Real Collusion (1 Viewer)

[GregR]

I probably would not have kept their entry fees, and if any was kept, definitely not beyond a prorated amount for the weeks they'd run their team.

Small Claims Court... I'm not a lawyer and would love to hear one with more knowledge on the situation chime in. If a state where FF is illegal, I doubt they would do anything as the whole situation would be an illegal contract.

In a state it is legal, I'm not sure how they would rule. Having in advance a rule that entry fees are forfeited if kicked out for cheating would help the league's case I'm sure. MT said in another thread that when a contract is ambiguous the court tends to rule against the side who had control of the language. I don't know if complete lack of terms would apply.

This is why I'd keep a prorated amount if I kept anything. I'd be willing to go before a judge and let him decide if that was appropriate for the entertainment value they already gained running teams in the league... and if the alleged cheating removed any claim they had to potential winnings.

About the OP's supply of information... of course I hope any OP is supplying complete and unbiased information. But it is up to his league if told that "FBGs posters agreed it's collusion" happened and was based on an accurate depiction of events. We have no way of knowing if even the group of players supplied in the trade was accurate. Hell, someone can say "FBGs said this" without ever having posted here. Up to their league to verify it if they want to let such a statement sway them.

Along that topic though, there's a simple way to make sure OPs give complete (if not necessarily accurate) information in threads like this. Don't give them an opinion until they supply everything you need to make a judgment. That is one thing that annoys me here. Some rare times you can look at a trade and easily say, "this doesn't look right." I think this trade is one of them. But too many times, with uneven numbers of players at different positions, you cannot make a valid judgment without knowing scoring system, starting lineup requirements, current rosters, redraft/keeper/dynasty rules, and what other owners in that league who had interest in the player(s) were offering at the time.

That's why my advice in these threads tends to be limited to, "ask both owners to explain why the trade benefits their team, and was the best they could get, and then make your decision based on whether you think it's reasonable they really believed what they said". It's also why I wouldn't play in a league where a vote on a trade was anything less than voting whether we thought the owner cheated. Because I think few FF players get the info to make an informed decision on this kind of stuff to allow a vote on what is "fair". It is also why I like to advocate that commishes gather the information and present it to make sure all necessary info is there in leagues that do hold votes.

Though as I said, this particular thread is a rare situation in this regard. I'm having trouble dreaming up any scenario where a reasonable person would think it was a beneficial trade. Usually you don't have three single players at each position swapped for three other single players at each position, where all on one side are widely regarded as inferior. Even the leeway that I might give of "I just don't like this player's outlook" is strained when I have to give it three times.

 

[fantasycurse42]

If there was any doubt that lhucks was a tool before this thread, this thread removes all doubt.

Cheating, collusion, or "CLEVER?" If there was any doubt about your intelligence, it was answered during that thread.

Des RealReactions have a twitter account for us to all follow?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

 

[KCitons]

So the 3-7 owner is guilty of being bored? pissed off?

And the 6-4 team is guilty of what? Trying to improve his team?

I don't think both teams should be given the same options you listed.

 

[fantasycurse42]

So the 3-7 owner is guilty of being bored? pissed off?

And the 6-4 team is guilty of what? Trying to improve his team?

I don't think both teams should be given the same options you listed.

They're guilty of ruining our league. The option to keep their money has been presented.

 

[KCitons]

So the 3-7 owner is guilty of being bored? pissed off?

And the 6-4 team is guilty of what? Trying to improve his team?

I don't think both teams should be given the same options you listed.

They're guilty of ruining our league. The option to keep their money has been presented.

How did the 6-4 team ruin your league.

Also, you don't need to establish rules for trades, you need rules to address cheating. Cover it with a large blanket that allows commissioner/league flexibility to adapt to new problems

 

[mbuehner]

So the 3-7 owner is guilty of being bored? pissed off?

And the 6-4 team is guilty of what? Trying to improve his team?

I don't think both teams should be given the same options you listed.

They're guilty of ruining our league. The option to keep their money has been presented.

Let me ask you this- if the 6-4 team had simply sent this offer over, no conversation between them, just sent the offer as a what the hell lets see what happens, or to open the door to discussion... you would call them both cheaters and colluders if the 3-7 was having a bad day, didnt give a crap and accepted it for whatever reason? Guy makes a terrible trade offer that gets accepted for some reason... that entitles you to take both their money?

The problem is there CAN be trades that should be vetoed but arent collusion (though i find both to be vanishingly rare).

 

[Bayhawks]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care.

Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

 

[ldizzle]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

why even go to league review. your commish did the right thing and stepped in when needed and provided them with options.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care. Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

False, it was an owner using his friendship with another owner to give him an edge... Clearly we have a diff opinion of what cheating is.

 

[KCitons]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care. Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

False, it was an owner using his friendship with another owner to give him an edge... Clearly we have a diff opinion of what cheating is.

yeah. There's your definition and then there's the correct definition.

 

[Apple Jack]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care. Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

False, it was an owner using his friendship with another owner to give him an edge... Clearly we have a diff opinion of what cheating is.

Who cheated and what is your evidence?

 

[GregR]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care. Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

False, it was an owner using his friendship with another owner to give him an edge... Clearly we have a diff opinion of what cheating is.

yeah. There's your definition and then there's the correct definition.

I don't think he's wrong.

From what was said, the 3-7 owner went ahead with stacking a friend's team because he didn't care, which he knew hurt his team. That's wrong. The 6-4 owner didn't talk him into logically thinking the trade benefited his team. He talked him into making a trade that both knew hurt the other owner's team, just for the sake of helping him.

It may not be as disconcerting as offering him cash to make the trade. It was still actively trying to break the spirit of legitimate individual competition on the part of the 6-4 owner, and the 3-7 owner went along with it.

 

[jmo87usc]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care. Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

False, it was an owner using his friendship with another owner to give him an edge... Clearly we have a diff opinion of what cheating is.

yeah. There's your definition and then there's the correct definition.

Collusion or not, one owner did something ignorant, while the other was being unethical. You can certainly play devil's advocate all you want, which you obviously love doing, but in the end they got what they deserved.

3-7 was already elimintaed, money lost. 6-4 was obviously trying to take advantage of 3-7's careless attitude. Argue all you want that there was no rule that they actually broke, but they still acted in a selfish manner that went against the good of the league. The punishment was fair, and seems like the fallout is minimal. Issue handled well. End of story.

 

[Khalua83]

Because the one owner addmitted it was a bad trade it should be reversed. But to kick someone out with no rules in place is pretty wack. You must not like the kids that much if trying to pull a fast one gets them booted.

 

[KCitons]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care. Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

False, it was an owner using his friendship with another owner to give him an edge... Clearly we have a diff opinion of what cheating is.

yeah. There's your definition and then there's the correct definition.

Collusion or not, one owner did something ignorant, while the other was being unethical. You can certainly play devil's advocate all you want, which you obviously love doing, but in the end they got what they deserved.

3-7 was already elimintaed, money lost. 6-4 was obviously trying to take advantage of 3-7's careless attitude. Argue all you want that there was no rule that they actually broke, but they still acted in a selfish manner that went against the good of the league. The punishment was fair, and seems like the fallout is minimal. Issue handled well. End of story.

Reread the bolded part. Then ask yourself how many crappy trade offers you've made as a "starting point" for negotiations.

Issue was not handled well for the 6-4 team. He is doing what every owner does. Try to improve a team.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care. Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

False, it was an owner using his friendship with another owner to give him an edge... Clearly we have a diff opinion of what cheating is.

yeah. There's your definition and then there's the correct definition.

Collusion or not, one owner did something ignorant, while the other was being unethical. You can certainly play devil's advocate all you want, which you obviously love doing, but in the end they got what they deserved.

3-7 was already elimintaed, money lost. 6-4 was obviously trying to take advantage of 3-7's careless attitude. Argue all you want that there was no rule that they actually broke, but they still acted in a selfish manner that went against the good of the league. The punishment was fair, and seems like the fallout is minimal. Issue handled well. End of story.

Reread the bolded part. Then ask yourself how many crappy trade offers you've made as a "starting point" for negotiations.

Issue was not handled well for the 6-4 team. He is doing what every owner does. Try to improve a team.

You understand this wasn't a starting point? You understand he begged another owner to make a deal that they both knew to be #### just bc one of their seasons was over? You understand that he then defended it tooth and nail as a legit trade?

Do you want to come play some poker with me?

 

[KCitons]

Reread the bolded. It said they had been working on a trade. Suddenly the 3-7 team accepted a lesser offer. How is the 6-4 team at fault? Because it was a lopsided trade?

As I already mentioned, any time you review every trade, you are setting yourself up for trouble. Nearly every trade favors one team over another. You may as well be the only owner in that league, it appears you want to manage everyones team.

 

[jmo87usc]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care. Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

False, it was an owner using his friendship with another owner to give him an edge... Clearly we have a diff opinion of what cheating is.

yeah. There's your definition and then there's the correct definition.

Collusion or not, one owner did something ignorant, while the other was being unethical. You can certainly play devil's advocate all you want, which you obviously love doing, but in the end they got what they deserved.

3-7 was already elimintaed, money lost. 6-4 was obviously trying to take advantage of 3-7's careless attitude. Argue all you want that there was no rule that they actually broke, but they still acted in a selfish manner that went against the good of the league. The punishment was fair, and seems like the fallout is minimal. Issue handled well. End of story.

Reread the bolded part. Then ask yourself how many crappy trade offers you've made as a "starting point" for negotiations.

Issue was not handled well for the 6-4 team. He is doing what every owner does. Try to improve a team.

I read it. Sounds like the deal they made is worse than the original that they couldn't hash out. So why all of a sudden does they 3-7 team take a worse deal? Because he gave up. I don't care how many weeks of effort they tried to make it happen, doesn;'t make it ok to take a lopsided trade like that because the other guy stopped caring. You just know better. It is everyone's responsibility to be fair and keep the competitive spirit of the league in tact. This deal was not fair and it was quite obvious to everyone in the league.

I have no problem with trying to improve your team. I make a ton of trades. Opinions will vary, but to me a trade should help both sides. I don't make crappy low ball offers either. I hate when I get them. It doesn't make me want to negotiate, it tells me not to waste my time. Just my opinion

 

[GregR]

Reread the bolded. It said they had been working on a trade. Suddenly the 3-7 team accepted a lesser offer. How is the 6-4 team at fault? Because it was a lopsided trade?

As I already mentioned, any time you review every trade, you are setting yourself up for trouble. Nearly every trade favors one team over another. You may as well be the only owner in that league, it appears you want to manage everyones team.

The bolded also contained, "Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago)".

Helping 6-4 at the expense of 3-7 is ethically wrong. 6-4 begging 3-7 to make a trade that would be unethical for 3-7 on the merits of them being friends is also wrong.

They previously established a market value which 3-7 felt did not help his team, and this is now an even worse trade. There doesn't seem room to argue that 6-4 wasn't intentionally trying to get 3-7 to commit an unethical act.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Reread the bolded. It said they had been working on a trade. Suddenly the 3-7 team accepted a lesser offer. How is the 6-4 team at fault? Because it was a lopsided trade?

As I already mentioned, any time you review every trade, you are setting yourself up for trouble. Nearly every trade favors one team over another. You may as well be the only owner in that league, it appears you want to manage everyones team.

He begged him to make a much ####tier deal bc his season was over, which he then accepted. He had refused much better offers bc he was still competing prior to this deal, he then helped a friend by taking the #### deal after his friend begged him to do so. If that doesn't compromise a league, then you should remove the word cheating from your vocabulary.

It is impossible for someone to be this stupid, so you are obviously

 

[KCitons]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care. Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

False, it was an owner using his friendship with another owner to give him an edge... Clearly we have a diff opinion of what cheating is.

yeah. There's your definition and then there's the correct definition.

Collusion or not, one owner did something ignorant, while the other was being unethical. You can certainly play devil's advocate all you want, which you obviously love doing, but in the end they got what they deserved.

3-7 was already elimintaed, money lost. 6-4 was obviously trying to take advantage of 3-7's careless attitude. Argue all you want that there was no rule that they actually broke, but they still acted in a selfish manner that went against the good of the league. The punishment was fair, and seems like the fallout is minimal. Issue handled well. End of story.

Reread the bolded part. Then ask yourself how many crappy trade offers you've made as a "starting point" for negotiations.

Issue was not handled well for the 6-4 team. He is doing what every owner does. Try to improve a team.

I read it. Sounds like the deal they made is worse than the original that they couldn't hash out. So why all of a sudden does they 3-7 team take a worse deal? Because he gave up. I don't care how many weeks of effort they tried to make it happen, doesn;'t make it ok to take a lopsided trade like that because the other guy stopped caring. You just know better. It is everyone's responsibility to be fair and keep the competitive spirit of the league in tact. This deal was not fair and it was quite obvious to everyone in the league.

I have no problem with trying to improve your team. I make a ton of trades. Opinions will vary, but to me a trade should help both sides. I don't make crappy low ball offers either. I hate when I get them. It doesn't make me want to negotiate, it tells me not to waste my time. Just my opinion

I would say less than 50% of trades would fall into the category of helping both sides.

My point about the ongoing negotiations it that the 6-4 team doesn't deserve any punishment. Part of fantasy football is exposing your opponents weakness. Find a time when he is in panic mode and work off that.

 

[mbuehner]

In law there is a concept called mens rea (mens rea?! how is this possible? we both wore condoms!) which is basically an intent to break the law (a guilty mind). The problem with all these collusion threads is that its generally impossible to distinguish between those who are intentionally trying to cheat (and should get whats coming to them) and those who aren't intending to cheat but who break a rule. Unless you have an email chain or a video of money exchanging hands, you end up assuming a lot of things. Taking money away from people is a pretty intense punishment.

Did either party KNOW they were cheating? Who knows? I doubt it. To my mind, collusion almost never happens and is impossible to prove anyway. In exceedingly rare cases, the commissioner can reverse a trade. If it seems egregious enough, dont invite the parties back next year. But calling them cheaters and taking their money something I would only POSSIBLY consider if I saw an email chain or something definitive that proved they were doing it and doing it on purpose. To call a friend (or even an stranger) a cheat is a serious thing, and in this case as in just about any other i can imagine there is a less egregious possibility that is just as viable a scenario... that they screwed up. You aren't a cheater unless you intended to cheat. Thats not to say there cant be consequences, but where I come from calling somebody a cheat and a liar is about the most serious thing you can do.

 

[KCitons]

Reread the bolded. It said they had been working on a trade. Suddenly the 3-7 team accepted a lesser offer. How is the 6-4 team at fault? Because it was a lopsided trade?

As I already mentioned, any time you review every trade, you are setting yourself up for trouble. Nearly every trade favors one team over another. You may as well be the only owner in that league, it appears you want to manage everyones team.

He begged him to make a much ####tier deal bc his season was over, which he then accepted. He had refused much better offers bc he was still competing prior to this deal, he then helped a friend by taking the #### deal after his friend begged him to do so. If that doesn't compromise a league, then you should remove the word cheating from your vocabulary.

It is impossible for someone to be this stupid, so you are obviously

I'm just following your lead.

You had both of these guys hanging from the highest tree when you started this post. You've been wrong in this thread more times than I can count.

I think you should switch to a different hobby, fantasy football isn't your thing.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Reread the bolded. It said they had been working on a trade. Suddenly the 3-7 team accepted a lesser offer. How is the 6-4 team at fault? Because it was a lopsided trade?

As I already mentioned, any time you review every trade, you are setting yourself up for trouble. Nearly every trade favors one team over another. You may as well be the only owner in that league, it appears you want to manage everyones team.

Agreed. Is it shady that he leveraged his friendship to get a better deal than previously negotiated from a team "basically" eliminated from the playoffs? Sure. So veto the trade. Block them from trading with each other. Don't bring either of them back next season, even though it's really the 3-7 team that deserves the boot the most.

But you disqualified a playoff eligible team, and kept his $400 buy-in. I don't think that is even remotely warranted by the actions he took with the 3-7 team.

 

[ragnarok628]

whenever team A and team B mutually agree to ship A's good players to B and B's crap players to A, THIS IS COLLUSION. it doesn't matter whether there was an agreement to split a prize, or whether team A was just disinterested and had given up, what matters is that two managers were acting in the interests of only one of their teams. In fantasy football, this is considered cheating for a lot of very good reasons which i hope we all understand.

and this isn't about the league needing to police everyone's trade to make sure every deal is 'fair'. I hate that attitude, i say manage your own team and let others make what you would consider to be bad trades without a second thought. As long as the trading partners are both working towards their own individual success, it doesn't matter how lopsided a trade may seem.

 

[Buffaloes]

anyone else think this is a fishing trip or just me?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Reread the bolded. It said they had been working on a trade. Suddenly the 3-7 team accepted a lesser offer. How is the 6-4 team at fault? Because it was a lopsided trade?

As I already mentioned, any time you review every trade, you are setting yourself up for trouble. Nearly every trade favors one team over another. You may as well be the only owner in that league, it appears you want to manage everyones team.

Agreed. Is it shady that he leveraged his friendship to get a better deal than previously negotiated from a team "basically" eliminated from the playoffs? Sure. So veto the trade. Block them from trading with each other. Don't bring either of them back next season, even though it's really the 3-7 team that deserves the boot the most.

But you disqualified two teams, including a playoff eligible team, and kept their $400 buy-in. I don't think that is even remotely warranted by the actions he took with the 3-7 team.

Reread the solution our commish came up with.

 

[ghostguy123]

Correct action would have been to reverse that trade and move on for the rest of the year, while warning the entire league that they are subject to being removed with no refund if there is serious suspicion of collusion.

Kicking both out, especially with no history of anything, is completely the wrong move. Unless both said they were purposely trying to F the league up.

Also, it couldn't hurt to send a private email out to each owner to tell them if they are in contention and get an offer that is "too good to be true" from a team not in contention.........they probably should not take it, or at least add enough to not look so stupid.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Reread the bolded. It said they had been working on a trade. Suddenly the 3-7 team accepted a lesser offer. How is the 6-4 team at fault? Because it was a lopsided trade?

As I already mentioned, any time you review every trade, you are setting yourself up for trouble. Nearly every trade favors one team over another. You may as well be the only owner in that league, it appears you want to manage everyones team.

Agreed. Is it shady that he leveraged his friendship to get a better deal than previously negotiated from a team "basically" eliminated from the playoffs? Sure. So veto the trade. Block them from trading with each other. Don't bring either of them back next season, even though it's really the 3-7 team that deserves the boot the most.

But you disqualified two teams, including a playoff eligible team, and kept their $400 buy-in. I don't think that is even remotely warranted by the actions he took with the 3-7 team.

Reread the solution our commish came up with.

Commish still required them to forfeit their buy-in in order to remain in the league. And regardless of which penalty they chose, 6-4 team gave up their chances for this season.

Convincing someone to commit a bad trade is not an offense worthy of having to surrender your buy-in. You veto the trade, don't invite them back next year at most.

 

[KCitons]

Reread the bolded. It said they had been working on a trade. Suddenly the 3-7 team accepted a lesser offer. How is the 6-4 team at fault? Because it was a lopsided trade?

As I already mentioned, any time you review every trade, you are setting yourself up for trouble. Nearly every trade favors one team over another. You may as well be the only owner in that league, it appears you want to manage everyones team.

Agreed. Is it shady that he leveraged his friendship to get a better deal than previously negotiated from a team "basically" eliminated from the playoffs? Sure. So veto the trade. Block them from trading with each other. Don't bring either of them back next season, even though it's really the 3-7 team that deserves the boot the most.

But you disqualified two teams, including a playoff eligible team, and kept their $400 buy-in. I don't think that is even remotely warranted by the actions he took with the 3-7 team.

Reread the solution our commish came up with.

There is no solution where the trade is reversed and the 6-4 team is allowed to finish the season. The 3-7 team is much more at fault, yet both teams are given the same punishment.

I guess we should give someone convicted of robbery the same penalty as someone convicted of speeding.

 

[KCitons]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

 

[Amused to Death]

Reread the bolded. It said they had been working on a trade. Suddenly the 3-7 team accepted a lesser offer. How is the 6-4 team at fault? Because it was a lopsided trade?

As I already mentioned, any time you review every trade, you are setting yourself up for trouble. Nearly every trade favors one team over another. You may as well be the only owner in that league, it appears you want to manage everyones team.

The bolded also contained, "Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago)".

Helping 6-4 at the expense of 3-7 is ethically wrong. 6-4 begging 3-7 to make a trade that would be unethical for 3-7 on the merits of them being friends is also wrong.

They previously established a market value which 3-7 felt did not help his team, and this is now an even worse trade. There doesn't seem room to argue that 6-4 wasn't intentionally trying to get 3-7 to commit an unethical act.

This has gone largely ignored.

 

[KCitons]

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

 

[TheStig]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

What if the 3-7 team, not yet eliminated but not in control of his destiny figures some of his players can do him more good on another team who will be playing teams he needs to lose?

He is in a win now mode but also has the opportunity to make a trade that can help him in the short term by putting players on another team? It would then be collusion if they traded the players back afterwords, but under this scenario, a "unfair trade" is actually a high risk last shot hail mary.

 

[ragnarok628]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

What if the 3-7 team, not yet eliminated but not in control of his destiny figures some of his players can do him more good on another team who will be playing teams he needs to lose?

He is in a win now mode but also has the opportunity to make a trade that can help him in the short term by putting players on another team? It would then be collusion if they traded the players back afterwords, but under this scenario, a "unfair trade" is actually a high risk last shot hail mary.

even ignoring that your proposed reasoning is still collusion regardless of if the players get traded back afterwards, that doesn't really fly because even if his goal is primarily to help another team since he's not in control of his destiny, he would still (presumably) need to win out which he can't possibly do with crap/injured players replacing his good ones.

 

[Wrigley]

anyone else think this is a fishing trip or just me?

we need a bigger boat

 

[KCitons]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

Do I think AH is guilty? Possibly, the evidence seems to appear that way, but I won't know until he has had due process. Might want to ask the same question to Brian Banks.

This was a league of friends, but you keep claiming that 3-7 and 6-4 are best friends? What if you had made the trade offer to 3-7? Would he have made that trade with you?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care.

Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

You have to read between the lines a little.

"Collusion" doesn't have to necessarily by splitting the pot. Team A pestering his buddy, Team B (who no longer gives a crap), into accepting a bad deal that only benefits Team A and does not benefit Team B in anyway is a form of collusion, albeit a less sinister variation.

 

[KCitons]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care.

Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

You have to read between the lines a little.

"Collusion" doesn't have to necessarily by splitting the pot. Team A pestering his buddy, Team B (who no longer gives a crap), into accepting a bad deal that only benefits Team A and does not benefit Team B in anyway is a form of collusion, albeit a less sinister variation.

I agree in principle, but then why not have a trade deadline?

Otherwise, every single trade made by a team that is "basically" out of the playoffs, does that team no good.

We never did get an answer whether this is a redraft or a dynasty league.

 

[ghostguy123]

The team that is MORE in the wrong is the team out of contention that is knowingly making a bad deal to help someone else, while knowingly making a deal they think hurts their own team.

I don't think the 6-4 team is really at fault at all. If the bottom feeding teams don't make these stupid deals, then this issue would never come up. That guy can beg all he wants, beg and plead for the 3-7 guy to knowingly make a horrid trade with him..............but ultimately it is up to that 3-7 team as to whether or not they want to sell out the integrity of the league.

 

[ghostguy123]

I agree in principle, but then why not have a trade deadline?

Otherwise, every single trade made by a team that is "basically" out of the playoffs, does that team no good.

We never did get an answer whether this is a redraft or a dynasty league.

I thought someone said redraft...........

ANyway, as I mentioned a few pages back, I dont think redraft leagues should have trading anyway, especially if there are only a few bench spots so that waivers can be useful.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I agree in principle, but then why not have a trade deadline?

Otherwise, every single trade made by a team that is "basically" out of the playoffs, does that team no good.

We never did get an answer whether this is a redraft or a dynasty league.

I thought someone said redraft...........

ANyway, as I mentioned a few pages back, I dont think redraft leagues should have trading anyway, especially if there are only a few bench spots so that waivers can be useful.

It is a redraft, this was mentioned somewhere in the muck...

The bottom line is 2 guys were ruined the integrity of the league. They've been given the option to leave with their money or forfeit. Personally I'd tell them to leave and keep their money, but the decision is theirs.

 

[TheStig]

Just checked the assistant coach forum and I can't find a single post where someone is offered a trade and posters tell him/her not to accept because it's not even for both teams.

You never answered my question earlier, do you think Aaron Hernandez is a murderer? I'm dying for you to tell me he is innocent. What about OJ? Innocent too?

So I need to up my begging when I make trade offers?

"Please accept this, your season is over, help out a friend and give me these guys"

Sure, if you are okay with being a huge scumbag and ####### over your friends, go ahead and step the begging up.

What if the 3-7 team, not yet eliminated but not in control of his destiny figures some of his players can do him more good on another team who will be playing teams he needs to lose?

He is in a win now mode but also has the opportunity to make a trade that can help him in the short term by putting players on another team? It would then be collusion if they traded the players back afterwords, but under this scenario, a "unfair trade" is actually a high risk last shot hail mary.

even ignoring that your proposed reasoning is still collusion regardless of if the players get traded back afterwards, that doesn't really fly because even if his goal is primarily to help another team since he's not in control of his destiny, he would still (presumably) need to win out which he can't possibly do with crap/injured players replacing his good ones.

We dont know that he can't win out. But we know that he hasn't won with the players on his team as is. We dont even know the roster. It is a 10 team league. He could still have studs. Perhaps he was an absentee owner for a couple of weeks. Perhaps had had some bad injuries during the byes. The point is, people are only screaming collusion based on the direction of the trade. But there are some competitive reasons that he could have made the the trade. Just because they don't jive with your valuation is of no consequence.

Had the 6-4 team given those three players to the 3-7 team the trade would be laughed at an allowed because it benefited the most peopl in the league. The only collusion in this league are the 8 guys who kicked out and kept the money of two guys.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Commish got in touch with 3-7... He admitted the deal was no good and apologized. His explanation was as follows:

Him and 6-4 had been working on a legit deal for weeks but couldn't ever quite get there. 3-7 was a team that lost a ton of close games, suffered a lot of heartbreakers - after his last loss this week he had finally given up and didn't give a ####. Afterwards, 6-4 had been begging him to make this deal (which was a much ####tier variation of a deal they negotiated a few weeks ago), he said he finally obliged. He said that he didn't take any money on the deal (he is fairly well off & commish said he sounded sincere).

After the call, the commish laid out the options for the two teams to all of us. He is presenting them with the choice of a or b:

A) Your season is over, you forfeit your buy-in, & you are welcome back next season

B) Your season is over, your money is returned and you're out of the league for good.

It's fair enough and our commish did a good job with the mud he had to dig through.

Now we are in discussions about adding a league review for trades... As much as I hate this, I might actually now vote in a favor. I really do hate this league review bull####, but it would prevent a situation like this.

So, essentially, despite all your loud talk, you were wrong. There was no collusion. No secret deals, no splitting of money, etc. It was a owner who was out of the running, not giving a s##t, and unloading his players to a buddy because he didn't care.

Hmm, that sounds exactly like one of the scenarios I presented, before you decided to say (I can't defend my weak position any more so) "I can't discuss this any more."

Interesting.

You have to read between the lines a little.

"Collusion" doesn't have to necessarily by splitting the pot. Team A pestering his buddy, Team B (who no longer gives a crap), into accepting a bad deal that only benefits Team A and does not benefit Team B in anyway is a form of collusion, albeit a less sinister variation.

I agree in principle, but then why not have a trade deadline?

Otherwise, every single trade made by a team that is "basically" out of the playoffs, does that team no good.

We never did get an answer whether this is a redraft or a dynasty league.

I gues it depends on how we are defining "does that team no good" - but I do agree with the premise that teams eliminated from the playoffs (in a redraft) really shouldn't be making any trades.

What I'm saying by Team B "not benefitting" is that while none of us have crystal balls there really isn't any logical explanantion for making that trade. Cutler is hurt, BJGE is a bum and while someone could certainly favor Fitzgerald over AJ Green the rest of the way, you could just make that offer straight up without taking an outrageous downgrade at QB and RB.

I'm in favor of letting teams run their team their own way - and I know half the time we're going to end up looking foolish when we think a trade is lopsided - but it's pretty clear here that something, at the very least, disingenuos went on here.

 

[davearm]

Man lots of folks in this thread tossing out terms like collusion and cheating, and having very little understanding what those terms mean.

Nobody in this situation colluded, and nobody cheated.

When the team on the short end admitted he wasn't trying to improve his team (the ultimate basis for any legit trade), then the trade became illegitimate and should have been reversed.

But it wasn't illegitimate on the basis of collusion or cheating. There was no secret agreement (collusion). And there was no attempt to break the rules (cheating).

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

If this isn't collusion, I wonder what people think would qualify.

To me, collusion is when two teams conspire to go outside the bounds of fair play, as in teams not looking out for their own best interest. In this case, one team is purposely hurting their own team by giving another team the clear advantage in a trade. They're not getting a draft pick next year (dynasty) and they're not dumping expensive players for cheaper ones (salary cap move). They're simply saying "Yeah, you can have better players and I'll take your lesser players because I don't care." Teams that don't care hurt the league.

All fantasy leagues -- every single one-- operate under the presumption that owners will act in their own best interests. They have the right to be wrong, even spectacularly wrong. But they do not have the right to switch sides, abandon their own team and join the rooting section for another team. Once that happens, two teams are working to benefit one team. And, in my book, that's collusion.

I would reject the trade but not kick them out of the league. These are life-long friends. You don't throw that away over a bad trade in a fantasy football league. But you do let them know that those kinds of trades shouldn't even be offered again. They know better.

Maybe one owner's competitiveness got the better of them and another owner decided to help out a buddy. Totally wrong, but you don't throw away a friendship over that. You do slap the teams down and reject the trade, and if they don't like it they can quit. But in the offseason they might both realize they were being silly and feel badly about it. Ditch the trade; not the friends.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Man lots of folks in this thread tossing out terms like collusion and cheating, and having very little understanding what those terms mean.

Nobody in this situation colluded, and nobody cheated.

When the team on the short end admitted he wasn't trying to improve his team (the ultimate basis for any legit trade), then the trade became illegitimate and should have been reversed.

But it wasn't illegitimate on the basis of collusion or cheating. There was no secret agreement (collusion). And there was no attempt to break the rules (cheating).

There was a secret agreement, IMO. The 3-7 owner agreed to take a lesser trade than they had been working on because he gave up on his season, and the receiving team was his friend. This wasn't a "i kept countering to try and get more, but eventually just accepted," the receiving owner begged him to take a trade he didn't initially want.

And as stated in the post above mine, the 3-7 owner did not attempt to act in his own best interest.

I don't think there's any more debate to be had on the legitimacy of the trade itself. Pretty much everyone agrees the trade was not made in good faith, was lopsided, and should be reversed.

I think most people's issues now are the extreme steps that were taken beyond that, which include a)disqualification from the league this season, and b)having to choose whether or not to forfeit their buy-in, despite having no choice in remaining in the league this season.

 

[davearm]

whenever team A and team B mutually agree to ship A's good players to B and B's crap players to A, THIS IS COLLUSION. it doesn't matter whether there was an agreement to split a prize, or whether team A was just disinterested and had given up, what matters is that two managers were acting in the interests of only one of their teams. In fantasy football, this is considered cheating for a lot of very good reasons which i hope we all understand.

I disagree with your definition.

Player B simply gave up, and didn't care if he had his good players or the other guy's bad players. This is no good for the integrity of the league, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean it has to be labeled collusion or cheating. It's neither.