We had a trade in our league whereby two 2 teams traded players to fill holes for their bye week....with the contingent that the trade would be 'reversed' next week. In your opinion is this collusion or sound strategy?
yes collusion./ in all of my leagues we have a rule that once traded, a player cannot be traded back to the original owner until it is on the new team for 3 weeks
Funny. In all the years playing FF, I have never experienced this. Part of me wants to applaud them on their creativity, especially since it is has been *presumably* done within the parameters of the league settings. I mean, they're not cheating if you never made a point of outlawing it. I have a hard time calling it "collusion" then, as their agreement is not technically been done to accomplish something "illegal." I would have to say that you allow it (begrudgingly - let them know how you feel), and then make it a precedent-setting event. Next year, no way.
My gut was to agree with you Motown - as a) it is not stipulated in the rules that you cannot do it and b) I don't really think of it as collusion - 1 team trying to specifically help another. In this case the two teams were trying as much to help themselves as anything else. I would consider it collusion if 1 team was trying to help another stack their team against the league powerhouse for instance, but not getting any benefit from it for their own team.
As it stands, I think there's been enough of an outcry that the owners are going to swap back before the weekend. But again - I do not personally think there's anything wrong with it. The object is to for each team to win every week is it not? This just falls into the category of 2 teams trying to do anything to improve their teams' chances in a given week.
bungle613 wrote: Ask them how they would feel if near the end of the season a rival team rented out it's top players each week to their opponents???
See, I guess I think of that differently. Different motives. If I was renting out my players to help another team try to defeat someone else - I think of that as collusion. But in this instance, the 2 owners are simply employing a strategy to try and win their own games.
Like I said - there has been enough of an outcry that the trade will be nullified by the 2 teams, but I think it could have stood on the basis that there was mutual benefit. Like any trade really...
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by FilmMan » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:41 pm 
Part of me wants to applaud them on their creativity, especially since it is has been *presumably* done within the parameters of the league settings. I mean, they're not cheating if you never made a point of outlawing it. I have a hard time calling it "collusion" then, as their agreement is not technically been done to accomplish something "illegal." I would have to say that you allow it (begrudgingly - let them know how you feel), and then make it a precedent-setting event. Next year, no way.
