Tanking in FF Actually Isn't All That Bad - Change My Mind (3 Viewers)

[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

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.

Nope. Both are actively trying to win a championship.

 

[wgoldsph]

I'm confused as to what you mean by "tanking". Are we talking about selling off your assets for picks and resetting your team? Because that's what I call basic strategy.

Are we talking about putting in a bad lineup? That's almost impossible to prove. I've put in absolutely bonkers lineups in the playoffs before because I was chasing a small perceived advantage against a team that was much stronger than mine. Was that tanking?

So I go back to the start. What is the definition of tanking.

 

[Gally]

So I go back to the start. What is the definition of tanking.

Purposely playing an inferior lineup because you are trying to lose. You play a player you would not play if you were in the playoffs trying to advance.

 

[TheWinz]

I can only speak for redraft leagues. No tanking allowed, period.

 

[dewmass]

I’m terrible at tanking. Picked up the Bengals D thinking I was being clever, they proceed to get a TD. Left St Brown in the other week thinking he’d be a last minute scratch, put up a nice 16 points. Actually leaving top players on the bench for waiver wire types is just bad form though

 

[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.

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.

I was curious if anybody would do that. That would be a bold move, but yeah I figured some people would be inclined to do that if their team is really, really bad. With most leagues' schedules, three teams would end up being lucky enough to get 2 free wins, while everyone else gets 1.

 

[ghostguy123]

The answer to every part of this depends on the league such as the rules, format, money involved, and so on.

Also, I've always said, "not trying to win" and "trying to lose" are absolutely NOT the same thing.

 

[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.

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.

Those scenarios seem mildly interesting but you still have lots of games at the end of the season that are completely meaningless. There's already a lot of luck in scheduling, i.e. team 6th in points coming in first place, team with most points missing the playoffs. Now you're just adding more luck to how the schedule shakes out. Can't eliminate luck obviously but I find it to be more fun to play when the rules encourage more skill.

 

[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.

Those scenarios seem mildly interesting but you still have lots of games at the end of the season that are completely meaningless. There's already a lot of luck in scheduling, i.e. team 6th in points coming in first place, team with most points missing the playoffs. Now you're just adding more luck to how the schedule shakes out. Can't eliminate luck obviously but I find it to be more fun to play when the rules encourage more skill.

Agreed that there is a limit to the amount of luck that can be allowed and still have fun. (The extreme case would be: "All the fantasy points and games are just for the heck of it, they don't matter. The winner of the money + trophy + title is determined after all the games, by drawing from a hat." = extremely stupid and not fun.) So yes, adding more luck than already exists is probably not ideal even in my opinion. Depending on your luck preferences, that could be a notable drawback. Not a be-all and end-all in my opinion for sure, but I wouldn't care for that additional randomness.

 

[FarFromHome]

So I go back to the start. What is the definition of tanking.

Purposely playing an inferior lineup because you are trying to lose. You play a player you would not play if you were in the playoffs trying to advance.

Anything you intentionally do to not win the game. Now, for me the debate really begins to is tanking okay if you lose today to help you tomorrow? Personally, I've always just played to win each week.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

This sounds like something a league should vote on before the season, so that it's an established rule either way to avoid problems later.

 

[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.

Those scenarios seem mildly interesting but you still have lots of games at the end of the season that are completely meaningless. There's already a lot of luck in scheduling, i.e. team 6th in points coming in first place, team with most points missing the playoffs. Now you're just adding more luck to how the schedule shakes out. Can't eliminate luck obviously but I find it to be more fun to play when the rules encourage more skill.

Agreed that there is a limit to the amount of luck that can be allowed and still have fun. (The extreme case would be: "All the fantasy points and games are just for the heck of it, they don't matter. The winner of the money + trophy + title is determined after all the games, by drawing from a hat." = extremely stupid and not fun.) So yes, adding more luck than already exists is probably not ideal even in my opinion. Depending on your luck preferences, that could be a notable drawback. Not a be-all and end-all in my opinion for sure, but I wouldn't care for that additional randomness.

Further I would say, there are kind of two opposing things, that can each similarly take fun out of it, at play here: randomness and certainty. What I mean is, the inequality of free wins to random teams spreads out the championship percentages when looking from the beginning of the season, I would think. Yet, once it's clear who is tanking, by looking at the remaining schedule, percentages may become more stacked up ("So-and-so would be fighting for a playoff spot if tanking weren't allowed; however, 3 of his final 4 opponents are tanking, so he's essentially a lock").

What produces fun in fantasy football, as I see it, is skill of predicting performances and savvy decision-making, and some degree of luck/randomness. The good randomness especially comes from potential close calls at inflection points (i.e., a game coming down to few points at the end, or a playoff race coming down to one game). You want some kind of balance between certainty and uncertainty, and the longer some uncertainty remains, they better. Tanking could produce more certainty, and sooner, and that could remove some of the fun, maybe even a lot.

 

[eighsse2]

This sounds like something a league should vote on before the season, so that it's an established rule either way to avoid problems later.

Correct, certainly. My position is not that it's good or bad, but that it isn't something that is objectively bad, ruins the game, and should never be an option.

 

[MAC_32]

It's 2023 in a contract dynasty league. I won it all in 2020 and was in it til the end in 2021 and 2022 so while my lineup was still good, limited depth left me vulnerable. I lost Davante Adams to an expiring contract so I gave up one of my best assets (Mahomes) to trade up in the 1st for Bijan (and Cousins). I then moved Cousins, D Cook, and Mattison for future picks. This left me with the following lineup

Q- Watson / Geno
R- Bijan / Chubb / Monty
W- Tee / Mike Williams / Michael Thomas / Gallup / Gabe Davis / Bateman / Wan'Dale
TE- Henry / Ferguson / Njoku / LaPorta (taxi)
IDP- similar as above

Basically, a bet on the Browns and one of those WR's emerging to take over the #3 role then I'll be positioned for a run with the excess future draft capital. If the operation goes awry, pull the rip cord, and start building around Bijan. You can guess what happens next. I was 3-6 at the trade deadline, traded away everything with a pulse that wasn't a part of the future (Bijan, Tee, and Ferguson) got blown out in the final 5 games, and net the #1 overall pick. I still set my best lineup each week, but I made my lineup so bad (i.e. never activated LaPortsa off taxi, same with Charbonnet after trading for him) there was no possible way I could win.

I won the championship in 2024 (traded for an expiring Derrick Henry from a seller) and am the #3 seed with this lineup:

Q- J Daniels / Baker / Mariota / Shedeur (taxi)
R- Bijan / Dowdle / Vidal / Corum / Spears / JK / Monangai (taxi)
W- Nico / Tee / Egbuka / Marvin / Jamo / Boutte / Vele
T- Ferguson / LaPorta / Fannin (taxi)

I share all this because I made my team so bad I was starting players each week that weren't starting for their own team. I think this is above board, but am curious what others think.

 

[Gally]

This sounds like something a league should vote on before the season, so that it's an established rule either way to avoid problems later.

Correct, certainly. My position is not that it's good or bad, but that it isn't something that is objectively bad, ruins the game, and should never be an option.

Having a rule that says you cannot purposely try and lose by putting out what you believe to be an inferior lineup seems silly.

I really cannot understand how anybody sees this as acceptable in a competitive setting.

 

[eighsse2]

competitive

That's why to me, it's competitive. It's nice to have the option to do what's best for your team.

 

[Gally]

I share all this because I made my team so bad I was starting players each week that weren't starting for their own team. I think this is above board, but am curious what others think.

This is completely acceptable. You never intended to lose because you put what you thought was your best lineup each week. The act of trading current assets for future assets is trying to win and better your team. Your intent is not to lose but it may be a byproduct.

The difference in the two methods is your intent. That is where I draw the line. Intent is the key. Nobody should ever purposely put out a lineup that they think is lesser with the purpose to lose.

 

[massraider]

My favorite league has a loser's bracket, to determine the first 6 picks. If you want that stud rookie RB, you cannot just give away all your good players.

At the same time, it's a keeper league (5), owners forfeit the draft pick they used for each keeper. Trading away studs with early round picks for players from later rounds is a viable strategy. You might lose out on the #1 pick, but maintain all early round picks, which is worth a lot more, IMO.

Simply set up a loser's bracket, keep everyone interested all year. No more tanking.

 

[wgoldsph]

So I go back to the start. What is the definition of tanking.

Purposely playing an inferior lineup because you are trying to lose. You play a player you would not play if you were in the playoffs trying to advance.

Anything you intentionally do to not win the game. Now, for me the debate really begins to is tanking okay if you lose today to help you tomorrow? Personally, I've always just played to win each week.

This is how I see the question too. And my answer is the opposite - why should I hurt my team overall for an unimportant win? This win doesn't help me, the loss does. I'm not GMing other teams, I'm GMing mine. We all had the same chances at the playoffs, just because you're down to the last week doesn't effect how I can win.

I honestly don't think it's as selfish as I just made it seem. Especially considering I won two games I was trying to lose this year (it's been that bad a season for me). I just think it's a reality of the game. I found myself in a situation where my options were sell my team at a huge discount before the deadline, or try to out-tank the other worst team. There's no amount of wins in the written column that makes my team better in the future.

But I play for the season. I'm not so worried with dropping a game or two as long as I'm still leading the division. Makes handling the one week everyone is on bye a lot easier.

 

[Dizzy]

"Tanking" would cost you your franchise in our league.

 

[BespokeJort]

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.

Yeah, I don’t think it would matter if it was all-play every week; head to head with a limited number of games where your matchup dictates result as much as your team does is why it’s (rightly imo) treated the way it is

 

[wgoldsph]

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.

Ah yes, the perfect way to hurt the person who got stuck losing a handful of weeks because of random players on their bench popping off. Hit em in the win column, then take away their pick for next year.

I'm out of that league

 

[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.

Ah yes, the perfect way to hurt the person who got stuck losing a handful of weeks because of random players on their bench popping off. Hit em in the win column, then take away their pick for next year.

I'm out of that league

I am guessing we will never be in the same dynasty league as we see this completely opposite.

 

[wgoldsph]

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.

Ah yes, the perfect way to hurt the person who got stuck losing a handful of weeks because of random players on their bench popping off. Hit em in the win column, then take away their pick for next year.

I'm out of that league

I am guessing we will never be in the same dynasty league as we see this completely opposite.

Just for debates sake then, wouldn't you argue that most owners are trying every week no matter their records? This is a punative move for everyone who is trying, in order to harm the few who aren't. A genuine loss isn't something that should be double dipped on, and even in the tankiest of leagues almost every loss comes from a team trying to win.

 

[Gally]

Just for debates sake then, wouldn't you argue that most owners are trying every week no matter their records? This is a punative move for everyone who is trying,

I don't see it as punitive. In my eyes the first pick should go to the worst team. To me the worst team is the team that has the least amount of potential points.

Schedule luck really has nothing to do with how good or bad your team is. Theoretically you could score the 2nd most points every week and go 0-18. That team likely would be the highest scoring team. They would not be the worst team. Just the unluckiest team.

I want a league to be balanced because it makes for a better league. Points scored is the best indicator to the quality of the team.

ETA: also by using PP for draft order you take away the incentive for a team to try and lose. A league suffers any time there is a reason to lose on purpose. By eliminating that "advantage" there is no reason to try and lose. That is good for the league.

 

[wgoldsph]

Just for debates sake then, wouldn't you argue that most owners are trying every week no matter their records? This is a punative move for everyone who is trying,

I don't see it as punitive. In my eyes the first pick should go to the worst team. To me the worst team is the team that has the least amount of potential points.

Schedule luck really has nothing to do with how good or bad your team is. Theoretically you could score the 2nd most points every week and go 0-18. That team likely would be the highest scoring team. They would not be the worst team. Just the unluckiest team.

I want a league to be balanced because it makes for a better league. Points scored is the best indicator to the quality of the team.

ETA: also by using PP for draft order you take away the incentive for a team to try and lose. A league suffers any time there is a reason to lose on purpose. By eliminating that "advantage" there is no reason to try and lose. That is good for the league.

In one of my leagues we have the final wildcard spots go to the top two scoring teams that didn't get in due to schedule luck. This year there's a team with a losing record that got the top wildcard spot based on points scored. So I agree with you, good teams should be rewarded for being good.

My issue is we're not just the teams. We're the owners. And a bad owner is just as important to the team as a good owner. If you can't identify the guys to play each week it doesn't matter how good your roster is, you yourself are holding it back. Someone who spends dedicated time to fantasy to find the slightest edge can have a muuuuuuch worse team in terms of overall points, but they put the right waiver players in their lineups during the right weeks and earned themselves a good record. There's already a lack of balance in the simple nature that we all can't spend as much time on the hobby as everyone else in the league. Keeping a bad owner with a bad team just gives you a yearly punching bag and a guy who gets less interested with his bottom dwelling team that can't get a top 3 pick and becomes more and more disengaged.

It also doesn't factor in manipulating your bench. The idea just moves the goalposts in a way that's sneakier. If I knew my starters were trash, all I need to do is use the waivers to make outlandish point chasing pick ups that make it look like I was desperate for points somehow but too cowardly to not play my regular starters. One league with JJ Barkley and Burrow, I would have been well served to pick up a bunch of random "high upside" backups that do nothing while still starting acceptable losers.

Which makes me think further - wouldn't this rule hurt teams that carry an extra qb and help those that carry an extra te? Biggest point disparity
You can make a very valid claim that you're just trying to find one te to start each week.

Also, thanks for entertaining me. I clearly find this stuff interesting to talk about and I like to hear the opinions of those who think different than I do. I do see where you're coming from in terms of the overall goal being balance. I just disagree that this is the way to solve the issue where tanking is concerned.

Toilet bowl is the best method imo

 

[Snotbubbles]

Unless you need a QB, and there's a can't miss prospect in the draft, tanking in football is pointless. But in the last 25 years how many can't miss prospects have there been? Not many. Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck are the only ones I can remember. Of the best QBs currently in the NFL, how many were top 5. Any of them?

 

[eighsse2]

Unless you need a QB, and there's a can't miss prospect in the draft, tanking in football is pointless. But in the last 25 years how many can't miss prospects have there been? Not many. Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck are the only ones I can remember. Of the best QBs currently in the NFL, how many were top 5. Any of them?

Sorry, should've specified in the title, talking about fantasy football.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Unless you need a QB, and there's a can't miss prospect in the draft, tanking in football is pointless. But in the last 25 years how many can't miss prospects have there been? Not many. Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck are the only ones I can remember. Of the best QBs currently in the NFL, how many were top 5. Any of them?

Sorry, should've specified in the title, talking about fantasy football.

Yeah, as I read some of the replies I was like, oops. lol.

 

[belljr]

My old league did NBA style lottery for draft position to minimize the tank

 

[Don Quixote]

Just for debates sake then, wouldn't you argue that most owners are trying every week no matter their records? This is a punative move for everyone who is trying,

I don't see it as punitive. In my eyes the first pick should go to the worst team. To me the worst team is the team that has the least amount of potential points.

Schedule luck really has nothing to do with how good or bad your team is. Theoretically you could score the 2nd most points every week and go 0-18. That team likely would be the highest scoring team. They would not be the worst team. Just the unluckiest team.

I want a league to be balanced because it makes for a better league. Points scored is the best indicator to the quality of the team.

ETA: also by using PP for draft order you take away the incentive for a team to try and lose. A league suffers any time there is a reason to lose on purpose. By eliminating that "advantage" there is no reason to try and lose. That is good for the league.

I think potential points could be gamed to. If I was trying to tank, I’d eliminate some bench depth, particularly at IDPs where more performance variance and probably going to cut at end of the season roster cuts anyway.

Some of the leagues that I’ve considered my toughest are those where I have a number of players who may be better in best ball type formats than a traditional FF format and then lose while watching them going off on my bench.

 

[Max Power]

It's sort of getting too random for me to bother with tanking. By mid-season I usually know if I'm a contender or not. If I plan to play for next season, I may roll with a less than optimal lineup but the starters are always in. I think drafts are crapshoots. I got Amon-Ra St. Brown 22 overall, Puca was a 4th round pick, I got Austin Ekler off the WW. I've also drafted guys like CEH, KNeal Harry, and Cory Davis in the top of Rd 1 only to be disappointed.

Devy format is a pretty cool way to eliminate tanking. A lot of the major talent is gone in a devy draft. An owner really has a choice to make about getting points this year or waiting a year for a "better" player.

 

[Gally]

Which makes me think further - wouldn't this rule hurt teams that carry an extra qb and help those that carry an extra te? Biggest point disparity
You can make a very valid claim that you're just trying to find one te to start each week.

I am not sure why this would be. Potential points is the total points scored using a best ball lineup every week. So it takes lineup decisions out of the equation which is why it takes away the incentive to lose. Why not play your best lineup since you are going to get the points counted towards draft pick order anyway?

Potential Points isn't total points scored from all players on your roster. It is only a starting lineup's worth of players using a best ball lineup. You still only get one QB's worth of points in that calculation.

I really don't understand your argument on this point unless you think it total points for your entire roster. Then loading up on certain positions would increase that value and that could be manipulated. However, Potential Points is not that. It is your best ball lineup total points each week. So that gives a representation that if you played the optimal lineup each week whichever team had the least points would equate to the worst team and would therefore get first pick.

Also, thanks for entertaining me. I clearly find this stuff interesting to talk about and I like to hear the opinions of those who think different than I do. I do see where you're coming from in terms of the overall goal being balance. I just disagree that this is the way to solve the issue where tanking is concerned.

I agree. I enjoy these type discussions. I can always learn something and maybe see something I never thought of that will improve things.

 

[Gally]

I think potential points could be gamed to. If I was trying to tank, I’d eliminate some bench depth, particularly at IDPs where more performance variance and probably going to cut at end of the season roster cuts anyway.

Sure but you aren't going to cut quality players that theoretically score the most points from your roster. You are going to cut lesser players etc. This is easily remedied by having a roster minimum you have to have to be in tolerance.

Really the biggest benefit of moving to potential points is that you eliminate the incentive to purposely play a bad lineup in an attempt to lose. Taking away the incentive to lose to better your draft pick means you should be trying to win every game with the players you have on your roster instead of playing a lesser QB in an attempt to lose. You can manipulate any system to some degree. My reason for PP is to de-incentivize losing your H2H matchup.