What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is this collusion? (1 Viewer)

T

tbbucs4eva

Footballguy
Before the game last week:

Team A trades Steve Smith

Team B trades Roddy White

before this week, Team A is facing a great team on the other side:

Team A trades Roddy White, Derrick Mason, and Dwight Freeney

Team B trades Steve Smith and Steve Breaston

now before the season started, we agreed on no 1 week trades.

and yes team A is the same team in both trades, as well as Team B is

 
because the commissioner is one of the teams involved.......

just want to get reaction from those who are in the know about fantasy ball....

maybe you guys know a reputable league I could get in next year heh

 
Player swappers....worse than wife swappin'. Even if they are from Arkansas, it should be looked down on.

 
tbbucs4eva said:
Before the game last week:

Team A trades Steve Smith

Team B trades Roddy White

before this week, Team A is facing a great team on the other side:

Team A trades Roddy White, Derrick Mason, and Dwight Freeney

Team B trades Steve Smith and Steve Breaston

now before the season started, we agreed on no 1 week trades.

and yes team A is the same team in both trades, as well as Team B is
Click to expand...
Each trade seems fair, but you said it yourself.
 
Dirty Weasel said:
tbbucs4eva said:
Before the game last week:

Team A trades Steve Smith

Team B trades Roddy White

before this week, Team A is facing a great team on the other side:

Team A trades Roddy White, Derrick Mason, and Dwight Freeney

Team B trades Steve Smith and Steve Breaston

now before the season started, we agreed on no 1 week trades.

and yes team A is the same team in both trades, as well as Team B is
Click to expand...
Each trade seems fair, but you said it yourself.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
tbbucs4eva said:
Before the game last week:Team A trades Steve SmithTeam B trades Roddy Whitebefore this week, Team A is facing a great team on the other side:Team A trades Roddy White, Derrick Mason, and Dwight FreeneyTeam B trades Steve Smith and Steve Breastonnow before the season started, we agreed on no 1 week trades.and yes team A is the same team in both trades, as well as Team B is
Click to expand...
only Mason/Sweeny for Breaston portion of this is legalcommish should be :shrug: for trying to pull this ####
 
Common sense tells anyone that this is clearly collusion...but regardless of what word you decide to label it, rule or no rule .... any commish should NEVER allow crap like that to happen. What this player swapping or tradeback or whatever you call it does is extend the rosters of each team involve to include players on another team. So, the rest of the league is limited to, say a roster limit of 16 each week, but these two teams decided they could expand it to 17 (for at least the guy who started Roddy White) ... it would appear to me (not knowing anything about this) that the team lending out Roddy White for a week had a serious vested interest in the other guy defeating his opponent that week. And for those who don't know the definition of collusion, here it is:

Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage.

 
Yes, it's collusion. They are sharing a roster over a 2 week span. That can't be allowed, and it's doubly bad when the commish is one of the participants.

 
What if the people changed their mind? Smith had one catch; maybe the guy wanted White back and the new Roddy owner made him throw Breaston in the deal. Mason is hurt, so perhaps he's not seen as that valuable. Don't know how Freeney factors in.

Also, why is it worse if the Commish is one of the teams? The Commish is an owner; he's allowed to try to win, right? Or should he hide in a corner to maintain the "appearance of objectivity?" If it's wrong for the Commish it's equally wrong for everyone. In this case the rule has been broken. That should pretty much end the argument, no?

 
Neil Beaufort Zod said:
What if the people changed their mind? Smith had one catch; maybe the guy wanted White back and the new Roddy owner made him throw Breaston in the deal. Mason is hurt, so perhaps he's not seen as that valuable. Don't know how Freeney factors in. Also, why is it worse if the Commish is one of the teams? The Commish is an owner; he's allowed to try to win, right? Or should he hide in a corner to maintain the "appearance of objectivity?" If it's wrong for the Commish it's equally wrong for everyone. In this case the rule has been broken. That should pretty much end the argument, no?
Click to expand...
Other possible legitimate reasons to trade players back have to be eliminated because it would open the door to allow trade-backs, which at their root, usually consist of some level of collusion. It is worse that the commish is involved. In fact, IMO the best league would include a 13th participant that would be the commissioner, but that isn't practical so most people settle for the current system. The commissioner does have to sit back in some situations exactly because he or she does need to present an air of objectivity. The commish is the ultimate arbitrator/judge. There are certainly some situations and trades that a good commish should avoid because of the damage it would do to his integrity and in the end, that is the only currency he has in paying the way for a really strong league.
 
Neil Beaufort Zod said:
What if the people changed their mind? Smith had one catch; maybe the guy wanted White back and the new Roddy owner made him throw Breaston in the deal. Mason is hurt, so perhaps he's not seen as that valuable. Don't know how Freeney factors in. Also, why is it worse if the Commish is one of the teams? The Commish is an owner; he's allowed to try to win, right? Or should he hide in a corner to maintain the "appearance of objectivity?" If it's wrong for the Commish it's equally wrong for everyone. In this case the rule has been broken. That should pretty much end the argument, no?
Click to expand...
Maybe they did change their mind but this league HAS A RULE that one weeks trades are not allowed, and this clearly is. The reason him being the commish is worse is because a Commish should at least be able to understand and follow the rules don't you think?
 
CMU37484 said:
Neil Beaufort Zod said:
What if the people changed their mind? Smith had one catch; maybe the guy wanted White back and the new Roddy owner made him throw Breaston in the deal. Mason is hurt, so perhaps he's not seen as that valuable. Don't know how Freeney factors in. Also, why is it worse if the Commish is one of the teams? The Commish is an owner; he's allowed to try to win, right? Or should he hide in a corner to maintain the "appearance of objectivity?" If it's wrong for the Commish it's equally wrong for everyone. In this case the rule has been broken. That should pretty much end the argument, no?
Click to expand...
Maybe they did change their mind but this league HAS A RULE that one weeks trades are not allowed, and this clearly is. The reason him being the commish is worse is because a Commish should at least be able to understand and follow the rules don't you think?
Click to expand...
definitely collusion. shouldn't be able to trade one player and then give them back the next week or even a couple of weeks after. Adding players to the trade just tries to cover it up. An obvious deal to borrow a player on a good match up.
 
Neil Beaufort Zod said:
What if the people changed their mind? Smith had one catch; maybe the guy wanted White back and the new Roddy owner made him throw Breaston in the deal. Mason is hurt, so perhaps he's not seen as that valuable. Don't know how Freeney factors in. Also, why is it worse if the Commish is one of the teams? The Commish is an owner; he's allowed to try to win, right? Or should he hide in a corner to maintain the "appearance of objectivity?" If it's wrong for the Commish it's equally wrong for everyone. In this case the rule has been broken. That should pretty much end the argument, no?
Click to expand...
Who cares if they changed their minds!!!! They made a trade, live with it.This stinks of collusion............trade backs are nothing more than the sharing of rosters by two team :thumbdown:
 
Neil Beaufort Zod said:
What if the people changed their mind? Smith had one catch; maybe the guy wanted White back and the new Roddy owner made him throw Breaston in the deal. Mason is hurt, so perhaps he's not seen as that valuable. Don't know how Freeney factors in. Also, why is it worse if the Commish is one of the teams? The Commish is an owner; he's allowed to try to win, right? Or should he hide in a corner to maintain the "appearance of objectivity?" If it's wrong for the Commish it's equally wrong for everyone. In this case the rule has been broken. That should pretty much end the argument, no?
Click to expand...
It's cheating - plain and simple.
 
Tally another mark up for Collusion.

Your rule is place to keep this from happening, so use the rule. They were obviously swapping players for a week, and through in the other players to try and slide it by the rule and none of the others complain. Doesn't work, it is still obvious.

 
I don't know if it's collusion since the owners could have changed their minds.

However, a rule is a rule so the trade should not be allowed.

 
Zaphod said:
Neil Beaufort Zod said:
What if the people changed their mind? Smith had one catch; maybe the guy wanted White back and the new Roddy owner made him throw Breaston in the deal. Mason is hurt, so perhaps he's not seen as that valuable. Don't know how Freeney factors in.

Also, why is it worse if the Commish is one of the teams? The Commish is an owner; he's allowed to try to win, right? Or should he hide in a corner to maintain the "appearance of objectivity?" If it's wrong for the Commish it's equally wrong for everyone. In this case the rule has been broken. That should pretty much end the argument, no?
Click to expand...
Other possible legitimate reasons to trade players back have to be eliminated because it would open the door to allow trade-backs, which at their root, usually consist of some level of collusion. It is worse that the commish is involved. In fact, IMO the best league would include a 13th participant that would be the commissioner, but that isn't practical so most people settle for the current system. The commissioner does have to sit back in some situations exactly because he or she does need to present an air of objectivity. The commish is the ultimate arbitrator/judge. There are certainly some situations and trades that a good commish should avoid because of the damage it would do to his integrity and in the end, that is the only currency he has in paying the way for a really strong league.
Click to expand...
I guess this is a little off-topic, but I disagree completely. The commissioner doesn't have to have an appearance about anything. He has to play by the rules (I realize in this case he didn't) and can try to win like everyone else. Why should the role of commissioner mean you can't try to win as much as everyone else and you have to "step back" sometimes? That's weak.Again, I agree that the rules were broken here, but it's just as wrong for the commish to do it as an owner. It's the same thing. I aslo agree about the outside party being commissioner. It's easily the best way.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Soulfly3
***JOIN THE FBG "OUTSIDERS" LEAGUE - cancelled
Replies
28
Views
558
joey
joey
G
  • Poll
Is it ever OK to play an inferior lineup in FF (a pole)?
4 5 6
Replies
263
Views
3K
Hot Sauce Guy
Hot Sauce Guy
RC94
FBG Mock Draft
15 16 17
Replies
812
Views
25K
travdogg
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top