Im 0-2 and im losing by like 65+ points so there is no chance I win tonight. I have Greg Jennigs and Jermicheal Finley to go. The only other team that is winless has around 35 more points than me. So if Jennigs and Finley get more than 35 points I will choose 2nd in the Waiver claims. I am a Ray Rice owner and need McGahee know he I score more than 35 he will take McGahee and im hurting for RB. So is it unethical to throw a game so you get the better Waiver claim position. This is a decent size money league. what would u do
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Unethical to throw games? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter pipman33
- Start date
Happy Ragnarok
Footballguy
Totally subjective.
On the one hand, tanking may well be the best strategic move for your team. On the other, tanking may well damage the competitive balance of the league. Unless it's spelled out in your rules, there's no objective right or wrong here.
Listen to your conscience. I suspect since you felt you needed to ask, I have a pretty good idea what you feel is "right" here.
On the one hand, tanking may well be the best strategic move for your team. On the other, tanking may well damage the competitive balance of the league. Unless it's spelled out in your rules, there's no objective right or wrong here.
Listen to your conscience. I suspect since you felt you needed to ask, I have a pretty good idea what you feel is "right" here.
I, personally, agree with them but your rules are what they are for the season.Sorry for the broken english. Got in a hurry. Im the commish in this league so I think im probably held to a higher standard and I gues I dont think its a good idea. I think its a long shot that Finley and Jennigs score 35 combined points anyways but it really could happen too.
You can't throw a game you already lost. Finley and Jennings won't get you 65pts. (yes, even the almighty Finely)
You can, however, damage your reputation around the league by making shady moves.
Does "total points" mean anything in your league? Tie-breaker, xtra prize money, etc...?
You can, however, damage your reputation around the league by making shady moves.
Does "total points" mean anything in your league? Tie-breaker, xtra prize money, etc...?
whitem0nkey
Footballguy
for next year switch to blind bidding.
comfortably numb
Footballguy
Tanking is not allowed in any of my leagues.
Now there is always a blurred line between tanking and rebuilding that some do not see eye to eye on.
I wouldn't personally.
But, you said you have Finley.
I don't know what the worries are.
He will get you the 65pts needed....by halftime.
Now there is always a blurred line between tanking and rebuilding that some do not see eye to eye on.
I wouldn't personally.
But, you said you have Finley.
I don't know what the worries are.
He will get you the 65pts needed....by halftime.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Am I the only one who thought this thread would be about the Panthers?
Mr. Bojangles
Footballguy
Signed,
Herm Edwards
Herm Edwards
Your #1 goal is the betterment of your own team. Every owner has a responsibility to do whatever it takes to make their team better/improve their odds of winning (cheating notwithstanding).
IMO, this is not cheating at all. You are doing it in the best interest of your team. I understand it is a gray area to some, but to me, you do what is best for your team. And not scoring a lot of points tonight is best for your team. You 'tank it' and get McGahee.
IMO, this is not cheating at all. You are doing it in the best interest of your team. I understand it is a gray area to some, but to me, you do what is best for your team. And not scoring a lot of points tonight is best for your team. You 'tank it' and get McGahee.
Not to throw out a wacky analogy, but what about when a team plays a young QB. Claussen right now probably isn't as good as Matt Moore, but they think it will help them in the long run. That is not 'throwing the game' even though they are playing a worse player.
It is for the greater good..which is what you would be doing by not starting Jennings and Finley.
By the way..Finley still might score 70 from the bench...so watch out for that.
It is for the greater good..which is what you would be doing by not starting Jennings and Finley.
By the way..Finley still might score 70 from the bench...so watch out for that.
SwampDawg
Footballguy
Exactly how are you going to tank the game on Monday afternoon, your lineup is already set and even if you allow roster changes until game time you just happen to have another Packer or Bear WR and TE on your team that are scrubs and won't have any chance at getting you points ?
If you are just benching your guys and taking zeros I would consider that unethical if you had say Olsen and Know and switch to them because you figured they would score less then Finley/Jennings not sure how anyone could say anything against it, it might backfire and they each have big nights.
If you are just benching your guys and taking zeros I would consider that unethical if you had say Olsen and Know and switch to them because you figured they would score less then Finley/Jennings not sure how anyone could say anything against it, it might backfire and they each have big nights.
gianmarco
Footballguy
I'm absolutely shocked at some of the responses in this thread.
You put your best lineup in every week. Period. Anything else is most definitely unethical, ESPECIALLY if it's to gain an advantage in waiver priority.
Now, whether or not there's rules in your league for this and whether you choose to do it is one thing. But, is it unethical? 100% yes.
You put your best lineup in every week. Period. Anything else is most definitely unethical, ESPECIALLY if it's to gain an advantage in waiver priority.
Now, whether or not there's rules in your league for this and whether you choose to do it is one thing. But, is it unethical? 100% yes.
whitem0nkey
Footballguy
after your regular draft, you can have every one have $100 fake Blind Bidding Dollars. use even change to avoid any ties, like $12.21. after the waivers clear you can still do your "first come first serve". if its a tie you can award the earliest submitted bid wins if it's a tie or you can use any other criteria like winning record...
dagwood
Footballguy
Wrong. If the ruleset allows changing lineups on Monday morning, then take advantage of the rule.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Just because the rules allow changing a lineup does NOT mean it's ETHICAL to do so? Sure, you can take advantage of the rule. It still doesn't make it right. Similarly, at the end of the year, if there's no rule in place, does it mean that a last place team can submit a crappy lineup to get a better pick? Or do you think that's somewhat unethical?You don't need a "rule" for ethical behavior. You put your best lineup in. End of story.
Last edited by a moderator:
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
lolWhat is unethical about attempting to improve your waiver position if the overall goal is to be above all other owners in the standings by the end of the season?
HurryUpSundays
Footballguy
If there is something I can do early in my season to improve my chances to MAKE the playoffs and WIN the league, I'm going to do it.
Throwing a game to gain better waiver priority is a little shaky as that L could ultimately cost you entry to the playoffs or a 1st round bye etc., but it is YOUR team. You paid to play, you play to win. We're all not trying to win just one game, its about being there in the end.
You gotta do what you gotta do.
Throwing a game to gain better waiver priority is a little shaky as that L could ultimately cost you entry to the playoffs or a 1st round bye etc., but it is YOUR team. You paid to play, you play to win. We're all not trying to win just one game, its about being there in the end.
You gotta do what you gotta do.
Pipes
Footballguy
But he's not throwing a game in this case...he's already lost. He just doesn't want to score more points than the next guy in line. Throwing games is one thing and I'm completely against that. Trying to be low point man after you've already lost is completely different. Though this opens a big can of worms which ultimately could lead into tanking so I probably wouldn't do it, especially as a commish.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
IMO, tanking is unethical
IMO - The definition of tanking: Intentionally submitting a lesser lineup in order to lower your points output...
With you being the commish, you'd better not ride the fence on this issue, and if I were you I would implement both a blind bid waiver system and rules about tanking.
It's just bad sportsmanship...
IMO - The definition of tanking: Intentionally submitting a lesser lineup in order to lower your points output...
With you being the commish, you'd better not ride the fence on this issue, and if I were you I would implement both a blind bid waiver system and rules about tanking.
It's just bad sportsmanship...
squistion
Footballguy
Yes, it is certainly unethical and it is hard to argue otherwise.That being said, be careful what you wish for. There may have been those who threw their Week 1 contest to get the highest draft pick. However, the consensus waiver wire selection the following week, Brandon Jackson, did not turn out to be worth an 0-1 record. Every win is important and if you throw a game (or reduce points) in order to get priority to pick a player, the last laugh may be on you.
Last edited by a moderator:
AngryPatriot
Footballguy
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Very surprised at some of the posts in this thread. There is NOTHING unethical about what you're doing. You're not affecting the outcome of the game at all. You're not costing anyone a win or a loss. You're not affecting the league standings and you're not affecting playoff seeding.
The ONLY thing you're doing is trying to help your team improve. You'll have the same record either way and you're not handing anyone a gift win or anything. There's nothing "ethical" about choosing to lose by 30 and hurt your team over liosing by 65 and giving yourself a chance to compete.
Here's what you owe your fellow owners: You need to try and win every game. You don't owe them a blowout win or loss. You tried to win but didn't. You've discharged your responsibility to your fellow owners. Now take care of your team.
The ONLY thing you're doing is trying to help your team improve. You'll have the same record either way and you're not handing anyone a gift win or anything. There's nothing "ethical" about choosing to lose by 30 and hurt your team over liosing by 65 and giving yourself a chance to compete.
Here's what you owe your fellow owners: You need to try and win every game. You don't owe them a blowout win or loss. You tried to win but didn't. You've discharged your responsibility to your fellow owners. Now take care of your team.
DANNY WELKER CRABTACULOUS
Footballguy
what he said...
dagwood
Footballguy
If you don't have a draft lottery for the bottom couple teams, then by all means tank away. Why should you try to win a game to shoot yourself in the foot for the following year. Do you like being in the bottom every year?
Giants4Life
Footballguy
If its part of the rules, I don't see a reason against it. The rules are the issue here
bulger2holt
Footballguy
There is nothing wrong with move.
dagwood
Footballguy
So he should do the "ethical" thing and let his competitor get the backup for his best running back. Thus positioning himself to lose a couple more times over the next couple weeks and probably be eliminated from the playoff hunt.But hey, at least he did the "ethical" thing right.What he said, end of story. I'd put it in the rules today.
fsufan
Footballguy
i was thinking this same thing.
squistion
Footballguy
You are entitled to your opinion, but not all of us believe that the ends justify the means.So he should do the "ethical" thing and let his competitor get the backup for his best running back. Thus positioning himself to lose a couple more times over the next couple weeks and probably be eliminated from the playoff hunt.But hey, at least he did the "ethical" thing right.What he said, end of story. I'd put it in the rules today.
Insein
Footballguy
Completely disagree. All part of the competitive nature. If he has the option of putting 2 players in there that he feels will perform worse than the 2 he current has thus creating a benefit to his team for the rest of the season, he needs to do it. He's taking a loss already. Why compound it by losing the waiver pickup he could have received by making sure his total points are as low as possible? This is not an ethical issue. Its a competitive issue. By all means do it.Now had he purposely put in a terrible lineup before this week began, that could be an ethical issue. But who purposely sets out to lose a game before they have even started playing? Thats just dumb.gianmarco said:
Last edited by a moderator:
SwampDawg
Footballguy
I'm still waiting to hear how he plans on tanking, is he just benching those 2 guys and not replacing them ? I find it hard to believe he has two other players from the 2 Monday night teams he can use that wouldn't also have an outside chance at scoring him those points. What is he rostering the Green Bay backup TE and 5th Bears WR ?
I'm torn about this myself. Honestly, if you know you can't win the game at hand, your second priority is to think about the future. The season is more than one game and your goal as a manager is not to just win one game, but to win it all. Sacrificing a game you already lost so that you can be more competitive later on seems to coincide with this philosophy that every team should strive to be the best team possible and in that way, the league overall will be competitive and fair. Good feelings and playing nice is a consideration but competitiveness should override this.
At the same, if everyone is going to be pissed at you for doing so and everyone feels that it is unfair then it might not be worth doing. Winning is important but sometimes it is not worth sacrificing relationships with other people over something as small as this.
However, your league should recognize this issue and have rules regarding it. If you are unsure, I'd probably ask. If you are too afraid to ask then you probably recognize it as wrong and are trying to hide that fact. That being said, I hate leagues that reset the order each week and give priority waiver to losing teams. If they are against tanking then the current waiver system should be changed to one where tanking has no incentive. Either that or there should be an incentive to score the highest points each week/overall such as a cash bonus. That would have a much bigger impact than just plain ethics.
At the same, if everyone is going to be pissed at you for doing so and everyone feels that it is unfair then it might not be worth doing. Winning is important but sometimes it is not worth sacrificing relationships with other people over something as small as this.
However, your league should recognize this issue and have rules regarding it. If you are unsure, I'd probably ask. If you are too afraid to ask then you probably recognize it as wrong and are trying to hide that fact. That being said, I hate leagues that reset the order each week and give priority waiver to losing teams. If they are against tanking then the current waiver system should be changed to one where tanking has no incentive. Either that or there should be an incentive to score the highest points each week/overall such as a cash bonus. That would have a much bigger impact than just plain ethics.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Can you explain how "losing by a moderate amount" is more ethical than "losing by a lot?" It's losing either way. I don't want someone to act unethically, but I'm not understanding how it's more "ethical" to hurt your own team on purpose when the outcome of the game cannot be changed. If he wanted to change the outcome of the game, I could see the ethics question. But how is purposely costing yourself a player you need, and gaining nothing in return, more ethical? Sounds short-sighted.squistion said:You are entitled to your opinion, but not all of us believe that the ends justify the means.dagwood said:So he should do the "ethical" thing and let his competitor get the backup for his best running back. Thus positioning himself to lose a couple more times over the next couple weeks and probably be eliminated from the playoff hunt.But hey, at least he did the "ethical" thing right.AngryPatriot said:Carolina Hustler said:
gianmarco
Footballguy
He's intentionally fielding a lesser team to improve his waiver priority. Intentionally fielding a lesser team, for whatever reason, is unethical. It doesn't matter whether or not he paid because his actions are affecting other teams (i.e. the team that fielded a legit lineup and now will have a lower priority). The only reason he has this option is because he has players going on Monday night.Can you explain how "losing by a moderate amount" is more ethical than "losing by a lot?" It's losing either way. I don't want someone to act unethically, but I'm not understanding how it's more "ethical" to hurt your own team on purpose when the outcome of the game cannot be changed. If he wanted to change the outcome of the game, I could see the ethics question. But how is purposely costing yourself a player you need, and gaining nothing in return, more ethical? Sounds short-sighted.squistion said:You are entitled to your opinion, but not all of us believe that the ends justify the means.dagwood said:So he should do the "ethical" thing and let his competitor get the backup for his best running back. Thus positioning himself to lose a couple more times over the next couple weeks and probably be eliminated from the playoff hunt.But hey, at least he did the "ethical" thing right.AngryPatriot said:Carolina Hustler said:What he said, end of story. I'd put it in the rules today.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
He already saw how it shook out. He lost. Isn't part of his responsibility to try and make the playoffs? Win next week, too? Put himself in a position to bounce back from the loss? What does losing AND hurting waiver priority accomplish?
As commish, you should submit a full lineup every week. If you have other players to replace Finley and Jennings it is fine but dont just bench them. While I personally dont think there is anything wrong with it, it is firmly in the gray area and you can be sure several members of your league will be upset. Your credibility to do anything "for the good of the league" the rest of the year will be shot.
Insein
Footballguy
I didn't think you could bench a player. Most sites won't let you have a game without a full lineup. This whole debate, IMO, was whether he should switch these 2 with lesser players. Benching them and not playing 2 players is COMPLETELY unethical.
CB31
Footballguy
You can't even guarantee THIS every week. When you actually have a chance to know how something, ANYTHING in fantasy football will turn out, you take advantage of it. There's no rule in place stopping him, he's not hurting anyone's matchup, and he's trying to better his team. Where's the harm in that?gianmarco said:
LarryAllen'sJockstrap
Footballguy
How would you "throw" the game? Do you have another WR and TE that are playing tonight that you could sub in for Jennings and Finley. If so, I think that is your right to start whoever you want on your roster; you might piss some people off, but I don't think it would be unethical. If not, would you go with two empty roster spots? Would your league allow it; and even if it does, you'll definitely piss some people off.pipman33 said:
Similar threads
