Conflicted
Footballguy
I am having an ethical dilemma. I am going to be the #5 or #6 seed. The #6 seed plays a significantly weaker opponent than the #5 seed, thus creating an incentive to tank (i.e. take a knee) in week 13. If I lose, I will be assured the #6 seed. If I win and another team loses (different game - we are not playing one another), then I am the #5 seed.
How is the #6 seed's opponent easier? The top two division winners in my league get a first week playoff bye. The third division winner, who does not get a week 1 bye, is an OK team atop a dreadful division. His team is much worse than the #4 seed, who will play the #5 seed. Plus, the #3 seed's week 14 matchups are awful for him - most of his scoring sources, like Brees and Kamara, are playing difficult defenses, like San Francisco.
The question is, would it be unethical for me to play my worst possible lineup to ensure I lose, hoping to get a weaker opponent? I think it would be bad to tank at the end of one year in order to get a better draft pick the following year, but I'm not sure if this is the same thing or not. I'm looking for advice/input.
How is the #6 seed's opponent easier? The top two division winners in my league get a first week playoff bye. The third division winner, who does not get a week 1 bye, is an OK team atop a dreadful division. His team is much worse than the #4 seed, who will play the #5 seed. Plus, the #3 seed's week 14 matchups are awful for him - most of his scoring sources, like Brees and Kamara, are playing difficult defenses, like San Francisco.
The question is, would it be unethical for me to play my worst possible lineup to ensure I lose, hoping to get a weaker opponent? I think it would be bad to tank at the end of one year in order to get a better draft pick the following year, but I'm not sure if this is the same thing or not. I'm looking for advice/input.
