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

[davearm]

And, what's more, the way the crazy math works out, for every team that clinches, a team is eliminated until all playoff positions are filled.

I'd be interested to see that crazy math.

Look at your own league standings and look at how the Win/losses are distributed.

You really need to be backpedaling away from this one. There is no 1:1 relationship between teams clinching and teams being eliminated.

It is pretty much a Bell Curve. The top of the Bell are 4-5 teams who's records are close enough that only tie breakers decide elimination. You will have 3 teams with 1-3 losses and 3 teams with 1-3 wins on the season.

So, yeah, when a team clinches a team is eliminated.

As we speak, one NFL team has clinched a playoff berth (Seattle), and four have been eliminated. But do go on. It's fascinating.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

What was the benefit? It ensured Team 3 would play the team he tanked against (10th out of 12 in points scored). As opposed to if he won he would have had to play Team 5 or Team 6. Who were 2nd and 6th in points scored).

Do you think it's better for the league that this happened?

It's a lot better for one team -- the team that would have missed the playoffs.

It's a little better for the other playoff teams that now have seen a stronger team replaced by a weaker one.

It's a lot worse for the team that got bumped out.

I'm not sure what "the league" is, exactly. If it's a collection of its members, then it's a zero-sum game. The cumulative odds of winning the championship are still 100%.

This is the definitive answer. From a league perspective, the tanking is beneficial to every team except the one eliminated. Not tanking makes it worse for every team except one (and the other teams that wouldn't have made the playoffs anyway - which is a neutral effect). So in conclusion, not tanking is unethical.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

And, what's more, the way the crazy math works out, for every team that clinches, a team is eliminated until all playoff positions are filled.

I'd be interested to see that crazy math.

Look at your own league standings and look at how the Win/losses are distributed.

You really need to be backpedaling away from this one. There is no 1:1 relationship between teams clinching and teams being eliminated.

It is pretty much a Bell Curve. The top of the Bell are 4-5 teams who's records are close enough that only tie breakers decide elimination. You will have 3 teams with 1-3 losses and 3 teams with 1-3 wins on the season. So, yeah, when a team clinches a team is eliminated.

Yeah, that's not how it works.

 

[TheStig]

And, what's more, the way the crazy math works out, for every team that clinches, a team is eliminated until all playoff positions are filled.

I'd be interested to see that crazy math.

Look at your own league standings and look at how the Win/losses are distributed.

You really need to be backpedaling away from this one. There is no 1:1 relationship between teams clinching and teams being eliminated.

It is pretty much a Bell Curve. The top of the Bell are 4-5 teams who's records are close enough that only tie breakers decide elimination. You will have 3 teams with 1-3 losses and 3 teams with 1-3 wins on the season. So, yeah, when a team clinches a team is eliminated.

Yeah, that's not how it works.

Oh, I'm sorry, you are right. There are just as many playoff spots available after Seattle clinched as there was before Seattle clinched.

 

[Topes]

I am thankful that the "should I tank" discussion has largely been kept in this thread while the "my league has vague playoff tiebreakers" discussions has been largely isolated to that 'other' thread this year.

They're common and not unworthy discussions this time of year. Good to see them each find a fruity fruitful home.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

And, what's more, the way the crazy math works out, for every team that clinches, a team is eliminated until all playoff positions are filled.

I'd be interested to see that crazy math.

Look at your own league standings and look at how the Win/losses are distributed.

You really need to be backpedaling away from this one. There is no 1:1 relationship between teams clinching and teams being eliminated.

It is pretty much a Bell Curve. The top of the Bell are 4-5 teams who's records are close enough that only tie breakers decide elimination. You will have 3 teams with 1-3 losses and 3 teams with 1-3 wins on the season.So, yeah, when a team clinches a team is eliminated.

Yeah, that's not how it works.

Oh, I'm sorry, you are right. There are just as many playoff spots available after Seattle clinched as there was before Seattle clinched.

That's not what you said. I'm looking for the crazy math that shows that each a team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated. Unless you're now backing off of that claim.

 

[TheStig]

Standings

Schedule

Playoffs

Current Standings 

Rank Team W-L-T

*1 ODogg's Warriors...........11-2-0

*2 Orange Julius ....................10-3-0

*3 The Champ...........................10-3-0

*4 The Wrecking Crew.................10-3-0

5 NVA Steelers................................7-6-0

6 Holy Guacamole!..............................7-6-0

7. Sensei..."............................................6-7-0

8 Gladiators............................................6-7-0

9 IsmaelC's El Bori...............................6-7-0

10 Commish.........................................5-8-0

11 Ludicrous Speed...........................5-8-0

12 Any Given Sunday.....................4-9-0

13 Super Team............................ 4-9-0

14 First and Goal .....................0-13-0

Because of the distribution, Wildcard slots exist solely for those 5 teams in the middle. The Wildcard was a creation to extend playing motivation and fan interest. But simply put Wildcard teams are just average. And every year this thread pops up about what is or is not fair.

The ethical argument aside, these are clearly average teams, relatively speaking, that did not distinguish themselves enough in the regular season to earn a playoff spot based solely on their own merit.

And if this league had Wildcard slots it would mean that almost half the league would make the playoffs. If nearly half a league can make the playoffs then just flip a coin, but for this thread to go on over 12 pages arguing about the rights of two teams that couldn't even win a coin toss?

Solution, extend the Wildcard to four teams and give all your friends participation trophies. But out of the gate to have 6 opportunities out of 14 to win a couple hundred bucks is already good odds. Sorry you didn't win in October though because you didn't "know" that it would be important later.

 

[TheStig]

And, what's more, the way the crazy math works out, for every team that clinches, a team is eliminated until all playoff positions are filled.

I'd be interested to see that crazy math.

Look at your own league standings and look at how the Win/losses are distributed.

You really need to be backpedaling away from this one. There is no 1:1 relationship between teams clinching and teams being eliminated.

It is pretty much a Bell Curve. The top of the Bell are 4-5 teams who's records are close enough that only tie breakers decide elimination. You will have 3 teams with 1-3 losses and 3 teams with 1-3 wins on the season.So, yeah, when a team clinches a team is eliminated.

Yeah, that's not how it works.

Oh, I'm sorry, you are right. There are just as many playoff spots available after Seattle clinched as there was before Seattle clinched.

That's not what you said. I'm looking for the crazy math that shows that each a team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated. Unless you're now backing off of that claim.

Ugggh, if a Team clinches are there more or less opportunities to make the playoffs? Pretty simple concept.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

And, what's more, the way the crazy math works out, for every team that clinches, a team is eliminated until all playoff positions are filled.

I'd be interested to see that crazy math.

Look at your own league standings and look at how the Win/losses are distributed.

You really need to be backpedaling away from this one. There is no 1:1 relationship between teams clinching and teams being eliminated.

It is pretty much a Bell Curve. The top of the Bell are 4-5 teams who's records are close enough that only tie breakers decide elimination. You will have 3 teams with 1-3 losses and 3 teams with 1-3 wins on the season.So, yeah, when a team clinches a team is eliminated.

Yeah, that's not how it works.

Oh, I'm sorry, you are right. There are just as many playoff spots available after Seattle clinched as there was before Seattle clinched.

That's not what you said. I'm looking for the crazy math that shows that each a team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated. Unless you're now backing off of that claim.

Ugggh, if a Team clinches are there more or less opportunities to make the playoffs? Pretty simple concept.

I'm just confirming that you're now backing off your earlier claim that there's some crazy math that shows that when one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated.

 

[TheStig]

And, what's more, the way the crazy math works out, for every team that clinches, a team is eliminated until all playoff positions are filled.

I'd be interested to see that crazy math.

Look at your own league standings and look at how the Win/losses are distributed.

You really need to be backpedaling away from this one. There is no 1:1 relationship between teams clinching and teams being eliminated.

It is pretty much a Bell Curve. The top of the Bell are 4-5 teams who's records are close enough that only tie breakers decide elimination. You will have 3 teams with 1-3 losses and 3 teams with 1-3 wins on the season.So, yeah, when a team clinches a team is eliminated.

Yeah, that's not how it works.

Oh, I'm sorry, you are right. There are just as many playoff spots available after Seattle clinched as there was before Seattle clinched.

That's not what you said. I'm looking for the crazy math that shows that each a team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated. Unless you're now backing off of that claim.

Ugggh, if a Team clinches are there more or less opportunities to make the playoffs? Pretty simple concept.

I'm just confirming that you're now backing off your earlier claim that there's some crazy math that shows that when one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated.

Not at all. You simply don't understand. That's okay

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm just confirming that you're now backing off your earlier claim that there's some crazy math that shows that when one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated.

Not at all.

Ok, so if you're not backing off that claim, then show the crazy math. It's a simple request.

I understand that you're now trying to claim you're saying something different, which is fine. It's ok to admit that you're now saying something different.

Edit: Just to clear up your confusion, surely we all agree there's a difference between these two statments:

"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated."

and

"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, there is one fewer spot available to all the other teams."

Originally you claimed the former, now you're saying the latter. That's fine. Of course, the latter claim doesn't require any "crazy math," it's plainly obvious.

 

[TheStig]

I'm just confirming that you're now backing off your earlier claim that there's some crazy math that shows that when one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated.

Not at all.

Ok, so if you're not backing off that claim, then show the crazy math. It's a simple request.I understand that you're now trying to claim you're saying something different, which is fine. It's ok to admit that you're now saying something different. Edit: Just to clear up your confusion, surely we all agree there's a difference between these two statments:"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated."and"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, there is one fewer spot available to all the other teams."Originally you claimed the former, now you're saying the latter. That's fine. Of course, the latter claim doesn't require any "crazy math," it's plainly obvious.

The Bell Curve provided displays the "crazy math" via simple distribution. One side if the standings are nearly mirrored by the other side.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The Bell Curve provided displays the "crazy math" via simple distribution. One side if the standings are nearly mirrored by the other side.

First of all, just saying "bell curve" doesn't actually show any math proving that every time one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated. You'd have to actually, you know, prove it.

Secondly, fantasy football standings aren't always normally distributed. Here's one example where they aren't, and this isn't exactly uncommon. Standings are rarely mirrored about the center.

You're still welcome to try to prove that each time a team clinces a playoff spot, another team is eliminated. I'd still be very interested to see the crazy math that demonstrates this,.

 

[TheStig]

The Bell Curve provided displays the "crazy math" via simple distribution. One side if the standings are nearly mirrored by the other side.

First of all, just saying "bell curve" doesn't actually show any math proving that every time one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated. You'd have to actually, you know, prove it. Secondly, fantasy football standings aren't always normally distributed. Here's one example where they aren't, and this isn't exactly uncommon. Standings are rarely mirrored about the center.

You're still welcome to try to prove that each time a team clinces a playoff spot, another team is eliminated. I'd still be very interested to see the crazy math that demonstrates this,.

It shows the natural statistical distribution of the standings through the course of the season. I'm sorry if you are unfamiliar with the concept of distribution.Show me how after a team clinches the odds of making the playoffs stay the same for the remaining teams.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It shows the natural statistical distribution of the standings through the course of the season. I'm sorry if you are unfamiliar with the concept of distribution.

Yeah, I must've somehow skipped that day as I earned my degree in mathematics and passed my actuarial exams.

Show me how after a team clinches the odds of making the playoffs stay the same for the remaining teams.

I never said that they do. If you want to back off your original claim and now make a third, different claim, that's still fine, but keep them straight. I thought this was obvious, but maybe it isn't to you - do you understand the difference between these two statements?

"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated."

and

"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, there is one fewer spot available to all the other teams."

Originally you claimed the former, and later confirmed that you were standing by that claim. That's the one we're talking about. If you want to show that's true (via "crazy math" or any other form of proof), please do. On the other hand, if you no longer believe that's true, that's fine. Just say so.

 

[TheStig]

It shows the natural statistical distribution of the standings through the course of the season. I'm sorry if you are unfamiliar with the concept of distribution.

Yeah, I must've somehow skipped that day as I earned my degree in mathematics and passed my actuarial exams.

Show me how after a team clinches the odds of making the playoffs stay the same for the remaining teams.

I never said that they do. If you want to back off your original claim and now make a third, different claim, that's still fine, but keep them straight. I thought this was obvious, but maybe it isn't to you - do you understand the difference between these two statements?

"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated."and"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, there is one fewer spot available to all the other teams."

Originally you claimed the former, and later confirmed that you were standing by that claim. That's the one we're talking about. If you want to show that's true (via "crazy math" or any other form of proof), please do. On the other hand, if you no longer believe that's true, that's fine. Just say so.

You clearly do not understand the concept. The "crazy math" is the distribution of wins. If you do not see recognize how distribution plays into a playoff structure then that is fine, just say so.

But "crazy math" means that once a team has clinched, there is one less playoff opportunity available for the rest of the pool. Looking at the distribution, a team has in all probability been eliminated.

Put another way, if all the teams are still viable contenders, how is it possible to have secured a playoff spot?

Do you really not understand what securing a playoff spot means?

 

[CalBear]

Do you really not understand what securing a playoff spot means?

You're 9-0. Everyone else in the league is 4-5. You've clinched a playoff spot. Who's been eliminated?

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Before reading this thread, I would have expected most folks would be OK with tanking to improve playoff positioning.

I know earlier there was discussion about "parameters of the game" or somesuch. To me, the overriding "parameter of the game" is always to manage your team to maximize its chances of winning the championship (within league rules of course). This primary motivator guides drafting, lineup setting, waiver/free agent acquisitions, trades, all of it. 99.9% of the time, winning this week's game advances the win the championship motive. In that 0.1% of the time when losing this week's game advances the championship motive, it's not only fair to tank, but expected.

If for whatever reason a league wanted to stipulate that every team has to make winning every week's game the highest priority, then tanking isn't the only thing that must be disallowed. Collecting a roster full of players with the same bye week would have to be Illegal. Starting a bye week player instead of dropping a valuable player to pick up a replacement must also be illegal. Starting a defense with a poor matchup because they have great matchups the next three weeks and you don't want to drop them, also a no-go. Those are all choices to "lose the battle to win the war". Tanking is just another such strategy.

While I agree that "tanking" might be a sound strategy--that certainly can work from time to time--the point that the anti-tanking crowd is making is that it is in poor sportsmanship and unethical. Why do we all strive to play in good fantasy leagues with good rational commissioners? We do it in hopes of playing in leagues that promote a fair and equal competitive environment. Part of this equal environment is that playoff teams are determined through the parameters of that league under natural and fair equal competition---not competition that is manipulated by owners in the league. Tanking is just another word for purposely manipulating the laws of equal competition in a league through purposely changing standings/records. Drafting a team where a lot of your players have the same bye week is not tanking--because--while it may give your team a disadvantage that one week--it gives your team an advantage the other weeks--as you are most likely playing other teams who have players on bye week. The idea is that every owner should start what they think their strongest roster for each particular week is. The reason for this is that it is the only way to insure that the teams that make the playoffs do so as a direct result of equal and fair competition--and nothing else. Teams should not make or miss the playoffs through manipulation--whether or not if it is blatantly written in the rules. Sportsmanship is sportsmanship.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

It shows the natural statistical distribution of the standings through the course of the season. I'm sorry if you are unfamiliar with the concept of distribution.

Yeah, I must've somehow skipped that day as I earned my degree in mathematics and passed my actuarial exams.

Show me how after a team clinches the odds of making the playoffs stay the same for the remaining teams.

I never said that they do. If you want to back off your original claim and now make a third, different claim, that's still fine, but keep them straight. I thought this was obvious, but maybe it isn't to you - do you understand the difference between these two statements?

"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated."and"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, there is one fewer spot available to all the other teams."

Originally you claimed the former, and later confirmed that you were standing by that claim. That's the one we're talking about. If you want to show that's true (via "crazy math" or any other form of proof), please do. On the other hand, if you no longer believe that's true, that's fine. Just say so.

You clearly do not understand the concept. The "crazy math" is the distribution of wins. If you do not see recognize how distribution plays into a playoff structure then that is fine, just say so.

But "crazy math" means that once a team has clinched, there is one less playoff opportunity available for the rest of the pool. Looking at the distribution, a team has in all probability been eliminated.

Put another way, if all the teams are still viable contenders, how is it possible to have secured a playoff spot?

Do you really not understand what securing a playoff spot means?

You aren't very smart, are you? Be honest with yourself and the rest of us.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It shows the natural statistical distribution of the standings through the course of the season. I'm sorry if you are unfamiliar with the concept of distribution.

Yeah, I must've somehow skipped that day as I earned my degree in mathematics and passed my actuarial exams.

Show me how after a team clinches the odds of making the playoffs stay the same for the remaining teams.

I never said that they do. If you want to back off your original claim and now make a third, different claim, that's still fine, but keep them straight. I thought this was obvious, but maybe it isn't to you - do you understand the difference between these two statements?

"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated."and"Every time one team clinches a playoff spot, there is one fewer spot available to all the other teams."

Originally you claimed the former, and later confirmed that you were standing by that claim. That's the one we're talking about. If you want to show that's true (via "crazy math" or any other form of proof), please do. On the other hand, if you no longer believe that's true, that's fine. Just say so.

You clearly do not understand the concept. The "crazy math" is the distribution of wins. If you do not see recognize how distribution plays into a playoff structure then that is fine, just say so. But "crazy math" means that once a team has clinched, there is one less playoff opportunity available for the rest of the pool. Looking at the distribution, a team has in all probability been eliminated.

Put another way, if all the teams are still viable contenders, how is it possible to have secured a playoff spot?

Do you really not understand what securing a playoff spot means?

 

[TheStig]

Do you really not understand what securing a playoff spot means?

You're 9-0. Everyone else in the league is 4-5. You've clinched a playoff spot. Who's been eliminated?

It would be impossible statistically for everyone to be 4-5 if you are 9-0. FF is a game of statistics and you fail to even understand the basics if statistics.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Holy crap.

 

[davearm]

And, what's more, the way the crazy math works out, for every team that clinches, a team is eliminated until all playoff positions are filled.

Ugggh, if a Team clinches are there more or less opportunities to make the playoffs? Pretty simple concept.

These are not the same. HTH

 

[Alex P Keaton]

And, what's more, the way the crazy math works out, for every team that clinches, a team is eliminated until all playoff positions are filled.

Ugggh, if a Team clinches are there more or less opportunities to make the playoffs? Pretty simple concept.

These are not the same. HTH

Yeah, this is one of those rare examples where it is best to just start over with a new username.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Do you really not understand what securing a playoff spot means?

You're 9-0. Everyone else in the league is 4-5. You've clinched a playoff spot. Who's been eliminated?

It would be impossible statistically for everyone to be 4-5 if you are 9-0.

Not in a 10-team league.

 

[TheStig]

This article was written Nov 27th before Seattle or anyone clinched a playoff spot.

http://www.faniq.com/blog/Longshot-playoff-scenarios-for-the-nine-worst-NFL-teams-still-in-contention-Blog-73032-pageall

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_(sports)

https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~vanbeek/Publications/cai08.pdf

 

[davearm]

I'm still waiting to hear how it came to be that 1 NFL team has clinched, and 4 have been eliminated.

The Stig would have us believe that it is a mathematical certainty that there must be an equal number of each.

 

[TheStig]

Do you really not understand what securing a playoff spot means?

You're 9-0. Everyone else in the league is 4-5. You've clinched a playoff spot. Who's been eliminated?

It would be impossible statistically for everyone to be 4-5 if you are 9-0.

Not in a 10-team league.

LolOk and the implemented tie breakers would still cause the same distribution to qualify for the playoffs.

 

[davearm]

Before reading this thread, I would have expected most folks would be OK with tanking to improve playoff positioning.

I know earlier there was discussion about "parameters of the game" or somesuch. To me, the overriding "parameter of the game" is always to manage your team to maximize its chances of winning the championship (within league rules of course). This primary motivator guides drafting, lineup setting, waiver/free agent acquisitions, trades, all of it. 99.9% of the time, winning this week's game advances the win the championship motive. In that 0.1% of the time when losing this week's game advances the championship motive, it's not only fair to tank, but expected.

If for whatever reason a league wanted to stipulate that every team has to make winning every week's game the highest priority, then tanking isn't the only thing that must be disallowed. Collecting a roster full of players with the same bye week would have to be Illegal. Starting a bye week player instead of dropping a valuable player to pick up a replacement must also be illegal. Starting a defense with a poor matchup because they have great matchups the next three weeks and you don't want to drop them, also a no-go. Those are all choices to "lose the battle to win the war". Tanking is just another such strategy.

While I agree that "tanking" might be a sound strategy--that certainly can work from time to time--the point that the anti-tanking crowd is making is that it is in poor sportsmanship and unethical. Why do we all strive to play in good fantasy leagues with good rational commissioners? We do it in hopes of playing in leagues that promote a fair and equal competitive environment. Part of this equal environment is that playoff teams are determined through the parameters of that league under natural and fair equal competition---not competition that is manipulated by owners in the league. Tanking is just another word for purposely manipulating the laws of equal competition in a league through purposely changing standings/records. Drafting a team where a lot of your players have the same bye week is not tanking--because--while it may give your team a disadvantage that one week--it gives your team an advantage the other weeks--as you are most likely playing other teams who have players on bye week. The idea is that every owner should start what they think their strongest roster for each particular week is. The reason for this is that it is the only way to insure that the teams that make the playoffs do so as a direct result of equal and fair competition--and nothing else. Teams should not make or miss the playoffs through manipulation--whether or not if it is blatantly written in the rules. Sportsmanship is sportsmanship.

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

 

[cstu]

If someone's tanking was allowed and cost you a playoff spot, would you stay in the league?

I wouldn't.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Do you really not understand what securing a playoff spot means?

You're 9-0. Everyone else in the league is 4-5. You've clinched a playoff spot. Who's been eliminated?

It would be impossible statistically for everyone to be 4-5 if you are 9-0.

Not in a 10-team league.

LolOk and the implemented tie breakers would still cause the same distribution to qualify for the playoffs.

No one would be eliminated yet after 9 weeks. Even the 4-5 team that is last in tiebreakers wouldn't be eliminated, since they could win out and make the playoffs. Therefore, no one would have been eliminated even if the 9-0 team had clinched.

 

[Amused to Death]

If someone's tanking was allowed and cost you a playoff spot, would you stay in the league?

I wouldn't.

I understand what you're saying and you have a valid point. But you did previously post that you would tank if it meant you got into the playoffs iirc. And that is perfectly understandable. But what that indicates to me is people have a threshold of what is acceptable. Some are zero-tolerance. Some allow for it if it means a playoff spot - others go even further. I don't think there is one universally accepted level among the FFL community.

 

[Amused to Death]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

 

[TheStig]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

This true, but it may also be true that there is really no problem with it.

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

No I would not start my best lineup.

 

[davearm]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Nope, it's not.

 

[Amused to Death]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

No I would not start my best lineup.

I know you wouldn't And I don't know if I would or not. I won't say I wouldn't tank if I was going to kill my season by winning. We know some will though, even if that's as far as they're willing to accept tanking.

 

[cstu]

If someone's tanking was allowed and cost you a playoff spot, would you stay in the league?

I wouldn't.

I understand what you're saying and you have a valid point. But you did previously post that you would tank if it meant you got into the playoffs iirc. And that is perfectly understandable. But what that indicates to me is people have a threshold of what is acceptable. Some are zero-tolerance. Some allow for it if it means a playoff spot - others go even further. I don't think there is one universally accepted level among the FFL community.

As an owner your goal is to make the playoffs so IMO you can set any lineup you want that helps accomplish that. However, you should not be using your lineup to affect the rest of the league. That's poor sportsmanship regardless of what excuses you tell yourself.

 

[Amused to Death]

If someone's tanking was allowed and cost you a playoff spot, would you stay in the league?

I wouldn't.

I understand what you're saying and you have a valid point. But you did previously post that you would tank if it meant you got into the playoffs iirc. And that is perfectly understandable. But what that indicates to me is people have a threshold of what is acceptable. Some are zero-tolerance. Some allow for it if it means a playoff spot - others go even further. I don't think there is one universally accepted level among the FFL community.

As an owner your goal is to make the playoffs so IMO you can set any lineup you want that helps accomplish that. However, you should not be using your lineup to affect the rest of the league. That's poor sportsmanship regardless of what excuses you tell yourself.

That's fine, but if you intentionally lose to ensure getting in doesn't that affect the team that is now knocked out? You're still taking someone else's playoff spot by playing to lose.

 

[CalBear]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

I'll start my best lineup, and retroactively forfeit the game I won that I think gives me the best chance in the playoffs.

 

[Amused to Death]

If someone's tanking was allowed and cost you a playoff spot, would you stay in the league?

I wouldn't.

I understand what you're saying and you have a valid point. But you did previously post that you would tank if it meant you got into the playoffs iirc. And that is perfectly understandable. But what that indicates to me is people have a threshold of what is acceptable. Some are zero-tolerance. Some allow for it if it means a playoff spot - others go even further. I don't think there is one universally accepted level among the FFL community.

As an owner your goal is to make the playoffs so IMO you can set any lineup you want that helps accomplish that. However, you should not be using your lineup to affect the rest of the league. That's poor sportsmanship regardless of what excuses you tell yourself.

Can you give an example of how you can set your lineup anyway you want to get into the playoffs that *doesn't* affect the rest of the league? This is the conundrum that we're grappling with. Is your first responsibility to your team and your championship goals first? Or the good of the league? Is it better for the league for you to get in with a loss, or that you win and another team gets in instead?

I wonder what the outcome would be if a poll question was "would you lose intentionally if a win guaranteed you're out of the playoffs".

 

[davearm]

Yeah any/all lineup decisions affect the rest of the league. That can't be the yardstick.

 

[TheStig]

I'm still waiting to hear how it came to be that 1 NFL team has clinched, and 4 have been eliminated.

The Stig would have us believe that it is a mathematical certainty that there must be an equal number of each.

Really? That literal of an interpretation is your problem. At least one team is eliminated for every team that clinches. Please tell me your not this obtuse.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm still waiting to hear how it came to be that 1 NFL team has clinched, and 4 have been eliminated.

The Stig would have us believe that it is a mathematical certainty that there must be an equal number of each.

Really? That literal of an interpretation is your problem. At least one team is eliminated for every team that clinches. Please tell me your not this obtuse.

Serious question: Do you not realize at this point that you're wrong about this?

 

[TheStig]

I'm still waiting to hear how it came to be that 1 NFL team has clinched, and 4 have been eliminated.The Stig would have us believe that it is a mathematical certainty that there must be an equal number of each.

Really? That literal of an interpretation is your problem. At least one team is eliminated for every team that clinches. Please tell me your not this obtuse.

Serious question: Do you not realize at this point that you're wrong about this?

When you disprove my statement by showing that after a playoff spot is secured that every team is still eligible to make the playoffs you can claim the first forum victory.

You said I'm wrong so prove it or move on.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

When you disprove my statement by showing that after a playoff spot is secured that every team is still eligible to make the playoffs you can claim the first forum victory.

You said I'm wrong so prove it or move on.

You're 9-0. Everyone else in the league is 4-5. You've clinched a playoff spot. Who's been eliminated?

 

[Amused to Death]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

I'll start my best lineup, and retroactively forfeit the game I won that I think gives me the best chance in the playoffs.

Assuming your league does not allow forfeits, you would take a zero tolerance stance and try to win with your best lineup. Would you be rooting to win and have your season come to an end or secretly hope your QB throws 4 picks and your RB who just limped off can't come back?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

How do I go about claiming my "forum victory?" Is there a form I need to fill out or something?

 

[CalBear]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

I'll start my best lineup, and retroactively forfeit the game I won that I think gives me the best chance in the playoffs.

Assuming your league does not allow forfeits, you would take a zero tolerance stance and try to win with your best lineup. Would you be rooting to win and have your season come to an end or secretly hope your QB throws 4 picks and your RB who just limped off can't come back?

As I said earlier in the thread, I wouldn't play in a league where winning can put me out of the playoffs and losing can put me in, and if I did, I would want the acceptable behavior explicitly spelled out in the rules.

In the scenario posed by the original poster here (possibility of tailoring a playoff matchup), I would 100%, absolutely play my best lineup and hope I win.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I don't want you to waste your time claiming "it's not possible" for one team to be 9-0 and everyone else to be 4-5, so here's a full schedule of results through the first nine weeks of a season:

Week	Away	Home	Winner1	10	1	11	6	2	21	9	4	91	3	5	31	8	7	72	2	3	22	5	6	52	1	7	12	8	9	92	4	10	43	4	1	13	7	2	23	6	3	33	9	5	53	10	8	84	1	2	14	3	4	34	10	5	54	8	6	64	9	7	95	5	1	15	8	2	25	9	3	35	4	7	45	6	10	66	7	3	76	6	4	66	5	8	86	1	9	16	2	10	107	6	1	17	4	5	47	10	7	107	3	8	87	2	9	98	8	1	18	2	4	48	7	5	78	9	6	68	3	10	109	5	2	59	1	3	19	7	6	79	4	8	89	10	9	10

If I've done my "crazy math" right, after week 9, Team 1 is 9-0 and everyone else is 4-5. Which one of teams 2-10 has been eliminated from the playoffs?