detlef Posted December 21, 2012 Author Share Posted December 21, 2012 Why would I? Why would you trust anyone in your league? Do you feel that making an arrangement to split a pot differently than set for in the league means that someone is not trust worthy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 I have split #1 and #2 money in poker contests but never in FF. Considered it, but have never done it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpayers Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Wow, so the answer is no then. You don't trust the judgement of your league-mates to differentiate between an arrangement that does not affect anyone else and true collusion. As much as it pains me to say...NO I wouldn't trust them once there was a hint of an arrangement of any type. Competition, $ and ego all make an intoxicating brew that often cause some people, even your closest bro's, to bend the rules in their favor. I bet Adam let Eve and that snake fill in the last two team spots in his FF league at the last minute...look what happened to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Why would you trust anyone in your league? Do you feel that making an arrangement to split a pot differently than set for in the league means that someone is not trust worthy? I definitely think that making arrangements to split the pot makes me question a person's trustworthiness. Doesn't mean someone isn't trustworthy, it just opens the subject up for debate. I'm a 41 year old man with a wife and two daughters. I am maxed out on the drama in my life. So if I have to waste time questioning $hit, my personal preference is to just pass all together. I just don't like it. However it is that I personally define competitive, the idea of splitting the pot strikes me as counter to that definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 21, 2012 Author Share Posted December 21, 2012 I definitely think that making arrangements to split the pot makes me question a person's trustworthiness. Doesn't mean someone isn't trustworthy, it just opens the subject up for debate. I'm a 41 year old man with a wife and two daughters. I am maxed out on the drama in my life. So if I have to waste time questioning $hit, my personal preference is to just pass all together. I just don't like it. However it is that I personally define competitive, the idea of splitting the pot strikes me as counter to that definition. Just in FF, or in the poker example as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Just in FF, or in the poker example as well? In all examples. If you are playing for money, play for money. If you are playing for pride, then there is no need to add the money element. In every league I have ever been in, there is a defined payout for 1st plae and a defined payout for 2nd place in the league rules. As a league memeber, that makes it my business even if I amnot in the Super Bowl, IMHO. Do league rules define a payout for 1st place and a payout for 2nd place? If they do, then I am not sure what is debatable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FWmaker Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) So do you seriously not trust the judgment of those you play in leagues with so much that you're worried that this would open the floodgates on "breaking the rules"? That someone would use the harmless arrangement between two adults to split a pot of money that will imminently belong to them and nobody else as justification for breaking other rules that actually have an unfair affect on others in the league? I don't think anyone should suppose that I trust or do not trust anyone. However, I do not wish to open the door for any reason. Then others could seek to open the door for that reason or another. Certainly, I trusted the integrity of those I play with to the extent the rules were written up. AND for those they were originally written up for. However, owners come and go. I may not know new owners. If new owners get voted in, it is up to me whether I trust them enough to play with them, tolerate them, etc. AND- while this can apply to just about any size league, this is a 32 team league made up of internet people. Enough said. You mention "harmless arrangement." This is an issue. YOU are defining this as "harmless." The detractors are stating that it is inherently NOT harmless as you put it. eta: I guess it should be stated that I DO trust the two owners - that is NOT my issue - my issue is the arrangement made without League consent. Edited December 21, 2012 by FWmaker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) Note to self: As assumed, most huddlers take this hobby way too seriously. Oh the hughmanity, an agreement to do what one wishes with their own money that was rightfully won. Simply asking the commish/treasurer to distribute differently to save the extra step (and in the case of paypal, possible added expense) of distributing the money. I really wish I had your stress free lives that something like this was an actual concern. Or maybe I should just be thankful that I treat this as the fun hobby that it should be, and making a little money can be a nice bonus. It's all about reducing volatility. I'm not playing for mortgage money in any of my leagues (other than FFPC, but again, the money used to buy in is budgeted and not affecting my lifestyle), so none of the winnings that I stand to gain in any of my leagues are life changing or would go to serve any purpose than to maybe see me hand it to my wife so she can go to the spa or something. Other members of the league may not be in the same boat and have a greater need for the money or it would be more significant for them - so no big deal. I'm primarily playing for the pride/challenge of winning the damn league, the money is nothing more than a little icing on the top. I am in two championship games this weekend - both in BOTH leagues - one is the Huddle California league - winner is scheduled to get 270, 2nd place 150. If my opponent wanted to split it say 200 each and winner gets the extra 20, who the f cares, we're still playing the game out for the bragging rights of being the champion. MSHB is a league where the buy in is for charity and we play for pride - and I am actually much more interested in winning that league because it is an 18 team IDP league, and I am far from being very IDP knowledgable, so the prestige of winning that league does mean a lot more to me than the potential extra $120 for winning the Cali league. I have to admit, I'm actually surprised, though I probably shouldn't have been, that people would actually take offense, and be adamantly opposed, to the idea of two owners agreeing to a different distribution of the prize pool that is mutually beneficial to them once they reached the title game. Edited December 21, 2012 by Big Country 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 21, 2012 Author Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) In all examples. If you are playing for money, play for money. If you are playing for pride, then there is no need to add the money element. In every league I have ever been in, there is a defined payout for 1st plae and a defined payout for 2nd place in the league rules. As a league memeber, that makes it my business even if I amnot in the Super Bowl, IMHO. Do league rules define a payout for 1st place and a payout for 2nd place? If they do, then I am not sure what is debatable. Well, for starters, there has to be a league designated split even if you have no problem with letting the finalist divide it as they please because you need a default in case they can't agree. It does take two to tango, after all. If only one wants it, then the obvious choice is to go with the league set-up. I don't think anyone should suppose that I trust or do not trust anyone. However, I do not wish to open the door for any reason. Then others could seek to open the door for that reason or another. Certainly, I trusted the integrity of those I play with to the extent the rules were written up. AND for those they were originally written up for. However, owners come and go. I may not know new owners. If new owners get voted in, it is up to me whether I trust them enough to play with them, tolerate them, etc. AND- while this can apply to just about any size league, this is a 32 team league made up of internet people. Enough said. You mention "harmless arrangement." This is an issue. YOU are defining this as "harmless." The detractors are stating that it is inherently NOT harmless as you put it. eta: I guess it should be stated that I DO trust the two owners - that is NOT my issue - my issue is the arrangement made without League consent. Has anyone actually defined the "harm"? Outside of it not fitting their notion of why you play the game? Do their league rules specifically say that the designated split is not to be messed with? Or does it simply lay out what each place gets? As has been mentioned earlier. These guys could simply slide one or the other the difference and nobody would be the wiser. By telling the commish they want the money split a different way, they're actually being transparent about it. Not that many of us even feel we owe that to anyone. Keep in mind, this is not about expecting anyone to feel compelled to split a pot if that's not their thing, but rather not getting pissed that two others do. I realize the poll, when started 5 years ago, failed to give that as an option, but that is certainly what the discussion has evolved to. Edited December 21, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Note to self: As assumed, most huddlers take this hobby way too seriously. Oh the hughmanity, an agreement to do what one wishes with their own money that was rightfully won. Simply asking the commish/treasurer to distribute differently to save the extra step (and in the case of paypal, possible added expense) of distributing the money. I really wish I had your stress free lives that something like this was an actual concern. Or maybe I should just be thankful that I treat this as the fun hobby that it should be, and making a little money can be a nice bonus. It's all about reducing volatility. I'm not playing for mortgage money in any of my leagues (other than FFPC, but again, the money used to buy in is budgeted and not affecting my lifestyle), so none of the winnings that I stand to gain in any of my leagues are life changing or would go to serve any purpose than to maybe see me hand it to my wife so she can go to the spa or something. Other members of the league may not be in the same boat and have a greater need for the money or it would be more significant for them - so no big deal. I'm primarily playing for the pride/challenge of winning the damn league, the money is nothing more than a little icing on the top. I am in two championship games this weekend - both in BOTH leagues - one is the Huddle California league - winner is scheduled to get 270, 2nd place 150. If my opponent wanted to split it say 200 each and winner gets the extra 20, who the f cares, we're still playing the game out for the bragging rights of being the champion. MSHB is a league where the buy in is for charity and we play for pride - and I am actually much more interested in winning that league because it is an 18 team IDP league, and I am far from being very IDP knowledgable, so the prestige of winning that league does mean a lot more to me than the potential extra $120 for winning the Cali league. I have to admit, I'm actually surprised, though I probably shouldn't have been, that people would actually take offense, and be adamantly opposed, to the idea of two owners agreeing to a different distribution of the prize pool that is mutually beneficial to them once they reached the title game. So does that mean we can split a Brees Jersey between us? I'll keep it for the months of September through January, you can have it the rest of the year... May want to find a good dry cleaner though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) I have to admit, I'm actually surprised, though I probably shouldn't have been, that people would actually take offense, and be adamantly opposed, to the idea of two owners agreeing to a different distribution of the prize pool that is mutually beneficial to them once they reached the title game. I'm equally surprised by thenumber of people who think it is OK to split the pot. I am in an equal number of free leagues as pay leagues. I don't feel like I take it too seriously. I've been playing since 1988 and only won one league so if it were just about the money for me, I'd have given up decades ago. Well, for starters, there has to be a league designated split even if you have no problem with letting the finalist divide it as they please because you need a default in case they can't agree. It does take two to tango, after all. If only one wants it, then the obvious choice is to go with the league set-up. There are league rules for a reason. Two owners agreeing to act contrary to the league rules is the definition of collusion, right? Edited December 21, 2012 by Clubfoothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosGatosEnFuegos Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Det - both. Mostly that they're "violating" the rules. It certainly doesn't help that the "theme" of this league is Pirate related. Who ever heard of pirates getting together to split the burried treasure? THAT is just going to help the SMACK value of their deeds. This. Given the theme of the league, I find the pot splitting to be especially heinous. Not sure I like it in other leagues but it definitely has no place in this particular league. Actually, pirates typically took better care of their crews than "legitimate" ships. They were more fairly compensated and had more say in who their leaders were. Those leaders usually earned their roles by being good at what they did, rather than captains in the Navy who were leaders simply because they were in the ruling class. I'm not sure why the myth of pirates being ruthless amongst themselves is perpetuated, but it simply wasn't a viable way to run a pirate ship. "Splitting the buried treasure" is exactly what happened. Read the Pirate Democracy and Treasure sections on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy Seems MORE reasonable given the theme of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 21, 2012 Author Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) There are league rules for a reason. Two owners agreeing to act contrary to the league rules is the definition of collusion, right? Yes, rules are there for a reason, but it appears we see those reasons differently. I see that reason as being to ensure fair play. Not to needlessly regulate the actions of each other. And thus, I don't see this as the definition of collusion, at least with how it relates to FF. I see collusion as an arrangement outside of the rules to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the league. Roster-stacking being the most common version. You know, what strikes me as odd, is that you initially used the bit about, "I've got real life drama, I don't need this crap too" as a rationale to worry about how two consenting adults split up money that they've won. Edited December 21, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 So does that mean we can split a Brees Jersey between us? I'll keep it for the months of September through January, you can have it the rest of the year... May want to find a good dry cleaner though. LOL - I'm going to hold out for a Montreal Alouettes Tebow jersey next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 21, 2012 Author Share Posted December 21, 2012 LOL - I'm going to hold out for a Montreal Alouettes Tebow jersey next year. That would be sweet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Yes, rules are there for a reason, but it appears we see those reasons differently. I see that reason as being to ensure fair play. Not to needlessly regulate the actions of each other. And thus, I don't see this as the definition of collusion, at least with how it relates to FF. I see collusion as an arrangement outside of the rules to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the league. Roster-stacking being the most common version. I'll try be less wordy than detlef: this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Yes, rules are there for a reason, but it appears we see those reasons differently. I see that reason as being to ensure fair play. Not to needlessly regulate the actions of each other. And thus, I don't see this as the definition of collusion, at least with how it relates to FF. I see collusion as an arrangement outside of the rules to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the league. Roster-stacking being the most common version. Noted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 I did it once in a league years ago where I was a huge dog. turns out ironically enough I won anyway. Personally, if I'm not in the SB, I couldnt care less what the other teams do with the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojanmojo Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Actually, pirates typically took better care of their crews than "legitimate" ships. They were more fairly compensated and had more say in who their leaders were. Those leaders usually earned their roles by being good at what they did, rather than captains in the Navy who were leaders simply because they were in the ruling class. I'm not sure why the myth of pirates being ruthless amongst themselves is perpetuated, but it simply wasn't a viable way to run a pirate ship. "Splitting the buried treasure" is exactly what happened. Read the Pirate Democracy and Treasure sections on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy Seems MORE reasonable given the theme of the league. Maybe. But if you were in this particular league, you might have a better understanding as to why it doesn't fit in this league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) Maybe it's an age thing... Or maybe it's an actually making it to the SB thing... yeah, I saw my posts after I replied. Maybe it is age and things change. That year I made it into the playoffs on some screwy tie-breaker that was changed the following season. I also went on to win 4 in a row in a that league so maybe my perspective changed. I'm playing in many more leagues and have had more than my fair share of 1st place finishes. I still want to win. I also want a little more money than 2nd place offers in some leagues so I'll consider my chances before offering or accepting a split. Its still about money but like BC said maybe I want to couch my risk and offer a better payout if I don't win. What I don't get is calling people splitting heinous or untrustworthy if they do split. A bit extreme IMO. I'm sure they are just taking a little less for the guarantee that worst case they win a little more if they do lose. I still fail to see what is untrustworthy about. Edited December 21, 2012 by Zooty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpayers Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 yeah, I saw my posts after I replied. Maybe it is age and things change. That year I made it into the playoffs on some screwy tie-breaker that was changed the following season. I also went on to win 4 in a row in a that league so maybe my perspective changed. I'm playing in many more leagues and have had more than my fair share of 1st place finishes. I still want to win. I also want a little more money than 2nd place offers in some leagues so I'll consider my chances before offering or accepting a split. Its still about money but like BC said maybe I want to couch my risk and offer a better payout if I don't win. What I don't get is calling people splitting heinous or untrustworthy if they do split. A bit extreme IMO. I'm sure they are just taking a little less for the guarantee that worst case they win a little more if they do lose. I still fail to see what is untrustworthy about. Now that's the rub...there's a clear difference between a pattern of behavior and a profile of someone that may/should not be trusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Now that's the rub...there's a clear difference between a pattern of behavior and a profile of someone that may/should not be trusted. yeah not sure what trust has to do with splitting a pot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Itals Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Actually, pirates typically took better care of their crews than "legitimate" ships. They were more fairly compensated and had more say in who their leaders were. Those leaders usually earned their roles by being good at what they did, rather than captains in the Navy who were leaders simply because they were in the ruling class. I'm not sure why the myth of pirates being ruthless amongst themselves is perpetuated, but it simply wasn't a viable way to run a pirate ship. "Splitting the buried treasure" is exactly what happened. Read the Pirate Democracy and Treasure sections on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy Seems MORE reasonable given the theme of the league. Maybe. But if you were in this particular league, you might have a better understanding as to why it doesn't fit in this league. I honestly don't have a problem with what is happening from a fantasy football aspect. And LosGatos is absolutley right about it from the historical aspect of piracy. I just think it is fun to tease a pair of gheywads that are afraid to mix it up over a couple hundred dollars. It makes for good fishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Note to self: As assumed, most huddlers take this hobby way too seriously. Oh the hughmanity, an agreement to do what one wishes with their own money that was rightfully won. Simply asking the commish/treasurer to distribute differently to save the extra step (and in the case of paypal, possible added expense) of distributing the money. I really wish I had your stress free lives that something like this was an actual concern. Or maybe I should just be thankful that I treat this as the fun hobby that it should be, and making a little money can be a nice bonus. It's all about reducing volatility. I'm not playing for mortgage money in any of my leagues (other than FFPC, but again, the money used to buy in is budgeted and not affecting my lifestyle), so none of the winnings that I stand to gain in any of my leagues are life changing or would go to serve any purpose than to maybe see me hand it to my wife so she can go to the spa or something. Other members of the league may not be in the same boat and have a greater need for the money or it would be more significant for them - so no big deal. I'm primarily playing for the pride/challenge of winning the damn league, the money is nothing more than a little icing on the top. I am in two championship games this weekend - both in BOTH leagues - one is the Huddle California league - winner is scheduled to get 270, 2nd place 150. If my opponent wanted to split it say 200 each and winner gets the extra 20, who the f cares, we're still playing the game out for the bragging rights of being the champion. MSHB is a league where the buy in is for charity and we play for pride - and I am actually much more interested in winning that league because it is an 18 team IDP league, and I am far from being very IDP knowledgable, so the prestige of winning that league does mean a lot more to me than the potential extra $120 for winning the Cali league. I have to admit, I'm actually surprised, though I probably shouldn't have been, that people would actually take offense, and be adamantly opposed, to the idea of two owners agreeing to a different distribution of the prize pool that is mutually beneficial to them once they reached the title game. This. Wow. I'm actually pretty shocked that this is even being debated. And, just to be clear, I'm one of the two owners whose integrity is being questioned, apparently. Unbelievable. I've been participating in this hobby for the better part of 25 years, won a couple dozen (give or take a few) championships, including a few BOTH leagues, and have never proposed a split pot. Not once. Can't recall, for sure, but I believe I have had a couple proposed to me, but have never accepted... Until this one. I'm in four title games this year... Three Huddle/BOTH leagues, and one that's not. 32 Homarrrrrs is a very challenging league... Not only is it 32 teams, obviously, it's got a unique set of rules. Rosters are thin and the waiver wire is pretty much non-existent. So, your draft and homer selections dictate a large part of your success. I was fortunate enough to acquire Peterson, Harvin, Rudolph, and Welker... Those guys, along with the MN defense and kicker have carried me to the league's best record. Irish (my opponent in the final) sent me a PM, asking if I wanted to split. My first reaction was to decline, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I really do not like my matchup this week. Ironically, he's got the Texans, and MN and Houston play each other this week. Given that I've pretty much limped through the playoffs (no Harvin, Welker banged up, etc.), it seemed like a no-brainer for me to accept his offer. Strictly a financial decision, based on what I think of my chances. I don't particularly like Peterson's chances of having another monster game this week, and the MN defense might very well also have a tough time this weekend. That doesn't change how much I want to win this league. And it certainly doesn't make me "afraid to mix it up." To call this collusion is laughable. I had no idea others would view it that way. Had I known, I never would have even considered the offer. If people are seriously considering leaving the league over this, I'll withdraw my acceptance to the split, and we'll just play for the normal 1st/2nd amounts. I too have far more important things to worry about than FF, so I'd rather not risk tarnishing my reputation here over something this silly, even if I do think the owners who are questioning this are pretty much off their rockers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Apparently, I'm being kicked out of the league over this. Unbelievable. I'm not even sure what to say, or if I should even bother. Some people are more delusional than I gave them credit for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.