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

[JohnnyU]

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.

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with starting a player on a bye week if you don't have a replacement on your bench, and you don't want to drop a player to replace the player on a bye. This is important in dynasty leagues. Teams should be able to mold and shape their team the way they want. For me, the dilemma lies when teams bench an LT2, FWP, and Randy Moss for Chester Taylor, Betts, and Bobby Wade. I'm not saying anyone in my leagues did this exact scenario, but I'm just making a point.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Charge for losses. Only way I see around it.

Screw a lottery. I sure the hell wouldn't stick around a league if I were legimately far and away the worst team (injuries happen)

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with starting a player on a bye week if you don't have a replacement on your bench, and you don't want to drop a player to replace the player on a bye. This is important in dynasty leagues. Teams should be able to mold and shape their team the way they want. For me, the dilemma lies when teams bench an LT2, FWP, and Randy Moss for Chester Taylor, Betts, and Bobby Wade. I'm not saying anyone in my leagues did this exact scenario, but I'm just making a point.

Agreed. That is tanking to me.However a commish can't FORCE an owner to pick up a player.

 

[valhallan]

I think it just comes down to having owners that will follow the rules

We have a winner!!

 

[JohnnyU]

I think it just comes down to having owners that will follow the rules

We have a winner!!

That's easy to say. It's very tempting for good owners to subtle tank to help their team in the future.

 

[fsufan]

I think it just comes down to having owners that will follow the rules

We have a winner!!

That's easy to say. It's very tempting for good owners to subtle tank to help their team in the future.

had a good owner try this last week of the season last year, so he would be guaranteed the #1 pick. I sent him an email and he changed his line up. good people will do the right thing.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Not such thing as subtle tanking. You either tank or you don't.

If you're starting backup RB Chris Brown over a starting Frank Gore. Ok, you have a case.

If you're starting starting WR Lance Moore over WR Roy Williams in a bad matchup, but Roy happens to explode..... That's not tanking. If Moore happens to outscore Roy....you notice nothing is said. You can't manage every team in a league. If you want to do that, go start a league where you own every team.

 

[JohnnyU]

Not such thing as subtle tanking. You either tank or you don't.If you're starting backup RB Chris Brown over a starting Frank Gore. Ok, you have a case.If you're starting starting WR Lance Moore over WR Roy Williams in a bad matchup, but Roy happens to explode..... That's not tanking. If Moore happens to outscore Roy....you notice nothing is said. You can't manage every team in a league. If you want to do that, go start a league where you own every team.

Again, I never tell anyone who to start. I'm just bringing up the subject to talk about. I also disagree that there is "no such thing as subtle tanking". If someone starts Lance Moore over Roy Williams, and let's say Roy Williams has a sweet matchup, that's either subtle tanking or an idiot at work. Yes, you can't say anything, but make no mistake about it, it's subtle tanking.

 

[fatness]

Let's say someone benches LT2 for Chester Taylor. Is that tanking?

It's obviously not subtle tanking.What about benching Lee Evans for Kevin Walter? What about benching Lance Moore for Lee Evans? What is subtle tanking?What I'm getting at is that there's obvious examples like benching LT for Taylor. But the "subtle" examples are likely not tanking in many cases, they're just differences of opinion as to who would do well that week. And leagues should do nothing about that.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

In free leagues there's no a whole lot you can do about it.

In money leagues, we have it to where the lowest 2 scoring teams pay a certain amount of money each week. Hit them where it hurts, the wallet. If that doesn't work, nothing will.

 

[Loan Sharks]

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.

Really never? I guess you haven't played in a dynasty league or are just oblivious to reality. I have personally witnessed a owner stand up a draft and state that he has no chance of going all the way and was building for the future and intended to lose every game that year. He then proceeded to trade all non prospect players away for gaudy amounts of draft picks. It wasn't until 4 years later he won the superbowl.His whole lineup was rookies, injured guys and projects. This is the problem with tanking. The 4 guys he didn't play that year paid their entrance fee only to compete with the other 11 owners who had the tanker on the schedule and a extra win head start. That's not fair.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Let's say someone benches LT2 for Chester Taylor. Is that tanking?

It's obviously not subtle tanking.What about benching Lee Evans for Kevin Walter? What about benching Lance Moore for Lee Evans? What is subtle tanking?What I'm getting at is that there's obvious examples like benching LT for Taylor. But the "subtle" examples are likely not tanking in many cases, they're just differences of opinion as to who would do well that week. And leagues should do nothing about that.

Agree 1000%. I think subtle tanking in these cases are more "let me manage your squad too'. Tanking is tanking IMO and there's no gray area. You better be damn sure of it over the course of time and not just accuse someone because you would of started someone else.

 

[bcr8f]

I'm more concerned with dumb owners making bad trades without knowing it. To me that's the worst form of tank.

 

[JohnnyU]

I'm more concerned with dumb owners making bad trades without knowing it. To me that's the worst form of tank.

yeah, that's worse than tanking.

 

[Captain Hook]

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.

I didn't read all the responses JohnnyU, so I apologize if this was brought up, but the best way to do it is to combine performance this year with draft spots for next year - so with 6 teams making it to the playoffs, next years picks would be1st = 7th place2nd = 8th place3rd = 9th place4th = 10th place5th = 11th place6th = 12th placefollowed by the six playoff teams with the SB winner picking lastThis way each team ALWAYS has something to play for and they are trying to score as many points each week during the year regardless of who they play so they get the best (highest) draft pick they can for the following year.

 

[Bandit]

The solution is so easy, but nobody ever tries this. Let's say you have 12 teams, with 6 making the playoffs and 6 out of the playoffs. The #7 overall team gets the #1 pick the next season. In other words, the best team that didn't make the playoffs gets the top pick. #8 gets the #2 pick etc. until the worst team gets the #6 pick. For playoffs teams, sort it the traditional way where the champion gets the #12 pick.

The 6 non-playoff teams still get the 6 top picks, but there is no incentive for tanking. Just the opposite--if you're out of the playoffs, you still want to win every game left to get a better pick for next season.

On a side note (and I know this might cause controversy), in a league that rewards tanking, why is tanking so bad? For most, the overall goal is not to win the most number of games, but instead the goal is to win the most number of championships. If going 3-11 this year instead of 4-10 is going to dramatically improve my chances of winning next year's championship, why shouldn't that be allowed?

The reason why real NFL teams shouldn't tank games is because they have thousands of fans who have paid money to see a fair game--and also, the players' reputations (as well as statistics and salaries) can be on the line. Meanwhile, fantasy football is simply a game of strategy, and any game of the strategy that rewards losing needs to have it's rules amended.

 

[Bandit]

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.

I didn't read all the responses JohnnyU, so I apologize if this was brought up, but the best way to do it is to combine performance this year with draft spots for next year - so with 6 teams making it to the playoffs, next years picks would be1st = 7th place2nd = 8th place3rd = 9th place4th = 10th place5th = 11th place6th = 12th placefollowed by the six playoff teams with the SB winner picking lastThis way each team ALWAYS has something to play for and they are trying to score as many points each week during the year regardless of who they play so they get the best (highest) draft pick they can for the following year.

Captain Hook just posted exactly what I was suggesting in the post right after his (proving that I am a slow typer)! I'm glad I'm not the only one who likes that format.

 

[az_prof]

I'm more concerned with dumb owners making bad trades without knowing it. To me that's the worst form of tank.

yeah, that's worse than tanking.

What about someone who trades LJ or LT, for examples, for a first round pick and Jamarcus Russell and Bowe? Then they trot out a full roster, which is what got this thread going, and it is the best roster they have, but it is sure to lose?Incidentally, in my dynasty I asked about the situation mentioned above where you don't have a TE or a PK or DT because of bye and don't want to drop a player with upside to pick one up. Personally, I don't think that is taking, but my league is saying that it is. How is that tanking but trading away your best players in the present for "potential" and draft picks in the future isn't, is beyond me.This whole thing is complicated and the best way as mentioned is to have a toilet bowl with the toilet bowl determining draft status for those who do not make the playoffs. You have to give people a motive because there are so many ways to do it that you can't police it or make enough rules to enforce it.

 

[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.

I didn't read all the responses JohnnyU, so I apologize if this was brought up, but the best way to do it is to combine performance this year with draft spots for next year - so with 6 teams making it to the playoffs, next years picks would be1st = 7th place2nd = 8th place3rd = 9th place4th = 10th place5th = 11th place6th = 12th placefollowed by the six playoff teams with the SB winner picking lastThis way each team ALWAYS has something to play for and they are trying to score as many points each week during the year regardless of who they play so they get the best (highest) draft pick they can for the following year.

Assuming non-playoff teams pick 1-6, and if I read that correctly you are saying the worst team picks 6th. Well, it goes back to what I was saying that this isn't good for dynasty leagues, because with your format the bad teams don't get better. That's essential in dynasty leagues. It also makes it easier to replace owners who abandon teams.

 

[JohnnyU]

This whole thing is complicated and the best way as mentioned is to have a toilet bowl with the toilet bowl determining draft status for those who do not make the playoffs. You have to give people a motive because there are so many ways to do it that you can't police it or make enough rules to enforce it.

The toilet bowl concept for the #1 pick isn't good either IMO. It goes back to trying to give the worst teams the best possible chance to get better. The toilet bowl doesn't do that.

 

[benbadman]

In my favorite $ league w/ keepers, we do a Consolation Playoffs... winners of that get BETTER 1st round draft picks in the next year. Have a 3rd place game too for the 3rd/4th picks.

 

[JohnnyU]

My advice is to drink heavily

- John Belushi

 

[BucFan40]

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.

We had to change to something like this recently, but instead of the year long possible points, we used the avg points of your best starters for the year (1QB, 2RB 2WR, TE, K and D). So if you want to bench Chad Johnson, it's not going to help you because you'll most likely be using his season pt avg for the year anyway. This way you don't get penalized for having Curtis beat him one week. Unless Curtis outscores him for the year, you won't use him. This is a pretty fair assessment of the strength of your team. This does have it's flaws though, I had an awful record last year but had a ton of points (bad luck in the pts scored against column), so instead of drafting 3rd I ended up 6th. But to be honest, I have a better team than most of the people who drafted before me.

 

[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.

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.

It's a regular dynasty league, not high stakes (between $100 and $200 per year. It seems to get tweaked every year, which is annoying). There's a decent amount of waiver wire activity because all teams are trying all year. In many leagues, the teams at the bottom who have given up aren't paying as much attention to the wire, which gives better teams better players. Waivers are worst to first during the season. The only real change is that we don't reward failure at the end of the season with better draft choices. I guess it's valid to state that we do reward it during the season with waivers. It's not really a problem in-season when everyone is trying their best to win, though. It works because nobody has any incentive to tank their season. Bad teams can get better, because the record isn't always a reflection of how good a team is, anyway. Is the 8-6 team who snuck into the playoffs and won a playoff game really the second-best team in the league? Right now we have a 1-5 team who is within about 20 total points of a 5-1 team. Is one team really that much better than the other?

If that 1-5 team loses this week in a regular league, they'll either need to win out to maybe make the playoffs...or consider themselves the front-runner for the top pick in the draft. That could give the next several opponents easy wins. But under this system, they have every incentive to win as many games as possible. Going 7-7 is kind of self-defeating for him in a regular league, but it gives him a better pick than tanking will under this system.

I just hate seeing teams stop trying; it gives their opponents easy wins, messes up the standings and makes the league less fun. I still play in leagues like that, and I don't necessarily blame them for tanking. Tanking is rewarded with better draft picks. I just wish it wasn't like that.

 

[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.

Really never? I guess you haven't played in a dynasty league or are just oblivious to reality. I have personally witnessed a owner stand up a draft and state that he has no chance of going all the way and was building for the future and intended to lose every game that year. He then proceeded to trade all non prospect players away for gaudy amounts of draft picks. It wasn't until 4 years later he won the superbowl.His whole lineup was rookies, injured guys and projects. This is the problem with tanking. The 4 guys he didn't play that year paid their entrance fee only to compete with the other 11 owners who had the tanker on the schedule and a extra win head start. That's not fair.

Wow. I have honestly never seen anyone do that. I've heard of people talking down their teams, but I wouldn't want to play with a guy who said he really was trying to lose every game before the season started. I wouldn't want that guy in the league.I understand that everyone can use their strategy to try and win the way they want. But I personally wouldn't want to play with them, for the reasons you mentioned and it just overall makes the league less fun. Tanking is bad for a league. It changes the competitive blaance of that season, and that's not right.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The solution is so easy, but nobody ever tries this. Let's say you have 12 teams, with 6 making the playoffs and 6 out of the playoffs. The #7 overall team gets the #1 pick the next season. In other words, the best team that didn't make the playoffs gets the top pick. #8 gets the #2 pick etc. until the worst team gets the #6 pick. For playoffs teams, sort it the traditional way where the champion gets the #12 pick.The 6 non-playoff teams still get the 6 top picks, but there is no incentive for tanking. Just the opposite--if you're out of the playoffs, you still want to win every game left to get a better pick for next season.On a side note (and I know this might cause controversy), in a league that rewards tanking, why is tanking so bad? For most, the overall goal is not to win the most number of games, but instead the goal is to win the most number of championships. If going 3-11 this year instead of 4-10 is going to dramatically improve my chances of winning next year's championship, why shouldn't that be allowed? The reason why real NFL teams shouldn't tank games is because they have thousands of fans who have paid money to see a fair game--and also, the players' reputations (as well as statistics and salaries) can be on the line. Meanwhile, fantasy football is simply a game of strategy, and any game of the strategy that rewards losing needs to have it's rules amended.

This is better than most systems. It does provide incentives to win even if you're out of the playoff hunt. But couldn't there be a situation where a team might sneak into the playoffs, but decides that the #1 pick is better than a one-and-done scenario, so they choose to "tank" enough to miss the playoffs? I guess that's sort of rare, since anything can happen in the playoffs. But the allure of the top pick could be very tempting in dynasty.

 

[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.

After reading the entire thread again, the above seems to be about the best idea. At the very least it eliminates having questionable lineup decisions becoming a factor, while at the same time ensuring the worst teams get the highest picks. If someone intentionally benches his better players, this will take away any possible advantage he will get. Any system that does not give the worst teams the higher picks is flawed, such as letting the best non playoff team get the first pick, or toilet bowls, or playoffs for non playoff teams.Nothing will ever be perfect, but the above seems to be the fairest in my opinion.

 

[JohnnyU]

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.

After reading the entire thread again, the above seems to be about the best idea. At the very least it eliminates having questionable lineup decisions becoming a factor, while at the same time ensuring the worst teams get the highest picks. If someone intentionally benches his better players, this will take away any possible advantage he will get. Any system that does not give the worst teams the higher picks is flawed, such as letting the best non playoff team get the first pick, or toilet bowls, or playoffs for non playoff teams.Nothing will ever be perfect, but the above seems to be the fairest in my opinion.

Doesn't "Possible Points" penalize teams with a weak bench?

 

[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.

After reading the entire thread again, the above seems to be about the best idea. At the very least it eliminates having questionable lineup decisions becoming a factor, while at the same time ensuring the worst teams get the highest picks. If someone intentionally benches his better players, this will take away any possible advantage he will get. Any system that does not give the worst teams the higher picks is flawed, such as letting the best non playoff team get the first pick, or toilet bowls, or playoffs for non playoff teams.Nothing will ever be perfect, but the above seems to be the fairest in my opinion.

Doesn't "Possible Points" penalize teams with a weak bench?

How can it penalize them? If they have weak starters and a weak bench, they are weak, and it will show because their best possible points will be low...as it should if they have a bad team.Maybe I'm not understanding your point here.

 

[Zowned]

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.

Exactly what I came in here to post. Just read about this the first few weeks of the season and will be trying to get this into the dynasty leagues I run since it helps reward the worst team instead of the team "lucky" enough to lose the fewer games,

 

[coolnerd]

Let's say someone benches LT2 for Chester Taylor. Is that tanking?

It's obviously not subtle tanking.What about benching Lee Evans for Kevin Walter? What about benching Lance Moore for Lee Evans? What is subtle tanking?What I'm getting at is that there's obvious examples like benching LT for Taylor. But the "subtle" examples are likely not tanking in many cases, they're just differences of opinion as to who would do well that week. And leagues should do nothing about that.

One of things that has not been discussed enough in this thread is the fact that a possible reason that a team is in position to subtle tank is that the owner consistently makes poor roster and line-up decisions. An owner who makes poor decisions probably does not look significantly different than an owner who is trying to play a slightly weaker line-up to obtain a better draft position.

 

[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.

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.

But if they're 1-7 the net result is almost the same.

 

[EzCrash]

Not reading the whole post, so forgive me if the idea has already been stated.

You said it is a 12 teamer with the top 6 teams going to the playoffs.

So, the top 6 teams ( playoff teams ) still draft based on their finish. First place drafts 12th, Second place 11th, Third place 10th, etc.

The bottom 6 teams who didn't make the playoffs draft in reverse order.

That way the team that just missed the playoffs will draft 1st and the team who came in dead last will pull the 6 pick.

There is incentive to finish with a better record than the teams below you because every spot in the rankings you move up will move you up in the draft as well.

Also, the last place team still gets a fairly early pick ( 6th ).

It is the only true way to keep teams from purposely tanking that I know of and we just changed our league rules to this at the draft this year ( it passed unanimously ). It will go into effect at next year's draft.

____________________________

( Edit ) I just scrolled up a little and saw that "Bandit" had posted this already. So just put me down as an additional "vote" for this system.