Is "throwing a game" legit if it gets you into playoffs (2 Viewers)

[pollardsvision]

1. I'm thoroughly confused by the example (despite reading most of the posts clarifying it). I'm not very bright.

2. Though I don't understand, it's pretty obvious that it's okay to throw a game if it means getting into the playoffs. It would be the right thing to do too.

3. Unless it's an incredibly deep league or you have a bad roster, I imagine throwing a fantasy game is pretty tricky thing to try to pull off. If I always knew who would have a bad week, setting my lineups would always be easy.

 

[Lehigh98]

Question for the guys with "no tanking" rules in their leagues, could you please cut and paste the full rule?

Interested to see how you define and prevent it.

Thanks

for 3 dynasty leagues I runEthics

Losing intentionally (tanking a game)

· Losing intentionally to better your draft pick for the next season is prohibited.

· Losing intentionally to help out or to hurt another owner’s chance of making the playoffs is prohibited.

· The purpose of this league is to have fun. Failing to field your best team undermines the integrity of the league. Every owner must try to field his or her best team each week. Failing to get a lineup changed in time does happen sometimes, but intentionally losing a game for any reason, including to aid another team, or trying to improve draft position the following year, goes against the league rules and is not permitted.

· The commissioner has the right to adjust an owners line up if tanking is suspected

Why Tanking Is Wrong

· Tanking is wrong because it undermines the integrity of the games and the league. But let's examine some other ramifications that tanking could have on your league.

The effects it has on other teams - tanking games can seriously affect the standings and playoff race of other teams

Defeating the purpose of the draft order - as with the NFL, the purpose of a FFL draft should be to help the worst teams get better through the draft. However, if the team that is tanking is a middle tier team, he is going to screw the worst team out of bettering his already really bad team.

Punishment for tanking

· owner will be removed from the league

Collusion

· Collusion is not permitted. Each owner will try to win through the efforts of his or her team only. Collusion is demonstrated by any transaction or series of transactions that works to the exclusive benefit of one team and the detriment of the other, or any series of transactions that amount to two or more teams pooling their rosters.

· Any transaction a team participates in should be of benefit to the team’s game time efforts. A transaction done solely to aid another team who plays a rival does not count as showing a benefit, and is a clear-cut example of collusion.

· Borrowing player(s) (two owners make a trade and then those players are trade back to the originally owners at another time) is a form of collusion and is prohibited.

Perfect, that would have solved it right there.

 

[Lehigh98]

Question for the guys with "no tanking" rules in their leagues, could you please cut and paste the full rule?Interested to see how you define and prevent it.Thanks

We define it by kicking people out that do it.

Another gem.

If you dont get it, you dont get it. Don't tank.

I like to draft a lot of guys with the same bye week... is that tanking?

Did you get kicked out? If not, then no.

 

[WisWolvrns]

So if this is ok, how about putting in a crappy week 1 lineup so you're top of the waivers for week 1? A tactical decision, costing you a win, for the strategic benefit of a top waiver pick week 1 when an unknown gem might be found along with lower total points the whole year for better seeding in waivers till your win total gets above .500...

 

[big0mar]

So if this is ok, how about putting in a crappy week 1 lineup so you're top of the waivers for week 1? A tactical decision, costing you a win, for the strategic benefit of a top waiver pick week 1 when an unknown gem might be found along with lower total points the whole year for better seeding in waivers till your win total gets above .500...

Thats certainly a sound strategy. If you wanted to prevent this however, you could easily manipulate payout schedules etc. But I don't see why you would want to deter any type of strategy that isn't colluding.

 

[VTjkru]

Maybe it's the kind of uber competitive leagues a lot of you play in but in my dynasty, there's no reason to explicitly outline each and every rule. We have really one golden rule, dont be a ##### (well, that rhymes with the word...). Tanking games, in the general sense of the act, is a ##### move. Trying to pass off Adrian Peterson of the Bears as the one from the Vikings is a ##### move. Trying to work around the technicalities of "collusion" is a ##### move.

I wouldnt want to participate in a league where all the owners scour over the bylaws and rule sets trying to figure out an out so they can gain any competitive advantage. Maybe that's fun for some people, but it's not for me.

 

[big0mar]

Maybe it's the kind of uber competitive leagues a lot of you play in but in my dynasty, there's no reason to explicitly outline each and every rule. We have really one golden rule, dont be a ##### (well, that rhymes with the word...). Tanking games, in the general sense of the act, is a ##### move. Trying to pass off Adrian Peterson of the Bears as the one from the Vikings is a ##### move. Trying to work around the technicalities of "collusion" is a ##### move.I wouldnt want to participate in a league where all the owners scour over the bylaws and rule sets trying to figure out an out so they can gain any competitive advantage. Maybe that's fun for some people, but it's not for me.

Church league?

 

[hxperson]

Is it legit to set a poor lineup to get your team into the playoffs?

Yes [ 70 ] [64.22%]

No [ 39 ] [35.78%]

A lot of people without character in here. This is the opposite of what I expected.

LOL @ the notion that this action has anything to do with someone's "character". 1. It is a fantasy game, not a real live sport. Everyone's objective should be to win the game, not to be the nicest, most upstanding citizen in the league. Tanking for a better draft pick goes against this objective, but losing to ensure playoff success does not.

2. This is not exploiting a loophole. It is clearly written in the rules and everyone knows that this outcome is a possibility before the season started. If anyone didn't like it, they should have petitioned to change the rules or leave the league.

3. This situation has happened against me before and no, I didn't complain about it because I knew it was in the rules.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Question for the guys with "no tanking" rules in their leagues, could you please cut and paste the full rule?Interested to see how you define and prevent it.Thanks

We define it by kicking people out that do it.

Another gem.

If you dont get it, you dont get it. Don't tank.

This has always struck me as an odd position to take, as if it's an absolute that has no exceptions. If the Patriots had let Addai score on that run play at the end instead of tackling him at the one, would they have been "tanking?" No-- because the bigger goal (trying to win the game) would have been more important than the defense doing "what it's supposed to do."In this scenario, you're asking a fantasy team to hurt its own playoff chances. The bigger goal (winning the league) is more important. The real problem is that the league has a format that allows this to happen (albeit in rare cases). Don't blame the team for trying to make the playoffs. Blame the league for forcing a team to consider losing to make the playoffs. I appreciate accommodating total points into the picture, though. This is just a hypothetical. It's so rare maybe it shouldn't be over-analyzed.

 

[Pickle Rody]

My goal is to win the Championship. If the only way I can make that happen (by qualifying for the playoffs) is to LOSE my final regular season game, then I'm throwing in my scrubs and hoping I lose. I don't give a rats a-s-s about teams C, D, E, F or whatever. The only way my team can win the Championship is to make the playoffs, so I go for the LOSS.

For those that think this damages the league in any way, you are way off your rocker. I would completely expect another owner to use exactly this strategy if it was the only way his team could make the playoffs.

What? I should go out and WIN the game to miss out on the playoffs because I'm worried about the integrity of the league? Are you serious? I didn't join the league to enforce it's integrity rules. I joined to play the GAME and WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP, which most likely includes a ton of bragging rights and some cash. And yes, I would brag that I had the foresight to see that I needed to LOSE my final game just to be able to get into the playoffs. Had I not, my team would not have had the opportunity to WIN the final prize.

If anyone in the league thinks this was shady, so be it. All I did was follow the rules and use them to my advantage. There is no loophole here. Just a set of qualifiers for making the playoffs. If they don't like it they can petition to have the rules changed and/or adjusted next year. Absolutely no harm this year except a couple of bruised egos because they didn't have the foresight to see that this type of scenario could occur. Or they did, and now that it's being used against them, they don't like it.

All of the above is hypothetical, but it is exactly how I would approach it.

 

[TheFanatic]

Before Week 1 of the NFL season and at all of our fantasy football drafts EVERYONE on this boards goal is to win the Championship in your given league.If losing in a particular week insures this goal is still alive than that is what you HAVE to do.You are exploiting a rule to achieve your goal, not tanking.

This is why points should only be used as a tie-breaker. Go by win-lose record, then points.

I'm actually in a league wtih Gian where it's record and then total points to determine playoff seeding and such. First year in the league, I beat a guy in my conference, we end up the season with identical records but he had more total points. He got the bye and I lost week 1 in the playoffs. Total points should not be the second tie breaker. Should be head to head record and then conference record before it goes to points. Makes this entire argument moot...

 

[Lehigh98]

Before Week 1 of the NFL season and at all of our fantasy football drafts EVERYONE on this boards goal is to win the Championship in your given league.If losing in a particular week insures this goal is still alive than that is what you HAVE to do.You are exploiting a rule to achieve your goal, not tanking.

This is why points should only be used as a tie-breaker. Go by win-lose record, then points.

I'm actually in a league wtih Gian where it's record and then total points to determine playoff seeding and such. First year in the league, I beat a guy in my conference, we end up the season with identical records but he had more total points. He got the bye and I lost week 1 in the playoffs. Total points should not be the second tie breaker. Should be head to head record and then conference record before it goes to points. Makes this entire argument moot...

So it shouldn't be the second tiebreaker because one time you personally didn't get as far in the playoffs because of it?

 

[fred_1_15301]

I'm actually in a league wtih Gian where it's record and then total points to determine playoff seeding and such. First year in the league, I beat a guy in my conference, we end up the season with identical records but he had more total points. He got the bye and I lost week 1 in the playoffs. Total points should not be the second tie breaker. Should be head to head record and then conference record before it goes to points. Makes this entire argument moot...

So it shouldn't be the second tiebreaker because one time you personally didn't get as far in the playoffs because of it?

I love having total points as the 2nd tiebreaker. It rewards the teams that have a great team but horrible luck. Head-to-head is a terrible 2nd tiebreaker in my opinion. A team could be punished for having an off week or several players on bye.

 

[Moniker]

Before Week 1 of the NFL season and at all of our fantasy football drafts EVERYONE on this boards goal is to win the Championship in your given league.If losing in a particular week insures this goal is still alive than that is what you HAVE to do.You are exploiting a rule to achieve your goal, not tanking.

This is why points should only be used as a tie-breaker. Go by win-lose record, then points.

I'm actually in a league wtih Gian where it's record and then total points to determine playoff seeding and such. First year in the league, I beat a guy in my conference, we end up the season with identical records but he had more total points. He got the bye and I lost week 1 in the playoffs. Total points should not be the second tie breaker. Should be head to head record and then conference record before it goes to points. Makes this entire argument moot...

So it shouldn't be the second tiebreaker because one time you personally didn't get as far in the playoffs because of it?

My guess would be because he beat the other guy head to head but because total points was the second tiebreaker the other guy got the bye...Total points should never be used as the second tiebreaker in head to head leagues.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Before Week 1 of the NFL season and at all of our fantasy football drafts EVERYONE on this boards goal is to win the Championship in your given league.If losing in a particular week insures this goal is still alive than that is what you HAVE to do.You are exploiting a rule to achieve your goal, not tanking.

This is why points should only be used as a tie-breaker. Go by win-lose record, then points.

I'm actually in a league wtih Gian where it's record and then total points to determine playoff seeding and such. First year in the league, I beat a guy in my conference, we end up the season with identical records but he had more total points. He got the bye and I lost week 1 in the playoffs. Total points should not be the second tie breaker. Should be head to head record and then conference record before it goes to points. Makes this entire argument moot...

Why shouldn't he have the bye? His team performed better than yours. He had more points. The better team got the bye.A h2h contest is just a week where you compare your numbers against a pre-determined team's numbers. Their "defense" didn't give up any points to you so your "win" is just the luck of comparing numbers on the right week. I don't think that random event should get more weight than his better performance over the course of the whole season. In the NFL, a game is where one team goes out and actually beats the other one. That should carry tie-breaker weight. This is different. Just my .02.

 

[Lehigh98]

Before Week 1 of the NFL season and at all of our fantasy football drafts EVERYONE on this boards goal is to win the Championship in your given league.If losing in a particular week insures this goal is still alive than that is what you HAVE to do.You are exploiting a rule to achieve your goal, not tanking.

This is why points should only be used as a tie-breaker. Go by win-lose record, then points.

I'm actually in a league wtih Gian where it's record and then total points to determine playoff seeding and such. First year in the league, I beat a guy in my conference, we end up the season with identical records but he had more total points. He got the bye and I lost week 1 in the playoffs. Total points should not be the second tie breaker. Should be head to head record and then conference record before it goes to points. Makes this entire argument moot...

So it shouldn't be the second tiebreaker because one time you personally didn't get as far in the playoffs because of it?

My guess would be because he beat the other guy head to head but because total points was the second tiebreaker the other guy got the bye...Total points should never be used as the second tiebreaker in head to head leagues.

Don't think you can say "never" here, it depends on what the league wants to reward with a playoff berth.Performance over the whole season or how your team performed in a week or two against a certain opponant.

 

[the_Truth]

Here's an ethics question you guys should have fun debating:

Should you be allowed to purposely lose a trade for the purpose of increasing your chances of making the playoffs?

-Example: In one league I am most likely going to have to win out to make the playoffs. However, if the two league doormats steal a few games, then I may be able to make the playoffs by going 3-1. I do not play either of these teams over the last 4 weeks.

So I traded 2 of my bench players to improve one of the doormats, and therefore improve my playoff odds even though I actually made my team worse. And I'm trying to trade another good bench player to the other doormat.

Fair/Unfair?

 

[Amused to Death]

I've got one for people questioning the integrity of the league. I'm in a contract dynasty league. We just had a few 2-7, 3-6 teams trade some studs nearing the end of their contract for young talent and/or future draft picks. This leaves them pretty thin with talent. I'm in a chase for a playoff spot and get to play 2 of those teams over the last 3 weeks. The other team vying for the spot doesn't have that luxury so I have an advantage.

Teams do what's best for them to win championships. That's what we pay the money for.

 

[gianmarco]

Interestingly enough, this situation has come up again and isn't even hypothetical.

There is a team in one of my leagues that, if he wins next week, will be out of playoffs for sure. If he loses, he has a shot.

 

[ThePittbully]

I threw one this weekend to block a stronger team from making the playoffs, I already have the bye locked up. The team I wanted to block started terrible but is red hot right now with a great team, if I can keep him out no way I pass on the chance

 

[carverlee]

Didn't read all the replies so I don't know if this has been said but in IMO the answer to your question depends on what kind of league you are in.

If you are in a hardcore money non-friend league, by all means do what you need to do to win.

If you are in an amateur league comprised of your friends or coworkers, it would be sorry of you to purposely exploit an omitted or loophole in a rule in order to gain an advantage.

It seems every year, in in our home league, we have to draw up new rules because of one guy. He finds a way to exploit a loophole and cause controversy year after year.

Don't be that guy.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Is it considered tanking if you purposely try to NOT make the playoffs? Because by winning the game, that's what you're doing. I'd like to know why throwing a game is considered "tanking" but throwing a playoff berth is not.

 

[Sabertooth]

It is simply taking your strategy to a higher level. The idea of a league is not to win in a given week, but to win in the playoffs and take home the prize. You should do everything in your power to do that. If you got kicked out for taking a bigger picture strategy, find a different league. This ain't Bible camp.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Is it considered tanking if you purposely try to NOT make the playoffs? Because by winning the game, that's what you're doing. I'd like to know why throwing a game is considered "tanking" but throwing a playoff berth is not.

I think it's pretty simple. It's the same thing as a team losing to get a better draft pick. There's really zero difference. You're tanking in both cases to advance the long-term interests of your team. And tanking is explicitly illegal in every league I'm in.

 

[corpcow]

Here's an ethics question you guys should have fun debating:Should you be allowed to purposely lose a trade for the purpose of increasing your chances of making the playoffs?-Example: In one league I am most likely going to have to win out to make the playoffs. However, if the two league doormats steal a few games, then I may be able to make the playoffs by going 3-1. I do not play either of these teams over the last 4 weeks.So I traded 2 of my bench players to improve one of the doormats, and therefore improve my playoff odds even though I actually made my team worse. And I'm trying to trade another good bench player to the other doormat.Fair/Unfair?

Sure. fair - but this is what makes dynasty interesting to me. You have to balance the long-term health of your team vs. the short term wins...

 

[Sabertooth]

Is it considered tanking if you purposely try to NOT make the playoffs? Because by winning the game, that's what you're doing. I'd like to know why throwing a game is considered "tanking" but throwing a playoff berth is not.

I think it's pretty simple. It's the same thing as a team losing to get a better draft pick. There's really zero difference. You're tanking in both cases to advance the long-term interests of your team. And tanking is explicitly illegal in every league I'm in.

No you are not. You are strategizing. Tanking to get a better draft pick is something that the rules should take care of anyway. Is the whole point of being in a league to win it? You play to win the league?I supposed you think punting is tanking too huh? Because after all you are thinking in the long term interest of your team and not the immediate need to score.

 

[gianmarco]

Is it considered tanking if you purposely try to NOT make the playoffs? Because by winning the game, that's what you're doing. I'd like to know why throwing a game is considered "tanking" but throwing a playoff berth is not.

I think it's pretty simple. It's the same thing as a team losing to get a better draft pick. There's really zero difference. You're tanking in both cases to advance the long-term interests of your team. And tanking is explicitly illegal in every league I'm in.

Making the playoffs is the "long-term interests of your team"? Making the playoffs and winning championship is the ultimate goal. Getting high draft picks is NOT the ultimate goal. Taking advantage of being a poor team by tanking to get a higher draft pick is unethical because high draft picks are NOT the ultimate goal. Winning 1 week to get yourself booted from the playoffs, which IS the ultimate goal, is counterintuitive.

 

[TWP]

The only way to keep a league consistently on the up-and-up is to have rules requiring teams to play their best lineup each and every week. The idea behind putting a team with high total points into the playoffs is to avoid a great team from getting screwed by the schedule. If you had that great a team, you would have more total points than the guy you're playing and it would be a moot point. That rule is there to protect him, not to protect you. Similarly throwing week 1 to get waiver priority: waiver priority is meant to reward weak teams, not teams that purposefully rolled out weak lineups in week 1. Play your best lineup every week and the rules can work as designed and the league can be run fairly to all.

OP, you are suggesting that throwing the game is fine. If you were Team C who misses the playoffs because Team B threw the last game to Team A, would you be saying "Oh well, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Too bad the league was set up to provide perverse incentives in this case."? Or would you be saying "Wow, something doesnt seem right there. That guy purposefully threw that game."? I'm pretty sure I'd be in the latter camp.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Is it considered tanking if you purposely try to NOT make the playoffs? Because by winning the game, that's what you're doing. I'd like to know why throwing a game is considered "tanking" but throwing a playoff berth is not.

I think it's pretty simple. It's the same thing as a team losing to get a better draft pick. There's really zero difference. You're tanking in both cases to advance the long-term interests of your team. And tanking is explicitly illegal in every league I'm in.

I don't agree at all. The purpose of losing the game is to make the playoffs and win a title. Losing to get a better draft pick will not get you to the playoffs or win you a title. It might help next year, but getting a better draft pick doesn't punch your ticket to the post-season. In this case, losing does. If he loses, he makes the playoffs. It hardly ever happens, but in this case it's a "lose and you're in" scenario. And you're saying he has more "integrity" is he intentionally misses the playoffs. That makes no sense to me. By trying to win the game, he'd be "tanking" his shot at the playoffs. Who would purposely try to avoid making the playoffs? At the very least, you know the guy would set his best lineup and HOPE HE LOSES. Why? Because he wants to make the playoffs. And I cannot imagine you support teams hoping they lose. Fantasy football is different than real football in that we don't play defense. You can't stop your opponent from scoring. All you control (to any degree) is what you score. That's why many leagues have total points as a tie-breaker or wild-card spot. And when you do that, you might have a case where a team needs to lose in order to let another team take the "record" spot which allows them to get the "points" spot. If the league set it up that way, it seems unreasonable that the same league would want an owner to purposely miss the playoffs and forfeit the money they'd earn by making the playoffs. Are you going to pay him what he would have earned? Or is he just supposed to be a "cool guy" and throw away his playoff spot on purpose?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The only way to keep a league consistently on the up-and-up is to have rules requiring teams to play their best lineup each and every week. The idea behind putting a team with high total points into the playoffs is to avoid a great team from getting screwed by the schedule. If you had that great a team, you would have more total points than the guy you're playing and it would be a moot point. That rule is there to protect him, not to protect you. Similarly throwing week 1 to get waiver priority: waiver priority is meant to reward weak teams, not teams that purposefully rolled out weak lineups in week 1. Play your best lineup every week and the rules can work as designed and the league can be run fairly to all.

OP, you are suggesting that throwing the game is fine. If you were Team C who misses the playoffs because Team B threw the last game to Team A, would you be saying "Oh well, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Too bad the league was set up to provide perverse incentives in this case."? Or would you be saying "Wow, something doesnt seem right there. That guy purposefully threw that game."? I'm pretty sure I'd be in the latter camp.

I'm not the OP, but I'd be asking myself why I'm in a position where I want another team to throw away their playoff berth so I can have it. I expect to have a fair shot to win my games and earn a spot. I do not expect charity from other owners. If they control their own destiny and I don't, I don't have the right to ask them to step aside and hand me their playoff spot.Sometimes it's clear that someone is going against the spirit of the rules by following the letter. In this case, you're asking a team to give up a playoff spot (and the money involved) when they could make the playoffs easily. There's definitely something wrong with asking a team to forfeit a playoff spot or implying they're doing something wrong by making the playoffs.

Do you really think it's noble to throw away a playoff spot in that case? If you don't want to make the playoffs, why play?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Question for the guys with "no tanking" rules in their leagues, could you please cut and paste the full rule?Interested to see how you define and prevent it.Thanks

FWIW i did this one year to get a 'better matchup' in the first round. (ened up losing in finals IIRC) but many of my leaguemates were pissed. thus we know have the

D. THE 'HIPPLE' RULE: You must submit your best line-up at all times. While strategy decisions will be given considerable discretion (e.g. not playing Priest Holmes b/c there is a blizzard in Green Bay or sitting a star quarterback against the Bucs defense, etc…), attempts to INTENTIONALLY lose a game (or not accumulate enough points) so as to alter one’s playoff or draft status will NOT be tolerated. An owner who is found to violate this clause will forfeit the right to any earnings and will automatically choose last in the subsequent year’s draft.

 

[two_dollars]

Not going to read this whole thread, but in my league we had this discussion. Everyone more or less agreed that the ultimate goal is the playoffs, and whatever it it took to get YOURSELF in is acceptable as long as a lineup is fielded with players who will be playing. We do prohibit the throwing of a game to toy with seeding for what someone considers a more "favorable" match up, or trying to help another team get in for whatever reason.

In the end, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Question for the guys with "no tanking" rules in their leagues, could you please cut and paste the full rule?Interested to see how you define and prevent it.Thanks

FWIW i did this one year to get a 'better matchup' in the first round. (ened up losing in finals IIRC) but many of my leaguemates were pissed. thus we know have the

D. THE 'HIPPLE' RULE: You must submit your best line-up at all times. While strategy decisions will be given considerable discretion (e.g. not playing Priest Holmes b/c there is a blizzard in Green Bay or sitting a star quarterback against the Bucs defense, etc…), attempts to INTENTIONALLY lose a game (or not accumulate enough points) so as to alter one’s playoff or draft status will NOT be tolerated. An owner who is found to violate this clause will forfeit the right to any earnings and will automatically choose last in the subsequent year’s draft.

Thanks for posting this. So in your league it is wrong to lose a game if that's the only way you can make the playoffs (altering playoff status)? An owner is expected to forfeit the playoffs and any money that goes along with it and purposely take himself out of the post-season? Doesn't that sound like being so rigid with the rules that we forget why we're playing-- it's not to miss the playoffs on purpose, right?

 

[tigerz]

The saying, "sometimes when you win, you lose, and sometimes when you lose, you win" certainly applies here.

edit: misunderstood the scenario a little. I'll repost it later when it's morning and I can actually think properly.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I don't agree at all. The purpose of losing the game is to make the playoffs and win a title. Losing to get a better draft pick will not get you to the playoffs or win you a title. It might help next year, but getting a better draft pick doesn't punch your ticket to the post-season. In this case, losing does. If he loses, he makes the playoffs. It hardly ever happens, but in this case it's a "lose and you're in" scenario. And you're saying he has more "integrity" is he intentionally misses the playoffs. That makes no sense to me. By trying to win the game, he'd be "tanking" his shot at the playoffs. Who would purposely try to avoid making the playoffs? At the very least, you know the guy would set his best lineup and HOPE HE LOSES. Why? Because he wants to make the playoffs. And I cannot imagine you support teams hoping they lose. Fantasy football is different than real football in that we don't play defense. You can't stop your opponent from scoring. All you control (to any degree) is what you score. That's why many leagues have total points as a tie-breaker or wild-card spot. And when you do that, you might have a case where a team needs to lose in order to let another team take the "record" spot which allows them to get the "points" spot. If the league set it up that way, it seems unreasonable that the same league would want an owner to purposely miss the playoffs and forfeit the money they'd earn by making the playoffs. Are you going to pay him what he would have earned? Or is he just supposed to be a "cool guy" and throw away his playoff spot on purpose?

IMO losing a game today to achieve a goal in the future is tanking. Whether it's a playoff berth this year, or a better pick in the draft next year doesn't matter. The competitive balance of the league is thrown off either way when you have guys trying to lose games.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Thanks for posting this. So in your league it is wrong to lose a game if that's the only way you can make the playoffs (altering playoff status)? An owner is expected to forfeit the playoffs and any money that goes along with it and purposely take himself out of the post-season? Doesn't that sound like being so rigid with the rules that we forget why we're playing-- it's not to miss the playoffs on purpose, right?

[Herm]You. Play. To. Win. The. Game.[/Herm]

 

[Amused to Death]

I don't agree at all. The purpose of losing the game is to make the playoffs and win a title. Losing to get a better draft pick will not get you to the playoffs or win you a title. It might help next year, but getting a better draft pick doesn't punch your ticket to the post-season. In this case, losing does. If he loses, he makes the playoffs. It hardly ever happens, but in this case it's a "lose and you're in" scenario. And you're saying he has more "integrity" is he intentionally misses the playoffs. That makes no sense to me. By trying to win the game, he'd be "tanking" his shot at the playoffs. Who would purposely try to avoid making the playoffs? At the very least, you know the guy would set his best lineup and HOPE HE LOSES. Why? Because he wants to make the playoffs. And I cannot imagine you support teams hoping they lose. Fantasy football is different than real football in that we don't play defense. You can't stop your opponent from scoring. All you control (to any degree) is what you score. That's why many leagues have total points as a tie-breaker or wild-card spot. And when you do that, you might have a case where a team needs to lose in order to let another team take the "record" spot which allows them to get the "points" spot. If the league set it up that way, it seems unreasonable that the same league would want an owner to purposely miss the playoffs and forfeit the money they'd earn by making the playoffs. Are you going to pay him what he would have earned? Or is he just supposed to be a "cool guy" and throw away his playoff spot on purpose?

IMO losing a game today to achieve a goal in the future is tanking. Whether it's a playoff berth this year, or a better pick in the draft next year doesn't matter. The competitive balance of the league is thrown off either way when you have guys trying to lose games.

How is it different from, say, the Colts sitting key players at the end of the season when their playoff spot is locked up? Are they tanking and should they be disciplined by the league? Aren't they upsetting the competitive balance of the NFL? What they are doing though is acting in their best interest for long term success.

 

[Moniker]

Thanks for posting this. So in your league it is wrong to lose a game if that's the only way you can make the playoffs (altering playoff status)? An owner is expected to forfeit the playoffs and any money that goes along with it and purposely take himself out of the post-season? Doesn't that sound like being so rigid with the rules that we forget why we're playing-- it's not to miss the playoffs on purpose, right?

[Herm]You. Play. To. Win. The. Game.[/Herm]

Interesting. Which brings up the question: What is the game? Is the game only one week of the season or is the game the entire season and playoffs?

 

[gianmarco]

Thanks for posting this. So in your league it is wrong to lose a game if that's the only way you can make the playoffs (altering playoff status)? An owner is expected to forfeit the playoffs and any money that goes along with it and purposely take himself out of the post-season? Doesn't that sound like being so rigid with the rules that we forget why we're playing-- it's not to miss the playoffs on purpose, right?

[Herm]You. Play. To. Win. The. Game.[/Herm]

Interesting. Which brings up the question: What is the game? Is the game only one week of the season or is the game the entire season and playoffs?

 

[hxperson]

The only way to keep a league consistently on the up-and-up is to have rules requiring teams to play their best lineup each and every week. The idea behind putting a team with high total points into the playoffs is to avoid a great team from getting screwed by the schedule. If you had that great a team, you would have more total points than the guy you're playing and it would be a moot point. That rule is there to protect him, not to protect you. Similarly throwing week 1 to get waiver priority: waiver priority is meant to reward weak teams, not teams that purposefully rolled out weak lineups in week 1. Play your best lineup every week and the rules can work as designed and the league can be run fairly to all.

OP, you are suggesting that throwing the game is fine. If you were Team C who misses the playoffs because Team B threw the last game to Team A, would you be saying "Oh well, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Too bad the league was set up to provide perverse incentives in this case."? Or would you be saying "Wow, something doesnt seem right there. That guy purposefully threw that game."? I'm pretty sure I'd be in the latter camp.

Sure, it doesn't feel good to not make the playoffs that way, but it feels equally not good to score significantly more total points than someone else and see them make the playoffs and not you. You knew the rules of the game when you signed up for the league - deal with it or quit the league.

 

[rick6668]

You cannot compare this to the NFL because there is no way that a team could knock themselves out of the playoffs by losing. This only occurs when in FF we use total points as a way to get into the playoffs regardless of win/loss record. If you're going to play in a Head-to-Head league, then the way to avoid these types of scenarios is to always use win/loss record first to determine who makes the playoffs and then use total points as a tie-breaker. Having a scenario where a team can get in the playoffs by losing and be out of the playoffs by winning is counter intuitive.

In the OP's scenario, what's to stop the team that is in no matter what from tanking his game on purpose in order to keep the other team out of the playoffs because he feels he has a strong team.

In the leagues I commish, there is no way that a team could benefit like above by losing their game on purpose. I wouldn't want to be in a league where it could be that way.

 

[Amused to Death]

You cannot compare this to the NFL because there is no way that a team could knock themselves out of the playoffs by losing. This only occurs when in FF we use total points as a way to get into the playoffs regardless of win/loss record. If you're going to play in a Head-to-Head league, then the way to avoid these types of scenarios is to always use win/loss record first to determine who makes the playoffs and then use total points as a tie-breaker. Having a scenario where a team can get in the playoffs by losing and be out of the playoffs by winning is counter intuitive.In the OP's scenario, what's to stop the team that is in no matter what from tanking his game on purpose in order to keep the other team out of the playoffs because he feels he has a strong team.In the leagues I commish, there is no way that a team could benefit like above by losing their game on purpose. I wouldn't want to be in a league where it could be that way.

The scenario might be different, but the basic principle is the same. Throw a game to improve your chances latter. Are you against NFL teams resting their starters even if the outcome of their game affects another team's chances to make the playoffs? Should the NFL discipline them in some way? They are only doing what they perceive to be in their best interest. Similar to the OP...doing what's best for your team.

 

[Hoosier16]

Thanks for posting this. So in your league it is wrong to lose a game if that's the only way you can make the playoffs (altering playoff status)? An owner is expected to forfeit the playoffs and any money that goes along with it and purposely take himself out of the post-season? Doesn't that sound like being so rigid with the rules that we forget why we're playing-- it's not to miss the playoffs on purpose, right?

[Herm]You. Play. To. Win. The. Game.[/Herm]

Interesting. Which brings up the question: What is the game? Is the game only one week of the season or is the game the entire season and playoffs?

To me, in a dynasty, the "game" is building a dynasty. So, winning for multiple years is the ultimate goal of the "game".

 

[Hoosier16]

If the goal is to win Championships and I can't do it this year, then the best thing I can do to help my team is to tank and try to get a better draft pick for next year - which will help me win a Championship.Why is it OK to do something that benefits you THIS year that's not ok when it benefits you in FUTURE years?There's really no difference here IMO.

There is a difference between the 2 that I don't think you're realizing.--Tanking to get a better draft pick is DIRECTLY changing the VALUE of your team. It's adding undeserved value.--Tanking to get INTO the PLAYOFFS does not change the value of your team at all (actually decreases it because of a worse draft pick). It's benefiting your team only in terms of going for the ultimate goal of winning a championship. The value and merits of your team got you there in the 1st place are unchanged. Trades benefit your team.WW moves benefit your team.Lineup changes can benefit your team.So yes, "tanking" benefits your team if you're going for a draft pick, but THAT is what is unallowed because it's not the way it's meant to be determined. IMO, the "spirt of the rule" of "NO TANKING" is to prevent this. I don't think it's meant for a team that is actually competing and trying to make the playoffs and win. That's the point of being there to begin with.

Using this as your justification, it must also be OK to make a lopsided trade as long as your goal is to get into the playoffs. If by C beating B gets you into the playoffs, it should be OK to make a trade that gives C significantly better players. As long as there is no collusion, why would this be any different?

 

[hxperson]

If the goal is to win Championships and I can't do it this year, then the best thing I can do to help my team is to tank and try to get a better draft pick for next year - which will help me win a Championship.

Why is it OK to do something that benefits you THIS year that's not ok when it benefits you in FUTURE years?

There's really no difference here IMO.

There is a difference between the 2 that I don't think you're realizing.

--Tanking to get a better draft pick is DIRECTLY changing the VALUE of your team. It's adding undeserved value.

--Tanking to get INTO the PLAYOFFS does not change the value of your team at all (actually decreases it because of a worse draft pick). It's benefiting your team only in terms of going for the ultimate goal of winning a championship. The value and merits of your team got you there in the 1st place are unchanged.

Trades benefit your team.

WW moves benefit your team.

Lineup changes can benefit your team.

So yes, "tanking" benefits your team if you're going for a draft pick, but THAT is what is unallowed because it's not the way it's meant to be determined. IMO, the "spirt of the rule" of "NO TANKING" is to prevent this. I don't think it's meant for a team that is actually competing and trying to make the playoffs and win. That's the point of being there to begin with.

Using this as your justification, it must also be OK to make a lopsided trade as long as your goal is to get into the playoffs. If by C beating B gets you into the playoffs, it should be OK to make a trade that gives C significantly better players. As long as there is no collusion, why would this be any different?

But...deliberately making a lopsided trade where one trades good players away for worse players is precisely the definition of collusion.

 

[TWP]

I don't agree at all. The purpose of losing the game is to make the playoffs and win a title. Losing to get a better draft pick will not get you to the playoffs or win you a title. It might help next year, but getting a better draft pick doesn't punch your ticket to the post-season. In this case, losing does. If he loses, he makes the playoffs. It hardly ever happens, but in this case it's a "lose and you're in" scenario. And you're saying he has more "integrity" is he intentionally misses the playoffs. That makes no sense to me. By trying to win the game, he'd be "tanking" his shot at the playoffs. Who would purposely try to avoid making the playoffs? At the very least, you know the guy would set his best lineup and HOPE HE LOSES. Why? Because he wants to make the playoffs. And I cannot imagine you support teams hoping they lose. Fantasy football is different than real football in that we don't play defense. You can't stop your opponent from scoring. All you control (to any degree) is what you score. That's why many leagues have total points as a tie-breaker or wild-card spot. And when you do that, you might have a case where a team needs to lose in order to let another team take the "record" spot which allows them to get the "points" spot. If the league set it up that way, it seems unreasonable that the same league would want an owner to purposely miss the playoffs and forfeit the money they'd earn by making the playoffs. Are you going to pay him what he would have earned? Or is he just supposed to be a "cool guy" and throw away his playoff spot on purpose?

IMO losing a game today to achieve a goal in the future is tanking. Whether it's a playoff berth this year, or a better pick in the draft next year doesn't matter. The competitive balance of the league is thrown off either way when you have guys trying to lose games.

Yup -- this is 100% correct. The way the playoff rules have been developed have created the possibility for unintended perverse incentives. But you still have to play to win each and every game. Otherwise, you ruin the competitive landscape and the fairness to all players.To people comparing this against the NFL: stop. None of your players are going to avoid injury if you sit them.To the people saying that they allow fielding any lineup as long as the players are playing: why have that stipulation? Also in dynasty you probably have people on your roster who are active, but never see the field. How is this different than playing people on bye or not on the active roster? Either way, you're not trying to win the game, it's wrong.

 

[Moniker]

I don't agree at all. The purpose of losing the game is to make the playoffs and win a title. Losing to get a better draft pick will not get you to the playoffs or win you a title. It might help next year, but getting a better draft pick doesn't punch your ticket to the post-season. In this case, losing does. If he loses, he makes the playoffs. It hardly ever happens, but in this case it's a "lose and you're in" scenario. And you're saying he has more "integrity" is he intentionally misses the playoffs. That makes no sense to me.

By trying to win the game, he'd be "tanking" his shot at the playoffs. Who would purposely try to avoid making the playoffs? At the very least, you know the guy would set his best lineup and HOPE HE LOSES. Why? Because he wants to make the playoffs. And I cannot imagine you support teams hoping they lose.

Fantasy football is different than real football in that we don't play defense. You can't stop your opponent from scoring. All you control (to any degree) is what you score. That's why many leagues have total points as a tie-breaker or wild-card spot. And when you do that, you might have a case where a team needs to lose in order to let another team take the "record" spot which allows them to get the "points" spot.

If the league set it up that way, it seems unreasonable that the same league would want an owner to purposely miss the playoffs and forfeit the money they'd earn by making the playoffs. Are you going to pay him what he would have earned? Or is he just supposed to be a "cool guy" and throw away his playoff spot on purpose?

IMO losing a game today to achieve a goal in the future is tanking. Whether it's a playoff berth this year, or a better pick in the draft next year doesn't matter. The competitive balance of the league is thrown off either way when you have guys trying to lose games.

Yup -- this is 100% correct. The way the playoff rules have been developed have created the possibility for unintended perverse incentives. But you still have to play to win each and every game. Otherwise, you ruin the competitive landscape and the fairness to all players.To people comparing this against the NFL: stop. None of your players are going to avoid injury if you sit them.

To the people saying that they allow fielding any lineup as long as the players are playing: why have that stipulation? Also in dynasty you probably have people on your roster who are active, but never see the field. How is this different than playing people on bye or not on the active roster? Either way, you're not trying to win the game, it's wrong.

So it's wrong to win that game and make sure that you don't make the playoffs? That seems to counter the big picture of trying to win the league championship - which is, of course, the ultimate goal of the game.

 

[Amused to Death]

I don't agree at all. The purpose of losing the game is to make the playoffs and win a title. Losing to get a better draft pick will not get you to the playoffs or win you a title. It might help next year, but getting a better draft pick doesn't punch your ticket to the post-season. In this case, losing does. If he loses, he makes the playoffs. It hardly ever happens, but in this case it's a "lose and you're in" scenario. And you're saying he has more "integrity" is he intentionally misses the playoffs. That makes no sense to me.

By trying to win the game, he'd be "tanking" his shot at the playoffs. Who would purposely try to avoid making the playoffs? At the very least, you know the guy would set his best lineup and HOPE HE LOSES. Why? Because he wants to make the playoffs. And I cannot imagine you support teams hoping they lose.

Fantasy football is different than real football in that we don't play defense. You can't stop your opponent from scoring. All you control (to any degree) is what you score. That's why many leagues have total points as a tie-breaker or wild-card spot. And when you do that, you might have a case where a team needs to lose in order to let another team take the "record" spot which allows them to get the "points" spot.

If the league set it up that way, it seems unreasonable that the same league would want an owner to purposely miss the playoffs and forfeit the money they'd earn by making the playoffs. Are you going to pay him what he would have earned? Or is he just supposed to be a "cool guy" and throw away his playoff spot on purpose?

IMO losing a game today to achieve a goal in the future is tanking. Whether it's a playoff berth this year, or a better pick in the draft next year doesn't matter. The competitive balance of the league is thrown off either way when you have guys trying to lose games.

Yup -- this is 100% correct. The way the playoff rules have been developed have created the possibility for unintended perverse incentives. But you still have to play to win each and every game. Otherwise, you ruin the competitive landscape and the fairness to all players.To people comparing this against the NFL: stop. None of your players are going to avoid injury if you sit them.

To the people saying that they allow fielding any lineup as long as the players are playing: why have that stipulation? Also in dynasty you probably have people on your roster who are active, but never see the field. How is this different than playing people on bye or not on the active roster? Either way, you're not trying to win the game, it's wrong.

I'm not comparing it to the NFL to avoid injuries, I'm comparing the "competitive balance" aspect. Should an NFL team field their best team if they have nothing to gain? If they bench their star players, are they trying to win the game? No, they are trying to win a championship because that's the ultimate goal.

 

[Amused to Death]

I don't agree at all. The purpose of losing the game is to make the playoffs and win a title. Losing to get a better draft pick will not get you to the playoffs or win you a title. It might help next year, but getting a better draft pick doesn't punch your ticket to the post-season. In this case, losing does. If he loses, he makes the playoffs. It hardly ever happens, but in this case it's a "lose and you're in" scenario. And you're saying he has more "integrity" is he intentionally misses the playoffs. That makes no sense to me.

By trying to win the game, he'd be "tanking" his shot at the playoffs. Who would purposely try to avoid making the playoffs? At the very least, you know the guy would set his best lineup and HOPE HE LOSES. Why? Because he wants to make the playoffs. And I cannot imagine you support teams hoping they lose.

Fantasy football is different than real football in that we don't play defense. You can't stop your opponent from scoring. All you control (to any degree) is what you score. That's why many leagues have total points as a tie-breaker or wild-card spot. And when you do that, you might have a case where a team needs to lose in order to let another team take the "record" spot which allows them to get the "points" spot.

If the league set it up that way, it seems unreasonable that the same league would want an owner to purposely miss the playoffs and forfeit the money they'd earn by making the playoffs. Are you going to pay him what he would have earned? Or is he just supposed to be a "cool guy" and throw away his playoff spot on purpose?

IMO losing a game today to achieve a goal in the future is tanking. Whether it's a playoff berth this year, or a better pick in the draft next year doesn't matter. The competitive balance of the league is thrown off either way when you have guys trying to lose games.

Yup -- this is 100% correct. The way the playoff rules have been developed have created the possibility for unintended perverse incentives. But you still have to play to win each and every game. Otherwise, you ruin the competitive landscape and the fairness to all players.To people comparing this against the NFL: stop. None of your players are going to avoid injury if you sit them.

To the people saying that they allow fielding any lineup as long as the players are playing: why have that stipulation? Also in dynasty you probably have people on your roster who are active, but never see the field. How is this different than playing people on bye or not on the active roster? Either way, you're not trying to win the game, it's wrong.

And just why do they want to avoid injury? Because they are more concerned about winning a championship then winning that one game. Very similar to the OP's question, imo.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Question for the guys with "no tanking" rules in their leagues, could you please cut and paste the full rule?Interested to see how you define and prevent it.Thanks

FWIW i did this one year to get a 'better matchup' in the first round. (ened up losing in finals IIRC) but many of my leaguemates were pissed. thus we know have the

D. THE 'HIPPLE' RULE: You must submit your best line-up at all times. While strategy decisions will be given considerable discretion (e.g. not playing Priest Holmes b/c there is a blizzard in Green Bay or sitting a star quarterback against the Bucs defense, etc…), attempts to INTENTIONALLY lose a game (or not accumulate enough points) so as to alter one’s playoff or draft status will NOT be tolerated. An owner who is found to violate this clause will forfeit the right to any earnings and will automatically choose last in the subsequent year’s draft.

Thanks for posting this. So in your league it is wrong to lose a game if that's the only way you can make the playoffs (altering playoff status)? An owner is expected to forfeit the playoffs and any money that goes along with it and purposely take himself out of the post-season? Doesn't that sound like being so rigid with the rules that we forget why we're playing-- it's not to miss the playoffs on purpose, right?

It's my law school league. So if you can imagine the 'rule' debates are even more vitriolic and overly loquacious.However this was 5 years ago, and I don't think this particular scenario (where tanking is the thing that gets you in the playoffs vs being a 'seed'/draft slot improvement. I am gonna post this hypo and see what people say.I obviously agree with the 'laissez faire' school of thought, but was outvoted 9-1.