Intentionally Throwing Games (1 Viewer)

[JPinSoCal]

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.

I'm guessing you're a lawyer. Having ethics is not "self righteous". Just do the right thing, play to win. Tha fact that others get away with it by hiding behind loop holes or lack of explicit laws doesn't make it right.

 

[PlebsforPresident]

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.

Where did this idea come from? I'm pretty sure that Paul Tagliabue has no power to fine teams for who they start or don't start. Wow, sometimes it seems like people in here think the NFL is just a bigger version of fantasy football.

 

[WampusCat43]

In a similar vein (and sorry if this is a hijack), I'm in a position where if I lose my last regular season game, I will play a weaker team in the first round of the playoffs. Win or lose, I won't influence who gets IN the playoffs, just who I would play. Does this seem like cheating?

 

[JPinSoCal]

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.

Where did this idea come from? I'm pretty sure that Paul Tagliabue has no power to fine teams for who they start or don't start. Wow, sometimes it seems like people in here think the NFL is just a bigger version of fantasy football.

I would not underestimate his power. I'm sure he has athority to act against such action should he be able to prove intent. Proving that intent would be the key.

 

[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.

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.

Much easier for the owner/HC to tell the o-cord./d cord. to call plays which he knows will not work in certain key situations.

 

[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.

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.

The intent is analogous; the result is analogous. I am not only not convinced that there's "a big difference," I'd say that it's objectively wrong to claim there is one.The question of the practice's appropriateness in these two contexts is a separate one. Actions that "intentionally benefit another owner" can invite sanctions in my league, just as absentee ownership can. The principle is one of fair play: if some owners play a weaker schedule than do others *by design*, that harms competition. I don't want it in my league, and I myself would of course never do it.

However, those who think such a practice can be objected to as collusion are wrong. Collusion would be a team with no chance of making the playoffs throwing a game for the purpose of giving an advantage to an opponent who does. It is not collusion to give yourself a better chance (as you see it) of winning the championship by throwing a game yourself.

 

[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.

I'm guessing you're a lawyer. Having ethics is not "self righteous". Just do the right thing, play to win. Tha fact that others get away with it by hiding behind loop holes or lack of explicit laws doesn't make it right.

Bad guess. I'm a teacher, but one who understands that precision in language goes hand-in-hand with clarity of thought. Both are important when there's money involved, even (especially) when it's your friends' money.

 

[Sweeper]

A money league as well .... He asked you ... this would be collusion, by both of you! Stay away. If you were going to do it, as part of a strategy to play the weaker team, this MIGHT be discussion worty. This is DOWN RIGHT WRONG.

 

[Kit Fisto]

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.

Great post.What the original poster describes here is both tanking and collusion, which are strictly forbidden in my leagues rules (and the others I play in). Those caught doing these kind of things would be subjected to the wrath of the league: lose a draft pick of significant value, or get lost.

If your league doesn't have this kind of provison set up in it's riules, you're in a hack league.

 

[Lehigh98]

What is your goal in fantasy football?Is it anything other than to win your league?Why wouldn't you do whatever the rules allow to win it?If losing a game to a team on the way down got them into the playoffs over a team on the way up and gave you an easier road to the championship, why wouldn't you do it if the rules allowed it? Beating the weak team in a meaningless game in order to play a stronger team in a playoff game that counts is counterproductive to your goal.Tank the game and flat out tell people that you are and why you're doing it.If they have a problem, tell them to win more games next year or change the rules.

 

[Lehigh98]

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.

Great post.What the original poster describes here is both tanking and collusion, which are strictly forbidden in my leagues rules (and the others I play in). Those caught doing these kind of things would be subjected to the wrath of the league: lose a draft pick of significant value, or get lost.

If your league doesn't have this kind of provison set up in it's riules, you're in a hack league.

What's so wrong with tanking a game to put yourself in a better position to win?

 

[Kit Fisto]

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.

Great post.What the original poster describes here is both tanking and collusion, which are strictly forbidden in my leagues rules (and the others I play in). Those caught doing these kind of things would be subjected to the wrath of the league: lose a draft pick of significant value, or get lost.

If your league doesn't have this kind of provison set up in it's riules, you're in a hack league.

What's so wrong with tanking a game to put yourself in a better position to win?

Because when you tank, you not only effect your team, but other teams as well.

 

[Lehigh98]

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.

Great post.What the original poster describes here is both tanking and collusion, which are strictly forbidden in my leagues rules (and the others I play in). Those caught doing these kind of things would be subjected to the wrath of the league: lose a draft pick of significant value, or get lost.

If your league doesn't have this kind of provison set up in it's riules, you're in a hack league.

What's so wrong with tanking a game to put yourself in a better position to win?

Because when you tank, you not only effect your team, but other teams as well.

Exactly, thats the point.

 

[shadyridr]

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.

Where did this idea come from? I'm pretty sure that Paul Tagliabue has no power to fine teams for who they start or don't start. Wow, sometimes it seems like people in here think the NFL is just a bigger version of fantasy football.

MLB banned for life the 8 players caught in the 1919 BlackSox scandal for throwing the World Series. I see no reason why Tagliabue cant do the same to teams/coaches in the NFL.

 

[Lehigh98]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffsB. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffsWhat do you do?

 

[Kit Fisto]

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.

Great post.What the original poster describes here is both tanking and collusion, which are strictly forbidden in my leagues rules (and the others I play in). Those caught doing these kind of things would be subjected to the wrath of the league: lose a draft pick of significant value, or get lost.

If your league doesn't have this kind of provison set up in it's riules, you're in a hack league.

What's so wrong with tanking a game to put yourself in a better position to win?

Because when you tank, you not only effect your team, but other teams as well.

Exactly, thats the point.

Let's say YOUR TEAM and another team are both one game from clinching a playoff spot. The other team has a secret deal worked out with his opponent this week (who's playoff future is already secured) that he will tank the game and give the win to your competition. You win your game outright, but still just miss the playoffs due to this.How would you feel about tanking then?

 

[Lehigh98]

BTW, I'm just an interested observer, this wouldn't happen in my leagues.The way my leagues avoid this is about half the money goes to the top three in overall points for the 17 week season so everyone has to submit their best lineup every week.This also rewards the guys that have done well all year in addition to the guys that just get lucky in a couple of games at the end.

 

[-OZ-]

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.

Great post.What the original poster describes here is both tanking and collusion, which are strictly forbidden in my leagues rules (and the others I play in). Those caught doing these kind of things would be subjected to the wrath of the league: lose a draft pick of significant value, or get lost.

If your league doesn't have this kind of provison set up in it's riules, you're in a hack league.

What's so wrong with tanking a game to put yourself in a better position to win?

Because when you tank, you not only effect your team, but other teams as well.

Exactly, thats the point.

Let's say YOUR TEAM and another team are both one game from clinching a playoff spot. The other team has a secret deal worked out with his opponent this week (who's playoff future is already secured) that he will tank the game and give the win to your competition. You win your game outright, but still just miss the playoffs due to this.How would you feel about tanking then?

The obvious answer, just like when players or coaches blame the ref's, is it's your fault you were in this position.That said, secret deals should never be allowed, period. If one team decides, after looking at matchups, that it is in his best interest to lower his seed, or get a certain matchup in the playoffs, that's completely different.

 

[-OZ-]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do?

Please explain how this can happen.

 

[Lehigh98]

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.

Great post.What the original poster describes here is both tanking and collusion, which are strictly forbidden in my leagues rules (and the others I play in). Those caught doing these kind of things would be subjected to the wrath of the league: lose a draft pick of significant value, or get lost.

If your league doesn't have this kind of provison set up in it's riules, you're in a hack league.

What's so wrong with tanking a game to put yourself in a better position to win?

Because when you tank, you not only effect your team, but other teams as well.

Exactly, thats the point.

Let's say YOUR TEAM and another team are both one game from clinching a playoff spot. The other team has a secret deal worked out with his opponent this week (who's playoff future is already secured) that he will tank the game and give the win to your competition. You win your game outright, but still just miss the playoffs due to this.How would you feel about tanking then?

Thats completely different, thats collusion.If the team who's playoff future is secure decided on its own to lose on purpose because they saw me as a greater threat in the playoffs and was hoping to get me knocked out, thats fine. Having a better team and winning more games them me gives them that opportunity and that right.

 

[PlebsforPresident]

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.

Where did this idea come from? I'm pretty sure that Paul Tagliabue has no power to fine teams for who they start or don't start. Wow, sometimes it seems like people in here think the NFL is just a bigger version of fantasy football.

MLB banned for life the 8 players caught in the 1919 BlackSox scandal for throwing the World Series. I see no reason why Tagliabue cant do the same to teams/coaches in the NFL.

If Tagliabue could prove that players were rested for the purpose of losing on purpose, maybe, but I don't see how that could be done.I just don't think anything would happen. Plenty of times at the end of the season a team will want to evaluate younger back ups or rest players for the playoffs. I've never heard of fines being thrown at teams for this.

 

[Lehigh98]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do?

Please explain how this can happen.

Doesn't matter to this discussion.

 

[-OZ-]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do?

Please explain how this can happen.

Doesn't matter to this discussion.

Of course it does. Hypotheticals are fun and all, but in order to answer the question, there has to be a possibility of it actually happening.

 

[Lehigh98]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do?

Please explain how this can happen.

Doesn't matter to this discussion.

Of course it does. Hypotheticals are fun and all, but in order to answer the question, there has to be a possibility of it actually happening.

Obviously you've never visited the FFA.

 

[Muahahaha]

You guys might be interested to know I asked basically everyone in the league about this, and, to a man, the view has been that I can do whatever I want with my roster. Several of my leaguemates even said that I "earned" the right to do this based on my record. One guy even said that it would be the smart move.

 

[GregR_2]

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.

I wouldn't wait until next year. I'd thank him for playing and start finding a replacement owner.

 

[GregR_2]

You guys might be interested to know I asked basically everyone in the league about this, and, to a man, the view has been that I can do whatever I want with my roster.

Several of my leaguemates even said that I "earned" the right to do this based on my record. One guy even said that it would be the smart move.

I wouldn't play in a league with owners like that. I suppose there are some people that this kind of thing is right up their alley, and if they can all be in a league together where it's understood normal ethics will be abandoned and that's what they want, more power to them.But it's owners like that which reinforce for me the reasons I don't play for money.

 

[valhallan]

You guys might be interested to know I asked basically everyone in the league about this, and, to a man, the view has been that I can do whatever I want with my roster.

Several of my leaguemates even said that I "earned" the right to do this based on my record. One guy even said that it would be the smart move.

Then I guess we shouldn't be surprised one of them approached you with such an offer. I wonder what else these guys do without telling you..

 

[Spike]

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

GAMESET

MATCH

 

[Ted the Caver]

One time, I needed to win my last game to get in the playoffs. My opponent, the commish, that week was already out so I e-mailed him and jokingly asked if he'd throw the game. Later I saw he changed his entire line-up. I was shocked because the idea of throwing a game seemed so outlandish to me. I e-mailed him again and asked him to fix his line-up. Epilouge:He replied and said he realized I was kidding and was playing match-ups, explaining each one to me. And he was right, it turned out to be the best line-up he could have played.

 

[Nemesis]

I'll add another scenario on this subject that is a little less obvious:

In one of my keeper leagues, my team has clinched a WC Playoff spot and I can't improve or reduce my playoff seed OR affect any other playoff teams. But, this wk I play the worst team in the league and he is in my division.

If I beat him, then he would surely have the worst record & get the #1 pick in next year's draft.

If I lose to him, and the second worst team in another division also loses, then my division opponent would slip to the #2 pick in next year's draft.

Now, this is a Keep 5 league and we don't re-shuffle the divisions, so I'm wondering if I want a divisional team getting the #1 pick overall (probably R.Bush) that I would have to face twice a year in future years.

I'm not talking about benching obvious studs........but I do have several equal players that I've been rotating the past wks and some have lesser matchups this wkend so it wouldn't be "obvious" if I left them in my starting lineup.

Does this particular situation change anybody's stance from before?

 

[Sweet J]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do?

Please explain how this can happen.

Doesn't matter to this discussion.

Of course it does. Hypotheticals are fun and all, but in order to answer the question, there has to be a possibility of it actually happening.

Obviously you've never visited the FFA.

If you can't explain how you can withstand 1 million little people, you have no business calling yourself a shark, and all your fantasy football so-called "success" dwindles in the mighty face of logical madness.

 

[Jagerbomber]

We had a similar situation in one of my leagues. Team A was trying to get to the playoffs and it could do so with a win over Team B. However in this case team B had no chance of making it to the playoffs. Team B threw the game by leaving a couple of people in that were not going to be playing and pleading ignorance on their injuries. Which we all believed at the time but it eventually surfaced that it was done on purpose.Neither person was invited to participate in the league the following year.So I suppose it's up to the owners to decide what to do but my advice is to not do it. Screw the other guy...if he can't earn his way in then tough luck.

 

[Deadzone21]

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

It's starting to bother me the erroneous use of collusion.

collusion n. secret agreement or cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose

I see nothing secretive or deceitful. Unless it breaks a rule, I don't see anything illegal.With that said, (1) I would prefer to take pride in beating the best. It makes victory over a long season that much sweeter. (2) If viewed badly by other owners, why risk bad rapport with the same owners you'll have to work a trade next season? (3) But, I wouldn't personally hold it against anyone in a money league if that's what they thought it took to take home the money (within the rules) and (4) you could look twice as foolish if the plan backfires and you still lose in the playoffs.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

I can see somebody in your situation not breaking their necks to play their best team, though I personally would have a hard time starting an intentionally crappy lineup.I would never do this if the opponent asked me to, however.And the more I think about it, you are screwing the guy who the lame team might beat out, which is equivalent to your playing him another time and winning, despite the fact that he has no power to change the outcome. That's wrong.

 

[Kit Fisto]

I am bowing out of this one. If I can't convince you why collusion and tanking have no place in fantasy football, I won't waste anymore time in this thread.

 

[Bri]

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?

You've got an arrogant attitude, be careful. Your starting RB+ WR might go down and this guy might whoop you. You're wasting your time with this when you should be analyzing injuries and working the waiver wire. The championship victory will be that much sweeter, go on as usual.Congrats on a good season thus far, tone it down a smidge still got a few weeks to go

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

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

It's starting to bother me the erroneous use of collusion.

collusion n.  secret agreement or cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose

I see nothing secretive or deceitful. Unless it breaks a rule, I don't see anything illegal.With that said, (1) I would prefer to take pride in beating the best. It makes victory over a long season that much sweeter. (2) If viewed badly by other owners, why risk bad rapport with the same owners you'll have to work a trade next season? (3) But, I wouldn't personally hold it against anyone in a money league if that's what they thought it took to take home the money (within the rules) and (4) you could look twice as foolish if the plan backfires and you still lose in the playoffs.

That is lovely and all that you carry a pocket dictionary with you for these cases but you should just put it away and stick with the fantasy football definition of the word. By your definition there is essentially no such thing as collusion in fantasy football, although I think I could argue that situations such as this are for deceitful purposes. I assume and play under the premise that everyone in my league is playing to benefit their own team and not anybody elses and anything other than that upsets the competitive balance of the league. Why not have two owners decide that they can combine their teams after a few weeks and make one superteam? Why not allow bottomfeeder teams to trade off the one of their few good players to a contender for a song? Competitive balance. I wouldn't sit at any card table or game table where I thought it was possible for two of the other owners to secretly gang up against me either. It is blatantly obvious to anyone out there that the dictionary definition of collusion can and has been extrapolated to games like fantasy football for situations such as these where people are doing things contrary to the fundamental rules of the activity.

 

[dotman]

Is it possible to "unintentionally" throw a game?

 

[Lehigh98]

I am bowing out of this one. If I can't convince you why collusion and tanking have no place in fantasy football, I won't waste anymore time in this thread.

Agree on collusionDisagree on tanking

I think you're confused, see the definition above.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do?

Please explain how this can happen.

I'll try. 10 team league 2 divisions. Rules say each division winner goes to the playoffs, then the next best record, then the next best points. Division 1

Team A = Division winner 9-3 1000 pts

Team B = 8-4 your opponent. Owns Tiebreaker 1000 pts

Team C = 8-4 700 pts

Team D = 6-6 700 pts.

Team E = 3-9 600 pts.

Division 2

Team F = Division winner 9-3 1000 pts

Team G = You 6-6 900 pts

Team H = 4-8 700 pts

Team I = 4-8 700 pts

Team J = 3-9 600 pts

Team G(you) is playing Team B. If you win you go to 7-6 which does not give you next best record. Team C wins goes to 9-4 and goes on next best record. You obviously did not beat team B by 100 pts since this scoring system's best team is not even averaging 100 points a game.

OR

Team G(you) loses. That means Team B wins and is assured a playoff spot due to tie breakers. Since 200 points is not able to be made uo by the team behind you, your team makes the 4th and final playoff spot on points.

So the question remains:

You are in a situation where...

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do???

 

[DropKick]

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.

You can call it self-righteous if that makes you feel better. The NFL is corporate America and yes, I'm sure the best things don't always happen.But we play a game with family, friends and co-workers. If you think that rigging a game to get a sweet play-off match-up is cool, then my self-righteous butt thinks you're a d1ck. What comes around, goes around, my friend.

 

[ren hoek]

I admire this type of strategy in FF. You play to win the championship in your league, and anything you can do in that interest is fair game as long as it's not collusion. This isn't collusion.

 

[Jack Ham & Eggs]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do?

I'd set my best lineup and then hope that I lost. But I'd win or lose with the best team I could field.

 

[-OZ-]

Is it possible to "unintentionally" throw a game?

Sure it is. Once I forgot to submit a lineup.

 

[-OZ-]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do?

Please explain how this can happen.

I'll try. 10 team league 2 divisions. Rules say each division winner goes to the playoffs, then the next best record, then the next best points. Division 1

Team A = Division winner 9-3 1000 pts

Team B = 8-4 your opponent. Owns Tiebreaker 1000 pts

Team C = 8-4 700 pts

Team D = 6-6 700 pts.

Team E = 3-9 600 pts.

Division 2

Team F = Division winner 9-3 1000 pts

Team G = You 6-6 900 pts

Team H = 4-8 700 pts

Team I = 4-8 700 pts

Team J = 3-9 600 pts

Team G(you) is playing Team B. If you win you go to 7-6 which does not give you next best record. Team C wins goes to 9-4 and goes on next best record. You obviously did not beat team B by 100 pts since this scoring system's best team is not even averaging 100 points a game.

OR

Team G(you) loses. That means Team B wins and is assured a playoff spot due to tie breakers. Since 200 points is not able to be made uo by the team behind you, your team makes the 4th and final playoff spot on points.

So the question remains:

You are in a situation where...

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do???

Ok, so the stars have to align, but good job. Lose the game. This is one situation where it would be legitimate. Blame the rules if people have issues with it.

 

[-OZ-]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do?

Please explain how this can happen.

Doesn't matter to this discussion.

Of course it does. Hypotheticals are fun and all, but in order to answer the question, there has to be a possibility of it actually happening.

Obviously you've never visited the FFA.

I visit, but I ignore stuff like this for the most part.

 

[Lehigh98]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do?

I'd set my best lineup and then hope that I lost. But I'd win or lose with the best team I could field.

 

[Jack Ham & Eggs]

If you were in some odd 3 or 4 way tie situation where:

A. Losing the game gets you in the playoffs

B. Winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs

What do you do?

I'd set my best lineup and then hope that I lost. But I'd win or lose with the best team I could field.

No, it's called having integrity. It is the same reason that golfers call penalties on themselves when they violate a rule. If you don't understand the "spirit" of competition then I feel badly for you.

 

[Lehigh98]

Now a poll!