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

[ghostguy123]

Perhaps because I just asked a perfectly good hypothetical question in response to the following statement:

My goal isnt to make the playoffs. My goal isnt to win the title. My goal is to make the playoffs every year.

Seemed reasonable to me to try and sort out what you meant there by using a hypothetical. But we know what happened next, now don't we? Your failure to communicate effectively quickly became my problem, followed by a string of ad hominem attacks.

My favorite was this one:

I mean, you are obviously just using idiotic questions and comments at this point on just about everything. Give it up. You dont like tanking in any situation. We got it. Maybe provide a reason why instead of stupid posts like this.

It's my favorite because I'm in favor of tanking in basically all situations.

you are still doing it.

If you liek to tank in all situations, what are you even arguing with me for them? Stats from earlier?? You were wrong on everything you said so.........we are done with that convo anyway.

What was your hypothetical anyway? Oh yeah, if I missed the playoffs would my goal change. No. I thought that was a silly question. You havent told me what the point was of the quesion.

 

[Bamac]

So ... to the anti-tanking crowd:

Hypo:

You're in a league with a $5K buy in, and your only chance to make the playoffs is to lose W13. Do you tank? Is it ethical? (No rule on the subject is in the bylaws.)

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So ... to the anti-tanking crowd:

Hypo:

You're in a league with a $5K buy in, and your only chance to make the playoffs is to lose W13. Do you tank? Is it ethical? (No rule on the subject is in the bylaws.)

Who are you referring to by "anti-tanking crowd?" By definition, I think we've already established that the folks who are strictly anti-tanking wouldn't tank. Is there a different contingent of "anti-tanking" posters to whom you're directing this question?

 

[ghostguy123]

So ... to the anti-tanking crowd:

Hypo:

You're in a league with a $5K buy in, and your only chance to make the playoffs is to lose W13. Do you tank? Is it ethical? (No rule on the subject is in the bylaws.)

Who are you referring to by "anti-tanking crowd?" By definition, I think we've already established that the folks who are strictly anti-tanking wouldn't tank. Is there a different contingent of "anti-tanking" posters to whom you're directing this question?

he is probably thinking that some of you might reconsider when you are purposely knocking yourself out of the playoffs when you woud have a chance to win about 30 grand

 

[davearm]

So ... to the anti-tanking crowd:

Hypo:

You're in a league with a $5K buy in, and your only chance to make the playoffs is to lose W13. Do you tank? Is it ethical? (No rule on the subject is in the bylaws.)

Who are you referring to by "anti-tanking crowd?" By definition, I think we've already established that the folks who are strictly anti-tanking wouldn't tank. Is there a different contingent of "anti-tanking" posters to whom you're directing this question?

he is probably thinking that some of you might reconsider when you are purposely knocking yourself out of the playoffs when you woud have a chance to win about 30 grand

I was thinking you might reconsider if tanking netted you a first round bye, and roughly doubled your chances of winning about 30 grand.

 

[ghostguy123]

I was thinking you might reconsider if tanking netted you a first round bye, and roughly doubled your chances of winning about 30 grand.

Give me a real life scenario where tanking gets you a first round bye and I will listen to that one.

Point being, not sure you can.

 

[ghostguy123]

Ok Dave, gonna bite here for a minute on your impossible hypothetical.

Let's say I have a chance to tank in week 13 to somehow get a 1st round bye when if I win in week 13, I won't get a bye.

If this is some sort of huge money redraft league with no rules against it, and full of people I do not know nor will I ever know.........it is one hell of a strong consideration. My family financial situation could even dictate that one.

What exactly is your point?

 

[davearm]

I was thinking you might reconsider if tanking netted you a first round bye, and roughly doubled your chances of winning about 30 grand.

Give me a real life scenario where tanking gets you a first round bye and I will listen to that one.

Point being, not sure you can.

The premise of this entire discussion is that these crazy scenarios are possible.

 

[Interseptopus]

I don't think it's possible to lose and get a bye but not get a bye if you win.

Unless there are some goofy tie breaker scenarios that I can't think of, but there is no scenario I can think of where a loss is positive for seeding...

If these crazy scenarios aren't possible, which this isn't, then the discussion based on said crazy scenario is moot

 

[ghostguy123]

The premise of this entire discussion is that these crazy scenarios are possible.

not the one you gave me though

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't think it's possible to lose and get a bye but not get a bye if you win.

Unless there are some goofy tie breaker scenarios that I can't think of, but there is no scenario I can think of where a loss is positive for seeding...

If these crazy scenarios aren't possible, which this isn't, then the discussion based on said crazy scenario is moot

well, losing to play a different team in the first round can be a HUGE positive thing. You might be able to get the 4 seed instead of the 3 seed, and play the 5 seed who just had 5 injuries instead of the 6 seed who has guys back from injury the past few weeks and is scoring tons.

But the lose for a bye scenario, not possible.

Unless you mean a positive as in simply move up in seeding, in which case I think you are right.

 

[davearm]

I don't think it's possible to lose and get a bye but not get a bye if you win.

Unless there are some goofy tie breaker scenarios that I can't think of, but there is no scenario I can think of where a loss is positive for seeding...

If these crazy scenarios aren't possible, which this isn't, then the discussion based on said crazy scenario is moot

Tanking to move from the 3 seed to the 2 seed is no more or less plausible than tanking to move from the 7 seed to the 6th.

Both depend on wacky rules that should probably be shredded, but it's a fool's errand to argue one can happen but the other never, ever can.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't think it's possible to lose and get a bye but not get a bye if you win.

Unless there are some goofy tie breaker scenarios that I can't think of, but there is no scenario I can think of where a loss is positive for seeding...

If these crazy scenarios aren't possible, which this isn't, then the discussion based on said crazy scenario is moot

Tanking to move from the 3 seed to the 2 seed is no more or less plausible than tanking to move from the 7 seed to the 6th.

Both depend on wacky rules that should probably be shredded, but it's a fool's errand to argue one can happen but the other never, ever can.

I will argue it never can, unless you give me an example where it can. If you cant give me an example where it can, dont bring it up.

If you want to give me an example based on the most ridiculous rules ever that nobody has ever heard of, also dont bring it up.

Again what is your point? Been waiting for like 2 pages for a point.

 

[davearm]

2 teams get byes: division winner with the most total points, and the wildcard (non-division winner) with the most total points.

Lose, and you become the wildcard with the most total points.

Win, and you win your division, but some other division winner has more points.

Carry on.

 

[ghostguy123]

2 teams get byes: division winner with the most total points, and the wildcard (non-division winner) with the most total points.

Lose, and you become the wildcard with the most total points.

Win, and you win your division, but some other division winner has more points.

Carry on.

why would a wild card get a bye over a division winner who also scored more points than that wild card team?

That to me is a structure that does not nor will ever exist.

 

[davearm]

Because I made the rules.

 

[ghostguy123]

Because I made the rules.

You sure about that? Cause if you win your game you will have more points than that other team in question, and will be the division winner also. At least, that would kind of have to be the case if you would have had more points even if you lost.

If you think I am wrong here, but up the standing of the teams so we can see clearly what you are saying.

 

[ghostguy123]

Because I made the rules.

ah I see you changed your post.

Right, you made rules that do not exist and never will, which is exactly what I said to avoid in an example.

So you are making things up that are not possible. Not real helpful. Entertaining, but not real helpful

 

[Interseptopus]

Ok I'll play...

What if you give the worst team in the league a first round bye, so tanking all of your games gets you a bye

My scenario is about as asinine as yours. I can play stupid scenario too...

 

[ghostguy123]

Ok I'll play...

What if you give the worst team in the league a first round bye, so tanking all of your games gets you a bye

My scenario is about as asinine as yours. I can play stupid scenario too...

what do you do when 11 teams all tank every week and all have zero points on the year? How do you do the tiebreaker?

 

[Interseptopus]

Ok I'll play...

What if you give the worst team in the league a first round bye, so tanking all of your games gets you a bye

My scenario is about as asinine as yours. I can play stupid scenario too...

what do you do when 11 teams all tank every week and all have zero points on the year? How do you do the tiebreaker?

Wackiest team name

 

[ghostguy123]

Brew, not to derail, but an interesting idea your post gave me.

A reverse fantasy league in a best-ball style. There is a pool of players (no all the players cause this wont work), but you have to pick the WORST scoring team, with minimum requirements for each position to make sure you have a full lineup.

This would be a league where we see who is the best at picking who will suck the msot for the year. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I may start a thread, haha. I never start thread on here. Not even sure I ever have.

 

[Interseptopus]

Brew, not to derail, but an interesting idea your post gave me.

A reverse fantasy league in a best-ball style. There is a pool of players (no all the players cause this wont work), but you have to pick the WORST scoring team, with minimum requirements for each position to make sure you have a full lineup.

This would be a league where we see who is the best at picking who will suck the msot for the year. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I may start a thread, haha. I never start thread on here. Not even sure I ever have.

Dynasty move over. A new trend is born.

Actually sounds like it could be fun. Pick the biggest busts

 

[ghostguy123]

Brew, not to derail, but an interesting idea your post gave me.

A reverse fantasy league in a best-ball style. There is a pool of players (no all the players cause this wont work), but you have to pick the WORST scoring team, with minimum requirements for each position to make sure you have a full lineup.

This would be a league where we see who is the best at picking who will suck the msot for the year. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I may start a thread, haha. I never start thread on here. Not even sure I ever have.

Dynasty move over. A new trend is born.

Actually sounds like it could be fun. Pick the biggest busts

yeah, basically a pool of players to fill 12 teams, maybe 25-30 rounds.

You would have to make sure of roster requirements that allow everyone to field a full lineup.

Last pick of the draft, Charles, Mr TOO relevant.

 

[Bamac]

Brew, not to derail, but an interesting idea your post gave me.

A reverse fantasy league in a best-ball style. There is a pool of players (no all the players cause this wont work), but you have to pick the WORST scoring team, with minimum requirements for each position to make sure you have a full lineup.

This would be a league where we see who is the best at picking who will suck the msot for the year. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I may start a thread, haha. I never start thread on here. Not even sure I ever have.

Dynasty move over. A new trend is born. Actually sounds like it could be fun. Pick the biggest busts

Simpsons did it. Well, not the Simpsons, but it's been done.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

2 teams get byes: division winner with the most total points, and the wildcard (non-division winner) with the most total points.

Lose, and you become the wildcard with the most total points.

Win, and you win your division, but some other division winner has more points.

Carry on.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. Just imagine there are no divisions (which, IMO, there really shouldn't be in fantasy football anyway, but that's neither here nor there). The team with the best record and the team with the most points scored each get a first round bye. There were several scenarios outlined earlier in the thread that illustrate how this can create a situation where a team's standing improves by losing and worsens by winning.

 

[Bamac]

So ... to the anti-tanking crowd:

Hypo:

You're in a league with a $5K buy in, and your only chance to make the playoffs is to lose W13. Do you tank? Is it ethical? (No rule on the subject is in the bylaws.)

Who are you referring to by "anti-tanking crowd?" By definition, I think we've already established that the folks who are strictly anti-tanking wouldn't tank. Is there a different contingent of "anti-tanking" posters to whom you're directing this question?

Well, a week ago I would've put myself in the strictly anti-tanking crowd. Upon reflection, I think tanking in this scenario might be ethical, and here's why: when stakes are this high, it's reasonable to assume that owners aren't in it "for love of the game" -- they don't care who the best owner is. They're in it primarily (strictly) for the gambling aspect. And if that's why everyone's playing, then I think it's ethical to throw a game, so long as it doesn't violate league rules.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Right, which is why I understand people who think making the playoffs is the best measure of owner skill. Still, at the end of the day, the goal is to win a championship, right? If you asked anyone before the season "in your wildest dreams, what do you most want to happen this year", how many people would say "I want to win a championship", vs. how many would say "I want to make the playoffs"?

Week 1 my goal is to make the playoffs.

When I am actually in the playoffs, my goal is to win the championship.

They are two different seasons. Regular, and post. You can't win the title in the regular season, and you can't win the title unless you make the playoffs.

And if some ridiculous and almost unheard of situation presents itself where you HAVE to lose one game to make the playoffs, then (barring that specific rule against it of course) not only would i tank, I would expect anyone else in that situation to tank, and I feel there is nothing at all wrong with it. In any other situation I can think of, it's a no no, because in no other situation would tanking provide you with your ONLY chance to win.

But Adam, even based on your "my goal is to win the championship".............how can you win the championship if you purposely knock yourself out of the playoffs by winning one game due to a crazy circumstance??

WHY do you want to make the playoffs, though? You want to make the playoffs because it's the only way to win a championship. Winning the championship is the ultimate goal, making a playoffs is just a step along the path to that goal. Nobody wants to make the playoffs for their own sake.

That's like saying "my goal is to exercise". Nobody's goal when exercising is simply exercising for its own sake. People want to look better, people want to be healthier, people want to be stronger. Exercising is a step along the path to achieving those goals, but it is not a goal in and of itself. If somebody could exercise for hundreds of hours without achieving any of those former benefits (looking better, being healthier, getting stronger, etc), then nobody would exercise, because exercising would be a means without an end.

The answer to your final question is that you cannot win a championship if you purposely knock yourself out of the playoffs. I don't believe I ever said otherwise. I have consistently said from the beginning that tanking is 100% in your best and most selfish short-term interests, but that for the sake of enlightened self-interest, you should ignore your selfish interests and do what is best for the league. This is true whether you're tanking to make the playoffs (increasing your odds from 0% to x%), tanking to improve seeding or secure a bye (increasing your odds from x% to y%), tanking to improve your draft position (improving your odds in future seasons), or tanking for any other reason. In all cases, from a purely selfish, short-sighted standpoint, tanking is in your best interest. I don't find the "only chance" vs. "better chance" distinction to be particularly meaningful in that regard- in all instances, tanking leaves you better off. Sometimes, however, we refrain from doing things that leave us better off because they create negative externalities, and if everyone acted in their selfish interests, everyone would be worse off. Hence my "cutting in line" example.

 

[ghostguy123]

2 teams get byes: division winner with the most total points, and the wildcard (non-division winner) with the most total points.

Lose, and you become the wildcard with the most total points.

Win, and you win your division, but some other division winner has more points.

Carry on.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. Just imagine there are no divisions (which, IMO, there really shouldn't be in fantasy football anyway, but that's neither here nor there). The team with the best record and the team with the most points scored each get a first round bye. There were several scenarios outlined earlier in the thread that illustrate how this can create a situation where a team's standing improves by losing and worsens by winning.

Doesn't work. If you tank you won't have the best record. If you have the most total point of the other teams then you already have a bye, tanking does nothing.

 

[ghostguy123]

So then Adam you fine with knocking yourself out of the playoffs on purpose. No problem. More power to ya.

 

[Interseptopus]

2 teams get byes: division winner with the most total points, and the wildcard (non-division winner) with the most total points.

Lose, and you become the wildcard with the most total points.

Win, and you win your division, but some other division winner has more points.

Carry on.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. Just imagine there are no divisions (which, IMO, there really shouldn't be in fantasy football anyway, but that's neither here nor there). The team with the best record and the team with the most points scored each get a first round bye. There were several scenarios outlined earlier in the thread that illustrate how this can create a situation where a team's standing improves by losing and worsens by winning.

Doesn't work. If you tank you won't have the best record. If you have the most total point of the other teams then you already have a bye, tanking does nothing.

I was about to say this.

Assuming two players are tied for best record. I am playing one of them. If I take because I have more points than the one I'm not playing, that does NOT guarantee me a spot.

Even if I playing the team with the most points and I have the second most points, there is no guarantee that I tank just enough to keep my highest point status (aside from the guy with the most points who is also the best record)

If I already have the most points, I'm already in and losing can can only hurt me

 

[ghostguy123]

And its not about losing weight, its about a lifestyle change, Haha.

Change your lifestyle (make the playoffs), and the weightloss (championships) will come.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Hypo:

You're in a league with a $5K buy in, and your only chance to make the playoffs is to lose W13. Do you tank? Is it ethical? (No rule on the subject is in the bylaws.)

ETA: I'm addressing this question mostly to the anti-tanking crowd.

I mentioned further upthread, but if something is unethical in a free league, it's every bit as unethical in a big-money league. Money is not some magical balm that makes everything alright. Quite the opposite: money is a corrupting influence that makes us more likely to do unethical things. Stealing a $20,000 car is not magically more ethical than stealing a $0.20 stick of gum just because the car is worth more. It's not like you're getting that money free and clear- your spot in the playoffs comes at the expense of someone else, so your financial gain is his financial loss. Wins, losses, and payouts in fantasy football are necessarily zero-sum, so any gains by you are necessarily offset by an exactly equal amount of losses spread throughout the rest of the league.

Would I tank in that situation? I'd like to think I would not, but like I said, money is a corrupting influence, and that is an awful lot of money. I can't pretend that I've never done anything unethical in my life, or that I've never been tempted to do unethical things because of the money involved. In theory, I wouldn't pay a buy-in I wasn't comfortable losing, so whatever rich hypothetical version of myself had no problem dropping $5k on a single fantasy league would probably be more comfortable starting his best lineup and eating the cost. For my current, non-hypothetical self, though, $5k is an awful lot of money (actually, the EV of making the playoffs would be substantially more than $5k, depending on payout structure), and I would be awfully tempted to behave unethically to secure it. We like to think the best of ourselves, so it's easy for me to say that I would "do the right thing" and try my hardest in week 13, but experience tells me that I am often prone to not doing the right thing, so I cannot in good conscience state categorically that I would do so in this case.

 

[ghostguy123]

But why is it unethical??? Many of us do not think it is.

What higher power wrote the fantasy book of ethics that says you can't keep your chances alive by losing one game in purpose?

 

[Adam Harstad]

I was thinking you might reconsider if tanking netted you a first round bye, and roughly doubled your chances of winning about 30 grand.

Give me a real life scenario where tanking gets you a first round bye and I will listen to that one.

Point being, not sure you can.

It's just as easy as providing a real-life scenario where tanking gets you into the playoffs, since it uses the exact same mechanism.

A league awards two first-round byes. The first bye goes to the team with the best record, the second bye goes to the remaining team with the most points scored.

Team A is 11-1 with 5 million points scored.

Team B is 11-1 with 100 points scored.

You are 10-2 with 100,000 points scored.

You are playing team A. Team B is guaranteed a win this week.

If Team A wins, he ties with Team B for the best record and then wins the total points tiebreaker for the #1 seed. You are then thrown into a pool with Team B to determine the #2 seed (and second bye). You have more points than Team B, so you get it.

If Team A loses, Team B gets the best record and the #1 seed. You are thrown into a pool with team A to determine the #2 seed (and second bye). You have fewer points than Team A, so he gets it.

 

[ghostguy123]

Frankly, in that scenario, you are playing to win.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

2 teams get byes: division winner with the most total points, and the wildcard (non-division winner) with the most total points.

Lose, and you become the wildcard with the most total points.

Win, and you win your division, but some other division winner has more points.

Carry on.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. Just imagine there are no divisions (which, IMO, there really shouldn't be in fantasy football anyway, but that's neither here nor there). The team with the best record and the team with the most points scored each get a first round bye. There were several scenarios outlined earlier in the thread that illustrate how this can create a situation where a team's standing improves by losing and worsens by winning.

Doesn't work. If you tank you won't have the best record. If you have the most total point of the other teams then you already have a bye, tanking does nothing.

It was already illustrated earlier in the thread how this works. If you tank you won't have the best record, but you can impact who does have the best record, which can open up the total points spot to your team that would otherwise be taken by someone else.

 

[Adam Harstad]

So ... to the anti-tanking crowd:

Hypo:

You're in a league with a $5K buy in, and your only chance to make the playoffs is to lose W13. Do you tank? Is it ethical? (No rule on the subject is in the bylaws.)

Who are you referring to by "anti-tanking crowd?" By definition, I think we've already established that the folks who are strictly anti-tanking wouldn't tank. Is there a different contingent of "anti-tanking" posters to whom you're directing this question?

Well, a week ago I would've put myself in the strictly anti-tanking crowd. Upon reflection, I think tanking in this scenario might be ethical, and here's why: when stakes are this high, it's reasonable to assume that owners aren't in it "for love of the game" -- they don't care who the best owner is. They're in it primarily (strictly) for the gambling aspect. And if that's why everyone's playing, then I think it's ethical to throw a game, so long as it doesn't violate league rules.

That's a different hypothetical. Asking "Are you willing to tank in a high-stakes league" is one thing, asking "are you willing to tank in a league that is explicitly solely designed as a vehicle for gambling and where all participants are explicitly determined to act solely in a manner that maximizes their expected payout" is another thing entirely. In the latter scenario, yes, I would tank, and I already said as much earlier in the thread (though I don't blame you for not wading through 20 pages to find it).

Tanking is bad because it is a violation of expectations. As long as the league is explicit that they have no expectations for competitive games, then I have no problem with tanking. Even in a free league, if the league specifically crafted a rule that says "tanking is fine whenever you want to do it", or if the league owners specifically got together and voted that they had no problem with tanking, then I would be the tankingest fool on the planet.

 

[ghostguy123]

Adam that does look right. And in dynsty leagues and leagues with all friends I say no tanking.

Some restart with strangers, and within the rules, go for it.

 

[Interseptopus]

2 teams get byes: division winner with the most total points, and the wildcard (non-division winner) with the most total points. Lose, and you become the wildcard with the most total points. Win, and you win your division, but some other division winner has more points. Carry on.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. Just imagine there are no divisions (which, IMO, there really shouldn't be in fantasy football anyway, but that's neither here nor there). The team with the best record and the team with the most points scored each get a first round bye. There were several scenarios outlined earlier in the thread that illustrate how this can create a situation where a team's standing improves by losing and worsens by winning.

Doesn't work. If you tank you won't have the best record. If you have the most total point of the other teams then you already have a bye, tanking does nothing.

It was already illustrated earlier in the thread how this works. If you tank you won't have the best record, but you can impact who does have the best record, which can open up the total points spot to your team that would otherwise be taken by someone else.

And what is stopping the second place in points team from having a huge week and overtaking my team? How do you tank just enough to keep your top points status? You can't guarantee it

 

[ghostguy123]

I suppose I would support a rule that said tanking to win or better your playoff seeding is fine, but tanking for a better pick is not.

But as of now, I am still only ok with tanking if it keeps you from being eliminated.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

2 teams get byes: division winner with the most total points, and the wildcard (non-division winner) with the most total points. Lose, and you become the wildcard with the most total points. Win, and you win your division, but some other division winner has more points. Carry on.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. Just imagine there are no divisions (which, IMO, there really shouldn't be in fantasy football anyway, but that's neither here nor there). The team with the best record and the team with the most points scored each get a first round bye. There were several scenarios outlined earlier in the thread that illustrate how this can create a situation where a team's standing improves by losing and worsens by winning.

Doesn't work. If you tank you won't have the best record. If you have the most total point of the other teams then you already have a bye, tanking does nothing.

It was already illustrated earlier in the thread how this works. If you tank you won't have the best record, but you can impact who does have the best record, which can open up the total points spot to your team that would otherwise be taken by someone else.

And what is stopping the second place in points team from having a huge week and overtaking my team? How do you tank just enough to keep your top points status? You can't guarantee it

So?

 

[Bamac]

So ... to the anti-tanking crowd:

Hypo:

You're in a league with a $5K buy in, and your only chance to make the playoffs is to lose W13. Do you tank? Is it ethical? (No rule on the subject is in the bylaws.)

Who are you referring to by "anti-tanking crowd?" By definition, I think we've already established that the folks who are strictly anti-tanking wouldn't tank. Is there a different contingent of "anti-tanking" posters to whom you're directing this question?

Well, a week ago I would've put myself in the strictly anti-tanking crowd. Upon reflection, I think tanking in this scenario might be ethical, and here's why: when stakes are this high, it's reasonable to assume that owners aren't in it "for love of the game" -- they don't care who the best owner is. They're in it primarily (strictly) for the gambling aspect. And if that's why everyone's playing, then I think it's ethical to throw a game, so long as it doesn't violate league rules.

That's a different hypothetical. Asking "Are you willing to tank in a high-stakes league" is one thing, asking "are you willing to tank in a league that is explicitly solely designed as a vehicle for gambling and where all participants are explicitly determined to act solely in a manner that maximizes their expected payout" is another thing entirely. In the latter scenario, yes, I would tank, and I already said as much earlier in the thread (though I don't blame you for not wading through 20 pages to find it).

Tanking is bad because it is a violation of expectations. As long as the league is explicit that they have no expectations for competitive games, then I have no problem with tanking. Even in a free league, if the league specifically crafted a rule that says "tanking is fine whenever you want to do it", or if the league owners specifically got together and voted that they had no problem with tanking, then I would be the tankingest fool on the planet.

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

 

[ghostguy123]

Brew, in some cases you migjt be so far ahead I'm points you can take a zero. I get the example.

 

[davearm]

Adam that does look right. And in dynsty leagues and leagues with all friends I say no tanking.

Some restart with strangers, and within the rules, go for it.

How about "Dave, that looks right." He just restated my original case. The one you went ape#### on. That same one.

The mechanism that makes it possible to get a bye by tanking is the very same mechanism that makes it possible to sneak into the playoffs by tanking.

 

[ghostguy123]

Adam that does look right. And in dynsty leagues and leagues with all friends I say no tanking.

Some restart with strangers, and within the rules, go for it.

How about "Dave, that looks right." He just restated my original case. The one you went ape#### on. That same one.

The mechanism that makes it possible to get a bye by tanking is the very same mechanism that makes it possible to sneak into the playoffs by tanking.

Pretty sure you stated your scenario wrong.

Either way, I say no to tanking for a bye. I still view seed manipulation as far different that losing to stay alive.

 

[Adam Harstad]

But why is it unethical??? Many of us do not think it is.

What higher power wrote the fantasy book of ethics that says you can't keep your chances alive by losing one game in purpose?

It's unethical because it violates expectations of fair competition. When I join a fantasy league with you, I do so under the expectation that I will spend 13 weeks playing teams that are trying to win, and you will spend 13 weeks playing against teams that are trying to win, and at the end of those 13 weeks whichever of us has won more games will be in the playoffs. If all of a sudden you only have to play 12 teams that are trying to win, while I still have to play the full 13, then that's no longer a fair competition, and I am negatively impacted by that.

From the league's standpoint, tanking does not improves the net odds of making the playoffs or winning a championship. At any given point, the sum total of everyone's odds of winning a championship will always sum to 1.00, because wins and losses are zero-sum and only one championship is awarded a season. So when one team tanks to improve his odds, by definition the rest of the league, on the whole, will see their odds decreased by an exactly equal amount. One team's losses are another team's gains, making tanking a net neutral from a "chances to win" standpoint.

At the same time, tanking introduces negative externalities. I assume that most people join fantasy leagues with a desire to see the better teams triumph through competition and be rewarded for it. Insofar as tanking undermines that desire, it leaves the league as a whole worse off, while producing no net positives to show for it (because total championship odds remain static at 1.00).

Or, to recycle another example from earlier in the thread: imagine a world where no one ever tanked, and imagine a world where everyone always tanked every time they felt like it. In my mind, the first world is preferable. I would rather play fantasy football in the former world than the latter, because I believe, all else being equal, the former world would be more of a meritocracy, would do more to reward skill and performance, and would leave each team less at the mercy of forces outside of its own control. Because of that, I view any behavior that moves us further on the continuum from the former world to the latter world as being unethical insofar as the sum impact on all parties involved is a net negative. Everyone, as a collective singular, is worse off when tanking occurs, even if everyone, as a collection of individuals, is not.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Adam that does look right. And in dynsty leagues and leagues with all friends I say no tanking.

Some restart with strangers, and within the rules, go for it.

That's another thing. If something is unethical when you do it to people you know and like, it is every bit as unethical when you do it to complete strangers you will never see again, even if it doesn't impose as many personal costs.

Anonymity, like money, is not some magical panacea that makes things more ethical. It's just a corrupting influence that makes us more likely to behave unethically.

 

[Adam Harstad]

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

With something that is widely considered unethical, I don't think it's ever reasonable to assume that in a particular instance it can be considered ethical. I would need that explicitly confirmed by the league.

 

[ghostguy123]

So its in your control to have scored a lot more points than a few other teams who make the playoffs while you don't?

It sounds like a head to head league is out of your control.