Is this collusive?

[DrG 94]

Two owners going head to head each agree to not play a kicker so they can keep an extra player during the bye week?

[robocardz 14]

Not unless your bylaws say You must start a complete team.

 

I play in both type of leagues.

 

I personally do not feel it's collusion.

 

I have held out Kickers or Defenses before in leagues because of byes or injuries.

 

JMO. Rb

[Upper Class Trash 67]

I've done the same thing, although like the poster above, I play in both types of leagues. In some, failure to start a full lineup constitutes an automatic forfeit. In others, I've went without a kicker to avoid dropping a valued player. No collusion if it isn't breaking any rules.

[KSB2424 3,083]

No collusion if it isn't breaking any rules.

 

I wouldn't go that far to say that.

 

In this particular case, as a commish I'd let it slide and not cause a stink. It really is no harm no foul per se, BUT a part of me doesn't like this little seed they are planting in the minds of other owners and themselves. It's not cheating but its not really playing by the spirit of the rules either.

 

It's one thing for 1 owner to decide to start a bye week kicker so he doesn't have to drop him or another player but when 2 owners call each other and decide together to do it that is a bit different.

 

I'd let it slide. For now.......if later this year or next year this starts to happen you may have to implement a rule.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Pretty much the definition of collusion.

[weepaws 2,461]

Two owners going head to head each agree to not play a kicker so they can keep an extra player during the bye week?[/quote

 

 

It's cheap . In the leagues I am in they both would have been given a lost

[SNZ11 5]

Not unless it's written that it can't be done.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Not unless it's written that it can't be done.

 

I don't like this mindset.

 

Fantasy football is supposed to be fun, entertaining, and yes there are prizes like cash involved. But as a commish you can't write a rule for every single scenario under the sun. There has to be some sort of honor system or spirit of the rules in play. Of course this is in my opinion and how the league I commish works.

 

Trying to find loopholes or ways around rules is petty. You may not be breaking a rule per se but that doesn't mean you're not being a dipshit.

 

These two guys above aren't really harming anybody so I'd let it slide. Unless this continues to happen then you'd be forced to make a rule.

[vuduchile 1,941]

It's collusion.

[jrbdmb 28]

Pretty much the definition of collusion.

 

+1. Two teams make an agreement that messes with the competitive balance of the league.

 

If these two teams both had their QB on bye Week 10 (say Luck and Rivers) and made the same deal, would everyone still be OK with it?

[phillygrrl08 139]

Pretty much the definition of collusion.

 

Agree.

[murf74 461]

Two owners going head to head each agree to not play a kicker so they can keep an extra player during the bye week?

Cheesy but since people do that on their own anyway I don't think it's bending any rule at all.

[robocardz 14]

Agree with Murf.

 

its not a hard rule to implement ,., each owner must submit a complete team each week or that team forfeits that week...

 

I play in both type of leagues ... I dont see a problem. Theres still a winner and a loser... only less points scored for season which could impact the owner in a negative way as far as total points..

 

JMO

 

Rb

[Upper Class Trash 67]

Cheesy but since people do that on their own anyway I don't think it's bending any rule at all.

Exactly the way I see it. It is definitely cheesy, however, in leagues where it isn't a rule, it happens frequently. Why make a stink about it when it's two owners playing one another verses one owner doing it independently?

 

For those that say "fantasy football is supposed to be fun..." After playing for 25 years, it's no longer fun. It's an addiction. If you smoke, do you read what is in the cigarettes before smoking? I would hope so. Same for a fantasy football league. You need to read the rules before joining the league, or make sure you have solid rules in place so people don't whine during the season. You could make a case this is collusive behavior, however, if it isn't spelled out in the rules, it's simply cheesy ownership.

[jrbdmb 28]

FYI, leagues I play in will let you use a player on his bye week. But leaving a spot empty is an illegal lineup and get you zero points total.

 

If both did the same thing (kicker spot empty), then give them both zero points for the week and a tie.

[Vikings4ever 496]

One person taking a 0 for roster reasons = legitimate strategy.

 

Two people facing each other agreeing to take a 0 for roster reasons = collusion.

[easydoesit 0]

 

I wouldn't go that far to say that.

 

In this particular case, as a commish I'd let it slide and not cause a stink. It really is no harm no foul per se, BUT a part of me doesn't like this little seed they are planting in the minds of other owners and themselves. It's not cheating but its not really playing by the spirit of the rules either.

 

It's one thing for 1 owner to decide to start a bye week kicker so he doesn't have to drop him or another player but when 2 owners call each other and decide together to do it that is a bit different.

 

I'd let it slide. For now.......if later this year or next year this starts to happen you may have to implement a rule.

 

I think this is correct. The part about the seed being planted is spot on but I would put a rule in now about owners doing some side business. The next time it may be two guys agreeing to not start QBs and one team does get a clear advantage for reasons that could be questioned.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Yes they are colluding but they are not upsetting the balance of power in the league on purpose like a shady trade or. Id say its perfectly fine.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

How does an agreement made specifically to keep players from going to the waiver wire not affect the competitive balance? The effects of collusion always affect the balance in some way.

[Dr Hook 6]

If one person decides not to play a kicker great- If they both decide to not play a kicker thats OK as well. Because they said I won't if you don't, it's collusion.

[Huh? 7]

Eh as long as your league has a prize for high season points, they're only really hurting themselves.

[shutdown 40]

Cheesy but since people do that on their own anyway I don't think it's bending any rule at all.

 

I agree with the second part of that. If your league has no rules about incomplete lineups then I see no issue with taking a calculated risk. I've done this myself.

 

The part I disagree with is that this isn't bending a rule. What the two owners in question have done is removed the penalty you would normally associate with taking the risk of not starting a player. Normally you are sacrificing potential point scoring starters to gain roster space. When two owners collude to eliminate this risk for both teams, they now have a competitive advantage over the rest of the league.

 

What if i wanted to do the same thing but my opponent won't agree to it?. I'm disadvantaged because I have to lose a point scoring starter whereas these two owners, who are also benefiting from the expanded roster spot, don't have to suffer that penalty due to a predetermined agreement.

 

I wouldn't allow this as the commish in my league if two owners asked me if this was okay to do.

[dehaven123 31]

How does an agreement made specifically to keep players from going to the waiver wire not affect the competitive balance? The effects of collusion always affect the balance in some way.

 

this

thes threads are usually just people not understanding the defintion of collusion, not this thread tho.

[DaBeerz 88]

I think it's unsporting, but if it's not against the league rules, then it's not collusion.

 

Thankfully we have a good commish who will modify a team's starters to start a full lineup and warn owners they won't be invited back next year if they try ###### like that. But then, our league requres us to carry backups at each position (incluing ###### kickers) and you must start a full competitive lineup each week. Some teams have taken a zero when they've had overlapping defenses that are both good with the same bye week, but it's rare.

[bfros 53]

One person taking a 0 for roster reasons = legitimate strategy.

 

Two people facing each other agreeing to take a 0 for roster reasons = collusion.

This.

any time two or more teams make move x, y, or z in a way that strategically gives their team an advantage over the league, it is collusion. This is one of the "softer" varieties of it, but it is still collusion because they are creating a competitive advantage over the other teams by allowing each other to roster additional skill players, which prevents other teams from being able to pick them up. Definitely collusion.

[bfros 53]

I'll add: people are saying that if it's not against the league rules, it's okay. But there is never an exhaustively spelled out list of what is and is not collusion. Collusion is against the rules, and this is clearly collusion, so it is against the rules. There is no way you can argue that it isn't. Two teams are colluding to create a competitive advantage over the other teams, plain and simple.

[DaBeerz 88]

I'll add: people are saying that if it's not against the league rules, it's okay. But there is never an exhaustively spelled out list of what is and is not collusion. Collusion is against the rules, and this is clearly collusion, so it is against the rules. There is no way you can argue that it isn't. Two teams are colluding to create a competitive advantage over the other teams, plain and simple.

 

Commish can still step in and say "hey this isn't sporting and owners who do this type of stuff may not be invited next year" even if there isn't an explicit rule against it.

 

At the end of the day, it's a couple of kickers, is anyone really after those players on the WW? I don't think I've seen any kicker moves this year. If nobody else in the league is concerned, I'd let it slide.

[JT 137]

How does an agreement made specifically to keep players from going to the waiver wire not affect the competitive balance? The effects of collusion always affect the balance in some way.

This. Forget the league rules and focus on the question: is this collusion? Then go to a dictionary.

[Herbivore 907]

One person taking a 0 for roster reasons = legitimate strategy.

 

Two people facing each other agreeing to take a 0 for roster reasons = collusion.

 

This.

[Phil Simms 11 127]

Yes it is collusion keeping some of their players off the wire. My league has a weekly winner so I wouldn't be so bothered by these 2 teams hurting their shot at it but I would likely make it a requirement for the following season to field a full roster.

[tigeru 65]

It would be nice to see you stick it to one of them if you're the commissioner. I hated the husband wife lopsided trade in a league a year ago enough that I quit the league.

[Phil Simms 11 127]

You shouldn't be forced to write every scenario into the league rules. Just add a rule "don't be an a$$hole" subject to league vote and that should cover it.

[DaBeerz 88]

It would be nice to see you stick it to one of them if you're the commissioner. I hated the husband wife lopsided trade in a league a year ago enough that I quit the league.

 

What was the trade?

[tigeru 65]

Luck Bryant Decker for ASmith Ball FJackson

 

He was shaky on receivers and she was holding down last place. He ended up winning the championship she got top pick in draft.

[DaBeerz 88]

Luck Bryant Decker for ASmith Ball FJackson

He was shaky on receivers and age was holding down last place. He ended up winning the championship she got top pick in draft.

LOL wow. Let me guess he was league commish as well.

[tigeru 65]

No but my cousin is and that guy is his friend. I told him get rid of one of them or I'm out. 20 minutes before the draft I told him I wouldn't be participating this year.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Yes it is collusion keeping some of their players off the wire. My league has a weekly winner so I wouldn't be so bothered by these 2 teams hurting their shot at it but I would likely make it a requirement for the following season to field a full roster.

The problem with a rule requiring a full roster is that it is nearly impossible to flesh out. What is the penalty for benching players? Or starting bye week players?

 

There is also the strategy of benching a MNF position in order not to lose in the event of a negative.

[TimHauck 1,804]

One person taking a 0 for roster reasons = legitimate strategy.

 

Two people facing each other agreeing to take a 0 for roster reasons = collusion.

This. Amazing that people are actually arguing for this being okay.

[Phil Simms 11 127]

The problem with a rule requiring a full roster is that it is nearly impossible to flesh out. What is the penalty for benching players? Or starting bye week players?

 

There is also the strategy of benching a MNF position in order not to lose in the event of a negative.

 

I hear you. I think my second post was better. Add in the rules "don't be an a$$hole" and you should be covered. League vote determines it.

[Upper Class Trash 67]

This. Forget the league rules and focus on the question: is this collusion? Then go to a dictionary.

I understand what you are saying here, but we are talking about two kickers. This isn't two owners agreeing to not start a QB, RB or WR. It's their KICKER. lol How in the world does dropping your kicker and picking up a new one have anything to do with the balance of any league. Twenty Five years playing and I've never seen a kicker make a difference in who did and didn't make the playoffs. It's only a kicker guys. I agree you want to make certain it doesn't progress any further, but it's a kicker..... If this is the ONLY complaint you have about the league your in, the non-dropping of kickers on a bye week, then you are in a pretty good league. Look at the kickers on bye in week 11.... Ummm, none of them are going to win you a title. This is almost an absurd thing to complain about. Just put in a rule stating you can't do it going forward, or allow the league to vote on it.

 

People starving in Africa and we're worried about Collusion over kickers. LOL Love this country!