Throw my game to change playoff teams? (2 Viewers)

[Adam Harstad]

NFL League Rules mandate that the teams roster a team and plays. But the team has determined that the "win" is not worth the risk of losing a player. They are in fact not valuing the "Win" more than their players health and availability for a "meaningful" game. They may not be "tanking" but they value the game no more than they do in preseason.

Great. I'm okay with a team valuing a win less than his opponent. He can feel free to be less excited about his victory than his opponent would have been. He can even be downright apathetic when he wins by 30 points, that doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as they're still trying to get that win.

I'm never okay with a team intentionally trying to lose. Ever.

In the long run he is not trying to lose though. He is trying to control his destiny in a way that he feels is best for him. His objective is to win the league, not to win week 14.

I have gone a week or two in bye weeks without a full roster because, in my opinion, dropping a player for a WW guy just to be fully rostered was not in my overall best interest. We have shallow benches and no rule stating a team needs to be fully rostered. I was blatantly not being as competitive as I could have that week because I valued my overall big picture chances more than the short term gain.

His scenario is no different.

You could say the exact same thing about NFL teams. "Oh, the Jaguars aren't trying to lose by intentionally ceding a safety every time they have the ball, they just know that they'll win more games in the long run by earning that #1 pick!". I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of an NFL team actively trying to lose a game, though. I have a feeling I'll be waiting on that one for a long time.

Your second paragraph is once again a terrible analogy. You might not have fielded a full roster, but you were still TRYING TO WIN THE GAME with the guys you had. You were not intentionally trying to lose that week, you were merely accepting a heightened risk of getting a loss. This is completely different and not at all comparable. This example is actually much more comparable to the NFL analogy of teams resting starters before the playoffs, and I have no problem with it for exactly the same reason that I have no problem with teams resting starters for the playoffs.

This whole "oh, he's just trying to win a championship" rationalization is hogwash. I'm accepting the fact that losing sometimes improves your odds to win a championship. Remember, I'm ceding a point that tanking is the same as acting in your own best interest. That doesn't change the fact that the owner is, in fact, "trying to lose". He is. He wants that loss in the loss column, and he's going to do what it takes to get it. He has his reasons, but those reasons don't change the fact that he is actively attempting to lose a game.

When people actively attempt to lose games, regardless of their rationale, the entire league winds up worse off. As a result, it should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms. Owners who tank should be shamed, they should be booted, they should be penalized, they should be punished, they should be discouraged in any way possible. Tanking should never be tolerated. Ever. Under any circumstances.

 

[MattFancy]

We had an owner in one league throw his game last week to try and better his playoff position. What he forgot was that the team behind him had a tough matchup and was going to lose. So he lost on purpose to try and avoid a matchup that he still has. Not always smart.

 

[TheStig]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

Sure, there are lots of real-world examples of situations where if everyone acted in their own best interest, everyone would be worse off.

Imagine we lived in a world that believed it was okay to pull into the left lane, speed up, and merge back in. What would that world look like? Everyone would be trying the move, so it would no longer be any faster, as the left lane would be just as clogged up as the right. When everyone tried to merge back in, it would slow down the right lane even more, too. As a result, EVERYONE would have to wait longer to make it through a construction delay. Everyone acts in their own best interest, and everyone winds up worse off as a result.

We have social mores that label anyone who does the "pull out and speed ahead" move as a tool. Those social mores are what stop more people from doing the move- it's why 10% of the line is doing the move and not 100% of the line. If those mores were more powerful, if they were powerful to get that number down to 0%, then we'd all be even better off still. The conclusion from your construction zone scenario shouldn't be "what this world needs is more people doing that!", it should be "what this world needs is fewer people doing that!"

Some people benefit from tanking. The proper response isn't to join them in tanking, it's to try to shame them into never tanking again. No one should ever tank. Ever. For any reason. It opens up a Pandora's Box that leaves everyone worse off. Just say no.

I respect your opinion. I happen to just not agree with it.

But, equating tanking to social distopia is a weak slippery slope argument.

A traffic jam, and how people react to it affect all involved in the traffic jam.

Tanking this game only affects 3 teams, and in theory, it affects two teams in a positive fashion. This will not lead to league chaos nor should it.

Again, this scenario happens every year. If it was such a destructive outcome then a rule would/should be in place to prevent it from happening.

 

[Adam Harstad]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

This is actually how you're supposed to merge in those situations. Use both lanes until you actually reach the point where one of the lanes ends, don't all pile up in the right hand lane a mile ahead of that point.

Tangent, but the problem isn't the people who remain in the left lane as long as possible. The problem is the people in the right lane who intentionally enter the left lane to try to get ahead. Every time someone merges from the left lane into the crowded right lane, it's going to create a slowdown, because merging is not a seamless process. If someone is already in the left lane, then that's not a problem- they're going to have to merge at some point, and any one point is as good as any other, so they might as well continue on as long as possible. If someone is in the right lane and they get into the left, though, then they're creating an additional merge, which adds to the delay.

 

[McGarnicle]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

Sure, there are lots of real-world examples of situations where if everyone acted in their own best interest, everyone would be worse off.

Imagine we lived in a world that believed it was okay to pull into the left lane, speed up, and merge back in. What would that world look like? Everyone would be trying the move, so it would no longer be any faster, as the left lane would be just as clogged up as the right. When everyone tried to merge back in, it would slow down the right lane even more, too. As a result, EVERYONE would have to wait longer to make it through a construction delay. Everyone acts in their own best interest, and everyone winds up worse off as a result.

We have social mores that label anyone who does the "pull out and speed ahead" move as a tool. Those social mores are what stop more people from doing the move- it's why 10% of the line is doing the move and not 100% of the line. If those mores were more powerful, if they were powerful to get that number down to 0%, then we'd all be even better off still. The conclusion from your construction zone scenario shouldn't be "what this world needs is more people doing that!", it should be "what this world needs is fewer people doing that!"

Some people benefit from tanking. The proper response isn't to join them in tanking, it's to try to shame them into never tanking again. No one should ever tank. Ever. For any reason. It opens up a Pandora's Box that leaves everyone worse off. Just say no.

I respect your opinion. I happen to just not agree with it.

But, equating tanking to social distopia is a weak slippery slope argument.

A traffic jam, and how people react to it affect all involved in the traffic jam.

Tanking this game only affects 3 teams, and in theory, it affects two teams in a positive fashion. This will not lead to league chaos nor should it.

Again, this scenario happens every year. If it was such a destructive outcome then a rule would/should be in place to prevent it from happening.

Are people supposed to take you seriously with that avi and sig?

 

[Adam Harstad]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

Sure, there are lots of real-world examples of situations where if everyone acted in their own best interest, everyone would be worse off.

Imagine we lived in a world that believed it was okay to pull into the left lane, speed up, and merge back in. What would that world look like? Everyone would be trying the move, so it would no longer be any faster, as the left lane would be just as clogged up as the right. When everyone tried to merge back in, it would slow down the right lane even more, too. As a result, EVERYONE would have to wait longer to make it through a construction delay. Everyone acts in their own best interest, and everyone winds up worse off as a result.

We have social mores that label anyone who does the "pull out and speed ahead" move as a tool. Those social mores are what stop more people from doing the move- it's why 10% of the line is doing the move and not 100% of the line. If those mores were more powerful, if they were powerful to get that number down to 0%, then we'd all be even better off still. The conclusion from your construction zone scenario shouldn't be "what this world needs is more people doing that!", it should be "what this world needs is fewer people doing that!"

Some people benefit from tanking. The proper response isn't to join them in tanking, it's to try to shame them into never tanking again. No one should ever tank. Ever. For any reason. It opens up a Pandora's Box that leaves everyone worse off. Just say no.

I respect your opinion. I happen to just not agree with it.

But, equating tanking to social distopia is a weak slippery slope argument.

A traffic jam, and how people react to it affect all involved in the traffic jam.

Tanking this game only affects 3 teams, and in theory, it affects two teams in a positive fashion. This will not lead to league chaos nor should it.

Again, this scenario happens every year. If it was such a destructive outcome then a rule would/should be in place to prevent it from happening.

Right, and if more people cut in line, it's not like civilization as we know it would collapse. This doesn't change the fact that the more people cut in line, the worse off everyone is, so cutting should be (and is) strongly discouraged. Similarly, the more people tank, the worse off everyone is, so tanking should be equally strongly discouraged. Stories of leagues disintegrating and friendships dissolving because of tanking are going to be the exception and not the rule, but a world where tanking is acceptable is in all ways inferior to a world where tanking is unacceptable, so it makes sense to push to move away from the former world and towards the latter.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

This is actually how you're supposed to merge in those situations. Use both lanes until you actually reach the point where one of the lanes ends, don't all pile up in the right hand lane a mile ahead of that point.

Tangent, but the problem isn't the people who remain in the left lane as long as possible. The problem is the people in the right lane who intentionally enter the left lane to try to get ahead. Every time someone merges from the left lane into the crowded right lane, it's going to create a slowdown, because merging is not a seamless process. If someone is already in the left lane, then that's not a problem- they're going to have to merge at some point, and any one point is as good as any other, so they might as well continue on as long as possible. If someone is in the right lane and they get into the left, though, then they're creating an additional merge, which adds to the delay.

You're not creating an additional merge moving from a crowded right hand lane into an empty left hand lane.

 

[TheStig]

NFL League Rules mandate that the teams roster a team and plays. But the team has determined that the "win" is not worth the risk of losing a player. They are in fact not valuing the "Win" more than their players health and availability for a "meaningful" game. They may not be "tanking" but they value the game no more than they do in preseason.

Great. I'm okay with a team valuing a win less than his opponent. He can feel free to be less excited about his victory than his opponent would have been. He can even be downright apathetic when he wins by 30 points, that doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as they're still trying to get that win.

I'm never okay with a team intentionally trying to lose. Ever.

In the long run he is not trying to lose though. He is trying to control his destiny in a way that he feels is best for him. His objective is to win the league, not to win week 14.

I have gone a week or two in bye weeks without a full roster because, in my opinion, dropping a player for a WW guy just to be fully rostered was not in my overall best interest. We have shallow benches and no rule stating a team needs to be fully rostered. I was blatantly not being as competitive as I could have that week because I valued my overall big picture chances more than the short term gain.

His scenario is no different.

You could say the exact same thing about NFL teams. "Oh, the Jaguars aren't trying to lose by intentionally ceding a safety every time they have the ball, they just know that they'll win more games in the long run by earning that #1 pick!". I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of an NFL team actively trying to lose a game, though. I have a feeling I'll be waiting on that one for a long time.

Your second paragraph is once again a terrible analogy. You might not have fielded a full roster, but you were still TRYING TO WIN THE GAME with the guys you had. You were not intentionally trying to lose that week, you were merely accepting a heightened risk of getting a loss. This is completely different and not at all comparable. This example is actually much more comparable to the NFL analogy of teams resting starters before the playoffs, and I have no problem with it for exactly the same reason that I have no problem with teams resting starters for the playoffs.

This whole "oh, he's just trying to win a championship" rationalization is hogwash. I'm accepting the fact that losing sometimes improves your odds to win a championship. Remember, I'm ceding a point that tanking is the same as acting in your own best interest. That doesn't change the fact that the owner is, in fact, "trying to lose". He is. He wants that loss in the loss column, and he's going to do what it takes to get it. He has his reasons, but those reasons don't change the fact that he is actively attempting to lose a game.

When people actively attempt to lose games, regardless of their rationale, the entire league winds up worse off. As a result, it should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms. Owners who tank should be shamed, they should be booted, they should be penalized, they should be punished, they should be discouraged in any way possible. Tanking should never be tolerated. Ever. Under any circumstances.

One is football, the other is "Fantasy". Players are playing for their careers so they will generally play hard.

An organizations goals can be very different than the teams goals. The minute a bad team starts "rolling with the kids to see what we've got" is not fielding their most competitive team. They are playing to evaluate and develop not to win. They are "tanking" by rostering an inferior team for other stated purposes than winning.

Did Drew Bree's stay in the game last night because they were continuing to try and win, or did they say, "this one is done, let's get out of here healthy guys"?

 

[TheStig]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

Sure, there are lots of real-world examples of situations where if everyone acted in their own best interest, everyone would be worse off. Imagine we lived in a world that believed it was okay to pull into the left lane, speed up, and merge back in. What would that world look like? Everyone would be trying the move, so it would no longer be any faster, as the left lane would be just as clogged up as the right. When everyone tried to merge back in, it would slow down the right lane even more, too. As a result, EVERYONE would have to wait longer to make it through a construction delay. Everyone acts in their own best interest, and everyone winds up worse off as a result. We have social mores that label anyone who does the "pull out and speed ahead" move as a tool. Those social mores are what stop more people from doing the move- it's why 10% of the line is doing the move and not 100% of the line. If those mores were more powerful, if they were powerful to get that number down to 0%, then we'd all be even better off still. The conclusion from your construction zone scenario shouldn't be "what this world needs is more people doing that!", it should be "what this world needs is fewer people doing that!" Some people benefit from tanking. The proper response isn't to join them in tanking, it's to try to shame them into never tanking again. No one should ever tank. Ever. For any reason. It opens up a Pandora's Box that leaves everyone worse off. Just say no.

I respect your opinion. I happen to just not agree with it.But, equating tanking to social distopia is a weak slippery slope argument.A traffic jam, and how people react to it affect all involved in the traffic jam.Tanking this game only affects 3 teams, and in theory, it affects two teams in a positive fashion. This will not lead to league chaos nor should it.Again, this scenario happens every year. If it was such a destructive outcome then a rule would/should be in place to prevent it from happening.

Are people supposed to take you seriously with that avi and sig?

That is your argument?

 

[McGarnicle]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

Sure, there are lots of real-world examples of situations where if everyone acted in their own best interest, everyone would be worse off. Imagine we lived in a world that believed it was okay to pull into the left lane, speed up, and merge back in. What would that world look like? Everyone would be trying the move, so it would no longer be any faster, as the left lane would be just as clogged up as the right. When everyone tried to merge back in, it would slow down the right lane even more, too. As a result, EVERYONE would have to wait longer to make it through a construction delay. Everyone acts in their own best interest, and everyone winds up worse off as a result. We have social mores that label anyone who does the "pull out and speed ahead" move as a tool. Those social mores are what stop more people from doing the move- it's why 10% of the line is doing the move and not 100% of the line. If those mores were more powerful, if they were powerful to get that number down to 0%, then we'd all be even better off still. The conclusion from your construction zone scenario shouldn't be "what this world needs is more people doing that!", it should be "what this world needs is fewer people doing that!" Some people benefit from tanking. The proper response isn't to join them in tanking, it's to try to shame them into never tanking again. No one should ever tank. Ever. For any reason. It opens up a Pandora's Box that leaves everyone worse off. Just say no.

I respect your opinion. I happen to just not agree with it.But, equating tanking to social distopia is a weak slippery slope argument.A traffic jam, and how people react to it affect all involved in the traffic jam.Tanking this game only affects 3 teams, and in theory, it affects two teams in a positive fashion. This will not lead to league chaos nor should it.Again, this scenario happens every year. If it was such a destructive outcome then a rule would/should be in place to prevent it from happening.

Are people supposed to take you seriously with that avi and sig?

That is your argument?

No it was a question.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

NFL League Rules mandate that the teams roster a team and plays. But the team has determined that the "win" is not worth the risk of losing a player. They are in fact not valuing the "Win" more than their players health and availability for a "meaningful" game. They may not be "tanking" but they value the game no more than they do in preseason.

Great. I'm okay with a team valuing a win less than his opponent. He can feel free to be less excited about his victory than his opponent would have been. He can even be downright apathetic when he wins by 30 points, that doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as they're still trying to get that win.

I'm never okay with a team intentionally trying to lose. Ever.

In the long run he is not trying to lose though. He is trying to control his destiny in a way that he feels is best for him. His objective is to win the league, not to win week 14.

I have gone a week or two in bye weeks without a full roster because, in my opinion, dropping a player for a WW guy just to be fully rostered was not in my overall best interest. We have shallow benches and no rule stating a team needs to be fully rostered. I was blatantly not being as competitive as I could have that week because I valued my overall big picture chances more than the short term gain.

His scenario is no different.

You could say the exact same thing about NFL teams. "Oh, the Jaguars aren't trying to lose by intentionally ceding a safety every time they have the ball, they just know that they'll win more games in the long run by earning that #1 pick!". I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of an NFL team actively trying to lose a game, though. I have a feeling I'll be waiting on that one for a long time.

Your second paragraph is once again a terrible analogy.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Are people supposed to take you seriously with that avi and sig?

what's the sig?

 

[TheStig]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

Sure, there are lots of real-world examples of situations where if everyone acted in their own best interest, everyone would be worse off.

Imagine we lived in a world that believed it was okay to pull into the left lane, speed up, and merge back in. What would that world look like? Everyone would be trying the move, so it would no longer be any faster, as the left lane would be just as clogged up as the right. When everyone tried to merge back in, it would slow down the right lane even more, too. As a result, EVERYONE would have to wait longer to make it through a construction delay. Everyone acts in their own best interest, and everyone winds up worse off as a result.

We have social mores that label anyone who does the "pull out and speed ahead" move as a tool. Those social mores are what stop more people from doing the move- it's why 10% of the line is doing the move and not 100% of the line. If those mores were more powerful, if they were powerful to get that number down to 0%, then we'd all be even better off still. The conclusion from your construction zone scenario shouldn't be "what this world needs is more people doing that!", it should be "what this world needs is fewer people doing that!"

Some people benefit from tanking. The proper response isn't to join them in tanking, it's to try to shame them into never tanking again. No one should ever tank. Ever. For any reason. It opens up a Pandora's Box that leaves everyone worse off. Just say no.

I respect your opinion. I happen to just not agree with it.

But, equating tanking to social distopia is a weak slippery slope argument.

A traffic jam, and how people react to it affect all involved in the traffic jam.

Tanking this game only affects 3 teams, and in theory, it affects two teams in a positive fashion. This will not lead to league chaos nor should it.

Again, this scenario happens every year. If it was such a destructive outcome then a rule would/should be in place to prevent it from happening.

Right, and if more people cut in line, it's not like civilization as we know it would collapse. This doesn't change the fact that the more people cut in line, the worse off everyone is, so cutting should be (and is) strongly discouraged. Similarly, the more people tank, the worse off everyone is, so tanking should be equally strongly discouraged. Stories of leagues disintegrating and friendships dissolving because of tanking are going to be the exception and not the rule, but a world where tanking is acceptable is in all ways inferior to a world where tanking is unacceptable, so it makes sense to push to move away from the former world and towards the latter.

It is a predictable scenario. The move towards the "latter" needs to be addressed in August, not Nov-Dec. We put up stop signs because without them we can predict that there will be collisions followed by traffic jams.

To rely on social mores and sportsmanship is your failure to not accept reality.

What is funny is that nobody feels bad about this move in public leagues but would second guess it in a friends league.

This says that people actually believe it to be a fair strategic move but when sentiment is involved they begin to question it, not out of fairness, but out feelings. Hence all the anti tanking are using emotional arguments against it.

 

[TheStig]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

Sure, there are lots of real-world examples of situations where if everyone acted in their own best interest, everyone would be worse off. Imagine we lived in a world that believed it was okay to pull into the left lane, speed up, and merge back in. What would that world look like? Everyone would be trying the move, so it would no longer be any faster, as the left lane would be just as clogged up as the right. When everyone tried to merge back in, it would slow down the right lane even more, too. As a result, EVERYONE would have to wait longer to make it through a construction delay. Everyone acts in their own best interest, and everyone winds up worse off as a result. We have social mores that label anyone who does the "pull out and speed ahead" move as a tool. Those social mores are what stop more people from doing the move- it's why 10% of the line is doing the move and not 100% of the line. If those mores were more powerful, if they were powerful to get that number down to 0%, then we'd all be even better off still. The conclusion from your construction zone scenario shouldn't be "what this world needs is more people doing that!", it should be "what this world needs is fewer people doing that!" Some people benefit from tanking. The proper response isn't to join them in tanking, it's to try to shame them into never tanking again. No one should ever tank. Ever. For any reason. It opens up a Pandora's Box that leaves everyone worse off. Just say no.

I respect your opinion. I happen to just not agree with it.But, equating tanking to social distopia is a weak slippery slope argument.A traffic jam, and how people react to it affect all involved in the traffic jam.Tanking this game only affects 3 teams, and in theory, it affects two teams in a positive fashion. This will not lead to league chaos nor should it.Again, this scenario happens every year. If it was such a destructive outcome then a rule would/should be in place to prevent it from happening.

Are people supposed to take you seriously with that avi and sig?

That is your argument?

No it was a question.

And it has any bearing? How?

 

[Adam Harstad]

NFL League Rules mandate that the teams roster a team and plays. But the team has determined that the "win" is not worth the risk of losing a player. They are in fact not valuing the "Win" more than their players health and availability for a "meaningful" game. They may not be "tanking" but they value the game no more than they do in preseason.

Great. I'm okay with a team valuing a win less than his opponent. He can feel free to be less excited about his victory than his opponent would have been. He can even be downright apathetic when he wins by 30 points, that doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as they're still trying to get that win.

I'm never okay with a team intentionally trying to lose. Ever.

In the long run he is not trying to lose though. He is trying to control his destiny in a way that he feels is best for him. His objective is to win the league, not to win week 14.

I have gone a week or two in bye weeks without a full roster because, in my opinion, dropping a player for a WW guy just to be fully rostered was not in my overall best interest. We have shallow benches and no rule stating a team needs to be fully rostered. I was blatantly not being as competitive as I could have that week because I valued my overall big picture chances more than the short term gain.

His scenario is no different.

You could say the exact same thing about NFL teams. "Oh, the Jaguars aren't trying to lose by intentionally ceding a safety every time they have the ball, they just know that they'll win more games in the long run by earning that #1 pick!". I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of an NFL team actively trying to lose a game, though. I have a feeling I'll be waiting on that one for a long time.

Your second paragraph is once again a terrible analogy.

It was exaggerated, but it was between two like things. I drew an analogy between two teams ACTIVELY TRYING TO LOSE A GAME (the Jaguars by intentionally putting points on the board for the opponent, and a fantasy squad by intentionally taking points off the board for themselves). The second paragraph drew an analogy between a team that actively tried to win a game (but did not go to heroic lengths to do so) and a team that actively tried to lose a game. These are two unlike things.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

it was funny because I was just about to comment on what a terrible analogy you had made.

I'm not in any dynasty leagues, but I'd imagine there is quite a negative view of tanking for draft picks in those leagues, and rightfully so.

 

[TheStig]

NFL League Rules mandate that the teams roster a team and plays. But the team has determined that the "win" is not worth the risk of losing a player. They are in fact not valuing the "Win" more than their players health and availability for a "meaningful" game. They may not be "tanking" but they value the game no more than they do in preseason.

Great. I'm okay with a team valuing a win less than his opponent. He can feel free to be less excited about his victory than his opponent would have been. He can even be downright apathetic when he wins by 30 points, that doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as they're still trying to get that win.

I'm never okay with a team intentionally trying to lose. Ever.

In the long run he is not trying to lose though. He is trying to control his destiny in a way that he feels is best for him. His objective is to win the league, not to win week 14.

I have gone a week or two in bye weeks without a full roster because, in my opinion, dropping a player for a WW guy just to be fully rostered was not in my overall best interest. We have shallow benches and no rule stating a team needs to be fully rostered. I was blatantly not being as competitive as I could have that week because I valued my overall big picture chances more than the short term gain.

His scenario is no different.

You could say the exact same thing about NFL teams. "Oh, the Jaguars aren't trying to lose by intentionally ceding a safety every time they have the ball, they just know that they'll win more games in the long run by earning that #1 pick!". I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of an NFL team actively trying to lose a game, though. I have a feeling I'll be waiting on that one for a long time.

Your second paragraph is once again a terrible analogy.

It was exaggerated, but it was between two like things. I drew an analogy between two teams ACTIVELY TRYING TO LOSE A GAME (the Jaguars by intentionally putting points on the board for the opponent, and a fantasy squad by intentionally taking points off the board for themselves). The second paragraph drew an analogy between a team that actively tried to win a game (but did not go to heroic lengths to do so) and a team that actively tried to lose a game. These are two unlike things.

Fantasy Football is unlike NFL Football. Tanking a game vs the NFL resting their starters is as close an analogy as the two possibly come in comparison. Both are analogous in that they are both looking at the long dollar over the short dollar.

 

[McGarnicle]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

Sure, there are lots of real-world examples of situations where if everyone acted in their own best interest, everyone would be worse off. Imagine we lived in a world that believed it was okay to pull into the left lane, speed up, and merge back in. What would that world look like? Everyone would be trying the move, so it would no longer be any faster, as the left lane would be just as clogged up as the right. When everyone tried to merge back in, it would slow down the right lane even more, too. As a result, EVERYONE would have to wait longer to make it through a construction delay. Everyone acts in their own best interest, and everyone winds up worse off as a result. We have social mores that label anyone who does the "pull out and speed ahead" move as a tool. Those social mores are what stop more people from doing the move- it's why 10% of the line is doing the move and not 100% of the line. If those mores were more powerful, if they were powerful to get that number down to 0%, then we'd all be even better off still. The conclusion from your construction zone scenario shouldn't be "what this world needs is more people doing that!", it should be "what this world needs is fewer people doing that!" Some people benefit from tanking. The proper response isn't to join them in tanking, it's to try to shame them into never tanking again. No one should ever tank. Ever. For any reason. It opens up a Pandora's Box that leaves everyone worse off. Just say no.

I respect your opinion. I happen to just not agree with it.But, equating tanking to social distopia is a weak slippery slope argument.A traffic jam, and how people react to it affect all involved in the traffic jam.Tanking this game only affects 3 teams, and in theory, it affects two teams in a positive fashion. This will not lead to league chaos nor should it.Again, this scenario happens every year. If it was such a destructive outcome then a rule would/should be in place to prevent it from happening.

Are people supposed to take you seriously with that avi and sig?

That is your argument?

No it was a question.

And it has any bearing? How?

You're a noob with an idiotic avi and sig, advocating tanking in fantasy football which most serious players find abhorrent. One could assume your entire persona is a fishing trip.

 

[Adam Harstad]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

Sure, there are lots of real-world examples of situations where if everyone acted in their own best interest, everyone would be worse off.

Imagine we lived in a world that believed it was okay to pull into the left lane, speed up, and merge back in. What would that world look like? Everyone would be trying the move, so it would no longer be any faster, as the left lane would be just as clogged up as the right. When everyone tried to merge back in, it would slow down the right lane even more, too. As a result, EVERYONE would have to wait longer to make it through a construction delay. Everyone acts in their own best interest, and everyone winds up worse off as a result.

We have social mores that label anyone who does the "pull out and speed ahead" move as a tool. Those social mores are what stop more people from doing the move- it's why 10% of the line is doing the move and not 100% of the line. If those mores were more powerful, if they were powerful to get that number down to 0%, then we'd all be even better off still. The conclusion from your construction zone scenario shouldn't be "what this world needs is more people doing that!", it should be "what this world needs is fewer people doing that!"

Some people benefit from tanking. The proper response isn't to join them in tanking, it's to try to shame them into never tanking again. No one should ever tank. Ever. For any reason. It opens up a Pandora's Box that leaves everyone worse off. Just say no.

I respect your opinion. I happen to just not agree with it.

But, equating tanking to social distopia is a weak slippery slope argument.

A traffic jam, and how people react to it affect all involved in the traffic jam.

Tanking this game only affects 3 teams, and in theory, it affects two teams in a positive fashion. This will not lead to league chaos nor should it.

Again, this scenario happens every year. If it was such a destructive outcome then a rule would/should be in place to prevent it from happening.

Right, and if more people cut in line, it's not like civilization as we know it would collapse. This doesn't change the fact that the more people cut in line, the worse off everyone is, so cutting should be (and is) strongly discouraged. Similarly, the more people tank, the worse off everyone is, so tanking should be equally strongly discouraged. Stories of leagues disintegrating and friendships dissolving because of tanking are going to be the exception and not the rule, but a world where tanking is acceptable is in all ways inferior to a world where tanking is unacceptable, so it makes sense to push to move away from the former world and towards the latter.

It is a predictable scenario. The move towards the "latter" needs to be addressed in August, not Nov-Dec. We put up stop signs because without them we can predict that there will be collisions followed by traffic jams.

To rely on social mores and sportsmanship is your failure to not accept reality.

What is funny is that nobody feels bad about this move in public leagues but would second guess it in a friends league.

This says that people actually believe it to be a fair strategic move but when sentiment is involved they begin to question it, not out of fairness, but out feelings. Hence all the anti tanking are using emotional arguments against it.

Just because it should be addressed in August does not mean it shouldn't also be addressed in November and December. You're allowed to discourage bad practices more than once a season.

And the fact that the move flies in leagues with strangers but not in leagues with friends gets back to what I was saying to IE earlier about it being a classic example of a non-iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Prisoner's Dilemma is a famous example from game theory looking at why people sometimes don't cooperate even if everyone is better off when everyone cooperates. If you're playing with strangers, you're operating under the theory that you'll never see them or face future repercussions for your actions, so you are free to act in your own self-interest (even if everyone is worse off as a result). If you're playing with friends, you're operating under the assumption that you'll see them again and possibly even be in a league with them again, so your actions and reputation will carry over into future iterations of the game. When the game is iterated, people tend to behave more cooperatively.

Iterated or not, the best outcome in a Prisoner's Dilemma is for everyone to cooperate, even though it runs counter to their own individual interests.

 

[Apple Jack]

No, resting starters in the NFL is not the closest analogy to tanking a game in ff. In fact, it's nothing like it. The closest analogy in the NFL would be an NFL team losing intentionally, which would be met with swift disciplinary measures for compromising the integrity of the league.

 

[Adam Harstad]

NFL League Rules mandate that the teams roster a team and plays. But the team has determined that the "win" is not worth the risk of losing a player. They are in fact not valuing the "Win" more than their players health and availability for a "meaningful" game. They may not be "tanking" but they value the game no more than they do in preseason.

Great. I'm okay with a team valuing a win less than his opponent. He can feel free to be less excited about his victory than his opponent would have been. He can even be downright apathetic when he wins by 30 points, that doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as they're still trying to get that win.

I'm never okay with a team intentionally trying to lose. Ever.

In the long run he is not trying to lose though. He is trying to control his destiny in a way that he feels is best for him. His objective is to win the league, not to win week 14.

I have gone a week or two in bye weeks without a full roster because, in my opinion, dropping a player for a WW guy just to be fully rostered was not in my overall best interest. We have shallow benches and no rule stating a team needs to be fully rostered. I was blatantly not being as competitive as I could have that week because I valued my overall big picture chances more than the short term gain.

His scenario is no different.

You could say the exact same thing about NFL teams. "Oh, the Jaguars aren't trying to lose by intentionally ceding a safety every time they have the ball, they just know that they'll win more games in the long run by earning that #1 pick!". I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of an NFL team actively trying to lose a game, though. I have a feeling I'll be waiting on that one for a long time.

Your second paragraph is once again a terrible analogy.

It was exaggerated, but it was between two like things. I drew an analogy between two teams ACTIVELY TRYING TO LOSE A GAME (the Jaguars by intentionally putting points on the board for the opponent, and a fantasy squad by intentionally taking points off the board for themselves). The second paragraph drew an analogy between a team that actively tried to win a game (but did not go to heroic lengths to do so) and a team that actively tried to lose a game. These are two unlike things.

Fantasy Football is unlike NFL Football. Tanking a game vs the NFL resting their starters is as close an analogy as the two possibly come in comparison. Both are analogous in that they are both looking at the long dollar over the short dollar.

Again, the closest analogy for a fantasy team intentionally trying to lose a game would be an NFL team intentionally trying to lose a game. I've already noted the complete lack of real-world examples of the latter.

 

[McGarnicle]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

Sure, there are lots of real-world examples of situations where if everyone acted in their own best interest, everyone would be worse off.

Imagine we lived in a world that believed it was okay to pull into the left lane, speed up, and merge back in. What would that world look like? Everyone would be trying the move, so it would no longer be any faster, as the left lane would be just as clogged up as the right. When everyone tried to merge back in, it would slow down the right lane even more, too. As a result, EVERYONE would have to wait longer to make it through a construction delay. Everyone acts in their own best interest, and everyone winds up worse off as a result.

We have social mores that label anyone who does the "pull out and speed ahead" move as a tool. Those social mores are what stop more people from doing the move- it's why 10% of the line is doing the move and not 100% of the line. If those mores were more powerful, if they were powerful to get that number down to 0%, then we'd all be even better off still. The conclusion from your construction zone scenario shouldn't be "what this world needs is more people doing that!", it should be "what this world needs is fewer people doing that!"

Some people benefit from tanking. The proper response isn't to join them in tanking, it's to try to shame them into never tanking again. No one should ever tank. Ever. For any reason. It opens up a Pandora's Box that leaves everyone worse off. Just say no.

I respect your opinion. I happen to just not agree with it.

But, equating tanking to social distopia is a weak slippery slope argument.

A traffic jam, and how people react to it affect all involved in the traffic jam.

Tanking this game only affects 3 teams, and in theory, it affects two teams in a positive fashion. This will not lead to league chaos nor should it.

Again, this scenario happens every year. If it was such a destructive outcome then a rule would/should be in place to prevent it from happening.

Right, and if more people cut in line, it's not like civilization as we know it would collapse. This doesn't change the fact that the more people cut in line, the worse off everyone is, so cutting should be (and is) strongly discouraged. Similarly, the more people tank, the worse off everyone is, so tanking should be equally strongly discouraged. Stories of leagues disintegrating and friendships dissolving because of tanking are going to be the exception and not the rule, but a world where tanking is acceptable is in all ways inferior to a world where tanking is unacceptable, so it makes sense to push to move away from the former world and towards the latter.

It is a predictable scenario. The move towards the "latter" needs to be addressed in August, not Nov-Dec. We put up stop signs because without them we can predict that there will be collisions followed by traffic jams.

To rely on social mores and sportsmanship is your failure to not accept reality.

What is funny is that nobody feels bad about this move in public leagues but would second guess it in a friends league.

This says that people actually believe it to be a fair strategic move but when sentiment is involved they begin to question it, not out of fairness, but out feelings. Hence all the anti tanking are using emotional arguments against it.

Just because it should be addressed in August does not mean it shouldn't also be addressed in November and December. You're allowed to discourage bad practices more than once a season.

And the fact that the move flies in leagues with strangers but not in leagues with friends gets back to what I was saying to IE earlier about it being a classic example of a <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" s_dilemma"="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner">non-iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Prisoner's Dilemma is a famous example from game theory looking at why people sometimes don't cooperate even if everyone is better off when everyone cooperates. If you're playing with strangers, you're operating under the theory that you'll never see them or face future repercussions for your actions, so you are free to act in your own self-interest (even if everyone is worse off as a result). If you're playing with friends, you're operating under the assumption that you'll see them again and possibly even be in a league with them again, so your actions and reputation will carry over into future iterations of the game. When the game is iterated, people tend to behave more cooperatively.

Iterated or not, the best outcome in a Prisoner's Dilemma is for everyone to cooperate, even though it runs counter to their own individual interests.

This is why it's not a serious question in the context of a local league. If it's some random online league with strangers, then the question is about as relevant as whether I should pick up Nick Foles in my free 10-team Yahoo league because some 8th grader just dropped him. Who the #### cares.

 

[TheStig]

No, resting starters in the NFL is not the closest analogy to tanking a game in ff. In fact, it's nothing like it. The closest analogy in the NFL would be an NFL team losing intentionally, which would be met with swift disciplinary measures for compromising the integrity of the league.

So, the NFL has a rule to prevent it from happening and therefore it doesn't happen.

Shocker. Again, it is clearly predictable, so have a rule period. If you don't, then that is fault of the league not the player.

 

[Adam Harstad]

You're a noob with an idiotic avi and sig, advocating tanking in fantasy football which most serious players find abhorrent. One could assume your entire persona is a fishing trip.

I don't assume I speak for everyone, but I'd greatly appreciate it if we put an end to the pointless ad hominem attacks. Making fun of someone's avatar or signature and questioning their identity and motivations does absolutely nothing to contradict the points they are making. It doesn't contribute to the discussion.

 

[TheStig]

To the grocery line argument, I believe the construction zone scenario is more apt. We've all been sitting in a slow moving right hand lane because the sign said "left lane closed ahead". We've all seen someone pull out of the right lane and speed up to the front of the left lane and successfully merge into a stronger position in the right lane.

Sure, there are lots of real-world examples of situations where if everyone acted in their own best interest, everyone would be worse off.

Imagine we lived in a world that believed it was okay to pull into the left lane, speed up, and merge back in. What would that world look like? Everyone would be trying the move, so it would no longer be any faster, as the left lane would be just as clogged up as the right. When everyone tried to merge back in, it would slow down the right lane even more, too. As a result, EVERYONE would have to wait longer to make it through a construction delay. Everyone acts in their own best interest, and everyone winds up worse off as a result.

We have social mores that label anyone who does the "pull out and speed ahead" move as a tool. Those social mores are what stop more people from doing the move- it's why 10% of the line is doing the move and not 100% of the line. If those mores were more powerful, if they were powerful to get that number down to 0%, then we'd all be even better off still. The conclusion from your construction zone scenario shouldn't be "what this world needs is more people doing that!", it should be "what this world needs is fewer people doing that!"

Some people benefit from tanking. The proper response isn't to join them in tanking, it's to try to shame them into never tanking again. No one should ever tank. Ever. For any reason. It opens up a Pandora's Box that leaves everyone worse off. Just say no.

I respect your opinion. I happen to just not agree with it.

But, equating tanking to social distopia is a weak slippery slope argument.

A traffic jam, and how people react to it affect all involved in the traffic jam.

Tanking this game only affects 3 teams, and in theory, it affects two teams in a positive fashion. This will not lead to league chaos nor should it.

Again, this scenario happens every year. If it was such a destructive outcome then a rule would/should be in place to prevent it from happening.

Right, and if more people cut in line, it's not like civilization as we know it would collapse. This doesn't change the fact that the more people cut in line, the worse off everyone is, so cutting should be (and is) strongly discouraged. Similarly, the more people tank, the worse off everyone is, so tanking should be equally strongly discouraged. Stories of leagues disintegrating and friendships dissolving because of tanking are going to be the exception and not the rule, but a world where tanking is acceptable is in all ways inferior to a world where tanking is unacceptable, so it makes sense to push to move away from the former world and towards the latter.

It is a predictable scenario. The move towards the "latter" needs to be addressed in August, not Nov-Dec. We put up stop signs because without them we can predict that there will be collisions followed by traffic jams.

To rely on social mores and sportsmanship is your failure to not accept reality.

What is funny is that nobody feels bad about this move in public leagues but would second guess it in a friends league.

This says that people actually believe it to be a fair strategic move but when sentiment is involved they begin to question it, not out of fairness, but out feelings. Hence all the anti tanking are using emotional arguments against it.

Just because it should be addressed in August does not mean it shouldn't also be addressed in November and December. You're allowed to discourage bad practices more than once a season.

And the fact that the move flies in leagues with strangers but not in leagues with friends gets back to what I was saying to IE earlier about it being a classic example of a non-iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Prisoner's Dilemma is a famous example from game theory looking at why people sometimes don't cooperate even if everyone is better off when everyone cooperates. If you're playing with strangers, you're operating under the theory that you'll never see them or face future repercussions for your actions, so you are free to act in your own self-interest (even if everyone is worse off as a result). If you're playing with friends, you're operating under the assumption that you'll see them again and possibly even be in a league with them again, so your actions and reputation will carry over into future iterations of the game. When the game is iterated, people tend to behave more cooperatively.

Iterated or not, the best outcome in a Prisoner's Dilemma is for everyone to cooperate, even though it runs counter to their own individual interests.

But not everyone is worse off. This move involves three teams and two are affected in a positive manor. The guy who gets in could forfeit his playoff position but I'm quite sure he will not challenge the outcome.

How does the move actually have a negative consequence on the league? What are the actual tangible negative outcomes for everyone in the league?

 

[Adam Harstad]

No, resting starters in the NFL is not the closest analogy to tanking a game in ff. In fact, it's nothing like it. The closest analogy in the NFL would be an NFL team losing intentionally, which would be met with swift disciplinary measures for compromising the integrity of the league.

So, the NFL has a rule to prevent it from happening and therefore it doesn't happen.

Shocker. Again, it is clearly predictable, so have a rule period. If you don't, then that is fault of the league not the player.

I don't know if there's actually a rule on the books saying NFL teams can't intentionally try to lose. It doesn't matter, though, because the NFL frequently hands out punishments for things that are not explicitly spelled out in the rule book. Whether there's a rule that says coaches are allowed to stand right next to the sideline on kickoff returns is irrelevant. Even if there's not, you can bet Mike Tomlin is still going to face consequences for it.

Whether there's a rule on the books in fantasy leagues is likewise irrelevant. Just because something isn't explicitly forbidden doesn't mean it's implicitly encouraged. That's another attitude that might be in someone's individual interest, but against the interest of the league as a whole. Sure, it's great to gain an advantage because no rule expressly forbade you from doing so, but nobody wants to have to play in a league with a 200-page constitution covering every conceivable scenario.

In the past, I've likened that sort of legalism to family dynamics. Imagine a mother was driving her two sons to school. The first child touched the second, the second child complained to his mother, and the mother told the first child not to touch his brother. Now imagine the first son picks up a stick and touches his brother with it, and his brother complains. The mother says "I told you to stop touching your brother", and the first son replies with "technically, I'm not touching him. The stick is, and you never said anything about not touching sticks that are touching my brother".

What do you imagine the mother's response would be in that situation? Would she congratulate the son for finding a loophole in the rules and resolve in the future to explicitly provide a complete list of every conceivable item the first son is not allowed to use to touch his brother? I know what my mother would do in that situation, and it's not that.

Good commissioners, like good mothers, should care more about the health and wellbeing of the league than any legalistic defenses of its owners.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

it was funny because I was just about to comment on what a terrible analogy you had made.

I'm not in any dynasty leagues, but I'd imagine there is quite a negative view of tanking for draft picks in those leagues, and rightfully so.

Those leagues should have rules in place against it, making it not only a moral issue but an illegal act.

 

[Adam Harstad]

But not everyone is worse off. This move involves three teams and two are affected in a positive manor. The guy who gets in could forfeit his playoff position but I'm quite sure he will not challenge the outcome.How does the move actually have a negative consequence on the league? What are the actual tangible negative outcomes for everyone in the league?

I'm talking about everyone as a class. The net outcome of allowing tanking is negative. In some individual cases it will be positive (most notably, for the tanker and the team facing him). In some individual cases, it will be negative.

As I mentioned, Fantasy Football is a zero-sum game, so anything that improves one team's chance at a title will necessarily decrease everyone else's combined chance by an equal amount (even if some individuals will see their chances also rise). If you sum everyone's championship odds at any given point, it will always add up to 100%. Tanking will never change that simple fact, and in that respect it is a net neutral.

At the same time, every outcome in fantasy football involves X% merit (with merit being defined as anything within an owner's control) and (1-X)% chance (with chance being defined as anything outside an owner's control). I suspect that the overwhelming majority of fantasy owners would be opposed to decreasing the value of X and thereby increasing the degree to which chance is rewarded and decreasing the degree to which merit is rewarded, unless that decrease in X was offset by other gains somewhere else (as an example, the head-to-head format decreases X, but it increases excitement). Allowing tanking decreases the value of X without providing any net benefits, so insofar as the majority prefers not to decrease X, the majority is worse off by allowing tanking.

 

[Ernol]

Never, ever, ever intentionally throw a game in fantasy football. It's TERRIBLE for the competitive balance of the league. Ultimately, having a well-functioning, acrimony-free league is far more beneficial than trying to earn yourself a better round 1 playoff matchup.

What if losing a game meant you made the playoffs, while winning meant you missed the playoffs? I had that situation happen to me in the DFWC, where the 4 teams selected for the playoffs were 1) The best record, 2) the next highest points, 3) the next best record of the remaining teams and 4) the highest points out of the remaining teams.

Had I lost the game, a higher scoring team would have made #3 and I would have taken #4. Instead, another team took down #3 and I narrowly lost #4 to the team that would have taken #3 had I lost.

Do you go for the win and knock your own team out of the playoffs as a result? It is no longer about securing a better matchup. It is the difference of making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. From what I can tell in the high stakes message boards, this is a situation where common thought among the players (and I would think the game operators themselves) in redraft is that playing to lose in order to make the playoffs is acceptable.

 

[McGarnicle]

You're a noob with an idiotic avi and sig, advocating tanking in fantasy football which most serious players find abhorrent. One could assume your entire persona is a fishing trip.

I don't assume I speak for everyone, but I'd greatly appreciate it if we put an end to the pointless ad hominem attacks. Making fun of someone's avatar or signature and questioning their identity and motivations does absolutely nothing to contradict the points they are making. It doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Fair enough. From here it looks like you're trying to explain particle physics to an infant, but if your posts end up educating some folks about fair and honest competition in FF, more power to ya. It's disheartening that people genuinely think this practice is okay. Makes me very wary of ever joining a league where I don't know everyone. And even then, people surprise you sometimes.

 

[TheStig]

No, resting starters in the NFL is not the closest analogy to tanking a game in ff. In fact, it's nothing like it. The closest analogy in the NFL would be an NFL team losing intentionally, which would be met with swift disciplinary measures for compromising the integrity of the league.

So, the NFL has a rule to prevent it from happening and therefore it doesn't happen.

Shocker. Again, it is clearly predictable, so have a rule period. If you don't, then that is fault of the league not the player.

I don't know if there's actually a rule on the books saying NFL teams can't intentionally try to lose. It doesn't matter, though, because the NFL frequently hands out punishments for things that are not explicitly spelled out in the rule book. Whether there's a rule that says coaches are allowed to stand right next to the sideline on kickoff returns is irrelevant. Even if there's not, you can bet Mike Tomlin is still going to face consequences for it.

Whether there's a rule on the books in fantasy leagues is likewise irrelevant. Just because something isn't explicitly forbidden doesn't mean it's implicitly encouraged. That's another attitude that might be in someone's individual interest, but against the interest of the league as a whole. Sure, it's great to gain an advantage because no rule expressly forbade you from doing so, but nobody wants to have to play in a league with a 200-page constitution covering every conceivable scenario.

In the past, I've likened that sort of legalism to family dynamics. Imagine a mother was driving her two sons to school. The first child touched the second, the second child complained to his mother, and the mother told the first child not to touch his brother. Now imagine the first son picks up a stick and touches his brother with it, and his brother complains. The mother says "I told you to stop touching your brother", and the first son replies with "technically, I'm not touching him. The stick is, and you never said anything about not touching sticks that are touching my brother".

What do you imagine the mother's response would be in that situation? Would she congratulate the son for finding a loophole in the rules and resolve in the future to explicitly provide a complete list of every conceivable item the first son is not allowed to use to touch his brother? I know what my mother would do in that situation, and it's not that.

Good commissioners, like good mothers, should care more about the health and wellbeing of the league than any legalistic defenses of its owners.

No, he is touching his brother.

Holding his finger an inch from his face while proclaiming, "I'm not touching you!" Is what I think you mean.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Never, ever, ever intentionally throw a game in fantasy football. It's TERRIBLE for the competitive balance of the league. Ultimately, having a well-functioning, acrimony-free league is far more beneficial than trying to earn yourself a better round 1 playoff matchup.

What if losing a game meant you made the playoffs, while winning meant you missed the playoffs? I had that situation happen to me in the DFWC, where the 4 teams selected for the playoffs were 1) The best record, 2) the next highest points, 3) the next best record of the remaining teams and 4) the highest points out of the remaining teams.

Had I lost the game, a higher scoring team would have made #3 and I would have taken #4. Instead, another team took down #3 and I narrowly lost #4 to the team that would have taken #3 had I lost.

Do you go for the win and knock your own team out of the playoffs as a result?

In theory, yes, you have to go for a win, there. The league expressed its preferences for playoff participants before the season, and if teams are not trying their best to win games, it will distort the field and prevent the league from realizing its preferences. It's just like awarding the #1 rookie pick to the team with the most losses. The league expresses its preference (worst team gets the 1st pick, quality of a team is measured in wins and losses). If teams start tanking, that distorts those preferences and winds up with teams that the league never intended to win the first pick still walking away with the first pick. If winning your final game eliminates you from the playoffs, then by league rules you weren't intended to be a playoff team, any more than that squad that decided to "rest" Peyton Manning down the stretch was intended to get the #1 draft pick.

In practice... it would really, really suck to submit my best lineup and eliminate myself from the playoffs in the process. I'll just say I'm glad that I've never been put in that position.

 

[McGarnicle]

No, resting starters in the NFL is not the closest analogy to tanking a game in ff. In fact, it's nothing like it. The closest analogy in the NFL would be an NFL team losing intentionally, which would be met with swift disciplinary measures for compromising the integrity of the league.

So, the NFL has a rule to prevent it from happening and therefore it doesn't happen.

Shocker. Again, it is clearly predictable, so have a rule period. If you don't, then that is fault of the league not the player.

I don't know if there's actually a rule on the books saying NFL teams can't intentionally try to lose. It doesn't matter, though, because the NFL frequently hands out punishments for things that are not explicitly spelled out in the rule book. Whether there's a rule that says coaches are allowed to stand right next to the sideline on kickoff returns is irrelevant. Even if there's not, you can bet Mike Tomlin is still going to face consequences for it.

Whether there's a rule on the books in fantasy leagues is likewise irrelevant. Just because something isn't explicitly forbidden doesn't mean it's implicitly encouraged. That's another attitude that might be in someone's individual interest, but against the interest of the league as a whole. Sure, it's great to gain an advantage because no rule expressly forbade you from doing so, but nobody wants to have to play in a league with a 200-page constitution covering every conceivable scenario.

In the past, I've likened that sort of legalism to family dynamics. Imagine a mother was driving her two sons to school. The first child touched the second, the second child complained to his mother, and the mother told the first child not to touch his brother. Now imagine the first son picks up a stick and touches his brother with it, and his brother complains. The mother says "I told you to stop touching your brother", and the first son replies with "technically, I'm not touching him. The stick is, and you never said anything about not touching sticks that are touching my brother".

What do you imagine the mother's response would be in that situation? Would she congratulate the son for finding a loophole in the rules and resolve in the future to explicitly provide a complete list of every conceivable item the first son is not allowed to use to touch his brother? I know what my mother would do in that situation, and it's not that.

Good commissioners, like good mothers, should care more about the health and wellbeing of the league than any legalistic defenses of its owners.

No, he is touching his brother.

Holding his finger an inch from his face while proclaiming, "I'm not touching you!" Is what I think you mean.

Hey Adam how's this working out for you?

 

[TheStig]

You're a noob with an idiotic avi and sig, advocating tanking in fantasy football which most serious players find abhorrent. One could assume your entire persona is a fishing trip.

I don't assume I speak for everyone, but I'd greatly appreciate it if we put an end to the pointless ad hominem attacks. Making fun of someone's avatar or signature and questioning their identity and motivations does absolutely nothing to contradict the points they are making. It doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Fair enough. From here it looks like you're trying to explain particle physics to an infant, but if your posts end up educating some folks about fair and honest competition in FF, more power to ya. It's disheartening that people genuinely think this practice is okay. Makes me very wary of ever joining a league where I don't know everyone. And even then, people surprise you sometimes.

I'm only debating the merits of tanking. To claim that there are no positive merits is being closed minded. There is no logical argument against tanking. Only emotional reasons against it. Reasons based solely on sentiment and not competitive strategy or fairness.

 

[stbugs]

Be careful what you wish for

Exactly. Let's think about it this way, if you tank to face a better opponent say in the championship game instead of round 2, then you are saying you don't want to see them in round 2. Well, if a worse team beats that team in round 2, then maybe it plays out OK, or maybe you are now playing a hotter team and maybe you unluckily lose your round 2 game. Also, wouldn't you rather have beaten the better team when they have an off week instead of letting them squeak by a worse team and have a good game against you in a later round?

Playoffs are very random (see Denver losing to Baltimore), so trying to setup a perfect scenario can easily backfire, i.e. that "bad" team you play first has a great game and you are done. I just won my division, but since I had the second most points, I would have qualified no matter what. If I tanked and lost, I might have played the #1 seed before the #2 seed, who is not the top points scorer. I'd rather win the division as the #3 ($$$) and just play the #2 whenever I play him because playing the #6 seed gives me the best chance to even make it to the next round. Then, if I beat the #2 seed in week 15, I will have a great shot at the championship. Maybe the #2 seed has a great game against me or maybe he has a bad game, but it can happen next week or the championship game, who knows.

All I know is that most moves I make where I overthink don't work out well (lucks usually not on my side, i.e. I'm never the guy who gets a tipped hail mary to AJ Green). So, if I actually tried to set my lineup to avoid someone in the playoffs, I am pretty sure that worse team I play would have their best week of the year. I'd rather try and win and let the cards fall as they may.

 

[TheStig]

No, resting starters in the NFL is not the closest analogy to tanking a game in ff. In fact, it's nothing like it. The closest analogy in the NFL would be an NFL team losing intentionally, which would be met with swift disciplinary measures for compromising the integrity of the league.

So, the NFL has a rule to prevent it from happening and therefore it doesn't happen.Shocker. Again, it is clearly predictable, so have a rule period. If you don't, then that is fault of the league not the player.

I don't know if there's actually a rule on the books saying NFL teams can't intentionally try to lose. It doesn't matter, though, because the NFL frequently hands out punishments for things that are not explicitly spelled out in the rule book. Whether there's a rule that says coaches are allowed to stand right next to the sideline on kickoff returns is irrelevant. Even if there's not, you can bet Mike Tomlin is still going to face consequences for it. Whether there's a rule on the books in fantasy leagues is likewise irrelevant. Just because something isn't explicitly forbidden doesn't mean it's implicitly encouraged. That's another attitude that might be in someone's individual interest, but against the interest of the league as a whole. Sure, it's great to gain an advantage because no rule expressly forbade you from doing so, but nobody wants to have to play in a league with a 200-page constitution covering every conceivable scenario. In the past, I've likened that sort of legalism to family dynamics. Imagine a mother was driving her two sons to school. The first child touched the second, the second child complained to his mother, and the mother told the first child not to touch his brother. Now imagine the first son picks up a stick and touches his brother with it, and his brother complains. The mother says "I told you to stop touching your brother", and the first son replies with "technically, I'm not touching him. The stick is, and you never said anything about not touching sticks that are touching my brother". What do you imagine the mother's response would be in that situation? Would she congratulate the son for finding a loophole in the rules and resolve in the future to explicitly provide a complete list of every conceivable item the first son is not allowed to use to touch his brother? I know what my mother would do in that situation, and it's not that.Good commissioners, like good mothers, should care more about the health and wellbeing of the league than any legalistic defenses of its owners.

No, he is touching his brother.Holding his finger an inch from his face while proclaiming, "I'm not touching you!" Is what I think you mean.

Hey Adam how's this working out for you?

McGarnicle, if you have a valid point to make about tanking for or against have at. But as it is, you stated your opinion and now you are simply trolling.

Funny, how I'm the one who is debating the ######## side of the issue, but yet I'm being respectful about it. Based in your posts on this topic I have no doubt you would be as classy to the league you are in as your posts have been here.

 

[McGarnicle]

Be careful what you wish for

Exactly. Let's think about it this way, if you tank to face a better opponent say in the championship game instead of round 2, then you are saying you don't want to see them in round 2. Well, if a worse team beats that team in round 2, then maybe it plays out OK, or maybe you are now playing a hotter team and maybe you unluckily lose your round 2 game. Also, wouldn't you rather have beaten the better team when they have an off week instead of letting them squeak by a worse team and have a good game against you in a later round?Playoffs are very random (see Denver losing to Baltimore), so trying to setup a perfect scenario can easily backfire, i.e. that "bad" team you play first has a great game and you are done. I just won my division, but since I had the second most points, I would have qualified no matter what. If I tanked and lost, I might have played the #1 seed before the #2 seed, who is not the top points scorer. I'd rather win the division as the #3 ($$$) and just play the #2 whenever I play him because playing the #6 seed gives me the best chance to even make it to the next round. Then, if I beat the #2 seed in week 15, I will have a great shot at the championship. Maybe the #2 seed has a great game against me or maybe he has a bad game, but it can happen next week or the championship game, who knows.

All I know is that most moves I make where I overthink don't work out well (lucks usually not on my side, i.e. I'm never the guy who gets a tipped hail mary to AJ Green). So, if I actually tried to set my lineup to avoid someone in the playoffs, I am pretty sure that worse team I play would have their best week of the year. I'd rather try and win and let the cards fall as they may.

I'm 8-5 this year with the second most points in the league and two of my losses were to two of the worst teams when a bunch of my players underperformed. Countless times I've looked at matchups thinking there was no possible way I could lose, and was wrong. The fantasy gods don't like cockiness, clearly.

 

[Amused to Death]

Be careful what you wish for

Exactly. Let's think about it this way, if you tank to face a better opponent say in the championship game instead of round 2, then you are saying you don't want to see them in round 2. Well, if a worse team beats that team in round 2, then maybe it plays out OK, or maybe you are now playing a hotter team and maybe you unluckily lose your round 2 game. Also, wouldn't you rather have beaten the better team when they have an off week instead of letting them squeak by a worse team and have a good game against you in a later round?Playoffs are very random (see Denver losing to Baltimore), so trying to setup a perfect scenario can easily backfire, i.e. that "bad" team you play first has a great game and you are done. I just won my division, but since I had the second most points, I would have qualified no matter what. If I tanked and lost, I might have played the #1 seed before the #2 seed, who is not the top points scorer. I'd rather win the division as the #3 ($$$) and just play the #2 whenever I play him because playing the #6 seed gives me the best chance to even make it to the next round. Then, if I beat the #2 seed in week 15, I will have a great shot at the championship. Maybe the #2 seed has a great game against me or maybe he has a bad game, but it can happen next week or the championship game, who knows.

All I know is that most moves I make where I overthink don't work out well (lucks usually not on my side, i.e. I'm never the guy who gets a tipped hail mary to AJ Green). So, if I actually tried to set my lineup to avoid someone in the playoffs, I am pretty sure that worse team I play would have their best week of the year. I'd rather try and win and let the cards fall as they may.

I'm 8-5 this year with the second most points in the league and two of my losses were to two of the worst teams when a bunch of my players underperformed. Countless times I've looked at matchups thinking there was no possible way I could lose, and was wrong. The fantasy gods don't like cockiness, clearly.

If people truly believe that to be the case, why let owners do what they think is best (within league rules) to win a championship and the FFL gods sort it out later?

 

[Adam Harstad]

I'm only debating the merits of tanking. To claim that there are no positive merits is being closed minded. There is no logical argument against tanking. Only emotional reasons against it. Reasons based solely on sentiment and not competitive strategy or fairness.

I wouldn't think most would consider an argument based on the evolutionary origins of social reciprocity to be particularly sentimental. It's hard to get more dispassionate, coolly unemotional, and logical than framing a scenario in terms of an iterated vs. non-iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. I've heard game theory called many things, but "emotional", "sentimental", and "not [based on] competitive strategy or fairness" have never before been among them.

There are purely logical and rational reasons for a socially normative opposition to tanking. Just because cooperating makes us feel warm and fuzzy doesn't mean cooperating can't be the hyperrational strategy, too. I oppose tanking out of enlightened self-interest.

 

[meatwad1]

Tanking is part of the game, just ask Erin Rodgers and the Packers after this afternoon's press conference. If I were you, I would do anything to improve my lot. Let's face it, there are choads who don't start legit players all throughout the year for a myriad of reasons. If you don't like it create a rule for league to stop it from happening. That is the only way to go.

 

[McGarnicle]

No, resting starters in the NFL is not the closest analogy to tanking a game in ff. In fact, it's nothing like it. The closest analogy in the NFL would be an NFL team losing intentionally, which would be met with swift disciplinary measures for compromising the integrity of the league.

So, the NFL has a rule to prevent it from happening and therefore it doesn't happen.Shocker. Again, it is clearly predictable, so have a rule period. If you don't, then that is fault of the league not the player.

I don't know if there's actually a rule on the books saying NFL teams can't intentionally try to lose. It doesn't matter, though, because the NFL frequently hands out punishments for things that are not explicitly spelled out in the rule book. Whether there's a rule that says coaches are allowed to stand right next to the sideline on kickoff returns is irrelevant. Even if there's not, you can bet Mike Tomlin is still going to face consequences for it. Whether there's a rule on the books in fantasy leagues is likewise irrelevant. Just because something isn't explicitly forbidden doesn't mean it's implicitly encouraged. That's another attitude that might be in someone's individual interest, but against the interest of the league as a whole. Sure, it's great to gain an advantage because no rule expressly forbade you from doing so, but nobody wants to have to play in a league with a 200-page constitution covering every conceivable scenario. In the past, I've likened that sort of legalism to family dynamics. Imagine a mother was driving her two sons to school. The first child touched the second, the second child complained to his mother, and the mother told the first child not to touch his brother. Now imagine the first son picks up a stick and touches his brother with it, and his brother complains. The mother says "I told you to stop touching your brother", and the first son replies with "technically, I'm not touching him. The stick is, and you never said anything about not touching sticks that are touching my brother". What do you imagine the mother's response would be in that situation? Would she congratulate the son for finding a loophole in the rules and resolve in the future to explicitly provide a complete list of every conceivable item the first son is not allowed to use to touch his brother? I know what my mother would do in that situation, and it's not that.Good commissioners, like good mothers, should care more about the health and wellbeing of the league than any legalistic defenses of its owners.

No, he is touching his brother.Holding his finger an inch from his face while proclaiming, "I'm not touching you!" Is what I think you mean.

Hey Adam how's this working out for you?

McGarnicle, if you have a valid point to make about tanking for or against have at. But as it is, you stated your opinion and now you are simply trolling.

Funny, how I'm the one who is debating the ######## side of the issue, but yet I'm being respectful about it. Based in your posts on this topic I have no doubt you would be as classy to the league you are in as your posts have been here.

The case has been made ad nauseum in this thread. It destroys the competitive balance of the league, and creates bad blood and distrust. If an owner would throw a game, I'd assume he would also collude or cheat in any other way he could. When I was a commish I had specific rules about it and would kick out any owner I caught doing it.IMO this is just another thread highlighting the importance of having specific published rules. If this thread was started from the standpoint of "Some ##### is tanking, what should I do?", the responses would be the same as in the collusion threads -- what do the rules say? No rules to cover it? You made your bed, good luck with that.

It's mind boggling that so many money leagues have no rules other than whatever is on the hosting site. Every professional sport, board game, and just about any human competitive endeavor you could name has specific rules. The lack of rules in FF are the reason for about 25% of threads started here.

 

[Amused to Death]

IMO this is just another thread highlighting the importance of having specific published rules. If this thread was started from the standpoint of "Some ##### is tanking, what should I do?", the responses would be the same as in the collusion threads -- what do the rules say? No rules to cover it? You made your bed, good luck with that.

It's mind boggling that so many money leagues have no rules other than whatever is on the hosting site. Every professional sport, board game, and just about any human competitive endeavor you could name has specific rules. The lack of rules in FF are the reason for about 25% of threads started here.

What if your league rules stated "the object of the league is to win the championship" and "you must field a complete lineup every week".? Would you feel obligated to start Peyton Manning over Eli Manning if it meant you might hurt your odds of winning the championship?

 

[TheStig]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

On page one, of those that stated their opinion the pro and against is nearly 50/50. So the issue is not nearly as cut and dry as people might believe it to be.

If you filter this down to a particular league, I believe that the outcome would not mean the destruction of the league. The 4 teams that are in involved would likely have an opinion and the rest of the league, like the forum visitors will click and move on. They aren't affected and therefor don't care enough either way.

To argue the competitive balance of the league is affected is false. More than the balance of the league are no longer involved in the league. It only affects two teams that had no control either way.

But how much anyone cares about the issues depends on their own self interest. It is rare that people will really put the interests of the league above their own. This is why league votes on trades never work. People will claim the moral side if it supports their self interests.

League rules are the only thing to be relied on to protect the interest of the league, not the players.

 

[McGarnicle]

IMO this is just another thread highlighting the importance of having specific published rules. If this thread was started from the standpoint of "Some ##### is tanking, what should I do?", the responses would be the same as in the collusion threads -- what do the rules say? No rules to cover it? You made your bed, good luck with that.

It's mind boggling that so many money leagues have no rules other than whatever is on the hosting site. Every professional sport, board game, and just about any human competitive endeavor you could name has specific rules. The lack of rules in FF are the reason for about 25% of threads started here.

What if your league rules stated "the object of the league is to win the championship" and "you must field a complete lineup every week".? Would you feel obligated to start Peyton Manning over Eli Manning if it meant you might hurt your odds of winning the championship?

Your question is what if the rules are arbitrary? The answer is don't have arbitrary rules. And give the commish the discretion to make the final judgment call.

 

[meatwad1]

IMO this is just another thread highlighting the importance of having specific published rules. If this thread was started from the standpoint of "Some ##### is tanking, what should I do?", the responses would be the same as in the collusion threads -- what do the rules say? No rules to cover it? You made your bed, good luck with that.

It's mind boggling that so many money leagues have no rules other than whatever is on the hosting site. Every professional sport, board game, and just about any human competitive endeavor you could name has specific rules. The lack of rules in FF are the reason for about 25% of threads started here.

What if your league rules stated "the object of the league is to win the championship" and "you must field a complete lineup every week".? Would you feel obligated to start Peyton Manning over Eli Manning if it meant you might hurt your odds of winning the championship?

Exactly.

 

[meatwad1]

As long as you are not leaving players blank, you are as good as golden. Crap happens in ff, it has an element of luck and circumstance to it. Some of you guys are acting like we are talking about an MMA match or a game of golf.

 

[Amused to Death]

What if your league rules stated "the object of the league is to win the championship" and "you must field a complete lineup every week".? Would you feel obligated to start Peyton Manning over Eli Manning if it meant you might hurt your odds of winning the championship?

Your question is what if the rules are arbitrary? The answer is don't have arbitrary rules. And give the commish the discretion to make the final judgment call.

No, I don't give the commish discretion to approve or deny my lineup. And its not arbitrary. Does anyone play in a league where the rules explicitly state "your most competitive lineup"?

 

[meatwad1]

The truth of the matter is, over 700 people have viewed the thread and only a few cared enough to reply on the issue.

On page one, of those that stated their opinion the pro and against is nearly 50/50. So the issue is not nearly as cut and dry as people might believe it to be.

If you filter this down to a particular league, I believe that the outcome would not mean the destruction of the league. The 4 teams that are in involved would likely have an opinion and the rest of the league, like the forum visitors will click and move on. They aren't affected and therefor don't care enough either way.

To argue the competitive balance of the league is affected is false. More than the balance of the league are no longer involved in the league. It only affects two teams that had no control either way.

But how much anyone cares about the issues depends on their own self interest. It is rare that people will really put the interests of the league above their own. This is why league votes on trades never work. People will claim the moral side if it supports their self interests.

League rules are the only thing to be relied on to protect the interest of the league, not the players.

Plus, lets face it, people in most leagues would not even care enough to create a rule against it. Most owners at the draft roll their eyes anytime some busybody comes in and suggests tweaking the rules.

 

[jackdubl]

I say do whatever you want. But, in my experience, the fantasy gods do not approve and it will probably cost you.

 

[McGarnicle]

What if your league rules stated "the object of the league is to win the championship" and "you must field a complete lineup every week".? Would you feel obligated to start Peyton Manning over Eli Manning if it meant you might hurt your odds of winning the championship?

Your question is what if the rules are arbitrary? The answer is don't have arbitrary rules. And give the commish the discretion to make the final judgment call.

No, I don't give the commish discretion to approve or deny my lineup. And its not arbitrary. Does anyone play in a league where the rules explicitly state "your most competitive lineup"?

I don't have the document anymore, but my rules did say something similar to that.Tanking and collusion will always be tricky because it's usually impossible to prove. But in blatant cases it becomes like the old obscenity argument: "I know it when I see it". My policy was to intervene only as a last resort, and luckily I never had to. Your example of Eli over Peyton is an obvious one and I would definitely say something, especially if the owner had something to gain by losing.