GP1 wrote:No. By your conveniently self serving definition of collusion EVERY trade would fall under your standards. Dont all trades involve a sense of working together? In fantasy football terms collusion is an agreement between two teams that benefits one team but not the other.
No, it wouldn't. And I love how it's my "conveniently self serving definition of collusion" when it's the definition in any dictionary you'll find.
Trades are NOT the same as collusion, in that in a real trade, you give something up to get something. One week trades mean giving up nothing, in exchange for either a better scoring week, or a chance to screw over another team in your league (when a first place team risks tanking a game to make SURE that another team loses.) Fantasy Football doesn't get to redefine the English language, sorry. Collusion is, on the most basic level, an agreement between 2 teams to work together, and it's purpose in FF is to subvert the roster limits, not have to drop players to pick up other players for bye week fill ins or injuries, which screws over teams with WW priority, and screws over teams that have done their homework diligently in planning bye strategies. It's a means to WINNING fraudulently.
Per Yahoo's rules:
No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).
Under that definition, how is that collusive? Theyre clearly trading to better both their teams. While it can be classified as sneaky or undercutting the rules, it isnt clearly illegal.
Undercutting the rules isn't illegal?
It's been explained already in this thread. Multiple times.
Another teams bench is not supposed to be an extension of your own. When you make the trade knowing you are going to trade back its collusion. If you don't get it by now, you probably won't and should just stick to public leagues.
"Maurice Jones-Drew, below the waist, is incredible." Mike Mayock
Maybe the Giants could loan the Patriots Plaxico Burress in week 9 since they are on bye that week and won't need him. The Patriots could return the favor in week 10 by loaning the Giants Randy Moss. They could include a backup kicker or something in the trade to make it look legit, then just trade back a week later. I'm sure the league office wouldn't have a problem with that. After all, both teams are just trying to improve their chances of winning!
Players belong to ONE TEAM in the NFL and in fantasy football. You can't loan/borrow players and just call it "trading and trading back." Each team must maximize its own starting lineup each week. You can't pool players and fluidly move them around between two teams to maximize both lineups each week. That is absolutely collusion and is absolutely cheating, no matter how much anyone disagrees or argues about it.
FatFoot wrote:That's exactly the point of it. Those agreements help the 2 teams in the agreement, undermining the roster constraints all other teams face. Because you are able to hang on to players who you don't want to drop for their byes, or for their injuries, etc, and still get top value at those positions. You can't rent players out.
Teams would choose to rent players to certain other teams, but for several varied reasons, NOT rent them to others.
Hypothetical: You are on the bubble for making the playoffs. It's you and one other team. That team has injury concerns, and looks to lose it's last game. The team with Tom Brady and Randy Moss is a lock, and is run by the best friend of the other bubble team. He RENTS Tom Brady and Randy Moss to the bubble team, which kicks your arse that week. But they trade back, so it's okay, right?
Even if it helps both teams out, the point isn't that neither of the teams in the temporary trade got hurt... it's the rest of the league. Other hypothetical: One team is stacked at RB, other team is stacked at WR. In order to get around bye weeks, they temporarily swap a RB for a WR and then trade back after the games. Who gets hurt?
THE LEAGUE. The two teams they play are facing artificially strong teams. They should be playing against a team that's fielding one RB and a backup, and against a team that's fielding a junk WR lineup. But they don't due to these fake arse trades.
That trash isn't tolerated.
Amen. It's collusion. It's cheating. Rationalization will not help.
FatFoot wrote:...which screws over teams with WW priority, and screws over teams that have done their homework diligently in planning bye strategies. It's a means to WINNING fraudulently.
I think this line sums it up perfectly and is exactly why this practice should not be allowed. When I drafted, I drafted with bye weeks in mind. When I trade, I always look at bye's and matchups. When I pick up a FA, whether from waivers or not, I look at bye's and matchups. Being able to cherry pick a player from someone else's roster is not fair play.
QB - Dree Brees, Sam Bradford RB - Knowshon Moreno, Addai, Beanie Wells, Brandon Jackson WR - Randy Moss, Brandon Lloyd, Pierre Garcon, Kevin Walter, Lance Moore TE - John Carlson K - Jeff Reed D/ST - New England, San Diego
GP1 wrote:No. By your conveniently self serving definition of collusion EVERY trade would fall under your standards. Dont all trades involve a sense of working together? In fantasy football terms collusion is an agreement between two teams that benefits one team but not the other.
No, it wouldn't. And I love how it's my "conveniently self serving definition of collusion" when it's the definition in any dictionary you'll find.
Trades are NOT the same as collusion, in that in a real trade, you give something up to get something. One week trades mean giving up nothing, in exchange for either a better scoring week, or a chance to screw over another team in your league (when a first place team risks tanking a game to make SURE that another team loses.) Fantasy Football doesn't get to redefine the English language, sorry. Collusion is, on the most basic level, an agreement between 2 teams to work together, and it's purpose in FF is to subvert the roster limits, not have to drop players to pick up other players for bye week fill ins or injuries, which screws over teams with WW priority, and screws over teams that have done their homework diligently in planning bye strategies. It's a means to WINNING fraudulently.
Per Yahoo's rules:
No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).
Under that definition, how is that collusive? Theyre clearly trading to better both their teams. While it can be classified as sneaky or undercutting the rules, it isnt clearly illegal.
Undercutting the rules isn't illegal?
It's been explained already in this thread. Multiple times.
Hey, like I said in my previous post, personally I think it isnt fair play and I wouldnt do it. But by fantasy football definitions it isnt collusion. I never advocated it, I just said it's not collusion and I still dont think it is. It's up to the league to clearly make it illegal.
And yes undercutting the rules is illegal. I didnt say it "clearly isnt illegal," I said "it isn't clearly illegal." There's a difference and I think you're confusing what I mean. There's a gray area as seen by the varying opinions in this thread. In my follow up post I said I wouldnt do it and it should up the league to decide whether or not it's illegal.
I stand by my original stance. Collusion? No. Hampering fair play? Yes. I just didnt think people were correctly categorizing why it's wrong.
And yes, fantasy football can redefine words. Words have different contexts in each meaning. Definitions can be created, shortened, or lengethened by any genre that uses it.
Until Yahoo and the other FF leagues come up with a specific rule, this will be a matter of contention. Here's a sample rule if any of them want to use it:
"One week trades where Player A is traded for Player B and then Player B is traded back for Player A after the week's games are not allowed."
You could also add a time clause to prevent Player A being traded for player B and then traded back for player C.
"One week trades between owners are not allowed. If you trade a player to an owner, that player is not allowed to be traded back to your team for 4 weeks [or whatever time period is desired by the league]."
This simple rule addition would solve the problem.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by FatFoot » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:43 am 
