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.

League has two teams owned by same guy. (1 Viewer)

elmanx

Footballguy
I've just discovered that the Antsports money keeper league that I'm in has two teams with the same owner. I've looked through the rules of the website and there is nothing that specifically prohibits it, so maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing. Both teams have the same email address. Now I know it's possible that two people could be using the same email address, but I have good reason to doubt that's the case.

Basically the problem is that he is subtly colluding with himself. He never makes an unbalanced trade with himself, but he is basically taking advantage of both rosters and trading in such as way that his depth is better distributed, if one team is stacked at RB and the other at WR he makes an appropriate trade. He distributes his keeper candidates equally. When he makes trades with other teams, he essentially has a pool of twice as many players to offer. Of note, both teams are in playoff contention.

Any ideas on what I should do in this situation. Or on the general question of what you should do when you are in a pay league that is run by a website (i.e., not just a bunch of guys who get together and use a site to manage a league, but a case where the site is actually running things and takes a pretty significant cut). Is it just buyer beware when you are joining a league like this, or should you have an expectation that this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen (or if it does, it should be disclosed)?

Right now I'm planning on emailing Antsports and depending on the response, making a posting on the site to inform the other owners. I really can't even think of what the appropriate remedy ought to be this late in the season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bringing this up to the entire league is the right thing to do. If indeed he is the owner of both teams, that is BS.

 
duece2626 said:
If indeed he is the same owner, I'd kick him out of the league.
Problem is that this isn't a league where the owners vote on things like this. Antsports just gets a bunch of people who presumably don't know each other together and creates leagues. There's a big market for this sort of thing since there's a lot of people who like ff who can't find leagues.
 
I've been in sveral leagues at Antsports and think they are very well run. Talked to Steve on the phone a couple of times to get some Admin stuff done. Great guy.

Call him up and ask him to look into it, there's an 800 number right on the home page. Might wanna wait till business hours are open though.

 
In Texas there's a saying for that...I don't want to be crass, but let's just say it comes out of a bull's ### and smells likes ####.

C

O

L

L

U

S

I

O

N

 
I guess part of my question is could it be Antsports' position that it's OK for two teams to be owned by the same person? After all, it would be pretty easy to check for duplicate email addresses? And they don't say anything specific about this sort of thing on the website (that I could find). However, I guess, based on the initial responses, that I'm not overreacting here.

 
We had the same thing happen in one of our (non-keeper) leagues. After being called out on it during the draft, Steve called the guy and the guy claimed that it was his wife that was running the second team (though he was the only one who could get to a computer to make her draft picks). Steve banned them from trading with each other for the rest of the season, but let them stay in the league.

I'm starting to wonder how common this is . . .

 
We had the same thing happen in one of our (non-keeper) leagues. After being called out on it during the draft, Steve called the guy and the guy claimed that it was his wife that was running the second team (though he was the only one who could get to a computer to make her draft picks). Steve banned them from trading with each other for the rest of the season, but let them stay in the league. I'm starting to wonder how common this is . . .
How did you figure out that the two teams were controlled by the same person during the draft?
 
I expect this common in a number of public leagues. This guy is stupid because he's used the same address for both teams, but it would hardly be challenging to have several email addresses in use for this type of behaviour.

Unfortunately this is common in all types on online play; the few spoiling the fun for the many.

 
If the 2 teams have made ANY transactions between them, then it's collusion by definition.
at first when i read this, i thought so toobut, upon further reflection, this can't be the case. what if team 1 had lots of depth but poor starters and team 2 had no depth and a few marginal starters. couldn't team 1 trade away some depth in return for better starters and team 2 trade away a stud for some starter upgrades? assuming the trade value is even, it's not really collusion since both teams are better off. however, i definitely call shenanigans if two teams have the same owner. it hurts the integrity of the league.
 
If the 2 teams have made ANY transactions between them, then it's collusion by definition.
but, upon further reflection, this can't be the case. what if team 1 had lots of depth but poor starters and team 2 had no depth and a few marginal starters. couldn't team 1 trade away some depth in return for better starters and team 2 trade away a stud for some starter upgrades? assuming the trade value is even, it's not really collusion since both teams are better off.
Are you kidding? If the same person is running 2 teams it's collusion. It's illegal. Trade value has NOTHING to do with it. If the same human being is proposing a trade and then accepting the trade it's wrong. How difficult can it be to understand this principal? This is hilarious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We had the same thing happen in one of our (non-keeper) leagues. After being called out on it during the draft, Steve called the guy and the guy claimed that it was his wife that was running the second team (though he was the only one who could get to a computer to make her draft picks). Steve banned them from trading with each other for the rest of the season, but let them stay in the league. I'm starting to wonder how common this is . . .
The guy was making the same kind of comments after each pick (ninerz rulz!!!!!) for both teams, and made an in-draft trade that some of the people in the league though was unbalanced (something like a 3rd and a 10th for a 4th, 5th, and 6th). One guy in the league (said he was a former cop) called him out on it, and eventually contacted Steve. Much excitement on the message boards ensued.When Steve called the guy, he confessed, but made the claim that his wife was running the second team. Both teams are now middle of the pack, and may or may not make the playoffs.
 
We had the same thing happen in one of our (non-keeper) leagues. After being called out on it during the draft, Steve called the guy and the guy claimed that it was his wife that was running the second team (though he was the only one who could get to a computer to make her draft picks). Steve banned them from trading with each other for the rest of the season, but let them stay in the league. I'm starting to wonder how common this is . . .
The guy was making the same kind of comments after each pick (ninerz rulz!!!!!) for both teams, and made an in-draft trade that some of the people in the league though was unbalanced (something like a 3rd and a 10th for a 4th, 5th, and 6th). One guy in the league (said he was a former cop) called him out on it, and eventually contacted Steve. Much excitement on the message boards ensued.When Steve called the guy, he confessed, but made the claim that his wife was running the second team. Both teams are now middle of the pack, and may or may not make the playoffs.
That's some good detective work. I don't think this guy is trying that hard to hide it
 
I expect this common in a number of public leagues. This guy is stupid because he's used the same address for both teams, but it would hardly be challenging to have several email addresses in use for this type of behaviour. Unfortunately this is common in all types on online play; the few spoiling the fun for the many.
I figured as much. However, the if you ran the league and you discovered something like this, then what would you do to the guy that would punish him but at the same time not disrupt the fantasy season for everyone else. I can't think of any good ideas.
 
a similar situation happened in my league in 04. A friend of mine invited his wife into the league to fill in a position (much to my chagrin, as she was just a casual football watcher). Midseason, he traded her david carr & reggie wayne for priest holmes. I was ripped. We didn't have rules about vetos at the time and all we could do was give him hell about it. Holmes went off for 140 and 3 td's in his first game, and another 140 and 2 td's in his second game. No one would talk to the guy. He posted about how sorry he was and how he would reverse the trade because he "didn't realize how lopsided it was at the time." Then...Priest got hurt. Karma baby! We still give him crap about it (and she is still in the league). Hope the karma is on your side too.

 
If the 2 teams have made ANY transactions between them, then it's collusion by definition.
at first when i read this, i thought so toobut, upon further reflection, this can't be the case. what if team 1 had lots of depth but poor starters and team 2 had no depth and a few marginal starters. couldn't team 1 trade away some depth in return for better starters and team 2 trade away a stud for some starter upgrades? assuming the trade value is even, it's not really collusion since both teams are better off.
It doesn't matter if the trade is fair. It's still collusion because only one person is benefiting from the trade.
 
If the 2 teams have made ANY transactions between them, then it's collusion by definition.
at first when i read this, i thought so toobut, upon further reflection, this can't be the case. what if team 1 had lots of depth but poor starters and team 2 had no depth and a few marginal starters. couldn't team 1 trade away some depth in return for better starters and team 2 trade away a stud for some starter upgrades? assuming the trade value is even, it's not really collusion since both teams are better off.
It doesn't matter if the trade is fair. It's still collusion because only one person is benefiting from the trade.
:shrug: let's say, for example, that there is a hypothetical league with 6 owners and 12 teams (each owner having 2 teams). this hypothetical league does not allow for collusion. would it still be collusion for owners to trade between their teams, so long as both teams are benefiting? for the sake of argument, let's further clarify that all trades are reviewed by the other owners to determine whether or not both teams satisfy this sole criteria.let's keep this argument separate from the more obvious point that one owner shouldn't have multiple stakes in the pot ....
 
If the 2 teams have made ANY transactions between them, then it's collusion by definition.
at first when i read this, i thought so toobut, upon further reflection, this can't be the case. what if team 1 had lots of depth but poor starters and team 2 had no depth and a few marginal starters. couldn't team 1 trade away some depth in return for better starters and team 2 trade away a stud for some starter upgrades? assuming the trade value is even, it's not really collusion since both teams are better off.
It doesn't matter if the trade is fair. It's still collusion because only one person is benefiting from the trade.
:confused: let's say, for example, that there is a hypothetical league with 6 owners and 12 teams (each owner having 2 teams). this hypothetical league does not allow for collusion. would it still be collusion for owners to trade between their teams, so long as both teams are benefiting? for the sake of argument, let's further clarify that all trades are reviewed by the other owners to determine whether or not both teams satisfy this sole criteria.

let's keep this argument separate from the more obvious point that one owner shouldn't have multiple stakes in the pot ....
Yes, it's still collusion. Only one person benefits.
 
If the 2 teams have made ANY transactions between them, then it's collusion by definition.
at first when i read this, i thought so toobut, upon further reflection, this can't be the case. what if team 1 had lots of depth but poor starters and team 2 had no depth and a few marginal starters. couldn't team 1 trade away some depth in return for better starters and team 2 trade away a stud for some starter upgrades? assuming the trade value is even, it's not really collusion since both teams are better off.
It doesn't matter if the trade is fair. It's still collusion because only one person is benefiting from the trade.
:goodposting: let's say, for example, that there is a hypothetical league with 6 owners and 12 teams (each owner having 2 teams). this hypothetical league does not allow for collusion. would it still be collusion for owners to trade between their teams, so long as both teams are benefiting? for the sake of argument, let's further clarify that all trades are reviewed by the other owners to determine whether or not both teams satisfy this sole criteria.let's keep this argument separate from the more obvious point that one owner shouldn't have multiple stakes in the pot ....
Your "more obvious point" is actually not really a problem per se. There is really no inherent problem with an owner having multiple stakes in a pot if he pays for each stake. This happens all the time in football pools, lotteries, and the like. The problem is that when you have multiple stakes and you can use them together to increase your odd of winning over what they would be if each entry were completely independent. This can be easily accomplished if one owner controls two teams. That's why having multiple teams in fantasy football ought to be forbidden. To address your hypothetical example, I would say that what is happening is collusion, but each owner has an equal opportunity for collusion. Therefore, in your contrived case, collusion doesn't confer a competitive advantage (since each owner can collude with himself equally) and therefore could be considered acceptable. However, in most real cases (like my example), not all owners have equal opportunities to collude, which is why collusion is generally deemed unacceptable.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top