title. Any strategy that helps a team do this should be okay, provided it does not break any rules. This sort of trade benefits both teams, and thus doesn't break any rules.

 

[j3r3m3y]

these post should be moved to the AC

 

[nerangers]

I have one owner trading people to other teams which are facing the people with better records than him. When he does those trades, he improves the other team but doesn't necessarily improve his.

from wikapedia...Collusion is a term to refer to acts of cooperation or collaboration among rival entities. In the study of economics and market competition, "collusion" takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit.

Doesn't sound like there is a mutual benefit here...so it can't be collusion...bad sportmanship maybe though...

 

[[scooter]]

I have one owner trading people to other teams which are facing the people with better records than him. When he does those trades, he improves the other team but doesn't necessarily improve his.

from wikapedia...Collusion is a term to refer to acts of cooperation or collaboration among rival entities. In the study of economics and market competition, "collusion" takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit.

Doesn't sound like there is a mutual benefit here...so it can't be collusion...bad sportmanship maybe though...

That's a pretty lame definition. By those standards, 95% of FF trades could be labeled as "collusion" (i.e., "rival teams that cooperate for their mutual benefit").

 

[nerangers]

' date='Nov 12 2006, 02:42 PM' post='5894289']

I have one owner trading people to other teams which are facing the people with better records than him. When he does those trades, he improves the other team but doesn't necessarily improve his.

from wikapedia...Collusion is a term to refer to acts of cooperation or collaboration among rival entities. In the study of economics and market competition, "collusion" takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit.

Doesn't sound like there is a mutual benefit here...so it can't be collusion...bad sportmanship maybe though...

That's a pretty lame definition. By those standards, 95% of FF trades could be labeled as "collusion" (i.e., "rival teams that cooperate for their mutual benefit").

Oh I agree with you...that is why I used that definition. I just get tired of every one thinking a trade is collusion, just because they don't like it. It is also why I used wikapedia...not like you can take everything listed there as WORD.

 

[GregR_2]

Thank You for your inputs. It has helped me think through the problem.What I am gathering is that if the other team isn't in on it, perhaps it is not collusion. However, it still may not be the right thing to do (and thus not allowed) since the point of trades is to directly benefit both teams in their ability to win their own games. In regards to the specific trade that took place here, that's an ok trade. My concern is that this person has said they plan on doing more trades where the main focus is to make other teams (which have poorer records than his) better to knock off his competition for the wild card spot on the playoffs. What I am planning to do is make it clear to the person that I don't care if that is a factor in deciding who to trade with, but a trade must stand on it's own regarding improving his team's ability to win games.

I would say that you can't do that now, 1o weeks into the season. This is obviously part of his strategy and now, after you have consulted with the SP, have determined that it's not right? You can't change the rules mid season. If you want to set it up for next year, so be it. As far as this year goes, you've gotta let it ride. Especially if it is a money league. And if this guy ends up winning the league, then you might want to rethink your evaluation of questioning or restricing his ability to trade. Bottom line, you can not run his team for him.

He isn't changing the rules mid-season, he is enforcing it. Just because rules do not specifically state someone cannot do something does not necessarily mean they can. There are certain things that are understood as being part of the spirit of the game. None of my leagues have a rule saying I can't reset an owner's password so he can't get into his team to set his lineup, but we wouldn't allow it. While it is a good idea to be as explicit as possible on things considered unethical and beyond the spirit of the game to avoid problems, that doesn't mean a league has to put up with any unethical act that isn't specifically mentioned.

 

[Sweeper]

Thank You for your inputs. It has helped me think through the problem.What I am gathering is that if the other team isn't in on it, perhaps it is not collusion. However, it still may not be the right thing to do (and thus not allowed) since the point of trades is to directly benefit both teams in their ability to win their own games. In regards to the specific trade that took place here, that's an ok trade. My concern is that this person has said they plan on doing more trades where the main focus is to make other teams (which have poorer records than his) better to knock off his competition for the wild card spot on the playoffs. What I am planning to do is make it clear to the person that I don't care if that is a factor in deciding who to trade with, but a trade must stand on it's own regarding improving his team's ability to win games.

I would say that you can't do that now, 1o weeks into the season. This is obviously part of his strategy and now, after you have consulted with the SP, have determined that it's not right? You can't change the rules mid season. If you want to set it up for next year, so be it. As far as this year goes, you've gotta let it ride. Especially if it is a money league. And if this guy ends up winning the league, then you might want to rethink your evaluation of questioning or restricing his ability to trade. Bottom line, you can not run his team for him.

He isn't changing the rules mid-season, he is enforcing it. Just because rules do not specifically state someone cannot do something does not necessarily mean they can. There are certain things that are understood as being part of the spirit of the game. None of my leagues have a rule saying I can't reset an owner's password so he can't get into his team to set his lineup, but we wouldn't allow it. While it is a good idea to be as explicit as possible on things considered unethical and beyond the spirit of the game to avoid problems, that doesn't mean a league has to put up with any unethical act that isn't specifically mentioned.

What are you rambling about? Hacking someones team to change their lineup is quite different then a policy about trading. I don't see how this is unethical at all. The objective is to win the league and part of doing that is to win your division. So making trades that give owners that are playing teams in your division a better chance of winning ... so that you can close in on a better record is not unethcical.Untraditional and unorthodox ... yes. Unethical? no. He is not throwing games, he is trying to give his team a better chance to win the division. Plain and simple. What is wrong with that?

 

[GregR_2]

Thank You for your inputs. It has helped me think through the problem.What I am gathering is that if the other team isn't in on it, perhaps it is not collusion. However, it still may not be the right thing to do (and thus not allowed) since the point of trades is to directly benefit both teams in their ability to win their own games. In regards to the specific trade that took place here, that's an ok trade. My concern is that this person has said they plan on doing more trades where the main focus is to make other teams (which have poorer records than his) better to knock off his competition for the wild card spot on the playoffs. What I am planning to do is make it clear to the person that I don't care if that is a factor in deciding who to trade with, but a trade must stand on it's own regarding improving his team's ability to win games.

I would say that you can't do that now, 1o weeks into the season. This is obviously part of his strategy and now, after you have consulted with the SP, have determined that it's not right? You can't change the rules mid season. If you want to set it up for next year, so be it. As far as this year goes, you've gotta let it ride. Especially if it is a money league. And if this guy ends up winning the league, then you might want to rethink your evaluation of questioning or restricing his ability to trade. Bottom line, you can not run his team for him.

He isn't changing the rules mid-season, he is enforcing it. Just because rules do not specifically state someone cannot do something does not necessarily mean they can. There are certain things that are understood as being part of the spirit of the game. None of my leagues have a rule saying I can't reset an owner's password so he can't get into his team to set his lineup, but we wouldn't allow it. While it is a good idea to be as explicit as possible on things considered unethical and beyond the spirit of the game to avoid problems, that doesn't mean a league has to put up with any unethical act that isn't specifically mentioned.

What are you rambling about? Hacking someones team to change their lineup is quite different then a policy about trading. I don't see how this is unethical at all. The objective is to win the league and part of doing that is to win your division. So making trades that give owners that are playing teams in your division a better chance of winning ... so that you can close in on a better record is not unethcical.Untraditional and unorthodox ... yes. Unethical? no. He is not throwing games, he is trying to give his team a better chance to win the division. Plain and simple. What is wrong with that?

If you want to play in leagues like that allow that feel free. You are in the minority though, and should not expect any league you join to allow you to take actions to win that aren't centered around your own team's gametime efforts.

 

[Sweeper]

Thank You for your inputs. It has helped me think through the problem.What I am gathering is that if the other team isn't in on it, perhaps it is not collusion. However, it still may not be the right thing to do (and thus not allowed) since the point of trades is to directly benefit both teams in their ability to win their own games. In regards to the specific trade that took place here, that's an ok trade. My concern is that this person has said they plan on doing more trades where the main focus is to make other teams (which have poorer records than his) better to knock off his competition for the wild card spot on the playoffs. What I am planning to do is make it clear to the person that I don't care if that is a factor in deciding who to trade with, but a trade must stand on it's own regarding improving his team's ability to win games.

I would say that you can't do that now, 1o weeks into the season. This is obviously part of his strategy and now, after you have consulted with the SP, have determined that it's not right? You can't change the rules mid season. If you want to set it up for next year, so be it. As far as this year goes, you've gotta let it ride. Especially if it is a money league. And if this guy ends up winning the league, then you might want to rethink your evaluation of questioning or restricing his ability to trade. Bottom line, you can not run his team for him.

He isn't changing the rules mid-season, he is enforcing it. Just because rules do not specifically state someone cannot do something does not necessarily mean they can. There are certain things that are understood as being part of the spirit of the game. None of my leagues have a rule saying I can't reset an owner's password so he can't get into his team to set his lineup, but we wouldn't allow it. While it is a good idea to be as explicit as possible on things considered unethical and beyond the spirit of the game to avoid problems, that doesn't mean a league has to put up with any unethical act that isn't specifically mentioned.

What are you rambling about? Hacking someones team to change their lineup is quite different then a policy about trading. I don't see how this is unethical at all. The objective is to win the league and part of doing that is to win your division. So making trades that give owners that are playing teams in your division a better chance of winning ... so that you can close in on a better record is not unethcical.Untraditional and unorthodox ... yes. Unethical? no. He is not throwing games, he is trying to give his team a better chance to win the division. Plain and simple. What is wrong with that?

If you want to play in leagues like that allow that feel free. You are in the minority though, and should not expect any league you join to allow you to take actions to win that aren't centered around your own team's gametime efforts.

Fine. So then next season change it. You have a team that signed up and has been executing a strategy all season. Now, you can't in week 10 or 11 start to enforce a rule that should have been in place or that you MIGHT THINK was there in spirit. It is subjective and it is not fair to change or start to enforce a rule midseason. I am not saying I agree with this strategy, but you let it happen so you have to live with it. If it is a flawed strategy, the guy will be down and out in no time. If it works, more power to him, especially if he is getting the light side of most trades. Besides, it is obviously not collusion. Granted, he does have an alterior motive for making trades, but that is not uncommon. I often won't make some trades with people in my division so that my players don't come back to beat me in the future. He has a similar strategy, making trades that will come back to beat his division mates and ultimately giving him a better chance to win the division. And now, if it is one of the "for fun leagues" and you want to change/enforce rules at will, that is one thing. If the guy has caughed up some cash to play then the league has to live with his strategy.

 

[GregR_2]

...Fine. So then next season change it. You have a team that signed up and has been executing a strategy all season. Now, you can't in week 10 or 11 start to enforce a rule that should have been in place or that you MIGHT THINK was there in spirit. It is subjective and it is not fair to change or start to enforce a rule midseason. I am not saying I agree with this strategy, but you let it happen so you have to live with it. If it is a flawed strategy, the guy will be down and out in no time. If it works, more power to him, especially if he is getting the light side of most trades. Besides, it is obviously not collusion. Granted, he does have an alterior motive for making trades, but that is not uncommon. I often won't make some trades with people in my division so that my players don't come back to beat me in the future. He has a similar strategy, making trades that will come back to beat his division mates and ultimately giving him a better chance to win the division. And now, if it is one of the "for fun leagues" and you want to change/enforce rules at will, that is one thing. If the guy has caughed up some cash to play then the league has to live with his strategy.

No, you don't have to allow it. It is understood by most people to be against the spirit of the rules. If he had an agreement with the other team to do it every single person on this board would say it was obvious collusion. If it was unethical for him to do it with the other team's knowledge it's just as unethical for him to do it without that team's knowledge.It is understood by most people that the spirit of the game is to win based on your own team's efforts, and that aiding other teams at the detriment of your own is unethical. A commish's duty is to enforce that transactions be ethical. I don't know why there is a vocal minority who advocate letting people behave like unethical ###wipes. I don't see a reason for it, unless those people enjoy behaving like that themselves and so don't want to see people manage their leagues responsibly.