Anti tanking rules (1 Viewer)

[Samuel L Bronkowitz]

I know this conversation has been had and I hope to keep the ethics of tanking discussion out of this. But there's a situation that my league wants to combat. We're a 12 team, keep 2 league.

Team A sits his best QB, RB and WR last week while playing Team B who is in a tiebreak scenario with Team C. Team B wins as well as Team C. Had Team A started his normal players he would have won and Team C would have made the playoffs. Team A started a valid lineup according to our rules (though with backups).

The worst team (Team A) gets the 1st pick and now Team B loses money and gets stuck with the 6 pick.

I think it's a savvy play (though bush league) within our rules. We'd like to avoid a situation like this though. Team C may have been screwed out of $1K

CUrrent rules do not allow incomplete lineups nor players that have been declared "OUT" within 24 hours of kickoff. We also have a toilet bowl where the loser pays. We want to have a rule against tanking but we are finding it difficult to put it in black and white.

We're looking at our draft order, increasing our toilet bowl fee and changing our trade rules (team A scored 3 3rd round picks selling his team but that's another argument that I"m fine with). What rules do you have for this?

 

[Frostillicus]

What are you doing over here?

 

[Samuel L Bronkowitz]

What are you doing over here?

What are you doing over here?

 

[Frostillicus]

What are you doing over here?

What are you doing over here?

Looking out for you, of course.

 

[Samuel L Bronkowitz]

What are you doing over here?

What are you doing over here?

Looking out for you, of course.

Hope you brought some whisky

 

[mquinnjr]

I don't know that you'll be able to enforce this. Team A is the Colts last season. When Manning went down and Luck was around the corner, you don't really think Irsay was "going for it" with the Collins/Painter combo, right? Outside of the fact that it sucks for the fanbase for that season, it's breaking no rules. Although this is fake, I think since it's a dynasty/keeper league, same principles/logic apply. I couldn't even begin to imagine how you'd enforce this, outside of open ridicule.

 

[Samuel L Bronkowitz]

I don't know that you'll be able to enforce this. Team A is the Colts last season. When Manning went down and Luck was around the corner, you don't really think Irsay was "going for it" with the Collins/Painter combo, right? Outside of the fact that it sucks for the fanbase for that season, it's breaking no rules. Although this is fake, I think since it's a dynasty/keeper league, same principles/logic apply. I couldn't even begin to imagine how you'd enforce this, outside of open ridicule.

Yeah. This is a long time group of friends too so that plays into it. I can't say "player x" should be in your lineup because "player y" is better. That opens myself up to collusion/shady practice.I just see posts "If you don't have a rule against this then your league sucks" that I was hoping to get some input.

 

[hines]

don't give the first pick to the worst team. have an auction or do something where there is no incentive to tank. then if someone purposefully loses there it is clearly collusion

 

[Alkahsu]

Just add an ethics section to your by laws, that's about the only way you can "enforce" something like this.

 

[Short Corner]

We have fines for open spots in the line up (10% of league fee/offense) and the worst coach ranking pays for the draft next year (food, drinks, etc)

 

[Quibbler]

I don't see any way to identify and punish this sort of tanking that won't be more problematic than the tanking itself. So, the only way to stop it, IMO, is to remove the incentive to tank. I.e. a lottery a la NBA, or a toilet bowl that determines draft order among the non-playoff teams.

 

[Tool]

I don't know that you'll be able to enforce this. Team A is the Colts last season. When Manning went down and Luck was around the corner, you don't really think Irsay was "going for it" with the Collins/Painter combo, right? Outside of the fact that it sucks for the fanbase for that season, it's breaking no rules. Although this is fake, I think since it's a dynasty/keeper league, same principles/logic apply. I couldn't even begin to imagine how you'd enforce this, outside of open ridicule.

your analogy is a bit off IMO. The colts tanked by not trying to go out and get another qb. they didn't just bench Manning to play painter. in the case of this guy's league the team is benching his starters. This should be prohibited.this can be enforced by the commish. yes some judgement has to be used. but it would prevent obvious moves like someone benching Manning for fitzpatrick, or starting someone who's not a full time player.and some kind of ping pong ball draft lottery works well where team in last gets a greater chance of top pick but it's not guaranteed.

 

[Jetdoc]

I also think it's a savvy move by the last place owner. Let it stand.

When a commissioner starts substituting players for one of the owners, it is a BAD practice unless they are starting guys that are on IR or just leaving starting positions open.

 

[SSOG]

In a keep-2, there's no real reason why draft order can't just be randomly determined. Maybe stick the final 4 teams with the last 4 picks, and then randomly assign all the others, being sure to include both playoff and non playoff teams so nobody intentionally tries to miss the playoffs.

Also, I'll second an "ethics" or "sportsmanship" clause in your league rules, but only if your league trusts your commish enough to abide by his rulings if/when he takes action.

 

[shadyridr]

Take away the incentive for tanking. In other words, don't tie draft order to their records

 

[Run It Up]

I have two active rules atm in regards to tanking:

-The next years draft order for the first 8 slots is determined by your record, 4 teams make the playoffs and get the last 4 picks(5th gets first pick, 6th gets the second, ... 12th gets the 8th pick.)

-If you don't start a full roster every week, or commit what I as LM consider soft playing you get one warning and then you aren't invited back next season.

The first rule pretty much handles regular season and the second rule handles playoff seeding. Has worked for me.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

This is why all the guys who say, "If it's not in the rules, it's fair game," are dumb. There's no way to write specific rules that identify and prevent every possible way to tank. A general clause giving commissioner leeway to rule in these gray areas is useful. If you've got a good commissioner this is often all you need.

In addition, you need to remove the incentives to tank. Don't set next year's draft order based on the reverse of this year's standings. There's really no reason to do that in a keep-2 league. I like the idea of assigning them to non-playoff teams in order of best-to-worst record, e.g. if four teams make the playoffs, then the team with the 5th best record (i.e. the best team not to make the playoffs) gets the #1 overall pick next year, the team with the 6th best record gets the #2 pick, etc.

Have weekly cash prizes for top scores and cash penalties for low scores. This doesn't pull any money from the prize pool because it funds itself. Whoever has the lowest score for the week has to pay $X, and whoever has the highest score wins $X, every week.

Get creative. There's really no right or wrong way to set up your league, so anything you can think of to incentivize every team to play to win every week is good. Maybe have a "spoiler" prize, awarded to anyone who wins a game in the final week of the season that knocks their opponent out of the playoffs.

Any time you give teams an incentive to lose, there's a decent chance you're going to have someone try to take advantage of it. It's nice to think they wouldn't, and in a league of good friends a lot of times they won't, but it's better to just remove the incentives and don't put anyone in that position in the first place.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Make it to where the non-playoff teams get draft picks according to record, but in reverse order. Like if you have 12 teams and 8 teams do not make the playoffs:

5th place team: 1st pick

6th place team: 2nd pick

etc.

Doing it the other way just encourages tanking.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't know that you'll be able to enforce this. Team A is the Colts last season. When Manning went down and Luck was around the corner, you don't really think Irsay was "going for it" with the Collins/Painter combo, right? Outside of the fact that it sucks for the fanbase for that season, it's breaking no rules. Although this is fake, I think since it's a dynasty/keeper league, same principles/logic apply. I couldn't even begin to imagine how you'd enforce this, outside of open ridicule.

Yeah. This is a long time group of friends too so that plays into it. I can't say "player x" should be in your lineup because "player y" is better. That opens myself up to collusion/shady practice.I just see posts "If you don't have a rule against this then your league sucks" that I was hoping to get some input.

Here's the rule we have:

Each owner MUST submit his “best” lineup each week. Collusion or "Losing on Purpose" to help another team or to improve next year’s draft position will result in that owner being issued a “warning”, a second offense may lead to dismissal from the league upon owner vote. An owner will be given a full opportunity to explain his line-up decisions that are called into question prior to any vote.

SUre, there's always going to be some grey area as to whether or not a team is tanking, but at least having a rule on the books allows you to approach the owner when it seems "obvious".As I like to say in a situation like this: No one KNOWS what will happen, but we all have some idea what SHOULD happen.

 

[SCT]

Tanking: Based on Rule 8 of this article:http://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2012/dynasty-league-etiquette, any appearance of tanking to gain a better draft pick, such as starting players on bye, out due to injury, or obvious attempt to start a lesser lineup will result in loss of your first round pick in the next draft. We have all played long enough to know what that looks like. If someone feels like another owner is tanking, we will take a look at the circumstances and put it to a league vote as to whether the consequence is deserved or not.

 

[Samuel L Bronkowitz]

Just add an ethics section to your by laws, that's about the only way you can "enforce" something like this.

Example?

I don't see any way to identify and punish this sort of tanking that won't be more problematic than the tanking itself. So, the only way to stop it, IMO, is to remove the incentive to tank. I.e. a lottery a la NBA, or a toilet bowl that determines draft order among the non-playoff teams.

We have talked about a lottery and we'll look more into it at our rules meeting. Right now it's set so the 6 playoff teams get picks 7-12 based on where they finish in the playoffs and the 6 non playoff teams get picks 1-6 based on worst record. Initially we thought a toilet bowl would discourage tanking but it just isn't that much of a factor

This is why all the guys who say, "If it's not in the rules, it's fair game," are dumb. There's no way to write specific rules that identify and prevent every possible way to tank. A general clause giving commissioner leeway to rule in these gray areas is useful. If you've got a good commissioner this is often all you need. In addition, you need to remove the incentives to tank. Don't set next year's draft order based on the reverse of this year's standings. There's really no reason to do that in a keep-2 league. I like the idea of assigning them to non-playoff teams in order of best-to-worst record, e.g. if four teams make the playoffs, then the team with the 5th best record (i.e. the best team not to make the playoffs) gets the #1 overall pick next year, the team with the 6th best record gets the #2 pick, etc. Have weekly cash prizes for top scores and cash penalties for low scores. This doesn't pull any money from the prize pool because it funds itself. Whoever has the lowest score for the week has to pay $X, and whoever has the highest score wins $X, every week. Get creative. There's really no right or wrong way to set up your league, so anything you can think of to incentivize every team to play to win every week is good. Maybe have a "spoiler" prize, awarded to anyone who wins a game in the final week of the season that knocks their opponent out of the playoffs. Any time you give teams an incentive to lose, there's a decent chance you're going to have someone try to take advantage of it. It's nice to think they wouldn't, and in a league of good friends a lot of times they won't, but it's better to just remove the incentives and don't put anyone in that position in the first place.

Thanks. Taking away incentive is on our radar. The best way to do that is still up in the air.Appreciate the replies so far, thanks.

 

[moleculo]

we have a couple of ways:

1. weekly bonus paid to top scoring team. no matter how bad your team is, you always have the ability to have weekly high score. I like the previously mentioned penalty for low score, but that sounds like it could be tough to enforce - it's tough enough sometimes to collect dues before the draft, i can't imagine chasing someone down for an extra 45 or $10 on a weekly basis.

2. next week's #1 draft pick is determined by another tournament style bracket. This is a 12 man league, 6 teams make playoffs. Remaining 6 teams have a losers bracket playoff, with the winner getting the #1 draft pick. With this, there is no incentive to tank because there is no benefit to do so.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Weekly loser fees.

If you're going to tank, you're going to pay.

 

[Da Guru]

It could have backfired..what if the guys he started went off and had big days and he won the game? I have seen it happen.

Then everybody would be laughing.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

we have a couple of ways: 1. weekly bonus paid to top scoring team. no matter how bad your team is, you always have the ability to have weekly high score. I like the previously mentioned penalty for low score, but that sounds like it could be tough to enforce - it's tough enough sometimes to collect dues before the draft, i can't imagine chasing someone down for an extra 45 or $10 on a weekly basis.

No need to collect and pay weekly, you can just keep track and reconcile at the end of the year, or even just apply it as a credit or debit to next year's league dues. We have weekly transaction fees and some other in-season stuff that all just get tallied up at the end of the year, deducted from any money you've won during the season, so at the end of the year there's just a single number for each team, either you owe the commish some money or he owes you money. We only had problems once early on with collecting from someone who owed at the end of the year, and a simple, "Sorry guys, I can't pay out the winners until I get the money from [deadbeat owner]" did the trick.

 

[GregR]

Will write more later when I have time... but one way of dealing with "starting backups over starters" is to base draft order on potential points rather than record or points scored. Then benching the player doesn't help him in getting the 1st pick.

Though it does still leave the possibility of tanking like that to affect playoff seedings. Also, it does have an impact in that a team who carries backup defenses, IDPs, PKs, etc, will get more potential points out of the position than someone who just carries a starter. So it's definitely an imperfect answer.

 

[KCitons]

Will write more later when I have time... but one way of dealing with "starting backups over starters" is to base draft order on potential points rather than record or points scored. Then benching the player doesn't help him in getting the 1st pick. Though it does still leave the possibility of tanking like that to affect playoff seedings. Also, it does have an impact in that a team who carries backup defenses, IDPs, PKs, etc, will get more potential points out of the position than someone who just carries a starter. So it's definitely an imperfect answer.

How long are you going to wait to write some more?

It's getting to be that time of the season again. I hate dealing with tanking, almost as much as I hate dealing with collusion (just kidding)

I was trying to come up with some combination of points and overall record for the 8 teams that do not make the playoffs. As some people have pointed out, it's an impossible thing to try to police. We have rules for starting players on bye, starting players listed as out for multiple weeks, etc. But, owners still find a way around them.

I'm thinking a formula that uses total points from the last 6 weeks of the fantasy season, combined with overall record. I don't want to use just points, because a team could be really bad and actually can't keep up with other teams in points. His record shouldn't keep him out of contention for the #1 pick.

Anyone using a system like this?