Common Examples of Collusion

Do you allow your league to not field a full lineup in order to secure a win for a paid league? Why or why not?

Personally I think fantasy should be fun and you should stick by who you picked up or are able to play but am curious what everyone here thinks.

I'm new to fantasy football, and I'm trying to understand the arguments against one-week rentals, especially how leagues can consistently enforce rules against them.

I've come up with a bunch of hypothetical scenarios that get progressively more complicated. Feel free to just respond to whichever one interests you, or ignore the examples entirely if you have a more general answer.

Example 1: Two fair trades

• Team A needs a QB because theirs is on bye.
• Team B needs an RB because theirs is on bye.
• Team A has an extra RB, and Team B has an extra QB.

They trade an RB for a QB. Both teams benefit, and it's a perfectly fair trade on its own.

The following week, they trade the same players back. Again, both teams benefit, and if you looked at that trade in isolation, there's nothing unfair about it.

Would you veto the second trade purely because they traded the same players the previous week?

Example 2: What if they don't trade back the same players?

Same situation, except Team A trades the QB back for a different RB of similar value.

Both trades are still fair, but now it's not technically a reversal. Is this allowed? What actually distinguishes it from Example 1?

Example 3: Hiding a rental inside a larger trade

Let's say Team A ultimately wants to trade an RB for Team B's WR.

• Week 1: Team A trades Player X (RB) and Player Y (WR) to Team B for Player Z (QB) and Player W (WR).
• Week 2: Team A trades Player Z (QB) back to Team B in exchange for Player Y (WR).

The end result is that Team A permanently traded Player X for Player W, but also got to use Player Z at QB for one week.

Both individual trades could look reasonable depending on the players involved, and the QB rental is essentially hidden inside a normal RB-for-WR trade.

How would a commissioner distinguish that from two legitimate trades?

Example 4: What if the trades are obviously one-sided?

Suppose Team A has an easy matchup and lends Team B an RB1 for a week in exchange for a bench RB. The following week, they reverse the trade.

Now neither trade looks fair individually, even though both teams get their original players back.

Is this fundamentally different from Example 1? Is the issue that the trades are lopsided, or that the players were only temporarily exchanged?

Example 5: What if someone pays for the rental?

In a keeper or dynasty league, suppose Team A trades an RB1 to Team B in exchange for a bench RB and a second-round draft pick.

The following week, Team A gets the RB1 back by returning the bench RB, but Team B keeps the draft pick.

Essentially, Team B paid a second-round pick to use Team A's RB1 for one week.

Alternatively, maybe Team B gets a third-round pick back instead, so the rental effectively costs the difference between a second- and third-round pick.

Does paying for the rental make it more legitimate, or does that make it even worse?

Example 6: Does waiting longer make it acceptable?

Suppose the teams from Example 1 don't trade their players back the following week.

What if they wait two weeks? Three weeks? A month?

At what point does trading the same players back stop looking like a rental and start looking like two independent trades?

Would you enforce a minimum waiting period before two teams can trade the same players again? And if so, how long would that need to be?

Example 7: What about a three-team rental?

Now suppose three teams are involved:

• Week 1: Team A trades a QB to Team B.
• Week 2: Team B trades that QB to Team C.
• Week 3: Team C trades that QB back to Team A.

Assume each trade involves reasonable compensation, and all three teams benefit from having the QB when they need him.

The QB eventually returns to his original team, but no two teams have simply reversed a trade.

Is this collusion if all three managers planned it beforehand? What if they didn't?

Would your answer change if the QB passed through five different teams before returning to Team A?

If the rule is simply that you can't trade players back to their original owners, how would you enforce that in situations involving multiple teams?

My main question: How do you actually enforce this?

I understand that prearranged rentals might be considered collusion, but I don't know how you establish whether the managers agreed to trade back beforehand or simply decided to make another trade the following week.

If the trades are individually fair, how can you justify vetoing them? And if the issue is the intent rather than the trades themselves, how do you enforce that consistently without making assumptions about what managers agreed to privately?

I'm also struggling with what actually defines collusion.

Is something only collusion if one team benefits at the expense of another? Or can two managers collude even when they're both making moves that genuinely improve their own teams?

For example, how is a team trading away its best players this season in exchange for future draft picks any different? They're intentionally making their current team worse to improve their chances next year, and the other manager benefits immediately. That's generally accepted in keeper and dynasty leagues, so what makes a temporary rental different?

Is the distinction that a normal trade permanently transfers ownership of the players, while a rental involves an agreement to return them? And if so, does that mean the agreement itself is the problem, regardless of whether both teams benefit?

Maybe I'm thinking way too deeply about this, but I'm genuinely lost on where you draw the line and how you can consistently enforce it without either allowing disguised rentals or vetoing legitimate trades. Hopefully nobody is putting this much thought into actually colluding, but I have to admit it was pretty fun seeing how ridiculous I could make these scenarios.

I’ve been commissioning the same league for almost 20 years and I’ve removed a handful of people over that time.

One of the first was my own brother. Nothing dramatic, just a total lack of enthusiasm. He wasn’t really playing.

I’ve also removed one of my best friends. Twice. Poor attitude.
I was the best man at his wedding.

These days my bar is way lower on almost everything. Make terrible trades, never touch the waiver wire, I don’t care, that’s your team. But if you’re not setting your lineup, you’re getting the axe. That’s the one thing.

Commissioners, how do you handle this? What’s actually on your list for removing somebody, and how do you keep a league competitive and worth showing up for after this many years?

Have a group of guys who have been playing redraft together for roughly 18 years.

One decided to spin off a dynasty league this year, and initially copied the rule set from the redraft.

We did the initial draft in 2025, right when the NFL was adjusting the kickoff rule. I saw this as an oportunity in any return value leagues to take advantage. In 2025 I drafted Turpin, Shaheed, and Dike.

Fast forward to 2026 commisioner changes the rule for KR yards from 1pt/10 yards, to 1pt/25 yds. Essentially making these 3 players about 60% less valuable.

I asked before the 2026 draft for any rule changes and this was not mentioned and other rules were voted on. Not this one.

Que week 1 and I tell him and the league this is bullshit, he states that it was brought up in person he would change it, I expressed that I was against it. It was never voted on. Some of the league mentioned new rules should be waited out 2 years to allow teams to adjust in dynasty. COmmisioner said i am not changing it. He felt the NFL rule change made kick returns too easy..But we knew about it prior to that season at the initial draft.

I think I am going to leave the league after 2026 as I dont want to invest the $100/year when this can happen.

Side note: In the 2025 initial draft the original RB scoring was 1pt/5yds. After about rd 4, the comissioner changed it. After a heavy WR drafter compained and didnt read the scoring settings. I thought this was the wrong thing as well, and expressed my disagreement. Probably should have left then.

I cannot trade draft picks without paying for 2027, a rule that was established in 2025, but has never been enforced until now as I said I may not return.

Am I being a baby about these rule changes or is the commish handling these things all wrong? Going to point any feedback to our league for the "internets" opinion on the matter.

We’re having an expansion draft for 2 team. Going from a 10 man league to a 12 man league.

We’re not redrafting for dynasty. Even though it would be easier it’s not an option. So I’m left to solve the current problem.

How do we add 2 teams that makes sense. My ideas below

Our league is set AFC/ NFC and you play your division in the playoffs as well as relegation system where the AFC is the worst 5 teams and the NFC is the best 5 teams so everyone kinda has an opportunity to win based on their skill level or dedication.

2 expansion teams go to the bottom division
They’re given 1.11/1.12 2.01 2.02 in the 2027 draft and then obviously fill them in at the end of the draft each round.

2028 guaranteed 1.01 or 1.02 with a flip of a coin to decide who gets what

Potentially another end of round first in 2028

The current teams will be able to protect 5 players from the expansion draft. Draft capital doesn’t have to be protracted ( yet ) and taxi squad is untouchable.

I don’t know if the expansion teams will have enough value to compete by year 3 even in the bottom division -Main problem

No league dues obviously year 1 and year 2 they’re gifted an NFL jersey of a player on their team so it somewhat offsets the cost of dues as well.

A lot of information here, any ideas would greatly appreciated. Once again expansion draft is happening not just redrafting.

Me and a few buddies decided we want to make a dynasty league in the ESPN fantasy app. I've been a commissioner for a multitude of leagues but never a keeper league and could use some recommendations. There will likely be somewhere between 6-8 of us in the league. As of right now I've got it on fairly typical league settings right now: normal roster size, full PPR, snake draft, currently normal scoring settings. I'm wondering what settings I should change, roster size to update, should we do superflex (sounds fun), etc. Would really appreciate the recommendations!

I’m in a college football league that uses a reverse order of standings waiver method but it doesn’t reset. I can’t tell if this means someone can just grab whoever they want before moving onto the next player.

To me it seems like it does. Transactions are processed in batches instead of appear instead of The one by one order that they typically do.

Managers are ranked from high to low to determine who wins a waiver claim.

The initial priority rank is determined by the league's draft:
Live and Autopick Drafts - The last draft position gets 1st rank.
Offline Drafts - The last to register gets 1st rank.
After each Game Week in the regular season, the waiver priority list is reset:
The new rank is determined by the reverse order of the current league standings (the manager with the lowest league standing gets 1st rank).
When playoffs begin, the waiver priority list stops resetting.
Ranks are not affected by:
Successful waiver claims.
Stat corrections that affect the league standings after the current week's rank has been determined.

Has anyone seen this setting before?

Hi y'all, I am mostly a lurker on here but I am a 20 year fantasy football commissioner who started a bimonthly podcast six months ago. It covers fantasy football culture - be it my league perspective as a commish, having other commissioners on as guests, talking unique ideas/leagues to improve league engagement and lastly current fantasy football/NFL discussion with a Washington Commanders angle as I am a long-time resident in the Washington DC area.

I have an accompanying Substack newsletter and I've been brainstorming potential articles to write about. One idea banging around in my mind is providing an article where commissioners and league managers on here can provide anonymous feedback on areas of strength for their league, along with areas of improvement. Essentially, what I would do is summarize the feedback and pull a few quotes with no u/ handle tagged for confidentiality.

So to make this sourcing as painless as possible, and if you're interested in contributing, answer the following questions:

For commissioners, what are three things you think are a strength among your league managers for your league engagement during the season? What are three areas of weakness?

For league managers, the same as the above questions but strengths/weaknesses of commissioners. But I'll also include this question: Is there a point where league commissioners are too overbearing on engagement and communication?

Personally, sometimes I think I'm doing too much since my league mates set their lineups and really compete in the league but do not necessarily, introduce new ideas, talk trash or engage as much in the group chat. I will say many of us also got families and are more midlife so I get that too. There are times I am not as active on the chat too. But it's nice if I got more acknowledgment for the work I put in the league but hence it is what led me to starting the commish podcast, creating a forum for fellow fantasy football commissioners to commiserate (pun intended) and support one another for a thankless job to build connection and cameraderie in our social networks. If you've got a really interesting league setup or commissioner story or message you want to share let me know and I can have you on a future episode! I found two fantasy sports commissioners on reddit and had a couple great episodes on my podcast. So appreciate the support on here as it has been very helpful in finding new content for my newsletter and podcast.

I run 5 leagues and honestly 3/5 very little complaining or bitching but I have 2 where every 3 days someone complaining, mad and or tryna quit or threaten to quit. Is this normal or do I have an overly critical group lol

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?