Collusion ?? WITH ENDING NOW

[Death_From_Above]

I'm on the fence here as this is a significant integrity question and is detrimental to a league.. And this is a league where we are all close so its not an easy decision whether or not to bring this up for conversation.

But I am looking for other opinions on others takes, I really appreciate it.

We start our playoffs this week, and its been broadcast to everyone that the #2 seed who is on a BYE was contacting the last seed in the playoffs who happens to have waiver priority advantage to tell him to claim players that he otherwise wouldn't have claimed. (this was confirmed by him). The claims that were made are not for the best of players as its week 14, but they were very strategical in the fact that it was taking back up RB/TE's that are now relevant due to Ingram/Bennett IR designations.

The question here would be do you consider this collusion for another owner to go out and contact an owner and tell him who to pick up to enhance his chances when otherwise that owner wouldn't have done these moves?

*edit - for clarification the guy that asked me if I thought it was collusion was not asking me to act on it as of yet, but asking my opinion.

Once again I appreciate the help.

[bruiser]

No. A good owner giving advice to an owner of lesser skill (he was willing to take the advice) is not necessarily collusion. Hopefully all of the lesser inclined owners are learning along the way, but you wouldn't want to step in and squash that process. Those pickups could be immaterial in the end. You don't want to be a big brother over an inconsequential bit of advice from one owner to another. Be a good neighbor... not a big brother.

[Coogan Football]

No. A good owner giving advice to an owner of lesser skill (he was willing to take the advice) is not necessarily collusion. Hopefully all of the lesser inclined owners are learning along the way, but you wouldn't want to step in and squash that process. Those pickups could be immaterial in the end. You don't want to be a big brother over an inconsequential bit of advice from one owner to another. Be a good neighbor... not a big brother.

I fully agree with this

[Injured Reserve]

May be a little shady, but if that team wins this week, those players could be useful- either to him or prevent an opponent from using them.

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

Not unless he's planning to trade for those picked up players. I discuss best lineups, pickups, etc with my league mates sometimes.

[1standgoal]

No. A good owner giving advice to an owner of lesser skill (he was willing to take the advice) is not necessarily collusion. Hopefully all of the lesser inclined owners are learning along the way, but you wouldn't want to step in and squash that process. Those pickups could be immaterial in the end. You don't want to be a big brother over an inconsequential bit of advice from one owner to another. Be a good neighbor... not a big brother.

I fully agree with this

Not unless he's planning to trade for those picked up players. I discuss best lineups, pickups, etc with my league mates sometimes.

All this.
Not Collusion
Let it go

[schiewerma21]

NOt collusion.

[Death_From_Above]

thanks,

[steelman]

Definitely not. It's just a friendly (and probably strategic) tip from one owner to another. Happens all the time in my leagues.

[Titus Young's Lawyer]

I think this is obvious collusion as two teams conspired to effect the bigger outcome of the league. I'm assuming the team in the playoffs had a bad team pick up a guy like Hightower so he could not be used in the playoffs against him. That being said it is not the type of collusion that merits a stiff penalty, I would just put the players back in the FA pool.

[slaughterrt]

I think this is obvious collusion as two teams conspired to effect the bigger outcome of the league. I'm assuming the team in the playoffs had a bad team pick up a guy like Hightower so he could not be used in the playoffs against him. That being said it is not the type of collusion that merits a stiff penalty, I would just put the players back in the FA pool.

I'm of this opinion too. If the non-playoff team did this on his own, then fine. No problem. What I have an issue with is a playoff team influencing a non-playoff team into making unnecessary moves to block contenders from picking up players that might help. It seems that the two are conspiring to benefit one team. Maybe it's not collusion in the traditional sense but it is two teams conspiring to give one an advantage over the rest of the league.

Would it be collusion if a team conspired with another team with a high waiver priority...and the 2nd team picked up a waiver player only to trade him to the first team? That seems equally as fishy as it creates an unfair advantage between two teams over the rest of the league.

[sugbear65]

Lol what did the guy use Jedi mind control on the other owner? No, I don't think making FA suggestions to another player in your league is even nearly close to being considered collusion. I hope it's not anyway, or I've been making collusionary advice to leaguemates for years. Heck, we all may have done it on these very forums and not known it was a leaguemate.

[flyersfan1981]

I think this is obvious collusion as two teams conspired to effect the bigger outcome of the league. I'm assuming the team in the playoffs had a bad team pick up a guy like Hightower so he could not be used in the playoffs against him. That being said it is not the type of collusion that merits a stiff penalty, I would just put the players back in the FA pool.

I'm of this opinion too. If the non-playoff team did this on his own, then fine. No problem. What I have an issue with is a playoff team influencing a non-playoff team into making unnecessary moves to block contenders from picking up players that might help. It seems that the two are conspiring to benefit one team. Maybe it's not collusion in the traditional sense but it is two teams conspiring to give one an advantage over the rest of the league.

Would it be collusion if a team conspired with another team with a high waiver priority...and the 2nd team picked up a waiver player only to trade him to the first team? That seems equally as fishy as it creates an unfair advantage between two teams over the rest of the league.

Did you overlook the part where the team getting such advice was in the playoffs? Nothing wrong here at all.

[FantasyFreak]

No. I just discussed a possible trade scenario with another owner in the league for next year. We talk strategy, who to pick up, whom not to for this week how to build your team etc. We ARE playing each other this week. Nobody put a gun to the guys head to pick up those guys. He can choose to ignore the ADVICE that was given. That's all it was. Advice. It wasn't collusion because there was no secondary motive where the owner giving the advise then stated he would trade for player X, and even at that point it's debatable.

[slaughterrt]

I think this is obvious collusion as two teams conspired to effect the bigger outcome of the league. I'm assuming the team in the playoffs had a bad team pick up a guy like Hightower so he could not be used in the playoffs against him. That being said it is not the type of collusion that merits a stiff penalty, I would just put the players back in the FA pool.

I'm of this opinion too. If the non-playoff team did this on his own, then fine. No problem. What I have an issue with is a playoff team influencing a non-playoff team into making unnecessary moves to block contenders from picking up players that might help. It seems that the two are conspiring to benefit one team. Maybe it's not collusion in the traditional sense but it is two teams conspiring to give one an advantage over the rest of the league.

Would it be collusion if a team conspired with another team with a high waiver priority...and the 2nd team picked up a waiver player only to trade him to the first team? That seems equally as fishy as it creates an unfair advantage between two teams over the rest of the league.

Did you overlook the part where the team getting such advice was in the playoffs? Nothing wrong here at all.

Actually yeah I did overlook that. That changes things a bit as I was under the impression that the 2 seed owner was manipulating the WW by having a non-playoff team picking up players as strategy to keep them from playoff teams. The OP stated that these weren't even long term good players that would help the team in the future, but the players were strategically picked up due to injuries. My question, had the scenario been accurate, would be why would a non-playoff team be making short term strategic moves UNLESS there were ulterior motives? The only beneficial strategy I can think of would be to grab those players in order to flip them to playoff teams...however, what league would allow trades between playoff and non-playoff teams this late into the season?
My opinion seems null and void due to my misinterpretation of the OP's post, so I'll change my vote to non-collusion since this appears to be good natured advice between owners.