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

[eighsse2]

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

I drafted Dotson, traded him, traded back for him, and traded him again in the span of a year and change. None of the trades were inverse of each other, but I don't think that's relevant. So what if they were inverse? That just means his value hadn't changed.

 

[jm192]

This seemingly innocent question has led to a very obnoxious thread.

A whole lot of "My league settings are better than yours. If you were just smart like me and had good league settings, this wouldn't be an issue."

The discussion proposed in the OP was valid. There's no need to keep on with this "My league settings are so superior." We get it.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

This seemingly innocent question has led to a very obnoxious thread.

A whole lot of "My league settings are better than yours. If you were just smart like me and had good league settings, this wouldn't be an issue."

The discussion proposed in the OP was valid. There's no need to keep on with this "My league settings are so superior." We get it.

yeah this went off the rails and into individual dynasty rabbit holes.....we have to remember his original question was sitting Bijan for Tank....for one specific game....not a firesale, etc....

 

[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

I drafted Dotson, traded him, traded back for him, and traded him again in the span of a year and change. None of the trades were inverse of each other, but I don't think that's relevant. So what if they were inverse? That just means his value hadn't changed.

usually these trades are set up to "borrow" players, so could be a trade for a few weeks to cover a bye or in the example above trading Mcaffery for a draft pick so someone can use him for that year and then trade him back after the season.

 

[eighsse2]

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

I drafted Dotson, traded him, traded back for him, and traded him again in the span of a year and change. None of the trades were inverse of each other, but I don't think that's relevant. So what if they were inverse? That just means his value hadn't changed.

usually these trades are set up to "borrow" players, so could be a trade for a few weeks to cover a bye or in the example above trading Mcaffery for a draft pick so someone can use him for that year and then trade him back after the season.

Borrowing should never be done, whether it appears like it's being done or not. I get it though, it may have a bad appearance. But at face value it's bizarre, to me, to say "no you aren't allowed to make that trade, you already made the inverse trade". Owner opinions and team needs change over time.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

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

every league I’m in considers this collusion.

You’re parking CMC on another roster to
I improve your own draft pick.

The other team benefits from having CMC, then gets their picks back.

I’ve never seen anyone question this action before. Seems like pretty straightforward collusion.

 

[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

I drafted Dotson, traded him, traded back for him, and traded him again in the span of a year and change. None of the trades were inverse of each other, but I don't think that's relevant. So what if they were inverse? That just means his value hadn't changed.

usually these trades are set up to "borrow" players, so could be a trade for a few weeks to cover a bye or in the example above trading Mcaffery for a draft pick so someone can use him for that year and then trade him back after the season.

Borrowing should never be done, whether it appears like it's being done or not. I get it though, it may have a bad appearance. But at face value it's bizarre, to me, to say "no you aren't allowed to make that trade, you already made the inverse trade". Owner opinions and team needs change over time.

well usually it's the scenario's i outlined above but obv you're free to run your league as you want.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

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.

No, the action in the 1st scenario is rebuilding by dealing assets for future picks.

The action in the 2nd scenario is deliberately benching quality assets to throw a game to help your draft pick. Yet retaining those assets.

You keep ignoring the part where in the latter scenario you could have fielded a better roster but deliberately did not, which is throwing a game.

 

[eighsse2]

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.

No, the action in the 1st scenario is rebuilding by dealing assets for future picks.

The action in the 2nd scenario is deliberately benching quality assets to throw a game to help your draft pick. Yet retaining those assets.

You keep ignoring the part where in the latter scenario you could have fielded a better roster but deliberately did not, which is throwing a game.

You could have fielded a better roster in either scenario.

One scenario has a more plausible "I'm not tanking" argument to be made.

In one case that argument is "I simply wanted the picks that I traded for more than I wanted the players going forward."

In the other case the argument is "My personal opinion is that Tank Bigsby would give me a better probability of winning than Bijan."

One is plausible but far from guaranteed. One is not plausible.

 

[greenmountaingoat]

When I first started playing dynasty I asked around and it was answered that mildly intriguing choices (Like Okonkwo over Furgeson or stuff like that) was OK but straight out full on tank by playing all your scrubs or not setting your lineup was a big no-no. Asked of the commissioner as well as a poster here.

Fast forward a couple of years- I've seen a couple of these moments pop up.

When you're vying for a spot in the playoffs and one of the teams you're vying against has their opponent not set their lineup- either out of disinterest or because they're tanking. Grrrrrr.

When your tanking "the right way" by trading high value producers for picks and trying to land the #1 pick and your main competition who's team is clearly better than yours but got unlucky and is now leaving injured players in the lineup and they end up with a higher pick. Maddening.

On the second, I actually emailed the commissioner. Very sly wording "Is it OK to not set your lineup? I've noticed some other folks doing it and was wondering if that was OK in this league?"

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You could have fielded a better roster in either scenario.

No, you couldn’t.

Literally could not. Because you dealt those assets away for picks.

Those assets aren’t on your roster to put in your lineup. You are rebuilding & turning those assets into picks.

The other scenario is benching them.

These are not remotely the same.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

No, the action in the 1st scenario is rebuilding by dealing assets for future picks.

The action in the 2nd scenario is deliberately benching quality assets to throw a game to help your draft pick. Yet retaining those assets.

You're still (intentionally or not) clearly conflating actions and goals here, though. Using your words here, the action in the 1st scenario is simply "dealing assets." The goal is to rebuild by acquiring future picks.

Language influences thought - it's notable that you are continually using language to paint one scenario as positive and one as negative (again, possibly not deliberately). You've already decided that scenario 1 is good and scenario 2 is bad, so when you describe them those predetermined conclusions keep slipping in. Why is scenario 1 "dealing assets" but scenario 2 "deliberately benching quality assets?" Aren't you deliberately dealing quality assets in scenario 1? Why did you choose to only describe scenario 2 that way?

(Those are questions for you to ponder, not to answer.)

You keep ignoring the part where in the latter scenario you could have fielded a better roster but deliberately did not, which is throwing a game.

You could have fielded a better roster in scenario 1 if you hadn't deliberately traded away your good players with the intention of making your team worse now to make it better at some point in the future. If it seems like we're going around in circles, it's because we are.

 

[Mitchie]

No, the action in the 1st scenario is rebuilding by dealing assets for future picks.

The action in the 2nd scenario is deliberately benching quality assets to throw a game to help your draft pick. Yet retaining those assets.

You're still (intentionally or not) clearly conflating actions and goals here, though. Using your words here, the action in the 1st scenario is simply "dealing assets." The goal is to rebuild by acquiring future picks.

Language influences thought - it's notable that you are continually using language to paint one scenario as positive and one as negative (again, possibly not deliberately). You've already decided that scenario 1 is good and scenario 2 is bad, so when you describe them those predetermined conclusions keep slipping in. Why is scenario 1 "dealing assets" but scenario 2 "deliberately benching quality assets?" Aren't you deliberately dealing quality assets in scenario 1? Why did you choose to only describe scenario 2 that way?

(Those are questions for you to ponder, not to answer.)

You keep ignoring the part where in the latter scenario you could have fielded a better roster but deliberately did not, which is throwing a game.

You could have fielded a better roster in scenario 1 if you hadn't deliberately traded away your good players with the intention of making your team worse now to make it better at some point in the future. If it seems like we're going around in circles, it's because we are.

in professional sports leagues isn't this how they define tanking? intentionally losing games vs. making trades to attempt to make your team better in the long run at the sacrifice of losing games now?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You could have fielded a better roster in scenario 1 if you hadn't deliberately traded away your good players with the intention of making your team worse now to make it better at some point in the future. If it seems like we're going around in circles, it's because we are

Yes, from a mile high perspective you’re correct. No one is arguing that.

The ethical concern is that in the benching scenario you have assets you could have played, but deliberately are benching. Which is throwing a game, e.g. cheating.

If it seems like we’re going in circles here it’s because we are. You’re simply choosing to take the most generous possible interpretation & making a false comparison between rebuilding and throwing games. There’s a term for that. “False equivalence”.

 

[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.

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

Kick who out? How, for what? Not the leagues I am in.

 

[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.

Kick who out? How, for what? Not the leagues I am in.

Tanking

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

We’ve probably reached the “agree to disagree” point of the discussion. Some people believe it is never ok under any circumstances to ever submit an inferior lineup (good luck defining that rigorously, by the way, as probably half my league mates submit what I would consider to be an inferior lineup most weeks). And some people believe it might occasionally be ok under a certain set of circumstances.

 

[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.

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

Kick who out? How, for what? Not the leagues I am in.

Tanking

whatever. I've seen teams submit half a lineup and nothing happened.

 

[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.

Kick who out? How, for what? Not the leagues I am in.

Tanking

whatever. I've seen teams submit half a lineup and nothing happened.

sounds fun.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

whatever. I've seen teams submit half a lineup and nothing happened.

Most leagues have rules against this.

The leagues that don’t sound like awful places to play.

 

[ZADO]

Having a league where people playing for better draft position the following year will create throwing games unless there is some kind of penalty or incentive to NOT throw the games.
Having highest point payouts the past 2 games of the season keeps people competitive .

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Having a league where people playing for better draft position the following year will create throwing games unless there is some kind of penalty or incentive to NOT throw the games.
Having highest point payouts the past 2 games of the season keeps people competitive .

My leagues do a “loser bowl” that’s worth pick 2.17 (between 2nd & 3rd) and in an IDP, that’s a valuable prize.

 

[Gally]

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.

The ethical difference is that generally speaking the dynasty community understands the process of rebuilding during a current year and that trading away current year players for future year assets is accepted. IMO this is not *tanking. There is no ethical issue here. Your intent is to improve your team in the long run and you will continue to try and win each week by playing the assets you currently have that you believe gives you the best shot to win that week.

Where if I intentionally play a player I deem inferior for a weekly matchup to purposely try and lose that week that is tanking in my eyes and has ethical implications. As someone said upthread, this goes against the spirt of FF in putting your best lineup possible out each week based on your current circumstances. Purposely trying to lose a weekly matchup by playing players you think will score less trying to lose is unethical based on the spirit of FF.

This is why these two things are ethically different (IMO).


*Tanking has a negative connotation of purposely trying to lose and that is the difference to me. If I trade away current year players in an attempt to get future year assets I am not trying to lose current year games. That may happen but that is not my intent. I will still try and win each week by playing the best lineup I can with the current year assets I have. I am not trying to lose.

 

[eighsse2]

If I trade away current year players in an attempt to get future year assets I am not trying to lose current year games. That may happen but that is not my intent.

That's you, but someone else can do the same thing with the intent of helping himself lose.

Random comparison ... But when I first heard that it's illegal to cut a corner and avoid an intersection by pulling into a corner lot, then pulling out onto the crossing road, I thought, "couldn't someone just do that, and if they get caught, say 'I thought I needed gas, then I realized I still have enough'" (in the case that the corner lot is a gas station, or similar excuse otherwise). It's a stretch, but it's a similar idea. No one can truly tell you what your intention was. You know what your intention was, but they can't know that.

 

[steelcityman]

whatever. I've seen teams submit half a lineup and nothing happened.

Most leagues have rules against this.

The leagues that don’t sound like awful places to play.

One of the most popular sites out there is where I am talking about. Must not be awful if they have a ton of leagues.
I would guess they have rules against it, but they dont follow thru on them.

 

[menobrown]

Herm Edwards was right about one thing.

 

[JohnnyU]

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 an 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.

Love this response, especially the part where you want bad team to get better in dynasty leagues, so that can affect your approach to incentives.

 

[Gally]

That's you, but someone else can do the same thing with the intent of helping himself lose.

Random comparison ... But when I first heard that it's illegal to cut a corner and avoid an intersection by pulling into a corner lot, then pulling out onto the crossing road, I thought, "couldn't someone just do that, and if they get caught, say 'I thought I needed gas, then I realized I still have enough'" (in the case that the corner lot is a gas station, or similar excuse otherwise). It's a stretch, but it's a similar idea. No one can truly tell you what your intention was. You know what your intention was, but they can't know that.

That all goes to the "spirit" aspect of things. I am not saying that the by-product of having a lesser team in the current year to help bottom out for a draft pick isn't a benefit or something that is good for the team. What I am saying is that I am still going to try and put out my best lineup to spoil other teams chances to win as best as I can in the current year.

The main reason I started this thread was to see what other's thought regarding the spirit/intent/etc aspect of purposely playing a worse player over a better player with the intent to lose a weekly game. I am not here to legislate whether you can prove someone's intent or argue their actions of this WR3 playing over this WR4. As you said, that is impossible but that wasn't the question. The question was is it ever ok to make the conscious decision to play a lesser player over a better player with the express reason to lose a weekly matchup. I think it is unethical to do so and wouldn't do it.

I was surprised that a couple people did actually give a quality reason that had me agree that in that case I could see doing it and wouldn't have an ethical issue with it being done. In all those cases though it was for a situation where losing would actually help their CURRENT year chance to win a title. I think I am willing to make the distinction because that reason is a help to the current season chances. Where in a situation where someone does that to just gain a better draft pick next year it is in no way helping them benefit in the current season. I think that is my issue and where I think ethics comes into play. To me that is throwing off the competitive balance of the current year because losing doesn't benefit you in the current year but it does have impacts to the other teams that current year. You are tipping the scales in the current year with no impact to you. That is my issue.

 

[eighsse2]

That's you, but someone else can do the same thing with the intent of helping himself lose.

Random comparison ... But when I first heard that it's illegal to cut a corner and avoid an intersection by pulling into a corner lot, then pulling out onto the crossing road, I thought, "couldn't someone just do that, and if they get caught, say 'I thought I needed gas, then I realized I still have enough'" (in the case that the corner lot is a gas station, or similar excuse otherwise). It's a stretch, but it's a similar idea. No one can truly tell you what your intention was. You know what your intention was, but they can't know that.

That all goes to the "spirit" aspect of things. I am not saying that the by-product of having a lesser team in the current year to help bottom out for a draft pick isn't a benefit or something that is good for the team. What I am saying is that I am still going to try and put out my best lineup to spoil other teams chances to win as best as I can in the current year.

The main reason I started this thread was to see what other's thought regarding the spirit/intent/etc aspect of purposely playing a worse player over a better player with the intent to lose a weekly game. I am not here to legislate whether you can prove someone's intent or argue their actions of this WR3 playing over this WR4. As you said, that is impossible but that wasn't the question. The question was is it ever ok to make the conscious decision to play a lesser player over a better player with the express reason to lose a weekly matchup. I think it is unethical to do so and wouldn't do it.

I was surprised that a couple people did actually give a quality reason that had me agree that in that case I could see doing it and wouldn't have an ethical issue with it being done. In all those cases though it was for a situation where losing would actually help their CURRENT year chance to win a title. I think I am willing to make the distinction because that reason is a help to the current season chances. Where in a situation where someone does that to just gain a better draft pick next year it is in no way helping them benefit in the current season. I think that is my issue and where I think ethics comes into play. To me that is throwing off the competitive balance of the current year because losing doesn't benefit you in the current year but it does have impacts to the other teams that current year. You are tipping the scales in the current year with no impact to you. That is my issue.

I think those distinctions are somewhat arbitrary but mostly intuitive.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

That's you, but someone else can do the same thing with the intent of helping himself lose.

Because it is impossible to know “intent” most leagues have anti-tanking rules.

Better to simply remove the question of intent altogether.

 

[greenmountaingoat]

Rebuilding = selling off productive assets to contenders for picks (or players that you think can grow or are undervalued).

Tanking = artificially manipulating your lineup to have your record not indicative of your overall team's relative strength and therefore need for higher draft picks. It's parity manipulation.

 

[eighsse2]

That's you, but someone else can do the same thing with the intent of helping himself lose.

Because it is impossible to know “intent” most leagues have anti-tanking rules.

Better to simply remove the question of intent altogether.

Anti-tanking judgments sometimes require discernment of intent, like Ignoratio has been saying. So better still to remove the incentive. (Unless that is what you're referring to.)

 

[Gally]

That's you, but someone else can do the same thing with the intent of helping himself lose.

Because it is impossible to know “intent” most leagues have anti-tanking rules.

Better to simply remove the question of intent altogether.

Anti-tanking judgments sometimes require discernment of intent, like Ignoratio has been saying. So better still to remove the incentive. (Unless that is what you're referring to.)

I have always thought that in dynasty leagues the worst team should get the first pick because have a competitive league where everyone has a chance to win the title is the most fun. Record doesn't always equate to worst team so going strictly by record doesn't always meet the first sentence criteria (just as the title winner isn't always the best team). I think the best chance at finding the worst team is by using potential points and going in reverse order for the draft order with the title winner always being last.

This way of sorting the draft order has no impact on winning or losing games so there is no incentive to lose. I think you need to maintain a roster minimum though so that a team can't have 5 players on the roster and manipulate it that way.

 

[Mitchie]

That's you, but someone else can do the same thing with the intent of helping himself lose.

Because it is impossible to know “intent” most leagues have anti-tanking rules.

Better to simply remove the question of intent altogether.

Anti-tanking judgments sometimes require discernment of intent, like Ignoratio has been saying. So better still to remove the incentive. (Unless that is what you're referring to.)

There's judgments in allowing/not allowing trades too, no? similar judgment is used here, in leagues I'm in commish will step in only if it's pretty obvious, not playing a complete lineup or playing Zay Jones over Jamar Chase, etc.. Now if someone wanted to they could make moves that are not as obvious like playing a WR 3 or WR 4 over WR 2 and stuff like that and prob that goes on but at least everyone's putting forward a complete and competitive roster and not getting a score of 10.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Rebuilding = selling off productive assets to contenders for picks (or players that you think can grow or are undervalued).

Tanking = artificially manipulating your lineup to have your record not indicative of your overall team's relative strength and therefore need for higher draft picks. It's parity manipulation.

Can’t say it much more clearly than that.

 

[renesauz]

Still think this is best addressed by leagues rules. Potential points is the best solution I've seen. Non playoff teams are all slotted by potential points: IE, how many points they would have scored with their best possible lineups. Playoff teams are slotted by finish with teams eliminated in the same week then ordered by lower seed ahead of higher seed. Most of my leagues do this. It leaves zero incentive to start less then your best, and puts the commish in a spot where if a non interested team late season wants to forget a lineup, the commish can put it in since it makes zero difference to that teams pick prospects

 

[Stinkin Ref]

That's you, but someone else can do the same thing with the intent of helping himself lose.

Because it is impossible to know “intent” most leagues have anti-tanking rules.

Better to simply remove the question of intent altogether.

Anti-tanking judgments sometimes require discernment of intent, like Ignoratio has been saying. So better still to remove the incentive. (Unless that is what you're referring to.)

I have always thought that in dynasty leagues the worst team should get the first pick because have a competitive league where everyone has a chance to win the title is the most fun. Record doesn't always equate to worst team so going strictly by record doesn't always meet the first sentence criteria (just as the title winner isn't always the best team). I think the best chance at finding the worst team is by using potential points and going in reverse order for the draft order with the title winner always being last.

This way of sorting the draft order has no impact on winning or losing games so there is no incentive to lose. I think you need to maintain a roster minimum though so that a team can't have 5 players on the roster and manipulate it that way.

bolded....actually an "all play" format is pretty much the bees knees when it comes to seeing exactly who has the best/worst teams....even if you don't use "all play" as your basic scoring system, most sites....at least MFL....can keep track of your all play record throughout the season and then that can be used for a variety of things at the end of the year ...like draft order the following year etc., instead of straight up HTH records, etc....

 

[BassNBrew]

You could have fielded a better roster in either scenario.

No, you couldn’t.

Literally could not. Because you dealt those assets away for picks.

Those assets aren’t on your roster to put in your lineup. You are rebuilding & turning those assets into picks.

The other scenario is benching them.

These are not remotely the same.

What about cutting a guy in the twilight of his career for a RB on a practice squad. Tanking or rebuilding?

Rebuilding is a fancy name for tanking, the outcome is the same, you’re fielding a lesser lineup this season for better potential next year. And your impacting the competitive balance of the
League in the current year in both scenarios.

 

[Gally]

bolded....actually an "all play" format is pretty much the bees knees when it comes to seeing exactly who has the best/worst teams

I investigated this last year to see if All Play was any different than just total points scored. Turned out that over the 7 years I looked at all play vs total points was virtually identical. Any swaps were at most 2 places and was in the middle of the pack. Not once was the top scoring team different than the all play leader.

In the end it made very little difference and you may as well just use total points.

 

[BassNBrew]

bolded....actually an "all play" format is pretty much the bees knees when it comes to seeing exactly who has the best/worst teams

I investigated this last year to see if All Play was any different than just total points scored. Turned out that over the 7 years I looked at all play vs total points was virtually identical. Any swaps were at most 2 places and was in the middle of the pack. Not once was the top scoring team different than the all play leader.

In the end it made very little difference and you may as well just use total points.

If the NFL used total points I hoped you enjoyed your Dolphins / Cowboys Super Bowl last year.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

What about cutting a guy in the twilight of his career for a RB on a practice squad. Tanking or rebuilding?

Rebuilding is a fancy name for tanking, the outcome is the same, you’re fielding a lesser lineup this season for better potential next year. And your impacting the competitive balance of the
League in the current year in both scenarios.

there will always be a corner case of a corner case.

If “the guy in the twilight of his career” isn’t contributing, there’s nothing impactful about such a move, so that’s a little disingenuous. It’s not tanking, it’s cutting bait on a dead roster spot for a future prospect.

If “the guy in the twilight of his career” is contributing, why wouldn’t you just trade that guy rather than drop him? That’s far, far more likely in a dynasty league where contributing assets have value.

Rebuilding isn’t tanking at all, much less just another word for it.

Tanking is putting productive players on the bench to start a lesser lineup, deliberately losing a game to impact draft stock.

These are totally different things.

 

[Gally]

bolded....actually an "all play" format is pretty much the bees knees when it comes to seeing exactly who has the best/worst teams

I investigated this last year to see if All Play was any different than just total points scored. Turned out that over the 7 years I looked at all play vs total points was virtually identical. Any swaps were at most 2 places and was in the middle of the pack. Not once was the top scoring team different than the all play leader.

In the end it made very little difference and you may as well just use total points.

If the NFL used total points I hoped you enjoyed your Dolphins / Cowboys Super Bowl last year.

Not sure the point of this comment.

 

[BassNBrew]

What about cutting a guy in the twilight of his career for a RB on a practice squad. Tanking or rebuilding?

Rebuilding is a fancy name for tanking, the outcome is the same, you’re fielding a lesser lineup this season for better potential next year. And your impacting the competitive balance of the
League in the current year in both scenarios.

there will always be a corner case if a corner case.

If “the guy in the twilight of his career” isn’t contributing, there’s nothing impactful about such a move, so that’s a little disingenuous. It’s not tanking, it’s cutting bait on a dead roster spot for a future prospect.

If “the guy in the twilight of his career” is contributing, why wouldn’t you just trade that guy rather than drop him? That’s far, far more likely in a dynasty league where contributing assets have value.

Rebuilding isn’t tanking at all, much less just another word for it.

Tanking is putting productive players on the bench to start a lesser lineup, deliberately losing a game to impact draft stock.

These are totally different things.

From wiki on tanking….

When Jon Gruden retook control of the Oakland Raiders prior to the 2018 NFL season he liquidated most of the Raiders' talent, most notably trading five-time Pro Bowler Khalil Mack to the Chicago Bears for two first round draft picks (one of which was used to select Josh Jacobs), leading to accusations that he was intentionally tanking the team in hopes of fielding a competitive team when the Raiders moved to Las Vegas in 2020.[17][18][19] The Raiders, who had finished 12–4 and qualified for the playoffs two seasons prior, finished the 2018 seasonwith only four wins, but saw significant improvement in 2019thanks to strong play from the team's rookies.[citation needed]

The Miami Dolphins were accused of tanking during the 2019 NFL season when new head coach Brian Flores oversaw a similar liquidation of the team's established talent.[20] In September, tackle Laremy Tunsiland safety Minkah Fitzpatrickwere sent to contending football teams in exchange for future draft picks; both would subsequently be named to the Pro Bowl.[21] After starting the season 0–7, however, the 2019 Dolphins won 5 of their last 9 games. The victories denied Miami the first overall pick of the 2020 NFL Draft, although the team was able to select Alabamaquarterback Tua Tagovailoa, whom they were rumored to have been deliberately losing games for.[22][23] The next season, the 2020 Dolphins went 10–6 and missed the playoffs by one game, while the trade of Tunsil allowed them to obtain the third overall pick of the 2021 NFL Draft.[24]

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

What about cutting a guy in the twilight of his career for a RB on a practice squad. Tanking or rebuilding?

Rebuilding is a fancy name for tanking, the outcome is the same, you’re fielding a lesser lineup this season for better potential next year. And your impacting the competitive balance of the
League in the current year in both scenarios.

there will always be a corner case if a corner case.

If “the guy in the twilight of his career” isn’t contributing, there’s nothing impactful about such a move, so that’s a little disingenuous. It’s not tanking, it’s cutting bait on a dead roster spot for a future prospect.

If “the guy in the twilight of his career” is contributing, why wouldn’t you just trade that guy rather than drop him? That’s far, far more likely in a dynasty league where contributing assets have value.

Rebuilding isn’t tanking at all, much less just another word for it.

Tanking is putting productive players on the bench to start a lesser lineup, deliberately losing a game to impact draft stock.

These are totally different things.

From wiki on tanking….

When Jon Gruden retook control of the Oakland Raiders prior to the 2018 NFL season he liquidated most of the Raiders' talent, most notably trading five-time Pro Bowler Khalil Mack to the Chicago Bears for two first round draft picks (one of which was used to select Josh Jacobs), leading to accusations that he was intentionally tanking the team in hopes of fielding a competitive team when the Raiders moved to Las Vegas in 2020.[17][18][19] The Raiders, who had finished 12–4 and qualified for the playoffs two seasons prior, finished the 2018 seasonwith only four wins, but saw significant improvement in 2019thanks to strong play from the team's rookies.[citation needed]

The Miami Dolphins were accused of tanking during the 2019 NFL season when new head coach Brian Flores oversaw a similar liquidation of the team's established talent.[20] In September, tackle Laremy Tunsiland safety Minkah Fitzpatrickwere sent to contending football teams in exchange for future draft picks; both would subsequently be named to the Pro Bowl.[21] After starting the season 0–7, however, the 2019 Dolphins won 5 of their last 9 games. The victories denied Miami the first overall pick of the 2020 NFL Draft, although the team was able to select Alabamaquarterback Tua Tagovailoa, whom they were rumored to have been deliberately losing games for.[22][23] The next season, the 2020 Dolphins went 10–6 and missed the playoffs by one game, while the trade of Tunsil allowed them to obtain the third overall pick of the 2021 NFL Draft.[24]

Due respect, that has nothing to do with fantasy football.

 

[BassNBrew]

What about cutting a guy in the twilight of his career for a RB on a practice squad. Tanking or rebuilding?

Rebuilding is a fancy name for tanking, the outcome is the same, you’re fielding a lesser lineup this season for better potential next year. And your impacting the competitive balance of the
League in the current year in both scenarios.

there will always be a corner case if a corner case.

If “the guy in the twilight of his career” isn’t contributing, there’s nothing impactful about such a move, so that’s a little disingenuous. It’s not tanking, it’s cutting bait on a dead roster spot for a future prospect.

If “the guy in the twilight of his career” is contributing, why wouldn’t you just trade that guy rather than drop him? That’s far, far more likely in a dynasty league where contributing assets have value.

Rebuilding isn’t tanking at all, much less just another word for it.

Tanking is putting productive players on the bench to start a lesser lineup, deliberately losing a game to impact draft stock.

These are totally different things.

From wiki on tanking….

When Jon Gruden retook control of the Oakland Raiders prior to the 2018 NFL season he liquidated most of the Raiders' talent, most notably trading five-time Pro Bowler Khalil Mack to the Chicago Bears for two first round draft picks (one of which was used to select Josh Jacobs), leading to accusations that he was intentionally tanking the team in hopes of fielding a competitive team when the Raiders moved to Las Vegas in 2020.[17][18][19] The Raiders, who had finished 12–4 and qualified for the playoffs two seasons prior, finished the 2018 seasonwith only four wins, but saw significant improvement in 2019thanks to strong play from the team's rookies.[citation needed]

The Miami Dolphins were accused of tanking during the 2019 NFL season when new head coach Brian Flores oversaw a similar liquidation of the team's established talent.[20] In September, tackle Laremy Tunsiland safety Minkah Fitzpatrickwere sent to contending football teams in exchange for future draft picks; both would subsequently be named to the Pro Bowl.[21] After starting the season 0–7, however, the 2019 Dolphins won 5 of their last 9 games. The victories denied Miami the first overall pick of the 2020 NFL Draft, although the team was able to select Alabamaquarterback Tua Tagovailoa, whom they were rumored to have been deliberately losing games for.[22][23] The next season, the 2020 Dolphins went 10–6 and missed the playoffs by one game, while the trade of Tunsil allowed them to obtain the third overall pick of the 2021 NFL Draft.[24]

Due respect, that has nothing to do with fantasy football.

It's defining tanking. I guess we need the real world definition of tanking and the fantasy football definition of tanking.

 

[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

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

Yeah it does. It pretty obviously does. If you are rebuilding, and hit on some picks, trades, and/or waiver pickup, you can't go try and trade for a top RB? Seems beyond silly

 

[ghostguy123]

Also, I know I've said this before, but "not trying to win" is absolutely NOT the same as "trying to lose".

 

[jabarony]

I always look at this question through the eyes of the other leagues members.

Trading off your higher scoring vets for picks = ok because presumably your league has a trade deadline. And while it’s not 100% equitable, there is still 5-6 weeks where multiple teams get to face your crap lineup. It’s somewhat palatable.

Benching you higher scoring vets week 15 = not ok. Mostly because you may be handing your opponent, (say “team B”) that is maybe fighting for a playoff spot or higher seed, an easy win. That’s bs for the other teams fighting team B for the playoff spot. Especially since those other teams may have faced your best lineup earlier in the year.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It's defining tanking. I guess we need the real world definition of tanking and the fantasy football definition of tanking.

I don’t think that’s at all unreasonable since real football & fantasy football are vastly different things.

 

[-OZ-]

If the NFL used total points I hoped you enjoyed your Dolphins / Cowboys Super Bowl last year.

The better equivalency here would be point differential. So, go Ravens vs cowboys.
we’re usually not even talking using points for the championship. It’s far more common to use lowest points for draft order. In which case the commanders would have Caleb.