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

[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?

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?

It was a pretty simple question but I'll make it more generic if needed.

Someone would like to do X. They know it is likely that half to two-thirds of their participants may consider it cheating. Is it wrong for the person to do X without having the league clarify first whether the behavior is allowed or not.

Doesn't matter what the behavior is. It could be check raising in poker, trading cards in Risk, or hacking your opponent's account and changing his lineup.

Is it wrong to go ahead and do something if you know that kind of percentage thinks it is unethical, when you could instead easily confirm whether it is allowed?

 

[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.

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.

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

 

[meatwad1]

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?

What about teams that have to play two great teams on an unbalanced schedule? I wonder if that is fair?

 

[McGarnicle]

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.

That is the point I was making. It's a #### move, and so is collusion, so if someone is doing something I feel is unethical, I have no idea where they would draw the line. I now have someone in the league who I don't feel I can trust.

 

[McGarnicle]

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.

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

I want to start playing dynasty next year. This happens a lot?

 

[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.

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.

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

I want to start playing dynasty next year. This happens a lot?

In a salary cap league, yes. Studs on a expiring contract do a 2-win team no good. Often traded for deadwood (to balance cap numbers) + picks/rising players on cheap contracts with multiple years.

Is it fair that a team traded away Manning and is now starting Ryan Tannehill the last few weeks?

 

[Adam Harstad]

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.

Would you agree with the following statement?: "On the whole (rather than from the perspective of one particular individual), a league where no one tanks even when it is in their best interest to do so produces better outcomes than a league where everyone tanks every time it is in their best interest to do so." And if so, would you have a problem generalizing from that statement to say that, on the whole, everyone benefits if no one tanks?

Yes, in certain situations, an individual will be hurt by an agreement to never tank. At the same time, for every such situation, there are an equal number of situations where an individual will be helped by an agreement to never tank.

I know the dystopian fantasy wasteland stuff is over the top, but I'm all about making things better where possible, and I strongly believe that fantasy football is better for all involved when no one ever tanks.

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?

Is he still trying to win on that bye week? I think I've been pretty clear to this point that my problem is with people intentionally trying to lose a game- with them actively seeking out a loss, and taking extraordinary measures to secure it. You're one of the smartest guys around (and one of the few who reliably makes it all the way through my posts when I start rambling), so I'm sure you've noticed me making that distinction. There's a difference between accepting an increased likelihood of a loss and actively seeking out a loss.

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.

I agree with this. I was dealing in NFL analogies because someone else had brought them up first, but there's no sense in me holding you to arguments that you never made in the first place.

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.

All leagues reward playoff spots to the teams they deem most deserving based on the previously agreed-upon criteria. Maybe not the "best" teams in the purest sense of the word (i.e. the teams most likely to win on any given week), but the teams whose merits the league decided to value most highly (whether that be winning percentage, all-play record, total points, or whatever). Call them "the four best teams (as defined by the league bylaws)", if you would rather.

Had every owner played every week to the best of his abilities, Ernol's team would not have qualified as one of the four "best" teams according to league bylaws... but because of a quirk of scheduling, Ernol gained some piece of foreknowledge that allowed him to replace one of those four best teams by intentionally losing a game. This is unfair to the rest of the league, who never had access to that unique foreknowledge and never had a similar opportunity. This is unfair to the team that was considered better by the league bylaws, but who was kept out because Ernol gamed the system. This is unfair to anyone else whose championship odds were adversely affected by Ernol handing his opponent a free win.

I do agree that we should also search for better alternatives, but at the end of the day, order of operations is going to cause some funky results. It's like awarding players during waivers- the order in which you process can dramatically change the outcome. If his league processed in a different order, that would have eliminated the possibility Ernol encountered while creating another. Any time you have two different paths to make the playoffs (in this case, winning% or total points), it creates the possibility of a very rare situation where it is to your advantage to intentionally allow a team to move ahead of you on one path in order to clear your way to the playoffs on the other.

 

[McGarnicle]

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.

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

I want to start playing dynasty next year. This happens a lot?

In a salary cap league, yes. Studs on a expiring contract do a 2-win team no good. Often traded for deadwood (to balance cap numbers) + picks/rising players on cheap contracts with multiple years.

Seems like every team is eventually in that predicament, so there is a lot of latitude given, yes?

 

[Adam Harstad]

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.

Agreed, here. If this thread demonstrates nothing else, it should demonstrate that a lot of people believe that tanking doesn't sacrifice the integrity of the league. We can argue whether they're right or wrong (in fact, I believe we happen to be arguing exactly that ), but if someone believes tanking doesn't impact league integrity, and collusion DOES impact league integrity, then a willingness to tank would not correspond at all with a willingness to collude.

 

[Hoss Style]

Interesting read.

Not often we get a thread with fervent opinions on both sides that doesn't erode into a mudslinging contest.

I started pretty open minded to both sides. I knew I wasn't in favor of tanking for any reason, but maybe I wasn't seeing it from all sides. After reading, it seems to me Adam and Greg have made good points about why tanking is not a good idea - while it may benefit you immediately - it hurts the "society" as a whole if it happens too often and then emboldens others to use the strategy with the excuse of "Well, he did it". Once it reaches that point the league could drastically change, which might be OK with some. I would hate it.

Just because it hasn't caused "chaos", as one poster put it, doesn't mean in theory it wouldn't. It seems one side is looking at the "good of the group" in choosing not to tank, while the other side is looking at solely individual gain.

I'm still torn on whether ethics of this sort should apply to Fantasy Football or not - a game where in many leagues a "win at all cost" mentality is the norm.

I like Adam and Greg's thinking overall as honorable and "the right thing to do", but do we apply this to what is notoriously a cut-throat game? I would really have to base this off of the other people I'm playing with. I would probably flat out ask the question of the league before I tried it. If they said it's fair game - then it's fair game.

And I'd politely decline to join the league again next year. I can see plently of questionable and underhanded tactics in my real life business - I don't look foward to them in my hobbies as well.

 

[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.

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.

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

Speaking for myself, if the dynasty owner is doing it with a goal of losing games, then I'd boot his ### same as I would someone who tanks.

If he is doing it because his goal is a stronger roster and he's still legitimately trying to win every game he can through his own roster's scoring, then there is no issue.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

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.

That's not getting screwed. That's not having a good enough record to control your own destiny. I can see why it might be considered impolite, but people dropping out over it? I'd rather not coddle such sensitive owners. I wouldn't have any trouble showing my face if I did that, but Im not a hypocrite. I wouldn't balme someone else for doing it, either.

"Hey, my team is getting hot! Let me into the playoffs so I can beat you!" doesn't carry much weight with me. If you need me to get you in, there's no guarantee it will happen. I don't work for your team.

In one league I'm going to need help to make the playoffs. If an owner wants to keep me out and tanks so a team I need to lose ends up winning, that would be lame. But it's not wrong to do, and I'd have myself to blame. I wouldn't get angry at them or quit the league.

In another league, I proposed a rule that says a wild card spot goes to the team with the most total points that didn't get in by record. It passed and I'll be getting in that way this year. So ultimately, it was on me to earn a spot.

In your example, the team that got hot shouldn have gotten hotter one week earlier I guess. Sometimes that happens in the NFL. A team needs another to lose, but they're playing a team resting starters. I understand the team isn't resting to keep them out of it, but it still sucks. Nobody owes them anything. Should have won more games.

 

[Amused to Death]

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

Speaking for myself, if the dynasty owner is doing it with a goal of losing games, then I'd boot his ### same as I would someone who tanks.

If he is doing it because his goal is a stronger roster and he's still legitimately trying to win every game he can through his own roster's scoring, then there is no issue.

Yes, the owners are still setting their best possible lineup each week. But their goal was clearly not to win the rest of their games this year. The goal was to improve their team in the future to the detriment of the rest of this year. Knowingly. Is that tanking?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

Speaking for myself, if the dynasty owner is doing it with a goal of losing games, then I'd boot his ### same as I would someone who tanks.

If he is doing it because his goal is a stronger roster and he's still legitimately trying to win every game he can through his own roster's scoring, then there is no issue.

Yes, the owners are still setting their best possible lineup each week. But their goal was clearly not to win the rest of their games this year. The goal was to improve their team in the future to the detriment of the rest of this year. Knowingly. Is that tanking?

Isn't this the fun of dynasty? Team A is sacrificing this year to be good the next. That's not tanking. That's selling high.

Team B is going to be good now, but is paying a (usually heavy) price and will suffer later. To owners, two different strategies-- and both could pan out. Or neither could pan out. That's part of the game.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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.

Apropos of absolutely nothing, but the fact that the rules are right there in the box for Monopoly still doesn't mean people follow them.

 

[Amused to Death]

Hypothetical: If a dynasty team has PManning and Gino Smith as his only 2 QBs and his record at the trade deadline was 3-7, is it tanking if he trades PManning up for Rodgers + a pick, knowing he has to start Smith the rest of the way and Rodgers may not play again in '13?

 

[Hoss Style]

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

Speaking for myself, if the dynasty owner is doing it with a goal of losing games, then I'd boot his ### same as I would someone who tanks.

If he is doing it because his goal is a stronger roster and he's still legitimately trying to win every game he can through his own roster's scoring, then there is no issue.

Yes, the owners are still setting their best possible lineup each week. But their goal was clearly not to win the rest of their games this year. The goal was to improve their team in the future to the detriment of the rest of this year. Knowingly. Is that tanking?

Speaking for Greg here, if I may - if the bolded was true and the owner had somehow clearly expressed that his goal was to not win the rest of his games - then Greg would surely boot him - as would I.

There is a distinct difference in building your team to compete in future years and actually trying not to win games.

 

[GregR]

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.

You sent me down all sorts of lines of thought. I do agree mostly with your analogy, though I think there are differences too.

Though in the end I'm going to amend my previous answer... I came to the conclusion tanking is still wrong in the Catch 22, though for sort of different reasons. I've never felt comfortable with the thought of it. Staffer Ken Maxwell was once in this situation, and he played his best lineup anyway and I felt good for him that he did, so I've kind of always felt that way I think. But I had problem expressing the why.

The situation is more one of empathy than it is a Catch 22, that you feel sorry someone is in that bind, but that is legitimately where they should be. But when you come down to it, if you tank you are putting the integrity of your game at stake and handing someone else a free win, which is unfair to other teams in your league.

It really isn't any different in result than if you give a player away to another team so he'll beat his opponent. You are taking a game and stopping it being a fair test between individual teams trying to win.

It would suck to be in that situation, but if the league believes the best records should get in, and then a best points team, then you shouldn't get in if you are not one of the best teams at best record, nor are you the best at total points. You likely had an easier bunch of opponents which is exactly why a league wants a playoff spot going to a best points team. Breaking the integrity of a game to manipulate other team's standings is a means that the end does not justify, and that's what you're doing in this situation. Compete honestly and close the gap in best points, or don't. Or if you get beat, then the team who beat you did so legitimately and what falls out is deserved.

I would rather start my best lineup and hope my players went off and closed the total points gap for me, and play ethically.

 

[Amused to Death]

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

Speaking for myself, if the dynasty owner is doing it with a goal of losing games, then I'd boot his ### same as I would someone who tanks.

If he is doing it because his goal is a stronger roster and he's still legitimately trying to win every game he can through his own roster's scoring, then there is no issue.

Yes, the owners are still setting their best possible lineup each week. But their goal was clearly not to win the rest of their games this year. The goal was to improve their team in the future to the detriment of the rest of this year. Knowingly. Is that tanking?

Isn't this the fun of dynasty? Team A is sacrificing this year to be good the next. That's not tanking. That's selling high.

Team B is going to be good now, but is paying a (usually heavy) price and will suffer later. To owners, two different strategies-- and both could pan out. Or neither could pan out. That's part of the game.

Definitely agree with you, but some teams get an advantage playing the weak team late in the year.

 

[Amused to Death]

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

Speaking for myself, if the dynasty owner is doing it with a goal of losing games, then I'd boot his ### same as I would someone who tanks.

If he is doing it because his goal is a stronger roster and he's still legitimately trying to win every game he can through his own roster's scoring, then there is no issue.

Yes, the owners are still setting their best possible lineup each week. But their goal was clearly not to win the rest of their games this year. The goal was to improve their team in the future to the detriment of the rest of this year. Knowingly. Is that tanking?

Speaking for Greg here, if I may - if the bolded was true and the owner had somehow clearly expressed that his goal was to not win the rest of his games - then Greg would surely boot him - as would I.

There is a distinct difference in building your team to compete in future years and actually trying not to win games.

No, the intention was not to lose. The intention was to build for the future by collecting picks and young players. The by-product is an inferior team this year that probably wouldn't win another game.

 

[Adam Harstad]

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

I want to start playing dynasty next year. This happens a lot?

Yup. Moreover, it is a good thing. Trading aging studs for young up-and-comers is one of the primary drivers of league parity, because it ensures good teams get older and bad teams get better. Parity is one of the most important aspects of a dynasty league (or, if not true parity, at least a mechanism whereby parity could be achieved). Nothing will ruin a dynasty league quicker than getting a bunch of bad teams that don't see any path to relevance.

Like anything else, it all depends on the execution, though...

 

[Adam Harstad]

Speaking for myself, if the dynasty owner is doing it with a goal of losing games, then I'd boot his ### same as I would someone who tanks.

If he is doing it because his goal is a stronger roster and he's still legitimately trying to win every game he can through his own roster's scoring, then there is no issue.

My rule of thumb is always "if draft picks were assigned randomly, would a reasonable owner still make this move?" If the answer is no, then he's tanking, and there will be consequences.

 

[xpiredcoupon]

Would like someone's take on a situation that happened this past week in my league. 10 team league where 4 teams make the playoffs. Prior to the start of week 13, the top 4 teams in the standings were already locked into the playoffs, only thing that could change in week 13 was seeding for 1 through 4. Coincidentally all 4 teams were playing each other during the last week of the regular season as well. 1 team tanked his week because he did not want to be the #1 seed and play the #4 seed the first week of the playoffs (arguably the best team of the 4, just some back luck losses) and would rather be a 2 seed and play the 3.

Just wondering what some thought of a move such as this one.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

Speaking for myself, if the dynasty owner is doing it with a goal of losing games, then I'd boot his ### same as I would someone who tanks.

If he is doing it because his goal is a stronger roster and he's still legitimately trying to win every game he can through his own roster's scoring, then there is no issue.

Yes, the owners are still setting their best possible lineup each week. But their goal was clearly not to win the rest of their games this year. The goal was to improve their team in the future to the detriment of the rest of this year. Knowingly. Is that tanking?

Isn't this the fun of dynasty? Team A is sacrificing this year to be good the next. That's not tanking. That's selling high.

Team B is going to be good now, but is paying a (usually heavy) price and will suffer later. To owners, two different strategies-- and both could pan out. Or neither could pan out. That's part of the game.

Definitely agree with you, but some teams get an advantage playing the weak team late in the year.

OK, but it's not your job or my job to make sure teams all play other teams when they're at equal strength. If they play a cupcake because that team is rebuilding (or they play a powerhouse because they mortgaged the future), that's how it goes. Dynasty adds in those wrinkles. That's not bad for the league. It's a sign of a dynamic one imo. Everyone's playing out their strategies with the goal of winning more titles. They're just not all 2013 titles.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Yes, the owners are still setting their best possible lineup each week. But their goal was clearly not to win the rest of their games this year. The goal was to improve their team in the future to the detriment of the rest of this year. Knowingly. Is that tanking?

Hypothetical: If a dynasty team has PManning and Gino Smith as his only 2 QBs and his record at the trade deadline was 3-7, is it tanking if he trades PManning up for Rodgers + a pick, knowing he has to start Smith the rest of the way and Rodgers may not play again in '13?

See my above rule of thumb. If draft picks were assigned randomly by drawing names out of a hat, would a reasonable owner still make that move? If so, then it's not tanking. If not, then it is tanking.

 

[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.

Apropos of absolutely nothing, but the fact that the rules are right there in the box for Monopoly still doesn't mean people follow them.

I've had that conversation with people. One person puts all the tax money in free parking, someone else says that's sacrilege. I should've said Scrabble.

 

[Hoss Style]

No, the intention was not to lose. The intention was to build for the future by collecting picks and young players. The by-product is an inferior team this year that probably wouldn't win another game.

This happens a lot in Dynasty/Keeper leagues that I've played in. As long as no bad intentions are evident, I see no problem. Yet this scenario is a far fetch from the OP and his post. He's tanking on purpose in one game to try to manipulate matchups and will be giving his opponent a "free" week.

I see you're trying to go farther down the path with similar instances, but I don't think these examples are fair to the original point.

 

[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.

You sent me down all sorts of lines of thought. I do agree mostly with your analogy, though I think there are differences too.

Though in the end I'm going to amend my previous answer... I came to the conclusion tanking is still wrong in the Catch 22, though for sort of different reasons. I've never felt comfortable with the thought of it. Staffer Ken Maxwell was once in this situation, and he played his best lineup anyway and I felt good for him that he did, so I've kind of always felt that way I think. But I had problem expressing the why.

The situation is more one of empathy than it is a Catch 22, that you feel sorry someone is in that bind, but that is legitimately where they should be. But when you come down to it, if you tank you are putting the integrity of your game at stake and handing someone else a free win, which is unfair to other teams in your league.

It really isn't any different in result than if you give a player away to another team so he'll beat his opponent. You are taking a game and stopping it being a fair test between individual teams trying to win.

It would suck to be in that situation, but if the league believes the best records should get in, and then a best points team, then you shouldn't get in if you are not one of the best teams at best record, nor are you the best at total points. You likely had an easier bunch of opponents which is exactly why a league wants a playoff spot going to a best points team. Breaking the integrity of a game to manipulate other team's standings is a means that the end does not justify, and that's what you're doing in this situation. Compete honestly and close the gap in best points, or don't. Or if you get beat, then the team who beat you did so legitimately and what falls out is deserved.

I would rather start my best lineup and hope my players went off and closed the total points gap for me, and play ethically.

I do think it's a fantastic thought experiment. I changed my mind on it at least twice. It's hard to strip away the emotion and come to a rational, logically-consistent conclusion regarding it. I'm really glad Ernol posted it, because there's nothing like a good brain-bender like that to help clarify where you really stand on an issue.

Thanks for providing the example with Ken Maxwell, too. Interesting to see what other people do when actually presented with that situation.

 

[pizzatyme]

You do what you legally can to win the most you can.

If I can start a lineup of my backups and it helps me win next week, I'm doing it. That's not shady, that's logical.

 

[Amused to Death]

No, the intention was not to lose. The intention was to build for the future by collecting picks and young players. The by-product is an inferior team this year that probably wouldn't win another game.

This happens a lot in Dynasty/Keeper leagues that I've played in. As long as no bad intentions are evident, I see no problem. Yet this scenario is a far fetch from the OP and his post. He's tanking on purpose in one game to try to manipulate matchups and will be giving his opponent a "free" week.

I see you're trying to go farther down the path with similar instances, but I don't think these examples are fair to the original point.

You're right, I've veered off course. Kinda going along the lines of "competitive balance of the league" if a team tries to improve their odds of winning the grand prize.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Would like someone's take on a situation that happened this past week in my league. 10 team league where 4 teams make the playoffs. Prior to the start of week 13, the top 4 teams in the standings were already locked into the playoffs, only thing that could change in week 13 was seeding for 1 through 4. Coincidentally all 4 teams were playing each other during the last week of the regular season as well. 1 team tanked his week because he did not want to be the #1 seed and play the #4 seed the first week of the playoffs (arguably the best team of the 4, just some back luck losses) and would rather be a 2 seed and play the 3.

Just wondering what some thought of a move such as this one.

No problem with this. It would be funny if it "worked" and they ended up losing when they would have won by not doing it...but nothing unethical about it imo. If you can get yourself an easier path to the title, you'd be hurting your team by not trying to take it.

 

[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.

Would you agree with the following statement?: "On the whole (rather than from the perspective of one particular individual), a league where no one tanks even when it is in their best interest to do so produces better outcomes than a league where everyone tanks every time it is in their best interest to do so."

That's exactly the false dichotomy I just told you I'm not defending.

Yes, in certain situations, an individual will be hurt by an agreement to never tank. At the same time, for every such situation, there are an equal number of situations where an individual will be helped by an agreement to never tank.

If that's true then it seems an agreement to never tank is net neutral, not a net positive.

Is he still trying to win on that bye week? I think I've been pretty clear to this point that my problem is with people intentionally trying to lose a game- with them actively seeking out a loss, and taking extraordinary measures to secure it. You're one of the smartest guys around (and one of the few who reliably makes it all the way through my posts when I start rambling), so I'm sure you've noticed me making that distinction. There's a difference between accepting an increased likelihood of a loss and actively seeking out a loss.

Define "trying." Knowingly drafting a team full of players that are all on bye in week 8 can hardly be characterized as trying to win in week 8. That's usually ok, because the goal of fantasy football generally isn't to win in week 8, the goal is to win in week 16. The difference between "accepting an increased likelihood of a loss" and "actively seeking out a loss" in this situation is almost indistinguishable - and in any case, the outcome either way is that the owner almost certainly loses. I just skimmed through the last page or so of the collusion talk, but wasn't that one of the points made? While collusion and tanking are fundamentally different actions, they produce the same outcome on the league and are therefore equally unethical. You may as well lump in "drafting a whole team on bye in week 8" with tanking since they produce the same outcome.

All leagues reward playoff spots to the teams they deem most deserving based on the previously agreed-upon criteria. Maybe not the "best" teams in the purest sense of the word (i.e. the teams most likely to win on any given week), but the teams whose merits the league decided to value most highly (whether that be winning percentage, all-play record, total points, or whatever). Call them "the four best teams (as defined by the league bylaws)", if you would rather.

Had every owner played every week to the best of his abilities...

But that's the point. What is the "best of his abilities?" Is his goal to win week 13, or to win a championship? One could argue that it's a credit to his abilities that he recognized the situation he was in and rationally opted to lose the less meaningul game to increase his probability of winning the more important game. Don't blame Ernol, blame the league format that forced him into that undesirable situation.

Any time you have two different paths to make the playoffs (in this case, winning% or total points), it creates the possibility of a very rare situation where it is to your advantage to intentionally allow a team to move ahead of you on one path in order to clear your way to the playoffs on the other.

And everyone knows that going in. It's just a game, and depending on the setup, this is a rare but possible consequence of the rules. If I agreed that fantasy football would be better if no one ever tanked, then my proposal would be to fix the rules such that there was no rational incentive to tank.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Would like someone's take on a situation that happened this past week in my league. 10 team league where 4 teams make the playoffs. Prior to the start of week 13, the top 4 teams in the standings were already locked into the playoffs, only thing that could change in week 13 was seeding for 1 through 4. Coincidentally all 4 teams were playing each other during the last week of the regular season as well. 1 team tanked his week because he did not want to be the #1 seed and play the #4 seed the first week of the playoffs (arguably the best team of the 4, just some back luck losses) and would rather be a 2 seed and play the 3.

Just wondering what some thought of a move such as this one.

This is where I go all Herm Edwards and do my "you play to win the game" rant. In my mind, any time a team is intentionally losing a game, it's dirty pool.

 

[GregR]

How about dynasty owners trading stud players for rookies and future draft picks to playoff contending teams?

Speaking for myself, if the dynasty owner is doing it with a goal of losing games, then I'd boot his ### same as I would someone who tanks.

If he is doing it because his goal is a stronger roster and he's still legitimately trying to win every game he can through his own roster's scoring, then there is no issue.

Yes, the owners are still setting their best possible lineup each week. But their goal was clearly not to win the rest of their games this year. The goal was to improve their team in the future to the detriment of the rest of this year. Knowingly. Is that tanking?

Speaking for Greg here, if I may - if the bolded was true and the owner had somehow clearly expressed that his goal was to not win the rest of his games - then Greg would surely boot him - as would I.

There is a distinct difference in building your team to compete in future years and actually trying not to win games.

You spoke well for me.

Trying to lose the games is the crux of tanking. Just because something does hurt your chance to win some game isn't the issue. It's when it is a necessary motivator or else the transaction wouldn't have been done.

When you weigh the benefits and detriments, if it is a net benefit without including "I might lose some games which <give me a better draft pick/alter other team's seedings/etc>", then it's fine to do.

If you would not do the transaction without envisioning a benefit from losing, then it's an issue.

 

[Adam Harstad]

You do what you legally can to win the most you can.

If I can start a lineup of my backups and it helps me win next week, I'm doing it. That's not shady, that's logical.

What if there's no rule against collusion? Fair game?

 

[Adam Harstad]

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.

Would you agree with the following statement?: "On the whole (rather than from the perspective of one particular individual), a league where no one tanks even when it is in their best interest to do so produces better outcomes than a league where everyone tanks every time it is in their best interest to do so."

That's exactly the false dichotomy I just told you I'm not defending.

Defending someone's right to sometimes tank when it is in his best interest to do so defends everyone's right to always tank when it is in their best interest to do so. If you establish that it's okay for someone to tank if it improves their championship odds, then you accept that it will always be okay when anyone does so in that situation.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Would like someone's take on a situation that happened this past week in my league. 10 team league where 4 teams make the playoffs. Prior to the start of week 13, the top 4 teams in the standings were already locked into the playoffs, only thing that could change in week 13 was seeding for 1 through 4. Coincidentally all 4 teams were playing each other during the last week of the regular season as well. 1 team tanked his week because he did not want to be the #1 seed and play the #4 seed the first week of the playoffs (arguably the best team of the 4, just some back luck losses) and would rather be a 2 seed and play the 3.

Just wondering what some thought of a move such as this one.

This is where I go all Herm Edwards and do my "you play to win the game" rant. In my mind, any time a team is intentionally losing a game, it's dirty pool.

Perhaps we have a different idea of what "the game" is. To me, winning the game means winning the championship. Winning a game that doesn't help you and might hurt you is not playing to win a championship imo. I wouldn't call it dirty pool; maybe silly pool. Certainly not more ethical.

 

[Amused to Death]

You spoke well for me.

Trying to lose the games is the crux of tanking. Just because something does hurt your chance to win some game isn't the issue. It's when it is a necessary motivator or else the transaction wouldn't have been done.

When you weigh the benefits and detriments, if it is a net benefit without including "I might lose some games which <give me a better draft pick/alter other team's seedings/etc>", then it's fine to do.

If you would not do the transaction without envisioning a benefit from losing, then it's an issue.

In my example, the benefit was trading an expiring contract for younger QB who has a more cap-friendly number for more years to a team who otherwise would have to start a back up QB. The team trading Manning is clearly playing for the future benefit of his team.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Define "trying." Knowingly drafting a team full of players that are all on bye in week 8 can hardly be characterized as trying to win in week 8. That's usually ok, because the goal of fantasy football generally isn't to win in week 8, the goal is to win in week 16. The difference between "accepting an increased likelihood of a loss" and "actively seeking out a loss" in this situation is almost indistinguishable - and in any case, the outcome either way is that the owner almost certainly loses. I just skimmed through the last page or so of the collusion talk, but wasn't that one of the points made? While collusion and tanking are fundamentally different actions, they produce the same outcome on the league and are therefore equally unethical. You may as well lump in "drafting a whole team on bye in week 8" with tanking since they produce the same outcome.

I'm just going to quote Greg on this one. "Just because something does hurt your chance to win some game isn't the issue. It's when it is a necessary motivator or else the transaction wouldn't have been done."

Doing things DESPITE them hurting your chances of winning a particular week is fine. Doing things BECAUSE they hurt your chances of winning a particular week is not. Clear and unambiguous.

This also serves as the answer to your question regarding what qualifies as "the best of his abilities".

 

[Amused to Death]

Would like someone's take on a situation that happened this past week in my league. 10 team league where 4 teams make the playoffs. Prior to the start of week 13, the top 4 teams in the standings were already locked into the playoffs, only thing that could change in week 13 was seeding for 1 through 4. Coincidentally all 4 teams were playing each other during the last week of the regular season as well. 1 team tanked his week because he did not want to be the #1 seed and play the #4 seed the first week of the playoffs (arguably the best team of the 4, just some back luck losses) and would rather be a 2 seed and play the 3.

Just wondering what some thought of a move such as this one.

This is where I go all Herm Edwards and do my "you play to win the game" rant. In my mind, any time a team is intentionally losing a game, it's dirty pool.

Perhaps we have a different idea of what "the game" is. To me, winning the game means winning the championship. Winning a game that doesn't help you and might hurt you is not playing to win a championship imo. I wouldn't call it dirty pool; maybe silly pool. Certainly not more ethical.

I think that's the big disconnect. There's one thought that you play to win every game and hope it ends in a championship. The other focuses on what it takes to win the championship and the weekly outcome is less important.

 

[GregR]

Is he still trying to win on that bye week? I think I've been pretty clear to this point that my problem is with people intentionally trying to lose a game- with them actively seeking out a loss, and taking extraordinary measures to secure it. You're one of the smartest guys around (and one of the few who reliably makes it all the way through my posts when I start rambling), so I'm sure you've noticed me making that distinction. There's a difference between accepting an increased likelihood of a loss and actively seeking out a loss.

Define "trying." Knowingly drafting a team full of players that are all on bye in week 8 can hardly be characterized as trying to win in week 8. That's usually ok, because the goal of fantasy football generally isn't to win in week 8, the goal is to win in week 16. The difference between "accepting an increased likelihood of a loss" and "actively seeking out a loss" in this situation is almost indistinguishable - and in any case, the outcome either way is that the owner almost certainly loses. I just skimmed through the last page or so of the collusion talk, but wasn't that one of the points made? While collusion and tanking are fundamentally different actions, they produce the same outcome on the league and are therefore equally unethical. You may as well lump in "drafting a whole team on bye in week 8" with tanking since they produce the same outcome.

Speaking for myself... Trying to win means your desired outcome for the week is a win and you actively seek to make that happen. Trying to lose means your desired outcome is a loss and you actively seek to make that happen.

If I draft a lot of players with bye week 8, I am not seeking an outcome of a loss in week 8. I'm accepting that my lineup is weaker in week 8 and stronger in other weeks, and that this is a net benefit. I still desire a win week 8.

I disagree with you that the difference is indistinguishable. It's a night and day difference. If you do something which you would not have without a desire to see a Loss for one of your games, then you tanked.

 

[GregR]

You spoke well for me.

Trying to lose the games is the crux of tanking. Just because something does hurt your chance to win some game isn't the issue. It's when it is a necessary motivator or else the transaction wouldn't have been done.

When you weigh the benefits and detriments, if it is a net benefit without including "I might lose some games which <give me a better draft pick/alter other team's seedings/etc>", then it's fine to do.

If you would not do the transaction without envisioning a benefit from losing, then it's an issue.

In my example, the benefit was trading an expiring contract for younger QB who has a more cap-friendly number for more years to a team who otherwise would have to start a back up QB. The team trading Manning is clearly playing for the future benefit of his team.

Right, which there is nothing wrong with.

If instead the owner says, "trading Manning is only a net benefit to my lineup if I factor in the likelihood of an extra loss and a resulting better draft pick next year", then he would be tanking to do the trade.

Adam's test is a great one when draft picks are the benefit that tanking would give. In the above thoughtline I give, if the league randomized the draft order, then the owner would not have made the trade. He only made the trade when factoring in a benefit of losing games, so he'd be tanking.

If he thinks the trade is a benefit even if draft picks are random, then it is a valid, ethical trade. That draft picks are not random and he may get a better pick is a consequence, but it wasn't a necessary reason in the trade.

 

[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.

Would you agree with the following statement?: "On the whole (rather than from the perspective of one particular individual), a league where no one tanks even when it is in their best interest to do so produces better outcomes than a league where everyone tanks every time it is in their best interest to do so."

That's exactly the false dichotomy I just told you I'm not defending.

Defending someone's right to sometimes tank when it is in his best interest to do so defends everyone's right to always tank when it is in their best interest to do so. If you establish that it's okay for someone to tank if it improves their championship odds, then you accept that it will always be okay when anyone does so in that situation.

Of course. Perhaps I'm getting hung up on semantics but I see differences (note the bolded) between:

"a league where everyone tanks every time it is in their best interest to do so"

and

"If you establish that it's okay for someone to tank if it improves their championship odds, then you accept that it will always be okay when anyone does so in that situation."

I think, for example, if I was faced with a situation where I'd make the playoffs with a week 13 loss and miss the playoffs with a week 13 win, it would be ok to consider tanking week 13. And I'd be ok with anyone else making that decision in that situation as well, even if I was the one adversely impacted by it. That doesn't imply, however, that I'd support someone tanking the last nine weeks of the season to secure the #1 pick in next year's draft.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Yes, in certain situations, an individual will be hurt by an agreement to never tank. At the same time, for every such situation, there are an equal number of situations where an individual will be helped by an agreement to never tank.

If that's true then it seems an agreement to never tank is net neutral, not a net positive.

Again, this assumes that fantasy football is all about championship odds, and nothing is a negative unless it negatively impacts them. Imagine a league that set the 6-team playoff field, but then rolled a die and randomly awarded the championship to whichever seed got rolled. In theory, this would not impact anybody's playoff odds- there are 6 teams and 1 championship, so the average odds for either method is 1-in-6. So you could say that awarding championships based on random dice rolls is a net neutral. I would call that a net negative, because it has a negative impact on my fantasy football experience, even if it has no impact at all on my championship odds.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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.

Would you agree with the following statement?: "On the whole (rather than from the perspective of one particular individual), a league where no one tanks even when it is in their best interest to do so produces better outcomes than a league where everyone tanks every time it is in their best interest to do so."

That's exactly the false dichotomy I just told you I'm not defending.

Defending someone's right to sometimes tank when it is in his best interest to do so defends everyone's right to always tank when it is in their best interest to do so. If you establish that it's okay for someone to tank if it improves their championship odds, then you accept that it will always be okay when anyone does so in that situation.

Of course. Perhaps I'm getting hung up on semantics but I see differences (note the bolded) between:

"a league where everyone tanks every time it is in their best interest to do so"

and

"If you establish that it's okay for someone to tank if it improves their championship odds, then you accept that it will always be okay when anyone does so in that situation."

I think, for example, if I was faced with a situation where I'd make the playoffs with a week 13 loss and miss the playoffs with a week 13 win, it would be ok to consider tanking week 13. And I'd be ok with anyone else making that decision in that situation as well, even if I was the one adversely impacted by it. That doesn't imply, however, that I'd support someone tanking the last nine weeks of the season to secure the #1 pick in next year's draft.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the difference between the two. Is it the duration of time spent tanking (i.e. tanking one week is fine, but tanking nine is bad)? Is it okay to tank for a 2013 championship but not for a 2014 championship? Why would you support one and not the other?

Edit: it occurs to me that the percentages involved might also be a differentiating factor. Tanking for the playoffs involves increasing your 2013 championship odds from zero to some number greater than zero. Tanking for draft picks involves increasing your 2014 championship odds from some number greater than zero to some different number greater than zero. Is this a meaningful distinction between the two scenarios to you?

 

[TheStig]

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.

The contention that "everyone views it as unethical" is untrue. In fact the consensus is split on the issue.

 

[TheStig]

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.

If your motive was to just screw a guy you didn't like, then, sure it us wrong. If there was a strategic advantage that benefited you then it is a FF decision and not a personal spite decision.

 

[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.

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.

Another slippery slope argument that bares no truth.

 

[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.

If your motive was to just screw a guy you didn't like, then, sure it us wrong. If there was a strategic advantage that benefited you then it is a FF decision and not a personal spite decision.

At the time I viewed the jerk's team as a lot more dangerous than the guy I was playing, so it would absolutely have benefited me I thought. But I feel it would be wrong regardless and I didn't give it any serious consideration. As luck would have it, the team I thought was a joke who was a 70 point underdog kicked my ### with my best lineup in, and the "better" team lost his last two and got eliminated anyway. I now play the "crappy" team again this week. So I got my wish. Clearly I'm doomed.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Yes, in certain situations, an individual will be hurt by an agreement to never tank. At the same time, for every such situation, there are an equal number of situations where an individual will be helped by an agreement to never tank.

If that's true then it seems an agreement to never tank is net neutral, not a net positive.

Again, this assumes that fantasy football is all about championship odds, and nothing is a negative unless it negatively impacts them. Imagine a league that set the 6-team playoff field, but then rolled a die and randomly awarded the championship to whichever seed got rolled. In theory, this would not impact anybody's playoff odds- there are 6 teams and 1 championship, so the average odds for either method is 1-in-6. So you could say that awarding championships based on random dice rolls is a net neutral. I would call that a net negative, because it has a negative impact on my fantasy football experience, even if it has no impact at all on my championship odds.

Well for one, that's a subjective distinction. You may find that less fun, but what if your leaguemates are a bunch of Dungeons and Dragons nerds? They might think deciding championships based on dice rolls is huge improvement over using football statistics.

But also, with this example, you're proposing changing the rules of the game, and then asking whether the game would be more or less fun to play (even if the overall odds of winning were unchanged). Well, that's what I'm suggesting - if you think fantasy football would be more fun if no one ever tanked, ever, then change the rules so that there is no incentive to tank, ever. Until then, if faced with the choice to win and miss the playoffs or lose and make the playoffs, I wouldn't fault anyone for taking the loss.