Commish ? team tanked a game

[bpephin 0]

Hi, question on suggestions what to do with this situation -

20 year member in the league ($250 entry) tanked the last week of the regular season.

He was out of the playoffs, team he played was in. The team in (who is new this year) was

locked into the #5 seed, so the game didn't matter, but not sure if they knew that.

(he started 2 guys not playing, and basically started the worst line-up he could).

so, what to do - I've had suggestions (by FF players outside and in the league)

things like - kick them out , take away a high draft pick next year, take away some Free Agent money

next year, to things like kick them out of this years playoffs (to late for that). Anyway, thoughts?

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

So a team that had nothing to gain... win or lose played against a team that had nothing to gain... win or lose, and you're going to make a big deal about it because you're "not sure if they knew that"? What if they did and he said, "ah, whatever"? My suggestion, let it go. I'd say at next year's draft, bring up the suggestion that if any team tanks to help someone else, you'll be penalized "x", "y", and "z", and leave it at that.

[Law 220]

Wait, what? It's hard to really grasp the situation due to poor grammar, formatting, writing stye, but you say "he was out of the playoffs" and his opponent "was locked into the #5 seed" so how would you then kick them "out of this years playoff" if one (or both) aren't in the playoffs?

 

Also, it's generally difficult to prove intent. Especially when the results appear to have no real harm.

 

And finally, it's a 20 year member. Do you really want to punish / kick them out over this?

[neil2222 1]

If the seeding for the team that was in was locked and he was out, what was the issue? If he wants to make a statement by starting whoever to put a turd finish on the end of a disappointing year then that's his prerogative so long as it had no impact on any other teams in the league. If it had an impact on seeding or who made the playoffs then that would be a completely different question. I think the suggestions are coming from people looking to stir the pot when there is no issue.

[seafoam1 1,878]

Restructure the league so that all teams have incentive to play to the end of year. There are many good ways to do this but each league needs to find what they like best. Noone in my league ever stops competing. Standings finish for 10th place is less desirable than 9th place because of investment shares for example.

[neil2222 1]

And I am curious how you knew that the team was locked into the #5 seed but there is a question that the 20 year league veteran would somehow not be aware of that?

[seafoam1 1,878]

Wait, what? It's hard to really grasp the situation due to poor grammar, formatting, writing stye, but you say "he was out of the playoffs" and his opponent "was locked into the #5 seed" so how would you then kick them "out of this years playoff" if one (or both) aren't in the playoffs

And you are criticizing his grammer? Jeez, that's mean dude. And ironically, based on your reply, you would never get hired as a writing editor if you used that piece of crap "sentence" that you just wrote for a job interview.

 

Oh, and the "wait, what?" was such a well thought out "instantaneous" throw in there. You are dramatic too!!!

[bpephin 0]

Thanks for the responses so far -

I was given so many varied ideas on what to do which is why I came here to ask -

- I don't want or plan on kicking anybody out

- I know him and know he did probably did not go thru the tie-breaks and scenarios to

see the other team could get a better seed. He just assumed it would help the other team.

- the top 4 teams in points scored payout and it runs thru week 16, plus there is a toilet bowl,

so there is incentive to keep playing

- Because the game didn't matter for seeding, I am leaning towards just cussing them out and moving on.

My co-commish wants to be much harder on them, as he feels he does not want a tanking precident

set. .

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

- I know him and know he did probably did not go thru the tie-breaks and scenarios to

see the other team could get a better seed. He just assumed it would help the other team.

Without actually seeing the standings, when you said the one guy was "locked into the #5 seed", that tells me that there weren't any real tie-breakers or scenario's to run through. If you're locked in, I've found that it's really obvious to tell.

[Law 220]

And you are criticizing his grammer? Jeez, that's mean dude. And ironically, based on your reply, you would never get hired as a writing editor if you used that piece of crap "sentence" that you just wrote for a job interview.

 

Oh, and the "wait, what?" was such a well thought out "instantaneous" throw in there. You are dramatic too!!!

 

And the hard on continues.

 

Thanks Stalker!

[bpephin 0]

Without actually seeing the standings, when you said the one guy was "locked into the #5 seed", that tells me that there weren't any real tie-breakers or scenario's to run through. If you're locked in, I've found that it's really obvious to tell.

If they won, they lost any tie-breakers with the team they could catch, if they lost, they won the tie-breaks with the team below that would have had the same

record. so no matter what happened they would be the #5 seed, but not as simple as looking at the records.

[DaBeerz 88]

Our league combats tanking by making all the B pool teams still play for draft spot selection preferences for the following year.

 

To OP, if nothing changed as a result of the "tanking" who cares. I think a warning to the owner should be sufficient.

[boilerddd 62]

If the seeding for the team that was in was locked and he was out, what was the issue? If he wants to make a statement by starting whoever to put a turd finish on the end of a disappointing year then that's his prerogative so long as it had no impact on any other teams in the league. If it had an impact on seeding or who made the playoffs then that would be a completely different question. I think the suggestions are coming from people looking to stir the pot when there is no issue.

I agree with this. Why create drama for no good reason. I don't agree with not at least fielding a complete team under any circumstances, but I wouldn't lose my mind over this.

[kilroy69 993]

Sorry. If there was literally nothing gained or lost at all from Not setting a lineup there is no problem because it's not tanking.

[thePRO 78]

Seems petty, tell your commish to chill the F out and have a drink!

[Eaglessb 12]

We had a situation where someone left in an inactive player for the 4pm game because they were out and probably didn't care enough to check. It didn't change the teams in the playoffs but changed seeding in the first round. If that didn't happen the team who I think is the strongest would have been knocked out by one of the two weakest teams because of some players outperforming their usual production. Nobody made a big deal about it at the time because you couldn't tell if it was giving any one an advantage at the time but it has a good chance of changing who will win it all and makes my matchup tougher this week.

[sirwinzalot 1]

seen this before in my money league, started payouts for high scorer of the week, also added that the worst four teams draft spots for the following year would be based on the best divisional record, if tied, best overall points, with the last 3 games being divisional games. Everyone was trying to win going into the final stretch. Made it so you couldn't suck out to get the first overall pick the following year.

[shutdown 40]

Thanks for the responses so far -

I was given so many varied ideas on what to do which is why I came here to ask -

- I don't want or plan on kicking anybody out

- I know him and know he did probably did not go thru the tie-breaks and scenarios to

see the other team could get a better seed. He just assumed it would help the other team.

- the top 4 teams in points scored payout and it runs thru week 16, plus there is a toilet bowl,

so there is incentive to keep playing

- Because the game didn't matter for seeding, I am leaning towards just cussing them out and moving on.

My co-commish wants to be much harder on them, as he feels he does not want a tanking precident

set. .

I agree with your co-commish here. This is collusion and whether or not it had anything to do with one team's seed is irrelevant, this is the classic example of two teams collaborating for the benefit of one. Personally, I'm running a long standing league and if this happened one or both would likely be expelled as you clearly have two teams that are willing to work together for the advantage of one of them. This is likely to come up in future issues with trades, tanking games or free agent add/drops. If they are willing to work together on this they're likely to do it again, only in a manner that may be more discrete next time so you can't penalize them (making a trade that's just good enough to pass a review but is more beneficial to one side) etc.

 

If you are against removing one or both, They need to be on public blast so the rest of your league is aware of what they are capable of doing and yes they need some type of punitive action against them. I don't think I'd remove them from this year's playoffs but I think a fine or additional fee that the playoff team needs to pay to get in would be a good way to deal with it. Either he pays the fine or you move the next team up into the playoffs and re-seed.

 

Again, you've got a long term problem if you have two owners willing to help each other and if you don't put a stop to it, it will continue and will cause you a great deal of headache for this league going forward.

[Brutal Brutus 182]

I agree with your co-commish here. This is collusion and whether or not it had anything to do with one team's seed is irrelevant, this is the classic example of two teams collaborating for the benefit of one. Personally, I'm running a long standing league and if this happened one or both would likely be expelled as you clearly have two teams that are willing to work together for the advantage of one of them. This is likely to come up in future issues with trades, tanking games or free agent add/drops. If they are willing to work together on this they're likely to do it again, only in a manner that may be more discrete next time so you can't penalize them (making a trade that's just good enough to pass a review but is more beneficial to one side) etc.

 

If you are against removing one or both, They need to be on public blast so the rest of your league is aware of what they are capable of doing and yes they need some type of punitive action against them. I don't think I'd remove them from this year's playoffs but I think a fine or additional fee that the playoff team needs to pay to get in would be a good way to deal with it. Either he pays the fine or you move the next team up into the playoffs and re-seed.

 

Again, you've got a long term problem if you have two owners willing to help each other and if you don't put a stop to it, it will continue and will cause you a great deal of headache for this league going forward.

Seems like an overaction to me. It's not true collusion as it didn't help anyone and doesn't seem like it was planned out by both parties. Just a lazy owner at the end of the year. Nothing gained or lost in this situation. Just use it as a reminder, come up with a penalty for next time, and try and find a way to keep owners invested all year.

[shutdown 40]

Seems like an overaction to me. It's not true collusion as it didn't help anyone and doesn't seem like it was planned out by both parties. Just a lazy owner at the end of the year. Nothing gained or lost in this situation. Just use it as a reminder, come up with a penalty for next time, and try and find a way to keep owners invested all year.

If it's a lazy owner at the end of the year, then yes, I'd agree collusion doesn't apply. But the original post insinuated the lineup was adjusted so that it was the worst possible lineup, not that the guy left the lineup as is with players not playing. If that's the case those two owners had a conversation about doing this and that to me is collusion.

 

However even if it is just a lazy owner, he's still potentially hurting the league by giving away wins. It may not have mattered in this scenario, but what if you owned a team that didn't make the playoffs because you lost a tiebreak to a team that picked up a win over a lazy owner who didn't care. In money leagues these things matter, that's why we have rules so that I can automatically take control of a team if an owner becomes inactive (which I've only had to do twice in 17 years fortunately). It may not matter in some leagues but when you play for a fair amount of money, nobody wants to see an owner not actively managing their team as it creates issues you don't want to have to deal with as a commissioner.

[neil2222 1]

There is no way anyone here can determine the intent. It is much much much more likely that collusion was not involved than a 20 year league owner who is out of the playoffs tanking a game as part of a collusive effort with a five seed. Most five seeds are looking to move DOWN to avoid a second round matchup with the 1 seed.

It is just as likely that the guy had a a disappointing team or made some bad roster decisions throughout the year and intentionally decided to pick his worst lineup just to see what would happen or as a final FU to his team.. I have gone with "reverse psychology" contrarian decision making when every single 50-50 call goes wrong for weeks in a row. I could see doing it as a protest to the FF gods for my entire team in the last week if I had a whole season like that so long as long as it didn't affect anyone else. It's not like he left the spots empty. Who he starts and sits is his decision. If he his scrubs had gone off this week would you still be investigating?

[weepaws 2,452]

Take them Fishing.

 

2 Timothy 4:18.

[shutdown 40]

There is no way anyone here can determine the intent. It is much much much more likely that collusion was not involved than a 20 year league owner who is out of the playoffs tanking a game as part of a collusive effort with a five seed. Most five seeds are looking to move DOWN to avoid a second round matchup with the 1 seed.

 

It is just as likely that the guy had a a disappointing team or made some bad roster decisions throughout the year and intentionally decided to pick his worst lineup just to see what would happen or as a final FU to his team.. I have gone with "reverse psychology" contrarian decision making when every single 50-50 call goes wrong for weeks in a row. I could see doing it as a protest to the FF gods for my entire team in the last week if I had a whole season like that so long as long as it didn't affect anyone else. It's not like he left the spots empty. Who he starts and sits is his decision. If he his scrubs had gone off this week would you still be investigating?

Again the post stated that he started 2 guys that weren't even playing. I agree it can be difficult to determine intentions but if you have guys in your lineup that are hurt or inactive then and you purposefully put them there, I'd argue you're intentionally trying to lose and I'm not going to allow it because there are only two reasons to do that...

 

1) you had a crappy season and just want to go out with an FU to the year

2) you want the other team to win

 

However if playoffs spots and seeds are in the balance neither of these behaviors is acceptable.

 

I'll admit different strategies work for different leagues. We have 14 guys many who have been in the league for over a decade, the pot for the winner (if you win the playoff and total points) can be as much as $2,000. Those guys don't have me running the league to let someone mis-manage their team in a way that impacts playoff spots. I also play in much more casual leagues where this really isn't a big deal and I see that side also.

 

My perspective as a long time commish is that I don't want owners that manage their team in a manner that isn't competitive. In my league that's defined as starting bye week or inactive players, it's in the rules. If you want to start James Connor over LeVeon Bell because you think Bell isn't fully healthy this week, fine, that's your prerogative. However in my league it's not your prerogative to not prepare or to tank by starting inactive players. I think in more competitive leagues, owners would prefer to have this level of management by the commish but again everyone should play in leagues where the rules suit their expectations of fun.

[thePRO 78]

Even if he started that worst lineup, that is not FF collusion!! They're now just making an inference that he may have not known the 5 seed was locked. It should just stop at that point.

[DaBeerz 88]

Nothing was gained or lost as a result. Who cares.

 

Commish should just send a post or email out to the league reminding all owners they're obligated to start their best possible lineup each week regardless of the situation or if they're out of the playoffs.

 

Otherwise no harm done.

[seafoam1 1,878]

Can't your leagues just have incentives for each team in the league to want to finish one or more spots higher in the standings no matter what place they are in at the end of the year? Or do you only give incentives for the teams to make the playoffs? If the latter, then you will always have a problem in one way or another.

 

Or a league can have weekly prizes. Up the league fees by $25 per person and give $20 a week for 14 weeks (or to the end of reg. season) to the highest scorer for each week. There are a lot of ways.to get everyone involved

[72dolfan 5]

Take them Fishing.

 

2 Timothy 4:18.

 

I think you Meant Godfather II

[weepaws 2,452]

No fishing.

 

Nothing solves problems like going fishing.

[bucknbull 4]

If the players not playing were put in that week, I would punish a little or at least 1 time warning. Our league has 20% of our dues going toward the highest 1 week score of the year. This avoids the tanking pretty well.

[jaxjag 43]

Put me down (with "Law") as complaining about the wording. Too much use of "he" and I can't follow which team did what...

 

The guy out of the play-offs tanked.... What did the other guy do to be considered for eviction?

 

As for the 20 year vet, punch him in the face and make him go fishing with weepaws.