Common Examples of Collusion

New format idea:
Mid-season full redraft while keeping standings

Post:
Curious if anyone has experimented with (or wants to try) a hybrid format that sits somewhere between redraft and dynasty:

Concept:
Play the first half of the season with normal rosters and standings. After a set week (e.g. Week 7), every team drops their entire roster and the league runs a full new draft. Standings, matchup history, and points from the first half carry over. The second half is played with the new rosters.

Think of it as:
• Not full dynasty (rosters don’t carry year to year)
• Not traditional redraft (you don’t start over from zero)
• Not keeper (you’re not protecting specific players)
• More like a scheduled mid-season reset with continuity of the standings

Why it might be interesting:
• Keeps early-season results meaningful
• Creates a second “draft night” event
• Resets injury/waiver luck without wiping the whole season
• Gives managers a fresh strategic window

Practical question:
Has anyone actually run something like this on Sleeper, ESPN, Yahoo, or another platform?
If so, how did you handle the roster clear + second draft while preserving standings?
If not, does the idea sound fun or more trouble than it’s worth?

Open to any real experiences, platform limitations, or reasons this would/wouldn’t work.

I am the commissioner in a 10 man 60$ buy in league and some idiot (not the guy who gave up) dropped Josh Jacob's after holding him for 6 weeks. The whole league was going vile over it. There is a separate dude who gave up on the league because of work and everyone is trying to trade for his faab. I usually monitor those trades and make sure they are fair before I send them through. I slept past 11 when waivers process so I wasn't able to uphold their trades for some of his faab. I had the highest bid for him. They have been calling for my head. What should I do?

(I know my league mates are bricks)

We had a semi-inactive team drop Trevor Lawrence and ETN to “make room” for waiver pickups due to byes. He’s received multiple offers for those players the day before he dropped them (I literally sent him Lawrence for Jamo), has had numerous trade offers over the course of the season and has never responded to one. He’s ignorant on top of his inactivity. He’s 1-5 soon to be 1-6. It’s a 14 team $1400 pot league. At what point does commish step in to put the players back on his team and lock his roster or give him a warning or something? I’m not confident the players dropped are of high enough value, although a top 10 qb and a future starting rb is pretty high value in a 14 team. He dropped them over the chargers defense and Tyler loop among other options…… he’s not throwing, I’m confident in that, just ignorant and inactive.

So I have run my league for 4-5 years sometimes people leave and it gets harder and harder to fill. I introduced a rule where if you trade a future first you have to pay for that years as I’ve been covering fees sometimes to fill a league. Now some of the league members don’t like it but I have to protect myself.

What does everyone think on this situation

LEAGUE DRAMA!!
Trade is: Henry, Burden, Tyson for ARSB, Tuten
I am LM and made a trade with someone in the league who doesn’t know much about football so this other guy in the league gives him advice and if it is fair so I asked this other guy prior if the trade was fair and he said it was far enough twice (unfortunately I didn’t save what he said didn’t think I’d need to)
but now after our trade was accepted he is calling me a “scum” and saying the trade isn’t fair even tho he said it was before. As the LM should I just let the trade go through or veto it??
No one else in the league has a problem with it,
I was even willing to change it to even it out bc the guy that said it wasn’t fair said it was “60-40” so I said what can I change about the trade he has no suggestions. I said I can add ETN because he does happen to have 2 empty spots with the waiver wire being thin but he said “doesn’t change anything” I could add Parker Washington so it’s him and Henry for Amon ra and tuten the problem is I needa be giving more then I get bc I need to pick up a defense this week with out dropping him so I feel like me adding Tyson to that just makes me lose it, so maybe I can drop tuten and just try to trade Henry and burden for Amon ra but I’m not sure if I should even change the trade, guy that’s upset also “not high on Henry” any advice?
My team: QBs- Goff, Love RBs- Cook, Henry, Jacobs, Mason, ETN WRs- Nabers, Pwash, Burden, Diggs, Waddle, Tyson
His team: RBs: Swift, Tuten WRs: ARSB, Jefferson, Wilson, Watson, DK, Bowers at TE

Team has Diggs and Montgomery in their IR and feels they don’t have anyone worth dropping on their bench. They tried to make a 2 for 2 trade but ESPN won’t let them. Do they have to drop 2 players to move both players off of IR before they do anything with their team? (Diggs is cleared and Montgomery is doubtful) or is it possible they could do a 3 for 1 trade which would clear up 2 roster spots on their team so they don’t have to drop anybody? (10 team league and their two drops would be Vele and Rachaad White who are gonna get hounded on waivers most likely)

I'm in a fantasy football league with a $150 buy-in. Our commissioner is also a longtime friend of mine, and we recently had a disagreement that's made me seriously question his integrity as commissioner.

Here's what happened.

I had a defense in my lineup that was projected to score more points than the Bears defense. Our commissioner and I made an agreement that if I dropped my higher-projected defense and started the Bears defense instead, he would start Drake Maye at quarterback against me. I'm starting Caleb, so I thought it would add some extra fun to the matchup. He also has Burrow.

I agreed to those terms and followed through on my end. I dropped my preferred and played the Bears.

When it came time for him to honor his side of the agreement, he refused to start Drake Maye. In fact, he switched the players at 7:13 2 minutes before kickoff.

He hasn't denied making the agreement. Instead, when I confronted him about it, the situation turned into a power struggle where he seemingly refused to follow through even though I was insisting that he keep his word.

My issue isn't that I think I should have control over another manager's lineup. It's that we made a mutual agreement, I fulfilled my obligation, and he refused to fulfill his.

Had he never agreed to start Maye, I wouldn't have had an issue with him choosing another quarterback. But I made a roster decision based on an explicit commitment from him.

I also think there's an important distinction here because he's our commissioner.

The commissioner is supposed to be someone the league can trust to act in good faith and maintain the integrity of the competition. If the person responsible for enforcing the rules is willing to make an agreement with another manager, benefit from that manager following through, and then disregard his own obligation, how is that not an integrity issue?

I've repeatedly explained that this isn't about winning or losing. I'm actually winning our matchup. The outcome is irrelevant to me.

It's about the principle of making an agreement with someone and then refusing to honor it after they've already held up their end. Especially when it's an agreement with the commissioner himself around dropping valuable defenses in exchange for him to start a certain player.

The other managers seem to think it's just fantasy football and that I should move on. But considering we're playing for money, I think agreements and accountability should actually mean something.

I'm genuinely curious what other fantasy managers think:

- Is making an agreement to influence each other's starting lineups unethical in the first place?

- If two managers voluntarily agree to make specific lineup decisions, is it unethical for one to back out after the other has already followed through?

- Does the fact that one of those managers is the commissioner make this more serious?

- Is this a legitimate issue of commissioner integrity, or am I overreacting to a broken verbal agreement?

I'm not asking whether making this agreement was strategically smart. I'm asking whether it's ethical for a commissioner to make a mutual agreement, watch the other manager fulfill his end, and then refuse to honor his own commitment.

this is my second time playing FF on the sleeper app. last year making a trade, I don’t remember it taking a 48 hour period (granted after some research, the trade was with the commissioner from that year and unbeknownst to me he might have just pushed it forward). but this year it is a 48 hour period. however one of the players I’m trading plays Thursday night and the trade was made Wednesday at 5:00 PM.

should I ask for a league vote whether to push the trade through before the 48 hour period so the other guy can use the player for Thursday night game? or should I just let it wait out?

trades in our league are a little iffy since the first trade was vetoed (now any trade that goes up has to have a full breakdown discussion) and I feel like I’m doing too much even explaining my case for a fair trade let alone asking it to go through before the set pending countdown. I just want to be fair and the other guy to get the player before Thursday night.

First year of a dynasty league between friends. (They’re friends of mine, they’re not all friends)

Almost everyone, is new to dynasty format. For that reason I kept K & DEF, as to not throw them off completely. (I know, I know, they can be useless positions, but I figured I’d let the league come to that consensus by the next time that we draft)

One manager has made it clear that he’s tanking, as he’s made plenty of trades for next year’s draft (has 4 1st and 2nd round picks each). Last week he didn’t field a K or DEF, and he looks to be doing the same this upcoming week.

A part of me doesn’t mind the strategy, but a part of me feels “ya gotta field a team dude”.

There is no rule in place against it. The plan is for any changes to current setup to be a democratic process voted on by league members

Best course of action from here?

Let it ride? Bring it up to the league? Enact an autonomous rule?

Our fantasy football league is currently dealing with a potential collusion scandal, and I need some unbiased opinions.

Two managers were negotiating a trade involving Chris Olave. One manager was hesitant to accept because he really loved Olave and wasn't sure he could emotionally handle parting ways with him.

That's when the other manager crossed what may be a very serious line.

He said:

"Can we please close this deal man 🙏"

The other manager responded:

"Bro since you said please I think that's got me there."

He then admitted:

"I don't think I can honestly say I woulda been able to do this deal without it."

When asked whether this constituted collusion, the manager who said please responded:

"Bro if we don't tell anybody its never collusion 🤫"

So here's the situation:

- The word "please" was explicitly used to influence the trade.

- The receiving manager admitted the trade likely wouldn't have happened without it.

- Both parties acknowledged the possibility of collusion.

- One party suggested keeping the circumstances secret from the league.

- No additional fantasy assets were exchanged, but basic human kindness was clearly involved and that is an asset outside of what we allow.

Our league has strict rules against outside considerations influencing trades, and I'm concerned that the use of politeness may have compromised the competitive integrity of our league.

Is saying "please" an illegal trade sweetener? Should the commissioner reverse this trade? And should we consider banning manners from future negotiations?

Serious responses only. The integrity of our league is at stake.

5-1 in a 12 man PPR redraft keeper league where 1 keeper is selected for this years round +1. So if 5th round pick was kept in 2025, the owner gives up a 4th in 2026.

It’s our first year on Sleeper so pick trading is allowed.

There’s a team currently 1-5 and has already traded ARSB to another struggling team for his 1st round next year. The same team sent me a trade for my Ladd & a 2026 5th round pick for his Matthew Golden.

I feel weird accepting this trade as it seems like a gross overpay and as commish, I don’t want to be seen as using this new trading picks rule to my advantage. I did mention in our group chat in August that I left the draft pick trading on, on purpose, but still feel weird about this. Am I overthinking this?

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Dynasty SF - Half-PPR 12-man league

Not the commissioner in this league, but there is some drama going down with a manager who has been accused of "unethical tanking." We all know this guy is tanking; he has a ton of draft picks and very few quality players. We'll call him Jonathan.

Jonathan called out another manager in Week 2 for starting Puka Nacua after the Rams made a game-day decision to rule him out. The manager with Puka didnt catch the decision before the game started, but Jonathan still made a huge deal out of it. The commissioner enforced the league's illegal lineup rule. The Puka manager accepted the penalty since it was already a blowout loss and even added $20 to the prize pool. No big deal.

Fast forward to Week 6. Jonathan started some very questionable players:

• Started RB Seth McGowan (Proj. 3.93) while leaving Rico Dowdle (Proj. 5.92) and Dameon Pierce (Proj. 10.14) on the bench.
• Started Xavier Hutchinson (Proj. 2.5) while leaving Germie Bernard (Proj. 8.12) on the bench.

The final margin was only 14 points, and Jonathan likely would have won if he had started Pierce (13 points) and Bernard (20 Points). The manager he lost to is a potential contender, which is why a lot of people are upset including other tankers in the league. Jonathan is in denial.

So what should our commissioner do? Jonathan was quick to call someone else out over an ineligible lineup earlier in the season, yet now he's made lineup decisions that appear to have intentionally reduced his chances of winning. Is this a case of tanking, poor roster management, or something else? How would you handle it as commissioner? Revert the loss?

Edit: Thanks, all, for the input; it's good to read insight from outside the league. More than half the people are new to dynasty, including myself. Our fault for not defining the rules beforehand to prevent this kind of drama.

Edit 2: The rule is ethical tanking only: i.e., starting the best lineup available from your roster you currently have. Yes, it can be subjective. But we learning.

Is there any other explanation for why I would go from 1st priority to 4th priority on a continual rolling list if I never made a waiver claim?

I have a pretty strong team and I’m going up against the commissioner this week. I’ve been sitting on 1st priority all season and finally decided to use it on Germie Bernard. When I woke up this morning it said Bernard went to the 1-5 9th place team and that I had 4th priority. I just want to make sure there’s no other explanation for it before I make an issue out of it.

So last year me and 9 friends started a chopped league and everyone was given a $1000 in faab (the standard amount). This year we bumped it up to 15 people from 10. One of the league members suggested we bump the faab up to $1500 since we have more people, I said we will just keep it at $1000 because the amount does matter if everyone gets the same amount. Another league member is telling me I’m wrong and saying it absouletly does matter. Just looking for the fantasy worlds opinions on this.

I'm in a 6-team fantasy football league with a $150 buy-in, and we're currently dealing with a pretty ridiculous commissioner situation.

Our commissioner made a trade involving Justin Jefferson and Davante Adams, but the deal also included assets outside of fantasy football.

Our league has explicitly written bylaws that identify outside incentives (money, favors, tickets, etc.) as collusion.

We also have a formal process for challenging trades:

- Any manager can challenge a trade.

- All six teams vote on the challenge.

- A majority vote determines the outcome.

- If the majority votes to veto, the trade is canceled.

- The commissioner only has final say in the event of a tie.

Four of our six managers voted to veto the trade.

Here's where it gets ridiculous.

The commissioner actually acknowledged over text that the trade was collusion. So we're not even debating whether the trade violated our rules anymore.

However, Davante Adams has since gotten injured, and the commissioner is now refusing to reverse the trade because of that injury.

There is absolutely nothing in our bylaws stating that an injury overrides a successful veto. The rules explicitly say a majority veto results in the trade being canceled.

So, to recap:

1. The commissioner participated in a trade involving prohibited outside incentives.

2. Four of six managers voted to veto it.

3. The commissioner admitted in writing that it was collusion.

4. He's now refusing to honor the vote because Adams got hurt.

To me, this is a pretty blatant abuse of commissioner authority. He's effectively deciding that the league's written rules don't apply when enforcing them would produce an outcome he doesn't like.

This is also a money league, so it's not like we're just playing for bragging rights.

Am I missing something here? Is there any legitimate argument for the commissioner refusing to enforce a majority veto because a player got injured? And what would you do if your commissioner openly disregarded the league bylaws like this?

Last week I posted in this sub asking if you could now successfully submit waiver claims on ESPN with questionable guys in IR, after 2 of my managers scored a bunch of guys without cleansing their IR.

I proceeded to get downvoted into oblivion, with a bunch of people basically calling me an idiot who doesn’t know the rules. I was told these managers were able to make the moves because they were done before statuses changed from Out to Questionable. I had pretty good rationale for why I felt something was off, knowing it was extremely unlikely 8-10 claims were put in before Tuesday morning. But nonetheless I got laughed out of the room.

Welp I tested it this morning and I can put in claims despite Monty in my IR as questionable.

So to the guys who mocked me, you were wrong. Feel free to check out the thread to see the commissioners who actually don’t know the rules or are too ignorant to understand things can change.

I’m in a league where I came in last place. The rule is the first place team decides the punishment. The entire off season went by with no punishment. 3-4 weeks into the season our commissioner decided he would impose the punishment. Should the punishment be required to take place in the offseason? All of this seems to break from conventional logic.

Need some outside opinions because I'm pretty much on an island in my league on this one. Long post, sorry.
12 team yahoo keeper league, h2h 9 cat. You can keep up to 5 guys at one round earlier than where they were drafted, and picks are tradeable in yahoo. Draft order is a lottery for the 6 non playoff teams and then reverse order of finish for the playoff teams.

At the deadline last year our commish traded Markkanen, J-Will and his 6th, 7th and 12th to another guy for a 1st and 2nd that guy had gotten from another team, plus his own 3rd. Thats what went through yahoo and thats all any of us saw. Nobody vetoed it.

Turns out there was more to it in their texts. Commish was actually getting whichever first ended up higher, the one he got in yahoo or a different teams first that the other guy didnt even own yet (his trade for it was still pending and went through the same minute, approved by the commish). If the other pick came out higher they'd swap whoever got drafted with those picks after the draft.

The team that owned that other pick missed the playoffs so it landed at 1.04, and the pick commish got in yahoo was the champs so it was 1.12. So on draft night the other guy took SGA at 4 knowing he was going to commish, and commish took Donovan Mitchell at 12 knowing he was going to the other guy. Basically each of them made a first round pick for the other team. Then after the draft they put through an SGA for Donny trade in yahoo. I had no idea any of this was coming. I'm looking at the transactions the next day like why is SGA going for Donny straight up?? Only then did the side deal come out.

And honestly the other guy got fleeced either way. In the end commish has SGA, Sengun (2.01) and Trey Murphy (3.03). The other guy has Markkanen kept for a 4th (ADP around 36), J-Will kept for a 6th (ADP around 40, using the 6th commish sent him), Morant in the 7th and Ajay Mitchell in the 12th. If he'd just never made the trade he'd have SGA himself plus 1.12, 2.01 and 3.03 to use, and Trey Murphy went at 27 with about the same ADP as Markkanen. So he gave up a top 4 pick and two other early picks for two guys he could have basically drafted with his own 3rd. Even before the swap I had commish getting like 70% more value, and with SGA it's well over double.

There was also a draft order redo this year where commish said he saw a weird extra entry in the log and we let him redo it, but I dont think that matters here since one pick was always going to be a lottery pick and the other a playoff pick.

Most of the league says side deals like this have been happening for years and it's fine. Commish said he'd disclose them better going forward and the swap is going to a vote. I suggested every trade just has to be done in one yahoo transaction, no side stuff to settle later, and that went over about how you'd expect lol.

My take is that every trade should be one transaction, done and visible when it's made. If part of a deal lives in a text thread, nobody else can review it, and then what's even the point of trade review? It also stops people from trading picks they don't own yet, and from making draft picks on behalf of another team. And yahoo can't enforce a text. If one of these goes sideways, say a pick never comes through or two guys remember the deal differently, the commish is stuck refereeing it off screenshots. You can still trade players, keepers and picks, which is plenty to work with. It just has to all be in the trade.

So is this normal in your leagues? Should a swap like this stand if the league only ever saw half the deal? And is it weird the commish approved the trade that got the other guy the pick his own side deal depended
on? Curious what rules you guys use for stuff like this.

TL;DR commish traded for "the higher of 2 firsts" in a text side deal, both guys drafted for each other, then they swapped SGA for Donovan Mitchell after the draft. League never knew about it until the swap showed up. I think every trade should be one transaction. Legit or nah?

I’ve run an auction league for ~12 years. Initially filled it with randoms from Reddit, and slowly filled it with local guys I know and finally have a solid league with the all of the same managers for last 4 years.

This year I brought on one of the guys as a co-commish cause I’ve been tiring of it tbh. He’s been great, and we have a great and super competitive league.

I’ve been considering stepping back completely and implementing a rotating commish system, where each year the acting commish trains up a co-commish, who then steps up as acting the following year and so on.

Concern would be the league devolving due to changes.

PRO: new and interesting structures, increased shared ownership

CON: League devolves due to too many changes, and the lack of experience that 10+ years brings

Anyone have experience with this and how’d it work out long term?

Did you use any guardrails? We currently operate on a majority approval system.