Is this Collusion? (1 Viewer)

[Deamon]

Owner A has Matt Ryan on a bye this week and is needing to pick up a one week qb filler. He has told owner B that he needs to pick up a qb this week, and Owner B says he himself doesn't need a qb so he won't be going after one.

Owner B then makes waiver claims for multiple qbs, and picks up a 2nd and 3rd qb. Owner B also gets his friend (Owner C), to make waiver claims on QBs, in an attempt to 'block owner A from getting any qb to play this week". Owner B doesn't play Owner A and isn't even in the same division, so this move doesn't really benefit Owner B besides potentially hoping Owner A will be forced to trade him for a QB.

Owner B also approached other Owners in the league (Owner D), and attempted to convince him to do the same and have all the starting qb's gone. Owners B, C, and D did not need QB's at all, and Owner B admitted that he made the move and got other owners to back him up and do the same, in an attempt to stop Owner A from having a starting QB that week so that he would be forced to trade for one.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

Yes, it's collusion. Put all the QBs back on waivers and Team A can have their pick of the litter.

 

[Soulfly3]

sounds fine to me

as the old adage goes, "you snooze, you lose"

 

[John 14:6]

Why does Owner B hate Owner A so much?

 

[boots11234]

Yup

 

[Soulfly3]

the OP is salty as hell that he got manhandled like a drunk sorority girl

 

[dhockster]

Yes, if Owners B, C, and D made moves in concert with each other which did not benefit their own teams individually, then it is collusion.

 

[Concept Coop]

This is where it becomes collusion:

"Owner B, also gets his friend..."

"Owner B also approached other Owners in the league..."

 

[weebs]

Why does Owner B hate Owner A so much?

Lol

 

[bagger]

did not read op.

is not collusion.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Agree, definite collusion, best summarized by Concept Coop.

 

[iamkoza]

Why does Owner B hate Owner A so much?

that's what i got out of it... anyways i guess it technically is collusion... as a commish though I probably wouldnt do anything about it.... it's not really impacting the league as a whole like an obviously unfair trade can do.

the ryan owner should have prepared for the bye week better IMO....

if i were Team A I would be questioning why everyone hates me or possibly consider finding another league

 

[Leonidas]

Owner A has Matt Ryan on a bye this week and is needing to pick up a one week qb filler. He has told owner B that he needs to pick up a qb this week, and Owner B says he himself doesn't need a qb so he won't be going after one.

Owner B then makes waiver claims for multiple qbs, and picks up a 2nd and 3rd qb. Owner B also gets his friend (Owner C), to make waiver claims on QBs, in an attempt to 'block owner A from getting any qb to play this week". Owner B doesn't play Owner A and isn't even in the same division, so this move doesn't really benefit Owner B besides potentially hoping Owner A will be forced to trade him for a QB.

Owner B also approached other Owners in the league (Owner D), and attempted to convince him to do the same and have all the starting qb's gone. Owners B, C, and D did not need QB's at all, and Owner B admitted that he made the move and got other owners to back him up and do the same, in an attempt to stop Owner A from having a starting QB that week.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Yes, the way you typed it, assuming you are 100% truthful and honest and those are factual direct quotes...that is collusion.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

It's collusion but owners B, C and D will be punished by the fantasy football gods.

 

[Apple Jack]

A lot of people play magic football with ###holes.

 

[Deamon]

Why does Owner B hate Owner A so much?

that's what i got out of it... anyways i guess it technically is collusion... as a commish though I probably wouldnt do anything about it.... it's not really impacting the league as a whole like an obviously unfair trade can do.

the ryan owner should have prepared for the bye week better IMO....

if i were Team A I would be questioning why everyone hates me or possibly consider finding another league

It's collusion but owners B, C and D will be punished by the fantasy football gods.

Owner D actually refused to be part of Owner B's "plan" and didn't make a waiver claim for a QB. It was only Owners B and C who put the QB claims in to attempt to block A from getting a qb.

Owner B's defense was that he wanted to force Owner A to have to trade him for a qb since he'd have no one to start that week.. and that he got other owners (in which case only 1 agreed to help him), to take qbs they wouldn't normally have taken in order to accomplish owner B's goal.

 

[CoachJankySpanky]

Sounds like a great league. Let me guess, it's either a bunch of backstabbing women or kids in this league. Please don't say these are grown men acting this way. I think collusion is too nice a word to describe this. I'd call this move the dirty va9ina strategy.

 

[Alkahsu]

did not read op.

is not collusion.

^ tried to be funny using an old "joke" but looks foolish since it actually is collusion.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Thoughts?

Sounds like you play in a league with a couple of douchebags.

 

[Not Sleeping]

Owner A sounds like the type of owner who won't even notice that he's starting Matt Ryan on a bye week. All that scheming for nothing!

 

[Voodoo Rage]

Did Owner A have a chance to get a QB during the normal waivers process and didn't even bother submitting a request? If that's the case, then he can cry all the way to the loss. Ultimately it's his decision to only carry one Quarterback on his roster.

 

[Phantom Knight]

Assuming the facts as presented are accurate. Owner B could do this by himself. Some might consider it a classless thing to do, but nonetheless it would be legit. The second he talks to any other owner to scheme in this manner, HE has crossed the boundary into collusion. If I were commish, it would take some serious convincing for me to allow him to return to the league the following year.

In regards to any owner who agreed to go along with this scheme, refer to my comments as to the fate of Owner B.

In the present I would do as Ketamine Dreams says and reverse any qb pickups Owners B and C were able to make. However rather than simply give Owner A his pick, I would basically rerun waivers but after deleting qb claims of Owners B and C. That way if someone else had made a qb claim besides Owner A and had precedence over Owner A, then team D or E or whatever would get their choice as they should have before Team A.

 

[mad sweeney]

did not read op.

is not collusion.

That was going to be my answer, but then I read it and it's one of the 1% that actually is collusion.

 

[mad sweeney]

Why does Owner B hate Owner A so much?

that's what i got out of it... anyways i guess it technically is collusion... as a commish though I probably wouldnt do anything about it.... it's not really impacting the league as a whole like an obviously unfair trade can do.

the ryan owner should have prepared for the bye week better IMO....

if i were Team A I would be questioning why everyone hates me or possibly consider finding another league

It's collusion but owners B, C and D will be punished by the fantasy football gods.

Owner D actually refused to be part of Owner B's "plan" and didn't make a waiver claim for a QB. It was only Owners B and C who put the QB claims in to attempt to block A from getting a qb.

Owner B's defense was that he wanted to force Owner A to have to trade him for a qb since he'd have no one to start that week.. and that he got other owners (in which case only 1 agreed to help him), to take qbs they wouldn't normally have taken in order to accomplish owner B's goal.

That's the very definition of collusion.

 

[deadlyrange0321]

How did they pick up multiple QBs before Team A got one? He didn't put a waiver claim in?

Not that it really matters, as it's about as obvious as collusion can get.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

I would never try to get other owners in on a scheme like this.

But I did this in a league just a week or two ago. Picked up Fitzpatrick and Gabbert in a deep dynasty league so that a competitor would have to take a 0 at the position or make a trade, any trade.

It was a #### move, and he could have easily traded a 5th round rookie pick for a guy like Gabbert just to have a starter, but he actually traded a 2nd for Flacco to fill the hole and get a more permanent backup option.

So, it worked, and a competitor had to "waste" a 2nd round rookie pick for a worthless backup QB.

Call it whatever you want. But I lost nothing and a competitor lost a 2nd rounder. That's a win, no matter how small.

Now, if I had enlisted other owners in this endeavor, then it's collusion and a doosh move.

 

[Amused to Death]

Why does Owner B hate Owner A so much?

that's what i got out of it... anyways i guess it technically is collusion... as a commish though I probably wouldnt do anything about it.... it's not really impacting the league as a whole like an obviously unfair trade can do.

the ryan owner should have prepared for the bye week better IMO....

if i were Team A I would be questioning why everyone hates me or possibly consider finding another league

It's collusion but owners B, C and D will be punished by the fantasy football gods.

Owner D actually refused to be part of Owner B's "plan" and didn't make a waiver claim for a QB. It was only Owners B and C who put the QB claims in to attempt to block A from getting a qb.

Owner B's defense was that he wanted to force Owner A to have to trade him for a qb since he'd have no one to start that week.. and that he got other owners (in which case only 1 agreed to help him), to take qbs they wouldn't normally have taken in order to accomplish owner B's goal.

Owner B needs to be replaced.

 

[Chaka]

How was B able to get two QBs before A got one? While it does fit the bill for collusion it also sounds like A was asleep at the switch. If that's the case I wouldn't do anything to change the outcome.

 

[CariocaSean]

Not collusion. Valid strategy. Price you might pay for not carrying a backup QB or waiting too long to draft one (other owners start noticing, take their backups early just to screw you - and encourage other owners to do the same.)

Owner B notices owner A is leaving himself vulnerable and takes advantage. Encourages other owners to do the same. They only did it because it was a good idea. Owner A set himself up for this.

 

[msudaisy26]

Not collusion. Valid strategy. Price you might pay for not carrying a backup QB or waiting too long to draft one (other owners start noticing, take their backups early just to screw you - and encourage other owners to do the same.)

Owner B notices owner A is leaving himself vulnerable and takes advantage. Encourages other owners to do the same. They only did it because it was a good idea. Owner A set himself up for this.

Sounds like owner B is chiming in

 

[Leonidas]

I would never try to get other owners in on a scheme like this.

But I did this in a league just a week or two ago. Picked up Fitzpatrick and Gabbert in a deep dynasty league so that a competitor would have to take a 0 at the position or make a trade, any trade.

It was a #### move, and he could have easily traded a 5th round rookie pick for a guy like Gabbert just to have a starter, but he actually traded a 2nd for Flacco to fill the hole and get a more permanent backup option.

So, it worked, and a competitor had to "waste" a 2nd round rookie pick for a worthless backup QB.

Call it whatever you want. But I lost nothing and a competitor lost a 2nd rounder. That's a win, no matter how small.

Now, if I had enlisted other owners in this endeavor, then it's collusion and a doosh move.

I agree.

People's opinions may vary, but I consider picking up players to keep them out of opponent's hands to be gamesmanship/shark move. But only if you do it entirely on your own and of your own accord, and NOT in concert with anybody else. You may or may not want to do it depending on your league and leaguemates, but it's most likely not illegal (shouldn't be) and can be a good move.

I'm facing the guy with Vick this week. He has no backup QB. He did not win a QB on waivers. I made room on my roster to pick up a backup QB for myself and then took the extra step of finding room for Foles as a FA. I have no intention of starting Foles. Some people may not like a play like that, but it's fair game.

What the OP posted, however...getting other managers involved...like we've said...is the very definition of collusion. You don't get to do that.

 

[Leonidas]

Not collusion. Valid strategy. Price you might pay for not carrying a backup QB or waiting too long to draft one (other owners start noticing, take their backups early just to screw you - and encourage other owners to do the same.)

Owner B notices owner A is leaving himself vulnerable and takes advantage. Encourages other owners to do the same. They only did it because it was a good idea. Owner A set himself up for this.

Yes, it is collusion. When B reached out to another (C, D, E, whoever) asking them to make moves in concert to harm A, it became collusion. Pure, plain, simple, no argument...it's collusion.

If collusion is against the rules of the league, team B (and I think C it sounds like) goofed.

 

[CariocaSean]

Not collusion. Valid strategy. Price you might pay for not carrying a backup QB or waiting too long to draft one (other owners start noticing, take their backups early just to screw you - and encourage other owners to do the same.)

Owner B notices owner A is leaving himself vulnerable and takes advantage. Encourages other owners to do the same. They only did it because it was a good idea. Owner A set himself up for this.

Yes, it is collusion. When B reached out to another (C, D, E, whoever) asking them to make moves in concert to harm A, it became collusion. Pure, plain, simple, no argument...it's collusion.

If collusion is against the rules of the league, team B (and I think C it sounds like) goofed.

Sorry, but there is no rule against table talk in fantasy football. Pointing out that owner A doesn't have a backup QB and that he can be screwed if everyone picks one up isn't collusion. In my opinion it would be fair game to openly speak about it on the league website.

In fact this kind of thing happens in my main league all the time. How is this different than suggesting other owners take backups QBs early in the draft because one or two owners are waiting a long time and leaving themselves vulnerable to it? Nothing to see here IMO.

IMO you cannot have collusion without an actual exchange of players who are currently on rosters.

 

[Leonidas]

Not collusion. Valid strategy. Price you might pay for not carrying a backup QB or waiting too long to draft one (other owners start noticing, take their backups early just to screw you - and encourage other owners to do the same.)

Owner B notices owner A is leaving himself vulnerable and takes advantage. Encourages other owners to do the same. They only did it because it was a good idea. Owner A set himself up for this.

Yes, it is collusion. When B reached out to another (C, D, E, whoever) asking them to make moves in concert to harm A, it became collusion. Pure, plain, simple, no argument...it's collusion.

If collusion is against the rules of the league, team B (and I think C it sounds like) goofed.

Sorry, but there is no rule against table talk in fantasy football. Pointing out that owner A doesn't have a backup QB and that he can be screwed if everyone picks one up isn't collusion. In my opinion it would be fair game to openly speak about it on the league website.

In fact this kind of thing happens in my main league all the time. How is this different than suggesting other owners take backups QBs early in the draft because one or two owners are waiting a long time and leaving themselves vulnerable to it? Nothing to see here IMO.

It is collusion.

If you'd like you can argue that collusion is legal and is fair and nothing should be done about it...but it IS collusion.

And the vast majority of leagues and participants/managers don't want collusion in their league.

 

[CariocaSean]

Not collusion. Valid strategy. Price you might pay for not carrying a backup QB or waiting too long to draft one (other owners start noticing, take their backups early just to screw you - and encourage other owners to do the same.)

Owner B notices owner A is leaving himself vulnerable and takes advantage. Encourages other owners to do the same. They only did it because it was a good idea. Owner A set himself up for this.

Yes, it is collusion. When B reached out to another (C, D, E, whoever) asking them to make moves in concert to harm A, it became collusion. Pure, plain, simple, no argument...it's collusion.

If collusion is against the rules of the league, team B (and I think C it sounds like) goofed.

Sorry, but there is no rule against table talk in fantasy football. Pointing out that owner A doesn't have a backup QB and that he can be screwed if everyone picks one up isn't collusion. In my opinion it would be fair game to openly speak about it on the league website.

In fact this kind of thing happens in my main league all the time. How is this different than suggesting other owners take backups QBs early in the draft because one or two owners are waiting a long time and leaving themselves vulnerable to it? Nothing to see here IMO.

It is collusion.

It's really nothing more than table talk. What, you aren't allowed to point out that owner A's only QB is on by this week?

 

[Leonidas]

It's really nothing more than table talk. What, you aren't allowed to point out that owner A's only QB is on by this week?

You can call it whatever you want.

The way it is written in the OP...it is collusion.

Plain, simple, no possibility that it is not.

 

[CariocaSean]

It's really nothing more than table talk. What, you aren't allowed to point out that owner A's only QB is on by this week?

You can call it whatever you want.

The way it is written in the OP...it is collusion.

Plain, simple, no possibility that it is not.

Simply is not collusion. No players were even swapped between rosters.

 

[CariocaSean]

Owner A has Matt Ryan on a bye this week and is needing to pick up a one week qb filler. He has told owner B that he needs to pick up a qb this week, and Owner B says he himself doesn't need a qb so he won't be going after one.

Owner B then makes waiver claims for multiple qbs, and picks up a 2nd and 3rd qb. Owner B also gets his friend (Owner C), to make waiver claims on QBs, in an attempt to 'block owner A from getting any qb to play this week". Owner B doesn't play Owner A and isn't even in the same division, so this move doesn't really benefit Owner B besides potentially hoping Owner A will be forced to trade him for a QB.

Owner B also approached other Owners in the league (Owner D), and attempted to convince him to do the same and have all the starting qb's gone. Owners B, C, and D did not need QB's at all, and Owner B admitted that he made the move and got other owners to back him up and do the same, in an attempt to stop Owner A from having a starting QB that week so that he would be forced to trade for one.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Not relevant that owner A said he needs a bye week filler - that is a given.

Not relevant that owner B, and all the other owners, don't "need" a QB.

Owner C can make his own decision on whether he wants to drop players just to pick up a QB and block owner A, as can owner B and the rest of them.. I don't think the word "get" really applies here. Was there an exchange of money? An exchange of fantasy football assets? If not, no collusion, period.

Owner B's motivation also not relevant. Owner A can do whatever he wants and could trade with any other team in the league and not team B. There has to be at least one startable QB on the wire. If not, owner A probably should not have been asleep at the wheel.

No exchange of assets, no collusion. End of story. Just table talk and gamesmanship.

 

[GregR]

Not collusion. Valid strategy. Price you might pay for not carrying a backup QB or waiting too long to draft one (other owners start noticing, take their backups early just to screw you - and encourage other owners to do the same.)

Owner B notices owner A is leaving himself vulnerable and takes advantage. Encourages other owners to do the same. They only did it because it was a good idea. Owner A set himself up for this.

Yes, it is collusion. When B reached out to another (C, D, E, whoever) asking them to make moves in concert to harm A, it became collusion. Pure, plain, simple, no argument...it's collusion.

If collusion is against the rules of the league, team B (and I think C it sounds like) goofed.

Sorry, but there is no rule against table talk in fantasy football. Pointing out that owner A doesn't have a backup QB and that he can be screwed if everyone picks one up isn't collusion. In my opinion it would be fair game to openly speak about it on the league website.

In fact this kind of thing happens in my main league all the time. How is this different than suggesting other owners take backups QBs early in the draft because one or two owners are waiting a long time and leaving themselves vulnerable to it? Nothing to see here IMO.

It is collusion.

It's really nothing more than table talk. What, you aren't allowed to point out that owner A's only QB is on by this week?

If "pointing it out" is done in a way that lobbies teams to act together to gain an advantage beyond what they get acting as individual teams... then yes that's not allowed. Which is what was done, according to the OP's version.

These examples are collusive because they are trying to get teams to act collectively:

"Greg, let's both pick up QBs to block Joe from getting one."

"Look at that, Joe needs a QB. It would be funny if everyone picked some up so he can't get any."

An example of the kind of legitimate table talk you're speaking of:

"Glad that I'm catching Joe with his QB on bye and few good options on waivers."

The first two encourage teams to act together in a specific collusive fashion. The latter states the situation, but proposes no collective course of action. If an owner, aware now of the situation, came to a conclusion to pick up QBs, then he is doing it on his own. There is no group effort to do it.

 

[CariocaSean]

Not collusion. Valid strategy. Price you might pay for not carrying a backup QB or waiting too long to draft one (other owners start noticing, take their backups early just to screw you - and encourage other owners to do the same.)

Owner B notices owner A is leaving himself vulnerable and takes advantage. Encourages other owners to do the same. They only did it because it was a good idea. Owner A set himself up for this.

Yes, it is collusion. When B reached out to another (C, D, E, whoever) asking them to make moves in concert to harm A, it became collusion. Pure, plain, simple, no argument...it's collusion.

If collusion is against the rules of the league, team B (and I think C it sounds like) goofed.

Sorry, but there is no rule against table talk in fantasy football. Pointing out that owner A doesn't have a backup QB and that he can be screwed if everyone picks one up isn't collusion. In my opinion it would be fair game to openly speak about it on the league website.

In fact this kind of thing happens in my main league all the time. How is this different than suggesting other owners take backups QBs early in the draft because one or two owners are waiting a long time and leaving themselves vulnerable to it? Nothing to see here IMO.

It is collusion.

It's really nothing more than table talk. What, you aren't allowed to point out that owner A's only QB is on by this week?

If "pointing it out" is done in a way that lobbies teams to act together to gain an advantage beyond what they get acting as individual teams... then yes that's not allowed. Which is what was done, according to the OP's version.

These examples are collusive because they are trying to get teams to act collectively:

"Greg, let's both pick up QBs to block Joe from getting one."

"Look at that, Joe needs a QB. It would be funny if everyone picked some up so he can't get any."

An example of the kind of legitimate table talk you're speaking of:

"Glad that I'm catching Joe with his QB on bye and few good options on waivers."

The first two encourage teams to act together in a specific collusive fashion. The latter states the situation, but proposes no collective course of action. If an owner, aware now of the situation, came to a conclusion to pick up QBs, then he is doing it on his own. There is no group effort to do it.

Yeah, I just disagree. Is it collusion to say at the draft "Hey, Sean doesn't have a QB yet. C'mon, people, lets draft second QBs before his next pick to screw him." IMO, that just isn't collusion, and each owner will make their own free will decision on whether to use their draft pick for that purpose. Just like each of the owners in this example will use their own free will to decide whether to use roster moves and roster space in picking up a QB to block team A. Unless there is some sort of exchange of assets or money it's not collusion. You can't make saying certain things illegal in fantasy football.

 

[glumpy]

Not collusion. Valid strategy. Price you might pay for not carrying a backup QB or waiting too long to draft one (other owners start noticing, take their backups early just to screw you - and encourage other owners to do the same.)

Owner B notices owner A is leaving himself vulnerable and takes advantage. Encourages other owners to do the same. They only did it because it was a good idea. Owner A set himself up for this.

Yes, it is collusion. When B reached out to another (C, D, E, whoever) asking them to make moves in concert to harm A, it became collusion. Pure, plain, simple, no argument...it's collusion.

If collusion is against the rules of the league, team B (and I think C it sounds like) goofed.

Sorry, but there is no rule against table talk in fantasy football. Pointing out that owner A doesn't have a backup QB and that he can be screwed if everyone picks one up isn't collusion. In my opinion it would be fair game to openly speak about it on the league website.

In fact this kind of thing happens in my main league all the time. How is this different than suggesting other owners take backups QBs early in the draft because one or two owners are waiting a long time and leaving themselves vulnerable to it? Nothing to see here IMO.

It is collusion.

It's really nothing more than table talk. What, you aren't allowed to point out that owner A's only QB is on by this week?

I saw nothing in the OP to suggest that they were sitting casually together around any table. Granted that the situation as described is soooo perfect a scenario as to appear anecdotal and maybe not based on fact--but as described it is the very definition of collusion.

 

[cobalt_27]

Wait, is this the same collection of jokers who were freaking out over the rookie owner they brought in and accused of collusion last week?

Wow, talk about paranoid.

 

[CariocaSean]

Not collusion. Valid strategy. Price you might pay for not carrying a backup QB or waiting too long to draft one (other owners start noticing, take their backups early just to screw you - and encourage other owners to do the same.)

Owner B notices owner A is leaving himself vulnerable and takes advantage. Encourages other owners to do the same. They only did it because it was a good idea. Owner A set himself up for this.

Yes, it is collusion. When B reached out to another (C, D, E, whoever) asking them to make moves in concert to harm A, it became collusion. Pure, plain, simple, no argument...it's collusion.

If collusion is against the rules of the league, team B (and I think C it sounds like) goofed.

Sorry, but there is no rule against table talk in fantasy football. Pointing out that owner A doesn't have a backup QB and that he can be screwed if everyone picks one up isn't collusion. In my opinion it would be fair game to openly speak about it on the league website.

In fact this kind of thing happens in my main league all the time. How is this different than suggesting other owners take backups QBs early in the draft because one or two owners are waiting a long time and leaving themselves vulnerable to it? Nothing to see here IMO.

It is collusion.

It's really nothing more than table talk. What, you aren't allowed to point out that owner A's only QB is on by this week?

I saw nothing in the OP to suggest that they were sitting casually together around any table. Granted that the situation as described is soooo perfect a scenario as to appear anecdotal and maybe not based on fact--but as described it is the very definition of collusion.

I don't think you understand what table talk is.

No, the very definition of collusion is "Hey, I have a terrible team but I have AP. You have a great team with lots of depth, but if you had AP you would be unstoppable. I will trade you AP for some of your backup guys and you give me a percentage of the winnings."

 

[CariocaSean]

Wait, is this the same collection of jokers who were freaking out over the rookie owner they brought in and accused of collusion last week?

Wow, talk about paranoid.

Try to keep up. I was involved in that but I am only commenting on whether this is collusion or not. IMO it is not. It is gamesmanship.

 

[glumpy]

It's really nothing more than table talk. What, you aren't allowed to point out that owner A's only QB is on by this week?

You can call it whatever you want.

The way it is written in the OP...it is collusion.

Plain, simple, no possibility that it is not.

Simply is not collusion. No players were even swapped between rosters.

You're playing devils advocate and grasping at straws. Swapping of players has nothing to do with "collusion"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collusion?s=t

Collusion: a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes;

 

[Johnny Blood]

hahaha

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=693369

 

[Johnny Blood]

carioca not that you are going to listen to a single thing anyone says, but you can obviously collude without swapping players or money. for example you and i could, of our own free will, throw late season games to manipulate playoff spots and/or seeds to our joint advantage.

 

[CariocaSean]

It's really nothing more than table talk. What, you aren't allowed to point out that owner A's only QB is on by this week?

You can call it whatever you want.

The way it is written in the OP...it is collusion.

Plain, simple, no possibility that it is not.

Simply is not collusion. No players were even swapped between rosters.

You're playing devils advocate and grasping at straws. Swapping of players has nothing to do with "collusion"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collusion?s=t

Collusion: a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes;

a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraudanother of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement.

No one is being defrauded here. It doesn't sound like it was much of a secret. Nothing was gained illegally by working in concert. Owner A had no right to pick up a backup QB.

 

[GregR]

Not collusion. Valid strategy. Price you might pay for not carrying a backup QB or waiting too long to draft one (other owners start noticing, take their backups early just to screw you - and encourage other owners to do the same.)

Owner B notices owner A is leaving himself vulnerable and takes advantage. Encourages other owners to do the same. They only did it because it was a good idea. Owner A set himself up for this.

Yes, it is collusion. When B reached out to another (C, D, E, whoever) asking them to make moves in concert to harm A, it became collusion. Pure, plain, simple, no argument...it's collusion.

If collusion is against the rules of the league, team B (and I think C it sounds like) goofed.

Sorry, but there is no rule against table talk in fantasy football. Pointing out that owner A doesn't have a backup QB and that he can be screwed if everyone picks one up isn't collusion. In my opinion it would be fair game to openly speak about it on the league website.

In fact this kind of thing happens in my main league all the time. How is this different than suggesting other owners take backups QBs early in the draft because one or two owners are waiting a long time and leaving themselves vulnerable to it? Nothing to see here IMO.

It is collusion.

It's really nothing more than table talk. What, you aren't allowed to point out that owner A's only QB is on by this week?

If "pointing it out" is done in a way that lobbies teams to act together to gain an advantage beyond what they get acting as individual teams... then yes that's not allowed. Which is what was done, according to the OP's version.

These examples are collusive because they are trying to get teams to act collectively:

"Greg, let's both pick up QBs to block Joe from getting one."

"Look at that, Joe needs a QB. It would be funny if everyone picked some up so he can't get any."

An example of the kind of legitimate table talk you're speaking of:

"Glad that I'm catching Joe with his QB on bye and few good options on waivers."

The first two encourage teams to act together in a specific collusive fashion. The latter states the situation, but proposes no collective course of action. If an owner, aware now of the situation, came to a conclusion to pick up QBs, then he is doing it on his own. There is no group effort to do it.

Yeah, I just disagree. Is it collusion to say at the draft "Hey, Sean doesn't have a QB yet. C'mon, people, lets draft second QBs before his next pick to screw him." IMO, that just isn't collusion, and each owner will make their own free will decision on whether to use their draft pick for that purpose. Just like each of the owners in this example will use their own free will to decide whether to use roster moves and roster space in picking up a QB to block team A. Unless there is some sort of exchange of assets or money it's not collusion. You can't make saying certain things illegal in fantasy football.

The example you gave is collusion at a draft, yes.

That owners could decide not to participate in the collusion doesn't change that it's collusion if they do participate. It also doesn't change that the person advocating teams act collectively like that is advocating collusion.

And yes, we can make collusion illegal in fantasy football. In most leagues it is. If you and 11 friends want to have your own league that allows any cut throat, collusive or unethical behavior it wants, you can and there's nothing wrong with it long as you all agree.

That you might like a league that allows such, doesn't change the general meaning of collusion or that most leagues don't allow it.

 

[CariocaSean]

carioca not that you are going to listen to a single thing anyone says, but you can obviously collude without swapping players or money. for example you and i could, of our own free will, throw late season games to manipulate playoff spots and/or seeds to our joint advantage.

This is also gamesmanship. If I think I have an easier road to the championship by being the #2 instead of #1 seed, I can start my backups. Risky strategy though. Impossible to predict and the risk is that if you're wrong you will be kicking yourself.