Best Definition for Collusion

[WeekSixteen]

My league wants to update our league rules. Our current rule on Collusion is

Collusion is two teams working together to help each other out for their own benefit in an unfair way.

Anyone want to add to this definition or perhaps your league already has a sweet definition.

[shawngee03]

i agree you need a definition of unfair

ive always used the rational that a team has to be doing a trade w the intent to better his team. if the trade is not being done to better his team then he is doing it in collusion w another team to help the other team while not helping his own...thus cheating

[spodog]

Owners are expected to act solely in their own self-interests in dealing with other teams. Any actions or transactions where two or more owners acting in cooperation with one another to the benefit of only one of the teams or to the detriment of the rest of the league will be deteremined to be collusion.

[Flyn high again]

I'll add a question to the discussion. The opponent you are tied with for division lead is playing your buddy who forgets his QB is on bye. You call him up and remind him to play a QB. Collusion? Or OK? As a corollary, one of your buddy's guys gets injured in Saturday practice. Your buddy doesn't notice and you call him and tell him. Again, collusion? Does it matter if your buddy's team is in the running in your division? What if he is also tied with you?

Another: You give a trade to a team so that team becomes stronger when it plays the team you are trying to beat even though you know you will drop the player you receive. Fair? Collusion?

[spodog]

I'll add a question to the discussion. The opponent you are tied with for division lead is playing your buddy who forgets his QB is on bye. You call him up and remind him to play a QB. Collusion?

Most definitely not. Just solid awareness and trying to keep the competition honest.

As a corollary, one of your buddy's guys gets injured in Saturday practice. Your buddy doesn't notice and you call him and tell him. Again, collusion? Does it matter if your buddy's team is in the running in your division? What if he is also tied with you?

Doesn't matter Neither of these is collusion. League's can't (and shouldn't attempt to) regulate general conversation about the NFL and about NFL players.

Another: You give a trade to a team so that team becomes stronger when it plays the team you are trying to beat even though you know you will drop the player you receive. Fair? Collusion?

[/quote]

This situation is a little shadier, but still not collusion, unless you make some under the table deal that the player you traded away will be dealt back to you at a later date.

[dgan]

Our collusion language is lengthy, but I think it's important to weed out the guys that would even contemplate collusion, and this is pretty effective.

Collusion is defined as an intent to collaberate with another owner(s) for collective gain (as opposed to the intent of improving one's own team, regardless of the impact on other teams). Collusion is including but not limited to:

making trades that clearly only benefit one team,
making trades for "future considerations" (unless allowed under rules governing future keeper picks),
making trades with the intent or agreement to a future trade (whether involving the same players or not),
"sharing" players to cover bye weeks or injury,
or any action that involves sharing winnings.

It is NOT collusion to trade underperforming players for overperforming players, regardless of team records, if there can be any reasonable argument made that their production could change. It is also not collusion to make "stupid" trades or to "take chances". It is certainly not collusion when another team makes a move to make his team better than yours. Collusion is typically obvious (ie. roster dumping or firesales to a single owner) and should be recognized as such - witch hunts will not be tolerated by the Commish.

These are only guidelines - owners are expected to respect the "spirit of the rule". Any suspicion of collusion will be dealt with on a case by case basis as seen fit by the Commish, who may or may not use a league majority vote for corrective decisions, roster adjustments or scoring changes resulting from collusion. Also, a trade vetoed by the league due to collusion does not protect the offending owners from corrective action.

Bottom line: don't F around with this particular rule or you are out of the league.

[dgan]

Ha, I almost forgot. After last year, we added an addendum:

Multi-team trades are not inherently collusion, though they are still governed by the same rules. However, due to the nature of fantasy software, it is necessary in these cases to coordinate how and when to trade players. Once a multi-team trade is agreed upon, the Commish should be notified of the agreed trade and confirmed by all parties. If necessary, the Commish may use his power to move players manually to avoid waiver, trade, and roster size restriction issues with the software. Care should be taken in these situations for all roster moves to be made within the same "game week" whenever possible.

[Big A$$ TDs]

I agree you need to rework that def, and spodog was right on, "to the benefit of only one of the teams" is the concept you need to add to yours IMO, because that's the heart of collusion to me. Benefit one team, then they split the money later. That's a nono!

[Bobbleheadrusty]

I guess my money leagues have never had to define it because the people involved would never give up the chance to win to help someone else.

That said, we did put in a rule in one league specifying that communications between owners about other teams is allowed under the bylaws after an incident last year (the top team had just lost his QB, and his backup was even a starter atm, someone noticed and informed the rest of the league of that situation. Damned if six people didnt burn waiver picks on QBs, forcing that team to go without a quarterback for two weeks, then eventually overpay for Kitna). That owner claimed collusion, but we decided as a group that we all talk/text enough to make keeping it from happening impossible.

[Hags888]

Have you had problems with collusion in the past? I've got a very simple rule in our league constitution about collusion, and while we're not a money league, I wouldn't expect it to be an issue for us. But, the consequences of collusion are simple: banned from the league, period. I'm of the opinion that less rules are better, and simpler rules are better. Here is our rule:

Cheating of any kind will not be tolerated in the PBFFL. Obvious collusion, sabotage or any other forms of cheating will have zero tolerance. Any team owner caught cheating will be banned from the PBFFL, and bitch slapped by the league owner on the way out.


Now, I realize this doesn't define cheating or collusion, outside of describing it as "obvious", but I don't think it needs to. Do you need to account for every possible situation in the league rules? I think most people understand what collusion and cheating means, but maybe that's just me. Since we have a fairly simple, standard league, there are only a couple ways someone could cheat anyway. The most obvious is through trades, and we have a league voting system in place for all trades, so nobody's going to be able to get an obvious collusion trade through the voting process. The second is if someone logged in as a different team owner and purposely either sabotaged a team, or set them up to take a dive. And in that instance, we'd all recognize what was going on, especially me, since I watch the roster lineups like a hawk.

But, to answer your question a little better, if you want to define collusion, I would go with a more general definition that can include many different types of scenarios. I would go with a dictionary type definition:

Collusion is two or more team owners secretly agreeing to a trade, team lineup or other arrangement that breaks the rules and/or unfairly benefits them to the detriment of the rest of the league.

Good luck!