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

[TheStig]

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

2011

Another from 2011

2007

A good one from 2003

I like one post saying how the Sharkpool has lowered to snarky depths and not what it used to be. The post was on 2003

 

[ShockTheMonkey]

I'd say it's good strategy on your part. The fact that you are in a position to manipulate which team you will face in the playoffs is due to your prowess as a FFB manager. I assume you are playing for money, so I see nothing wrong with it.

If you are superstitious, I'd be a little worried about angering the fantasy gods...but other than that...go for it.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Want to win a championship? Sack up and beat the other teams without screwing your leaguemates.

Throwing a game hurts someone else, outside the agreed on parameters of the competition. And, generally speaking, it's wrong to #### someone just to get something you want.

 

[McGarnicle]

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.

Yeah, it's just a game often played for significant money where many of us invest a significant amount of time. There is luck and variance inherent in the game but there must be enough skill involved or we wouldn't bother. To allow this practice is fundamentally wrong and we're just never going to agree on that point.Only last thing I'll add...imagine a team that starts off really bad, let's say he drafted Jamaal Charles the year he missed almost the whole season or Trent Richardson this year. He starts 1-6 let's say. But he works the waiver wire and he's offering trades furiously all season. A few strategic moves and he's back in it. He rattles off 6 straight wins to finish 7-6. I want a league that rewards that guy. I don't want a 10-3 team to decide he's kingmaker and think he can pick the playoff teams. If I'm that 7-6 team and end up winning money, that's a season I remember forever. If I'm the 10-3 guy and 7-6 is a good friend, it doesn't cross my mind to tank to keep him out. I'd feel like a massive ****. Honestly I'm surprised so many people have no issue at all with doing it.

I think we both made our points and I totally get where you're coming from, just strongly disagree. Good luck in your leagues.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

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

That's true. But nobody is in a position to guarantee themselves a playoff spot in week 7. And nobody could know what the seedings will be for the playoffs in week 10 and determine who they'd prefer as an opponent. Week 13 can do that; not 7 or 10.

Magic.

 

[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.

Yeah, it's just a game often played for significant money where many of us invest a significant amount of time. There is luck and variance inherent in the game but there must be enough skill involved or we wouldn't bother. To allow this practice is fundamentally wrong and we're just never going to agree on that point.Only last thing I'll add...imagine a team that starts off really bad, let's say he drafted Jamaal Charles the year he missed almost the whole season or Trent Richardson this year. He starts 1-6 let's say. But he works the waiver wire and he's offering trades furiously all season. A few strategic moves and he's back in it. He rattles off 6 straight wins to finish 7-6. I want a league that rewards that guy. I don't want a 10-3 team to decide he's kingmaker and think he can pick the playoff teams. If I'm that 7-6 team and end up winning money, that's a season I remember forever. If I'm the 10-3 guy and 7-6 is a good friend, it doesn't cross my mind to tank to keep him out. I'd feel like a massive ****. Honestly I'm surprised so many people have no issue at all with doing it.

I think we both made our points and I totally get where you're coming from, just strongly disagree. Good luck in your leagues.

Perhaps it's not a coincidence that I favor total points leagues. I play in head to head leagues but I don't really care for them. Total points never, ever has this problem.

Good luck to you as well.

 

[TheStig]

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.

Yeah, it's just a game often played for significant money where many of us invest a significant amount of time. There is luck and variance inherent in the game but there must be enough skill involved or we wouldn't bother. To allow this practice is fundamentally wrong and we're just never going to agree on that point.Only last thing I'll add...imagine a team that starts off really bad, let's say he drafted Jamaal Charles the year he missed almost the whole season or Trent Richardson this year. He starts 1-6 let's say. But he works the waiver wire and he's offering trades furiously all season. A few strategic moves and he's back in it. He rattles off 6 straight wins to finish 7-6. I want a league that rewards that guy. I don't want a 10-3 team to decide he's kingmaker and think he can pick the playoff teams. If I'm that 7-6 team and end up winning money, that's a season I remember forever. If I'm the 10-3 guy and 7-6 is a good friend, it doesn't cross my mind to tank to keep him out. I'd feel like a massive ****. Honestly I'm surprised so many people have no issue at all with doing it.I think we both made our points and I totally get where you're coming from, just strongly disagree. Good luck in your leagues.

I get that. And it is admirable and a nice story. In the end, it is free will. But as "Kingmaker" you simply employed the "prerogative of mercy" to allow his season to continue.

I can agree with your decision to be merciful. I would also be fine if you went all **** mode too.

 

[TheStig]

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

That's true. But nobody is in a position to guarantee themselves a playoff spot in week 7. And nobody could know what the seedings will be for the playoffs in week 10 and determine who they'd prefer as an opponent. Week 13 can do that; not 7 or 10.Magic.

7-6 could get you in. If you open 7-0 you got in. You didn't know it in week 7 but you did in fact qualify in week 7

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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?

 

[CalBear]

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?

I already answered that question.

 

[ShockTheMonkey]

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.

Yeah, it's just a game often played for significant money where many of us invest a significant amount of time. There is luck and variance inherent in the game but there must be enough skill involved or we wouldn't bother. To allow this practice is fundamentally wrong and we're just never going to agree on that point.Only last thing I'll add...imagine a team that starts off really bad, let's say he drafted Jamaal Charles the year he missed almost the whole season or Trent Richardson this year. He starts 1-6 let's say. But he works the waiver wire and he's offering trades furiously all season. A few strategic moves and he's back in it. He rattles off 6 straight wins to finish 7-6. I want a league that rewards that guy. I don't want a 10-3 team to decide he's kingmaker and think he can pick the playoff teams. If I'm that 7-6 team and end up winning money, that's a season I remember forever. If I'm the 10-3 guy and 7-6 is a good friend, it doesn't cross my mind to tank to keep him out. I'd feel like a massive ****. Honestly I'm surprised so many people have no issue at all with doing it.

I think we both made our points and I totally get where you're coming from, just strongly disagree. Good luck in your leagues.

I would disagree simply because the guy who drafted better (didn't take Richardson) and managed his roster well enough to be 10-3 has earned the right to manipulate the seeding by managing a superior team. If the fellow who rattled off 6 in a row to finish 7-6 had only won 2 or 3 games earlier on, he wouldn't find himself in a position where he could be pushed out of the playoffs.

I admire your sense of ethics, but I think it is misguided. This is a fantasy football league, not a congeniality contest.

I think you have to reevaluate a little if this is a league made up of people you know and deal with every day. You have to decide if losing a friend is a possibility. Then if risking the loss of a friend is worth winning your league. But in a league of strangers, it's fine. You wouldn't go to Las Vegas and get mad at the stranger who bluffed you out of a poker tournament, would you?

 

[McGarnicle]

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.

Yeah, it's just a game often played for significant money where many of us invest a significant amount of time. There is luck and variance inherent in the game but there must be enough skill involved or we wouldn't bother. To allow this practice is fundamentally wrong and we're just never going to agree on that point.Only last thing I'll add...imagine a team that starts off really bad, let's say he drafted Jamaal Charles the year he missed almost the whole season or Trent Richardson this year. He starts 1-6 let's say. But he works the waiver wire and he's offering trades furiously all season. A few strategic moves and he's back in it. He rattles off 6 straight wins to finish 7-6. I want a league that rewards that guy. I don't want a 10-3 team to decide he's kingmaker and think he can pick the playoff teams. If I'm that 7-6 team and end up winning money, that's a season I remember forever. If I'm the 10-3 guy and 7-6 is a good friend, it doesn't cross my mind to tank to keep him out. I'd feel like a massive ****. Honestly I'm surprised so many people have no issue at all with doing it.

I think we both made our points and I totally get where you're coming from, just strongly disagree. Good luck in your leagues.

I would disagree simply because the guy who drafted better (didn't take Richardson) and managed his roster well enough to be 10-3 has earned the right to manipulate the seeding by managing a superior team. If the fellow who rattled off 6 in a row to finish 7-6 had only won 2 or 3 games earlier on, he wouldn't find himself in a position where he could be pushed out of the playoffs.I admire your sense of ethics, but I think it is misguided. This is a fantasy football league, not a congeniality contest.

I think you have to reevaluate a little if this is a league made up of people you know and deal with every day. You have to decide if losing a friend is a possibility. Then if risking the loss of a friend is worth winning your league. But in a league of strangers, it's fine. You wouldn't go to Las Vegas and get mad at the stranger who bluffed you out of a poker tournament, would you?

Worst analogy yet. Bluffing is as much a part of poker as the chips and the table.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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?

I already answered that question.

Link?

 

[CalBear]

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?

I already answered that question.

Link?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=700268&p=16270304

 

[ShockTheMonkey]

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.

Yeah, it's just a game often played for significant money where many of us invest a significant amount of time. There is luck and variance inherent in the game but there must be enough skill involved or we wouldn't bother. To allow this practice is fundamentally wrong and we're just never going to agree on that point.Only last thing I'll add...imagine a team that starts off really bad, let's say he drafted Jamaal Charles the year he missed almost the whole season or Trent Richardson this year. He starts 1-6 let's say. But he works the waiver wire and he's offering trades furiously all season. A few strategic moves and he's back in it. He rattles off 6 straight wins to finish 7-6. I want a league that rewards that guy. I don't want a 10-3 team to decide he's kingmaker and think he can pick the playoff teams. If I'm that 7-6 team and end up winning money, that's a season I remember forever. If I'm the 10-3 guy and 7-6 is a good friend, it doesn't cross my mind to tank to keep him out. I'd feel like a massive ****. Honestly I'm surprised so many people have no issue at all with doing it.

I think we both made our points and I totally get where you're coming from, just strongly disagree. Good luck in your leagues.

I would disagree simply because the guy who drafted better (didn't take Richardson) and managed his roster well enough to be 10-3 has earned the right to manipulate the seeding by managing a superior team. If the fellow who rattled off 6 in a row to finish 7-6 had only won 2 or 3 games earlier on, he wouldn't find himself in a position where he could be pushed out of the playoffs.I admire your sense of ethics, but I think it is misguided. This is a fantasy football league, not a congeniality contest.

I think you have to reevaluate a little if this is a league made up of people you know and deal with every day. You have to decide if losing a friend is a possibility. Then if risking the loss of a friend is worth winning your league. But in a league of strangers, it's fine. You wouldn't go to Las Vegas and get mad at the stranger who bluffed you out of a poker tournament, would you?

Worst analogy yet. Bluffing is as much a part of poker as the chips and the table.

Sure, and setting your lineup is as much a part of fantasy football as drafting your team. I don't see your point. You are trying to claim that "lying" about the strength of your hand is perfectly fine, but throwing a game to better your chances of winning your league is unethical?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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?

I already answered that question.

Link?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=700268&p=16270304

That doesn't really address my question. You're ok with someone taking zeroes in their lineup if doing otherwise would impose some cost on them. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to take zeroes in their lineup if the cost of doing otherwise is missing the playoffs?

 

[McGarnicle]

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.

Yeah, it's just a game often played for significant money where many of us invest a significant amount of time. There is luck and variance inherent in the game but there must be enough skill involved or we wouldn't bother. To allow this practice is fundamentally wrong and we're just never going to agree on that point.Only last thing I'll add...imagine a team that starts off really bad, let's say he drafted Jamaal Charles the year he missed almost the whole season or Trent Richardson this year. He starts 1-6 let's say. But he works the waiver wire and he's offering trades furiously all season. A few strategic moves and he's back in it. He rattles off 6 straight wins to finish 7-6. I want a league that rewards that guy. I don't want a 10-3 team to decide he's kingmaker and think he can pick the playoff teams. If I'm that 7-6 team and end up winning money, that's a season I remember forever. If I'm the 10-3 guy and 7-6 is a good friend, it doesn't cross my mind to tank to keep him out. I'd feel like a massive ****. Honestly I'm surprised so many people have no issue at all with doing it.I think we both made our points and I totally get where you're coming from, just strongly disagree. Good luck in your leagues.

I would disagree simply because the guy who drafted better (didn't take Richardson) and managed his roster well enough to be 10-3 has earned the right to manipulate the seeding by managing a superior team. If the fellow who rattled off 6 in a row to finish 7-6 had only won 2 or 3 games earlier on, he wouldn't find himself in a position where he could be pushed out of the playoffs.I admire your sense of ethics, but I think it is misguided. This is a fantasy football league, not a congeniality contest.

I think you have to reevaluate a little if this is a league made up of people you know and deal with every day. You have to decide if losing a friend is a possibility. Then if risking the loss of a friend is worth winning your league. But in a league of strangers, it's fine. You wouldn't go to Las Vegas and get mad at the stranger who bluffed you out of a poker tournament, would you?

Worst analogy yet. Bluffing is as much a part of poker as the chips and the table.

Sure, and setting your lineup is as much a part of fantasy football as drafting your team. I don't see your point. You are trying to claim that "lying" about the strength of your hand is perfectly fine, but throwing a game to better your chances of winning your league is unethical?

Well several guys here have said it's unethical, and they play in leagues that forbid it. Poker is a completely different game that actually relies on deception to succeed. There is zero correlation between the two. No one would argue that bluffing is unethical.

 

[CalBear]

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?

I already answered that question.

Link?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=700268&p=16270304

That doesn't really address my question. You're ok with someone taking zeroes in their lineup if doing otherwise would impose some cost on them. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to take zeroes in their lineup if the cost of doing otherwise is missing the playoffs?

That's a (possible) result, not a cost.

Putting in the best lineup you have doesn't mean that you'll automatically win; it just means you're playing the game.

 

[Lascelle]

Last season I had the opportunity to tank in Week 13 against an already-eliminated team.

I didn't and the way the playoff seeding worked out resulted in me losing a league championship game that I otherwise would have won.

So effectively, the fantasy gods punished me for NOT acting in my best interests by tanking and I lost a ton of money for it.

One year later, same money league, once again I'm 1st overall and have the opportunity to tank in Week 12 against an already-eliminated team.

I raise the issue, get chewed out for considering it, don't tank and win.

Week 13, I bench Andre Johnson and CJ Spiller for Kenbrell Thompkins and Montee Ball... get chewed out for doing so... and still win.

I've won 10 straight games in this league (a 5-year record) and fully expect to lose in Money Week to the same opponent I beat last week and wind up with zero dollars for doing so.

In short, ethics may be grand and all but you can use me as an example of how to get poor by playing nice with your fellow fantasy owners if I lose this weekend.

My personal stance on this is the following. I play fantasy football with the expectation that every owner in the league will act in their own best interests up until the point when they're eliminated - after which they should set their lineups every week and not make any further roster claims in order to respect the wishes of the owners that are still competing. I wouldn't have a problem if a fellow owner tanked and it cost me a playoff spot if they believed it was in their team's best interests for post-season success. It's on me for not having fielded a better team up until that point.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

I don't get this argument at all. If something is ethically wrong in a $5 league, then it's ethically wrong in a $5,000 league... it's just that you care more about $5000 than you do about the ethics (and, likewise, more about ethics than you do about $5). Ethics don't conveniently change to accommodate the size of the pot.

 

[GregR]

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?

Adam and I were discussing this with each other earlier in the thread as well.

I think first it is worth saying, this is the kind of situation you deal with through prevention. My leagues don't have a wildcard going to "remaining team with most points" in part because of this issue... though I actually would welcome that rule (have suggested it but not put it up for a vote because it didn't have enough support). Just I wouldn't put it in without due diligence.

If I was going to play in a league that had this type of rule, I would have the league discuss the possibility and decide in advance whether tanking in that situation would be allowed or not. If a league wants to allow tanking that is fine, and it's fine if they want to allow tanking in one situation but not another.

Beyond that, ok, so say I agreed to take over a league mid-season and had no ability to fix these kind of problems before we hit the situation. I'd be reflecting on it a lot longer than I am going to right now before I came to a decision, I can tell you that much for sure.

I imagine I would probably share some thoughts about the topic in general with the league and then let them vote on it. Some things I'm fine with dealing with an issue unilaterally when it falls under the commish's duty to do so. In some cases I think you need a good commish who is going to stand up for the rights of the lone owner because you can't count on a vote to do that, especially when the vote may also impact the other owners who are voting. But this is might be a situation I would leave it to the league to decide.

In general, what I last said on it in my post to Adam is still true. I think it is still unethical to tank in that situation, though my heart goes out to someone who is stuck with that choice. I would still rather start my best lineup and try to make up the point differential. And if I lose honestly then I'll be happy I made the playoffs.

If it was decided the team should not have tanked, whether solely by me or by a league vote, I don't think I would treat it at all as harshly as I would other potential tanking situations. Tanking to improve draft picks, or tanking to fix the playoff seeding where it doesn't include this rare situation, or tanking to help out a buddy, I would treat more harshly. I could see just excluding the team from the playoffs that season and no further penalty being all I might do, if it came to that. If a league vote, I don't know that it would come to that. I imagine many people who think tanking is unethical in most circumstances might be willing to make an exception for it there.

 

[GregR]

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

I don't get this argument at all. If something is ethically wrong in a $5 league, then it's ethically wrong in a $5,000 league... it's just that you care more about $5000 than you do about the ethics (and, likewise, more about ethics than you do about $5). Ethics don't conveniently change to accommodate the size of the pot.

Exactly. If I won't do something at $5 because it's unethical, but I will do it at $100, all I've done is shown that the price at which I'll sell out is between $5 and $100.

 

[ShockTheMonkey]

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.

Yeah, it's just a game often played for significant money where many of us invest a significant amount of time. There is luck and variance inherent in the game but there must be enough skill involved or we wouldn't bother. To allow this practice is fundamentally wrong and we're just never going to agree on that point.Only last thing I'll add...imagine a team that starts off really bad, let's say he drafted Jamaal Charles the year he missed almost the whole season or Trent Richardson this year. He starts 1-6 let's say. But he works the waiver wire and he's offering trades furiously all season. A few strategic moves and he's back in it. He rattles off 6 straight wins to finish 7-6. I want a league that rewards that guy. I don't want a 10-3 team to decide he's kingmaker and think he can pick the playoff teams. If I'm that 7-6 team and end up winning money, that's a season I remember forever. If I'm the 10-3 guy and 7-6 is a good friend, it doesn't cross my mind to tank to keep him out. I'd feel like a massive ****. Honestly I'm surprised so many people have no issue at all with doing it.I think we both made our points and I totally get where you're coming from, just strongly disagree. Good luck in your leagues.

I would disagree simply because the guy who drafted better (didn't take Richardson) and managed his roster well enough to be 10-3 has earned the right to manipulate the seeding by managing a superior team. If the fellow who rattled off 6 in a row to finish 7-6 had only won 2 or 3 games earlier on, he wouldn't find himself in a position where he could be pushed out of the playoffs.I admire your sense of ethics, but I think it is misguided. This is a fantasy football league, not a congeniality contest.

I think you have to reevaluate a little if this is a league made up of people you know and deal with every day. You have to decide if losing a friend is a possibility. Then if risking the loss of a friend is worth winning your league. But in a league of strangers, it's fine. You wouldn't go to Las Vegas and get mad at the stranger who bluffed you out of a poker tournament, would you?

Worst analogy yet. Bluffing is as much a part of poker as the chips and the table.

Sure, and setting your lineup is as much a part of fantasy football as drafting your team. I don't see your point. You are trying to claim that "lying" about the strength of your hand is perfectly fine, but throwing a game to better your chances of winning your league is unethical?

Well several guys here have said it's unethical, and they play in leagues that forbid it. Poker is a completely different game that actually relies on deception to succeed. There is zero correlation between the two. No one would argue that bluffing is unethical.

I agree with you there. I'm just trying to point out that getting yourself into a position where you are able to manipulate who your opponent is so that you have a better chance of winning a competition isn't unethical either...people are just saying it is. I really don't see why.

If you are dealt a bad hand in poker, you can still defeat your opponent by giving them the impression that you have a stronger hand than they do...bluffing. It's fine because it's a part of the game. If I were to sell you a blender that didn't work by misleading you into thinking that it did work...unethical. Not a game.

So please explain why unethical behavior is ok in the game of poker (it is) but not in fantasy football? I mean what's next? If Arian Foster gets hurt on the first play of the game, it's unethical for you to take a win that week? Of course not! Life isn't fair! I should have drafted a guy who isn't as injury prone as Arian Foster! It's on me! And you should have gotten more than 7 wins if you didn't want someone to knock you out buy taking a zero on their roster... that's all I'm saying.

 

[ShockTheMonkey]

I could see the argument Adam's making if it was a work league with a $5/per team throw, but if I've invested a couple hundred bucks or more, I'm not going to hesitate to put myself in what I feel the best position is to win.

There are ethics in gambling; part of that is the understanding that everyone should be maximizing their own self-interest.

I don't get this argument at all. If something is ethically wrong in a $5 league, then it's ethically wrong in a $5,000 league... it's just that you care more about $5000 than you do about the ethics (and, likewise, more about ethics than you do about $5). Ethics don't conveniently change to accommodate the size of the pot.

Exactly. If I won't do something at $5 because it's unethical, but I will do it at $100, all I've done is shown that the price at which I'll sell out is between $5 and $100.

I would like to think that it's because at $5 is a "friendly" game, and at $100 it's a matter of trying to make some extra money. In one case ethics apply, in the other case they don't...or it should be assumed to be that way.

 

[Ernol]

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 didn’t throw my game, I was just faced with the opportunity to do so in order to make the playoffs. I chose instead to start my best lineup as always and let the chips fall where they may (and I ended up winning and missing the playoffs).

I brought this example up because it is the one instance where I think losing may be acceptable absent a rule prohibiting it, depending on one’s league. The rules of this league state that it is illegal to tank in order to improve your draft position. Tanking in this situation does the opposite (worsens my draft pick) all the while accomplishing the goal of making the playoffs. I think there is more gray area in this example than most are recognizing (with most siding strongly in favor of one side over the other).

I personally made the choice to start my best lineup since it strikes me as unsportsmanlike to lose on purpose (same way I think starting bye players on purpose in order to avoid dropping a "prospect" is unsportsmanlike as well). However, I wouldn’t judge anyone choosing the opposite to be “unethical” in this particular instance. Fact is, the league set criteria for the playoffs and our goal is to meet one of the criteria. If losing the final game is what it takes to meet one of those criteria, then I wouldn’t judge harshly another owner that did so (absent a rule against it). I just wouldn’t do it myself.

As for whether there should be a rule against it in this scenario, I would probably vote to have such a rule, but I could be swayed either way on this one.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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?

All of the leagues I commish contain a blanket "sportsmanship" rule that sets forth general expectations for behavior and imbues me with broad power to rectify an injustice. I also make it clear that I'm a "spirit of the law" guy and not a "letter of the law" guy. I can't even remember the last time I had to actually throw weight like that, mostly because all the leagues I've commished have involved likeminded guys who had all been playing together for years. They practically run themselves, they just like having me around to deal with the paperwork. Still, I make sure the option is on the table as an ultimate safeguard.

With that said, let's assume I was in charge of a league that didn't have such a "sportsmanship" clause (say, I took over as commissioner of an existing league at midseason). I don't think I'd have one blanket response in that situation. If I were dealing with someone new to the league, I'd probably educate him on the expectations for the league's members and reprimand him. If I were dealing with someone who had been around for years who had a history of skirting along the edges of acceptable behavior, I'd start talking to him about whether this was really the league for him. I wouldn't boot him unilaterally, but I'd probably put it to a league vote.

Ideally I'd notice the potential tanking scenario ahead of time and head it off before the pass. I'd remind the owner about the expectations and issue a warning. If the owner continued in his efforts to tank, I'd manually set his lineup for him using an unbiased 3rd party (Dodds' projections). If I didn't notice until after the fact, though, I don't think I'd reverse the game results and award the owner with a win. It wouldn't be fair to his opponent to grant him an automatic loss through no fault of his own. I'd want to talk to everyone impacted by the situation and see where they stood on the issue before making any sweeping judgments. My default inclination would be to let the game result stand, and then just remove the offending franchise from playoff consideration and reseed the playoffs as if that team simply did not exist. Really, though, the answer to questions like this is always going to vary. For the easy questions, I have no problem wielding authority. For the hard questions, I try to leave it to the league to decide where possible.

The following offseason, I'd make it clear that if they want me to continue as a commish, I'm going to need my sportsmanship rule. If they don't want that rule on the books, that's fine, but I'm not the guy they want commishing their league.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I would like to think that it's because at $5 is a "friendly" game, and at $100 it's a matter of trying to make some extra money. In one case ethics apply, in the other case they don't...or it should be assumed to be that way.

Again, ethics are not such fickle creatures as that. That's like saying stealing cable would be wrong as long as it only costs $20 a month, but if they jack the price to $50 a month, it's fair game, because ethics don't apply once serious money is at stake. If something is ethically wrong, then it it ethically wrong no matter how much it costs you. It's just that it's a lot more inconvenient when the pot is big than it is when the pot is small.

Ethics are easy when there's nothing on the line. Anyone can do the right thing when it doesn't cost them anything.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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 didn’t throw my game, I was just faced with the opportunity to do so in order to make the playoffs. I chose instead to start my best lineup as always and let the chips fall where they may (and I ended up winning and missing the playoffs).

I brought this example up because it is the one instance where I think losing may be acceptable absent a rule prohibiting it, depending on one’s league. The rules of this league state that it is illegal to tank in order to improve your draft position. Tanking in this situation does the opposite (worsens my draft pick) all the while accomplishing the goal of making the playoffs. I think there is more gray area in this example than most are recognizing (with most siding strongly in favor of one side over the other).

I personally made the choice to start my best lineup since it strikes me as unsportsmanlike to lose on purpose (same way I think starting bye players on purpose in order to avoid dropping a "prospect" is unsportsmanlike as well). However, I wouldn’t judge anyone choosing the opposite to be “unethical” in this particular instance. Fact is, the league set criteria for the playoffs and our goal is to meet one of the criteria. If losing the final game is what it takes to meet one of those criteria, then I wouldn’t judge harshly another owner that did so (absent a rule against it). I just wouldn’t do it myself.

As for whether there should be a rule against it in this scenario, I would probably vote to have such a rule, but I could be swayed either way on this one.

Good to know, Ernol. Thanks!

 

[GregR]

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 didn’t throw my game, I was just faced with the opportunity to do so in order to make the playoffs. I chose instead to start my best lineup as always and let the chips fall where they may (and I ended up winning and missing the playoffs).

I brought this example up because it is the one instance where I think losing may be acceptable absent a rule prohibiting it, depending on one’s league. The rules of this league state that it is illegal to tank in order to improve your draft position. Tanking in this situation does the opposite (worsens my draft pick) all the while accomplishing the goal of making the playoffs. I think there is more gray area in this example than most are recognizing (with most siding strongly in favor of one side over the other).

I personally made the choice to start my best lineup since it strikes me as unsportsmanlike to lose on purpose (same way I think starting bye players on purpose in order to avoid dropping a "prospect" is unsportsmanlike as well). However, I wouldn’t judge anyone choosing the opposite to be “unethical” in this particular instance. Fact is, the league set criteria for the playoffs and our goal is to meet one of the criteria. If losing the final game is what it takes to meet one of those criteria, then I wouldn’t judge harshly another owner that did so (absent a rule against it). I just wouldn’t do it myself.

As for whether there should be a rule against it in this scenario, I would probably vote to have such a rule, but I could be swayed either way on this one.

Goodonya for how you handled it.

 

[blake]

Outside of Ernol's example of a strange league rule, is there a plausible hypothetical where if a league uses H2H record and/or points scored to determine playoff berths, where a team would actually have to lose to earn a playoff spot as opposed to winning a game? I'm very curious only because this hypothetical has been bandied about, but I can't really wrap my brain around a hypothetical.

 

[ShockTheMonkey]

I would like to think that it's because at $5 is a "friendly" game, and at $100 it's a matter of trying to make some extra money. In one case ethics apply, in the other case they don't...or it should be assumed to be that way.

Again, ethics are not such fickle creatures as that. That's like saying stealing cable would be wrong as long as it only costs $20 a month, but if they jack the price to $50 a month, it's fair game, because ethics don't apply once serious money is at stake. If something is ethically wrong, then it it ethically wrong no matter how much it costs you. It's just that it's a lot more inconvenient when the pot is big than it is when the pot is small.

Ethics are easy when there's nothing on the line. Anyone can do the right thing when it doesn't cost them anything.

I think you're missing the point... There are times when certain behavior is unethical...and times when it is fine. Hitting someone in the face isn't very nice. But in a boxing match, it's fine. In one situation it's unethical, in the other is just how the game is played.

Lines aren't always clear cut and black or white. You can't just say something is ethical or unethical at all times. Sometimes there may be a gray area, but there is a point when you are expected to realize that you are not in the gray area anymore. There is a point when you are supposed to know that your fantasy league is just for fun, and "dirty moves" aren't called for...and there is a time when you are expected to know that money is on the line and you are supposed to do whatever it takes to win it.

So when the OP asked if it mattered if it was online and a bunch of strangers, or a bunch of friends from work... yes it does. In once case you may be expected to know that it's all in fun, and in the other everyone is expected to know that it's no holds barred. It's the difference between rough housing and an all out fight between two brothers.

 

[Ernol]

Outside of Ernol's example of a strange league rule, is there a plausible hypothetical where if a league uses H2H record and/or points scored to determine playoff berths, where a team would actually have to lose to earn a playoff spot as opposed to winning a game? I'm very curious only because this hypothetical has been bandied about, but I can't really wrap my brain around a hypothetical.

Any format that uses wins (or VP) as one criteria to select playoff teams and something else as another (most common being points) has this potential. I am in a number of leagues that select 5 teams by VP and then the last team by points. That format would be subject to this potential as well.

 

[-fish-]

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?

No, and that hasn't been implied. I think you're a horribly confused individual. Your "parameters of the game" concept would be roughly equivalent to legalistic, only your "parameters" don't match up to any rules, just your individual moral reaction to a framework of rules. Ethics, in this case, are fact dependent. If all players agree that the goal is to win a championship by maximizing individual opportunities within the framework of the rules, then everyone should recognize that losing in any given week ("best lineup" or not) may be advantageous to winning a championship. You've done that much. So not only is the idea of "best lineup every week" is a naive fallacy, it is not morally, ethically, or strategically superior to results-oriented "tanking." Your problem seems to be that you think there is some ethical duty to win a battle with the consequence of losing a war.

 

[RealReactions]

okay so I have a very serious situation that is going on right now. Right now I'm in 5th place and I need the second place person to beat the 4th place person(team isn't great should be easily beaten) and I will make playoffs. 2nd place person has a guarteed playoff spot and he is tanking his game on purpose. I don't want to hear that I deserve to be here and I need to draft better I have the third highest scoring team and I have the hardest schedule of all the teams so I have the third highest points for and the number one point against. We have two people that quit at the end of week 5 and stopped even putting a lineup in or moving players around for bye weeks and I complain to the Commissioner that this was unfair that they are screwing up our league and he just let it ride. Well he let it ride because he versed those two people 3times and now he is the person in second place. Is this correct, should he be allowed to do this and tank a game to specifically not even give me a chance in the playoffs. This is a money league and we are all close friends I feel like this is a very **** headed move. I think if he doesn't put a serious lineup and I will backfire and I am going to drop all of my players to the waiver wire. So if you want to #### me out of the playoffs I am going to #### up the entire playoffs. Fight fire with fire #### it. By the way I'm 7-6 he's 9-4 so as you can see those games altered the entire playoffs. I played one of them when he was actually playing in week 3 and won and beat one while he wasn't playing in week 9. What's everyone's opinion on this

 

[jvdesigns2002]

This topic in this thread comes down to one dynamic: The "could I" versus "should I" dilemma. From what I read in the OP--his league didn't seem to have any rules written against an owner basically playing to lose--so the answer to "could I" submit a weak or incomplete roster is "yes". However, the thing that makes this an emotionally charged issue is in regards to gamesmanship and sportsmanship--which relates to the "should I" part of the dilemma. I think the clear answer to "should I" is no. I think it's clearly understood that everybody that signs up for a fantasy league does so with a basic understanding that every owner should have equal chances and potential to have their teams make the playoffs. While one can argue that tanking one week might be better for their individual chances of winning a championship--the fact is that it is also effecting the possibilities and probabilities of other owners in the league--both in negative and positive ways. The whole "well, i've earned the merit to throw a matchup one week" is also something that I and everybody should completely disagree with. Just because somebody is successful doesn't mean they SHOULD be motivated to be a ######## or participate in d-bag behavior. However, COULD they choose to be D-bags? Unfortunately--I hate to say it--but I think it's pretty obvious by reading through this thread that many would choose to be one--which I think is sad. Just as an example--I play in 6 fantasy leagues--4 of my teams are mathematically in the playoffs--and 2 of them were mathematically out of the playoffs going into last week (both re-draft with no consolation prizes). Even in the 2 leagues where my team was mathematically out of the playoffs going into last week--I still submitted my strongest lineups and approached the ww system the same way I would have if my teams were still alive. Even though it took some of my time to do this--I did this with the gamesmanship and sportsmanship that was expected from every owner at the time of the draft. I didn't need a rule to be explicitly written to remind me to do whats right in the spirit of the game--as we all know what good sportsmanship is.

 

[RealReactions]

Thank you and yeah I'm just going to say what you just said if he doesn't submit a lineup. I will be like should I drop my players and #### you over since you have a low waiver no but am I yes.

 

[blake]

Outside of Ernol's example of a strange league rule, is there a plausible hypothetical where if a league uses H2H record and/or points scored to determine playoff berths, where a team would actually have to lose to earn a playoff spot as opposed to winning a game? I'm very curious only because this hypothetical has been bandied about, but I can't really wrap my brain around a hypothetical.

Any format that uses wins (or VP) as one criteria to select playoff teams and something else as another (most common being points) has this potential. I am in a number of leagues that select 5 teams by VP and then the last team by points. That format would be subject to this potential as well.

So maybe the framework needs to be consistent and not have two different types of ways to get into the playoffs. However, I still don't see how a team would want to lose a game and somehow this would ensure a playoff spot with VP's + points determining playoff seeds. Maybe it is me, and my brain capacity is a bit limited.

I'm requesting a specific scenario where this would happen because I can't honestly envision it with VP, wins or points. Only in the setup that you described could I ever see losing as a viable strategy to ensure a playoff spot. I'm incredibly hopeful that only that situation could allow this instance and I'd really, really like to prevent anything like this happening in my league. It just seems so far fetched in a league that uses conventional playoff seeding structure, I can't wrap my head around any normal situation that would have this happen.

 

[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?

No, and that hasn't been implied. I think you're a horribly confused individual. Your "parameters of the game" concept would be roughly equivalent to legalistic, only your "parameters" don't match up to any rules, just your individual moral reaction to a framework of rules. Ethics, in this case, are fact dependent. If all players agree that the goal is to win a championship by maximizing individual opportunities within the framework of the rules, then everyone should recognize that losing in any given week ("best lineup" or not) may be advantageous to winning a championship. You've done that much. So not only is the idea of "best lineup every week" is a naive fallacy, it is not morally, ethically, or strategically superior to results-oriented "tanking."Your problem seems to be that you think there is some ethical duty to win a battle with the consequence of losing a war.

I have been very clear on the ethical duty; the ethical duty is to play the game as you would normally play it.

If all players agree that any action which does not violate a written rule is acceptable...well, you either have an amazingly complete set of rules, or a cutthroat set of leaguemates. I think it's clear that most leagues, and most people, are not willing to accept unlimited actions within the parameters of the rules; I won't again enumerate here some of the examples posted previously of actions one might take to improve chances of winning a game, which aren't likely to be banned by your league rules.

 

[GregR]

Outside of Ernol's example of a strange league rule, is there a plausible hypothetical where if a league uses H2H record and/or points scored to determine playoff berths, where a team would actually have to lose to earn a playoff spot as opposed to winning a game? I'm very curious only because this hypothetical has been bandied about, but I can't really wrap my brain around a hypothetical.

Any format that uses wins (or VP) as one criteria to select playoff teams and something else as another (most common being points) has this potential. I am in a number of leagues that select 5 teams by VP and then the last team by points. That format would be subject to this potential as well.

So maybe the framework needs to be consistent and not have two different types of ways to get into the playoffs. However, I still don't see how a team would want to lose a game and somehow this would ensure a playoff spot with VP's + points determining playoff seeds. Maybe it is me, and my brain capacity is a bit limited.

I'm requesting a specific scenario where this would happen because I can't honestly envision it with VP, wins or points. Only in the setup that you described could I ever see losing as a viable strategy to ensure a playoff spot. I'm incredibly hopeful that only that situation could allow this instance and I'd really, really like to prevent anything like this happening in my league. It just seems so far fetched in a league that uses conventional playoff seeding structure, I can't wrap my head around any normal situation that would have this happen.

12 team league. 3 divisions of 4 teams. Division winners get top 3 seeds. 2 wildcards go to next best records. 3rd and final wildcard goes to most points scored amongst the remaining teams.

Division 1 and 2 champs have seeds 1 and 2 locked up. There are 2 other really strong teams in them that have wildcards (seeds 4 and 5) locked up. So the only undecided spots are the Division 3 winner, and the final wildcard which will go to the remaining team with the highest points scored.

Division 3 has the following teams:

Team A is a 7-5 team, 1000 points scored.

Team B is a 6-6 team, 1600 points scored.

You are in Division 3 but out of contention for the division at 5-7. But you've scored 1300 points, which is better than all the other teams without a playoff berth secured yet except for Team B who has 1600. Other teams I haven't mentioned have fewer than 1000 points and won't be a factor. Teams score around 100 in the league, so a 300 point margin going into the final week is a huge lead. You play Team B the final week.

* If Team A wins he's 8-5 and will win the division regardless of Team B's outcome. This will leave Team B to compete for the wildcard given for best points, which you are likely to lose unless you outscore Team B by 300 which is ridiculous for this league.

*If Team A loses (7-6) and Team B also loses (6-7), then Team A wins the division, and again you lose the wildcard for best points to Team B.

*If Team A loses (7-6) and Team B wins (7-6), then there is a tie for the division that goes to points scored, which Team B will win since he's got a 600 point lead on Team A. You and Team A would be the highest scoring teams left to compete for the wildcard, and with your 300 point lead, you get the wildcard.

So the final scenario is only one where you can make the playoffs. It requires Team A to lose his game, and for you to lose your game to Team B. If you beat Team B, you are effectively eliminated because you won't make up the total points difference.

Other examples would include if a league uses head to head records, including another team can cause the tiebreaker from head to head to shift. Or if a league does the NFL style tiebreak of eliminating teams from the same division before proceeding with a multi-team tiebreak, then having another team in the tiebreak might eliminate a team (via division record) that would otherwise knock you out on head to head or total points.

 

[-fish-]

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?

No, and that hasn't been implied. I think you're a horribly confused individual. Your "parameters of the game" concept would be roughly equivalent to legalistic, only your "parameters" don't match up to any rules, just your individual moral reaction to a framework of rules. Ethics, in this case, are fact dependent. If all players agree that the goal is to win a championship by maximizing individual opportunities within the framework of the rules, then everyone should recognize that losing in any given week ("best lineup" or not) may be advantageous to winning a championship. You've done that much. So not only is the idea of "best lineup every week" is a naive fallacy, it is not morally, ethically, or strategically superior to results-oriented "tanking."Your problem seems to be that you think there is some ethical duty to win a battle with the consequence of losing a war.

I have been very clear on the ethical duty; the ethical duty is to play the game as you would normally play it.

If all players agree that any action which does not violate a written rule is acceptable...well, you either have an amazingly complete set of rules, or a cutthroat set of leaguemates. I think it's clear that most leagues, and most people, are not willing to accept unlimited actions within the parameters of the rules; I won't again enumerate here some of the examples posted previously of actions one might take to improve chances of winning a game, which aren't likely to be banned by your league rules.

But you concede there are exceptions to trying to win every week where it would hurt your season-long strategy. You wouldn't, every week, play players on a bye, but you'd do it in a specific week if sacrificing those points was a better decision than hurting yourself in later weeks through an unfavorable waiver move. You'd stack bye weeks in a draft, knowing you'd likely lose in a week with many byes, because it may help you for the season.

There is no "as you would normally play it" other than trying to win the season according to the rules of your league. You've conceded two examples of actions that could cause you to not start your "best lineup." You don't see an ethical problem with either. You're either just unwilling to admit that that your argument fell apart or you're unable to see that your positions are inconsistent.

Either way, you haven't shown anything unethical about losing a week....any week...where it would help you position yourself to win a championship.

 

[Ernol]

Outside of Ernol's example of a strange league rule, is there a plausible hypothetical where if a league uses H2H record and/or points scored to determine playoff berths, where a team would actually have to lose to earn a playoff spot as opposed to winning a game? I'm very curious only because this hypothetical has been bandied about, but I can't really wrap my brain around a hypothetical.

Any format that uses wins (or VP) as one criteria to select playoff teams and something else as another (most common being points) has this potential. I am in a number of leagues that select 5 teams by VP and then the last team by points. That format would be subject to this potential as well.

So maybe the framework needs to be consistent and not have two different types of ways to get into the playoffs. However, I still don't see how a team would want to lose a game and somehow this would ensure a playoff spot with VP's + points determining playoff seeds. Maybe it is me, and my brain capacity is a bit limited.

I'm requesting a specific scenario where this would happen because I can't honestly envision it with VP, wins or points. Only in the setup that you described could I ever see losing as a viable strategy to ensure a playoff spot. I'm incredibly hopeful that only that situation could allow this instance and I'd really, really like to prevent anything like this happening in my league. It just seems so far fetched in a league that uses conventional playoff seeding structure, I can't wrap my head around any normal situation that would have this happen.

12 team league. 3 divisions of 4 teams. Division winners get top 3 seeds. 2 wildcards go to next best records. 3rd and final wildcard goes to most points scored amongst the remaining teams.

Division 1 and 2 champs have seeds 1 and 2 locked up. There are 2 other really strong teams in them that have wildcards (seeds 4 and 5) locked up. So the only undecided spots are the Division 3 winner, and the final wildcard which will go to the remaining team with the highest points scored.

Division 3 has the following teams:

Team A is a 7-5 team, 1000 points scored.

Team B is a 6-6 team, 1600 points scored.

You are in Division 3 but out of contention for the division at 5-7. But you've scored 1300 points, which is better than all the other teams without a playoff berth secured yet except for Team B who has 1600. Other teams I haven't mentioned have fewer than 1000 points and won't be a factor. Teams score around 100 in the league, so a 300 point margin going into the final week is a huge lead. You play Team B the final week.

* If Team A wins he's 8-5 and will win the division regardless of Team B's outcome. This will leave Team B to compete for the wildcard given for best points, which you are likely to lose unless you outscore Team B by 300 which is ridiculous for this league.

*If Team A loses (7-6) and Team B also loses (6-7), then Team A wins the division, and again you lose the wildcard for best points to Team B.

*If Team A loses (7-6) and Team B wins (7-6), then there is a tie for the division that goes to points scored, which Team B will win since he's got a 600 point lead on Team A. You and Team A would be the highest scoring teams left to compete for the wildcard, and with your 300 point lead, you get the wildcard.

So the final scenario is only one where you can make the playoffs. It requires Team A to lose his game, and for you to lose your game to Team B. If you beat Team B, you are effectively eliminated because you won't make up the total points difference.

Other examples would include if a league uses head to head records, including another team can cause the tiebreaker from head to head to shift. Or if a league does the NFL style tiebreak of eliminating teams from the same division before proceeding with a multi-team tiebreak, then having another team in the tiebreak might eliminate a team (via division record) that would otherwise knock you out on head to head or total points.

Perhaps a more straightforward example is if Team A and Team B had identical 7-5 records. If you lose, you guaranty yourself a playoff slot regardless of any other factors. If you win, you may knock yourself out of a playoff spot.

 

[Ernol]

Outside of Ernol's example of a strange league rule, is there a plausible hypothetical where if a league uses H2H record and/or points scored to determine playoff berths, where a team would actually have to lose to earn a playoff spot as opposed to winning a game? I'm very curious only because this hypothetical has been bandied about, but I can't really wrap my brain around a hypothetical.

Any format that uses wins (or VP) as one criteria to select playoff teams and something else as another (most common being points) has this potential. I am in a number of leagues that select 5 teams by VP and then the last team by points. That format would be subject to this potential as well.

So maybe the framework needs to be consistent and not have two different types of ways to get into the playoffs. However, I still don't see how a team would want to lose a game and somehow this would ensure a playoff spot with VP's + points determining playoff seeds. Maybe it is me, and my brain capacity is a bit limited.

I'm requesting a specific scenario where this would happen because I can't honestly envision it with VP, wins or points. Only in the setup that you described could I ever see losing as a viable strategy to ensure a playoff spot. I'm incredibly hopeful that only that situation could allow this instance and I'd really, really like to prevent anything like this happening in my league. It just seems so far fetched in a league that uses conventional playoff seeding structure, I can't wrap my head around any normal situation that would have this happen.

Greg Russell's example applies. I wouldn't change the way you determine playoff slots to avoid this rare situation. I would simply make a rule, if you don't have one already, that everyone must start their best lineup each week as determined by them in good faith.

 

[grateful zed]

ive tanked before and will do it again. sports gambling is about profit.

 

[TheStig]

This topic in this thread comes down to one dynamic: The "could I" versus "should I" dilemma. From what I read in the OP--his league didn't seem to have any rules written against an owner basically playing to lose--so the answer to "could I" submit a weak or incomplete roster is "yes". However, the thing that makes this an emotionally charged issue is in regards to gamesmanship and sportsmanship--which relates to the "should I" part of the dilemma. I think the clear answer to "should I" is no. I think it's clearly understood that everybody that signs up for a fantasy league does so with a basic understanding that every owner should have equal chances and potential to have their teams make the playoffs. While one can argue that tanking one week might be better for their individual chances of winning a championship--the fact is that it is also effecting the possibilities and probabilities of other owners in the league--both in negative and positive ways. The whole "well, i've earned the merit to throw a matchup one week" is also something that I and everybody should completely disagree with. Just because somebody is successful doesn't mean they SHOULD be motivated to be a ######## or participate in d-bag behavior. However, COULD they choose to be D-bags? Unfortunately--I hate to say it--but I think it's pretty obvious by reading through this thread that many would choose to be one--which I think is sad. Just as an example--I play in 6 fantasy leagues--4 of my teams are mathematically in the playoffs--and 2 of them were mathematically out of the playoffs going into last week (both re-draft with no consolation prizes). Even in the 2 leagues where my team was mathematically out of the playoffs going into last week--I still submitted my strongest lineups and approached the ww system the same way I would have if my teams were still alive. Even though it took some of my time to do this--I did this with the gamesmanship and sportsmanship that was expected from every owner at the time of the draft. I didn't need a rule to be explicitly written to remind me to do whats right in the spirit of the game--as we all know what good sportsmanship is.

I think I've said half a dozen times in this thread that this scenario is discussed every year at this time. This is a predictable scenario heading into the season. You should have addressed a rules change or a playoff format that would eliminate or discourage "tanking" before the season started.

If you made no mention of it then you are nothing more than sour grapes.

You don't deserve to be in the playoffs under your current setup. He earned the right to determine who is. Sorry your schedule sucked. I'm willing to bet a roster change here or there would have made all the difference for you. I personally faced the fewest points against all season yet I'm the points leader as well. It is all random chance in head to head.

 

[TheStig]

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?

No, and that hasn't been implied. I think you're a horribly confused individual. Your "parameters of the game" concept would be roughly equivalent to legalistic, only your "parameters" don't match up to any rules, just your individual moral reaction to a framework of rules. Ethics, in this case, are fact dependent. If all players agree that the goal is to win a championship by maximizing individual opportunities within the framework of the rules, then everyone should recognize that losing in any given week ("best lineup" or not) may be advantageous to winning a championship. You've done that much. So not only is the idea of "best lineup every week" is a naive fallacy, it is not morally, ethically, or strategically superior to results-oriented "tanking."Your problem seems to be that you think there is some ethical duty to win a battle with the consequence of losing a war.

I have been very clear on the ethical duty; the ethical duty is to play the game as you would normally play it.

If all players agree that any action which does not violate a written rule is acceptable...well, you either have an amazingly complete set of rules, or a cutthroat set of leaguemates. I think it's clear that most leagues, and most people, are not willing to accept unlimited actions within the parameters of the rules; I won't again enumerate here some of the examples posted previously of actions one might take to improve chances of winning a game, which aren't likely to be banned by your league rules.

If you would "normally play it" with the goal of winning the championship then tanking is the same as not dropping a stud during a bye week just to fill a roster spot and cutting bate. People play the bye weeks with the "big picture" in mind sometimes.

The game requires one to analyze the long dollar vs the short dollar.

You might "normally" start Jamaal Charles but if faced with Charles facing Seattle and your 3rd RB facing Chicago you might make the switch based on the short dollar analysis, even though Charles is the long dollar "normal" play.

When you make rules that give direction to how a owner should manage their team then you put yourself in the "kingmaker" seat that you were against in the first place.

You don't have to like how somebody plays the game, but once you accept their money to play, and they are playing within the rules you must accept it. Don't accept their money next year and change the rules.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

okay so I have a very serious situation that is going on right now. Right now I'm in 5th place and I need the second place person to beat the 4th place person(team isn't great should be easily beaten) and I will make playoffs. 2nd place person has a guarteed playoff spot and he is tanking his game on purpose. I don't want to hear that I deserve to be here and I need to draft better I have the third highest scoring team and I have the hardest schedule of all the teams so I have the third highest points for and the number one point against. We have two people that quit at the end of week 5 and stopped even putting a lineup in or moving players around for bye weeks and I complain to the Commissioner that this was unfair that they are screwing up our league and he just let it ride. Well he let it ride because he versed those two people 3times and now he is the person in second place. Is this correct, should he be allowed to do this and tank a game to specifically not even give me a chance in the playoffs. This is a money league and we are all close friends I feel like this is a very **** headed move. I think if he doesn't put a serious lineup and I will backfire and I am going to drop all of my players to the waiver wire. So if you want to #### me out of the playoffs I am going to #### up the entire playoffs. Fight fire with fire #### it. By the way I'm 7-6 he's 9-4 so as you can see those games altered the entire playoffs. I played one of them when he was actually playing in week 3 and won and beat one while he wasn't playing in week 9. What's everyone's opinion on this

It sounds like you play in a league comprised entirely of children.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Even in the 2 leagues where my team was mathematically out of the playoffs going into last week--I still submitted my strongest lineups and approached the ww system the same way I would have if my teams were still alive. Even though it took some of my time to do this--I did this with the gamesmanship and sportsmanship that was expected from every owner at the time of the draft. I didn't need a rule to be explicitly written to remind me to do whats right in the spirit of the game--as we all know what good sportsmanship is.

I think/hope we all agree that tanking just for the hell of it because your team is out of contention is unsportsmanlike.

 

[ShockTheMonkey]

Jvdesigns2002 is in two leagues where he is out of playoff contention, and yet took the time to make waiver claims. I get the picture that he thinks this is good sportsmanship, but he would call tanking a game poor sportsmanship.

If my team is still in contention for the playoffs, and my starting QB goes down, and Jvdesigns2002 grabs the obvious best QB off waivers before I can... I'm not going to think that's very sportsmanlike of him. He has no chance to win and is just trying to screw me over in the name of "playing as he normally wood."

How is this any different than me tanking a game to knock you out of the playoffs?

It seems that some people in this thread think that acting as "spoiler" is fine as long as you've played your team so poorly that you are not a playoff contender. If you have played well and are locked into the playoffs and attempt to spoil someone's season, that's somehow unethical... what?

 

[CalBear]

Either way, you haven't shown anything unethical about losing a week....any week...where it would help you position yourself to win a championship.

So you're fine with tanking to get a better draft spot in a dynasty?

 

[CalBear]

You don't have to like how somebody plays the game, but once you accept their money to play, and they are playing within the rules you must accept it. Don't accept their money next year and change the rules.

Here again is an assertion that legality and ethicality are equivalent. I don't think you'll find many ethicists, or lawyers, who agree with you. It is possible for an action to be within the rules and still unethical.