Strategy or douchebaggery?

[Scooby's Hubby]

Simply adding a rule stating that "the integrity of the league will be upheld and any potential situation can be voted upon by the other owners for the appropriate action to follow. this includes intentional losing, dumping of players for waiver wires, free agent add/drops and trades"

 

Done, that gives the commissioner the ability to report any suspected moves that damage the INTEGRITY of the league and lets the owners vote on a justified resolution.

 

This way the owners control the league.

 

If I was the owner trying to lose purposely, then I would have done so withourt advertising my line up. An owner should not lose on purpose with another pair of owners "dangling" at his lineup. Furthermore, a legal line up should always be fielded. Purposely not starting a kicker or defense would be poor integrity. I could understand if he wanted to lose in order to be seeded 2 instead of 1 and he was playing an owner out of the running. But if he is playing against another owner battling for a final spot then he should let the leagues schedule dictate the fate and play his usual starters, it would only be fair to the other owner having to play against a full squad of starters.

[detlef]

you don't understand collusion.

If the wife was tanking against her husband to help get him into the play-offs, it's still wrong whether or not they spoke about it.

[kcmast]

If the wife was tanking against her husband to help get him into the play-offs, it's still wrong whether or not they spoke about it.

I don't see how people think these two scenarios are the same. One is tanking because he believes it will help him. The other is tanking to help another team with no help to her team. Way different scenarios. And before anyone jumps on me that we don't know the wife tanked on purpose, I understand that and for the sake of this thread/argument it is assumed she did.

[detlef]

I don't see how people think these two scenarios are the same. One is tanking because he believes it will help him. The other is tanking to help another team with no help to her team. Way different scenarios. And before anyone jumps on me that we don't know the wife tanked on purpose, I understand that and for the sake of this thread/argument it is assumed she did.

I understand the difference competitively. However, most who think there's nothing wrong with what this guy did (not just that it should be allowed, but that it isn't even d-baggery within the letter of the rules), point to the fact that there's money at stake and you do what you need to do, within the rules to get it. My guess is that, if this was just for bragging rights, less people would think it's cool for a guy to engage in this.

 

So, scenario #1; Dude starts a crappy but technically legit line-up in order to help one team get into the play-offs over another because he thinks that, ultimately it is in his best interest to do so and gives him a better shot at the money.

 

Scenario #2; Wife starts a crappy but technically legit line-up in order to help one team get into the play-offs over another because she thinks that there's a better shot her husband wins the money and buys her something nice.

 

Now, again, I don't think anyone is implying that they're exactly the same. Rather, that the execution is close enough and the "hey it's all about the money" bit applies to both. And neither is technically breaking any rules. Both are starting "legit" line-ups.

 

Here's where it gets sticky. The wife doesn't even seem to be actually tanking. But because her opponent benefits if she loses and they sleep in the same bed, people have their pitchforks out. The other dude is blatantly tanking and is making no bones about it. In both cases, there's a third team who may get hosed, but we're going to applaud the guy who is obviously and admits to tanking and condemn the other because we don't agree with who she's starting even though she insists she's putting her best team out there.

 

No, it's not the same, but it's not as different as you'd like it to be.

[tonorator]

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

 

 

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

 

you are mixing and matching all over the place.

 

if a wife tanks specifically to help the husband, that's collusion. if she tanks to help herself for a better playoff match, it's not, even if the husband benefits. now, given it is a husband and wife, it's also fair for the question to be raised. if it's clear that her tanking does help her team and her husband is just the lucky by-product, i would not have a problem about that. for a casual league, the odds that the entire league would not have a problem, however, are pretty slim and i'm sure it would become a major debate. for this reason, highly competitive leagues especially need to be darn sure they know what they are getting into when they add a husband and wife as individual owners. if not, it is a recipe for disaster ... but it can work and i've seen it work.

 

with regards to tanking for a draft pick, now you are talking about a different thing. this would mean that you are in a keeper league and a good keeper league will have a draft slot playoff for the lower teams while the upper teams are playing in the playoffs for the title. problem solved with a simple rule. if there is no rule, then yes, owners are free to tank away. this would only happen, however, in a poorly run keeper league.

 

i also love the additional rule to have a weekly high score winner. this encourages everyone to play at their best because there is a reward, so owners can make a choice.

 

this is not a question of ethics. it is a question of tactics and strategies to win a title, within the rule structure that is put in place. good leagues will set up their rules to encourage competitiveness and make it hard for an owner to want to tank. if, however, tanking does help the team's overall position and chances to win, then it's part of the game, just as the pros bench their starters once they can no longer improve their playoff position.

[tonorator]

I understand the difference competitively. However, most who think there's nothing wrong with what this guy did (not just that it should be allowed, but that it isn't even d-baggery within the letter of the rules), point to the fact that there's money at stake and you do what you need to do, within the rules to get it. My guess is that, if this was just for bragging rights, less people would think it's cool for a guy to engage in this.

 

So, scenario #1; Dude starts a crappy but technically legit line-up in order to help one team get into the play-offs over another because he thinks that, ultimately it is in his best interest to do so and gives him a better shot at the money.

 

Scenario #2; Wife starts a crappy but technically legit line-up in order to help one team get into the play-offs over another because she thinks that there's a better shot her husband wins the money and buys her something nice.

 

Now, again, I don't think anyone is implying that they're exactly the same. Rather, that the execution is close enough and the "hey it's all about the money" bit applies to both. And neither is technically breaking any rules. Both are starting "legit" line-ups.

 

Here's where it gets sticky. The wife doesn't even seem to be actually tanking. But because her opponent benefits if she loses and they sleep in the same bed, people have their pitchforks out. The other dude is blatantly tanking and is making no bones about it. In both cases, there's a third team who may get hosed, but we're going to applaud the guy who is obviously and admits to tanking and condemn the other because we don't agree with who she's starting even though she insists she's putting her best team out there.

 

No, it's not the same, but it's not as different as you'd like it to be.

 

again, you don't understand collusion if you believe these are not so different. #1 is not. #2 is. big difference.

[detlef]

again, you don't understand collusion if you believe these are not so different. #1 is not. #2 is. big difference.

OK smart guy. Instead of the snippy, "Lose the skirt", "you're wrong", etc you've been throwing around, why not break it down for us? What is so hugely different?

 

And bear in mind that I realize that they're not the same thing. I said so twice in my post. So explain why they're as different as you want them to be.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

I understand the difference competitively. However, most who think there's nothing wrong with what this guy did (not just that it should be allowed, but that it isn't even d-baggery within the letter of the rules), point to the fact that there's money at stake and you do what you need to do, within the rules to get it. My guess is that, if this was just for bragging rights, less people would think it's cool for a guy to engage in this.

 

So, scenario #1; Dude starts a crappy but technically legit line-up in order to help one team get into the play-offs over another because he thinks that, ultimately it is in his best interest to do so and gives him a better shot at the money.

 

Scenario #2; Wife starts a crappy but technically legit line-up in order to help one team get into the play-offs over another because she thinks that there's a better shot her husband wins the money and buys her something nice.

 

Now, again, I don't think anyone is implying that they're exactly the same. Rather, that the execution is close enough and the "hey it's all about the money" bit applies to both. And neither is technically breaking any rules. Both are starting "legit" line-ups.

 

Here's where it gets sticky. The wife doesn't even seem to be actually tanking. But because her opponent benefits if she loses and they sleep in the same bed, people have their pitchforks out. The other dude is blatantly tanking and is making no bones about it. In both cases, there's a third team who may get hosed, but we're going to applaud the guy who is obviously and admits to tanking and condemn the other because we don't agree with who she's starting even though she insists she's putting her best team out there.

 

No, it's not the same, but it's not as different as you'd like it to be.

 

And here's the rub.

In this scenario it is a cut and dry cas, but...

What happens when the team owner tanking shuts out the weaker team owner that he just so happens to also not like?

what happens when the team owner tanking shuts out a team owner that he just so happens to not like, and that the team who benefits is a brother/spouse/best buddy?

what happens when the team owner tanking shuts out a team owner that he just so happens to not like, and the team who benefits is a brother/spouse/buddy and the designation of which team is weaker and which team is stronger is not that obvious to the naked eye (even if it is to the team owner doing the shutting out)?

Edited December 9, 2010 by Dr. Sacrebleu

[skylive5]

I don't understand you people at all.

 

On one hand you have a guy that openly states he is going to tank a game which screws other teams and you say "Oh, isn't he so smart and wonderful. Now there is a guy that knows his FF." On the other hand you have a person that states that they are giving themselves the absolute best chance (in their opinion) to win and you all say "What a cheater and liar. Let's string this person up."

 

I just don't understand you people at all.

[detlef]

And here's the rub.

In this scenario it is a cut and dry cas, but...

What happens when the team owner tanking shuts out the weaker team owner that he just so happens to also not like?

what happens when the team owner tanking shuts out a team owner that he just so happens to not like, and that the team who benefits is a brother/spouse/best buddy?

what happens when the team owner tanking shuts out a team owner that he just so happens to not like, and the team who benefits is a brother/spouse/buddy and the designation of which team is weaker and which team is stronger is not that obvious to the naked eye (even if it is to the team owner doing the shutting out)?

xactly

[Bronco Billy]

Okay, going to dive back in despite my reservations to do so.

 

Given the way the OP described his league, it appears that it is being played as a game among friends/acquaintences and not solely as a revenue source. That being the case, it is my opinion, and my opinion only that sportsmanship and integrity should govern decisions being made.

 

That said, if the game were being played against strangers strictly as a revenue generator - say WCOFF or something similar - then the sportsmanship and integrity go out the window and it is win-at-all-costs, pushing the envelope right to the point of almost being expelled from the competition. Everyone involved in those kinds of games know what the stakes are and have no allegiance to the league as a whole.

 

It's kind of like going to work vs playing Survivor. When you go to your job, you're dealing with decisions that will affect you and your reputation long term. You want to be able to work with people and benefit the company as a whole. Being a prick could actually be detrimental to your ability to advance - or even to keep your job - and so while you may disagree with some things, you also compromise and get along for the greater good, and rules of society/civility apply and should control. Playing Survivor, everyone knows that anything goes, it is cut throat eat-or-be-eaten, play for $1M and so the normal rules of society/civility don't apply. No one is beholden to anyone else or to the group unless it has a direct benefit to one's self.

 

So I do distinguish between the two scenarios, and since this is a league that appears to be a social network and a game with some money at stake to make it interesting, and it is not exclusively a revenue generating game amongst stangers, it is my opinion that different sets of standards apply. Sportsmanship and integrity take precedence, and tanking is not allowed, despite any short term benefit to the owner doing so. Trust in these leagues is critical for the health of the league and the spirit of friendly competition, and win-at-any-cost behavior is not welcome and should not be tolerated.

[tonorator]

OK smart guy. Instead of the snippy, "Lose the skirt", "you're wrong", etc you've been throwing around, why not break it down for us? What is so hugely different?

 

And bear in mind that I realize that they're not the same thing. I said so twice in my post. So explain why they're as different as you want them to be.

 

#1 was done with the sole motivation to win the title

 

#2 was not. it was done to get things from the husband, should he win the title.

 

helping out another owner for some kind of personal gain for yourself outside of the league is collusion ... i.e. trade me that player so i can win and i'll give you $100 after the season.

 

if the sole motivation is winning, then none of the other collateral implications matter, such as my brother benefits, my mother benefits, another owner i don't like is screwed, etc. now, if those by-products factored into the decision vs. the sole motivation being winning, then yes, you have an issue. that is where integrity comes in and that is why you want to be in highly competitive leagues with owners you trust.

 

bronco called tanking a "prick" move. again, i don't see this at all. if you are operating within the rules of the league, then it's a smart move if indeed it helps you to win the title. if you are in a league where the majority of the owners don't want this possibility to exist, then you need to address it to the best of the ability within your rules, to the agreement of the majority of the owners. if you are then in the minority and you don't agree, then you need to decide if you want to be in the league and if so, you need to follow the rules.

 

that good enough for you my lady??? c'mon .... the skirt stuff is just some good ol' ribbing. the fact that it bothers you is consistent with your position on this issue.

[Trojanmojo]

I don't understand you people at all.

 

On one hand you have a guy that openly states he is going to tank a game which screws other teams and you say "Oh, isn't he so smart and wonderful. Now there is a guy that knows his FF." On the other hand you have a person that states that they are giving themselves the absolute best chance (in their opinion) to win and you all say "What a cheater and liar. Let's string this person up."

 

I just don't understand you people at all.

 

Couldn't agree more. Pretty ridiculous and sad.

[tonorator]

I don't understand you people at all.

 

On one hand you have a guy that openly states he is going to tank a game which screws other teams and you say "Oh, isn't he so smart and wonderful. Now there is a guy that knows his FF." On the other hand you have a person that states that they are giving themselves the absolute best chance (in their opinion) to win and you all say "What a cheater and liar. Let's string this person up."

 

I just don't understand you people at all.

 

not me. i'm praising the person on both fronts ...

[detlef]

#1 was done with the sole motivation to win the title

 

#2 was not. it was done to get things from the husband, should he win the title.

 

helping out another owner for some kind of personal gain for yourself outside of the league is collusion ... i.e. trade me that player so i can win and i'll give you $100 after the season.

 

if the sole motivation is winning, then none of the other collateral implications matter, such as my brother benefits, my mother benefits, another owner i don't like is screwed, etc. now, if those by-products factored into the decision vs. the sole motivation being winning, then yes, you have an issue. that is where integrity comes in and that is why you want to be in highly competitive leagues with owners you trust.

 

bronco called tanking a "prick" move. again, i don't see this at all. if you are operating within the rules of the league, then it's a smart move if indeed it helps you to win the title. if you are in a league where the majority of the owners don't want this possibility to exist, then you need to address it to the best of the ability within your rules, to the agreement of the majority of the owners. if you are then in the minority and you don't agree, then you need to decide if you want to be in the league and if so, you need to follow the rules.

 

that good enough for you my lady??? c'mon .... the skirt stuff is just some good ol' ribbing. the fact that it bothers you is consistent with your position on this issue.

Oh wait. Too bad we're not trying to define collusion, which is the sort of thing that would trigger some sort of punishment. But are simply trying to define d-bag behavior, which merely triggers a response such as, "I think you're a d-bag". At least, that has been my stance the entire discussion.

 

And that is the forest you've been missing through the trees this entire time. Which, btw, is my primary issue with your arrogantly short missives up until you graced us with an actual, spelled out response. I could give two craps about your opinion on someone else's "manhood" around here. Which, I should add, is highly ironic. If I follow you correctly. Someone needs to "lose the skirt" because they're not down with the rather bush league, and, well, pu$$y-like tactic of intentionally throwing a game in order to attempt to duck a match-up with one opponent over another. Wow, it takes a uniquely delusional interpretation on the notion of "manly" to keep up with that one.

Edited December 9, 2010 by detlef

[colossals]

My bad.....I assumed the object was to WIN!.....silly me.

 

That's right, LeBron, it is the absolutely single reason we make any choices in life.

[v0dka]

I'd have to say it would depend on the amount of money you're playing for. I'm in a league where we play for some good money and I'm going to do whatever I can to improve my chances of winning, and if that includes benching my players, then so be it.

 

It's a smart move, but I hope it backfires on the dude.

Edited December 9, 2010 by v0dka

[tonorator]

Oh wait. Too bad we're not trying to define collusion, which is the sort of thing that would trigger some sort of punishment. But are simply trying to define d-bag behavior, which merely triggers a response such as, "I think you're a d-bag". At least, that has been my stance the entire discussion.

 

And that is the forest you've been missing through the trees this entire time. Which, btw, is my primary issue with your arrogantly short missives up until you graced us with an actual, spelled out response. I could give two craps about your opinion on someone else's "manhood" around here. Which, I should add, is highly ironic. If I follow you correctly. Someone needs to "lose the skirt" because they're not down with the rather bush league, and, well, pu$$y-like tactic of intentionally throwing a game in order to attempt to duck a match-up with one opponent over another. Wow, it takes a uniquely delusional interpretation on the notion of "manly" to keep up with that one.

 

you were the one introducing collusion scenarios and equating that the scenario under debate here. collusion far exceeds not starting an optimal line-up to better your playoff draw in terms of d-baggery.

 

your position is clear and we clearly disagree. as far as manning up, an owner whining because he didn't get into the playoffs because another team tanked on purpose is not manly. an owner going all out to beat a team when the only result is that he will face a stronger team in the playoffs is just foolish, not manly.

 

should an NFL team go all out for every game, even if their playoff position is set? they are, in effect, not putting out their best effort to better their team's chances for the long run, according to the rules of the league. as a result, some other team could get into the playoffs if they get beat as a result. why is doing the same in FF any different? whether its resting your players or working for an advantageous playoff spot, it's all about winning the title. i also would not critique my home NFL team at all if they didn't put their best team on the field and worked out different players in order to get what they believed to be a better playoff spot as a result of a loss. it's within their right and it's called strategy.

 

you can't outwardly tank that hard anyway because every owner tries to maximize the value of every player on their roster (assuming that each owner must start a full lineup, whiich is included in most league rules).

[Bronco Billy]

I'd have to say it would depend on the amount of money you're playing for. I'm in a league where we play for some good money and I'm going to do whatever I can to improve my chances of winning, and if that includes benching my players, then so be it.

 

It's a smart move, but I hope it backfires on the dude.

 

If it backfires, it woul be a stupid move, would it not? He would have intentionally - through douchebaggery - created the conditions for his own loss.

[detlef]

you were the one introducing collusion scenarios and equating that the scenario under debate here. collusion far exceeds not starting an optimal line-up to better your playoff draw in terms of d-baggery.

 

your position is clear and we clearly disagree. as far as manning up, an owner whining because he didn't get into the playoffs because another team tanked on purpose is not manly. an owner going all out to beat a team when the only result is that he will face a stronger team in the playoffs is just foolish, not manly.

 

should an NFL team go all out for every game, even if their playoff position is set? they are, in effect, not putting out their best effort to better their team's chances for the long run, according to the rules of the league. as a result, some other team could get into the playoffs if they get beat as a result. why is doing the same in FF any different? whether its resting your players or working for an advantageous playoff spot, it's all about winning the title. i also would not critique my home NFL team at all if they didn't put their best team on the field and worked out different players in order to get what they believed to be a better playoff spot as a result of a loss. it's within their right and it's called strategy.

 

you can't outwardly tank that hard anyway because every owner tries to maximize the value of every player on their roster (assuming that each owner must start a full lineup, whiich is included in most league rules).

Once again, you are basing your argument on whether it should be allowed, not whether it is a d-bag move. And, again, the NFL example is lame for that very reason. What governs the high-stakes world of major pro sports and what should be considered honorable behavior in a recreational league are two different things. That was Dr. Sac's argument, that's my argument, and that's BB's argument. That you can't say that, just because NFL teams rest their starters it is the same thing.

 

Oh, and while I'm on the subject, swammi implied earlier that pro teams do this, not only to avoid injury, but to also affect their seeding and who they play. I'd actually like to see if that has ever happened. Because I highly doubt it. Mostly because there's simply far too many variables at play. So, unless someone can show me when this has happened, let's just assume that the motivation is simply to avoid needless injury to your stars. Can you not see a massive difference, not in legality, but in honor and dignity, between not needlessly exposing your best players to injury and actually throwing a game in order to duck an opponent? Can you see a coach going to his team and saying, "We don't want any part of Baltimore next week, so let's lose to Cinci so we can play them again in the play-offs instead."

 

Oh, and if it ever got out that NFL teams were actually trying to throw games, not simply resting their players, but actually trying to lose games, the crap would hit the fan. I mean, if we're going to pretend we're the NFL, let's just go ahead and do it.

 

Oh, and when an NFL team pulls it's starters, they're not trying to lose the game. There is a difference. Again, not in legality, but in principle. Which, btw, is the connection I was trying to make with the husband and wife deal. That this woman was actually trying to win her game, but people didn't believe her because they didn't buy her logic. Meanwhile a guy who is actually trying to lose a game is championed.

Edited December 9, 2010 by detlef

[Phazool]

Okay, going to dive back in despite my reservations to do so.

 

Given the way the OP described his league, it appears that it is being played as a game among friends/acquaintences and not solely as a revenue source. (THIS IS CORRECT) That being the case, it is my opinion, and my opinion only that sportsmanship and integrity should govern decisions being made.

 

That said, if the game were being played against strangers strictly as a revenue generator - say WCOFF or something similar - then the sportsmanship and integrity go out the window and it is win-at-all-costs, pushing the envelope right to the point of almost being expelled from the competition. Everyone involved in those kinds of games know what the stakes are and have no allegiance to the league as a whole.

 

It's kind of like going to work vs playing Survivor. When you go to your job, you're dealing with decisions that will affect you and your reputation long term. You want to be able to work with people and benefit the company as a whole. Being a prick could actually be detrimental to your ability to advance - or even to keep your job - and so while you may disagree with some things, you also compromise and get along for the greater good, and rules of society/civility apply and should control. Playing Survivor, everyone knows that anything goes, it is cut throat eat-or-be-eaten, play for $1M and so the normal rules of society/civility don't apply. No one is beholden to anyone else or to the group unless it has a direct benefit to one's self.

 

So I do distinguish between the two scenarios, and since this is a league that appears to be a social network and a game with some money at stake to make it interesting,(200 DOLLAR ENTRY FEE) and it is not exclusively a revenue generating game amongst stangers, it is my opinion that different sets of standards apply. Sportsmanship and integrity take precedence, and tanking is not allowed, despite any short term benefit to the owner doing so. Trust in these leagues is critical for the health of the league and the spirit of friendly competition, and win-at-any-cost behavior is not welcome and should not be tolerated. (I AGREE)

[tonorator]

Once again, you are basing your argument on whether it should be allowed, not whether it is a d-bag move.

 

i don't think it is a d-bag move. i think it is smart and strategic because it increases a team's chances of winning a title. i admire that kind of out of the box thinking.

[Phazool]

i don't think it is a d-bag move. i think it is smart and strategic because it increases a team's chances of winning a title. i admire that kind of out of the box thinking.

 

 

Would you still admire it if you were the one who could be getting screwed out of a minimum of 200 bucks or max 800?

[Trojanmojo]

It's a douchebag move. It's a devious move in the short term. If you care about being back in the league or what your league-mates think of you, I would say it's not as smart in the long run. Maybe it's smart to you in the short run, but it's pretty weak.

 

If the team is so good and the owner is so full of bravado, they should think they can beat any team no matter who they play in the playoffs so there should be no need for this kind of chicanery.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Trojanmojo

[tonorator]

Would you still admire it if you were the one who could be getting screwed out of a minimum of 200 bucks or max 800?

 

probably more so ...