Would it be cheap to throw the champ game in conf. Topic

dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 293 18
Pro
(2) WIS can't create its own definition of a word.  "Collusion," by defintion, is an agreement between two or more people.  You can't collude with yourself.


This is not distinctly true.  See implicit/tacit collusion.  It is certainly possible to fulfill the requirements of implicit collusion by throwing a game to a sim AI team.  In fact, the OED lists a definition of collusion that essentially only requires it to be some form of fraud or deceit.  So the assumption that any legitimate definition of the word collusion requires an explicit agreement between two or more parties is not only ambiguously wrong but absolutely wrong.
(3) WIS clearly intended that people not AGREE to throw games.  You can't make an agreement with yourself.

I would argue that WIS clearly intended that people not throw games at all.  I think the intent here is very apparent, and reading into it an agreement from the initial statement in the collusion section of the Fair Play Guidelines is giving them far too much credit for putting time and effort into that document.
6/7/2012 3:55 PM
ike1024
Posts: 410 (0)
Hall of Famer
59
Prospect
I don't have the OED handy, but "implicit" or "tacit" collusion still requires actions from two people or entities in which an agreement is inferred based on some consciousness of connection between your actions, the other person's actions, and the result.  It still requires multiple entities doing something.  For example, you firm can price fix, but that's not implicit collusion.  It only becomes implicit collusion when two firms price fix, despite the lack of an overt agreement to do so.

I guess I don't disagree with your second point.  In fact, I'm sure you're right.  It's just not collusion to "agree" with yourself to do something.
6/7/2012 4:22 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Let's be real -- WIS has never, ever used the basic dictionary definition of collusion as actions having to be between two or more parties.
6/7/2012 4:34 PM
dcy0827
Posts: 798 (0)
Hall of Famer
728
Pro
Posted by ike1024 on 6/7/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
"if you are trying to argue the WIS definition of collusion is not the dictionary definition, i won't disagree with you. if you are trying to argue the throwing of a CT game is not collusion under the WIS definition, then i will disagree with you."

Here are my four main points:

(1) I'm saying WIS clearly includes the language "between two or more users" because they acknowledge that "collusion," by definition, must include more than one person.
(2) WIS can't create its own definition of a word.  "Collusion," by defintion, is an agreement between two or more people.  You can't collude with yourself.
(3) WIS clearly intended that people not AGREE to throw games.  You can't make an agreement with yourself.
(4) Regardless of all of that, common sense should dictate that WIS doesn't want people throwing games for the benefit of assisting in gettign to the post-season, agreement or not.

I really only got into this because people were throwing around the word "collusion" and saying that WIS clearly defines this as such.  I don't think WIS does, because this isn't collusion.

I've continued the conversation because as dcy said, I have too much time on my hands (I don't, which is why I need to get back to work), but also have acknowledged the stupidity of the overall argument (not my position) at every point possible.
Hey, hey now, don't get me all wrapped up in all of this.  It was actually "dacj", not "dcy" who made the "too much time on your hands" comment.  I'm innocent here.  Innocent, I say!! 

To sum up though, is this scenario "collusion" by the dictionary definition of the word?  No, it doesn't look like it is.  Is it wrong to intentionally throw a game?  I think that anyone with any shred of integrity would agree that it is.  Okay, case closed, next topic.
6/7/2012 5:14 PM (edited)
phillyboy108
Posts: 270 (0)
Pro
1 1 1 5 4
Prospect

Just had my conference championship game and I lossed in OT so I just wanted to say I did not throw the game.

6/21/2012 11:04 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
looks like he spelled "tossed" wrong ;) lol
6/21/2012 11:24 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
I would argue that this just adds more fuel to the fire...you lost to a 140 RPI that you just beat at home by 31 (3 point win on the road) and you're making the tournament as well...I would not have posted about this, but well done phillyboy
6/21/2012 11:37 AM
paland
Posts: 122 (0)
Hall of Famer
287 11 20 380 11 1
Prospect
Just my opinion, but I dont think Westminster should have even made the NT.  The PIT yes, but not the NT.

Some teams got screwed because of this travesty, including two from my conference who are much better than either of these two teams.
6/21/2012 11:58 AM
paland
Posts: 122 (0)
Hall of Famer
287 11 20 380 11 1
Prospect
Posted by colonels19 on 6/21/2012 11:24:00 AM (view original):
looks like he spelled "tossed" wrong ;) lol
LOL, yep.   Hit the L instead of the T
6/21/2012 12:07 PM
phillyboy108
Posts: 270 (0)
Pro
1 1 1 5 4
Prospect
Posted by paland on 6/21/2012 11:59:00 AM (view original):
Just my opinion, but I dont think Westminster should have even made the NT.  The PIT yes, but not the NT.

Some teams got screwed because of this travesty, including two from my conference who are much better than either of these two teams.
I think you are completely wrong
Pennstate Behrend should not have made it because they lost to 2 teams in the 200 + rpi
Scranton should not have made it because they went 4-10 vs the top 100 and I went 4-5 vs the top 100 and Scranton lost to me head to head
and I lost not tossed:)
6/21/2012 12:15 PM
paland
Posts: 122 (0)
Hall of Famer
287 11 20 380 11 1
Prospect
OK phillyboy, good points.  Your team does deserve to be higher than those two.  But something needs to be done about 140 rpi teams getting in . Maybe have the real conf winner go. The conf tourney can be an option. 

I never liked the idea of conf tounys anyways. If the team couldnt win during the regular season, then why give a team who goes on a brief run a bid?
6/21/2012 1:38 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Paland, my point of this whole deal is, given the context of this thread, I find it very curious that this happened, that he lost a conference title game to a team that wouldn't have made it otherwise that he had beaten twice earlier in the season....why would you post about it too?  This thing was sealed shut.
6/21/2012 1:40 PM
car_crazy_v2
Posts: 619 (0)
All Star
32 3
Rookie
How the hell can you say that he threw the game?  All of his players played nearly the exact same minutes that they averaged on the season and he used a very similar gameplan as he did the previous time that he played the team. 

Also, he had beaten the team by only 3 points earlier in the season so an overtime loss doesn't seem odd at all to me. He also had lost to a 125 RPI team earlier. He didn't throw the game.  

He's also right that he deserved to be in far more than the other two teams from Freedom. 
6/21/2012 2:23 PM
paland
Posts: 122 (0)
Hall of Famer
287 11 20 380 11 1
Prospect
colonels19, I too looked at the game. Minutes played, starters and stuff.  I saw that he played slow tempo when he had the better team, but he played slow tempo for the last several games at least. And the same players started.  I also saw that he played +3 against a team that didnt shoot many threes, but he played +2 and +3 against other teams with similar stats as well. 

So I dont think he threw the game. I dont like the fact that he even thought about it, but he does seem to realize his mistake,

So I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
6/21/2012 4:05 PM (edited)
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 293 18
Pro
These do not sound like any attempt to "cheat" or throw the game, just sounds like maybe phillyboy's gameplanning could use some work...
6/21/2012 4:07 PM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8|9 Next ▸
Would it be cheap to throw the champ game in conf. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.