pidgeonmanza
Footballguy
I am just curious about some methods people have used, or seen used, that prevent people from throwing games in a dynasty for the number 1 pick.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
How to get teams not to throw games at the end of the season? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter pidgeonmanza
- Start date
GregR_2
Footballguy
Base your draft order off of potential points (the points the team's best lineup would have scored if they'd been set). Then the only way to throw a game is to cut players and pick up worse ones from waivers. Which if someone did it would be a lot more obvious and the league could step in and impose a penalty/kick the owner out.
a_rackowski
Footballguy
supplimental draft for the bottom 6 teams. they are playing for the 13th - 18th picks based upon their finish in a loser bowl with each game playing a part.
jsharlan
Footballguy
A method one of my leagues uses is that the draft order is determined by how well you did and not make it to the money vice how bad you did. ie. 4 of the 14 teams make the playoffs. The top 3 get the money, so that 4th team that didnt make the money gets the first pick. Then the second draft pick goes to the team finishing 5th(just missed the playoffs), on down until the 14th place team has the 11th pick in the draft. Then the 12th pick is given to the 3rd place team who got the lowest share of money down until the league winner picks 14th. The good thing about this method is its in every team's best interest to try and win every game possible. The downside is that the bad teams have a poorer chance of improving their team because they won't be picking at the top of the draft.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
The downside to this can be devestating to dynasty leagues. YOU MUST have a system in place where the bad teams can get better. Otherwise, you will find it difficult to find replacements for those bad teams when owners bail on you.
jsharlan
Footballguy
yep I'm not a fan of it myself, but the commish makes all the decisions in this league, there are no owner votes on anything. If the custom software a couple of the owners created for the league wasn't so good I wouldn't have been interested in staying long term.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
Odds are, having the top pick won't get the best player anyway.
Who was the top fantasy pick in...
2008? Darren McFadden. Not Stewart, Mendenhall, C Johnson, Forte, Rice, Charles, F Jones, Slaton.
2007? Peterson, a rare #1 pick who turns out to be the best pick in hindsight.
2006? Reggie Bush. Not Jones-Drew, D Williams
2005? Ronnie Brown or Caddy Williams. Not Gore, Barber, Benson, Jacobs.
2004? Kevin Jones. Not S Jackson, WR Fitzgerald.
2003? For most it was WR Charles Rogers. Not Andre Johnson, McGahee, L Johnson, Boldin.
2002? William Green. Not Portis.
2009? Moreno. Jury is still out, but any of RBs Wells, McCoy, Greene, or WRs Harvin, Crabtree, Nicks (or others) could end up more valuable.
Most assume Mathews will be the top pick of the 2010 draft, but the real stud of the draft could be Best, Bryant, Spiller, Hardesty, Tate, or someone else.
It's like this nearly every year. Worrying about guys tanking for the top pick is overrated. And worrying about the integrity of the weekly matchup (the opponent's free win) is also overrated. If a team is this bad, chances are good he will lose the game anyway.
Who was the top fantasy pick in...
2008? Darren McFadden. Not Stewart, Mendenhall, C Johnson, Forte, Rice, Charles, F Jones, Slaton.
2007? Peterson, a rare #1 pick who turns out to be the best pick in hindsight.
2006? Reggie Bush. Not Jones-Drew, D Williams
2005? Ronnie Brown or Caddy Williams. Not Gore, Barber, Benson, Jacobs.
2004? Kevin Jones. Not S Jackson, WR Fitzgerald.
2003? For most it was WR Charles Rogers. Not Andre Johnson, McGahee, L Johnson, Boldin.
2002? William Green. Not Portis.
2009? Moreno. Jury is still out, but any of RBs Wells, McCoy, Greene, or WRs Harvin, Crabtree, Nicks (or others) could end up more valuable.
Most assume Mathews will be the top pick of the 2010 draft, but the real stud of the draft could be Best, Bryant, Spiller, Hardesty, Tate, or someone else.
It's like this nearly every year. Worrying about guys tanking for the top pick is overrated. And worrying about the integrity of the weekly matchup (the opponent's free win) is also overrated. If a team is this bad, chances are good he will lose the game anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
pidgeonmanza
Footballguy
very good points
hostile
Footballguy
This happened in two leagues I played in last year.
The teams which purposely tried to tank were dropped down by one slot in the draft and the people who didnt were bumped up, by one slot. This had a net effect of teams which didnt cheat, could actually leapfrog more than one team, if the cheaters finished next to each other in the standing.
1.03 went to 1.01 b/c the 1.01 and 1.02 teams cheated, but 1.03 didnt.
The teams which purposely tried to tank were dropped down by one slot in the draft and the people who didnt were bumped up, by one slot. This had a net effect of teams which didnt cheat, could actually leapfrog more than one team, if the cheaters finished next to each other in the standing.
1.03 went to 1.01 b/c the 1.01 and 1.02 teams cheated, but 1.03 didnt.
Last edited by a moderator:
footballsavvy
Footballguy
Use the "Potential Points" category for determining draft pick order. It's quite simple, yet brilliant. All of these other methods that I have tinkered with over the years are overly complex and convoluted.
footballsavvy
Footballguy
Still, the #1 pick represents a lot more value in terms of trading. Hell, just to have the option of picking the rookie of your choice (versus who falls to you) is worth a lot.It's not that teams literally tank in a proactive manner, but they passively tank by not picking up a better option at TE when Shockey is questionable with a knee injury and things like that. Teams that are fighting for the playoffs monitor things like that very closely and make sure they have contingency plans in place. Teams ranked 2nd to last, will leave that injured guy in even though he is a "gametime decision" or whatever.
The Real Hipster Doofus
Footballguy
Not really. What if a team had a WR lineup of Robert Meachem, Lee Evans, Nate Burleson, Santana Moss, Jacoby Jones, Devery Henderson, Mike Wallace or other similar style of players who are basically feast or famine. The potential points will be high, but good look trying to pick and choose the weeks that players go off.
pidgeonmanza
Footballguy
The problem with this is that it's hard to tell when someone is tanking. It would be bad if someone gets knocked down when they weren't actually tanking.
GregR_2
Footballguy
I'm not following. How is a team having a lineup like you gave going to allow them to still tank in a potential points system?
The Real Hipster Doofus
Footballguy
They wouldn't be tanking. The opposite actually. All of the players I listed are the type of guys who could give you 5 catches for 100 and 2 TD's or they could give you 1 catch for 9 yards. So say you start Santana Moss and Robert Meachem and they combine for 10 fantasy points while Devery Henderson goes for 3/100/1 and Jacoby Jones goes for 4/90/2. So the next week you switch to Henderson and Jones and they drop two eggs and Mike Wallace and Nate Burleson go off. The point being that the potential points would be high because any given week two of those guys will likely go off for good weeks. It would be next to impossible, however, to pick which ones that will be. So by using potential points, it artificially inflates the talent level of a team such as this, simply because they would have higher potential points than their actual talent level.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
I agree with you, but I'd like to add that this system works PERFECTLY in redraft leagues. But in dynasty, you're right. It's devastating. Still, the solution is to stop rewarding poor play. Even a weighted lottery encourages poor play to a smaller degree. If you don't make the playoffs, it should all be random, with teams picking where they want to draft. The four playoff teams (presumably in the money) should get the four least-attractive spots in order of finish.
Whatever you choose, it should make tanking seem pointless. Then-- hopefully-- league rivalries and personal pride will fill that vacuum.
In my mind, the issue isn't between who gets the #1 overall and who gets the #2 overall... it's between who gets the #3 and who gets the #4, or between who gets the #4 and who gets the #5. Every year there is always a "top tier" of rookie prospects who are clearly head-and-shoulders above the rest of the pack. This year it's Mathews/Bryant/Spiller/Best. Last year, it was Moreno/Wells (although the top tier last year was a pretty weak one in addition to being a pretty shallow one). The year before, it was McFadden/Stewart/Mendenhall. Before that it was Peterson/Johnson/Lynch. The success rate of the guys in the top tier is radically higher than the guys immediately outside of the top tier (this year's Tate/Hardesty type guys). There's not a whole lot of difference between the #1 and the #2, but there's a world of difference between the #3 in 2007 and the #4 in 2007, or between the #2 in 2009 and the #3 in 2009, or between the #4 this year and the #5 this year.Personally, my league uses a "Losers' Playoffs", which is a survivor-style playoffs for those who don't make the real playoffs, with the winner getting the #1 overall. While I love the Losers' Playoffs dynamic, it does make it hard for the worst team to get the #1, and it also provides borderline-playoff teams some incentive to not make that push for the playoffs (since they'll have a better-than-average chance of landing the #1 if they're in the Losers' bracket). As a result, I'm going to propose legislation for the upcoming season that would keep the Losers' playoffs, but change the stakes to an extra pick at the end of the first round (10 team league, so we'd have 11 picks in the first round with the Losers' Playoffs winner getting the last one). Then we'd determine draft order by potential points.
spider321
Footballguy
The correct answer is how the dynasty league I play in does it...
The top 6 teams play in the "winners" playoff for the championship, the $, and the 7-12 draft slots. (1st place of "winners" picks 12th, 2nd place of "winners" picks 11th, and so on...)
The bottom 6 teams play in the "losers" playoff for the 1-6 picks. (1st place of "losers" picks 1st, 2nd place of "losers" picks 2nd, and so on...)
It truly amazes me that more dynasty leagues don't do it this way.
The top 6 teams play in the "winners" playoff for the championship, the $, and the 7-12 draft slots. (1st place of "winners" picks 12th, 2nd place of "winners" picks 11th, and so on...)
The bottom 6 teams play in the "losers" playoff for the 1-6 picks. (1st place of "losers" picks 1st, 2nd place of "losers" picks 2nd, and so on...)
It truly amazes me that more dynasty leagues don't do it this way.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's actually a pretty poor way to do it. If there's ever a truly, truly awful team, they'll be guaranteed to get the #6 pick every season. How on earth are they supposed to ever get any better? The whole point of dynasty rookie drafts is to give the worst teams the most value so they can use it to improve. It's supposed to be a parity mechanism, but the "Losers' Playoffs" just ensures that the teams that are already borderline-playoff caliber are going to be the ones making the biggest improvements. It's a "rich get richer" system.
My long term dynasty has a perfect system. We have a winners bracket and losers bracket as Spider described. We also use point spreads based on weekly average of playoff teams. The worst team will be getting a large handicap and the two worst teams are guaranteed a top 4 pick in that they get Byes just like the Top 2 teams. We also provide a weekly high score prize to make sure every team tries each week throughout the season and through the playoffs.
It's still not the perfect system, as a team on the border of playoff contention might decide that he's going to get slaughtered in the playoffs, anyway, so he'd rather "play down" for a few weeks, just miss the playoffs, and then stand a solid chance of landing the #1 overall. As someone who uses a Losers' Playoff currently, I really like the format and the trash talking it invokes, but I don't think it's the fairest way to dole out draft positions. I think Potential Points is a much fairer solution.
Gottabesweet
Footballguy
We have our bottom six fight for pick 1.1
J Giles Band
Footballguy
I used to be in a league where for each regular season week you lost, you had to kick in $5 to the league pot. Not an excessive amount obviously, but let me assure you... if you were one of the teams at the bottom of the standings toward the end of the season, there was ample motivation to win games to stop the financial bleeding.
It has the dual effect of giving a nice boost to the league pot as well.
It has the dual effect of giving a nice boost to the league pot as well.
This is by far the most important thing.That said, even honourable and competitive owners will be tempted to avoid unnecessarily improving their team near the end of the season, if all they can do is cost themselves draft position. Incentives are important. We've attempted to address this by making each and every game worth $10 to the winner- it adds a financial incentive to try to win games. We're toying with the idea of making games in the last half of the season worth more, since it's usually only after the playoff picture begins to form that teams will start eyeing their draft position.
Last edited by a moderator:
griff321
Footballguy
Some teams that are super horrible still tank, but I've found a weekly cash winner to be the best possible method. We've also tried draft lottery and fines, with fines being the worst of the two because a team that incurs fines almost never showing for the draft even when they'd say they'll be there. Nothing worse then having an odd number of teams or have someone draft two teams.
DoubleG
Footballguy
Another way is simply to have wild card teams make the playoffs...the more wildcard teams, the more competetive it is right down to the final regular season week (or two).
Honestly, we have four wildcard teams and 2 division winners in the playoffs and almost every year all but 1 or 2 teams is in it right until the last week (and those 1 or 2 teams often don't need to tank a game or two for one of the top picks)
Lottery pick for the bottom N teams also makes sense (N probably shouldn't be higher than about 20-30% of the teams in the league - lower % in dynasty a little higher in keeper, imho). You do need to have the system benefit the worse teams so they can improve.
Also, as someone has mentioned already, often the #1 overall isn't a huge improvement over the #2 or even #3, so in the long run, it may not be as big a deal.
Honestly, we have four wildcard teams and 2 division winners in the playoffs and almost every year all but 1 or 2 teams is in it right until the last week (and those 1 or 2 teams often don't need to tank a game or two for one of the top picks)
Lottery pick for the bottom N teams also makes sense (N probably shouldn't be higher than about 20-30% of the teams in the league - lower % in dynasty a little higher in keeper, imho). You do need to have the system benefit the worse teams so they can improve.
Also, as someone has mentioned already, often the #1 overall isn't a huge improvement over the #2 or even #3, so in the long run, it may not be as big a deal.
senor peso 2006
Footballguy
OP good topic.
Does anyone place a cash price on every game as an incentive?
Does anyone place a cash price on every game as an incentive?
ChuckLiddell
Footballguy
I love our system, and it has worked great for a long time now.
The lowest score on any given week is in charge of writing a recap of the entire week. Failure to do so before a stated deadline results in a $50 fine. The recap has to be funny, or you get a lot of hazing from other owners, which is a suitable deterrent - at least for our group. We had 2 people fail to write their recap last year, and instead opt for the $50 fine - which also resulted in hazing. As a league, we look forward to the weekly recaps, and they typically result in long email strings with more humor, and jabs at other owners. Nobody wants to be responsible for the humiliating recapitude, and as you accumulate more than one recap in any given year, the hazing increases exponentially.
Great method in my opinion to deter throwing games, and also a great rule in that it adds a ton of hilarity to the week.
You also have another thing to watch for on Monday night football, as the teams vying for low score are in a separate battle with each other in addition to their own head to head matchups.
The lowest score on any given week is in charge of writing a recap of the entire week. Failure to do so before a stated deadline results in a $50 fine. The recap has to be funny, or you get a lot of hazing from other owners, which is a suitable deterrent - at least for our group. We had 2 people fail to write their recap last year, and instead opt for the $50 fine - which also resulted in hazing. As a league, we look forward to the weekly recaps, and they typically result in long email strings with more humor, and jabs at other owners. Nobody wants to be responsible for the humiliating recapitude, and as you accumulate more than one recap in any given year, the hazing increases exponentially.
Great method in my opinion to deter throwing games, and also a great rule in that it adds a ton of hilarity to the week.
You also have another thing to watch for on Monday night football, as the teams vying for low score are in a separate battle with each other in addition to their own head to head matchups.
BeTheMatch
Footballguy
We had the same problem and use this method as well. It works. 12 team league with the bottom 6 going into a hat. 1st team out of the hat gets the 1st pick etc.
acme
Footballguy
This is what we do too. Each week the highest scorer of the 16 teams in the league wins $75. this is built into our prize structure and gives a real reason to submit your best lineup every week. if you try to tank you basically lose your shot at the weekly bonus.
Illegal Pants Downfield
Footballguy
Not sure this helps prevent tanking, but I love it! 
ChuckLiddell said:
In a couple of my league, we have specific rules about setting lineups, etc whicj involves fines. Playing in a solid league is a privilege, need a strong commish to keep things on the up and up or replace owners.
In a league I commish, we do 8 teams in the playoffs...not very popular(granted) but we get teams playing all the way through 13 weeks(14 games)...no tanking issues in this format. Division winners (3) are given a good chunk of money to account for losing out on a potential bye week. We also do a 4 team toilet bowl (11 vs. 12) and (9 vs. 10) ...winner plays for #1 overall.
works great
In a league I commish, we do 8 teams in the playoffs...not very popular(granted) but we get teams playing all the way through 13 weeks(14 games)...no tanking issues in this format. Division winners (3) are given a good chunk of money to account for losing out on a potential bye week. We also do a 4 team toilet bowl (11 vs. 12) and (9 vs. 10) ...winner plays for #1 overall.
works great
brownhelmets
Footballguy
The league needs by-laws about replacing owners who behave in a detrimental fashion. There is some gray areas here but it isn't too hard to weed those owners who are throwing games out. I am generally only talking in cases where guys start players who are listed as out or are not playing like most Colts in week 16 or 17.If you go much further then this, you may be over-stepping. My theory is that as long as an owner can provide rationalization for their decisions, I am pretty trusting.
BucFan40
Footballguy
I think there are a lot of good solutions here, one dynasty I'm in actually incorporates a few of these. First off we reward the top scoring team each week $5, and charge the lowest scoring team $5. That gives owners something to play for each week and at least gives bad teams something to strive for, not paying $5.
We have 4 teams out of 12 make it to the playoffs, those teams are automatically drafting 9-12 based on the outcome and playoff seeding. The other 8 owners are set by potential points, but not the entire team potential, just the starters. So at the end of the year we add up the total points of their top scoring lineup, Top QB, top 2 RB's Top 2 WR's... IMO total possible points is the only true measure a team, and by doing the top points from a starting lineup makes even more sense. If a team has 8 RBs and 5 WRs, their total potential points will probably be higher than another team who has 4 RB and 9 WRs even though they can only start 2 or 3 RBs in a given week.
Tanking is next to impossible to prove, I could say I started A. Smith over P. Manning because of matchup and you'd have no right to tell me I'm tanking, you can call me stupid but we all take calculated risks. That's why you just need to take that scenario out. Regardless of who I start, win or lose, I'll be judged on my best lineup at the end of the year.
We had issues with questionable calls in the past, but since we've implemented this we've had none.
We have 4 teams out of 12 make it to the playoffs, those teams are automatically drafting 9-12 based on the outcome and playoff seeding. The other 8 owners are set by potential points, but not the entire team potential, just the starters. So at the end of the year we add up the total points of their top scoring lineup, Top QB, top 2 RB's Top 2 WR's... IMO total possible points is the only true measure a team, and by doing the top points from a starting lineup makes even more sense. If a team has 8 RBs and 5 WRs, their total potential points will probably be higher than another team who has 4 RB and 9 WRs even though they can only start 2 or 3 RBs in a given week.
Tanking is next to impossible to prove, I could say I started A. Smith over P. Manning because of matchup and you'd have no right to tell me I'm tanking, you can call me stupid but we all take calculated risks. That's why you just need to take that scenario out. Regardless of who I start, win or lose, I'll be judged on my best lineup at the end of the year.
We had issues with questionable calls in the past, but since we've implemented this we've had none.
Similar threads
- Poll
