Throw my game to change playoff teams? (1 Viewer)

[Kool-Aid Larry]

That is not a correct comparison at all! The correct NFL comparison would be a playoff team throwing a game in order to allow a lesser team to make the playoffs. I don't think this was the logic behind removing the starters, but in 2009 the Colts removed their starters after 2 quarters in week 17 which allowed the Jets to win and make the playoffs, eliminating the Texans who would've made the playoffs if the Jets had lost. IF the Colts felt they matched up better with the Jets than the Texans then that would've been a viable NFL strategy to tank that game since it did not cost them a playoff position.

But not only would it have been a viable strategy, it would have been a GOOD strategy if they were right that they matched up better with one team or the other. Same with FF. It might not be worth pissing people off for the advantage, but that's a call each person has to make. But if you play to win the game and losing a single matchup improves your chances, then from a purely strategic standpoint, you throw the meaningless matchup to improve your odds of winning the championship.

There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved.

I agree, that's another great comparison, because it involves an NFL franchise intentionally trying to lose a game. Can you find me an example of a team actually doing that some time?

Hell, anyone just find me any example of any NFL team intentionally trying to lose any game for any reason whatsoever. If we're taking our cue from the NFL, and we want to justify intentionally trying to lose a game, let's find an example of that ever happening in the NFL.

can you find me an example of 50k people buying tickets to watch you play fantasty football on sunday?

 

[Amused to Death]

If your favorite NFL team goes 11-5 and loses in the 1st round of the playoffs, and a 9-7 team wins the Super Bowl, which team had the better season?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I agree with the above. The goal is not to win every game. The goal is to win a championship. If it helps you win a championship, it's worth considering. I agree you don't want it to "cost" you friendships, etc. But it's not unethical to throw a game to affect your playoff opponent if you believe it helps you win a championship.

FYI: I tried it this wekeend and it backfired. The team I wanted out of the playoffs is now my opponent in the first round. I don't consider that fantasy karma or "fantasy gods" or whatever. It's a risk I was willing to take and I'll live with the consequences. But strategically, I think it was the right move. I was trying to win a championship, not win a meaningless game (for me) in week 13.

So would you tank a game if it meant screwing a good friend out of a playoff spot?

A better question would be "would I be upset if a good friend tanked a game if it meant screwing me out of a playoff spot?" The answer to that is no. I'd be unhappy that I wasn't getting in, but I wouldn't be upset at them. I put myself in that position. I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't be upset at them.But to answer your question, I wouldn't do it if I thought it would upset them. I don't play to upset my friends. It's not worth it. I would hope they'd be a little more mature than that and not get upset because I didn't help their team, but I understand they might. In that case it's not worth the fantasy football advantage.

I don't think I'd be wrong to do it, but I wouldn't pay that price to do it. If that makes sense.

You play Team A in week 8 and he sets an optimal lineup and you lose. Team B plays Team A in week 13, Team A intentionally starts a bunch of waiver crap and loses. You win your week 13 game, but Team B just barely squeaks into the playoffs thanks to their week 13 win. Team A would have beaten Team B with the optimal lineup. You put yourself in that position?

Yes. I'm assuming we played more weeks than just 8 and 13. I'm assuming we played a full 13-week season where I could have won a bunch of games and not been in that position. I didn't win week 8, and I obviously didn't win a bunch of other games as well. I drafted my team, I made the lineup decisions, I managed the waiver wire moves and I fielded trades...and I ended up needing help to make the playoffs. Should I really blame Team A because I'm not getting in?

 

[silentcoach]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

Simple. Protanking has ZERO to do with collusion. Protanking just involves my own team, my own decision on how i run my own team. The scenario you have above involves 2 teams working together, hence collusion.

 

[GregR]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

Okay. So would you offer a 2-8 team a portion of your prize money for his best players?

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

The problem with collusion isn't that the owners agree with each other, plan with each other. Nor that money changes hands. The problem is the destruction of the spirit of individual competition that is the basis of the game. The problem is a team giving another team an advantage that they wouldn't have if everyone participated individually in trying to win each game.

You say that you are acting individually, but the end result is that you are helping another team to win. It doesn't matter whether you do this to benefit by cash payment, getting to shtoop the guy's sister, or by getting a better playoff opponent. The problem is that you do it. The reason for doing it is ancillary.

The end result of your action is that one of the other guy's games is no longer a true competition, it's a sham because of you. He only had to play 12 real games while everyone else played 13.

That you get a benefit to your team without needing your opponent's consent doesn't change one iota that you create the exact same problem that collusion does.

 

[Amused to Death]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

Okay. So would you offer a 2-8 team a portion of your prize money for his best players?

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

The problem with collusion isn't that the owners agree with each other, plan with each other. Nor that money changes hands. The problem is the destruction of the spirit of individual competition that is the basis of the game. The problem is a team giving another team an advantage that they wouldn't have if everyone participated individually in trying to win each game.

You say that you are acting individually, but the end result is that you are helping another team to win. It doesn't matter whether you do this to benefit by cash payment, getting to shtoop the guy's sister, or by getting a better playoff opponent. The problem is that you do it. The reason for doing it is ancillary.

The end result of your action is that one of the other guy's games is no longer a true competition, it's a sham because of you. He only had to play 12 real games while everyone else played 13.

That you get a benefit to your team without needing your opponent's consent doesn't change one iota that you create the exact same problem that collusion does.

By doing so, I am not entering into a secret agreement with another team to help him get in. I'm helping myself. I would do it even if it were to no benefit to another team. Everything we do in FFL affects other team; some positively, some negatively. The difference, imo, is I'm acting in my own self interest. Won't my winning also benefit someone else?

 

[silentcoach]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

Okay. So would you offer a 2-8 team a portion of your prize money for his best players?

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

The problem with collusion isn't that the owners agree with each other, plan with each other. Nor that money changes hands. The problem is the destruction of the spirit of individual competition that is the basis of the game. The problem is a team giving another team an advantage that they wouldn't have if everyone participated individually in trying to win each game.

You say that you are acting individually, but the end result is that you are helping another team to win. It doesn't matter whether you do this to benefit by cash payment, getting to shtoop the guy's sister, or by getting a better playoff opponent. The problem is that you do it. The reason for doing it is ancillary.

The end result of your action is that one of the other guy's games is no longer a true competition, it's a sham because of you. He only had to play 12 real games while everyone else played 13.

That you get a benefit to your team without needing your opponent's consent doesn't change one iota that you create the exact same problem that collusion does.

Collusion by definition requires 2 entities working together. So "tanking" as defined by OP can NEVER be collusion.....by definition. Whether it has the same effects does not make it collusion no matter how hard you try and thus the two are not comparable.

That guy still played 13 "real" games, his win just did not affect anything because he has not "earned" the right to control his own destiny from his other 12 games. The owner who chooses to tank "earned" that right by having the better team.

 

[McGarnicle]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

And you don't see how intentionally losing and letting a lesser team into the playoffs and screwing a more deserving team ruins the competitive balance of the league and causes bad blood? Or you just don't care?I guess if you just want to win money and don't care about the other guys and if they come back next year, this makes sense. That's not how I play, but it's logical for someone with that mindset.

No, I don't care about other teams - they worry about themselves. And I asked previously, how would you word your rules to prevent this situation? I follow all of my league's rules.

I don't see how that's a difficult question. Something like "All owners must try to set the most competitive lineup every week. An owner is not allowed to start marginal/backup players over clearly superior options in an effort to improve his playoff seeding/matchup, or for any other reason. Commissioner will have final discretion to determine if/when this has occurred."

So now you're the judge of superior lineups each week? You really want a commish reviewing everyone's line up? Not me.

I'm not reviewing lineups and my last resort is to get involved at all. The rule is there to avoid ambiguity. And I know that guy who is 7-5 and has been scrapping on the waiver wire all year and knows his season is on the line will alert me if it ever comes up. You don't set rules to micromanage, you set rules so that everyone has a clear understanding and to avoid situations where the commish has nothing but his best judgment to resolve a dispute.

Your rules are ambiguous then. When you do get the right to change my lineup? So you can help another team? Would you have changed my lineup if I started JBell over Zack Stacy this week?

I didn't realize you wanted me to post the entire set of rules here.Like I said before, you know this type of thing when you see it. People benching Peyton, Dez, that sort of thing. Each case is taken ICB and evaluated. If in doubt, I wouldn't do anything. In your example I wouldn't do anything. If it's obvious the owner is losing on purpose, I would intervene. In my experience, the immoral cheating ####bags show themselves for what they are and are not difficult to weed out. And like I said, I never had to take any kind of action against anyone when I was commish. But I was glad the rules were there and a few guys thanked me for being so thorough and said it was their favorite league. They felt secure that the league was run fairly.

 

[al_falcons]

If you tanked a game on purpose in one of my leagues, you would not be invited back next year. Plain and simple. The same reason why we throw people out of the league(s) when they leave players on bye week or obviously injuried players. You want every game in the regular season to be competitive, not a cake walk because some owner likes his chances vs someone else, etc.

My league rules about line-up submission, names have been changed to protect the guilty.

*****************************

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO SUBMIT YOUR LINE UP. Just ask XXX about what happens when you don’t submit line-ups in this league. It is grounds for removal from the league!! We have a great league and great tradition, we don’t need, want or will tolerate owners who don’t manage their team after the season starts. We know that ##### happens and sometimes a line-up is forgotten or players mistakenly submitted on a bye week. If this happens, you will hear about it from (the Commish) in email if this happens!! If you can’t get to a computer and need to make a line-up change, you can always call (the Commish) and ask him to submit our line-up for you. Submitting a line-up can be a 2 minute task, so don’t be a XXX and submit your line-up!!!

*****************************

Also last league rule is this:

*****************************

Any rules not covered in this document will be the judgment of the Commissioner and may be put up for league vote if the Commissioner chooses to do so. In any case ,the decision of the Commissioner will be final.

*****************************

My final decision would be to boot you out of the league next year.

 

[GregR]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

Okay. So would you offer a 2-8 team a portion of your prize money for his best players?

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

The problem with collusion isn't that the owners agree with each other, plan with each other. Nor that money changes hands. The problem is the destruction of the spirit of individual competition that is the basis of the game. The problem is a team giving another team an advantage that they wouldn't have if everyone participated individually in trying to win each game.

You say that you are acting individually, but the end result is that you are helping another team to win. It doesn't matter whether you do this to benefit by cash payment, getting to shtoop the guy's sister, or by getting a better playoff opponent. The problem is that you do it. The reason for doing it is ancillary.

The end result of your action is that one of the other guy's games is no longer a true competition, it's a sham because of you. He only had to play 12 real games while everyone else played 13.

That you get a benefit to your team without needing your opponent's consent doesn't change one iota that you create the exact same problem that collusion does.

Collusion by definition requires 2 owners working together. So "tanking" as defined by OP can NEVER be collusion.....by definition. Whether it has the same effects does not make it collusion no matter how hard you try.

You must not have even tried to read my post. The point of wihch was that the problem with collusion is the destroying of individual competition by helping another team out. Tanking has the exact same result.

The mechanics (secret agreements, payment, or helping your playoff spot) that determine whether it is called collusion or tanking are irrelevant. What matters is that they both cause the same exact problem that is why collusion is viewed as unethical.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I didn't realize you wanted me to post the entire set of rules here.Like I said before, you know this type of thing when you see it. People benching Peyton, Dez, that sort of thing. Each case is taken ICB and evaluated. If in doubt, I wouldn't do anything. In your example I wouldn't do anything. If it's obvious the owner is losing on purpose, I would intervene. In my experience, the immoral cheating ####bags show themselves for what they are and are not difficult to weed out. And like I said, I never had to take any kind of action against anyone when I was commish. But I was glad the rules were there and a few guys thanked me for being so thorough and said it was their favorite league. They felt secure that the league was run fairly.

last week I picked up marvin jones and played him over andre johnson and knowshon moreno because I liked the match up.

was I tanking or just an idiot?

 

[Amused to Death]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

Okay. So would you offer a 2-8 team a portion of your prize money for his best players?

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

The problem with collusion isn't that the owners agree with each other, plan with each other. Nor that money changes hands. The problem is the destruction of the spirit of individual competition that is the basis of the game. The problem is a team giving another team an advantage that they wouldn't have if everyone participated individually in trying to win each game.

You say that you are acting individually, but the end result is that you are helping another team to win. It doesn't matter whether you do this to benefit by cash payment, getting to shtoop the guy's sister, or by getting a better playoff opponent. The problem is that you do it. The reason for doing it is ancillary.

The end result of your action is that one of the other guy's games is no longer a true competition, it's a sham because of you. He only had to play 12 real games while everyone else played 13.

That you get a benefit to your team without needing your opponent's consent doesn't change one iota that you create the exact same problem that collusion does.

Collusion by definition requires 2 owners working together. So "tanking" as defined by OP can NEVER be collusion.....by definition. Whether it has the same effects does not make it collusion no matter how hard you try.

You must not have even tried to read my post. The point of wihch was that the problem with collusion is the destroying of individual competition by helping another team out. Tanking has the exact same result.

The mechanics (secret agreements, payment, or helping your playoff spot) that determine whether it is called collusion or tanking are irrelevant. What matters is that they both cause the same exact problem that is why collusion is viewed as unethical.

So if the situation called for it, you would win and knock yourself out of the playoffs?

 

[GregR]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

Okay. So would you offer a 2-8 team a portion of your prize money for his best players?

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

The problem with collusion isn't that the owners agree with each other, plan with each other. Nor that money changes hands. The problem is the destruction of the spirit of individual competition that is the basis of the game. The problem is a team giving another team an advantage that they wouldn't have if everyone participated individually in trying to win each game.

You say that you are acting individually, but the end result is that you are helping another team to win. It doesn't matter whether you do this to benefit by cash payment, getting to shtoop the guy's sister, or by getting a better playoff opponent. The problem is that you do it. The reason for doing it is ancillary.

The end result of your action is that one of the other guy's games is no longer a true competition, it's a sham because of you. He only had to play 12 real games while everyone else played 13.

That you get a benefit to your team without needing your opponent's consent doesn't change one iota that you create the exact same problem that collusion does.

By doing so, I am not entering into a secret agreement with another team to help him get in. I'm helping myself. I would do it even if it were to no benefit to another team. Everything we do in FFL affects other team; some positively, some negatively. The difference, imo, is I'm acting in my own self interest. Won't my winning also benefit someone else?

Again, read my post.

I never said you committed collusion. I said tanking and collusion cause the same exact undesired result of destroying individual competition. That is why collusion is considered unethical. That is why tanking is also unethical.

 

[McGarnicle]

I agree with the above. The goal is not to win every game. The goal is to win a championship. If it helps you win a championship, it's worth considering. I agree you don't want it to "cost" you friendships, etc. But it's not unethical to throw a game to affect your playoff opponent if you believe it helps you win a championship.

FYI: I tried it this wekeend and it backfired. The team I wanted out of the playoffs is now my opponent in the first round. I don't consider that fantasy karma or "fantasy gods" or whatever. It's a risk I was willing to take and I'll live with the consequences. But strategically, I think it was the right move. I was trying to win a championship, not win a meaningless game (for me) in week 13.

So would you tank a game if it meant screwing a good friend out of a playoff spot?

A better question would be "would I be upset if a good friend tanked a game if it meant screwing me out of a playoff spot?" The answer to that is no. I'd be unhappy that I wasn't getting in, but I wouldn't be upset at them. I put myself in that position. I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't be upset at them.But to answer your question, I wouldn't do it if I thought it would upset them. I don't play to upset my friends. It's not worth it. I would hope they'd be a little more mature than that and not get upset because I didn't help their team, but I understand they might. In that case it's not worth the fantasy football advantage.

I don't think I'd be wrong to do it, but I wouldn't pay that price to do it. If that makes sense.

You play Team A in week 8 and he sets an optimal lineup and you lose. Team B plays Team A in week 13, Team A intentionally starts a bunch of waiver crap and loses. You win your week 13 game, but Team B just barely squeaks into the playoffs thanks to their week 13 win. Team A would have beaten Team B with the optimal lineup. You put yourself in that position?

Yes. I'm assuming we played more weeks than just 8 and 13. I'm assuming we played a full 13-week season where I could have won a bunch of games and not been in that position. I didn't win week 8, and I obviously didn't win a bunch of other games as well. I drafted my team, I made the lineup decisions, I managed the waiver wire moves and I fielded trades...and I ended up needing help to make the playoffs. Should I really blame Team A because I'm not getting in?

I've seen teams get hot at the end of the year, finish 7-6 and win the championship (and second & third place money too). In a competitive league, it's common to have a few teams bunched up at 7-6 or 8-5. I don't want someone in such a league to get screwed simply because someone tanked.Again I'm approaching this as someone who wants to encourage competitiveness and have as little turnover as possible. I want guys scrapping for wins and never giving up. And I want to be able to show my face at next year's draft. Those are always the most fun leagues for me. Not everyone plays for the same reasons though.

 

[TheStig]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

And you don't see how intentionally losing and letting a lesser team into the playoffs and screwing a more deserving team ruins the competitive balance of the league and causes bad blood? Or you just don't care?I guess if you just want to win money and don't care about the other guys and if they come back next year, this makes sense. That's not how I play, but it's logical for someone with that mindset.

The other team isn't "lesser". Presumably both teams have the same record. He simply likes the matchup better the week he would play him. That is his opinion though and not necessarily fact. But it is a situation, via locked playoff spot, that he has earned. Neither of the other two teams have "earned" anything. They do not control their own destiny. Again, one of the guys is in and the other is out no matter what he does.

 

[silentcoach]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

Okay. So would you offer a 2-8 team a portion of your prize money for his best players?

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

The problem with collusion isn't that the owners agree with each other, plan with each other. Nor that money changes hands. The problem is the destruction of the spirit of individual competition that is the basis of the game. The problem is a team giving another team an advantage that they wouldn't have if everyone participated individually in trying to win each game.

You say that you are acting individually, but the end result is that you are helping another team to win. It doesn't matter whether you do this to benefit by cash payment, getting to shtoop the guy's sister, or by getting a better playoff opponent. The problem is that you do it. The reason for doing it is ancillary.

The end result of your action is that one of the other guy's games is no longer a true competition, it's a sham because of you. He only had to play 12 real games while everyone else played 13.

That you get a benefit to your team without needing your opponent's consent doesn't change one iota that you create the exact same problem that collusion does.

Collusion by definition requires 2 owners working together. So "tanking" as defined by OP can NEVER be collusion.....by definition. Whether it has the same effects does not make it collusion no matter how hard you try.

You must not have even tried to read my post. The point of wihch was that the problem with collusion is the destroying of individual competition by helping another team out. Tanking has the exact same result.

The mechanics (secret agreements, payment, or helping your playoff spot) that determine whether it is called collusion or tanking are irrelevant. What matters is that they both cause the same exact problem that is why collusion is viewed as unethical.

Sorry, here was the rest of my post

That guy still played 13 "real" games, his win just did not affect anything because he has not "earned" the right to control his own destiny from his other 12 games. The owner who chooses to tank "earned" that right by having the better team.

.

The team who tanks earned that right because he had the BETTER team during the season. That's the end game really. Have a better team and you will not be affected by another team's action; where the "tanking" team is simply trying to increase his/her own chances of winning the championship.

 

[GregR]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

Okay. So would you offer a 2-8 team a portion of your prize money for his best players?

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

The problem with collusion isn't that the owners agree with each other, plan with each other. Nor that money changes hands. The problem is the destruction of the spirit of individual competition that is the basis of the game. The problem is a team giving another team an advantage that they wouldn't have if everyone participated individually in trying to win each game.

You say that you are acting individually, but the end result is that you are helping another team to win. It doesn't matter whether you do this to benefit by cash payment, getting to shtoop the guy's sister, or by getting a better playoff opponent. The problem is that you do it. The reason for doing it is ancillary.

The end result of your action is that one of the other guy's games is no longer a true competition, it's a sham because of you. He only had to play 12 real games while everyone else played 13.

That you get a benefit to your team without needing your opponent's consent doesn't change one iota that you create the exact same problem that collusion does.

Collusion by definition requires 2 owners working together. So "tanking" as defined by OP can NEVER be collusion.....by definition. Whether it has the same effects does not make it collusion no matter how hard you try.

You must not have even tried to read my post. The point of wihch was that the problem with collusion is the destroying of individual competition by helping another team out. Tanking has the exact same result.

The mechanics (secret agreements, payment, or helping your playoff spot) that determine whether it is called collusion or tanking are irrelevant. What matters is that they both cause the same exact problem that is why collusion is viewed as unethical.

So if the situation called for it, you win and knock yourself out of the playoffs?

That is a definite Catch 22 situation with no good answer. You are supposed to try to win your games and doing so is supposed to help you make the playoffs. If league rules are structured where the situation you are talking about happens, it puts two proper ethical behaviors at odds. One can argue either way, and I wouldn't hold someone to fault whichever way they decided, in that specific case.

Someone tanking to gift another team a win merely to manipulate other team's seedings for your matchup's sake does not suffer from a conflict of basic principles of the game, however.

 

[McGarnicle]

I didn't realize you wanted me to post the entire set of rules here.Like I said before, you know this type of thing when you see it. People benching Peyton, Dez, that sort of thing. Each case is taken ICB and evaluated. If in doubt, I wouldn't do anything. In your example I wouldn't do anything. If it's obvious the owner is losing on purpose, I would intervene. In my experience, the immoral cheating ####bags show themselves for what they are and are not difficult to weed out. And like I said, I never had to take any kind of action against anyone when I was commish. But I was glad the rules were there and a few guys thanked me for being so thorough and said it was their favorite league. They felt secure that the league was run fairly.

last week I picked up marvin jones and played him over andre johnson and knowshon moreno because I liked the match up.

was I tanking or just an idiot?

I benched Andre Johnson after watching Demaryius Thomas get shut down for most of the Pats game, and thinking the Texans are a dumpster fire with nothing left to play for and Keenum possibly being benched again. Moreno was banged up and a question mark as far as how involved he would be. Seems like a smart move based on the info at hand. I was expecting a monster game from Gio.

 

[GregR]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

Okay. So would you offer a 2-8 team a portion of your prize money for his best players?

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

The problem with collusion isn't that the owners agree with each other, plan with each other. Nor that money changes hands. The problem is the destruction of the spirit of individual competition that is the basis of the game. The problem is a team giving another team an advantage that they wouldn't have if everyone participated individually in trying to win each game.

You say that you are acting individually, but the end result is that you are helping another team to win. It doesn't matter whether you do this to benefit by cash payment, getting to shtoop the guy's sister, or by getting a better playoff opponent. The problem is that you do it. The reason for doing it is ancillary.

The end result of your action is that one of the other guy's games is no longer a true competition, it's a sham because of you. He only had to play 12 real games while everyone else played 13.

That you get a benefit to your team without needing your opponent's consent doesn't change one iota that you create the exact same problem that collusion does.

Collusion by definition requires 2 owners working together. So "tanking" as defined by OP can NEVER be collusion.....by definition. Whether it has the same effects does not make it collusion no matter how hard you try.

You must not have even tried to read my post. The point of wihch was that the problem with collusion is the destroying of individual competition by helping another team out. Tanking has the exact same result.

The mechanics (secret agreements, payment, or helping your playoff spot) that determine whether it is called collusion or tanking are irrelevant. What matters is that they both cause the same exact problem that is why collusion is viewed as unethical.

Sorry, here was the rest of my post

That guy still played 13 "real" games, his win just did not affect anything because he has not "earned" the right to control his own destiny from his other 12 games. The owner who chooses to tank "earned" that right by having the better team.

.

The team who tanks earned that right because he had the BETTER team during the season. That's the end game really. Have a better team and you will not be affected by another team's action who is simply trying to increase his/her own chances of winning the championship.

Winning might put you in a situation where you stand to gain by acting out of the bounds of individual competition that are considered ethical.

It does not give you the "right" to do so, however.

ETA: The right at stake here is the right of all the other owners in the league to have all games be legitimate competitions between the teams involved. You're violating their rights to a fair league by tanking.

 

[silentcoach]

bottom line: you should never count on other teams to help you reach the playoffs.

 

[Phenix]

If there is no rule against whatever you are doing, go ahead. Do what you gotta do to win the title, as long as you are not colluding with others.

 

[silentcoach]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.

If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

Okay. So would you offer a 2-8 team a portion of your prize money for his best players?

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

The problem with collusion isn't that the owners agree with each other, plan with each other. Nor that money changes hands. The problem is the destruction of the spirit of individual competition that is the basis of the game. The problem is a team giving another team an advantage that they wouldn't have if everyone participated individually in trying to win each game.

You say that you are acting individually, but the end result is that you are helping another team to win. It doesn't matter whether you do this to benefit by cash payment, getting to shtoop the guy's sister, or by getting a better playoff opponent. The problem is that you do it. The reason for doing it is ancillary.

The end result of your action is that one of the other guy's games is no longer a true competition, it's a sham because of you. He only had to play 12 real games while everyone else played 13.

That you get a benefit to your team without needing your opponent's consent doesn't change one iota that you create the exact same problem that collusion does.

Collusion by definition requires 2 owners working together. So "tanking" as defined by OP can NEVER be collusion.....by definition. Whether it has the same effects does not make it collusion no matter how hard you try.

You must not have even tried to read my post. The point of wihch was that the problem with collusion is the destroying of individual competition by helping another team out. Tanking has the exact same result.

The mechanics (secret agreements, payment, or helping your playoff spot) that determine whether it is called collusion or tanking are irrelevant. What matters is that they both cause the same exact problem that is why collusion is viewed as unethical.

Sorry, here was the rest of my post

That guy still played 13 "real" games, his win just did not affect anything because he has not "earned" the right to control his own destiny from his other 12 games. The owner who chooses to tank "earned" that right by having the better team.

.

The team who tanks earned that right because he had the BETTER team during the season. That's the end game really. Have a better team and you will not be affected by another team's action who is simply trying to increase his/her own chances of winning the championship.

Winning might put you in a situation where you stand to gain by acting out of the bounds of individual competition that are considered ethical.

It does not give you the "right" to do so, however.

It is a right, because I've defined it as such. It is a right because I have the better team, a

nd outside collusuion, I am doing what I can to increase my championship odds. You had just as good odds the other 12 games and did not capitalize on it. Don't count on other teams to do you favors. It is not collusion, nor is it cheating.

It is the other team's fault that he was in the siutation where he did not control his own destiny. Outside collusion, I don't see a problem with the tanking.

 

[McGarnicle]

So you pro-tanking guys are cool with collusion too? You're 2-8 and all but eliminated and someone offers you a lopsided trade and half of any prize monies he wins. There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved. Decline the trade and win zero dollars; accept the trade and have a chance to win some dollars. The decision to accept the trade seems like the only rational decision.If you disagree with the above statement but think it's okay to intentionally lose a game, I'd love to hear your logic of why they are so different.

No, and explaining it is ridiculous. I want to win, solely for myself. That's the object of the league. I would not take money to help another team. Not the same.

And you don't see how intentionally losing and letting a lesser team into the playoffs and screwing a more deserving team ruins the competitive balance of the league and causes bad blood? Or you just don't care?I guess if you just want to win money and don't care about the other guys and if they come back next year, this makes sense. That's not how I play, but it's logical for someone with that mindset.

The other team isn't "lesser". Presumably both teams have the same record. He simply likes the matchup better the week he would play him.That is his opinion though and not necessarily fact. But it is a situation, via locked playoff spot, that he has earned. Neither of the other two teams have "earned" anything. They do not control their own destiny. Again, one of the guys is in and the other is out no matter what he does.

For every instance you could show me where it makes perfect sense and wouldn't hurt anyone, I can show you one where someone is unfairly screwed. If you're trying to run a fair league with clear and concise rules, it's either allowed or it isn't.Incidentally I'm in favor of victory points, doubleheaders, and awarding seeds for overall points as well as record so that hopefully the best teams are clear at the end of the year.

 

[Amused to Death]

That is a definite Catch 22 situation with no good answer. You are supposed to try to win your games and doing so is supposed to help you make the playoffs. If league rules are structured where the situation you are talking about happens, it puts two proper ethical behaviors at odds. One can argue either way, and I wouldn't hold someone to fault whichever way they decided, in that specific case.

Someone tanking to gift another team a win merely to manipulate other team's seedings for your matchup's sake does not suffer from a conflict of basic principles of the game, however.

Aren't both situations acting in the best interest of your team? Losing to advance?

 

[McGarnicle]

Any system where a win causes me to miss the playoffs and a loss gets me in needs to be changed. I've never seen this happen.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

I never insinuated it bordered on collusion. They're clearly different things. I'm just curious. A lot of people seem to have an "I will do whatever I have to do to give myself the best odds at a championship" mentality, but at the same time, they get appalled at the merest idea of collusion. So clearly a line exists. Clearly there's a point where "do what it takes to win a championship" becomes "some things are more important than winning a championship, and I draw the line there". I'm just wondering where that line is.

Really, collusion is something of a fantasy boogeyman. The fact that the mere specter of it is so upsetting- that even asking someone if they'd consider it is a grave insult to their integrity as a fantasy owner- goes to show how successfully the fantasy community has managed to create a social norm against it. If it were up to me, I would love for there to be a similarly strong social norm against intentionally losing games. In an ideal world, if I asked someone if they'd intentionally lose a game to secure a better draft pick or playoff matchup, they would be insulted at the mere suggestion.

 

[Adam Harstad]

To clarify, this is an internet redraft league. I don't know any of these people, and never will. I would never consider it if it was a local league (keeper, dynasty, or redraft) or a free league.

When I read this, what I hear is "I know it's wrong, and I wouldn't try it if there was nothing serious at stake or if I might actually ever see the guys involved again." Or, in other words, if not for the corrupting influence of money and the safety of anonymity, it would never be considered.

 

[Amused to Death]

Your question is clear collusion. The topic at hand is one team, acting in their own best interest without the help of another team. To insinuate it borders on collusion is ridiculous.

I never insinuated it bordered on collusion. They're clearly different things. I'm just curious. A lot of people seem to have an "I will do whatever I have to do to give myself the best odds at a championship" mentality, but at the same time, they get appalled at the merest idea of collusion. So clearly a line exists. Clearly there's a point where "do what it takes to win a championship" becomes "some things are more important than winning a championship, and I draw the line there". I'm just wondering where that line is.

Really, collusion is something of a fantasy boogeyman. The fact that the mere specter of it is so upsetting- that even asking someone if they'd consider it is a grave insult to their integrity as a fantasy owner- goes to show how successfully the fantasy community has managed to create a social norm against it. If it were up to me, I would love for there to be a similarly strong social norm against intentionally losing games. In an ideal world, if I asked someone if they'd intentionally lose a game to secure a better draft pick or playoff matchup, they would be insulted at the mere suggestion.

I would not lose to get a better draft pick - others might and as I said before I think its a gray area. But improving my odds to win this year is what the season is about. Its a clear difference of opinion that probably will not end with everyone in agreement in this thread. I guess it comes down to playing within what's acceptable for your league. Choose accordingly.

 

[GregR]

Bottom line, everyone here knows that it is widely enough viewed as unethical it isn't something you should just do and expect no strife over it.

If you want to be a behave as a decent human being, address the situation to your league. Let them decide before you do anything, whether the league permits such behavior or not.

If the league decides to not allow it, don't do it. If the league decides to allow it, then do it, there's nothing unethical when the league decides to include it.

The only reason for not bringing it up for a league decision first, is that they don't want to be restricted from something they suspect the league will consider to be cheating.

If you do this without clarifying, in my mind you lose any benefit of the doubt you weren't cheating. I think a league is completely in their rights to boot anyone who does this without checking with the league first where it isn't already clear.

 

[Adam Harstad]

That is not a correct comparison at all! The correct NFL comparison would be a playoff team throwing a game in order to allow a lesser team to make the playoffs. I don't think this was the logic behind removing the starters, but in 2009 the Colts removed their starters after 2 quarters in week 17 which allowed the Jets to win and make the playoffs, eliminating the Texans who would've made the playoffs if the Jets had lost. IF the Colts felt they matched up better with the Jets than the Texans then that would've been a viable NFL strategy to tank that game since it did not cost them a playoff position.

But not only would it have been a viable strategy, it would have been a GOOD strategy if they were right that they matched up better with one team or the other. Same with FF. It might not be worth pissing people off for the advantage, but that's a call each person has to make. But if you play to win the game and losing a single matchup improves your chances, then from a purely strategic standpoint, you throw the meaningless matchup to improve your odds of winning the championship.

There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved.

I agree, that's another great comparison, because it involves an NFL franchise intentionally trying to lose a game. Can you find me an example of a team actually doing that some time?

Hell, anyone just find me any example of any NFL team intentionally trying to lose any game for any reason whatsoever. If we're taking our cue from the NFL, and we want to justify intentionally trying to lose a game, let's find an example of that ever happening in the NFL.

can you find me an example of 50k people buying tickets to watch you play fantasty football on sunday?

I'm not the one who started with the NFL comparisons. The pro-tanking side brought up NFL teams resting their players to try to justify tanking. The implication is that if an NFL team does it, then it's okay. I'm just asking them to follow through on that and provide an example of an NFL team intentionally losing a game. And if the implication is that an NFL team doing it makes it okay, does that also carry with it an implication that if no NFL team would ever do it, then it's not okay?

 

[Amused to Death]

If your favorite NFL team goes 11-5 and loses in the 1st round of the playoffs, and a 9-7 team wins the Super Bowl, which team had the better season?

 

[McGarnicle]

To clarify, this is an internet redraft league. I don't know any of these people, and never will. I would never consider it if it was a local league (keeper, dynasty, or redraft) or a free league.

When I read this, what I hear is "I know it's wrong, and I wouldn't try it if there was nothing serious at stake or if I might actually ever see the guys involved again." Or, in other words, if not for the corrupting influence of money and the safety of anonymity, it would never be considered.

Yep. Last week it occurred to me that if I lost, the crappy team I was playing would make the playoffs and a guy I dislike would be eliminated. The thought crossed my mind for a second, but I dismissed it immediately. It's a local league with a live draft every year. And I'm a weird moralistic person who wouldn't steal a pen from my company, clearly a dying breed. I wouldn't feel good about it even if no one noticed.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Adam, I'm sure you realize that the negation of "NO TANKING EVER" isn't "EVERYBODY TANK ALL THE TIME." I'm not really interested in defending a position I haven't taken, so just to be clear, all I've said is that there are some situations where I think it would be ok to "tank" a less important game to increase your chances at winning a more important game later in the season. I don't envision this leading to a dystopian fantasy wasteland. It hasn't yet.

I have leaguemates who regularly employ a strategy of drafting a bunch of players who are all on bye the same week. Should that be disallowed? Why hasn't my league crumbled under the weight of the inequity this inevitably causes?

The problem isn't tanking, the problem is leagues that don't adequately disincentivize tanking. If a league (inadvertently or otherwise) forces an owner to make this kind of Sophie's choice, then I'm not going to fault the owner for choosing to do what gives him the best chance to win the prize (which is, generally, the reason people play redraft leagues with strangers for money). Fortunately, I think this is a relatively rare occurrence.

Again, the Jacksonville Jaguars are actively hurting their franchise's future with every game they win right now. Do you watch their games

No, not usually. More imporantly, I'm not trying to make shoddy analogies between the NFL and fantasy football, because they're two very different things.

The league stated its intention for the four playoff teams to be the best four teams, as defined by winning percentage with one wildcard for total points.

No it didn't:

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.

I'm not even nitpicking you messing up the wildcard bit. More broadly, Ernol didn't say anything about "the best four teams" - that's something you've (intentionally or not) ascribed to it. He simply relayed the criteria by which teams are selected for the playoffs. Whether or not those end up being the four "best" teams - or what "best" even means - is subjective. The goal of fantasy football is to win a championship, and of course making the playoffs is a required step towards that goal. He was put in a position where he could make the playoffs by losing, or miss the playoffs by winning. If you're anti-tanking, rather than killing him for making the perfectly rational choice to lose the game, we should examine what went wrong in the league that this situation was possible and try to come up with better alternatives.

 

[hamster_13]

To clarify, this is an internet redraft league. I don't know any of these people, and never will. I would never consider it if it was a local league (keeper, dynasty, or redraft) or a free league.

When I read this, what I hear is "I know it's wrong, and I wouldn't try it if there was nothing serious at stake or if I might actually ever see the guys involved again." Or, in other words, if not for the corrupting influence of money and the safety of anonymity, it would never be considered.

I would value the league/friends over the money if it was people I knew.

 

[Adam Harstad]

By doing so, I am not entering into a secret agreement with another team to help him get in. I'm helping myself. I would do it even if it were to no benefit to another team. Everything we do in FFL affects other team; some positively, some negatively. The difference, imo, is I'm acting in my own self interest. Won't my winning also benefit someone else?

If the fact that you're acting in your own self interest makes a difference, then nobody should have any problem with collusion, which just involves two teams getting together and each agreeing to act in their own interest.

Again, the violent negative reaction the average fantasy owner has to the mere mention of collusion really speaks to the power of social norms. I just wish there were a similar norm against tanking, too.

 

[Amused to Death]

<snip>

You say it so much better.

 

[blake]

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

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

 

[Amused to Death]

By doing so, I am not entering into a secret agreement with another team to help him get in. I'm helping myself. I would do it even if it were to no benefit to another team. Everything we do in FFL affects other team; some positively, some negatively. The difference, imo, is I'm acting in my own self interest. Won't my winning also benefit someone else?

If the fact that you're acting in your own self interest makes a difference, then nobody should have any problem with collusion, which just involves two teams getting together and each agreeing to act in their own interest.

Again, the violent negative reaction the average fantasy owner has to the mere mention of collusion really speaks to the power of social norms. I just wish there were a similar norm against tanking, too.

So considering IE's example above, are you against teams stacking up on players with the same bye? Doesn't that one bad week benefit one team?

 

[Amused to Death]

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

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Adam Harstad]

That is a definite Catch 22 situation with no good answer. You are supposed to try to win your games and doing so is supposed to help you make the playoffs. If league rules are structured where the situation you are talking about happens, it puts two proper ethical behaviors at odds. One can argue either way, and I wouldn't hold someone to fault whichever way they decided, in that specific case.

Someone tanking to gift another team a win merely to manipulate other team's seedings for your matchup's sake does not suffer from a conflict of basic principles of the game, however.

I don't think it's quite as tricky as it first seems. Sometimes, you're called to act against your long-term interests in order to preserve the competitive integrity of the league, knowing that your leaguemates will be called to do the same thing when they're in your situation. This is true when you're eliminated in a dynasty league and every win only takes you further from the #1 pick. This is true when you're on the cusp in a redraft league and a win paradoxically serves to eliminate you. In both cases, losing helps you achieve your ultimate goal.

It seems so unintuitive to be in a situation where winning eliminates you from the playoffs, but I do think tanking for draft position is ultimately a good comparison.

 

[Darryl Talley]

It would probably leave a bad taste in the league. If I'm that owner getting barebacked, I am not returning next year.

If you wanna be a dirtbag then set your worst possible lineup. But at least set a lineup. To completely throw the game so you can get closer to some money is sad. I don't think anyone here is trying to get rent or diaper money. The true spirit of FF does not include screwing people over for a money purse.

 

[FF Ninja]

That is not a correct comparison at all! The correct NFL comparison would be a playoff team throwing a game in order to allow a lesser team to make the playoffs. I don't think this was the logic behind removing the starters, but in 2009 the Colts removed their starters after 2 quarters in week 17 which allowed the Jets to win and make the playoffs, eliminating the Texans who would've made the playoffs if the Jets had lost. IF the Colts felt they matched up better with the Jets than the Texans then that would've been a viable NFL strategy to tank that game since it did not cost them a playoff position.

But not only would it have been a viable strategy, it would have been a GOOD strategy if they were right that they matched up better with one team or the other. Same with FF. It might not be worth pissing people off for the advantage, but that's a call each person has to make. But if you play to win the game and losing a single matchup improves your chances, then from a purely strategic standpoint, you throw the meaningless matchup to improve your odds of winning the championship.

There is no real debate here until you let human feelings get involved.

I agree, that's another great comparison, because it involves an NFL franchise intentionally trying to lose a game. Can you find me an example of a team actually doing that some time?

Hell, anyone just find me any example of any NFL team intentionally trying to lose any game for any reason whatsoever. If we're taking our cue from the NFL, and we want to justify intentionally trying to lose a game, let's find an example of that ever happening in the NFL.

I doubt I can. But that's the problem with people always trying to compare FF directly to real football. It's not the same. We play no defense. The scoring can never be perfect because we have to allow for points in our game that count for nothing in the real game. Fantasy football will never perfectly mimic real football. It is really just silly to try to use real football strategy as a justification for strategy in a game that only slightly resembles the real game.

In this case, there is no downside to tanking a matchup to improve our outlook in the playoffs. In the NFL you have a bunch of competitive guys playing for pride. You have a bunch of guys without real world skills that are playing for their jobs. You've got players playing for statistical incentives. You've got coaches who are coaching for their job. There are just way too many factors involved for us to conclusively prove that an NFL team has tanked a game. That being said, I am not sure that Indy didn't tank the Jets game to avoid Houston simply by removing it's best players. We had played them tough that year and presented more of a threat than a Mark Sanchez led Jets. I'm sure the players that were on the field were playing as hard as they could and the coaches probably didn't hose them with bad play calls, but it is not out of the realm of possibility that Indy, in some form or fashion, tanked that game deliberately (although I still suspect it was just a player health/rest move). There are probably other ambiguous instances of this, but this is not a situation that arises often in the NFL and, as I mentioned before, would be impossible to conclusively diagnose.

 

[Adam Harstad]

If there is no rule against whatever you are doing, go ahead. Do what you gotta do to win the title, as long as you are not colluding with others.

What if you're in a league that doesn't have a rule against collusion, though?

I've now seen several people say what basically amounts to "everything that's not explicitly against the rules is fair game. Except collusion, which is never fair game regardless of what the rules say." Once again, this is the power of social norms.

 

[Amused to Death]

If your favorite NFL team goes 11-5 and loses in the 1st round of the playoffs, and a 9-7 team wins the Super Bowl, which team had the better season?

So, do we play to rack up regular season wins or do we play to win a championship?

 

[GregR]

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

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

No, it doesn't.

I googled for previous polls here on whether people would tank. This one about 54% wouldn't tank to about 42% who would. This one it was 2/3 wouldn't tank, 1/3 would.

As the majority of people seem to consider tanking wrong, would you agree it is wrong for someone to tank without clarifying it with the league first?

 

[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.

Honest question for the pro-tanking crowd. I've seen this sentiment expressed a couple of times now. Why is "leaving players blank" the line? Why is it okay to start someone on a bye, but not okay to start no one at all? Aren't they the same thing?

I am not talking about starting a bye week player for no reason, this is a special situation where you working to better your own team. You should be able to do what is best for your team, unless the rules say differently. I would not even define that as tanking. You are just trying to make the best of your own situation, whether you like it or not somebody will benefit and somebody will get screwed, but that is true of all ff decisions.

In my 14 team league, the number one seed and the top points (by a mile) getter has to play the number three person in points this week, who by record, is the 8 seed. Is that a model of integrity? No, it is an example of a truly screwed up scoring and ranking system. But hey, that is our system!! I am the number two seed in that league and I get to play the worst team, a team that by virtue of points scored was one of the worst teams in the league. If the no. 1 guy had had the foresight to jockey a little bit in order to make himself no 2 at my expense and I didn't catch it, I have no one to blame but myself.

 

[Amused to Death]

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

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

No, it doesn't.

I googled for previous polls here on whether people would tank. This one about 54% wouldn't tank to about 42% who would. This one it was 2/3 wouldn't tank, 1/3 would.

As the majority of people seem to consider tanking wrong, would you agree it is wrong for someone to tank without clarifying it with the league first?

All tanking is not the same. Some drop players so others can pick them up. Some tank for money. Some tank to get better draft picks. Some do it to try to get better match ups. Are they equal?

 

[McGarnicle]

We can argue for another 50 pages and it all comes down to having rules in place. If we were playing Monopoly, the rules are right there in the box and such a debate would never occur. In the absence of rules, you essentially end up with 12 commissioners. This thread proves that everyone has their own idea of what is ethical and fair.

 

[Amused to Death]

In my dynasty league some owners just had a fire sale collecting draft picks while trading away star players on a 1-year contract to teams fighting for a playoff spot. Those teams are obviously not playing to win these final weeks. Fair?

 

[blake]

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

False. I simply couldn't articulate it any better than Adam. Tanking for any purpose is not only foolish, but it does sour the league.

That said, McGarnicle earlier wrote that a league needs specific rules to prevent this. In my view, I think it does need to be in the rules, but vague rules to cast a wide net serves a greater purpose and gives more latitude to a commissioner to simply remove an owner that chooses to tank at any time as soon as possible. I can't remember if it was Adam or McGarnicle that wrote this, but when an owner is willing to tank, that means they are willing to collude or do any number of other things that sacrifice the integrity of the league. My league, thankfully, has no interest in people who constantly look for loopholes. Just score the most points and try to win.

Thank you, Adam, for continuing to express these views in the most patient, easy to understand and interesting to read way.

No, it doesn't.

True, it was an overgeneralization. However, let's just say that I would never want someone who considers tanking a great strategy in a league I am in and/or a commissioner in. From then on, I would never be able to fully trust the person. Thus, I would be suspicious that they would be scheming to collude or find loopholes at any opportunity. These kind of people I don't need to deal with in a fantasy league.