Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Strategy or douchebaggery?


Phazool
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

For you people that say it is wrong to tank - I would love to honestly know what would go through your mind if you were in the above situation and the payouts were large. I have a feeling your mind would be thinking a bit different than what you are saying now.

 

If it was for 1,000's of dollars and the situation was like above you are nuts to not think about doing it and probably nuts to not do it. It puts YOU in the best position to win.

 

The league I am in the 6th seed (last guy in) has the best team by far - he leads the league in total points but just got hosed with bad weeks on doubleheaders and almost every loss he lost to the guy that had the highest score for the week - we then have the 3rd seen who squeaked in with a 500 record and has Gore and Dez Bryant - almost no way he wins in playoffs - who do you want to play? If this was a big money situation you would be nuts to not try to play seed 3 and avoid seed 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1) comparing NFL to FF is like comparing a college professor to a kindergarten teacher kinda the same but not anything alike.

 

2) If he got himself into that position where he can decide to throw out a game so its more likely for him to win the WHOLE thing i believe it is a legitimate strategy. basically its screw the battle i'll win the war.

 

3) If someone gets screwed because of him throwing the game then tough cookies he shoulda fielded a better team and not put himself in that postion. instead of "Waaaa he won't play his best team so im out of the playoffs" why dont you try "i could care less i had a good team all season and i'm in the playoffs regardless of what this guy does"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For you people that say it is wrong to tank - I would love to honestly know what would go through your mind if you were in the above situation and the payouts were large. I have a feeling your mind would be thinking a bit different than what you are saying now.

 

If it was for 1,000's of dollars and the situation was like above you are nuts to not think about doing it and probably nuts to not do it. It puts YOU in the best position to win.

 

The league I am in the 6th seed (last guy in) has the best team by far - he leads the league in total points but just got hosed with bad weeks on doubleheaders and almost every loss he lost to the guy that had the highest score for the week - we then have the 3rd seen who squeaked in with a 500 record and has Gore and Dez Bryant - almost no way he wins in playoffs - who do you want to play? If this was a big money situation you would be nuts to not try to play seed 3 and avoid seed 6.

 

Yes, but you cannot take an example of the most-serious leagues, and apply that down to every casual league out there... I think a few things are getting lost in this debate:

 

1. No one is arguing that the owner shouldn't be allowed to tank this year, since it's not against the rules, or laid out that you are to submit your best possible lineup each week. He has the right to manage his team however he wants.... But...

 

2. The league also has the right to decide if they feel this is an accepted form of behavior for the future, and also if they want to be in a league with an owner who'd be so open and unapologetic about doing something that other leaguemates feel is wrong... That is their right as a league to decide if this is accepted behavior for them (though I don't think they can put a rule in to enforce it, other than saying that you are agreeing to play to win every week, and owners who engage in conduct detrimental to the league may be subject to not being invited back next year). It's really up to the league if they think it's a d-bag move, but I think it is.

 

3. The owner should have kept his mouth shut if he's going to choose a strategy that so blatantly stands to hurt a playoff contender's chances (in fact, I find it very ironic that that he thinks it's the stronger team that he's trying to block... Now wait? Isn't the goal of the playoffs to reward the most deserving teams, not the weakest ones that the best teams can squeeze in there?).

 

Regardless, you are just asking for issues by going on about how you're justifed to choose now to NOT continue to play the game to win like everyone else... The owner getting screwed is almost always going to feel differently, and I'm of the opinion that he's justified. If you want to knock me out of the playoffs to help you, then do it by beating me, not by finding a loophole in losing to someone else. IMO, it's cowardly, and it's also unnecessarily skewing the results to potentially reward a team that had no business being there otherwise (which to me is just as much of an issue here).

 

How can people can think that the wife in the other case would NOT have been justifed if it were proven that she were tanking on her husband's behalf, but it's just "strategy" for this guy to tank, since it only benefits him? Both scenarios are equally detrimental to the integrity of league, and the fact that he's kind of rubbing it in the owner's face as "strategy" would truly bother me.

 

 

But there's really not much more reason for debate: If you think it's his right, then you're correct... But if you think it's a d-bag move, you're also correct. Doesn't change anything this year, but it's up to the league if they think this behavior is something they want to tolerate from that owner and others in the future, or if they want to part ways from his behavior, or simply berate him for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but you cannot take an example of the most-serious leagues, and apply that down to every casual league out there... I think a few things are getting lost in this debate:

 

1. No one is arguing that the owner shouldn't be allowed to tank this year, since it's not against the rules, or laid out that you are to submit your best possible lineup each week. He has the right to manage his team however he wants.... But...

 

2. The league also has the right to decide if they feel this is an accepted form of behavior for the future, and also if they want to be in a league with an owner who'd be so open and unapologetic about doing something that other leaguemates feel is wrong... That is their right as a league to decide if this is accepted behavior for them (though I don't think they can put a rule in to enforce it, other than saying that you are agreeing to play to win every week, and owners who engage in conduct detrimental to the league may be subject to not being invited back next year). It's really up to the league if they think it's a d-bag move, but I think it is.

 

3. The owner should have kept his mouth shut if he's going to choose a strategy that so blatantly stands to hurt a playoff contender's chances (in fact, I find it very ironic that that he thinks it's the stronger team that he's trying to block... Now wait? Isn't the goal of the playoffs to reward the most deserving teams, not the weakest ones that the best teams can squeeze in there?).

 

Regardless, you are just asking for issues by going on about how you're justifed to choose now to NOT continue to play the game to win like everyone else... The owner getting screwed is almost always going to feel differently, and I'm of the opinion that he's justified. If you want to knock me out of the playoffs to help you, then do it by beating me, not by finding a loophole in losing to someone else. IMO, it's cowardly, and it's also unnecessarily skewing the results to potentially reward a team that had no business being there otherwise (which to me is just as much of an issue here).

 

How can people can think that the wife in the other case would NOT have been justifed if it were proven that she were tanking on her husband's behalf, but it's just "strategy" for this guy to tank, since it only benefits him? Both scenarios are equally detrimental to the integrity of league, and the fact that he's kind of rubbing it in the owner's face as "strategy" would truly bother me.

 

 

But there's really not much more reason for debate: If you think it's his right, then you're correct... But if you think it's a d-bag move, you're also correct. Doesn't change anything this year, but it's up to the league if they think this behavior is something they want to tolerate from that owner and others in the future, or if they want to part ways from his behavior, or simply berate him for it.

:wacko::tup::tup:

Very eloquently put

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. The league also has the right to decide if they feel this is an accepted form of behavior for the future, and also if they want to be in a league with an owner who'd be so open and unapologetic about doing something that other leaguemates feel is wrong... That is their right as a league to decide if this is accepted behavior for them (though I don't think they can put a rule in to enforce it, other than saying that you are agreeing to play to win every week, and owners who engage in conduct detrimental to the league may be subject to not being invited back next year). It's really up to the league if they think it's a d-bag move, but I think it is.

 

my god, lose the skirt.

 

How can people can think that the wife in the other case would NOT have been justifed if it were proven that she were tanking on her husband's behalf, but it's just "strategy" for this guy to tank, since it only benefits him? Both scenarios are equally detrimental to the integrity of league, and the fact that he's kind of rubbing it in the owner's face as "strategy" would truly bother me.

 

you could not be more wrong. a wife tanking only to help her husband, or any owner tanking specifically to benefit another owner is COLLUSION and cannot be tolerated. if i want to tank to better my own team's chances, that's just smart.

 

c'mon man ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my god, lose the skirt.

 

 

 

you could not be more wrong. a wife tanking only to help her husband, or any owner tanking specifically to benefit another owner is COLLUSION and cannot be tolerated. if i want to tank to better my own team's chances, that's just smart.

 

c'mon man ...

I'm sorry you didn't like my post. Just my opinion, but maybe this part will ring truer for you and your leaguemates.

 

But there's really not much more reason for debate: If you think it's his right, then you're correct... But if you think it's a d-bag move, you're also correct. Doesn't change anything this year, but it's up to the league if they think this behavior is something they want to tolerate from that owner and others in the future, or if they want to part ways from his behavior, or simply berate him for it.

 

If feeling like people have the right to decide for themselves if tanking of any form is not something they want to be a part of makes me a skirt, so be it; But I don't think it changes him being a gutless coward to be so concerned of going up against a marginal playoff contender, that he's going to throw a game to face a weaker opponent. Yes, you're right, that's much more respectable :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If feeling like people have the right to decide for themselves if tanking of any form is not something they want to be a part of makes me a skirt, so be it; But I don't think it changes him being a gutless coward to be so concerned of going up against a marginal playoff contender, that he's going to throw a game to face a weaker opponent. Yes, you're right, that's much more respectable :wacko:

 

wrong again. it's a smarter move to tank if you would end up facing a weaker team. due to the superior intelligence associated with this tactic, the person does indeed earn more of my respect. those that don't want to be a part of such an atrocity can quit the league and go file their nails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my god, lose the skirt.

 

 

 

you could not be more wrong. a wife tanking only to help her husband, or any owner tanking specifically to benefit another owner is COLLUSION and cannot be tolerated. if i want to tank to better my own team's chances, that's just smart.

 

c'mon man ...

So, the criteria is that there has to be something in it for the person helping the other team win? Really? You're running around dropping chight like absolute irrefutable fact based on that flimsy bit of logic? Well, maybe there's something in it for the wife? Maybe her husband promised her a new dining room set if he wins. So is she cool now? Or does the benefit that one person gets by willfully screwing over another person in the league have to be a competitive advantage? Because that's a pretty gray area. After all, if it was only bragging rights involved, I'm guessing you'd find less people who were on board with ducking a potential play-off foe for another. I mean, that's been most people's deal, "hey, all's fair when it comes to winning the money." Well, the wife wants her dining room set. All's fair, right?

 

And, in case I haven't made it clear enough already, I'm not implying that this action should be punishable or that there could be any rule made to prevent it. As I've said before, it is both strategic and d-baggery.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a marginal playoff contender, that he's going to throw a game to face a weaker opponent.

 

a marginal playoff contender? The example we are debating has the top seed potentially going up the best team in the league since mid-season, versus going up against an also-ran that's hanging on for dear life. Pretty much a no-brainer decision on who you would want to face, and if the rules allow you to determine your fate, you do it, IMO.

 

And that's really the crux of the whole argument: what the rules state. Most leagues require you submit a "legal valid lineup". I don't know how a rule can be stated any other way without opening up a can of worms that would never be closed. And by that, I mean that if teams were required to "submit their most competitive line-up/their best players", there would be a ton of Monday-morning quarterbacking if that "best team" didn't perform. I think you'd end up with more issues than any league could ever handle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a marginal playoff contender? The example we are debating has the top seed potentially going up the best team in the league since mid-season, versus going up against an also-ran that's hanging on for dear life. Pretty much a no-brainer decision on who you would want to face, and if the rules allow you to determine your fate, you do it, IMO.

 

And that's really the crux of the whole argument: what the rules state. Most leagues require you submit a "legal valid lineup". I don't know how a rule can be stated any other way without opening up a can of worms that would never be closed. And by that, I mean that if teams were required to "submit their most competitive line-up/their best players", there would be a ton of Monday-morning quarterbacking if that "best team" didn't perform. I think you'd end up with more issues than any league could ever handle.

 

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the situation, but what I take issue with is this "but if it were me getting screwed out of at least the 4th place prize I'd be pretty pissed."... I don't know if that means he could miss the playoffs, but that's the way I took it... Perhaps I made untrue assumptions about the tanker, but as for how it benefits him, it makes no difference to me....

 

Again, nobody said that you should put in a rule to prevent it (nor do I think it's possible either), just that if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were having your prize money or playoff spot stripped because some d-bag decided in the last week that it's no longer in his best interest to play the game with good sportsmanship, then yes, I'd be pissed... But again, that's just my opinion. Contrary to what tonorator says, no one is "wrong" about this.

 

I'm not even saying the league should kick him out, but they're within their right to conduct their league with whatever code of sportsmanship they please... And if the league as a whole doesn't agree with my stance, I'm also free to leave the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the situation, but what I take issue with is this "but if it were me getting screwed out of at least the 4th place prize I'd be pretty pissed."... I don't know if that means he could miss the playoffs, but that's the way I took it... Perhaps I made untrue assumptions about the tanker, but as for how it benefits him, it makes no difference to me....

 

Again, nobody said that you should put in a rule to prevent it (nor do I think it's possible either), just that if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were having your prize money or playoff spot stripped because some d-bag decided in the last week that it's no longer in his best interest to play the game with good sportsmanship, then yes, I'd be pissed... But again, that's just my opinion. Contrary to what tonorator says, no one is "wrong" about this.

 

I'm not even saying the league should kick him out, but they're within their right to conduct their league with whatever code of sportsmanship they please... And if the league as a whole doesn't agree with my stance, I'm also free to leave the league.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a guy start both DeShean Foster and Michael Vick the year they were on IR. They were in active lineup to get the earliest pick. Another team tanked all year long to get a lower seed and then started his studs...LT Owens Holt LJ.

 

No one said a thing in defense of strategy...and that they worked with the guys and didn't want to offend them. I bitched enoughh two teams quit..good riddance.

 

BRING BACK THE GOOD 'ol days when they hanged cheaters!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disgree - other teams are depending on him to field his best line up and play out their games. We had this happen last year and the guy who did it did lose in the first round to the team he let in, but the team on the outs was screwed, The rukes cant stop it, but hes being a dck and screwing the other teams over

 

His concern is to try to win a championship. He has no obligation to the other owners if that's his goal and ity clearly is. I see nothing wrong with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the real world recently Real Madrid was fined 150 000 dollars when the coach told two of his star players to intentionally get yellow cards at the end of the game. This would ensure that their tally of yellow cards was cleared for the next round of the champion's league cup as they would be red carded for the following game which was meaningless. Their yellow card tally was not cleared

In Formula 1 racing, the last race of the year wherein 4 drivers were still eligible to win the cup two of the drivers were from the same team, they were told by Brazilian authorities that if one driver helped the other by letting him pass him he could be jailed for up to 6 years for fraud.

 

So even when millions of dollars are involved in real life, gaming the system and lack of integrity is still frowned upon

 

BTW when coaches bench all their star players at the end of the season to rest them for the playoffs, you can bet your bottom dollar that all the scrubs on the field are playing as hard as they possibly can. the FF owner is not playing as hard as he can....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the real world recently Real Madrid was fined 150 000 dollars when the coach told two of his star players to intentionally get yellow cards at the end of the game. This would ensure that their tally of yellow cards was cleared for the next round of the champion's league cup as they would be red carded for the following game which was meaningless. Their yellow card tally was not cleared

In Formula 1 racing, the last race of the year wherein 4 drivers were still eligible to win the cup two of the drivers were from the same team, they were told by Brazilian authorities that if one driver helped the other by letting him pass him he could be jailed for up to 6 years for fraud.

 

So even when millions of dollars are involved in real life, gaming the system and lack of integrity is still frowned upon

 

BTW when coaches bench all their star players at the end of the season to rest them for the playoffs, you can bet your bottom dollar that all the scrubs on the field are playing as hard as they possibly can. the FF owner is not playing as hard as he can....

Not sure I agree with your analogies. I see nothing wrong with the soccer thing (except for the fact that it is soccer). If that is the rule then play by the rule - sounds like a real stupid rule and should then be changed - I would have an issue if they intentionally hurt someone to get a yellow card but I am guessing the guy dove anyway. :wacko:

 

For the Formula 1 - then they really are not a team - how would they ever really prove if someone LET someone pass them?

 

This is doing something within the rules that helps yourself - nobody else is doing something to help another team and there is nothing in the rules to stop it.

 

I do think the dynamic of the league has something to do with it though - the league I play in is a bunch of good friends who would all understand this move and would not whine about. If one person whined the other 11 would tell him to pick a better team next year and shut his piehole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

+1

 

We do this in my home money league.

 

Haven't had an issue. Then again, they guys are cool and may never have had an issue in this area w/out the rule. Also helps reward teams putting up good points that don't have Total Points high up on the standings tiebreakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the criteria is that there has to be something in it for the person helping the other team win? Really? You're running around dropping chight like absolute irrefutable fact based on that flimsy bit of logic? Well, maybe there's something in it for the wife? Maybe her husband promised her a new dining room set if he wins. So is she cool now? Or does the benefit that one person gets by willfully screwing over another person in the league have to be a competitive advantage? Because that's a pretty gray area. After all, if it was only bragging rights involved, I'm guessing you'd find less people who were on board with ducking a potential play-off foe for another. I mean, that's been most people's deal, "hey, all's fair when it comes to winning the money." Well, the wife wants her dining room set. All's fair, right?

 

And, in case I haven't made it clear enough already, I'm not implying that this action should be punishable or that there could be any rule made to prevent it. As I've said before, it is both strategic and d-baggery.

 

you don't understand collusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, nobody said that you should put in a rule to prevent it (nor do I think it's possible either), just that if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were having your prize money or playoff spot stripped because some d-bag decided in the last week that it's no longer in his best interest to play the game with good sportsmanship, then yes, I'd be pissed... But again, that's just my opinion. Contrary to what tonorator says, no one is "wrong" about this.

 

I too would be pissed....pissed that my team wasn't in a better spot to avoid being on the outside looking in. I totally get where you are coming from...I just don't think its "unethical" to do it if the rules allow it, and its a strategy that is likely going to help you win. If the top seed was just doing it for no other reason than the keep a certain team out of the playoffs because he doesn't like the owner/whatever, then I'd agree 100% is a dbag move. But this guy is doing what he feels is just another strategy of many employed throughout the year to win a championship, all of which are within the rules. For that, I can't fault him one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW when coaches bench all their star players at the end of the season to rest them for the playoffs, you can bet your bottom dollar that all the scrubs on the field are playing as hard as they possibly can. the FF owner is not playing as hard as he can....

 

Not a good analogy.

 

The proper one would be: is the NFL coach that is benching his star players doing everything possible to win the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too would be pissed....pissed that my team wasn't in a better spot to avoid being on the outside looking in. I totally get where you are coming from...I just don't think its "unethical" to do it if the rules allow it, and its a strategy that is likely going to help you win. If the top seed was just doing it for no other reason than the keep a certain team out of the playoffs because he doesn't like the owner/whatever, then I'd agree 100% is a dbag move. But this guy is doing what he feels is just another strategy of many employed throughout the year to win a championship, all of which are within the rules. For that, I can't fault him one bit.

 

u r so right. i :heart: u.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too would be pissed....pissed that my team wasn't in a better spot to avoid being on the outside looking in. I totally get where you are coming from...I just don't think its "unethical" to do it if the rules allow it, and its a strategy that is likely going to help you win. If the top seed was just doing it for no other reason than the keep a certain team out of the playoffs because he doesn't like the owner/whatever, then I'd agree 100% is a dbag move. But this guy is doing what he feels is just another strategy of many employed throughout the year to win a championship, all of which are within the rules. For that, I can't fault him one bit.

 

Cool dude. More power to ya if that's how you do it in your leagues. In the leagues I play in, I assume that my fellow league-mates have enough respect for one another not to resort to easy wins at the expense of others. That's your choice how you choose to play the game, but I don't play in leagues where I have to wonder if my competition is going to ruin my chances just to slightly better their own, when they've already locked up their playoff spot. I don't think it's in the spirit of the game and it's bad sportsmanship...

 

That said, please don't hide behind, "because it's in the rules", because as we've all said, it's not possible to put in the rules. That doesn't make it right... It's because of attitudes like this why we need to have laws, when people are willing to take any shady loophole as long as it's "allowed". Regardless of your intentions, it shows a blatant disregard and disrespect to your competitors that you would try to throw a game to give yourself a slight advantage in a spot you've locked up, while they're fighting for their playoff life.... But that's your choice. Like you said, if there isn't a rule against it, it must be fine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool dude. More power to ya if that's how you do it in your leagues. In the leagues I play in, I assume that my fellow league-mates have enough respect for one another not to resort to easy wins at the expense of others. That's your choice how you choose to play the game, but I don't play in leagues where I have to wonder if my competition is going to ruin my chances just to slightly better their own, when they've already locked up their playoff spot. I don't think it's in the spirit of the game and it's bad sportsmanship...

 

That said, please don't hide behind, "because it's in the rules", because as we've all said, it's not possible to put in the rules. That doesn't make it right... It's because of attitudes like this why we need to have laws, when people are willing to take any shady loophole as long as it's "allowed". Regardless of your intentions, it shows a blatant disregard and disrespect to your competitors that you would try to throw a game to give yourself a slight advantage in a spot you've locked up, while they're fighting for their playoff life.... But that's your choice. Like you said, if there isn't a rule against it, it must be fine...

 

Thats cool, bro. I play in leagues with big boys who would do the exact same to me if given the chance to improve their chances at winning. We take it seriously and competitively, and anyone not playing to win would be ridiculed more than someone who doesn't pay enough attention to know better.

 

As I said earlier, there's enough pussification in the world of sports (no touching the QBs, everyone getting trophies at a young age so no feelings are hurt, etc.) to not have it bleed into a hobby I and my leaguemates have come to enjoy immensely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wrong again. it's a smarter move to tank if you would end up facing a weaker team. due to the superior intelligence associated with this tactic, the person does indeed earn more of my respect. those that don't want to be a part of such an atrocity can quit the league and go file their nails.

 

 

Respect for laying down?? Wow glad your not on my team...,guess iit may not be totally related but i think a lot of us play fantasy football as sort of a vicarious way to stay in touch with the sport.. too old to play on the field but i can still coach / manage a team .

 

Well i cant imagine any athelete taking an "order" from his coach which told him to "lose" on purpose or to "try" to lose by starting less skilled players"

 

I guess i could envision the "Big Money Scenerio" where all ethics and traditions go out the window, but thats a scerinio that i dont think most of us Huddlers are playing in... So i guess it depends which type of a league you are playing in.. If the " Big Money One," then read not further if not and.................... .

 

 

If your are an athelete and you "lay down" and tank a game / match " cause its going to be a "better match up " then in my personal opinion u r a Puss$.

No legiit athlete would do that and and no fantasy owner should.... unless of course they wear a have a "skirt :wacko:

 

 

so heres your hypothetical converstion...

 

tonorat

"hey Patti, I just noticed you are benching Tom Brady and playig Jason Campbell this weekend", Some of us think it looks a little funny cause you are playing your husband and if he wins he is in the playoffs and since you are eliminated, wenll it sort of has the "apearence of improprititety"., like you are trying to give him an advantage.. And since i have the last chance at the playoffs, and my oponent is your husband, could your explain your strategy to me??

thanks

 

Patti,

"hey Toronator",

yes

This FF is difficult to size up,,,, Acutally since i am 4-8 and out of the playoffs i am tanking my team this week to get the highest possible draft choice ,

i cant believe that e othe team's iin the league are still trying to win , hahahaha..!! (Fools) , like its still iimortant, instead of losing on purpose to lose and ensue their highest possible draft choices.... what fools.... !!!

 

Toronator,

"yes this is the way things should be played"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So here is the hypothetical conversation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but you cannot take an example of the most-serious leagues, and apply that down to every casual league out there... I think a few things are getting lost in this debate:

 

1. No one is arguing that the owner shouldn't be allowed to tank this year, since it's not against the rules, or laid out that you are to submit your best possible lineup each week. He has the right to manage his team however he wants.... But...

 

2. The league also has the right to decide if they feel this is an accepted form of behavior for the future, and also if they want to be in a league with an owner who'd be so open and unapologetic about doing something that other leaguemates feel is wrong... That is their right as a league to decide if this is accepted behavior for them (though I don't think they can put a rule in to enforce it, other than saying that you are agreeing to play to win every week, and owners who engage in conduct detrimental to the league may be subject to not being invited back next year). It's really up to the league if they think it's a d-bag move, but I think it is.

 

3. The owner should have kept his mouth shut if he's going to choose a strategy that so blatantly stands to hurt a playoff contender's chances (in fact, I find it very ironic that that he thinks it's the stronger team that he's trying to block... Now wait? Isn't the goal of the playoffs to reward the most deserving teams, not the weakest ones that the best teams can squeeze in there?).

 

Regardless, you are just asking for issues by going on about how you're justifed to choose now to NOT continue to play the game to win like everyone else... The owner getting screwed is almost always going to feel differently, and I'm of the opinion that he's justified. If you want to knock me out of the playoffs to help you, then do it by beating me, not by finding a loophole in losing to someone else. IMO, it's cowardly, and it's also unnecessarily skewing the results to potentially reward a team that had no business being there otherwise (which to me is just as much of an issue here).

 

How can people can think that the wife in the other case would NOT have been justifed if it were proven that she were tanking on her husband's behalf, but it's just "strategy" for this guy to tank, since it only benefits him? Both scenarios are equally detrimental to the integrity of league, and the fact that he's kind of rubbing it in the owner's face as "strategy" would truly bother me.

 

 

But there's really not much more reason for debate: If you think it's his right, then you're correct... But if you think it's a d-bag move, you're also correct. Doesn't change anything this year, but it's up to the league if they think this behavior is something they want to tolerate from that owner and others in the future, or if they want to part ways from his behavior, or simply berate him for it.

 

 

Wow, thanks for all the replies. What an interesting read. Lots of great insight but this post hits the nail on the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information