Would you have taken this deal from your opponent?

[robert terni]

My view also. But I'd probably turn him down unless he was my BFF. And his wife was hot.

ya he is one of my best friends..and hes a gambling man..so hes gambling that hes going to lose LOL

[Bronco Billy]

i took the deal!!! An extra $650 in my pocket no matter what..what the hells $50...when you get $650 GUARANTEED

 

Well, it's not too often that someone takes the low road and then comes out and proudly thumps his chest about doing it while pissing away $50....

[Qball86]

Two teams agree that one team will tank in exchange for a more favorable split of the pot for the losing team. How is this not collusion?

 

 

Right, it's more an insurance policy. If the other guy does come back to win, he only collects $100 and the rest gets sent to him. If he holds on to win as is expected, he ships the $50 as the cost to insure the $650 win.

 

We don't allow any deals like this in our league, the payouts are what they are you either win or you don't. What do you do next year if the final four teams want to split 750 into 4 payouts of 187 each? Technically only the winner would lose money and maybe they all aren't a big risk takers or are good friends/relatives. The next 3 teams who could've finished 2nd made 137 more than they would have and the 3rd and 4th place teams are up the full 187. Obviously an exaggerated example but none the less a possibility.

 

And I guess payout deals aren't exactly collusion but just for arguments sake, isn't saying "I'll throw my week 13 game to get a better playoff opponent in the first round" also just an "insurance policy"? Is the difference that payout collusion doesn't affect other teams and tanking does? Again, in our league it's balck and white, no two teams deciding any outcome, fate will.

[The Next Generation]

 

this is not the reason to take this deal. If the Eagles win out (at home vs the Vikes, at home vs the Cowboys), and the Packers beat the Bears next week in GB, the Eagles get the #2 seed and a bye. The Eagles have EVERYTHING to play for Tuesday night.

 

And, if the Falcons lose to the Saints and the Panthers the Eagles can still get the #1 seed!

[detlef]

Well, it's not too often that someone takes the low road and then comes out and proudly thumps his chest about doing it while pissing away $50....

For starters, I always laugh at those who feel compelled to tell others how they should act in this situation. If you think this is a my little buddy move, then that's a great argument for why you shouldn't enter into such a deal. If you're in his shoes and someone makes you that offer, by all means, refuse it and, if you feel compelled, get all sanctimonious about the honor of the game and all that. However, there are exactly two people who are involved in this deal. Nobody else. Anyone who wants a say in how the SB money should be split is more than welcome to field a team good enough to make said SB and dictate whether or not it will deviate from the pre-arranged deal. It's really that simple.

 

FF is a form of entertainment set up between friends, co-workers, or what have you. There need only be rules set in place to insure fair play. Anything beyond that is one grown man trying to tell another what he can and can't do.

 

As for this situation in particular, this is not the "low road" and this is not conceding anything. He was holding nearly all the cards and paid very little to insure that some absolutely crazy thing didn't hose him out of a bunch of money. The guy conceding is the other player. Is this that much different than settling out of court? Obviously the conceding party is going to offer you less than you could have won if you went through the hassle (and, yes, expense which is the biggest difference). But you could also, quite possibly lose the case. You never know. Obviously you have a likely winning case or the other party wouldn't be offering you jack, but, like this, you never know.

 

We don't allow any deals like this in our league, the payouts are what they are you either win or you don't. What do you do next year if the final four teams want to split 750 into 4 payouts of 187 each? Technically only the winner would lose money and maybe they all aren't a big risk takers or are good friends/relatives. The next 3 teams who could've finished 2nd made 137 more than they would have and the 3rd and 4th place teams are up the full 187. Obviously an exaggerated example but none the less a possibility.

 

And I guess payout deals aren't exactly collusion but just for arguments sake, isn't saying "I'll throw my week 13 game to get a better playoff opponent in the first round" also just an "insurance policy"? Is the difference that payout collusion doesn't affect other teams and tanking does? Again, in our league it's balck and white, no two teams deciding any outcome, fate will.

What is so bad about your exaggerated example? So, it's their freaking money. And, you do realize that they could just go through the motions and keep your sacred pot-split in tact and then simply divide up the money themselves once they get it. Again, it's their money. What do you do next year? Nothing, you just play as normal. And if one of the four who makes the play-offs doesn't want the deal, then there's no deal. It's really that simple.

 

But let's be realistic, these deals are typically struck prior to the big game when the pot split seems more extreme than the finalists think is cool. It's almost never an even split, but rather shortening the gap. It happened to me in a league with a very dramatic split (something like $800 vs $125). We decided to make it $600 vs $325 and you would not believe the freaking hellstorm that ensued. I mean, it's not like it didn't matter any more who won. Who wouldn't prefer $600 to $325? We just both figured we'd rather insure that we walked with enough to make it worth the trouble. And, have you forfeited all bragging rights by agreeing to change the stakes? You still win the precious admiration of your peers. It's just that the guy who started the league years earlier was an "all or nothing" kind of guy. Well, that's great. For him. And because the league was set up that way, he'd have the trump card provided he was one of the guys in the finals. But he wasn't, so he can suck it.

Edited December 27, 2010 by detlef

[delusions of grandeur]

We don't allow any deals like this in our league, the payouts are what they are you either win or you don't. What do you do next year if the final four teams want to split 750 into 4 payouts of 187 each? Technically only the winner would lose money and maybe they all aren't a big risk takers or are good friends/relatives. The next 3 teams who could've finished 2nd made 137 more than they would have and the 3rd and 4th place teams are up the full 187. Obviously an exaggerated example but none the less a possibility.

 

And I guess payout deals aren't exactly collusion but just for arguments sake, isn't saying "I'll throw my week 13 game to get a better playoff opponent in the first round" also just an "insurance policy"? Is the difference that payout collusion doesn't affect other teams and tanking does? Again, in our league it's balck and white, no two teams deciding any outcome, fate will.

 

That is exactly the difference. Things like collusion and tanking DO affect other teams in the hunt (and of course collusion is cheating); This is far different.... In fact, now that the Sunday games are over, there is virtually no way he can affect the outcome anymore if he wanted to.

 

But who cares if the top 4 teams decided they just wanted to split the money? No, that deal isn't something I'd be interested in, but it affects nobody but the people involved who are making the decision. If they decide that it's enough for all of them just to make the top 4, then so be it. It's THEIR money now, that will somehow be dispersed amongst them regardless.

 

Last year, my bro and I were in the championship, so we talked the night before and decided to split the pot... Does that mean either one of us was conceding victory? Of course not. The cash only lasts a short time, but my championship is something I can be proud of, and rub in my leaguemates and bros face for years. As has been said above, the split is just insurance for the cash, not for the championship. It is in no way affecting the outcome to do this.

 

That said, I would never take part in what the OP is talking about, even if it was that sweet of a deal for me... Once the games have started, I think you should play them out... But more power to ya if you're made an offer you can't refuse and that's how you wanna do it. It shouldn't be up to anyone else whether or not you can or should split the prizes that you've both earned, however you please...

 

But IMO, I'd propose changing payouts next year so that second place doesn't have to do such a raw deal just to make a few bucks.

[bostonsoxandy]

Well, it's not too often that someone takes the low road and then comes out and proudly thumps his chest about doing it while pissing away $50....

 

matters how you look at it-did he lose $50 or save $650? If Vick got hurt early in the game, which is very possible considering how he plays the game, there is a legit chance he lost $650. $50 is chump change compared to $650....

[tazinib1]

Two teams agree that one team will tank in exchange for a more favorable split of the pot for the losing team. How is this not collusion?

 

+1000

 

I'd be furious if I were in this league and something shady like this went down. It goes against everything we play for.

[delusions of grandeur]

+1000

 

I'd be furious if I were in this league and something shady like this went down. It goes against everything we play for.

 

This is not what's going on here. He didn't say he was going to tank, and for all we know, it's not even possible with only 2 games to go. The sunday games have already happened prior to this deal, and despite his best effort, he's losing.... Nowhere was it said that he would intentionally lose, just that he's getting beat handily and conceding victory for a slightly larger 2nd place prize, regardless of whether he ends up winning or not.

 

Like I said, I wouldn't take the deal, but it's their championship and cash to play for. If you want to have a stance in the matter, then make it that far to say "no". Otherwise, no offense, but it's really none of you business if/how they decide to split the cash.

 

Do you really care if person 1 or person 2 wins, or if they play winner take all, or if they just agree to give it all to charity, when it has no bearing on you?

[Savage Beatings]

Have some balls, and reject the deal. He's offering from a position of extreme weakness. If you want to make a deal, then you set the terms from your position of strength. If you really are worried about losing (which I can't believe you are) then maybe offer him $25 to gurantee your win instead of $50. But if I were you, I would just play and try to win it outright.

[tazinib1]

This is not what's going on here. He didn't say he was going to tank, and for all we know, it's not even possible with only 2 games to go. The sunday games have already happened prior to this deal, and despite his best effort, he's losing.... Nowhere was it said that he would intentionally lose, just that he's getting beat handily and conceding victory for a slightly larger 2nd place prize, regardless of whether he ends up winning or not.

 

Like I said, I wouldn't take the deal, but it's their championship and cash to play for. If you want to have a stance in the matter, then make it that far to say "no". Otherwise, no offense, but it's really none of you business if/how they decide to split the cash.

 

Do you really care if person 1 or person 2 wins, or if they play winner take all, or if they just agree to give it all to charity, when it has no bearing on you?

 

yeah I would care if I were in that league. Since I am not, its only my opinion and its worth about as much as...well you get my point.

[detlef]

+1000

 

I'd be furious if I were in this league and something shady like this went down. It goes against everything we play for.

If that makes you furious, just imagine how pissed you'd be if someone who's team wasn't good enough to make the finals tried to butt in and tell you and the other finalist how you should be able to divide up loot that imminently belonged to the two of you.

 

Oh, and it's not collusion. At least not in the way that we speak of here normally. Collusion, as it is defined here, is some deal struck between two players that unfairly affects the balance of competition and affects other people.

 

This only offends your sense of what the ultimate goal should be. And, again, that's a fine enough reason to refuse any such offers if they're presented to you. However, nowhere near a good enough reason to butt into what two other guys want to do with the money. It's not even worth having a rule about because nobody needs to be protected from anything. Anyone who doesn't think the money should be divided up any way other than how it says in the rules can simply refuse. They can't have it forced upon them by anyone.

[delusions of grandeur]

yeah I would care if I were in that league the championship game. Since I am not, its only my opinion and its worth about as much as...well you get my point.

 

fixed

Edited December 27, 2010 by delusions of granduer

[tazinib1]

If that makes you furious, just imagine how pissed you'd be if someone who's team wasn't good enough to make the finals tried to butt in and tell you and the other finalist how you should be able to divide up loot that imminently belonged to the two of you.

 

Oh, and it's not collusion. At least not in the way that we speak of here normally. Collusion, as it is defined here, is some deal struck between two players that unfairly affects the balance of competition and affects other people.

 

This only offends your sense of what the ultimate goal should be. And, again, that's a fine enough reason to refuse any such offers if they're presented to you. However, nowhere near a good enough reason to butt into what two other guys want to do with the money. It's not even worth having a rule about because nobody needs to be protected from anything. Anyone who doesn't think the money should be divided up any way other than how it says in the rules can simply refuse. They can't have it forced upon them by anyone.

 

trust me...I get what you guys are saying. I really do and to be honest, I don't really give a chit But if this is the case, why even have a Championship game?

 

Hey dude, it looks like you have the better team..lets just skip the Championship game, ya know the game we all pine to be in, and just divvy up the loot? Ghey

[Bronco Billy]

trust me...I get what you guys are saying. I really do and to be honest, I don't really give a chit But if this is the case, why even have a Championship game?

 

Hey dude, it looks like you have the better team..lets just skip the Championship game, ya know the game we all pine to be in, and just divvy up the loot? Ghey

 

 

Taz giving lessons in FF, and being on the correct side as opposed to some others here who should know better.

[redrumjuice]

I take the money, but make sure the commish/treasurer know the details in case he 'changes' his mind Tuesday night around midnight.

[Bronco Billy]

For starters, I always laugh at those who feel compelled to tell others how they should act in this situation.

 

 

You can stick that where the sun don't shine. If he didn't want opinions, then why ask on a message board? I always laugh at those who take umbrage at others who offer an opinion when a subject is brought up on a message board.

[redrumjuice]

+1000

 

I'd be furious if I were in this league and something shady like this went down. It goes against everything we play for.

 

 

Hey Drama queen, you would be out of it, and it would be none of your business. So MIND your own business.

 

If this was $500 for first, $300 for second, I stay. If it's a guaranteed $650 or maybe $50, no brainer.

[Bronco Billy]

matters how you look at it-did he lose $50 or save $650? If Vick got hurt early in the game, which is very possible considering how he plays the game, there is a legit chance he lost $650. $50 is chump change compared to $650....

 

Congrats on using what is quite possibly the most feeble argument in FF. Well, hell, any player could get hurt on any down in any game. I guess that means that no one who has the slightest risk aversion should ever think of playing in anything other than free leagues, since you could just be putting up good cash only to see some players hurt during the season and finish out of the money. Wait - losing money when players don't perform like projected happens to the overwhelming majority of owners in any money league, doesn't it?

Edited December 27, 2010 by Bronco Billy

[delusions of grandeur]

 

Taz giving lessons in FF, and being on the correct side as opposed to some others here who should know better.

 

What's the correct side? That it's ghey? No argument here if your league has rules against that.....

 

I think it's ironic that anyone would say "should know better" when talking about how 2 people disperse cash amongst themselves that is THEIRS, not yours or anyone else in the league anymore. So what is the "correct" course of action? That you should meddle in something that has nothing to do with you?

 

If the two owners submit a legitimate lineup to play for the championship (and honestly it makes no difference to me if they don't; By getting this far, they have every right to make a decision that only affects the parties in agreement. If money concerns them more than a championship, then that's their choice), but what they do after that is their own deal.

[detlef]

You can stick that where the sun don't shine. If he didn't want opinions, then why ask on a message board? I always laugh at those who take umbrage at others who offer an opinion when a subject is brought up on a message board.

Well, maybe he was looking for the sort of odds someone offered up earlier, not for a bunch of sanctimonious "for the good of the game" crap that guys like you were offering. As in, "do you think it's a good deal?" Not, "please tell me whether it is ethical for me to enter into an arrangement with someone regarding money that is ultimately ours anyway."

 

At least, that's what I would be looking for if I asked.

 

Oh, and what redrum said?

[Ursa Majoris]

Congrats on using what is quite possibly the most feeble argument in FF. Well, hell, any player could get hurt on any down in any game. I guess that means that no one who has the slightest risk aversion should ever think of playing in anything other than free leagues, since you could just be putting up good cash only to see some players hurt during the season and finish out of the money. Wait - losing money when players don't perform like projected happens to the overwhelming majority of owners in any money league, doesn't it?

I would normally agree that it's weak to pre-split the top two prizes but I think you're wrong on this one due to the existing circumstances for this one game. Victory is a near certainty anyway except for the possibility of Murphy's Law (injury, etc) kicking in for the couple of remaining players on MNF and TNF. The other unique aspect is the colossal differential between 1st and 2nd. If it was, say, $450 vs $300, I'd turn it down because in the event of disaster, 2nd prize is still very nice but buying a guarantee of $650 for an outlay of $50 is a no-brainer.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[Bronco Billy]

Hey Drama queen, you would be out of it, and it would be none of your business. So MIND your own business.

 

If this was $500 for first, $300 for second, I stay. If it's a guaranteed $650 or maybe $50, no brainer.

 

You're saying that if an owner pays money into a league that they should have no say when underhanded deals go down? It's partly his money that he willingly contributed that's being divvied up. It's not too much to ask leaguemates to act with some moral backbone. The deal he would have agreed to when he entered the league and paid his money would be that the winner gets $700 and second place gets $50. He has a right to see that expectation carried through even though he isn't involved in the awards, or at a minimum to have any 11th hour backdoor deal disclosed for the rest of the league to see. If the owners were worried that maybe they weren't doing the right thing, they easily could have put it up for consideration from all the owners who put the money up in the first place and aren't getting any back this season.

 

Why do YOU think they didn't go to the rest of the league about the deal?

[Qball86]

I'm up by 33 with vick and akers to go..and hes got Matt Ryan, Harvin and Celek...He clearly thinks he lost because he offered me the victory if I paid him the 2nd place + $50....and no matter the outcome I win the jackpot...what you think?? I dont need to stress out for the next 2 days now...

 

I could really care less what someone does with the money....I think its the part about him buying a championship in his league that bothers me, whether I'm in his league or not. This wasn't a "let's split the money and play for the title" kinda deal. It's a "if you pay me enough I will quit and hand you a title" kinda deal. What's the point? Who can brag about winning a title they didn't win but rather bought? Oh yeah the Yankees for one.

 

If I were in that league I would feel like I'd have to watch the two of them each year; "if you pay me I'll throw my last game to let you in the playoffs". Just seems a bit shady to be paying someone for victories, in the Super Bowl no less.

[Ursa Majoris]

I could really care less what someone does with the money....I think its the part about him buying a championship in his league that bothers me, whether I'm in his league or not. This wasn't a "let's split the money and play for the title" kinda deal. It's a "if you pay me enough I will quit and hand you a title" kinda deal. What's the point? Who can brag about winning a title they didn't win but rather bought? Oh yeah the Yankees for one.

 

If I were in that league I would feel like I'd have to watch the two of them each year; "if you pay me I'll throw my last game to let you in the playoffs". Just seems a bit shady to be paying someone for victories, in the Super Bowl no less.

If you read the entire thread, you'll see that's not what's happening here. The current loser is offering to give up the major prize money for $50 regardless of the result. He isn't tanking, he's trying to add $50 to what he expects to get.