‹ Main Site Forums Home My Account

Collusion - Please Help!

So I am currently a comissioner in a league where 2 co-workers who are friends are pulling off a shady trade. Co-Worker #1, who is 1-9 and has not set his lineups since week 3, is trying to trade Ezekiell Elliot, Robert Woods, & Roanald Jones to Co-Worker #2, who is 9-1, and is trying to trade Aaron Rodgers, Latavius Murray, & Terry Mclaurin.

I vetoed the trade calling it obvious collusion

They started another trade this time its Ezekiell Elliot & Ronald Jones (Co-Worker #1) for Aaron Rogers, Carlos Hyde, & Terry Mclaurin (Co-Worker #2)

What should I do? This definitely looks like collusion to me.

My league does a vote whenever something seems like collusion. If more than half the league thinks so then we don’t allow the trade.

1 Like

If a manager hasn’t set their line up since week 3 kick them out and find someone who cares.

3 Likes

I’m kicking both people out of the league for collusion

1 Like

Neither trade is absolute evidence of collusion in my opinion. One can never ascertain collusion from simply listing the assets exchanged in a transaction.

As an aside, I don’t see either trade as imbalanced either.

From a commissioner standpoint the only issue is that you have a manager who is not participating. It is on the commish to identify issues like this and attempt a resolution. Reach out, see why a manager is not setting a lineup. If they have decided to no longer participate than fall back to your bylaws in that type of scenario. (Bylaws are critical.)

2 Likes

I agree neither trade is crazy imbalance to either team. That being said I am always leery of teams that don’t check their lineup then magically make trades. I would kick that person that is 1-9 out of your league and run his team and just play highest projected points each week.

If a team is out of playoff contention they have no business making trades—unless it’s a keeper league. I think you’re completely justified in vetoing the trades.

1 Like

I’m 3-7 (not technically out of the playoffs, but it’s a long shot) and still making trades. I’m a competitive person and still trying to make my team better. If a team is active all year then telling them they can’t trade is silly and not fair to that team. Now, in this case since this team hasn’t been active at all I’d be suspicious.

I would veto it. The 1-9 is giving up his best player in zeke to the 9-1 team for maybe a benefit at qb and bench RBs. Hyde can be a flex play but Murray has little value when kamara is healthy.

Why can a “losing” team not make a trade? Isn’t that cultivating an environment of non-participation? Every teams objective should be to win their matchup against another team. A trade that makes a team more prepared to do so seems well within a managers ability.

I’m a firm believer that if you employ a veto system, they should be reserved for collusion only. Not just trades you don’t like.

In one week Elliot could be hurt or playing as terrible as last week (2.3 yards per carry) and Murray could be the NOS started with Kamara on IR. Is their still collusion at that time?

Collusion is not a variable that could have occurred one week and not the next when the scenario changes. It either happened between two teams trying to illegally co-operate or it didn’t.

If leagues want a “trade fairness vote”, c’est la vie. Just don’t call it collusion.

It’s not simply a “losing team”, but one whose season is over. While I agree that a team who has no hopes of make the playoffs should still be trying to win, if they’re involved in trades it too often becomes an opportunity for a winning team to consolidate talent … a bad team can tank through trades without clearly colluding. The best way to avoid it is to simply not allow a 1-9 team to be doing deals with a 9-1 team. At this point in the season there’s no reason (again, unless it’s a keeper league) that trades like that should happen.

You seem like a fun guy to be in a league with. Hey if you’ve had a bad year stop trying to win. No trades for you even if it makes your team better. Hope you aren’t a commissioner.

A league fairness vote is the way to go. Leaves the matter out of your hands and if over half of your league members say no, then tough beans for them.

You’re right. Anyone who has a different opinion than you probably isn’t fun to play fantasy with and shouldn’t be commissioner. Glad to know people can be defined by their opinion on one topic :+1:t3: Hope you’re having a fun year!

If you aren’t letting people who are having a bad year continue to try to win that is a big issue. That’s how people get turned off by fantasy football. You should be encouraging those struggling managers to continue to try and make moves to get better, not making them unable to make moves and changes to their team.

This post is getting testy. So, my hopefully civil two cents are that:

  1. While the optics aren’t great, I don’t think you have any actual proof that this is collusion, so calling it “obvious collusion” is a little misleading.
  2. Your commish should have made the owner in question (at 1-9) set their lineups earlier, and either way I not invite the owner in question back next year.
  3. At this point I don’t see much to be done. You could have traded for these players as well. A call of collusion now that it makes another team “better” (which no one can say if that’s true as we can’t predict the future) seems hardly objective.
  4. Also, league vetoes are a classic case of misaligned incentives and are rarely objective, so would not advise that either. Follow the ballers advice and get rid of them.
  5. I’d try to clarify and memorialize more specific rules and procedures next year to avoid this going forward.
1 Like

I certainly think we should make fantasy as fun for everyone as possible, but I don’t think if a team is 1-9 and they haven’t been setting lineups they should be making trades. That’s all. And beyond that, I doubt letting them trade away Zeke is going to be what all of a sudden makes fantasy fun enough for them that they stay engaged. If you disagree, that’s cool … we just see the situation differently.

All I’m seeing is a guy that’s likely last place at 1-9 trading his best players to the team thats 9-1 and probably first for more handcuffs type players. You’re right, we can’t predict the future but look at the players.
But we can’t play what if kamara goes down again or zeke has another bad game. I’m looking big picture and you would rather have zeke than Hyde and Murray rest of season.
I don’t mind a team in last trading. That’s why I think there should be something for coming in last to keep players trying to win.

Hmm, I can see both sides to this.

  1. You could argue that this isn’t “unfair” seeing that Zeke has been underperforming and someone may need a QB. But Why would anyone trade a top 5 RB and RB2 for a QB and two RB3s? The guy is 1-9 so he doesn’t have much background in fantasy football.

  2. The man is 1-9 and hasn’t been on since week three. The man was clearly inactive and doesn’t care.

I personally don’t like this trade. I see it as the dude doesn’t care so the 9-1 guy probably asked about a trade and the 1-9 player didn’t care so he probably just said just send whatever trade and I’ll accept it. This is all speculation but tbh this is a strange timing trade for someone who hasn’t been playing since week 3 and trading away probably his best asset.