theeohiostate Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 the GOAL is to put your team in the best position to WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP those taking this moral BS can sit on one...... NFL teams give up to get the #1 pick , and if that's okay for your homer teams to do so , then giving your fantasy team the best shot to win the title is a easy YES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Its been well documented in both the NHL and NBA. Its precisely why a draft lottery needed to be created. Off the top of my head in the NFL, the 49ers tanked their last game in 88 to keep the Giants out of the playoffs. The Colts were accused of tanking a game several years ago so they could draw the Broncos in the playoffs (can't remember exactly what year). There were also examples back in the 80s and 90s of teams allegedly tanking games to finish 5th in their division and get a cake schedule the next year -- changes to the schedule system changed this. Also in the NFL, while not as directly applicable, I can certainly think of examples of teams resting players in Week 17 and having their subsequent loss directly affect playoff qualifiers. I haven't even bothered to google yet. I'm sure there are lots of others in pro sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 quick search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_fixing#...playoff_chances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) NFL teams give up to get the #1 pick , and if that's okay for your homer teams to do so , then giving your fantasy team the best shot to win the title is a easy YES What you are talking about is like rebuilding teams selling away their studs in a dynasty league. Perfectly legitimate way to mail it in.... But if the Colts start playing their bench-fodder and bench Reggie Wayne and Garcon to tank games, then the fans and league are going to feel a lot differently about how you play the game. I look at it as if the people in your league that you affect are similarly slighted as that fanbase you have to answer to. If you want a good analogy, then just like it's wrong to make people pay good money to not put out your optimal lineup in an NFL game (other than to prevent injury in a playoff situation) you owe it to your leaguemates just the same to not pull some BS in a game that they've put forth effort and paid money to play. quick search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_fixing#...playoff_chances Well, it's a good thing that I brought up the point that FF doesn't strictly correlate to the NFL, and again, I'm sure that the fans who paid good money to go see those games would not be happy to know that's the case, just the same as your leaguemates would be completely pissed to be slighted in a game they've paid money to play... Or hell, I don't care if the fans liked it or not, it's not the right way to play the game, which is to score the most points and beat your friends in a fictional game of stat-tracking. I don't know why people thinks that qualifies them to do whatever shifty thing the rules don't explicitly forbid. Edited November 29, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 2) We are actually more concerned with Tanking at the bottom end of the league in our Dynasty league so we are implementing a system that non playoff teams draft order will be determined by Potential Points which clearly shows who are the weakest teams. That is a REALLY interesting idea... one which I might float past the owners of one of my leagues next year when discussing rule changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Well, it's a good thing that I brought up the point that FF doesn't strictly correlate to the NFL, and again, I'm sure that the fans who paid good money to go see those games would not be happy to know that's the case, just the same as your leaguemates would be completely pissed to be slighted in a game they've paid money to play... Or hell, I don't care if the fans liked it or not, it's not the right way to play the game, which is to score the most points and beat your friends in a fictional game of stat-tracking. I don't know why people thinks that qualifies them to do whatever shifty thing the rules don't explicitly forbid. I'm not saying whether I agree with it as a strategy or not. All I'm saying is that if you think it doesn't actually happen in pro sports, you're mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 That is a REALLY interesting idea... one which I might float past the owners of one of my leagues next year when discussing rule changes. The thought process came out of our league complexity. We have open trading with 32 man rosters, 60 max contract years, a salary cap with a 50% penalty due immediately, and one F or T tag. Roster size is because we are an IDP league. Due to this complexity teams will rebuild and the league is very active year round. Potential Points address both rebuild projects and eliminate any tanking concerns. It also eliminates the luck factor of winning/losing a bye week game which could result in a better pick. In my view, even in basic dynasty leagues this makes sense on many levels. We are only doing this for NON playoff teams. Playoff teams draft picks are determined in order of finish. BTW, all 14 teams do not have any major issues with this given the weakest roster will score the fewest points and since points are tracked weekly you still are getting points for every week a player is on your roster. As a Commish, I love it as it takes away police work in the event an owner thinks another is tanking or losing on purpose. In short the owner with the better the team gets the worse pick regardless how good or bad that owner is as a coach. Sorry for the hijack...carry on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Interesting idea Ice1. I have used lottery systems and have used a loser's bracket where the winner of the loser's bracket gets the #1 overall pick the following year. Both are systems that do not reward teams intentionally losing. Add in a weekly points prize of some sort and you can set up rules to highly encourage owners to always put forth their best effort, even after being eliminated from title/playoff contention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Interesting idea Ice1. I have used lottery systems and have used a loser's bracket where the winner of the loser's bracket gets the #1 overall pick the following year. Both are systems that do not reward teams intentionally losing. Add in a weekly points prize of some sort and you can set up rules to highly encourage owners to always put forth their best effort, even after being eliminated from title/playoff contention. That has really helped remove tanking from our league. An owner may still do it, but if they're not playing their best line-up they're basically passing on $24 weekly points prize (entry fee is $100). It was mostly a problem of people tanking to get a better pick, as we have so much parity that few playoff spots are ever certain even with one game to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 This issue will never go away. As an owner in a FF league I expect other owners to put forth their best effort every week. If I tank, it may cause another owner to miss the playoffs because I am a selfish bag of dicks. This is not the NFL. It is a game played between friends for, relatively, small amounts of $$$. An owner who works hard all year to try to make the playoffs should not have his fate determined by something out of his control. If someone tanked in any of my leagues, either they or I would not be back the following year. Some of you say to drop the moral BS and win at all costs. That is your right ,but I choose to have some integrity. Winning feels better if you truly earn it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 This issue will never go away. As an owner in a FF league I expect other owners to put forth their best effort every week. If I tank, it may cause another owner to miss the playoffs because I am a selfish bag of dicks. This is not the NFL. It is a game played between friends for, relatively, small amounts of $$$. An owner who works hard all year to try to make the playoffs should not have his fate determined by something out of his control. If someone tanked in any of my leagues, either they or I would not be back the following year. Some of you say to drop the moral BS and win at all costs. That is your right ,but I choose to have some integrity. Winning feels better if you truly earn it. Completely sums it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 In the local money league I play in, the playoff participants are basically set. There were 2 teams that could have increased their chances by getting a win this week, but they both lost. The only thing really to play for at this point is the seeding. When the playoffs start - wk 14, the top 2 teams have a bye and the other matchups are 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5. I am currently in the 4 slot but would rather play out of the 6 slot. Assuming I would win my first round matchup I would then face our 2 seed instead of the 1 seed. Theoretically, giving me an easier path to the superbowl (3 seed has huge hole at RB after losing F Jax). I would have to lose this week to set this plan into motion, which i can do by sitting Jacobs and Graham. Is this good strategy or poor sportsmanship. I personally wouldn't have a problem with it if another manager chose this route but I am a bit biased. As you can tell from reading the posts in this thread, one man's shrewd strategy is another man's dirty pool. If there is no rule against it, its obviously up to you to decide if its something you want to try. It is your team and your money and (presumably) your friends... Personally, I dont tank fantasy games. Due to the wildcard nature of fantasy football, a team that may appear stronger/weaker on paper may over/underachieve on any given week. So there's no real guarantee you'll be having an easier time of it against one team (vs another) but it is guaranteed you will look like a total clown if you tank to get a certain matchup and then that backfires and you lose. I will play my best matchups and let the chips fall where they may. This is why my local has a Home Field Advantage rule - the higher seed owner can name two different bench players and can put ONE of them into your lineup if they outscore a starter. Wait...what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
561427 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 if the NFL sits players in the final week I can sit players on my team. I am ahead in a week with DEF playing in a critical game I will choose a victory. I feel its a QB kneel in fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I think that fundamental fairness dictates that you have an obligation to start your best lineup every week, regardless if your league has rule about it. And if your league needs a rule for that, I sure in the hell don't want to play in it. This. What annoys me about this game is when people play the "all's fair in love and war" card to justify some bush league tactics. Because, well, FF is neither love nor war, it's a freaking game. Hopefully you don't need the prize money so badly that you're willing to sell out common decency and be a total dick. Otherwise, every freaking league is going to have to have a set of bylaws, 10 pages long, to protect those who are just looking to have fun from some a-hole who is always "trying to find an edge". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) if the NFL sits players in the final week I can sit players on my team. I am ahead in a week with DEF playing in a critical game I will choose a victory. I feel its a QB kneel in fantasy. 1) There are far too many ways FF is nothing like the NFL to mention. 2) When an NFL team pulls its starters, it's not doing so to tank. The players on the field are still trying to win the game. So, it's not a cut and dry thing and, honestly, without some over-reaching rules that could go sideways (like the argument about that woman benching CJ2K that came up here last year), I don't see how you could legislate against it. Ultimately, it comes down to just not being a d-bag. That said, if you're talking about pulling a starter on Monday when the game is in hand, that's a different matter. However, I would still require all parties start a full roster every week and resort to whom they had in that position the previous week or default to whomever is on their bench at that position if the starters position is left empty. The fact that your D just happened to be playing on Monday and your opponents wasn't is not something you should be able to take advantage of. Edited November 30, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 And now boys and girls you see why America has some many lawyers and regulations. It's not because anybody actually likes lawyers and regulations, it's because we have a whole lot of people who find nothing wrong with exploiting any loophole they can find to gain an edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Great last cople of posts by detlef. The win at all costs attitude by a few messes up a league of people just trying to have fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 And now boys and girls you see why America has some many lawyers and regulations. It's not because anybody actually likes lawyers and regulations, it's because we have a whole lot of people who find nothing wrong with exploiting any loophole they can find to gain an edge. Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 2) When an NFL team pulls its starters, it's not doing so to tank. There is evidence to suggest this is not always true Again, I'm not saying I agree with tanking games in FF....but you can't use the argument that it doesn't happen in pro sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 quick search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_fixing#...playoff_chances So, your example is of teams "allegedly" tanking and, in the case of the NBA, how they made moves to avoid that possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I mentioned 2 clear examples in the NFL (also mentioned in the wiki): '88 49ers and '04 Colts. The wiki mentions another blatant one that I had forgotten (which is surprising as a Canadian, and hockey fan LOL): The Swedes at the '06 Olympic hockey tournament.: I can think of at least one very clear example in the NHL (not mentioned in the wiki): The '83/'84 Pens tanking games to get the #1 pick (some guy named Mario Lemieux). It was widely suspected at the time, and the coach admitted it years later. Point is, it happens. It's not unheard of for pro teams to tank games if it benefits them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I mentioned 2 clear examples in the NFL (also mentioned in the wiki): '88 49ers and '04 Colts. The wiki mentions another blatant one that I had forgotten (which is surprising as a Canadian, and hockey fan LOL): The Swedes at the '06 Olympic hockey tournament.: I can think of at least one very clear example in the NHL (not mentioned in the wiki): The '83/'84 Pens tanking games to get the #1 pick (some guy named Mario Lemieux). It was widely suspected at the time, and the coach admitted it years later. Point is, it happens. It's not unheard of for pro teams to tank games if it benefits them. Fine. I concede my point. However, every year this topic comes up and every year someone justifies it by saying "Pro teams do it" So, perhaps they do. And it's scandalous and rare enough that we go back and dig up the few instances when it happens. And leagues change their rules to prevent it. So, while I'll admit that my point was too far reaching, I'm not prepared to concede "pro teams do it, so why can't I?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 And now boys and girls you see why America has some many lawyers and regulations. It's not because anybody actually likes lawyers and regulations, it's because we have a whole lot of people who find nothing wrong with exploiting any loophole they can find to gain an edge. C'mon now. No need to drag lawyers into this. If there is no rule about it, I don't think that its a loophole. The thing about it is that its wormy. If the league permits you to be a worm, and you want to be a worm, well that's your business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gourdeau Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 In the local money league I play in, the playoff participants are basically set. There were 2 teams that could have increased their chances by getting a win this week, but they both lost. The only thing really to play for at this point is the seeding. When the playoffs start - wk 14, the top 2 teams have a bye and the other matchups are 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5. I am currently in the 4 slot but would rather play out of the 6 slot. Assuming I would win my first round matchup I would then face our 2 seed instead of the 1 seed. Theoretically, giving me an easier path to the superbowl (3 seed has huge hole at RB after losing F Jax). I would have to lose this week to set this plan into motion, which i can do by sitting Jacobs and Graham. Is this good strategy or poor sportsmanship. I personally wouldn't have a problem with it if another manager chose this route but I am a bit biased. In our league, the way we tried to tackle this issue this year is this. We are a 10 team league, 6 make the playoffs, then the 4 that dont go into a consolation playoff, the winner of the consolation tournament wins the first overall pick. This way there is always a reason to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 In our league, the way we tried to tackle this issue this year is this. We are a 10 team league, 6 make the playoffs, then the 4 that dont go into a consolation playoff, the winner of the consolation tournament wins the first overall pick. This way there is always a reason to play. That's a cool plan, but it doesn't address the issue presented by the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.