re: Matthew Berry and the 'fantasy football snob trade argument'

quote:

---

I feel like you may not know the definition of collusion.

---

Yeah it sounds like a lot of the disagreement is due to people confusing "collusion" with "incredibly lopsided". The former is malicious and is done with some sort of agreement that the team getting the better deal will split any winnings in return, or something like that. The latter doesn't involve any conspiracy, but is so unbalanced it jeopardizes the integrity of the league. Both should be vetoed, but there is a distinction. The point is that the idea that a trade should be vetoed "only if it's collusion" is a fallacy.

Collusion - Team A is in the playoffs and Team B is not. They make a trade where Team B gives his studs to Team A for scrubs, and if Team A wins it all, he gives Team B a portion for his troubles. This is the epitome of cheating and should be vetoed.

Lopsided - Team A gives the #1 RB to Team B for the #28 TE because Team A is retarded and thought he needed to do it to fill a bye week in his TE slot. This is not collusion, but is so ridiculous it should not be allowed. In no world is this arguable and Team A has no weird affiliation with this TE that he HAS to have this player no matter the cost. Team B gets the MVP for free basically. It should be vetoed, even though it is not collusion.

Thus, it follows that collusion is NOT the only reason for vetoing. Science.