Fantasy Football Today - fantasy football rankings, cheatsheets, and information
A Fantasy Football Community!




Create An Account  |  Advertise  |  Contact      






Mike Davis | Archive | Email |
Staff Writer


Hosting H2H Variations
Q & A: Week 11
11/13/14

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.

Desean Jackson
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.