Is "throwing a game" legit if it gets you into playoffs (1 Viewer)

[brett4pack]

I don't know why I subject myself to reading these threads, but here are my 2 cents.

Whatever rules are "officially" in play at the begining of the season should be enforced to the letter of the law and no additional "unwritten" rules should be enforced. If you don't want teams tanking then craft the rules to prevent it. If your league's incentive structure is dumb enough to reward poor performance, don't be suprised (or complain) when teams take advantage of it.

In my league we have crafted the rules in such a way that there is virtually never any incentive to throw a game. Not suprisingly there has never been any controversy.

As far as all this about honor, integrity, or sportsmanship... There is no honor or sportsmanship in agreeing to play by a certain set of rules and then whining when someone does so (i.e. tanking to get a better draft choice or playoff matchup). Where I come from, when you shake hands and agree on the rules those rules are final.

 

[doowain]

The more I think about this the clearer it seems...Tanking rules are in place to protect the integrity of the league from an unscrupulous owner who might throw a game in order for his or her team to benefit.Exactly HOW the tanking team benefits -- obtaining an improved draft position or making the playoffs -- is irrelevant. The integrity of the league is the important thing.

Disagree. Sure, tanking to get a better pick benefits your team, but there are often multiple teams vying for "worst record" and thus, it's unfair if they all start doing so or if only one starts doing so. The point of the draft order is to reward the truly worst team but you must still all try on a given week AS IF YOU WERE FIGHTING FOR A PLAYOFF SPOT.The situation above is to make the playoffs. From week 1, the goal of EVERY team is to make the playoffs and win a championship. That's the competitive spirit of the league. Going for a win in the final week while costing yourself a playoff spot actually goes against that, IMO. It's not collusive. It's not underhanded. It's the same as picking up a WW player to give yourself a win. If the only goal is to trot out the best team and get a "weekly win" while ignoring actually going for the playoffs, I think the goals are skewed to be honest.Tanking to make the playoffs vs. tanking to have a worst record and land a better pick are two completely different situations, IMO.

This.The end result (and point) of tanking is to better your draft position.Losing to get into the playoffs is the exact opposite of that. You are worsening your draft position.There is NOTHING wrong with this IMO.

 

[TWP]

I don't agree at all. The purpose of losing the game is to make the playoffs and win a title. Losing to get a better draft pick will not get you to the playoffs or win you a title. It might help next year, but getting a better draft pick doesn't punch your ticket to the post-season. In this case, losing does. If he loses, he makes the playoffs. It hardly ever happens, but in this case it's a "lose and you're in" scenario. And you're saying he has more "integrity" is he intentionally misses the playoffs. That makes no sense to me.

By trying to win the game, he'd be "tanking" his shot at the playoffs. Who would purposely try to avoid making the playoffs? At the very least, you know the guy would set his best lineup and HOPE HE LOSES. Why? Because he wants to make the playoffs. And I cannot imagine you support teams hoping they lose.

Fantasy football is different than real football in that we don't play defense. You can't stop your opponent from scoring. All you control (to any degree) is what you score. That's why many leagues have total points as a tie-breaker or wild-card spot. And when you do that, you might have a case where a team needs to lose in order to let another team take the "record" spot which allows them to get the "points" spot.

If the league set it up that way, it seems unreasonable that the same league would want an owner to purposely miss the playoffs and forfeit the money they'd earn by making the playoffs. Are you going to pay him what he would have earned? Or is he just supposed to be a "cool guy" and throw away his playoff spot on purpose?

IMO losing a game today to achieve a goal in the future is tanking. Whether it's a playoff berth this year, or a better pick in the draft next year doesn't matter. The competitive balance of the league is thrown off either way when you have guys trying to lose games.

Yup -- this is 100% correct. The way the playoff rules have been developed have created the possibility for unintended perverse incentives. But you still have to play to win each and every game. Otherwise, you ruin the competitive landscape and the fairness to all players.To people comparing this against the NFL: stop. None of your players are going to avoid injury if you sit them.

To the people saying that they allow fielding any lineup as long as the players are playing: why have that stipulation? Also in dynasty you probably have people on your roster who are active, but never see the field. How is this different than playing people on bye or not on the active roster? Either way, you're not trying to win the game, it's wrong.

And just why do they want to avoid injury? Because they are more concerned about winning a championship then winning that one game. Very similar to the OP's question, imo.

But in the NFL there is a very solid reason for resting their starters: to avoid injury. Also, yes a lot of people do think this is bull#### including the commissioner of the NFL, hence the change in the schedule to reduce the chance of teams doing this. The NFL season is short, so teams dont have much room to tank. But look at the NBA. It ABSOLUTELY is bull#### for teams to tank the second half of the year in order to get better draft picks. And if the NBA could have a rule that said "You must start your best team every game" they absolutely would.

 

[rick6668]

Having a set of rules where losing a game will give the team a playoff berth is ludicrous. Imagine that happening in the NFL. New England against Miami week 17 and New England gets in the playoffs if they lose, but gets eliminated if they win.

Fix your playoff scenarios so this can't happen.

 

[Amused to Death]

I don't agree at all. The purpose of losing the game is to make the playoffs and win a title. Losing to get a better draft pick will not get you to the playoffs or win you a title. It might help next year, but getting a better draft pick doesn't punch your ticket to the post-season. In this case, losing does. If he loses, he makes the playoffs. It hardly ever happens, but in this case it's a "lose and you're in" scenario. And you're saying he has more "integrity" is he intentionally misses the playoffs. That makes no sense to me.

By trying to win the game, he'd be "tanking" his shot at the playoffs. Who would purposely try to avoid making the playoffs? At the very least, you know the guy would set his best lineup and HOPE HE LOSES. Why? Because he wants to make the playoffs. And I cannot imagine you support teams hoping they lose.

Fantasy football is different than real football in that we don't play defense. You can't stop your opponent from scoring. All you control (to any degree) is what you score. That's why many leagues have total points as a tie-breaker or wild-card spot. And when you do that, you might have a case where a team needs to lose in order to let another team take the "record" spot which allows them to get the "points" spot.

If the league set it up that way, it seems unreasonable that the same league would want an owner to purposely miss the playoffs and forfeit the money they'd earn by making the playoffs. Are you going to pay him what he would have earned? Or is he just supposed to be a "cool guy" and throw away his playoff spot on purpose?

IMO losing a game today to achieve a goal in the future is tanking. Whether it's a playoff berth this year, or a better pick in the draft next year doesn't matter. The competitive balance of the league is thrown off either way when you have guys trying to lose games.

Yup -- this is 100% correct. The way the playoff rules have been developed have created the possibility for unintended perverse incentives. But you still have to play to win each and every game. Otherwise, you ruin the competitive landscape and the fairness to all players.To people comparing this against the NFL: stop. None of your players are going to avoid injury if you sit them.

To the people saying that they allow fielding any lineup as long as the players are playing: why have that stipulation? Also in dynasty you probably have people on your roster who are active, but never see the field. How is this different than playing people on bye or not on the active roster? Either way, you're not trying to win the game, it's wrong.

And just why do they want to avoid injury? Because they are more concerned about winning a championship then winning that one game. Very similar to the OP's question, imo.

But in the NFL there is a very solid reason for resting their starters: to avoid injury. Also, yes a lot of people do think this is bull#### including the commissioner of the NFL, hence the change in the schedule to reduce the chance of teams doing this. The NFL season is short, so teams dont have much room to tank. But look at the NBA. It ABSOLUTELY is bull#### for teams to tank the second half of the year in order to get better draft picks. And if the NBA could have a rule that said "You must start your best team every game" they absolutely would.

Just sticking to the NFL, whether we think its BS or not the rules allow for it. So to answer the question posed by the OP, getting to the playoffs>>>>winning one game, right? And that's exactly how some NFL teams approach it as well. And in regards to the OP, its not just the fact that that week's game is meaningless as with the NFL, that week's game means the playoffs with a loss (the greater good).The comparison with the NFL is obviously not the same situation as the NFL would never have a "lose and your in" scenario. But that's not what the debate is about. The OP posed a question as to whether or not you would throw a game to get in the playoffs. To me its a no-brainer; yes. That's the greater good and more in line to my ultimate goal of a championship. Just like the Colts tanked a game to better their chances of a championship within the confines of the league rules.

 

[Hoosier16]

If the goal is to win Championships and I can't do it this year, then the best thing I can do to help my team is to tank and try to get a better draft pick for next year - which will help me win a Championship.

Why is it OK to do something that benefits you THIS year that's not ok when it benefits you in FUTURE years?

There's really no difference here IMO.

There is a difference between the 2 that I don't think you're realizing.

--Tanking to get a better draft pick is DIRECTLY changing the VALUE of your team. It's adding undeserved value.

--Tanking to get INTO the PLAYOFFS does not change the value of your team at all (actually decreases it because of a worse draft pick). It's benefiting your team only in terms of going for the ultimate goal of winning a championship. The value and merits of your team got you there in the 1st place are unchanged.

Trades benefit your team.

WW moves benefit your team.

Lineup changes can benefit your team.

So yes, "tanking" benefits your team if you're going for a draft pick, but THAT is what is unallowed because it's not the way it's meant to be determined. IMO, the "spirt of the rule" of "NO TANKING" is to prevent this. I don't think it's meant for a team that is actually competing and trying to make the playoffs and win. That's the point of being there to begin with.

Using this as your justification, it must also be OK to make a lopsided trade as long as your goal is to get into the playoffs. If by C beating B gets you into the playoffs, it should be OK to make a trade that gives C significantly better players. As long as there is no collusion, why would this be any different?

But...deliberately making a lopsided trade where one trades good players away for worse players is precisely the definition of collusion.

Why? If I just make an offer I know team C will accept, there hasn't been any secret, prior agreement made between us. We aren't sharing in the winnings. It's no different than any other trade other than it's lopsided.

 

[TWP]

Yup -- this is 100% correct. The way the playoff rules have been developed have created the possibility for unintended perverse incentives. But you still have to play to win each and every game. Otherwise, you ruin the competitive landscape and the fairness to all players.

To people comparing this against the NFL: stop. None of your players are going to avoid injury if you sit them.

To the people saying that they allow fielding any lineup as long as the players are playing: why have that stipulation? Also in dynasty you probably have people on your roster who are active, but never see the field. How is this different than playing people on bye or not on the active roster? Either way, you're not trying to win the game, it's wrong.

And just why do they want to avoid injury? Because they are more concerned about winning a championship then winning that one game. Very similar to the OP's question, imo.

But in the NFL there is a very solid reason for resting their starters: to avoid injury. Also, yes a lot of people do think this is bull#### including the commissioner of the NFL, hence the change in the schedule to reduce the chance of teams doing this. The NFL season is short, so teams dont have much room to tank. But look at the NBA. It ABSOLUTELY is bull#### for teams to tank the second half of the year in order to get better draft picks. And if the NBA could have a rule that said "You must start your best team every game" they absolutely would.

Just sticking to the NFL, whether we think its BS or not the rules allow for it. So to answer the question posed by the OP, getting to the playoffs>>>>winning one game, right? And that's exactly how some NFL teams approach it as well. And in regards to the OP, its not just the fact that that week's game is meaningless as with the NFL, that week's game means the playoffs with a loss (the greater good).The comparison with the NFL is obviously not the same situation as the NFL would never have a "lose and your in" scenario. But that's not what the debate is about. The OP posed a question as to whether or not you would throw a game to get in the playoffs. To me its a no-brainer; yes. That's the greater good and more in line to my ultimate goal of a championship. Just like the Colts tanked a game to better their chances of a championship within the confines of the league rules.

The OP posed the question "Is it legit?" not "Would you do it?" It is not legit in the NFL. It is not legit in the NBA. And it is not legit in FF. It is taking advantage of an unanticipated loophole in the way the playoff system was set up. The total points rule was set up to make sure that a good team didn't get excluded. It was not set up so that a mediocre team could purposefully lose to a good team so that the good team would get in on record and then the total points rule could be applied to the mediocre team instead. That is manipulating the system and is not "legit".

 

[corpcow]

It's my law school league. So if you can imagine the 'rule' debates are even more vitriolic and overly loquacious.

Oh man... tell me about it. My main local redraft league which ran for about 7 years had about 5 of my law school buddies in there - the debates were ENDLESS. In fact, the league eventually folded because a few in particular made it not fun for everyone else

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Yup -- this is 100% correct. The way the playoff rules have been developed have created the possibility for unintended perverse incentives. But you still have to play to win each and every game. Otherwise, you ruin the competitive landscape and the fairness to all players.

To people comparing this against the NFL: stop. None of your players are going to avoid injury if you sit them.

To the people saying that they allow fielding any lineup as long as the players are playing: why have that stipulation? Also in dynasty you probably have people on your roster who are active, but never see the field. How is this different than playing people on bye or not on the active roster? Either way, you're not trying to win the game, it's wrong.

And just why do they want to avoid injury? Because they are more concerned about winning a championship then winning that one game. Very similar to the OP's question, imo.

But in the NFL there is a very solid reason for resting their starters: to avoid injury. Also, yes a lot of people do think this is bull#### including the commissioner of the NFL, hence the change in the schedule to reduce the chance of teams doing this. The NFL season is short, so teams dont have much room to tank. But look at the NBA. It ABSOLUTELY is bull#### for teams to tank the second half of the year in order to get better draft picks. And if the NBA could have a rule that said "You must start your best team every game" they absolutely would.

Just sticking to the NFL, whether we think its BS or not the rules allow for it. So to answer the question posed by the OP, getting to the playoffs>>>>winning one game, right? And that's exactly how some NFL teams approach it as well. And in regards to the OP, its not just the fact that that week's game is meaningless as with the NFL, that week's game means the playoffs with a loss (the greater good).The comparison with the NFL is obviously not the same situation as the NFL would never have a "lose and your in" scenario. But that's not what the debate is about. The OP posed a question as to whether or not you would throw a game to get in the playoffs. To me its a no-brainer; yes. That's the greater good and more in line to my ultimate goal of a championship. Just like the Colts tanked a game to better their chances of a championship within the confines of the league rules.

The OP posed the question "Is it legit?" not "Would you do it?" It is not legit in the NFL. It is not legit in the NBA. And it is not legit in FF. It is taking advantage of an unanticipated loophole in the way the playoff system was set up. The total points rule was set up to make sure that a good team didn't get excluded. It was not set up so that a mediocre team could purposefully lose to a good team so that the good team would get in on record and then the total points rule could be applied to the mediocre team instead. That is manipulating the system and is not "legit".

So, in your opinion, it's "legit" for an owner to try and win a game that they know will eliminate them from the playoffs? The "legit" move is to try and avoid making the post-season and winning some cash? You're supposed to go "Oh, this is a weird quirk. Too bad I'm a robot who doesn't know any better, so I'm going to go out and cost myself some money!" Honestly, think about it. That seems "legit" to you?

 

[TWP]

So, in your opinion, it's "legit" for an owner to try and win a game that they know will eliminate them from the playoffs? The "legit" move is to try and avoid making the post-season and winning some cash? You're supposed to go "Oh, this is a weird quirk. Too bad I'm a robot who doesn't know any better, so I'm going to go out and cost myself some money!" Honestly, think about it. That seems "legit" to you?

Yes, "legit" to me (and to the people in the leagues that have anti-tanking rules) is trying to win every game and putting out your best lineup every game. Any rules that give people incentive not to do that have either had unintended consequences or were not good rules. I think that most people would agree that a well-functioning league is one in which everyone is trying to win every game in which they play. In this case, I would say "Wow, that sucks that winning that last game ended up knocking me out of the playoffs by making my opponent the points qualifier instead of a record qualifier. But if I had won more games or scored more points during the season, I would have made the playoffs." That feels a whole hell of a lot more legit to me than people being forced to say "If that guy hadn't tanked his last game I would have made the playoffs."

 

[FootballGuy22]

I still don't see how this works. It team A loses they get in on pts over team C, teams A&B get in. If team A wins, doesn't team A get in, the lose the tiebreaker with B but get in over team C on record, teams A&B get in. Can someone provide a specific example with records and pts?

 

[TWP]

I still don't see how this works. It team A loses they get in on pts over team C, teams A&B get in. If team A wins, doesn't team A get in, the lose the tiebreaker with B but get in over team C on record, teams A&B get in. Can someone provide a specific example with records and pts?

Team A: 8-3 1000 ptsTeam B: 6-5 900 ptsTeam C: 8-3 800 ptsThere are two spots: one on record, one on points for teams that dont get in on record. So if Team B beats Team A, then Team C gets in on record and Team A gets in on points. Team B goes home. But if Team B loses to team A, then team A gets in on record and Team B beats team C in points.

 

[kingmalaki]

I see nothing wrong with it since the opponent is going to make the playoffs anyway. You have earned the chance to be in over the other teams based on scoring the most points, if the rules say that's who gets the last spot. 

I also see nothing wrong with losing purposely to get a better playoff seeding, as long as you aren't hurting the playoff chances of another team by tanking your game. But if you are playing a guy that's already in or out then go right ahead. 

I think karma is a ##### and folks that do this wind up losing anyway though. 

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

So, in your opinion, it's "legit" for an owner to try and win a game that they know will eliminate them from the playoffs? The "legit" move is to try and avoid making the post-season and winning some cash? You're supposed to go "Oh, this is a weird quirk. Too bad I'm a robot who doesn't know any better, so I'm going to go out and cost myself some money!"

Honestly, think about it. That seems "legit" to you?

Yes, "legit" to me (and to the people in the leagues that have anti-tanking rules) is trying to win every game and putting out your best lineup every game. Any rules that give people incentive not to do that have either had unintended consequences or were not good rules. I think that most people would agree that a well-functioning league is one in which everyone is trying to win every game in which they play. In this case, I would say "Wow, that sucks that winning that last game ended up knocking me out of the playoffs by making my opponent the points qualifier instead of a record qualifier. But if I had won more games or scored more points during the season, I would have made the playoffs." That feels a whole hell of a lot more legit to me than people being forced to say "If that guy hadn't tanked his last game I would have made the playoffs."

I'm amazed, really. You have the playoffs in your hand and you're expected to throw it away? You have a chance at a title and money and you're supposed to act in a way that you know eliminates you from contention? It's so counter-intuitive I'm surprised people are so loyal to the concept of win every game (even though the concept doesn't exist in the real world) that they're willing to insist owners intentionally hurt themselves. The game isn't about missing the playoffs on purpose.

Sure, if you had won more games you would have made the playoffs. But the same holds for the other guy. Instead of whining about how the guy tanked his game to enter the playoffs...why not ask why you didn't win more games yourself? Yet that other owner is expected to fall on their sword while he waltzes into the playoffs?

I respect the fact that each league has rules that work for them. But it doesn't seem ethical or noble or legit. Just seems dumb to me, like a robot that's using simple artificial intelligence when good old-fashioned logic would help them see their error.

"Win, win, win...even if you know it costs you money and the playoffs" doesn't seem legit to me. It seems wrong for a league to expect someone to try to avoid making the playoffs. The goal isn't to win all your games, or we'd award all the money based on your wins. We don't. The guy who went 12-2 in the regular season doesn't win all the money. It's the playoffs that count, and you're expecting someone to purposely turn down a playoff spot.

I understand and respect your loyalty to maintaining the integrity of the league, but I think it's getting in the way of common sense. Owners purposely avoiding the playoffs warps not only the integrity of the league, but the entire purpose of the league. If you don't want to win the league, and actually takes steps to endure you do not win it...why play at all? How can a league function if some owners are trying not to win the title?

 

[TWP]

So, in your opinion, it's "legit" for an owner to try and win a game that they know will eliminate them from the playoffs? The "legit" move is to try and avoid making the post-season and winning some cash? You're supposed to go "Oh, this is a weird quirk. Too bad I'm a robot who doesn't know any better, so I'm going to go out and cost myself some money!"

Honestly, think about it. That seems "legit" to you?

Yes, "legit" to me (and to the people in the leagues that have anti-tanking rules) is trying to win every game and putting out your best lineup every game. Any rules that give people incentive not to do that have either had unintended consequences or were not good rules. I think that most people would agree that a well-functioning league is one in which everyone is trying to win every game in which they play. In this case, I would say "Wow, that sucks that winning that last game ended up knocking me out of the playoffs by making my opponent the points qualifier instead of a record qualifier. But if I had won more games or scored more points during the season, I would have made the playoffs." That feels a whole hell of a lot more legit to me than people being forced to say "If that guy hadn't tanked his last game I would have made the playoffs."

I'm amazed, really. You have the playoffs in your hand and you're expected to throw it away? You have a chance at a title and money and you're supposed to act in a way that you know eliminates you from contention? It's so counter-intuitive I'm surprised people are so loyal to the concept of win every game (even though the concept doesn't exist in the real world) that they're willing to insist owners intentionally hurt themselves. The game isn't about missing the playoffs on purpose.

Sure, if you had won more games you would have made the playoffs. But the same holds for the other guy. Instead of whining about how the guy tanked his game to enter the playoffs...why not ask why you didn't win more games yourself? Yet that other owner is expected to fall on their sword while he waltzes into the playoffs?

I respect the fact that each league has rules that work for them. But it doesn't seem ethical or noble or legit. Just seems dumb to me, like a robot that's using simple artificial intelligence when good old-fashioned logic would help them see their error.

"Win, win, win...even if you know it costs you money and the playoffs" doesn't seem legit to me. It seems wrong for a league to expect someone to try to avoid making the playoffs. The goal isn't to win all your games, or we'd award all the money based on your wins. We don't. The guy who went 12-2 in the regular season doesn't win all the money. It's the playoffs that count, and you're expecting someone to purposely turn down a playoff spot.

I understand and respect your loyalty to maintaining the integrity of the league, but I think it's getting in the way of common sense. Owners purposely avoiding the playoffs warps not only the integrity of the league, but the entire purpose of the league. If you don't want to win the league, and actually takes steps to endure you do not win it...why play at all? How can a league function if some owners are trying not to win the title?

I dont understand what you think tanking is. As soon as I'm eliminated from the playoffs, I should start a roster full of players on IR, right? Because otherwise, I have the first draft pick right in my hands and I'm supposed to do something against that?! This is exactly what tanking is, this is exactly what is happening here, and this exactly ruins leagues... and is most certainly not "legit".

ETA: If I were running the league that the OP is talking about and he tanked the game, I would 100% make sure we get rid of the 'total points' rule and just have playoffs based on record. The rule is there to try to get people who got screwed by the schedule into the playoffs. But if it's going to create situations where people have a reason to tank, then it's not worth it.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

So, in your opinion, it's "legit" for an owner to try and win a game that they know will eliminate them from the playoffs? The "legit" move is to try and avoid making the post-season and winning some cash? You're supposed to go "Oh, this is a weird quirk. Too bad I'm a robot who doesn't know any better, so I'm going to go out and cost myself some money!"

Honestly, think about it. That seems "legit" to you?

Yes, "legit" to me (and to the people in the leagues that have anti-tanking rules) is trying to win every game and putting out your best lineup every game. Any rules that give people incentive not to do that have either had unintended consequences or were not good rules. I think that most people would agree that a well-functioning league is one in which everyone is trying to win every game in which they play. In this case, I would say "Wow, that sucks that winning that last game ended up knocking me out of the playoffs by making my opponent the points qualifier instead of a record qualifier. But if I had won more games or scored more points during the season, I would have made the playoffs." That feels a whole hell of a lot more legit to me than people being forced to say "If that guy hadn't tanked his last game I would have made the playoffs."

I'm amazed, really. You have the playoffs in your hand and you're expected to throw it away? You have a chance at a title and money and you're supposed to act in a way that you know eliminates you from contention? It's so counter-intuitive I'm surprised people are so loyal to the concept of win every game (even though the concept doesn't exist in the real world) that they're willing to insist owners intentionally hurt themselves. The game isn't about missing the playoffs on purpose.

Sure, if you had won more games you would have made the playoffs. But the same holds for the other guy. Instead of whining about how the guy tanked his game to enter the playoffs...why not ask why you didn't win more games yourself? Yet that other owner is expected to fall on their sword while he waltzes into the playoffs?

I respect the fact that each league has rules that work for them. But it doesn't seem ethical or noble or legit. Just seems dumb to me, like a robot that's using simple artificial intelligence when good old-fashioned logic would help them see their error.

"Win, win, win...even if you know it costs you money and the playoffs" doesn't seem legit to me. It seems wrong for a league to expect someone to try to avoid making the playoffs. The goal isn't to win all your games, or we'd award all the money based on your wins. We don't. The guy who went 12-2 in the regular season doesn't win all the money. It's the playoffs that count, and you're expecting someone to purposely turn down a playoff spot.

I understand and respect your loyalty to maintaining the integrity of the league, but I think it's getting in the way of common sense. Owners purposely avoiding the playoffs warps not only the integrity of the league, but the entire purpose of the league. If you don't want to win the league, and actually takes steps to endure you do not win it...why play at all? How can a league function if some owners are trying not to win the title?

I dont understand what you think tanking is. As soon as I'm eliminated from the playoffs, I should start a roster full of players on IR, right? Because otherwise, I have the first draft pick right in my hands and I'm supposed to do something against that?! This is exactly what tanking is, this is exactly what is happening here, and this exactly ruins leagues... and is most certainly not "legit".

ETA: If I were running the league that the OP is talking about and he tanked the game, I would 100% make sure we get rid of the 'total points' rule and just have playoffs based on record. The rule is there to try to get people who got screwed by the schedule into the playoffs. But if it's going to create situations where people have a reason to tank, then it's not worth it.

The goal of a league isn't to get the earliest pick. You can hypothesize that it helps you in the long run, but you can win a league without it. You CANNOT win a h2h league without going to the playoffs. It's impossible. It's totally acceptable to prevent tanking for those trying to gain a perceived possible advantage down the road. But this is a guaranteed playoff spot right now-- what every team is gunning for. How can you ask a team to purposely not make the playoffs when that's the whole point of playing? You can tell a team that playing hard is more important than getting an earlier pick and incentivize playing out the year. Getting an early pick is not the goal of the game.

But making the playoffs and winning a title is why we play. Asking a team to purposely not make the playoffs is more warped than having an instance where a team wants to lose on purpose. Because even if the guy is "legit" and sets his best lineup...he's still hoping he loses. He's rooting against his own team. Something is wrong. It's just not right to expect an owner to purposely not make the playoffs and forfeit that money. It's the very reason we play. Nobody goes into the season gunning for the first overall pick. Everyone wants to make the playoffs. I see a big difference there.