Is this collusion? (1 Viewer)

[PosterNutBag]

Since Owens is matched up against Revis you have to wonder why doesn't the guy have a better WR option and is that really his best chance to win?

I would bet he isn't as shark-like as most around these parts and didn't even realize TO stood a good chance of getting shut down by Revis tonight. Hopefully he started him and got what was coming to him.

 

[Jack Burton]

I dont think its collusion in the classical sense but I think its definately a shady move

 

[Jack Burton]

... if I were to anounce to my league mates that the intent of a trade was to blatantly stack another team to help them beat my competition they would seriously consider taking veto action.

 

[footballnerd]

Team B (facing nemesis) is just accepting an offer he can't refuse. Not collusion.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

That's really not a very good hypothetical, even allowing for the extreme. You are ignoring two things. One, the reserve players would really have no effect in this example. And, since it is a dynasty, nobody would trade a significant player and reasonably give up all future years to disrupt one year. The dynasty aspect keeps people from trading away someone relevant enough to make a difference. Second, and more important, you are clearly describing collusion, which has nothing to do with the other examples being discussed. When people collaborate, it's collusion. It doesn't matter how extreme it is.

I ignored neither. For the first, reserves make a big difference. In every single league I am in, there is a team whose #4 WR is better than my #3 WR, or whose #3 RB is better than my #2 RB, or whose #2 QB is better than my #1 QB. And whether anyone *WOULD* do it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it is fair or legal. *AND*, who said I was talking about dynasty? Are you saying that unbalancing the competitive balance is fine in a dynasty league, but not in a redraft league? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

It doesn't matter whether teams in your league have someone better at each of those slots. If your hypothetical team is that good, by a country mile, then you couldn't possibly have enough reserves left to make a difference. You can't satify both sides of that hypothetical.

Second, it's only collusion if everyone in the league got together and agreed to the strategy. I never said that was the case. Are you saying that you'd have a problem with that hypothetical if everyone AGREED to trade with each other to screw over your team, but you'd be perfectly hunky-dory with it if everyone arrived at the strategy independently? No way- you would be pissed off if your leaguemates did that to you (and justifiably so), and you wouldn't care in the slightest whether they orchestrated it between them or whether they were all just acting in their own best self interest.As I said, any effort to upset the competitive balance of a league or to rob the league of an element of fair play should be outlawed, whether it's collusive in nature or not.

It's not realistically possible for everyone to independently and unknowingly participate in the scheme you're describing. If they know what's going on (and they will) and they knowingly participate, whether they arrived at that decision by themselves or not, it is collusion.The conditions you described could not realistically happen.

 

[tbglog]

He did no favors to the guy he traded with or himself. There was little doubt what was going to happen TO last night. Revis shut him down just like most TO owners assumed he would.(I am one of them). If he looked at the match-up prior to the trade he should have suggested a better WW option to the guy or gave him someone who might have actually helped him.

He screwed himself by sending TO to him on the one week where TO had little chance of scoring any significant points. I was waffling between S Smith Carolina and TO and just had to remeber what Smith did last week against Revis and it became an easy decision to sit TO. I would guess the guy trading away TO didn't look at the match-up and once he realized it, he knew he traded TO away for no reason and actually hurt his own chances of making the playoffs.

 

[belljr]

I'd take Casey every time.

 

[Tex Goldstein]

Considering this is a dynasty league, i don't understand how its collusion.In a dynasty league i'd prefer to have James Casey over Terrell Owens, assuming that the reason i won't be making the playoffs is cause i'm rebuilding.

Is Casey only in if daniels is out due next year because of his ACL injury? it seems to me that O.D. is the guy in Houston for the foreseeable future but only if his knee reconstruction goes well...was there a hitch with the surgery? is there reasons to think tthat O.D. is done for his career. if he is gone, then i can see Casey for T.O. but only if Daniels is out of the way for 2010. i'm on the fence on this one. need more information on Daniels' possibility for return to action, I guess...

Daniels is a free agent after the season, and I think the odds are probably better than 50% that Houston lets him walk (they drafted two TEs last year, which indicated they were ready to move on without Owen, and that was even before his big injury).

ok thanks SSOG - if the potential for Casey is to become starter in houston with Schaub at qb then obviously this isn't a collusive trade. It may be risky but imo if casey has a legit shot tobe the starter next year then it should be allowed.

 

[SSOG]

It doesn't matter whether teams in your league have someone better at each of those slots. If your hypothetical team is that good, by a country mile, then you couldn't possibly have enough reserves left to make a difference. You can't satify both sides of that hypothetical.

...

It's not realistically possible for everyone to independently and unknowingly participate in the scheme you're describing. If they know what's going on (and they will) and they knowingly participate, whether they arrived at that decision by themselves or not, it is collusion.

The conditions you described could not realistically happen.

I don't think you really understand the concept of a "hypothetical situation". The whole point is that you just assume it's true, whether it's likely or common or not. If you really need me to come up with rosters in a 12 team league that satisfy my given hypothetical, then I could do so... or you could just understand that it's a HYPOTHETICAL situation, stop commenting on the likelihood or the logistics, and respond.Is it an extreme example? YES! Is it a realistic example? NO! Is any of that relevant? NO! The whole point is to find some common ground. If we can both agree that the most extreme example possible should be made illegal, then we can work backwards from there and decide just how extreme an example has to be before you think it should be illegal. How badly can an owner disrupt the competitive balance of the league before it should be illegal? How much is he allowed to do to rob the league of any semblance of fair play? How many teams have to independently attempt to screw over another team before it's no longer kosher? 5? 3? Just 1? And if only one team is allowed to screw over a team, what happens if a second team realizes that it's in THEIR own best interests to screw over another team, too? Why are they not allowed to do something that the first team is allowed to do?

Also, people wouldn't have to independently and UNKNOWINGLY participate in a scheme. They'd just have to independently participate. If I see someone in my league do something, and I think to myself "hey, that's a good strategy, I should do that too because it will increase my odds!", then that is not collusion, that's simply copying someone else's strategy. If I see someone trying to keep the best team out of the playoffs, and I think that it's a good idea so I start doing it as well, then that's not collusion. If I see someone hoarding QBs and I realize that the market for QBs is going to go through the roof, then you bet your butt that I'm going to hoard QBs as well. We both independently started the same strategy- he never came to me and said "hey, we should hoard QBs!". The fact that I knew what he was doing is wholly irrelevant. We never colluded. We never even spoke to each other.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

It doesn't matter whether teams in your league have someone better at each of those slots. If your hypothetical team is that good, by a country mile, then you couldn't possibly have enough reserves left to make a difference. You can't satify both sides of that hypothetical.

...

It's not realistically possible for everyone to independently and unknowingly participate in the scheme you're describing. If they know what's going on (and they will) and they knowingly participate, whether they arrived at that decision by themselves or not, it is collusion.

The conditions you described could not realistically happen.

I don't think you really understand the concept of a "hypothetical situation".

Understand hypothetical. No problem with hypotheticals.

most extreme example possible should be made illegal

That single word is the problem with your hypothetical. What you described is not possible.

Also, people wouldn't have to independently and UNKNOWINGLY participate in a scheme. They'd just have to independently participate. If I see someone in my league do something, and I think to myself "hey, that's a good strategy, I should do that too because it will increase my odds!", then that is not collusion, that's simply copying someone else's strategy. If I see someone trying to keep the best team out of the playoffs, and I think that it's a good idea so I start doing it as well, then that's not collusion. If I see someone hoarding QBs and I realize that the market for QBs is going to go through the roof, then you bet your butt that I'm going to hoard QBs as well. We both independently started the same strategy- he never came to me and said "hey, we should hoard QBs!". The fact that I knew what he was doing is wholly irrelevant. We never colluded. We never even spoke to each other.

None of those examples describe your previous example. If people knowingly are participating in the scheme you described, whether they discussed it or not, they are colluding, or as you earlier described it, collaborating to keep the other team out of the playoffs.