Strategy or douchebaggery?

[detlef]

Isn't the NFL team holding out its best QB/RB intentionally not fielding its best team? Of course they aren't. Its even been discussed in the NFL offices how to fix this so fans who have tickets can see a meaningful game. It happens, and its a strategy that most teams employ if they are in a position to do so.

 

Is it different than fantasy football? Of course. But the underlying objective is the same: to put yourself in the best possible position to win.

 

ETA: I guess I should add that I don't particularly like the idea, but that is besides the point. There's a lit of things I don't necessarily like, but live with because its part of life/sports/whatever. This is one of them. The top team has earned the right to field whatever lineup he wants. He is taking the chance that he may make his bed, then have to lie in it. Karma has a way of catching up with teams that overthink. it's happened to pro teams that rest their starters, then they come out flat in the playoffs. I don't like that pro teams sometimes rest their guys, affecting who makes the playoffs and who doesn't. But it happens late in the season. And its happening to the OP. Grin and bear it.

There is a difference. See, Jerry Jones could give two poops if he denies the Giants a play-off spot because he rested his players against the Bears and, as a result, the Bears squeezed past NY for the final spot. And he shouldn't care, the NFL is cut throat as all hell and that's what makes it great.

 

But if you're in a league amongst friends, you are intentionally trying to screw one of them over by giving someone else an easier path. There is little honor in that. Again, I don't see how you legislate this out of the game, but I certainly don't agree with you that it's no different than what pro teams do.

[Hugh 0ne]

not that this is any constilation but I thnk things have a way of working out. Don't get yourself all bent out of shape. it will come back to him.

 

Football and constellations, here ya go.

[i_am_the_swammi]

So minimizing the risk of injury and making sure the team is at its strongest in the playoffs is the same in FF as it is in the NFL? There's no way to make a comparable argument out of the two situations. It's difficult to believe that anyone would actually try to do so.

 

Cmon bro...I think (or thought) you were smart enough to see that while each method is different, the overall objective is absolutely parallel: to put yourself in the best position to win.

 

There is a difference. See, Jerry Jones could give two poops if he denies the Giants a play-off spot because he rested his players against the Bears and, as a result, the Bears squeezed past NY for the final spot. And he shouldn't care, the NFL is cut throat as all hell and that's what makes it great.

 

But if you're in a league amongst friends, you are intentionally trying to screw one of them over by giving someone else an easier path. There is little honor in that. Again, I don't see how you legislate this out of the game, but I certainly don't agree with you that it's no different than what pro teams do.

 

Well, of course the method is different, but the concept is the same: put yourself in the best position to win. And the casualties along the way are the same, as you aptly point out. In your example, the Giants would get screwed because the Cowboys failed to field their best possible team. In the OP's example, he gets screwed because the #1 team is not fielding its best team. The fallout from both strategies is almost exactly the same, actually.

 

So in essence, does your argument come down to your perception that the NFL is cut-throat, while competitive fantasy football shouldn't be? If so, then that is fine. I have some leagues where I play against friends. In another, I play against guys I never met. Should my "ethics" be different in one versus the other since one is with friends, the other isn't? I'm not saying they should or shouldn't...I'm just asking what you think.

 

Moreover, I think its a slippery slope to require that teams "always field their best lineup possible". That's open to interpretation. Suppose, in the OP's example, that the best team tried to field (in his opinion) the best team possible...but left a ton of points on his bench. Does the OP have a case to argue that he didn't field his best team...that he should have started so-and-so? I think that leaves the door open for a ton more controversy than the simple rule that "each owner is responsible for fielding a valid lineup".

[rattsass]

It is hard to legislate morality. People will do what they do. It is beyond my moral boundary to pull something like this in a "friendly" league, but I can't sit here and say that I wouldn't do something like this in a "big money" public league.If I had the chance to further myself in a WCFF league, I would strongly consider any tactical move no matter how much it went against the grain, while in my dynasty league (where I have to interact with the same 11 guys year after year) I would not pull such a stunt.

 

But the bottom line is you can't set another team's lineup. As long as there are legitimate players starting (not injured or on a bye) there is little that can be done about it, except cleansing your league of owners you deem unacceptable, or excusing yourself from the league next year.

 

It just isn't worth getting worked up over though. How many of us leave points on our bench when we AREN'T trying to? Underhanded schemes are just as prone to error as any other scenario. The fact that this guy openly bragged about his scheme makes it particularly distateful, but chances are karma will settle the score for you. Call him a monster truck aficionado under your breath and take a deep breath and move on.

[Bronco Billy]

Cmon bro...I think (or thought) you were smart enough to see that while each method is different, the overall objective is absolutely parallel: to put yourself in the best position to win.

 

bro - and I thought you'd be smart enough to recognize why one is ethical while the other isn't. The NFL team is minimizing risk of injury. The FF owner is manipulating playoff positions. It's like saying that a thief and a working man are on equal levels because they're both just trying to bring in revenue.

[Curt Dallas]

There is no rule against this, but if it were me getting screwed out of at least the 4th place prize I'd be pretty pissed. How do I prevent this? Am I wrong about this? Can you even have a rule against this? It isn't impossible that his plan can backfire and he wins anyway.

 

There is nothing you can do this year. I'm assuming that your league is in the typical NCAA bracket type where the seeds don't change from round to round like they do in the NFL. If you wanted to try to prevent this from happening next year, you could change your league rules so that after the wild card round, the #1 seed plays the team with the worst record. This type of playoff bracket would make it so that #1 seeded guy wouldn't have to tank in order to play the worst team. If you can talk your leaguemates into this type of playoff bracket, it could solve your problem.

[lkirc]

I feel this is a gray area and, in the end, how an owner delas with it is dependent on why they play FF.

 

I will say this; If you are going to do something like this, keep your mouth shut about it. There is nothing to be gained by telling everyone about what you are doing. It just creates drama.

[i_am_the_swammi]

bro - and I thought you'd be smart enough to recognize why one is ethical while the other isn't. The NFL team is minimizing risk of injury. The FF owner is manipulating playoff positions. It's like saying that a thief and a working man are on equal levels because they're both just trying to bring in revenue.

 

I understand completely that the NFL team is trying to minimize injury. But in doing so, they are potentially screwing another NFL team.

 

So what your saying is its OK for them to screw another team because it benefits them? How on earth is that ethical by your interpretation?

Edited December 8, 2010 by i_am_the_swammi

[Bronco Billy]

I understand completely that the NFL team is trying to minimize injury. But in doing so, they are potentially screwing another NFL team.

 

So what your saying is its OK for them to screw another team because it benefits them? How on earth is that ethical by your interpretation?

 

I guess risk doesn't enter the equation for you in any way, so we aren't going to be bale to find a way to agree on this. The FF owner takes no risk with his lineup. The NFL team takes a very real risk in losing players it plays when it doesn't need to. The risk of losing a star player for a playoff run in a meaningless game before certainly changes the equation. That you'd argue it doesn't matter means we won't resolve this.

[Furd]

Comparing the NFL to FF is dumb in just about every respect.

 

If you really want to do that in this particular instance, I think that the big difference is that the NFL team wants to win and the players on the field are presumably trying to win whilst the FF owner wants to and is trying to lose.

 

And tanking is douchebaggery no matter how you try to rationalize it.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Furd

[delusions of grandeur]

Comparing the NFL to FF is dumb in just about every respect.

 

If you really want to do that in this particular instance, I think that the big difference is that the NFL team wants to win and the players on the field are presumably trying to win whilst the FF owner wants to and is trying to lose.

 

And tanking is douchebaggery no matter how you try to rationalize it.

Yes, that's pretty much the short-hand of what I'm about to say:

 

Wow, I'm truly amazed at the difference in tone between the woman who sat CJ for what at least appeared to be a legitimate reason to try to win, and people defending the guy who has straight up told others he's actively trying to lose to keep someone out of the playoffs... You really think that's good honest strategy?

 

It's straight-up worry wart-baggery. While teams in the NFL can have a multitude of strategies to win, there is only one premise to how you're supposed to win in this individual-performance game: score as many points as possible to try to win by fielding the best lineup in your eyes.. For that reason, they are inherently different games, and should be treated as such.. It shouldn't have to be a spoken rule that you should field your best lineup, though maybe that should be stated beforehand that it's the expected behavior.

 

As for whether you can come of with an actual "tanking" rule for next year, that's a different story as I've found out this year, it can be a very difficult rule to enforce (especially during bye weeks), and will likely only cause people to hide their "strategy"... Seems the best thing to do is berate him mercilessly about playing the game with integrity, and I'd seriously consider not inviting him back, if preventing that type of behavior is more important to your league than his inclusion... Otherwise, you're probably just best to let it go, and let karma do the rest.

 

But I'm with you. Throwing games is not good strategy. In fact, when money's on the line, it just makes you look like Pete Rose.

[CurlyDumps]

If a playoff spot is on the line, tanking like that is a b--ch move. There is something to be said about competition, integrity, and the spirit of the game/your league. Yeah, I am competitive as hell, I want to win at all costs, but It's not just about me me me. It's about the league, too. Ruining someone else's season for your own marginal personal gain is incredibly selfish and weak.

 

If the guy wants to lose, fine. Play your guys and root for them to lose.

 

 

EDIT: I should add that I only play with guys I know. Never played with complete strangers before.

Edited December 8, 2010 by CurlyDumps

[i_am_the_swammi]

The FF owner takes no risk with his lineup.

 

And this is where we differ on our opinion, I think. The risk he takes is that in allowing himself to play a certain team, versus forcing the issue and playing the team he wants to face.

 

Suppose he has these two option:

 

1. Field his strongest team, and likely face Team A in the Playoffs, who happens to have Vick, Foster, & Moreno with relatively easy matchups, and started the year 0-4 but has come one since Vick has exploded, and Moreno returned from his injury.

 

2. Field his lesser but still-legal team, and face team B in the playoffs, who has Orton, Gore, Collie & Harvin, and has struggled mightily with injuries after starting the season on fire.

 

You really think ethics takes hold, and he should create a scenario where he HAS to play Team A?

 

Would it matter if it was WCFF, and there were thousands of dollars at stake, and he didn't even know the owners of the other teams involved? Just trying to get a handle of where you draw the line, if at all.

 

ETA: In my main big-money league, we have weekly payouts (no huge, but decent $50), as well as a substantial total-points payout, so it creates a penalty of sorts for an owner that wants/needs to "tank". You want the advantage of deciding your playoff opponent at the expense of another team? Then your total points takes a hit, and you very likely also miss-out on the weekly ching. For an owner that's earned a bye, he likely also is in the total-points hunt, and fielding a lower-scoring lineup is a pretty decent penalty.

Edited December 8, 2010 by i_am_the_swammi

[detlef]

Cmon bro...I think (or thought) you were smart enough to see that while each method is different, the overall objective is absolutely parallel: to put yourself in the best position to win.

 

 

 

Well, of course the method is different, but the concept is the same: put yourself in the best position to win. And the casualties along the way are the same, as you aptly point out. In your example, the Giants would get screwed because the Cowboys failed to field their best possible team. In the OP's example, he gets screwed because the #1 team is not fielding its best team. The fallout from both strategies is almost exactly the same, actually.

 

So in essence, does your argument come down to your perception that the NFL is cut-throat, while competitive fantasy football shouldn't be? If so, then that is fine. I have some leagues where I play against friends. In another, I play against guys I never met. Should my "ethics" be different in one versus the other since one is with friends, the other isn't? I'm not saying they should or shouldn't...I'm just asking what you think.

 

Moreover, I think its a slippery slope to require that teams "always field their best lineup possible". That's open to interpretation. Suppose, in the OP's example, that the best team tried to field (in his opinion) the best team possible...but left a ton of points on his bench. Does the OP have a case to argue that he didn't field his best team...that he should have started so-and-so? I think that leaves the door open for a ton more controversy than the simple rule that "each owner is responsible for fielding a valid lineup".

Again, I'm not saying that there should be a rule against it because it would be impossible to enforce. I've certainly learned to side with the "let each player manage their own team". But, regardless of whether you're playing with friends or complete strangers, some perspective is in order. And there's a massive difference between a big business like the NFL and something that should be a hobby with a little scratch at stake.

 

I don't know, maybe if you're in one of Henry Muto's 20 leagues with $1000 buy-ins, anything goes. But even if you're playing in a 12 team league with a $100 buy in, so there's a nice paycheck at the end, you're still not in it for the money. Because there's way more effective ways to earn $1000 than to dick around for 4 months managing a FF team.

 

Back to real sports. Say you like to play basketball and head down to some court where they're playing pick-up games. A bunch of guys you never met and you end up running 3 on 3. You're shooting lights out and getting to basket with some success. Some dude fouls you really freaking hard, right into the basket support, "to send you a message". I mean, that's what the pros do, right? And in the pros, guys roll with it because that's part of the rules. Well, in your case, that's pretty effing bush because nobody's getting paid. There are not millions of dollars on the line. Just some d-bag's pride. That's a whole different issue, because you're just looking to have some fun playing hoops.

[delusions of grandeur]

And this is where we differ on our opinion, I think. The risk he takes is that in allowing himself to play a certain team, versus forcing the issue and playing the team he wants to face.

 

Suppose he has these two option:

You really think ethics takes hold, and he should create a scenario where he HAS to play Team A?

 

No, this is a game of performance, not a game of creating scenarios. Scenarios are supposed to create themselves naturally...

 

Now if you want to play a game where I wager that I'll be playing team A in the playoffs, and you'll be trying to play team B, then you have legitimate strategy.

 

Your view assumes that you should do whatever gives you the greatest advantage, with no regard for how it effects the rest of your league by you not doing what everyone else is in fielding their best lineup. I'm sorry, but that's selfish and wrong, and is the exact reason you should play the game with integrity: Your actions have an unnecessary negative effect on others.

[Azazello1313]

I think it's pretty screwed up since it affects another team in the playoff hunt. if it were just to affect playoff seedings I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

[Bronco Billy]

And this is where we differ on our opinion, I think. The risk he takes is that in allowing himself to play a certain team, versus forcing the issue and playing the team he wants to face.

 

Suppose he has these two option:

 

1. Field his strongest team, and likely face Team A in the Playoffs, who happens to have Vick, Foster, & Moreno with relatively easy matchups, and started the year 0-4 but has come one since Vick has exploded, and Moreno returned from his injury.

 

2. Field his lesser but still-legal team, and face team B in the playoffs, who has Orton, Gore, Collie & Harvin, and has struggled mightily with injuries after starting the season on fire.

 

You really think ethics takes hold, and he should create a scenario where he HAS to play Team A?

 

Would it matter if it was WCFF, and there were thousands of dollars at stake, and he didn't even know the owners of the other teams involved? Just trying to get a handle of where you draw the line, if at all.

 

ETA: In my main big-money league, we have weekly payouts (no huge, but decent $50), as well as a substantial total-points payout, so it creates a penalty of sorts for an owner that wants/needs to "tank". You want the advantage of deciding your playoff opponent at the expense of another team? Then your total points takes a hit, and you very likely also miss-out on the weekly ching. For an owner that's earned a bye, he likely also is in the total-points hunt, and fielding a lower-scoring lineup is a pretty decent penalty.

 

 

Holy crap.

 

Pretend I never replied. This is going nowhere fast.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Holy crap.

 

Pretend I never replied. This is going nowhere fast.

 

I was actually enjoying hearing yours and Dets points of view

[The Next Generation]

Strategic douchebaggery!

[Savage Beatings]

You could maybe suggest a rule change that somehow gives incentive for each owner to field as strong a team as possible each week (weekly high score prize, etc.). Does nothing for this year, but might help to prevent it in the future. I'd tend to go with a positive incentive for good behavior rather than a negative consequence for bad behavior.

[tonorator]

as long as everyone in my league is focused on winning the title, i don't care how they manage their team or if they want to outwardly tank a week. as stated by the wise swammi, the owner put himself (or her) in a very strong position and can now reap the benefits. if i don't make the playoffs because another guy tanks, i'm more mad at myself for not being the owner who was in the postion to do that vs. feeling screwed. i want all owners doing everything they can to win it all ... that's what makes it fun and strategic to me.

[kcmast]

No, this is a game of performance, not a game of creating scenarios. Scenarios are supposed to create themselves naturally...

 

Now if you want to play a game where I wager that I'll be playing team A in the playoffs, and you'll be trying to play team B, then you have legitimate strategy.

 

Your view assumes that you should do whatever gives you the greatest advantage, with no regard for how it effects the rest of your league by you not doing what everyone else is in fielding their best lineup. I'm sorry, but that's selfish and wrong, and is the exact reason you should play the game with integrity: Your actions have an unnecessary negative effect on others.

"Scenarios are supposed to create themselves naturally?" I don't live my life waiting for stuff to happen. Have to go out and make it happen.

 

That being said, in FF I try to win every week.

[delusions of grandeur]

"Scenarios are supposed to create themselves naturally?" I don't live my life waiting for stuff to happen. Have to go out and make it happen.

 

That being said, in FF I try to win every week.

 

Haha, I love "that being said"... It's like saying, I take issue with the point you make, but I agree with your viewpoint...

 

Would it be better if I said "Scenarios are supposed to play out naturally, and not be influenced by the tanking of one d-bag". I'm not implying that you should just do nothing and just hope to win, and in fact quite the opposite.

 

How bout if I just leave it at, you're a d-bag for tanking and costing someone else a playoff spot, just so you can maybe have an "easier" road to the championship. That's not "going out and making it happen". That's staying in, and screwing someone else over to get what you want.

Edited December 8, 2010 by delusions of granduer

[skylive5]

Screwing the other guy for your benefit. The American Way.

[Chargerz]

Strategic douchebaggery!

Rock band? Fantasy football team name?