Throwing Games To Get a Better Playoff Matchup (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

This is going on in a $20 work league so no big deal, but we have an owner who was 10-1 that has thrown 3 straight games to get a perceived better matchup. The issue is that it affected a couple of playoff teams including myself. I didn't mind missing the playoffs, but it was annoying to have an owner actively manipulating the playoff race.

Couple of things that it reminded me:

- Have a potential bye week (this league only has 4 playoff teams instead of the usual 6) to encourage teams to get one of the top two spots.

- Have a rule requiring teams to submit a complete lineup.

 

[I Am the Stig]

This has been going on since the beginning of time. Unless it is addressed in the league rules nothing can be done about it.

 

[lod01]

Seems ridiculous, especially 3 games out as you started. How does he even know who he will play 3 weeks ago? Besides that, it's lame.

 

[NREC34]

20 dollar league I wouldn't worry about. Just use the lack of rules to your advantage if you ever get in the same spot in the future.

 

[cstu]

Seems ridiculous, especially 3 games out as you started. How does he even know who he will play 3 weeks ago? Besides that, it's lame.

Besides being bush league, I didn't see the point because the other 3 teams are relatively similar. One has a high total points from doing well in the beginning of the season but I don't think it's any stronger than the other teams now.

Disappointing, but what I expected from a work league (my first).

 

[Meatwad Reloaded]

Just make a rule that says if a person does not put a full line up in, the commish gets to manage their team and put a lineup in. I would include situations where people do not do pick ups for byes.

Not putting a lineup in is terrible and should be grounds for kicking that person out if they are doing it deliberately. I do not have a problem with a team not playing their 'best' players because we never know who exactly will blow up or lay an egg on any given day, but not putting a player in is very poor form..

 

[Meatwad Reloaded]

Seems ridiculous, especially 3 games out as you started. How does he even know who he will play 3 weeks ago? Besides that, it's lame.

Besides being bush league, I didn't see the point because the other 3 teams are relatively similar. One has a high total points from doing well in the beginning of the season but I don't think it's any stronger than the other teams now.

Disappointing, but what I expected from a work league (my first).

If not addressed, I just would decline to play next year. Waste of time when crap like that is allowed.

 

[habsfan]

Just make a rule that says if a person does not put a full line up in, the commish gets to manage their team and put a lineup in. I would include situations where people do not do pick ups for byes.

Not putting a lineup in is terrible and should be grounds for kicking that person out if they are doing it deliberately. I do not have a problem with a team not playing their 'best' players because we never know who exactly will blow up or lay an egg on any given day, but not putting a player in is very poor form..

As I see it, this is a sportsmanship issue and it's a difficult thing to legislate. If you don't want to play with people like this, the biggest rule book on earth won't make them not like this...

 

[Alex P Keaton]

This is going on in a $20 work league so no big deal, but we have an owner who was 10-1 that has thrown 3 straight games to get a perceived better matchup. The issue is that it affected a couple of playoff teams including myself. I didn't mind missing the playoffs, but it was annoying to have an owner actively manipulating the playoff race.

Couple of things that it reminded me:

- Have a potential bye week (this league only has 4 playoff teams instead of the usual 6) to encourage teams to get one of the top two spots.

- Have a rule requiring teams to submit a complete lineup.

Don't see an issue with this.

 

[Ilov80s]

3 games out? That's weird. To try to prevent teams from doing this, the team that scores the most points in the last week of the reg season gets their buy-in back. We have the rule that everyone has to field a lineup, but nothing preventing them from playing lesser quality players.

 

[Deamon]

Just make a rule that says if a person does not put a full line up in, the commish gets to manage their team and put a lineup in. I would include situations where people do not do pick ups for byes.

Not putting a lineup in is terrible and should be grounds for kicking that person out if they are doing it deliberately. I do not have a problem with a team not playing their 'best' players because we never know who exactly will blow up or lay an egg on any given day, but not putting a player in is very poor form..

3 games out? That's weird. To try to prevent teams from doing this, the team that scores the most points in the last week of the reg season gets their buy-in back. We have the rule that everyone has to field a lineup, but nothing preventing them from playing lesser quality players.

What about not starting/rostering a kicker once you have clinched? I did that this year. I clinched the bye a few weeks back and used my last roster spot on a wildcard backup RB which I could drop for a kicker come playoffs. Played without a kicker for 3 weeks.

 

[Quasimoto]

If you want to make a rule stating that a legal lineup must be set weekly or the commish will set it for you, then that's fine, but a lot of people seem to think that it is poor sportsmanship for an owner to do less than his best (tanking) if he thinks it will help get him a better playoff matchup, and I'm not so sure that's the case. I think it's poor sportsmanship for a team to stop setting it's lineup once they are out of the playoff race because that does not help either them or the league - it's just lazy. But, if an owner starts a legal lineup consisting of his backups in order to better position himself in the playoffs is that really wrong? A team owner's primary goal from the beginning of the season is to win the championship. Why should he give his all to win a late season game if he is convinced that doing so will hinder his chances to achieve his overriding goal? Is it an owner's job to help another team get into the playoffs? NFL teams do a variation of this every year because it's what they think gives them the best chance to advance in the playoffs. Is it poor sportsmanship when they sit their studs in week 17?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I thought about it this year, but didn't, and paid for it. I was #1 in points scored but was going to end up as the #4 seed. The #5 seed (my first round matchup) was 2nd in points scored, and the #1 seed (2nd round matchup) was third.

I could have thrown the last game and it would have knocked me down to the #6 seed, pairing me with a team that was 8th in points scored in the 1st round and 7th in points scored in the 2nd round.

I ended up playing it straight up and taking the #4 seed and lost this week (would have won had I thrown the game and dropped to #6 seed).

 

[Ilov80s]

Just make a rule that says if a person does not put a full line up in, the commish gets to manage their team and put a lineup in. I would include situations where people do not do pick ups for byes.

Not putting a lineup in is terrible and should be grounds for kicking that person out if they are doing it deliberately. I do not have a problem with a team not playing their 'best' players because we never know who exactly will blow up or lay an egg on any given day, but not putting a player in is very poor form..

3 games out? That's weird. To try to prevent teams from doing this, the team that scores the most points in the last week of the reg season gets their buy-in back. We have the rule that everyone has to field a lineup, but nothing preventing them from playing lesser quality players.

What about not starting/rostering a kicker once you have clinched? I did that this year. I clinched the bye a few weeks back and used my last roster spot on a wildcard backup RB which I could drop for a kicker come playoffs. Played without a kicker for 3 weeks.

I'm not totally opposed to this idea, but it does give advantages to certain opponents based on the randomness of the schedule. We voted as s league and decided we thought it was in the best interest of the league to encourage everyone to try to win each week.

ETA: we also have a $10 FAB penalty and drop to the bottom of waivers if you don't field a lineup. So in our league, we never would have made you add a kicker, but you would have lost $30 FAB if you had any left and stayed at the bottom of the WW.

 

[cstu]

If you want to make a rule stating that a legal lineup must be set weekly or the commish will set it for you, then that's fine, but a lot of people seem to think that it is poor sportsmanship for an owner to do less than his best (tanking) if he thinks it will help get him a better playoff matchup, and I'm not so sure that's the case. I think it's poor sportsmanship for a team to stop setting it's lineup once they are out of the playoff race because that does not help either them or the league - it's just lazy.

But, if an owner starts a legal lineup consisting of his backups in order to better position himself in the playoffs is that really wrong? A team owner's primary goal from the beginning of the season is to win the championship. Why should he give his all to win a late season game if he is convinced that doing so will hinder his chances to achieve his overriding goal? Is it an owner's job to help another team get into the playoffs? NFL teams do a variation of this every year because it's what they think gives them the best chance to advance in the playoffs. Is it poor sportsmanship when they sit their studs in week 17?

I considered this and it's why I never brought it up. As flawed as the thinking is to me I get that he's only trying to win and it's within the written rules.

 

[habsfan]

If you want to make a rule stating that a legal lineup must be set weekly or the commish will set it for you, then that's fine, but a lot of people seem to think that it is poor sportsmanship for an owner to do less than his best (tanking) if he thinks it will help get him a better playoff matchup, and I'm not so sure that's the case. I think it's poor sportsmanship for a team to stop setting it's lineup once they are out of the playoff race because that does not help either them or the league - it's just lazy. But, if an owner starts a legal lineup consisting of his backups in order to better position himself in the playoffs is that really wrong? A team owner's primary goal from the beginning of the season is to win the championship. Why should he give his all to win a late season game if he is convinced that doing so will hinder his chances to achieve his overriding goal? Is it an owner's job to help another team get into the playoffs? NFL teams do a variation of this every year because it's what they think gives them the best chance to advance in the playoffs. Is it poor sportsmanship when they sit their studs in week 17?

I'm not sure NFL teams rest starters to manipulate league standings in what they perceive to be their favour. They rest players when they can no longer improve their play-off position further (division, home field etc). In fantasy, there is no "resting" and no injury is avoidable.

 

[NREC34]

If you want to make a rule stating that a legal lineup must be set weekly or the commish will set it for you, then that's fine, but a lot of people seem to think that it is poor sportsmanship for an owner to do less than his best (tanking) if he thinks it will help get him a better playoff matchup, and I'm not so sure that's the case. I think it's poor sportsmanship for a team to stop setting it's lineup once they are out of the playoff race because that does not help either them or the league - it's just lazy. But, if an owner starts a legal lineup consisting of his backups in order to better position himself in the playoffs is that really wrong? A team owner's primary goal from the beginning of the season is to win the championship. Why should he give his all to win a late season game if he is convinced that doing so will hinder his chances to achieve his overriding goal? Is it an owner's job to help another team get into the playoffs? NFL teams do a variation of this every year because it's what they think gives them the best chance to advance in the playoffs. Is it poor sportsmanship when they sit their studs in week 17?

I'm not sure NFL teams rest starters to manipulate league standings in what they perceive to be their favour. They rest players when they can no longer improve their play-off position further (division, home field etc). In fantasy, there is no "resting" and no injury is avoidable.

They tank all the time. Remember "suck for Luck"?

 

[Quasimoto]

If you want to make a rule stating that a legal lineup must be set weekly or the commish will set it for you, then that's fine, but a lot of people seem to think that it is poor sportsmanship for an owner to do less than his best (tanking) if he thinks it will help get him a better playoff matchup, and I'm not so sure that's the case. I think it's poor sportsmanship for a team to stop setting it's lineup once they are out of the playoff race because that does not help either them or the league - it's just lazy.

But, if an owner starts a legal lineup consisting of his backups in order to better position himself in the playoffs is that really wrong? A team owner's primary goal from the beginning of the season is to win the championship. Why should he give his all to win a late season game if he is convinced that doing so will hinder his chances to achieve his overriding goal? Is it an owner's job to help another team get into the playoffs? NFL teams do a variation of this every year because it's what they think gives them the best chance to advance in the playoffs. Is it poor sportsmanship when they sit their studs in week 17?

I considered this and it's why I never brought it up. As flawed as the thinking is to me I get that he's only trying to win and it's within the written rules.

Flawed in what way? Assuming that tanking improves his chance of winning the league doesn't it make sense to do so? I get that it is frustrating to the teams that are being tanked out of the playoffs, but if a team can eliminate a perceived threat by giving less than full effort in another game isn't that just legit competition by other means? How is it all that different from picking up a player that you never intend to play for the sole purpose of blocking a competitor from picking him up and playing him against. Personally, I've never tanked a game, but I think there may be an interesting case to be made for it.

 

[Chapelboy]

This is the kind of stuff that takes the fun out of the game.

 

[huthut]

There are rarely cases where one team making the playoffs is that much weaker than any other team, I feel you are just as likely to maneuver yourself into a losing matchup as a winning matchup, so might as well keep your pride intact and not look like a d-bag by playing to win every week. I mean, if you played Chandler instead of Gronk last night that is one thing since that is "reasonable". If you bench your whole team or play an obvious team of backups I would kick you out of the league or leave the league if the commissioner did not.

 

[jtd13]

I didn't throw a game to set the matchup, but I was cheering for 1 team to catch the other. It happened, and of course I lost to the team I wanted to play, and would have beaten the team I wanted to avoid.

 

[habsfan]

If you want to make a rule stating that a legal lineup must be set weekly or the commish will set it for you, then that's fine, but a lot of people seem to think that it is poor sportsmanship for an owner to do less than his best (tanking) if he thinks it will help get him a better playoff matchup, and I'm not so sure that's the case. I think it's poor sportsmanship for a team to stop setting it's lineup once they are out of the playoff race because that does not help either them or the league - it's just lazy. But, if an owner starts a legal lineup consisting of his backups in order to better position himself in the playoffs is that really wrong? A team owner's primary goal from the beginning of the season is to win the championship. Why should he give his all to win a late season game if he is convinced that doing so will hinder his chances to achieve his overriding goal? Is it an owner's job to help another team get into the playoffs? NFL teams do a variation of this every year because it's what they think gives them the best chance to advance in the playoffs. Is it poor sportsmanship when they sit their studs in week 17?

I'm not sure NFL teams rest starters to manipulate league standings in what they perceive to be their favour. They rest players when they can no longer improve their play-off position further (division, home field etc). In fantasy, there is no "resting" and no injury is avoidable.

They tank all the time. Remember "suck for Luck"?

Sucking for next year's draft position is a little different than being in a play-off position and losing solely to toy with the play-off fates of other teams. If you lose to everyone you play all year, you are arguably doing the exact opposite of that - giving a win to all your opponents rather than cherry-picking which you will try to beat and which you won't.

As I said before, if you have people who approach the game this way, the thickest rule book in the world won't change them. I prefer to play with like-minded people and keep the rule book thin...

 

[cstu]

If you want to make a rule stating that a legal lineup must be set weekly or the commish will set it for you, then that's fine, but a lot of people seem to think that it is poor sportsmanship for an owner to do less than his best (tanking) if he thinks it will help get him a better playoff matchup, and I'm not so sure that's the case. I think it's poor sportsmanship for a team to stop setting it's lineup once they are out of the playoff race because that does not help either them or the league - it's just lazy.

But, if an owner starts a legal lineup consisting of his backups in order to better position himself in the playoffs is that really wrong? A team owner's primary goal from the beginning of the season is to win the championship. Why should he give his all to win a late season game if he is convinced that doing so will hinder his chances to achieve his overriding goal? Is it an owner's job to help another team get into the playoffs? NFL teams do a variation of this every year because it's what they think gives them the best chance to advance in the playoffs. Is it poor sportsmanship when they sit their studs in week 17?

I considered this and it's why I never brought it up. As flawed as the thinking is to me I get that he's only trying to win and it's within the written rules.

Flawed in what way? Assuming that tanking improves his chance of winning the league doesn't it make sense to do so? I get that it is frustrating to the teams that are being tanked out of the playoffs, but if a team can eliminate a perceived threat by giving less than full effort in another game isn't that just legit competition by other means? How is it all that different from picking up a player that you never intend to play for the sole purpose of blocking a competitor from picking him up and playing him against. Personally, I've never tanked a game, but I think there may be an interesting case to be made for it.

I meant in the specific case of my league - the matchup he got isn't that much better than the other team he would have faced and he's going to face that team in the finals anyway.

 

[lod01]

I meant in the specific case of my league - the matchup he got isn't that much better than the other team he would have faced and he's going to face that team in the finals anyway.

Keep us posted. I want to know if he loses and would have won had he submitted his normal lineup. That would be glorious.

 

[Quasimoto]

If you want to make a rule stating that a legal lineup must be set weekly or the commish will set it for you, then that's fine, but a lot of people seem to think that it is poor sportsmanship for an owner to do less than his best (tanking) if he thinks it will help get him a better playoff matchup, and I'm not so sure that's the case. I think it's poor sportsmanship for a team to stop setting it's lineup once they are out of the playoff race because that does not help either them or the league - it's just lazy.

But, if an owner starts a legal lineup consisting of his backups in order to better position himself in the playoffs is that really wrong? A team owner's primary goal from the beginning of the season is to win the championship. Why should he give his all to win a late season game if he is convinced that doing so will hinder his chances to achieve his overriding goal? Is it an owner's job to help another team get into the playoffs? NFL teams do a variation of this every year because it's what they think gives them the best chance to advance in the playoffs. Is it poor sportsmanship when they sit their studs in week 17?

I considered this and it's why I never brought it up. As flawed as the thinking is to me I get that he's only trying to win and it's within the written rules.

Flawed in what way? Assuming that tanking improves his chance of winning the league doesn't it make sense to do so? I get that it is frustrating to the teams that are being tanked out of the playoffs, but if a team can eliminate a perceived threat by giving less than full effort in another game isn't that just legit competition by other means? How is it all that different from picking up a player that you never intend to play for the sole purpose of blocking a competitor from picking him up and playing him against. Personally, I've never tanked a game, but I think there may be an interesting case to be made for it.

I meant in the specific case of my league - the matchup he got isn't that much better than the other team he would have faced and he's going to face that team in the finals anyway.

Yeah, I guess your post just reminded me of the debates I've heard about this issue in general and it got me thinking about the principle involved.

Let me throw out a hypothetical. Suppose I have the #1 seed locked up with 1 week remaining in the regular season. Now suppose that if I win my final game I will play team A that, for whatever reason, went 2-5 to start the season, but has dominated the league during the second half and is charging into the playoffs as the #6 seed with by far the highest total points for - Say he's outscoring everyone by 30 points per week for the past 5 weeks. Then let's assume that team A has amazing matchups in the first round of the playoffs when I will have to play him if I win my final regular season game. Now let's assume that if I lose my final regular season game (intentionally or otherwise) I will face team B that has suffered crippling injuries over the past month, is limping into the playoffs, AND has lousy matchups in the week I would face him. Knowing all of this I am utterly convinced that my chances of winning my first playoff game will be severely hampered if I win my final regular season game and have to face team A. Am I bound by the tenets of sportsmanship to make every effort to win that game even though I'm all but certain it will end my championship run?