gardenthug Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 A guy in my league proposed a trade with the stipulation that if it's accepted, he will purposely lose to the guy he offered the trade to. A few guys are defending this move as smart, out of the box thinking. I view it as cheating. IMO, it will open pandora's box for all kinds of trades offers that include money, ect... Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 kind of early this year for this question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 what you laid out as the scenario is collusion 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishPride Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) My team sucks so bad it looks like I'm losing on purpose, LOL No you can't tolerate that, its an alliance based on collusion....Cheating is cheating, Outside of the box or what ever you want to call it, . Edited October 9, 2014 by IrishPride 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin_Akie Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Does he mean he's literally going to start nobody in his lineup and score 0pts to give away the win? Thats one dull week for both players but yeah cheating without a doubt. Surprised others thought it was smart. When I read the topic title I thought this was going to be about losing your first game to be top of the waiver wire. Edited October 9, 2014 by Dolphin_Akie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbluefan Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Have to be careful with that....It could BACKFIRE, and the guy ACTUALLY WINS....I won my dynasty league game this week, where I am TRYING to lose in order to improve draft status.....sat Rodgers, Demarius Thomas, Lynch and Marshall and still WON....I was bummed Edited October 10, 2014 by wildbluefan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REZ Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Have to be careful with that....It could BACKFIRE, and the guy ACTUALLY WINS....I won my dynasty league game this week, where I am TRYING to lose in order to improve draft status.....sat Rodgers, Demarius Thomas, Lynch and Marshall and still WON....I was bummed I played with a guy who did that in a dynasty format. Created bad feelings for years afterwards. I'm dead set against someone doing that. Not everything is ok to do even if there isn't a rule against it 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 If your league allows sharing/loaning of players then it should allow owners to lose games on purpose. Aside from that, you should always try to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecondString Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 what you laid out as the scenario is collusion This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Is losing on purpose ever acceptable? The only time that I can see losing as acceptable is if you loaded up on the same bye week to take a guaranteed loss in hopes of improving your chances of winning the rest of the weeks. This technique doesn't account for injuries or players busting, but it is a technique I've seen used. Usually unsuccessfully, except for the losing part. Other than that, losing is a technique that I try to avoid. Two (or more) owners agreeing to a condition of guaranteed winning/losing is collusion. Doesn't matter if it is just week 6 or the Championship game. It's still throwing a game on purpose for someone specific to gain an advantage. Edited October 10, 2014 by Riffraff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rileyrott Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Two (or more) owners agreeing to a condition of guaranteed winning/losing is collusion. In a nutshell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MothAudio Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 I wrote into our bylaws for our office league that you must at all times field your most competitive team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboysDiehard Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 You should always go out guns blazing, I don't care who you are or what the situation is. What would be funny, though, is if he accidentally wins and then they meet again in the playoffs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Our league bylaws state that trades can only be for players. No exchange of money, beer, or other considerations. Even if you don't have this spelled out in detail, it's still collusion pure and simple, with evidence, and as commish, this would be the first trade I've ever overridden in 10+ years commishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwolf68 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) My team sucks so bad it looks like I'm losing on purpose, LOL No you can't tolerate that, its an alliance based on collusion....Cheating is cheating, Outside of the box or what ever you want to call it, . LOL...I agree with this. Losing on purpose DOES happen. The Pittsburgh Penguins did it so they could get Mario Lemieux. It was completely unethical and disgusting...but...1 year later the Penguins were the toast of the town (with the Steelers and Bux sucking) and not longer after they won two Stanley Cup finals. In football, there was a questionable case in the late 1960s, involving the Eagles and Bills who were both vying to get the consensus #1 pick at the time (OJ Simpson). The Eagles were supposedly trying to lose their last game (maybe against Detroit?), playing scrubs (which wasn't hard to do), calling bad plays, etc...and ended up either tying the game or winning it, costing them the #1 pick to Buffalo. LOL. In baseball, there is the Black Sox scandal, but that was 100% for money. Charlie Comiskey was an absolute scumbag of an owner and took advantage of his employees the way a good rober-baron would do (exploit their talents for his own profit). So the players (or at least some of them) gambled on the game, threw it and got paid (and got banned from baseball). The 1919 White Sox were a great great baseball team, would have won the series had they tried. Edited October 10, 2014 by kwolf68 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 LOL...I agree with this. Losing on purpose DOES happen. The Pittsburgh Penguins did it so they could get Mario Lemieux. It was completely unethical and disgusting...but...1 year later the Penguins were the toast of the town (with the Steelers and Bux sucking) and not longer after they won two Stanley Cup finals. In football, there was a questionable case in the late 1960s, involving the Eagles and Bills who were both vying to get the consensus #1 pick at the time (OJ Simpson). The Eagles were supposedly trying to lose their last game (maybe against Detroit?), playing scrubs (which wasn't hard to do), calling bad plays, etc...and ended up either tying the game or winning it, costing them the #1 pick to Buffalo. LOL. In baseball, there is the Black Sox scandal, but that was 100% for money. Charlie Comiskey was an absolute scumbag of an owner and took advantage of his employees the way a good rober-baron would do (exploit their talents for his own profit). So the players (or at least some of them) gambled on the game, threw it and got paid (and got banned from baseball). The 1919 White Sox were a great great baseball team, would have won the series had they tried. you forgot the Spurs tanking for Tim Duncan and sticking Philly with Iverson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebartender Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Iverson and Duncan were not drafted the same year. Duncan was drafted the year after Iverson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishPride Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) How abut the Cavalier's and King James? I know its lottery system but they only won 17 games I think? Edited October 10, 2014 by IrishPride Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Iverson and Duncan were not drafted the same year. Duncan was drafted the year after Iverson. oops yeah even better. They got Keith Van Horn. Either way they tanked the season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Couch Potatoe Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Not even in chutes and ladders with my 4 year old 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heehawks Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I have to admit that I tanked a game about 10 years ago to try an improve my playoff matchup. No collusion, just a personal decision I made to play one team rather than another as one team was obviously on fire and the better team. It did not have any effect on others making the playoffs, just seeding. The four teams were already set in the playoff picture. I put in a less than ideal lineup for the last regular season game (on purpose), lost the game, and got the matchup I wanted. I felt pretty bad about it and was hounded by league mates, but they let it go as no one (including me) had tried anything like that before. I got absolutely crushed and knocked out of the playoffs. The team I was so desperately trying to avoid only scored a total of 52 points. I would have won handily. Also, if I had played my best lineup the week prior to the playoffs, I would have won that game and hence won my playoff game and looking back would have won the whole thing. Never had tried it before, never will again. I will always put my best lineup in....always. Lesson learned and the league put in rules to specifically deter anyone from trying it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyBromo Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I'll never do it. A buddy of mine lost a game on purpose a couple years ago to try and get a better playoff matchup; the next week Arian Foster went down with the irregular heartbeat, AJ Green got hurt and his team lost by 40 in the playoffs. Karma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 To answer the OP... no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I wrote into our bylaws for our office league that you must at all times field your most competitive team. And who determines the most competitive line up each week? Does the commissioner have to check each line up each week and make line up changes to ensure that each team starts what the (the commissioner) believes to be the best line up? 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.