Tanking Actually Isn't All That Bad - Change My Mind (2 Viewers)

[eighsse2]

I could just list my arguments and counter-counter-arguments, but I thought it might be fun to try to field counterarguments. Please just one argument per message for simplicity and focus.

Tanking here includes any means to intentionally lose (but let's at least say: stopping short of setting an illegal lineup to score a 0), for any reason where the intent is to improve one's own team's success or future success.

Of course, "fun" is subjective, and if people just think it makes thing unfun, then of course that is that. But, my belief is that some people may think it would take more fun out than it actually would.

 

[beef]

Tanking = corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy.

 

[eighsse2]

Tanking = corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy.

So I'm taking that to mean that it helps someone out because of their failure. But the draft goes in reverse order of standings specifically to help the ones who have failed. That's already happening.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

Tanking doesn't always work.

 

[eighsse2]

Tanking doesn't always work.

Agreed. This is just a supporting argument, right?

 

[JohnnyU]

I answered this in the throwing games thread so I won't repeat myself here.

 

[beef]

Tanking = corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy.

So I'm taking that to mean that it helps someone out because of their failure. But the draft goes in reverse order of standings specifically to help the ones who have failed. That's already happening.

I'm with you. Tanking is a good thing. Like Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it should be a fundamental value of modern dynasty capitalism.

 

[eighsse2]

Tanking = corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy.

So I'm taking that to mean that it helps someone out because of their failure. But the draft goes in reverse order of standings specifically to help the ones who have failed. That's already happening.

I'm with you. Tanking is a good thing. Like Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it should be a fundamental value of modern dynasty capitalism.

And to be more clear, even I personally wouldn't say it's an outright good thing. I could take it or leave it. I just don't think it's this heinous abomination that most seem to consider it.

 

[JohnnyU]

Tanking = corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy.

So I'm taking that to mean that it helps someone out because of their failure. But the draft goes in reverse order of standings specifically to help the ones who have failed. That's already happening.

I'm with you. Tanking is a good thing. Like Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it should be a fundamental value of modern dynasty capitalism.

And to be more clear, even I personally wouldn't say it's an outright good thing. I could take it or leave it. I just don't think it's this heinous abomination that most seem to consider it.

I can't help myself. Tell that to the other teams who don't make the playoffs because someone was given a free win. Or tell that to the other teams vying for a good draft position.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

Tanking = corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy.

So I'm taking that to mean that it helps someone out because of their failure. But the draft goes in reverse order of standings specifically to help the ones who have failed. That's already happening.

I'm with you. Tanking is a good thing. Like Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it should be a fundamental value of modern dynasty capitalism.

And to be more clear, even I personally wouldn't say it's an outright good thing. I could take it or leave it. I just don't think it's this heinous abomination that most seem to consider it.

I think it makes sense from an owner that needs more/better pieces but from others POV it's not very fair and arguably against the spirit of the game.

 

[eighsse2]

Tanking = corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy.

So I'm taking that to mean that it helps someone out because of their failure. But the draft goes in reverse order of standings specifically to help the ones who have failed. That's already happening.

I'm with you. Tanking is a good thing. Like Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it should be a fundamental value of modern dynasty capitalism.

And to be more clear, even I personally wouldn't say it's an outright good thing. I could take it or leave it. I just don't think it's this heinous abomination that most seem to consider it.

I can't help myself. Tell that to the other teams who don't make the playoffs because someone was given a free win. Or tell that to the other teams vying for a good draft position.

On the team missing the playoffs due to someone losing on purpose: it really sucks, but so do a lot of random things. A 0 from your superstar because he gets injured. You have the second highest points in the league, but go 6-8 because every team has its best week against you. Things like that are other things that are very "unfair" to one team. In this scenario, the tanking team is tanking only to help his own team's chances. If he's tanking because he hates John Doe, and he can screw John out of the playoffs, that is another thing altogether and I would not be okay with that.

On the other teams vying for a good draft position: in this scenario tanking is not forbidden. They may have at it as well.

 

[JohnnyU]

Tanking = corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy.

So I'm taking that to mean that it helps someone out because of their failure. But the draft goes in reverse order of standings specifically to help the ones who have failed. That's already happening.

I'm with you. Tanking is a good thing. Like Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it should be a fundamental value of modern dynasty capitalism.

And to be more clear, even I personally wouldn't say it's an outright good thing. I could take it or leave it. I just don't think it's this heinous abomination that most seem to consider it.

I can't help myself. Tell that to the other teams who don't make the playoffs because someone was given a free win. Or tell that to the other teams vying for a good draft position.

On the team missing the playoffs due to someone losing on purpose: it really sucks, but so do a lot of random things. A 0 from your superstar because he gets injured. You have the second highest points in the league, but go 6-8 because every team has its best week against you. Things like that are other things that are very "unfair" to one team. In this scenario, the tanking team is tanking only to help his own team's chances. If he's tanking because he hates John Doe, and he can screw John out of the playoffs, that is another thing altogether and I would not be okay with that.

On the other teams vying for a good draft position: in this scenario tanking is not forbidden. They may have at it as well.

Your first sentence is a weak argument. Second sentence also is.

 

[eighsse2]

Tanking = corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy.

So I'm taking that to mean that it helps someone out because of their failure. But the draft goes in reverse order of standings specifically to help the ones who have failed. That's already happening.

I'm with you. Tanking is a good thing. Like Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it should be a fundamental value of modern dynasty capitalism.

And to be more clear, even I personally wouldn't say it's an outright good thing. I could take it or leave it. I just don't think it's this heinous abomination that most seem to consider it.

I think it makes sense from an owner that needs more/better pieces but from others POV it's not very fair and arguably against the spirit of the game.

On the fairness, see my more recent post (#11).

On the spirit of the game thing: yeah that's something like what I said in the opening post ... if people simply find it unfun, or against the spirit, I have nothing to say to that. More of an opinion thing. If you have a league of 75%+ guys that all feel that way, then of course you would forbid it. I don't personally feel that "spirit".

 

[eighsse2]

Tanking = corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy.

So I'm taking that to mean that it helps someone out because of their failure. But the draft goes in reverse order of standings specifically to help the ones who have failed. That's already happening.

I'm with you. Tanking is a good thing. Like Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it should be a fundamental value of modern dynasty capitalism.

And to be more clear, even I personally wouldn't say it's an outright good thing. I could take it or leave it. I just don't think it's this heinous abomination that most seem to consider it.

I can't help myself. Tell that to the other teams who don't make the playoffs because someone was given a free win. Or tell that to the other teams vying for a good draft position.

On the team missing the playoffs due to someone losing on purpose: it really sucks, but so do a lot of random things. A 0 from your superstar because he gets injured. You have the second highest points in the league, but go 6-8 because every team has its best week against you. Things like that are other things that are very "unfair" to one team. In this scenario, the tanking team is tanking only to help his own team's chances. If he's tanking because he hates John Doe, and he can screw John out of the playoffs, that is another thing altogether and I would not be okay with that.

On the other teams vying for a good draft position: in this scenario tanking is not forbidden. They may have at it as well.

Your first sentence is a weak argument. Second sentence also is.

I don't see that. Unfairness doesn't instantly mean something should be banned. Unfairness is all over fantasy football. As long all teams are equally likely to be harmed by it, unfairness can be acceptable.

 

[JohnnyU]

If you want your dynasty leagues to fold, go ahead and allow tanking.

 

[eighsse2]

If you want your dynasty leagues to fold, go ahead and allow tanking.

Seems maybe a bit circular. If it's factual that leagues that allow tanking fold, then I get you. But that doesn't mean the people are leaving on grounds that are objectively reasonable. It just means they don't like it. Which goes back to my opening comment about subjectivity. If people "just don't like it", that's fine. I'm not forcing anyone to like it. I'm looking for grounded reasons why it shouldn't be liked.

 

[JohnnyU]

If you want your dynasty leagues to fold, go ahead and allow tanking.

Seems maybe a bit circular. If it's factual that leagues that allow tanking fold, then I get you. But that doesn't mean the people are leaving on grounds that are objectively reasonable. It just means they don't like it. Which goes back to my opening comment about subjectivity. If people "just don't like it", that's fine. I'm not forcing anyone to like it. I'm looking for grounded reasons why it shouldn't be liked.

More people dislike it than like it, so the more people quit, the faster the league folds. I don’t know any commissioner that would want to stay in a league that has that high of turnover and I think allowing tanking would produce high turnover.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

Tanking doesn't always work.

Agreed. This is just a supporting argument, right?

it took me a minute to get what you meant here. I think it could work for both. When I wrote it I meant that even if you tank you still have to pick the right players. So it was an anti-tanking argument but I could also see a "well just because you are trying to tank doesn't mean you won't accidentally win."

 

[beef]

This argument that it's more important to focus on the good of all, or what's best for the league, vs. doing what is best for yourself is quite interesting.

No chance that this could work in the real World though, right?

 

[eighsse2]

Tanking doesn't always work.

Agreed. This is just a supporting argument, right?

it took me a minute to get what you meant here. I think it could work for both. When I wrote it I meant that even if you tank you still have to pick the right players. So it was an anti-tanking argument but I could also see a "well just because you are trying to tank doesn't mean you won't accidentally win."

To me, both of those could be pro-tanking sentiments. Even the way you meant it, my takeaway is that tanking isn't some "cheap, easy magic wand that makes your team better", like some people may view it.

ETA: Though you may mean it's an anti-tanking argument as in "tanking isn't a good thing to do for your team", in which case yeah that is an argument against it (though it's still advantageous, just not going to help 100% of the time). But that isn't what I'm debating here.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Tanking doesn't always work.

Agreed. This is just a supporting argument, right?

it took me a minute to get what you meant here. I think it could work for both. When I wrote it I meant that even if you tank you still have to pick the right players. So it was an anti-tanking argument but I could also see a "well just because you are trying to tank doesn't mean you won't accidentally win."

You still have to pick the right players, and tanking so you move up the draft order significantly improves your chances of that. More often than not, it does work.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

Tanking doesn't always work.

Agreed. This is just a supporting argument, right?

it took me a minute to get what you meant here. I think it could work for both. When I wrote it I meant that even if you tank you still have to pick the right players. So it was an anti-tanking argument but I could also see a "well just because you are trying to tank doesn't mean you won't accidentally win."

You still have to pick the right players, and tanking so you move up the draft order significantly improves your chances of that. More often than not, it does work.

I agree but it's not automatic.

 

[Catbird]

I think the good of the group is far more important than good for yourself in setting rules for a good, fun league. I don't think which rule you play by matters very much as long as it's fully available to everyone.

It seems to me not allowing tanking has to be kind of all or nothing. Otherwise you would have to try and list what kinds of tanking are and aren't allowed. That would be arduous and often not clear in application to actual facts).

I am in a league that says no tanking of any kind is allowed and if found tanking by the league, expulsion. No one tanks at all (except maybe not picking up waiver wire players who might have helped them) and I think the owners are glad for the solid rule. No one has complained in my 10 or 12 years in the league. in another league, all tanking within the rules (no collusion, submit a full lineup, no short term player rental) is fair game. In this league the commissioner wrote a league message in week 3 entitled FIRE SALE! where he said everyone on his roster was available for draft choices and youngsters. He has now won 2 games on the year. People lose games because they had to face a tougher team because another team tanked. People get creative in their schemes, but it's all fair game if the rules are followed.

I am happy with either approach and don't find either more constraining or less fair to everyone. As long as the rules are fair and the 'unequal' rules clearly spelled out (like worst record picks first in rookie draft and waiver pickups are in reverse order of record, etc.) agreement to stick by the rules is just part of being in the league. There's really nothing (except, 'I joined the wrong league for my preferences') to complain about.

 

[eighsse2]

It seems to me not allowing tanking has to be kind of all or nothing. Otherwise you would have to try and list what kinds of tanking are and aren't allowed. That would be arduous and often not clear in application to actual facts).

This is a point I'd definitely concede. It opens up a lot of things to potentially have to judge. I would hope even the most open-minded of fantasy football players would not be okay with things like trying to lose just to harm another team that you dislike. So there could become tough cases. (At the same time, if no form of tanking is allowed, there are the judgment calls to make there: "does this guy really think Rachaad White is going to outscore Puka Nacua this week? Reaallly?? But technically he could believe that, so ". Allowing tanking removes those judgment calls, and creates others. Which are worse though, I don't know.)

 

[Dez]

If you do it to improve your own teams chances in the playoffs I do not consider that tanking at all. If you do it to improve your draft pick then that is tanking and affects the rest of your league and you should be punished. I have real trouble in my leagues keeping the idiots from tanking.

 

[eighsse2]

If you do it to improve your own teams chances in the playoffs I do not consider that tanking at all. If you do it to improve your draft pick then that is tanking and affects the rest of your league and you should be punished. I have real trouble in my leagues keeping the idiots from tanking.

I always thought it was odd to draw a line there. I mean again, if that's just your preference to allow the "playoff thing" but not the "draft pick thing", then that's fine to have that preference. But is that preference with conviction? Is there a reason why you think the one is fine and the other isn't? Either one can affect the rest of the league.

 

[Stoneworker]

Regardless of how some people want to turn this into a binary black and white issue, it is not.

Therefore the only course of action is to define it (as the OP has), and then have a league-wide offseason agreement as to whether it should be allowed or not, along with corresponding punishment.

 

[Lehigh98]

Crushing my main dynasty league and tanking* in another, earned the 1.01 and have 14 picks over the next two drafts.
(These are best ball leagues so you can't just start guys that suck, I wouldn't do that.)

*"Tanking" in this case:
- Trading contributing players for guys on IR that won't score.
- Leaving Shough on my taxi squad even though he's playing in the NFL.
- Taking 0's at QB because my main guys are Jayden Daniels and Tyler Shough.

 

[Lehigh98]

Tanking = corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy.

So I'm taking that to mean that it helps someone out because of their failure. But the draft goes in reverse order of standings specifically to help the ones who have failed. That's already happening.

I'm with you. Tanking is a good thing. Like Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it should be a fundamental value of modern dynasty capitalism.

And to be more clear, even I personally wouldn't say it's an outright good thing. I could take it or leave it. I just don't think it's this heinous abomination that most seem to consider it.

I can't help myself. Tell that to the other teams who don't make the playoffs because someone was given a free win. Or tell that to the other teams vying for a good draft position.

They should suck less so they aren't in that position.
Or vy harder.

 

[kutta]

I don’t like it.

 

[Mitchie]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

 

[travdogg]

Call me unreasonable, but if someone is clearly tanking, as a commissioner, they are gone from the league. I'd probably extend that to tanking to get a better playoff matchup too.

Of course, my dynasty league doesn't have that issue, because we made it so the team with the worst record doesn't get the #1 pick as a reward and we also allow the higher seeds in the playoffs to pick their matchup. I truly believe the late season product off all sports, would benefit from doing something similar, and it'd make the draft more fun.

ETA: 4 of my 5 leagues don't even have head-to-head matchups anymore and are just most points scored. Its just my 1 20+ year dynasty that does.

 

[eighsse2]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

 

[Lehigh98]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

I get annoyed with people thinking they can tell other people what they think they should or shouldn't be able to do.
To me, seems a lot like the trade veto police.
Make clear rules or don't complain about how people manage their teams.
And "No Tanking" isn't a clear rule.

 

[Gally]

Regardless of how some people want to turn this into a binary black and white issue, it is not.

Once it's defined it becomes a binary black and white issue.

Purposely trying to lose by playing a lineup that you don't believe is your best lineup in an attempt to lose is bad in all cases and will ruin a league eventually.

 

[Mitchie]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

What if it's not random, what if I'm 4-10 and am going to play a good lineup but then my buddy sees that I'm playing him this week and asks me to tank for him, I say sure I'm allowed to tank, you got it man.

 

[Dez]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

I would say it would not be ok if it affects who gets in the playoffs.

My example was in week 13 last week of the season I went into Monday night up 8 pts in total pts over a guy who was already locked into the playoffs.

I had Diggs and decided to bench him so I could play vs the CMC owner in 1st round of playoffs (which I lost by the way)

By me benching Diggs it had no effect on my actual game outcome I already had locked in the win so I really didn't tank at all.

I choose to make sure my total pts remained below the other guy in the playoffs to get a more favorable match up...which again I lost anyway and also Diggs scored 5.6 so again would not even have mattered.

 

[eighsse2]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

What if it's not random, what if I'm 4-10 and am going to play a good lineup but then my buddy sees that I'm playing him this week and asks me to tank for him, I say sure I'm allowed to tank, you got it man.

That would fall into a category that even I would be against. The working criterion I'm going by is, it has to aid your own team in some way. If you just got eliminated and you do that for your buddy, then it's a case of "They can't prove my intent, I can just say I'm doing it for the draft pick" (similar to soft tanking in leagues where tanking isn't allowed). But if you've been eliminated for two weeks, and you've been fielding a good lineup, then all of a sudden you play to lose in a week where everyone can see it will aid your buddy, that would ruffle some feathers, and I suppose there could be a judgment call because the intent seems so dubious.

 

[Gally]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

You keep bringing up "fairness" and equating a team purposely playing a lineup that they think gives them a better chance to lose to a team losing players to injury.

These actions are not the same. One is someone making a conscious decision to try and lose and the other is a random act nobody has control of. These are not equal in any way.

 

[Gally]

A possible solution is to base the draft order on potential points instead of record. That way there is no incentive to lose. If you take the incentive away then there is no reason to purposely play an inferior lineup.

 

[eighsse2]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

You keep bringing up "fairness" and equating a team purposely playing a lineup that they think gives them a better chance to lose to a team losing players to injury.

These actions are not the same. One is someone making a conscious decision to try and lose and the other is a random act nobody has control of. These are not equal in any way.

I'm not saying they are equal. But the existence of "random unfairness" shows that there is no ultimatum that "anything that has potential to produce unfairness is a non-starter".

 

[eighsse2]

A possible solution is to base the draft order on potential points instead of record. That way there is no incentive time to lose. If you take the incentive away then there is no reason to purposely play an inferior lineup.

I always liked this idea.

 

[Stoneworker]

Regardless of how some people want to turn this into a binary black and white issue, it is not.

Once it's defined it becomes a binary black and white issue.

Purposely trying to lose by playing a lineup that you don't believe is your best lineup in an attempt to lose is bad in all cases and will ruin a league eventually.

What makes it a non-black and white issue is timeframe

If someone honestly believes that tanking a single game in the short-term positions themselves seeding-wise to better to win a championship, then personally I don't have a problem with it.

Not something I would do, but I'm not auto-kicking someone out of a league as a result.

Sometimes in redraft people draft multiple players knowing full well that their byes overlap and they won't be able to field a full team in a certain week. Is that "tanking?"

 

[Gally]

Sometimes in redraft people draft players knowing full well that their byes overlap and they won't be able to field a full team in a certain week. Is that "tanking?"

No it is not tanking.

Tanking has intent. Choosing to play a lesser olayrr in an attempt to lose. Stacking bye week players is a strategy but you are not trying to lose that week. You will still play the players you believe will score the most. You are not trying to lose. That is the difference.

For me this is all about intent.

 

[Stoneworker]

Sometimes in redraft people draft players knowing full well that their byes overlap and they won't be able to field a full team in a certain week. Is that "tanking?"

No it is not tanking.

Tanking has intent. Choosing to play a lesser olayrr in an attempt to lose. Stacking bye week players is a strategy but you are not trying to lose that week. You will still play the players you believe will score the most. You are not trying to lose. That is the difference.

For me this is all about intent.

It's not as different as you're making it out to be. In both cases someone is taking a short-term hit for a perceived greater chance of success down the road

 

[JohnnyU]

Sometimes in redraft people draft players knowing full well that their byes overlap and they won't be able to field a full team in a certain week. Is that "tanking?"

No it is not tanking.

Tanking has intent. Choosing to play a lesser olayrr in an attempt to lose. Stacking bye week players is a strategy but you are not trying to lose that week. You will still play the players you believe will score the most. You are not trying to lose. That is the difference.

For me this is all about intent.

I believe we’ve had threads on this topic. I bet if I did a search for tanking in the title I’d find at least one and possibly a hundred.

 

[Mitchie]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

What if it's not random, what if I'm 4-10 and am going to play a good lineup but then my buddy sees that I'm playing him this week and asks me to tank for him, I say sure I'm allowed to tank, you got it man.

That would fall into a category that even I would be against. The working criterion I'm going by is, it has to aid your own team in some way. If you just got eliminated and you do that for your buddy, then it's a case of "They can't prove my intent, I can just say I'm doing it for the draft pick" (similar to soft tanking in leagues where tanking isn't allowed). But if you've been eliminated for two weeks, and you've been fielding a good lineup, then all of a sudden you play to lose in a week where everyone can see it will aid your buddy, that would ruffle some feathers, and I suppose there could be a judgment call because the intent seems so dubious.

It might not be a situation where I've been eliminated for two weeks, could be the first week I was eliminated.

Would you really want to play in a league where as soon as a team is out of playoff contention, they intentionally lose all their games? That doesn't sound like fun to me.

 

[eighsse2]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

What if it's not random, what if I'm 4-10 and am going to play a good lineup but then my buddy sees that I'm playing him this week and asks me to tank for him, I say sure I'm allowed to tank, you got it man.

That would fall into a category that even I would be against. The working criterion I'm going by is, it has to aid your own team in some way. If you just got eliminated and you do that for your buddy, then it's a case of "They can't prove my intent, I can just say I'm doing it for the draft pick" (similar to soft tanking in leagues where tanking isn't allowed). But if you've been eliminated for two weeks, and you've been fielding a good lineup, then all of a sudden you play to lose in a week where everyone can see it will aid your buddy, that would ruffle some feathers, and I suppose there could be a judgment call because the intent seems so dubious.

It might not be a situation where I've been eliminated for two weeks, could be the first week I was eliminated.

Would you really want to play in a league where as soon as a team is out of playoff contention, they intentionally lose all their games? That doesn't sound like fun to me.

I was waiting for this one, I thought it would be one of the first counterarguments. I think it could be ... less uninteresting ... than people might think.

There would be decisions to make. Your playoff odds are looking like 15%. But there are a couple teams a game or two behind you. Is it tank time? Or do you keep going for it?

What if you're tied in last place, and trying to lose the points tiebreaker? You could end up with some interesting scenarios of trying to find ways to score as few points as possible, while not totally wrecking your team.

Also, suppose nobody were to tank until eliminated, but everyone immediately tanks after being eliminated. Then the draft order should be essentially in order of elimination (maybe some variance based on how tiebreakers work). And that would be a fairly reasonable draft order.

 

[Gally]

Sometimes in redraft people draft players knowing full well that their byes overlap and they won't be able to field a full team in a certain week. Is that "tanking?"

No it is not tanking.

Tanking has intent. Choosing to play a lesser olayrr in an attempt to lose. Stacking bye week players is a strategy but you are not trying to lose that week. You will still play the players you believe will score the most. You are not trying to lose. That is the difference.

For me this is all about intent.

It's not as different as you're making it out to be. In both cases someone is taking a short-term hit for a perceived greater chance of success down the road

It is night and day different. One side is actively trying to lose. The other is trying to win. About as different as you can be.

 

[JohnnyU]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

What if it's not random, what if I'm 4-10 and am going to play a good lineup but then my buddy sees that I'm playing him this week and asks me to tank for him, I say sure I'm allowed to tank, you got it man.

That would fall into a category that even I would be against. The working criterion I'm going by is, it has to aid your own team in some way. If you just got eliminated and you do that for your buddy, then it's a case of "They can't prove my intent, I can just say I'm doing it for the draft pick" (similar to soft tanking in leagues where tanking isn't allowed). But if you've been eliminated for two weeks, and you've been fielding a good lineup, then all of a sudden you play to lose in a week where everyone can see it will aid your buddy, that would ruffle some feathers, and I suppose there could be a judgment call because the intent seems so dubious.

It might not be a situation where I've been eliminated for two weeks, could be the first week I was eliminated.

Would you really want to play in a league where as soon as a team is out of playoff contention, they intentionally lose all their games? That doesn't sound like fun to me.

I was waiting for this one, I thought it would be one of the first counterarguments. I think it could be ... less uninteresting ... than people might think.

There would be decisions to make. Your playoff odds are looking like 15%. But there are a couple teams a game or two behind you. Is it tank time? Or do you keep going for it?

What if you're tied in last place, and trying to lose the points tiebreaker? You could end up with some interesting scenarios of trying to find ways to score as few points as possible, while not totally wrecking your team.

Also, suppose nobody were to tank until eliminated, but everyone immediately tanks after being eliminated. Then the draft order should be essentially in order of elimination (maybe some variance based on how tiebreakers work). And that would be a fairly reasonable draft order.

One thing not mentioned are those that will tank an entire year in dynasty, not just when they are out of contention. Yes, allowing tanking produces these beauties. They love the draft more than winning.