Not starting "best" lineup to manipulate seedings? (2 Viewers)

[grateful zed]

never bench your studs.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

My leagues are very simple. No tanking. That goes for week 1 or week 13. You tank, you're out.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

I'm not talking about benching players - you have to fill out a full lineup. But I have the option in one league to play bench players and give someone a win to get into the playoffs, whom has a much worse team than the current 7th seed. I've already locked up a bye.

This is well within the rules of the league but I feel like karma will come back to bite me if I do it ... how many people have done something like this and did it pan out?

I also feel like if I can do something not against the rules to eliminate a team getting hot right now (has Charles/Forte/Nelson/etc.) that I should be doing everything I can to take advantage.

you're overthinking this. Play your best lineup, period.

I was slightly irritated to get an email Sunday at 8am telling me to re-set my lineup. I'm out of the playoffs in that league and hadn't taken Dwayne Allen out of the lineup yet. The email "you're playing two playoff contenders and need to play your best lineup!" just rubbed me the wrong way. FWIW, there is no benefit in not playing your best players as the draft order is set by total potential points and not record or actual points. Plus I always check my lineups at noon.

This has never happened to me. But I'd be so annoyed if it did. Let's say I had every intention of setting my lineup at noon. I might just go mow the lawn instead.

Boo hoo. You guys are such crybabies. Being commish is a thankless job. You think the commish wants to waste his time making sure idiots have full lineups or aren't tanking? Ever think the commish had something to do at noon and couldn't wait to tell you to make sure you put in a full lineup?

 

[DropKick]

I'm not talking about benching players - you have to fill out a full lineup. But I have the option in one league to play bench players and give someone a win to get into the playoffs, whom has a much worse team than the current 7th seed. I've already locked up a bye.

This is well within the rules of the league but I feel like karma will come back to bite me if I do it ... how many people have done something like this and did it pan out?

I also feel like if I can do something not against the rules to eliminate a team getting hot right now (has Charles/Forte/Nelson/etc.) that I should be doing everything I can to take advantage.

you're overthinking this. Play your best lineup, period.

I was slightly irritated to get an email Sunday at 8am telling me to re-set my lineup. I'm out of the playoffs in that league and hadn't taken Dwayne Allen out of the lineup yet. The email "you're playing two playoff contenders and need to play your best lineup!" just rubbed me the wrong way. FWIW, there is no benefit in not playing your best players as the draft order is set by total potential points and not record or actual points. Plus I always check my lineups at noon.

This has never happened to me. But I'd be so annoyed if it did. Let's say I had every intention of setting my lineup at noon. I might just go mow the lawn instead.

Playing guys on Bye or Out should be against league rules.

Why should that be against the rules but benching your starters ok? I have a shallow bench dynasty league where the only 2 TE's I have are Julius Thomas and Tyler Eifert. I decided to take the 0 this past week rather than having to drop a player that I want to pick up some bad TE that will give me 3 points for a week or two. How is that worse than purposely benching your best players?

If you cant see the difference I dont know what to tell ya. You left a position unfilled, you cant see the difference?

I came across this myself in extreme circumstances one year, lets just say leaving a roster spot empty has major ramifications. Starting bad players is OK.

The difference is I didn't have a guy at that position to start. It was better for my team to take the 0 for one week then it was to lose a guy for the rest of the year.

That's worse to you then benching Jimmy Graham to start Crockett Gilmore? I find it pretty funny that you are morally against a team having a position unfilled, but if they stuff that position with some scrub even though they have a stud on their bench, it's okay.

Gillmore can score points, an inactive or player on bye cant. Seems pretty simple.

Given your opinion on starting the lesser player, it's wildly inconsistent to take exception with an empty roster spot.

 

[jimmykick]

My leagues are very simple. No tanking. That goes for week 1 or week 13. You tank, you're out.

this is the way i see it and it's not even close. everyone plays their best players all season and see who wins. if you have to manipulate the system it sucks the fun out of the game.

 

[Air Stich]

In a league with friends/family/coworkers - DON'T DO IT. It makes you look like a scumbag.

In a public league - do whatever you want. You're still a scumbag, but no one knows it.

 

[ghostguy123]

I know this was discussed at length in a previous thread, but for me the only acceptible time to tank is when losing is the only way YOUR team can make the playoffs.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

This is all about a "spirit of the game" dilemma. Rules are made to protect an even playing field for every owner in a league. This is why collusion is against the rules in most leagues-it effects the competitive balance of a league. While many can say that knowingly tanking a match is a right that was earned by having a solid regular season--I personally think they are saying this just to make themselves feel better about something that they know is wrong. Would it be fair if some teams started a fantasy season with an arbitrary win? Of course not. Besides that, tanking a match could very well have a domino effect on other teams chances of getting in the playoffs--which effectively messes with the competitive balance of the league. I have locked in bye weeks in two of my three leagues--and I will be starting my best roster this week. Let's not forget that just because something is "legal" doesn't make it "right" or "good". There is no law against being a d-bag, but that doesn't mean we all should go around being one.

 

[Jerry Curl]

My leagues are very simple. No tanking. That goes for week 1 or week 13. You tank, you're out.

this is the way i see it and it's not even close. everyone plays their best players all season and see who wins. if you have to manipulate the system it sucks the fun out of the game.

Who are you to say what another owners best players are? Typical power trips. Here is a prime example of a commish thinking their opinion has to be shared by everyone. If they think a player sucks, you cant play them.

I wonder if someone played Bailey last week if you would have gotten mad since he sucks fantasy wise. He ended up having a good game but sucked until then. Or Charles Johnson for that matter, how does that matter, do they need to seek approval from you before setting their legal lineup?

Fact is, whoever you think are good players is irrelevant and does not matter. If he puts in an eligible lineup that's all that matters, your opinion on the talent of players does not and leans more towards a dictatorship.

 

[Jerry Curl]

I'm not talking about benching players - you have to fill out a full lineup. But I have the option in one league to play bench players and give someone a win to get into the playoffs, whom has a much worse team than the current 7th seed. I've already locked up a bye.

This is well within the rules of the league but I feel like karma will come back to bite me if I do it ... how many people have done something like this and did it pan out?

I also feel like if I can do something not against the rules to eliminate a team getting hot right now (has Charles/Forte/Nelson/etc.) that I should be doing everything I can to take advantage.

you're overthinking this. Play your best lineup, period.

I was slightly irritated to get an email Sunday at 8am telling me to re-set my lineup. I'm out of the playoffs in that league and hadn't taken Dwayne Allen out of the lineup yet. The email "you're playing two playoff contenders and need to play your best lineup!" just rubbed me the wrong way. FWIW, there is no benefit in not playing your best players as the draft order is set by total potential points and not record or actual points. Plus I always check my lineups at noon.

This has never happened to me. But I'd be so annoyed if it did. Let's say I had every intention of setting my lineup at noon. I might just go mow the lawn instead.

Playing guys on Bye or Out should be against league rules.

Why should that be against the rules but benching your starters ok? I have a shallow bench dynasty league where the only 2 TE's I have are Julius Thomas and Tyler Eifert. I decided to take the 0 this past week rather than having to drop a player that I want to pick up some bad TE that will give me 3 points for a week or two. How is that worse than purposely benching your best players?

If you cant see the difference I dont know what to tell ya. You left a position unfilled, you cant see the difference?

I came across this myself in extreme circumstances one year, lets just say leaving a roster spot empty has major ramifications. Starting bad players is OK.

The difference is I didn't have a guy at that position to start. It was better for my team to take the 0 for one week then it was to lose a guy for the rest of the year.

That's worse to you then benching Jimmy Graham to start Crockett Gilmore? I find it pretty funny that you are morally against a team having a position unfilled, but if they stuff that position with some scrub even though they have a stud on their bench, it's okay.

Gillmore can score points, an inactive or player on bye cant. Seems pretty simple.

Given your opinion on starting the lesser player, it's wildly inconsistent to take exception with an empty roster spot.

Starting an active player leaves a possibility in the gamble that he can score points, starting an inactive, hurt or one on bye cant. McCluster, Bailey, Johnson and Gray two weeks ago. All players who could have sucked and gotten presumed zeros. But hey look, they didnt.

This is a gamble and we gamble with every player we start, starting a lesser player means you may not get a lot of points but its possible they get big score. Part of the gamble of playing a lesser player. You play an inactive or person on bye you take the gamble and fate out of it.

Setting a complete lineup with players who play is different then setting an lineup with byes empty slots and hurt people. Starting a bad player is strategy but can still backfire, starting someone on bye or inactive is not strategy as it is definite zeros and its illegal in most leagues.

Starting a crappy player is OK, starting no one in a lineup is not. Seems pretty easy and clear to understand.

 

[chickensoup]

My leagues are very simple. No tanking. That goes for week 1 or week 13. You tank, you're out.

this is the way i see it and it's not even close. everyone plays their best players all season and see who wins. if you have to manipulate the system it sucks the fun out of the game.

Who are you to say what another owners best players are? Typical power trips. Here is a prime example of a commish thinking their opinion has to be shared by everyone. If they think a player sucks, you cant play them.

I wonder if someone played Bailey last week if you would have gotten mad since he sucks fantasy wise. He ended up having a good game but sucked until then. Or Charles Johnson for that matter, how does that matter, do they need to seek approval from you before setting their legal lineup?

Fact is, whoever you think are good players is irrelevant and does not matter. If he puts in an eligible lineup that's all that matters, your opinion on the talent of players does not and leans more towards a dictatorship.

Wow, dictatorship......you know this is a game all about having fun right?I "could" start Landry, Colston, and Martavus bryant over Dez, DThomas, and Brown, but that's a d-bag move and obvious tanking. It's also anti fun and doesn't belong in a game like this. This isn't world politics, so leave the word dictatorship out of it

 

[FUBAR]

For some reason it won't let me edit and add text unless I put it in the quotes so I have to make a separate post.

If I was the commissioner of your league and saw you benching players on purpose to throw a match...I'd be shopping for your replacement. No, it's not officially against the rules to bench your studs and put in duds, but it's not in the rules that I have to keep you in the league either. Throwing any match is a scummy move and should never be done if you have any decency.

So your answer to a guy not breaking the rules because you think it is shady is to be shady yourself? Throwing a match is scummy? The object is to win titles not please you, if he has fulfilled the roster and starting lineup requirements, it would be shady to bounce someone because you failed as a commish to include the rule.

So looking for a replacement owner the following year is more shady than throwing a match-up that effects the integrity of the league? Even if it was a rule, how would you enforce it? There are always ways around it. For your example, I can't prove that you putting in Harvin over Dez is you being shady. You could just be an idiot. It's one of those things that's hard to prevent, which is why I don't want to play in any leagues with people that do it.

I get that the object is to win titles. I'd love to be rich as well, but I'm not going to go taking advantage of people (even if it's legal) to do so. I'd rather go through life with integrity. I win plenty of championships and I get to go to bed every night knowing that I don't have to do shady stuff to do it. It would bother me more than it's worth if I had to do shady stuff to win.

But everyone's different. People sue places if their coffee cup doesn't say it's hot because it's legal to do so. People fake injuries all the time for personal gain. It's all on you what kind of person you want to be.

What a load of righteous crap. This is a game. You're playing this game to win. Period. If it's not cheating, do it. I understand why some may not go that route, but I personally think it's ok in a game scenario, which this is.

We've gone down this path before, but what's the difference between doing this for a game or doing it for a season in dynasty?

 

[FUBAR]

I'm not talking about benching players - you have to fill out a full lineup. But I have the option in one league to play bench players and give someone a win to get into the playoffs, whom has a much worse team than the current 7th seed. I've already locked up a bye.

This is well within the rules of the league but I feel like karma will come back to bite me if I do it ... how many people have done something like this and did it pan out?

I also feel like if I can do something not against the rules to eliminate a team getting hot right now (has Charles/Forte/Nelson/etc.) that I should be doing everything I can to take advantage.

you're overthinking this. Play your best lineup, period.

I was slightly irritated to get an email Sunday at 8am telling me to re-set my lineup. I'm out of the playoffs in that league and hadn't taken Dwayne Allen out of the lineup yet. The email "you're playing two playoff contenders and need to play your best lineup!" just rubbed me the wrong way. FWIW, there is no benefit in not playing your best players as the draft order is set by total potential points and not record or actual points. Plus I always check my lineups at noon.

This has never happened to me. But I'd be so annoyed if it did. Let's say I had every intention of setting my lineup at noon. I might just go mow the lawn instead.

Boo hoo. You guys are such crybabies. Being commish is a thankless job. You think the commish wants to waste his time making sure idiots have full lineups or aren't tanking? Ever think the commish had something to do at noon and couldn't wait to tell you to make sure you put in a full lineup?

If this was the commish I would have been fine with it.

The commish knows I know my #### and wouldn't have worried about my lineup. This was from an owner who needed me to beat my opponent for him to have a chance at making the playoffs.

 

[heckmanm]

If the outcome will just affect the seeding of teams in the playoffs, I say game on - get a favorable matchup. At this point, the teams are "in the money" and the playoffs can be a crapshoot week-to-week anyway.

If you're influencing who will get into the playoffs, it feels shady and I think Karma's more likely to get you.

Just my and assumes (as stated) that it's within the rules.

 

[jimmykick]

My leagues are very simple. No tanking. That goes for week 1 or week 13. You tank, you're out.

this is the way i see it and it's not even close. everyone plays their best players all season and see who wins. if you have to manipulate the system it sucks the fun out of the game.

Who are you to say what another owners best players are? Typical power trips. Here is a prime example of a commish thinking their opinion has to be shared by everyone. If they think a player sucks, you cant play them.

I wonder if someone played Bailey last week if you would have gotten mad since he sucks fantasy wise. He ended up having a good game but sucked until then. Or Charles Johnson for that matter, how does that matter, do they need to seek approval from you before setting their legal lineup?

Fact is, whoever you think are good players is irrelevant and does not matter. If he puts in an eligible lineup that's all that matters, your opinion on the talent of players does not and leans more towards a dictatorship.

do you always have this much trouble with rules? are all rulers dictators in your world?

the vast majority of the time it's obvious when someone is tanking -a player is making uncharacteristically bad lineup decisions, or dropping/giving away good players and has clear motivation to do so. a reasonable and responsible commish that doesn't childishly overreact to things can identify and handle these situations fine.

 

[Jerry Curl]

My leagues are very simple. No tanking. That goes for week 1 or week 13. You tank, you're out.

this is the way i see it and it's not even close. everyone plays their best players all season and see who wins. if you have to manipulate the system it sucks the fun out of the game.

Who are you to say what another owners best players are? Typical power trips. Here is a prime example of a commish thinking their opinion has to be shared by everyone. If they think a player sucks, you cant play them.

I wonder if someone played Bailey last week if you would have gotten mad since he sucks fantasy wise. He ended up having a good game but sucked until then. Or Charles Johnson for that matter, how does that matter, do they need to seek approval from you before setting their legal lineup?

Fact is, whoever you think are good players is irrelevant and does not matter. If he puts in an eligible lineup that's all that matters, your opinion on the talent of players does not and leans more towards a dictatorship.

do you always have this much trouble with rules? are all rulers dictators in your world?

the vast majority of the time it's obvious when someone is tanking -a player is making uncharacteristically bad lineup decisions, or dropping/giving away good players and has clear motivation to do so. a reasonable and responsible commish can identify and handle these situations fine. don't overreact because of the exception scenarios you're coming up with in your head.

Are you having this much trouble understanding what I am saying? Sorry, but a commissioner cant use his opinion of a player to dictate rules and if you can start him or not.

A commish isnt a ruler, he is an organizer. But I guess that solidifies your opinion of yourself as a commish you just called yourself a "ruler."

 

[jimmykick]

My leagues are very simple. No tanking. That goes for week 1 or week 13. You tank, you're out.

this is the way i see it and it's not even close. everyone plays their best players all season and see who wins. if you have to manipulate the system it sucks the fun out of the game.

Who are you to say what another owners best players are? Typical power trips. Here is a prime example of a commish thinking their opinion has to be shared by everyone. If they think a player sucks, you cant play them.

I wonder if someone played Bailey last week if you would have gotten mad since he sucks fantasy wise. He ended up having a good game but sucked until then. Or Charles Johnson for that matter, how does that matter, do they need to seek approval from you before setting their legal lineup?

Fact is, whoever you think are good players is irrelevant and does not matter. If he puts in an eligible lineup that's all that matters, your opinion on the talent of players does not and leans more towards a dictatorship.

do you always have this much trouble with rules? are all rulers dictators in your world?

the vast majority of the time it's obvious when someone is tanking -a player is making uncharacteristically bad lineup decisions, or dropping/giving away good players and has clear motivation to do so. a reasonable and responsible commish can identify and handle these situations fine. don't overreact because of the exception scenarios you're coming up with in your head.

Are you having this much trouble understanding what I am saying? Sorry, but a commissioner cant use his opinion of a player to dictate rules and if you can start him or not.

A commish isnt a ruler, he is an organizer. But I guess that solidifies your opinion of yourself as a commish you just called yourself a "ruler."

re: ruler/organizer - if you want to argue what term to use for what we call the guy who typically sets up the league and is the primary person responsible for setting up the rules and making sure the rules are followed then maybe you can find someone else who's interested in that?

 

[FlapJacks]

My leagues are very simple. No tanking. That goes for week 1 or week 13. You tank, you're out.

this is the way i see it and it's not even close. everyone plays their best players all season and see who wins. if you have to manipulate the system it sucks the fun out of the game.

Who are you to say what another owners best players are? Typical power trips. Here is a prime example of a commish thinking their opinion has to be shared by everyone. If they think a player sucks, you cant play them.

I wonder if someone played Bailey last week if you would have gotten mad since he sucks fantasy wise. He ended up having a good game but sucked until then. Or Charles Johnson for that matter, how does that matter, do they need to seek approval from you before setting their legal lineup?

Fact is, whoever you think are good players is irrelevant and does not matter. If he puts in an eligible lineup that's all that matters, your opinion on the talent of players does not and leans more towards a dictatorship.

do you always have this much trouble with rules? are all rulers dictators in your world?

the vast majority of the time it's obvious when someone is tanking -a player is making uncharacteristically bad lineup decisions, or dropping/giving away good players and has clear motivation to do so. a reasonable and responsible commish can identify and handle these situations fine. don't overreact because of the exception scenarios you're coming up with in your head.

Are you having this much trouble understanding what I am saying? Sorry, but a commissioner cant use his opinion of a player to dictate rules and if you can start him or not.

A commish isnt a ruler, he is an organizer. But I guess that solidifies your opinion of yourself as a commish you just called yourself a "ruler."

Most people know tanking when they see it..they can tell what is a legitimate attempt to play the best guys and what is not

 

[donutz]

Here are my probably totally hypocritical and illogical thoughts:

I don't think it's ok to tank if you determining one guy gets a payout over another guy. If you have 4 team playoffs where each playoff tem is paid out, #1 shouldn't tank vs #5 to hope he jumps above #4, even if #1 would rather play #5.

Tanking for your own seeding I don't have a problem with however. Like #1 can tank vs #2 because they would rather play #3 than #4.

 

[I Am the Stig]

In a league with friends/family/coworkers - DON'T DO IT. It makes you look like a scumbag.

In a public league - do whatever you want. You're still a scumbag, but no one knows it.

Not a scumbag move. Never has been, never will. Every year this stupid debate comes up and every year it is nothing more than sour grapes.

 

[Amused to Death]

People are OK with non-playoff dynasty teams trading their studs to contenders for draft picks, right?

What if my dynasty team is out and I'm playing a team who's in and their seeding is locked in. Can I start lesser players to try to improve my rookie pick for next year? No other team is affected and I have zero incentive to win. Only losing can provide a perceived upgrade to my future team. Winning is a detriment. Semi-tank or start as usual?

 

[Jello_Biafra]

People are OK with non-playoff dynasty teams trading their studs to contenders for draft picks, right?

What if my dynasty team is out and I'm playing a team who's in and their seeding is locked in. Can I start lesser players to try to improve my rookie pick for next year? No other team is affected and I have zero incentive to win. Only losing can provide a perceived upgrade to my future team. Winning is a detriment. Semi-tank or start as usual?

Other teams ARE affected. There are teams that may move up/down in the draft order because of your tanking, so no, it's not ok.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

My leagues are very simple. No tanking. That goes for week 1 or week 13. You tank, you're out.

this is the way i see it and it's not even close. everyone plays their best players all season and see who wins. if you have to manipulate the system it sucks the fun out of the game.

Who are you to say what another owners best players are? Typical power trips. Here is a prime example of a commish thinking their opinion has to be shared by everyone. If they think a player sucks, you cant play them.

I wonder if someone played Bailey last week if you would have gotten mad since he sucks fantasy wise. He ended up having a good game but sucked until then. Or Charles Johnson for that matter, how does that matter, do they need to seek approval from you before setting their legal lineup?

Fact is, whoever you think are good players is irrelevant and does not matter. If he puts in an eligible lineup that's all that matters, your opinion on the talent of players does not and leans more towards a dictatorship.

You don't sound very intelligent. It's not making a judgement call on who to start that anyone has a problem with. It's tanking that's the problem. You understand the difference between the two?

 

[Amused to Death]

People are OK with non-playoff dynasty teams trading their studs to contenders for draft picks, right?

What if my dynasty team is out and I'm playing a team who's in and their seeding is locked in. Can I start lesser players to try to improve my rookie pick for next year? No other team is affected and I have zero incentive to win. Only losing can provide a perceived upgrade to my future team. Winning is a detriment. Semi-tank or start as usual?

Other teams ARE affected. There are teams that may move up/down in the draft order because of your tanking, so no, it's not ok.

Hmmm, interesting.

Can I trade my usual starters for prospects/picks even if I have a game scheduled against a bubble team? Is that fair to the other bubble team that they had to play me at full strength? I'm playing for the future either way - trading or attempting to improve my draft position.

 

[Amused to Death]

Full disclosure - I have in the past traded older vets at the trade deadline for future picks/prospects. Other playoff bound teams have benefited by playing me at less than full strength.

I have never submitted a lesser line up to gain draft position. But I am curious that one is normal O.P. in dynasty while the other is roundly frowned upon.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

People are OK with non-playoff dynasty teams trading their studs to contenders for draft picks, right?

What if my dynasty team is out and I'm playing a team who's in and their seeding is locked in. Can I start lesser players to try to improve my rookie pick for next year? No other team is affected and I have zero incentive to win. Only losing can provide a perceived upgrade to my future team. Winning is a detriment. Semi-tank or start as usual?

Other teams ARE affected. There are teams that may move up/down in the draft order because of your tanking, so no, it's not ok.

Hmmm, interesting.

Can I trade my usual starters for prospects/picks even if I have a game scheduled against a bubble team? Is that fair to the other bubble team that they had to play me at full strength? I'm playing for the future either way - trading or attempting to improve my draft position.

That's completely different and of course that would be ok. If you're rebuilding, everyone has a chance to trade for your players, and no-one can complain because they weren't aggressive enough to make a move.

 

[Amused to Death]

People are OK with non-playoff dynasty teams trading their studs to contenders for draft picks, right?

What if my dynasty team is out and I'm playing a team who's in and their seeding is locked in. Can I start lesser players to try to improve my rookie pick for next year? No other team is affected and I have zero incentive to win. Only losing can provide a perceived upgrade to my future team. Winning is a detriment. Semi-tank or start as usual?

Other teams ARE affected. There are teams that may move up/down in the draft order because of your tanking, so no, it's not ok.

Hmmm, interesting.

Can I trade my usual starters for prospects/picks even if I have a game scheduled against a bubble team? Is that fair to the other bubble team that they had to play me at full strength? I'm playing for the future either way - trading or attempting to improve my draft position.

That's completely different and of course that would be ok. If you're rebuilding, everyone has a chance to trade for your players, and no-one can complain because they weren't aggressive enough to make a move.

So one method of playing for the future is acceptable, the other is not. In each case, I'm acting for the good of my team. How is it fair to other playoff teams if I act in a way that provides a favorable match up to one but not the other? One gets a tough match up, the other is handed a win.

In my hypothetical, no other playoff team is remotely affected for this season and I act in a way to benefit me. The other has direct implications as to who makes the playoffs. Far more of an impact to the outcome of the current season.

Its a paradox to me as one is the norm and the other is grounds to for banning. Yet the norm can (and will) alter the outcome of a season.

 

[Amused to Death]

People are OK with non-playoff dynasty teams trading their studs to contenders for draft picks, right?

What if my dynasty team is out and I'm playing a team who's in and their seeding is locked in. Can I start lesser players to try to improve my rookie pick for next year? No other team is affected and I have zero incentive to win. Only losing can provide a perceived upgrade to my future team. Winning is a detriment. Semi-tank or start as usual?

Other teams ARE affected. There are teams that may move up/down in the draft order because of your tanking, so no, it's not ok.

Hmmm, interesting.

Can I trade my usual starters for prospects/picks even if I have a game scheduled against a bubble team? Is that fair to the other bubble team that they had to play me at full strength? I'm playing for the future either way - trading or attempting to improve my draft position.

That's completely different and of course that would be ok. If you're rebuilding, everyone has a chance to trade for your players, and no-one can complain because they weren't aggressive enough to make a move.

But what if its not a case of being aggressive? Other teams may not have a need or salary cap space to acquire the players I'm willing to trade. Through no fault of their own, they can not make a move. I'm still making studs available - maybe even at a discount - that will improve other playoff teams and weaken my team to point of being non-competitive against others thereby handing victories to bubble teams.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

People are OK with non-playoff dynasty teams trading their studs to contenders for draft picks, right?

What if my dynasty team is out and I'm playing a team who's in and their seeding is locked in. Can I start lesser players to try to improve my rookie pick for next year? No other team is affected and I have zero incentive to win. Only losing can provide a perceived upgrade to my future team. Winning is a detriment. Semi-tank or start as usual?

Other teams ARE affected. There are teams that may move up/down in the draft order because of your tanking, so no, it's not ok.

Hmmm, interesting.

Can I trade my usual starters for prospects/picks even if I have a game scheduled against a bubble team? Is that fair to the other bubble team that they had to play me at full strength? I'm playing for the future either way - trading or attempting to improve my draft position.

That's completely different and of course that would be ok. If you're rebuilding, everyone has a chance to trade for your players, and no-one can complain because they weren't aggressive enough to make a move.

But what if its not a case of being aggressive? Other teams may not have a need or salary cap space to acquire the players I'm willing to trade. Through no fault of their own, they can not make a move. I'm still making studs available - maybe even at a discount - that will improve other playoff teams and weaken my team to point of being non-competitive against others thereby handing victories to bubble teams.

If you have studs, why would you be rebuilding? What you're saying is true for all trades, even ones that have nothing to do with rebuilding. If I'm looking to move a player, and you have no need for this player, what could possibly be your complaint if someone you're fighting for a playoff spot gets him?

I see what you're driving at, but the reality is that one method is ethical, while the other isn't. Nothing in FF is 100% "fair". Is it fair if I play you when all your good players are on a BYE but someone else plays you when you're at full strength? How about if someone that is vital to your team gets hurt the week you're playing me? Is that unfair to the guy that plays you when all your players are healthy? rebuilding usually happens when your team is crap, and you make the decision to trade some players of value for future value. While not "fair" to the guy that played you the week before you traded your good players, it's not an unethical move, which tanking, by purposely benching your starts, is.

 

[chickensoup]

People are OK with non-playoff dynasty teams trading their studs to contenders for draft picks, right?

What if my dynasty team is out and I'm playing a team who's in and their seeding is locked in. Can I start lesser players to try to improve my rookie pick for next year? No other team is affected and I have zero incentive to win. Only losing can provide a perceived upgrade to my future team. Winning is a detriment. Semi-tank or start as usual?

Other teams ARE affected. There are teams that may move up/down in the draft order because of your tanking, so no, it's not ok.

Hmmm, interesting.Can I trade my usual starters for prospects/picks even if I have a game scheduled against a bubble team? Is that fair to the other bubble team that they had to play me at full strength? I'm playing for the future either way - trading or attempting to improve my draft position.

Trading your usual starters for picks/prospects is of course ok. Both teams benefit in that situation. It's not at the expense of another player though, because they had an opportunity to make the same trade happen, even in salary cap leagues through roster maneuvering.

Tanking is you benefitting yourself only and is universally frowned upon for one reason. It destroys leagues. People go to great lengths when setting up leagues to get people to not tank a season. They hold toilet bowls for the first pick. They give out the first pick to the guy who was the closest to the playoffs and many others. It's the first thing I ask folks who are trying to set up a dynasty league. How do you stop tanking?

Tanking games in dynasty is why so many dynasty leagues fail. Usually the people who are the first to stop paying dues are the ones who tank then end up still being garbage. Then the league is stuck trying to find an owner for a garbage team and disbands because no one wants the team featuring Corderrele Patterson, Doug Martin and RGIII, all highly drafted hot dynasty commodities.

Tanking goes against the fun aspect of fantasy. That's why we all do this right?