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

Is Tanking Fair Game If It Isn't Against The Rules?

Is Tanking Fair Game If It Isn't Against The Rules?  

9 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

Is Tanking Fair Game If It Isn't Against The Rules?

Examples of Tanking
1.) Trading away good players to increase your chances of losing
2.) Benching starters to increase your chances of losing
3.) Starting inactive players to increase your chances of losing
4.) Combination of 1-3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I think it should be addressed by the rules somehow. If there aren't rules, then it should be fair game until it begins to raise an issue. If it raises an issue, then the tanking owner should do his best to mitigate any kind of drama. Same with the commish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 0:39 AM, the lone star said:

Is Tanking Fair Game If It Isn't Against The Rules?

Examples of Tanking
1.) Trading away good players to increase your chances of losing
2.) Benching starters to increase your chances of losing
3.) Starting inactive players to increase your chances of losing
4.) Combination of 1-3.

1 - This is not tanking assuming you are making quality trades to obtain future assets (draft picks) or high upside guys that aren't currently performing but are likely to in the future.  This is building your team for the future and the byproduct is that your current year team is diminished (which also helps for your future).

2 -  This should never be done in any league regardless of the rules.  This is just bad ownership and I would never want to be in a league with someone that would do this.  It affects the integrity of the league and should never be done regardless of the rules.

3 - Same as #2.  This is terrible and is irresponsible ownership.  I would not be in a league with owners that do this.

 

Owners should always play their best starting lineup to try and win.  If this doesn't happen and you purposely play inactive players then you should be removed from the league.  It affects all other owners negatively that are fighting for playoffs or titles and at some point this method will come back to bite you if you are fighting for playoffs or a title.  The integrity of the league falls apart if teams are purposefully trying to lose whether there is a specific rule banning it or not. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Gally said:

1 - This is not tanking assuming you are making quality trades to obtain future assets (draft picks) or high upside guys that aren't currently performing but are likely to in the future.  This is building your team for the future and the byproduct is that your current year team is diminished (which also helps for your future).

2 -  This should never be done in any league regardless of the rules.  This is just bad ownership and I would never want to be in a league with someone that would do this.  It affects the integrity of the league and should never be done regardless of the rules.

3 - Same as #2.  This is terrible and is irresponsible ownership.  I would not be in a league with owners that do this.

 

Owners should always play their best starting lineup to try and win.  If this doesn't happen and you purposely play inactive players then you should be removed from the league.  It affects all other owners negatively that are fighting for playoffs or titles and at some point this method will come back to bite you if you are fighting for playoffs or a title.  The integrity of the league falls apart if teams are purposefully trying to lose whether there is a specific rule banning it or not. 

Good analysis

In regards to #2, I'm sure you know what my special situation was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 0:48 PM, the lone star said:

Good analysis

In regards to #2, I'm sure you know what my special situation was.

I do not care what your special situation was.  This should never be done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, Gally said:

I do not care what your special situation was.  This should never be done.

Thanks for the very kind insight Gally. Good to know there are other professionals on here.

Share this post


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

Thanks for the very kind insight Gally. Good to know there are other professionals on here.

My point was any reason that led to playing an inferior lineup is irrelevant.  That should never be done under any circumstances otherwise the integrity of the league is impacted and it will always lead to issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/11/2018 at 9:43 AM, Gally said:

My point was any reason that led to playing an inferior lineup is irrelevant.  That should never be done under any circumstances otherwise the integrity of the league is impacted and it will always lead to issues.

That's fair. I just think that there are situations where an owner doesn't actually know or feel that it is "wrong," and if the commish seemingly approves it, then it might be considered fair game.

Share this post


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

That's fair. I just think that there are situations where an owner doesn't actually know or feel that it is "wrong," and if the commish seemingly approves it, then it might be considered fair game.

The bold is the underlying issue.  If you have an owner that doesn't think it is wrong then I wouldn't want him in my league.  It is always wrong regardless of the rules in place.  It ruins the integrity of any league and will only lead to problems.  I wouldn't want to be in any league that has owners thinking it is ok to purposely play inactive or inferior players to try and lose.  It ruins the competitive balance and will lead to fighting amongst owners regardless of the rules.  It is wrong 100% of the time no matter the reason an owner is using to try and talk himself into it being ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/8/2018 at 11:24 AM, Gally said:

1 - This is not tanking assuming you are making quality trades to obtain future assets (draft picks) or high upside guys that aren't currently performing but are likely to in the future.  This is building your team for the future and the byproduct is that your current year team is diminished (which also helps for your future).

2 -  This should never be done in any league regardless of the rules.  This is just bad ownership and I would never want to be in a league with someone that would do this.  It affects the integrity of the league and should never be done regardless of the rules.

3 - Same as #2.  This is terrible and is irresponsible ownership.  I would not be in a league with owners that do this.

 

Owners should always play their best starting lineup to try and win.  If this doesn't happen and you purposely play inactive players then you should be removed from the league.  It affects all other owners negatively that are fighting for playoffs or titles and at some point this method will come back to bite you if you are fighting for playoffs or a title.  The integrity of the league falls apart if teams are purposefully trying to lose whether there is a specific rule banning it or not. 

1.  Ask a Marlins fan if what Jeter is doing is tanking or not.  I get what you're saying, if you're trading good pieces to obtain future assets and trying to better yourself then it's being productive, but it's still considered a form of tanking IMO.  Trying to lose in the short term but trying to win in the long term/future term.  

2/3.  Every single league in existence should have a rule to the effect of "you must start a complete lineup, no bye players, no IR players, no blank spots".  Stuff happens, lineup changes made don't get saved right, Sunday morning emergencies prevent someone from making a roster move, but every league should have such a rule in place.  That takes care of half of this problem.  The other half is, if I'm insistent on tanking but abiding the rules, then I trade Gronk but pick up and start the Browns 3rd string TE who only plays special teams and gets 0 points every week.  I'm within the rules (starting a healthy active player) but obviously I'm not trying to get any points because I chose this player instead of actually trying to find a waiver guy like last year's Kittle/Njoku/ASJ type guy.  Unless you have a set of rules specifically crafted towards how to handle this half, then you need to have a conversation and an agreement amongst the owners of how to handle this.  

I wrote this in the other SP thread, but I play in a 12 team keeper league where we allow "tanking", but we have rules in place.  One of our rules is that if you're going to sell your good players for draft picks, then it has to be open auction to all owners.  No going to your buddy and offering Gronk for a 7th.  We have to start a full, competitive lineup.  And our consolation bracket standings determine draft order, so toilet bowl winner gets 1st pick, 2nd gets 2nd, etc.  So even if you could just "give up and bomb" style tank, then you'd pick 6th at best.  

As to Gally's bolded text above - I 100% get what you're saying.  Maybe it's a personal opinion thing with me.  But in a keeper or dynasty, if we're at Week 6, there's an owner who's 0-5 and decimated with injuries (no good outlook ROS), I'd rather he be able to "tank" - strategically play out this season within rules but actively try and better himself for the future - rather than just set a healthy-but-lame-duck lineup and not pay attention because he's out of it.  In a true redraft, where nothing about this year affects next year and every year the draft order is randomized, then yes, I agree, everyone should try hard to win every single week, but then you need to monitor owners who give up and consider replacing them for owners with more integrity. 

Share this post


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

1.  Ask a Marlins fan if what Jeter is doing is tanking or not.  I get what you're saying, if you're trading good pieces to obtain future assets and trying to better yourself then it's being productive, but it's still considered a form of tanking IMO.  Trying to lose in the short term but trying to win in the long term/future term.  

As to Gally's bolded text above - I 100% get what you're saying.  Maybe it's a personal opinion thing with me.  But in a keeper or dynasty, if we're at Week 6, there's an owner who's 0-5 and decimated with injuries (no good outlook ROS), I'd rather he be able to "tank" - strategically play out this season within rules but actively try and better himself for the future - rather than just set a healthy-but-lame-duck lineup and not pay attention because he's out of it.  In a true redraft, where nothing about this year affects next year and every year the draft order is randomized, then yes, I agree, everyone should try hard to win every single week, but then you need to monitor owners who give up and consider replacing them for owners with more integrity. 

For the Bold:  It may be semantics but to me what the Marlins are doing are trying to better their long term team in it is not tanking.  They are not purposefully trying to lose in competition.  They are putting out the players they have and the players are trying to win.  That is my demarcation for tanking.  Playing injured, inactive, or your own second string players (for fantasy purposes) and trying to lose week #9 is the problem. 

 

Trading assets away in an attempt to get better for future seasons and then needing to play players that are inferior to what you traded away because you received draft picks in the deals is not purposefully trying to lose like playing inactive players. 

 

For your example about picking up a 3rd string NFL TE that will not score rather than picking up a TE that might score and have potential is borderline problematic.  Everyone evaluates players differently and if you think that TE might have a better long term future than a TE that has no future (say Gates last season) then I have no issue.  However, if you pick up that 3rd stringer instead of Kittle then you are now venturing into an issue.

 

Bottom line is to try and do your best to win at all times with what you have.  Some teams will need to prep for the future and the byproduct of trading away quality aging assets for future potential is the current year performance suffers.  As long as that owner is trying to put out as competitive a lineup as he can to try and win each week there is no issue.  Purposefully trying to lose by not doing that is where the issue comes it.

 

I think we are on the same page and have the same intent. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
24 minutes ago, Gally said:

For the Bold:  It may be semantics but to me what the Marlins are doing are trying to better their long term team in it is not tanking.  They are not purposefully trying to lose in competition.  They are putting out the players they have and the players are trying to win.  That is my demarcation for tanking.  Playing injured, inactive, or your own second string players (for fantasy purposes) and trying to lose week #9 is the problem. 

Trading assets away in an attempt to get better for future seasons and then needing to play players that are inferior to what you traded away because you received draft picks in the deals is not purposefully trying to lose like playing inactive players. 

For your example about picking up a 3rd string NFL TE that will not score rather than picking up a TE that might score and have potential is borderline problematic.  Everyone evaluates players differently and if you think that TE might have a better long term future than a TE that has no future (say Gates last season) then I have no issue.  However, if you pick up that 3rd stringer instead of Kittle then you are now venturing into an issue.

Bottom line is to try and do your best to win at all times with what you have.  Some teams will need to prep for the future and the byproduct of trading away quality aging assets for future potential is the current year performance suffers.  As long as that owner is trying to put out as competitive a lineup as he can to try and win each week there is no issue.  Purposefully trying to lose by not doing that is where the issue comes it.

I think we are on the same page and have the same intent. 

Agreed.  IMO, when I think of tanking, I think of the Colts' "Suck for Luck" campaign.  I realize that was an anomaly, with Peyton out for the year.  But they were trotting out Dan Orlovsky and Curtis Painter, fielding a lineup, rather than trying to trade for a better starting option, because they knew if they finished with the worst record they'd be rewarded with Luck.   As for the Marlins example - Jeter and the front office are probably not trying to lose every game, but they're probably thinking "I don't care if we win right now because I'm focusing on winning more later".  The players on the team now are trying to win now.  

We're in agreement like you said - it's just semantics.  To me, tanking is more than just "I'm going to start a blank lineup and lose on purpose". 

Edited by wlwiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/14/2018 at 10:21 AM, Gally said:

The bold is the underlying issue.  If you have an owner that doesn't think it is wrong then I wouldn't want him in my league.  It is always wrong regardless of the rules in place.  It ruins the integrity of any league and will only lead to problems.  I wouldn't want to be in any league that has owners thinking it is ok to purposely play inactive or inferior players to try and lose.  It ruins the competitive balance and will lead to fighting amongst owners regardless of the rules.  It is wrong 100% of the time no matter the reason an owner is using to try and talk himself into it being ok.

So what if the Commish has seemingly approved the tanking? Also, what if the owner has successfully tanked a few games already, which were only noticed after-the-fact? The tanking owner has now improved his positioning for the upcoming rookie draft (dynasty league setting), so what's the best way to cure for this? Do you implement a new rule going forward, or do you make a new rule that has retroactive effects (ex: changing the way the draft order is calculated so that the tanking team doesn't benefit from his tanking)? In this scenario, assume that the tanking owner and the Commish had a misunderstanding, and that once the misunderstanding was realized, the tanking owner apologized and offered to fix his lineup for the current week.

Share this post


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

So what if the Commish has seemingly approved the tanking? Also, what if the owner has successfully tanked a few games already, which were only noticed after-the-fact? The tanking owner has now improved his positioning for the upcoming rookie draft (dynasty league setting), so what's the best way to cure for this? Do you implement a new rule going forward, or do you make a new rule that has retroactive effects (ex: changing the way the draft order is calculated so that the tanking team doesn't benefit from his tanking)? In this scenario, assume that the tanking owner and the Commish had a misunderstanding, and that once the misunderstanding was realized, the tanking owner apologized and offered to fix his lineup for the current week.

You can't go back retroactively.  Just prohibit for future instances. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I have zero problems w/ players that operate within the context of the rules to increase their chances of winning 'ships/$ in the future.  If issues arise w/ tanking, you address them in the off-season as a league.  If you don't like the rules of your league and an unwillingness to create rules that fit how you want to play fantasy football, find a new league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Tanking sucks. BUT what's worse is when the league tries to manage a team and overturn decisions made by an owner that wasn't tanking. Tanking sucks because it can create an unintended consequences. IF Team A beats Team B ....it could keep Team C out of the playoffs.  THat's lame. 

I set up a league where you MUST FIELD starting roster of players that have a chance to play. IF you want to put in a backup QB.. Fine. As long as he's active for that game. ONe might do this is a league where NEG points are allowed. It's safer to take a 0 if your QB is throwing 5 picks in a half.  Trades are NOT reviewed by league or Commissioner.  If there's a lopsided trade. You ask the owners privately what they liked about the offer and why they chose to do that.  If the can come up with a minimal reason...well. I chose that IDP because he's Samoan. That's reason enough.   Not starting a QB or K, DEF, or any positional player is lame.  Managers than ghost or miss a day know in advance that if they don't manage the roster the Commissioner with adjust their line-up based on Yahoo Projections to include the best player.  So if FLEX needed and no bench spots available fill the need. I try to drop the least valuable player possible and insert the player most likely to fill the void based on host sites projections.     IF owners don't like it they can manage their own F-ing team so I don't have it. The reason you use a thing like projections is that it creates a script to follow so people are not using HIND SIGHT to determine sub for line-up.  People get selfish and self serving if it means a win or desired outcome. Remove that from the equation.     Implement FINES for not field a full starting Roster.  Owners that are actively trying to manage a team are given benefit of the doubt. ##### bags seeking an advance or unnatural outcome by 'gaming' the rules...are going to be ##### bags and you need rules in place to protect the league from them. 

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.