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.
Real Collusion (or not?) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bayhawks
- Start date
DoubleG
Footballguy
Of course it's not collusion - who exactly would you be colluding with?????????????????
You made (a fairly unsportsmanlike) decision. No one else was involved. Please delete this silly thread so as not to clutter up the front page - and especially since you've been around long enough to know the answer.
You made (a fairly unsportsmanlike) decision. No one else was involved. Please delete this silly thread so as not to clutter up the front page - and especially since you've been around long enough to know the answer.
In theory, if Team B knew about my decision, it would be collusion, at least according to two recent "collusion" threads/polls, even if he didn't actively conspire in the act.
The thread is about the concept of collusion. In those 2 recent threads, the term collusion was continually mis-used. Just because something is shady, suspicious, or unethical, doesn't make it collusion. I was curious how many posters would view this situation.
Right. And in the previous threads, when the 3-7 team gave up and decided to dump his players, none of the other owners could prevent him from doing so (without kicking him out/stealing his money), but many posters kept insisting it was collusion.
Part of the reason I started this thread.
4 votes in each question. Presumably the same 4 people voted with regards to each question.
1 person said it is collusion if I tank in week 13, but no one said it is collusion if I tank & team B knows about it.
How is it collusion if I decide to tank on my own, but not collusion if the other owner who will benefit (but isn't involved) knows about the situation? How does his knowledge prevent it from being collusion?
The term collusion is thrown around because it sounds "official" and important. But it is often mis-used.
4 votes in each question. Presumably the same 4 people voted with regards to each question.
1 person said it is collusion if I tank in week 13, but no one said it is collusion if I tank & team B knows about it.
How is it collusion if I decide to tank on my own, but not collusion if the other owner who will benefit (but isn't involved) knows about the situation? How does his knowledge prevent it from being collusion?
The term collusion is thrown around because it sounds "official" and important. But it is often mis-used.
FUBAR
Footballguy
Thank you for your community service.
This isn't difficult, it's not collusion but it would be tanking.
RUSF18
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
You (& several others) are right. This thread isn't going to convince anyone to use the term collusion correctly.
I will close it.
ETA-Couldn't delete the thread, so I deleted the poll questions & the OP.
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
You forgot the part where the 3-7 team dumped his players to the 6-4 teams roster through a trade. The 6-4 team participated by either proposing the trade or accepting the trade. The argument holds up better if a team is accepting a lopsided trade, who doesn't want to improve their team.
This is not the same as cutting a outright, giving everyone in the league a fair chance through waivers.
Area51Inhabitant
Footballguy
Collusion or not, please don't tank a game if you care at all about this hobby. All of your league mates will appreciate your integrity if you try your best to win every week even if you just don't have the horses at this time. Believe me, everyone who plays ff finds themselves in your position at some point.
