Is it ever OK to play an inferior lineup in FF (a pole)? (1 Viewer)

[eighsse2]

If I'm trying to win a championship in the next three years and losing in week 17 this year will give me a better chance of doing that, I'm still trying to win, too. Why is it "unethical" to bench a player one week, but not similarly unethical to, say, trade away my first round pick to another owner? In both instances I'm making my team worse in the short term, at the exclusive benefit of a single other owner, in the hopes of making my team better in the long run.

Trading away players for future assets is a common rebuild situation where you are trying to improve your team. The fact it is worsening your team in the short term is part of that process. It is unavoidable because in order to gain future assets you have to give up current assets (at least this is a common way of doing so). You are not necessarily "trying to lose" but are hoping that's a byproduct. You are still playing the best players on your roster week to week at the time trying to put up the most points you can.

With respect to the benching your stud to try and lose week 17 scenario you are purposely trying to lose in the current year. It's a conscious decision to be worse than you are which isn't right for the rest of the league.

I understand the fine line and understand your argument. I just don't think it is the same thing with the latter (making an inferior lineup from your available roster) being unethical if a competitive situation.

If you trade your best assets for lesser players then you aren't trying to win, which is nets the same outcome as trying to lose and has the same identical impact on the rest of the league in the current year.

I will give the benefit of the doubt in this hypothetical situation that the trade that was made was even so the value difference between the lesser players and better players was made up in pick value. So by making an even trade you are in no way trying to lose overall. It may have the ultimate outcome of losing but you are not trying to lose by making a conscious decision to play a lesser player over a better player that are currently available to you.

Now if you trade a stud for a player that is paralyzed and will never play again, then you can likely assume that by making that trade you are trying to lose.

So by getting more value in your trade, you're somehow making it better?

I want to lose.
I trade Justin Jefferson for Nelson Agholor so I can lose out and get the #1 pick.
"No, that's unfair!"
" Okay fine, I guess I'll trade Jefferson for 3 first round picks, and lose out and get the #1 pick too ... I hate getting first round picks ... really wanted Agholor "
"That's much better, thank you."

Point being ... Of course you want value in return even if you are tanking. The entire point of tanking is to add value.

 

[-OZ-]

That said, it’s perfectly acceptable to deal away talented players for picks and then field a terrible lineup hoping for 1.01 - that’s just good management.

But I draw the line at intentionally losing. Never ok for any reason.

These are functionally indistinguishable.

It's very strange how people view them so differently.

I think there are three different situations in dynasty.

1. Trade away higher performing players for younger players or picks. No issue.
2. Putting qualifying good players on your taxi squad instead of your roster. Also okay, but rules can be made to make it illegal.
3. Benching better players in any given week to lose. Clearly against the spirit of the game.

 

[eighsse2]

Benching better players in any given week to lose. Clearly against the spirit of the game.

I feel like the spirit of the game is to try to win titles ..... not games.

The problem that tanking causes is it makes things weird and likely less fun. Not entirely necessary that it become less fun though. If tanking is legal, it simply becomes a modified game. You begin to ask a lot of new questions.

"When am I ready to tank?"
"I'm 3-7, but there's definitely still a chance I could sneak into the playoffs ... should I try to win or lose?"
"I am convinced that it is tank time. Now, how do I do it, within the platform rules? I'm going up against a guy who is also likely tanking. We're forced to start someone in every position ... I only have a 4 projected 0's on my roster, and my opponent has 6. Whom can I pick up that is injured, or a backup, and whom from my roster can I sacrifice -- after all, dropping a decent prospect from the bottom of my roster is some amount of lost value. Am I sure I even want to make this move at all?"
"Is there a defense I can pick up that is going up against the #1 NFL offense, that may have a shot at scoring negative?"

I don't think it has to become a terrible thing, but I would prefer it not be a thing. Which is why it's probably best to have a system that doesn't reward it. If you don't want something to happen, you need a rule. And if it's something that can be difficult to discern ("Is he tanking or does he just have weird opinions about his lineup?"), best to not involve judgment, and just change the system.

 

[Mitchie]

Yeah I'm part of a league where tanking is, again, expressly permitted in the bylaws (at least through FF season 2023).

What is "expressly permitted"? By that I mean, do the rules say you can play people on bye to try and lose? (or other examples of this nature)

ETA: At times it gets kind of comical because we had one team beat the other like 1.8 to .6. Kind of funny when you think that a random single catch by some guy like Brevin Jordan decides a fantasy game in its entirety.

This is ridiculous. I don't see how it's fun playing in a league like that.

 

[Zow]

Yeah I'm part of a league where tanking is, again, expressly permitted in the bylaws (at least through FF season 2023).

What is "expressly permitted"? By that I mean, do the rules say you can play people on bye to try and lose? (or other examples of this nature)

ETA: At times it gets kind of comical because we had one team beat the other like 1.8 to .6. Kind of funny when you think that a random single catch by some guy like Brevin Jordan decides a fantasy game in its entirety.

This is ridiculous. I don't see how it's fun playing in a league like that.

It's honestly not - which is why myself and one other owner threw a bit of a stink this past year.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Moving your best players from your starting lineup to another team is ok, but moving them to your bench is morally reprehensible?

Yes, 100%

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

That said, it’s perfectly acceptable to deal away talented players for picks and then field a terrible lineup hoping for 1.01 - that’s just good management.

But I draw the line at intentionally losing. Never ok for any reason.

These are functionally indistinguishable.

It's very strange how people view them so differently.

I think there are three different situations in dynasty.

1. Trade away higher performing players for younger players or picks. No issue.
2. Putting qualifying good players on your taxi squad instead of your roster. Also okay, but rules can be made to make it illegal.
3. Benching better players in any given week to lose. Clearly against the spirit of the game.

Scenario 2 is why we have a 2 year limit on Taxi in both my leagues where there’s a taxi squad.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'm going to tank the remaining weeks of the season so it's not a specific opponent.

In that scenario I’m against tanking. Which in that scenario involves benching your better players. Which I’ve already said I’m against. Consistency.

 

[ghostguy123]

Only when a loss gets you into the playoffs when a win would knock you out.
This was discussed before in a unique situation.
Otherwise, no

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

That's exactly what tanking is. Fire sale of your your assets for future considerations is one of the main ways pro teams tank.

Again: selling quality assets resulting in a depleted roster that’s more likely to garner you a higher pick is not remotely the same thing as *deliberately benching* quality assets to garner you a higher pick.

You seem to want to have your ethical cake and eat it too.

Selling assets is sometimes referred to as a “soft tank” and is generally accepted because it is part of a rebuild.

But benching those assets deliberately is basically cheating the system, by throwing games to get a better pick, while not losing any assets.

Cmon - this isn’t anything new in the FF community. Splitting hairs over the difference when it’s a chasm a mile wide seems a little silly.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Don't try to legislate against tanking, or shame people into not tanking by making spurious arguments about ethics

Just to be clear, ethics are ethics.

The spurious claims are the ones used to attempt to make unethical league loopholes sound more ethical.

Any shame felt is because of doing something unethical.

But the ethics are neutral. It may not be cheating if your league rules allow it, but it’s still unethical.

That’s a more philosophical discussion though, probably best left to another forum.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Yeah I'm part of a league where tanking is, again, expressly permitted in the bylaws (at least through FF season 2023).

What is "expressly permitted"? By that I mean, do the rules say you can play people on bye to try and lose? (or other examples of this nature)

ETA: At times it gets kind of comical because we had one team beat the other like 1.8 to .6. Kind of funny when you think that a random single catch by some guy like Brevin Jordan decides a fantasy game in its entirety.

This is ridiculous. I don't see how it's fun playing in a league like that.

Agreed. All of my leagues have anti-tanking rules.

To eliminate the deliberate benching scenario, we go by “potential points” based on projected for draft picks rather than actual if the projected is higher.

That buttons it right up. No one can bench CeeDee for Greg Jennings & gain pick value as a result (for example) so teams always start their best.

In the examples given in this topic it’s been 2 teams trying to tank - which doesn’t impact much. But from what I’ve seen more often than not a tanking team helps a competing team to a free win, which is bad for the league’s competitive balance.

 

[eighsse2]

What if you sell your good players for picks with every intention of trading the picks back for the same or even better players during the offseason (after all, picks tend to increase in value, the closer you get to draft day)?

 

[-OZ-]

But the ethics are neutral. It may not be cheating if your league rules allow it, but it’s still unethical.

Ethics attorney here, rules definitely matter.

 

[Zow]

But the ethics are neutral. It may not be cheating if your league rules allow it, but it’s still unethical.

Ethics attorney here, rules definitely matter.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This assumes that it’s not against the league rules.

Right. Just be clear in the rules about this.

Over 6 years I probably reset a lineup maybe 5 times using the rankings at Fantasypros. But I'd told them ahead of time I'd intervene if someone didn't submit a lineup or had guys on byes or injury list starting with viable options on the bench. No one ever had a problem with it.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

What if you sell your good players for picks with every intention of trading the picks back for the same or even better players during the offseason (after all, picks tend to increase in value, the closer you get to draft day)?

Trade-backs are a form of collusion and every league I’m in has explicit rules against this exact thing.

“The same or different” matters a lot. Go ahead and deal those picks for other players. Trading them back for the same players is cheating & should be cause for league expulsion for both parties engaging in the trade-back.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

let's say its the week before the playoffs.....and I am guaranteed to make the playoffs.....and for whatever reason Team A only has Josh Allen at QB and he can't make any moves and Allen will be out the first week of the playoffs....and I know if I lose the week before the playoffs I would be matched up against Team A in the first round of the playoffs...otherwise if I win I am going to be facing a tougher fully loaded team.....losing basically guarantees me advancing to the second round of the playoffs....hmmmmm....give me the L....

you could argue, if the goal of every team should be to win the championship.....I would actually be doing the league a disservice by not trying to lose that last regular season game.....as losing that game gives me a better chance to win the big prize....

@Hot Sauce Guy .....curious your response to this....

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

let's say its the week before the playoffs.....and I am guaranteed to make the playoffs.....and for whatever reason Team A only has Josh Allen at QB and he can't make any moves and Allen will be out the first week of the playoffs....and I know if I lose the week before the playoffs I would be matched up against Team A in the first round of the playoffs...otherwise if I win I am going to be facing a tougher fully loaded team.....losing basically guarantees me advancing to the second round of the playoffs....hmmmmm....give me the L....

you could argue, if the goal of every team should be to win the championship.....I would actually be doing the league a disservice by not trying to lose that last regular season game.....as losing that game gives me a better chance to win the big prize....

@Hot Sauce Guy .....curious your response to this....

Sounds like an extreme corner case that is unlikely to ever happen.

That isn’t the topic.

Is it ok to do it in that circumstance? I have no idea - further context is needed

1. Does your league allow you to throw games? Or is there a no tanking rule as many dynasty leagues employ?

2. How do you know Allen will be rested?

3. How does your throwing the game impact other teams fighting for a playoff spot?

Those questions matter, some more about ethics, some about procedure, some about whether this is even a realistic possibility.

I’m skeptical that it is. I’ve played this game for decades and have never seen such a scenario. I concede it’s possible. My gut says you man up and set your best lineup every week.

Because I’m pretty sure #3 is relevant, and someone else would get hosed if you didn’t.

 

[Ray_T]

In Dynasty I could see tanking as being lame, but in redraft, I see doing something like benching your Monday night player with a slim lead as being ok.

that's a different scenario. you dont need the points to win and you are protecting yourself against a possible negative score by the player.

that said, nearly every time I've ever seen someone tank to get a more favourable playoff matchup, it ends up backfiring and the supposed favourable matchup has a one in a million explosion of fantasy points that they've never done (or will again).

my advice, try to win every game. dont get too fancy.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

let's say its the week before the playoffs.....and I am guaranteed to make the playoffs.....and for whatever reason Team A only has Josh Allen at QB and he can't make any moves and Allen will be out the first week of the playoffs....and I know if I lose the week before the playoffs I would be matched up against Team A in the first round of the playoffs...otherwise if I win I am going to be facing a tougher fully loaded team.....losing basically guarantees me advancing to the second round of the playoffs....hmmmmm....give me the L....

you could argue, if the goal of every team should be to win the championship.....I would actually be doing the league a disservice by not trying to lose that last regular season game.....as losing that game gives me a better chance to win the big prize....

@Hot Sauce Guy .....curious your response to this....

Sounds like an extreme corner case that is unlikely to ever happen.

That isn’t the topic.

Is it ok to do it in that circumstance? I have no idea - further context is needed

1. Does your league allow you to throw games? Or is there a no tanking rule as many dynasty leagues employ?

2. How do you know Allen will be rested?

3. How does your throwing the game impact other teams fighting for a playoff spot?

Those questions matter, some more about ethics, some about procedure, some about whether this is even a realistic possibility.

I’m skeptical that it is. I’ve played this game for decades and have never seen such a scenario. I concede it’s possible. My gut says you man up and set your best lineup every week.

Because I’m pretty sure #3 is relevant, and someone else would get hosed if you didn’t.

I've rode 1 QB into the last weeks and playoffs several times .....rolling the dice yes....but playing keep away at other positions with the moves I had left was strategically more important....I wanted other players on my bench in the playoffs instead of in somebody elses starting lineup......

this most definitely is the topic.....in this situation losing a game by playing an inferior lineup would 100% be the right call if I wanted to get the ultimate goal for every owner....."win it all"....

1. my situation is redraft....no rule about "throwing games" as that is impossible to prove really....but even if I admitted I was "throwing the game"....it was in giving me the best chance to ultimately win...which nobody can really argue with since that is the goal.....and actually what I should do....

2. rested...?...or hurt....?...or like DEN did last year who was still in the playoffs..... but decided to bench Wilson....

3. I don't care....I'm in it to win it......what I do or don't do shouldn't affect them....win more games if you don't want to be in this spot.....just like the NFL....teams sit guys all the time even though the outcome of that game could affect other teams and who makes the playoffs and who doesn't....it happens all the time and why we hear "control your own destiny"....you could argue it'd be stupid for me not to....

I'll take it further....let's say my last regular season game was actually against that very Team A....and I knew Allen was done that week and moving forward.....so I play team A the last week and if I lose....I get to play him again the very next week, knowing Allen was out....obviously, the math would have to add up, but often those scenarios are predictable....

I realize my example is extreme....but to answer the OP's question.....yes it is OK to play an inferior lineup under certain circumstances....

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

let's say its the week before the playoffs.....and I am guaranteed to make the playoffs.....and for whatever reason Team A only has Josh Allen at QB and he can't make any moves and Allen will be out the first week of the playoffs....and I know if I lose the week before the playoffs I would be matched up against Team A in the first round of the playoffs...otherwise if I win I am going to be facing a tougher fully loaded team.....losing basically guarantees me advancing to the second round of the playoffs....hmmmmm....give me the L....

you could argue, if the goal of every team should be to win the championship.....I would actually be doing the league a disservice by not trying to lose that last regular season game.....as losing that game gives me a better chance to win the big prize....

@Hot Sauce Guy .....curious your response to this....

Sounds like an extreme corner case that is unlikely to ever happen.

That isn’t the topic.

Is it ok to do it in that circumstance? I have no idea - further context is needed

1. Does your league allow you to throw games? Or is there a no tanking rule as many dynasty leagues employ?

2. How do you know Allen will be rested?

3. How does your throwing the game impact other teams fighting for a playoff spot?

Those questions matter, some more about ethics, some about procedure, some about whether this is even a realistic possibility.

I’m skeptical that it is. I’ve played this game for decades and have never seen such a scenario. I concede it’s possible. My gut says you man up and set your best lineup every week.

Because I’m pretty sure #3 is relevant, and someone else would get hosed if you didn’t.

I've rode 1 QB into the last weeks and playoffs several times .....rolling the dice yes....but playing keep away at other positions with the moves I had left was strategically more important....I wanted other players on my bench in the playoffs instead of in somebody elses starting lineup......

this most definitely is the topic.....in this situation losing a game by playing an inferior lineup would 100% be the right call if I wanted to get the ultimate goal for every owner....."win it all"....

1. my situation is redraft....no rule about "throwing games" as that is impossible to prove really....but even if I admitted I was "throwing the game"....it was in giving me the best chance to ultimately win...which nobody can really argue with since that is the goal.....and actually what I should do....

2. rested...?...or hurt....?...or like DEN did last year who was still in the playoffs..... but decided to bench Wilson....

3. I don't care....I'm in it to win it......what I do or don't do shouldn't affect them....win more games if you don't want to be in this spot.....just like the NFL....teams sit guys all the time even though the outcome of that game could affect other teams and who makes the playoffs and who doesn't....it happens all the time and why we hear "control your own destiny"....you could argue it'd be stupid for me not to....

I'll take it further....let's say my last regular season game was actually against that very Team A....and I knew Allen was done that week and moving forward.....so I play team A the last week and if I lose....I get to play him again the very next week, knowing Allen was out....obviously, the math would have to add up, but often those scenarios are predictable....

I realize my example is extreme....but to answer the OP's question.....yes it is OK to play an inferior lineup under certain circumstances....

Suffice to say I disagree with you on several points, but we can leave it as that and part as friends.

I’m pretty sure this topic is about dynasty where “tanking” applies to trying to get a better draft pick. So your corner case redraft scenario is kind of moot.

ETA: I don’t mean any disrespect by that - I just see most folks looking at this as ways to get a better draft pick.

 

[eighsse2]

What if you sell your good players for picks with every intention of trading the picks back for the same or even better players during the offseason (after all, picks tend to increase in value, the closer you get to draft day)?

Trade-backs are a form of collusion and every league I’m in has explicit rules against this exact thing.

“The same or different” matters a lot. Go ahead and deal those picks for other players. Trading them back for the same players is cheating & should be cause for league expulsion for both parties engaging in the trade-back.

What??? Okay, I guess I should be more clear, I'm not talking about a secret agreement whereby the other guy is obligated to trade the players back to you. I'm saying your own intention is to trade the picks back later for the same players or better players. The only thing that could prevent you from doing that is the ability to find a trade partner to give up players of that quality. But as long as you can find someone willing to give that much up, then you have essentially done exactly the same as benching a stud for a scrub.

 

[TheWinz]

This thread kind of derailed. If you go back to the original post, @Gally said he wasn't talking about trading away your current studs in dynasty and making your team weaker. This happens all the time and is a part of dynasty. Some teams are in rebuild mode and some teams are in win now mode. He said, "For example, you have Bijan Robinson and Tank Bigsby as your RB's. Both are healthy and should get their typical usage and you start Bigsby and sit Bijan." In that scenario, it doesn't matter if it's a dynasty, keeper, or redraft league.

I will say this - If I were commish and saw someone bench a stud for a dud, I am doing something about it. I would start by asking them if they think the dud is going to outscore the stud. If they say no, I will tell them either they can change their lineup to what they truly THINK is their best lineup, or I will use my commish log-on and change the lineup myself. The tricky part to me is where to draw the line in the sand. What if someone has a gut feeling and truly thinks Mixon is going to outscore Bijan? I got no problem with that. It's those types of decisions that make a fantasy owner feel smart when it pays off. What if they have a gut feeling Bijan will be outscored by Tank Bigsby? I don't believe them. Then the fun really begins if Bigsby does go off that week!

 

[Mitchie]

What if you sell your good players for picks with every intention of trading the picks back for the same or even better players during the offseason (after all, picks tend to increase in value, the closer you get to draft day)?

Trade-backs are a form of collusion and every league I’m in has explicit rules against this exact thing.

“The same or different” matters a lot. Go ahead and deal those picks for other players. Trading them back for the same players is cheating & should be cause for league expulsion for both parties engaging in the trade-back.

What??? Okay, I guess I should be more clear, I'm not talking about a secret agreement whereby the other guy is obligated to trade the players back to you. I'm saying your own intention is to trade the picks back later for the same players or better players. The only thing that could prevent you from doing that is the ability to find a trade partner to give up players of that quality. But as long as you can find someone willing to give that much up, then you have essentially done exactly the same as benching a stud for a scrub.

you're right someone could do that, can be risky but doable. this is what trade deadlines are for though which helps alleviate that issue. Also can be hard to get fair value in a deal at the end of the season.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I will say this - If I were commish and saw someone bench a stud for a dud, I am doing something about it. I would start by asking them if they think the dud is going to outscore the stud. If they say no, I will tell them either they can change their lineup to what they truly THINK is their best lineup, or I will use my commish log-on and change the lineup myself. The tricky part to me is where to draw the line in the sand. What if someone has a gut feeling and truly thinks Mixon is going to outscore Bijan? I got no problem with that. It's those types of decisions that make a fantasy owner feel smart when it pays off. What if they have a gut feeling Bijan will be outscored by Tank Bigsby? I don't believe them. Then the fun really begins if Bigsby does go off that week!

You've just illustrated why it's so silly to try to legislate against tanking. There are threads about it here every year. It's a waste of time to make a rule that says "no tanking." Just remove the incentives to tank.

I'd demand my money back plus some if I was ever in a league where the commissioner used his privileges to change my lineup. Talking about unethical...

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Don't try to legislate against tanking, or shame people into not tanking by making spurious arguments about ethics

Just to be clear, ethics are ethics.

...

That’s a more philosophical discussion though, probably best left to another forum.

I mean, yeah, there's like thousands of years of philosophical thought that would disagree with your "ethics is ethics" claim. That's the whole point, you guys are saying "trading good players away is ethical, benching good players is unethical" as if that's incontrovertible. It isn't, that's exactly the point. You're begging the question.

 

[JohnnyU]

The best way is either allow tanking or get rid of owners who are tanking. I personally feel tanking in a dynasty league is bad because it affects other teams who are playing their best lineup, but is also fighting for a draft position, and it affects other teams vying for a playoff spot. Giving teams a free win is not fair to other teams trying to make the playoffs. Currently in my leagues we have a no tanking policy. If teams bench Bijan for Bigsby, I make the swap. If teams start bye or injured players I make the swap. I've been commish a long time and sometimes we get new owners who try to do this and I set it straight right away. As a commish I hate being faced with this. I've only had to get rid of one owner in 20 years in several leagues because of tanking. The owners in my leagues know where I stand on this issue and generally play their best lineup, with perhaps some subtle tanking of WR3s or RB3S, or TE2s and I don't question it.

 

[TheWinz]

Just remove the incentives to tank.

The problem is, this is impossible. You say it like it's something you can control, but no matter how thorough your bylaws are, there will always be loopholes. You may say it's silly to try to legislate tanking, and I say it's a good commishes job to make SURE it doesn't happen. If that means kicking a loser out of your league midseason, so be it. It only takes one loser owner to sabotage an entire league. Hopefully that kind of person is not in yours.

I'd demand my money back plus some if I was ever in a league where the commissioner used his privileges to change my lineup. Talking about unethical...

There's an easy answer to this. Write it into the bylaws. Something as simple as - the commish has the right to adjust lineups of anyone being a douche. Just because you paid your league dues does not give you the right to ruin the league. I'll give you a scenario - you're Team C and will make the playoffs if Team A wins against Team B. Going into the Monday Night game, Team A is behind by 1 point, but has their stud QB left. An hour before kickoff you notice Team A has removed their QB from the lineup, and left it blank. You text him, and he says he is doing it because he paid his dues, can do whatever he wants, and he doesn't like you. I find nothing unethical about a commish going into the site and adding his QB back into his starting lineup. It's not unethical to fix someone else's unethical behavior.

 

[TheWinz]

The best way is either allow tanking or get rid of owners who are tanking. I personally feel tanking in a dynasty league is bad because it affects other teams who are playing their best lineup, but is also fighting for a draft position, and it affects other teams vying for a playoff spot. Giving teams a free win is not fair to other teams trying to make the playoffs. Currently in my leagues we have a no tanking policy. If teams bench Bijan for Bigsby, I make the swap. If teams start bye or injured players I make the swap. I've been commish a long time and sometimes we get new owners who try to do this and I set it straight right away. As a commish I hate being faced with this. I've only had to get rid of one owner in 20 years in several leagues because of tanking. The owners in my leagues know where I stand on this issue and generally play their best lineup, with perhaps some subtle tanking of WR3s or RB3S, or TE2s and I don't question it.

Great write-up. Any owner not willing to allow a good commish to do whatever it takes (including manipulating lineups) to keep a league running fairly is not someone I want to be in a league with. Anyone who has played FF long enough can quickly spot a good commish, and shenanigans like blatant tanking don't happen in their leagues. Having a good commish is probably the most important factor for a fantasy league's longevity.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Only if you are George Costanza
-QG

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You text him, and he says he is doing it because he paid his dues, can do whatever he wants, and he doesn't like you.

That's a cool strawman you got there, Winz. No one is arguing that tanking should be allowed under any and all circumstances. I think we all agree that general douchebaggery like the above shouldn't be tolerated. The question in the OP wasn't "is it ALWAYS ok to play an inferior lineup," it was "is it EVER ok to play an inferior lineup?" And if, due to the league format, an owner has a better chance of winning a championship by starting an inferior lineup, then of course they should be allowed to do so. It's not the owner's fault the league implemented perverse incentives like that. Fix the incentives.

On a side note, thought it was funny that both of these statements appeared in your post:

The problem is, this is impossible. You say it like it's something you can control, but no matter how thorough your bylaws are, there will always be loopholes.

There's an easy answer to this. Write it into the bylaws.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

#TedWilliams

 

[Snoopy]

#TedWilliams

frozen head

 

[steelcityman]

You paid for your team/season, you can do what you want with it. In my dynasty leagues, you dont get rewarded for being awful, its actually more difficult to get the #1 pick next year. So it doesnt make sense to lose on purpose.
Last year I needed to win week 14 and get help to make playoffs, but I was planning to make a run for the #1 pick in the non-playoff bracket. Won my matchup, ended up getting the help, and went on to win the league. I did have a thought of losing, throwing out a junk lineup wk 14, but didnt. So instead of Marvin Harrison, I get Keon Coleman, and $500.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

What if you sell your good players for picks with every intention of trading the picks back for the same or even better players during the offseason (after all, picks tend to increase in value, the closer you get to draft day)?

Trade-backs are a form of collusion and every league I’m in has explicit rules against this exact thing.

“The same or different” matters a lot. Go ahead and deal those picks for other players. Trading them back for the same players is cheating & should be cause for league expulsion for both parties engaging in the trade-back.

What??? Okay, I guess I should be more clear, I'm not talking about a secret agreement whereby the other guy is obligated to trade the players back to you. I'm saying your own intention is to trade the picks back later for the same players or better players. The only thing that could prevent you from doing that is the ability to find a trade partner to give up players of that quality. But as long as you can find someone willing to give that much up, then you have essentially done exactly the same as benching a stud for a scrub.

You literally said “trade the players back for the same” (or even different) players

Those are two vastly different things. One of them is completely unethical, and all my leagues have rules against it.

 

[Mitchie]

You paid for your team/season, you can do what you want with it. In my dynasty leagues, you dont get rewarded for being awful, its actually more difficult to get the #1 pick next year. So it doesnt make sense to lose on purpose.
Last year I needed to win week 14 and get help to make playoffs, but I was planning to make a run for the #1 pick in the non-playoff bracket. Won my matchup, ended up getting the help, and went on to win the league. I did have a thought of losing, throwing out a junk lineup wk 14, but didnt. So instead of Marvin Harrison, I get Keon Coleman, and $500.

True, and you can also be kicked out of the league for the next season.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Don't try to legislate against tanking, or shame people into not tanking by making spurious arguments about ethics

Just to be clear, ethics are ethics.

...

That’s a more philosophical discussion though, probably best left to another forum.

I mean, yeah, there's like thousands of years of philosophical thought that would disagree with your "ethics is ethics" claim. That's the whole point, you guys are saying "trading good players away is ethical, benching good players is unethical" as if that's incontrovertible. It isn't, that's exactly the point. You're begging the question.

They’re quite obviously 2 different things.

One is a rebuild.

The other is throwing a game by benching quality players.

No matter how creative you try to get with this, that’s the nuts and bolts.

You keep pretending they’re the same thing, when I and others have explained in detail that they are not.

Bowing out of this now.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

They’re quite obviously 2 different things.

One is a rebuild.

The other is throwing a game by benching quality players.

It's weird how in the first example, you highlight the owner's goal and in the second example you highlight the owner's action. It's a subtle way to make them seem as different as you want them to be (I'd call it disingenuous, but you may not have even realized you were doing it.)

In reality the action in both scenarios is tanking, and the goal in both scenarios is to make the team better in the future. When properly framed, it's a lot harder to make an ethical distinction between them.

 

[Mitchie]

They’re quite obviously 2 different things.

One is a rebuild.

The other is throwing a game by benching quality players.

It's weird how in the first example, you highlight the owner's goal and in the second example you highlight the owner's action. It's a subtle way to make them seem as different as you want them to be (I'd call it disingenuous, but you may not have even realized you were doing it.)

In reality the action in both scenarios is tanking, and the goal in both scenarios is to make the team better in the future. When properly framed, it's a lot harder to make an ethical distinction between them.

Here's the definition of tanking, pretty clear only applies to second example

Tanking in sports refers to the practice of intentionally fielding non-competitive teams to take advantage of league rules that benefit losing teams

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

They’re quite obviously 2 different things.

One is a rebuild.

The other is throwing a game by benching quality players.

It's weird how in the first example, you highlight the owner's goal and in the second example you highlight the owner's action. It's a subtle way to make them seem as different as you want them to be (I'd call it disingenuous, but you may not have even realized you were doing it.)

In reality the action in both scenarios is tanking, and the goal in both scenarios is to make the team better in the future. When properly framed, it's a lot harder to make an ethical distinction between them.

Here's the definition of tanking, pretty clear only applies to second example

Tanking in sports refers to the practice of intentionally fielding non-competitive teams to take advantage of league rules that benefit losing teams

I'm not really interested in explaining the same things over and over, but I do find it funny that the very next sentence of your wikipedia article states, "This is a much more common practice in American sports that utilize closed leagues than in open sports leagues in other nations, which typically penalize poor performers using a promotion and relegation system."

Tanking is a response to broken incentive structures. Fix the incentives to solve the problem.

 

[Mitchie]

They’re quite obviously 2 different things.

One is a rebuild.

The other is throwing a game by benching quality players.

It's weird how in the first example, you highlight the owner's goal and in the second example you highlight the owner's action. It's a subtle way to make them seem as different as you want them to be (I'd call it disingenuous, but you may not have even realized you were doing it.)

In reality the action in both scenarios is tanking, and the goal in both scenarios is to make the team better in the future. When properly framed, it's a lot harder to make an ethical distinction between them.

Here's the definition of tanking, pretty clear only applies to second example

Tanking in sports refers to the practice of intentionally fielding non-competitive teams to take advantage of league rules that benefit losing teams

I'm not really interested in explaining the same things over and over, but I do find it funny that the very next sentence of your wikipedia article states, "This is a much more common practice in American sports that utilize closed leagues than in open sports leagues in other nations, which typically penalize poor performers using a promotion and relegation system."

Tanking is a response to broken incentive structures. Fix the incentives to solve the problem.

There's not a open league in fantasy football as I'm sure you know. I haven't followed the whole thread so maybe you have some type of solution that solves the incentive problem. I mean the incentive issue is true but you also want a league that helps the bottom teams get better so that they want to keep playing. My main league uses a weighted lottery which helps the incentive structure a bit. This along with not allowing teams to intentionally lose has worked well and we've had very few issues over 20+ years. Granted if you're in leagues that are less well commished and not everyone sorta knows each other it could be more difficult.

 

[eighsse2]

What if you sell your good players for picks with every intention of trading the picks back for the same or even better players during the offseason (after all, picks tend to increase in value, the closer you get to draft day)?

Trade-backs are a form of collusion and every league I’m in has explicit rules against this exact thing.

“The same or different” matters a lot. Go ahead and deal those picks for other players. Trading them back for the same players is cheating & should be cause for league expulsion for both parties engaging in the trade-back.

What??? Okay, I guess I should be more clear, I'm not talking about a secret agreement whereby the other guy is obligated to trade the players back to you. I'm saying your own intention is to trade the picks back later for the same players or better players. The only thing that could prevent you from doing that is the ability to find a trade partner to give up players of that quality. But as long as you can find someone willing to give that much up, then you have essentially done exactly the same as benching a stud for a scrub.

You literally said “trade the players back for the same” (or even different) players

Those are two vastly different things. One of them is completely unethical, and all my leagues have rules against it.

You have a rule against making an inverse trade of a trade you've made before? That seems crazy, but rules are rules. Is there a timeframe to it? What if the second trade is five years later? What if there are additional assets in the second trade?
Trade A+B for C+D
Few weeks later, trade C+D for A+B+E

Or something of the like?

 

[ZADO]

In the former case, you’ve turned talent into future assets (picks). In the latter there’s no immediate benefit to benching those players.

There's no immediate benefit to future assets, either. You benefit from them in the future.

It's strange that so many people will twist themselves into knots trying to make these two things different when they're essentially the same.

Sorry, that's just not logical or reasonable - all due respect.

I laid it out.
Scenario 1: you're fielding your best lineup, which happens to be terrible. This is a season-long scenario with no specific opponent.
Scenario 2: You're deliberately NOT fielding your best lineup for a specific opponent.

If you can't see the difference, I can't explain it any better than that.

Yup, either your roster sucks that bad , or it doesnt .

 

[ghostguy123]

So if I trade CMC for two 1sts, then in the offseason deal those same two 1sts to get CMC back, thats cheating??? Lol

 

[FarFromHome]

I get the logic. I'm just not wired like that. I play to win the game. Every game. Score the most points. My ego is way to big to throw one. Ha ha

 

[Mitchie]

What if you sell your good players for picks with every intention of trading the picks back for the same or even better players during the offseason (after all, picks tend to increase in value, the closer you get to draft day)?

Trade-backs are a form of collusion and every league I’m in has explicit rules against this exact thing.

“The same or different” matters a lot. Go ahead and deal those picks for other players. Trading them back for the same players is cheating & should be cause for league expulsion for both parties engaging in the trade-back.

What??? Okay, I guess I should be more clear, I'm not talking about a secret agreement whereby the other guy is obligated to trade the players back to you. I'm saying your own intention is to trade the picks back later for the same players or better players. The only thing that could prevent you from doing that is the ability to find a trade partner to give up players of that quality. But as long as you can find someone willing to give that much up, then you have essentially done exactly the same as benching a stud for a scrub.

You literally said “trade the players back for the same” (or even different) players

Those are two vastly different things. One of them is completely unethical, and all my leagues have rules against it.

You have a rule against making an inverse trade of a trade you've made before? That seems crazy, but rules are rules. Is there a timeframe to it? What if the second trade is five years later? What if there are additional assets in the second trade?
Trade A+B for C+D
Few weeks later, trade C+D for A+B+E

Or something of the like?

we have the no trade back rule, i think it's a year, you wouldn't be able to do some sly move to get around it.

 

[eighsse2]

Don't try to legislate against tanking, or shame people into not tanking by making spurious arguments about ethics

Just to be clear, ethics are ethics.

...

That’s a more philosophical discussion though, probably best left to another forum.

I mean, yeah, there's like thousands of years of philosophical thought that would disagree with your "ethics is ethics" claim. That's the whole point, you guys are saying "trading good players away is ethical, benching good players is unethical" as if that's incontrovertible. It isn't, that's exactly the point. You're begging the question.

They’re quite obviously 2 different things.

One is a rebuild.

The other is throwing a game by benching quality players.

No matter how creative you try to get with this, that’s the nuts and bolts.

You keep pretending they’re the same thing, when I and others have explained in detail that they are not.

Bowing out of this now.

I think the big point is that it's the intention that matters. Are you selling off players because you want the #1 pick? Or are you selling off players because you want to gather up picks and do a rebuild? If you are doing it for both of those reasons, are you tanking? If you are doing it just to get the #1 pick, and you aren't actually concerned with doing a rebuild at all, are you tanking? Isn't it the intention that matters?

 

[Mitchie]

So if I trade CMC for two 1sts, then in the offseason deal those same two 1sts to get CMC back, thats cheating??? Lol

not cheating if it's allowed in your league. but doesn't really make sense to allow that type of trade

 

[eighsse2]

What if you sell your good players for picks with every intention of trading the picks back for the same or even better players during the offseason (after all, picks tend to increase in value, the closer you get to draft day)?

Trade-backs are a form of collusion and every league I’m in has explicit rules against this exact thing.

“The same or different” matters a lot. Go ahead and deal those picks for other players. Trading them back for the same players is cheating & should be cause for league expulsion for both parties engaging in the trade-back.

What??? Okay, I guess I should be more clear, I'm not talking about a secret agreement whereby the other guy is obligated to trade the players back to you. I'm saying your own intention is to trade the picks back later for the same players or better players. The only thing that could prevent you from doing that is the ability to find a trade partner to give up players of that quality. But as long as you can find someone willing to give that much up, then you have essentially done exactly the same as benching a stud for a scrub.

You literally said “trade the players back for the same” (or even different) players

Those are two vastly different things. One of them is completely unethical, and all my leagues have rules against it.

You have a rule against making an inverse trade of a trade you've made before? That seems crazy, but rules are rules. Is there a timeframe to it? What if the second trade is five years later? What if there are additional assets in the second trade?
Trade A+B for C+D
Few weeks later, trade C+D for A+B+E

Or something of the like?

we have the no trade back rule, i think it's a year, you wouldn't be able to do some sly move to get around it.

Very strange in my opinion. I mean, I get the reasoning behind it, I assume. The idea is that a trade-back could have involved an agreement behind the scenes to do the trade-back. And yes that is collusion. But you don't know if that's what happened or not. Someone could just as well make an agreement "I trade you A for B now, you trade me back C for A instead in the offseason." That would be collusion just the same. So, no trades, ever, because they could be collusion.