Collusion but not really?

V

Vicious_Machine

New Member
Just wondering about some opinions; I doubt this happens since its just a friendly league and I am sure my friends are more just screwing with me more then anything.

But I am 5th in a 10 man league, top 4 make playoffs. Top 2 have locked down a playoff spot and this is the last week. 3rd place takes on 4th place, and they are both 1 game ahead of me. So I was thinking, I win, I am in.

So I log into the league to see if anybody in my lineup has gone on the IR/injury issues, and I look at that those two teams and they have NOBODY in their lineup (everybody benched). That technically means, they both would get a tie, and BOTH get into the playoffs, and even if I win, I am toast.

Again, I am sure they are screwing with me and by Thursday, line ups would be updated. But it got me thinking, I mean, obviously if they talked to each other and decided together to do this, it would be wrong (Collusion).

But say they did not decide it together. I mean, if you were in this scenario, and your opponent benched his team, its obvious what he is trying to say, and what if you benched your team as well. Technically, there is no collusion. And technically, you are doing what is best for your team, you are guaranteed a playoff spot, where if you play the week, you are not.

What would you do? Kick ass and chew bubble gum? Or be like "Those smart bastards!!" and tip your hat?
 
mudloggerone

mudloggerone

Outlaw
Administrator
Wow Machine that's very interesting. I've been in a league where an illegal lineup, and stating no one is illegal, means you automatically lose. But can both teams lose? I bet that isn't covered in the rules. Good luck!
 
D

drworm

New Member
It HAS to be collusion... both teams are only one game ahead of you, so the loser of that game is out. there is no way one player would feel comfortable with benching everyone unless they were ensured by the other team they would do the same.

If I were commish of this league, I would let both parties know that I am going to retroactively putting in the highest projected scores of the week if they do not fill their teams line-up.
 
V

Vicious_Machine

New Member
Well, once again, this is a friendly league (just bragging rights, no money) and I know these two are just screwing with me. Losing to anybody results in so much mockery, nobody would punt a game.

@ mud: It is a yahoo league, I dont think yahoo has any such rule, although I have never seen an "empty" lineup. We usually play with fractional points now, but I have actually seen ties before. So I would assume if nobody played, it ends in a tie.

@ drworm: Not necessarily; I dont think it means clear collusion. I mean, say i was the team in 4th, and I logged in today to see my opponent benched his team. I am smart enough (as are most people) to realize what he is saying there w/o us actually talking. Maybe its cause I play a lot of poker, but say you are on "bubble" and you just need to knock out 1 more person to money. What a lot of people do is, they limp in, and its AUTOMATICALLY implied that everybody just checks (no betting) to knock that person out, so the rest of us make money.

I mean, sure, one of them COULD last second jump in and update their lineup, but what benefit is there to that? I mean, a Win or Tie results in the same result, you are in! There is no "extra" benefit by you updating your lineup.

Just got me thinking, cause I never saw it before this week, but the more I think about it, the more genius it seems from them.
 
V

Vicious_Machine

New Member
deuce4321 said:
or lock them both out of the playoffs for collusion.
Click to expand...

But what if there is no collusion? I mean, its like in the NHL nowadays, where if a game goes to OT, it benefits both teams cause you both get one point. You can see teams when they face cross conference opponents sometimes take it "Easier" in last minute.

Clearly just playing devil's advocate: but I like mud's idea about some sort of rule where you have to have SOMEBODY in your lineup or its an auto loss, lol
 
D

drworm

New Member
Vicious_Machine said:
But what if there is no collusion? I mean, its like in the NHL nowadays, where if a game goes to OT, it benefits both teams cause you both get one point. You can see teams when they face cross conference opponents sometimes take it "Easier" in last minute.

Clearly just playing devil's advocate: but I like mud's idea about some sort of rule where you have to have SOMEBODY in your lineup or its an auto loss, lol
Click to expand...

But in the NHL when you both make it to overtime... if one team pulls their goalie and gives up a goal while the goalie is on the bench they forfeit that point.
 
mudloggerone

mudloggerone

Outlaw
Administrator
Keep us posted on how this plays out Machine. It's going to lead to a black and white rule in the PFL.
 
I

infamous

New Member
I would think it would have to be collusion b/c otherwise you would have to have some serious trust that at the last minute someone playing late doesnt get put in.... Its not the same as being ahead of someone by 1pt and you bench your remaining player just in case he fumbles and you lose by 1.
 
V

Vicious_Machine

New Member
Well, the Commish asked me what to do, and I told him "As long as they both say they did not talk to each other to decide this, I cant say anything against it, since they are both doing what is best for their lineup".

But in the end, they updated their line ups :)

In hindsight: Hard to believe this has never happened before though, or nobody thought about this scenario in pool rules.


For the NHL Reply: Umm, that makes no sense DrWorm. That would be same as one team playing a full lineup, and one benching their entire line up, because you are PUNTING a point by pulling a goalie. What they did was EXACTLY the same as when you are two cross conference teams, and you both take it easy in the last couple minutes in a tied game, because if it goes to overtime, you BOTH get one point. BOTH BENEFIT EQUALLY!! Then you decide in OT who gets the extra point. What they did, both benefit EQUALLY!

Also, on a side note, for next year we decided the Commish can update a line up if he notices somebody is on IR or Out at the start of the week with whoever yahoo projects to have the highest point total (We said start of week, because if mid-week somebody gets injured, it should be to that team to update themselves, and we are not going to reward lazyness).
 
mudloggerone

mudloggerone

Outlaw
Administrator
I don't think we can buy hockey sticks within 100 miles of here. I'd have left that league faster than you can kiss a duck if that would have stood. IMO it goes against every moral fiber in my body.
 
V

Vicious_Machine

New Member
Haha, I def wouldnt have left.

I mean, I really believe when you play Fantasy Sports, your only goal should be to give your team the best chance to win.

I would not penalize two other teams who were just smart enough to figure out that loop hole and didnt break any rule.
 
mudloggerone

mudloggerone

Outlaw
Administrator
We see fantasy football a bit different. Do you cheat when you're playing solitaire? I'd be ashamed not to attempt to play my best each and every week. I feel I owe that to the other players in the league. To each his own but I won't be in any leagues with someone who doesn't try to win. Not for more than one year anyway.
 
V

Vicious_Machine

New Member
mudloggerone said:
We see fantasy football a bit different. Do you cheat when you're playing solitaire? I'd be ashamed not to attempt to play my best each and every week. I feel I owe that to the other players in the league. To each his own but I won't be in any leagues with someone who doesn't try to win. Not for more than one year anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree to each his own. But your last couple statements are wrong then.

You would rather be in a league where people just field a line up, even if it does not help them, so they are NOT trying to win. They are just playing the best line up like a robot.

I am the one on the other side, I would only be in a league where everybody is TRYING to win WITHIN the rules of the game.

Since you like cards, for your example. If you are playing hearts (a more common game), if you have 98 points and the other 3 people have 50-55 and lets say 70. If I get 1 point in that game, and I think there is a 25% chance I could shoot the moon, I will try to do it so that I CAN WIN. You seem to think it would be better that I simply play to get fewer points so that the guy who has 55 points has more chances to catch the 50 point player since the odds suggest do not shoot the moon? Ummm, no, I play for me. Not for the other teams.

To each his own indeed....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top