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

[ghostguy123]

I'm thinking insanely stupid trades belong in a separate category than tanking.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

"He started Miles Sanders over Breece Hall, he's obviously tanking!"
"He traded Jefferson for Puka, it's obviously collusion!"

Neither of those scenarios are remotely similar to intentionally benching a top player in order to lose.

I'm certain Miles Sanders over Breece Hall would get called out in a lot of leagues.

Sure, but it’s still not the same thing.

Jefferson for Puka isn’t a great trade but no one’s going to raise sand. Trades don’t have to be perfectly even.

The 1st one is obviously janky and not at all the same as dealing JJ for Puka. That’s what I’m saying. You conflated the two and I disagree they’re equivalent.

The analogy was Jefferson for Puka in week one of last year 2023. Jefferson had just posted 24 pts and was a top pick, Puka had been picked up off the wire. That creates an uproar in most leagues.

You stated "Neither of those scenarios are remotely similar to intentionally benching a top player in order to lose."

Breece Hall is a top player and Sanders was a desperation starter. That's exactly the same as benching a top player.

Like I said, I’m at the agree to disagree portion of this discussion. Happy Independence Day my friend.

 

[eighsse2]

I'm thinking insanely stupid trades belong in a separate category than tanking.

Totally. It was brought up as an example of another subjective rule that can cause problems.

 

[RandyDB]

Let's turn this question on its head.

Do you feel it is ever OK for your opponent to play an inferior line-up?
Would you message your opponent to ask, "Did you really want to play Tank rather than Bijan?"

Also, who gets to decide which line-up is inferior, for any given game?
Maybe the GM/Coach feels Jax. will roll over their opponent this week and this will be Tanks time to shine.
If you don't want to give the GM/Coach that freedom, maybe Best ball leagues are a better choice.

 

[Mitchie]

Let's turn this question on its head.

Do you feel it is ever OK for your opponent to play an inferior line-up?
Would you message your opponent to ask, "Did you really want to play Tank rather than Bijan?"

Also, who gets to decide which line-up is inferior, for any given game?
Maybe the GM/Coach feels Jax. will roll over their opponent this week and this will be Tanks time to shine.
If you don't want to give the GM/Coach that freedom, maybe Best ball leagues are a better choice.

would you be ok w/ a Bijan for Tank trade in your league because "Tank could suddenly turn into the next Derrick Henry"

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Let's turn this question on its head.

Do you feel it is ever OK for your opponent to play an inferior line-up?
Would you message your opponent to ask, "Did you really want to play Tank rather than Bijan?"

Also, who gets to decide which line-up is inferior, for any given game?
Maybe the GM/Coach feels Jax. will roll over their opponent this week and this will be Tanks time to shine.
If you don't want to give the GM/Coach that freedom, maybe Best ball leagues are a better choice.

Last year my opponent had several players on the BYE in his active lineup.

I did message them before rostered locked & as it turned out they were dealing with some sort of natural disaster situation and had hastily set all their lineups (they had like 15 teams) and missed one.

But again, since my leagues base draft picks off potential points, it would have not been a tank, merely an easy W for me.

And I’m not the sort of FF manager to take an cheap W like that.

Seems like you’re getting into the weeds a little with this hypothetical. Literally no manager would do this for that reason, because it also involves benching Bijan.

That’s just silly. Cmon.

 

[TheWinz]

This thread needs to be renamed to "How long can we argue and get nowhere"

Let's face it - this is a very divisive topic and there is no right/wrong answer.

 

[-OZ-]

May have been mentioned earlier, but what's the thought on leaving a first round rookie pick on the taxi squad for a year knowing you're not a contender?

Legal according to most league rules. i have no qualms with this. The taxi squad is its own animal, and league rules determine duration.

Sure its legal. But I was a bit surprised with the unethical viewing of certain aspects of dynasty management. If I drafted Bijan and left him on my taxi squad all year, are the same people mad about benching him mad about that?

Yeah its the ridiculousness of making a player eligible or not that gets equated to ethics... that's what I find hypocritical.

It’s not hypocritical. It’s exactly what taxi squads are for.

In all my leagues with TS, once activated, a player cannot be put back on the taxi squad.

Compare this to *benching* a Bijan Robinson (to use your example) it’s not analogous because you can then start Bijan the next week with no roster consequences.

So it’s a different choice. Will Bijan count against your active roster from that point forward? Ok, someone else needs to be dropped for that. There’s a cost to activating a TS player. There’s a cost to dealing players for picks.

Merely swapping out Bijan to increase your chances of a loss that week is not at all the same thing. There is no correlating cost to doing this - merely a cheap benefit to one’s draft capital.

In every attempt to draw equivalence to rebuilding or TS, y’all seem to be missing critical details that belie the premise.

I guess I just fundamentally disagree with you. If you're leaving Bijon your taxi squad you're doing the exact same thing as benching him. Not trying to win each week.

But the difference between #4 and benching Bijan to tank is that (again) there is a cost to activating Bijan from the TS.

IMO the biggest difference is by putting good eligible players on the taxi squad, you’re treating all of your opponents equally / fairly. Benching a player you’ve started most of the year to lose any given week is giving another team an advantage others didn’t have - within your control.

In my main dynasty, the commish had CMC, Zeke, dalvin cook, etc on his taxi Squad while not competing. The precedent has been set (probably well before then). So I don’t feel the need to put my top rookies and second year players on the roster before the team is ready to compete.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

IMO the biggest difference is by putting good eligible players on the taxi squad, you’re treating all of your opponents equally / fairly. Benching a player you’ve started most of the year to lose any given week is giving another team an advantage others didn’t have - within your control.

Yep - I made this exact point earlier.

Probably more than once, given the nature of this topic. lol

 

[Gally]

Also, who gets to decide which line-up is inferior, for any given game?

This isn't the crux of the question being posed. The intent of the owner is what is being questioned. Setting lineups is part of the game and sometimes an owner gets a feeling to make an unorthodox choice that most wouldn't make. If the owner is doing that in an attempt to win the game then there is no issue. The issue comes when the owner is doing that to attempt to lose the game.

 

[ghostguy123]

In the FFPC, the losers bracket dictates the top 6 picks of the following year's rookie draft.
I've had instances where a team does not own their own future 1st, but owns the future 1st of the team they are playing against......and they were clearly trying to tank the game. I notified the FFPC commish, and he set a proper lineup for him.

Stuff like that is why I appreciate the FFPC. They rarely overturn lopsided trades (just the super awful ones, Ive seen it maybe a few times in 15 years), and the don't stand for people who are tanking in these kinds of instances.

 

[Gruden's Keyboard]

I'm in a deep bench league where worst record and least points gets waiver wire priority for every transaction they submit... For sure going to tank week 1

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

In the FFPC, the losers bracket dictates the top 6 picks of the following year's rookie draft.
I've had instances where a team does not own their own future 1st, but owns the future 1st of the team they are playing against......and they were clearly trying to tank the game. I notified the FFPC commish, and he set a proper lineup for him.

Stuff like that is why I appreciate the FFPC. They rarely overturn lopsided trades (just the super awful ones, Ive seen it maybe a few times in 15 years), and the don't stand for people who are tanking in these kinds of instances.

That’s a great example of why one might try to throw a game. And also a great example of good commissioning because that absolutely shouldn’t be allowed.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'm in a deep bench league where worst record and least points gets waiver wire priority for every transaction they submit... For sure going to tank week 1

I used to be in a league wit weekly waivers run that went “worst to 1st” and reset every week.

Worst system I’ve ever played in. We changed it the 2nd year.