Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Collusion? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ldizzle
- Start date
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Pretty sure you didnt provide anywhere near enough information
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I am only generalizing here because you didnt provide any info such as standings of all teams involved, how waivers are done (order, dollars...).........but teams are SUPPOSED to pick up the better players when they can.
Also, you didnt say if they dropped better players than they picked up or whatnot.
This will get a billion responses without anyone actually knowing the situation, and it will go nowhere
Also, you didnt say if they dropped better players than they picked up or whatnot.
This will get a billion responses without anyone actually knowing the situation, and it will go nowhere
Chimp Magnet
Footballguy
Not collusion. Smart.
yes
say the players dropped were irrelevant like wr5s and rb4/s in a 12 man
it was just a general question. Sorry to be vague. But in principal if 3 teams agree to try and block someone is it collusion
nothing wrong with that. those teams were smart.
you should have picked someone up before they did.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Because it is impossible for all of them to arrive at the same conclusion on their own?
northern exposure
Footballguy
Let me take a wild guess, you are the team with the questionable player? So, in your opinion, it is collusion. If you were one of the teams picking up the next 3 players, you'd say it was smart tactics.
i have no dog in this fight.
silentcoach
Footballguy
Then "yes." I would think of it like "price fixing."
If this indeed is true, then I wonder why these teams would admit to working together in creating their strategy. Tsk tsk.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jerry Curl
Footballguy
Why do these threads make there way into this forum?
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
slackjawedyokel
Footballguy
Sounds like the Julius Thomas or Dwayne Allen owner needed to get Tamme or Fleener and other teams wisely grabbed them off of waivers. Sometimes these collusion questions are far-fetched.
T with T
Footballguy
it's called strategy with a little touch of ice water through the veins... I have done this as this is really trying to take any edge the other guy has... I have picked up players that opponents could have used just so they couldn't have them... Not collusion, just winning formula and tips bud..... Collusion is when two people team up and trade and split money if they win... or Trading players to help another person win. This doesn't seem to be the case by what you described.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
It depends. Are all three in the playoffs and just want this guy out cause they dont like him?
Are they all bottom teams and just being #####?
Just the premise of teams picking up players that are better than what they had makes it almost impossible for collusion, and even if they did discuss it, so what? Considering it was likely that the teams probably would have or should have gone after those players whether they discussed it or not.
How do you even know this happened? Are you one of the 3 teams?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Price fixing is a pretty specific thing, so I wouldnt call this price fixing unless that is actually what they did.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
True, but it totally depends on what they did exactly.
People in leagues talk. People are friends. It's very possible through the course of discussions that they all came to the realization that some dude who they view as a good team could miss the playoffs and some lesser team could get in, and this is due to the guy not having a good sub this week. So, through the course of discussions they all gather they should sign those players.
Now, if they all have a lot of waiver dollars and discuss with each other how much to bid and who will get each player, that is pretty bad collusion. Otherwise, nah, nothing to see here.
one approached other 2 and its all free agents no blind bid.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
What do you mean it's all free agents? Is there a waiver order?? Is it first come first serve??
You are terrible at letting people know what is happening here
T J
Footballguy
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
Not Collusion.
Perhaps next time team will pick up a replacement for questionable player
Perhaps next time team will pick up a replacement for questionable player
i am. Sorry. First come first serve
ghostguy123
Footballguy
sigh.............................................
Did they line up and pick these guys up 3 seconds after 1st come 1st serve opened up??
Jesus. We dont know the records of any teams involved, any players involved that were dropped or picked up, and no information on how all this went down.
Clearly you are afraid to say anything cause you are afraid people in your league will see it on here. But really, what's the point of asking a question like this and starting a thread over it when you are not proving any information???
Last edited by a moderator:
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
If the players were FA then tough luck. If the dude who needed a TE didn't use a waiver claim and then still after waivers cleared still didn't pick up a TE that is his problem.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
SInce you wont say, I am just going to guess the possible situation.
My guess is these three teams are all playoff teams, and there is a chance some lesser team can get into the playoffs if they collude and try and help this other team lose this week.
So they all agree to each pick up one player each right as soon as 1st come 1st serve opens up.
Well, a few issues. Why on Earth didnt the team who needed a player pick one up?
Also, it is VERY possible all three of these teams would have picked these players up anyway, or other teams would have.
So in this case even though it would technically be collusion I dont see anything wrong with it. They didnt do anything shady with bidding dollars, and especially if they picked up better players than they dropped, whats the problem?
My guess is these three teams are all playoff teams, and there is a chance some lesser team can get into the playoffs if they collude and try and help this other team lose this week.
So they all agree to each pick up one player each right as soon as 1st come 1st serve opens up.
Well, a few issues. Why on Earth didnt the team who needed a player pick one up?
Also, it is VERY possible all three of these teams would have picked these players up anyway, or other teams would have.
So in this case even though it would technically be collusion I dont see anything wrong with it. They didnt do anything shady with bidding dollars, and especially if they picked up better players than they dropped, whats the problem?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Very true.
I have a league where you cant put in a claim if you have zero dollars left, but you can still pick a guy up in first come first serve. I needed a guy and had no money left, so I made sure I was avalible for 2 minutes when first come first serve opened and grabbed a player I wanted.
But since we still only have a partial story here, who knows what really happened.
Mr. Retukes
Footballguy
It's a bit of a D.B. move, but it's totally legal.
Mr. Retukes
Footballguy
That's still not proof of collusion.
"Hey, I noticed that Joe's TE is questionable this week, and he hasn't bothered to pick up a replacement. Wouldn't it be funny if the rest of the league taught him a lesson by picking up all the available Tight Ends?"
Pots
Footballguy
The vast majority of people here don't like the possibility of a league ruling against Fantasy moves (usually trades) in the accusation of collusion short of the teams involved making a post in the thread involved bragging about how the colluded to screw over the league. This is likely because a lot of people here who consider themselves 'sharks' or worse 'hawks' have been in leagues where they completely rip off a 'guppy' in a trade and instead of steamrolling the league the rest of the season, their trade gets reversed and now they have to compete with a lesser stacked team they obtained via the draft/FA/non-lopsided trades. The common mentality is that it's the fault of the owner who is getting screwed in the collusion, and the teams who benefited are simply savvy owners not unlike businesses or car dealers who sell lemons for a profit or like the previously mentioned price fixing. While this particular example isn't the strict definition of price fixing, it's an adequate comparison if you wanted to use a business metaphor.
T J
Footballguy
Wrong. If three other owners worked together to accomplish this, that is, by definition, collusion.Not Collusion.
Perhaps next time team will pick up a replacement for questionable player
It just is. Anyone saying otherwise doesn't know what it means. Nothing else matters other than they worked together to collectively and detrimentally affect another team. Collusion.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I think we have established that if that is indeed the way it went down that it is collusion.Wrong. If three other owners worked together to accomplish this, that is, by definition, collusion.Not Collusion.
Perhaps next time team will pick up a replacement for questionable player
It just is. Anyone saying otherwise doesn't know what it means. Nothing else matters other than they worked together to collectively and detrimentally affect another team. Collusion.
Question is, does it matter?? Should the players all be put back into the player pool? Should the three teams be punished in some other way??
I guess I am of the belief that not ALL collusion should be against the rules.
BUt again, we STILL dont know EXACTLY what happened.
GregR
Footballguy
There is some gray area between gamesmanship and collusion, but a line has to be drawn by a commish. There is no doubt in my mind the statement you made falls on the collusive side of the line. The owner has pointed out to the league that acting collectively they can hurt another team. That he phrased it jokingly doesn't change that it's advocating collusion. In such a case a commish would have to decide was the guy just oblivious to what he was doing, or was he trying to collude but not get caught at it.
A good commish in the above situation should warn his league doing so is collusion and that owners shouldn't be making statements like that. And that the next waiver session will be watched very closely and there may be sanctions it appears owners acted on his suggestion.\
As for the OP, if they discussed claiming all he worthwhile players as a group, then yes, collusion.
GregR
Footballguy
By the way, it might help to give an example on both sides of the line between gamesmanship and collusion. Example situation... league with QB-heaving scoring system. At the draft, an owner takes his backup QB and then announces one of the following:
"Greg doesn't have a starting QB yet. If we all take our backups now he'll be screwed". (Collusive)
"Whew, glad the backup QB I wanted was there. I figured they are going to go fast and not many quality ones left." (Gamesmanship)
Why is the first collusion and the second isn't? The first one advocates group action to gain an advantage that only can be gained through cooperation outside the spirit of individual competition. The second does not.
Owners may hear the second comment, and might decide strictly for the benefit of their own team acting as an individual that getting a QB now is in their best interest. Some might even notice the impact it might have on other teams and let that play a role in their motivation, but while still lacking an "it's been made obvious to the group" or "Because of the statement I can count on others to make the impact of my choice even more beneficial" aspect. But anyone who comes to that conclusion does so independently.
Edit:
It's a fine line, but I'd say the more a statement leaves owners believing there may be cooperative action from other owners in doing something, the more likely it should be judged as collusive. Also the more likely a statement seems intended to bring about such a belief in other owners, the more likely it should be treated as collusive.
"Greg doesn't have a starting QB yet. If we all take our backups now he'll be screwed". (Collusive)
"Whew, glad the backup QB I wanted was there. I figured they are going to go fast and not many quality ones left." (Gamesmanship)
Why is the first collusion and the second isn't? The first one advocates group action to gain an advantage that only can be gained through cooperation outside the spirit of individual competition. The second does not.
Owners may hear the second comment, and might decide strictly for the benefit of their own team acting as an individual that getting a QB now is in their best interest. Some might even notice the impact it might have on other teams and let that play a role in their motivation, but while still lacking an "it's been made obvious to the group" or "Because of the statement I can count on others to make the impact of my choice even more beneficial" aspect. But anyone who comes to that conclusion does so independently.
Edit:
It's a fine line, but I'd say the more a statement leaves owners believing there may be cooperative action from other owners in doing something, the more likely it should be judged as collusive. Also the more likely a statement seems intended to bring about such a belief in other owners, the more likely it should be treated as collusive.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Retukes
Footballguy
And yet it should not only be tolerated, but it should be encouraged. I'd rather have this type of "collusion" than have a lazy owner exploiting the system to hoard players.Wrong. If three other owners worked together to accomplish this, that is, by definition, collusion.Not Collusion.
Perhaps next time team will pick up a replacement for questionable player
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Retukes
Footballguy
Hmmm. I'd say that your first statement falls short of meeting the definition of collusion. It's not collusion to simply announce an idea. It does not become collusion until other owners join the conspiracy and then act on it.
Furthermore, I'd argue that it can't be considered "collusion" if all the discussions are done in public. By definition, collusion is a secret agreement.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I dont think announcing something on the message board during the draft about another guy not having a QB is collusion. It's one guy being a total ****.
However, this is fantasy football. It should have it's own definition for what is considered to be collusion. Or at the very lease, incorporate other words rather than just using the blanket term of "collusion" every time something like this goes down.
Really, though, cmon, strict definition ruling???? Really??? If 11 guys all pick before some dude in the 12th round and they all agree to take a QB aloud on the message board because this guy doesnt have one so they can screw him over, and they do it................you are gonna pull out the "strict definition" card and say that it isn't collusion because it wasn't done in secret?? That wouldnt be collusion iff 11 owners discuss taking a QB to F an owner over, and they do it, even if it's on the MB??? Not collusion???
Deamon
Footballguy
Why don't the three teams want him to make playoffs? Is it because they personally have a better shot if he doesn't? If so, it's not collusion.
However, if the owners involve someone where this persons team making the playoffs has no impact on him, then that seems like that's teams collaborating against the owner, or helping each other win while it has no affect on them. Collusion in this case.
Deamon
Footballguy
not sure why OP is being so secretive... or responding very ambiguously and with short answers every once in a while. Not sure he really wants an answer here... it's very strange.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
That would seem kinda weird to help out two other teams who could get into the playoffs over you rather than just let other guy pick up a player.\\
Who knows, still nowhere near enough info to know anything for sure.
But even if collusion is proven, is it the kind that warrants ANY kind of response?? As of now, no
ghostguy123
Footballguy
He is a scared and doesnt want his leaguemates to know he is posting about it. Only other reason is that he has an IQ of 4.
I am gonna guess it is the former.
Deamon
Footballguy
Well, they could all currently be in playoffs, and this one team is right on their heals and if he loses, they all clinch.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
you guys are correct in me not wanting my leaguemates to find out because then id have to create another username. The 3 teams are in the playoffs and the other team is kind of coming together almost at the right time and needs to win out which is possible.
Last edited by a moderator:
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
If the owner needed a TE, he should have picked up a TE.
I'm interested how you got proof the 3 owners got together. Tamme/Fleener/Paul are/were viable 1 week pickups whether you need a TE or not
Nothing presented in this thread (yet) is proof of collusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
