Last Week's Question #1: Is it ethical
to swap players TEMPORARILY?
One of the questions I posed in my
column for Week 10 came from Gary, who wanted to know if it
was ethical for him and another owner to swap two players to help
cover a bye week personnel shortage--with the understanding that
they would trade the players back after the bye.
Everyone who wrote to me about Gary's trade proposal was opposed
to the idea, but the opposition ranged from mild concern to intense
indignation. Let's start with the response of Matt, who had something
almost identical happen in his league:
Before [Week 9, two owners in our league executed
a straight-up trade of] Russell Wilson for Alfred Morris. No major
issues there and each manager needed that respective position filled
due to the bye weeks.
The Morris recipient wins his matchup by 7, with Morris scoring
24 points in our league. The Wilson manager wins by 2 with Wilson
scoring 10 points. Note: both managers were 3-5 and fighting for
the 4th playoff spot with [another playoff contender] playing against
the Morris team. I was 6-2 and lost to the Wilson team.
Come Tuesday morning, we see a pending trade between those two for
Wilson and Morris straight up again, one week later. Obviously emails
start flying and I and the other losing manager (who, like the trading
partners, was also 3-5 and in a tight race for the final spot) are
crying foul. (If this isn't blatant collusion I don't know what
is.)
These two obviously spoke in advance and set up the plan to swap
for a week so they wouldn't have to deal with tough roster decisions
based on the big number of bye weeks, while everyone else in the
league had to deal with it with FA and waivers. To make matters
worse, one of the managers involved in the questionable trade is
the commish.
In the end, all of the 8 managers were involved with the email chain
and knew of the situation. The two involved (one being the commish)
said it was fair and no different than other trades in the past,
while many saw it as a way to stretch the rules since an exact rule
for this is not in place. But a collusion rule certainly is in place,
which is where I think this falls.
We got 4 out of the other 6 managers to veto it, which is necessary
for these to be stopped. So at least I feel better, but now we have
this hanging over our heads as a league moving forward.
I wouldn't say that the folks in Matt's league have anything "hanging
over [their] heads." On the contrary, this looks like progress
to me. There was a question about the legitimacy of a temporary
swap; the owners voted; the matter is settled. I would look at this
episode as a disagreement, a discussion, and the setting of a precedent
that will clarify matters going forward.
What I liked best about Gary's question was that he asked, "Is
this ethical?" instead of "Is this collusion?" When
Matt says, "If this isn't blatant collusion I don't know what
is," he may lose some readers who believe that collusion must
always involve one team deliberately crippling itself in order to
improve another team (usually with the intention of splitting the
winnings at the end of the season). Since the Wilson/Morris trading
partners were BOTH looking to improve their chances of making the
playoffs by exchanging players, it isn't exactly what most FFers
think of when they think of collusion.
Of course, Matt could argue that he is talking about the traditional
definition of collusion (a secret agreement between conspirators
for the purpose of deceiving/defrauding outsiders), but that definition
is only going to get us lost in semantics and the endless splitting
of hairs. The trading partners could claim that they didn't attempt
to do anything secretive and that they weren't trying to deceive
anyone. They could even contend that they simply acted in their
own best interest--and that they did so openly and honestly, without
any attempt to conceal what they were doing. (If they felt guilty
about it, then why not try to hide the second exchange by packaging
the key players with some benchwarmers to confuse the rest of the
league?)
So instead of trying to classify temporary swaps as "collusion,"
it might be better to argue that such arrangements simply give some
owners an unfair advantage or that they compromise trading mechanics
to the detriment of the league. Kim manages to object to these swaps
as "unethical" without bringing in the C-word:
Roughly 15 years ago we had an instance where
two teams traded backup players to cover byes and then traded those
same players back a week later. I was the commissioner of the league
at that time, and we decided we would no longer allow that kind
of trade going forward. We thought an owner could make the trade
for those reasons, but the trading back of those same players was
where we drew the line. We felt it was unfair and somewhat unethical.
We each have to make tough choices regarding filling our rosters
on byes or because of non-season ending injuries. The two owners
in question subverted that challenge in a way we didn’t want
to see continue and felt would lead to many problems. I think the
best reason we could come up with for denying such trades was to
say that kind of thing would never happen in the NFL, so it shouldn’t
happen in our league. Granted not everything applies the same to
fantasy football as it does to the NFL, but in this case, we felt
it did. We fortunately have never had the issue come up again and
therefore have not had to make more extensive guidelines about it.
I like the practical approach taken here. Even though temporary
swapping may not be a clear-cut case of collusion for Kim, it's
the kind of thing that could easily lead to collusion,
so it had to be stopped. Dana's league took a similar stance:
Allowing this type of trade leads directly to
players colluding to help Team A against Team B's main competitor
in a quid pro quo that Team A will return the favor in a future
matchup. Seen it happen. In a workplace league I played in years
ago, we had a rule barring a team from reacquiring a dropped or
traded player for four weeks. That put an end to that nonsense.
Bottom line: Even though not everyone agrees that temporary swaps
are collusive, there is a solid consensus that they are a bad idea
and should not be allowed.
Last
Week's Question #2: Are competing spouses in a league a case of
collusion waiting to happen?
Unlike the previous question, this one produced answers that were
all over the map. I want to start with Dana's reply because it sets
a positive tone for allowing spousal competition within a league:
In the workplace league I've played in the past
10+ years (until it disbanded this year), we had as many as two
couples each year, and always had at least one (boss and his wife,
both so competitive they would never trade with each other). We
never had a problem, mainly because our commissioner had complete
authority, so there was no funny business, and if someone disputed
his ruling, they could take it to the other owners for a vote (we
almost always sided with the commish). One year the boss and his
wife played for the championship, and boy was there ever some tension
in that household, but they handled it well and kept it light, although
they smoked the message boards with smack during championship week.
I think spouses are not a league issue, but the couples involved
need to be sure they can deal with it.
Kim and Gary echoed the point that spouses and relatives are often
more likely to be competitive than collusive with each other, but
Kim acknowledged that the problem of inter-spousal/inter-familial
collusion can be tricky:
I’m relieved it’s never been an
issue because it would be very sticky as to how to prevent that
problem, especially if it continues to crop up. The only real solutions
would be to really examine trades and possibly veto more of them
or to say that only one of them can be in the league. I would not
like to have to deal with either one of those options whether it’s
as the commissioner or just a fellow league member.
I'm glad I can report that some readers have had positive experiences
with married couples competing in the same league, but not everyone
feels that way. Here's what R.P. had to say:
As far as competing spouses….not a chance
in our league. They can be partners but not opponents.
Perhaps R.P. anticipated the problems that Bill experienced with
competing spouses in his league:
A couple of years ago, we allowed the wife of
a long-time member to join the league. That lasted all of one year.
It was clear to me (and others), that the guy was running his wife's
team. Both teams would log in to the website at the same time. One
team would drop a player and the other team would immediately pick
up that player. They proposed a trade to each other that was ridiculous
(unfortunately, I don't remember the players involved). I immediately
vetoed it over the objections of the long-time owner (I heard not
a peep from the wife).
So...my point...while I won't say spouses should not be allowed,
it does cause a very different dynamic and more work by the commissioner
to make sure everything is on the up-and-up.
Todd is doing just what Bill advises. He doesn't have any evidence
of anything amiss occurring between the husband and wife in his
league, but he wrote in to share that he does feel compelled to
pay special attention to the couple:
As Commish in a long-standing league, I have
finally had to face this issue for the first time. We had an owner
drop out the day after the draft and needed a replacement. Another
owner mentioned his wife would be willing to take over the team.
Since we were desperate, I approved the decision. I gave it lots
of thought as to who would actually be managing the team (maybe
the husband would manage both teams…ultimate form of collusion).
Ultimately, I had to go on the character and word of the husband
that he wouldn’t interfere with her team. I think I definitely
would give more scrutiny to a trade proposed between the two of
them (and for that matter ANY OTHER TRANSACTIONS they perform during
the course of the season), and I am a little curious as to who is
actually declining some of the fair trade offers sent her way, but
overall, there have been no issues of note. Let’s hope it
stays that way.
I appreciate the time and honesty of everyone who wrote in, and
I think Todd's note is a nice way to finish the discussion because
it's both practical and balanced. I wouldn't expect a commissioner
to forbid married couples from competing in a league in which I
participated, but I certainly would expect him to be vigilant--and
to be ready to call out any owners (be they relatives, close friends,
roommates, or spouses) for shenanigans.
This
Week's Question: What hosting service is best for accommodating
leagues that aren't purely H2H or point-based?
This week, I heard from two readers (R.P. and Danny) about their
plans to reduce the luck factor in their leagues by modifying the
traditional H2H format. They both like the idea of using a weekly
"all-play" feature to translate weekly wins and losses
to points (so that owners accumulate points based on wins and losses
each week instead of simply racking up higher and higher fantasy
scores to see who has the most at the end of the season).
They're curious as to whether any of the major free league-hosting
services can track the standings in the hybrid models proposed below.
Here's the slightly complicated model R.P. is considering:
The way it is proposed is that the winner of
each H2H matchup receives 10 points; then all teams receive 1 point
for each victory in the breakdown against the rest of the league.
In our 10-team league that would mean 18 points are available each
week. In the case of the highest scoring team beating the second
highest scoring team, the highest scoring team would get 18 points
and the second highest scoring team would get 8 points (one for
each victory against the other 8 teams). Are there any hosting sites
that you know of that can compile the standings in this fashion?
And here's Danny's (much simpler) model:
I lost this week in my H2H matchup but would
have beaten every other team except the one I lost to. I like the
idea of every Sunday mattering, but [I think it would be better
for every team to play against every other team in the league each
week. That way] you're really playing the field, and if you come
in the top 5 in points in a 10-team league, you get the win.
If you have a hosting recommendation for R.P. and/or Danny, I
hope to hear from you. I'll also consider including feedback/tweaks/suggestions
on their proposed hybrid models from those who want to chime in.
Just please don't send me a screed on why the total points approach
is the only way to go--or why H2H leagues are the only serious choice
for true FFers. (Been there; done that.)
Survivor Picks - Week 11 (Courtesy of
Matthew Schiff)
Trap Game: Cincinnati at New Orleans
Oddsmakers have the Saints as a touchdown favorite at home with
Giovani Bernard out for his third straight game and A.J. Green only
partially healthy after injuring his toe a number of weeks ago.
While everything points to an easy win by the Saints in the Bayou,
nothing this year has come easy to Drew Brees and company. Yes,
they can move the ball up and down the field (which is why they
have the second most yards gained per game). But the yardage hasn't
consistently translated to points, and the defense has let them
down in close games. The Bengals are hardly a pushover and still
very much in the thick of the AFC North battle, so don’t take
this game assuming that they will still be hung over from their
nights out on Bourbon street. This one may be a street fight and
Jeremy Hill just might be the difference if they let him carry the
ball more.
#3: Green Bay over Philadelphia (9-1: PIT,
NO, CIN, SF, CLE, SD, NE, KC, SEA, DEN)
As we get later into the season, matchups like the Packers hosting
the Eagles are wonderful to watch for so many reasons. Can the Eagles
and Chip Kelly continue their NFC dominance? Will Aaron Rodgers
be able to singlehandedly win the NFC North? This game pits two
of the best in the NFC, and the road to the Super Bowl could very
well go through the home stadium of the team that wins this contest.
That said, this game is going to be played in Green Bay, under Packer
conditions. For that reason, the edge has to go to the home team
and the Lambeau mystique. This is not a pick for the faint of heart,
but with so few “power teams” left to choose from so
late in the season in your Survival Pool, it’s pretty hard
to go against “old standby” when the Packers are firing
on all cylinders. (One note to my Eagles faithful – Philly
is hardly a pushover, but this is a game that will be very hard
for the high-flying Iggles to win on the road.)
#2: San Francisco at NY Giants (5-5: CHI,
Sea, NO, TB, DET, Den, CLE, MIA, KC, BAL)
The mighty Giants have become . . . puny. Perry Fewell’s defense
leads the league with most yards allowed per game--probably because
opposing QBs are being sacked less than twice per contest. In last
week’s loss to Seattle, the G-men allowed a whopping 522 yards
and 24 points in the second half. Frank Gore and Colin Kaepernick
must be licking their chops in anticipation of what New York’s
media is calling a “confused defense” that misreads
plays and overcommits on play action. Giants faithful are hoping
that the return of Rashad Jennings will take pressure off of Eli
Manning, who seems to be forcing passes at inopportune times. I
hate to pick against “my team,” but I may have to do
so repeatedly unless the Mara family can talk Jon Gruden or Bill
Cowher into taking charge of this ongoing trainwreck before the
Thanksgiving meal is even served.
Image by Tilt Creative (Ty
Schiff)
#1: Washington over Tampa Bay (8-2: PHI,
DEN, NE, SD, GB, SEA, BAL, DAL, CIN, AZ)
As good as the Eagles were this past Monday night against Carolina,
imagine how much better they might be if DeSean Jackson hadn't
been shipped off to Washington this past offseason. Jackson consistently
surpasses the 100-yard receiving mark (having done so in five
of the last seven games); and he finds the end zone roughly every
other week. This formidable wide-out now faces a Tampa team that
is 29th in total defense and 31st in points allowed. The only
problem for Jackson fans is that RG3 may not need to throw that
much to his favorite target this week, since the Buccaneer offense
is nothing if not offensive--especially to the nose. Tampa will
be forced to rely on rookie standout Mike Evans. Josh McCown is
expected back under center with Bobby Rainey at running back.
But except for auditioning for roster spots for next year, this
team will be hard-pressed to keep up with a Redskins squad that
could easily be 7-2 if not for just a handful of plays in four
of their losses.
Mike Davis has been writing about fantasy football since 1999.
As a landlocked Oklahoman who longs for the sound of ocean waves,
he also writes about ocean colonization under the pen name Studio
Dongo. The latest installment in his science fiction series can
be found here.
|
