NFFC Definition of Collusion?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:48 am

I didn't see it in the rules. Can you provide? Thanks.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:22 pm

Collusion is like beauty....

You can't define it, but you know it when you see it.

lichtman · Post by **lichtman** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:05 am

Actually JP, I think that is the definition of pornography as well (at least according to the Supreme Court)!

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:18 am

Other than the no-trade rule we have in effect, we don't have a specific rule governing collusion. I'll let Greg address this as well, but I honestly don't know if there's any specific rule that could be put into place that would cover all of the possible ways collusion (real or imagined) could take effect in a fantasy league/event. But as JerseyPaul said, you do know it (or feel very strongly that you know it) when you see it and at that point it will be addressed.

I realize that sounds a bit murky though I would add that the dictionary defintion certainly applies in the NFFC. Do you have a specific scenario in mind, Gordon?

[ October 15, 2004, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Tom Kessenich ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:40 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:
I realize that sounds a bit murky though I would add that the dictionary defintion certainly applies in the NFFC. Do you have a specific scenario in mind, Gordon? nothing specific, but i'll give you a call if need be. rather not discuss on the MB. thanks.

[ October 15, 2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:52 am

Sounds good. One thing we could do is put the dictionary definition of collusion within our rules. But having been a co-commissioner in my main league for 18 years, I know that questions about collusion are often very subjective. What you (the general "you") may believe is unfair is something everyone else in the league has no problem with. Greg may feel differently, but that's one reason why I'm not sure if there's a specific rule we could put down on paper that will cover every possible question that could arise on this subject.

Obviously, if anyone has some thoughts on this we're definitely open to hearing them.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:41 am

If I didn't know better, I'd say Tom's explanation sounds a lot like a John Kerry reply. He went back and forth without saying much two different times.

The definition of collusion in fantasy football is "two or more owners having a secret agreement for a deceitful purpose." With the no-trade clause we have in the NFFC, that eliminates one possible form of collusion. Waiving a star player knowing that a friend in your league has the most FAAB money available to get him is another form of collusion. But that's why Tom and I look at every single player drop each week and if we see a superstar dropped for no reason, we will step in and disallow it. We will force that owner to keep that player on his/her roster for the good of the entire competition.

Trust me, we watched every waiver wire move in our National Fantasy Baseball Championship this year and three different times we stepped in to eliminate cuts. They weren't collusion-type cuts, just cuts that could have affected the overall competition. One 15th place team cut a steals guy for no reason and we forced him to keep him on his bench and cut another player who was already out for the year. We did similar moves during the last month of the season when two guys were just making foolish cuts. Well, they weren't foolish in our eyes and we stepped in.

Again, we believe this is really the only form of collusion in the NFFC and we'll watch the weekly cuts closely going forward, as we have thus far to date. If you have a conflict that you see, e-mail Tom or me and we'll look into it. But so far, so good.

There, that was a more direct answer, don't you agree?

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:42 am

Isn't that what I said?

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:33 am

Greg & Tom. Thanks for your replies. But I have a little bit of a tougher question for you now.

I believe you have said that you will not force teams to submit valid starting lineups, thus allowing "dead teams" to play out the season. Wha IF the lineup submission or lack thereof can be shown as an obvious attempt to help out another team in the standings, which (by all definitions constitutes collusion. Will you then consider stepping in and fixing the problem? The obvious question, of course, will be - how can you truly distinquish a "dead team" and "collusion"?

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:41 am

Nag, anytime there is a question of collusion or something that appears to be an intentional attempt to compromise the integrity of any league or the overall event, we will step in and take appropriate action.