Dynasty, in Theory: Collusion, Vetos, and Other Unmentionables

Photo: Mike Dinovo, USA Today Sports

There's a lot of really strong dynasty analysis out there, especially when compared to five or ten years ago. But most of it is so dang practical-- Player X is undervalued, Player Y's workload is troubling, the market at this position is irrational, and take this specific action to win your league. Dynasty, in Theory is meant as a corrective, offering insights and takeaways into the strategic and structural nature of the game that might not lead to an immediate benefit but which should help us become better players over time.

Let's Talk Trains...

(... because trains are cool.)

Electric railways commonly feature tracks with three rails: two to accommodate the train's wheels, like with any other (non-monorail) rail system, plus one that is charged with a current to provide electricity to the train wherever it might be on the tracks. This last rail is the key to one of the most efficient forms of transportation currently available, and is often called the "live rail" or "conductor rail" (a fun bit of wordplay referring to the fact that it conducts electricity, but nodding to the conductor on the train), but is probably best known as the "third rail".

Since it carries such a strong electrical current at all times, anyone who touches the third rail will suffer electrocution and possibly death. This became the basis of political metaphor: any issue that became so radioactively controversial or unpopular that addressing it would be gravely injurious or even potentially fatal to a politician's election chances became known as a "third rail". The original usage of the term was for reducing Social Security benefits; merely broaching the subject was deemed enough to end a political career.

Dynasty leagues have their own third rails, issues that are so controversial that they have single-handedly ended otherwise healthy leagues: tanking, collusion, trade vetoes. I'll save the discussion of tanking for next week, mostly so it will fall over Thanksgiving weekend and I can make a bunch of "Tanksgiving" jokes. (I am a simple man who enjoys life's simple pleasures.)

But the other two "third rails"? Let's grab one in each hand and see what happens.

Collusion: Is It Bad?

Depending on the definition you use, the answer ranges from "tautologically yes" to "not in and of itself".

The primary problem with discussing collusion is that everyone has their own definition and most of those definitions are sloppy. I have seen some seriously suggest that tanking and player dumping (the practice of trading players for substantially less than they are worth or even cutting them outright just to throw a league in disarray) are "collusion" despite both being examples of a manager acting unilaterally. (Are they colluding with themselves?) I've also seen some seriously suggest that a manager trading his good players to another team for a share of the prize pool if that team won was not collusion because the manager admitted they were doing it in the open, so it wasn't a "secret deal".

This weird state of affairs arose because for years the dynasty community pushed the idea that everything was permissible unless it was collusion, so labeling something as collusion was the only way to argue against it. But not everything that is bad is collusion and (depending on how you define the term) not everything that is collusion is bad.

(Can't picture an example of "collusion" that isn't bad? Imagine a league that awards $1000 to the winner of the championship and $0 to second place. If two evenly-matched managers reach the finals and decide they're uncomfortable with that risk, they might secretly agree in advance to "chop the pot", perhaps paying out $700 to the winner and $300 to the loser to guarantee that they walk away with something either way. This is a secret agreement and will register as anti-competitive if you're not careful with definitions, which would make it collusive. But also: this is totally normal and fine.)

I find Wikipedia has a good working definition of collusion: a deceitful agreement or secret cooperation between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal right. This makes it clear what parts of collusion are bad: the fact that it limits open competition and the fact that it defrauds others of their rights. The secrecy isn't the reason the action is bad, it's a result of the fact that the action is bad; when you're going to break the rules, you tend to try to hide that fact.

(This is why chopping the pot is fine: it doesn't defraud anyone who isn't involved in the deal of their rights because no one has any rights in that case except for the championship participants.)

If collusion is bad primarily because depriving other managers of their rights to fair competition is bad, it stands to reason that other things that deprive managers of those rights are also bad. Rather than turning collusion into some sort of uniquely unspeakable evil, dynasty managers should declare competitive fairness as sacrosanct and acknowledge collusion as one of many ways it can come under attack.

Trade Vetoes: Are They Good?

No.

Is it weird that my thoughts on collusion are more mixed than my thoughts on vetoes? Maybe, but while there are a lot of problems that can beleaguer a dynasty league, there's not a single one for which vetoes are the proper solution.