Subtle tanking is dynasty leagues biggest problem (1 Viewer)

[Hoss_Cartwright]

You can't really stop someone from starting Cedric Benson vs Steelers over Kevin Smith. Subtle tanking is a problem with dynasty leagues. Owners can better their draft position without it being obvious.

ETA: Toilet bowls to determine the order of the draft isn't a good idea. Rewarding the 7th best team the #1 overall pick (should he win the TB) is a bad idea for the long term health of a dynasty league. The idea is for bad teams to get better.

Also, lotteries are not a good idea either, for the same reason Toilet bowls to determine order is a bad idea.

Also, awarding $$$ for high points isn't enough incentive to not subtle tank. The high pick is more important to a dynasty team than a few bucks for high points.

ETA: Renesauz makes a great point, "Subtle tanking a team to a loss could unfairly effect the playoff aspirations of another team. Therefore, even subtle tanking is bad for the integrity of any league and should be actively discouraged."

ETA: least potential points accumulated for the regular season for the 4 bottom teams, get the first 4 picks in the draft. Thanks rifraff for your suggestion.

In MFL, go to Reports / Franchise / Weekly Results to see what I'm talking about.

Week 11 for one of my team, see bolded in red potential points

JohnnyU Starters

Brees, Drew NOS QB 12.64

Barber, Marion DAL RB 21.30

Johnson, Larry KCC RB 8.70

Holmes, Santonio PIT WR 8.80

Jackson, DeSean PHI WR 8.90

Wayne, Reggie IND WR 12.50

Witten, Jason DAL TE 4.40

Gould, Robbie CHI PK 3.00

Cardinals, Arizona ARI Def 11.00

Starter Total: 91.24

Potential Points: 97.64

Efficiency Rating: 93.4%

Non-Starters

Roethlisberger, Ben PIT QB 12.32

Stanton, Drew DET QB 0

Betts, Ladell WAS RB 2.80

Bush, Michael OAK RB 0

Charles, Jamaal KCC RB 1.20

Choice, Tashard DAL RB 0.60

Rice, Ray BAL RB 3.70

Cotchery, Jerricho NYJ WR 15.20

Floyd, Malcom SDC WR 3.90

Hill, Jason SFO WR 4.80

Sweed, Limas PIT WR 0.00

Walker, Mike JAC WR 2.50

Washington, Nate PIT WR 2.40

Fasano, Anthony MIA TE 0.00

Jets, New York NYJ Def 11.00

Non-Starter Total: 60.42

Starter + Non-Starter Total: 151.66

Again, this simply means the 4 bottom teams with the least potential points accumulated for the regular season would get the first 4 picks in the draft. We're still awarding the top picks to the worst teams, just doing it based upon whoever has the least accumulated potential points for the entire regular season instead of wins/losses. The purpose behind this proposal is to prevent teams from affecting who makes the playoffs (by giving away games) because of intentional subtle tanking, and who gets a better pick because of subtle tanking.

 

[IndyHavoc]

/shrug. $$$ to top pts each week? $$$ to top pts on the season? Those things help, but not enough. It is a problem, I agree. Maybe toilet bowl tournament to decide top half of 1st round pick order. So seedings and performance would matter?

 

[JPeso]

If you are clearly out of contention, it almost makes sense to just start whoever is higher on most "lists" to avoid the questions.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

/shrug. $$$ to top pts each week? $$$ to top pts on the season? Those things help, but not enough. It is a problem, I agree. Maybe toilet bowl tournament to decide top half of 1st round pick order. So seedings and performance would matter?

That's not good either, because the object is to give the bad teams higher picks in order to get better. Rewarding the 7th best team the #1 overall pick (should he win the TB) is a bad idea for the long term health of a dynasty league.

 

[fruity pebbles]

not much you can do. NFL teams do it too i'm sure. The top picks don't always pan out better than those taken right behind anyways. I mean McFadden and Mendenhall are worth less than Chris Johnson and Matt Forte now.

 

[The Duff Man]

In a 12 team league we have tried slotting teams 9-12 in a two game tournament to determine who gets first pick. Gives them something to do during the fantasy playoffs.

Unfortunately, in all three years we have done this, the last place team has lost both tournament games and ended up with the #4 pick.

 

[Tigerbot Hesh]

I've long suspected at least one team in my dynasty league of doing this. The problem with our league is we can never really prove that this guy is doing it. He always plays active guys, they're just of a cut below what I would start if I were him. Is he playing to lose? Or just trying to make something happen?

 

[FavreCo]

This is really a non-issue. The FFL Gods do not take this lightly. Those owners will be punished severly.

 

[jeter23]

I really don't see a solution to the issue that you bring up Hoss. Subtle tanking, as you call it, happens in every league, I would think.

In one of my leagues, the idea has been discussed that the teams that have been elimnated from contention should set each other's lineups. I am not in favor of this as I think it goes against the spirit of the hobby and does not allow for someone to play their hunches.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I really don't see a solution to the issue that you bring up Hoss. Subtle tanking, as you call it, happens in every league, I would think.In one of my leagues, the idea has been discussed that the teams that have been elimnated from contention should set each other's lineups. I am not in favor of this as I think it goes against the spirit of the hobby and does not allow for someone to play their hunches.

That would be a disaster waiting to happen. Luvkily the draft isnt an exact science and the top players dont always pan out any better than the mid 1st guys

 

[PIK95]

not much you can do. NFL teams do it too i'm sure. The top picks don't always pan out better than those taken right behind anyways. I mean McFadden and Mendenhall are worth less than Chris Johnson and Matt Forte now.

 

[Jersey35]

In a 12 team league we have tried slotting teams 9-12 in a two game tournament to determine who gets first pick. Gives them something to do during the fantasy playoffs.Unfortunately, in all three years we have done this, the last place team has lost both tournament games and ended up with the #4 pick.

We seed the bottom four teams, but in reverse - i.e. worst two teams play each other / best two teams play each other. The winners play for the ToiletBowl.These playoffs don't affect draft order, instead we award an EXTRA pick at the top of the draft order to the TB winner. If the TB winner happens to be the worst team in the league, they get what works out to be #1 & #2. If the worst team in the league does not win the TB, at WORST they are the #2 pick.

 

[dirty_martini]

In my experience over the last 10 years of playing in at least 3 dynasty leagues every year - the same three or four teams vie for the bottom every year and the same three or four teams seem to be locks for the playoffs. The other 4 to 6 teams bounce up and down. The ones that I have suspected of tanking to get the first pick also tend to make bad draft picks. So it doesn't seem to matter whether they are just bad players or whatever. It all comes out in the wash.

 

[knowledge dropper]

This is really a non-issue. The FFL Gods do not take this lightly. Those owners will be punished severly.

Exactly. Last year's tankers got Darren McFadden. How is that working out for them?

 

[PIK95]

Im not sure exactly why this would be something you are trying to control. As long as the team makes a good effort lineup wise week to week that's all that should matter. So much luck is involved anyway. If a guy is leaving studs on the bench for backups thats one thing but if a guy wants to play Dunn (should be very good now with EG out) this week over say Marshawn Lynch than that is fine imo. In my dynasty leagues, right before the deadline, I always look at my teams to determine if my chances are low of winning it all. If so I usually blow them up to better my draft position and get players that I think will have higher upside next year. Same things the pro teams will do if they can. It's alot of fun and keeps me interested also. I always make sure I put my best lineups in though to not discourage my players (lol) for the future. Karma.

 

[JAK Straw]

If the goal is to reward the weakest team with the #1 pick, and the lineup selection is causing distortions, why not simply remove it from the equation? Give the top pick to the team with the lowest points scored by starters AND bench players. A team's strength isn't measure solely by the guys that start in a particular week; in a dynasty format ALL players should be used as a barometer. The only way to game that system would be to intentionally hold weak players on your roster, which nobody is going to do. Doesn't that solve the problem?

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Sometimes I just start my youth to see what they have. It helps me address weaknesses in the draft next year.

 

[GROMS]

In my experience over the last 10 years of playing in at least 3 dynasty leagues every year - the same three or four teams vie for the bottom every year and the same three or four teams seem to be locks for the playoffs. The other 4 to 6 teams bounce up and down. The ones that I have suspected of tanking to get the first pick also tend to make bad draft picks. So it doesn't seem to matter whether they are just bad players or whatever. It all comes out in the wash.

This is exactly our dynasty league situation. There is one owner in particular that always seems to be playing in the TB and every year seems to make a bad decision with his high draft pick. What can you do about it anyway?

 

[Riffraff]

Go with least potential points record for the bottom XX teams.

- The worst team in the league most likely is the team that would put up the least amount of points even if they played all their best players.

- Only real argument against it is if a loaded team had a rash of stud injuries. But they would still be a bad team for that year.

- Owners can't slip in a slightly lesser player in the line-up to make it a little easier to lose a game. Subtle tanking.

- Only way to tank with potential points is to cut/trade your good players from the squad. No one will do that without compensation.

- No more random luck of the roll of the dice in a lottery.

 

[Moniker]

The last place team in our league has to bring an extra $100 to the draft next year to help pay for our draft party.

 

[renesauz]

In my experience over the last 10 years of playing in at least 3 dynasty leagues every year - the same three or four teams vie for the bottom every year and the same three or four teams seem to be locks for the playoffs. The other 4 to 6 teams bounce up and down. The ones that I have suspected of tanking to get the first pick also tend to make bad draft picks. So it doesn't seem to matter whether they are just bad players or whatever. It all comes out in the wash.

I suspect this is the truth more often then not.

 

[renesauz]

If the goal is to reward the weakest team with the #1 pick, and the lineup selection is causing distortions, why not simply remove it from the equation? Give the top pick to the team with the lowest points scored by starters AND bench players. A team's strength isn't measure solely by the guys that start in a particular week; in a dynasty format ALL players should be used as a barometer. The only way to game that system would be to intentionally hold weak players on your roster, which nobody is going to do. Doesn't that solve the problem?

Actually...I like this with a slight variation.Keep track of optimum scores weekly, and seed all non-playoff teams based on their optimal total points throughout the season, independant of win records.

This would address the problem in a big time way. If a guy is ditching all of his talent for the higher pick, then the rest of the league would benefit anyway.

This would completely remove the incentive to tank.

 

[thatguy]

In a 12 team league we have tried slotting teams 9-12 in a two game tournament to determine who gets first pick. Gives them something to do during the fantasy playoffs.Unfortunately, in all three years we have done this, the last place team has lost both tournament games and ended up with the #4 pick.

We seed the bottom four teams, but in reverse - i.e. worst two teams play each other / best two teams play each other. The winners play for the ToiletBowl.These playoffs don't affect draft order, instead we award an EXTRA pick at the top of the draft order to the TB winner. If the TB winner happens to be the worst team in the league, they get what works out to be #1 & #2. If the worst team in the league does not win the TB, at WORST they are the #2 pick.

In this setup there is still incentive to tank if you're not in the hunt. I would think any non-competitive owner would have extra incentive to be in the bottom four teams to be in contention for 1) a better pick and 2) an extra pick that just happens to be the first pick. Furthermore, there is incentive to be the worst team, since you're first round opponent in the TB playoffs will be easier, and you'll have a shot at the first and second rookie picks.

 

[uclarick]

If the goal is to reward the weakest team with the #1 pick, and the lineup selection is causing distortions, why not simply remove it from the equation? Give the top pick to the team with the lowest points scored by starters AND bench players. A team's strength isn't measure solely by the guys that start in a particular week; in a dynasty format ALL players should be used as a barometer. The only way to game that system would be to intentionally hold weak players on your roster, which nobody is going to do. Doesn't that solve the problem?

Actually...I like this with a slight variation.Keep track of optimum scores weekly, and seed all non-playoff teams based on their optimal total points throughout the season, independant of win records.

This would address the problem in a big time way. If a guy is ditching all of his talent for the higher pick, then the rest of the league would benefit anyway.

This would completely remove the incentive to tank.

I've got the solution to all of your problems - RELEGATION. We kick out the bottom 2 teams every year and replace them with new owners. This pretty much eliminates "subtle tanking" and ensures that the quality of the league is always top notch.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

To avoid tanking 100 percent, all you have to do is stop rewarding failure. Why should the worst teams get the earliest picks, anyway? Because that's how the NFL does it? This isn't the NFL, and the goal of fantasy football is not to emulate the NFL. If it was, we'd all have starting fullbacks on our rosters and play until February.

If you don't reward the worst teams with the earliest picks, there's no incentive to tank. Put the incentive on winning games instead. I play in one league like this, and while it's unorthodox nobody ever tanks, because it only hurts you in the long run.

If you have to pretend the league is just like the NFL, you'll have to accept tanking as part of the fantasy game. NFL teams have reasons not to tank (keeping seats filled, fans and players happy and merchandise selling, coaches want to keep their jobs, etc) but fantasy teams don't.

 

[3nOut]

If the goal is to reward the weakest team with the #1 pick, and the lineup selection is causing distortions, why not simply remove it from the equation? Give the top pick to the team with the lowest points scored by starters AND bench players. A team's strength isn't measure solely by the guys that start in a particular week; in a dynasty format ALL players should be used as a barometer. The only way to game that system would be to intentionally hold weak players on your roster, which nobody is going to do. Doesn't that solve the problem?

Actually...I like this with a slight variation.Keep track of optimum scores weekly, and seed all non-playoff teams based on their optimal total points throughout the season, independant of win records.

This would address the problem in a big time way. If a guy is ditching all of his talent for the higher pick, then the rest of the league would benefit anyway.

This would completely remove the incentive to tank.

Doesn't this defeat the purpose of head-to-head competition?

 

[PIK95]

This thread

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

If the goal is to reward the weakest team with the #1 pick, and the lineup selection is causing distortions, why not simply remove it from the equation? Give the top pick to the team with the lowest points scored by starters AND bench players. A team's strength isn't measure solely by the guys that start in a particular week; in a dynasty format ALL players should be used as a barometer. The only way to game that system would be to intentionally hold weak players on your roster, which nobody is going to do. Doesn't that solve the problem?

Actually...I like this with a slight variation.Keep track of optimum scores weekly, and seed all non-playoff teams based on their optimal total points throughout the season, independant of win records.

This would address the problem in a big time way. If a guy is ditching all of his talent for the higher pick, then the rest of the league would benefit anyway.

This would completely remove the incentive to tank.

I've got the solution to all of your problems - RELEGATION. We kick out the bottom 2 teams every year and replace them with new owners. This pretty much eliminates "subtle tanking" and ensures that the quality of the league is always top notch.

No offense, but this could be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. You could have a good owner for 10 years who's active, answers e-mail, etc...and because his team does poorly one year you kick him out? Great way to lose good peole. Plus, it doesn't say anything with repect to the "quality" of the league because bad luck could ruin a good team for one season. I guess I'd worry about losing good owners because they're hard to find, and I don't like constant turnover.

 

[footballguy#1]

If the goal is to reward the weakest team with the #1 pick, and the lineup selection is causing distortions, why not simply remove it from the equation? Give the top pick to the team with the lowest points scored by starters AND bench players. A team's strength isn't measure solely by the guys that start in a particular week; in a dynasty format ALL players should be used as a barometer. The only way to game that system would be to intentionally hold weak players on your roster, which nobody is going to do. Doesn't that solve the problem?

Actually...I like this with a slight variation.Keep track of optimum scores weekly, and seed all non-playoff teams based on their optimal total points throughout the season, independant of win records.

This would address the problem in a big time way. If a guy is ditching all of his talent for the higher pick, then the rest of the league would benefit anyway.

This would completely remove the incentive to tank.

Good idea, but some leagues allow as many roster spots at any position and that can throw off the total scores if one team carries 4 QB's and another team is carrying 1 QB for most of the season. So you're not really comparing apples to apples in this situation.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

I like the "double the entry fee" the following year.

 

[Tau837]

We seed the bottom four teams, but in reverse - i.e. worst two teams play each other / best two teams play each other. The winners play for the ToiletBowl.These playoffs don't affect draft order, instead we award an EXTRA pick at the top of the draft order to the TB winner. If the TB winner happens to be the worst team in the league, they get what works out to be #1 & #2. If the worst team in the league does not win the TB, at WORST they are the #2 pick.

This is an interesting variation. Perhaps the way to do this is make the extra pick be in the middle of the first round. For example, in my 14 team dynasty league, 8 teams make the playoffs... so perhaps the extra pick would be the 7th of 15 first round picks... ahead of all playoff teams but not bumping down a team that missed the playoffs. The 1.7 pick would still be quite valuable and thus a good incentive.However, that really only prevents tanking in the playoffs. It doesn't prevent tanking that starts earlier in the season.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

To avoid tanking 100 percent, all you have to do is stop rewarding failure. Why should the worst teams get the earliest picks, anyway? Because that's how the NFL does it? This isn't the NFL, and the goal of fantasy football is not to emulate the NFL. If it was, we'd all have starting fullbacks on our rosters and play until February.If you don't reward the worst teams with the earliest picks, there's no incentive to tank. Put the incentive on winning games instead. I play in one league like this, and while it's unorthodox nobody ever tanks, because it only hurts you in the long run.If you have to pretend the league is just like the NFL, you'll have to accept tanking as part of the fantasy game. NFL teams have reasons not to tank (keeping seats filled, fans and players happy and merchandise selling, coaches want to keep their jobs, etc) but fantasy teams don't.

I disagree with you on every level. If you don't have a way for the worst teams to get better, it will cause more league turnover, and make it more difficult to find owners for those horrible teams.

 

[renesauz]

If the goal is to reward the weakest team with the #1 pick, and the lineup selection is causing distortions, why not simply remove it from the equation? Give the top pick to the team with the lowest points scored by starters AND bench players. A team's strength isn't measure solely by the guys that start in a particular week; in a dynasty format ALL players should be used as a barometer. The only way to game that system would be to intentionally hold weak players on your roster, which nobody is going to do. Doesn't that solve the problem?

Actually...I like this with a slight variation.Keep track of optimum scores weekly, and seed all non-playoff teams based on their optimal total points throughout the season, independant of win records.

This would address the problem in a big time way. If a guy is ditching all of his talent for the higher pick, then the rest of the league would benefit anyway.

This would completely remove the incentive to tank.

Doesn't this defeat the purpose of head-to-head competition?

Umm...no. Playoff seeding (and the last few picks) are still based on record. The mediocre teams fighting for the last playoff slot still have incentive to compete. The teams at the bottom may not have the incentive to copete, but right now they have incentive to NOT compete. This removes that bad incentive, but leaves in place the idea of giving top picks to the worst teams.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

If the goal is to reward the weakest team with the #1 pick, and the lineup selection is causing distortions, why not simply remove it from the equation? Give the top pick to the team with the lowest points scored by starters AND bench players. A team's strength isn't measure solely by the guys that start in a particular week; in a dynasty format ALL players should be used as a barometer. The only way to game that system would be to intentionally hold weak players on your roster, which nobody is going to do. Doesn't that solve the problem?

Actually...I like this with a slight variation.Keep track of optimum scores weekly, and seed all non-playoff teams based on their optimal total points throughout the season, independant of win records.

This would address the problem in a big time way. If a guy is ditching all of his talent for the higher pick, then the rest of the league would benefit anyway.

This would completely remove the incentive to tank.

Good idea, but some most leagues allow as many roster spots at any position and that can throw off the total scores if one team carries 4 QB's and another team is carrying 1 QB for most of the season. So you're not really comparing apples to apples in this situation.

:( and fixed.

 

[renesauz]

If the goal is to reward the weakest team with the #1 pick, and the lineup selection is causing distortions, why not simply remove it from the equation? Give the top pick to the team with the lowest points scored by starters AND bench players. A team's strength isn't measure solely by the guys that start in a particular week; in a dynasty format ALL players should be used as a barometer. The only way to game that system would be to intentionally hold weak players on your roster, which nobody is going to do. Doesn't that solve the problem?

Actually...I like this with a slight variation.Keep track of optimum scores weekly, and seed all non-playoff teams based on their optimal total points throughout the season, independant of win records.

This would address the problem in a big time way. If a guy is ditching all of his talent for the higher pick, then the rest of the league would benefit anyway.

This would completely remove the incentive to tank.

Good idea, but some leagues allow as many roster spots at any position and that can throw off the total scores if one team carries 4 QB's and another team is carrying 1 QB for most of the season. So you're not really comparing apples to apples in this situation.

So an extra benefit of such a system would be to discourage guys from hoarding mediocre players? I fail to see that as a problem, but instead as an added benefit. I mean....if you're carrying five marginal QB's, none of whom are a stud, then you deserve to lose your weekly matchup, but NOT reap the rewards of a better pick for it. And the guy carrying 1 QB has extra somewhere else, doesn't he?

 

[Tau837]

Go with least potential points record for the bottom XX teams.- The worst team in the league most likely is the team that would put up the least amount of points even if they played all their best players.- Only real argument against it is if a loaded team had a rash of stud injuries. But they would still be a bad team for that year.- Owners can't slip in a slightly lesser player in the line-up to make it a little easier to lose a game. Subtle tanking.- Only way to tank with potential points is to cut/trade your good players from the squad. No one will do that without compensation.- No more random luck of the roll of the dice in a lottery.

I think this is the best idea I've seen in the thread. The only issue might be if some league software does not report optimal points, making it a manual exercise.

 

[renesauz]

If the goal is to reward the weakest team with the #1 pick, and the lineup selection is causing distortions, why not simply remove it from the equation? Give the top pick to the team with the lowest points scored by starters AND bench players. A team's strength isn't measure solely by the guys that start in a particular week; in a dynasty format ALL players should be used as a barometer. The only way to game that system would be to intentionally hold weak players on your roster, which nobody is going to do. Doesn't that solve the problem?

Actually...I like this with a slight variation.Keep track of optimum scores weekly, and seed all non-playoff teams based on their optimal total points throughout the season, independant of win records.

This would address the problem in a big time way. If a guy is ditching all of his talent for the higher pick, then the rest of the league would benefit anyway.

This would completely remove the incentive to tank.

Good idea, but some leagues allow as many roster spots at any position and that can throw off the total scores if one team carries 4 QB's and another team is carrying 1 QB for most of the season. So you're not really comparing apples to apples in this situation.

So an extra benefit of such a system would be to discourage guys from hoarding mediocre players? I fail to see that as a problem, but instead as an added benefit. I mean....if you're carrying five marginal QB's, none of whom are a stud, then you deserve to lose your weekly matchup, but NOT reap the rewards of a better pick for it. And the guy carrying 1 QB has extra somewhere else, doesn't he?

Think about this also. When do teams begin to "tank with sublety?" It's not early in the season, it's late in the season, when they are already eliminated from contention. Up until that point, they are manageing their roster with the idea of winning. As such, they should be rewarded or punished appropriately (depending on your POV). By my proposal, significant damage either way would have already occured, and the exact makeup of their roster is inconsequential as the intended result has occured.Now, if a guy simply plays like an idiot, going against common sense to always play with his gut....he's not rewarded by this with a better pick, but punished with a lesser pick then his record "earned" him. He gets the pick he should have had anyway.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Go with least potential points record for the bottom XX teams.- The worst team in the league most likely is the team that would put up the least amount of points even if they played all their best players.- Only real argument against it is if a loaded team had a rash of stud injuries. But they would still be a bad team for that year.- Owners can't slip in a slightly lesser player in the line-up to make it a little easier to lose a game. Subtle tanking.- Only way to tank with potential points is to cut/trade your good players from the squad. No one will do that without compensation.- No more random luck of the roll of the dice in a lottery.

I think this is the best idea I've seen in the thread. The only issue might be if some league software does not report optimal points, making it a manual exercise.

I believe MFL does potential points, and we could choose the least potential points (for their entire team) for the bottom 4 teams.

 

[EBF]

In my experience over the last 10 years of playing in at least 3 dynasty leagues every year - the same three or four teams vie for the bottom every year and the same three or four teams seem to be locks for the playoffs. The other 4 to 6 teams bounce up and down. The ones that I have suspected of tanking to get the first pick also tend to make bad draft picks. So it doesn't seem to matter whether they are just bad players or whatever. It all comes out in the wash.

 

[gianmarco]

Truly subtle tanking will make very little difference in the long run. The teams that are going to end up with the top 3-4 picks are all going to be in need of them. Factor in that none of those picks are guaranteed and that all of the lower owners should benefit from their picks, then it's a relative non-issue.

The main issue is not-so-subtle tanking and I think there always needs to be a rule in place for it.

While it's "unethical", if the 3rd worst team ends up with the 1st overall pick because of subtle tanking, I don't think it's the travesty that some of you are making it out to be. Plus, it takes more than 1 pick to get a team like that out of the basement. In the long-run, the difference between 1-2 picks that subtle tanking would accomplish magnified over a few years is inconsequential.

If "subtle" tanking is moving a team more than 2 picks than what they would have had, then it's not "subtle".

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Truly subtle tanking will make very little difference in the long run. The teams that are going to end up with the top 3-4 picks are all going to be in need of them. Factor in that none of those picks are guaranteed and that all of the lower owners should benefit from their picks, then it's a relative non-issue.The main issue is not-so-subtle tanking and I think there always needs to be a rule in place for it.While it's "unethical", if the 3rd worst team ends up with the 1st overall pick because of subtle tanking, I don't think it's the travesty that some of you are making it out to be. Plus, it takes more than 1 pick to get a team like that out of the basement. In the long-run, the difference between 1-2 picks that subtle tanking would accomplish magnified over a few years is inconsequential.If "subtle" tanking is moving a team more than 2 picks than what they would have had, then it's not "subtle".

Some have used last year's draft as an example where it doesn't matter about the picks between 1-5, but say that to the guy who had the #2 pick the year that Adrian Peterson was drafted. Yes, I agree that one pick usually won't get a team out of the basement, but getting a guy like Adrian Peterson sure makes the job easier.

 

[renesauz]

Truly subtle tanking will make very little difference in the long run. The teams that are going to end up with the top 3-4 picks are all going to be in need of them. Factor in that none of those picks are guaranteed and that all of the lower owners should benefit from their picks, then it's a relative non-issue.The main issue is not-so-subtle tanking and I think there always needs to be a rule in place for it.While it's "unethical", if the 3rd worst team ends up with the 1st overall pick because of subtle tanking, I don't think it's the travesty that some of you are making it out to be. Plus, it takes more than 1 pick to get a team like that out of the basement. In the long-run, the difference between 1-2 picks that subtle tanking would accomplish magnified over a few years is inconsequential.If "subtle" tanking is moving a team more than 2 picks than what they would have had, then it's not "subtle".

While I agree with you on it's effects as far as picks go, I find the practice utterly despicable.Let's not forget that it's not just about those picks though. Subtle tanking a team to a loss could unfairly effect the playoff aspirations of another team. Therefore, even subtle tanking is bad for the integrity of any league and should be actively discouraged.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Truly subtle tanking will make very little difference in the long run. The teams that are going to end up with the top 3-4 picks are all going to be in need of them. Factor in that none of those picks are guaranteed and that all of the lower owners should benefit from their picks, then it's a relative non-issue.

The main issue is not-so-subtle tanking and I think there always needs to be a rule in place for it.

While it's "unethical", if the 3rd worst team ends up with the 1st overall pick because of subtle tanking, I don't think it's the travesty that some of you are making it out to be. Plus, it takes more than 1 pick to get a team like that out of the basement. In the long-run, the difference between 1-2 picks that subtle tanking would accomplish magnified over a few years is inconsequential.

If "subtle" tanking is moving a team more than 2 picks than what they would have had, then it's not "subtle".

While I agree with you on it's effects as far as picks go, I find the practice utterly despicable.Let's not forget that it's not just about those picks though. Subtle tanking a team to a loss could unfairly effect the playoff aspirations of another team. Therefore, even subtle tanking is bad for the integrity of any league and should be actively discouraged.

Great point. I liked it so much that I added it as an ETA to the OP. Thanks.

 

[gianmarco]

Truly subtle tanking will make very little difference in the long run. The teams that are going to end up with the top 3-4 picks are all going to be in need of them. Factor in that none of those picks are guaranteed and that all of the lower owners should benefit from their picks, then it's a relative non-issue.The main issue is not-so-subtle tanking and I think there always needs to be a rule in place for it.While it's "unethical", if the 3rd worst team ends up with the 1st overall pick because of subtle tanking, I don't think it's the travesty that some of you are making it out to be. Plus, it takes more than 1 pick to get a team like that out of the basement. In the long-run, the difference between 1-2 picks that subtle tanking would accomplish magnified over a few years is inconsequential.If "subtle" tanking is moving a team more than 2 picks than what they would have had, then it's not "subtle".

Some have used last year's draft as an example where it doesn't matter about the picks between 1-5, but say that to the guy who had the #2 pick the year that Adrian Peterson was drafted. Yes, I agree that one pick usually won't get a team out of the basement, but getting a guy like Adrian Peterson sure makes the job easier.

AP is a once in a decade player. There are gems to be found throughout and it evens out. For every year you point out one trend, I'll find another year that shows the exact opposite. Point being if you look at it in a vacuum, it could look like it got a team nothing or that it got a team a huge boost, but when you look at it over the course of a few seasons, it will even out. Same way that a top points team could end up with a crappy record, not get a bye, and have an early exit. It's part of the luck of football. This is also not even considering the fact that subtle tanking doesn't always go the way the team intends either. Just like we aren't always right in our attempts of putting up the best lineup, subtle tanking does not insure you will get the worst player in. Thus, the overall likelihood that it makes a difference is minimal at best.Is the practice good? No, I think it's pretty low and unethical no matter how small or subtle. I think the only way to eliminate it is to find a league with good owners. If you see a team doing it but don't have a way to prove it, then ask them not to return and find someone else. Putting in a rule that gives the commish authority to ask a team not to return for that kind of activity would highly discourage that behavior. As long as the commish is honest, I can't imagine someone trying it for the tiny benefit it could get them. Otherwise, let them live with acting that way if that's how their moral compass is and realize that it truly is not going to alter the dynamics of a league that much in the long run.

 

[Tigerbot Hesh]

In my opinion, using a "best ball" format -- where your lineup for the week is set according to which players did the best that week -- is the only hands-off way of stopping someone from tanking. I don't see how you could tank it in that format and it not look pretty obvious.

 

[benbadman]

Benson in a HOME game vs EaglesoverSmith in ROAD game vs Panthers, who were likely to blow lions out thus less running opportunities...i really dont see the problem there?? Dodds/Bloom rankings aren't gospel, some people try to outsmart them.

You can't really stop someone from starting Cedric Benson vs Steelers over Kevin Smith. Subtle tanking is a problem with dynasty leagues. Owners can better their draft position without it being obvious.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

In my opinion, using a "best ball" format -- where your lineup for the week is set according to which players did the best that week -- is the only hands-off way of stopping someone from tanking. I don't see how you could tank it in that format and it not look pretty obvious.

That's awful. Who the hell wants their lineup forced on them?

 

[mozzy84]

the last place team gets there team name chosen by the league for the following year. trust me with the names we have came up with NO ONE wants the #1 overall pick. Reading off all the names and voting on draft day is a blast.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Hypothetical yearly fee - 12 team dynasty league, $1200 total pot

The $1200 fee is distributed based on previous year's regular season finish:

1st - $0

2nd - $30

3rd - $50

4th - $70

5th - $80

6th - $90

7th - $110

8th - $120

9th - $130

10th - $150

11th - $170

12th - $200

With an average of $100 per team, the team on the lower end makes up the difference for the team on the higher end. As you see, teams 1 and 12 combine to pay $200, as do teams 2/11, 3/10, 4/9, 5/8, and 6/7.

Just a thought...

 

[EBF]

In my opinion, using a "best ball" format -- where your lineup for the week is set according to which players did the best that week -- is the only hands-off way of stopping someone from tanking. I don't see how you could tank it in that format and it not look pretty obvious.

Even if you go with that approach, teams will just trade away all their veterans for picks and prospects. Bad teams are going to lose a lot of games. They're going to trade away veterans for picks. That's part of the rebuilding process. Unless a team is obviously not submitting its best lineup each week, I don't think there's a whole lot you can do about it. Rebuilding teams are like a free win on the schedule, so you should enjoy them while they last.