Annual: Do you tank a game to increase chance to win the championship? (1 Viewer)

[Terpfan]

It seems this question mirrors the same dilemma when the Colts would clinch early and sit their starters. Their reasoning is that their late season actions could improve their chances of winning it all. Same thinking used by the fantasy tankers. There is no guarantee that sitting your starters will insure you win the Super Bowl, but they feel it helps their chances. Them sitting their starters does have an impact on other teams in the NFL and possible playoff implications for OTHER teams. If they choose to do this strategy, they are concerned with their team and not the other teams. Just like in fantasy.

None of this makes it right, I just find it interesting that fantasy football does mirror NFL in this regard. I cant say the tankers are wrong (cuz I would be one), but I can say that each fantasy and NFL coach would approach this situation their own way. It seems the majority here would not stoop to that in order to win, but understand that some will take whatever advantage they can to win it all. For me I would do this if I felt I were at a disadvantage to other owners. Not necessary if I have a dominant team. Maybe I have learned too much from Belichick when it comes to playing on the edge of the rules.

Best way to avoid this every year is put something in the rules, but that would be a whole different thread.

 

[GregR_2]

It seems this question mirrors the same dilemma when the Colts would clinch early and sit their starters. Their reasoning is that their late season actions could improve their chances of winning it all. Same thinking used by the fantasy tankers. There is no guarantee that sitting your starters will insure you win the Super Bowl, but they feel it helps their chances. Them sitting their starters does have an impact on other teams in the NFL and possible playoff implications for OTHER teams. If they choose to do this strategy, they are concerned with their team and not the other teams. Just like in fantasy. None of this makes it right, I just find it interesting that fantasy football does mirror NFL in this regard. I cant say the tankers are wrong (cuz I would be one), but I can say that each fantasy and NFL coach would approach this situation their own way. It seems the majority here would not stoop to that in order to win, but understand that some will take whatever advantage they can to win it all. For me I would do this if I felt I were at a disadvantage to other owners. Not necessary if I have a dominant team. Maybe I have learned too much from Belichick when it comes to playing on the edge of the rules. Best way to avoid this every year is put something in the rules, but that would be a whole different thread.

You seriously don't see the difference between TRYING TO LOSE, and not risking a key player to injury but still trying to win the game?

 

[massraider]

...My hypothetical question stands. What if someone is accused of tanking, and forced to change his lineup, and loses. If his original lineup would have won, does he still get the loss?

Yes he still gets the loss. I don't understand the point of the question in a discussion on the ethics of tanking. The league stepped in to make the owner do what an ethical owner should have done in the first place... start his best lineup.

Team A and Team B are fighting for the playoffs. If Team C wins, Team A gets in. If they lose, Team B gets in.The league forces Team C to change their lineup, and he loses, sending Team B to the playoffs. Team A doesn't have a beef? I think they do.

 

[AnonymousBob]

...First, tanking happens every year in the NBA. And whatever their reason for doing it, NFL playoff teams resting their starters late in the season accomplishes the same feat: Their best ain't out on the field. So, it exists. And we aren't talking about bad teams jockeying for Adrian Peterson here. We are talking about a team making a strategic decision on whom they want to start, basing their decision on what they think is their best way of winng a title.

Resting your injured players and avoiding injury in a game that is meaningless to your team is not tanking. Tanking is intentionally losing. Show me an NFL team that has their defense step aside to let the offense score with the motivation being to lose the game, and then you can say an NFL team has tanked in the same way that you're advocating fantasy teams do.

Nobody is saying you should leave an open spot on your roster. You still have to plug in a guy that is playing, albeit a lesser player. That's what the NFL does sometimes-they play lesser quality players when they believe they have the playoffs locked up. They do this because they feel it ultimately will give them a better chance to win their playoff games (by not risking one of the starters).

 

[fsufan]

got one for you. this week I need to win and have another guy lose for me to win my division, this league winning your division pays $250. the guy I need to lose is playing his brother who is out of the playoffs and his brother has the following line up in

this league does have a tanking rule

What's the rule? Has the commish stepped in yet?And I am sure this will sound like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth, but that is definitely dirty pool.

RuleLosing intentionally (tanking a game)

• Losing intentionally to better your draft pick for the next season is prohibited.

• Losing intentionally to help out or to hurt another owner’s chance of making the playoffs is prohibited.

• The purpose of this league is to have fun. Failing to field your best team undermines the integrity of the league. Every owner must try to field his or her best team each week. Failing to get a lineup changed in time does happen sometimes, but intentionally losing a game for any reason, including to aid another team, or trying to improve draft position the following year, goes against the league rules and is not permitted.

• The commissioner has the right to adjust an owners line up if tanking is suspected

Why Tanking Is Wrong

• Tanking is wrong because it undermines the integrity of the games and the league. But let's examine some other ramifications that tanking could have on your league.

• The effects it has on other teams - tanking games can seriously affect the standings and playoff race of other teams

• Defeating the purpose of the draft order - as with the NFL, the purpose of a FFL draft should be to help the worst teams get better through the draft. However, if the team that is tanking is a middle tier team, he is going to screw the worst team out of bettering his already really bad team.

Punishment for tanking

• First time a warning

• Second time owner will be removed from the league

Collusion

• Collusion is not permitted. Each owner will try to win through the efforts of his or her team only. Collusion is demonstrated by any transaction or series of transactions that works to the exclusive benefit of one team and the detriment of the other, or any series of transactions that amount to two or more teams pooling their rosters.

• Any transaction a team participates in should be of benefit to the team’s game time efforts. A transaction done solely to aid another team who plays a rival does not count as showing a benefit, and is a clear-cut example of collusion.

• Borrowing player(s) (two owners make a trade and then those players are trade back to the originally owners at another time) is a form of collusion and is prohibited.

I am the commish. I sent an email out asking all owners to start their best line ups, so did another owner.

 

[Pictus Cat]

...Or another situation. You're a member of a dynasty league. The two worst teams who are out of the playoffs play in the final week. The "winner" gets the 2nd pick next year, and the "loser" gets the 1st pick. What incentive is there to win? Why would either owner put out their best players?

That's why I make the bottom third play for the first for cumulative points pick during the playoffs. The middle for a middling prize.

 

[Pictus Cat]

It seems this question mirrors the same dilemma when the Colts would clinch early and sit their starters. Their reasoning is that their late season actions could improve their chances of winning it all. Same thinking used by the fantasy tankers. There is no guarantee that sitting your starters will insure you win the Super Bowl, but they feel it helps their chances. Them sitting their starters does have an impact on other teams in the NFL and possible playoff implications for OTHER teams. If they choose to do this strategy, they are concerned with their team and not the other teams. Just like in fantasy. None of this makes it right, I just find it interesting that fantasy football does mirror NFL in this regard. I cant say the tankers are wrong (cuz I would be one), but I can say that each fantasy and NFL coach would approach this situation their own way. It seems the majority here would not stoop to that in order to win, but understand that some will take whatever advantage they can to win it all. For me I would do this if I felt I were at a disadvantage to other owners. Not necessary if I have a dominant team. Maybe I have learned too much from Belichick when it comes to playing on the edge of the rules. Best way to avoid this every year is put something in the rules, but that would be a whole different thread.

You seriously don't see the difference between TRYING TO LOSE, and not risking a key player to injury but still trying to win the game?

As much as fantasy sometimes wants to mirror the NFL, it won't. If a NFL team made it obvious they were trying to lose, the fans would not accept it, and the NFL commish would have to step in. NE was fined and lost a draft pick for its unethical behavior. Examples would be made. I wonder what odds makers would do with that situation.

 

[FakeAudible]

I think for 99.9% of fantasy participants it's a poor decision. A lot of the value I derive from fantasy is social-capital (helps me keep in touch with old friends, gives me an extra-bond with people I work with, something I like doing with people I like). Tanking is going to cost you a ton of social capital. At least one person in the league is going to hate you whether or not it works. Even people who aren't affected won't like it -- it just violates a sense of fair play.

There is a small exception. If you are playing in a high(er)-stakes league -- and it really has to be a bit (for me the league purse would have to be around $3,000 before I'd say -- this is not about a bet between friends to spice things up -- its purely about winning) then go right ahead and do what it takes. I think people bought in with the intention of winning money and so its not about the friendly aspect any more.

 

[fsufan]

I think for 99.9% of fantasy participants it's a poor decision. A lot of the value I derive from fantasy is social-capital (helps me keep in touch with old friends, gives me an extra-bond with people I work with, something I like doing with people I like). Tanking is going to cost you a ton of social capital. At least one person in the league is going to hate you whether or not it works. Even people who aren't affected won't like it -- it just violates a sense of fair play.There is a small exception. If you are playing in a high(er)-stakes league -- and it really has to be a bit (for me the league purse would have to be around $3,000 before I'd say -- this is not about a bet between friends to spice things up -- its purely about winning) then go right ahead and do what it takes. I think people bought in with the intention of winning money and so its not about the friendly aspect any more.

i agreesee my above post about a guy trying to tank to give his brother the division win which pays $250. He has grant on his bench and starting M. Bush(on IR). the sad thing is this guy has been my barber for 10 years and we have always got along. what am I to think of him now since he is trying to F me over. but I am the commish and have a rule in place for this.