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.
But this isn't collusion (you're acting alone) and you're trying to win. Tanking for future picks is a gray area. But tanking win is trying to achieve the goal of the league - to win the championship. Face it, no one's taking home the grand prize because they won in week 13. There's a reason the big prize is for the ultimate champion. That's what we're all playing for. Tanking because I gave up isn't nearly the same. The goals are polar opposites.
That's why I said tanking and collusion. I didn't say tanking was collusion. They are similar in that there is only circumstantial evidence that it is happening. And in my opinion, both are equally cancerous to the good will in a league. If I was fighting for a playoff spot and saw someone tanking and knew it would cost me a playoff spot, I would complain to the commish. If he let it slide, I would quit the league. That would be the most obvious example of why it shouldn't be allowed.
So the stronger team (me) should worry about your playoff chances? What about the poor guy who misses the playoffs because you got in? I could get a better seeding and improve my chances and someone else is happy. Why are you more important than either of those?
This is always true.
Yes, for a couple reasons.First, the "poor guy" missing the playoffs in this scenario would have gotten in because you tanked, not based on merit. If I played you in week 8 and you started your best lineup and beat me, it's not fair that a lesser team gets to beat you in week 13 because you decided it was in your best interest to lose. The playoff seeds should be decided on merit as much as possible. I don't subscribe here and devote hours of my time reading and listening to podcasts to have it come down to getting screwed by an unscrupulous owner. That is why I would quit such a league.
But that's precisely why this is not a classic example of a prisoner's dilemma. In fact, you mentioned several times elsewhere in the thread that fantasy football is a zero-sum game, and of course a non-iterated prisoner's dilemma is a non-zero-sum game. So which is it?
But the point of (non-iterated, i.e. one-off redraft with strangers) fantasy football isn't to find the best outcome for everyone. I wouldn't enter that kind of league with the intention of maximizing everyone's payoff. If that were the case, we could just play out the season and then give everyone their entry fees back.
And this is the absurd corner you paint yourself into with a NO TANKING EVER stance.
No it won't. The league expressed its preferences for playoff participants, so each owner should manage his team according to those preferences. If a league opts to award playoff spots based on something other than wins, then winning games is, by definition, not the be-all and end-all of that league.
On the contrary, if winning your final game eliminates you from the playoffs, then by league rules you weren't intended to try to win every game.
To the bolded, within the confines of the rules absolutely. I don't call other owners mid-week and remind them to submit their waiver claims, or call my opponent if I see he left a player on bye in his line up. That's his problem and I don't expect others to call me. Worry about your own team, as long as you're within the rules. I don't advocate cheating; I play to win the championship.
My rules wouldn't allow you to tank. If that was an issue for you, we can both agree that we wouldn't want to be in a league with each other.
That is not a correct comparison at all! The correct NFL comparison would be a playoff team throwing a game in order to allow a lesser team to make the playoffs. I don't think this was the logic behind removing the starters, but in 2009 the Colts removed their starters after 2 quarters in week 17 which allowed the Jets to win and make the playoffs, eliminating the Texans who would've made the playoffs if the Jets had lost. IF the Colts felt they matched up better with the Jets than the Texans then that would've been a viable NFL strategy to tank that game since it did not cost them a playoff position.
You *are* creating an additional merge when you move back into the crowded right hand lane.
This. /thread. You do whatever gives you the BEST chance to win the championship. That is all.
If we all stick with a thread long enough, insight like this will eventually appear. No joke, this made my day.
Is it really "tanking" if you are gaining an ADVANTAGE for the SAME season. I'd argue "no."
Just like I said previously, there's a reason the grand prize isn't awarded week 13. We all want the grand prize.
So would you tank a game if it meant screwing a good friend out of a playoff spot?
Yes. My friend had all season to control his destiny and make the playoffs--he did not. I am not in the league to ensure my buddy makes the playoffs. A good friend would recognize this.
Wow. Interesting to learn about differing values, I guess. But clearly pointless to argue it anymore.
A good friend would KNOW you owe him nothing, that is the KEY difference, not a differing of "values."
.
If you worry about your buddies playoff chances, that is collusion.
Exactly my first thought...THAT'S bordering on collusion. Everyone worry about their own team and league's run much smoother. Trouble begins when people worry about someone else.
Honest question for the pro-tanking crowd. I've seen this sentiment expressed a couple of times now. Why is "leaving players blank" the line? Why is it okay to start someone on a bye, but not okay to start no one at all? Aren't they the same thing?
You could say the exact same thing about intentionally losing games to secure the #1 draft pick. "It's not tanking in the purest sense. It's more like a strategical decision. In one form or another, we are always trying to field the team that helps us win in the long run. If, in this case, what "helps you win" is not putting up the most points yourself but instead securing the rights to a better player in the rookie draft, then it falls more in line with strategy".
Tanking usually refers to losing on purpose to gain advantage the NEXT season, at least that's how I've seen it used most often. So, i'd argue that it is not tanking to gain an advantage for the SAME season. Either way, it is just arguing semnatics, which does not answer OP's concern.
Championship odds are zero-sum. They always add up to 100%. There's more to fantasy football than just championship odds, though. If something makes everyone's experience worse, then it is a net negative even though it doesn't impact championship odds, a distinction I made in post #78.
I'm talking about creating social norms. If the social norm exists that no one should ever tank, then everyone winds up benefitting from that social norm, even complete strangers in a one-off redraft league. Just like everyone benefits from the social norm not to cut in line, even complete strangers in a grocery store. Even if you were on vacation in Switzerland and you knew with absolute certainty that you would never see anyone in that grocery store ever again, I imagine you still wouldn't cut in line, because that social norm has become very deeply ingrained. And as a result of that deeply-ingrained social norm, we all benefit, because in turn no one cuts in front of us in line, even Swiss tourists on vacation who are absolutely certain they will never see us again.
I don't think it's an absurd corner. Again, the Jacksonville Jaguars are actively hurting their franchise's future with every game they win right now. Do you watch their games, see them play competitive football, and think "see, this is the absurd corner they paint themselves in by adhering to the 'you play to win the game' norm"?
The league stated its intention for the four playoff teams to be the best four teams, as defined by winning percentage with one wildcard for total points. Ernol's situation was one where he was NOT one of the four best teams according to those criteria, but by intentionally losing a game, he could eliminate one of those four best teams and take its place.
I agree, that's another great comparison, because it involves an NFL franchise intentionally trying to lose a game. Can you find me an example of a team actually doing that some time?
No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.
And you don't see how intentionally losing and letting a lesser team into the playoffs and screwing a more deserving team ruins the competitive balance of the league and causes bad blood? Or you just don't care?I guess if you just want to win money and don't care about the other guys and if they come back next year, this makes sense. That's not how I play, but it's logical for someone with that mindset.
Okay. So would you offer a 2-8 team a portion of your prize money for his best players?
No, I don't care about other teams - they worry about themselves. And I asked previously, how would you word your rules to prevent this situation? I follow all of my league's rules.
Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.
I don't see how that's a difficult question. Something like "All owners must try to set the most competitive lineup every week. An owner is not allowed to start marginal/backup players over clearly superior options in an effort to improve his playoff seeding/matchup, or for any other reason. Commissioner will have final discretion to determine if/when this has occurred."
So now you're the judge of superior lineups each week? You really want a commish reviewing everyone's line up? Not me. Would you have let me bench Brees last night?
A better question would be "would I be upset if a good friend tanked a game if it meant screwing me out of a playoff spot?" The answer to that is no. I'd be unhappy that I wasn't getting in, but I wouldn't be upset at them. I put myself in that position. I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't be upset at them.
I'm not reviewing lineups and my last resort is to get involved at all. The rule is there to avoid ambiguity. And I know that guy who is 7-5 and has been scrapping on the waiver wire all year and knows his season is on the line will alert me if it ever comes up. You don't set rules to micromanage, you set rules so that everyone has a clear understanding and to avoid situations where the commish has nothing but his best judgment to resolve a dispute.
Your rules are ambiguous then. When you do get the right to change my lineup? So you can help another team? Would you have changed my lineup if I started JBell over Zack Stacy this week?
You play Team A in week 8 and he sets an optimal lineup and you lose. Team B plays Team A in week 13, Team A intentionally starts a bunch of waiver crap and loses. You win your week 13 game, but Team B just barely squeaks into the playoffs thanks to their week 13 win. Team A would have beaten Team B with the optimal lineup. You put yourself in that position?
