Real Collusion (1 Viewer)

[MoveToSkypager]

Just gettin the sig out

 

[Rove!]

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).

It kind of seems like there was. Maybe not in the classical sense, but now we're just arguing semantics.

If there's nothing in it for team B, then there's no collusion.

this statement is absurd. there is ALWAYS something in it for team B in any trade, else the trade would not happen; if the thing B hopes to gain is an improved FF roster, this is just a normal trade and should never be overturned no matter how 'bad' of a trade it is. however, if the thing B hopes to gain is 1) to 'being a good friend' by helping a guy win the league by cheating the rest of the managers, or 2) to make an annoying guy go away by giving him your players in a league you no longer care about, or 3) some cut from the pot 'earned' by the guy he helped to win, that's COLLUSION, which is cheating. You seem to think that it's not collusion just because the manager of team B is apathetic. That is incorrect.

also some people seem to think that 6-4 didn't do anything wrong by agreeing to a trade which brings in 3 studs for 3 scrubs. There is no such thing as collusion where only one participant is guilty. this situation is not the same as one owner unexpectedly getting taken up on a lowball offer, this is a conscious decision on the part of both managers to stack one of their teams with players while leaving the other high and dry. in other words, clear cut collusion.

all of this assuming we're getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from OP. I say all this from that assumption, please don't try to counter this position with contrary assumptions as obviously none of this stands when the premises are revoked.

This

to argue anything else is just being pig-headed

 

[ragnarok628]

If there's nothing in it for team B, then there's no collusion.

this statement is absurd. there is ALWAYS something in it for team B in any trade, else the trade would not happen; if the thing B hopes to gain is an improved FF roster, this is just a normal trade and should never be overturned no matter how 'bad' of a trade it is. however, if the thing B hopes to gain is 1) to 'being a good friend' by helping a guy win the league by cheating the rest of the managers, or 2) to make an annoying guy go away by giving him your players in a league you no longer care about, or 3) some cut from the pot 'earned' by the guy he helped to win, that's COLLUSION, which is cheating. You seem to think that it's not collusion just because the manager of team B is apathetic. That is incorrect.

also some people seem to think that 6-4 didn't do anything wrong by agreeing to a trade which brings in 3 studs for 3 scrubs. There is no such thing as collusion where only one participant is guilty. this situation is not the same as one owner unexpectedly getting taken up on a lowball offer, this is a conscious decision on the part of both managers to stack one of their teams with players while leaving the other high and dry. in other words, clear cut collusion.

all of this assuming we're getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from OP. I say all this from that assumption, please don't try to counter this position with contrary assumptions as obviously none of this stands when the premises are revoked.

We can move on from the OP's situation. I don't think there is any point in discussing it any further. The general question of what constitutes collusion has been an ongoing thing.

I asked before about a team that fails to set a lineup or submits a weak lineup the last 4 weeks of the fantasy season, because they know they are out of the playoffs. If it's a league of friends or coworkers, there is always room for interpretation. Maybe one guy doesn't want the boss to get into the playoffs. Too much of it is left up to interpretation by the commissioner.

An owner will often use the excuse that they forgot a player was on a bye. It all comes down to plausible deniability. This owner is effecting the balance of the league exactly the same as a lopsided trade.

i agree that there is an opportunity sometimes for a manager to play Kingmaker by tanking games, not sure how i feel on whether that wualifies as collusion...

I suppose if there was some way to strategically tank a game here or there to help your own team out it definitely wouldn't be collusion... hard to imagine how that would work, but i suppose it's at least imaginable. And if you collaborate with another manager to tank a game to help that other manager's position, that i think definitely would be collusion. The tricky one is if a manager unilaterally takes it upon himself to manipulate who gets into the playoffs by throwing matches. I don't know if i can make an argument that this is collusion. I don't think anyone who does that should be invited into the league next year though.

 

[davearm]

Really Bayhawk, even if you blame it on apathy, it is still collusion. It's two teams conspiring (making a trade) that defrauds the rest of the league (gives a team an "unearned" advantage).

And, if you can't accept that collusion comes in multiple flavors, dos the term "poor sportsmanship" fit for you?

This is just the thing... Collusion doesn't come in multiple flavors. Collusion comes in one very specific flavor, and describes some pretty specific conditions that are not present in this case.That's why I, and others, have an issue when collusion gets used as a blanket term to cover anything and everything that's the least bit shady or sketchy in the FF world.

Unethical is one blanket term that fits.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Just gettin the sig out

For one of the biggest trolls here, you'd figure to have something that you were involved in copied into that signature. Sarnoff who gets credit on getting that out of me didn't sig it, you know why? BC 4 paragraphs in your signature is pretty stupid - you have the longest sig on her by about 3 paragraphs, if you were a half decent troll you'd take bits and pieces.

Your knowledge on football is also concerning - you like Brady over Manning, as you noted in the Brady moving forward thread. Any more golden nuggets to share?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Really Bayhawk, even if you blame it on apathy, it is still collusion. It's two teams conspiring (making a trade) that defrauds the rest of the league (gives a team an "unearned" advantage).

And, if you can't accept that collusion comes in multiple flavors, dos the term "poor sportsmanship" fit for you?

This is just the thing... Collusion doesn't come in multiple flavors. Collusion comes in one very specific flavor, and describes some pretty specific conditions that are not present in this case.That's why I, and others, have an issue when collusion gets used as a blanket term to cover anything and everything that's the least bit shady or sketchy in the FF world.

Unethical is one blanket term that fits.

Take my players to make your team better, not collusion? Fine, you're right.

 

[Rove!]

Really Bayhawk, even if you blame it on apathy, it is still collusion. It's two teams conspiring (making a trade) that defrauds the rest of the league (gives a team an "unearned" advantage).

And, if you can't accept that collusion comes in multiple flavors, dos the term "poor sportsmanship" fit for you?

This is just the thing... Collusion doesn't come in multiple flavors. Collusion comes in one very specific flavor, and describes some pretty specific conditions that are not present in this case.That's why I, and others, have an issue when collusion gets used as a blanket term to cover anything and everything that's the least bit shady or sketchy in the FF world.

Unethical is one blanket term that fits.

It's collusion

Team A and Team B conspired to do something unethical, that they presented to the league as ethical.

 

[RGIII HTTR]

No doubt they need to be kicked and the commish can take over both teams with a NO TRADE stipulation for both. I would say that as a league, you guys should revisit the entry fee...$400 is a lot and even good guys get sticky fingers in certain situations.

 

[davearm]

Why don't you go look up collusion in the dictionary.

Last I looked, it didn't say " anything that happens in fantasy football that is the least bit unfair".

 

[fantasycurse42]

Why don't you go look up collusion in the dictionary.

Last I looked, it didn't say " anything that happens in fantasy football that is the least bit unfair".

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Secretive and deceitful, check check...

 

[davearm]

What was the secret? They put it right out there that they're swapping players.

And who was deceived? Doesn't sound like any of the other 8 guys.

The cooperation element is sketchy too. Sounds like 3-7 just lost interest and no longer cares who's on his team.

It's unethical, just not collusive.

 

[davearm]

Imagine I go to my league's message board and post "I'm sick of losing and sick of my players. You can have em, first come first served."

You see that publicly displayed announcement, and submit an offer of Blaine Gabbert for Peyton Manning. I receive it and immediately accept.

Did we just commit collusion?

 

[fantasycurse42]

What was the secret? They put it right out there that they're swapping players.

And who was deceived? Doesn't sound like any of the other 8 guys.

The cooperation element is sketchy too. Sounds like 3-7 just lost interest and no longer cares who's on his team.

It's unethical, just not collusive.

The conversation with the two buddies, one begging the other for his best players. Not secretive, got it.

Passing the trade off as legit, which the 6-4 owner screamed it was, even though it wasn't, bc someone hit accept on the trade tab and everyone sees the trade it isn't deceitful, got it again.

Sounds about right.

 

[KCitons]

Really Bayhawk, even if you blame it on apathy, it is still collusion. It's two teams conspiring (making a trade) that defrauds the rest of the league (gives a team an "unearned" advantage).

And, if you can't accept that collusion comes in multiple flavors, dos the term "poor sportsmanship" fit for you?

This is just the thing... Collusion doesn't come in multiple flavors. Collusion comes in one very specific flavor, and describes some pretty specific conditions that are not present in this case.That's why I, and others, have an issue when collusion gets used as a blanket term to cover anything and everything that's the least bit shady or sketchy in the FF world.

Unethical is one blanket term that fits.

It's collusion

Team A and Team B conspired to do something unethical, that they presented to the league as ethical.

Someone mentioned unsportsmanlike, I think that describes it better for me. After all, this is fantasy football. A game played by a bunch of nerdy adults.

 

[davearm]

This is just the thing... Collusion doesn't come in multiple flavors. Collusion comes in one very specific flavor, and describes some pretty specific conditions that are not present in this case.

That's why I, and others, have an issue when collusion gets used as a blanket term to cover anything and everything that's the least bit shady or sketchy in the FF world.

Unethical is one blanket term that fits.

It's collusionTeam A and Team B conspired to do something unethical, that they presented to the league as ethical.

why do you insist on calling it something it is not, when unethical works perfectly well?

 

[RGIII HTTR]

Imagine I go to my league's message board and post "I'm sick of losing and sick of my players. You can have em, first come first served."

You see that publicly displayed announcement, and submit an offer of Blaine Gabbert for Peyton Manning. I receive it and immediately accept.

Did we just commit collusion?

LOL, you can bring up every hypothetical situation you want...unfortunately it does not apply because that is not what happened. Either you are just grinding an axe, stoking a fire. or two short of a six pack.

 

[KCitons]

Imagine I go to my league's message board and post "I'm sick of losing and sick of my players. You can have em, first come first served."

You see that publicly displayed announcement, and submit an offer of Blaine Gabbert for Peyton Manning. I receive it and immediately accept.

Did we just commit collusion?

LOL, you can bring up every hypothetical situation you want...unfortunately it does not apply because that is not what happened. Either you are just grinding an axe, stoking a fire. or two short of a six pack.

Why do you (and others) keep referring to what happened with the OP. Why can't you answer the question on it's own merit. Does davearm have to start a separate thread to post that question, when it's perfectly relevant here?

I think it's a valid question when discussing collusion. What would happen if you take the element of an owner helping another specific owner. What if he just didn't care for some of his players and was willing to move them at any price?

Trent Richardson or CJ Spiller comes to mind this season. There value has been all over the board the past month. I could see an owner getting fed up and selling too low.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

7 pages. Huh. Woulda lost that bet.

 

[KCitons]

7 pages. Huh. Woulda lost that bet.

Just getting started. This will be the end all of Collusion discussion. Your great grandkids will refer to this thread in the next century.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

7 pages. Huh. Woulda lost that bet.

It's kinda cheating though. They are going through every possible collusion hypothetical. They should reserve one hypothetical for each thread. That way we can see which is the most interesting hypothetical.

 

[davearm]

Imagine I go to my league's message board and post "I'm sick of losing and sick of my players. You can have em, first come first served."

You see that publicly displayed announcement, and submit an offer of Blaine Gabbert for Peyton Manning. I receive it and immediately accept.

Did we just commit collusion?

LOL, you can bring up every hypothetical situation you want...unfortunately it does not apply because that is not what happened.

What happened here is not fundamentally any different than the situation I described.Whether 3-7 offered up his players, or 6-4 begged for them is essentially immaterial.

 

[KCitons]

Imagine I go to my league's message board and post "I'm sick of losing and sick of my players. You can have em, first come first served."

You see that publicly displayed announcement, and submit an offer of Blaine Gabbert for Peyton Manning. I receive it and immediately accept.

Did we just commit collusion?

LOL, you can bring up every hypothetical situation you want...unfortunately it does not apply because that is not what happened.

What happened here is not fundamentally any different than the situation I described.Whether 3-7 offered up his players, or 6-4 begged for them is essentially immaterial.

I guess this raises another hypothetical. What if one owner begs another owner to make a trade, but the trade never goes through, Is the beggar guilty of collusion?

 

[ConnSKINS26]

What if Richard Sherman locks up one of the owners involved in these hypotheticals, what happens then?

 

[fantasycurse42]

What if Richard Sherman locks up one of the owners involved in these hypotheticals, what happens then?

He's mad bro

 

[KCitons]

What if Richard Sherman locks up one of the owners involved in these hypotheticals, what happens then?

Didn't know Sherman played fantasy football.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

What if Richard Sherman locks up one of the owners involved in these hypotheticals, what happens then?

Didn't know Sherman played fantasy football.

He doesn't have to. He's that good.

 

[davearm]

The beggar is pathetic and lame.

If the begged tells him "buzz off you're pathetic and lame", then good on him.

If the begged says "OK fine just take em already and leave me alone", then he's failed in his duty to protect the integrity of the league by putting his own team's best interest first.

If the begged says, "only if you wash my car and walk my dog," then we've got collusion.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

What if Richard Sherman locks up one of the owners involved in these hypotheticals, what happens then?

Didn't know Sherman played fantasy football.

He doesn't need to. Ask ITS. You guys will get along famously.

 

[Hooper31]

I'm done.

Doubt that. You're starting to rival some of the worst "I have to have the last word" guys. I guess its something to hang your hat on. Kudos.

 

[Legion of Doom]

[SIZE=medium]I’m guessing the Salem witch trials prolly started like this…. Crowd mentality ,devoid of logic and reason[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]how can anyone other than the OP cry foul without all the facts? What if 3-7 has McCown? If he did it changes everything .It goes from bad trade to shark move! Yet you guys act like you know the outcome of the next 3 weeks worth of games, so much so, that there is no chance in hell that this could be a valid trade.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]This trade might be the only shot to make the playoffs. What if the 3-7 team is 3-1 in his division and wins out and ties for overall and makes playoffs based on division record.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The 3-7 team is essentially playing a 3 game season and has to win out to make playoffs . if the 3-7 team has Josh McCown getting Cutler insures he has CHI passing QB locked up. Going forward whoever is at qb for the bears should put up very solid FF numbers. Wilson could do excellent this week but plays the dreaded BYE next week and NO the following Not bad but the bye is a deal breaker. How much value does Wilson lose under this 3 game scenario? A lot Hmmm….[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Week 11 AJ Green vs Joe Haden/cle this week. Tough match up. Fitz vs Jax great match up.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Week 12 AJ Green BYE zero points. Fitz vs Indy good matchup at home[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Week 13 AJ vs SD good match up Fitz vs PHI good match up. Maybe Fitz>AJ Again the bye makes AJ worthless in a must win game. Think it’s time to maybe start taking some logs off the fire? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Moreno vs next 3 weeks. Denver runs a ton to keep defenses off Peyton. Normally a good thing for the starting rb. But, If pass protection is not a concern Denver will use ball and Anderson more against a very tough KC defense.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]BJGE vs CLE,bye,SD You never know with the Cle/Cin series but tough match up.Bye.SD good match up but still second fiddle to Bernard. Moreno still the better option. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]So what looked like complete horse#### could have been legit(the trade,not the thread )…if the mcCown is on the list you must acquit[/SIZE]

 

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

While I disagree with kicking them out, at least I see the argument. But keeping their money? I'm sorry that is absurd. The OP keeps talking about a punishment for "cheating". They didn't commit a crime, where the league gets to extract some sort of civil penalty for their misdeeds. Keeping the money of the entrants who have no chance to compete is stealing.

Agree with this. I've only ever kicked one person out, and that's because he went on leaguesafe and used another owner's email to sign them up for a bunch of gay porn sites. In that case, he was kicked out immediately, and I refunded his league fees.

You kicked a guy out for being hilarious?

 

[Rove!]

The beggar is pathetic and lame.

If the begged tells him "buzz off you're pathetic and lame", then good on him.

If the begged says "OK fine just take em already and leave me alone", then he's failed in his duty to protect the integrity of the league by putting his own team's best interest first.

If the begged says, "only if you wash my car and walk my dog," then we've got collusion.

col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuh

n] Show IPA
noun 1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

Nowhere in that definition is motivation or quid pro quo a necessary element of the definition of the word.

This should I end the discussion, but I'm guessing it won't.

 

[TheStig]

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.

I believe that in my very first "Playing Devils Advocate" post that I proposed that this exact scenario was likely what had happened and that it was not in fact collusion, but an owners "temper tantrum".

 

[fantasycurse42]

I think we have established 4 or 5 pool members don't fully understand what collusion is. Although it has been laid out a few times, please read below, AGAIN.

The beggar is pathetic and lame.

If the begged tells him "buzz off you're pathetic and lame", then good on him.

If the begged says "OK fine just take em already and leave me alone", then he's failed in his duty to protect the integrity of the league by putting his own team's best interest first.

If the begged says, "only if you wash my car and walk my dog," then we've got collusion.

col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuh

n] Show IPA

noun

1.

a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2.

Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

Nowhere in that definition is motivation or quid pro quo a necessary element of the definition of the word.

This should I end the discussion, but I'm guessing it won't.

 

[fantasycurse42]

To follow up on that, one owner who has consistently turned down much better offers finally deciding to tank for the improvement of another team. There is no grey, that is textbook collusion.

 

[TheStig]

Why don't you go look up collusion in the dictionary.

Last I looked, it didn't say " anything that happens in fantasy football that is the least bit unfair".

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Secretive and deceitful, check check...

What is secret about a trade that goes through the league? What was the "deceitful purpose"? To take over the world?

It was a temper tantrum trade. A trade in fact that if it was made in August before real shots were fired, nobody would have a problem with.

A trade that is actually only being reversed because it negatively impacts teams who are still in the running. If Team B had the three studs and sent them to the 3-7 Team A would you fight for a reversal?

It would still meet the same criteria of collusion that you are using, but my guess is each team would act in their own self interest and let the trade stand, stating some moral argument of "we don't meddle in other teams affairs in our league". But the second a bunch of teams, with a $4000 pot on the line, chances are negatively affected it is COLLUSION!

 

[TheStig]

To follow up on that, one owner who has consistently turned down much better offers finally deciding to tank for the improvement of another team. There is no grey, that is textbook collusion.

No he gave up, meaning he was apathetic. He was devoid of motive. He didn't care about his own team yet suddenly felt passionate that some other team wins? Like a fan?

That he would care more about the outcome of another team above his own us a stretch.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Why don't you go look up collusion in the dictionary.

Last I looked, it didn't say " anything that happens in fantasy football that is the least bit unfair".

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Secretive and deceitful, check check...

What is secret about a trade that goes through the league? What was the "deceitful purpose"? To take over the world?

It was a temper tantrum trade. A trade in fact that if it was made in August before real shots were fired, nobody would have a problem with.

A trade that is actually only being reversed because it negatively impacts teams who are still in the running. If Team B had the three studs and sent them to the 3-7 Team A would you fight for a reversal?

It would still meet the same criteria of collusion that you are using, but my guess is each team would act in their own self interest and let the trade stand, stating some moral argument of "we don't meddle in other teams affairs in our league". But the second a bunch of teams, with a $4000 pot on the line, chances are negatively affected it is COLLUSION!

Stig = KCitons alias?

By your logic collusion is impossible since everyone always sees the finished product of a trade.

 

[davearm]

The beggar is pathetic and lame.

If the begged tells him "buzz off you're pathetic and lame", then good on him.

If the begged says "OK fine just take em already and leave me alone", then he's failed in his duty to protect the integrity of the league by putting his own team's best interest first.

If the begged says, "only if you wash my car and walk my dog," then we've got collusion.

col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuh

n] Show IPA
noun 1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

Nowhere in that definition is motivation or quid pro quo a necessary element of the definition of the word.

This should I end the discussion, but I'm guessing it won't.

You apparently missed "gain".

The quid pro quo is what elevates this from something uncool/unethical to something nefarious.

 

[TheStig]

Why don't you go look up collusion in the dictionary.

Last I looked, it didn't say " anything that happens in fantasy football that is the least bit unfair".

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Secretive and deceitful, check check...

What is secret about a trade that goes through the league? What was the "deceitful purpose"? To take over the world?

It was a temper tantrum trade. A trade in fact that if it was made in August before real shots were fired, nobody would have a problem with.

A trade that is actually only being reversed because it negatively impacts teams who are still in the running. If Team B had the three studs and sent them to the 3-7 Team A would you fight for a reversal?

It would still meet the same criteria of collusion that you are using, but my guess is each team would act in their own self interest and let the trade stand, stating some moral argument of "we don't meddle in other teams affairs in our league". But the second a bunch of teams, with a $4000 pot on the line, chances are negatively affected it is COLLUSION!

Stig = KCitons alias?

By your logic collusion is impossible since everyone always sees the finished product of a trade.

I know that the league voted to reverse the trade. Not only did the league collude to reverse the trade, but they colluded to keep the pot at $4000 while simultaneously improving their chances at winning. That is the only real collusion.

You also never answered what you would do if the winning team sent those same players to a losing team.

I still believe they should be kicked out. I also believe that their money, regardless of a league vote should be returned. To keep the money is simply wrong. Period. They are no longer playing and the league has no claim to the money. To keep the money would be punitive and would imply that they are still participants.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Why don't you go look up collusion in the dictionary.

Last I looked, it didn't say " anything that happens in fantasy football that is the least bit unfair".

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Secretive and deceitful, check check...

What is secret about a trade that goes through the league? What was the "deceitful purpose"? To take over the world?

It was a temper tantrum trade. A trade in fact that if it was made in August before real shots were fired, nobody would have a problem with.

A trade that is actually only being reversed because it negatively impacts teams who are still in the running. If Team B had the three studs and sent them to the 3-7 Team A would you fight for a reversal?

It would still meet the same criteria of collusion that you are using, but my guess is each team would act in their own self interest and let the trade stand, stating some moral argument of "we don't meddle in other teams affairs in our league". But the second a bunch of teams, with a $4000 pot on the line, chances are negatively affected it is COLLUSION!

Stig = KCitons alias?

By your logic collusion is impossible since everyone always sees the finished product of a trade.

I know that the league voted to reverse the trade. Not only did the league collude to reverse the trade, but they colluded to keep the pot at $4000 while simultaneously improving their chances at winning. That is the only real collusion.

You also never answered what you would do if the winning team sent those same players to a losing team.

I still believe they should be kicked out. I also believe that their money, regardless of a league vote should be returned. To keep the money is simply wrong. Period. They are no longer playing and the league has no claim to the money. To keep the money would be punitive and would imply that they are still participants.

You apparently didn't read page 6 in this thread - It took 22 posts for you to prove your FF knowledge and advice is meaningless.

 

[TheStig]

Why don't you go look up collusion in the dictionary.

Last I looked, it didn't say " anything that happens in fantasy football that is the least bit unfair".

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Secretive and deceitful, check check...

What is secret about a trade that goes through the league? What was the "deceitful purpose"? To take over the world?

It was a temper tantrum trade. A trade in fact that if it was made in August before real shots were fired, nobody would have a problem with.

A trade that is actually only being reversed because it negatively impacts teams who are still in the running. If Team B had the three studs and sent them to the 3-7 Team A would you fight for a reversal?

It would still meet the same criteria of collusion that you are using, but my guess is each team would act in their own self interest and let the trade stand, stating some moral argument of "we don't meddle in other teams affairs in our league". But the second a bunch of teams, with a $4000 pot on the line, chances are negatively affected it is COLLUSION!

Stig = KCitons alias?

By your logic collusion is impossible since everyone always sees the finished product of a trade.

I know that the league voted to reverse the trade. Not only did the league collude to reverse the trade, but they colluded to keep the pot at $4000 while simultaneously improving their chances at winning. That is the only real collusion.

You also never answered what you would do if the winning team sent those same players to a losing team.

I still believe they should be kicked out. I also believe that their money, regardless of a league vote should be returned. To keep the money is simply wrong. Period. They are no longer playing and the league has no claim to the money. To keep the money would be punitive and would imply that they are still participants.

You apparently didn't read page 6 in this thread - It took 22 posts for you to prove your FF knowledge and advice is meaningless.

Two questions

1. Did the league keep the money?

2. If the direction of the trade were reversed would the league care?

Theses are yes or no questions

 

[DropKick]

This is just the thing... Collusion doesn't come in multiple flavors. Collusion comes in one very specific flavor, and describes some pretty specific conditions that are not present in this case.

That's why I, and others, have an issue when collusion gets used as a blanket term to cover anything and everything that's the least bit shady or sketchy in the FF world.

Unethical is one blanket term that fits.

It's collusionTeam A and Team B conspired to do something unethical, that they presented to the league as ethical.

why do you insist on calling it something it is not, when unethical works perfectly well?

But this is collusion. Apparently, you have a vendetta against the overuse of the term. I get it (and agree). But, you've picked the wrong situation to argue your point.

Someone (maybe you) raised the concept of a single team tanking games. This is not collusion since the term implies cooperation of multiple parties. But who cares? Are only collusive acts improper? If its not collusion, is it OK?

Let's use some common sense on what is right and what isn't.

 

[deadlyrange0321]

Why don't you go look up collusion in the dictionary.

Last I looked, it didn't say " anything that happens in fantasy football that is the least bit unfair".

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Secretive and deceitful, check check...

What is secret about a trade that goes through the league? What was the "deceitful purpose"? To take over the world?

It was a temper tantrum trade. A trade in fact that if it was made in August before real shots were fired, nobody would have a problem with.

A trade that is actually only being reversed because it negatively impacts teams who are still in the running. If Team B had the three studs and sent them to the 3-7 Team A would you fight for a reversal?

It would still meet the same criteria of collusion that you are using, but my guess is each team would act in their own self interest and let the trade stand, stating some moral argument of "we don't meddle in other teams affairs in our league". But the second a bunch of teams, with a $4000 pot on the line, chances are negatively affected it is COLLUSION!

Stig = KCitons alias?

By your logic collusion is impossible since everyone always sees the finished product of a trade.

I know that the league voted to reverse the trade. Not only did the league collude to reverse the trade, but they colluded to keep the pot at $4000 while simultaneously improving their chances at winning. That is the only real collusion.

You also never answered what you would do if the winning team sent those same players to a losing team.

I still believe they should be kicked out. I also believe that their money, regardless of a league vote should be returned. To keep the money is simply wrong. Period. They are no longer playing and the league has no claim to the money. To keep the money would be punitive and would imply that they are still participants.

You apparently didn't read page 6 in this thread - It took 22 posts for you to prove your FF knowledge and advice is meaningless.

Two questions

1. Did the league keep the money?

2. If the direction of the trade were reversed would the league care?

Theses are yes or no questions

These are interesting questions. I wonder if there would have been outrage or just joy that a potential playoff contender ruined his roster.

 

[DropKick]

Why don't you go look up collusion in the dictionary.

Last I looked, it didn't say " anything that happens in fantasy football that is the least bit unfair".

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Secretive and deceitful, check check...

What is secret about a trade that goes through the league? What was the "deceitful purpose"? To take over the world?

It was a temper tantrum trade. A trade in fact that if it was made in August before real shots were fired, nobody would have a problem with.

A trade that is actually only being reversed because it negatively impacts teams who are still in the running. If Team B had the three studs and sent them to the 3-7 Team A would you fight for a reversal?

It would still meet the same criteria of collusion that you are using, but my guess is each team would act in their own self interest and let the trade stand, stating some moral argument of "we don't meddle in other teams affairs in our league". But the second a bunch of teams, with a $4000 pot on the line, chances are negatively affected it is COLLUSION!

This is wrong on so many levels, The act of the trade is public. The motives are private... It is wrong to stack one team and to greatly change/improve its chance of winning and taking a significant amount of money... It's not August and the facts are dramatically different because of it... If the trade were in a different direction, the motives behind the trade would differ. You make a big deal out of "affecting teams still in the running". I don't have a problem if it is a legitimate trades. But, in this situation, teams are affected and "cheated" if you will. As evidenced by this site, people put time and effort into the hobby and crapping on a season is in very bad taste.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I'm done.

Doubt that. You're starting to rival some of the worst "I have to have the last word" guys. I guess its something to hang your hat on. Kudos.

He's got about 150 posts after that one in this thread. I think we all know what's going on here.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I'm done.

Doubt that. You're starting to rival some of the worst "I have to have the last word" guys. I guess its something to hang your hat on. Kudos.

He's got about 150 posts after that one in this thread. I think we all know what's going on here.

Troll city, what say you?

 

[lsufan]

[SIZE=medium]I’m guessing the Salem witch trials prolly started like this…. Crowd mentality ,devoid of logic and reason[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]how can anyone other than the OP cry foul without all the facts? What if 3-7 has McCown? If he did it changes everything .It goes from bad trade to shark move! Yet you guys act like you know the outcome of the next 3 weeks worth of games, so much so, that there is no chance in hell that this could be a valid trade.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]This trade might be the only shot to make the playoffs. What if the 3-7 team is 3-1 in his division and wins out and ties for overall and makes playoffs based on division record.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The 3-7 team is essentially playing a 3 game season and has to win out to make playoffs . if the 3-7 team has Josh McCown getting Cutler insures he has CHI passing QB locked up. Going forward whoever is at qb for the bears should put up very solid FF numbers. Wilson could do excellent this week but plays the dreaded BYE next week and NO the following Not bad but the bye is a deal breaker. How much value does Wilson lose under this 3 game scenario? A lot Hmmm….[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Week 11 AJ Green vs Joe Haden/cle this week. Tough match up. Fitz vs Jax great match up.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Week 12 AJ Green BYE zero points. Fitz vs Indy good matchup at home[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Week 13 AJ vs SD good match up Fitz vs PHI good match up. Maybe Fitz>AJ Again the bye makes AJ worthless in a must win game. Think it’s time to maybe start taking some logs off the fire? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Moreno vs next 3 weeks. Denver runs a ton to keep defenses off Peyton. Normally a good thing for the starting rb. But, If pass protection is not a concern Denver will use ball and Anderson more against a very tough KC defense.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]BJGE vs CLE,bye,SD You never know with the Cle/Cin series but tough match up.Bye.SD good match up but still second fiddle to Bernard. Moreno still the better option. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]So what looked like complete horse#### could have been legit(the trade,not the thread )…if the mcCown is on the list you must acquit[/SIZE]

This made me laugh lol. Didn't know Johnnie L Cochran, Jr was on the boards.

Russell Wilson is the 5th ranked QB in my league and is not injured. Jay Cutler is the 20th ranked QB and is injured. Wilson>>>>Cutler

Green is the 1st ranked WR in my league. Fitz is the 22nd WR. Green>>>>Fitz

Moreno is the 6th ranked RB in my league. BJGE is the 41st ranked RB

This trade is total BS. In a $400 league the Commish deserves a a$$ kicking if doesn't veto it. That is not chump change. NO MATCHUP would ever make me start Cutler, Fitz, BJGE over Wilson, Green, Moreno. I don't care if the guy has Chicago's back up QB.

Somebody needs to track how stupid this trade is. In the next 3 games the Wilson, Green, Moreno team will out score the other group by a large margin. There is a reason that group is all top 10 players.

 

[KCitons]

Why don't you go look up collusion in the dictionary.

Last I looked, it didn't say " anything that happens in fantasy football that is the least bit unfair".

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Secretive and deceitful, check check...

What is secret about a trade that goes through the league? What was the "deceitful purpose"? To take over the world?

It was a temper tantrum trade. A trade in fact that if it was made in August before real shots were fired, nobody would have a problem with.

A trade that is actually only being reversed because it negatively impacts teams who are still in the running. If Team B had the three studs and sent them to the 3-7 Team A would you fight for a reversal?

It would still meet the same criteria of collusion that you are using, but my guess is each team would act in their own self interest and let the trade stand, stating some moral argument of "we don't meddle in other teams affairs in our league". But the second a bunch of teams, with a $4000 pot on the line, chances are negatively affected it is COLLUSION!

Stig = KCitons alias?

By your logic collusion is impossible since everyone always sees the finished product of a trade.

First off, why would I need an alias? I think creating an alias is one of the dumbest things on here. But, you must know about this first hand. Secondly, keep my name out of your mouth. I had been discussing collusion scenarios that don't involve your situation. At this point, I could care less about you or your league. But, since you want to use my name, let's recap:

Taken all on it's own, the situation of the trade and the comments made by the 3-7 team can qualify as collusion. But, it's not a slam dunk case as some of you are stating.

The problem I have is your agenda from the start. You wanted these two owners removed from the beginning. (it's right there in your OP) Even if the situation was deemed as collusion, you didn't want to listen to any other solutions on punishment. You quickly took the suggestions that matched your plan and ran to your league. You ignored question after question. I've asked for a link to your league, so that we could all see rosters and discussion. But, you never have. that raises suspicion.

Your league didn't need rules to deal with this for 9 years because it's home town league made up by a bunch of friends. Yet you were able to turn on those friends at the drop of a hat. Kick them out of the league and take their money. Seems like a rather harsh penalty for what is borderline collusion. If I was one of those owners, I would ask where the rules were on trades and collusion. Right after I asked for my money.

In the end, what you have actually done is ruined your league. The very thing you were trying to protect. Standing at 9-0, even if you win the championship, your title will be tainted. (I doubt this matters to you. Based on other threads, the only thing that matters to you is money.) You didn't play the predetermined schedule to win. You could have reversed the trade and allowed the owners to finish out the season. You could have reversed the trade and set the rosters based on highest point average at each position. But, both of those scenarios would require you to earn your playoff wins. This league is now doomed. Why would you believe that the rest of the owners can draft a series of rules to protect themselves moving forward. You've set the precedent for kicking people out and keeping their money. It will happen every year. With every trade. With every owner. Sooner or later, it will be your turn. Please be sure to post in the Shark Pool when that happens.

 

[ghostguy123]

It just sounds like someone being an ### and making a stupid deal.

Reverse the trade, and move on. This could have been taken care of in 1 minute with a reversal and an email warnign to the league, problem solved, and everyone is back to where they were 1 second before the trade went down.

Instead it turned into some version of Judge Judy or something.