"intentionally losing"

[detlef]

Pretty much what we do, waivers run early Wed AM, players dropped at that time are on waivers until Saturday early AM for the second round of waivers. (And those dropped on Saturday are locked until next Wed.)

 

Yes I know this leaves an issue on Thursday night games, where you could do this roster churning. But then we also have a $2 fee per player added so that eliminates most completely pointless moves. (We debated adding another waiver run before Thursday games during that part of the season, but haven't felt that it was a big issue.) And in case anybody cares, our roster move money (which usually climbs over $200) is split 50/30/20 by the top teams in points during the regular season.

Charging per move is another nice way to handle this.

[Big Country]

Now, here's what I do think is a lame extension of this:

 

I've played in leagues where dropped players were either locked down for a couple of days or actually not able to be claimed until the following week. Guys who realized their opponent was thin at a position and may need to pick someone up but hadn't yet, would add, then drop, any viable option in consecutive moves. Thereby making them unavailable to the other player, even if only temporarily.

 

In my leagues, I like to have the rule in place that players that are picked up are not allowed to be dropped until the following week. This prevents teams from being able to do this, or, really, if they do want to block an opponent from picking up a position (say their opponent has no QB for the week), they could pick up as many QBs as they want but would have to drop an equal number of players and roster the QB until at least the following week. Kind of a reverse drop lock.

 

Isn't that referred to as "roster churning"? Yes, I feel that steps should also be taken to to eliminate that just the same as tanking (and even moreso, since it appears you can actually do something tangible about that).... Is there really any downfall to having a player become available immediately after he's been dropped (assuming it's during FCFS)? Or rather, is there really any legitimate reason to lock them down, when it allows for shifty behavior like this?

 

The reason for locking dropped players is so that those owners that are able to sit on the computer/smartphone at all times do not get an unfair advantage. I prefer locking players until the next waiver run. If you only do one waiver run per week, then yes, the dropped players are locked until the following week, if you do multiple waiver request periods in a week (not FCFS, but actually waiver procedssing), then the players are locked from FCFS pickup until passing through a waiver period.

[nelsosi]

I can think of 5 reasons why someone might tank:

 

1) To get the #1 pick.

I'm not sure that I really have an issue with this. And if your league doesn't like it, it can easily be combated through some sort of draft lottery or a monetary disincentive ($$ penalty for finishing last)

 

2) To get a perceived 'better' playoff matchup.

Also not sure that I have an issue with this. If someone is in a position to do this, then they have obviously had a good season and this is a fortunate benefit of that. They are facing ridicule if it comes back to bite them in the playoffs, but that's a risk they knowingly take. If the tanking results in some other team missing the playoffs, then by definition that team was not in a playoff position to begin with and needed 'help' to qualify anyway -- so I don't feel too sorry for them

 

 

3) To eliminate a perceived 'strong' team from the playoffs

This would require a pretty unique set of circumstances (namely that the tanking team happens to be playing a team in the final week that can eliminate another team with a win). This is a little dirtier in my opinion, but again I'm not sure I would object to someone doing it -- as with #2, by definition the eliminated team would not have been in a playoff position to begin with and needed 'help' to qualify; they wouldn't have been in that position if they had had a better record.

 

4) To 'help' a buddy by giving them a free win

This would also require a unique set of circumstances (the game means nothing to you [either because you are seed-locked, or already eliminated], but is important to your buddy). To me, this falls under the 'collusion' bucket and should not be permitted.

 

 

5) Just to be a jerk

Basically a team that is eliminated with a few weeks left in the season just decides to bail and mess with the league. Obviously should not be permitted.

 

 

 

Just to be clear, I would personally never tank a game (it's not in my nature). And I would hope that nobody would tank a game in a buddies league with minimal stakes. But if it was a material money league, if someone decided to do it for reasons 1, 2 or 3 I'd call it a bush league tactic but I don't think I'd officially object.

 

Just my 2 cents

[Furd]

And if your league doesn't like it, it can easily be combated through some sort of draft lottery or a monetary disincentive ($$ penalty for finishing last)

 

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

 

How about a rule that says that an owner has an obligation to, in good faith, start a lineup that he or she believes gives him/her the best chance to win that weeks game.? (ie. no tanking)

 

Unless you cannot bear the thought of possibly missing out of all the wonderful strategies that tanking may present, I can't think of a reason to oppose that rule.

[Azazello1313]

without reading the whole thread, my opinion is this. if your game affects other teams' prospects of making the playoffs, then you absolutely have an obligation to start your best lineup. if it doesn't and you're just jockeying for seeding, well, I guess it may be justifiable on some level. but in any instance, it is a d00shy move that calls attention to how d00shy you are, and the payoff (if it exists at all) is miniscule.

 

bottom line, even if there's no "victim" and you can justify it on some level, I just can't see how it's worth the price of injecting d00shiness into your league dynamic and calling your own moral character into question.

[detlef]

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

 

How about a rule that says that an owner has an obligation to, in good faith, start a lineup that he or she believes gives him/her the best chance to win that weeks game.? (ie. no tanking)

 

Unless you cannot bear the thought of possibly missing out of all the wonderful strategies that tanking may present, I can't think of a reason to oppose that rule.

This, and I bet you make a good lawyer. I mean that. My lawyer is a good lawyer and the part I like the most about him is something he told me the first time we worked on a contract.

 

"I can either build you a really long and really expensive agreement that will protect you from anything that could possibly ever go wrong, or you could just decide not to go into business with a-holes and we can simply put one together that takes care of the more realistic things. If we're wrong, and you end up with some total d-bag who tries to pull something totally outlandish, that's why there's courts and judges."

 

It's basically the same thing here. You can either build in a ton of rules (that, in turn, could end up backfiring in some way) or you can just have a little talk at the draft, reminding everyone that this is really just about having a good time and that we should not sell our souls for FF glory.