Author |
Topic: Collusion Question (Read 793 times) |
|
GM
# 1
Go 9ers
 
Posts: 351
Back to top
|
 |
Collusion Question
« on: Nov 7th, 2002, 2:26am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
This is from a FFToday post...
Quote:Okay.
Team A can only get into the playoffs IF the worst team in our league beats a mediocre team (Team B).
Sounds difficult, huh?
What if Team A trades a stud or two, to the worst team so that he has a chance to beat the mediocre team (Team B)
Sounds ridiculous to trade AWAY good players for average players, I know.
BUT...those good players will do him no good if he is not in the playoffs--which he won't be if the worst team cannot pull off the win.
Can TRADING AWAY your good players which actually make your team WORST, ever be considered collusion? |
|
I really wanted to address it and I like these boards better so I figure I'll address this here. In my opinion, the commish has the sole responsibility of keeping the league active and fair. To keep it fair, sometimes trades must be vetoed. There's a lot of subsections of the following guidelines, but this is what we have.
1) No time-sharing trades.
2) No trade that is not made with the each team's best interests in mind.
3a) No significantly unfair trades for 1st year owners.
3b) No extremely unfair trades that hint at collusion.
4) No trades after the trade deadline. (Not a veto thing, but it's the answer to the above).
Explanation
1) This is illegal because if it was legal, everyone would do it and the fun/quality of the league would be diminished. I'm not going to go into full detail why this is lame.
2) No trading Faulk for a 12 pack of beer. This is also combined with 3b. For example, if someone has Garcia (Griese), Faulk, Jones (Zereoue), Driver, and Burress as their starters, and trades Faulk for McNabb, it's not an attempt to better his team and is probably 3b.
3a) We put this in because one guy just had no clue wtf he was doing and was being a Raiders homo--- err, homer. First he traded Culpepper for Gannon. Okay, most had Culp higher but could be a good move. Then he traded Bruce for Brown. errm thats gettin annoying. When he tried to trade CuMar for Garner/Wheatley (at the time, CuMar was #1 in the league and Garner was low 25's and Wheatley was injured) we stepped in. This year he has been much better. Well, luckier. He's 3rd to last in points but 2nd in record 
3b) Collusion is working with another owner in an unsportsmanlike manner.
4) You *need* a trade deadline, just for the example way at the top. We have our trade deadline in week 9 and playoffs start week 14. It sounds to me like this is collusion, but the guy is just doing what's best for his team and the other guy is just accepting a beneficial trade, so it's not collusion in the traditional sense. This can only happen when the playoffs are extremely close because otherwise there's just too many possibilities to risk giving up Faulk.
As I said at the beginning, commish's job is to keep everything fair and fun. You've got to make sure trades are reasonable, and so the idea that "any trade that isn't collusion should be allowed" isn't valid. Let's say you join a league and there's a big Texans homer. He loves'em so much hes giving up Faulk to the Priest owner for Carr and Bradford. Not collusion, just stupidity. Can't let the trade go through because it'd be boring for the rest of the league.
Anyways, what do you guys think?
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '95, '98, '08, '09, '10, '13, '15, '17, '19
# 22
9X Ultimate Supreme Champion
Posts: 807
Back to top
|
|
Re: Collusion Question
« Reply #3 on: Nov 8th, 2002, 12:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The last post hinted at what I think is the easiest and best standard.... The trade has to improve your team.
This standard has to be subjective, at least to a certain point. The best way is to have a small trade commission or a commissioner make a call if the trade is challenged by the league memebers. As long as they are convinced that the owner tried to improve his team, the trade should be ok. There is nothing better than ripping people off and that should not be disallowed because it is "unfair".
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
GM
# 1
Go 9ers
Posts: 351
Back to top
|
|
Re: Collusion Question
« Reply #4 on: Nov 8th, 2002, 3:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 8th, 2002, 12:47pm, Fiedlers Choice wrote:
The trade has to improve your team.
[...]As long as they are convinced that the owner tried to improve his team, the trade should be ok. There is nothing better than ripping people off and that should not be disallowed because it is "unfair". |
|
I think that's the point. He's not trying to improve his team, he's trying to improve someone else's team having the indirect affect of him making the playoffs. Thus, it should not be allowed.
I think a trade becomes unfair when it's very obvious other owners would have given up considerably more for that combination of players without hesitation, thus suggesting it's collusion.
--Begin Rant--
Okay, I'm out of LA for the weekend and off to Norcal. GO TROJANS. I still can't fucking believe we're 1 missed extra point (He also shanked 2 field goals and another extra point in the game) away from being the #2-3 ranked team in the nation 
Oh yeah, that Kansas State game we lost Mike Williams dropped 6 passes, 2 of them touchdowns that turned into a FG and a missed FG. Talk about blown opportunities Stupid NCAA needs a playoff of the top 8 teams. Would 2 extra games hurt them that friggin much? Hell the players already practice year-round and use our tuition to pay for their schooling. "Athletic Scholarship"... there's a fucking oxymoron if I've ever seen one.
--End Rant--
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
