peculiar dynasty lottery playoff situation (1 Viewer)

[mike11162]

I run a 12 team dynasty league in which 6 teams make the playoffs, and the remaining teams play a lottery playoff for the first overall rookie pick next season. The winner gets the first overall pick and all remaining picks are set by their regular season finish (i.e., where they were seeded for the lottery playoffs). We went with that setup to discourage a team from purposely tanking games to get the top pick.

Any way, we have an interesting situation in this year's lottery playoffs. The two teams that reached the lottery bowl happen to have both traded away their first round pick next year (we're allowed to trade picks up to one year in advance). So you'd expect neither has an incentive to win, since they don't own their own pick any more, and we've had similar situations in the past where we just let the teams start whoever understanding you can't expect them to try and win for you. However, there's a twist this year in that one of the teams owns the other's first round pick next year, so he actually has the incentive to go out and lose to get the first overall pick next year. Note having the incentive to lose is a little different than not having the incentive to win.

So he turns in his lineup and he sits Tomlinson to play Kevin Faulk. He also sits Deion Branch to start David Patten, Andre Davis and Joe Jurevicius. Pretty much everyone else would be considered (his) reasonable options. The owner of his first next year sees who he started and emails me about the situation. Obviously he'd want me to intervene, but I really can't do that without changing the rules in season, and you can't really do that. I think all I can really do is talk to the owner and see if he'll reconsider who he's starting, and maybe put to vote a rules change next year where the owner of the traded pick can override a lineup submitted in the lottery playoffs, but I can't really force him to change his lineup and have to consider he has a valid excuse to hope to lose. At least he didn't get really blatant and start injured players or guys who he knows won't play at all. And we don't know yet if the other guy will blatantly try to lose since he hasn't submitted a lineup yet (defaults to previous lineup if he doesn't). BTW, I should add the difference between the one team winning or losing is drafting first or third in next year's rookie draft.

I'm curious to what you guys think about this situation and how you'd handle it.

 

[fsufan]

first off change the rule next year so draft order of 1-6 is determined by worst record not a lottery playoff system and then but a tanking rule in place so teams will not tank to get the #1 overall pick. very simple rule is, if you tank to better your draft pick the next year you will be removed from the league.

your current situation, do you have a tanking rule in place now?

 

[encaitar]

first off change the rule next year so draft order of 1-6 is determined by worst record not a lottery playoff system and then but a tanking rule in place so teams will not tank to get the #1 overall pick. very simple rule is, if you tank to better your draft pick the next year you will be removed from the league. your current situation, do you have a tanking rule in place now?

I think that the lottery playoff was the incentive for not tanking. It's a good idea, IMO. This situation is tough no matter what way you decide to take it. I don't think you should be allowed to set another's lineup just because you've traded them a pick. The only thing I can think of is make the owner who is tanking play for the No. 1. (If he wins, the pick he gets from the other owner becomes No. 1, if he loses, the pick he is trading away becomes No. 1) That way he has no incentive to tank and the other owner has the incentive of playing spoiler.

 

[mike11162]

first off change the rule next year so draft order of 1-6 is determined by worst record not a lottery playoff system and then but a tanking rule in place so teams will not tank to get the #1 overall pick. very simple rule is, if you tank to better your draft pick the next year you will be removed from the league. your current situation, do you have a tanking rule in place now?

No, but tanking normally doesn't help you. You have to win the lottery to draft first. The best you can do by purposely tanking is pick second. The lottery system is the anti-tanking procedure. And normally we don't have a tanking problem.This situation is different. It's just coincidental that the one owner in the lottery bowl owns the other team's pick, and not his own. He's not even necessarily blatantly tanking, he's more or less doing it subtly. He's only sitting LT for Kevin Faulk, but pretty much starting all his other best options, save Branch, and even then the worst of the guys he's playing in his place averages about a point and a half less per week. Maybe not real subtle, but he could make it really blatant and start Matt Cassel and all his injured players. And what if his opponent submits a lineup where he's tanking? He has no incentive to win, either, just not necessarily the incentive to lose.

 

[fsufan]

first off change the rule next year so draft order of 1-6 is determined by worst record not a lottery playoff system and then but a tanking rule in place so teams will not tank to get the #1 overall pick. very simple rule is, if you tank to better your draft pick the next year you will be removed from the league.

your current situation, do you have a tanking rule in place now?

I think that the lottery playoff was the incentive for not tanking. It's a good idea, IMO. This situation is tough no matter what way you decide to take it. I don't think you should be allowed to set another's lineup just because you've traded them a pick. The only thing I can think of is make the owner who is tanking play for the No. 1. (If he wins, the pick he gets from the other owner becomes No. 1, if he loses, the pick he is trading away becomes No. 1) That way he has no incentive to tank and the other owner has the incentive of playing spoiler.

but they still have a tanking issue?

 

[The Duff Man]

If you have no rules in place all you can do is appeal to his sense of fairplay.

All the more reason to have rules in place...

 

[mike11162]

I think that the lottery playoff was the incentive for not tanking. It's a good idea, IMO. This situation is tough no matter what way you decide to take it. I don't think you should be allowed to set another's lineup just because you've traded them a pick. The only thing I can think of is make the owner who is tanking play for the No. 1. (If he wins, the pick he gets from the other owner becomes No. 1, if he loses, the pick he is trading away becomes No. 1) That way he has no incentive to tank and the other owner has the incentive of playing spoiler.

I kind of like that idea. Couldn't do it until next year though. I'm not sure it's the exact answer, but I think you're on the right track. I'm not sure I like changing it to letting someone else pick your lineup, I think that would be opening up a Pandorra's Box and lead to other problems. Your alternative is at least better, dealing with a more specific situation and doesn't necessarily affect the status quo of letting teams pick who they want if they only don't have the incentive to win. I really only need to find a solution to when you have the incentive to lose, which the lottery playoff was supposed to prevent. 99% of the time the current system works fine, we just found the one unique situation where there is a flaw.

 

[fsufan]

first off change the rule next year so draft order of 1-6 is determined by worst record not a lottery playoff system and then but a tanking rule in place so teams will not tank to get the #1 overall pick. very simple rule is, if you tank to better your draft pick the next year you will be removed from the league. your current situation, do you have a tanking rule in place now?

No, but tanking normally doesn't help you. You have to win the lottery to draft first. The best you can do by purposely tanking is pick second. The lottery system is the anti-tanking procedure. And normally we don't have a tanking problem.This situation is different. It's just coincidental that the one owner in the lottery bowl owns the other team's pick, and not his own. He's not even necessarily blatantly tanking, he's more or less doing it subtly. He's only sitting LT for Kevin Faulk, but pretty much starting all his other best options, save Branch, and even then the worst of the guys he's playing in his place averages about a point and a half less per week. Maybe not real subtle, but he could make it really blatant and start Matt Cassel and all his injured players. And what if his opponent submits a lineup where he's tanking? He has no incentive to win, either, just not necessarily the incentive to lose.

if no rule is in play, all you can do is ask the guy to play fair

 

[mike11162]

if no rule is in play, all you can do is ask the guy to play fair

Yes, did that already. Actually he just changed his lineup and put LT back in, and mentioned he submitted the previous lineup to expose the problem. The guy is normally a standup guy and the last you'd expect to blatantly tank a game. I still got to deal with the problem next year, so if anyone has any other input how to change the rule it's still appreciated.

 

[socrates]

This is an interesting dilemma. If the owner was more blatant, I might be inclined to suggest sanctioning him (if there is any provision allowing such), but this is very subtle. The fact is, LT is slightly dinged and there have been some who have suggested that LT could be used sparingly. Absent a rule dealing with this, I agree with the previous responses, appeal to his sense of fairness. I frown on any rule that takes ownership decisions away from the owners, so I would recommend caution in revamping any rules in the offseason.

 

[fsufan]

if no rule is in play, all you can do is ask the guy to play fair

Yes, did that already. Actually he just changed his lineup and put LT back in, and mentioned he submitted the previous lineup to expose the problem. The guy is normally a standup guy and the last you'd expect to blatantly tank a game. I still got to deal with the problem next year, so if anyone has any other input how to change the rule it's still appreciated.

you have a stand up owner

 

[Dope]

if no rule is in play, all you can do is ask the guy to play fair

Yes, did that already. Actually he just changed his lineup and put LT back in, and mentioned he submitted the previous lineup to expose the problem. The guy is normally a standup guy and the last you'd expect to blatantly tank a game. I still got to deal with the problem next year, so if anyone has any other input how to change the rule it's still appreciated.

I'm not a big fan of the "lottery toilet bowl" thing but...Let the owner of the pick submit the lineup.It could be kind of fun to run another guy's team for a week or three. Kinda like sleeping with his wife or girlfriend.

 

[jscout]

I don't know, I say let him submit any line up he wants. The fact that you allow draft picks to be traded means owners have to take risk into account when making the trade. If you knew your #1 was #1 overall, you'd want more in the trade. That's just part of the game. Besides, we're talking about #1 or #3. Win or lose, both picks are solid. If they both want to submit weak lineups, then so be it. As long as those lineups are legit, it's fair. It's not like they're dropping their studs to pickup junk. They're using players already rostered. Anything done in that context is within the bounds of fairness.

 

[Moonlight]

In a toilet bowl situation if an owner has traded their pick I would expect that you would run into situations from time to time where they let the computer set their lineup or haphazardly pick a lineup or in a situation like this defintely be tempted to tank. There is no incentive to set a good lineup other than personal pride.

The fairest thing in my opinion is to let the owner who owns the pick set the lineup. They have the incentive and personal interest in setting the best lineup. I dont see why the actual team owner would have an objection as long as the owner of the pick has no ability to trade, drop players or alter the roster in anyway. If you trade your #1 pick than you have no right to be involved in the toilet bowl playoffs, those rights transfer to the owner of the pick.

As to the owner's claim he was testing the waters did he let you know that was what he was doing before he set his lineup without LT and Branch or did he say he was testing the waters after the owner of the pick got wind of it and notified you?

My impression is that he was tempted to tank out of self interest which conflicted with perhaps his sense of fair play and which resulted in half a tank <g>.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I don't know, I say let him submit any line up he wants. The fact that you allow draft picks to be traded means owners have to take risk into account when making the trade. If you knew your #1 was #1 overall, you'd want more in the trade. That's just part of the game. Besides, we're talking about #1 or #3. Win or lose, both picks are solid. If they both want to submit weak lineups, then so be it. As long as those lineups are legit, it's fair. It's not like they're dropping their studs to pickup junk. They're using players already rostered. Anything done in that context is within the bounds of fairness.

It's in his best interests to tank. Why punish him because the league setup hurts him if he wins? It's not hurting the other guy because he doesn't get anything if he wins (he doesn't have a 1st anymore). This whole "fairness" thing is just something cosmetic for the rest of the league-- the onlookers who have nothing to do with the game. In this circumstance, leave it alone. Next year, let the winner choose their draft slot instead of automatically getitng the 1st pick. That way, if they traded their 1st rounder away, they can choose 12th, giving them the 1st pick in the 2nd round. That would give everyone incentive to win even if they don't have a 1st anymore.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Next year, let the winner choose their draft slot instead of automatically getitng the 1st pick.

 

[Moonlight]

I don't know, I say let him submit any line up he wants. The fact that you allow draft picks to be traded means owners have to take risk into account when making the trade. If you knew your #1 was #1 overall, you'd want more in the trade. That's just part of the game. Besides, we're talking about #1 or #3. Win or lose, both picks are solid. If they both want to submit weak lineups, then so be it. As long as those lineups are legit, it's fair. It's not like they're dropping their studs to pickup junk. They're using players already rostered. Anything done in that context is within the bounds of fairness.

It's in his best interests to tank. Why punish him because the league setup hurts him if he wins? It's not hurting the other guy because he doesn't get anything if he wins (he doesn't have a 1st anymore). This whole "fairness" thing is just something cosmetic for the rest of the league-- the onlookers who have nothing to do with the game. In this circumstance, leave it alone. Next year, let the winner choose their draft slot instead of automatically getitng the 1st pick. That way, if they traded their 1st rounder away, they can choose 12th, giving them the 1st pick in the 2nd round. That would give everyone incentive to win even if they don't have a 1st anymore.

 

[Modog814]

Does this format really limit tanking anyway? Once you're out of it, you can tank the rest of the season , end up with the worst record and guarantee at worst the 2nd pick in the draft. Then you put all your players back in and play in the toilet bowl and try to get the #1 pick.

If you really don't want tanking in your league then you really need anti-tanking rules. ie. first offense- loss of 1st round pick 2nd -offense out of the league. If a line up is questioned you give the owner a chance to explain his reasoning and then vote on it. (Weather, injury, possibility of team sitting their starters because they've got their seed locked up are all reasonable excuses to sit someone to me...Sitting LT for K. Smith because he has a hunch is not).

For this year, you can't really do anything, just let the guy know that for the sake of the integrity of the league you hope he does the right thing. There are no rules saying he can't, so it's his team.

I'm really of the belief that each owner paid his or her money and can do whatever they want with their team (outside of collusion). If they want to throw their entry fee away this year in hopes of getting a #1 pick next year that might turn out well for them, I say let them.

Another idea is to offer some kind of $$$ prize each week to the team that scores the highest points. In one of my leagues, each team pays $10 per loss (6 teams lose each week), $50 goes to the high point scorer for the week and the $10 goes toward the toilet bowl winner. It keep people setting their line up knowing they don't want to lose any more money and still have a chance to win some back.

 

[Moonlight]

Upon consideration I like Neal Beaufort's suggestion better than mine but with a modification.

In a dynasty If the owner who wins the toilet has traded their round #1 rookie pick then they would get to pick first in round #2 if they traded their #2 pick as well then they would pick first in round #3. If they have traded all 3 picks. Then they would get the first pick in any supplemental draft or the #1 waiver pick after the first week of games.

This way you avoid owners making out the lineups of other teams and it still keeps a personal incentive for each owner to turn in their best lineup.

 

[Porkchop Express]

I think it boils down to league integrity. It doesnt matter if there is a written rule or not, as a commish your job is to maintain the integrity of the league. Purposefully tanking violates this. If a guy trades his number, he has no incentive to put his best lineup forth, and in unusual situations like this one it is in his best interest to tank. I think it is your job to oversee this and make it doesnt happen, perhaps changing his lineup if necessary.

 

[mike11162]

Thanks to everyone for their input. I think I like the idea of picking your slot, only thing is in this situation I don't think it actually works because there would still be incentive to lose since he owns the pick of the team he's playing. If he wins, sure he makes the team he traded his pick to draft lower, but if he loses he still gets to pick first overall. I thought this was the answer until I thought the situation out more.

I'm going to run the responses by the rest of the league and see what they think is best. Then we'll have a vote to decide what's the best way to handle this unique situation.

 

[QuizGuy66]

How about making a true lottery system weighted by the position in the sub-playoffs (i.e. total points not head-to-head games)

6 ping pong balls for "best" of the worst

5 ping pong balls for the 2nd best

4

3

2

1

Just a thought.

-QG

 

[mike11162]

How about making a true lottery system weighted by the position in the sub-playoffs (i.e. total points not head-to-head games)6 ping pong balls for "best" of the worst5 ping pong balls for the 2nd best4321Just a thought.-QG

Actually I did something like that in another league once. Did an online dice roll and the number of ping pong balls was the number of dice rolls you got. Actually didn't work badly, so maybe it's an option to consider.

 

[QuizGuy66]

 

[BILLY_THE_BULL]

Add a rule in for NEXT YEAR that in the toilet bowl tournament ALL rostered players scores are counted. That will give you the best account of which teams are actually the worst overall.

 

[BILLY_THE_BULL]

How about making a true lottery system weighted by the position in the sub-playoffs (i.e. total points not head-to-head games)6 ping pong balls for "best" of the worst5 ping pong balls for the 2nd best4321Just a thought.-QG

That is a very good idea. However, with many leagues being online how would you implement the ping pong balls? The couple of online leagues that I am in all use a dice server to roll for draft position. I guess you could use a 21 sided dice and either assign numbers to each team(in your same ping pong format) or even let them pick the numbers they want(use end of season rank to determine who picks first). Then have the commish roll a 21 sided dice and post the results.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

How about making a true lottery system weighted by the position in the sub-playoffs (i.e. total points not head-to-head games)6 ping pong balls for "best" of the worst5 ping pong balls for the 2nd best4321Just a thought.-QG

That is a very good idea. However, with many leagues being online how would you implement the ping pong balls? The couple of online leagues that I am in all use a dice server to roll for draft position. I guess you could use a 21 sided dice and either assign numbers to each team(in your same ping pong format) or even let them pick the numbers they want(use end of season rank to determine who picks first). Then have the commish roll a 21 sided dice and post the results.

Just roll a 1,000 sided die once and slice up the answers.0-499 Worst record (50%)500-749 2nd worst (25%)750-874 3rd worst (12.5%)875-949 4th worst (7.5%)950-974 5th worst (2.5%)975-999 6th worst (2.5%)Or something like that.

 

[Jersey35]

This is very similar to the way my league does it - with a few changes:

We use only the bottom 4 teams (out of 12) in our ToiletBowl playoff, to ensure that one of the four worst teams actually gets the pick.

In addition to the ToiletBowl playoffs system to discourage tanking, we also use a "player of the week" system which has a weekly prize, so there is additional incentive to start your best players.

The other adjustment we've made (having run into this issue before, but REALLY enjoying the ToiletBowl playoff system) is to AWARD the #1 pick to the TB winner as an additional pick. This pick is, of course, not tradeable until you actually have it. So it prevents exactly the issue you are experiencing.

Good luck!

 

[GregR_2]

The problem is that you don't have a rule that forbids tanking. You can (and should) take reasonable steps to limit the usefulness of tanking, so kudos on how you have your consolation playoffs structured. But you still need a no-tanking rule.

Do include in your rule an explicit list of common types of tanking that are forbidden, but do not word is those types are the only ones included. For example, I might word it something like this:



Intentionally tanking a game for any reason, including to aid another team, to manipulate playoff seedings, to improve waiver priority position, or to improve draft position the following year, goes against the spirit of the league and is not permitted. The commissioner shall investigate any situations that appear to be tanking. An owner's stated reasoning as for his actions must pass the test of being something that a reasonable person might believe. Sanctions for attempting to tank a game include but are not limited to ____________. In the event the commissioner must set a lineup for the team, the league's normal rules for this situation will be followed.

ETA: A commish has to use his good judgment too, of course. For example, someone who doesn't want to cut a possible stud-in-the-making to pick up a backup TE for 1 bye week when there aren't any good ones can probably make an argument his overall game time efforts are more by not making the move than by making it, and I wouldn't sanction someone for tanking in that case. Though if you don't want that to be allowed in your league, include leaving bye week players in the lineup" in the list of what constitutes tankig.

 

[mike11162]

Thanks again all for the added input.

I liked the dice roll thing. I know that would at least work to some extent. However, I'd rather have the lottery playoffs end in one final result rather than just dishing out extra lotto tickets as the prize. It still doesn't totally discourage someone from tanking, either, but at least you're not guaranteed any profit by tanking as it still comes down to random chance afterwards.

Billy the Bull might be on the right track. I got two ideas off his count points for all rostered players idea. One is just select best possible lineup for all lottery playoff games. Then tanking a game is a moot point. Other is add points to a team's score based on pointspreads provided on the website. Our league is on MFL and they give pointspreads based on fantasy shark advice. So if someone tries to tank their game, the more so they try, the more points get added to their score. The pointspreads are based on projected scores for who you start. That also helps the truly bad teams that try to compete but can't by theoretically putting everyone on even footing. I use a similar system in my keeper league and it works well. We don't have the tanking problem in the lottery playoffs there because we can't trade future draft picks. I think the latter idea is actually fairer and still employs owner involvement with lineup selection but the former is easier to use. What do you guys think about those two ideas?

 

[dollarbill13]

Thanks again all for the added input. I liked the dice roll thing. I know that would at least work to some extent. However, I'd rather have the lottery playoffs end in one final result rather than just dishing out extra lotto tickets as the prize. It still doesn't totally discourage someone from tanking, either, but at least you're not guaranteed any profit by tanking as it still comes down to random chance afterwards.Billy the Bull might be on the right track. I got two ideas off his count points for all rostered players idea. One is just select best possible lineup for all lottery playoff games. Then tanking a game is a moot point. Other is add points to a team's score based on pointspreads provided on the website. Our league is on MFL and they give pointspreads based on fantasy shark advice. So if someone tries to tank their game, the more so they try, the more points get added to their score. The pointspreads are based on projected scores for who you start. That also helps the truly bad teams that try to compete but can't by theoretically putting everyone on even footing. I use a similar system in my keeper league and it works well. We don't have the tanking problem in the lottery playoffs there because we can't trade future draft picks. I think the latter idea is actually fairer and still employs owner involvement with lineup selection but the former is easier to use. What do you guys think about those two ideas?

You could always just let the owner of the draft pick set the lineup for the team in the toilet bowl. So if Team A is in the toilet bowl but traded their first rounder to Team B, let Team B set Team A's lineup. If Team B draft picks for both Team A and Team B and the two meet in the toilet bowl, let Team B pick which team is to advance.

 

[GregR_2]

Thanks again all for the added input. I liked the dice roll thing. I know that would at least work to some extent. However, I'd rather have the lottery playoffs end in one final result rather than just dishing out extra lotto tickets as the prize. It still doesn't totally discourage someone from tanking, either, but at least you're not guaranteed any profit by tanking as it still comes down to random chance afterwards.Billy the Bull might be on the right track. I got two ideas off his count points for all rostered players idea. One is just select best possible lineup for all lottery playoff games. Then tanking a game is a moot point. Other is add points to a team's score based on pointspreads provided on the website. Our league is on MFL and they give pointspreads based on fantasy shark advice. So if someone tries to tank their game, the more so they try, the more points get added to their score. The pointspreads are based on projected scores for who you start. That also helps the truly bad teams that try to compete but can't by theoretically putting everyone on even footing. I use a similar system in my keeper league and it works well. We don't have the tanking problem in the lottery playoffs there because we can't trade future draft picks. I think the latter idea is actually fairer and still employs owner involvement with lineup selection but the former is easier to use. What do you guys think about those two ideas?

You could always just let the owner of the draft pick set the lineup for the team in the toilet bowl. So if Team A is in the toilet bowl but traded their first rounder to Team B, let Team B set Team A's lineup. If Team B draft picks for both Team A and Team B and the two meet in the toilet bowl, let Team B pick which team is to advance.

I don't think that's a good idea at all. No team should have that kind of control over another team whether they own a draft pick or not. It isn't their team. Just set the expectation and enforce it that each owner is expected to play his best lineup every week and that sanctions will happen if they don't. Things like using potential points for consolation bracket is a pretty decent idea other than it can take some of the enjoyment out of it for the owners who wouldn't try to tank, but probably not enough IMHO that the benefit of doing it doesn't make it worthwhile.

 

[jesseasi]

Add a rule in for NEXT YEAR that in the toilet bowl tournament ALL rostered players scores are counted. That will give you the best account of which teams are actually the worst overall.

I see two other options.1. Ultimate lineups. The best scoring players for each position on their team are counted. Total points would not work because in dynasty some teams may have 4-5 injured players or prospects that are not playing at all.2. Let the owner that actually owns the rights to the 1st round pick set his starting lineup. It would be safe to assume that the owner with no 1st rounder is probably not really paying much attention anyway.

 

[jesseasi]

I have been looking for a solution to deal with the 6 teams that did not make the playoffs too.

I am not sure I would like the the winner of the toilet bowl to outright get he #1 pick outright because in our league there are always two teams that are really bad and in rebuilding mode. The fastest way for them to get better is to get the #1 pick. Of all the picks in a rookie draft (our 7 year existence) the #1 pick has been the safest.

Does anyone else here have any other systems?

We want a system where the worst team can end up with either the #1 or #2 pick. The 6th worst team ends up with a chance for the 5th or 6th pick.

Anyone?

 

[mike11162]

I have been looking for a solution to deal with the 6 teams that did not make the playoffs too.I am not sure I would like the the winner of the toilet bowl to outright get he #1 pick outright because in our league there are always two teams that are really bad and in rebuilding mode. The fastest way for them to get better is to get the #1 pick. Of all the picks in a rookie draft (our 7 year existence) the #1 pick has been the safest.Does anyone else here have any other systems?We want a system where the worst team can end up with either the #1 or #2 pick. The 6th worst team ends up with a chance for the 5th or 6th pick.Anyone?

Well that's sort of what we have already. The worst team gets no lower than the 2nd pick. The playoffs are only for the first pick, the rest of the order goes based on regular season record. I guess the only thing different from what you were looking for is we let 6 teams play for that pick and you may want to relegate the ability of the 6th worst team from even getting a shot at that first pick. BTW, we also have the lottery mirror the championship playoffs by giving a first round bye to the 2 worst teams (each division's last place team in our case), so they only have to win 2 games to get the top pick while the other 4 lottery participants have to win 3 games. So there are some built-in advantages already for the worst teams.The more I think about it, the more I want to go with the pointspread added to the weaker team's score (we're on MFL and I'm talking the pointspread that appears in the league's matchups each week). That way it doesn't really matter if a team tries to tank a game in the lottery, because the worse the options he picks, the lower his team's projected score goes and the higher the pointspread gets to counteract that. Like for example in my league's situation here, say LT is projected to get 25 points and Kevin Faulk 5 points, if the owner chooses to start Faulk his pointspread goes up 20 points. So he's effectively choosing between starting LT or Faulk + 20 points. That leaves lineup selection in the hands of the actual owner, which I'd strongly prefer doing, and minimizes the ability to tank a game at the same time. And it has a double bonus of helping a really bad team that's trying to win and can't because it has too little talent. Getting help by adding the pointspread to its score puts each team on a theoretically even playing field. I think my league will go for this, because I pitched a similar idea in passing a couple years ago and they seemed receptive to it, but I didn't go further with it because at the time it didn't look like it was a needed change. But now we found the situation that predicates some action be taken to fix the system's flaw. The only downside I see is that you're relying on an outside source to establish the pointspread (FantasySharks Lineup Coach), but everyone's dealing with the same biases or misinformation that site uses in its analysis, if such exist.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Situations like these have REALLY turned me away from $$ Dynasty leagues. Nice concept, but far too many hassles year in, year out.

Really gotten more into the 1-2 player keeper leagues.

Good luck deciding on your situation. I don't there's much you can do. You put the system in place.

 

[FernDog]

My dynasty league, what we do is have a toliet bowl. The remaining 6 teams dont compete head to head, rather via for most points during the playoffs. Team with the highest point total gets 1st overall pick, etc.

In order to avoid the situation where a non playoff team trading away its pick, we take the your best starting lineup options and count that. So say you sit LT, but he explodes, he now counts towards your starting lineup. It all but takes the thinking of it and tanking aspect.

It works very well, and it was voted on 11-1 when we brought this rule into effect a few years ago.

 

[DropKick]

I don't like your rules. I can understand your concerns about tanking but aren't you throwing out the baby with the bath water here? There are probably teams that deserve (need?) the first pick, but your format allows a team that maybe just missed the play-offs to win a "mini tournament" with the bottom of the league to grab the first pick.

So, in fear of a probably occasional tanking problem - you give the first pick to the 7th or 8th best team EVERY year.

 

[TD5150]

A good tanking rule my leagues use is over the last 5 weeks of the season (time frame when people start to know they are out of it thus may start to tank) is if you score the lowest points in the league for that given week you are fined $XX.

This stops people from playing bad players and trying to lose. If they can somehow figure out how to tweek their roster so they lose but don't get lowets points then more power to them.

 

[FF King]

We have had these discussions in our dynasty league and I absolutley hate the idea of a playoff to avoid tanking! You have to just find good owners and watch each other closely to make sure no tanking. The commish must remain forceful in giving warnings and threaten explusion from the league for blantant tanking.

The thought of tanking always implies the last few weeks of the season. Well, what if the team that is in last place just absolutley sucks either unintentional (bad team, bad luck w/ injuries, etc) or intentional (traded away most of their players for future picks). Either way, they could go 0-13 the entire year and now you are asking them to be able to get the 1st pick in next years draft they have to win a few games to do it???? They couldn't win during the year, how do they win in a playoff format? Absurd!!

A lottery playoff system to me is short sighted and only has the tanking teams in mind. It does not care for the need for the last place team to improve with the top pick, which is needed for a dynasty league to maintain longevity.

Example: a team is pretty good, with good players, just bad luck. They barely miss the playoffs going 7-6. Now time for the lottery playoff run and win the thing and get McFadden. How does that help the league? Dynasty leagues need parity or they will dissolve. Then we had discussions where the lowest 4 teams make it into the playoff. Same thing ... there is most of the time a reason the lowest team is the lowest as they suck. They need the 1.01 to regain some competetiveness.

 

[fsufan]

We have had these discussions in our dynasty league and I absolutley hate the idea of a playoff to avoid tanking! You have to just find good owners and watch each other closely to make sure no tanking. The commish must remain forceful in giving warnings and threaten explusion from the league for blantant tanking.

The thought of tanking always implies the last few weeks of the season. Well, what if the team that is in last place just absolutley sucks either unintentional (bad team, bad luck w/ injuries, etc) or intentional (traded away most of their players for future picks). Either way, they could go 0-13 the entire year and now you are asking them to be able to get the 1st pick in next years draft they have to win a few games to do it???? They couldn't win during the year, how do they win in a playoff format? Absurd!!

A lottery playoff system to me is short sighted and only has the tanking teams in mind. It does not care for the need for the last place team to improve with the top pick, which is needed for a dynasty league to maintain longevity.

Example: a team is pretty good, with good players, just bad luck. They barely miss the playoffs going 7-6. Now time for the lottery playoff run and win the thing and get McFadden. How does that help the league? Dynasty leagues need parity or they will dissolve. Then we had discussions where the lowest 4 teams make it into the playoff. Same thing ... there is most of the time a reason the lowest team is the lowest as they suck. They need the 1.01 to regain some competetiveness.

 

[FernDog]

I don't like your rules. I can understand your concerns about tanking but aren't you throwing out the baby with the bath water here? There are probably teams that deserve (need?) the first pick, but your format allows a team that maybe just missed the play-offs to win a "mini tournament" with the bottom of the league to grab the first pick. So, in fear of a probably occasional tanking problem - you give the first pick to the 7th or 8th best team EVERY year.

then dont be a bad team... its a simple as that... if your a bottom tier league team, and you know it, your gonna make moves to only better your team instead of dumping players. If you just miss the playoffs, why should you be punished with a middle of the pack of the pick? Maybe you had a few unlucky games where you should have made the playoffs, but that week, Brady tossed 6tds , and you lost 130-128. At the CGT , we believe in rewarding teams for doing their due dillegence. If you dont work towards creating a competitive team year in and year out, you will be penalized with middle of the road picks. This breeds amazing competition, and puts values on each player. if you dont do your homework, and have a bad draft, you will have a bad draft position the following year, which then will make you work 2xs as hard, Now, of course the injury bug comes into play, but we have an IR rule where if say for example this prior year, one team lost Larry Johnson, before the WW period, he was allowed to claim Priest Holmes, when Holmes retiered, with Kolby Smith on the WW, he was allowed him. So while you may lose some production, you still gain the backup. Now, in LTs cause, that owner would be screwed, cause Turner the burner was drafted, since it is a dynasty league. 18 man rosters, 12 man league.I honestly feel this is the fairest way of going about things, as it breeds competition amongst all 12 teams, and gives all 12 teams something to shoot for all 16 weeks. We even have a "CGT PRO-BOWL" in week 17, where the best players from each conference compete, and the losing conference provides the beer, snacks, food and draft board at the rookie draft in august.Good times have been had.....

 

[jesseasi]

We have had these discussions in our dynasty league and I absolutley hate the idea of a playoff to avoid tanking! You have to just find good owners and watch each other closely to make sure no tanking. The commish must remain forceful in giving warnings and threaten explusion from the league for blantant tanking.

The thought of tanking always implies the last few weeks of the season. Well, what if the team that is in last place just absolutley sucks either unintentional (bad team, bad luck w/ injuries, etc) or intentional (traded away most of their players for future picks). Either way, they could go 0-13 the entire year and now you are asking them to be able to get the 1st pick in next years draft they have to win a few games to do it???? They couldn't win during the year, how do they win in a playoff format? Absurd!!

A lottery playoff system to me is short sighted and only has the tanking teams in mind. It does not care for the need for the last place team to improve with the top pick, which is needed for a dynasty league to maintain longevity.

Example: a team is pretty good, with good players, just bad luck. They barely miss the playoffs going 7-6. Now time for the lottery playoff run and win the thing and get McFadden. How does that help the league? Dynasty leagues need parity or they will dissolve. Then we had discussions where the lowest 4 teams make it into the playoff. Same thing ... there is most of the time a reason the lowest team is the lowest as they suck. They need the 1.01 to regain some competetiveness.

For this reason we don't want the fringe playoff team to have a chance for the #1 pick. We have 3 weeks of playoffs and 6 teams that don't have a shot at the championships.

The ideal situation would be a playoff system where the following was at stake...

Seeds - #1 = worst team to #6 best team.

#1 chance for #1 or #2 pick

#2 chance for #1, #2, or #3 pick

#3 chance for #2, #3, or #4 pick

#4 chance for #3, #4, or #5 pick

#5 chance for #4, #5, or #6 pick

#6 chance for the #5 or #6 pick

Does anyone have a system in place that does this or knows of a system that works for them?

 

[mike11162]

We have had these discussions in our dynasty league and I absolutley hate the idea of a playoff to avoid tanking! You have to just find good owners and watch each other closely to make sure no tanking. The commish must remain forceful in giving warnings and threaten explusion from the league for blantant tanking.

The thought of tanking always implies the last few weeks of the season. Well, what if the team that is in last place just absolutley sucks either unintentional (bad team, bad luck w/ injuries, etc) or intentional (traded away most of their players for future picks). Either way, they could go 0-13 the entire year and now you are asking them to be able to get the 1st pick in next years draft they have to win a few games to do it???? They couldn't win during the year, how do they win in a playoff format? Absurd!!

A lottery playoff system to me is short sighted and only has the tanking teams in mind. It does not care for the need for the last place team to improve with the top pick, which is needed for a dynasty league to maintain longevity.

Example: a team is pretty good, with good players, just bad luck. They barely miss the playoffs going 7-6. Now time for the lottery playoff run and win the thing and get McFadden. How does that help the league? Dynasty leagues need parity or they will dissolve. Then we had discussions where the lowest 4 teams make it into the playoff. Same thing ... there is most of the time a reason the lowest team is the lowest as they suck. They need the 1.01 to regain some competetiveness.

Ironically about 3 years ago we had a team go 0-13 and my team was the one that missed the playoffs with the best record, outscored every other team that was in the lottery by 200 points or more over the season, and after all of the playoffs were over, was first in total points. Would you believe the 0-13 team won three straight and took the first overall pick. So strange things can happen.We're in our 5th year. I wasn't the commish the first season nor did I start the league, but I took over in year 2. When we started we had 8 teams making the playoffs and only 4 teams in the lottery. But after the 2nd season, I was asked by several owners to vote to cut the playoffs to only 6 teams, and it passed unanimous vote. So that was how we ended up with 6 teams in the lottery.

I had the same concern that the best team not to make the playoffs every year would win this thing, and I had contemplated pitching the idea of bringing everyone to an even playing field by adding points to the weaker teams based on their point differentials so everyone was on theoretically even terms) point differentials being defined as the difference between their actual fantasy points per game from players they started). The 2 worst teams (defined for us as the last place teams in each division) already got one advantage in that they got a first round bye (as the lottery format mirrors the regular playoff format), so they only have to win 2 games as opposed to 3 for the 4 lowest seeds. It's turned out it hasn't worked that way as the worst team has won it half the time. I think having to win the extra game and the possibility that the teams lowest in total points aren't always the teams with the worst won-loss record, which happens more often than you think, help to counteract making it a sure thing the 6th worst team wins it all every year. But that said, the best team not to make the playoffs last year did win the lottery. This year it's 2 vs. 5 in the lottery championship, and 2 is actually favored.

It's a fair argument to say you don't want the best team not to make the playoffs to win the lottery, but I've always taken the stance you want to keep everyone interested all season and give them something to play for. If you're going to do that, then you have to come up with a system that gives everyone a fair shot but doesn't make it a foregone conclusion a certain team wins every year (whether it's setup to favor the best team not to make the playoffs every year or stacked too much for the worst team). IMO the fairest way is to use point differentials; whether that's from average fantasy points per player in your system or an outside source's projections can debated. Using projections probably is fairer because it takes in account injuries and what teams the player is going against, but you have to trust the judgement of that outside source. Otherwise, if you need an anti-tanking measure, you can go weighted lottery, and then there really isn't a need for a lottery playoff system in the first place. So that's probably the choices I'll give my league, use point differentials or just go weighted lottery.

 

[mike11162]

For this reason we don't want the fringe playoff team to have a chance for the #1 pick. We have 3 weeks of playoffs and 6 teams that don't have a shot at the championships.The ideal situation would be a playoff system where the following was at stake...Seeds - #1 = worst team to #6 best team.#1 chance for #1 or #2 pick#2 chance for #1, #2, or #3 pick#3 chance for #2, #3, or #4 pick#4 chance for #3, #4, or #5 pick#5 chance for #4, #5, or #6 pick#6 chance for the #5 or #6 pickDoes anyone have a system in place that does this or knows of a system that works for them?

That's not unreasonable, but it's not much to play for to just move up one spot, particularly from 6 to 5. What about giving the lottery winner the opportunity to move up 3 spots? Then 6 can get as high as 3, 5 can get to 2, and the 4 worst teams play for 1. Usually there are at least 2-3 projected studs in every draft, so everyone has something decent to play for and keep up interest.

 

[DropKick]

I don't like your rules. I can understand your concerns about tanking but aren't you throwing out the baby with the bath water here? There are probably teams that deserve (need?) the first pick, but your format allows a team that maybe just missed the play-offs to win a "mini tournament" with the bottom of the league to grab the first pick. So, in fear of a probably occasional tanking problem - you give the first pick to the 7th or 8th best team EVERY year.

then dont be a bad team... its a simple as that... if your a bottom tier league team, and you know it, your gonna make moves to only better your team instead of dumping players. If you just miss the playoffs, why should you be punished with a middle of the pack of the pick? Maybe you had a few unlucky games where you should have made the playoffs, but that week, Brady tossed 6tds , and you lost 130-128. At the CGT , we believe in rewarding teams for doing their due dillegence. If you dont work towards creating a competitive team year in and year out, you will be penalized with middle of the road picks. This breeds amazing competition, and puts values on each player. if you dont do your homework, and have a bad draft, you will have a bad draft position the following year, which then will make you work 2xs as hard, Now, of course the injury bug comes into play, but we have an IR rule where if say for example this prior year, one team lost Larry Johnson, before the WW period, he was allowed to claim Priest Holmes, when Holmes retiered, with Kolby Smith on the WW, he was allowed him. So while you may lose some production, you still gain the backup. Now, in LTs cause, that owner would be screwed, cause Turner the burner was drafted, since it is a dynasty league. 18 man rosters, 12 man league.I honestly feel this is the fairest way of going about things, as it breeds competition amongst all 12 teams, and gives all 12 teams something to shoot for all 16 weeks. We even have a "CGT PRO-BOWL" in week 17, where the best players from each conference compete, and the losing conference provides the beer, snacks, food and draft board at the rookie draft in august.Good times have been had.....

Is this really a reply to my post of an infomercial touting your league?I couldn't disagree more with your "logic" (word used very loosely here) regarding high draft picks... "Your team sucks! It's because you're lazy! As punishment, we'll give the better teams blue chip picks. You can rebuild through the waiver wire! And by the way... we have a lame rule that assures teams with injured players can get their player's replacement".... huh? That CGT is one amazing format!

 

[Topes]

The lottery bowl just doesn't work in any league where picks may be traded.

While it's best to not encourage tanking in your rules, there's not a whole lot one can do about it.

Your anti-tanking rules encourage tanking, in this case. That should be looked into.

Appeal to his sense of fair play? Hogwash.

The rules are set up. The owners work within the rules. It's as simple as that.

I was in a dynasty league several years back with a bunch of old boardsters. It went through a great number of fundamental permutations of rules in the interest of fairness. Fairness is a slippery slope in fantasy football.

Make the rules. Play by the rules. Each owner should be operating in his teams best interest, not the league's.

Think real football. Do you think the competition committee will be investigating whether a player should be allowed to stop at the one yard line this summer? That they'l be trying to find a way around that, make a Brian Westbrook penalty. Maybe they can add a minute to the closk as a penalty. Yeah, right.

There are some incredibly wacky and incredibly complex scenarios put forth in this thread, all proposed in the interest of fairness. Each one likely has a caveat and pitfall, just one step beyond the purpose for which it was intended.

Creating rules in the interest of fairness leads to ridiculous complexity and a situation where leagues are designed around the whining.

Creating rules in the interest of fairness has a logical end: Points Leagues.

Face It: Head to head is inherently unfair. It must be done away with.

Now, points leagues are ####. Most of us know that. But that's where all the fairness whining leads. It's the only solution. Points leagues where your starters are decided not by the owner, but automatically by who plays best. Having to set a lineup is unfair. It's hard, too.

 

[FernDog]

I don't like your rules. I can understand your concerns about tanking but aren't you throwing out the baby with the bath water here? There are probably teams that deserve (need?) the first pick, but your format allows a team that maybe just missed the play-offs to win a "mini tournament" with the bottom of the league to grab the first pick. So, in fear of a probably occasional tanking problem - you give the first pick to the 7th or 8th best team EVERY year.

then dont be a bad team... its a simple as that... if your a bottom tier league team, and you know it, your gonna make moves to only better your team instead of dumping players. If you just miss the playoffs, why should you be punished with a middle of the pack of the pick? Maybe you had a few unlucky games where you should have made the playoffs, but that week, Brady tossed 6tds , and you lost 130-128. At the CGT , we believe in rewarding teams for doing their due dillegence. If you dont work towards creating a competitive team year in and year out, you will be penalized with middle of the road picks. This breeds amazing competition, and puts values on each player. if you dont do your homework, and have a bad draft, you will have a bad draft position the following year, which then will make you work 2xs as hard, Now, of course the injury bug comes into play, but we have an IR rule where if say for example this prior year, one team lost Larry Johnson, before the WW period, he was allowed to claim Priest Holmes, when Holmes retiered, with Kolby Smith on the WW, he was allowed him. So while you may lose some production, you still gain the backup. Now, in LTs cause, that owner would be screwed, cause Turner the burner was drafted, since it is a dynasty league. 18 man rosters, 12 man league.I honestly feel this is the fairest way of going about things, as it breeds competition amongst all 12 teams, and gives all 12 teams something to shoot for all 16 weeks. We even have a "CGT PRO-BOWL" in week 17, where the best players from each conference compete, and the losing conference provides the beer, snacks, food and draft board at the rookie draft in august.Good times have been had.....

Is this really a reply to my post of an infomercial touting your league?I couldn't disagree more with your "logic" (word used very loosely here) regarding high draft picks... "Your team sucks! It's because you're lazy! As punishment, we'll give the better teams blue chip picks. You can rebuild through the waiver wire! And by the way... we have a lame rule that assures teams with injured players can get their player's replacement".... huh? That CGT is one amazing format!

Been doing it now for 10 yrs, had 1 owner leave in that time span, never had 1 problem. Its a dynasty cap league you have chances at free agents in the offseason, etc. So while the rookie draft will help your team, its not your only means of bettering your squad. If you do nothing in the free agency period, dont look to make moves, draft poorly, and go into a season with dominic rhodes and fred taylor as your # 1 and 2 backs ( didnt happen, just proving a point ), then yes, you dont deserve a high pick. Why should you be rewarded because you slept through half the football season. Say your a non-playoff team, but your squad is decent.... you may hold tight unless a really good offer came your way to better your team for the future. I dunno, i dont see your logic why its a BAD system.. i aint knocking anyone elses... just in all the leagues ive played in, ive found this system to be the fairest. Everyone enjoys it, creates parity among the teams, no such as a dynasty, each year, every team has a fair shot - really dont see the downside. Your rewarded for being a good and active owner. How many leagues do you play in that has 2-3 lazy owners mid way through?