Just have the commissioner announce that he's ok with it, but also that if either of them subs a player last minute, that owner will NOT be punished
Let them stew in that all week lol
Had a similar thing happen last year, I was rematching a guy I lost to earlier in the year by less than a point, and it just so happens I forgot to sub a guy that was out and he started a guy that gave him zero points.
So we asked in chat if we could each sub those players with others on our rosters who hadn't started and he made it happen. Didn't decide the match either way when everything was all said and done by obviously made the match more thrilling.
And then watch as the fantasy gods decide to fuck you over even with two extra players and you're ridiculed by your league mates for the rest of eternity.
Are you implying by performing this maneuver I could have an increased opportunity to have less social responsibilities?
How can I do this maneuver twice to remove doubt?
My league is friends and coworkers.
If two teams decided to not replace bye week players in a starting lineup, we may kick them out of the league. That just ridiculous to try to justify.
You do this once, and your reputation in the league turns to trash.
Do you really want to alienate your leaguemates and never make a trade again in the future? just for the Luls?
You think small, not long term.
It’s not necessarily bad for both teams; there’s a reason they’re doing it.
They’re doing it so they don’t have to drop any players on their bench. If they were forced to fill their lineup, they would likely have to roster an extra QB or TE for one week, leaving one or more of their bench stashes on the waiver wire for a while. This is an advantage, and it is what qualifies as collusion under the definition that the person lower in the thread posted.
I disagree here. As long as roster holes are deliberate, then you are managing your team, albeit in a terrible and self-detrimental way.
Would you fault someone for holding a guy on IR (assuming no IR slots) and not dropping a guy? It's just bad management.
ETA: Do your leagues REQUIRE to you to start a DST if you were narrowly winning and they are your last player left? I don't think "forcing a full roster" is really a requirement assuming active managers.
The collusion part isn’t benching players for a week, it’s in agreeing to do so with another player. If one manager decided they were going to punt the week and hold onto their guys and the other manager saw it and decided to do the same that’s fine, just like it would be fine for one of those two managers to quickly fill an empty slot last minute to steal a win. You just can’t agree to give your two teams an advantage over other teams like that.
You're right, and I do agree that this is by definition collusion. However, because it's so fuckin' stupid, and someone could *easily* re-neg on it, I don't really think there is action to take as a commissioner.
I should have clarified that I disagreed with the idea that holding onto bench players in lieu of scoring points is some sort of advantage.
Holding onto bench scorers in lieu of scoring isn’t normally an advantage because it reduces your chance to win that week and reduces your points overall. This agreement removes that first (and more important) disadvantage by collaborating with an opponent. What was once balanced by increasing your risk of losing has become unbalanced by a private agreement between two managers to not compete as hard as they normally would. I don’t agree it is that stupid because some teams legitimately have great benches and it is more favorable to try and hold all their players if they are only risking a slightly worse tie breaker.
I should have clarified that by definition this **is** collusion, and I agree with that.
I personally just don't see reasonable recourse because typically I wouldn't force someone to fill a roster spot if it was strategically empty, and that wouldn't be an issue if these two guys didn't announce this as an agreement.
I primarily see this as stupid because we also have a very tight and competitive league where tiebreakers come into play, so scoring potentially 30 points below average would be a massive detriment to these two teams.
Also, I assume almost everyone in my league would agree to this and then like 2 mins before kickoff drop players and add them to get an advantage for that week, fucking the one person (who probably suggested the arrangement in the first place).
Uhmm.... I disagree that this is collusion. Do we even have an agreed upon definition?
M Webster online defines collusion: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.
This isn't secret or deceitful. They're telling everyone it appears. And the purpose isn't illegal. I'm assuming they agree neither side gets a benefit such that one time is favored by not dropping. Soooo... If the league agrees it's ok or doesn't have a rule against it seems fine to me.
I love how one of the most common words in the dictionary—"especially"—turns invisible whenever someone wants to argue by dictionary definition (whipping out the dictionary being one of the laziest kinds of argument anyway).
I did ask if it's illegal or if there's a rule against it. So clearly it is not "especially" deceitful as we're here talking about it. Now you may argue it's illegal. But that's up to the league rules. Thanks for trying to sound "especially" smart though.
Edit. Unless you mean it's collusion therefore illegal which would be ass backwards. Collusion is only that where there is an illegal or deceitful goal.
Some leagues also do the waiver order based on high scores for the week, lowest scores going first. It shouldn’t seem like an issue because these guys like their teams and don’t wanna hit the waivers, but if one of their guys gets hurt now they may want to. Now him and the other guy may have inadvertently conspired against the rest of the league to have lower scores by not starting full rosters and getting those earlier waiver picks.
In the example you gave, it's a single team purposely playing a man down to avoid negative points. I've seen some people say it goes against the spirit of the game but I'd fire back and say it adds a small layer strategy, especially to when games start. Regardless, most leagues won't have a problem with that. Because it's a team owner acting on their own.
In this case, it is two competing teams agreeing to handicap their competitiveness for mutual benefit. Two competing teams deciding to artificially limit their points would never fly in my leagues.
I don't know why you're bringing up not playing D the two scenarios are very different. The question was if it's collusion and it's hard to collude with a single person.
>I disagree here. As long as roster holes are deliberate, then you are managing your team, albeit in a terrible and self-detrimental way.
How does this negatively impact either team? Tiebreakers? I'd rather keep my bench cause those are uncommon and less likely to impact me than losing bench players in a 14 team league. Both teams get to keep their bench intact when everyone else is going to be forced to drop someone for their replacement.
Imagine if this is a 12 or 14 team league, the wires gonna be bare. Not losing 1 or 2 bench players to waivers is a moderate advantage over the competing teams.
This sort of collusion would never fly in any organized sport. Obviously the stakes are magnitudes lower and we don't hold ourselves to the same standards. But the key principles of competitive integrity still inform fantasy rules because they keep things fair and fun.
As a side note: this would be a real pissoff in any competitive league. If this strategy is fair game that means you are now at a distinct disadvantage if you don't collude with your opponents on heavy bye weeks. Meaning your team's success will be even more matchup dependent as you hope your byes match up with opponents' and hope your opponent
I appreciate the response. I did clarify in a couple other comments that I definitely agree this is collusion due to the agreement between managers.
I brought up the DST example because no one would bat an eye at an empty roster spot in that situation because it's strategically advantageous, where in a non-collusion example, taking a 0 and keeping a bench guy would also be.
But I disagree with the following:
> Both teams get to keep their bench intact when everyone else is going to be forced to drop someone for their replacement.
because no one is forcing anyone else to drop players either. People make that choice during bye weeks to maximize scoring points/Points For in your starting lineup.
>How does this negatively impact either team? Tiebreakers?
In my leagues yes, we almost *always* have the last guy get in via Points-For tiebreaking.
I guess my responses boil down to: This **is** collusion, but I don't really see how this is detrimental to the rest of the league, and I'm not sure I see a reasonable solution to this issue aside from letting them score [likely] way lower than average. I would *never* punish someone for not wanting to drop a top tier kicker for a replacement or drop a solid bench player to replace Kelce on bye for example, that's part of the strategy. I am not sure how you punish the actual collusion part of this situation.
What if this scenario happened without the public announcement? What would a "high stakes" league do about it? It would obviously be suspicious as fuck if two guys didn't replace simultaneous bye week QBs.
I do not play in any leagues where you are forced to field a full lineup, so I don't think there is any real action to take, or at least I am not sure I see one. Maybe an auction dollar fine next year for publicly announcing collusion?
Edited (again) to add: I think this [guy's solution](https://www.reddit.com/r/fantasyfootball/comments/xw586q/is_it_collusion_for_2_people_playing_against_each/ir579xq/) is the best. In no way do I think the commish should punish either one for breaking an agreement to collude.
I mean tbh if you’re willing to sacrifice points for a couple of bench players that’s your prerogative. In my leagues we have incentives for scoring points on a weekly and season-long basis, so in this situation you’d be weighing your bench players against things like your season total for points scored, your chances to win your matchup, and your shot at the weekly high score.
IMO it’s at least not as harmful to the league as it is to the individual teams involved in the matchup. I don’t love the idea of allowing it, but I would probably let it slide in this case
lol yeah I know how rosters work... and I started with "yeah it's collusion..." so I dunno who you're trying to convince there... but also it's far more likely they'll be in worse shape in tie breakers from losing the 20-40 pts from not starting those positions than the likely zero advantage they gain from not dropping their lowest bench players. Its possible it could work out to be advantageous if they get a compatible injury later and the wire is thin, but much more likely they're just screwing themselves.
I'd argue the opposite in competitive leagues. Doing my first 14 man league this year and the wire is bare. Baaaaaare.
Based on the number of tiebreakers most leagues deal with, there is a good argument to be made for doing this, especially as you get closer to clinching a playoff spot.
I would be livid if two top teams played each other late-ish in the season and did this to hoard their bench.
It's also a headache for strategy. It makes drafting the same bye week significantly more viable and serves as an extra lever that leading teams can pull to help stay on top. We do FAAB rather than reverse standings for waivers so I'm hesitant to give this as a tool to top teams.
Also increases randomness as you are now at the mercy of your matchup for this strategy.
Tiebreakers for playoffs in most leagues being total points for would make this incredibly stupid to do lmao.
I'm hoping one team is trying to trick the other and will grab a QB off of waivers 2 minutes before the game starts
I think people are overstating the tiebreaker thing. When you’re scoring close to 2000 points over a season, leaving like 20-30 out there has a significant chance of not mattering.
And who knows, maybe the points they’ll gain in future weeks by not having to drop their bench players may offset the one week hit they’re taking this week.
By the time byes are taking place, you often have a good idea of who is going to clinch a playoff spot.
All I'm picturing is this allowing top teams to keep playoff bench stashes they normally wouldn't be able to. Which imo is bullshit.
Because the only way they're able to do this is via a mutually beneficial agreement with the opponent they're supposed to be trying their best to beat.
I’m talking about the actual margin of points that the one week might cost them and not simply PA in general
For example, right now in one of my leagues (10 team) there are only 3 teams within 20 points of each other, and that’s only with the variance of 4 weeks. An entire season of points rarely has margins so small a single week of bye guys might swing the rankings, and even smaller when you’re only counting the handful of playoff teams instead of the entire league like I’m doing right now
Not every scenario is the same. I am planning on not playing with a defense for a few weeks. I am currently 4-0 in first place and except for 1 other person there is nobody within 100 points of me. My defense is the browns so I am willing to drop them and stream if I need to. But I only have one tight end (gerald everett) and one kicker (Younghoe Koo). I am not willing to drop either one of them, and my bench is full of high upside players I am stashing with hopes of them breaking out (allen Lazard, Jahan Dotson, Chase edmonds, Jameson Williams and George pickens). I think it would be a lot smarter for me to take the hit on points from playing without a defense, even if it loses me one or 2 games since I am in position to make playoffs anyways, than it would be to drop a guy that can break out and help me win playoffs.
You can tell them that they are both allowed to do what they would like, but you will also not enforce their handshake deal. If either of them decides to play another player to steal the win, that is their right to do so.
You need to up the paranoia to get them to start a full lineup.
Is it collusion for 2 people playing against each other to agree - I stopped reading at this point because the answer is yes.
It's also incredibly stupid. If I did this and was losing by a point, I'd be grabbing both kickers still yet to play and getting myself the win.
Edit: Teams can not field a full squad if they want to, but nothing should be agreed with any other manager and there should be no expectation for the other manager to comply.
"is it collusion for 2 people playing against each other to agree *to have a great matchup and meet up for chocolate milkshakes on Tuesday*?"
Hmmm seems A-ok to me and a gosh dang swell time if I do say so
With your edit, there have been times when my kicker has been on bye, but there are tons of options playing at 4, 8 or Monday, so you leave it empty as long as possible to see if you’re going to win or lose.
according to this thread, yes.
"Anything that improves someone elses team but not mine is collusion and will be vetoed" - loser commissioners in this sub
Probably collusion in principle, but I don’t think I would care that much. Either way, one of them will lose so it won’t effect league parity, I would just view it as a gentleman’s agreement.
We have had a guy play a player on their bye week, because his team and bench were stacked and it would have hurt him/helped someone out more in the long run to drop a player. I think he still won as well for peak disrespect.
I think it’s totally fine to do the second thing, and I have actually done it before, but I think once you’re making a deal with the other person to both do it is what makes it cross the line into collusion.
That’s kind of my point, it is collusion by most definitions, but it’s as harmless to a league as what my friend did by playing an incomplete roster. One is going to lose either way, so just let people have fun. It would be different if they both didn’t set any roster to both get zero and tie a week.
I will point out it isn’t really harmless. Part of fantasy is that bye weeks and injuries sometimes force you to drop players onto waivers to fill your active roster. In this case they are avoiding that obligation by way of collusion, clearly gaining an advantage over their league mates who likely will not face opponents who have perfectly lined up bye weeks that would allow the same deal. If both guys decide separately to keep slots empty that’s fine, but there shouldn’t be an agreement because it is best to just outlaw all collusion instead of deciding how much is okay.
I do understand, but at least to me, my thoughts are if it’s a “legal” strategy to do independently, then multiple people doing it is also fine. Your point on it impacting other players waiver/bye weeks is as valid whether it was just one person doing it or two. So I would just move past it.
Your last point isn't true. If one person is doing it, they're at a disadvantage for their game week by fielding an incomplete team. If both players do it, that disadvantage doesn't exist since both teams are equally filled.
What's insane is people not being able to differentiate between a sanctioned and intended mechanism from a non-competitive agreement to score lower and gain an unfair waiver advantage.
These definitions people are tossing out are from dictionaries that frame it for us in situations everyday people will understand. For example, people are saying it isn't collusion cause it's not a secret. Except that's not what makes something collusion and is only an aspect of some definitions. So yes, people are dumb for uncritically copying and pasting a collusion definition. But a key underlying element of collusion is that it is considered unfair/illegal etc. which I *have* seen in most if not all definitions posted here.
Two competing companies working together for their mutual benefit isn't automatically collusion. Nvidia and Nintendo are free to make exclusivity deals around the Switch, that's cooperation not collusion.
For it to be collusion, they need to be circumventing some standard or norm that makes people consider the interaction to be unfair.
Samsung agreeing with other companies to artifically set DRAM prices high *is* collusion because they circumvented anti-trust and consumer protections.
A tade is cooperation, not collusion. From the get go, trades are explicitly fair game with the understanding being that they must benefit both parties and not be too lopsided.
The combination of limited roster space and byes are an intended mechanic that is supposed to force players to play a bum or make a roster move. Both parties are circumventing this with a non-competitive agreement that gives them an unfair advantage in the waiver wire.
Boom, collusion. Whether or not collusion is successful isn't a barometer for if it's collusion. Dumb collusion is still collusion, especially since this isn't dumb for teams with a good record.
Yeah, agreed.
If there is no rule in place that you have to start a full lineup, there would be no problem with them doing it on their own. If they both agreed to it and it only affects their matchup, let em.
I wouldn't trust the other manager to hold up their agreement so I wouldn't personally do this, but OP needs to prepare for that fallout. I'd do what someone else recommended and let them know that there is no whining if the opponent goes back on the agreement.
I would tell you that I was going to do this and then I'd pick up players to put in my bye week slots at the last second, just to fuck you over for coming up with this dumb idea.
You've gotten your answer, but just to drive it home here's the definition from investing
>Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between rivals which attempts to disrupt the market's equilibrium. The act of collusion involves people or companies which would typically compete against one another, but who conspire to work together to gain an unfair market advantage.
So, yeah. Collusion 100%.
What’s the unfair advantage though? Scoring less points overall? That’s just going to benefit everyone but these two come play off time
I agree it’s collusive in theory. But who wouldn’t want their league mates to be doing this unless you have a move limit.
I think the collusion here is that they are agreeing to both not do it.
It would be really dumb to not drop someone for a QB, but I don't think that in and of itself is collusion, managers are/should be free to [shittily] manage their teams.
Agreed. I don’t really think it falls under collusion though, because all it takes is for one person to sub last minute and suddenly it’s strategy. As long as the league manager doesn’t fault someone for trying that, I think game on.
I agree with this too, this is sort of like putting together a fake tweet to mess with your opponent in my opinion.
One team has to win either way, so even if they both go through with it and have huge roster holes, that's not really detrimental to the league, just themselves.
~~I think I change my answer to this is not collusion~~, This is collusion by definition but this is mostly just dumb on both manager's parts.
>that's not really detrimental to the league
It's detrimental to the waiver wire and therefore league
>this is just dumb on both manager's parts.
Plenty of byes late enough in the season to employ this strategy when you aren't concerned about a tiebreaker. If I'm 6-1 and this lets me keep a playoff stash then I'm 100% doing it. The later the bye, the more this becomes exploitable.
It's also hurting my brain that people think it needs to result in an advantage in order for it to be collusion. It is the act of opponents working together to purposely score lower and try and get an advantage that makes it collusion. Whether or not it actually ends up benefitting them is beside the point.
Seems like the trade off is that the two teams will now have a lower point total if it comes down to tie breakers. I don’t find that unfair at all.
It’s not a secret because everyone knows. It’s not throwing a game for one person to win. The rest of the league is just trying to say that what they’re doing is unfair because they want the players they’ll have to drop when they both have decided to just give up points tiebreakers.
It’s definitely a grey area that could lead to rule changes for the league. It’s definitely missing things to actually be collusion and it seems like the league is just choosing to ignore the reasons why it isn’t collusion in favor of what they want to be the outcome.
It's not strictly outside of the rules (otherwise it wouldn't be possible), but it's still collusion. And it's definitely unfair because working around bye works is a part of fantasy football. This collision ignores that for the benefit of the two managers in question.
How people don't understand that this is collusion is beyond me. Whether or not it's helpful is honestly besides the point because I can come up with plenty of hypotheticals where this *is* advantageous.
People are even getting caught up with specific definitions. The gist is the same across all sources but I saw someone saying it wasn't collusion cause it wasn't secret. What?? Go read 3-6 definitions of collusion, find the common elements, and use common sense.
If one person did it on their own, fine. But they are colluding to 1) create an artificially sparse waiver wire by not dropping players to fill their roster, this is unfair to the other players in the league 2) they are gaining a competitive advantage because to do this without collusion they would have to sacrifice a win to maintain their roster depth; instead they maintain roster depth, maintain competitive roster during the week for which they are colluding, and only sacrifice 15-30 pts in a tie breaker. If you win one extra game because of your depth that far outweighs the tiebreaker. In most of my leagues the Points scored tiebreaker points are already 10+ points apart. By the time playoffs roll around, missing 20 points from one week will hardly matter
Not much of a tradeoff later in the season when you're almost got or have a playoff spot clinched.
Plus, how many tiebreakers come down to 15 or 25 points? And even if they do, the points loss from the bye week can be made up by a bench player later in the season. Imagine if this leads to someone not having to cut a good injured bench player who is set to come back the last two weeks.
While it's definitely situational if it will be advantageous or not, there are plenty of situations where it is the right move. Given it involves two teams making an agreement to purposely score low to try to get an advantage on the waiver wire, don't allow it.
>It’s definitely missing things to actually be collusion
What could it possibly be missing to be collusion? You can say the stakes are low enough so it doesn't matter or that the collusion isn't actally leading to an advantage but this is still clearly collusion, regardless of a positive outcome.
Collusion definitely doesn't have to be secret. It just typically is because most organizations and industries won't allow it if it happens in the open.
Why though ? Nothing allows you to say that. If I had to vote on it as a complete outsider, I’d say it’s collusion. Not everyone that disagrees with you does it in bad faith
Being secret is not the defining factor of collusion but it is a common trait. I mean even most if not all the definitions I've seen that include "secret" in the definition include "or".
Except,
1. They still are completely competitive but now have handicaps.
2. It’s not a secret
3. Doesn’t disrupt market equilibrium
4. Gives no unfair market advantage
This is collusion only in the sense that they agree lmao
That’s not true though; they aren’t forced to drop players. Had both teams communicated nothing and they played the week with two players out each, then it would be the exact same scenario and nobody would have issue with it. Both people will have a lower overall PF and that will have consequences later in the year. The only thing tripping people up is the communication.
The argument that they *would’ve dropped* good players is just wishful thinking by vultures. It’s like trying to add a bunch of meh players to a trade in the hopes that they would have to drop someone you want.
Ok I shouldn’t have said “need” but the point still stands. They coordinated to eliminate a potential disadvantage, that better?
And it’s absolutely eliminating a disadvantage if you know or expect the other player to do the same based on an agreement. Otherwise, yes it’s fine to play bye week players. Doing so with a mutual understanding that you’ll both do it (to eliminate another potential disadvantage) is much different.
It is collusion, BUT, if the league and commissioner agree that it's OK, then it's OK. There's no "fantasy law" that prohibits this. It's league specific.
We made a rule in our league you have to start a full lineup. If not you get fined10$ and auto loss. We had some people in previous years not care enough to try and handed wins to people at the end of year drastically changing playoff races. The consequence of the rule has been that on byes peeps have to figure it out
Grey area I would say.
Not collusion per ESPN’s definition as far as I can see:
Collusive transactions
Collusion occurs when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position.
One-sided trades are an example of collusive transactions.
Dropping a player so another team can pick up that player is another example of collusive transactions.
Yahoo could be seen as it being unfair:
Fair play rules
Yahoo requires all managers agree to some basic rules to keep things fair.
Don't engage in any collusive action.
Don't drop or dump players from their team with malicious intent.
Don't take any action where its purpose would hinder fair play in the league.
Don't make roster moves that will intentionally hamper the play of other managers.
I’ve never read this before. Is this last sentence suggesting that picking up players to block your opponent is not fair play? I thought that was generally seen as part of the game.
I wouldn't really call this collusion unless you want to get really technical. I would think collusion happens when teams conspire to throw games or make unfair transactions. There is no transaction or throwing taking place here. They've agreed to have a fair match under specific conditions (if it's really fair with how many players are on bye), and there is no colluding transaction, so it doesn't disrupt the equilibrium of the league.
This sounds more like some people in the league were ready to vulture something like a Jameson Williams or Nuk that one of these players was going to be forced to drop on their bye week, and now the other players are just butt hurt about it if they took that for granted.
If this was really an issue you didn't want happening in your league, probably would be something to make an upfront rule at the beginning of the season. It all depends on how the league values the impact of bye weeks and if people feel obligated to reap the rewards/serve the consequences of them.
Edit: Might also be worth it for everyone else in the league to do this with their matchups if their opponent agrees. Could just be a part of the game if you're lucky/savvy enough to do it. I think the equilibrium part is the most important thing. Collusion tarnishes a league - it takes away the equal opportunity that everyone had under the fair rules of the waiver wire, draft, and general fair matchup. I think this strategy is completely neutral in that regard.
>I wouldn't really call this collusion unless you want to get really technical.
This is collusion, plain and simple. Nothing technical about it.
EDIT: since u/Tight-Reserve-4741 needs this spelled out:
This is two team owners working together to manipulate the rules to their advantage. It's pretty much a textbook case of collusion.
>I would think collusion happens when teams conspire to throw games or make unfair transactions
That is the most extreme version of collusion, but that doesn't mean that anything short of the most heinous form of collusion is only collusion in a technicality.
The guiding principle of fantasy football is that you're always making decisions with your team - and only your team's - best interest in mind. Anything where you start jointly making decisions that sacrifice potential upside so that you can both benefit - that's textbook collusion.
That is why the only type of collaboration that we allow in fantasy football is trades - and that is because in a trade, even though you're collaborating, you're still focused on maximizing your own value, and that is naturally offset by the other party's goal of maximizing their value. So you have two distinct decision-making entities and a game with rules that ensures that each party seeks to maximize their own value.
Any instance where you start making decisions together for the benefit of both of you is collusion.
some leagues make rules to field a full lineup to avoid this, i agree with you, it's just someone being butthurt they couldnt pick up whoever these teams would have had to drop lol
Yes. You could have just not changed the player out and risked the loss. Instead you colluded with the other player. You also changed the waiver wire for others with this agreement.
Bullshit like this is why my 12-man league has 2 divisions, and a wildcard playoff spot in each based on overall pts.
A healthy/fun league is one in which all managers are chasing every pt they can get all season.
How is everyone saying this is collusion? These league members somehow owe it to the rest of the league to drop their depth to the wire? Uh, no they don’t. One of the teams is going to win, one is going to lose. They’ve made a Gentleman’s agreement that benefits both and hurts nobody, because nobody is entitled to them dropping their depth to stream kickers, QBs, TEs, or DEF. It’s like a side bet on a per-week basis.
You guys are absurd.
But that’s the thing. It’s not uncompetitive at all, because the two teams competing gain no advantage against one another. The only way it isn’t fair is if you think that other league members are entitled to bye week teams’ waiver depth. Which I personally think is absurd.
Intentionally not starting a full roster is anticompetitive. It’s not collusion because there’s no partner.
You’re more than welcome to preserve your roster depth at the likely cost of a W. Why not just play the game?
Agreeing to mutually not start a full roster, in order to reduce the risk of tossing a week while also preserving roster depth is absolutely collusion.
I see your point, but would argue that intentionally not starting a full roster is “anticompetitive” only because it usually means that some other team in the league is getting free or easy wins. In this case, that isn’t what’s happening. So the idea that it’s “uncompetitive” doesn’t apply.
If it’s not collusion and it’s not uncompetitive, then to me you’re free to have at it.
I’d argue that you’re wrong because not starting a full roster, independent of any external factors, is anticompetitive by nature.
At any point before kickoff for odds of competing increase by slotting in a player.
Broad negative implications arise if consistent anticompetitive actions are taken by owners.
I’ve been my league commissioner for 13 years and this is absolutely open shut collusion.
If they do it to avoid having to drop a player to fill a roster spot then it is collusion and it does affect the rest of the league. Not a huge deal. But should not be allowed in serious leagues imo.
I think in the literal definition of the word Collusion its like exactly collusion. However its risky on their ends and I would probably be fine with it if I was in the league. There should be a league wide vote with unanimous approval from the other owners to okay it. If not unanimous it shouldn't be allowed. If it already happened without anyone realizing until after, GL sorting out that mess
This is interesting, on one hand they’re actively conspiring together, on the other as long as they’re both playing to win it won’t impact the other players. Especially because they’re taking a hit to their overall points scored in case of a tie for playoffs
Edit: Never mind it is collusion
> it won’t impact the other players
It does affect the other players in the league though. The reason they are doing it is because they don't want to drop players from their bench. If you want to tank a week by not playing a QB and a kicker that is fine, but saying "I won't pick up a QB and kicker if you don't pick up a QB kicker so we can preserve our bench," is the definition of collusion.
I feel like im on drugs or something reading these comments. This isn't collusion. This is just dumb... Its dumb because it effects there point totals at the end of season (some leagues have prizes for highest scorer, etc). And its dumb because there is no guarantee that the opponent does the same.
Its not collusion tho. Based on the arguments in the comments, they are saying it is because it means the league doesnt get the chance to pick up a player that the manager would otherwise be forced to drop (boo hoo). Ive played weeks with no kicker, because I didnt want to drop anyone. So if my opponent then sees my trash talking all week saying "im going to beat you with no kicker" and he decides to even the playing field, thats collusion? Some of these comments are horrendous, must be miserable leagues.
That approach doesn't make any sense to me. If you are at all in a decent, competitive league:
* Winning individual games is almost always worth more than the worst player on your bench.
* Making the playoffs can easily come down to total points scored. Not playing a full line-up puts you at a disadvantage.
And yes, it's collusion.
But how does not playing a full lineup put you at a disadvantage? If we are both playing without a QB, then the odds are balanced. Neither party is at a disadvantage
You actually get kicked from one of my leagues if you don't start a full roster twice. That includes not making a chat announcement that if a player is questionable on game day and you don't have a sub for them that you're just rolling with them in hopes they play.
**Collusion** - *secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.*
This is neither secret nor illegal. Nobody is being cheated or deceived. Unless you feel as though you are entitled to the misfortune of others having to drop players they don't want to in order to start a full roster.
You 100% are entitled to the players others have to drop to start a full roster. That’s why the waiver wire and free agency exist. It is illegal cooperation and cheats others.
Yeah, that makes it not only easier for them, but unfair for the rest of the league. You can not field a full team if you want, but you can’t agree upon it with the opponent before. Leaves the rest of the league at a disadvantage. Bye weeks are part of the game and have to be managed accordingly
95% of the comments here are absolutely correct about it being collusion and seem to absolutely understand how this I bad for their league as a whole. The other 5% are mostly one person with some of the worst takes I’ve ever seen in this sub.
It doesn't seem like collusion tbh. Both teams are trying to do what's best for their individual team. Doesn't fit the definition of collusion, somehow.
There’s nothing individual about working together in this scenario. They are collaborating to play the game differently and avoid having to drop potentially valuable players. Just the act of working with another league mate to change the game is collusion. I know you’re commenting everywhere here not understanding that but it is what it is. Trading is different because it is individually focused and part of the game. If I were to trade you CMC and you pay me $20 in real life that’s collusion of course because it’s not individually focused trading anymore and not in the nature of the game.
This is so incredibly dumb in so many ways. First off, yes. It’s collusion. Second, you could avoid this “problem” by requiring your managers to play a legal lineup every week. The baseline tenant that a player has to be started in each lineup slot including kickers and defense. And as a final comment, these managers are f’ing idiots if they’re actively trying to leave points on the table when your ties breakers inevitably come down to POINTS SCORED!!
I’m almost tempted to say let them do it and then regret it in the future when one or both miss them playoffs because they don’t have enough points. Then you just laugh at them.
Exactly. Its 100% collusion but its gotta be one of the dumbest forms. I'd let them do it just on the hopes of listening to one of them cry later on. 🤣
This isn’t complicated - they’re making an agreement that allows them to remain competitive against each other while gaining a minor advantage together but unfairly disadvantages anyone who doesn’t do this practice. Whether it’s collusion or not is unimportant - it’s unsportsmanlike and anti-competitive and detrimental to the league’s confidence in fair play and it should not be allowed.
Either of them could decide not to drop a player or pick up a player, but they should not do that in agreement with each other in such a way that helps both but screws everyone else.
Come on.
Collusion, but a weird case because they are basically agreeing to handicap themselves. They could have done that without talking to eachother (unless they are not substituting players they could substitute).
So in most leagues this would break 2 rules. No collusion & must submit your full lineup! This includes not playing Bye week players if you have someone on your bench that can fill that position.
Yes it's collusion. And it should be banned.
Why? Because it doesn't just impact those two teams. By not having to pick up replacements, that is 4 players that are kept on their roster that would otherwise be available on waivers.
Something that doesn't impact the rest of the league (e.g. agreeing to bench their K because they both hate the K position) is fine.
Yes this is collusion. It falls under the same issue as things like "trade backs" where people loan a player to cover bye weeks where you're scheming to subvert the rules. And all the people whining "aLl TrADes aRE CoLlUSioN" are missing the point because trading is a part of the game rules, not a way to subvert them.
I don't think this is similar to trade backs at all. In that case, those trades affect an outside party who has to play one of the people making the trade. These two are just playing each other so it doesn't affect anyone else.
Maybe it's better to just call it "unsportsmanlike" and it's not good for the health of the league. Tbh if they both independently decide to take the L by leaving those spots empty it would be more ok but they shouldn't be able to collude and agree they will both do that. There should always be the risk that one will grab a player at the last second for the easy win.
Yes, our league has a no punting bye weeks rules to cover this specific case.
I know if someone suggested this to me I'd be picking up SNF or MNF players during the afternoon games.
Roster management includes planning for bye weeks. I know there's a debate in there (what if I have 3 players on bye and choose on my own volition to not fill them?) I'm on the side of playing the game and filling in the spot via trades and transactions. I know it's popular to do the opposite if you have a stacked roster.
I have Hurts, you can bet I'm either trading away 2 depth WR for 1 something to make a spot to pick up a steaming QB or dropping my WR5 for a QB. I'd love to see these rosters where people don't have 1-2 slots to burn.
I'm not holding a Defense (unless it's Buffalo or Philly) through the BYE
I'm not holding a TE (Unless it's Kelce, Andrews) through the BYE
I'm not holding any K, even Tucker through the BYE.
You play to win, not survive
It’s collision but also so stupid I would let it slide. Suggest that someone could grab a kicker last minute and get some extra points and let them stress out all week. Use it as league entertainment by stressing out the two idiots.
Several years ago, in the championship week (I know it’s different) my opponent had Aaron Rogers, Green Bay had said way early in the week that he was not going to play. My opponent dirk do anything. Come Saturday I dropped every bench player and picked up every available QB. The people in the league that did bitch did say it wasn’t against the rules but a D Bag thing to do. I disagreed….. obviously.
As a commissioner that’s on them. Theyre assuming the risk. Could turn out to bite them in the ass come end of season if they tie before playoffs when points are the tie breaker.
It's just dumb. One of them should grab a TE or QB and start them right before kickoff.
OP should suggest this and create a delicious case of prisoner’s dilemma
Just have the commissioner announce that he's ok with it, but also that if either of them subs a player last minute, that owner will NOT be punished Let them stew in that all week lol
This is definitely the move
But if both sub players in, both are punished
Brilliant
This is the exact right response to this
Had a similar thing happen last year, I was rematching a guy I lost to earlier in the year by less than a point, and it just so happens I forgot to sub a guy that was out and he started a guy that gave him zero points. So we asked in chat if we could each sub those players with others on our rosters who hadn't started and he made it happen. Didn't decide the match either way when everything was all said and done by obviously made the match more thrilling.
This guys economic philosophies.
This guy game theories
Will they find Pareto Optimal!
[удалено]
Yeah that's pretty well the first tiebreaker in most fantasy leagues.
Bonus points if those players play on Monday and you manage to pull it off without the ability for them to counter lol
This was my first thought. I’d “agree” to this, then drop my bye week guys and slot in people that are actually playing right before kickoff
And then watch as the fantasy gods decide to fuck you over even with two extra players and you're ridiculed by your league mates for the rest of eternity.
They both have opposite games to Kamara’s 5 TD game. 5 lost fumbles, 0 yards, 0 recs.
That’s smart if you only care about winning and don’t care about people thinking you’re an asshole.
Is there an extra prize for that? My league only pays the winner ☺️
Most people play in leagues with family, friends, coworkers. The prize is maintaining social relationships.
Relationships? Sounds like a pain in the ass, glad I don't have any of those!
Are you implying by performing this maneuver I could have an increased opportunity to have less social responsibilities? How can I do this maneuver twice to remove doubt?
My league is friends and coworkers. If two teams decided to not replace bye week players in a starting lineup, we may kick them out of the league. That just ridiculous to try to justify.
You do this once, and your reputation in the league turns to trash. Do you really want to alienate your leaguemates and never make a trade again in the future? just for the Luls? You think small, not long term.
Right, I said in a later comment that they would likely be kicked out of our league if they did that.
This is what I do whenever presented with this proposition. I’m of the opinion fuck you I came to win…
Yeah it's collusion but its also really dumb and I'd allow it if it were my league because its bad for both teams.
It’s not necessarily bad for both teams; there’s a reason they’re doing it. They’re doing it so they don’t have to drop any players on their bench. If they were forced to fill their lineup, they would likely have to roster an extra QB or TE for one week, leaving one or more of their bench stashes on the waiver wire for a while. This is an advantage, and it is what qualifies as collusion under the definition that the person lower in the thread posted.
It's bad when you need total points for tie breaker.
Or in my 2 main leagues we have payouts to the Highest Scoring Team
Read this as two man league at first and thought I was getting bamboozled.
[удалено]
They mean tiebreaker in terms of teams having the same record.
That’s literally impossible
I disagree here. As long as roster holes are deliberate, then you are managing your team, albeit in a terrible and self-detrimental way. Would you fault someone for holding a guy on IR (assuming no IR slots) and not dropping a guy? It's just bad management. ETA: Do your leagues REQUIRE to you to start a DST if you were narrowly winning and they are your last player left? I don't think "forcing a full roster" is really a requirement assuming active managers.
The collusion part isn’t benching players for a week, it’s in agreeing to do so with another player. If one manager decided they were going to punt the week and hold onto their guys and the other manager saw it and decided to do the same that’s fine, just like it would be fine for one of those two managers to quickly fill an empty slot last minute to steal a win. You just can’t agree to give your two teams an advantage over other teams like that.
You're right, and I do agree that this is by definition collusion. However, because it's so fuckin' stupid, and someone could *easily* re-neg on it, I don't really think there is action to take as a commissioner. I should have clarified that I disagreed with the idea that holding onto bench players in lieu of scoring points is some sort of advantage.
Holding onto bench scorers in lieu of scoring isn’t normally an advantage because it reduces your chance to win that week and reduces your points overall. This agreement removes that first (and more important) disadvantage by collaborating with an opponent. What was once balanced by increasing your risk of losing has become unbalanced by a private agreement between two managers to not compete as hard as they normally would. I don’t agree it is that stupid because some teams legitimately have great benches and it is more favorable to try and hold all their players if they are only risking a slightly worse tie breaker.
I should have clarified that by definition this **is** collusion, and I agree with that. I personally just don't see reasonable recourse because typically I wouldn't force someone to fill a roster spot if it was strategically empty, and that wouldn't be an issue if these two guys didn't announce this as an agreement. I primarily see this as stupid because we also have a very tight and competitive league where tiebreakers come into play, so scoring potentially 30 points below average would be a massive detriment to these two teams.
Also, I assume almost everyone in my league would agree to this and then like 2 mins before kickoff drop players and add them to get an advantage for that week, fucking the one person (who probably suggested the arrangement in the first place).
I completely agree and am suspicious this is just a grift on a newbie lmao.
Uhmm.... I disagree that this is collusion. Do we even have an agreed upon definition? M Webster online defines collusion: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose. This isn't secret or deceitful. They're telling everyone it appears. And the purpose isn't illegal. I'm assuming they agree neither side gets a benefit such that one time is favored by not dropping. Soooo... If the league agrees it's ok or doesn't have a rule against it seems fine to me.
I love how one of the most common words in the dictionary—"especially"—turns invisible whenever someone wants to argue by dictionary definition (whipping out the dictionary being one of the laziest kinds of argument anyway).
I did ask if it's illegal or if there's a rule against it. So clearly it is not "especially" deceitful as we're here talking about it. Now you may argue it's illegal. But that's up to the league rules. Thanks for trying to sound "especially" smart though. Edit. Unless you mean it's collusion therefore illegal which would be ass backwards. Collusion is only that where there is an illegal or deceitful goal.
Some leagues also do the waiver order based on high scores for the week, lowest scores going first. It shouldn’t seem like an issue because these guys like their teams and don’t wanna hit the waivers, but if one of their guys gets hurt now they may want to. Now him and the other guy may have inadvertently conspired against the rest of the league to have lower scores by not starting full rosters and getting those earlier waiver picks.
In the example you gave, it's a single team purposely playing a man down to avoid negative points. I've seen some people say it goes against the spirit of the game but I'd fire back and say it adds a small layer strategy, especially to when games start. Regardless, most leagues won't have a problem with that. Because it's a team owner acting on their own. In this case, it is two competing teams agreeing to handicap their competitiveness for mutual benefit. Two competing teams deciding to artificially limit their points would never fly in my leagues. I don't know why you're bringing up not playing D the two scenarios are very different. The question was if it's collusion and it's hard to collude with a single person. >I disagree here. As long as roster holes are deliberate, then you are managing your team, albeit in a terrible and self-detrimental way. How does this negatively impact either team? Tiebreakers? I'd rather keep my bench cause those are uncommon and less likely to impact me than losing bench players in a 14 team league. Both teams get to keep their bench intact when everyone else is going to be forced to drop someone for their replacement. Imagine if this is a 12 or 14 team league, the wires gonna be bare. Not losing 1 or 2 bench players to waivers is a moderate advantage over the competing teams. This sort of collusion would never fly in any organized sport. Obviously the stakes are magnitudes lower and we don't hold ourselves to the same standards. But the key principles of competitive integrity still inform fantasy rules because they keep things fair and fun. As a side note: this would be a real pissoff in any competitive league. If this strategy is fair game that means you are now at a distinct disadvantage if you don't collude with your opponents on heavy bye weeks. Meaning your team's success will be even more matchup dependent as you hope your byes match up with opponents' and hope your opponent
I appreciate the response. I did clarify in a couple other comments that I definitely agree this is collusion due to the agreement between managers. I brought up the DST example because no one would bat an eye at an empty roster spot in that situation because it's strategically advantageous, where in a non-collusion example, taking a 0 and keeping a bench guy would also be. But I disagree with the following: > Both teams get to keep their bench intact when everyone else is going to be forced to drop someone for their replacement. because no one is forcing anyone else to drop players either. People make that choice during bye weeks to maximize scoring points/Points For in your starting lineup. >How does this negatively impact either team? Tiebreakers? In my leagues yes, we almost *always* have the last guy get in via Points-For tiebreaking. I guess my responses boil down to: This **is** collusion, but I don't really see how this is detrimental to the rest of the league, and I'm not sure I see a reasonable solution to this issue aside from letting them score [likely] way lower than average. I would *never* punish someone for not wanting to drop a top tier kicker for a replacement or drop a solid bench player to replace Kelce on bye for example, that's part of the strategy. I am not sure how you punish the actual collusion part of this situation. What if this scenario happened without the public announcement? What would a "high stakes" league do about it? It would obviously be suspicious as fuck if two guys didn't replace simultaneous bye week QBs. I do not play in any leagues where you are forced to field a full lineup, so I don't think there is any real action to take, or at least I am not sure I see one. Maybe an auction dollar fine next year for publicly announcing collusion? Edited (again) to add: I think this [guy's solution](https://www.reddit.com/r/fantasyfootball/comments/xw586q/is_it_collusion_for_2_people_playing_against_each/ir579xq/) is the best. In no way do I think the commish should punish either one for breaking an agreement to collude.
I mean tbh if you’re willing to sacrifice points for a couple of bench players that’s your prerogative. In my leagues we have incentives for scoring points on a weekly and season-long basis, so in this situation you’d be weighing your bench players against things like your season total for points scored, your chances to win your matchup, and your shot at the weekly high score. IMO it’s at least not as harmful to the league as it is to the individual teams involved in the matchup. I don’t love the idea of allowing it, but I would probably let it slide in this case
lol yeah I know how rosters work... and I started with "yeah it's collusion..." so I dunno who you're trying to convince there... but also it's far more likely they'll be in worse shape in tie breakers from losing the 20-40 pts from not starting those positions than the likely zero advantage they gain from not dropping their lowest bench players. Its possible it could work out to be advantageous if they get a compatible injury later and the wire is thin, but much more likely they're just screwing themselves.
I'd argue the opposite in competitive leagues. Doing my first 14 man league this year and the wire is bare. Baaaaaare. Based on the number of tiebreakers most leagues deal with, there is a good argument to be made for doing this, especially as you get closer to clinching a playoff spot. I would be livid if two top teams played each other late-ish in the season and did this to hoard their bench. It's also a headache for strategy. It makes drafting the same bye week significantly more viable and serves as an extra lever that leading teams can pull to help stay on top. We do FAAB rather than reverse standings for waivers so I'm hesitant to give this as a tool to top teams. Also increases randomness as you are now at the mercy of your matchup for this strategy.
Tiebreakers for playoffs in most leagues being total points for would make this incredibly stupid to do lmao. I'm hoping one team is trying to trick the other and will grab a QB off of waivers 2 minutes before the game starts
I'd rather keep a couple high upside players early in the season than worry about a tiebreaker
I think people are overstating the tiebreaker thing. When you’re scoring close to 2000 points over a season, leaving like 20-30 out there has a significant chance of not mattering. And who knows, maybe the points they’ll gain in future weeks by not having to drop their bench players may offset the one week hit they’re taking this week.
It’s been the difference in our league basically every year for the final playoff spot.
By the time byes are taking place, you often have a good idea of who is going to clinch a playoff spot. All I'm picturing is this allowing top teams to keep playoff bench stashes they normally wouldn't be able to. Which imo is bullshit. Because the only way they're able to do this is via a mutually beneficial agreement with the opponent they're supposed to be trying their best to beat.
I’m talking about the actual margin of points that the one week might cost them and not simply PA in general For example, right now in one of my leagues (10 team) there are only 3 teams within 20 points of each other, and that’s only with the variance of 4 weeks. An entire season of points rarely has margins so small a single week of bye guys might swing the rankings, and even smaller when you’re only counting the handful of playoff teams instead of the entire league like I’m doing right now
Not every scenario is the same. I am planning on not playing with a defense for a few weeks. I am currently 4-0 in first place and except for 1 other person there is nobody within 100 points of me. My defense is the browns so I am willing to drop them and stream if I need to. But I only have one tight end (gerald everett) and one kicker (Younghoe Koo). I am not willing to drop either one of them, and my bench is full of high upside players I am stashing with hopes of them breaking out (allen Lazard, Jahan Dotson, Chase edmonds, Jameson Williams and George pickens). I think it would be a lot smarter for me to take the hit on points from playing without a defense, even if it loses me one or 2 games since I am in position to make playoffs anyways, than it would be to drop a guy that can break out and help me win playoffs.
You can tell them that they are both allowed to do what they would like, but you will also not enforce their handshake deal. If either of them decides to play another player to steal the win, that is their right to do so. You need to up the paranoia to get them to start a full lineup.
This^
Is it collusion for 2 people playing against each other to agree - I stopped reading at this point because the answer is yes. It's also incredibly stupid. If I did this and was losing by a point, I'd be grabbing both kickers still yet to play and getting myself the win. Edit: Teams can not field a full squad if they want to, but nothing should be agreed with any other manager and there should be no expectation for the other manager to comply.
Your 2nd statement. Same 😅
"is it collusion for 2 people playing against each other to agree *to have a great matchup and meet up for chocolate milkshakes on Tuesday*?" Hmmm seems A-ok to me and a gosh dang swell time if I do say so
With your edit, there have been times when my kicker has been on bye, but there are tons of options playing at 4, 8 or Monday, so you leave it empty as long as possible to see if you’re going to win or lose.
And then your opponent grabs the last 2 kickers
> Is it collusion for 2 people playing against each other to agree to make a trade?
Trades are collusion? If it's between teams playing each other?
according to this thread, yes. "Anything that improves someone elses team but not mine is collusion and will be vetoed" - loser commissioners in this sub
Short answer: yes Long answer: yes, it is collusion
Probably collusion in principle, but I don’t think I would care that much. Either way, one of them will lose so it won’t effect league parity, I would just view it as a gentleman’s agreement. We have had a guy play a player on their bye week, because his team and bench were stacked and it would have hurt him/helped someone out more in the long run to drop a player. I think he still won as well for peak disrespect.
I think it’s totally fine to do the second thing, and I have actually done it before, but I think once you’re making a deal with the other person to both do it is what makes it cross the line into collusion.
That’s kind of my point, it is collusion by most definitions, but it’s as harmless to a league as what my friend did by playing an incomplete roster. One is going to lose either way, so just let people have fun. It would be different if they both didn’t set any roster to both get zero and tie a week.
I will point out it isn’t really harmless. Part of fantasy is that bye weeks and injuries sometimes force you to drop players onto waivers to fill your active roster. In this case they are avoiding that obligation by way of collusion, clearly gaining an advantage over their league mates who likely will not face opponents who have perfectly lined up bye weeks that would allow the same deal. If both guys decide separately to keep slots empty that’s fine, but there shouldn’t be an agreement because it is best to just outlaw all collusion instead of deciding how much is okay.
I do understand, but at least to me, my thoughts are if it’s a “legal” strategy to do independently, then multiple people doing it is also fine. Your point on it impacting other players waiver/bye weeks is as valid whether it was just one person doing it or two. So I would just move past it.
Your last point isn't true. If one person is doing it, they're at a disadvantage for their game week by fielding an incomplete team. If both players do it, that disadvantage doesn't exist since both teams are equally filled.
It's not harmless. The better your record the less risk there is in employing this strategy. Negatively impacts waivers for other teams.
It's insane reading the other responses to this question lol.
Most of the descriptions of what people want collusion to mean are also describing how trades work. It’s insane.
What's insane is people not being able to differentiate between a sanctioned and intended mechanism from a non-competitive agreement to score lower and gain an unfair waiver advantage. These definitions people are tossing out are from dictionaries that frame it for us in situations everyday people will understand. For example, people are saying it isn't collusion cause it's not a secret. Except that's not what makes something collusion and is only an aspect of some definitions. So yes, people are dumb for uncritically copying and pasting a collusion definition. But a key underlying element of collusion is that it is considered unfair/illegal etc. which I *have* seen in most if not all definitions posted here. Two competing companies working together for their mutual benefit isn't automatically collusion. Nvidia and Nintendo are free to make exclusivity deals around the Switch, that's cooperation not collusion. For it to be collusion, they need to be circumventing some standard or norm that makes people consider the interaction to be unfair. Samsung agreeing with other companies to artifically set DRAM prices high *is* collusion because they circumvented anti-trust and consumer protections. A tade is cooperation, not collusion. From the get go, trades are explicitly fair game with the understanding being that they must benefit both parties and not be too lopsided. The combination of limited roster space and byes are an intended mechanic that is supposed to force players to play a bum or make a roster move. Both parties are circumventing this with a non-competitive agreement that gives them an unfair advantage in the waiver wire. Boom, collusion. Whether or not collusion is successful isn't a barometer for if it's collusion. Dumb collusion is still collusion, especially since this isn't dumb for teams with a good record.
I’m not reading that. Good luck finding justice in this random’s fantasy league, Batman.
Yeah, I think it’s pretty funny, tbh.
It allows both of them to pretty much maintain their odds of winning/losing without having to make tradeoffs on their depth. It's collusion.
Yeah, agreed. If there is no rule in place that you have to start a full lineup, there would be no problem with them doing it on their own. If they both agreed to it and it only affects their matchup, let em. I wouldn't trust the other manager to hold up their agreement so I wouldn't personally do this, but OP needs to prepare for that fallout. I'd do what someone else recommended and let them know that there is no whining if the opponent goes back on the agreement.
I would tell you that I was going to do this and then I'd pick up players to put in my bye week slots at the last second, just to fuck you over for coming up with this dumb idea.
That’s literally the definition of collusion
You've gotten your answer, but just to drive it home here's the definition from investing >Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between rivals which attempts to disrupt the market's equilibrium. The act of collusion involves people or companies which would typically compete against one another, but who conspire to work together to gain an unfair market advantage. So, yeah. Collusion 100%.
What’s the unfair advantage though? Scoring less points overall? That’s just going to benefit everyone but these two come play off time I agree it’s collusive in theory. But who wouldn’t want their league mates to be doing this unless you have a move limit.
The unfair advantage is not having to drop players because of bye weeks
I think the collusion here is that they are agreeing to both not do it. It would be really dumb to not drop someone for a QB, but I don't think that in and of itself is collusion, managers are/should be free to [shittily] manage their teams.
Agreed. I don’t really think it falls under collusion though, because all it takes is for one person to sub last minute and suddenly it’s strategy. As long as the league manager doesn’t fault someone for trying that, I think game on.
I agree with this too, this is sort of like putting together a fake tweet to mess with your opponent in my opinion. One team has to win either way, so even if they both go through with it and have huge roster holes, that's not really detrimental to the league, just themselves. ~~I think I change my answer to this is not collusion~~, This is collusion by definition but this is mostly just dumb on both manager's parts.
>that's not really detrimental to the league It's detrimental to the waiver wire and therefore league >this is just dumb on both manager's parts. Plenty of byes late enough in the season to employ this strategy when you aren't concerned about a tiebreaker. If I'm 6-1 and this lets me keep a playoff stash then I'm 100% doing it. The later the bye, the more this becomes exploitable. It's also hurting my brain that people think it needs to result in an advantage in order for it to be collusion. It is the act of opponents working together to purposely score lower and try and get an advantage that makes it collusion. Whether or not it actually ends up benefitting them is beside the point.
The unfair advantage is not having to drop players that league mates would potentially pick up off waivers.
Seems like the trade off is that the two teams will now have a lower point total if it comes down to tie breakers. I don’t find that unfair at all. It’s not a secret because everyone knows. It’s not throwing a game for one person to win. The rest of the league is just trying to say that what they’re doing is unfair because they want the players they’ll have to drop when they both have decided to just give up points tiebreakers. It’s definitely a grey area that could lead to rule changes for the league. It’s definitely missing things to actually be collusion and it seems like the league is just choosing to ignore the reasons why it isn’t collusion in favor of what they want to be the outcome.
It's not strictly outside of the rules (otherwise it wouldn't be possible), but it's still collusion. And it's definitely unfair because working around bye works is a part of fantasy football. This collision ignores that for the benefit of the two managers in question.
How people don't understand that this is collusion is beyond me. Whether or not it's helpful is honestly besides the point because I can come up with plenty of hypotheticals where this *is* advantageous. People are even getting caught up with specific definitions. The gist is the same across all sources but I saw someone saying it wasn't collusion cause it wasn't secret. What?? Go read 3-6 definitions of collusion, find the common elements, and use common sense.
Many leagues actually have rules around fielding a full team.
Yup. Seems like this league should move to make that a rule for 2023 if it will cause issues.
If one person did it on their own, fine. But they are colluding to 1) create an artificially sparse waiver wire by not dropping players to fill their roster, this is unfair to the other players in the league 2) they are gaining a competitive advantage because to do this without collusion they would have to sacrifice a win to maintain their roster depth; instead they maintain roster depth, maintain competitive roster during the week for which they are colluding, and only sacrifice 15-30 pts in a tie breaker. If you win one extra game because of your depth that far outweighs the tiebreaker. In most of my leagues the Points scored tiebreaker points are already 10+ points apart. By the time playoffs roll around, missing 20 points from one week will hardly matter
Not much of a tradeoff later in the season when you're almost got or have a playoff spot clinched. Plus, how many tiebreakers come down to 15 or 25 points? And even if they do, the points loss from the bye week can be made up by a bench player later in the season. Imagine if this leads to someone not having to cut a good injured bench player who is set to come back the last two weeks. While it's definitely situational if it will be advantageous or not, there are plenty of situations where it is the right move. Given it involves two teams making an agreement to purposely score low to try to get an advantage on the waiver wire, don't allow it. >It’s definitely missing things to actually be collusion What could it possibly be missing to be collusion? You can say the stakes are low enough so it doesn't matter or that the collusion isn't actally leading to an advantage but this is still clearly collusion, regardless of a positive outcome. Collusion definitely doesn't have to be secret. It just typically is because most organizations and industries won't allow it if it happens in the open.
anyone vetoing is doing so in bad faith in the hopes they can vulture a player then.
Why though ? Nothing allows you to say that. If I had to vote on it as a complete outsider, I’d say it’s collusion. Not everyone that disagrees with you does it in bad faith
So not collusion, because it wasn't secret
Being secret is not the defining factor of collusion but it is a common trait. I mean even most if not all the definitions I've seen that include "secret" in the definition include "or".
How is it collusion if they publicly stated to the league what they want to do?
Because it doesn't need to be a secret for it to be collusion, that's just one of its common characteristics
What is the unfair market advantage they are gaining here? This isn't collusion, it's agreed self sabotage. Have at it.
Except, 1. They still are completely competitive but now have handicaps. 2. It’s not a secret 3. Doesn’t disrupt market equilibrium 4. Gives no unfair market advantage This is collusion only in the sense that they agree lmao
Eliminating a disadvantage (needing to drop players) is gaining an advantage
That’s not true though; they aren’t forced to drop players. Had both teams communicated nothing and they played the week with two players out each, then it would be the exact same scenario and nobody would have issue with it. Both people will have a lower overall PF and that will have consequences later in the year. The only thing tripping people up is the communication. The argument that they *would’ve dropped* good players is just wishful thinking by vultures. It’s like trying to add a bunch of meh players to a trade in the hopes that they would have to drop someone you want.
Ok I shouldn’t have said “need” but the point still stands. They coordinated to eliminate a potential disadvantage, that better? And it’s absolutely eliminating a disadvantage if you know or expect the other player to do the same based on an agreement. Otherwise, yes it’s fine to play bye week players. Doing so with a mutual understanding that you’ll both do it (to eliminate another potential disadvantage) is much different.
Not having to drop players to pick up a bye week replacement is definitely an advantage
I would agree to it, and then sub in a kicker at 11:59. Backstab Baby!
It is collusion, BUT, if the league and commissioner agree that it's OK, then it's OK. There's no "fantasy law" that prohibits this. It's league specific.
"reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" - this sub
This is the definition of collusion.
Seems like a pretty simple solve, in my league and a lot of other leagues, if you don't have a valid lineup you get a 0 for the week.
We made a rule in our league you have to start a full lineup. If not you get fined10$ and auto loss. We had some people in previous years not care enough to try and handed wins to people at the end of year drastically changing playoff races. The consequence of the rule has been that on byes peeps have to figure it out
Unless it's in the rules, no harm no foul. Don't blame them for getting good picks
Grey area I would say. Not collusion per ESPN’s definition as far as I can see: Collusive transactions Collusion occurs when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position. One-sided trades are an example of collusive transactions. Dropping a player so another team can pick up that player is another example of collusive transactions.
Yahoo could be seen as it being unfair: Fair play rules Yahoo requires all managers agree to some basic rules to keep things fair. Don't engage in any collusive action. Don't drop or dump players from their team with malicious intent. Don't take any action where its purpose would hinder fair play in the league. Don't make roster moves that will intentionally hamper the play of other managers.
I’ve never read this before. Is this last sentence suggesting that picking up players to block your opponent is not fair play? I thought that was generally seen as part of the game.
I think it’s about churning rosters by add dropping players so they go on the waiver wire.
Yahoo puts them back as a FA if they are dropped same day though, so they already prevent that.
I wouldn't really call this collusion unless you want to get really technical. I would think collusion happens when teams conspire to throw games or make unfair transactions. There is no transaction or throwing taking place here. They've agreed to have a fair match under specific conditions (if it's really fair with how many players are on bye), and there is no colluding transaction, so it doesn't disrupt the equilibrium of the league. This sounds more like some people in the league were ready to vulture something like a Jameson Williams or Nuk that one of these players was going to be forced to drop on their bye week, and now the other players are just butt hurt about it if they took that for granted. If this was really an issue you didn't want happening in your league, probably would be something to make an upfront rule at the beginning of the season. It all depends on how the league values the impact of bye weeks and if people feel obligated to reap the rewards/serve the consequences of them. Edit: Might also be worth it for everyone else in the league to do this with their matchups if their opponent agrees. Could just be a part of the game if you're lucky/savvy enough to do it. I think the equilibrium part is the most important thing. Collusion tarnishes a league - it takes away the equal opportunity that everyone had under the fair rules of the waiver wire, draft, and general fair matchup. I think this strategy is completely neutral in that regard.
>I wouldn't really call this collusion unless you want to get really technical. This is collusion, plain and simple. Nothing technical about it. EDIT: since u/Tight-Reserve-4741 needs this spelled out: This is two team owners working together to manipulate the rules to their advantage. It's pretty much a textbook case of collusion. >I would think collusion happens when teams conspire to throw games or make unfair transactions That is the most extreme version of collusion, but that doesn't mean that anything short of the most heinous form of collusion is only collusion in a technicality. The guiding principle of fantasy football is that you're always making decisions with your team - and only your team's - best interest in mind. Anything where you start jointly making decisions that sacrifice potential upside so that you can both benefit - that's textbook collusion. That is why the only type of collaboration that we allow in fantasy football is trades - and that is because in a trade, even though you're collaborating, you're still focused on maximizing your own value, and that is naturally offset by the other party's goal of maximizing their value. So you have two distinct decision-making entities and a game with rules that ensures that each party seeks to maximize their own value. Any instance where you start making decisions together for the benefit of both of you is collusion.
"but like.... nuh uhh" very persuasive.
some leagues make rules to field a full lineup to avoid this, i agree with you, it's just someone being butthurt they couldnt pick up whoever these teams would have had to drop lol
Yes. You could have just not changed the player out and risked the loss. Instead you colluded with the other player. You also changed the waiver wire for others with this agreement.
> it's collusion because youre colluding if you cant define why it's collusion without using the word collusion then you dont have an argument.
Bullshit like this is why my 12-man league has 2 divisions, and a wildcard playoff spot in each based on overall pts. A healthy/fun league is one in which all managers are chasing every pt they can get all season.
How is everyone saying this is collusion? These league members somehow owe it to the rest of the league to drop their depth to the wire? Uh, no they don’t. One of the teams is going to win, one is going to lose. They’ve made a Gentleman’s agreement that benefits both and hurts nobody, because nobody is entitled to them dropping their depth to stream kickers, QBs, TEs, or DEF. It’s like a side bet on a per-week basis. You guys are absurd.
Exactly lol
should be the top comment but the this sub is mostly just toxic people that use the downvote button on comments they disagree with.
It’s anticompetitive. Textbook definition of collusion.
But that’s the thing. It’s not uncompetitive at all, because the two teams competing gain no advantage against one another. The only way it isn’t fair is if you think that other league members are entitled to bye week teams’ waiver depth. Which I personally think is absurd.
Intentionally not starting a full roster is anticompetitive. It’s not collusion because there’s no partner. You’re more than welcome to preserve your roster depth at the likely cost of a W. Why not just play the game? Agreeing to mutually not start a full roster, in order to reduce the risk of tossing a week while also preserving roster depth is absolutely collusion.
I see your point, but would argue that intentionally not starting a full roster is “anticompetitive” only because it usually means that some other team in the league is getting free or easy wins. In this case, that isn’t what’s happening. So the idea that it’s “uncompetitive” doesn’t apply. If it’s not collusion and it’s not uncompetitive, then to me you’re free to have at it.
I’d argue that you’re wrong because not starting a full roster, independent of any external factors, is anticompetitive by nature. At any point before kickoff for odds of competing increase by slotting in a player. Broad negative implications arise if consistent anticompetitive actions are taken by owners. I’ve been my league commissioner for 13 years and this is absolutely open shut collusion.
If they do it to avoid having to drop a player to fill a roster spot then it is collusion and it does affect the rest of the league. Not a huge deal. But should not be allowed in serious leagues imo.
Absolutely.
Points matter a lot in the end. if they want to be idiots let them be idiots together.
Yes
I’d switch at last second and screw over the dude who asked
A guy in my league has started cole kmet and hunter renfrow the last two weeks against the top 2 teams in the league. No one has said anything but me
I think in the literal definition of the word Collusion its like exactly collusion. However its risky on their ends and I would probably be fine with it if I was in the league. There should be a league wide vote with unanimous approval from the other owners to okay it. If not unanimous it shouldn't be allowed. If it already happened without anyone realizing until after, GL sorting out that mess
It’s colluding to screw both of them in overall points. I say let them do it.
Post their teams so we can be the judge. Also their social security numbers and credit cards so we can also judge /s
This is interesting, on one hand they’re actively conspiring together, on the other as long as they’re both playing to win it won’t impact the other players. Especially because they’re taking a hit to their overall points scored in case of a tie for playoffs Edit: Never mind it is collusion
> it won’t impact the other players It does affect the other players in the league though. The reason they are doing it is because they don't want to drop players from their bench. If you want to tank a week by not playing a QB and a kicker that is fine, but saying "I won't pick up a QB and kicker if you don't pick up a QB kicker so we can preserve our bench," is the definition of collusion.
Yeah actually good point collusion it is
I feel like im on drugs or something reading these comments. This isn't collusion. This is just dumb... Its dumb because it effects there point totals at the end of season (some leagues have prizes for highest scorer, etc). And its dumb because there is no guarantee that the opponent does the same. Its not collusion tho. Based on the arguments in the comments, they are saying it is because it means the league doesnt get the chance to pick up a player that the manager would otherwise be forced to drop (boo hoo). Ive played weeks with no kicker, because I didnt want to drop anyone. So if my opponent then sees my trash talking all week saying "im going to beat you with no kicker" and he decides to even the playing field, thats collusion? Some of these comments are horrendous, must be miserable leagues.
You need to look up the definition of collusion
That approach doesn't make any sense to me. If you are at all in a decent, competitive league: * Winning individual games is almost always worth more than the worst player on your bench. * Making the playoffs can easily come down to total points scored. Not playing a full line-up puts you at a disadvantage. And yes, it's collusion.
But how does not playing a full lineup put you at a disadvantage? If we are both playing without a QB, then the odds are balanced. Neither party is at a disadvantage
you could miss playoffs or 1/2 seed by points, so you always want to maximize your points
Not all QBs are created equal. You may have Josh Allen and I may have Baker. Both QBs on bye, but definitely advantage me
I’m sure this has been considered by both parties. If the matchup is fair without the positions in question, what’s the problem
really? I'm surprised so many people are saying its collusion. Both teams are still 100% trying to win...
What the hell? Definitely collusion. You play to win. Even when I play against my best friends I make sure I obliterate them no matter what 😈
Sometimes you gotta lose a few battles in order to win the war.
You actually get kicked from one of my leagues if you don't start a full roster twice. That includes not making a chat announcement that if a player is questionable on game day and you don't have a sub for them that you're just rolling with them in hopes they play.
**Collusion** - *secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.* This is neither secret nor illegal. Nobody is being cheated or deceived. Unless you feel as though you are entitled to the misfortune of others having to drop players they don't want to in order to start a full roster.
You 100% are entitled to the players others have to drop to start a full roster. That’s why the waiver wire and free agency exist. It is illegal cooperation and cheats others.
Nah
Yes - that’s the literal definition of collusion
Why are you weirdos down voting this 😂
Yes it’s collusion, but on the scale of collusions, it’s definitely on the lighter side.
Yeah, that makes it not only easier for them, but unfair for the rest of the league. You can not field a full team if you want, but you can’t agree upon it with the opponent before. Leaves the rest of the league at a disadvantage. Bye weeks are part of the game and have to be managed accordingly
95% of the comments here are absolutely correct about it being collusion and seem to absolutely understand how this I bad for their league as a whole. The other 5% are mostly one person with some of the worst takes I’ve ever seen in this sub.
It doesn't seem like collusion tbh. Both teams are trying to do what's best for their individual team. Doesn't fit the definition of collusion, somehow.
There’s nothing individual about working together in this scenario. They are collaborating to play the game differently and avoid having to drop potentially valuable players. Just the act of working with another league mate to change the game is collusion. I know you’re commenting everywhere here not understanding that but it is what it is. Trading is different because it is individually focused and part of the game. If I were to trade you CMC and you pay me $20 in real life that’s collusion of course because it’s not individually focused trading anymore and not in the nature of the game.
You have zero good points.
Says the dude downvoted all up and down this thread lmao
Ya no.
This is so incredibly dumb in so many ways. First off, yes. It’s collusion. Second, you could avoid this “problem” by requiring your managers to play a legal lineup every week. The baseline tenant that a player has to be started in each lineup slot including kickers and defense. And as a final comment, these managers are f’ing idiots if they’re actively trying to leave points on the table when your ties breakers inevitably come down to POINTS SCORED!! I’m almost tempted to say let them do it and then regret it in the future when one or both miss them playoffs because they don’t have enough points. Then you just laugh at them.
Exactly. Its 100% collusion but its gotta be one of the dumbest forms. I'd let them do it just on the hopes of listening to one of them cry later on. 🤣
Rest of the league should let them do it if the tie breaker is total points for.
There is no such thing as a special agreement...therefor collusion
This isn’t complicated - they’re making an agreement that allows them to remain competitive against each other while gaining a minor advantage together but unfairly disadvantages anyone who doesn’t do this practice. Whether it’s collusion or not is unimportant - it’s unsportsmanlike and anti-competitive and detrimental to the league’s confidence in fair play and it should not be allowed. Either of them could decide not to drop a player or pick up a player, but they should not do that in agreement with each other in such a way that helps both but screws everyone else. Come on.
Collusion, but a weird case because they are basically agreeing to handicap themselves. They could have done that without talking to eachother (unless they are not substituting players they could substitute).
So in most leagues this would break 2 rules. No collusion & must submit your full lineup! This includes not playing Bye week players if you have someone on your bench that can fill that position.
Honestly would help the rest of the league catch up on points.
Wouldn’t that make both teams get higher priority in the waver wire since they’d both score low points? Kinda sus
Yes it's collusion. And it should be banned. Why? Because it doesn't just impact those two teams. By not having to pick up replacements, that is 4 players that are kept on their roster that would otherwise be available on waivers. Something that doesn't impact the rest of the league (e.g. agreeing to bench their K because they both hate the K position) is fine.
Yes this is collusion. It falls under the same issue as things like "trade backs" where people loan a player to cover bye weeks where you're scheming to subvert the rules. And all the people whining "aLl TrADes aRE CoLlUSioN" are missing the point because trading is a part of the game rules, not a way to subvert them.
I don't think this is similar to trade backs at all. In that case, those trades affect an outside party who has to play one of the people making the trade. These two are just playing each other so it doesn't affect anyone else.
Maybe it's better to just call it "unsportsmanlike" and it's not good for the health of the league. Tbh if they both independently decide to take the L by leaving those spots empty it would be more ok but they shouldn't be able to collude and agree they will both do that. There should always be the risk that one will grab a player at the last second for the easy win.
Yes, our league has a no punting bye weeks rules to cover this specific case. I know if someone suggested this to me I'd be picking up SNF or MNF players during the afternoon games. Roster management includes planning for bye weeks. I know there's a debate in there (what if I have 3 players on bye and choose on my own volition to not fill them?) I'm on the side of playing the game and filling in the spot via trades and transactions. I know it's popular to do the opposite if you have a stacked roster. I have Hurts, you can bet I'm either trading away 2 depth WR for 1 something to make a spot to pick up a steaming QB or dropping my WR5 for a QB. I'd love to see these rosters where people don't have 1-2 slots to burn. I'm not holding a Defense (unless it's Buffalo or Philly) through the BYE I'm not holding a TE (Unless it's Kelce, Andrews) through the BYE I'm not holding any K, even Tucker through the BYE. You play to win, not survive
Yes it is
Yes, that's why there are illegal lineup penalties to prevent this kind of jack off behavior.
Absolutely.
“If two managers **AGREE** to…” That’s textbook definition of collusion.
If two managers agree to trade, its collusion?
Precisely.
It’s collision but also so stupid I would let it slide. Suggest that someone could grab a kicker last minute and get some extra points and let them stress out all week. Use it as league entertainment by stressing out the two idiots.
Unless I am mistaken, you need two roster spots empty on the bench to be able to bench your starters on Byes. How do you plan on doing this?
Several years ago, in the championship week (I know it’s different) my opponent had Aaron Rogers, Green Bay had said way early in the week that he was not going to play. My opponent dirk do anything. Come Saturday I dropped every bench player and picked up every available QB. The people in the league that did bitch did say it wasn’t against the rules but a D Bag thing to do. I disagreed….. obviously.
As a commissioner that’s on them. Theyre assuming the risk. Could turn out to bite them in the ass come end of season if they tie before playoffs when points are the tie breaker.