Throwing Games In Week 14 To Prepare For Week 15 (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

 

[eighsse2]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

They are different degrees of similar decision-making. And I conceded in an above post that an NFL team doing the exact same thing would be frowned upon and not accepted. But I personally don't find that reasonable if sitting starters is acceptable.

 

[Mitchie]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

Players get hurt?

Well right haha. But my point is they're making the decision because it helps their chances in the playoffs.

That could happen but it's pretty rare, can you think of any example where this happened and it was obvious the team was intentionally tanking the game vs. just resting starters for the playoffs? I'm pretty sure if it did happen and NFL found out a team was tanking they would be penalized.

 

[eighsse2]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

 

[JohnnyU]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

 

[eighsse2]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

Do you think it's wrong for NFL teams to sit their players if it results in an easy win for their opponent, knocking another team out of the playoffs?

 

[JohnnyU]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

Do you think it's wrong for NFL teams to sit their players if it results in an easy win for their opponent, knocking another team out of the playoffs?

What I think about what the NFL does is irrelevant when talking about fantasy football.

 

[eighsse2]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

Do you think it's wrong for NFL teams to sit their players if it results in an easy win for their opponent, knocking another team out of the playoffs?

What I think about what the NFL does is irrelevant when talking about fantasy football.

It seemed like a line of reasoning regarding competition and fairness themselves. Which seems like it should apply to any competition. But I guess different competitions do have different levels of "cutthroatness".

 

[Mitchie]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

Do you think it's wrong for NFL teams to sit their players if it results in an easy win for their opponent, knocking another team out of the playoffs?

What I think about what the NFL does is irrelevant when talking about fantasy football.

It seemed like a line of reasoning regarding competition and fairness themselves. Which seems like it should apply to any competition. But I guess different competitions do have different levels of "cutthroatness".

It's quite simple actually, NFL teams are not allowed to tank for playoff position just as fantasy teams should not be allowed to tank. Resting players is not considered tanking. Resting players does not apply to fantasy football.

 

[Gally]

Resting players is not considered tanking. Resting players does not apply to fantasy football.

This is the definitive difference.

 

[eighsse2]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

Do you think it's wrong for NFL teams to sit their players if it results in an easy win for their opponent, knocking another team out of the playoffs?

What I think about what the NFL does is irrelevant when talking about fantasy football.

It seemed like a line of reasoning regarding competition and fairness themselves. Which seems like it should apply to any competition. But I guess different competitions do have different levels of "cutthroatness".

It's quite simple actually, NFL teams are not allowed to tank for playoff position just as fantasy teams should not be allowed to tank. Resting players is not considered tanking. Resting players does not apply to fantasy football.

But the thing is, the main reasoning behind tanking being a bad thing is that it hurts the fairness due to some team getting a free win. The same kind of thing applies to resting players. Why is one absolute taboo and a terribly unsportsmanlike thing to do, and the other is done every year without complaint?

 

[eighsse2]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

Do you think it's wrong for NFL teams to sit their players if it results in an easy win for their opponent, knocking another team out of the playoffs?

What I think about what the NFL does is irrelevant when talking about fantasy football.

It seemed like a line of reasoning regarding competition and fairness themselves. Which seems like it should apply to any competition. But I guess different competitions do have different levels of "cutthroatness".

It's quite simple actually, NFL teams are not allowed to tank for playoff position just as fantasy teams should not be allowed to tank. Resting players is not considered tanking. Resting players does not apply to fantasy football.

But the thing is, the main reasoning behind tanking being a bad thing is that it hurts the fairness due to some team getting a free win. The same kind of thing applies to resting players. Why is one absolute taboo and a terribly unsportsmanlike thing to do, and the other is done every year without complaint?

Because teams are allowed to rest players to position themselves best for the playoffs. That's the advantage of being ahead in the standings.

That sounds very circular. "It's acceptable because they're allowed."

 

[Mitchie]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

Do you think it's wrong for NFL teams to sit their players if it results in an easy win for their opponent, knocking another team out of the playoffs?

What I think about what the NFL does is irrelevant when talking about fantasy football.

It seemed like a line of reasoning regarding competition and fairness themselves. Which seems like it should apply to any competition. But I guess different competitions do have different levels of "cutthroatness".

It's quite simple actually, NFL teams are not allowed to tank for playoff position just as fantasy teams should not be allowed to tank. Resting players is not considered tanking. Resting players does not apply to fantasy football.

But the thing is, the main reasoning behind tanking being a bad thing is that it hurts the fairness due to some team getting a free win. The same kind of thing applies to resting players. Why is one absolute taboo and a terribly unsportsmanlike thing to do, and the other is done every year without complaint?

Because teams are allowed to rest players to position themselves best for the playoffs. That's the advantage of being ahead in the standings.

That sounds very circular. "It's acceptable because they're allowed."

I deleted that post b/c this is getting a bit tiresome. Resting players is not tanking. If you want to justify to it yourself to allow you to tank in fantasy football then have at it.

 

[eighsse2]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

Do you think it's wrong for NFL teams to sit their players if it results in an easy win for their opponent, knocking another team out of the playoffs?

What I think about what the NFL does is irrelevant when talking about fantasy football.

It seemed like a line of reasoning regarding competition and fairness themselves. Which seems like it should apply to any competition. But I guess different competitions do have different levels of "cutthroatness".

It's quite simple actually, NFL teams are not allowed to tank for playoff position just as fantasy teams should not be allowed to tank. Resting players is not considered tanking. Resting players does not apply to fantasy football.

But the thing is, the main reasoning behind tanking being a bad thing is that it hurts the fairness due to some team getting a free win. The same kind of thing applies to resting players. Why is one absolute taboo and a terribly unsportsmanlike thing to do, and the other is done every year without complaint?

Because teams are allowed to rest players to position themselves best for the playoffs. That's the advantage of being ahead in the standings.

That sounds very circular. "It's acceptable because they're allowed."

I deleted that post b/c this is getting a bit tiresome. Resting players is not tanking. If you want to justify to it yourself to allow you to tank in fantasy football then have at it.

No one's saying it is tanking. But it's very similar for the reasons I've stated. But anyway yeah you're right, we've all said what we have to say.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

This is a good reason why I don’t buy the moral argument that you are obligated to field a complete lineup. If you have to drop a player you would not otherwise drop, you are actually making it less likely you will win a championship. Unless the league has a rule about finding a complete lineup each week, I have zero problem with what you did.

 

[Dez]

Last week I was going into Monday Night in a RTS league for the final week of the regular season. I was down 9 pts for the #3 seed and I had Diggs. I had enough pts already wrapped up to secure a playoff spot it was only a question would I be the #3 or #4 seed. I checked out the #1 and #2 seeds rosters and the #1 seed had CMC so I benched Diggs and took a 0 to ensure I played the CMC team.
In the end it was meaningless as Diggs scored 5.6 and I would been #4 seed.

 

[Jewell]

I have the 1 seed clinched in one league so I rested some starters and let my bench guys get some run. That gets those bench guys ready in case a starter goes down between now and my championship.

 

[FarFromHome]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

This is a good reason why I don’t buy the moral argument that you are obligated to field a complete lineup. If you have to drop a player you would not otherwise drop, you are actually making it less likely you will win a championship. Unless the league has a rule about finding a complete lineup each week, I have zero problem with what you did.

I agree. Completely fine with this move.

 

[JohnnyU]

I have the 1 seed clinched in one league so I rested some starters and let my bench guys get some run. That gets those bench guys ready in case a starter goes down between now and my championship.

Oh for crying out loud, lol

 

[Gally]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

Do you think it's wrong for NFL teams to sit their players if it results in an easy win for their opponent, knocking another team out of the playoffs?

What I think about what the NFL does is irrelevant when talking about fantasy football.

It seemed like a line of reasoning regarding competition and fairness themselves. Which seems like it should apply to any competition. But I guess different competitions do have different levels of "cutthroatness".

It's quite simple actually, NFL teams are not allowed to tank for playoff position just as fantasy teams should not be allowed to tank. Resting players is not considered tanking. Resting players does not apply to fantasy football.

But the thing is, the main reasoning behind tanking being a bad thing is that it hurts the fairness due to some team getting a free win. The same kind of thing applies to resting players. Why is one absolute taboo and a terribly unsportsmanlike thing to do, and the other is done every year without complaint?

Because in FF you are trying to lose. Your intent is to lose (for the discussion at hand) by sitting players.

In the NFL when you rest players you are not trying to lose. The intent is the difference and that is the key.

 

[JohnnyU]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

Do you think it's wrong for NFL teams to sit their players if it results in an easy win for their opponent, knocking another team out of the playoffs?

What I think about what the NFL does is irrelevant when talking about fantasy football.

It seemed like a line of reasoning regarding competition and fairness themselves. Which seems like it should apply to any competition. But I guess different competitions do have different levels of "cutthroatness".

It's quite simple actually, NFL teams are not allowed to tank for playoff position just as fantasy teams should not be allowed to tank. Resting players is not considered tanking. Resting players does not apply to fantasy football.

But the thing is, the main reasoning behind tanking being a bad thing is that it hurts the fairness due to some team getting a free win. The same kind of thing applies to resting players. Why is one absolute taboo and a terribly unsportsmanlike thing to do, and the other is done every year without complaint?

Because in FF you are trying to lose. Your intent is to lose (for the discussion at hand) by sitting players.

In the NFL when you rest players you are not trying to lose. The intent is the difference and that is the key.

Again, this whole conversation is reduced when comparing what the NFL does compared to what fantasy players do. It’s moot and deflects away from the damage caused when fantasy players tank a game that has already been brought up.

 

[eighsse2]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

I have no idea where you are going with this.

FF and NFL are not the same thing. Throwing games in the NFL would not be tolerated at all. One big difference in NFL teams sitting players vs FF managers sitting players is the NFL teams have a player that will actually play. In FF playing a guy on bye or that is inactive to throw a game gives you a zero. There is not chance of scoring. Not at all close to the same thing.

Nothing else matters for fantasy after the two reasons I gave. Nothing.

The two reasons you gave apply exactly 100% the same in the NFL.

"first, allowing this can help or hurt other teams trying to make the playoffs."
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

"Second, allowing this can help or hurt other teams draft position"
Same with sitting starters in NFL? Yes

No reason to over complicate it. It’s really simple and can stand on its own without needing the comparison.

Do you think it's wrong for NFL teams to sit their players if it results in an easy win for their opponent, knocking another team out of the playoffs?

What I think about what the NFL does is irrelevant when talking about fantasy football.

It seemed like a line of reasoning regarding competition and fairness themselves. Which seems like it should apply to any competition. But I guess different competitions do have different levels of "cutthroatness".

It's quite simple actually, NFL teams are not allowed to tank for playoff position just as fantasy teams should not be allowed to tank. Resting players is not considered tanking. Resting players does not apply to fantasy football.

But the thing is, the main reasoning behind tanking being a bad thing is that it hurts the fairness due to some team getting a free win. The same kind of thing applies to resting players. Why is one absolute taboo and a terribly unsportsmanlike thing to do, and the other is done every year without complaint?

Because in FF you are trying to lose. Your intent is to lose (for the discussion at hand) by sitting players.

In the NFL when you rest players you are not trying to lose. The intent is the difference and that is the key.

That's a good distinction, I'll give you that.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I have the 1 seed clinched in one league so I rested some starters and let my bench guys get some run. That gets those bench guys ready in case a starter goes down between now and my championship.

But what impact does that have on your locker room? If the backups have a good game they might resent the fact that they’re not getting starters’ minutes

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I’d love to see a Venn diagram of what people think about this issue and what they thought about starting Joe Webb at WR

 

[beef]

I have the 1 seed clinched in one league so I rested some starters and let my bench guys get some run. That gets those bench guys ready in case a starter goes down between now and my championship.

But what impact does that have on your locker room? If the backups have a good game they might resent the fact that they’re not getting starters’ minutes

Happened to me. I rested some starters and then had a few breakout performances. Dealt with some real nasty holdouts that next Summer. LeVeon Bell was so pissed he sat out the year!

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I have the 1 seed clinched in one league so I rested some starters and let my bench guys get some run. That gets those bench guys ready in case a starter goes down between now and my championship.

I think I told this story in another thread, but my 10 y.o. was playing Madden as the Bills and was up like 35-10. I asked him why he had Trubisky in at QB and he told me he was resting his starters

 

[Anarchy99]

Is very bad to steal Jobu’s rum. Is very bad.

 

[the moops]

I’ll be starting a player on BYE this week because I do not want to drop anyone on my bench in what is a meaningless game for me. My opponent is out of the playoffs too which factors into my decision. If my opponent was vying for a playoff spot or if our game could impact others I would reconsider.

In my case, my opponent already has a top 3 seed locked up. If I throw the game, he would actually have an increased chance at the top seed.

Then don't throw the game. It's not right for the rest of the league.

If an NFL team has the #1 seed locked up, they sit their starters (no it's not "throwing the game" but they're giving themselves a very low win probability to increase their likelihood of success in the playoffs -- very similar). What if that team's opponent is in a fight for a playoff spot? Should the #1 seed play their starters?

Not the same thing in any way, shape, or form. NFL teams sit players due to injury concerns and physical toll on players. That is not a concern for FF. If the NFL had no risk of injury they would not sit players in that situation.

And they're worried about injuries because .....

Players get hurt?

Well right haha. But my point is they're making the decision because it helps their chances in the playoffs.

That could happen but it's pretty rare, can you think of any example where this happened and it was obvious the team was intentionally tanking the game vs. just resting starters for the playoffs? I'm pretty sure if it did happen and NFL found out a team was tanking they would be penalized.

Definitly has happened in the NBA. Clippers have done it twice - intentionally lose games to get a more favorable matchup in round 1 of the playoffs