Need some opinions

[Gopher]

This is actually a multi-part question... Something that hasn't gotten too far out of hand in a league that I commish, but I'm wondering what I can do about it before it potentially does. First, let's assume that this is a keeper league in which the worst team gets the #1 pick the following year. There is a potential for some teams to keep many players (there is no keeper limit), but every player is kept for a cost (both a pick and blind bidding dollar amount). Therefore, our draft is not serpentine... In other words, the owner with the #1 overall pick would also get the #1 pick in every subsequent round as well. So, there is a pretty big advantage for having the top draft slot, and that's the way it is intended, since there may be a fairly large gap between the best teams in the league, and the worst, given the keeper rules. Questions:

 

1. What do you consider to be tanking, in terms of roster submission? I realize that "tanking" is a fairly subjective term, which is why I am asking this question. Is it enough for an owner to just submit a complete lineup, and ensure that they don't have any bye-week players in their lineup? Or, should it be assumed that they must also not start any players who are out for the year (Owen Daniels), out for the week (Jermichael Finley), or who just simply aren't going to play much either way (Chad Simpson), assuming they have better options (John Carlson, Jason Witten, and Marshawn Lynch, respectively). My personal opinion is that it's not fair to the rest of the league, when certain owners intentionally submit a crappy lineup to improve their future draft position. On the other hand, like I said, it's fairly subjective, and I don't want to get into having to "interpret" what is an intentionally submitted poor lineup, versus one that was not submitted intentionally. Plus, who am I to decide who is going to score more points for another owner? So, ultimately, I would like to establish some sort of rule... black and white, with no gray area.

 

2. What rules have you seen used to ensure that owners have an "incentive" to submit the best lineup possible? We use blind bidding for this league, so I'm tossing around a couple of ideas. The first would be to create a rule where the low score for the week pays a "fine" of a couple of BB dollars. This is fantasy money, not real, but it does roll over from season to season, so there is an incentive to keep it. My fear is that such a rule would not necessarily penalize the right owners... luck determines who scores the least on most weeks. Plus, I'm not sure this would be much of a deterrant, anyway.

 

Another idea would be to determine future year's draft order in a tiered system, where the worst team doesn't necessarily get the top pick. Not sure how this would work, exactly, but it would be something where the highest point-scoring team of the non-playoff teams gets the #1 pick, or something to that effect. Not sure how that would work, exactly, and I can already see that it would not be a perfect system.

 

3. This is somewhat unrelated, as it doesn't affect this particular league, but where do you draw the line in dynasty leagues, where it literally may be impossible to submit a complete lineup each and every week? Example: In a 16-team dynast league where EVERY QB or kicker may be owned on any given week, what should an owner do on a week where both of their QB's or kickers are on a bye? Should said owner feel compelled to trade for another kicker, just for a bye-week solution, even if it is at an abnormally high cost? Or, in this instance, is it "OK" to start bye-week players, because you have no other choice?

 

Getting back to my league... Obviously, before I make any drastic changes, I would have the league vote on them. Just wondering what some of the other commissioners out there would do, or have done, to "maintain the integrity" of their leagues.

[chester]

In my keeper league draft order is such (every round, like yours): Teams that make the playoffs get the last picks in each round in direct order of how they finish the playoffs. Non playoff teams draw for the early picks randonly. Therefore if you don't make the playoffs you have no advantage to tank. Plus we give out a weekly award, so you want to start your best guys. Also in your #3 example, I think that's a special situation that should be allowed.

[buddahj]

have you thought about limiting the keepers? this might help eliminate the bye week dilemna that you were talking about.

for lineups, unless someone is benching AP for say j. lewis...then it's really hard to determine if they are tanking.

what about instead of fining teams for low score...just award weekly high score with some BB $'s.

just remember as a commish...no matter how many rules are in play, someone always seems to find the grey.

[Gopher]

In my keeper league draft order is such (every round, like yours): Teams that make the playoffs get the last picks in each round in direct order of how they finish the playoffs. Non playoff teams draw for the early picks randonly. Therefore if you don't make the playoffs you have no advantage to tank. Plus we give out a weekly award, so you want to start your best guys. Also in your #3 example, I think that's a special situation that should be allowed.

I like the weekly high score getting something back idea, whether it be real cash or blind bidding cash. The only problem with that, currently, is that I'm 9-1 this year, and won the championship last year (first season), so people might question whether or not I'm proposing a rule that I would benefit from most.

 

have you thought about limiting the keepers? this might help eliminate the bye week dilemna that you were talking about.

for lineups, unless someone is benching AP for say j. lewis...then it's really hard to determine if they are tanking.

what about instead of fining teams for low score...just award weekly high score with some BB $'s.

just remember as a commish...no matter how many rules are in play, someone always seems to find the grey.

The bye-week question (#3) was just a general question, and had nothing to do with the league i was referring to. Once again, I like the weekly reward idea. Thanks.

[Delicious_bass]

This is actually a multi-part question... Something that hasn't gotten too far out of hand in a league that I commish, but I'm wondering what I can do about it before it potentially does. First, let's assume that this is a keeper league in which the worst team gets the #1 pick the following year. There is a potential for some teams to keep many players (there is no keeper limit), but every player is kept for a cost (both a pick and blind bidding dollar amount). Therefore, our draft is not serpentine... In other words, the owner with the #1 overall pick would also get the #1 pick in every subsequent round as well. So, there is a pretty big advantage for having the top draft slot, and that's the way it is intended, since there may be a fairly large gap between the best teams in the league, and the worst, given the keeper rules. Questions:

 

1. What do you consider to be tanking, in terms of roster submission? I realize that "tanking" is a fairly subjective term, which is why I am asking this question. Is it enough for an owner to just submit a complete lineup, and ensure that they don't have any bye-week players in their lineup? Or, should it be assumed that they must also not start any players who are out for the year (Owen Daniels), out for the week (Jermichael Finley), or who just simply aren't going to play much either way (Chad Simpson), assuming they have better options (John Carlson, Jason Witten, and Marshawn Lynch, respectively). My personal opinion is that it's not fair to the rest of the league, when certain owners intentionally submit a crappy lineup to improve their future draft position. On the other hand, like I said, it's fairly subjective, and I don't want to get into having to "interpret" what is an intentionally submitted poor lineup, versus one that was not submitted intentionally. Plus, who am I to decide who is going to score more points for another owner? So, ultimately, I would like to establish some sort of rule... black and white, with no gray area.

 

2. What rules have you seen used to ensure that owners have an "incentive" to submit the best lineup possible? We use blind bidding for this league, so I'm tossing around a couple of ideas. The first would be to create a rule where the low score for the week pays a "fine" of a couple of BB dollars. This is fantasy money, not real, but it does roll over from season to season, so there is an incentive to keep it. My fear is that such a rule would not necessarily penalize the right owners... luck determines who scores the least on most weeks. Plus, I'm not sure this would be much of a deterrant, anyway.

 

Another idea would be to determine future year's draft order in a tiered system, where the worst team doesn't necessarily get the top pick. Not sure how this would work, exactly, but it would be something where the highest point-scoring team of the non-playoff teams gets the #1 pick, or something to that effect. Not sure how that would work, exactly, and I can already see that it would not be a perfect system.

 

3. This is somewhat unrelated, as it doesn't affect this particular league, but where do you draw the line in dynasty leagues, where it literally may be impossible to submit a complete lineup each and every week? Example: In a 16-team dynast league where EVERY QB or kicker may be owned on any given week, what should an owner do on a week where both of their QB's or kickers are on a bye? Should said owner feel compelled to trade for another kicker, just for a bye-week solution, even if it is at an abnormally high cost? Or, in this instance, is it "OK" to start bye-week players, because you have no other choice?

 

Getting back to my league... Obviously, before I make any drastic changes, I would have the league vote on them. Just wondering what some of the other commissioners out there would do, or have done, to "maintain the integrity" of their leagues.

Tanking(like collusion) is always tricky to prove as fantasy football is very subjective. One owner's view of a player is often significantly different than another's(especially the further you get from the top of the draft) and opinions obviously vary on week to week performance. I dont know that there is a good way to put something into the rules to guard against tanking as its always a fine line between ensuring an honest lineup in the interest of league integrity and taking away an owner's right to manage his team as he sees fit. All that said, I think your best bet is to take away the incentive for anyone to do anything other than finish as strongly as possible. The concept of giving the poorer teams the higher picks to promote parity is noble enough. Invariably, someone is going to take advantage of the system, though, especially in a case like yours where the #1 pick selects first in each round.

 

One of the leagues I play in(that I am co-commish of) awards prize money for the highest total points for the season and also for the highest single week. Sounds a little silly, but it actually gives owners an incentive to put their best players in even if they are way out of the running for the playoffs as one big week can win them their entry fee back and salvage a lousy season(at least financially). Seems to be working as we havent had any problems with tanking or just general laziness on the part of any of our owners. Might be something to look into.

[LayLow]

This is actually a multi-part question... Something that hasn't gotten too far out of hand in a league that I commish, but I'm wondering what I can do about it before it potentially does. First, let's assume that this is a keeper league in which the worst team gets the #1 pick the following year. There is a potential for some teams to keep many players (there is no keeper limit), but every player is kept for a cost (both a pick and blind bidding dollar amount). Therefore, our draft is not serpentine... In other words, the owner with the #1 overall pick would also get the #1 pick in every subsequent round as well. So, there is a pretty big advantage for having the top draft slot, and that's the way it is intended, since there may be a fairly large gap between the best teams in the league, and the worst, given the keeper rules. Questions:

 

1. What do you consider to be tanking, in terms of roster submission? I realize that "tanking" is a fairly subjective term, which is why I am asking this question. Is it enough for an owner to just submit a complete lineup, and ensure that they don't have any bye-week players in their lineup? Or, should it be assumed that they must also not start any players who are out for the year (Owen Daniels), out for the week (Jermichael Finley), or who just simply aren't going to play much either way (Chad Simpson), assuming they have better options (John Carlson, Jason Witten, and Marshawn Lynch, respectively). My personal opinion is that it's not fair to the rest of the league, when certain owners intentionally submit a crappy lineup to improve their future draft position. On the other hand, like I said, it's fairly subjective, and I don't want to get into having to "interpret" what is an intentionally submitted poor lineup, versus one that was not submitted intentionally. Plus, who am I to decide who is going to score more points for another owner? So, ultimately, I would like to establish some sort of rule... black and white, with no gray area.

 

2. What rules have you seen used to ensure that owners have an "incentive" to submit the best lineup possible? We use blind bidding for this league, so I'm tossing around a couple of ideas. The first would be to create a rule where the low score for the week pays a "fine" of a couple of BB dollars. This is fantasy money, not real, but it does roll over from season to season, so there is an incentive to keep it. My fear is that such a rule would not necessarily penalize the right owners... luck determines who scores the least on most weeks. Plus, I'm not sure this would be much of a deterrant, anyway.

 

Another idea would be to determine future year's draft order in a tiered system, where the worst team doesn't necessarily get the top pick. Not sure how this would work, exactly, but it would be something where the highest point-scoring team of the non-playoff teams gets the #1 pick, or something to that effect. Not sure how that would work, exactly, and I can already see that it would not be a perfect system.

 

3. This is somewhat unrelated, as it doesn't affect this particular league, but where do you draw the line in dynasty leagues, where it literally may be impossible to submit a complete lineup each and every week? Example: In a 16-team dynast league where EVERY QB or kicker may be owned on any given week, what should an owner do on a week where both of their QB's or kickers are on a bye? Should said owner feel compelled to trade for another kicker, just for a bye-week solution, even if it is at an abnormally high cost? Or, in this instance, is it "OK" to start bye-week players, because you have no other choice?

 

Getting back to my league... Obviously, before I make any drastic changes, I would have the league vote on them. Just wondering what some of the other commissioners out there would do, or have done, to "maintain the integrity" of their leagues.

 

 

We go over this in our league. We have a keeper league and the draft order the next year is reverse standings from the previous. Everyone plays a lineup of players that are playing or mostlikely playing (if a guy is Q and it is gametime decision...then it's not your fault if he doesn't play). THere are fines for playing a lineup without players at open positions. Our main problem is near years end...the bad teams don't make pickups or even try to play matchups. Last year 2 guys told me "why make pickups when our season is over when it costs $2 per pickup? Im wasting money!"

[The Grey Pilgrim]

This solution may help stop teams from consciously playing to lose. We have a 14 team league. The top 8 make the playoffs (chance for $$). The top team that doesn't make the playoffs (the 9th best record) gets the first pick next year. 10th best record gets 2nd pick, and so on until the 14th team. So pick 1 thru 6 are the teams that didn't make the playoffs, with everybody wanting the higer picks, so it keeps owners from tanking.

 

I think it's a mistake to reward the last place team with the 1st pick in next years draft. Our league rewards those teams that do the best that do not make the playoffs.

[Shorttynaz]

We go over this in our league. We have a keeper league and the draft order the next year is reverse standings from the previous. Everyone plays a lineup of players that are playing or mostlikely playing (if a guy is Q and it is gametime decision...then it's not your fault if he doesn't play). THere are fines for playing a lineup without players at open positions. Our main problem is near years end...the bad teams don't make pickups or even try to play matchups. Last year 2 guys told me "why make pickups when our season is over when it costs $2 per pickup? Im wasting money!"

I used to be in a league that had $2 transactions. We also had to pay $10 for losing a game. This helped to keep everyone on top of their team and pull a "Herm Edwards" each week. "Hello! You play to win the game!"

 

We've since then upped the entry fee and done away with a fee per transactions and losses. If someone tanks their team, the commissioner will step in and set the "optimal lineup". That player will also not be invited back the following year.

[Henry Muto]

You play to win the game

[gilthorp]

Weekly incentives is the way to go.

[Gopher]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I'm liking the weekly incentive idea, as well as possibly making the draft order a "lottery" between the non-playoff teams. I think both of those things combined will make it far less likely that a team will tank their lineup submissions.

[cdrudge]

 

You play to win the game

But if you can't win the game (championship) or even compete to try to win the game, why not start early to try to win it next year...

[popmagnet]

This solution may help stop teams from consciously playing to lose. We have a 14 team league. The top 8 make the playoffs (chance for $$). The top team that doesn't make the playoffs (the 9th best record) gets the first pick next year. 10th best record gets 2nd pick, and so on until the 14th team. So pick 1 thru 6 are the teams that didn't make the playoffs, with everybody wanting the higer picks, so it keeps owners from tanking.

 

I think it's a mistake to reward the last place team with the 1st pick in next years draft. Our league rewards those teams that do the best that do not make the playoffs.

 

We do a similar thing, except we have a playoff for those that don't make the playoffs with the winning team getting the first pick, etc. People in our league work hard to win all year long. Of course, we have some really good guys that have played together for several years.