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

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Hacking a login is cheating. Taking advantage of a position of strength I earned (or the schedule gave me) isn't cheating. It's something I received from the game. Same with the other owner's position of weakness. He either earned it or was unlucky, but no parameters of the game dictate that I have to help him make the playoffs.

I hear there's a spot open for you on the Chinese badminton coaching squad. They're looking for an ethics consultant.

Should I take this as a surrender, or is there a post forthcoming that refutes my explanation as to why your exmaple has nothing to do with fantasy football?

 

[CalBear]

Hacking a login is cheating. Taking advantage of a position of strength I earned (or the schedule gave me) isn't cheating. It's something I received from the game. Same with the other owner's position of weakness. He either earned it or was unlucky, but no parameters of the game dictate that I have to help him make the playoffs.

I hear there's a spot open for you on the Chinese badminton coaching squad. They're looking for an ethics consultant.

Should I take this as a surrender, or is there a post forthcoming that refutes my explanation as to why your exmaple has nothing to do with fantasy football?

You didn't provide any such explanation. I don't beat up straw men.

 

[McGarnicle]

Collusion is not unlucky. It's unfair. Not controlling your own destiny is a combination of bad luck and bad play. If you need someone else's help to make the playoffs, you have to understand that nobody owes it to you.

This is unfair too. And avoidable, unlike schedule/bye week variables.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Hacking a login is cheating. Taking advantage of a position of strength I earned (or the schedule gave me) isn't cheating. It's something I received from the game. Same with the other owner's position of weakness. He either earned it or was unlucky, but no parameters of the game dictate that I have to help him make the playoffs.

I hear there's a spot open for you on the Chinese badminton coaching squad. They're looking for an ethics consultant.

Should I take this as a surrender, or is there a post forthcoming that refutes my explanation as to why your exmaple has nothing to do with fantasy football?

You didn't provide any such explanation. I don't beat up straw men.

Perhaps you missed it since there were so many posts flying around. I don't want to accuse you of "tanking" your own argument, so here it is again:

I'm familiar with it. Not the same situation at all. You cannot play defense in fantasy football. You cannot stop the other team from scoring. You're playing against a team in real sports, not a collection of stats thrown together across multiple games. Your "opponent" doesn't even control his own team except for setitng a lineup.

"I don't want to face a better collection of stats nobody controls" is different than "I'm afraid of competing against a certain team." And this particular case was different because they had to face their teammates and the country in question probably puts unfair pressure on its athletes to bring home medals. Not really the same at all.

Which (if any) of those sentences can you prove to be incorrect?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Collusion is not unlucky. It's unfair. Not controlling your own destiny is a combination of bad luck and bad play. If you need someone else's help to make the playoffs, you have to understand that nobody owes it to you.

This is unfair too. And avoidable, unlike schedule/bye week variables.

How is it unfair when it's your own fault you don't have enough wins to control your own destiny?

 

[TheStig]

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

Here's this exact situation (teams tanking to get a better playoff seed), played out in the 2012 Olympics. Everyone involved was disqualified.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/01/london-2012-badminton-disqualified-olympics

It was also against the rules. Nobody here claimed they would agree with going against the stated rules.

Do you think it was ethical? That's a separate question from whether it was legal.

No, I think it was against the rules.

Even in the Olympics the discussion wasn't cut and dry:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/01/sports/la-sp-oly-spirit-of-games-20120802

 

[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.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs. I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

I get it. I simply don't agree with it. In my opinion, it's based on emotion, not reason. I get that a game will involve people's emotions, but that doesn't make it reasonable. If "needing help" is a false premise, you have a major beef with the NFL. "Team A needs help to get in the playoffs" is pretty standard jargon, and it means exactly what it says. The team wasn't good enough to make it on their own. They need the outcome of a game they're not even playing to help them get in. I also get that you do not draw a distinction between two different things (collusion and tanking). I'm sorry to hear it, but I can't help with it. I also get that you think it ruins the competitive balance of the league. That doesn't make it so, but I understand you feel that way. I would suggest you play in leagues where it's stated that way in the rules, since not everyone feels the way you do...even ethical people. Some things (collusion) would always be seen as unethical to ethical people. This is not one of those things. That doesn't make it "a little unethical." It makes it an issue where people disagree.

The needing help thing is really a misnomer and it's ridiculous that people keep getting hung up on it. You're at the end of the season and certain things need to fall into place for teams to make the playoffs, but in actuality any given win or loss on their schedule was just as meaningful, they just didn't know it at the time. At the end of the season, the exact combination of wins and losses needed for a team is known, so it becomes a talking point. "Needing help" was invented by the media and doesn't tell the whole story. Bottom line is always that you need to have a better record than your competitors to make the playoffs, so you "need help" all season. In a very competitive league, you ALWAYS need the other top teams to lose one or two more close games than you do. We need to put that phrase to bed because it's meaningless.No one answered my earlier question about the unfairness of a team playing a team in week 13 who is tanking when another team played that same team in week 8 when they were trying to win. If you get burned by that alone, and an inferior team got in ahead of you because a team tanked, then yes, the competitive balance was ruined. Why does one team get a bye week and others don't? And how is that observation in any way based on emotion?

With all due respect, I don't think we're the ones getting hung up on it. The playoffs don't start after week four or seven or nine. They start after week 13 (let's say) and if you don't control your own destiny, you need help to make the playoffs. You weren't good enough to get in on your own so other things need to happen. Until winning out can't get you there, no loss means you need help. But once winning isn't enough, you need help-- other outcomes-- to make the playoffs. To answer your question, it is unfair. Head to head is unfair. The randomness of the schedule means you'll play some teams on their best days,, while others play them when their starters are on the bye. You'll play against the Foles owner when he scored seven TDs, and someone else plays him when he scored zero. It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

The difference between playing the team week 8 to week 13 is the same as someone who gets team A in Week 10 during a bye week and a team that plays team A in week 4 with a full roster.

Week four is not an elimination week. Week 10 is not an elimination week. Week 13 is an elimination week. That makes it different. You only need help in week 13; not week eight.

I wasn't aware of the Magic Win week 13 offered over the not as important win in week 4. Until now I never noticed the weeks next to the number in the win column.

I'm sorry to hear that. The "magic" of week 13 is you have 20/20 hindsight of all the previous weeks. You know where you stand and you know what will make or break you for the rest of the season...because there's only one game left. If you lose in week 4, you know that if you win out, you still make the playoffs. But if you lose in week 13, you already know that won't work. You also know no other trades can be made. You also know what everyone else did the rest of the year and where they stand. It really is kind of magical. Knowledge is power.

For the teams at the Mercy of week 13 they might find that week 4 was worth more than they thought.

 

[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.

But clearly you can see that a lot of people believe intentionally losing is unethical and hurts the competitive balance, right? Therefore could you see how someone with that viewpoint would wonder where an owner who tanks would draw the ethical line?

I could see that they would draw the line. People obviously feel that way. Still not sure how it hurts the competitive balance. Teams that control their own destiny control their own destiny. Teams that need help can't expect it. Everyone is trying to win a championship. Nobody owes anyone assistance in making the playoffs. I also don't see why an owner that does feel that way would question where someone else would draw the ethical line. That implies that one viewpoint is more ethical than the other. Unless the person can't grasp that ethical people can fall on both sides of the issue, I don't see how they'd wonder any such thing.

The competitive balance argument has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You either get it or you don't. Needing "help" is a false premise. It's about ensuring a level playing field.Back to my question, if you're willing to do something a little unethical, I have no confidence you wouldn't do something really unethical. Since tanking and collusion both ruin the competitive balance in the league, I don't draw a massive distinction in my head. I do understand there are a lot of nuances and some scenarios where an owner would feel they had no choice but to lose intentionally. I was never faced with that dilemma. This thread has definitely been enlightening and given me a lot to think about.

I get it. I simply don't agree with it. In my opinion, it's based on emotion, not reason. I get that a game will involve people's emotions, but that doesn't make it reasonable. If "needing help" is a false premise, you have a major beef with the NFL. "Team A needs help to get in the playoffs" is pretty standard jargon, and it means exactly what it says. The team wasn't good enough to make it on their own. They need the outcome of a game they're not even playing to help them get in. I also get that you do not draw a distinction between two different things (collusion and tanking). I'm sorry to hear it, but I can't help with it. I also get that you think it ruins the competitive balance of the league. That doesn't make it so, but I understand you feel that way. I would suggest you play in leagues where it's stated that way in the rules, since not everyone feels the way you do...even ethical people. Some things (collusion) would always be seen as unethical to ethical people. This is not one of those things. That doesn't make it "a little unethical." It makes it an issue where people disagree.

The needing help thing is really a misnomer and it's ridiculous that people keep getting hung up on it. You're at the end of the season and certain things need to fall into place for teams to make the playoffs, but in actuality any given win or loss on their schedule was just as meaningful, they just didn't know it at the time. At the end of the season, the exact combination of wins and losses needed for a team is known, so it becomes a talking point. "Needing help" was invented by the media and doesn't tell the whole story. Bottom line is always that you need to have a better record than your competitors to make the playoffs, so you "need help" all season. In a very competitive league, you ALWAYS need the other top teams to lose one or two more close games than you do. We need to put that phrase to bed because it's meaningless.No one answered my earlier question about the unfairness of a team playing a team in week 13 who is tanking when another team played that same team in week 8 when they were trying to win. If you get burned by that alone, and an inferior team got in ahead of you because a team tanked, then yes, the competitive balance was ruined. Why does one team get a bye week and others don't? And how is that observation in any way based on emotion?

With all due respect, I don't think we're the ones getting hung up on it. The playoffs don't start after week four or seven or nine. They start after week 13 (let's say) and if you don't control your own destiny, you need help to make the playoffs. You weren't good enough to get in on your own so other things need to happen. Until winning out can't get you there, no loss means you need help. But once winning isn't enough, you need help-- other outcomes-- to make the playoffs. To answer your question, it is unfair. Head to head is unfair. The randomness of the schedule means you'll play some teams on their best days,, while others play them when their starters are on the bye. You'll play against the Foles owner when he scored seven TDs, and someone else plays him when he scored zero. It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

The difference between playing the team week 8 to week 13 is the same as someone who gets team A in Week 10 during a bye week and a team that plays team A in week 4 with a full roster.

Week four is not an elimination week. Week 10 is not an elimination week. Week 13 is an elimination week. That makes it different. You only need help in week 13; not week eight.

I wasn't aware of the Magic Win week 13 offered over the not as important win in week 4. Until now I never noticed the weeks next to the number in the win column.

I'm sorry to hear that. The "magic" of week 13 is you have 20/20 hindsight of all the previous weeks. You know where you stand and you know what will make or break you for the rest of the season...because there's only one game left. If you lose in week 4, you know that if you win out, you still make the playoffs. But if you lose in week 13, you already know that won't work. You also know no other trades can be made. You also know what everyone else did the rest of the year and where they stand. It really is kind of magical. Knowledge is power.

You contend then that week 4 is worth less than week 13?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

For the teams at the Mercy of week 13 they might find that week 4 was worth more than they thought.

They're not "at the mercy" of anything except the bed they made. And every 0-4 team knows that their season isn't over. No fantasy team has ever been eliminated in week 4.

 

[KCitons]

I didn't read all 7 pages, so I apologize if these things have been covered already.

Most ff leagues are created to mimic the NFL. But, it's not the end all, be all, to say that the NFL does or doesn't do it, so why should fantasy leagues. 2 QB leagues are a good example of this. What it does require is a set of rules that all owners agree to before the start of the season. There is no right or wrong answer, unless a rule is broken.

I don't like tanking, I prefer to play to win every game and let the chips fall where they may. I wouldn't play in a league that had no rules to address it. However, those that complain one teams tanking could keep another team out of the playoffs are forgetting, if the team wins he may be keeping a different team from making the playoffs as well. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

We are in discussion about rule changes to address tanking. Currently, we have rules against starting players on Bye weeks, IR, or players that are listed as out for multiple weeks. Owners still find ways to tank in our league for better draft position.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You contend then that week 4 is worth less than week 13?

It's all one loss, but that loss hurts less because it comes at a time when you can recover. LIke in college football...if you're gonna lose, best to lose early in the year.

Any elimination week is more important than a non-elimination week.

 

[proninja]

I didn't read all 7 pages, so I apologize if these things have been covered already.

Most ff leagues are created to mimic the NFL. But, it's not the end all, be all, to say that the NFL does or doesn't do it, so why should fantasy leagues. 2 QB leagues are a good example of this. What it does require is a set of rules that all owners agree to before the start of the season. There is no right or wrong answer, unless a rule is broken.

I don't like tanking, I prefer to play to win every game and let the chips fall where they may. I wouldn't play in a league that had no rules to address it. However, those that complain one teams tanking could keep another team out of the playoffs are forgetting, if the team wins he may be keeping a different team from making the playoffs as well. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

We are in discussion about rule changes to address tanking. Currently, we have rules against starting players on Bye weeks, IR, or players that are listed as out for multiple weeks. Owners still find ways to tank in our league for better draft position.

You could do best record that misses the playoffs gets the #1 pick on down to the worst record in the league. Then you go reverse order of finish from there for teams that did make the playoffs.

 

[CalBear]

Hacking a login is cheating. Taking advantage of a position of strength I earned (or the schedule gave me) isn't cheating. It's something I received from the game. Same with the other owner's position of weakness. He either earned it or was unlucky, but no parameters of the game dictate that I have to help him make the playoffs.

I hear there's a spot open for you on the Chinese badminton coaching squad. They're looking for an ethics consultant.

Should I take this as a surrender, or is there a post forthcoming that refutes my explanation as to why your exmaple has nothing to do with fantasy football?

You didn't provide any such explanation. I don't beat up straw men.

Perhaps you missed it since there were so many posts flying around. I don't want to accuse you of "tanking" your own argument, so here it is again:

I'm familiar with it. Not the same situation at all. You cannot play defense in fantasy football. You cannot stop the other team from scoring. You're playing against a team in real sports, not a collection of stats thrown together across multiple games. Your "opponent" doesn't even control his own team except for setitng a lineup.

"I don't want to face a better collection of stats nobody controls" is different than "I'm afraid of competing against a certain team." And this particular case was different because they had to face their teammates and the country in question probably puts unfair pressure on its athletes to bring home medals. Not really the same at all.

Which (if any) of those sentences can you prove to be incorrect?

They are all 100% irrelevant to the question of whether it's ethical to intentionally tank a game to get a more favorable matchup, which is exactly what you're suggesting is ethical, and exactly what those teams did.

 

[Nugget]

I'm torn - is the goal of a fantasy footballl league to maximize each individual week or maximize the season?

Sorry I haven't read all the pages.

 

[CalBear]

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

Here's this exact situation (teams tanking to get a better playoff seed), played out in the 2012 Olympics. Everyone involved was disqualified.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/01/london-2012-badminton-disqualified-olympics

It was also against the rules. Nobody here claimed they would agree with going against the stated rules.

Do you think it was ethical? That's a separate question from whether it was legal.

No, I think it was against the rules.

Even in the Olympics the discussion wasn't cut and dry:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/01/sports/la-sp-oly-spirit-of-games-20120802

I didn't ask whether you thought it was legal, I asked whether you thought it was ethical. It is possible for something to be legal but unethical (and for that matter, for something to be ethical but illegal).

 

[TheStig]

You contend then that week 4 is worth less than week 13?

It's all one loss, but that loss hurts less because it comes at a time when you can recover. LIke in college football...if you're gonna lose, best to lose early in the year.Any elimination week is more important than a non-elimination week.

"Recover" like if you do well you'll get extra credit? It is a loss. It can't be recovered or converted. What if week 4 was the head to head tie breaker and you blew it?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

7 pages on this already?

 

[McGarnicle]

Collusion is not unlucky. It's unfair. Not controlling your own destiny is a combination of bad luck and bad play. If you need someone else's help to make the playoffs, you have to understand that nobody owes it to you.

This is unfair too. And avoidable, unlike schedule/bye week variables.

How is it unfair when it's your own fault you don't have enough wins to control your own destiny?

I love how you keep shifting the argument. Whether the team controls their destiny or not is immaterial. The other team potentially benefitting from the tanking doesn't control their own destiny either, so it's completely irrelevant. When you're ready to address my point, I'll be here.

 

[Amused to Death]

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

Here's this exact situation (teams tanking to get a better playoff seed), played out in the 2012 Olympics. Everyone involved was disqualified.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/01/london-2012-badminton-disqualified-olympics

It was also against the rules. Nobody here claimed they would agree with going against the stated rules.

Do you think it was ethical? That's a separate question from whether it was legal.

No, I think it was against the rules.

Even in the Olympics the discussion wasn't cut and dry:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/01/sports/la-sp-oly-spirit-of-games-20120802

Bottom line, if you don't want it make a rule against it. From that link:

At the 2006 Turin Olympics, the gold-medal-winning Swedish hockey team raised eyebrows by falling, 3-0, to heavy underdog Slovakia in a final preliminary-round game. That loss enabled the Swedes to avoid powerhouses Canada and Russia in the quarterfinals.

In a documentary, Swedish star Peter Forsberg was quoted as saying, "We did all that was needed to win the tournament. I think you can blame the whole system."

The lose-to-win strategy can apply to professional sports too.

The NBA changed its antiquated playoff seeding rules when the Clippers were accused of not giving a full effort down the stretch of the 2005-06 season. That allowed the Clippers to face the 44-victory Denver Nuggets instead of the 60-win Dallas Mavericks.

 

[TheStig]

It's unfair when that happens. It's unfair when you played a team in week 3 when they were trying, and not week 13 when they stopped logging in a month ago. It's unfair when a 10-3 team has fewer points than a 5-8 team. That's the schedule, and you can't control it. The idea is that the benefits of the schedule (the fun of an opponent each week) is worth the unfairness inherent in it. We can debate that, but it doesn't mean the schedule is "unethical."

Here's this exact situation (teams tanking to get a better playoff seed), played out in the 2012 Olympics. Everyone involved was disqualified.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/01/london-2012-badminton-disqualified-olympics

It was also against the rules. Nobody here claimed they would agree with going against the stated rules.

Do you think it was ethical? That's a separate question from whether it was legal.

No, I think it was against the rules.

Even in the Olympics the discussion wasn't cut and dry:http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/01/sports/la-sp-oly-spirit-of-games-20120802

I didn't ask whether you thought it was legal, I asked whether you thought it was ethical. It is possible for something to be legal but unethical (and for that matter, for something to be ethical but illegal).

I do not believe it to be unethical. The other team could have forfeited if they believed their win was unearned. It took two to dance.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Hacking a login is cheating. Taking advantage of a position of strength I earned (or the schedule gave me) isn't cheating. It's something I received from the game. Same with the other owner's position of weakness. He either earned it or was unlucky, but no parameters of the game dictate that I have to help him make the playoffs.

I hear there's a spot open for you on the Chinese badminton coaching squad. They're looking for an ethics consultant.

Should I take this as a surrender, or is there a post forthcoming that refutes my explanation as to why your exmaple has nothing to do with fantasy football?

You didn't provide any such explanation. I don't beat up straw men.

Perhaps you missed it since there were so many posts flying around. I don't want to accuse you of "tanking" your own argument, so here it is again:

I'm familiar with it. Not the same situation at all. You cannot play defense in fantasy football. You cannot stop the other team from scoring. You're playing against a team in real sports, not a collection of stats thrown together across multiple games. Your "opponent" doesn't even control his own team except for setitng a lineup.

"I don't want to face a better collection of stats nobody controls" is different than "I'm afraid of competing against a certain team." And this particular case was different because they had to face their teammates and the country in question probably puts unfair pressure on its athletes to bring home medals. Not really the same at all.

Which (if any) of those sentences can you prove to be incorrect?

They are all 100% irrelevant to the question of whether it's ethical to intentionally tank a game to get a more favorable matchup, which is exactly what you're suggesting is ethical, and exactly what those teams did.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have brought up Chinese badmitton. Oh, wait...

I proved (and you failed to refute) that "a game" of Olympic badmitton is nothing like "a game" of fantasy football. Your comparison is absurd for several reaosns, and I gave you at least three.

It is not unethical to improve your chances for winning a fantasy championship by throwing a game you don't need. You're trying to win a title in a pretend game you don't control by setting up a more favorable comparison and controlling something. It is unethical to throw a game so your country sets up a 1-2 match in the finals because you'll be punished if you fail to meet expectations every four years. You could simply play better and beat the other teams.

In any case, the Chinese badmitton case was NOT to get a more favorable matchup. It was to guarantee two medals instead of one. Still unethical, but not even the same rationale used in the fantasy example.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You contend then that week 4 is worth less than week 13?

It's all one loss, but that loss hurts less because it comes at a time when you can recover. LIke in college football...if you're gonna lose, best to lose early in the year.Any elimination week is more important than a non-elimination week.

"Recover" like if you do well you'll get extra credit? It is a loss. It can't be recovered or converted. What if week 4 was the head to head tie breaker and you blew it?

You didn't blow it in week 4. You blew it in weeks 5-13.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Collusion is not unlucky. It's unfair. Not controlling your own destiny is a combination of bad luck and bad play. If you need someone else's help to make the playoffs, you have to understand that nobody owes it to you.

This is unfair too. And avoidable, unlike schedule/bye week variables.

How is it unfair when it's your own fault you don't have enough wins to control your own destiny?

I love how you keep shifting the argument. Whether the team controls their destiny or not is immaterial. The other team potentially benefitting from the tanking doesn't control their own destiny either, so it's completely irrelevant. When you're ready to address my point, I'll be here.

What is your point? That's it's unfair? I don't agree. If you don't control your own destiny, it's your fault (to the degree the schedule doesn't get in the way). How can it be unfair that you don't get the help you need because you were so bad that you needed it?

 

[TheStig]

You contend then that week 4 is worth less than week 13?

It's all one loss, but that loss hurts less because it comes at a time when you can recover. LIke in college football...if you're gonna lose, best to lose early in the year.Any elimination week is more important than a non-elimination week.

"Recover" like if you do well you'll get extra credit? It is a loss. It can't be recovered or converted. What if week 4 was the head to head tie breaker and you blew it?

You didn't blow it in week 4. You blew it in weeks 5-13.

You just made my point.

 

[-fish-]

The parameters of the game are to try to win a championship, not win every game. Ever seen someone stack up a bunch of bye weeks and just sacrifice that week? Should that be an illegal draft strategy?

No, the parameters of the game are to play your best lineup every week. Do you think tanking for a better draft pick is acceptable?

Choosing to concentrate your bye weeks is within the parameters of the game. Intentionally starting players on bye rather than players who are playing is not.

If I don't have room for an extra player and I don't want to drop someone because it would hurt me in later weeks, why wouldn't I start say a Joy Graham on bye? I'd rather risk losing one week than make my team worse for the rest of the year. Your premise that the game is about your lineup each week is false. The game is about winning a championship.

You didn't answer the question: do you think it's OK to tank to get a better draft pick?

And, deciding not to pick up a player to fill a slot for someone on bye is a completely different situation than failing to put in a player who's already on your roster to fill a slot for someone on bye.

You're not consistent. You said best lineup every week. So it's ok to start less than my best lineup if I'm looking at the big picture in other weeks. You admit that trying to win the season trumps trying to win each week.

 

[CalBear]

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have brought up Chinese badmitton. Oh, wait...

I proved (and you failed to refute) that "a game" of Olympic badmitton is nothing like "a game" of fantasy football. Your comparison is absurd for several reaosns, and I gave you at least three.

It is not unethical to improve your chances for winning a fantasy championship by throwing a game you don't need. You're trying to win a title in a pretend game you don't control by setting up a more favorable comparison and controlling something. It is unethical to throw a game so your country sets up a 1-2 match in the finals because you'll be punished if you fail to meet expectations every four years. You could simply play better and beat the other teams.

In any case, the Chinese badmitton case was NOT to get a more favorable matchup. It was to guarantee two medals instead of one. Still unethical, but not even the same rationale used in the fantasy example.

As I said, I don't beat up straw men; I will just point out that you've got nothing here except illogical assertions.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Question for Adam/Greg (or anyone else, really): How would you actually handle this if it happened in your league? Let's assume that you award playoff spots based on record, with a wildcard spot based on total points, and despite your best intentions it creates a scenario where an owner can only make the playoffs if he loses in the final week of the regular season. The owner "tanks" the game to get into the playoffs. You don't have a rule specifically prohibiting this. What do you do?

- Let the results stand and make rule changes in the offseason to address it?

- Remove the owner from the playoffs and seed the playoffs as if he won?

- Other?

 

[Amused to Death]

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have brought up Chinese badmitton. Oh, wait...

I proved (and you failed to refute) that "a game" of Olympic badmitton is nothing like "a game" of fantasy football. Your comparison is absurd for several reaosns, and I gave you at least three.

It is not unethical to improve your chances for winning a fantasy championship by throwing a game you don't need. You're trying to win a title in a pretend game you don't control by setting up a more favorable comparison and controlling something. It is unethical to throw a game so your country sets up a 1-2 match in the finals because you'll be punished if you fail to meet expectations every four years. You could simply play better and beat the other teams.

In any case, the Chinese badmitton case was NOT to get a more favorable matchup. It was to guarantee two medals instead of one. Still unethical, but not even the same rationale used in the fantasy example.

As I said, I don't beat up straw men; I will just point out that you've got nothing here except illogical assertions.

As has been brought up several times, how would you handle (or expect your leaguemates to handle) a situation where you need to lose to advance to the playoffs - win and you're out. Its a real situation someone here has encountered, so its not hypothetical.

Do you try your best to win, thereby risking the end of your season?

 

[TheStig]

Question for Adam/Greg (or anyone else, really): How would you actually handle this if it happened in your league? Let's assume that you award playoff spots based on record, with a wildcard spot based on total points, and despite your best intentions it creates a scenario where an owner can only make the playoffs if he loses in the final week of the regular season. The owner "tanks" the game to get into the playoffs. You don't have a rule specifically prohibiting this. What do you do?- Let the results stand and make rule changes in the offseason to address it?- Remove the owner from the playoffs and seed the playoffs as if he won?- Other?

Results stand.

 

[CalBear]

The parameters of the game are to try to win a championship, not win every game. Ever seen someone stack up a bunch of bye weeks and just sacrifice that week? Should that be an illegal draft strategy?

No, the parameters of the game are to play your best lineup every week. Do you think tanking for a better draft pick is acceptable?

Choosing to concentrate your bye weeks is within the parameters of the game. Intentionally starting players on bye rather than players who are playing is not.

If I don't have room for an extra player and I don't want to drop someone because it would hurt me in later weeks, why wouldn't I start say a Joy Graham on bye? I'd rather risk losing one week than make my team worse for the rest of the year. Your premise that the game is about your lineup each week is false. The game is about winning a championship.

You didn't answer the question: do you think it's OK to tank to get a better draft pick?

And, deciding not to pick up a player to fill a slot for someone on bye is a completely different situation than failing to put in a player who's already on your roster to fill a slot for someone on bye.

You're not consistent. You said best lineup every week. So it's ok to start less than my best lineup if I'm looking at the big picture in other weeks. You admit that trying to win the season trumps trying to win each week.

My position is entirely consistent. A player on the waiver wire is not on your roster. There is a cost to picking up a waiver wire player (whether that's monetary, or another roster spot). Taking a zero at a slot to avoid that cost is a possibility for managing your team. Taking a zero at a slot when you could play a different player on your roster at no cost is unethical, no matter what your rationale.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The parameters of the game are to try to win a championship, not win every game. Ever seen someone stack up a bunch of bye weeks and just sacrifice that week? Should that be an illegal draft strategy?

No, the parameters of the game are to play your best lineup every week. Do you think tanking for a better draft pick is acceptable?

Choosing to concentrate your bye weeks is within the parameters of the game. Intentionally starting players on bye rather than players who are playing is not.

If I don't have room for an extra player and I don't want to drop someone because it would hurt me in later weeks, why wouldn't I start say a Joy Graham on bye? I'd rather risk losing one week than make my team worse for the rest of the year. Your premise that the game is about your lineup each week is false. The game is about winning a championship.

You didn't answer the question: do you think it's OK to tank to get a better draft pick?

And, deciding not to pick up a player to fill a slot for someone on bye is a completely different situation than failing to put in a player who's already on your roster to fill a slot for someone on bye.

You're not consistent. You said best lineup every week. So it's ok to start less than my best lineup if I'm looking at the big picture in other weeks. You admit that trying to win the season trumps trying to win each week.

My position is entirely consistent. A player on the waiver wire is not on your roster. There is a cost to picking up a waiver wire player (whether that's monetary, or another roster spot). Taking a zero at a slot to avoid that cost is a possibility for managing your team. Taking a zero at a slot when you could play a different player on your roster at no cost is unethical, no matter what your rationale.

What if the cost to you is missing the playoffs?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You contend then that week 4 is worth less than week 13?

It's all one loss, but that loss hurts less because it comes at a time when you can recover. LIke in college football...if you're gonna lose, best to lose early in the year.Any elimination week is more important than a non-elimination week.

"Recover" like if you do well you'll get extra credit? It is a loss. It can't be recovered or converted. What if week 4 was the head to head tie breaker and you blew it?

You didn't blow it in week 4. You blew it in weeks 5-13.

You just made my point.

So we both agree that week 13 is more important than week 4? Cool. You can't "blow it" in week 4. You sure can in week 13.

 

[CalBear]

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have brought up Chinese badmitton. Oh, wait...

I proved (and you failed to refute) that "a game" of Olympic badmitton is nothing like "a game" of fantasy football. Your comparison is absurd for several reaosns, and I gave you at least three.

It is not unethical to improve your chances for winning a fantasy championship by throwing a game you don't need. You're trying to win a title in a pretend game you don't control by setting up a more favorable comparison and controlling something. It is unethical to throw a game so your country sets up a 1-2 match in the finals because you'll be punished if you fail to meet expectations every four years. You could simply play better and beat the other teams.

In any case, the Chinese badmitton case was NOT to get a more favorable matchup. It was to guarantee two medals instead of one. Still unethical, but not even the same rationale used in the fantasy example.

As I said, I don't beat up straw men; I will just point out that you've got nothing here except illogical assertions.

As has been brought up several times, how would you handle (or expect your leaguemates to handle) a situation where you need to lose to advance to the playoffs - win and you're out. Its a real situation someone here has encountered, so its not hypothetical.

Do you try your best to win, thereby risking the end of your season?

I wouldn't play in or commish a league which had a playoff structure which allowed the situation to arise. If I did, I would insist that the rules explicitly address the situation.

But if I were stuck in that situation, I'd play my best lineup. And if I were commish, I'd take action against the tanking team unless it is explicitly addressed in the rules.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have brought up Chinese badmitton. Oh, wait...

I proved (and you failed to refute) that "a game" of Olympic badmitton is nothing like "a game" of fantasy football. Your comparison is absurd for several reaosns, and I gave you at least three.

It is not unethical to improve your chances for winning a fantasy championship by throwing a game you don't need. You're trying to win a title in a pretend game you don't control by setting up a more favorable comparison and controlling something. It is unethical to throw a game so your country sets up a 1-2 match in the finals because you'll be punished if you fail to meet expectations every four years. You could simply play better and beat the other teams.

In any case, the Chinese badmitton case was NOT to get a more favorable matchup. It was to guarantee two medals instead of one. Still unethical, but not even the same rationale used in the fantasy example.

As I said, I don't beat up straw men; I will just point out that you've got nothing here except illogical assertions.

I am impressed with the irony of asserting illogically that someone else has made illogical assertions. Bravo.

 

[Amused to Death]

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have brought up Chinese badmitton. Oh, wait...

I proved (and you failed to refute) that "a game" of Olympic badmitton is nothing like "a game" of fantasy football. Your comparison is absurd for several reaosns, and I gave you at least three.

It is not unethical to improve your chances for winning a fantasy championship by throwing a game you don't need. You're trying to win a title in a pretend game you don't control by setting up a more favorable comparison and controlling something. It is unethical to throw a game so your country sets up a 1-2 match in the finals because you'll be punished if you fail to meet expectations every four years. You could simply play better and beat the other teams.

In any case, the Chinese badmitton case was NOT to get a more favorable matchup. It was to guarantee two medals instead of one. Still unethical, but not even the same rationale used in the fantasy example.

As I said, I don't beat up straw men; I will just point out that you've got nothing here except illogical assertions.

As has been brought up several times, how would you handle (or expect your leaguemates to handle) a situation where you need to lose to advance to the playoffs - win and you're out. Its a real situation someone here has encountered, so its not hypothetical.

Do you try your best to win, thereby risking the end of your season?

I wouldn't play in or commish a league which had a playoff structure which allowed the situation to arise. If I did, I would insist that the rules explicitly address the situation.

But if I were stuck in that situation, I'd play my best lineup. And if I were commish, I'd take action against the tanking team unless it is explicitly addressed in the rules.

So your goal is a better win/loss record over a championship.

 

[TxBuckeye]

How is it that this same thread gets posted at least five times every season? Can't people just search? This has been debated ad nauseum on this board. And no, I didn't read the thread, there was no need. So if someone already pointed this out, sorry.

 

[TheStig]

You contend then that week 4 is worth less than week 13?

It's all one loss, but that loss hurts less because it comes at a time when you can recover. LIke in college football...if you're gonna lose, best to lose early in the year.Any elimination week is more important than a non-elimination week.

"Recover" like if you do well you'll get extra credit? It is a loss. It can't be recovered or converted. What if week 4 was the head to head tie breaker and you blew it?

You didn't blow it in week 4. You blew it in weeks 5-13.

You just made my point.

So we both agree that week 13 is more important than week 4? Cool. You can't "blow it" in week 4. You sure can in week 13.

No, that us not my point. Any of the loses are worth the same. Winning week 4 would not have made week 13 an elimination game.

 

[McGarnicle]

Collusion is not unlucky. It's unfair. Not controlling your own destiny is a combination of bad luck and bad play. If you need someone else's help to make the playoffs, you have to understand that nobody owes it to you.

This is unfair too. And avoidable, unlike schedule/bye week variables.

How is it unfair when it's your own fault you don't have enough wins to control your own destiny?

I love how you keep shifting the argument. Whether the team controls their destiny or not is immaterial. The other team potentially benefitting from the tanking doesn't control their own destiny either, so it's completely irrelevant. When you're ready to address my point, I'll be here.

What is your point? That's it's unfair? I don't agree. If you don't control your own destiny, it's your fault (to the degree the schedule doesn't get in the way). How can it be unfair that you don't get the help you need because you were so bad that you needed it?

Because another owner is INTENTIONALLY LOSING to keep me out of the playoffs. I'm "so bad" that he'd rather play the other team he's letting win. So by his estimation at least, he's stacking the deck in his own favor and letting in a lesser team.You make it sound like being in this position makes a team inferior. Are you in leagues with nothing but guppies? You've never seen four or five teams finish 7-6? What if one of them just won 6 in a row and is the top scorer in the league over the past 4 weeks? Don't you want that guy in the playoffs? If he gets bounced because someone tanked, you expecting him back next year?

I'm weird that way, I like a competitive league and guys that trust each other and are accountable.

 

[TheStig]

How is it that this same thread gets posted at least five times every season? Can't people just search? This has been debated ad nauseum on this board. And no, I didn't read the thread, there was no need. So if someone already pointed this out, sorry.

I made the point you did in that it is predictable enough that if you don't like it make a rule against it.

 

[McGarnicle]

How is it that this same thread gets posted at least five times every season? Can't people just search? This has been debated ad nauseum on this board. And no, I didn't read the thread, there was no need. So if someone already pointed this out, sorry.

There are other threads you can read. This thread existing doesn't remove a thread you consider superior.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

How is it that this same thread gets posted at least five times every season? Can't people just search? This has been debated ad nauseum on this board. And no, I didn't read the thread, there was no need. So if someone already pointed this out, sorry.

It's fun and we have a few days before the first game. Relax.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You contend then that week 4 is worth less than week 13?

It's all one loss, but that loss hurts less because it comes at a time when you can recover. LIke in college football...if you're gonna lose, best to lose early in the year.Any elimination week is more important than a non-elimination week.

"Recover" like if you do well you'll get extra credit? It is a loss. It can't be recovered or converted. What if week 4 was the head to head tie breaker and you blew it?

You didn't blow it in week 4. You blew it in weeks 5-13.

You just made my point.

So we both agree that week 13 is more important than week 4? Cool. You can't "blow it" in week 4. You sure can in week 13.

No, that us not my point. Any of the loses are worth the same. Winning week 4 would not have made week 13 an elimination game.

But you wouldn't know that in week 4. You'd know what week 13 means in week 13. Therefore, week 13 has that "magic" you mentioned earlier. It's an elimination game.

 

[TheStig]

You contend then that week 4 is worth less than week 13?

It's all one loss, but that loss hurts less because it comes at a time when you can recover. LIke in college football...if you're gonna lose, best to lose early in the year.Any elimination week is more important than a non-elimination week.

"Recover" like if you do well you'll get extra credit? It is a loss. It can't be recovered or converted. What if week 4 was the head to head tie breaker and you blew it?

You didn't blow it in week 4. You blew it in weeks 5-13.

You just made my point.

So we both agree that week 13 is more important than week 4? Cool. You can't "blow it" in week 4. You sure can in week 13.

No, that us not my point. Any of the loses are worth the same. Winning week 4 would not have made week 13 an elimination game.

But you wouldn't know that in week 4. You'd know what week 13 means in week 13. Therefore, week 13 has that "magic" you mentioned earlier. It's an elimination game.

I know that a loss in week 4 is NEVER helpful.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Because another owner is INTENTIONALLY LOSING to keep me out of the playoffs. I'm "so bad" that he'd rather play the other team he's letting win. So by his estimation at least, he's stacking the deck in his own favor and letting in a lesser team.You make it sound like being in this position makes a team inferior. Are you in leagues with nothing but guppies? You've never seen four or five teams finish 7-6? What if one of them just won 6 in a row and is the top scorer in the league over the past 4 weeks? Don't you want that guy in the playoffs? If he gets bounced because someone tanked, you expecting him back next year?

I'm weird that way, I like a competitive league and guys that trust each other and are accountable.

I don't know what to tell you. If we were good friends and I knew you would quit over what you thought was unfair, I'd probably coddle you to keep things cool. It's just a game. But I'm in a league right now where I need help to make the playoffs. If another team tanks I'm out, win or not. I won't quit either way. It's my fault I'm in that position.

When I lost in week 4, I knew it wasn't over. I knew it was a different story in week 12 and I still lost. Now I need help. Week 12 was more important than week 4. Now week 13 is more important than week 12 but it's out of my hands. If the other guy tanks it's totally fair. I had every opportunity to not be here.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You contend then that week 4 is worth less than week 13?

It's all one loss, but that loss hurts less because it comes at a time when you can recover. LIke in college football...if you're gonna lose, best to lose early in the year.Any elimination week is more important than a non-elimination week.

"Recover" like if you do well you'll get extra credit? It is a loss. It can't be recovered or converted. What if week 4 was the head to head tie breaker and you blew it?

You didn't blow it in week 4. You blew it in weeks 5-13.

You just made my point.

So we both agree that week 13 is more important than week 4? Cool. You can't "blow it" in week 4. You sure can in week 13.

No, that us not my point. Any of the loses are worth the same. Winning week 4 would not have made week 13 an elimination game.

But you wouldn't know that in week 4. You'd know what week 13 means in week 13. Therefore, week 13 has that "magic" you mentioned earlier. It's an elimination game.

I know that a loss in week 4 is NEVER helpful.

I agree. But a loss in week 13 could be helpful if it give you a clearer path to a title.

And now, we have come full circle.

 

[TheStig]

You contend then that week 4 is worth less than week 13?

It's all one loss, but that loss hurts less because it comes at a time when you can recover. LIke in college football...if you're gonna lose, best to lose early in the year.Any elimination week is more important than a non-elimination week.

"Recover" like if you do well you'll get extra credit? It is a loss. It can't be recovered or converted. What if week 4 was the head to head tie breaker and you blew it?

You didn't blow it in week 4. You blew it in weeks 5-13.

You just made my point.

So we both agree that week 13 is more important than week 4? Cool. You can't "blow it" in week 4. You sure can in week 13.

No, that us not my point. Any of the loses are worth the same. Winning week 4 would not have made week 13 an elimination game.

But you wouldn't know that in week 4. You'd know what week 13 means in week 13. Therefore, week 13 has that "magic" you mentioned earlier. It's an elimination game.

I know that a loss in week 4 is NEVER helpful.

I agree. But a loss in week 13 could be helpful if it give you a clearer path to a title.And now, we have come full circle.

For some folks week 10 is elimination week. Some may have been eliminated in week 7. Everyone's "Week 13" is relative.

 

[Amused to Death]

A quick search turned up these with varying opinions, much like this one:

2011

Another from 2011

2007

A good one from 2003

 

[-fish-]

The parameters of the game are to try to win a championship, not win every game. Ever seen someone stack up a bunch of bye weeks and just sacrifice that week? Should that be an illegal draft strategy?

No, the parameters of the game are to play your best lineup every week. Do you think tanking for a better draft pick is acceptable?

Choosing to concentrate your bye weeks is within the parameters of the game. Intentionally starting players on bye rather than players who are playing is not.

If I don't have room for an extra player and I don't want to drop someone because it would hurt me in later weeks, why wouldn't I start say a Joy Graham on bye? I'd rather risk losing one week than make my team worse for the rest of the year. Your premise that the game is about your lineup each week is false. The game is about winning a championship.

You didn't answer the question: do you think it's OK to tank to get a better draft pick?

And, deciding not to pick up a player to fill a slot for someone on bye is a completely different situation than failing to put in a player who's already on your roster to fill a slot for someone on bye.

You're not consistent. You said best lineup every week. So it's ok to start less than my best lineup if I'm looking at the big picture in other weeks. You admit that trying to win the season trumps trying to win each week.

My position is entirely consistent. A player on the waiver wire is not on your roster. There is a cost to picking up a waiver wire player (whether that's monetary, or another roster spot). Taking a zero at a slot to avoid that cost is a possibility for managing your team. Taking a zero at a slot when you could play a different player on your roster at no cost is unethical, no matter what your rationale.

You're not setting your best lineup every week, which you claim is the "parameters of the game." Your position is untenable.

As to tanking for draft spots, as I've said you deal with these issues with rules. You can go to an auction and eliminate that incentive, or you can incentivize players to continue to try to win with weekly prizes for high score starting around week 10.

You've conceded two examples where someone strategically isn't trying to win a particular week in order to maximize the chance of winning the season. Your "best lineup each week" argument fails unless you're in a one week league.

 

[CalBear]

As has been brought up several times, how would you handle (or expect your leaguemates to handle) a situation where you need to lose to advance to the playoffs - win and you're out. Its a real situation someone here has encountered, so its not hypothetical.

Do you try your best to win, thereby risking the end of your season?

I wouldn't play in or commish a league which had a playoff structure which allowed the situation to arise. If I did, I would insist that the rules explicitly address the situation.

But if I were stuck in that situation, I'd play my best lineup. And if I were commish, I'd take action against the tanking team unless it is explicitly addressed in the rules.

So your goal is a better win/loss record over a championship.

No, my goal is to play the game ethnically and within both the letter and the spirit of the rules. Fantasy football leagues don't have dozens of policy and legal guys going over every possible scenario in their rules the way that pro leagues do; there is a lot of stuff that is never going to be explicit in the rules.

That's why whenever I'm commishing a league I have an overall "don't be a hoser" rule.

And when I'm playing in a league, I abide by the "don't be a hoser" rule, even if it's not explicitly in the rulebook.

"It is far better to play the game squarely and lose than to win at the sacrifice of an ideal." --Andy Smith (Cal coach, 1916-25).

 

[CalBear]

You're not setting your best lineup every week, which you claim is the "parameters of the game." Your position is untenable.

As to tanking for draft spots, as I've said you deal with these issues with rules. You can go to an auction and eliminate that incentive, or you can incentivize players to continue to try to win with weekly prizes for high score starting around week 10.

Are you asserting that legality and ethicality are equivalent?