Throw my game to change playoff teams? (3 Viewers)

[McGarnicle]

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.

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 YOU grab the obvious best QB off waivers before I can... I'm not going to think that's very sportsmanlike of you. You have no chance to win and are just trying to screw me over in the name of "playing as you 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 are locked into the playoffs and attempt to spoil someone's season, that's somehow unethical... what?

I wouldn't say it's unsportsmanlike at all. Maybe you're out of it but your goal is still to improve your record from last season. Some guys keep track of that stuff, then at the end of the season evaluate what went well and what could be improved. And even if I'm eliminated I still want the best record possible, just for pride.If you don't have a quality backup QB this time of year, that's on you.

I could see the logic behind locking waiver claims for any team that is mathematically eliminated though. Once again we're back to the importance of having rules in place.

 

[Amused to Death]

I wouldn't say it's unsportsmanlike at all. Maybe you're out of it but your goal is still to improve your record from last season. Some guys keep track of that stuff, then at the end of the season evaluate what went well and what could be improved. And even if I'm eliminated I still want the best record possible, just for pride.If you don't have a quality backup QB this time of year, that's on you.

I could see the logic behind locking waiver claims for any team that is mathematically eliminated though. Once again we're back to the importance of having rules in place.

I'm of the opinion once you're out and have nothing to play for, your roster should be frozen. There's no good reason for a team with nothing to play for picking up FAs.

ETA: Redraft, Dynasty is a different situation.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I wouldn't say it's unsportsmanlike at all. Maybe you're out of it but your goal is still to improve your record from last season. Some guys keep track of that stuff, then at the end of the season evaluate what went well and what could be improved. And even if I'm eliminated I still want the best record possible, just for pride.If you don't have a quality backup QB this time of year, that's on you.

I could see the logic behind locking waiver claims for any team that is mathematically eliminated though. Once again we're back to the importance of having rules in place.

I'm of the opinion once you're out and have nothing to play for, your roster should be frozen. There's no good reason for a team with nothing to play for picking up FAs.

ETA: Redraft, Dynasty is a different situation.

Strongly disagreed. That's an unfair advantage for owners who face a lot of bad teams late in the year (after they've been eliminated) rather than early in the year (before they've been eliminated). You want teams trying just as hard to win at the end of the year as they were at the beginning, whether they've been eliminated or not.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

IE, I think you missed this question earlier in the thread. I'd still be interested to hear what you think, not as some sort of trick or "gotcha", but because I genuinely want to know where you're coming from on this.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I enter each fantasy season with one goal, and one goal only, to win a championship. If losing a particular week (tanking) ensures, for whatever reason, that my team makes the playoffs I'll do it every time. For the very simple reason that the only way I can achieve my ultimate goal, winning the championship, is by making said playoffs.

Any of you who say you would try to win (for ethical reasons,) knowing you won't make the playoffs if you do, thus eliminating your own team from contention to win a championship......yeah, you are just blowing smoke up our butts and are full of crap.

No offense to Andy and Greg here, because I appreciate all of your contributions to FBG and the Shark Pool, but I call BS.

Sans having a detailed "No Tanking" rule in place, it's perfectly acceptable for any owner to do what is in their own teams best interests to achieve the goal of winning a championship.

Any other team that may possibly be affected by my team losing a particular week so I can make the playoffs......well, that is on them. They had all year to ensure/guide their own teams destiny. Blame for their teams inequities/problems lies squarely on their shoulders. They should have done a better job as an owner/GM to ensure that they weren't in that position to begin with.

Have I done it (tanked) ever? No. But I would in a heartbeat if that's what it would take to further my quest for a championship and the rules didn't prevent me from doing so.

Rody

Full disclosure - I play in 3 long-time keeper leagues (different rules for each) with roughly half of each league as members of the other leagues. Yes, we are all friends. Plenty of money is on the line in each league every year, but the money is secondary to being able to say, "I'm the Champion!!!"

 

[CalBear]

Sans having a detailed "No Tanking" rule in place, it's perfectly acceptable for any owner to do what is in their own teams best interests to achieve the goal of winning a championship.

...Full disclosure - I play in 3 long-time keeper leagues (different rules for each) with roughly half of each league as members of the other leagues. Yes, we are all friends. Plenty of money is on the line in each league every year, but the money is secondary to being able to say, "I'm the Champion!!!"

So is it OK in those leagues to tank for a better draft pick once you're eliminated from the playoffs, because you're trying to "win a championship?"

 

[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.

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.

you think that somebody should be more entitled to exhibit poor sportsmanship and purposely change other owners chances of making the playoffs because of a successful record? Really? Do you think that people who are more successful in life shouldn't have rules or laws applied to them as well--because that is exactly what you are basically saying. Everybody should have an equal competitive advantage--until the very end of the regular season--where the teams guaranteed to make the playoffs can manipulate to help or sabotage to prevent the other teams from battling to make the playoffs? What exactly have you done to deserve the right to effect other peoples playoff chances? The guy who drafted Julio Jones or Doug Martin shouldn't have the rules of sportsmanship and equal playing field to make the playoffs--just because another team owner was fortunate enough not to have the same team issues as him? Your team did well and you did a nice job managing it to this point---and you know what you earned--you earned yourself a guaranteed ticket to the playoffs--good for you. This doesn't mean that you also earned the right to mess with the equal playing field of the other teams battling for a playoff spot. Sure--the "written rules" might allow for it--but it's a very unsportsmanlike move and it speaks very poorly of ones moral barometer.

 

[Amused to Death]

I wouldn't say it's unsportsmanlike at all. Maybe you're out of it but your goal is still to improve your record from last season. Some guys keep track of that stuff, then at the end of the season evaluate what went well and what could be improved. And even if I'm eliminated I still want the best record possible, just for pride.If you don't have a quality backup QB this time of year, that's on you.

I could see the logic behind locking waiver claims for any team that is mathematically eliminated though. Once again we're back to the importance of having rules in place.

I'm of the opinion once you're out and have nothing to play for, your roster should be frozen. There's no good reason for a team with nothing to play for picking up FAs.

ETA: Redraft, Dynasty is a different situation.

Strongly disagreed. That's an unfair advantage for owners who face a lot of bad teams late in the year (after they've been eliminated) rather than early in the year (before they've been eliminated). You want teams trying just as hard to win at the end of the year as they were at the beginning, whether they've been eliminated or not.

Lot of teams have unfair advantages/disadvantages late in a season. It also serves to prevent player dumping.

 

[Amused to Death]

Sans having a detailed "No Tanking" rule in place, it's perfectly acceptable for any owner to do what is in their own teams best interests to achieve the goal of winning a championship.

...Full disclosure - I play in 3 long-time keeper leagues (different rules for each) with roughly half of each league as members of the other leagues. Yes, we are all friends. Plenty of money is on the line in each league every year, but the money is secondary to being able to say, "I'm the Champion!!!"

So is it OK in those leagues to tank for a better draft pick once you're eliminated from the playoffs, because you're trying to "win a championship?"

Your question blurs the line but probably not. But that's not the issue here. We're discussing winning THIS year. Tanking for picks does nothing toward that goal. Which is what we're all playing for at the start of each season. Tanking for next year, probably crosses the line. Improving my odds of winning THIS year, its what we play for.

 

[GregR]

I wouldn't say it's unsportsmanlike at all. Maybe you're out of it but your goal is still to improve your record from last season. Some guys keep track of that stuff, then at the end of the season evaluate what went well and what could be improved. And even if I'm eliminated I still want the best record possible, just for pride.If you don't have a quality backup QB this time of year, that's on you.

I could see the logic behind locking waiver claims for any team that is mathematically eliminated though. Once again we're back to the importance of having rules in place.

I'm of the opinion once you're out and have nothing to play for, your roster should be frozen. There's no good reason for a team with nothing to play for picking up FAs.

ETA: Redraft, Dynasty is a different situation.

Strongly disagreed. That's an unfair advantage for owners who face a lot of bad teams late in the year (after they've been eliminated) rather than early in the year (before they've been eliminated). You want teams trying just as hard to win at the end of the year as they were at the beginning, whether they've been eliminated or not.

Lot of teams have unfair advantages/disadvantages late in a season. It also serves to prevent player dumping.

Dude.

That's it, I'm out. If we're down to "there are already injustices in the world so we're justified to add more" as an argument... I mean, really?

 

[jvdesigns2002]

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?

I am shocked that you don't see the point here. The point is that when we sign up for a fantasy league--we all do so with a moral and ethical belief that the league we are entering is a good and fair league--and we assume that every other owner in the league will do what he/she can to maintain these fair parameters. Even though my team might be mathematically out of the playoffs--the fact is that there are several teams battling to get in the playoffs. Some of those teams are playing one another--and one of them might be playing me. If I don't put my best roster out there--I could be giving the team I play an easier road to make the playoffs versus other teams that are battling to get in---which is not fair--nor is it sportsmanlike. Looking at your example--I never said that I would randomly grab a ww qb if I didn't need one. I said I would set my rosters and use the ww just as I would in the regular season up to this point--I would only go after that qb if I needed him. The fact of the matter is that the only way to guarantee equal fairness throughout a season is if every owner put their best lineups in--every week of the regular season. If teams that are not playoff bound abandon their ownership duties--it will favor some teams that are battling for a playoff spot, while sabotaging others---which is not in the spirit of fairness. What you are saying is that it's unethical for play my best lineup because it might spoil my opponents chance of making the playoffs---what you aren't seeing is that giving my opponent a win is spoiling another teams chances--so the only fair thing to do is to play it out.

 

[Amused to Death]

I wouldn't say it's unsportsmanlike at all. Maybe you're out of it but your goal is still to improve your record from last season. Some guys keep track of that stuff, then at the end of the season evaluate what went well and what could be improved. And even if I'm eliminated I still want the best record possible, just for pride.If you don't have a quality backup QB this time of year, that's on you.

I could see the logic behind locking waiver claims for any team that is mathematically eliminated though. Once again we're back to the importance of having rules in place.

I'm of the opinion once you're out and have nothing to play for, your roster should be frozen. There's no good reason for a team with nothing to play for picking up FAs.

ETA: Redraft, Dynasty is a different situation.

Strongly disagreed. That's an unfair advantage for owners who face a lot of bad teams late in the year (after they've been eliminated) rather than early in the year (before they've been eliminated). You want teams trying just as hard to win at the end of the year as they were at the beginning, whether they've been eliminated or not.

Lot of teams have unfair advantages/disadvantages late in a season. It also serves to prevent player dumping.

Dude.

That's it, I'm out. If we're down to "there are already injustices in the world so we're justified to add more" as an argument... I mean, really?

That's off-topic. I off-offhandedly replied to a comment.

 

[CalBear]

Sans having a detailed "No Tanking" rule in place, it's perfectly acceptable for any owner to do what is in their own teams best interests to achieve the goal of winning a championship.

...Full disclosure - I play in 3 long-time keeper leagues (different rules for each) with roughly half of each league as members of the other leagues. Yes, we are all friends. Plenty of money is on the line in each league every year, but the money is secondary to being able to say, "I'm the Champion!!!"

So is it OK in those leagues to tank for a better draft pick once you're eliminated from the playoffs, because you're trying to "win a championship?"

Your question blurs the line but probably not. But that's not the issue here. We're discussing winning THIS year. Tanking for picks does nothing toward that goal. Which is what we're all playing for at the start of each season. Tanking for next year, probably crosses the line. Improving my odds of winning THIS year, its what we play for.

Why does taking for next year cross the line? What's the difference?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Any of you who say you would try to win (for ethical reasons,) knowing you won't make the playoffs if you do, thus eliminating your own team from contention to win a championship......yeah, you are just blowing smoke up our butts and are full of crap.

Except we've now heard of only two examples where a guy found himself in a "lose and you're in" situation, and in both examples, the guy submitted his best lineup and honestly tried to win.

 

[Amused to Death]

Sans having a detailed "No Tanking" rule in place, it's perfectly acceptable for any owner to do what is in their own teams best interests to achieve the goal of winning a championship.

...Full disclosure - I play in 3 long-time keeper leagues (different rules for each) with roughly half of each league as members of the other leagues. Yes, we are all friends. Plenty of money is on the line in each league every year, but the money is secondary to being able to say, "I'm the Champion!!!"

So is it OK in those leagues to tank for a better draft pick once you're eliminated from the playoffs, because you're trying to "win a championship?"

Your question blurs the line but probably not. But that's not the issue here. We're discussing winning THIS year. Tanking for picks does nothing toward that goal. Which is what we're all playing for at the start of each season. Tanking for next year, probably crosses the line. Improving my odds of winning THIS year, its what we play for.

Why does taking for next year cross the line? What's the difference?

It has nothing to do with winning THIS year.

 

[FUBAR]

I wouldn't say it's unsportsmanlike at all. Maybe you're out of it but your goal is still to improve your record from last season. Some guys keep track of that stuff, then at the end of the season evaluate what went well and what could be improved. And even if I'm eliminated I still want the best record possible, just for pride.If you don't have a quality backup QB this time of year, that's on you.

I could see the logic behind locking waiver claims for any team that is mathematically eliminated though. Once again we're back to the importance of having rules in place.

I'm of the opinion once you're out and have nothing to play for, your roster should be frozen. There's no good reason for a team with nothing to play for picking up FAs.

ETA: Redraft, Dynasty is a different situation.

Many of us will totally disagree with you. Do you want to be in the position where you're on the cusp of making the playoffs and playing against a good team, while the other guy trying to get in gets to play a roster of injured players and can't pick anyone up to make it competitive?

There are better ways to discourage roster dumping.

 

[CalBear]

Sans having a detailed "No Tanking" rule in place, it's perfectly acceptable for any owner to do what is in their own teams best interests to achieve the goal of winning a championship.

...Full disclosure - I play in 3 long-time keeper leagues (different rules for each) with roughly half of each league as members of the other leagues. Yes, we are all friends. Plenty of money is on the line in each league every year, but the money is secondary to being able to say, "I'm the Champion!!!"

So is it OK in those leagues to tank for a better draft pick once you're eliminated from the playoffs, because you're trying to "win a championship?"

Your question blurs the line but probably not. But that's not the issue here. We're discussing winning THIS year. Tanking for picks does nothing toward that goal. Which is what we're all playing for at the start of each season. Tanking for next year, probably crosses the line. Improving my odds of winning THIS year, its what we play for.

Why does taking for next year cross the line? What's the difference?

It has nothing to do with winning THIS year.

I don't see the moral difference. If you're out of it this year, why shouldn't you do everything you can to set yourself up to win next year?

 

[Amused to Death]

I wouldn't say it's unsportsmanlike at all. Maybe you're out of it but your goal is still to improve your record from last season. Some guys keep track of that stuff, then at the end of the season evaluate what went well and what could be improved. And even if I'm eliminated I still want the best record possible, just for pride.If you don't have a quality backup QB this time of year, that's on you.

I could see the logic behind locking waiver claims for any team that is mathematically eliminated though. Once again we're back to the importance of having rules in place.

I'm of the opinion once you're out and have nothing to play for, your roster should be frozen. There's no good reason for a team with nothing to play for picking up FAs.

ETA: Redraft, Dynasty is a different situation.

Many of us will totally disagree with you. Do you want to be in the position where you're on the cusp of making the playoffs and playing against a good team, while the other guy trying to get in gets to play a roster of injured players and can't pick anyone up to make it competitive?

There are better ways to discourage roster dumping.

Yeah I might have been wrong. I can concede that. But it has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[Amused to Death]

Sans having a detailed "No Tanking" rule in place, it's perfectly acceptable for any owner to do what is in their own teams best interests to achieve the goal of winning a championship.

...Full disclosure - I play in 3 long-time keeper leagues (different rules for each) with roughly half of each league as members of the other leagues. Yes, we are all friends. Plenty of money is on the line in each league every year, but the money is secondary to being able to say, "I'm the Champion!!!"

So is it OK in those leagues to tank for a better draft pick once you're eliminated from the playoffs, because you're trying to "win a championship?"

Your question blurs the line but probably not. But that's not the issue here. We're discussing winning THIS year. Tanking for picks does nothing toward that goal. Which is what we're all playing for at the start of each season. Tanking for next year, probably crosses the line. Improving my odds of winning THIS year, its what we play for.

Why does taking for next year cross the line? What's the difference?

It has nothing to do with winning THIS year.

I don't see the moral difference. If you're out of it this year, why shouldn't you do everything you can to set yourself up to win next year?

You don't see the difference between controlling your destiny this year vs. tanking for future years? I don't what my situation will be next year, but right now I may have control over my chances THIS year.

 

[Adam Harstad]

It has nothing to do with winning THIS year.

That's a meaningless distinction in dynasty. I would bet the majority of moves a team makes in dynasty have nothing to do with winning THIS year. Why should we create a special privileged set of rules for teams trying to win this year and not for teams trying to win next year?

 

[Pickle Rody]

Sans having a detailed "No Tanking" rule in place, it's perfectly acceptable for any owner to do what is in their own teams best interests to achieve the goal of winning a championship.

...Full disclosure - I play in 3 long-time keeper leagues (different rules for each) with roughly half of each league as members of the other leagues. Yes, we are all friends. Plenty of money is on the line in each league every year, but the money is secondary to being able to say, "I'm the Champion!!!"

So is it OK in those leagues to tank for a better draft pick once you're eliminated from the playoffs, because you're trying to "win a championship?"

Sans having a detailed "No Tanking" rule in place, it's perfectly acceptable.

Heck, in one of these leagues, my own, we allow trades and waivers all the way through week 17, our championship week. Some teams have fire sales, some teams sit pretty, some make huge pushes for the championship via the waiver wire or trades. We do have a no tanking rule, but it is mostly to ensure that no team starts players on a bye or out due to injury, or IR'd. Each team must start a valid lineup each week, but it is their discretion as to who to put in their starting lineup. As long as each player is actually slated to play that week, all is good. Sometimes folks leave in a player that happened to be a GTD, but we don't expect everyone to sit around their computer all morning Sunday, folks have lives outside of fantasy football. ALL perfectly acceptable to ALL of us. If you want to win it all.....GO FOR IT!!!!

Edit: I'll even give you an actual real example of how this worked out, in 2009. Week 17, I was in the championship game. I knew Peyton would sit and I didn't have a viable QB backup to take his place. I made a late week trade to pick up Brett Favre from a team that was not even in the playoffs and one of the worst teams that year. I gave up a ton of future picks and players to accomplish it. I won the title hands down because of Favre. My opponent that year gave me props for finding a way to win. Smiled and shook my hand when it was all over. The team I traded with went on to make the next two Championship games in 2010 and 2011. There was not a single complaint from anyone in the league because we all knew it was a real possibility that someone would eventually take advantage of the option to do just that. It happened to be me. This year I am the #1 seed (again) and plan on exercising my right to give my team the best chance to win it all.

 

[Adam Harstad]

You don't see the difference between controlling your destiny this year vs. tanking for future years? I don't what my situation will be next year, but right now I may have control over my chances THIS year.

The primary pro-tanking argument seems to be the following: I join redraft leagues with the goal of winning a championship this year, and will do everything within the rules to maximize those odds.

The dynasty corollary would therefore be: I join dynasty leagues with the goal of winning the most championships possible, and will do everything within the rules to maximize those odds.

The fact that a championship might come in 2014 instead of 2013 is a meaningless distinction. It's all about maximizing your odds of achieving your stated goal, right? You play to win championships, so if there's no rule against tanking, and tanking increases your odds at a championship, it should be fair game, right?

 

[Amused to Death]

You don't see the difference between controlling your destiny this year vs. tanking for future years? I don't what my situation will be next year, but right now I may have control over my chances THIS year.

The primary pro-tanking argument seems to be the following: I join redraft leagues with the goal of winning a championship this year, and will do everything within the rules to maximize those odds.

The dynasty corollary would therefore be: I join dynasty leagues with the goal of winning the most championships possible, and will do everything within the rules to maximize those odds.

The fact that a championship might come in 2014 instead of 2013 is a meaningless distinction. It's all about maximizing your odds of achieving your stated goal, right? You play to win championships, so if there's no rule against tanking, and tanking increases your odds at a championship, it should be fair game, right?

I've stated several times I view that as a gray area. I've never done it; I've never noticed it in my league. If it happened I don't know if I'd care or what our commish would do. But I'm not going to keep running in circles on this topic. There's clearly a split view - just make sure you're clear on your league's rules and follow them. Go win a championship however you feel comfortable.

 

[Pickle Rody]

The primary pro-tanking argument seems to be the following: I join redraft leagues with the goal of winning a championship this year, and will do everything within the rules to maximize those odds.

The dynasty corollary would therefore be: I join dynasty leagues with the goal of winning the most championships possible, and will do everything within the rules to maximize those odds.

The fact that a championship might come in 2014 instead of 2013 is a meaningless distinction. It's all about maximizing your odds of achieving your stated goal, right? You play to win championships, so if there's no rule against tanking, and tanking increases your odds at a championship, it should be fair game, right?

Right.

 

[TheStig]

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.

When you accept money that is a contract legally. It is bound by the agreed upon rules. The ethics do not matter in regards to the understood rules of the league.Unless everyone in the league takes an oath that binds them to a code of ethics only the stated rules can be applied if you accept payment into the league as a contract.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I'm not going to go back and find it, but I believe Rudnicki chimed in a few pages back with a "depends on the league" comment. This is so true.

If I played in a league with explicitly detailed "No Tanking" rules, I would abide by those rules. I don't have a problem with seemingly large rule books, as my own leagues printed rules cover 10 full pages. No one is forcing anybody to play in leagues with complicated or detailed rules, it's just that I don't mind them one bit. CYA, so to speak.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I wouldn't say it's unsportsmanlike at all. Maybe you're out of it but your goal is still to improve your record from last season. Some guys keep track of that stuff, then at the end of the season evaluate what went well and what could be improved. And even if I'm eliminated I still want the best record possible, just for pride.If you don't have a quality backup QB this time of year, that's on you.

I could see the logic behind locking waiver claims for any team that is mathematically eliminated though. Once again we're back to the importance of having rules in place.

I'm of the opinion once you're out and have nothing to play for, your roster should be frozen. There's no good reason for a team with nothing to play for picking up FAs.

ETA: Redraft, Dynasty is a different situation.

While I agree in principle, the danger is that while an individual team may not be able to make the playoffs - the teams they are playing might have a chance to make the playoffs. So if you freeze a roster and they truly give up, then there are adverse effects on other teams in the league that are fighting for the playoffs. On one hand you tell people to always field their best lineup, but the if you freeze thier roster how are they supposed to field their best lineup? There needs to be a better way to acocmplish the goal without creating unintended consequences.

 

[TheStig]

I wouldn't say it's unsportsmanlike at all. Maybe you're out of it but your goal is still to improve your record from last season. Some guys keep track of that stuff, then at the end of the season evaluate what went well and what could be improved. And even if I'm eliminated I still want the best record possible, just for pride.

If you don't have a quality backup QB this time of year, that's on you.

I could see the logic behind locking waiver claims for any team that is mathematically eliminated though. Once again we're back to the importance of having rules in place.

I'm of the opinion once you're out and have nothing to play for, your roster should be frozen. There's no good reason for a team with nothing to play for picking up FAs.ETA: Redraft, Dynasty is a different situation.

While I agree in principle, the danger is that while an individual team may not be able to make the playoffs - the teams they are playing might have a chance to make the playoffs. So if you freeze a roster and they truly give up, then there are adverse effects on other teams in the league that are fighting for the playoffs. On one hand you tell people to always field their best lineup, but the if you freeze thier roster how are they supposed to field their best lineup? There needs to be a better way to acocmplish the goal without creating unintended consequences.

Freezing the roster is intended to prevent roster dumping which affect the league more negatively overall than still making waiver claims.

 

[CalBear]

Sans having a detailed "No Tanking" rule in place, it's perfectly acceptable for any owner to do what is in their own teams best interests to achieve the goal of winning a championship.

...Full disclosure - I play in 3 long-time keeper leagues (different rules for each) with roughly half of each league as members of the other leagues. Yes, we are all friends. Plenty of money is on the line in each league every year, but the money is secondary to being able to say, "I'm the Champion!!!"

So is it OK in those leagues to tank for a better draft pick once you're eliminated from the playoffs, because you're trying to "win a championship?"

Sans having a detailed "No Tanking" rule in place, it's perfectly acceptable.

Heck, in one of these leagues, my own, we allow trades and waivers all the way through week 17, our championship week. Some teams have fire sales, some teams sit pretty, some make huge pushes for the championship via the waiver wire or trades. We do have a no tanking rule, but it is mostly to ensure that no team starts players on a bye or out due to injury, or IR'd. Each team must start a valid lineup each week, but it is their discretion as to who to put in their starting lineup. As long as each player is actually slated to play that week, all is good. Sometimes folks leave in a player that happened to be a GTD, but we don't expect everyone to sit around their computer all morning Sunday, folks have lives outside of fantasy football. ALL perfectly acceptable to ALL of us. If you want to win it all.....GO FOR IT!!!!

Edit: I'll even give you an actual real example of how this worked out, in 2009. Week 17, I was in the championship game. I knew Peyton would sit and I didn't have a viable QB backup to take his place. I made a late week trade to pick up Brett Favre from a team that was not even in the playoffs and one of the worst teams that year. I gave up a ton of future picks and players to accomplish it. I won the title hands down because of Favre. My opponent that year gave me props for finding a way to win. Smiled and shook my hand when it was all over. The team I traded with went on to make the next two Championship games in 2010 and 2011. There was not a single complaint from anyone in the league because we all knew it was a real possibility that someone would eventually take advantage of the option to do just that. It happened to be me. This year I am the #1 seed (again) and plan on exercising my right to give my team the best chance to win it all.

Why do you have a no tanking rule if tanking is "perfectly acceptable"?

I have absolutely no problem with a dynasty team trading away the future to win this year. That's part of playing the game. Putting players who won't score in your lineup is the opposite of playing the game.

 

[pizzatyme]

If there's no rule against tanking then it is perfectly acceptable and expected as part of trying to win, either this year or future years.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Make the rules, follow the rules. Pretty simple really.

 

[Amused to Death]

I wouldn't say it's unsportsmanlike at all. Maybe you're out of it but your goal is still to improve your record from last season. Some guys keep track of that stuff, then at the end of the season evaluate what went well and what could be improved. And even if I'm eliminated I still want the best record possible, just for pride.

If you don't have a quality backup QB this time of year, that's on you.

I could see the logic behind locking waiver claims for any team that is mathematically eliminated though. Once again we're back to the importance of having rules in place.

I'm of the opinion once you're out and have nothing to play for, your roster should be frozen. There's no good reason for a team with nothing to play for picking up FAs.ETA: Redraft, Dynasty is a different situation.

While I agree in principle, the danger is that while an individual team may not be able to make the playoffs - the teams they are playing might have a chance to make the playoffs. So if you freeze a roster and they truly give up, then there are adverse effects on other teams in the league that are fighting for the playoffs. On one hand you tell people to always field their best lineup, but the if you freeze thier roster how are they supposed to field their best lineup? There needs to be a better way to acocmplish the goal without creating unintended consequences.

Freezing the roster is intended to prevent roster dumping which affect the league more negatively overall than still making waiver claims.

I can certainly see the other side of it, but what I had in mind was the ability for collusion and playing games with waiver priorities (hey, grab that D for me so my opponent can't get it) or someone picking up obvious FAs that would hurt or help another owner. But I can definitely see the point of wanting all teams to stay competitive.

Greg coming back with "Dude, that's it, I'm out" was a bit over the top. Most of this thread has been quite civil and a good discussion (at least that's how I read it). Comments about computer hacking and willing to commit collusion notwithstanding.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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

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

IE, I think you missed this question earlier in the thread. I'd still be interested to hear what you think, not as some sort of trick or "gotcha", but because I genuinely want to know where you're coming from on this.

I did miss it, apologies. These are good questions. I'd say that I've tried to be clear that I'd only consider this is specific situations, although I haven't explicitly described which situations. I'm not sure I could come up with a comprehensive list of conditions, but off the top of my head it would look something like:

- You (and the other owners) entered the league primarily or entirely to win money this year. This isn't a local league with friends, it's not a dynasty league or even a redraft where you'll be playing again with these same folks next year and draft order is determined by this year's record or anything like that. It's just a one-year league for money. (I don't play in these types of leagues but I know they exist all over the internet.)

- Due to quirks in the league format, I've ended up in a counterintuitive position where my chances of winning the prize(s) would increase if I lost a game, and decrease if I won a game. I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where this would realistically occur any earlier than the last week of the regular season.

Note that the fact that it's anonymous or you'll never see them again isn't why it's acceptable in this situation, but rather that there's an implicit assumption that we're all playing with the express goal of winning the money. In my experience, leagues with people you know are generally formed for reasons other than strictly winning money, and that would have to be taken into consideration (doesn't mean it's totally unacceptable in those situations, just means it depends on the people and the agreed-upon culture of the league). But I imagine if I sign up for some one-year money league on the internet, we haven't organized together for the social aspects of the game, we've all given our money to a third party vendor for the purposes of gambling. If for some reason, in the final week of the regular season, I had an illogical opportunity to increase my chances of winning the money weeks by losing this non-money week, I'd try to lose (within the rules of the game and/or law, of course). I'd expect and be fine with anyone else doing the same, even if I was the one adversely impacted.

I like your question about the percentages - reminds me of something I think I read in Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow.

I honestly don't feel strongly about this issue, and overall you, Greg, and maybe a few others have (not surprisingly) made better arguments than the majority of the "pro-choice" crowd. Sometimes it's a fun diversion to argue in favor of an unpopular idea, this has mostly just been that kind of exercise for me.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Why do you have a no tanking rule if tanking is "perfectly acceptable"?I have absolutely no problem with a dynasty team trading away the future to win this year. That's part of playing the game. Putting players who won't score in your lineup is the opposite of playing the game.

Examples of putting players in my lineup who won't score would be: 1) players on a bye, 2)players injured and definitely not actually playing that week, 3)players on IR.

Examples of putting players in my lineup who probably won't score, but just might: 1)players not on a bye, 2)players not injured and definitely actually playing that week, 3)players not on IR.

Let me try to explain my position through another real example:

Another keeper league I do not run I am having a horrible year and was basically tied for last place heading into week 13. Last week, (3-9 heading into the matchup) I benched L. Fitz & A. Jeffery and put in K. Durham and Rishard Matthews with hopes of losing to improve my chances at a higher draft pick next year. I also benched Lynch and Sproles, replacing them with Joique Bell and S. Greene (guess which RB combo had the better numbers...) There is no "No Tanking" rule in this league. Even still, I did not put in any players I knew would not actually play. I won anyway. I did not, and still do not, consider it tanking. I felt I was doing what was in the best interest of my team going forward while still managing to field a team of players actually playing. Although I tied for the worst record with 2 other teams at 4-9, I finished in last place via total points scored.

To answer your question, the "No Tanking" rule in my league is designed to prohibit owners from starting players on bye, players definitely not playing that week (for whatever reason, injury likely the most prevalent reason,) and players on IR. It is not designed to prevent owners from starting any viable player they so choose. By "viable", I mean players that are actually playing that week. All owners have the right to manage their team as they so choose, as long as they aren't blatantly trying to circumvent the rules, as written. If something occurs that needs addressing, we do just that through a league-wide discussion and vote.

I hope I've made my position clear. I need to step out for a bit, but I'll return shortly to reply to any other questions anyone might have.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Last week, (3-9 heading into the matchup) I benched L. Fitz & A. Jeffery and put in K. Durham and Rishard Matthews with hopes of losing to improve my chances at a higher draft pick next year. I also benched Lynch and Sproles, replacing them with Joique Bell and S. Greene (guess which RB combo had the better numbers...)

There is no "No Tanking" rule in this league.

Yeah... that's tanking. If your rule explicitly defines "tanking" only as starting players who won't actually play, then what you did may be within the rules of your league, but what you did fits any general definition of tanking. You made roster moves specifically to increase your chances of losing.

 

[CalBear]

Why do you have a no tanking rule if tanking is "perfectly acceptable"?I have absolutely no problem with a dynasty team trading away the future to win this year. That's part of playing the game. Putting players who won't score in your lineup is the opposite of playing the game.

Examples of putting players in my lineup who won't score would be: 1) players on a bye, 2)players injured and definitely not actually playing that week, 3)players on IR.

Examples of putting players in my lineup who probably won't score, but just might: 1)players not on a bye, 2)players not injured and definitely actually playing that week, 3)players not on IR.

Let me try to explain my position through another real example:

Another keeper league I do not run I am having a horrible year and was basically tied for last place heading into week 13. Last week, (3-9 heading into the matchup) I benched L. Fitz & A. Jeffery and put in K. Durham and Rishard Matthews with hopes of losing to improve my chances at a higher draft pick next year. I also benched Lynch and Sproles, replacing them with Joique Bell and S. Greene (guess which RB combo had the better numbers...) There is no "No Tanking" rule in this league. Even still, I did not put in any players I knew would not actually play. I won anyway. I did not, and still do not, consider it tanking. I felt I was doing what was in the best interest of my team going forward while still managing to field a team of players actually playing. Although I tied for the worst record with 2 other teams at 4-9, I finished in last place via total points scored.

I understand why you would consider this legal, if it's not explicitly banned by the rules. I can sort of understand, if I twist my head and squint and borrow sunglasses from a Wall Street broker, how you could view it as ethical. But I completely fail to understand how you could see it as anything other than tanking.

 

[Pipes]

Throwing games to get an "easier" playoff matchup just seems like a cowardly move to me. Are you really afraid of a team that much to tank a game? I say play your best lineup and let the chips fall where they may. Life's too short to get so worked up over fantasy football to do something like that to increase your odds a few percentage points.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I understand why you would consider this legal, if it's not explicitly banned by the rules. I can sort of understand, if I twist my head and squint and borrow sunglasses from a Wall Street broker, how you could view it as ethical. But I completely fail to understand how you could see it as anything other than tanking.

Yeah, I suppose, by definition, it was. But it was perfectly acceptable in this particular league and I've heard absolutely no backlash because of it. In fact, had another bottom feeder team attempted the same maneuver I'd have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever.

I don't care if it's ethical or not. If it's within the context of the rules, it's acceptable. Period. I wouldn't expect someone else to not do what was in the best interests of their own team simply because of my own perceived ethics.

Spell it out clearly in the rules, or stop whining about it

If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior. Sans such rules, it's perfectly acceptable.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior. Sans such rules, it's perfectly acceptable.

Do you understand the distinction between ethicality and legality?

I sincerely doubt your league has a rule that explicitly prohibits you from hacking into another owner's account and changing his lineup. So that would be perfectly acceptable, right?

 

[CalBear]

If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior.

Ethical behavior is a highly required component of existence, I would prefer to think.

 

[cstu]

I'm amazed that anyone thinks this is ok.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Do you understand the distinction between ethicality and legality?I sincerely doubt your league has a rule that explicitly prohibits you from hacking into another owner's account and changing his lineup. So that would be perfectly acceptable, right?

Sure I do.

I am speaking solely on the issue of tanking. I thought that was what we were discussing here. I didn't bring ethic's into the conversation, but in regards to tanking there seems to be some kind of perceived "ethical" boundary a lot folks here think should not be crossed. I call BS on that.

I don't personally know anyone who would do what you suggest in your second paragraph. And no, it's not acceptable if such an event would occur. A commissioner could do it without "hacking," with claims that it was done to protect the supposed integrity of the league. Still not acceptable in my eyes, yet there are leagues out there that allow just such behavior from their commissioner. I call BS on that one as well.

 

[coolnerd]

I understand why you would consider this legal, if it's not explicitly banned by the rules. I can sort of understand, if I twist my head and squint and borrow sunglasses from a Wall Street broker, how you could view it as ethical. But I completely fail to understand how you could see it as anything other than tanking.

Yeah, I suppose, by definition, it was. But it was perfectly acceptable in this particular league and I've heard absolutely no backlash because of it. In fact, had another bottom feeder team attempted the same maneuver I'd have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever.

I don't care if it's ethical or not. If it's within the context of the rules, it's acceptable. Period. I wouldn't expect someone else to not do what was in the best interests of their own team simply because of my own perceived ethics.

Spell it out clearly in the rules, or stop whining about it

If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior. Sans such rules, it's perfectly acceptable.

Not being in the rules or (laws) is exact the people who are unethical attempt to use as an excuse for their poor behavior (remember when steroids were not against the rules of baseball)/ Laws and rules are most often chasing the people who do not want abide them. In short, no set or rules (or laws) cover every possible situation, because the rulebreakers are looking for the exact things that are not covered.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Oh well. It's okay to have differing opinions. Not saying any of you are wrong that don't feel the same way as I do. I just have a differing opinion.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Do you understand the distinction between ethicality and legality?

I sincerely doubt your league has a rule that explicitly prohibits you from hacking into another owner's account and changing his lineup. So that would be perfectly acceptable, right?

Sure I do.I am speaking solely on the issue of tanking. I thought that was what we were discussing here.

The differences between ethicality and legality aren't unique to the tanking issue. In general, do you understand what they are? From your comments above, it seems like you don't. If you're sure you understand the difference, could you explain it to me?

in regards to tanking there seems to be some kind of perceived "ethical" boundary a lot folks here think should not be crossed. I call BS on that.

Well of course there's an ethical boundary somewhere. The question is where that boundary is, and on which side of it tanking falls.

I don't personally know anyone who would do what you suggest in your second paragraph.

Neither do I. That's not the point.

And no, it's not acceptable if such an event would occur.

Why not? You just said:

Spell it out clearly in the rules, or stop whining about it

If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior. Sans such rules, it's perfectly acceptable.

If you don't have a rule prohibiting someone from hacking your lineup, why isn't it perfectly acceptable?

 

[Amused to Death]

The comments about hacking into someone's computer to make a lineup change are ridiculous. Its illegal. We don't need to re-write federal laws into our FFL rules. Just because someone will try to advance their team within the boundaries of the league rules doesn't mean they will commit felonies.

 

[TheStig]

If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior. Sans such rules, it's perfectly acceptable.

Do you understand the distinction between ethicality and legality?I sincerely doubt your league has a rule that explicitly prohibits you from hacking into another owner's account and changing his lineup. So that would be perfectly acceptable, right?

Well, hacking is actually illegal, sooooo.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The comments about hacking into someone's computer to make a lineup change are ridiculous. Its illegal. We don't need to re-write federal laws into our FFL rules. Just because someone will try to advance their team within the boundaries of the league rules doesn't mean they will commit felonies.

That's missing the point of the analogy. Replace "hacking" with a situation where your leaguemate hands you his laptop so you can look something up on the internet, and you change his lineup after noticing that he's still logged in to his team. In the absence of a rule specifically prohibiting it, would ruffrody still say that's unacceptable? Why or why not?

 

[TheStig]

I understand why you would consider this legal, if it's not explicitly banned by the rules. I can sort of understand, if I twist my head and squint and borrow sunglasses from a Wall Street broker, how you could view it as ethical. But I completely fail to understand how you could see it as anything other than tanking.

Yeah, I suppose, by definition, it was. But it was perfectly acceptable in this particular league and I've heard absolutely no backlash because of it. In fact, had another bottom feeder team attempted the same maneuver I'd have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever.I don't care if it's ethical or not. If it's within the context of the rules, it's acceptable. Period. I wouldn't expect someone else to not do what was in the best interests of their own team simply because of my own perceived ethics.

Spell it out clearly in the rules, or stop whining about it

If ethics, and ethical behavior, are such a highly required component of a league, then rules should already be in place to address such behavior. Sans such rules, it's perfectly acceptable.

Not being in the rules or (laws) is exact the people who are unethical attempt to use as an excuse for their poor behavior (remember when steroids were not against the rules of baseball)/ Laws and rules are most often chasing the people who do not want abide them. In short, no set or rules (or laws) cover every possible situation, because the rulebreakers are looking for the exact things that are not covered.

Not true at all. The rules exist as both guidelines and enforcement. Every game has rules. Monopoly has rules.

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

 

[Amused to Death]

The comments about hacking into someone's computer to make a lineup change are ridiculous. Its illegal. We don't need to re-write federal laws into our FFL rules. Just because someone will try to advance their team within the boundaries of the league rules doesn't mean they will commit felonies.

That's missing the point of the analogy. Replace "hacking" with a situation where your leaguemate hands you his laptop so you can look something up on the internet, and you change his lineup after noticing that he's still logged in to his team. In the absence of a rule specifically prohibiting it, would ruffrody still say that's unacceptable? Why or why not?

I would defer to my league rules and my commish's judgement. That's my answer for all ludicrous scenarios people can try to come up with. Strictly within the realm of how I would handle MY team to win the championship THIS year, I would set MY lineup accordingly.

 

[CalBear]

Quick Monopoly question, you have 3 to 4 houses on all your properties and are flush with cash. Is it unethical to not replace your houses with hotels?

I can't imagine why you think this would be an ethical question.