collusion?

[beefalo 0]

Does anyone have a clear definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football, and who decides if teams are colluding with each other. This has come up the last two years in one of the leagues that i play in.

[mggoilers 0]

Collusion takes place when rival entities cooperate for their mutual benefit.

 

If 2 owners playing in the championship decide to split the pot, collusion.

2 owners make a trade, and one team clearly benefits more than the other. Last place team trading LJ for Willis? Could be collusion or just stupid.

Any time 2 or more owners try to circumvent league rules for their own benefit.

2 or more owners who work on trades together is not collusion. Some owners just work well with others. if the benefits aren't apparent, ask for an explanation.

 

It's really hard to prove, and in most cases one needs to fess up.

 

Tighten up your rules to solve a lot of these issues.

 

No trades after week 9 or 10.

Blind bidding/waiver priority for Free agents. If you do FCFS on waivers, you can basically do waiver trades at 3 in the morning. Which can get shady in the later weeks.

 

GET A STRONG, FAIR COMMISSIONER. If the commish is colluding, ask him about it and if you still don't feel comfortable...find a new league.

[TD Ryan2 314]

If 2 owners playing in the championship decide to split the pot, collusion.

 

yeah, that's not collusion.

 

hth

[greggorymac 0]

Collusion takes place when rival entities cooperate for their mutual benefit.

 

If 2 owners playing in the championship decide to split the pot, collusion.

2 owners make a trade, and one team clearly benefits more than the other. Last place team trading LJ for Willis? Could be collusion or just stupid.

Any time 2 or more owners try to circumvent league rules for their own benefit.

2 or more owners who work on trades together is not collusion. Some owners just work well with others. if the benefits aren't apparent, ask for an explanation.

 

It's really hard to prove, and in most cases one needs to fess up.

 

Tighten up your rules to solve a lot of these issues.

 

No trades after week 9 or 10.

Blind bidding/waiver priority for Free agents. If you do FCFS on waivers, you can basically do waiver trades at 3 in the morning. Which can get shady in the later weeks.

 

GET A STRONG, FAIR COMMISSIONER. If the commish is colluding, ask him about it and if you still don't feel comfortable...find a new league.

 

Usually the only way two teams can collude is by way of a trade. I guess 1 Team could help fix a game by intentionally putting in a bad line-up, but that's a different story.

 

In terms of questionable trades this has come up in our league before. We've implemented these trade rules:

 

1) All trades must be completed before the deadline (Week 10 for are league)

2) If before the deadline, a team must still be mathmatically eligble for the playoffs to conduct a trade

3) Trades must first be reviewed by the commish 24-hr before going through

4) Our commish is very fair and reasonable, but if he feels the proposed trade is too one-sided, he then puts it to a league vote. This sucks for the people involved in the trade but it is the only way to keep the rest of the league from bitching the rest of the season for allowing a potential colluding trade

 

Hope that helps

[Let Da Big Dog Eat 37]

You need a strong Commish who really knows his stuff and let him decide.

 

If I see a trade that's smelly, I ask each owner to justify it. Then I reply as to why their justification is crap.

 

Here's an example: a few years ago an owner tried to trade E Smith (Az) and Furia for LT and some nobody WR. Justification was similiar overall combined points. But, in looking deeper, ES was dinged and had hit the skids the last few weeks. Furia caught a bunch of TD's early but had done NOTHING in the prior 5 weeks. Trade denied.

 

The biggest thing to look for is a lousy team trying to trade good players to a winning team for marginal players.

 

HTH

[football_scooter 0]

Here's some handy definitions:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Collusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Collusion is a relativistic term to refer to acts of cooperation or collaboration among rival entities, which, from a subjective point of view are considered to be undesirable. The term carries an intrinsic bias, has pejorative connotations, and thus is only usable from within the point of view of a particular party.

 

In the study of economics and market competition, "collusion" takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit. Collusion most often takes place within the market form of oligopoly, where the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole. Cartels are a special case of explicit collusion. Collusion which is not overt, on the other hand, is known as tacit collusion.

 

According to game theory, the independence of suppliers forces prices to their minimum, increasing efficiency and decreasing the price determining ability of each individual firm. If one firm decreases its price, other firms will follow suit in order to maintain sales, and if one firm increases its price, its rivals are unlikely to follow, as their sales would only decrease. These rules are used as the basis of kinked-demand theory. If firms collude to increase prices as a cooperative, however, loss of sales is minimized as consumers lack alternative choices at lower prices. This benefits the colluding firms at the cost of efficiency to society.

 

Practices that facilitate tacit collusion include:

 

Uniform prices

A penalty for price discounts

Advance notice of price changes

Information exchanges

Swaps and exchanges

Collusion is largely illegal in the United States (as well as Canada and most of the EU) due to antitrust law, but implicit collusion in the form of price leadership and tacit understandings still takes place. Several recent examples of collusion in the United States include:

 

Price fixing and market division among manufacturers of heavy electrical equipment in the 1960s.

An attempt by Major League Baseball owners to restrict players' salaries in the mid-1980s.

Price fixing within food manufacturers providing cafeteria food to schools and the military in 1993.

Market division and output determination of livestock feed additive by companies in the US, Japan and South Korea in 1996.

There are many ways that implicit collusion tends to develop:

 

The practice of stock analyst conference calls and meetings of industry almost necessarily cause tremendous amounts of strategic and price transparency. This allows each firm to see how and why every other firm is pricing their products.

If the practice of the industry causes more complicated pricing, which is hard for the consumer to understand (such as risk-based pricing, hidden taxes and fees in the wireless industry, negotiable pricing), this can cause competition based on price to be meaningless (because it would be too complicated to explain to the customer in a short advert). This causes industries to have essentially the same prices and compete on advertising and image, something theoretically as damaging to a consumer as normal price fixing.

There are significant barriers to collusion, however, under most circumstances. These include:

 

The number of firms: as the number of firms in an industry increases, it is more difficult to successfully organize and communicate.

Cost and demand differences between firms: if costs vary significantly between firms, it may be impossible to establish a price at which to fix output.

Cheating: there is considerable incentive to cheat on collusion agreements, as lowering prices would create price wars and provide considerable profits to the cheating firm.

Potential entry: new firms may enter the industry, establishing a new baseline price and eliminating collusion (though anti-dumping laws and tariffs can prevent foreign companies entering the market).

Economic recession: an increase in average total cost or a decrease in revenue provides incentive to compete with rival firms in order to secure a larger market share and increased demand.

 

http://www.investorwords.com/942/collusion.html

collusion

Definition

 

A secret activity undertaken by two or more people for the purpose of fraud.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collusion

col·lu·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lzhn)

n.

A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English, from Latin collsi, collsin-, from collsus, past participle of colldere, to collude. See collude.]

 

[Download Now or Buy the Book]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

 

Main Entry: col·lu·sion

Pronunciation: k&-'lü-zh&n

Function: noun

: the act or an instance of colluding —col·lu·sive /-siv/ adjective

 

 

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 

 

collusion

 

n 1: secret agreement 2: agreement on a secret plot [syn: connivance]

 

 

[The Moz 69]

yeah, that's not collusion.

 

hth

 

Agreed not collusion ! So focking what if the teams playing int he title game decide to split the pot -- it is their money to do with whatever they want ! It might be ###### but not collusion !

 

 

As for the question at hand

 

Collusion is difficult to prove. okay it really can't be proven unless one of them confesses !

 

Say a team trades Edge and Fitzgerald for C. Martin and D. Jackson -- the commish nixes it as collusion -- then Martin and jackson go on to out score edge and fitz. It is best to let teams run their own franchise unless the trade is so painfully obvious like trading LJ for A. Green - but even that is a fine line to walk.

 

I was in a leauge 1 year ( I think it was 01 - the draft right before Priest burst onto the scene ) where a team traded E. George and E. Moulds for P. Holmes and D. Boston , and 2nd round selection -- this was 01 season ( draft right before Priest came onto the scene ( 6 player keeper league )

 

Commish - nixed this trade based on the fact Eddie George was rated as a top 5 -8 pick while priest was barely top 35 and Boston barely top 20 .

 

lesson is while it may seem unbalanced - who the flylin fock knows !

JMO

[edjr 5,567]

If 2 owners playing in the championship decide to split the pot, collusion.

 

That's where I stopped reading.

[mggoilers 0]

That's where I stopped reading.

 

 

I didn't realize splitting championship pots was a normal or accepted practice. It maybe should be placed under a different heading. But 2 owners getting together and making a mockery of the championship game is screwed up. It also shows no-guts. Conspiring to split the pot is not right in my opinion and I would not like to be involved in a league like this, if it ever came out. Give me a chance to win 70-80% of a pot, I'll take that challenge.

 

"You play to win the game!"

[BenchMark 0]

Does anyone have a clear definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football, and who decides if teams are colluding with each other. This has come up the last two years in one of the leagues that i play in.

Don't play in leagues that allow trades..........that's the best way to avoid collusion. The chance of collusion in a No Trade league is minimal. You will find most trade leagues are free or a very low entry dollars. Leagues that ask for serious entry cash usually don't allow trades. WCOFF is a good example......ask your self why. If you are a real FF addict and play for money .................... you have no business in "trades allowed" leagues. You might end up playing with a moron like the guy about three posts above this.

[The Moz 69]

Don't play in leagues that allow trades..........that's the best way to avoid collusion. The chance of collusion in a No Trade league is minimal. You will find most trade leagues are free or a very low entry dollars. Leagues that ask for serious entry cash usually don't allow trades. WCOFF is a good example......ask your self why. If you are a real FF addict and play for money .................... you have no business in "trades allowed" leagues. You might end up playing with a moron like the guy about three posts above this.

[Parja 0]

 

 

This thread has officially reached batsh*t crazy status.

[esoitl 0]

2) If before the deadline, a team must still be mathmatically eligble for the playoffs to conduct a trade

i've always disagreed with rules like this in the proper situation

lets just say im headed to the playoffs with LJ but no depth at RB or WR due to injury

 

why couldn't i trade with someone out of the playoffs for depth?

 

its not as if i am sabotaging a match-up and if i felt it helped my team yet was still fair(ie getting 2 reliable but not studly starters) why couldn't i roll the dice here to better my chances?

[BenchMark 0]

i've always disagreed with rules like this in the proper situation

lets just say im headed to the playoffs with LJ but no depth at RB or WR due to injury

 

why couldn't i trade with someone out of the playoffs for depth?

 

its not as if i am sabotaging a match-up and if i felt it helped my team yet was still fair(ie getting 2 reliable but not studly starters) why couldn't i roll the dice here to better my chances?

Great idea to try and improve your depth but tell me how it helps the guy out of the playoffs? Sounds like someone is cheating to me. The guy out of the playoffs that makes that trade has to be a little sister or maybe a brother-inlaw. There is no reason for someone to trade with you unless they are your butt buddie. Its cheating.

[football_scooter 0]

i've always disagreed with rules like this in the proper situation

lets just say im headed to the playoffs with LJ but no depth at RB or WR due to injury

 

why couldn't i trade with someone out of the playoffs for depth?

 

its not as if i am sabotaging a match-up and if i felt it helped my team yet was still fair(ie getting 2 reliable but not studly starters) why couldn't i roll the dice here to better my chances?

 

A non-playoff team making a deal to improve a playoff team is blatant collusion. The deal benefits only one party.

 

The exception: it's a keeper league and the playoff bound team makes a push by acquiring an older semi-stud with several youthful up-an-comers....this is not collusion, because the non-playoff bound team is building for next year while the playoff bound team is leveraging the future for a win-now mentality. Both teams benefit.

 

But in a redraft league, mathmatically eliminated teams should absolutely 100% be barred from making deals. It is the very definition of collusion - a deal that benefits only one team.

[listen2me 23 1,544]

Don't play in leagues that allow trades..........that's the best way to avoid collusion. The chance of collusion in a No Trade league is minimal. You will find most trade leagues are free or a very low entry dollars. Leagues that ask for serious entry cash usually don't allow trades. WCOFF is a good example......ask your self why. If you are a real FF addict and play for money .................... you have no business in "trades allowed" leagues. You might end up playing with a moron like the guy about three posts above this.

 

yea this is just plain retarded....

 

sorry...

[esoitl 0]

A non-playoff team making a deal to improve a playoff team is blatant collusion. The deal benefits only one party.

 

The exception: it's a keeper league and the playoff bound team makes a push by acquiring an older semi-stud with several youthful up-an-comers....this is not collusion, because the non-playoff bound team is building for next year while the playoff bound team is leveraging the future for a win-now mentality. Both teams benefit.

 

But in a redraft league, mathmatically eliminated teams should absolutely 100% be barred from making deals. It is the very definition of collusion - a deal that benefits only one team.

i suppose i should have mentioned that i do play in a keeper

not likely that someone would want to give up a keeper like that but maybe the prizes are worth it....

 

 

idk, hypothetical situation that i would never be a part of....

[49ER MAN 0]

A non-playoff team making a deal to improve a playoff team is blatant collusion. The deal benefits only one party.

 

The exception: it's a keeper league and the playoff bound team makes a push by acquiring an older semi-stud with several youthful up-an-comers....this is not collusion, because the non-playoff bound team is building for next year while the playoff bound team is leveraging the future for a win-now mentality. Both teams benefit.

 

But in a redraft league, mathmatically eliminated teams should absolutely 100% be barred from making deals. It is the very definition of collusion - a deal that benefits only one team.

 

So if a top team had a stud and an OK no. 2 RB and trades these guys to a team near the bottom for 2 solid RB's, that's collusion? Sorry, don't buy it. If it's a trade such as LT for Correll Buckhalter that's one thing. But for example if it's LT and Benson for Cadillac and say Steven Jackson, you're saying that's collusion?

[duaneok66 0]

this thread is plain wacky . . .

 

first of all, any real league has a trade deadline (for a lot of leagues it is around Thanksgiving or so) so you dont have those wack trades involving non playoff squads . . .

 

second, to the guy that said that you should be in a league with no trades, that's also dumb . . . any league is as only as strong as its commissioner; make sure your commissioner is on his game BEFORE you join . . .

 

third, if the two finalists want to split the pot; who's business is it besides theirs????

[orcish miscreant 0]

So if a top team had a stud and an OK no. 2 RB and trades these guys to a team near the bottom for 2 solid RB's, that's collusion? Sorry, don't buy it. If it's a trade such as LT for Correll Buckhalter that's one thing. But for example if it's LT and Benson for Cadillac and say Steven Jackson, you're saying that's collusion?

 

Why would the team that is out of contention even need to trade? They are out of contention. The trade does not help them.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Why would the team that is out of contention even need to trade? They are out of contention. The trade does not help them.

1. Pride. No one likes to lose.

2. Playing spoiler. Always nice to knock a division rival out of the playoffs, or make him a lower seed.

3. If it's a keeper league, to get better for next year. Trading away an older player like Joe Horn, or (last year) Jimmy Smith for a somewhat inferior (right now), but much younger player will help in the future.

[J-Money 4]

1. Pride. No one likes to lose.

2. Playing spoiler. Always nice to knock a division rival out of the playoffs, or make him a lower seed.

3. If it's a keeper league, to get better for next year. Trading away an older player like Joe Horn, or (last year) Jimmy Smith for a somewhat inferior (right now), but much younger player will help in the future.

 

 

I agree, noone likes to lose. I tried to shore up my team right before the playoffs and tried to trade edge and a decent wr (i don't remember who it was) for LT and a lesser WR. Everyone bitched to the commish and he veto'd the trade because the other guy was out of contention. I would have actually scored less pts if the trade would have went through. Also in my money league, the loser of the league has to buy the keg for the superbowl party so of course noone is going to tank on purpose.

[football_scooter 0]

So if a top team had a stud and an OK no. 2 RB and trades these guys to a team near the bottom for 2 solid RB's, that's collusion? Sorry, don't buy it. If it's a trade such as LT for Correll Buckhalter that's one thing. But for example if it's LT and Benson for Cadillac and say Steven Jackson, you're saying that's collusion?

 

It doesn't matter who the deal is for. No need to suggest hypotheticals about who is dealt for who, if it's a 2 for 1 or 3 for 2 or 5 for 5 - it's all 100% irrelevant. What's relevant is this:

 

Team A: In contention

Team B: Eliminated from contention

 

If you can explain to me how team B can benefit from any deal, I'll change my stance.

 

Until then I will continue to say that any deal between these teams is collusion. It is two parties colluding to improve only one party's team. If it incidentally improved team B, it's irrelevent. That's because team B cannot possibly benefit from the transaction while team A does. Team B is eliminated from contention, ergo he cannot benefit, even with an improved roster. not in the slightest, not one iota. He's still a loser - just a loser with different players. Meanwhile team A becomes stronger. and benefits by having an improved chance at winning the league and $.

 

As mentioned, if it's a keeper league all bets are off. I could understand a team wanting to build for the future by parlaying an aging star (say, Corey Dillon) to a team with youth who's one RB away from winning this year. That's a perfectly reasonable scenario where both parties benefit - the team out of the running perhaps more than the team making a run.

 

But in a redraft? Collusion. Textbook definition. Class dismissed.

[Slim Pickins 0]

1. Pride. No one likes to lose.

2. Playing spoiler. Always nice to knock a division rival out of the playoffs, or make him a lower seed.

3. If it's a keeper league, to get better for next year. Trading away an older player like Joe Horn, or (last year) Jimmy Smith for a somewhat inferior (right now), but much younger player will help in the future.

Everyone is always in contention for something. Our league has payouts for the highest weekly scorer. Also, we have a toilet bowl award for those not in the playoffs and the winner gets his fees refunded. We DO have a trade deadline (week 10) but trades are encouraged and an interesting part of the game. However, contrary to our league where all trades are voted on, I believe the trade should be approved by the commish. Anything fishy can go to a vote otherwise.

[football_scooter 0]

1. Pride. No one likes to lose.

2. Playing spoiler. Always nice to knock a division rival out of the playoffs, or make him a lower seed.

3. If it's a keeper league, to get better for next year. Trading away an older player like Joe Horn, or (last year) Jimmy Smith for a somewhat inferior (right now), but much younger player will help in the future.

 

No offense, but this is crazy talk here. This is all well and good on the schoolyard and pride is a great motivator of men everywhere and all that - but we're talking about gambling here at the core. sure, it's football and it's a game of skill and yada yada yada....but when playing with 11 grown men for a couple thousand dollars, when a team out of the running makes a deal that improves a team in the running, people start asking questions. Every league I've ever played in barred teams out of contention from making deals. It was never even discussed - it was in every league charter when I joined.

 

why?

 

because it's collusion. whether the best of intentions are there or not. one team benefits, the other doesn't (see above). Even if it's for "playing spoiler", that's something you do with your own craptastic missed-the-playoffs team for pride. But doing it via trade right before the playoffs? That's messing with evry other playoff team's money. Which usually takes precidence over your pride.

 

Just saying.

[TD Ryan2 314]

just a few more thoughts for this already loony thread:

 

1. splitting the pot

- some leagues have significant money prizes for winning the SB ($2k+). I have no problem if the team(s) in the championship want to spit it a grand each and play the final game for bragging rights.

 

 

2. trading after mathematically eliminated

- should NOT be allowed unless it's a keeper-league.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

2. trading after mathematically eliminated

 

Just as loony. How can a league remain competitive if some teams are restricted from transactions? Just have a trade deadline.

[kiwimango 0]

Here is the poster child of why you should not allow trading with a team out of contention. Last year a guy in my office (in a league that I didnt play in) made a trade in week 9 or 10 (dont remember the exact week) with a guy out of contention and then bragged about he got the steal of the year.

 

Guy #1 - already had LJ, Dunn, Caddy, Tiki, Holt, Chambers and who knows whom else. He was in contention for the Championship in his league.

 

Guy #2 - The out of contention guy had Westbrook, Fred Taylor, Harrison, Fitzgerald and who cares whom else.

 

Guy #1 - had a deep team already and the guys he had last year PRODUCED BIG TIME. He traded Dunn & Caddy for Fitzgerald. Neither Dunn or Caddy would have gotten off of the bench the rest of the season as LJ & Tiki had already served their bye weeks. Dunn & Caddy were useless to Guy #1.

 

Guy #2 - now has RBs to start and can sit his 2 injured RBs or release them if he chooses too, BUT HE CANT WIN ANYTHING FOR THIS SEASON, because he is out of contention.

 

Guy #1 - Now has LJ, Tiki, HOLT, FITZGERALD & CHAMBERS. He could have left the other starters blank and still one the championship.

 

A clear trade that in theory helped both teams, But in actuality crippled the other 10 owners and Guy #1 walked away with the top prize.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Here is the poster child of why you should not allow trading with a team out of contention. Last year a guy in my office (in a league that I didnt play in) made a trade in week 9 or 10 (dont remember the exact week) with a guy out of contention and then bragged about he got the steal of the year.

 

Guy #1 - already had LJ, Dunn, Caddy, Tiki, Holt, Chambers and who knows whom else. He was in contention for the Championship in his league.

 

Guy #2 - The out of contention guy had Westbrook, Fred Taylor, Harrison, Fitzgerald and who cares whom else.

 

Guy #1 - had a deep team already and the guys he had last year PRODUCED BIG TIME. He traded Dunn & Caddy for Fitzgerald. Neither Dunn or Caddy would have gotten off of the bench the rest of the season as LJ & Tiki had already served their bye weeks. Dunn & Caddy were useless to Guy #1.

 

Guy #2 - now has RBs to start and can sit his 2 injured RBs or release them if he chooses too, BUT HE CANT WIN ANYTHING FOR THIS SEASON, because he is out of contention.

 

Guy #1 - Now has LJ, Tiki, HOLT, FITZGERALD & CHAMBERS. He could have left the other starters blank and still one the championship.

 

A clear trade that in theory helped both teams, But in actuality crippled the other 10 owners and Guy #1 walked away with the top prize.

 

 

This post is absolutely ridiculous on so many levels. Mainly it is an example of the type of thinking that would veto any trade, anytime.

[edjr 5,567]

I didn't realize splitting championship pots was a normal or accepted practice. It maybe should be placed under a different heading. But 2 owners getting together and making a mockery of the championship game is screwed up. It also shows no-guts. Conspiring to split the pot is not right in my opinion and I would not like to be involved in a league like this, if it ever came out. Give me a chance to win 70-80% of a pot, I'll take that challenge.

 

"You play to win the game!"

 

 

You're right, you do play to win the game. You still play to win the trophy and the bragging rights. Nothing wrong with making sure you get half the money, just incase.

 

In my leagues 12 years, I have been in the finals twice, I agreed to split both times and I won both times. Bad decision? Of course, but my name is still on the trophy twice.

[The Moz 69]

A non-playoff team making a deal to improve a playoff team is blatant collusion. The deal benefits only one party.

 

The exception: it's a keeper league and the playoff bound team makes a push by acquiring an older semi-stud with several youthful up-an-comers....this is not collusion, because the non-playoff bound team is building for next year while the playoff bound team is leveraging the future for a win-now mentality. Both teams benefit.

 

But in a redraft league, mathmatically eliminated teams should absolutely 100% be barred from making deals. It is the very definition of collusion - a deal that benefits only one team.

 

 

I actually agree with Scooter here !

[mozzy84 0]

Here is the poster child of why you should not allow trading with a team out of contention. Last year a guy in my office (in a league that I didnt play in) made a trade in week 9 or 10 (dont remember the exact week) with a guy out of contention and then bragged about he got the steal of the year.

 

Guy #1 - already had LJ, Dunn, Caddy, Tiki, Holt, Chambers and who knows whom else. He was in contention for the Championship in his league.

 

Guy #2 - The out of contention guy had Westbrook, Fred Taylor, Harrison, Fitzgerald and who cares whom else.

 

Guy #1 - had a deep team already and the guys he had last year PRODUCED BIG TIME. He traded Dunn & Caddy for Fitzgerald. Neither Dunn or Caddy would have gotten off of the bench the rest of the season as LJ & Tiki had already served their bye weeks. Dunn & Caddy were useless to Guy #1.

 

Guy #2 - now has RBs to start and can sit his 2 injured RBs or release them if he chooses too, BUT HE CANT WIN ANYTHING FOR THIS SEASON, because he is out of contention.

 

Guy #1 - Now has LJ, Tiki, HOLT, FITZGERALD & CHAMBERS. He could have left the other starters blank and still one the championship.

 

A clear trade that in theory helped both teams, But in actuality crippled the other 10 owners and Guy #1 walked away with the top prize.

sounds like one guy was deep at rb and took advantage of it, if this trade was made in week 9 or 10 then you should not be bitching and calling it cheating, cadillac did good down the streach last year. Hell I traded cadilac for harrison straight up to a guy around week 10 that needed a running back bad. Telling a team he can't trade in week 9 or 10 just because his record isn't good is just stupid. What if lj or tiki got hurt, then guy #1 would have been pretty screwed, he was still taking a risk.

[The Moz 69]

Here is the poster child of why you should not allow trading with a team out of contention. Last year a guy in my office (in a league that I didnt play in) made a trade in week 9 or 10 (dont remember the exact week) with a guy out of contention and then bragged about he got the steal of the year.

 

Guy #1 - already had LJ, Dunn, Caddy, Tiki, Holt, Chambers and who knows whom else. He was in contention for the Championship in his league.

 

Guy #2 - The out of contention guy had Westbrook, Fred Taylor, Harrison, Fitzgerald and who cares whom else.

 

Guy #1 - had a deep team already and the guys he had last year PRODUCED BIG TIME. He traded Dunn & Caddy for Fitzgerald. Neither Dunn or Caddy would have gotten off of the bench the rest of the season as LJ & Tiki had already served their bye weeks. Dunn & Caddy were useless to Guy #1.

 

Guy #2 - now has RBs to start and can sit his 2 injured RBs or release them if he chooses too, BUT HE CANT WIN ANYTHING FOR THIS SEASON, because he is out of contention.

 

Guy #1 - Now has LJ, Tiki, HOLT, FITZGERALD & CHAMBERS. He could have left the other starters blank and still one the championship.

 

A clear trade that in theory helped both teams, But in actuality crippled the other 10 owners and Guy #1 walked away with the top prize.

 

WOW ! !

A guy trades 2 stud Backs for 1 stud WR to a teams that is in desperate need of RBs wether out of contention of not. and its collusion .

 

Just becasue a guy is out of contention doesn't mean he still doesn't want to compete -- you pay a league fee and that covers playing the entire season not only untill your out of contention.

[burdsheet 0]

Does anyone have a clear definition of collusion as it relates to fantasy football, and who decides if teams are colluding with each other. This has come up the last two years in one of the leagues that i play in.

 

 

good question because this is my first year being a commish. last year, someone traded their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks for the other person's 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th. Very fishy to trade away the best picks for the benefit of only one extra low round pick. Basically, they ruined the league last year. It was allowed. The weird thing is that it turned out to be a brilliant move because the guy w/ the extra lower round picks picked up some great players and made it to the Superbowl. The guy with two 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders had a GREAT team on paper ... LT, Moss, T.O. etc. But both WR sucked out and he didn't even make the playoffs.

 

WOW ! !

A guy trades 2 stud Backs for 1 stud WR to a teams that is in desperate need of RBs wether out of contention of not. and its collusion .

 

Just becasue a guy is out of contention doesn't mean he still doesn't want to compete -- you pay a league fee and that covers playing the entire season not only untill your out of contention.

 

I had Dunn and I wouldn't call his a "stud" RB. He sat on my bench most of the year and when i did put him in, he'd rush for 80 - 100 yrds, catch a couple of passes and that's it. Atlanta puts Duckett in on goal line so Dunn had very few TD's. Definitely collusion. Two marginal RB's that don't get the rock in goal line doesn't equal a stud WR on a team that can't run. I'd be pist if i was in that league.

[football_scooter 0]

Just becasue a guy is out of contention doesn't mean he still doesn't want to compete -- you pay a league fee and that covers playing the entire season not only untill your out of contention.

 

 

Wanting to compete by making deals after you are out of contention is an illogical statement.

 

You compete to win.

 

If you are out of contention, then by definition, you are not competing. because you can't win. Duh.

 

And somehow the word "duh" doesn't even come close to describing how dumb you sound in this post.

 

 

And FYI, to your other point about paying: you pay a league fee and you can compete the entire season even when out of contention. No one argued that. But competing and making deals with teams that are still in contention while you are not are mutually exclusive. Go ahead and try to play spoiler with your roster as is. Otherwise it's collusion. CUT & DRY. You cannot win, therefore you cannot compete. Therefore, despite your desire to play spoiler, you have a situation where one team benefits (improves chances to win) while the other does not (has no chance to win regardless). Collusion. Duh again.

 

And as I mentioned previously, there are 11 other teams in the league who also paid. And they should be entitled to a fair playing field where some dumba$$ who's lost already isn't cheating with another team to make a playoff team stronger. Because it's textbook collusion, as described above.

 

Your line of "reasoning" is selfish and stupid. Sorry to sound harsh, but it's a cut & dry situation.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Wanting to compete by making deals after you are out of contention is an illogical statement.

 

Idiotic. There are games to play and every team must have a level playing field as far as trade or FA pickups or your league is a joke.

[football_scooter 0]

Idiotic. There are games to play and every team must have a level playing field as far as trade or FA pickups or your league is a joke.

 

a level playing field includes playing in a league with no collusion.

[Catch 0]

Definition of collusion:

 

a secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

[escobante 0]

Here is the poster child of why you should not allow trading with a team out of contention. Last year a guy in my office (in a league that I didnt play in) made a trade in week 9 or 10 (dont remember the exact week) with a guy out of contention and then bragged about he got the steal of the year.

 

Guy #1 - already had LJ, Dunn, Caddy, Tiki, Holt, Chambers and who knows whom else. He was in contention for the Championship in his league.

 

Guy #2 - The out of contention guy had Westbrook, Fred Taylor, Harrison, Fitzgerald and who cares whom else.

 

Guy #1 - had a deep team already and the guys he had last year PRODUCED BIG TIME. He traded Dunn & Caddy for Fitzgerald. Neither Dunn or Caddy would have gotten off of the bench the rest of the season as LJ & Tiki had already served their bye weeks. Dunn & Caddy were useless to Guy #1.

 

Guy #2 - now has RBs to start and can sit his 2 injured RBs or release them if he chooses too, BUT HE CANT WIN ANYTHING FOR THIS SEASON, because he is out of contention.

 

Guy #1 - Now has LJ, Tiki, HOLT, FITZGERALD & CHAMBERS. He could have left the other starters blank and still one the championship.

 

A clear trade that in theory helped both teams, But in actuality crippled the other 10 owners and Guy #1 walked away with the top prize.

 

It isn't quite as simple as you might think. What about the other teams that "guy #2" has to play the rest of the season? Just because a guy can't win it all, he can't continue to compete?

 

sure it may not be fun, but "guy #1" had the guys to win, and the guys to trade. it's called personnel management. if he manages to draft 5 stud backs, then it is fair for him to trade and do with as he pleases to improve his starting lineup. And it is "guy #2's" responsibility to continue to better his team as well.

 

in other words, is it ok for the guy who is out of contention to sit all his players and give free rides to his remaining opponents? that would affect his opponents chances of getting into the playoffs in a positive way and hurt everyone else. a good league has owners who continue to pay attention and compete even when they are out of the money.

 

bottom line is if the trade is a good faith effort to help his own team no matter what his position is with regard to the playoffs, it if fair. you may not like it. it may seem unfair that "guy #1" has so many bad asses, but he has them on his squad, you don't.

 

Wanting to compete by making deals after you are out of contention is an illogical statement.

 

You compete to win.

 

If you are out of contention, then by definition, you are not competing. because you can't win. Duh.

 

And somehow the word "duh" doesn't even come close to describing how dumb you sound in this post.

And FYI, to your other point about paying: you pay a league fee and you can compete the entire season even when out of contention. No one argued that. But competing and making deals with teams that are still in contention while you are not are mutually exclusive. Go ahead and try to play spoiler with your roster as is. Otherwise it's collusion. CUT & DRY. You cannot win, therefore you cannot compete. Therefore, despite your desire to play spoiler, you have a situation where one team benefits (improves chances to win) while the other does not (has no chance to win regardless). Collusion. Duh again.

 

And as I mentioned previously, there are 11 other teams in the league who also paid. And they should be entitled to a fair playing field where some dumba$$ who's lost already isn't cheating with another team to make a playoff team stronger. Because it's textbook collusion, as described above.

 

Your line of "reasoning" is selfish and stupid. Sorry to sound harsh, but it's a cut & dry situation.

 

not to sound harsh, but you are a complete dumbass.

[football_scooter 0]

not to sound harsh, but you are a complete dumbass.

 

not as much as someone who doesn't qualify a moronic statement like this, you insulting dooche.

 

At least I gave sound reasoning for my statements. You just posted garbage.