‹ Main Site Forums Home My Account

Help, Is This Collusion?


#1

Hey #footclan I want your input.

Just had two owners trade each other Matt Stafford for Deshaun Watson straight up ahead of week 6. (Lions had a BYE in Week 6). Now, ahead of week 7, the two owners have now traded back the two picks to eachother.
I’m guessing one of the guys needed Watson with Stafford on the bye.
What is your opinion?


#2

Certainly sounds like collusion. Sounds like Team A loaned Team B a QB for 1 week. If the trade back had never happened, it might seem like a fair swap, as 1 team needed a QB fill in. But giving him right back, yeah that doesn’t seem right.


#3

Some collusion forsure


#4

This is a textbook example of collusion and one of the only instances where trade veto needs to be enforced.

You should call the vote and force them to stick to the rosters after the initial trade. i.e. they cannot be allowed to trade back.


#5

idk if its collusion. one team helped the other by stashing his bye week player for him but in order for it to be collusion you would have to verify that the teams discussed the reversal of the trade prior to the original trade, if this did not take place they could have just changed their minds.

Was there more qbs in free agency or on the waiver wire that he could have picked up?


#6

This is literally one of the textbook examples of collusion.

Temporary trading of players, specifically in bye weeks, is the #1 example of collusion by most peoples standards. It is banned in every single league I have ever played. Cause otherwise, no team has to account for bye weeks ever. Which is a pretty normal and important part of fantasy.

Imagine you’re in a league where players just trade their studs back and forth to fill out bye weeks. Does that sound like a league you’d be interested in playing in?

EDIT: There is no way to prove intent of the trade at the time unless you’re a mind reader. All you can do is look at what happened after its happened and it has resulted in a temporary trade to elude the bye week. Even if they did plan it, which it looks like they did, they can just deny it and sell the BS story you’re saying and there’d be no way to prove it. That’s why most leagues just straight out ban temporary trades.


#7

Collusion for sure!! Commish should step in and handle accordingly…odd with their heads!! lol


#8

there has to have been pre meditation for it to be collusion. there is a possibility where people just change their minds. theres also a possibilty where one player changed his mind and the other is naive and he accepts the trade back.

you have to have evidence of collusion before you penalize both teams. Fantasy football isnt supposed to be a witch hunt.

edit: I believe this is collusion for the record, but in order to penalize a team you have to prove that it was collusion.


#9

You can’t prove pre-meditation in fantasy football. This isn’t a criminal trial lol. The “innocent until proven guilty” burden of proof does not exist. Unless you’re a mind reader, which I definitely am not. In this instance, all you can see is the end result. It doesn’t matter if one party was clueless if they played a part in someone else’s collusion plan.

I’m not saying you have to ban both players, but the commish needs to take action by either locking in rosters after the first trade or reverse both trades and the results of each week due to the both trades. I.e. as if neither team starts a QB for either week.

Regardless of whether they “conspired” to collude, the end result is the same. It is the textbook example of colluding for bye weeks.

EDIT: And this is coming from someone who is almost ALWAYS against vetos and commish intervening in trades. But this is just such an obvious example you have to do something.


#10

I understand that its just a game, which is why i think its not to be taken so seriously. I suggest the commish hold the initial trade unless both parties can provide a convincing/ethical argument for why they would make the trade and then reverse it. If they can provide such an argument then allow the second trade to go through.


#11

The immediate swap back is pretty damn good evidence of collusion consdering the bye week was in play here. Also in play here is what is your Waiver Wire set up? Is it FAAB is it Priority? If its FAAB then this is a way to save your money although free waivers are usaully allowed but the unfair advantage incentive of saving money lend itself toward collusion. And if it priority then maybe one of the teams didnt want to waste their priority spot on the QB postion thus made a wink wink deal to cover his bye week while still preseving his priority spot. More evidence of collusion. Although it can be argued this is just good team management kinda like insider trading is either a saavy move or unfair advantage.

You wouldnt do this if you had AB on bye and traded him for a TY Hilton or Golloday for a fill in because that other owner could just say screw you Im keeping AB. So its a double edged sword when doing shady handshake deals - but nonetheless collusion took place with the immediate trade back.


#12

I agree, hammer it right away. Set the tone for how these actions will be handled. Like Mike says, planning for bye weeks is part of the game just as planning for injuries is as well. That’s what makes it challenging. These guys are blatantly colluding with this trade.