faceplant Posted December 3, 2009 Author Share Posted December 3, 2009 I think it's more terrorism than collusion. Sounds to me like the work of Mohammad Jihad. That's what we agreed. That it wasn't necessarily collusion, but it was bad sportsmanship. He said he's sticking with Celek despite the whole debacle but it turned into an interesting discussion at work. It's a small money pot work league based more on pride than payout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 racecar My radar went off immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 You asked if it was collusion--most said it was. Why bother asking if you already had your mind set on the answer? Were you just looking for other fantasy football owners to support your BS? And why is it okay to be a Dill Josh Gordon if the league is free/low entry fee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 That's what we agreed. That it wasn't necessarily collusion, but it was bad sportsmanship. He said he's sticking with Celek despite the whole debacle but it turned into an interesting discussion at work.It's a small money pot work league based more on pride than payout. You guys sure sound like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faceplant Posted December 3, 2009 Author Share Posted December 3, 2009 You asked if it was collusion--most said it was. Why bother asking if you already had your mind set on the answer? Were you just looking for other fantasy football owners to support your BS? And why is it okay to be a Dill Josh Gordon if the league is free/low entry fee? It wasn't about supporting any BS. I just think there's a line of where someone can and cannot just yell collusion everytime moves are made. A lot of people in our league thought it was his own fault for not protecting his lineup by picking up a tight end, and so he should live with it. Every other league I'm in forces you to have certain position players on the bench so this sort of circumstance doesn't occur I guess. I was one of the people that grabbed a tight end, but then dropped him. I leaned towards collusion, but I wasn't the only one that felt that way. And you're right, it doesn't make it ok because it was a low entry fee. And for the record with everyone else, I'm not posting under an anonymous name. Although Fecal Pant was the funniest arrangement of my name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I just think there's a line of where someone can and cannot just yell collusion everytime moves are made. I was one of the people that grabbed a tight end, but then dropped him. I leaned towards collusion, but I wasn't the only one that felt that way.. Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but aren't these 2 statements a little contradictory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Pilgrim Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Uh..................yeah, a discussion among owners thinking it would be funny for all the owners except one to pick up the TE's, so that other team would be screwed. Uh..................yeah, that would be collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 It wasn't about supporting any BS. I just think there's a line of where someone can and cannot just yell collusion everytime moves are made. A lot of people in our league thought it was his own fault for not protecting his lineup by picking up a tight end, and so he should live with it. Every other league I'm in forces you to have certain position players on the bench so this sort of circumstance doesn't occur I guess. I was one of the people that grabbed a tight end, but then dropped him. I leaned towards collusion, but I wasn't the only one that felt that way. And you're right, it doesn't make it ok because it was a low entry fee. And for the record with everyone else, I'm not posting under an anonymous name. Although Fecal Pant was the funniest arrangement of my name. This is the clearest cut case of collusion I've ever seen posted here on these boards. The fact that you can't see it as collusion speaks very poorly of your character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 This is the clearest cut case of collusion I've ever seen posted here on these boards. The fact that you can't see it as collusion speaks very poorly of your character. Yeah, you're like that dirty cop in Bad Lieutenant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I'm sure someone is ready for this post to fall down to the next page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBunting Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Probably the wierdest post i have seen here in my short time. This situation is a clear cut definition of collusion, couln't be any more obvious. Now, that said, if it was a joke i would have done it too, just for the laugh. Fecal Pant was best....i assumeit's = turd breath? Is he a gymnast with spelling issues? Cuz it's also Feat Plant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faceplant Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share Posted December 4, 2009 I'm sure someone is ready for this post to fall down to the next page. I don't mind it staying a hot topic. It's amusing to see everyone's responses. Yes, the move was done as a joke in our league but it brought up interest at work so I thought I'd bring it up here. I understand everyone feels its collusion, as I do. We also thought it would be fun to punish a guy who doesn't pick up a tight end because he doesn't want to drop any of his "studs" on his bench. People in our league thought it served him right for holding out. Maybe it does serve him right was all i was implying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Maybe it does serve him right was all i was implying. He wanted to hang on to his studs. Gosh, there's so much wrong with that. You know, sometimes guys just don't GET IT, so it's up to the rest of the league to get together and do right by him. Thank goodness there were eleven smart enough people, who knew what to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 so we all got together in secret to help bring a team down ... is that wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 We also thought it would be fun to punish a guy Maybe it does serve him right was all i was implying. you league sounds like a bunch of idiots. manage your own team and leave the other owners alone. hopefully this thread teaches you a lesson because it would serve you right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 If there had been no discussion of it, and a team or teams picked up TEs in part to limit his ability to do so, then no problem at all, as that is part of the game. The fact there was discussion about it makes it collusion. In a league of mine a few years back (well, many years), one of our owners was playing a team that just had both of his Qbs get hurt. Well, he bid big on every viable starting QB, won each of them and rostered them (a good rule to consider, any picked up player must stay rostered that week). Nothing wrong with that at all, as he was making a shrewd move on his part to improve his chances of winning that week. And I would have had no issue if another team had done a similar thing if they were fighting for a playoff spot and a loss by this team would have benefitted them. However, had the two of them gotten together ahead of time and laid out the plan to acquire all of the FA QBs, then I would have had an issue. Of course, in our particular case, he did not pick up Vince Evans, who filled in for the Raiders this particular week and went off for a very good score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 A few years ago my brother was playing against someone who started a player that was on a bye week. One of the other guys in the league called the guy before the 4 o'clock games and told him that he needed to fix his lineup and start someone instead of the player on bye. My brother still won the game, but was very mad at the guy who called his opponent. The next season, this same guy had a quarterback get injured and was going to have to pick up a backup. My brother then called and had several of the people in the league to pick up quarterbacks. I was happy to oblige. Yes, it fits the definition of collusion. But, in this case the guy deserved it. That's the only time I've ever done that, although I have picked up two or three players of the same position to keep my opponent from picking them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.K.Trey Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 A few years ago my brother was playing against someone who started a player that was on a bye week. One of the other guys in the league called the guy before the 4 o'clock games and told him that he needed to fix his lineup and start someone instead of the player on bye. My brother still won the game, but was very mad at the guy who called his opponent. The next season, this same guy had a quarterback get injured and was going to have to pick up a backup. My brother then called and had several of the people in the league to pick up quarterbacks. I was happy to oblige. Yes, it fits the definition of collusion. But, in this case the guy deserved it. That's the only time I've ever done that, although I have picked up two or three players of the same position to keep my opponent from picking them up. so reminding a guy that he has an active player on a bye is equal to getting together with other owners to screw someone for no reason at all , AND you think he deserved it ? You sir are a moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 A few years ago my brother was playing against someone who started a player that was on a bye week. One of the other guys in the league called the guy before the 4 o'clock games and told him that he needed to fix his lineup and start someone instead of the player on bye. My brother still won the game, but was very mad at the guy who called his opponent. The next season, this same guy had a quarterback get injured and was going to have to pick up a backup. My brother then called and had several of the people in the league to pick up quarterbacks. I was happy to oblige. Yes, it fits the definition of collusion. But, in this case the guy deserved it. That's the only time I've ever done that, although I have picked up two or three players of the same position to keep my opponent from picking them up. Wow, I guess I am the anti-collusion. I've told my opponents before when they have started a guy that is on bye or injured against me. To do what you did is, well, beyond lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) A few years ago my brother was playing against someone who started a player that was on a bye week. One of the other guys in the league called the guy before the 4 o'clock games and told him that he needed to fix his lineup and start someone instead of the player on bye. My brother still won the game, but was very mad at the guy who called his opponent. The next season, this same guy had a quarterback get injured and was going to have to pick up a backup. My brother then called and had several of the people in the league to pick up quarterbacks. I was happy to oblige. Yes, it fits the definition of collusion. But, in this case the guy deserved it. That's the only time I've ever done that, although I have picked up two or three players of the same position to keep my opponent from picking them up. Telling another owner that he started a player on a bye is not against the rules, and it's not poor sportsmanship. If the guy had raped your brother, then I would say he deserved it. I second the earlier comments. You are a moron. Edited December 5, 2009 by electricrelish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Total collusion. No doubt. He should get his pick of whatever tight end he wants from any team that participated. I completely agree with this. In all my years coming to The Huddle and doing an every time I see a "collusion" thread, this is the FIRST time I have actually seen a valid claim. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, it wasn't "funny" and is the type of BS that, even in "not a big deal, low money leagues", creates hard feeling among friends that may never repaired. You, autonomously picking up the best FA TE to limit his ability to compete with you in a playoff race would be cool, more than one of you doing this is collusion. At the very least I would refund his money for the year no matter where he finishes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguars72 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Can Elf Tap?? Well,,,,, can he????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Pilgrim Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) Yes, it was classic collusion. The first 100 % clear case we've actually seen among the billions and billions of "is this collusion" posts we've endured. So Faceplant has that going for him. This one was the classic. "If all of us owners but one discuss how to screw the other owner, is this collusion"? A true classic. Thanks Face, my life is now complete. But we've jumped on the guy enough. At least he was honest. Edited December 5, 2009 by The Grey Pilgrim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Yes, It's collusion 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.