Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
the lone star

Was This Rule Change A Mistake? - Dynasty League Tanking

Was It Wrong For The Commissioner To Make This Rule Change?  

35 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Question

Let's say the commissioner of a dynasty league discovered that someone tanked during a few games at the end of the season (Year 2 of the league) to get a better draft pick in this year's upcoming rookie draft. There aren't any explicit anti-tanking rules and the way the rookie draft order is calculated for the upcoming draft has been posted since the league started (i.e. it has been posted and disclosed to the owners for over two years). The owner that tanked had a screenshot of a text message where he and the commissioner discussed starting inactive (bye week, injured, suspended, free agent, retired) players. The tanking owner asked if it was something he could do, and the commissioner said that "if you don't have anybody else to start, then yes, but if you just don't want to, then I don't know." The tanking owner then pointed out that the site did not prevent someone from starting inactive players, to which the commish responded "Cool. Yeah." The tanking owner understood this as a grant of permission to start such inactive players, and a pro-tanking position in general. The commissioner claims that the owner never explicitly asked about tanking, and as it turns out, the commish is actually strongly against tanking (something that was not known until now). 

 

The commissioner collected dues for the upcoming season (the season for which the rookie draft will take place), but he did not like the fact that somebody tanked. On the other hand, the tanking owner had a screenshot of conversation where the commissioner says that the order of the draft "must" be the way that it is currently posted in the league's bylaws. However, the commissioner still decided to change the draft order regardless, because he is really anti-tanking. He changed one of the tiebreakers from total points scored by starting lineups, to total points scored by each team's optimal lineups.

 

For what it is worth, the tanking owner has played in leagues where tanking has occurred, specifically, leagues where teams were allowed to bench their star players in order to lose a game (to get themselves a better matchup in the first round, a better draft pick, etc.), or to bench players in order to secure a win (prevent someone from scoring negative points). However, the commissioner has never seen this tactic in 10+ years of playing. The tanking owner also believes that tanking happens in real life, but the commissioner is of the firm opinion that it does not. On top of that, the tanking owner has hard evidence that tanking happened in Year 1 of the league, but the commissioner is unaware of this. 

 

It is also worth noting that in the final game of the season, the commissioner did spot the tanking and after a brief exchange, the tanking owner agreed to set a new lineup because, although he thought it was fair game, he just didn't want to "start any drama" among the league members. During this exchange, the tanking owner showed the commissioner the text message exchange they had about starting inactive players. After receiving the message, the commissioner said that he was fine with people starting weak lineups, just not inactive players. So maybe the commish is more anti-inactive players than he is anti-tanking. Many league members complained about the tanking owner during the last week of the season because it either affected their chances of securing a top draft slot, or their playoff hopes. Some owners are upset that it wasn't caught earlier, because other games where the owner tanked are now in the books. 

 

The commish and vice-commish apparently agreed to create different tie-breakers for this coming season, but never updated the rulebook or disclosed such a change to the rest of the league. Even so, the commish still thought that he was perfectly within his rights to implement the unposted order now. He is really concerned with the integrity of the league.

 

But as of right now, there is no rule against tanking, the league has never discussed tanking, and the tanking owner thought it was fine based off of previous experiences, his own self-interest, and the text message exchange he had with the commish. The commish doesn't think an anti-tanking rule is needed, nor is one needed to tell people that they must only start active players each week.

 

Considering all of this, do you think the commissioner made a mistake? Was it wrong for him to unilaterally implement any "corrective" measures after dues were paid? Please explain below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Changing rules after they have been agreed on and money laid down is flat out dirty.  Should never happen without buy-in from the owners as a whole.

I'd demand my money back and leave a league where the commish just changed tiebreakers and draft orders to suit his own personal agenda, and would hope the rest of the league would follow me out the door.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, Arodin said:

Changing rules after they have been agreed on and money laid down is flat out dirty.  Should never happen without buy-in from the owners as a whole.

I'd demand my money back and leave a league where the commish just changed tiebreakers and draft orders to suit his own personal agenda, and would hope the rest of the league would follow me out the door.

Agree, what the commish did was Just as bad as the tanking owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Arodin said:

Changing rules after they have been agreed on and money laid down is flat out dirty.  Should never happen without buy-in from the owners as a whole.

I'd demand my money back and leave a league where the commish just changed tiebreakers and draft orders to suit his own personal agenda, and would hope the rest of the league would follow me out the door.

That's fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 hours ago, the lone star said:

There aren't any explicit anti-tanking rules and the way the rookie draft order is calculated for the upcoming draft has been posted since the league started (i.e. it has been posted and disclosed to the owners for over two years). 

Your second sentence is the only relevant part of this whole novel.  No rules against tanking, so if Tanky McOwner feels that this is the best way to help his team in the long run, he is free to do so.  If the commish or other owners dont like it, then put the league to a vote (during the offseason) to change the rules or insert new ones.  But it has to be a "going-forward" rule only, you can't make it retroactive and change the draft order when it was set previously and owners acted accordingly to those rules (or lack of rules).  

Edited by wlwiles
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 minutes ago, wlwiles said:

Your second sentence is the only relevant part of this whole novel.  No rules against tanking, so if Tanky McOwner feels that this is the best way to help his team in the long run, he is free to do so.  If the commish or other owners dont like it, then put the league to a vote (during the offseason) to change the rules or insert new ones.  But it has to be a "going-forward" rule only, you can't make it retroactive and change the draft order when it was set previously and owners acted accordingly to those rules (or lack of rules).  

I've tried to make this same point a few times over the years, but I've been shouted down by others who feel  tanking is akin to collusion - no need to state it.  Even though there are those who feel its a viable strategy to improve their chances of winning.  But I agree, if you don't want taking, make it a rule.

Edited by Amused to Death
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

I've tried to make this same point a few times over the years, but I've been shouted down by others who feel  tanking is akin to collusion - no need to state it.  Even though there are those who feel its a viable strategy to improve their chances of winning.  But I agree, if you don't want taking, make it a rule.

That's the rub right there.  Have a discussion now, in the offseason, to find out how everyone feels about it in the league.  If some think it's collusion, explain to them why it's not (if you think it's not).  Now's the time to make a rule so everyone knows and has time to adjust their strategy, or leave the league and give time to find a replacement if they want.  Nothing worse than to ruin the fun of a good league because a handful of owners get upset because something isn't clearly defined. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yes. It was a mistake. I would revert back to what were the published rules and then I would kick any owner who tanked in the buttocks. You need to follow the rules but then the league needs to sit down and discuss tanking. That is Bush league to tank and I would record this as a warning against tanking to that owner with another incident meaning expulsion from the league. I can't understand how anyone would even need to ask if it's ok to tank. The answer is NO!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
13 minutes ago, Warhogs said:

Yes. It was a mistake. I would revert back to what were the published rules and then I would kick any owner who tanked in the buttocks. You need to follow the rules but then the league needs to sit down and discuss tanking. That is Bush league to tank and I would record this as a warning against tanking to that owner with another incident meaning expulsion from the league. I can't understand how anyone would even need to ask if it's ok to tank. The answer is NO!

What about in a dynasty or keeper league?  What if tanking gets you first pick next year?  What if you announce your intentions to all owners, and hold a public auction of your good players so everyone gets a fair shot at them?  What if tanking gets you better keepers AND extra picks so you can load up and win the league next year?  What if the league prize is $5,000 or $10,000 instead of $100? What if an owner is 0-5, and there's no incentive for him to keep running out a lame duck lineup week after week? 

Too many variables that could be at play to just make a sweeping generalization that "tanking is wrong" IMO.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

What commish did sounds like a sour grapes reaction, obviously not cool since the parameters for competition were set and implicitly agreed upon.

If your league rules dont state the leagues position very clearly on tanking and what actions imply tanking, then there cant really be any backlash for that at the time.

That is something that needs to be addressed by the league as a whole after the season.

My personal opinion is that tanking in certain forms is bad sportsmanship, the tanking owners actions in this story falls under that.

IMO, tanking by starting a weaker lineup is part of the game. Tanking by starting players who arent even playing is bad form. At least by starting a weak lineup you can get unlucky and still win.

Really, this is an easy fix for the commish and the league. Define what tanking is, and give those actions consequences if that is what you want. 

In the leagues I commish, the rules are simple, field a starting lineup every week. There are consequences for leaving in guys on bye, or IR, or ruled out. Multiple infractions = the boot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I see no problem at all with the commish changing the tiebreaker from total points to optimal points,

especially since this particular owner was starting inactive players to secure the top pick.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Just quit, and nicely. Don't break up the league. Move on and enjoy FF elsewhere.

I've been playing FF and socially active for so long that we had our FF cheatsheets on the Egyptian pyramids. My experience tells me you're bitter and/or burned from something else, Maybe you thought of moving on, but now you see a chance to hang the guy and want to do that before ya do. Some people in FF are cutthroat, I don't judge with that.

IN MAY, you wrote a short novel rather than 'he changed the tiebreaker from most points to optimal points.' There's more here. A big argument last year? A bunk trade? No one gets that upset over such a minimal change. 

Should there be a league vote? Sure. I read your words though and see him discussing it with an asst commish and it doesn't seem mean-spirited. Poor judgement in most leagues but I've been in some where the 10 have no say and just the two commishes do. Whatever. you feel may be right- he acted "out of order" and shouldn't have changed the tie breaker.

You're this upset and it's May. I think that's your sign to remind yourself that FF is supposed to be fun and you should move on to another league and have some. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
35 minutes ago, wlwiles said:

What about in a dynasty or keeper league?  What if tanking gets you first pick next year?  What if you announce your intentions to all owners, and hold a public auction of your good players so everyone gets a fair shot at them?  What if tanking gets you better keepers AND extra picks so you can load up and win the league next year?  What if the league prize is $5,000 or $10,000 instead of $100? What if an owner is 0-5, and there's no incentive for him to keep running out a lame duck lineup week after week? 

Too many variables that could be at play to just make a sweeping generalization that "tanking is wrong" IMO.   

 

I don't care about the what ifs. Tanking can affect which teams make the playoffs and which ones don't. Any self respecting owner does not intentionally tank for a better draft pick. If you are in a league where that is the approach pretty soon you have 3 or 4 teams tanking and soon after that you just won't have a league. I never ever tank. I try to win each week. Moving up or down a draft slot or two isn't going to be incentive for me to tank and if I see another owner tanking I call them out on it. Integrity of the league is at stake.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If you're this upset about a commish taking steps against tanking, you need to leave that league.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I don't believe the OP seemed very upset. If you were referring to me I'm just sharing my view on tanking which is there is no place for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
59 minutes ago, wlwiles said:

What about in a dynasty or keeper league?  What if tanking gets you first pick next year?  What if you announce your intentions to all owners, and hold a public auction of your good players so everyone gets a fair shot at them?  What if tanking gets you better keepers AND extra picks so you can load up and win the league next year?  What if the league prize is $5,000 or $10,000 instead of $100? What if an owner is 0-5, and there's no incentive for him to keep running out a lame duck lineup week after week? 

Too many variables that could be at play to just make a sweeping generalization that "tanking is wrong" IMO.   

 

Selling off player is not "tanking". Starting inactive and bye week players is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Casting Couch said:

I see no problem at all with the commish changing the tiebreaker from total points to optimal points,

especially since this particular owner was starting inactive players to secure the top pick.

 

so are you fine with rules that have a retroactive effect? Seems like the tanking owner did ask, and was nice enough to agree to change his lineup once it was pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I don't condone what the commish did -- and he shouldn't have done anything without rules. But I understand why he did it.  I just wish that he did something earlier.

It does not need to be written in the rules that there is a reason for playing games, i.e. you both put out your best lineups and one person will win.  When an owner goes to the extreme of starting guys that aren't even active, and doing it for several weeks, they have abandoned their team, they have abandoned the league, and they have forfeited their right to play the game.  There is no need for a rule for that.  I commish several leagues and I don't have a rule that you can't threaten to kick an owner in the head if he beats you.  But you can bet there will be some repercussions if you do that.  

The commish should have stepped up and immediately told you to stop being a tool and to play the game in a sportsmanlike manner.  He failed to do so and, unfortunately, you took that as a license to go over the top with your tanking.  Having failed to stop it, it's tough for him to come in and change draft order.  But, if I were the commish, you wouldn't be invited to continue playing this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
35 minutes ago, wakelawyer said:

I don't condone what the commish did -- and he shouldn't have done anything without rules. But I understand why he did it.  I just wish that he did something earlier.

It does not need to be written in the rules that there is a reason for playing games, i.e. you both put out your best lineups and one person will win.  When an owner goes to the extreme of starting guys that aren't even active, and doing it for several weeks, they have abandoned their team, they have abandoned the league, and they have forfeited their right to play the game.  There is no need for a rule for that.  I commish several leagues and I don't have a rule that you can't threaten to kick an owner in the head if he beats you.  But you can bet there will be some repercussions if you do that.  

The commish should have stepped up and immediately told you to stop being a tool and to play the game in a sportsmanlike manner.  He failed to do so and, unfortunately, you took that as a license to go over the top with your tanking.  Having failed to stop it, it's tough for him to come in and change draft order.  But, if I were the commish, you wouldn't be invited to continue playing this year.

But what about the commish OKing it? Seems like the team did ask beforehand. May have just been a misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 minutes ago, the lone star said:

But what about the commish OKing it? Seems like the team did ask beforehand. May have just been a misunderstanding.

"the team"?  Can we end the charade and acknowledge that it's you.  Even your slanted portrayal of events doesn't support the commish okaying it.

1) he said that it might be possible if there was no one else to start but then said he didn't know when asked what if someone didn't want to;

2) you note that he said "Cool yeah" but, given your other statements, it sounds like he had zoned you out by then, wasn't paying attention, or didn't understand what was happening;

3) he's anti-tanking;

4) he told you to fix a lineup in which you tried to tank; and

5) he took action against you this year.

So, no I don't see him "OKing it."  But, even if he did, I'd never want to play in a league with you.  

If you're looking for a thread to shove in his face, I guess we all agree that the commish didn't have his best day here.  But I see the issue as him not stopping you from tanking earlier and in him letting you return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It was understood in my league that tanking was frowned upon, but not expressly forbidden. Then 4 different owners joked about tanking with several weeks left and it was going to potentially alter the playoff landscape. They didn't end up tanking, or were bad at it and won, but it still raised the issue in our league.

After that we made 2 main changes. Last place now has more severe punishments so you get 1st pick, but also some annoying tasks and have to spend some money. For every pairing other than the championship and toilet bowl, the winner of the pairing gets the better pick. The idea here is that the people fighting for 3rd vs 4th or 7th vs 8th are roughly equal, and the winner gets a reward. This has eliminated tanking talk for the last couple years at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Warhogs said:

I don't care about the what ifs. Tanking can affect which teams make the playoffs and which ones don't. Any self respecting owner does not intentionally tank for a better draft pick. If you are in a league where that is the approach pretty soon you have 3 or 4 teams tanking and soon after that you just won't have a league. I never ever tank. I try to win each week. Moving up or down a draft slot or two isn't going to be incentive for me to tank and if I see another owner tanking I call them out on it. Integrity of the league is at stake.

The point is that each league needs to have a discussion about it and the various different methods it can be done.  If you have a rule preventing owners from starting bye/IR players, then that's one anti-tanking measure.  Another might be to have the consolation bracket winner get 1st pick instead of last place finisher.  

Take the case of John.  His team is 2-7, he's riddled with injuries, and got no shot at playoffs.  He can:
(A) give up and ignore his team.
(B) give minimal effort, log in once a week and field a startable lineup (not trying to actively play the wire, make trades, and improve, just abiding the rules and fielding a startable lineup).
(C) start looking towards next year (if the league has ties to next year: draft pick slots, keepers, etc), staying strategically involved in the league through the end of the season, doing what he can to improve his future stock. 

Nobody wants to play with (A).  (B) is a lame duck owner, who is also probably giving gimme wins to people and affecting the playoffs anyway.  I'd rather keep everyone involved and thinking strategically, so if the right rules are in place (C) can be accomplished without screwing up the rest of the league.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, wakelawyer said:

"the team"?  Can we end the charade and acknowledge that it's you.  Even your slanted portrayal of events doesn't support the commish okaying it.

1) he said that it might be possible if there was no one else to start but then said he didn't know when asked what if someone didn't want to;

2) you note that he said "Cool yeah" but, given your other statements, it sounds like he had zoned you out by then, wasn't paying attention, or didn't understand what was happening;

3) he's anti-tanking;

4) he told you to fix a lineup in which you tried to tank; and

5) he took action against you this year.

So, no I don't see him "OKing it."  But, even if he did, I'd never want to play in a league with you.  

If you're looking for a thread to shove in his face, I guess we all agree that the commish didn't have his best day here.  But I see the issue as him not stopping you from tanking earlier and in him letting you return.

Interesting take. Makes the assumption that points 3-5 were known at the time of the initial exchange. Obviously there are pro-tanking and anti-tanking people in life, so there will naturally be different views on it. Some people think it doesn't need to be addressed by the rules because it's so obviously wrong. Others have played in leagues where it was fair game and things ran smoothly. There's obviously middle ground there too.

With regards to point 1 though, it would be hard to argue that it was not generally foreseeable that someone would start inactive players. You could even argue that him saying "I don't know," means the thought at least crossed his mind, or should have. Yet he still didn't firmly say no. 

In regards to #2, it depends on the timing of the events. If the exchange happened over several hours or days, then yeah, easier to make the cases that you claim. But if it all happened closer together, then it becomes tougher. Maybe he wasn't paying attention, or didn't understand, but he could have probed more. Same goes for the other party though. 

You could also make the argument that 3-5 happened because of complaints and he caved into the pressure. Who knows tbh.

I would like to know what all seems "slanted" to you though. From your name, it seems like you're a lawyer, so I'd like to respectfully ask for your help in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, wlwiles said:

The point is that each league needs to have a discussion about it and the various different methods it can be done.  If you have a rule preventing owners from starting bye/IR players, then that's one anti-tanking measure.  Another might be to have the consolation bracket winner get 1st pick instead of last place finisher.  

Take the case of John.  His team is 2-7, he's riddled with injuries, and got no shot at playoffs.  He can:
(A) give up and ignore his team.
(B) give minimal effort, log in once a week and field a startable lineup (not trying to actively play the wire, make trades, and improve, just abiding the rules and fielding a startable lineup).
(C) start looking towards next year (if the league has ties to next year: draft pick slots, keepers, etc), staying strategically involved in the league through the end of the season, doing what he can to improve his future stock. 

Nobody wants to play with (A).  (B) is a lame duck owner, who is also probably giving gimme wins to people and affecting the playoffs anyway.  I'd rather keep everyone involved and thinking strategically, so if the right rules are in place (C) can be accomplished without screwing up the rest of the league.  

I was in a league for nearly 20 years. Two years in, an NFL player was suspended for "conduct detrimental to the league" and another for "actions not in the spirit of the team"????Hmm I forget the second. All we did was mush those two together and if you acted like a tool, you were gonna be up for a vote to be replaced in the offseason. If you didn't do jack, you could play forever.

FF people are clever with loopholes. If there isn't a rule that says "you can't start a guy on IR" that doesn't mean you should. Cmon now.  Conversely do you want to play with a guy that does such a thing?

Someone quitting midseason- same thing

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 minutes ago, wlwiles said:

The point is that each league needs to have a discussion about it and the various different methods it can be done.  If you have a rule preventing owners from starting bye/IR players, then that's one anti-tanking measure.  Another might be to have the consolation bracket winner get 1st pick instead of last place finisher.  

Take the case of John.  His team is 2-7, he's riddled with injuries, and got no shot at playoffs.  He can:
(A) give up and ignore his team.
(B) give minimal effort, log in once a week and field a startable lineup (not trying to actively play the wire, make trades, and improve, just abiding the rules and fielding a startable lineup).
(C) start looking towards next year (if the league has ties to next year: draft pick slots, keepers, etc), staying strategically involved in the league through the end of the season, doing what he can to improve his future stock. 

Nobody wants to play with (A).  (B) is a lame duck owner, who is also probably giving gimme wins to people and affecting the playoffs anyway.  I'd rather keep everyone involved and thinking strategically, so if the right rules are in place (C) can be accomplished without screwing up the rest of the league.  

How do you prevent a team from intentionally being a lame duck though? I've seen that happen (or at least suspected it of happening) in my redraft leagues where next year's draft order is based off of how you finish the previous season. Some teams literally don't make any moves after losing their first few games and wind up with the worst record in the league, netting them the #1 overall pick.

What do you think of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, Bri said:

I was in a league for nearly 20 years. Two years in, an NFL player was suspended for "conduct detrimental to the league" and another for "actions not in the spirit of the team"????Hmm I forget the second. All we did was mush those two together and if you acted like a tool, you were gonna be up for a vote to be replaced in the offseason. If you didn't do jack, you could play forever.

FF people are clever with loopholes. If there isn't a rule that says "you can't start a guy on IR" that doesn't mean you should. Cmon now.  Conversely do you want to play with a guy that does such a thing?

Someone quitting midseason- same thing

 

That's fair, but it is always tough. Looks like in this situation tanking happened the season before and the tanking owner actually asked the commish about it. 

But I guess that's digressing a little bit. How would you patch up a loophole? Proactively or retroactively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 minutes ago, the lone star said:

How do you prevent a team from intentionally being a lame duck though? I've seen that happen (or at least suspected it of happening) in my redraft leagues where next year's draft order is based off of how you finish the previous season. Some teams literally don't make any moves after losing their first few games and wind up with the worst record in the league, netting them the #1 overall pick.

What do you think of that?

Why in holy heck would a redraft league ever use prior year finish to establish draft order next season? It's redraft. Nothing should carry over from the prior year. In my opinion the issue here is setting up a redraft league in that manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
31 minutes ago, the lone star said:

Interesting take. Makes the assumption that points 3-5 were known at the time of the initial exchange. Obviously there are pro-tanking and anti-tanking people in life, so there will naturally be different views on it. Some people think it doesn't need to be addressed by the rules because it's so obviously wrong. Others have played in leagues where it was fair game and things ran smoothly. There's obviously middle ground there too.

With regards to point 1 though, it would be hard to argue that it was not generally foreseeable that someone would start inactive players. You could even argue that him saying "I don't know," means the thought at least crossed his mind, or should have. Yet he still didn't firmly say no. 

In regards to #2, it depends on the timing of the events. If the exchange happened over several hours or days, then yeah, easier to make the cases that you claim. But if it all happened closer together, then it becomes tougher. Maybe he wasn't paying attention, or didn't understand, but he could have probed more. Same goes for the other party though. 

You could also make the argument that 3-5 happened because of complaints and he caved into the pressure. Who knows tbh.

I would like to know what all seems "slanted" to you though. From your name, it seems like you're a lawyer, so I'd like to respectfully ask for your help in that regard.

I think that we are going in circles.  You hope for me to say that the commish was wrong in changing draft order after the fact -- a point I'd usually agree with.  I see the bigger issue being someone trying to get around the rules.  You'll never convince me that I'm wrong and I won't convince you that you're wrong.  But at least we're clear on the points.

I agree that there may have been a misunderstanding.  But I don't think that he said it's ok based on the facts.  But I guess one could have interpreted him to say you can tank, especially if they wanted to tank.  But the only facts we have are those that you have chosen to share.  As for the "yeah, ok," any married guy will tell you that there are plenty of situations in any given day where you say "yeah, ok" to your wife but you weren't paying attention and really haven't processed what she's asking for.  It's becomes second-hand, and natural, after a while..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
33 minutes ago, Warhogs said:

Why in holy heck would a redraft league ever use prior year finish to establish draft order next season? It's redraft. Nothing should carry over from the prior year. In my opinion the issue here is setting up a redraft league in that manner.

local leagues with braggarts do. If ya heard it from your buddy from January til August, he's picking last :-) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
35 minutes ago, the lone star said:

That's fair, but it is always tough. Looks like in this situation tanking happened the season before and the tanking owner actually asked the commish about it. 

But I guess that's digressing a little bit. How would you patch up a loophole? Proactively or retroactively?

first thing is to have it looming over people's devious heads with the overall rule. That generally stops it.

Otherwise, Greg R and this board have rules and rules they've shared over the years. A good search would probably find a properly worded rule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Warhogs said:

Why in holy heck would a redraft league ever use prior year finish to establish draft order next season? It's redraft. Nothing should carry over from the prior year. In my opinion the issue here is setting up a redraft league in that manner.

Well, technically we can keep two players, but I almost never do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
35 minutes ago, wakelawyer said:

I think that we are going in circles.  You hope for me to say that the commish was wrong in changing draft order after the fact -- a point I'd usually agree with.  I see the bigger issue being someone trying to get around the rules.  You'll never convince me that I'm wrong and I won't convince you that you're wrong.  But at least we're clear on the points.

I agree that there may have been a misunderstanding.  But I don't think that he said it's ok based on the facts.  But I guess one could have interpreted him to say you can tank, especially if they wanted to tank.  But the only facts we have are those that you have chosen to share.  As for the "yeah, ok," any married guy will tell you that there are plenty of situations in any given day where you say "yeah, ok" to your wife but you weren't paying attention and really haven't processed what she's asking for.  It's becomes second-hand, and natural, after a while..

That's fair. I appreciate it man. Take Care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

A - how is this even a question?  Of course it's wrong for the commish to take actions that aren't explicitly within his power for reasons that aren't explicitly disallowed.   Seriously, we have to ask this?

B - play with a commish that's not 14.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Sounds like you need a new commish.

And a new leaguemate.

And a new league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Hankmoody said:

A - how is this even a question?  Of course it's wrong for the commish to take actions that aren't explicitly within his power for reasons that aren't explicitly disallowed.   Seriously, we have to ask this?

B - play with a commish that's not 14.

Yeah, this.  No clue how anyone is voting "no" here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, the lone star said:

How do you prevent a team from intentionally being a lame duck though? I've seen that happen (or at least suspected it of happening) in my redraft leagues where next year's draft order is based off of how you finish the previous season. Some teams literally don't make any moves after losing their first few games and wind up with the worst record in the league, netting them the #1 overall pick.

What do you think of that?

In a pure redraft league it’s very difficult. You could institute a $ prize for weekly high score, or give some sort of prize for the consolation bracket winner, but that’s about it to incentivize someone who’s out of it. 

7 hours ago, Bri said:

I was in a league for nearly 20 years. Two years in, an NFL player was suspended for "conduct detrimental to the league" and another for "actions not in the spirit of the team"????Hmm I forget the second. All we did was mush those two together and if you acted like a tool, you were gonna be up for a vote to be replaced in the offseason. If you didn't do jack, you could play forever.

FF people are clever with loopholes. If there isn't a rule that says "you can't start a guy on IR" that doesn't mean you should. Cmon now.  Conversely do you want to play with a guy that does such a thing?

Someone quitting midseason- same thing

 

I’m not saying you should look for loopholes in order to tank. And I don’t ever advocate starting IR players, every league should have a rule on that by now. My whole point is that - given the right set of rules and agreement on them with the league - tanking is a viable strategy and can make for a better and more strategic league than having ppl who are out of it just go through the motions of setting a lineup and giving away easy wins, but with a legal lineup. 

In my keeper league we allow tanking. But we play so that consolation bracket results determine draft order.  1st pick is actually 7th place, 2nd is 8th, etc. So you can tank, but you gotta try and win the consolation bracket or else you’ll end up with 6th pick at best. Last yr I lost OBJ to injury, my drafted QB didn’t pan out (Winston), a couple other injuries bit me and I was out of it early. So I sold Melvin Gordon (couldn’t be kept) in an open auction for Dalvin Cook (ACL, but could keep for a 3rd for the next 2 yrs) and a mid-pick, sold Thielen for a 4th to a guy making a playoff push, and sold Jax DST for a swap of mid picks. Still fielded a competitive lineup, won a few matches, and tried my best to win the consolation bracket to get the highest pick possible, ultimately losing in the semis and finishing 9th, so #3 pick next yr. I was open with everyone in the league about my strategy, and no one had an issue with it because we had rules in place.  I can’t see how giving up, just setting a legal lineup and never doing anything else is a better strategy than actively trying to improve yourself for next year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

You need to ask the Comish to speak up about implementing a Toilet bowl for the nonplayoff Teams  Basically six teams play for the Championship while the rest play in the toilet  Draft order determined by finish  A team goes far in the Championship drafts later as opposed to in the Toilet where they draft earlier  Dumb as can be to reward folks for not setting their best lineup

fyi  When you start talking the starting of players who may be inactive due to injury you need to provide more info ie. Roster limits  I mean I'm not about to drop one of my tier1 LB's just to start some CB off the wire who may provide a goose egg  Overall it could just be that your not in the loop to voice your thoughts  Perhaps you were screaming wolf when the Season started?  I mean most everybody is guilty of a few last minute tweaks to their lineup that is more perceived "juicy" matchup than strong gut feelings  

commissioner said that "if you don't have anybody else to start, then yes, but if you just don't want to, then I don't know."   Right about this time the playa should have come clean and asked if its OK to "suck for Luck" which doesn't appear to have occurred  Every win counts towards the goal of reaching the playoffs  I mean just because my team isn't in the race doesn't mean my opponent gets a pass  

It appears the worst team is drafting first  While its sad that the rule change may effect your position in the draft (or others) at least the team tanking isn't unfairly rewarded to a great extent  Not to say I like last minute changes in rules/scoring  But you should savor keeping the League competitive

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, Hankmoody said:

A - how is this even a question?  Of course it's wrong for the commish to take actions that aren't explicitly within his power for reasons that aren't explicitly disallowed.   Seriously, we have to ask this?

B - play with a commish that's not 14.

lol, that's fair. It's super shady and messed up to collect dues under a misrepresentation too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Dismattle said:

You need to ask the Comish to speak up about implementing a Toilet bowl for the nonplayoff Teams  Basically six teams play for the Championship while the rest play in the toilet  Draft order determined by finish  A team goes far in the Championship drafts later as opposed to in the Toilet where they draft earlier  Dumb as can be to reward folks for not setting their best lineup

fyi  When you start talking the starting of players who may be inactive due to injury you need to provide more info ie. Roster limits  I mean I'm not about to drop one of my tier1 LB's just to start some CB off the wire who may provide a goose egg  Overall it could just be that your not in the loop to voice your thoughts  Perhaps you were screaming wolf when the Season started?  I mean most everybody is guilty of a few last minute tweaks to their lineup that is more perceived "juicy" matchup than strong gut feelings  

commissioner said that "if you don't have anybody else to start, then yes, but if you just don't want to, then I don't know."   Right about this time the playa should have come clean and asked if its OK to "suck for Luck" which doesn't appear to have occurred  Every win counts towards the goal of reaching the playoffs  I mean just because my team isn't in the race doesn't mean my opponent gets a pass  

It appears the worst team is drafting first  While its sad that the rule change may effect your position in the draft (or others) at least the team tanking isn't unfairly rewarded to a great extent  Not to say I like last minute changes in rules/scoring  But you should savor keeping the League competitive

You could also say that at that point in time, the commissioner actually knew, or should have known tanking may take place, and yet he didn't explicitly deny it. Looks like he left it up to the owner to decide. Maybe he was just tabling it for when it actually came up, but that's obviously not firm or proactive enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/2/2018 at 0:13 AM, wlwiles said:

In a pure redraft league it’s very difficult. You could institute a $ prize for weekly high score, or give some sort of prize for the consolation bracket winner, but that’s about it to incentivize someone who’s out of it. 

I’m not saying you should look for loopholes in order to tank. And I don’t ever advocate starting IR players, every league should have a rule on that by now. My whole point is that - given the right set of rules and agreement on them with the league - tanking is a viable strategy and can make for a better and more strategic league than having ppl who are out of it just go through the motions of setting a lineup and giving away easy wins, but with a legal lineup. 

In my keeper league we allow tanking. But we play so that consolation bracket results determine draft order.  1st pick is actually 7th place, 2nd is 8th, etc. So you can tank, but you gotta try and win the consolation bracket or else you’ll end up with 6th pick at best. Last yr I lost OBJ to injury, my drafted QB didn’t pan out (Winston), a couple other injuries bit me and I was out of it early. So I sold Melvin Gordon (couldn’t be kept) in an open auction for Dalvin Cook (ACL, but could keep for a 3rd for the next 2 yrs) and a mid-pick, sold Thielen for a 4th to a guy making a playoff push, and sold Jax DST for a swap of mid picks. Still fielded a competitive lineup, won a few matches, and tried my best to win the consolation bracket to get the highest pick possible, ultimately losing in the semis and finishing 9th, so #3 pick next yr. I was open with everyone in the league about my strategy, and no one had an issue with it because we had rules in place.  I can’t see how giving up, just setting a legal lineup and never doing anything else is a better strategy than actively trying to improve yourself for next year.  

Good point, but I think weekly high score is an incentive to do well, whereas you also need to disincentivize tanking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/1/2018 at 1:49 PM, wakelawyer said:

I don't condone what the commish did -- and he shouldn't have done anything without rules. But I understand why he did it.  I just wish that he did something earlier.

It does not need to be written in the rules that there is a reason for playing games, i.e. you both put out your best lineups and one person will win.  When an owner goes to the extreme of starting guys that aren't even active, and doing it for several weeks, they have abandoned their team, they have abandoned the league, and they have forfeited their right to play the game.  There is no need for a rule for that.  I commish several leagues and I don't have a rule that you can't threaten to kick an owner in the head if he beats you.  But you can bet there will be some repercussions if you do that.  

The commish should have stepped up and immediately told you to stop being a tool and to play the game in a sportsmanlike manner.  He failed to do so and, unfortunately, you took that as a license to go over the top with your tanking.  Having failed to stop it, it's tough for him to come in and change draft order.  But, if I were the commish, you wouldn't be invited to continue playing this year.

So would you give a warning before not inviting the person next year, or would you just move-on to a new owner as quickly as possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, the lone star said:

So would you give a warning before not inviting the person next year, or would you just move-on to a new owner as quickly as possible?

Hopefully I don't ever get myself in this position, although I do acknowledge that it's impossible for those that commish several leagues to be fully apprised of everyone's lineup each week.  But I've got good groups of owners so I would think that they would note it if I missed it.  If I was actually at that spot, I probably wouldn't be as harsh as I noted.  I would definitely talk to the owner and talk about expectations and determine if we were still a good fit for each other.  And might strongly hint that they should consider moving on.  But, in dynasty, I would be reluctant to remove them if we could get on the same page.  People do invest a lot of time and effort in their teams and I don't want to take a team away unless absolutely necessary.  I've been commishing for more than 30 years now and can only think of one instance where I kicked an owner out of a league -- and that was a situation where he let us know he wasn't returning the next year and threatened to make roster moves that were detrimental to the league.  

Edited by wakelawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
56 minutes ago, wakelawyer said:

Hopefully I don't ever get myself in this position, although I do acknowledge that it's impossible for those that commish several leagues to be fully apprised of everyone's lineup each week.  But I've got good groups of owners so I would think that they would note it if I missed it.  If I was actually at that spot, I probably wouldn't be as harsh as I noted.  I would definitely talk to the owner and talk about expectations and determine if we were still a good fit for each other.  And might strongly hint that they should consider moving on.  But, in dynasty, I would be reluctant to remove them if we could get on the same page.  People do invest a lot of time and effort in their teams and I don't want to take a team away unless absolutely necessary.  I've been commishing for more than 30 years now and can only think of one instance where I kicked an owner out of a league -- and that was a situation where he let us know he wasn't returning the next year and threatened to make roster moves that were detrimental to the league.  

That's fair. I think that's the best way to address it.

Final question: Do you have explicit rules spelling out that inactive players cannot be inserted into starting lineups? What about explicit rules that are anti-tanking and that owners should play with integrity, respect, and good-faith in mind?

I ask because the commissioner in the OP was actually against making explicit rules, as he thought it would give other teams a reason to turn someone in, and that he would rather deal with issues on a case-by-case basis.

Not really sure what he meant by all of that, but it seemed like a cop-out to me, so I'm just wondering if I'm just missing something with that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
27 minutes ago, the lone star said:

That's fair. I think that's the best way to address it.

Final question: Do you have explicit rules spelling out that inactive players cannot be inserted into starting lineups? What about explicit rules that are anti-tanking and that owners should play with integrity, respect, and good-faith in mind?

I ask because the commissioner in the OP was actually against making explicit rules, as he thought it would give other teams a reason to turn someone in, and that he would rather deal with issues on a case-by-case basis.

Not really sure what he meant by all of that, but it seemed like a cop-out to me, so I'm just wondering if I'm just missing something with that argument.

All of my leagues have anti-tanking rules as well as rules granting the commish powers in the best interest of the league to address unforeseen or unaddressed issues.  And, with the exception of one, all base draft order on potential points.  I know, I know, it's not perfect but it's the best that I've been able to come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, wakelawyer said:

All of my leagues have anti-tanking rules as well as rules granting the commish powers in the best interest of the league to address unforeseen or unaddressed issues.  And, with the exception of one, all base draft order on potential points.  I know, I know, it's not perfect but it's the best that I've been able to come up with.

I like it. Nothing is perfect, so a lot has to be left to the commish. Gotta trust your commish a lot. I learned that the hard way I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/3/2018 at 9:26 PM, wakelawyer said:

All of my leagues have anti-tanking rules as well as rules granting the commish powers in the best interest of the league to address unforeseen or unaddressed issues.  And, with the exception of one, all base draft order on potential points.  I know, I know, it's not perfect but it's the best that I've been able to come up with.

So anyway, you voting Yes or No on this question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.