Dissolved League - Integrity & Acountability

[Likewhat17]

So did they use credit cards under their actual name? Do Ip addresses check out? Is there proof all accounts are real people? Then the final question how many connected people can play in a league? Can I just run our local league on here so we can play for 100k while we decide it? I assume that would go over just fine if I won this out of that league?

I think what Chad is getting at here is the real crux of the issue.

Sure, looking solely at the transactions, or the draft results from these owners, there is no clear smoking gun or dumping of players in an attempt to get them to Bryan.

It's certainly advantageous though to play in a league where there are 3 dead (or very poorly managed) teams. Especially if the quartet are in cahoots, they can manipulate the league in a number of ways very easily. Have those three owners submitted FAAB bids on the players that Bryan ultimately won?

Those 3 could also use their FAAB money to block any challengers to Bryan for the top league prize from adding players they need. Those 3 teams could also attack particular categories in the standings if it's beneficial to Bryan.

Not saying that any of that is going on, but it's certainly in the realm of possibility.

I don't even have a team in the Online Championship, so I have no skin in the game here. The real troubling coincidence here is that those same 3 players only play together, and only exclusively in Bryan's league. I agree that the issue merits further investigation.

[Deadheadz]

.

Here's where the math breaks down the collusion argument for me:

Entry Fee: $350 x 4 "players in cahoots" = $1400
Top League Championship Prize = $1400

Are we really acusing someone of collusion by allegedly buying 4 entries in order to break even?
Unless there's evidence the FAAB pickups and drops point to helping Bryan's team rocket to the top of the OVERALL standings this argument doesn't hold water.

.

[Money]

.

Here's where the math breaks down the collusion argument for me:

Entry Fee: $350 x 4 "players in cahoots" = $1400
Top League Championship Prize = $1400

Are we really acusing someone of collusion by allegedly buying 4 entries in order to break even?
Unless there's evidence the FAAB pickups and drops point to helping Bryan's team rocket to the top of the OVERALL standings this argument doesn't hold water.

.

No one has accused anyone of anything, some simply wanted the astronomical coincidences looked into for the overall competition. You're input, I'm sure is very well noted by the NFBC, but it's a bit late as what you're stating has nothing to do with the conversation. I choose not to pick on you (further) as most do.

[BK METS]

Some facts to consider, when looking at his strong OC teams and his connection to the disbanded league:

1) In both 2015 and 2016, Bryan joined 2 OC leagues.

In both years, he joined OC leagues drafting at 8:00 PM on Monday and 8:00 PM on Wednesday prior to the season.

Monday March 30, 2015 8:00 PM (#9 Overall)
Wednesday April 1, 2015 8:00 PM (#234 Overall)

Monday March 28, 2016 8:00 PM Disbanded league
Wednesday March 30, 2016 8:00 PM (currently #1 overall)

Obviously, we know he was in the disbanded league, but his association to this league could simply be, that is when he likes to draft. It was 2 Years in a row, same time, same day of the week. Could he have joined the disbanded league early because he did so well last year (#9 overall), drafting on that same day and time?

2) This could also be the connection with the 3 other players. The only 2 leagues that had the same 3 players in the league with Bryan, drafted on the Wednesday prior to the season at 8:00 PM (Wed April 1, 2015 and Wed March 30, 2016). I think just this simple fact, lowers those odds of 1 in a million, that these guys ended up in the same league and maybe it could have been by chance. I am not concluding that this is the definite reason, but I am just trying to look at it from another angle.

3) There were NO common owners from Bryan's finishes of
#36 overall in 2014,
#9 overall in 2015,
Present #1 overall in 2016.

Maybe he is just a really good player.

[Driver Love]

.

Here's where the math breaks down the collusion argument for me:

Entry Fee: $350 x 4 "players in cahoots" = $1400
Top League Championship Prize = $1400

Are we really acusing someone of collusion by allegedly buying 4 entries in order to break even?
Unless there's evidence the FAAB pickups and drops point to helping Bryan's team rocket to the top of the OVERALL standings this argument doesn't hold water.

.

I am not saying there is or is not collusion but I don't think it is investigated based on how successful an effort at collusion ends up being. If you try to rob a bank, but fail, you still are guilty of trying to rob a bank.

[Driver Love]

I am a bit late to the topic. Is there a thread that discusses the details of the disbanded league and why it was disbanded? I see it being referenced but do not know what happened. I applaud Chad for asking firm questions and pressing for answers. I applaud Greg for (not surprisingly) taking this seriously and investigating it and being informative about his findings. Nothing matters more than knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that improprieties are not happening given many people are investing a lot of their money into these contests. As someone who is often more of a cynic I believe that when large sums of money are up for grabs there will always be people who try to game the system to get to it. As someone who is not really informed, I appreciate the efforts anyone has made to contribute to this conversation.

[Money]

Maybe he is just a really good player.

Everyone has their own criteria for who a "Good Player" is. I personally wouldn't even consider a player that has had 4 online championships the last two years, one of which has been the bain of this baseball season while 2 of the other 3 (including his great team this year) has competed against the same 3 same non-competitive players in each of those leagues.

He very well could be the best player around, but these 4 leagues don't show me anything. I guess next season I will keep a close eye on signups and when these non-competitive players join again, I'll be inclined to join that league myself. Obviously that's my not my style, simply making a point.

I understand and appreciate you taking the time to defend. We all want the same thing, a level playing field, and at this point I hope that this provides for expanded field scrutinization next season. No one enjoys everything surrounding that other league. A great deal has been learned here and that learning will help provide for a better game in the future.

[Deadheadz]

I am not saying there is or is not collusion but I don't think it is investigated based on how successful an effort at collusion ends up being. If you try to rob a bank, but fail, you still are guilty of trying to rob a bank.

Only the motivation was a question. Why spend $1400 to win only $1400 and have a slightly better chance at cashing in the overall?

Then again, the stupidity of criminals is well documented.

.

[Gekko]

I see Joe saying he's done with This thread and then bouncing back in so, I'll use this as an opp too.

Deadhead - no owners would sign up to collude together to win an OLC league prize. Come on. They would do it to take down the overall prize. Geez. And it would be relatively easy to put a team in overall contention if a good owner had a couple other collusive owners letting him get players via FAAB or the draft that aren't available in other leagues. Very important topic; however there has to be direct evidence.

As for checking IP addresses and payment information between league owners, that is something that should be automated by IT for EVERY league. Relatively easy for IT to set this up.

[DOUGHBOYS]

easy for IT

I know it wasn't intended to be funny, but that was funny.

I agree that with growth, more and more security measures need to be put in place.
In the beginning, we all sort of knew each other. It was impossible to even think of something like this happening.
It was one Main Event contest.
Back then, security was the same as the sleeping security guard at the Mayberry Bank. It was all that was needed.
Afterall, who in Mayberry would rob the bank?

Now that we've grown, it influences outside sources.
There are many, many contests. Its brought in strangers. It's a town, now, where not everybody knows each other.
We may have caught some wrongdoing due to the vigilance of the locals of Mayberry seeing something out of the ordinary. Making it clear that more security is now needed.
Our Mayberry has grown.

[King of Queens]

however there has to be direct evidence.

To use the earlier example of the bank robbery:

Four customers enter a bank one day. Exactly one year later, the same four customers enter the same branch. I don't believe these individuals could be arrested unless they actually, you know, ROBBED THE BANK.

[BK METS]

however there has to be direct evidence.

To use the earlier example of the bank robbery:

Four customers enter a bank one day. Exactly one year later, the same four customers enter the same branch. I don't believe these individuals could be arrested unless they actually, you know, ROBBED THE BANK.

Exactly

[Money]

however there has to be direct evidence.

To use the earlier example of the bank robbery:

Four customers enter a bank one day. Exactly one year later, the same four customers enter the same branch. I don't believe these individuals could be arrested unless they actually, you know, ROBBED THE BANK.

Exactly

I'll play along. Exactly how closely do you think they would've been looked at? Gun in hand or not they would've been investigated from top to bottom. Every aspect of their dealings with that bank would've been gone through. A phone call would not have put it to bed, even without the gun.

You have illustrated the need for full venting, Exactly.

[EWeaver]

. Very important topic; however there has to be direct evidence.

i'm pretty sure what you mean to say is "compelling," (which would include "circumstantial") and not "direct," which has a specific definition.

should there be a skills test administered before leagues are formed so that we know everybody has an equal shot to win and we're all on a level playing field (i know most folks around here are into the socialism thing)? will the "not more than two brothers per league" rule advance this agenda? at what point, when guys get to know each other well enough, should we ban them from being in the same league on different teams? acquaintance? friendly? see each other once a year? talk twice a month? BFFs? i'd be interested to hear a concrete proposal on line drawing as applied to "friendship level" insofar as that informs who should and should not be allowed to own separate teams in one league. seems like the guys who show up to live events by-and-large like each other. the "brother" rule is a sloppy implementation, but i get that sometimes management simply needs to placate the masses.

and obviously, they were cheating in that first league.

[Gekko]

. Very important topic; however there has to be direct evidence.

i'm pretty sure what you mean to say is "compelling," (which would include "circumstantial") and not "direct," which has a specific definition.

i'm not getting into semantics; however if a commish threw out my championship caliber team without any type of direct (you call it compelling) evidence, i'd have a couple attorney's on speed dial to see what my options are in terms of "going after" the company running the contest, the actual person who made the ruling and anyone who may have contributed to the ruling. i have a number of attorney's in the family (both at a state level and a federal level) so the situation would get vetted very quickly

[EWeaver]

. Very important topic; however there has to be direct evidence.

i'm pretty sure what you mean to say is "compelling," (which would include "circumstantial") and not "direct," which has a specific definition.

i'm not getting into semantics; however if a commish threw out my championship caliber team without any type of direct (you call it compelling) evidence, i'd have a couple attorney's on speed dial to see what my options are in terms of "going after" the company running the contest, the actual person who made the ruling and anyone who may have contributed to the ruling. i have a number of attorney's in the family (both at a state level and a federal level) so the situation would get vetted very quickly

you don't care about what words actually mean? would be like mischaracterizing "OBP" for "OPS" and then saying, "look, I'm not geting into semantics, here" if somebody told you they were different stats.

ask one of your attorney relatives what "direct evidence" is - they can explain to you how it's not what you mean.

we are in agreement here, btw, and from all outward appearances, there is nothing wrong with this dudes non-disolved league.

[Gekko]

you don't care about what words actually mean? would be like mischaracterizing "OBP" for "OPS" and then saying, "look, I'm not geting into semantics, here" if somebody told you they were different stats.

ask one of your attorney relatives what "direct evidence" is - they can explain to you how it's not what you mean.

we are in agreement here, btw, and from all outward appearances, there is nothing wrong with this dudes non-disolved league.

Weav - don't put words in my mouth. i used direct, because i meant direct. u use compelling. i'm not getting into an argument of what word u wanted to use. very simple. and no, compelling wouldn't be my standard. many people can make compelling arguments (spin zone), but that doesn't prove anything happened or not. sorry sport

[Gekko]

"compelling," (which would include "circumstantial")

ya, okay

[EWeaver]

you don't care about what words actually mean? would be like mischaracterizing "OBP" for "OPS" and then saying, "look, I'm not geting into semantics, here" if somebody told you they were different stats.

ask one of your attorney relatives what "direct evidence" is - they can explain to you how it's not what you mean.

we are in agreement here, btw, and from all outward appearances, there is nothing wrong with this dudes non-disolved league.

Weav - don't put words in my mouth. i used direct, because i meant direct. u use compelling. i'm not getting into an argument of what word u wanted to use. very simple. and no, compelling wouldn't be my standard. many people can make compelling arguments (spin zone), but that doesn't prove anything happened or not. sorry sport

sounds good, squirt.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I had a very good talk with Bryan Propst this afternoon and I feel confident that he is winning fair and square in his current Online Championship League.
Bryan is passionate about baseball and he loves playing in the NFBC. He understands the scrutiny here after what happened in the other league, but he wants everyone to know he played no role there. That's what we felt as well.

Greg, a couple of questions....

Do you consider this a closed case ?

Have you had thoughts or discussions about security measures for the future? Can you share those?

[Deadheadz]

Have you had thoughts or discussions about security measures for the future? Can you share those?

Suggestion:

Set up a dummy 15 team league and offer a cash reward (nominal, like $50) to any of five volunteers who can demonstrate how they sucessfully entered multiple teams without using the same names, hometown or IP address.

If regular NFBCers can figure out how to do it, just imagine how easy it would be for a skilled outsider to do it.

.

[KJ Duke]

Signups are on a FCFS basis, so there can very well be leagues with multiple friends or acquintances drafting against each other either in the same year or over consecutive years ... that doesn't mean there is collusion going on (but it would make it easier to do it if there's intent). I've run private leagues here each year with many of the same owners; they've never been a league that is part of an overall, but there's nothing in the rules to prohibit it either.

Such leagues in an overall should be reviewed by commish as needed to look for anything suspicious in the draft, adds/drops, evidence of the same guy managing multiple teams in the league, etc. But if nothing suspicious is found other than common ownership from a previous league, it seems like a dead issue. At least for this season and this league.