Throwing a game to acquire a lower playoff seeding (1 Viewer)

[GrantK]

Long story short, 19 year league with what we thought were a group of solid character guys running teams. The team in question was going to start a very questionable lineup to purposely lose and drop a slot in our playoff seeding, (or so they thought) for an easier 1st round matchup. They were torn apart on our message boards and my phone was ringing off the hook Sunday AM. Needless to say they won (and would have regardless of lineup) so this BS was for naught, that said this team has been a pain in the ### for the last 2 seasons. In a perfect world your team owners are all good guys, start competitive lineups, etc. These guys are far from that and now as Commish I'm receiving e-mails saying that these guys should be gone. What say you?

Thanks!

 

[Joe Summer]

Meh. If he fielded a legit lineup then you gotta let it stand. Karma has a way of taking care of people who pull dooshy moves like this, anyway.

 

[ShaHBucks]

It's their team and they should be allowed to do whatever they like. Doesn't seem like he was colluding with anyone.

 

[ffinmyblood]

The dude was already in the playoffs, and maybe he just wanted to rest his starters, to avoid injuries to them?? No harm, no foul. I would have done the same thing. The last thing you want, are key guys getting hurt and missing a playoff game, or more.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

 

[shadyridr]

did he start a complete lineup? thens its legal. a bit bush league and i wouldnt do it

 

[DesertDawg]

Meh. If he fielded a legit lineup then you gotta let it stand. Karma has a way of taking care of people who pull dooshy moves like this, anyway.

Yep. Some guy in my league did the same thing last year to get a more favorable match-up. He got the match-up he wanted but went on to lose in the first round, whereas, he would of won the 1st round if he was in the other bracket. We all at him and still not let him forget about it

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So you get to tell other owners in your league who they can and can't start? Sounds fun!

 

[Phenix]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

you mean of like professional sport teams do? dont want someone to tank it, provide written rules, or force that team to not be in a position to have the luxury of being able to freely lose by beating him when you play. just my thoughts.

 

[Sarnoff]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

You must be fun at parties.

 

[gethugefast1]

Karma... it happens.

 

[Cecil Lammey]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

You must be fun at parties.

I kick ### on the wild side. We have a minor league system set up for my main hybrid dynasty league. It's scoring format is similar so that if we have an owner quit or get bounced we can move someone up from the minors. It's a great system and generally keeps most people in line.

 

[munygon2]

I went head to head last week against the league commish and he did the same thing to me by not fielding most of his lineup. As a result, he ended up the 4th seed and plays the 5th seed this coming week which has him in a really chumpy matchup. I wasn't thrilled about it since I could have done the same thing and pulled my entire roster, but I decided to play fair and started all of my best players anyway.

 

[Sabertooth]

People are such chumps. I'd let it slide and then kick his ### out next year.

 

[Sabertooth]

I went head to head last week against the league commish and he did the same thing to me by not fielding most of his lineup. As a result, he ended up the 4th seed and plays the 5th seed this coming week which has him in a really chumpy matchup. I wasn't thrilled about it since I could have done the same thing and pulled my entire roster, but I decided to play fair and started all of my best players anyway.

You made the right move.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Doing anything that intentionally helps another team win a game should be viewed as implicit collusion. Cecil's got it right here IMO.

 

[roadkill1292]

Instead of fixed seeding, consider allowing higher seeds to pick their playoff opponents from among the lower seeds. My local league has done this for several years now. Works great. No tanking, much agony in the selection process.

 

[Sabertooth]

Instead of fixed seeding, consider allowing higher seeds to pick their playoff opponents from among the lower seeds. My local league has done this for several years now. Works great. No tanking, much agony in the selection process.

I like this!

 

[rick6668]

Instead of fixed seeding, consider allowing higher seeds to pick their playoff opponents from among the lower seeds. My local league has done this for several years now. Works great. No tanking, much agony in the selection process.

Best idea I've read on here in a while.

 

[Organized Chaos]

Instead of fixed seeding, consider allowing higher seeds to pick their playoff opponents from among the lower seeds. My local league has done this for several years now. Works great. No tanking, much agony in the selection process.

I like this!

4 of the 5 leagues I play in do this and it's a great way to do it IMO.

 

[The Rook]

Instead of fixed seeding, consider allowing higher seeds to pick their playoff opponents from among the lower seeds. My local league has done this for several years now. Works great. No tanking, much agony in the selection process.

I like this!

4 of the 5 leagues I play in do this and it's a great way to do it IMO.

We also started the "pick em" format a few years ago. Adds great drama to the playoff seedings.

 

[Phenix]

the fact people are telling others how to run their team is shocking.

especially when pro teams in every sport continue to bench players when they have spots locked up. i get the sprtsmanship thing about it, but dont you think its bad sportsmanship to tell a guy how to run his team when he has money involved also?

just because you dont like it, does not mean its wrong. im sure some of you dont like it as it effected you, oh well, get a better seed yourself or put those specific rules in writing.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Allow Home Field Advantage points, based on higher seeding for every playoff game except Championship.

Thus they hurt their chances if they lose seeding.

 

[Sabertooth]

the fact people are telling others how to run their team is shocking.especially when pro teams in every sport continue to bench players when they have spots locked up. i get the sprtsmanship thing about it, but dont you think its bad sportsmanship to tell a guy how to run his team when he has money involved also?just because you dont like it, does not mean its wrong. im sure some of you dont like it as it effected you, oh well, get a better seed yourself or put those specific rules in writing.

Pro teams bench players to prevent injuries. Period. You don't get the sportsmanship thing about it apparently.

 

[Crippler]

the fact people are telling others how to run their team is shocking.especially when pro teams in every sport continue to bench players when they have spots locked up. i get the sprtsmanship thing about it, but dont you think its bad sportsmanship to tell a guy how to run his team when he has money involved also?just because you dont like it, does not mean its wrong. im sure some of you dont like it as it effected you, oh well, get a better seed yourself or put those specific rules in writing.

Pro teams bench players to prevent injuries. Period. You don't get the sportsmanship thing about it apparently.

But does this not impact other games and how playoffs could work. GB sits players in week 17 allowing Detroit to make playoffs while Chicago the week before gets crushed by full team and misses due to that loss. Where is the sportsmanship in this for a professional league. Lots of good ideas how to stop this such as top seeds choose opponents instead of 1 vs 8 or pts for HF advantage or more money for higher finish(this is the motivating factor for professional teams) but the sportsmanship part of this is out the window when in my opinion professional teams do it. Why play any game if your worried about injury all the time.

 

[eric rymer]

did he start a complete lineup? thens its legal. a bit bush league and i wouldnt do it

Pretty much exactly how I feel too. Unless there are rules specific to tanking then you have to let it ride. You don't have to invite him back next year though.

 

[DeaLerZ]

Just make it a rule for next year... not much you can do about it if it isn't in the rules...

"With all the commotion that occurred last year over Team X attempting to throw a game to get a lower seed in the playoffs, I have decided to add a rule where you cannot do that"

Have the league vote on it to make it a rule for next year...

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Just make it a rule for next year... not much you can do about it if it isn't in the rules...

"With all the commotion that occurred last year over Team X attempting to throw a game to get a lower seed in the playoffs, I have decided to add a rule where you cannot do that"

Have the league vote on it to make it a rule for next year...

Make what a rule, exactly?

 

[Sweet Love]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

You must be fun at parties.

I kick ### on the wild side. We have a minor league system set up for my main hybrid dynasty league. It's scoring format is similar so that if we have an owner quit or get bounced we can move someone up from the minors. It's a great system and generally keeps most people in line.

out of curiosity, if the minor league is well run, and the guys have been in it for a few years and develop rivalries, etc., why would they want to "move up"?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

You must be fun at parties.

I kick ### on the wild side. We have a minor league system set up for my main hybrid dynasty league. It's scoring format is similar so that if we have an owner quit or get bounced we can move someone up from the minors. It's a great system and generally keeps most people in line.

out of curiosity, if the minor league is well run, and the guys have been in it for a few years and develop rivalries, etc., why would they want to "move up"?

More importantly, what kind of dodo plays in a fantasy football minor league?

 

[Reepicheep]

Just make it a rule for next year... not much you can do about it if it isn't in the rules...

"With all the commotion that occurred last year over Team X attempting to throw a game to get a lower seed in the playoffs, I have decided to add a rule where you cannot do that"

Have the league vote on it to make it a rule for next year...

Make what a rule, exactly?

"You must start your best-possible lineup each week, as determined by the comissioner."

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Just make it a rule for next year... not much you can do about it if it isn't in the rules...

"With all the commotion that occurred last year over Team X attempting to throw a game to get a lower seed in the playoffs, I have decided to add a rule where you cannot do that"

Have the league vote on it to make it a rule for next year...

Make what a rule, exactly?

"You must start your best-possible lineup each week, as determined by the comissioner."

Exactly. The notion that you would "make it a rule" is absurd."I have decided to add a rule where you cannot do that."

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

It baffles me how many folks believe this kind of stuff is OK. It is not, as it violates the rules of 99% of leagues out there.

A way to prevent this is to have a draft lotto. Then your finish the previous year matters not. (didn't say I like the idea, but it would work)

 

[Flying Elvis]

I think the "bush league" comment puts it best. There's no rule about and really not one that can prevent it. Go ahead and try filling a league after the commish starts handing down penalties b/c some team's lineup was not what the commish feels was the "best lineup."

Top seeds picking their opponents puts an end to this problem.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

couple of ways to look at this.....(devil's advocate)

one way to look at it is that he is being one of the best owners you could ask for.....he is doing what he thinks he needs to do in order to win the league......that is usually a good thing, right....your problem maybe should really be with the guy that this owner wants to end up playing......

and part of it might be how you define fantasy football.....is it a game...?....there are many ways/strategies to win games.....

if people don't like the chance that something like this could happen late in the season.....then take care of business during the season and don't put yourself in position to where something like this could affect you....

if a guy sees that a team just lost Jay Cutler and Andre Johnson (insert any injured player here)....he might think that an early matchup against that team gives him the best chance to advance and win the whole thing.....instead of going up against Rodgers or something.....

is it unfortunate that this strategy may affect other teams and who gets in and who doesn't....?....sure.....but that is not this owners fault.....win more games so you don't have to worry about it....

this is a game.....that has winners and losers.....usually with money at stake.....being the "nice guy" could end up having you be the "losing guy"....

guy has earned the right to try and win the big prize....don't tell him how he has to do it.....

that said....I don't think it is a good thing to do and it will rub some people the wrong way.....but don't tell a guy how he has to go about winning a championship.....

personally I would never do this.....but some might....

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Long story short, 19 year league with what we thought were a group of solid character guys running teams. The team in question was going to start a very questionable lineup to purposely lose and drop a slot in our playoff seeding, (or so they thought) for an easier 1st round matchup. They were torn apart on our message boards and my phone was ringing off the hook Sunday AM. Needless to say they won (and would have regardless of lineup) so this BS was for naught, that said this team has been a pain in the ### for the last 2 seasons. In a perfect world your team owners are all good guys, start competitive lineups, etc. These guys are far from that and now as Commish I'm receiving e-mails saying that these guys should be gone. What say you?Thanks!

Is there a rule against this? If not either draft one or quit yer whining.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Just make it a rule for next year... not much you can do about it if it isn't in the rules...

"With all the commotion that occurred last year over Team X attempting to throw a game to get a lower seed in the playoffs, I have decided to add a rule where you cannot do that"

Have the league vote on it to make it a rule for next year...

Make what a rule, exactly?

I did this one year. It pissed off other owners in my league but as there was no rule against it the league ruled I could do what I wanted with my team blah blah blah. next year the league voted 9-1 to institute this rule

D. THE "hipple" RULE: You must submit your best line-up at all times. While strategy decisions will be given considerable discretion (e.g. not playing Priest Holmes b/c there is a blizzard in Green Bay or sitting a star quarterback against the Bucs defense, etc…), attempts to INTENTIONALLY lose a game (or not accumulate enough points) so as to alter one’s playoff or draft status will NOT be tolerated. An owner who is found to violate this clause will forfeit the right to any earnings and will automatically choose last in the subsequent year’s draft.

 

[Jobber]

Change they payout for your league to weigh heavier toward total regular season points. Then you bet your *** you won't have guys sitting players in the last weeks of the season.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

I never get why people get so mad about this type of move. It's akin to getting mad at someone for not using his driver on the 18th hole of money round after the other three guys put their drives in the water. You play to win the game period. And by game I mean the championship. Like NFL teams haven't altered lineups/sat players of the same reasons before.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

this pretty much sums it up.....

"Sometimes when you win, you really lose. And sometimes when you lose, you really win. And sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all one organic globule, from which one extracts what one needs."

-Gloria

 

[Herm23]

I'm confused how people in long standing leagues have things like this happen. In my longtime league and most long standing leagues that I know of, people are concerned enough with the bragging rights provided by their lifetime record and lifetime win percentage that they would never throw a game. Generally you only have a league that has been together for 19 years (as the original poster states) if there are some real life friendships tying the league together, hence the increased importance put on lifetime records.

 

[GregR]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

I never get why people get so mad about this type of move. It's akin to getting mad at someone for not using his driver on the 18th hole of money round after the other three guys put their drives in the water. You play to win the game period. And by game I mean the championship. Like NFL teams haven't altered lineups/sat players of the same reasons before.

Let's say that an NFL coach goes to his weekly press conference and says, "We threw this week's game because doing so meant Team X will probably get into the playoffs instead of Team Y, and we'd rather face Team X if it comes done to one or the other."Do you think the NFL would take no action?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

so an owner is allowed to do what he thinks gives him the best chance to win a championship as long as it is also what everybody else thinks gives him the best chance to win a championship.....

 

[Apple Jack]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

I never get why people get so mad about this type of move. It's akin to getting mad at someone for not using his driver on the 18th hole of money round after the other three guys put their drives in the water. You play to win the game period. And by game I mean the championship. Like NFL teams haven't altered lineups/sat players of the same reasons before.

Let's say that an NFL coach goes to his weekly press conference and says, "We threw this week's game because doing so meant Team X will probably get into the playoffs instead of Team Y, and we'd rather face Team X if it comes done to one or the other."Do you think the NFL would take no action?

I don't know, but the coach is not going to go into a press conference and say that. People sacrifice their best chance to win a game to rest starters for the playoffs all the time. Is that so different?

 

[GregR]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

It's unfortunate that it comes to having to be this harsh, but I pretty much agree with Cecil. I make sure any of my leagues have it clearly stated that tanking for any reason will lead to punishment including possibly expulsion from the league, even though it shouldn't be necessary.A dozen years of reading these types of threads have shown that being a commish in these specific type of situations is more like dealing with children than it is being a judge in the legal system interpreted coded laws.There is a segment of people who haven't considered whether it's bad sportsmanship to the point it shouldn't be done. If I truly believed someone was one of those it would be a small penalty and allow them to continue in the league, while watching with a closer eye to confirm that was the case. The case of roster sharing, trading bye week players, is a good example... a lot of people haven't considered why it is unethical, but when you explain it they get it and agree.But I get the sense that most people who tank will try to exploit anything that is not explicitly stated in rules, whether or not there is a common sense it will be viewed as wrong. Those are the same people who will try to wriggle through any opening and try to claim you must have ironclad proof of anything to act on it. "You can't PROVE collusion" is a frequent statement by such people.I don't need to prove it to the degree of a court of law. I just need for myself and the league to be convinced whether the person did it or not. The same as a parent doesn't need to see which child drew on the wall to do something about it. I make sure to have a written rule not because I feel one is necessary in this case, but because doing so lessens the length of the argument. I don't need a rule that says you can't hack your opponent's account and change his lineup in order to boot from the league someone who does it. A good rule of thumb is whether the owner would have been comfortable with openly telling his league in advance that he's going to tank. If he'd be reluctant to, it shows he realizes it's widely viewed as being unethical but is willing to go through with it anyway.I've not got a problem with a group of owners who want to allow tanking, collusion, or any other cut throat move there is. But there is no reason to expect such actions will be allowed in a league that doesn't explicitly state otherwise.

 

[GregR]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

I never get why people get so mad about this type of move. It's akin to getting mad at someone for not using his driver on the 18th hole of money round after the other three guys put their drives in the water. You play to win the game period. And by game I mean the championship. Like NFL teams haven't altered lineups/sat players of the same reasons before.

Let's say that an NFL coach goes to his weekly press conference and says, "We threw this week's game because doing so meant Team X will probably get into the playoffs instead of Team Y, and we'd rather face Team X if it comes done to one or the other."Do you think the NFL would take no action?

I don't know, but the coach is not going to go into a press conference and say that. People sacrifice their best chance to win a game to rest starters for the playoffs all the time. Is that so different?

Intentionally throwing a game is incredibly different than resting starters but still trying to win the game.

 

[Apple Jack]

kick the owner out of the league. I had an owner joke with me about doing that and I told him it would get his team the 'death penalty' if he tanked for a better playoff spot.

I never get why people get so mad about this type of move. It's akin to getting mad at someone for not using his driver on the 18th hole of money round after the other three guys put their drives in the water. You play to win the game period. And by game I mean the championship. Like NFL teams haven't altered lineups/sat players of the same reasons before.

Let's say that an NFL coach goes to his weekly press conference and says, "We threw this week's game because doing so meant Team X will probably get into the playoffs instead of Team Y, and we'd rather face Team X if it comes done to one or the other."Do you think the NFL would take no action?

I don't know, but the coach is not going to go into a press conference and say that. People sacrifice their best chance to win a game to rest starters for the playoffs all the time. Is that so different?

Intentionally throwing a game is incredibly different than resting starters but still trying to win the game.

I don't think it's all that different. But I agree with you about putting it in the rules that there will be no tanking, and enforcing that rule. In absence of that rule, I don't see the problem. Just put it in there for next year and move on.

 

[Modog814]

I'm not sure I really see a problem here. Fantasy football is a game in which the goal is to win the championship. And as in all games, some part of strategy is making a sacrifice now to get what you believe is a better chance to accomplish that goal. It happens all the time in real life and all types of games:

Teams rest players to protect them from injury.

In week 17, a team that is already in the playoffs playing a team that may be in the playoffs might play vanilla offensive/defensive schemes to keep strategy hidden.

In chess, a player might sacrifice a pawn for a better chance at winning.

In poker, a player may call a bet at the end, not because he thinks he has the best hand, but because he believes the information gained will help him later.

It already happens in Fantasy Football...some teams will purposely draft multiple players with the same bye, in essence forfeiting one week for a better chance in all the other weeks.

Teams might trade a for injured player who is due back in a week or two, hurting their team in the short term for what they believe to be a bigger gain in the long run.

You want to make a rule that requires that team must fill out a minimum starting line up (no empty spots), fine, but to make a rule regarding the quality of players is kind of ludicrous considering everyone has different opinions on players anyway.

 

[Phenix]

I'm not sure I really see a problem here. Fantasy football is a game in which the goal is to win the championship. And as in all games, some part of strategy is making a sacrifice now to get what you believe is a better chance to accomplish that goal. It happens all the time in real life and all types of games:Teams rest players to protect them from injury.In week 17, a team that is already in the playoffs playing a team that may be in the playoffs might play vanilla offensive/defensive schemes to keep strategy hidden.In chess, a player might sacrifice a pawn for a better chance at winning.In poker, a player may call a bet at the end, not because he thinks he has the best hand, but because he believes the information gained will help him later. It already happens in Fantasy Football...some teams will purposely draft multiple players with the same bye, in essence forfeiting one week for a better chance in all the other weeks. Teams might trade a for injured player who is due back in a week or two, hurting their team in the short term for what they believe to be a bigger gain in the long run. You want to make a rule that requires that team must fill out a minimum starting line up (no empty spots), fine, but to make a rule regarding the quality of players is kind of ludicrous considering everyone has different opinions on players anyway.

Your 110% right.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

it's a game.....some may play it like checkers.....intentionally losing a piece in order to gain more pieces later and be the last one with a piece.....

it's a game.....it's not about learning life lessons and judging people's ethics and morals

it's a game....there are lots of ways to try and win...

it's a game....as long as there is no collusion, owners should be allowed to try and win the game anyway they chose...

it's game....if somebody earns the right at the end of the game to control their destiny and the destiny of others then that is their reward for what they did previously in the game....

it's a game....and intentionally losing is not cheating...it's a strategy....a gamble...and one that could backfire

it's a game.....and if everybody agrees that by losing one game gives the guy a better chance to advance and win, wouldn't he be stupid not to do it....?

playing devil's advocate here because I really don't agree with the strategy and would prefer not to play in a league with a bunch of guys like this....I don't like the environment and atmosphere it might create....but I also don't think that anybody should be telling a team that has clinched a playoff spot that they have to do certain things the rest of the way that they may not want to do....I'm all for maintaining the competitive balance of the rest of the league.....but if an owner has earned the right to control the destiny of his team and other teams then that is his benefit for clinching a spot and the other teams problem....not his.....