Is it ever OK to play an inferior lineup in FF (a pole)? (3 Viewers)

[Gally]

Is it ever ok to purposely play an inferior lineup to try and lose a FF game?

This pertains to dynasty leagues primarily. To clarify, I am not referring to making trades of quality players for draft picks, rookies, upside guys, etc to play for the future then having a less than ideal lineup to start each week. I mean to purposely play lesser players with better players on your bench to try and lose a game.

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.

 

[jm192]

No.

 

[-OZ-]

Always use your best players on your active roster. But you’re free to put your best eligible players on your taxi/practice squad. (Assuming they’re there all year, not if you can move them up and down freely)

 

[Snoopy]

No tank you

 

[pinkstapler]

Yes, because if your league settings don't already negate any impact of not starting your best lineup, you need better league settings.

There's way too much gray area and open interpretation on what constitutes tanking, what people's "optimal" lineups should be, etc etc. It's obnoxious to have league mates second guessing everyone else's line up every week, especially going by terrible projections generated by your host provider. Remove all of that noise from the league by making it not matter who owners start in their line ups.

99% of these questions and issues always come back to a league that determines draft order in a bad way. It should not be by overall record, and it should not be PF (starters). It should be either best ball scoring or even better total points scored including all bench players. This not only removes any way to manipulate the draft order and removes the issue of "tanking"; but it also proves the best barometer of a teams actual overall strength. The team that has the best starters in the league is often not the "best" team, especially if one injury can derail their entire season. There is no perfect solution, but with 2 decades of playing, I've yet to see any suggestion that comes close with regards to negating tanking and ensuring league parity with regards to giving the best picks to the worst teams without outside manipulation.

 

[-OZ-]

The team that has the best starters in the league is often not the "best" team,

Do you use total points to determine your champion?

 

[Gally]

There's way too much gray area and open interpretation on what constitutes tanking, what people's "optimal" lineups should be, etc etc. It's obnoxious to have league mates second guessing everyone else's line up every week, especially going by terrible projections generated by your host provider. Remove all of that noise from the league by making it not matter who owners start in their line ups.

The poll was asking if it was ever ok to play an inferior lineup. I am particularly asking if it is ok for an owner to play a lineup he/she doesn't believe is their best lineup to try and lose. I am not concerned with what other owners think of the lineup or any other excuse out there. I don't really care of we differ on what we think is the best lineup. I don't care about the second guessing aspect. I am asking if it is ok for you to purposely try and play a worse lineup to lose.

Seems like your answer is that it is not ok and the league should make rules to not tempt someone to do so. So your answer seems to be it is not ok to ever do it.

 

[pinkstapler]

The team that has the best starters in the league is often not the "best" team,

Do you use total points to determine your champion?

No. Just draft pick order for non-playoff teams.

 

[Gally]

99% of these questions and issues always come back to a league that determines draft order in a bad way. It should not be by overall record, and it should not be PF (starters). It should be either best ball scoring or even better total points scored including all bench players. This not only removes any way to manipulate the draft order and removes the issue of "tanking"; but it also proves the best barometer of a teams actual overall strength. The team that has the best starters in the league is often not the "best" team, especially if one injury can derail their entire season. There is no perfect solution, but with 2 decades of playing, I've yet to see any suggestion that comes close with regards to negating tanking and ensuring league parity with regards to giving the best picks to the worst teams without outside manipulation.

This is irrelevant to the question. I am asking if it is ever ok to purposely play a lineup you think is inferior to try and lose. It appears you don't think it is ever ok because you want rules that don't make it an advantage to lose. Or you are saying if the draft is reverse order of standings then you are fine with an owner purposely playing a bad lineup to try and lose.

 

[pinkstapler]

There's way too much gray area and open interpretation on what constitutes tanking, what people's "optimal" lineups should be, etc etc. It's obnoxious to have league mates second guessing everyone else's line up every week, especially going by terrible projections generated by your host provider. Remove all of that noise from the league by making it not matter who owners start in their line ups.

The poll was asking if it was ever ok to play an inferior lineup. I am particularly asking if it is ok for an owner to play a lineup he/she doesn't believe is their best lineup to try and lose. I am not concerned with what other owners think of the lineup or any other excuse out there. I don't really care of we differ on what we think is the best lineup. I don't care about the second guessing aspect. I am asking if it is ok for you to purposely try and play a worse lineup to lose.

Seems like your answer is that it is not ok and the league should make rules to not tempt someone to do so. So your answer seems to be it is not ok to ever do it.

The question is irrelevant in leagues that have good settings. So, yes, in any league I'm in, people can set whatever lineups they like because there is 0 benefit to setting a poor line up on purpose.

 

[TVT 0 N S T A]

I think it is bad gamesmanship to tank a game. I think it becomes less terrible if the roster tanks every game, adding consistency and knowing he hasn't handed out losses to some and easy wins to others, but by and large - bad gamesmanship.

For that reason, last place team hosts the draft - food, drinks on them. It has kept the league pretty competitive and is a great reason for some middle aged guys to get together in the middle of summer.

 

[Scoresman]

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.

 

[GPS]

I was going to run without a defense week 1 last year. I just couldn't decide which RB prospect to drop. I relented at the last minute, added a defense that scored neg, and lost by less than a point. Served me right!

 

[Bri]

This comes up every year.
I actually know a law because of it. The police have six months to submit a DUI blood test results otherwise the arrest is voided or dropped or whatever word.
Someone wrote up a parallel to FF and is the driver not wrong for a DUI if the charges are dropped?
He wrote it about the attitude or "spirit" of the offender.
I'm probably not doing it much good presenting it this shortly and reworded but...when we understand that our league mates (word?) are dedicated to the league it becomes more than a child-like "because I can" stance. It's an adult vibe. It hits different. The person is aware and doing it anyway

 

[Bri]

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.

In a long time league I joined a few years ago, the commish puts it out there every couple years id tanking should be allowed and there's even been twists like only allowed during these weeks. The catch- he says if he hears people talking all underhanded and not getting along then we're not doing it for the survival of the league. It's never been allowed.

I thought it was stupid initially and ever since think it's brilliant. If you ever commished you know there's bickering conversations before a new rule is implemented and some go smooth. The bickering is always ugh and likely to never be voted in or if so to be whined about all year and reverted back next year and...I absolutely love the rule that if we're all a bunch of jerks he's rescinding any rule up for approval. It's fantastic

 

[Gally]

The question is irrelevant in leagues that have good settings. So, yes, in any league I'm in, people can set whatever lineups they like because there is 0 benefit to setting a poor line up on purpose.

You are completely missing the point.

 

[Gally]

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 is not playing an inferior lineup that is trying to lose. That is actually playing to win the game.

 

[Gally]

I was going to run without a defense week 1 last year. I just couldn't decide which RB prospect to drop. I relented at the last minute, added a defense that scored neg, and lost by less than a point. Served me right!

This is not playing an inferior lineup trying to lose. This is making a decision and still trying to win how you see will work best for your overall team goals.

 

[Gally]

This comes up every year.
I actually know a law because of it. The police have six months to submit a DUI blood test results otherwise the arrest is voided or dropped or whatever word.
Someone wrote up a parallel to FF and is the driver not wrong for a DUI if the charges are dropped?
He wrote it about the attitude or "spirit" of the offender.
I'm probably not doing it much good presenting it this shortly and reworded but...when we understand that our league mates (word?) are dedicated to the league it becomes more than a child-like "because I can" stance. It's an adult vibe. It hits different. The person is aware and doing it anyway

This is more what I am asking. I don't really care about the results or rules to stop it from happening or ??????

I am asking if it is ever ok to purposely play a bad lineup in an attempt to lose. Meaning the guy setting the lineup (not other owners in the league) thinks Player A is the best play over B but decides to play Player B because he thinks it will help him lose. Is this ever ok from an integrity standpoint?

 

[Bri]

This comes up every year.
I actually know a law because of it. The police have six months to submit a DUI blood test results otherwise the arrest is voided or dropped or whatever word.
Someone wrote up a parallel to FF and is the driver not wrong for a DUI if the charges are dropped?
He wrote it about the attitude or "spirit" of the offender.
I'm probably not doing it much good presenting it this shortly and reworded but...when we understand that our league mates (word?) are dedicated to the league it becomes more than a child-like "because I can" stance. It's an adult vibe. It hits different. The person is aware and doing it anyway

This is more what I am asking. I don't really care about the results or rules to stop it from happening or ??????

I am asking if it is ever ok to purposely play a bad lineup in an attempt to lose. Meaning the guy setting the lineup (not other owners in the league) thinks Player A is the best play over B but decides to play Player B because he thinks it will help him lose. Is this ever ok from an integrity standpoint?

No

And as long as you're reasonable social media friends then just be like I don't want to deal with this, ya know it'll be a big deal, so we're not opening Pandora's box

 

[BassNBrew]

Yes if

1) It improves your draft position. Same end result as selling off players for better draft capital

2) improves your playoff position. Maybe losing lines you up against the guy that has and injured Hill, Andrews, and a resting Cmac.

3) Improves your ww position to snag Puka before week 2.

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

 

[Catbird]

I play in a few leagues and a couple very clearly do not prohibit tanking and a couple that say anyone tanking in any respect is automatically kicked out of the league. The theory behind the first group is they are dynasty and tanking for a better draft position next year is making your team better. Its a hands off 'you paid for your team and you can run it any way you want to' approach. People tank where they think it benefits them and as long as everyone has the same options, its part of the game. The second group is more common and the aim is to make the competition fair to the best teams playing for the 'ship. In both situations my understanding is that all moves you make have to be in your team's best interest - which often can be to intentionally lose if you can't be competitive and that is permitted.

The big problem comes where the rules aren't clear and some people assume tanking is a strategic option and some don't. That gets horribly unfair results and angry disputes. If the rules are clear and everyone plays within them, I don't see a problem either way. I realize that most people prefer a league where no one tanks. They just need to state that clearly in the rules. Even if you set up a scoring and playoff system designed to eliminate any benefit to tanking (which I endorse completely where tanking is prohibited) it still helps to state it. There can always be situations where the unexpected arises and someone tanks where someone else thinks it's illegal.

 

[kutta]

I also say no.

 

[Max Power]

You shouldn't try to lose, but if you are, you have to do a subtle tank. You can't bench a stud for a dud. Play your WR 4 over your WR 3, no problem. I think this level of "no benefit to winning" management is tolerable.

 

[JohnnyU]

You shouldn't try to lose, but if you are, you have to do a subtle tank. You can't bench a stud for a dud. Play your WR 4 over your WR 3, no problem. I think this level of "no benefit to winning" management is tolerable.

It's like porn, you know it when you see it.

 

[jm192]

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.

This is completely fine. You're not trying to intentionally lose.

And it comes with risk.

Could lose to a stat correction.

Nothing wrong with this at all.

 

[Jppaul]

wow

Nine posters said "yes".

I'm truly surprised, well, that anyone said yes.

 

[Jppaul]

In my dynasty leagues, with CONTRACTS, in a re-build, I'll trade away as much as possible. Including and especially an entire position. My league mates got mad that i had no QB. I said... let's make a rule that an intentionally "tanking" team is allowed to pick up a player for free, with no contract implications, and then drop that player after the game. They didn't like that either.



but not starting, in your own and individual opinions, your best line up of the players you have? yikes, surprised anyone is good with that?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If it's for a significant amount of money and the rules allow it, sure.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You are completely missing the point.

That is not playing an inferior lineup that is trying to lose. That is actually playing to win the game.

This is not playing an inferior lineup trying to lose. This is making a decision and still trying to win how you see will work best for your overall team goals.

It's not missing the point to talk about whether the league settings allow / encourage some form of tanking. If it would benefit a franchise long term to lose a week, that's actually playing to win the game. Sometimes you lose a battle to win the war. If you don't want people to tank, don't have a league format that rewards it.

 

[Gally]

You are completely missing the point.

That is not playing an inferior lineup that is trying to lose. That is actually playing to win the game.

This is not playing an inferior lineup trying to lose. This is making a decision and still trying to win how you see will work best for your overall team goals.

It's not missing the point to talk about whether the league settings allow / encourage some form of tanking. If it would benefit a franchise long term to lose a week, that's actually playing to win the game. Sometimes you lose a battle to win the war. If you don't want people to tank, don't have a league format that rewards it.

So you are fine with someone playing injured player, bye players, etc? To me that is unethical regardless of what the rules allow. The bye/injured is an extreme example but I see that no different than playing Bigby over Bijan. It is a lack of integrity.


Two of the three quotes you referenced from me don't even meet the pole question because the scenario listed was not purposely trying to lose. In those instances the owner was still trying to win.

IMO, ethically it is never ok to try and lose a game in FF. There are benefits to losing based on some set ups (ie - better draft pick slot) but that doesn't make it ethical to do so.

 

[Gally]

You shouldn't try to lose, but if you are, you have to do a subtle tank. You can't bench a stud for a dud. Play your WR 4 over your WR 3, no problem. I think this level of "no benefit to winning" management is tolerable.

In the end what's the difference? You, as the owner, are purposely not playing the lineup you think is the best lineup. You are trying to lose. That is different than wanting to lose but still putting out your best lineup. I believe you lack integrity if you put out a lineup you don't think is your best lineup.

Now if you believe that WR4 is better than WR3 for this week because of matchups, injuries, etc then that is what lineup decisions are about. But if you think WR3 is the better play and chose to play WR4 because you are trying to lose.....that is an issue to me. Ethically I think that is an issue.

 

[Gally]

wow

Nine posters said "yes".

I'm truly surprised, well, that anyone said yes.

Me too. I think purposely trying to lose is a lack of integrity.

 

[Max Power]

You shouldn't try to lose, but if you are, you have to do a subtle tank. You can't bench a stud for a dud. Play your WR 4 over your WR 3, no problem. I think this level of "no benefit to winning" management is tolerable.

In the end what's the difference? You, as the owner, are purposely not playing the lineup you think is the best lineup. You are trying to lose. That is different than wanting to lose but still putting out your best lineup. I believe you lack integrity if you put out a lineup you don't think is your best lineup.

Now if you believe that WR4 is better than WR3 for this week because of matchups, injuries, etc then that is what lineup decisions are about. But if you think WR3 is the better play and chose to play WR4 because you are trying to lose.....that is an issue to me. Ethically I think that is an issue.

Now you're acting like there aren't toss up decisions made every single week. I could have multiple versions of my best lineup every week. I know some guys have better upsides and some players have better floors. If we're in the last week of the season and I'd benefit from losing, I'll play a guy who is more floor than upside. That is in no way an integrity thing.

You're hung up on the integrity angle and posted an extreme example of Bijan vs Bigsby, which I agree with you on, an owner shouldn't do that.

Yet in your OP you excuse owners trading away their best players and not being a competitive team as not an issue. It's purposefully upsetting the power balance of the league and I'd argue that is just as unethical.

 

[pinkstapler]

The question is irrelevant in leagues that have good settings. So, yes, in any league I'm in, people can set whatever lineups they like because there is 0 benefit to setting a poor line up on purpose.

You are completely missing the point.

I think you are being extremely vague and not providing a point. This entire poll and your responses in it feel like the build up to some "gotcha" moment for some other league mate where you can say "see the internet agrees with me". The question you're asking without any qualifying statements is quite frankly stupid. And your dismissing of anyone trying to get more detailed information about what potential circumstances surround the question, or even your reason for asking it, feels very disingenuous. I regret even responding. Have a great league year.

 

[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....

 

[BassNBrew]

In my dynasty leagues, with CONTRACTS, in a re-build, I'll trade away as much as possible. Including and especially an entire position. My league mates got mad that i had no QB. I said... let's make a rule that an intentionally "tanking" team is allowed to pick up a player for free, with no contract implications, and then drop that player after the game. They didn't like that either.



but not starting, in your own and individual opinions, your best line up of the players you have? yikes, surprised anyone is good with that?

How is trading away your entire team for future picks and picking up ww players to start any different than sitting a couple of studs to improve your draft position? The end result is that you're not starting the best team that you could have for a future benefit.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Two of the three quotes you referenced from me don't even meet the pole question because the scenario listed was not purposely trying to lose. In those instances the owner was still trying to win.

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.

IMO, ethically it is never ok to try and lose a game in FF. There are benefits to losing based on some set ups (ie - better draft pick slot) but that doesn't make it ethical to do so.

In my $100 league with my buddies, sure, I would never do it and if someone did they'd never hear the end of it. If there's big money at stake and the structure of the contest inherently encourages it, there's nothing unethical about that. Everyone knows the rules when they pay their entry fees.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I initially voted yes, but reading the OP, “to intentionally lose a game” was a deal breaker.

I (now famously) started Conklin over Zach Wilson in a SF, to avoid a Wilson meltdown even thought was projected to be the higher scorer (spoiler, he wasn’t) but that was trying to win a game.

It is never ok to try to lose a game.

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.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

In my dynasty leagues, with CONTRACTS, in a re-build, I'll trade away as much as possible. Including and especially an entire position. My league mates got mad that i had no QB. I said... let's make a rule that an intentionally "tanking" team is allowed to pick up a player for free, with no contract implications, and then drop that player after the game. They didn't like that either.



but not starting, in your own and individual opinions, your best line up of the players you have? yikes, surprised anyone is good with that?

How is trading away your entire team for future picks and picking up ww players to start any different than sitting a couple of studs to improve your draft position? The end result is that you're not starting the best team that you could have for a future benefit.

Not exactly. In one scenario you’ve moved those players so you have no option but to start scrubs.

There can be no deliberate losing of 1 game - you’ve committed to losing that season. You’re still fielding your best lineup.

In the other scenario you’re deliberately throwing one game by benching players who could have scored for you. Thus you’re not fielding your best team. That could call integrity into question, along with raising questions of why you’d give that specific opponent a free win.

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

 

[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.

Hard disagree. See post immediately above this. There is a clear and obvious difference.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

 

[eighsse2]

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.

If those are indistinguishable, wouldn't you also have to say that if you have future draft picks, even just your natural picks, then you're intentionally losing by not trading the picks for even better players now?

 

[Jppaul]

In my dynasty leagues, with CONTRACTS, in a re-build, I'll trade away as much as possible. Including and especially an entire position. My league mates got mad that i had no QB. I said... let's make a rule that an intentionally "tanking" team is allowed to pick up a player for free, with no contract implications, and then drop that player after the game. They didn't like that either.



but not starting, in your own and individual opinions, your best line up of the players you have? yikes, surprised anyone is good with that?

How is trading away your entire team for future picks and picking up ww players to start any different than sitting a couple of studs to improve your draft position? The end result is that you're not starting the best team that you could have for a future benefit.

you don't see the difference? fair enough.

 

[Jppaul]

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.

If those are indistinguishable, wouldn't you also have to say that if you have future draft picks, even just your natural picks, then you're intentionally losing by not trading the picks for even better players now?

lol, mic drop

/end thread

 

[Zow]

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.

Huh?

Assuming the trades aren't unconscionable, there's a massive difference...

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

If those are indistinguishable, wouldn't you also have to say that if you have future draft picks, even just your natural picks, then you're intentionally losing by not trading the picks for even better players now?

It may be the case that I calculate my best shot at winning a championship is trading my future picks for better players now, or I may estimate that I'm better off keeping those future picks. Either course of action is fine and happens all the time, and no one claims one or the other is unethical (because, of course, neither of them is, nor is any other lineup strategy you employ within the rules to maximize your chances of winning the prize).

 

[Zow]

To answer the question, I am in a keeper league where the rules expressly permit tanking. I hated the rule and advocated hard for a change (which will be implemented this year), but in this context it was "ok" for the owners to do it because the rules expressly permitted it and it helped with their future draft picks.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

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.