TimmySmith 2,783 Posted November 13, 2014 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. Why then, if it's just a kicker, don't they just replace them from the WW? Would you have the same opinion if WW pickups cost $5? Or if the league had limited WW pickups and they were trying to save one? Or they lose their place in the WW pecking order and go to the bottom? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrG 103 Posted November 13, 2014 The commissioner was the one who suggested to his opponent they each forego a kicker to keep an extra player on their bench during a heavy bye week. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Upper Class Trash 67 Posted November 13, 2014 The commissioner was the one who suggested to his opponent they each forego a kicker to keep an extra player on their bench during a heavy bye week. If it was the Commissioner who suggested this, then there is positively no problem with it. It can't be considered Collusion if the guy in charge of the league suggested it to begin with. Someone neglected to mention this tidbit early on. Thank you for sharing it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,783 Posted November 13, 2014 If it was the Commissioner who suggested this, then there is positively no problem with it. It can't be considered Collusion if the guy in charge of the league suggested it to begin with. Someone neglected to mention this tidbit early on. Thank you for sharing it. ??? Makes it worse IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robocardz 14 Posted November 13, 2014 ^^^^^^^^ Agree. Not to be naive... if you don't think there are trades by teams to hurt other teams, then u havent been doing this very long. Only people will call it strategy. Is that collusion when a team is on borderline playoff and gives a sligtly favorable trade to guy in 2nd place because he thinks the guy in 1st is an A$$? Ive been doing this for 20 years and this happens more frequently than we admit. You all are acting like its a big deal to simply state in bylaws. "Each team must submit a full lineup by position each week or forfeit that game." Its 1 FREAKIN sentence. Sone of u play in leagues that do scoring to the 100th percentile of points (ie 123.36 points) and you all are acting like a 1 sentence rule that sould be universally understood is a big deal. If its not a rule, then its not a big deal. The only problem is that the 2 dumbasses discussed it ... they could have just submiitted lineup and OOPS....coincidentally no kickers. The people biotching about it probably get upset about about a trade between Cam Newton and Matt Ryan .... Dr RB 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Upper Class Trash 67 Posted November 13, 2014 Agree with you 100%. Fantasy football is just as legalistic as anything else now. That one sentence rule is absolutely necessary for any league these days. To have the Commish as the person who suggested it totally ruins any thought of Collusion. It cannot possibly be considered Collusion when the guy running the league is the person suggesting they do it. It may make him an idiot, but it certainly clears up any idea of Collusion. Nobody can claim the owners conspired to do something illegal if the Commish is the one telling them to do it. lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,173 Posted November 13, 2014 If it was the Commissioner who suggested this, then there is positively no problem with it. It can't be considered Collusion if the guy in charge of the league suggested it to begin with. Someone neglected to mention this tidbit early on. Thank you for sharing it. Ummm, you're nuts. The fact that the commish actually is the one doing this makes it worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Upper Class Trash 67 Posted November 13, 2014 Ummm, you're nuts. The fact that the commish actually is the one doing this makes it worse. I agree it makes the Commish an idiot. I disagree 1,000% it makes me nuts. lol I was nuts WELL before you pointed it out. If the Commish suggested they do this, you cannot call it Collusion. Does it make it worse? Maybe. Is it Collusion when the head of the league TELLS two owners they can do something? Hell no. That means there is obviously no rule against it, AND it has the blessing of the Commish. I'm not saying I agree with it, simply stating it isn't Collusion. Are you forgetting we're talking about kickers? LOL Geez. I bet you didn't raise this much of a complaint over Obamacare. Good to know you save your opinions for the things that really matter in life, like kickers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimHauck 3,307 Posted November 13, 2014 I agree it makes the Commish an idiot. I disagree 1,000% it makes me nuts. lol I was nuts WELL before you pointed it out. If the Commish suggested they do this, you cannot call it Collusion. Does it make it worse? Maybe. Is it Collusion when the head of the league TELLS two owners they can do something? Hell no. That means there is obviously no rule against it, AND it has the blessing of the Commish. I'm not saying I agree with it, simply stating it isn't Collusion. Are you forgetting we're talking about kickers? LOL Geez. I bet you didn't raise this much of a complaint over Obamacare. Good to know you save your opinions for the things that really matter in life, like kickers. Can you read? The commish didn't suggest 2 other owners do it, he suggested it to his opponent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Upper Class Trash 67 Posted November 13, 2014 It's still the Commish, meaning it is in the rules as being allowed. They apparently didn't try to hide this, so they obviously didn't feel it was against the rules. I only see one owner even suggesting it's Collusion and again, it is a week when there are no "stud" kickers on their bye. My gosh, are kickers this vital to the league? They are both going to lose points this week, which matter in most leagues. I just don't see a big deal here. What I see is good strategy and a league that doesn't have this as being not allowed in their rules. Are we all going to start complaining now about kickers? Is this what we're down to now in fantasy football? We're complaining over kickers and something that IS apparently allowed in the rules. Should I complain about things that are allowed? I lost a game by 2 points last week. Should I complain on here that it's "unfair" my opponent only lost 4 points for using the Bears defense? Why didn't he lose more? C'mon.... That's absurd. This is just someone pissed off because their fantasy season isn't going well. There are many more legit things to complain about in life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herbivore 1,197 Posted November 13, 2014 Ummm, you're nuts. The fact that the commish actually is the one doing this makes it worse. Yep Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,173 Posted November 13, 2014 It's still the Commish, meaning it is in the rules as being allowed. They apparently didn't try to hide this, so they obviously didn't feel it was against the rules. I only see one owner even suggesting it's Collusion and again, it is a week when there are no "stud" kickers on their bye. My gosh, are kickers this vital to the league? They are both going to lose points this week, which matter in most leagues. I just don't see a big deal here. What I see is good strategy and a league that doesn't have this as being not allowed in their rules. Are we all going to start complaining now about kickers? Is this what we're down to now in fantasy football? We're complaining over kickers and something that IS apparently allowed in the rules. Should I complain about things that are allowed? I lost a game by 2 points last week. Should I complain on here that it's "unfair" my opponent only lost 4 points for using the Bears defense? Why didn't he lose more? C'mon.... That's absurd. This is just someone pissed off because their fantasy season isn't going well. There are many more legit things to complain about in life. Since it's just kickers, is why I'd let it slide. BUT I'd still say something after the season for next year. As in: "Hey Commish, I know it was just kickers but I don't think we should collude with other teams to get around the rules as it sets a bad example and precedent. Maybe we should implement a rule." By the book this is collusion. It may the lowest impact form of it, but its collusion none the less. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ironmen 14 Posted November 13, 2014 Kickers...who needs them anyway? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaBeerz 88 Posted November 13, 2014 Are you really making a big deal out of this, what does your kicker score on their best night, like 20 points? For most people they're an afterthought. In fact I'd like to play in a league with no kickers. Anyway, maybe it's unsporting, but it's hardly league-wrecking collusion going on here. So an extra kicker doesn't hit the ww...big deal. OP, please clarify would they just have to drop a kicker, or would some other position player had to have been dropped? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JT 137 Posted November 13, 2014 Why then, if it's just a kicker, don't they just replace them from the WW? Would you have the same opinion if WW pickups cost $5? Or if the league had limited WW pickups and they were trying to save one? Or they lose their place in the WW pecking order and go to the bottom? You're right but people are lost, looking at league rules, who initiated it, etc. it's collusion, pure and simple. The only issue is whether the league allows it, and apparently they do. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaBeerz 88 Posted November 13, 2014 You're right but people are lost, looking at league rules, who initiated it, etc. it's collusion, pure and simple. The only issue is whether the league allows it, and apparently they do. Well...maybe it is, but there are varying levels of collusion. There is the blatant type where you get the commish approving a lopsided trade where a bottom feeder is just dumping talent to a top tier team. I don't think what they're talking about in this thread is league-breaking. OP, is anyone in the league making a stink about it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimHauck 3,307 Posted November 14, 2014 The OP didn't ask whether or not doing this would make much difference, they asked if it was collusion. It's pretty much the definition of collusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boilerddd 62 Posted November 14, 2014 I hope one of these owners drops and picks up a Kicker at the last minute and totally screws the other collaborator. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n_omarley 11 Posted November 14, 2014 I hope one of these owners drops and picks up a Kicker at the last minute and totally screws the other collaborator. Finally, right before I'm about to post, someone says what I'm thinking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
