How do you prevent subtle tanking in dynasty leagues? (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

I commish Fantasy Legends League I, II, and III, and the only anti-tanking rules we have is that you know it when you see it, and they won't be asked back the following season. No owner in these leagues have ever been kicked out for tanking...yet. The problem IMO is when you look at a lineup and see someone you know should be in their starting lineup, but replace that player with a player just good enough to get away with it. Maybe they do this with several players. All in an attempt to better their draft position.

I know there are a lot of ways to curb it, such as a toilet bowl, or a lottery for the non-playoff teams, etc.

Assuming a 12 team league, 6 make the playoffs. I think the best way is probably to do a lottery, with the worst team not falling any further than 4th, and the 2nd worst team falling no further than 5th. This may not totally prevent it, but it probably would help.

 

[twally]

A lottery doesn't work in the NBA.

 

[RCon]

A lottery doesn't work in the NBA.

That's because of the ping pong balls and the percentage chance of getting the #1 pick. If everyone in the lottery received an equal chance, teams wouldn't tank.

 

[Bada Bing]

If you are suspected of tanking games in our league we have a league vote on whether we believe the accused team is trying to tank games to better their draft position. If the majority votes that this is happening then that team will be placed at the end of the draft order of the non-playoff teams.

 

[Jimmy James]

If you are suspected of tanking games in our league we have a league vote on whether we believe the accused team is trying to tank games to better their draft position. If the majority votes that this is happening then that team will be placed at the end of the draft order of the non-playoff teams.

I frankly think this is too lenient and banning owners is too harsh.I think the commissioner should be responsible for conducting an inquiry into the behavior and should present his findings to the league. The league should then vote. If the owner is found to have been tanking by whatever majority or supermajority your league favors for votes, the team forfeits their rookie draft picks for the upcoming year.

 

[Chaka]

Who cares? Let them tank.

One less team in the playoff hunt.

Maybe they get ADP in the draft the following year, maybe they get Reggie Bush, or Cadillac Williams, Cedric Benson or Blair Thomas.

A high draft pick is no guarantee of success.

 

[az_prof]

Why not have a toilet bowl? If there is no incentive and there is an incentive to lose, people will do what is in their best interests. I don't like the idea of a lottery as the difference between the sixth worst team and the worst can be huge and if that sixth team wins the lottery you reinforce the imbalance.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Make owners pay per loss.

I hate the idea of a lottery. people will just quit.

 

[BigBlue605]

When playing in a dynasty league, your objective is not only to build your team for this year, but for future years as well. Owners that feel they are out of contention this year due to injuries, benchings, poor roster management, etc. have only the future to look. Playing only for the current year in a dynasty league is asinine, and trying for a high draft pick next year, in some people's perspective, is just part of the strategy. Every owner has a different approach to managing his team, depending on the current circumstances. If an owner is dumping his roster with no intentions of playing the following years, then it is detrimental to the league and time for intervention. But "subtle tanking" for the current year does not compromise the integrity of the league. As possible orphans are a concern, questionable owner activity, or in some cases inactivity, is lately creating more turmoil in the dynasty world than it should. There are obsessive fantasy footballers complaining to commissioners and league officials because some owner hasn't logged on in a couple days. Or they haven't made any roster transactions in a week. Or they haven't submitted a lineup. Every little detail is scrutinized and judgment passed prematurely, leaving owners stripped of their teams after having paid their fee, wondering what they did wrong. Being a commissioner for an MFL dynasty league and an owner in two EFSports leagues, it's my opinion that every attempt should be made to rectify any situation. Only in severe cases that cause, or deemed explicitly foreseeable, a detrimental effect on the league should expulsion be the course of action, and not due to individual perceptions.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

This is the easiest problem in the world to solve, but nobody wants to do it. If you do, teams won't tank anymore.

All you have to do is stop rewarding teams for poor performances.

Fantasy football is not the NFL. You can try to emulate it, but it's not the same. Why should the worst team have the first pick in the draft? Reward the better teams instead. The league runner-up should get the first pick in the draft. Then the team in third, fourth, etc. down the line. The last place team picks next to last, then the league champ (Yes, you're punishing the most succesful team , but they won a title. They'll get over it).

That creates incentives for winning, not losing. Finishing 5th is better than finishing 10th, even if you don't make the playoffs. If you're out of it, you still have reason to win out and improve your draft position.

I know it's unusual, so most leagues won't try it. But dynasty leagues like that don't have a problem with tanking teams. All of them care about their future prospects enough to have a good showing in that particular year. Otherwise, you're going to have problems like this all the time. I don't know of any method that works as well.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Who cares? Let them tank.

One less team in the playoff hunt.

Maybe they get ADP in the draft the following year, maybe they get Reggie Bush, or Cadillac Williams, Cedric Benson or Blair Thomas.

A high draft pick is no guarantee of success.

The problem is not what happens next year, it's what happens this year. They dole out cheap wins, affect the standings and even the playoff picture. A league champion might be determined by a tanking team handing out a playoff spot due to the schedule. Every team in the playoff hunt should earn their wins. teams that tank their games affect a lot more than their own teams, and it's not right.

 

[Limp Ditka]

How about coming to the realization that some people just might have a different opinion than you?

 

[Duke1948]

This is the easiest problem in the world to solve, but nobody wants to do it. If you do, teams won't tank anymore.

All you have to do is stop rewarding teams for poor performances.

Fantasy football is not the NFL. You can try to emulate it, but it's not the same. Why should the worst team have the first pick in the draft? Reward the better teams instead. The league runner-up should get the first pick in the draft. Then the team in third, fourth, etc. down the line. The last place team picks next to last, then the league champ (Yes, you're punishing the most succesful team , but they won a title. They'll get over it).

That creates incentives for winning, not losing. Finishing 5th is better than finishing 10th, even if you don't make the playoffs. If you're out of it, you still have reason to win out and improve your draft position.

I know it's unusual, so most leagues won't try it. But dynasty leagues like that don't have a problem with tanking teams. All of them care about their future prospects enough to have a good showing in that particular year. Otherwise, you're going to have problems like this all the time. I don't know of any method that works as well.

and you play in a league like this?? i can't see that ever working.

 

[SofaKings]

This is the easiest problem in the world to solve, but nobody wants to do it. If you do, teams won't tank anymore.

All you have to do is stop rewarding teams for poor performances.

Fantasy football is not the NFL. You can try to emulate it, but it's not the same. Why should the worst team have the first pick in the draft? Reward the better teams instead. The league runner-up should get the first pick in the draft. Then the team in third, fourth, etc. down the line. The last place team picks next to last, then the league champ (Yes, you're punishing the most succesful team , but they won a title. They'll get over it).

That creates incentives for winning, not losing. Finishing 5th is better than finishing 10th, even if you don't make the playoffs. If you're out of it, you still have reason to win out and improve your draft position.

I know it's unusual, so most leagues won't try it. But dynasty leagues like that don't have a problem with tanking teams. All of them care about their future prospects enough to have a good showing in that particular year. Otherwise, you're going to have problems like this all the time. I don't know of any method that works as well.

and you play in a league like this?? i can't see that ever working.

It works in his online yahoo league of 6.

 

[Raptors]

I dont mind the idea put up. Why should you reward brutal management because the worst owners always end up near the bottom. And you do have to make sure an owner is putting out his best lineup and the league should care. I know in our 16 team league, that every year, 2 teams are battling for that #1 pick. We give a warning if we see something that is really unusual and than the next offence if the league deems it is so, is loss of draft position.

I like another idea also. Dont let anyone own there 1st round pick. All picks must be traded by a certain time. Than the only tanking you get is if the bottom 2 own each others picks and want to insure 1/2 but they still dont want to give the other the 1 and the other the 2. Big difference lately in most drafts. And if you feel the draft is deep enough than make them trade there 2nd rounders also. By trading your pick, your always trying to win, How your trying to win is up to you,

And agree with the comments., that most leagues dont want to bring in pro=active rules to curb tanking.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

We just had a big discussion about this in our dynasty league.

MFL tracks a stat called 'Possible points' which is the total of the best weekly lineup regardless what the owner submits. You can use this stat (in reverse order of non-playoff teams) and still reward the worst team with the 1st pick. It effectively eliminates tanking since his submission of the lineup isn't used. The only way a team could tank is by actually dropping relevant players. In a dynasty league, this would obviously be foolish and wouldn't happen.

If you don't use MFL, it would be an easy stat to track.

 

[Restricted]

When playing in a dynasty league, your objective is not only to build your team for this year, but for future years as well. Owners that feel they are out of contention this year due to injuries, benchings, poor roster management, etc. have only the future to look. Playing only for the current year in a dynasty league is asinine, and trying for a high draft pick next year, in some people's perspective, is just part of the strategy. Every owner has a different approach to managing his team, depending on the current circumstances. If an owner is dumping his roster with no intentions of playing the following years, then it is detrimental to the league and time for intervention. But "subtle tanking" for the current year does not compromise the integrity of the league. As possible orphans are a concern, questionable owner activity, or in some cases inactivity, is lately creating more turmoil in the dynasty world than it should. There are obsessive fantasy footballers complaining to commissioners and league officials because some owner hasn't logged on in a couple days. Or they haven't made any roster transactions in a week. Or they haven't submitted a lineup. Every little detail is scrutinized and judgment passed prematurely, leaving owners stripped of their teams after having paid their fee, wondering what they did wrong. Being a commissioner for an MFL dynasty league and an owner in two EFSports leagues, it's my opinion that every attempt should be made to rectify any situation. Only in severe cases that cause, or deemed explicitly foreseeable, a detrimental effect on the league should expulsion be the course of action, and not due to individual perceptions.

Very, very

 

[Duke1948]

We just had a big discussion about this in our dynasty league.

MFL tracks a stat called 'Possible points' which is the total of the best weekly lineup regardless what the owner submits. You can use this stat (in reverse order of non-playoff teams) and still reward the worst team with the 1st pick. It effectively eliminates tanking since his submission of the lineup isn't used. The only way a team could tank is by actually dropping relevant players. In a dynasty league, this would obviously be foolish and wouldn't happen.

If you don't use MFL, it would be an easy stat to track.

can't see how this would work.....for instance if i started TO and also had k.curtis and he goes out and has a week like he had several weeks ago, how can you penalize a team for starting TO over curtis??in our local redraft league we play out the season, by that i mean all teams play thru week 16. we have a toilet bowl where those that didn't make the playoffs are playing for the top picks the following year. but the teams that make the playoffs are also playing for next years draft spots....winner of fantasy bowl drafts last(12) runner-up 11th and so on winner of toilet bowl gets 1st pick.

this has worked well in our league.

 

[jevy]

There are some ideas in this thread that you started last year.

JohnnyU's definition of subtle tanking -> a guy starting Palmer (ranked #5) over Derek Anderson (#3) or Larry Fitzgerald (#12) over Kevin Curtis (#8).

 

[PantherPower]

I run 9 dynasty leagues. We have a system in place that if a single team thinks another team is tanking, he/she posts a thread bringing it to the leagues attention, basically calling for a vote. If the majority of the league agrees that team is tanking, we have a 3 strike system in place. The first time a team tanks, they get their one and only warning. Second time a team tanks, they automatically move down one spot in the rookie draft. 3rd time, they automatically move to the bottom of each round in the rookie draft. IF it were to happen 4th time (seriously doubt that would happen) that team is automatically banned from the league. I don't know that there is a single way you can prevent tanking, but I do think this system definitely tries to remove the incentive to do so.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

There are some ideas in this thread that you started last year.

JohnnyU's definition of subtle tanking -> a guy starting Palmer (ranked #5) over Derek Anderson (#3) or Larry Fitzgerald (#12) over Kevin Curtis (#8).

Not agreeing with some guy's rankings is not subtle tanking. Just because FBG or Draftsharks says I should start Anderson over Palmer does not mean I have to agree with their ranking.

 

[heckmanm]

We just had a big discussion about this in our dynasty league.

MFL tracks a stat called 'Possible points' which is the total of the best weekly lineup regardless what the owner submits. You can use this stat (in reverse order of non-playoff teams) and still reward the worst team with the 1st pick. It effectively eliminates tanking since his submission of the lineup isn't used. The only way a team could tank is by actually dropping relevant players. In a dynasty league, this would obviously be foolish and wouldn't happen.

If you don't use MFL, it would be an easy stat to track.

can't see how this would work.....for instance if i started TO and also had k.curtis and he goes out and has a week like he had several weeks ago, how can you penalize a team for starting TO over curtis??in our local redraft league we play out the season, by that i mean all teams play thru week 16. we have a toilet bowl where those that didn't make the playoffs are playing for the top picks the following year. but the teams that make the playoffs are also playing for next years draft spots....winner of fantasy bowl drafts last(12) runner-up 11th and so on winner of toilet bowl gets 1st pick.

this has worked well in our league.

If the intent of a worst-to-first draft is to give the teams with the least talent the opportunity to improve their talent level, then I think this is a good approach. Over the course of the season, there will always be bench players blowing up, but the outliers are going to be outweighed by the overall strength/weakness of each team.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

We just had a big discussion about this in our dynasty league. MFL tracks a stat called 'Possible points' which is the total of the best weekly lineup regardless what the owner submits. You can use this stat (in reverse order of non-playoff teams) and still reward the worst team with the 1st pick. It effectively eliminates tanking since his submission of the lineup isn't used. The only way a team could tank is by actually dropping relevant players. In a dynasty league, this would obviously be foolish and wouldn't happen.If you don't use MFL, it would be an easy stat to track.

I love this idea. I might suggest doing this in my dynasty leagues. Makes perfect sense. At the end of the season, that gives a MUCH better indication of how good a team is than head-to-head record of non-playoff teams.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

This is the easiest problem in the world to solve, but nobody wants to do it. If you do, teams won't tank anymore.

All you have to do is stop rewarding teams for poor performances.

Fantasy football is not the NFL. You can try to emulate it, but it's not the same. Why should the worst team have the first pick in the draft? Reward the better teams instead. The league runner-up should get the first pick in the draft. Then the team in third, fourth, etc. down the line. The last place team picks next to last, then the league champ (Yes, you're punishing the most succesful team , but they won a title. They'll get over it).

That creates incentives for winning, not losing. Finishing 5th is better than finishing 10th, even if you don't make the playoffs. If you're out of it, you still have reason to win out and improve your draft position.

I know it's unusual, so most leagues won't try it. But dynasty leagues like that don't have a problem with tanking teams. All of them care about their future prospects enough to have a good showing in that particular year. Otherwise, you're going to have problems like this all the time. I don't know of any method that works as well.

I have to say, that's ridiculous. It would take a miracle to take a truly bad team and turn it into a contender, and good teams would just keep getting better. Also, as crazy as it sounds, depending on the payoff breakdown, I could see guys tanking the championship game! Go ahead, get 2nd place in 2006 and add Adrian Peterson to you roster next year, or take the championship and add nobody. 2nd might be the better option.Are you actually IN a dynasty league that does this? How long has it been around?

 

[guderian]

We charge $10 to low score of the week. While not perfect, it is a dis-incentive for people to try and blatantly tank games.

 

[fatness]

The problem IMO is when you look at a lineup and see someone you know should be in their starting lineup, but replace that player with a player just good enough to get away with it. Maybe they do this with several players. All in an attempt to better their draft position.

I don't think this problem is nearly as clear as you've described it. Given the same roster, not all owners would submit the same lineup. That's why they join those leagues instead of survivor leagues where your roster is automatically your best performers at each position. Can you give some clear examples of the choices people have made that, to you, are "subtle tanking"? Otherwise it just sounds like meddling with someone else's lineup choices due to disagreement only.

 

[FavreCo]

Call them a sissy, berate their team, tell them that they couldn't win a game becasue they suck as a coach and let them know that the football gods are less lenient than you are.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

We just had a big discussion about this in our dynasty league. MFL tracks a stat called 'Possible points' which is the total of the best weekly lineup regardless what the owner submits. You can use this stat (in reverse order of non-playoff teams) and still reward the worst team with the 1st pick. It effectively eliminates tanking since his submission of the lineup isn't used. The only way a team could tank is by actually dropping relevant players. In a dynasty league, this would obviously be foolish and wouldn't happen.If you don't use MFL, it would be an easy stat to track.

I love this idea. I might suggest doing this in my dynasty leagues. Makes perfect sense. At the end of the season, that gives a MUCH better indication of how good a team is than head-to-head record of non-playoff teams.

None of my leagues do this, but it seems to be fair.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

This is the easiest problem in the world to solve, but nobody wants to do it. If you do, teams won't tank anymore.

All you have to do is stop rewarding teams for poor performances.

Fantasy football is not the NFL. You can try to emulate it, but it's not the same. Why should the worst team have the first pick in the draft? Reward the better teams instead. The league runner-up should get the first pick in the draft. Then the team in third, fourth, etc. down the line. The last place team picks next to last, then the league champ (Yes, you're punishing the most succesful team , but they won a title. They'll get over it).

That creates incentives for winning, not losing. Finishing 5th is better than finishing 10th, even if you don't make the playoffs. If you're out of it, you still have reason to win out and improve your draft position.

I know it's unusual, so most leagues won't try it. But dynasty leagues like that don't have a problem with tanking teams. All of them care about their future prospects enough to have a good showing in that particular year. Otherwise, you're going to have problems like this all the time. I don't know of any method that works as well.

and you play in a league like this?? i can't see that ever working.

It works in his online yahoo league of 6.

Yep, if you don't tow the line and play the "traditional" way, it's a lame little league. Good call, champ. Keep following.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

This is the easiest problem in the world to solve, but nobody wants to do it. If you do, teams won't tank anymore.

All you have to do is stop rewarding teams for poor performances.

Fantasy football is not the NFL. You can try to emulate it, but it's not the same. Why should the worst team have the first pick in the draft? Reward the better teams instead. The league runner-up should get the first pick in the draft. Then the team in third, fourth, etc. down the line. The last place team picks next to last, then the league champ (Yes, you're punishing the most succesful team , but they won a title. They'll get over it).

That creates incentives for winning, not losing. Finishing 5th is better than finishing 10th, even if you don't make the playoffs. If you're out of it, you still have reason to win out and improve your draft position.

I know it's unusual, so most leagues won't try it. But dynasty leagues like that don't have a problem with tanking teams. All of them care about their future prospects enough to have a good showing in that particular year. Otherwise, you're going to have problems like this all the time. I don't know of any method that works as well.

I have to say, that's ridiculous. It would take a miracle to take a truly bad team and turn it into a contender, and good teams would just keep getting better. Also, as crazy as it sounds, depending on the payoff breakdown, I could see guys tanking the championship game! Go ahead, get 2nd place in 2006 and add Adrian Peterson to you roster next year, or take the championship and add nobody. 2nd might be the better option.Are you actually IN a dynasty league that does this? How long has it been around?

About 10 years now. Team that are out of it are playing to win every week. There's no incentive to tank. Nobody I know would intentionally lose a title game for a shot at a guy. It's the championship.You've been playing fantasy football for a while, haven't you? I'm sure you know that the teams with the best records aren't always the best teams. It wouldn't be hard to take a "bad team" and make them a contender in this system; no harder than it is normally. It just rewards teams for good play, instead of encouraging people to lose if they're out of it already.

I understand some people think it's crazy. New things are often hard to accept. Players who are used to rewarding failure don't want to give that up. "That's not how the NFL does it," etc. All I know is that it works for us and nobody ever tanks intentionally. Teams can't afford to lose interest, because it hurts them next year. In dynasty play, you always have your eye on future years, right?

I'm glad one of my leagues doesn't have this problem anymore. Other leagues I'm in have rejected the idea pretty quickly, and they try lots of band-aids. None of them work, and I have to chuckle when they try something like a fine, etc. If you keep rewarding failure, teams will have an incentive to fail. It seems pretty clear to me.

 

[jesseasi]

We used to have the same problem with teams tanking for a better draft spot the next year.

Now all our teams are put into different playoffs. Championship Playoffs and Toilet Bowl playoffs. The winner of the Toilet Bowl has a chance to break even in the league and get their money back - although money has become less and less of an incentive in our league.

But one thing we do is you have to earn your draft spot. The two worst teams play eachother for the rights to the #1 pick. Winner gets #1, loser #2. Then the 3rd and 4th worst teams play eachother for the 3rd and 4th picks and so on.

This at least prevents any tankng that last week of the year.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

We charge $10 to low score of the week. While not perfect, it is a dis-incentive for people to try and blatantly tank games.

I'd happily pay a few bucks for a chance at AP. Who wouldn't? It's almost like a small cover charge to the Tank Club.

 

[pollardsvision]

i'm not sure there is a way to prevent subtle tanking in a dynasty league.

the obvious things will stand out, but you'd go crazy trying to catch the subtle things, which may not even be signs of tanking.

you just gotta trust your owners. and trust that fantasy karma will bring justice.

 

[2and2is5]

okay so situation that i'm right now...i'm 1-5 in the best conference in our league, with more or less no QB

so at this point i'm looking to rebuild, for instance i traded roy williams for BMarsh and a #1...

and i'm more or less trying to pick up all younger guys that are performing real well right now, high prospect guys...but they may not be putting up great #s this year

so my team isn't going to be that strong this year, but it also doesn't make sense to trade away my prospects to a guy who offers me brett favre either...favre would drastically improve my team this year, but for what? i'm not gonna make the playoffs and i dont wanna give up my draft picks or younger talent, says MBIII to get a Favre, who won't be around when my team is hitting it's stride...

i'm starting the best players on my team, but if they just aren't performers RIGHT NOW...?????

is that tanking?

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

We just had a big discussion about this in our dynasty league. MFL tracks a stat called 'Possible points' which is the total of the best weekly lineup regardless what the owner submits. You can use this stat (in reverse order of non-playoff teams) and still reward the worst team with the 1st pick. It effectively eliminates tanking since his submission of the lineup isn't used. The only way a team could tank is by actually dropping relevant players. In a dynasty league, this would obviously be foolish and wouldn't happen.If you don't use MFL, it would be an easy stat to track.

I've been arguing this point in every dynasty league I've been in for at least two years. Nobody else seems to like this approach for some reason. Possible points doesn't correlate 100% with subjective team quality, but in my experience it does a far better job than record, and it completely eliminates the incentive to tank. Not perfect, but absolutely the lesser evil.I'm in one league where we do a non-weighted lottery with non-playoff teams. There has been no hint of tanking in that league, but it doesn't do a good job of helping the bad teams. When an atrocious team gets the 1.06 pick and a good team that just missed the playoffs gets 1.01, something is wrong.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

This is the easiest problem in the world to solve, but nobody wants to do it. If you do, teams won't tank anymore.

All you have to do is stop rewarding teams for poor performances.

Fantasy football is not the NFL. You can try to emulate it, but it's not the same. Why should the worst team have the first pick in the draft? Reward the better teams instead. The league runner-up should get the first pick in the draft. Then the team in third, fourth, etc. down the line. The last place team picks next to last, then the league champ (Yes, you're punishing the most succesful team , but they won a title. They'll get over it).

That creates incentives for winning, not losing. Finishing 5th is better than finishing 10th, even if you don't make the playoffs. If you're out of it, you still have reason to win out and improve your draft position.

I know it's unusual, so most leagues won't try it. But dynasty leagues like that don't have a problem with tanking teams. All of them care about their future prospects enough to have a good showing in that particular year. Otherwise, you're going to have problems like this all the time. I don't know of any method that works as well.

I have to say, that's ridiculous. It would take a miracle to take a truly bad team and turn it into a contender, and good teams would just keep getting better. Also, as crazy as it sounds, depending on the payoff breakdown, I could see guys tanking the championship game! Go ahead, get 2nd place in 2006 and add Adrian Peterson to you roster next year, or take the championship and add nobody. 2nd might be the better option.Are you actually IN a dynasty league that does this? How long has it been around?

About 10 years now. Team that are out of it are playing to win every week. There's no incentive to tank. Nobody I know would intentionally lose a title game for a shot at a guy. It's the championship.You've been playing fantasy football for a while, haven't you? I'm sure you know that the teams with the best records aren't always the best teams. It wouldn't be hard to take a "bad team" and make them a contender in this system; no harder than it is normally. It just rewards teams for good play, instead of encouraging people to lose if they're out of it already.

I understand some people think it's crazy. New things are often hard to accept. Players who are used to rewarding failure don't want to give that up. "That's not how the NFL does it," etc. All I know is that it works for us and nobody ever tanks intentionally. Teams can't afford to lose interest, because it hurts them next year. In dynasty play, you always have your eye on future years, right?

I'm glad one of my leagues doesn't have this problem anymore. Other leagues I'm in have rejected the idea pretty quickly, and they try lots of band-aids. None of them work, and I have to chuckle when they try something like a fine, etc. If you keep rewarding failure, teams will have an incentive to fail. It seems pretty clear to me.

I am honestly shocked. 10 years is a long time. I don't have a reason not to believe you but I still have trouble coming to grips with that scenario actually working in the leagues I am in.If you don't mind, I've got more questions. What are the stakes in your league? What is the payout distribution? Is it a "serious" league (do folks pay a lot of attention, make trades, make a lot of waiver moves etc)? Have teams really gone from being bad to being good (and vice-versa) in a reasonable amount of time? Is it a true "dynasty" or is it a keeper league? What's the roster size? What do you do during the season for waivers (no worst-to-first priority there either I presume)?

I am not opposed to making drastic changes to the way the game is played - I have suggested/supported some "odd" things for my leagues in my day.

Anything that is fair and fun is OK by me. I'm just really struggling with how bad teams could get better, and why good teams wouldn't just get more and more dominant.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

okay so situation that i'm right now...i'm 1-5 in the best conference in our league, with more or less no QBso at this point i'm looking to rebuild, for instance i traded roy williams for BMarsh and a #1...and i'm more or less trying to pick up all younger guys that are performing real well right now, high prospect guys...but they may not be putting up great #s this yearso my team isn't going to be that strong this year, but it also doesn't make sense to trade away my prospects to a guy who offers me brett favre either...favre would drastically improve my team this year, but for what? i'm not gonna make the playoffs and i dont wanna give up my draft picks or younger talent, says MBIII to get a Favre, who won't be around when my team is hitting it's stride...i'm starting the best players on my team, but if they just aren't performers RIGHT NOW...?????is that tanking?

That is not tanking.

 

[frae]

This may not work for everyone and I haven't done it, but just an idea

The top 4 teams make the playoffs and get a payout, depending on their order of finish in the playoffs, 3rd place game included,

1st place drafts 12

2nd place 11

3rd 10

4th 9

The teams that did not make the playoffs and got no pay out play out the last 2 weeks for draft slots. They do not play head to head, but play total points. The team with the most points in the these two weeks drafts 1st and so on down to slot 8. It keeps teams playing till the end as far as getting people that could help them this year, and there is no real way to tank your way into the top spot, however even if you rebuild you can do it in a way that allows you to compete in this 2 week playoff. (if someone wrote something like this already I am sorry, just too lazy to get through the whole thread right now).

 

[Stabmug]

A lottery doesn't work in the NBA.

Neither did tanking.Is the point to prevent tanking or prevent someone from generally benefiting from it.I use a lottery in my league - each team is ranked and given the # of balls to make it a 50-50 shot they get the pick they 'deserve' based on how they ranked. I've had no issues with this to date.So take 6 teamsRank them from worst to bestTeam 1 gets 24 balls.Team 2 gets 12 balls.Team 3 gets 6 balls.Team 4 gets 3 balls.Team 5 gets 2 balls.Team 6 gets 1 ball.The way I look at is, Team 1 has a 50-50 shot at getting #1. If they don't, they have a better than 50-50 shot at getting #2 (but exact odds depends on who got #1).Team 2 has a 50-50 shot at getting #2 assuming Team 1 got #1. So on and so forth.If you don't like it coming down to coin flips, make the odds harder for Team #1 to get pick #1 and so on and so forth.I don't even worry about tanking... the lottery keeps everyone honest.Is tanking by not starting the obvious starter and different then trading away some of your most productive players for picks and going into a rebuilding phase?One thing to keep in mind in dynasty league is that sometimes a certain degree of losing is a priority.To keep teams trying, I know some leagues pay out for weekly winners - but if the disparity is so poor that it's not feasible, that loses effectiveness in keeping the losing teams interested.

 

[JohnnyU]

I commish Fantasy Legends League I, II, and III

Hey, look at...Nah, you're not worth it.

What was that all about? What's your problem?

 

[Warhogs]

You could set a randomn draft order not based on finish? In a 12 team league each team would have the 1.01 pick once out of 12 years. It makes it tougher for poor teams to improve but there is no incentive to tank it.

 

[JohnnyU]

The problem IMO is when you look at a lineup and see someone you know should be in their starting lineup, but replace that player with a player just good enough to get away with it. Maybe they do this with several players. All in an attempt to better their draft position.

I don't think this problem is nearly as clear as you've described it. Given the same roster, not all owners would submit the same lineup. That's why they join those leagues instead of survivor leagues where your roster is automatically your best performers at each position. Can you give some clear examples of the choices people have made that, to you, are "subtle tanking"? Otherwise it just sounds like meddling with someone else's lineup choices due to disagreement only.

First of all, I don't tell someone who to start. I might send a message to the league to remind them to reinsert their studs they had on a bye the previous week, but I don't tell any individual who to start. As far as examples, let's say someone starts Devery Henderson over Roy Williams? The reason for this thread is to bring up some discussion during the off-season for anti-tanking rules. We've not had too much problem with tanking in any of these 3 leagues, but we've had a couple occasions where it was obvious subtle tanking was taking place to better their draft position.

 

[JohnnyU]

You could set a randomn draft order not based on finish? In a 12 team league each team would have the 1.01 pick once out of 12 years. It makes it tougher for poor teams to improve but there is no incentive to tank it.

One is as bad as the other.

 

[Chaka]

Who cares? Let them tank.

One less team in the playoff hunt.

Maybe they get ADP in the draft the following year, maybe they get Reggie Bush, or Cadillac Williams, Cedric Benson or Blair Thomas.

A high draft pick is no guarantee of success.

The problem is not what happens next year, it's what happens this year. They dole out cheap wins, affect the standings and even the playoff picture. A league champion might be determined by a tanking team handing out a playoff spot due to the schedule. Every team in the playoff hunt should earn their wins. teams that tank their games affect a lot more than their own teams, and it's not right.

Not if they tank against everyone.

 

[Parmcat]

I am in a 12 team keeper league, and there are 10 of the orig 12 owners still in it 17 years later. There was never an anti tank rule, but a few years ago a team tanked 2 years in a row, and it was felt we had to do something about it.

We award a weekly prized of 10.00 per win, so if you tank, you dont get that cash.

We went with the lottery route.

The 8 teams that dont make the playoffs go into a lottery for the draft order for next year (picks 1-8) Also, we have a toilet bowl for those same 8 teams. The winner of the toilet bowl (the team that loses the last game) has to provide 24 beer, and the teams that loses that brings 12 beer.

Also, we have fines through the year. If you start a guy that is either on IR, ruled OUT before Thursday, or on a bye, you get a 20.00 fine.

Teams are still already in selloff mode in our pool, but you still have to field a team, and avoid a big chunk of cash at the end of the year

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Who cares? Let them tank.

One less team in the playoff hunt.

Maybe they get ADP in the draft the following year, maybe they get Reggie Bush, or Cadillac Williams, Cedric Benson or Blair Thomas.

A high draft pick is no guarantee of success.

The problem is not what happens next year, it's what happens this year. They dole out cheap wins, affect the standings and even the playoff picture. A league champion might be determined by a tanking team handing out a playoff spot due to the schedule. Every team in the playoff hunt should earn their wins. teams that tank their games affect a lot more than their own teams, and it's not right.

Not if they tank against everyone.

That would never happen. Teams that are 0-0, 0-1, 0-2 don't tank. Teams that are 1-7 might. No team tanks against everyone.

 

[fatness]

As far as examples, let's say someone starts Devery Henderson over Roy Williams? The reason for this thread is to bring up some discussion during the off-season for anti-tanking rules. We've not had too much problem with tanking in any of these 3 leagues, but we've had a couple occasions where it was obvious subtle tanking was taking place to better their draft position.

What were the examples on those couple occasions? What's the measure for when someone "should" start one player over another? FBG's weekly projections? FBG's overall player rankings? There are obvious conflicts between those 2 measures, for example. When exactly should someone start Lee Evans? When should someone bench Larry Johnson for a game? Is that tanking, or a difference of opinion as to who'll do better that week.You'll get a decent amount of support opposing taking. But you'll get less agreement identifying instances of it, especially if it's "subtle".

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

I got accused of tanking last week (at then 3-2 and beating the accusing commish a week prior) for not picking up a 2nd TE (D.Clark on bye). Needless to say, I won.

Tanking is tanking, but when you have a commish (oh yeah, forgot to mention he dealt Sidney Rice for the #1 pick of a 0-5 team a couple days prior to the accusation) you wonder what the hell their motives exactly are. A week prior, someone started a defense on a bye.....nothing said. Very interesting to say the least.

Some people (including this particular commish....who will remain nameless.....for now). don't know the definition of tanking.

He even had the MFL setting set to allow a bye week player to start. Yet when I came back at him.....he said it was the standard for dynasty leagues.

 

[fsufan]

i have never had a problem with tanking in my 2 dynasty leagues, we do have a rule against it. I think it just comes down to having owners that will follow the rules

 

[JohnnyU]

As far as examples, let's say someone starts Devery Henderson over Roy Williams? The reason for this thread is to bring up some discussion during the off-season for anti-tanking rules. We've not had too much problem with tanking in any of these 3 leagues, but we've had a couple occasions where it was obvious subtle tanking was taking place to better their draft position.

What were the examples on those couple occasions? What's the measure for when someone "should" start one player over another? FBG's weekly projections? FBG's overall player rankings? There are obvious conflicts between those 2 measures, for example. When exactly should someone start Lee Evans? When should someone bench Larry Johnson for a game? Is that tanking, or a difference of opinion as to who'll do better that week.You'll get a decent amount of support opposing taking. But you'll get less agreement identifying instances of it, especially if it's "subtle".

Let's say someone benches LT2 for Chester Taylor. Is that tanking? I believe the answer lies somewhere between not rewarding failure, but still rewarding bad teams to some degree with high draft picks. I'm against a total lottery, because the health of a dynasty league needs bad teams to get better. Maybe some revised version of a lottery, whereas you are not guaranteed the #1 pick with the worse team, but you are also guaranteed not to pick any later than some predefined pick.