Collusion?

[HNorseman]

The word "collusion" ought to be banned from fantasy message boards. I can't count how many times I've seen threads in national competitions where somebody uses the word, and IT NEVER IS COLLUSION.

I agree with this. The word has been thrown out there and it bothers me too because in order to collude, two or more owners would have to agree. In this case, there is 0% chance of collusion and 100% chance of an owner who was otherwise incapacitated or not able to fix his lineup. The guy was winning in points. No one is purposely "colluding" with another owner, risking possibly winning their league championship and in this case, getting eliminated completely, with the hopes of sharing the pot with another owner. Makes no sense.

Suppose two close friends join the same Online Championship League. With two weeks to go, as skill would have it, one of the friends is 130 points up on his closest competitor (yet his record is only 6-5). The other friend is tied for first with one other team with a 9-2 record. As luck would have it, the two just happen to be playing each other the last week of the season. The High Scoring team looks to be in pretty good shape, but his friend's fate is still very much in doubt. Are you really saying there is a "0%" chance that the two get together to concoct a plan which might put them both in the playoffs? "0%"?

The scenario above is exactly the same as the one I mentioned with the exception of the two being friends. We'll never know that part. Once again, I am not saying that this was collusion (heck, even if it was, maybe there's nothing wrong with it as it's within their rights). I understand there could be many other plausible reasons for what happened. I emailed the owner in question twice, but he didn't bother to reply. So I'm left to wonder. I just have a problem with words like "NEVER" and numbers like "0%." "Unlikely," I can go along with, but not "NEVER."

I'm sorry I posted in the first place. Just wanted to share what I thought was an unusual situation (I've seen many a team stop submitting lineups, just never one at the top), but I think I should have kept it to myself.

[HNorseman]

Any particular reason the All Play needs to be in the first two weeks?

Re: NFFC Rules Discussion For 2013
by Greg Ambrosius » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:20 pm
http://nffcforums.stats.com/viewtopic.p ... 90#p180753

Thanks, Sandman. I can see the argument for both sides.

[JETS SB]

The word "collusion" ought to be banned from fantasy message boards. I can't count how many times I've seen threads in national competitions where somebody uses the word, and IT NEVER IS COLLUSION.

I agree with this. The word has been thrown out there and it bothers me too because in order to collude, two or more owners would have to agree. In this case, there is 0% chance of collusion and 100% chance of an owner who was otherwise incapacitated or not able to fix his lineup. The guy was winning in points. No one is purposely "colluding" with another owner, risking possibly winning their league championship and in this case, getting eliminated completely, with the hopes of sharing the pot with another owner. Makes no sense.

Suppose two close friends join the same Online Championship League. With two weeks to go, as skill would have it, one of the friends is 130 points up on his closest competitor (yet his record is only 6-5). The other friend is tied for first with one other team with a 9-2 record. As luck would have it, the two just happen to be playing each other the last week of the season. The High Scoring team looks to be in pretty good shape, but his friend's fate is still very much in doubt. Are you really saying there is a "0%" chance that the two get together to concoct a plan which might put them both in the playoffs? "0%"?

The scenario above is exactly the same as the one I mentioned with the exception of the two being friends. We'll never know that part. Once again, I am not saying that this was collusion (heck, even if it was, maybe there's nothing wrong with it as it's within their rights). I understand there could be many other plausible reasons for what happened. I emailed the owner in question twice, but he didn't bother to reply. So I'm left to wonder. I just have a problem with words like "NEVER" and numbers like "0%." "Unlikely," I can go along with, but not "NEVER."

I'm sorry I posted in the first place. Just wanted to share what I thought was an unusual situation (I've seen many a team stop submitting lineups, just never one at the top), but I think I should have kept it to myself.

Ok, well now you are changing the story. First, it was a 60-70 point lead, now its a 130 point lead. Which is it?

[HNorseman]

Ok, well now you are changing the story. First, it was a 60-70 point lead, now its a 130 point lead. Which is it?

Not changing the story at all. Go back and read my first post. He had a 60-70 point lead in the FINAL week. He had around a 130 point lead with TWO weeks to go. That's when I first noticed he hadn't submitted his lineup (he played Bell who was on bye when he had Forsett on his bench). Lost some serious ground that week and then left the same lineup in for the final week.

[JETS SB]

Ok, well now you are changing the story. First, it was a 60-70 point lead, now its a 130 point lead. Which is it?

Not changing the story at all. Go back and read my first post. He had a 60-70 point lead in the FINAL week. He had around a 130 point lead with TWO weeks to go. That's when I first noticed he hadn't submitted his lineup (he played Bell who was on bye when he had Forsett on his bench). Lost some serious ground that week and then left the same lineup in for the final week.

You never said he had a 130 point lead. Not once. And if this is the case, he was probably in the running for an overall and he's not going to purposely tank his team.

[HNorseman]

Ok, well now you are changing the story. First, it was a 60-70 point lead, now its a 130 point lead. Which is it?

Not changing the story at all. Go back and read my first post. He had a 60-70 point lead in the FINAL week. He had around a 130 point lead with TWO weeks to go. That's when I first noticed he hadn't submitted his lineup (he played Bell who was on bye when he had Forsett on his bench). Lost some serious ground that week and then left the same lineup in for the final week.

You never said he had a 130 point lead. Not once. And if this is the case, he was probably in the running for an overall and he's not going to purposely tank his team.

Man, what is with you? I said he was 130 points ahead with two weeks to go in my Last post on the scenario. I'm sorry you are having problem comprehending the situation, but it's all true. I don't believe he was near the top in overall points, but I do know he finished in the top 15%, take that for what you will.