What's new
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.

Tis the Season To Be Tanking Fa La La La La (1 Viewer)

jeaton6

jeaton6

Footballguy
Well it's that time of year where teams quit, claim the dog ate their homework/they went hunting for Sasquatch and had no internet and magically they were rewarded with the 1.1 for their "efforts". Post the most egregious tank jobs here and if anyone is calling the guy out/if commish is doing anything about it. 

1) Team in position to get 1.1 but 1 team on his heels "starts" John Brown (declared out on Friday).  TBD how/if commish will address, expect a warning only.

2) Team could get anything from 1.2-1.6 starts "Chris Thompson" (IR). 3rd Offense this year. Commish hasn't addressed any of the 3 times.

NOTE: Rules are in place for both leagues but I don't expect either commish to step up and do anything about it.

Interested in others stories, level of egregiousness, how addressed.  Not snarky 1 liners..."your league sucks", "get a new commish", "get a new league", "you reap what you sew" blablabla perspectives.

 
You just described key reasons why I stopped bothering with keeper and dynasty leagues. 

 
jeaton6 said:
Well it's that time of year where teams quit, claim the dog ate their homework/they went hunting for Sasquatch and had no internet and magically they were rewarded with the 1.1 for their "efforts". Post the most egregious tank jobs here and if anyone is calling the guy out/if commish is doing anything about it. 

1) Team in position to get 1.1 but 1 team on his heels "starts" John Brown (declared out on Friday).  TBD how/if commish will address, expect a warning only.

2) Team could get anything from 1.2-1.6 starts "Chris Thompson" (IR). 3rd Offense this year. Commish hasn't addressed any of the 3 times.

NOTE: Rules are in place for both leagues but I don't expect either commish to step up and do anything about it.

Interested in others stories, level of egregiousness, how addressed.  Not snarky 1 liners..."your league sucks", "get a new commish", "get a new league", "you reap what you sew" blablabla perspectives.
Click to expand...
Do you know if your commish is even aware of these issues? As an assistant commish in a large league (32 teams), I'll say it, sometimes these need to be brought to our attention. We don't see everything.  Maybe we should, but if we're busy outside of the league we don't always get the opportunity to check every lineup. But if brought to our attention we'll address it. Sometimes that will be a warning, sometimes it's going to result in the penalties listed in the rules (presuming there are rules addressing tanking). That depends on the owner's history and severity of the offense. But if you don't notify the commish, don't get upset if it's left unaddressed. 

If you're unhappy with the commish you have a few options. First would be to talk with the commish. Second, offer to help review lineups weekly. Third, find a new league or offer to take over duties. 

 
-OZ- said:
Do you know if your commish is even aware of these issues? As an assistant commish in a large league (32 teams), I'll say it, sometimes these need to be brought to our attention. We don't see everything.  Maybe we should, but if we're busy outside of the league we don't always get the opportunity to check every lineup. But if brought to our attention we'll address it. Sometimes that will be a warning, sometimes it's going to result in the penalties listed in the rules (presuming there are rules addressing tanking). That depends on the owner's history and severity of the offense. But if you don't notify the commish, don't get upset if it's left unaddressed. 

If you're unhappy with the commish you have a few options. First would be to talk with the commish. Second, offer to help review lineups weekly. Third, find a new league or offer to take over duties. 
Click to expand...
Yeah in istance 1 I told him about it (no response) but he commishes another league of mine where it's a happened a few times and each time he's issued a warning for supposed first offenses (even though  they haven't been all the time)

Instance 2 the commish knows that this is the 3rd offense and he has done nothing. His rules say "don't tank, run your team professionally, you know when you are tanking and so do we" yet he does nothing. 

Just really wish these commishes had the balls to enforce what they write in the bylaws. 

 
jeaton6 said:
Well it's that time of year where teams quit, claim the dog ate their homework/they went hunting for Sasquatch and had no internet and magically they were rewarded with the 1.1 for their "efforts". Post the most egregious tank jobs here and if anyone is calling the guy out/if commish is doing anything about it. 

1) Team in position to get 1.1 but 1 team on his heels "starts" John Brown (declared out on Friday).  TBD how/if commish will address, expect a warning only.
Click to expand...
Literally messaged the commish at about 5 yesterday asking if he can replace brown with perriman ( only guy I'd have to start who hasn't played yet) I have been starting my best lineup all year and I have a very ill timed mistake but I did let the commish know as soon as I realized it. Maybe it was the holiday, maybe it was I only go on the site thru the phone app and when I checked the lineup yesterday morning I went into the live scoring section and unfortunately nothing shows up in there saying the player is out/injuried.

 
Fariq said:
You just described key reasons why I stopped bothering with keeper and dynasty leagues. 
Click to expand...
Actually, I see potential tanking as a reason to play in keeper/dynasty leagues. If you give up in one year and take your eye off the ball, you may hurt yourself in the future by missing out on guys that may be valuable in the future. Teams will still tank, but deep keeper/dynasty implications forces teams to stay somewhat focused.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Switching from “draft” format to auction ends the necessity to tanks, aside from being a better system anyway ...just sayin’...

 
higgins said:
Switching from “draft” format to auction ends the necessity to tanks, aside from being a better system anyway ...just sayin’...
Click to expand...
Do you auction rookie picks?

I've been in quite a few Dynasty leagues that start as auction, never one that auctions rookies after the first season. 

I guess it could work if you give the auction dollars based on finish. Something like $1200 for worst team, $1100 for second worst, etc working up to $100 to the champ. Or maybe something less severe.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We have the non playoff teams continue with an out bracket.

Winner of the out bracket gets 1.1, loser of the out bracket title game gets 1.2...and so on.

 
JD8p said:
We have the non playoff teams continue with an out bracket.

Winner of the out bracket gets 1.1, loser of the out bracket title game gets 1.2...and so on.
Click to expand...
I hate that idea. We actually dumped our commish and are running the league on our one now because he tried to implement this. 

The worst team should get the 1.01. I’d rather find good owners and spend the effort to hold them accountable than to allow middle of the pack teams to get the 1.01.

 
kutta said:
The worst team should get the 1.01. I’d rather find good owners and spend the effort to hold them accountable than to allow middle of the pack teams to get the 1.01.
Click to expand...
Agree.  And I think you have to realize in keeper/dynasty leagues there will always be a certain level of tanking.  Whether its by trading studs for picks or the reluctance to drop a player for a waiver pick up.  The sheer nature of the league is for long-term stability especially when the current season is lost.

 
-OZ- said:
Do you auction rookie picks?

I've been in quite a few Dynasty leagues that start as auction, never one that auctions rookies after the first season. 

I guess it could work if you give the auction dollars based on finish. Something like $1200 for worst team, $1100 for second worst, etc working up to $100 to the champ. Or maybe something less severe.
Click to expand...
Yup, rookie/FA auction. You don’t have to stagger the $ amounts per prior finish but you certainly could to maximize the potential for parity. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Toilet Bowl winner gets 1.1 in my league 6 teams battle.

4 teams are 3-9 and one's 5-7 and another likely will miss out at 6-6 right now but the points for are all pretty close and it keeps a nice balance.

 
We give the top pick to the team with the best record in the second half of the year that doesn't make the playoffs...helps to reduce punting (although it doesn't eliminate it) as it gives an incentive to win even if you are probably out of the running for the playoffs.

 
I don't care if a team tanks. I might be tempted this season to get Barkley. 

Of course, anyone that tanked last year to get Fournette or Mixon or whatever, got to watch Alvin Kamara starting for playoff teams that drafted later in the round. It's not enough of a winning strategy for me to worry about.

It is far, FAR more annoying listening to fantasy owners that need help getting into the playoffs complaining about other owners not beating Team X.  

Not saying the OP is one of those guys. You, know, just saying.....

 
fruity pebbles said:
Potential points works better for draft seeding. Not perfect but better.
Click to expand...
Posted this in the vent thread as well:

I understand playing for the #1 pick in a keeper/dynasty league, but the worst team in my 2-QB league starts Davis Webb and no one. RBs of CJ Anderson and Theo Riddick, WR's of Jordy Nelson, Hill and JJ Nelson with Sims at flex. It's an awful team and ruined what would be an exciting week 13, where a team that will back into the playoffs on the basis of only needing about 50 points to be assured of a win. His high scorer of the week was Succop (unless Jordy gets 9 more points).

I understand that in a full dynasty, you likely won't void yourself of one position, but if you do potential points, it's easy for someone to trade for a Watson, a Tannehill or a Bridgewater and be able to take a big zero at the QB hole. (The team above has Watson and Tannehill rostered for next year).

We're a 6 keeper league, so it makes it difficult when someone can void themselves of a position to maintain competitiveness. He really is fielding his best possible team, it's just that even the best possible stinks.

 
kutta said:
I hate that idea. We actually dumped our commish and are running the league on our one now because he tried to implement this. 

The worst team should get the 1.01. I’d rather find good owners and spend the effort to hold them accountable than to allow middle of the pack teams to get the 1.01.
Click to expand...
exactly

 
Gottabesweet said:
Toilet Bowl winner gets 1.1 in my league 6 teams battle.

4 teams are 3-9 and one's 5-7 and another likely will miss out at 6-6 right now but the points for are all pretty close and it keeps a nice balance.
Click to expand...
Toilet Bowl winners getting the 1.1 is a bad idea unless you weight the chances of the worst teams.  Having the 7th worst team in the league having a better chance at the 1.1 than the 12th worst team is not a good way to run a dynasty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
davidwb said:
We give the top pick to the team with the best record in the second half of the year that doesn't make the playoffs...helps to reduce punting (although it doesn't eliminate it) as it gives an incentive to win even if you are probably out of the running for the playoffs.
Click to expand...
Not giving the top pick to the worst team is bad for dynasty leagues in the long run.  You end up replacing bad teams all the time.

 
fruity pebbles said:
Potential points works better for draft seeding. Not perfect but better.
Click to expand...
  I'm assuming you mean the more potential points gets the higher pick.  I don't like that because it rewards teams with better depth.  What all of this boils down to is that the worst teams need the better picks in order to compete long term and lessen the times the commish has to find new owners of orphaned teams.    As the commish of 3 leagues, I don't allow teams to start players on a bye if they have options on their bench.    I do the same for inactive players each week.   I will make the change when necessary.  We also have a rule against blatant tanking.  It's something you know when you see it (substitute McFadden for Gurley, etc.).  There will always be subtle tanking and you can't do anything about that.  That is when players are substituted for slightly marginal players but not bad enough where you can do anything about  it.

 
JohnnyU said:
Toilet Bowl winners getting the 1.1 is a bad idea unless you weight the chances of the worst teams.  Having the 7th worst team in the league having a better chance at the 1.1 than the 12th worst team is not a good way to run a dynasty.
Click to expand...
Works extremely well for us as the points for between all those teams are similar anyways.  The 7th worst team rarely wins the toilet bowl.  They are all bunched up.  Somebody with 3,4,5 wins will win it and most of the time the 3 or 4 win team is better than the 5 win team but won an extra game because bye weeks.  Everyone tries, nobody complains.  Been doing it for 15+ years.

 
Seems simple to stop if you have a good commish. Any team obviously tanking (starting injured or obviously inferior players to others on their roster) forfeits their first round pick. 

 
JohnnyU said:
  I'm assuming you mean the more potential points gets the higher pick.  I don't like that because it rewards teams with better depth.  What all of this boils down to is that the worst teams need the better picks in order to compete long term and lessen the times the commish has to find new owners of orphaned teams.    As the commish of 3 leagues, I don't allow teams to start players on a bye if they have options on their bench.    I do the same for inactive players each week.   I will make the change when necessary.  We also have a rule against blatant tanking.  It's something you know when you see it (substitute McFadden for Gurley, etc.).  There will always be subtle tanking and you can't do anything about that.  That is when players are substituted for slightly marginal players but not bad enough where you can do anything about  it.
Click to expand...
Team with the least potential points gets the #1 pick. Prevents starting inferior players because the better player is still counted in their weekly potential point score. Now that can’t be the end of it. Still need rules to prevent starting players who are out and on a bye. 

 
fruity pebbles said:
Team with the least potential points gets the #1 pick. Prevents starting inferior players because the better player is still counted in their weekly potential point score. Now that can’t be the end of it. Still need rules to prevent starting players who are out and on a bye. 
Click to expand...
In that case potential points is still not good because it benefits teams with a lot of depth.

 
JohnnyU said:
In that case potential points is still not good because it benefits teams with a lot of depth.
Click to expand...
Not really. It gives the legit worst team the 1st pick. Not the team with the worst record because he purposely or inadvertently started the wrong guys each week. 

 
-OZ- said:
Do you auction rookie picks?

I've been in quite a few Dynasty leagues that start as auction, never one that auctions rookies after the first season. 

I guess it could work if you give the auction dollars based on finish. Something like $1200 for worst team, $1100 for second worst, etc working up to $100 to the champ. Or maybe something less severe.
Click to expand...
In which case it doesn't address tanking.

 
fruity pebbles said:
Not really. It gives the legit worst team the 1st pick. Not the team with the worst record because he purposely or inadvertently started the wrong guys each week. 
Click to expand...
Ok, explain to me how if you give the 1st pick with the best potential points of players, which include all of their players, how that doesn't benefit the team with the best depth?  I'm sure there is something here I'm not understanding.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU said:
Ok, explain to me how if you give the 1st pick with the best potential points of players, which include all of their players, how that doesn't benefit the team with the best depth?
Click to expand...
Team with the least potential points gets the 1st pick. Team with the least amount of points with their best lineup.

 
fruity pebbles said:
Team with the least potential points gets the 1st pick. Team with the least amount of points with their best lineup.
Click to expand...
Ok, I thought it had to be least points but wasn't sure.  In that case, teams will just carry prospects on their bench and not lower / middle tier players.

 
JohnnyU said:
Ok, I thought it had to be least points but wasn't sure.  In that case, teams will just carry prospects on their bench and not lower / middle tier players.
Click to expand...
It happens but that tends to hurt them more long term. It’s not perfect and there’s other rules in place as well but it’s better than strict win loss record determining draft position. If i team truly wants to tank, there’s subtle ways to do it that are impossible to police.

 
In my long-standing dynasty league, we have good owners most importantly, but it happens occasionally. If another league member sees a player being started who's declared out (injured, suspended, on IR, etc.), they post on the message board (by gametime) & the Commish inserts the highest ranked player on their roster using FBG rankings (it can even be done after the fact).

Simple & effective. You still have the issue of teams "manipulating" their lineup with active players who shouldn't be started, but you hold people accountable. 

Do stupid stuff, win stupid prizes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
higgins said:
His post was in response to my league using auction for rookie/FA (to do away with the tanking issue) and, yes, all teams start with the same $ every year (not as he suggests). 
Click to expand...
Right, though I do think teams would have slightly less incentive to tank for an extra 10% rookie dollars instead of the top pick. I guess if there only thing you wanted was Barkley you could possibly do that by bidding your entire amount, but then you'd be missing out on the equivalent of 2.01, 3.01, etc. Also you could allow teams to trade rookie auction funds, the 4th worst team would just have to acquire $300 to equal the worst team. 

Might be a pain to keep track, but I think I like this concept.

 
-OZ- said:
 Also you could allow teams to trade rookie auction funds, the 4th worst team would just have to acquire $300 to equal the worst team. 

Might be a pain to keep track, but I think I like this concept.
Click to expand...
Trading rookie $ happens frequently and is also something that maximizes the number of trades (another bonus to the auction system since there’s more activity). 

Its not a pain to keep track of since we’re only talking about periodically editing a google document. 

 
JohnnyU said:
Toilet Bowl winners getting the 1.1 is a bad idea unless you weight the chances of the worst teams.  Having the 7th worst team in the league having a better chance at the 1.1 than the 12th worst team is not a good way to run a dynasty.
Click to expand...
Most leagues can't even accurately measure who the "7th" worst team is anyway. 

JohnnyU said:
Not giving the top pick to the worst team is bad for dynasty leagues in the long run.  You end up replacing bad teams all the time.
Click to expand...
Garbage.  If a bad owner is going to leave because he's bad then nothing you can do will keep him around - not that you'd want to - because he's always going to be bad.

Waivers are far more important to long term success than draft picks are.  You wanna see a bad team get off their ### and improve?  Tell them they aren't getting the first pick because they don't deserve it.  They didn't do a single trade or waiver during the season to improve their team to win the toilet bowl.  One of my leagues does this and has never had a team win fewer than 4 games.  Everyone stays active and keeps making trades to try to win now, because they know the 1.01 is in play.  Here is a partial list of one of my 12 man league's waiver adds over the past two seasons:

Trevor Simien
Jay Cutler
Alex Collins
Tarik Cohen
Orleans Darkwa
Devonte Booker
Chris Carson
Tyreek Hill
Adam Thielen
Robby Anderson
Nelson Agholor
Kenny Stills (twice)
Cameron Meredith
Tyrell Williams
Cameron Brate
Jack Doyle
Jared Cook
Eric Ebron
Harrison Butker
Jake Elliott
Trey Flowers
Melvin Ingram
Zach Orr
Joe Schobert
Jon Bostic
Christian Kirksey
Mason Foster
Nigel Bradham
Dozens of starting caliber DB's

Over 1/2 of those are my adds, and almost all of those on minimum bids.

And dozens more mid-level guys like Kearse, Amendola, etc.  QB and RB are a little rough on that list, but one could easily move a guy like Thielen and get a functional guy like Duke Johnson.  This is a PPR + return yard league so plenty of those guys were worth stashing yet they were all at one point available.  And this is just two years.  One could easily compete with this team with no draft picks.

And it's not like 1.01 is the only pick that can help a bad team.  Ask Kamara owners how they felt about picking him at 1.06?  Or Hunt owners, even today.  OBJ.  Devonte Freeman.  That list is as long as the one above.  Not getting the 1.01 isn't hurting those teams that make good picks.  Making bad picks and making bad trades and not working waivers is. 

In one of my leagues (16 man) there's an owner that's 0-12 (for the second year in a row) and his pickups this year:  Andre Branch and Ryan Fitzpatrick.  Mine:  Alex Collins, Ricky Seals-Jones, Tre McBride, Emmanuel Ogbah, Derek Barnett (got away with one there), Jon Bostic, Mathias Farley.  Some of those guys have started games for me and are solid tier 2 starters.  Last year I added Tyreek Hill, Robby Anderson, and Adam Thieled (who I proceeded to trade away cheap :wall: ) among others.  That guy doesn't deserve the 1.01 with that kind of effort.  This isn't the league that plays the TB for draft pick but I wish it was last year, I would have likely gotten it.  His eventual pick?  Mike Williams, because he traded the 1.01 for 1.05 and 2nd rounder and passed on Mixon. 

 
Hankmoody said:
Most leagues can't even accurately measure who the "7th" worst team is anyway. 

Garbage.  If a bad owner is going to leave because he's bad then nothing you can do will keep him around - not that you'd want to - because he's always going to be bad.

Waivers are far more important to long term success than draft picks are.  You wanna see a bad team get off their ### and improve?  Tell them they aren't getting the first pick because they don't deserve it.  They didn't do a single trade or waiver during the season to improve their team to win the toilet bowl.  One of my leagues does this and has never had a team win fewer than 4 games.  Everyone stays active and keeps making trades to try to win now, because they know the 1.01 is in play.  Here is a partial list of one of my 12 man league's waiver adds over the past two seasons:

Trevor Simien
Jay Cutler
Alex Collins
Tarik Cohen
Orleans Darkwa
Devonte Booker
Chris Carson
Tyreek Hill
Adam Thielen
Robby Anderson
Nelson Agholor
Kenny Stills (twice)
Cameron Meredith
Tyrell Williams
Cameron Brate
Jack Doyle
Jared Cook
Eric Ebron
Harrison Butker
Jake Elliott
Trey Flowers
Melvin Ingram
Zach Orr
Joe Schobert
Jon Bostic
Christian Kirksey
Mason Foster
Nigel Bradham
Dozens of starting caliber DB's

Over 1/2 of those are my adds, and almost all of those on minimum bids.

And dozens more mid-level guys like Kearse, Amendola, etc.  QB and RB are a little rough on that list, but one could easily move a guy like Thielen and get a functional guy like Duke Johnson.  This is a PPR + return yard league so plenty of those guys were worth stashing yet they were all at one point available.  And this is just two years.  One could easily compete with this team with no draft picks.

And it's not like 1.01 is the only pick that can help a bad team.  Ask Kamara owners how they felt about picking him at 1.06?  Or Hunt owners, even today.  OBJ.  Devonte Freeman.  That list is as long as the one above.  Not getting the 1.01 isn't hurting those teams that make good picks.  Making bad picks and making bad trades and not working waivers is. 

In one of my leagues (16 man) there's an owner that's 0-12 (for the second year in a row) and his pickups this year:  Andre Branch and Ryan Fitzpatrick.  Mine:  Alex Collins, Ricky Seals-Jones, Tre McBride, Emmanuel Ogbah, Derek Barnett (got away with one there), Jon Bostic, Mathias Farley.  Some of those guys have started games for me and are solid tier 2 starters.  Last year I added Tyreek Hill, Robby Anderson, and Adam Thieled (who I proceeded to trade away cheap :wall: ) among others.  That guy doesn't deserve the 1.01 with that kind of effort.  This isn't the league that plays the TB for draft pick but I wish it was last year, I would have likely gotten it.  His eventual pick?  Mike Williams, because he traded the 1.01 for 1.05 and 2nd rounder and passed on Mixon. 
Click to expand...
There are more factors that plays into it besides draft picks like you said.  Playing the waiver wire is very important as well, along with ability to trade effectively.  However, I do disagree with your assessments of high draft picks.  In my experience the poor teams need the higher picks (not just 1.01) to rebuild.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gottabesweet said:
Works extremely well for us as the points for between all those teams are similar anyways.  The 7th worst team rarely wins the toilet bowl.  They are all bunched up.  Somebody with 3,4,5 wins will win it and most of the time the 3 or 4 win team is better than the 5 win team but won an extra game because bye weeks.  Everyone tries, nobody complains.  Been doing it for 15+ years.
Click to expand...
The reason it works is because you have a good group of owners, it has nothing to do with what format you run. I bet your league would run just as well if you did the old fashioned way. 

 
I'm a big proponent of giving the best picks to the worst teams, not the team that gets hot at the right time of the season.  Inverse Potential Points is the simplest method for determining this, but if your league wants to come up with another criteria, knock yourself out.

I'm wholeheartedly against having a toilet bowl tournament for 1.01, because that means the team that just missed the playoffs is likely to get the highest-value pick.  This would simply be a case of the (almost) rich getting richer.

If you want to have a toilet bowl tournament and make it worthwhile, give an extra pick between Round 1 and 2 to this winner.

 
msudaisy26 said:
The reason it works is because you have a good group of owners, it has nothing to do with what format you run. I bet your league would run just as well if you did the old fashioned way. 
Click to expand...
respectfully disagree.  We've had to replace a few, but not because they were the bottom teams constantly missing out on the 1.1 pick.  In fact last year the 0-13 team won 3 straight to win the 1.1 pick.  The points for difference isn't a huge gap and rarely is between the worst and 6th worst non playoff teams. 

I guess it works for us.  I never have to worry about lineups and I know all 6 want that 1.1 pick and if the worst team misses out on it he still picks 1.2 

 
tangfoot said:
I'm a big proponent of giving the best picks to the worst teams, not the team that gets hot at the right time of the season.  Inverse Potential Points is the simplest method for determining this, but if your league wants to come up with another criteria, knock yourself out.

I'm wholeheartedly against having a toilet bowl tournament for 1.01, because that means the team that just missed the playoffs is likely to get the highest-value pick.  This would simply be a case of the (almost) rich getting richer.

If you want to have a toilet bowl tournament and make it worthwhile, give an extra pick between Round 1 and 2 to this winner.
Click to expand...
False logic.  First of all, as you said any team can "just get hot".  Second of all, if you have competitive owners that are always trying you don't end up with a huge gap from playoff to non-playoff teams.  Just FYI, in the 5 years I have played this format, the last team to miss the playoffs has never won the TB.  2 times has been the team with the worst regular-season record and 2 more have been second worst.

 
JohnnyU said:
There are more factors that playing into it besides draft picks like you said.  Playing the waiver wire is very important as well, along with ability to trade effectively.  However, I do disagree with your assessments of high draft picks.  In my experience the poor teams need the higher picks (not just 1.01) to rebuild.  
Click to expand...
And they are still getting it.  The "worst" two teams get byes so are guaranteed a top 4 pick.  But it's garbage to gift the 1.01 to a team that did nothing all year in an effort to get that pick. 

 
Hankmoody said:
And they are still getting it.  The "worst" two teams get byes so are guaranteed a top 4 pick.  But it's garbage to gift the 1.01 to a team that did nothing all year in an effort to get that pick. 
Click to expand...
That's where we differ, to me it's not a matter of effort to earn the 1.01.  The whole idea is to be good enough to not have the 1.01.  In my mind poor teams in dynasty leagues deserve the best picks for a good reason, they are the worst teams.  We could go back and forth on that all day, so I'll end it there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU said:
That's where we differ, to me it's not a matter of effort to earn the 1.01.  The whole idea is to be good enough to not have the 1.01.  In my mind poor teams in dynasty leagues deserve the best picks for a good reason, they are the worst teams.  We could go back and forth on that all day, so I'll end it there.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%.  But there are too many people that disagree, and part of me doesn't blame them.  If I know I can improve my chances by not playing my best team why would I?  Why would I activate a guy from taxi (and start burning his contract years) when all it does is hurt my ability to improve my team?  Why would I spend valuable FABB cash on one-year options or old guys?  Why trade some WR depth to get a better TE than Adam Shaheen when all that does for me is hurt my chances at 1.01?  I'll just trot out Savage because he's the "best" I have and not add McCown from waivers.  Seen it too often.  I'm in one.  I have Joe Mixon on my taxi and am starting Charcandrick West.  I'm doing what's best for my team under the rules of this league.  That's not as bad as sitting Todd Gurley for Jacquizz Rodgers, I would never do that, but I'm not burning Mixon's contract years for a team that started out 0-5 and is now 4-8 and out of the playoffs.

That's what the TB does.  It gives incentives to improve your team at all times.  It keeps competition going full speed and you never have an owner check out and stop setting lineups in November only to show up in full force in April stock full of #1 slot draft picks and FABB cash.  A league should reward desired behavior and this does exactly that.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Couch Potato
Couch Potato 2012 Dynasty Rankings
4 5 6
Replies
293
Views
33K
Spin
Spin
Ministry of Pain
MOP's RB draft strategy
2
Replies
63
Views
5K
jbr69gto
J
moleculo
The Obama Conspiracy to take down POTUS
4 5 6
Replies
257
Views
10K
Dickies
Dickies

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top