Intentionally Throwing Games (1 Viewer)

[Muahahaha]

Gents,I think I know the answer already, but I would like to get some input from the sharks.I have clinched a playoff spot in one of my leagues. Next week I play a fairly weak team which still has a shot at the playoffs. His team is by far the weakest of the playoff-contending teams. He has asked me to throw the game intentionally by benching my best players. I have thus far refused.I am not comfortable with this at all, even though it would be in my favor. In my opinion, it is just plain bad sportsmanship. Am I being too goody too shoes? Is anything fair play? What do you guys think?It is a 12-man league with a $200 buy-in, so my ethics could end up costing me $$$$. Is the money worth it? Or is it every man for themselves?

 

[valhallan]

You doing the right thing. The other guy needs to make the playoffs on his own merits.

 

[Killerclown]

I am kind of surprised a guy would ask you do that.

 

[bobspruill]

This is always a question, come playoff time. In the league I commish, there's actually a rule against it. If there isn't, I still think it isn't kosher but can't say I wouldn't go ahead and do it anyway.I have seen such moves backfire in the past, however. It always gives me a warm feeling when that happens.

 

[Nemesis]

He has asked me to throw the game intentionally by benching my best players.

1-If it was asked in a serious tone, then your league has a problem.2-If you are still considering it, your league has even bigger problems.

 

[KTM]

I am kind of surprised a guy would ask you do that.

 

[Maelstrom]

I am kind of surprised a guy would ask you do that.

Exactly - you play to win. It does no one any good to throw games, and the fantasy gods do not forget!

 

[JohnnyU]

If I was the commish of a league, and someone was stupid enough to ask me that, he would be thrown out of the league next year. There is no question about it, his #### would be gone.

 

[bobspruill]

I'd be interested to hear how all the self-righteous folks on this board think about the common practice by NFL teams of not fielding their best lineup in a game where winning isn't the most important thing.The mechanics are a little different, but the underlying principle seems the same to me.

 

[Muahahaha]

I knew I could count on you guys to keep me on the straight and narrow.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

If I was the commish of a league, and someone was stupid enough to ask me that, he would be thrown out of the league next year. There is no question about it, his #### would be gone.

Agreed............asking someone to throw the game is enough to be thrown out of the league.I'd seriously take this to the commissioner........because you KNOW this isn't the first time this happened with him, just the first with you.

Owners like that are cancer's to leagues. So if you value your league, do something about it.

 

[Nemesis]

I'd be interested to hear how all the self-righteous folks on this board think about the common practice by NFL teams of not fielding their best lineup in a game where winning isn't the most important thing.The mechanics are a little different, but the underlying principle seems the same to me.

In the Fantasy world, when you put your player on your bench HE STILL PLAYS IN HIS GAME.In the NFL, when the coach puts his player on the bench, he holds him out for injury concern.

 

[fatboyj711]

i guess it depends on the circumstances... if he makes the playoffs, would you play him in the first round? if that's the case, you might want to give it some thought...i know it's unethical what the other owner did, but if what he did called your attention to a potential scenario that would be beneficial to you... i don't see what YOU would be doing wrong ethically by throwing the game... it may not be popular with the other owners in your league, but it's a big money league... and if there are no rules regarding throwing games, all's fair in love and waryour call

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I'd be interested to hear how all the self-righteous folks on this board think about the common practice by NFL teams of not fielding their best lineup in a game where winning isn't the most important thing.

The mechanics are a little different, but the underlying principle seems the same to me.

In this case it's collusion. Please explain how you see it differently.If you think this is OK.......then I'm sure you feel it would be appropriate to share with the rest of the league right?

I mean, if there's nothing wrong with it I'm sure the rest of the league would have no problem with it, right?

 

[John 14:6]

I like the idea of giving some kind of "home field" advantage in the playoffs and basing it on the teams' regular season record to help discourage this kind of stuff. For example, giving a team bonus points based on how many more wins they have over their opponent once in the playoffs. Then even if a team has clinched their spot they still have something to play for.

 

[Lehigh98]

Take a diveDo whatever gets you the $$$ and is within the rules.If the other guys #####, tell them its their fault for letting you rack up so many wins......or not including a rule that prevents it.What would the rule even be though?No empty lineup? Easy to get around.Start your best guys? Who decides whose "best"?Etc...

 

[bobspruill]

I'd be interested to hear how all the self-righteous folks on this board think about the common practice by NFL teams of not fielding their best lineup in a game where winning isn't the most important thing.

The mechanics are a little different, but the underlying principle seems the same to me.

In the Fantasy world, when you put your player on your bench HE STILL PLAYS IN HIS GAME.

In the NFL, when the coach puts his player on the bench, he holds him out for injury concern.

Certainly. That is, the team decides not to start certain players because the interest of winning that game is secondary to the future consideration of what will happen in the playoffs.In fantasy football, the owner decides not to start certain players because the interest of winning that game is secondary to the future consideration of what will happen in the playoffs. The mechanics are different; the interest is the same.

To split a hair, understand that I'm not saying I like the practice. I'm saying that it's questionable to tell an owner not to pursue what he or she perceives as being an interest unless there's an explicit policy governing the behavior involved.

 

[shadyridr]

Umm thats the exact definition of collusion. Is collusion allowed in your league?

 

[Bob N. Weaver]

I wouldn't do it unless that other Owner guaranteed me at least a $100. I mean if you are going to be involved in collusion, you might as well go all of the way.just kidding . The idea of throwing a game stinks and has no place in ff.

 

[bobspruill]

I'd be interested to hear how all the self-righteous folks on this board think about the common practice by NFL teams of not fielding their best lineup in a game where winning isn't the most important thing.

The mechanics are a little different, but the underlying principle seems the same to me.

In this case it's collusion. Please explain how you see it differently.If you think this is OK.......then I'm sure you feel it would be appropriate to share with the rest of the league right?

I mean, if there's nothing wrong with it I'm sure the rest of the league would have no problem with it, right?

The easy, cheesy answer here is that collusion is something that requires the action of more than one owner. You can throw a game all by yourself.Getting more to the heart of the matter, a reasonable working principle seems to be that pursuit of interests *within* the world of the competition is acceptable, but when the interest extends beyond it (cash, future considerations, prize splits or share-selling, sexual favors, etc.) we'd all pretty much agree that that ruins the competition.

My point here is that the question of where the interest lies isn't as simple as it is in these other cases. You can make a legitimate argument that this action is carried out by a single owner, for that owner's benefit within the context of league competition; thus, it ought to be allowed.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I'd be interested to hear how all the self-righteous folks on this board think about the common practice by NFL teams of not fielding their best lineup in a game where winning isn't the most important thing.

The mechanics are a little different, but the underlying principle seems the same to me.

In this case it's collusion. Please explain how you see it differently.If you think this is OK.......then I'm sure you feel it would be appropriate to share with the rest of the league right?

I mean, if there's nothing wrong with it I'm sure the rest of the league would have no problem with it, right?

The easy, cheesy answer here is that collusion is something that requires the action of more than one owner. You can throw a game all by yourself.Getting more to the heart of the matter, a reasonable working principle seems to be that pursuit of interests *within* the world of the competition is acceptable, but when the interest extends beyond it (cash, future considerations, prize splits or share-selling, sexual favors, etc.) we'd all pretty much agree that that ruins the competition.

My point here is that the question of where the interest lies isn't as simple as it is in these other cases. You can make a legitimate argument that this action is carried out by a single owner, for that owner's benefit within the context of league competition; thus, it ought to be allowed.

In this thread the original poster says that an owner called him and asked for him to throw the game. This is not a one owner situation.

 

[Stinger Ray]

ask for money

 

[Varmint]

You already know the answer to this...thus, the "funny feeling" that you have...Beat him and beat him GOOD....Do not throw YOUR integrity under the bus lby throwing a gam ike he's thrown his under the bus for asking you to do it.....

 

[pgreenfan]

I question if this wouldn' occur in real life actually. If a team could "rest" their best players to keep a strong opponent out of the playoffs I wouldn't be shocked to see it happen. The only problem I have is that he asked you to do which would be collusion in my eyes. If you after reviewing playoff scenarios yourself decided to do it , I honestly don't have a problem with it. In my main league there has been talk about people tanking to try to keep me out of the playoffs as there are other teams that are viewed as weaker due to injuries and TO's suspension.

 

[bobspruill]

I'd be interested to hear how all the self-righteous folks on this board think about the common practice by NFL teams of not fielding their best lineup in a game where winning isn't the most important thing.

The mechanics are a little different, but the underlying principle seems the same to me.

In this case it's collusion. Please explain how you see it differently.If you think this is OK.......then I'm sure you feel it would be appropriate to share with the rest of the league right?

I mean, if there's nothing wrong with it I'm sure the rest of the league would have no problem with it, right?

The easy, cheesy answer here is that collusion is something that requires the action of more than one owner. You can throw a game all by yourself.Getting more to the heart of the matter, a reasonable working principle seems to be that pursuit of interests *within* the world of the competition is acceptable, but when the interest extends beyond it (cash, future considerations, prize splits or share-selling, sexual favors, etc.) we'd all pretty much agree that that ruins the competition.

My point here is that the question of where the interest lies isn't as simple as it is in these other cases. You can make a legitimate argument that this action is carried out by a single owner, for that owner's benefit within the context of league competition; thus, it ought to be allowed.

In this thread the original poster says that an owner called him and asked for him to throw the game. This is not a one owner situation.

It seems rather weak to make the whole objection to the practice rest on this fact. I suspect that most posters in this thread would be opposed to throwing the game even if no one had asked him to.Besides, your objection doesn't actually address the definition as phrased, if you want to be really precise. I said collusion "requires" the action of more than one owner. If you learned through the actions of another owner that a particular player you wanted was a free agent and then acquired him, I doubt you would call that collusion.

 

[BoulderBob]

This topic is always funny to read. If securing Reggie Bush is vitaly important to your team, play some (wink) hunches, just do not be obvious about it. If a commish kicks you out for that, the guy is #####, and the "league" is a joke.

 

[Marc Levin]

Gents,

I think I know the answer already, but I would like to get some input from the sharks.

I have clinched a playoff spot in one of my leagues. Next week I play a fairly weak team which still has a shot at the playoffs. His team is by far the weakest of the playoff-contending teams. He has asked me to throw the game intentionally by benching my best players. I have thus far refused.

I am not comfortable with this at all, even though it would be in my favor. In my opinion, it is just plain bad sportsmanship.

Am I being too goody too shoes? Is anything fair play? What do you guys think?

It is a 12-man league with a $200 buy-in, so my ethics could end up costing me $$$$. Is the money worth it? Or is it every man for themselves?

It is unfair to the rest of your league that is trying to make the playoffs - and it is a form of collusion. One guy in my main money/10 year old league clinches the #4 (top WC) seed with a win and clinches either the #5 spot (2nd WC) ot the #6 spot (goes to the team with the most overall points that is not already in the playoffs regardless of record). I am pretty sure he was jokingly saying he would take the highest bidder to allow that person to set his lineup for this week, but I made sure to send a league wide e-mail that, while I was sure he was joking, if it appeared that he was doing anything less than trying to win his game, I would be lobbying for him to forfeit his playoff spot.

That said, if it gives YOUR TEAM a competitive advanatage by losing and you are on the up and up with th eentire league on why you are deliberately fielding a poor roster - maybe an easier road in the playoffs? - I actually think it could be a defensible, though not particularly classy, move.

 

[teriaki]

Exactly - you play to win.

You might need to have Herm Edwards come and speak to your league.

 

[Marc Levin]

I'd be interested to hear how all the self-righteous folks on this board think about the common practice by NFL teams of not fielding their best lineup in a game where winning isn't the most important thing.

The mechanics are a little different, but the underlying principle seems the same to me.

In this case it's collusion. Please explain how you see it differently.If you think this is OK.......then I'm sure you feel it would be appropriate to share with the rest of the league right?

I mean, if there's nothing wrong with it I'm sure the rest of the league would have no problem with it, right?

The easy, cheesy answer here is that collusion is something that requires the action of more than one owner. You can throw a game all by yourself.Getting more to the heart of the matter, a reasonable working principle seems to be that pursuit of interests *within* the world of the competition is acceptable, but when the interest extends beyond it (cash, future considerations, prize splits or share-selling, sexual favors, etc.) we'd all pretty much agree that that ruins the competition.

My point here is that the question of where the interest lies isn't as simple as it is in these other cases. You can make a legitimate argument that this action is carried out by a single owner, for that owner's benefit within the context of league competition; thus, it ought to be allowed.

In this thread the original poster says that an owner called him and asked for him to throw the game. This is not a one owner situation.

I'd argue in response that the benefit to the opposing team - and his call asking for thesacrifice - are incidental if the true benefit is an easier road to the Super Bowl. After all, that is the goal - and if throwing the game gives you a competitive edge to getting into the Super Bowl, the benefit to the other owner is not the motivation for the move.

 

[bobspruill]

This topic is always funny to read. If securing Reggie Bush is vitaly important to your team, play some (wink) hunches, just do not be obvious about it. If a commish kicks you out for that, the guy is #####, and the "league" is a joke.

Much as I disagree with the terms used, I agree with the overall idea. Actions arguably similar to this happen *all the time* in the NFL.I remember a game a couple years ago when the Eagles and Bucs played in week 17 and then were definitely going to play in the first round of the playoffs. Both teams sat their starters and then ran absoutely nothing. The regular-season game was not only meaningless, but "success" in that game could have been a detriment to their success in the playoffs. They considered their interests and acted appropriately. It was sort of a joke at the time, but no one accused either team of not playing fair.

Parallels with the NFL don't constitute arguments in themselves, but when you see a competitive practice that's considered legitimate in one environment, I think it's worth having a solid, reasoned rationale for why it shouldn't be allowed in another. My gut agrees with the guts of most posters on this board, but I'm not hearing much in the way of reasoning.

 

[suchislife]

I'm out of playoff contention in my main dynasty league. Next years' rookie draft order is determined by this years finish. Still, every week my best lineup goes in. I couldn't face my league if I did it any other way. Play to win every week.

 

[blake]

He has asked me to throw the game intentionally by benching my best players.

1-If it was asked in a serious tone, then your league has a problem.2-If you are still considering it, your league has even bigger problems.

couldn't agree more. in the league i commish, if anyone told me that an owner did this, i'd start the search for a new owner immediately for that franchise.

just one bloke's opinion though.

 

[blake]

If I was the commish of a league, and someone was stupid enough to ask me that, he would be thrown out of the league next year. There is no question about it, his #### would be gone.

you beat me to it.

 

[username]

I lay down for no man.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I'd be interested to hear how all the self-righteous folks on this board think about the common practice by NFL teams of not fielding their best lineup in a game where winning isn't the most important thing.

The mechanics are a little different, but the underlying principle seems the same to me.

In this case it's collusion. Please explain how you see it differently.If you think this is OK.......then I'm sure you feel it would be appropriate to share with the rest of the league right?

I mean, if there's nothing wrong with it I'm sure the rest of the league would have no problem with it, right?

The easy, cheesy answer here is that collusion is something that requires the action of more than one owner. You can throw a game all by yourself.Getting more to the heart of the matter, a reasonable working principle seems to be that pursuit of interests *within* the world of the competition is acceptable, but when the interest extends beyond it (cash, future considerations, prize splits or share-selling, sexual favors, etc.) we'd all pretty much agree that that ruins the competition.

My point here is that the question of where the interest lies isn't as simple as it is in these other cases. You can make a legitimate argument that this action is carried out by a single owner, for that owner's benefit within the context of league competition; thus, it ought to be allowed.

In this thread the original poster says that an owner called him and asked for him to throw the game. This is not a one owner situation.

I'd argue in response that the benefit to the opposing team - and his call asking for thesacrifice - are incidental if the true benefit is an easier road to the Super Bowl. After all, that is the goal - and if throwing the game gives you a competitive edge to getting into the Super Bowl, the benefit to the other owner is not the motivation for the move.

I agree, but there's still 2 teams working together in a move that most would consider underhanded and at least a majority of most leagues would feel not in the better interest of the league.Also, keep in mind what type of perception you want your leaguemates to have about you. Personally as I get older, I dont have the win at all cost attitude I did when I was in my early 20's. I want to win, boy do I want to win. But it means more to me to win fair and square, to beat the best than it would be to try and throw games and lower my standards or my morals.

I mean, do we really need to put in the league rules: Hey, there's no throwing games in this league?

I think we all or at least I feel that goes without being said.

I realize this is a personal choice.

 

[username]

If I was the commish of a league, and someone was stupid enough to ask me that, he would be thrown out of the league next year. There is no question about it, his #### would be gone.

ridonculous

 

[blake]

I like the idea of giving some kind of "home field" advantage in the playoffs and basing it on the teams' regular season record to help discourage this kind of stuff. For example, giving a team bonus points based on how many more wins they have over their opponent once in the playoffs. Then even if a team has clinched their spot they still have something to play for.

I've been contemplating this as well - sounds like a very good idea.

 

[JohnnyU]

If I was the commish of a league, and someone was stupid enough to ask me that, he would be thrown out of the league next year.  There is no question about it, his #### would be gone.

ridonculous

Maybe it's just me, but what does ridonculous mean? If you intended to say ridiculous, then please explain.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I lay down for no man.

Fantasy football is becoming prevalent to all sexes. If team FootballManiac approaches you, do not assume they look like this

 

[PACKER 7]

Those of us in my league who do not make the cash playoffs (12 teams, 6 in the cash), are put into a playoff for next year's draft.The winner of the draft playoff gets 1st pick for next year and so on and so forth till everyone of the 1st 6 picks for next year's draft are decided. This has worked to keep everyone in the league involved til the bitter end for over 8 years now. Just thought I'd throw out how we handle it.

 

[username]

If I was the commish of a league, and someone was stupid enough to ask me that, he would be thrown out of the league next year. There is no question about it, his #### would be gone.

ridonculous

Maybe it's just me, but what does ridonculous mean? If you intended to say ridiculous, then please explain.

ridonculous is ridiculous to the next level.I'd just laugh the guy off and tell him to man up and beat me on Sunday. I lay down for noone. To "throw him out of the league" for suggesting this smacks of a dictatorship.

but that's just me.

 

[blake]

If I was the commish of a league, and someone was stupid enough to ask me that, he would be thrown out of the league next year. There is no question about it, his #### would be gone.

ridonculous

Maybe it's just me, but what does ridonculous mean? If you intended to say ridiculous, then please explain.

Somehow, I don't think you have to worry about him being in your league...or mine.

 

[blake]

Those of us in my league who do not make the cash playoffs (12 teams, 6 in the cash), are put into a playoff for next year's draft.

The winner of the draft playoff gets 1st pick for next year and so on and so forth till everyone of the 1st 6 picks for next year's draft are decided.

I think if my league had a straight draft, I'd immediately either propose this as a rule to the league or simply institute it. That's an awesome rule.

 

[Christo]

I'd be interested to hear how all the self-righteous folks on this board think about the common practice by NFL teams of not fielding their best lineup in a game where winning isn't the most important thing.

The mechanics are a little different, but the underlying principle seems the same to me.

There's a big difference between resting your stars to protect them for the play-offs and intentionally throwing a game to help out another team.

 

[JohnnyU]

If I was the commish of a league, and someone was stupid enough to ask me that, he would be thrown out of the league next year.  There is no question about it, his #### would be gone.

ridonculous

Maybe it's just me, but what does ridonculous mean? If you intended to say ridiculous, then please explain.

ridonculous is ridiculous to the next level.I'd just laugh the guy off and tell him to man up and beat me on Sunday. I lay down for noone. To "throw him out of the league" for suggesting this smacks of a dictatorship.

but that's just me.

No owner has ever accused me of being a dictator, and we do things the democratic way in my leagues. However, someone asking me to cheat is cause for dismissal IMO.

 

[bobspruill]

Those of us in my league who do not make the cash playoffs (12 teams, 6 in the cash), are put into a playoff for next year's draft.

The winner of the draft playoff gets 1st pick for next year and so on and so forth till everyone of the 1st 6 picks for next year's draft are decided. 

I think if my league had a straight draft, I'd immediately either propose this as a rule to the league or simply institute it. That's an awesome rule.

In the league I commish, we have a second-tier playoff where the winner gets a refund--the same prize, BTW, that the fourth-place finisher in the top tier gets. As of now, only 1 of the 12 teams is definitely out of it.I do like the draft idea as well.

 

[PlebsforPresident]

Gents,

I think I know the answer already, but I would like to get some input from the sharks.

I have clinched a playoff spot in one of my leagues. Next week I play a fairly weak team which still has a shot at the playoffs. His team is by far the weakest of the playoff-contending teams. He has asked me to throw the game intentionally by benching my best players. I have thus far refused.

I am not comfortable with this at all, even though it would be in my favor. In my opinion, it is just plain bad sportsmanship.

Am I being too goody too shoes? Is anything fair play? What do you guys think?

It is a 12-man league with a $200 buy-in, so my ethics could end up costing me $$$$. Is the money worth it? Or is it every man for themselves?

In my opinion the goal for the season is to win the championship, not win each week. If you think throwing the game enhances your chances at winning the championship, I say go for it.

 

[Nemesis]

No owner has ever accused me of being a dictator, and we do things the democratic way in my leagues.  However, someone asking me to cheat is cause for dismissal IMO.

Being a commissioner in some leagues require that you be a "democratic dictator" in order to get some things done.For the league I commish, I tell new prospective new owners:if you're the lawyer-type of person that is LOOKING for loopholes and constantly going to be using the phrase "but it's not explicitly written in the rules"..........then I don't want you joining our league. I shouldn't have to have rules against tanking/collusion..........but with that said, I do have them in there to express the INTENT of the league.Finally, I think that unless your league has SPECIFICALLY said that it is OK to throw games, you have to assume that it isn't looked favorably upon.

 

[PlebsforPresident]

I'd be interested to hear how all the self-righteous folks on this board think about the common practice by NFL teams of not fielding their best lineup in a game where winning isn't the most important thing.

The mechanics are a little different, but the underlying principle seems the same to me.

In this case it's collusion. Please explain how you see it differently.If you think this is OK.......then I'm sure you feel it would be appropriate to share with the rest of the league right?

I mean, if there's nothing wrong with it I'm sure the rest of the league would have no problem with it, right?

The easy, cheesy answer here is that collusion is something that requires the action of more than one owner. You can throw a game all by yourself.Getting more to the heart of the matter, a reasonable working principle seems to be that pursuit of interests *within* the world of the competition is acceptable, but when the interest extends beyond it (cash, future considerations, prize splits or share-selling, sexual favors, etc.) we'd all pretty much agree that that ruins the competition.

My point here is that the question of where the interest lies isn't as simple as it is in these other cases. You can make a legitimate argument that this action is carried out by a single owner, for that owner's benefit within the context of league competition; thus, it ought to be allowed.

I agree with this. This isn't collusion at all. Just because the other owner brought it to your attention that it could be beneficial for you to throw a game, doesn't make it collusion.I was considering throwing a game to keep a certain team out of the playoffs and have a weaker one in because I knew I was going to make it. It turned out to be more in my interest to win the game and secure the bye, so I decided against it. If I had already had the bye secured, I would have for sure thrown a weaker lineup at one of my opponents last week so that he could make the playoffs and this super team that started off slowly but made some huge trades and is making a run would have been kept out. If I had been able to pull of a win in week 11, I would have surely thrown my week 12 game.

It would have enhanced my teams chances at winning the title, ultimately the only thing that matters at the end of the season. It has nothing to do with collusion or ethics. This is competition for a championship, and anything that enhances your teams chances outside of collusion is fair, and I don't agree with the argument that throwing a game is collusion.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

This topic is always funny to read.  If securing Reggie Bush is vitaly important to your team, play some (wink) hunches, just do not be obvious about it.  If a commish kicks you out for that, the guy is #####, and the "league" is a joke.

I remember a game a couple years ago when the Eagles and Bucs played in week 17 and then were definitely going to play in the first round of the playoffs. Both teams sat their starters and then ran absoutely nothing. The regular-season game was not only meaningless, but "success" in that game could have been a detriment to their success in the playoffs. They considered their interests and acted appropriately. It was sort of a joke at the time, but no one accused either team of not playing fair.

Those are playoff teams. I guarantee you that if it was the Texans vs. the Jets in week 17 with the #1 pick on the line, they wouldn't be resting their starters. And if they did, there would be calls from Tagliabue and fines galore.