Chum
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018
Sand$: 186.34
I ask this question because people say that if tanking isn't against the rules, then it's fair game, but what about collusion? I'll give some examples below.

Scenario 1: Team A trades players to Team B and they agree to split any earnings

Scenario 2: Team C trades star players to Team D, but it is for what the league has determined as fair-market value. There is no agreement to split earnings, but Team C wants to trade to Team D because he dislikes the other owners in the league and wants to make things tougher for them.

Scenario 3: Team E agrees to not enter into trade talks that Team F is involved in, because Teams E and F have a close personal bond. Likewise, Team F agrees to not enter into trade talks if Team E is involved, but Team G wants to hear bids from all interested teams.

Scenario 4: Team H agrees to trade a certain package of draft picks to Team I, if Team I beats Team H in their matchup that week. The trade would still be for fair-market-value though. Also assume that teams have been able to make low-stakes bets like this in the past, but this particular instance definitely raises the stakes. No rule against bets though.

Please discuss below. Thanks
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 21161
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006
Sand$: 43,516.88
Nope, I'd be out of any league that allowed it as well. I walked away from an absolutely stacked keeper team for similar reasons.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 4259
Joined: Wed Sep 7, 2011
Sand$: 7,312.20
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 57771
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 22,091.60
NautArch wrote:Let it go. Or stop posting here about it. Preferably both, but will accept the latter.

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=348837

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=348836

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=347544

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=348618

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=348864

Sad and funny.
Megalodon
Posts: 20142
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009
Sand$: 73,089.02
Oh weren't you asked not to post this crap in main?

Enjoy your timeout.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 4259
Joined: Wed Sep 7, 2011
Sand$: 7,312.20
625james wrote:Oh weren't you asked not to post this crap in main?

Enjoy your timeout.


Permanent timeout?
Megalodon
Posts: 20142
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009
Sand$: 73,089.02
NautArch wrote:
625james wrote:Oh weren't you asked not to post this crap in main?

Enjoy your timeout.


Permanent timeout?

Sorry just 24 hours, this time.
Whale Shark
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Sep 3, 2009
Sand$: 23,782.07
what is the world is happening here?

i'm cornfused.

Sincerely,

Iowa
Megalodon
Posts: 20142
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009
Sand$: 73,089.02
He floods every FF site with these posts. He's either trolling or stressing himself out. This was originally posted in main, he has been warned not to post league specific questions there.

Texas
User avatar
Mako Shark
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008
Sand$: 1,875.68
I know lone star is being annoying with his constant posts, but since this is a good forum for commissioners to learn, I'm going to give my take on the substance of his post:

Scenario 1: Team A trades players to Team B and they agree to split any earnings

This is 100% not allowed, and in my opinion, is something that you should not allow to happen even if you don't explicitly have a rule against it.

Scenario 2: Team C trades star players to Team D, but it is for what the league has determined as fair-market value. There is no agreement to split earnings, but Team C wants to trade to Team D because he dislikes the other owners in the league and wants to make things tougher for them.

As long as Team C is making a good faith effort to improve his own team in the process, I have no issue with this. Preferring to trade with certain owners over others is not collusion, whether it's because you have bad personal relationships with the other owners, or you want to avoid trading to teams ahead of you in the standings, or because you just hate the way other teams approach negotiations (this is a reason why one owner in my league has seen a lack of trades in recent years, he always tries to get too much off other owners and it is a headache to deal with him).

Scenario 3: Team E agrees to not enter into trade talks that Team F is involved in, because Teams E and F have a close personal bond. Likewise, Team F agrees to not enter into trade talks if Team E is involved, but Team G wants to hear bids from all interested teams.

This is the same as Scenario 2, really - there is no rule that you must negotiate with any team that wants to negotiate with you, just that in any given trade, you must be trying to improve your own team.

Scenario 4: Team H agrees to trade a certain package of draft picks to Team I, if Team I beats Team H in their matchup that week. The trade would still be for fair-market-value though. Also assume that teams have been able to make low-stakes bets like this in the past, but this particular instance definitely raises the stakes. No rule against bets though.

This one is a bit of a gray area, in my opinion. I don't really have a problem with this in principle; I certainly have delayed trading with an owner because I'm playing them in the given week. That said, if someone submitted a trade that was conditional, as in, "This trade only goes through if I lose this week," I would tell the person, "I will either approve this trade to take effect immediately, or you should wait and re-submit it after this week's games." I'm a firm believer that when a trade is submitted to the commissioner, it takes effect immediately (unless some of the players involved have already had their game for the week).
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 2045
Joined: Fri Sep 9, 2005
Sand$: 5,923.94
Eddo wrote:This is the same as Scenario 2, really - there is no rule that you must negotiate with any team that wants to negotiate with you, just that in any given trade, you must be trying to improve your own team.


I agree with your overall take, but would caution about the absolute statement here. I won a championship in 2013 after an abysmal (1-6) start, and one of the things I did - and there were many - was to trade with a couple of teams who would be playing the teams ahead of me in the standings. Those trades didn't hurt me, per se (a couple of owners were insistent that I "gave up too much!"), but they facilitated my move up the standings until I had a wild card spot and ran wild in the playoffs.

I think "must be trying to improve your own team's chances" is probably closer to the goal.
_______________________________________

OMITB Champion: 2004, 2005, 2007, 2015, 2016
CFL Champion: 2009, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017

"Best available kicker and the Colts D." Rest in peace, Ken.
Megalodon
Posts: 20142
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009
Sand$: 73,089.02
Scenario 1 is collusion, all the other scenarios are not collusion.
User avatar
Mako Shark
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008
Sand$: 1,875.68
Warhaft wrote:
Eddo wrote:This is the same as Scenario 2, really - there is no rule that you must negotiate with any team that wants to negotiate with you, just that in any given trade, you must be trying to improve your own team.


I agree with your overall take, but would caution about the absolute statement here. I won a championship in 2013 after an abysmal (1-6) start, and one of the things I did - and there were many - was to trade with a couple of teams who would be playing the teams ahead of me in the standings. Those trades didn't hurt me, per se (a couple of owners were insistent that I "gave up too much!"), but they facilitated my move up the standings until I had a wild card spot and ran wild in the playoffs.

I think "must be trying to improve your own team's chances" is probably closer to the goal.

Yes, that's a better one-sentence summary.
Whale Shark
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Nov 6, 2009
Sand$: 1,163.30
625james wrote:Scenario 1 is collusion, all the other scenarios are not collusion.



What he said. Others scenarios show immaturity but not collusion.
_______________________________________

QB
RB1/2
WR1/2:
Flex
TE:
DST
K l
b
Open Streamer
Start 1QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 flex, TE, D, K 14 man roster
(.5ppr. 12 team)
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 2045
Joined: Fri Sep 9, 2005
Sand$: 5,923.94
And to answer the question posed, no, I would not. I don't remotely understand the appeal of Scenario 1, as the whole point of being in a league is to win. I don't even concede when there's no chance and/or no money to be had.
_______________________________________

OMITB Champion: 2004, 2005, 2007, 2015, 2016
CFL Champion: 2009, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017

"Best available kicker and the Colts D." Rest in peace, Ken.