Was This Rule Change A Mistake? - Dynasty League Tanking

[the lone star 3]

Let's say the commissioner of a dynasty league discovered that someone tanked during a few games at the end of the season (Year 2 of the league) to get a better draft pick in this year's upcoming rookie draft. There aren't any explicit anti-tanking rules and the way the rookie draft order is calculated for the upcoming draft has been posted since the league started (i.e. it has been posted and disclosed to the owners for over two years). The owner that tanked had a screenshot of a text message where he and the commissioner discussed starting inactive (bye week, injured, suspended, free agent, retired) players. The tanking owner asked if it was something he could do, and the commissioner said that "if you don't have anybody else to start, then yes, but if you just don't want to, then I don't know." The tanking owner then pointed out that the site did not prevent someone from starting inactive players, to which the commish responded "Cool. Yeah." The tanking owner understood this as a grant of permission to start such inactive players, and a pro-tanking position in general. The commissioner claims that the owner never explicitly asked about tanking, and as it turns out, the commish is actually strongly against tanking (something that was not known until now).

The commissioner collected dues for the upcoming season (the season for which the rookie draft will take place), but he did not like the fact that somebody tanked. On the other hand, the tanking owner had a screenshot of conversation where the commissioner says that the order of the draft "must" be the way that it is currently posted in the league's bylaws. However, the commissioner still decided to change the draft order regardless, because he is really anti-tanking. He changed one of the tiebreakers from total points scored by starting lineups, to total points scored by each team's optimal lineups.

For what it is worth, the tanking owner has played in leagues where tanking has occurred, specifically, leagues where teams were allowed to bench their star players in order to lose a game (to get themselves a better matchup in the first round, a better draft pick, etc.), or to bench players in order to secure a win (prevent someone from scoring negative points). However, the commissioner has never seen this tactic in 10+ years of playing. The tanking owner also believes that tanking happens in real life, but the commissioner is of the firm opinion that it does not. On top of that, the tanking owner has hard evidence that tanking happened in Year 1 of the league, but the commissioner is unaware of this.

It is also worth noting that in the final game of the season, the commissioner did spot the tanking and after a brief exchange, the tanking owner agreed to set a new lineup because, although he thought it was fair game, he just didn't want to "start any drama" among the league members. During this exchange, the tanking owner showed the commissioner the text message exchange they had about starting inactive players. After receiving the message, the commissioner said that he was fine with people starting weak lineups, just not inactive players. So maybe the commish is more anti-inactive players than he is anti-tanking. Many league members complained about the tanking owner during the last week of the season because it either affected their chances of securing a top draft slot, or their playoff hopes. Some owners are upset that it wasn't caught earlier, because other games where the owner tanked are now in the books.

The commish and vice-commish apparently agreed to create different tie-breakers for this coming season, but never updated the rulebook or disclosed such a change to the rest of the league. Even so, the commish still thought that he was perfectly within his rights to implement the unposted order now. He is really concerned with the integrity of the league.

But as of right now, there is no rule against tanking, the league has never discussed tanking, and the tanking owner thought it was fine based off of previous experiences, his own self-interest, and the text message exchange he had with the commish. The commish doesn't think an anti-tanking rule is needed, nor is one needed to tell people that they must only start active players each week.

Considering all of this, do you think the commissioner made a mistake? Was it wrong for him to unilaterally implement any "corrective" measures after dues were paid? Please explain below.

 

[Quickolas1 80]

Auction.

[the lone star 3]

Auction.

 

Eh?

[KingOfTheJungle 3]

Get out.

[Donkey 34]

Your league sucks.

[shutdown 40]

I have a clause written in my rules that allows me to make necessary rules changes in-season, if I deem an owner i playing outside of the "spirit" of the league. It's hard to write a rules document that covers everything in a black and white manner. Mine is 15 pages long and about every 3-4 years an owner will still find a way around the written rules to do something that I didn't think was in the spirit of the rule. I've only used this clause once in nearly 20 years of running the league.

 

That being said, I'd probably NOT impact this years draft but still implement the tanking rule as it relates to draft picks after this years draft. I get where your commissioner is coming from. Our redraft order is set up the same way, and while it's not nearly as big of a deal in a re-draft league, we don't permit tanking in any way shape or form. The biggest problem with tanking is the effect it has on the other teams. You're potentially giving other teams a win that could enhance their playoff seed or even push them into the playoffs over a team that didn't have the advantage of playing another tanking team. But I think that's easily addressed moving forward and not creating a controversy with this seasons rookie draft.

[seafoam1 1,878]

I think the rules of the league should address tanking and not one person's opinion of it. But when I say address tanking, I don't mean they simply say you can't do it, but rather, use a little creativity to keep people from wanting to be near the bottom.

 

My leagie is an auction league, so that takes care of that. But, we also have a financial investment component in which we not only have cash payouts, but also low risk investment dollars where a person's team's finish ajdusts their % ownership of the invested dollars up or down over the years. So if you finish lower in the rankings, that diminishes your % of dollars of the current years investment amount.

 

Another thing we do is have the last place "toilet bowl" winner buy food and drink for the next years draft.

[seafoam1 1,878]

Also, you could give advantage of draft pick for the following year to the team who finishes first outside of the playoff teams. So if you are in a 10 team league with 4 playoff spots each year, whoever finishes 5th, gets the advantage in the next years draft instead of the last place team, 6th place gets the next best, and so on. Then teams will want to remain competative through the year.

 

Oh, and all changes get voted on prior the draft far enough in advance of your leagues draft so teams can prepare for them with no single person making decisions both before or after the fact. That is a recipe for disaster.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

I like the rule. Doesn't harm anyone who was above board. Good for the league. Move on.

[seafoam1 1,878]

I like the rule. Doesn't harm anyone who was above board. Good for the league. Move on.

What if the commissioner is not above board? Always make decisions based on the league participants votes on a new rule. Nothing else.

[DankNuggs 305]

Have a lottery of non playoff teams for the rookie draft. Make the worst team have to provide beer and food for the draft. Tanking eliminated

[the lone star 3]

Your league sucks.

lol.

[the lone star 3]

I like the rule. Doesn't harm anyone who was above board. Good for the league. Move on.

 

So is it fine for other rules to have retroactive effects then?

[the lone star 3]

I have a clause written in my rules that allows me to make necessary rules changes in-season, if I deem an owner i playing outside of the "spirit" of the league. It's hard to write a rules document that covers everything in a black and white manner. Mine is 15 pages long and about every 3-4 years an owner will still find a way around the written rules to do something that I didn't think was in the spirit of the rule. I've only used this clause once in nearly 20 years of running the league.

 

That being said, I'd probably NOT impact this years draft but still implement the tanking rule as it relates to draft picks after this years draft. I get where your commissioner is coming from. Our redraft order is set up the same way, and while it's not nearly as big of a deal in a re-draft league, we don't permit tanking in any way shape or form. The biggest problem with tanking is the effect it has on the other teams. You're potentially giving other teams a win that could enhance their playoff seed or even push them into the playoffs over a team that didn't have the advantage of playing another tanking team. But I think that's easily addressed moving forward and not creating a controversy with this seasons rookie draft.

 

Yeah, I think it should be on a proactive basis. People have different values and experiences. Some leagues are fine with openly tanking. Others are not. Tough to penalize an owner who asked beforehand too.

[the lone star 3]

Get out.

Thanks for the welcome buddy.

[the lone star 3]

Have a lottery of non playoff teams for the rookie draft. Make the worst team have to provide beer and food for the draft. Tanking eliminated

 

I like it, but would you be able to enforce that retroactively?

[ralphster 274]

Give the mish some credit, support his moves to clean up tanking despite yer already paying dues. Mishing a league is like herding cats.

[seafoam1 1,878]

Give the mish some credit, support his moves to clean up tanking despite yer already paying dues. Mishing a league is like herding cats.

Homies and mishes and herd cats, oh my. Great input. ABIDE!!

[the lone star 3]

Give the mish some credit, support his moves to clean up tanking despite yer already paying dues. Mishing a league is like herding cats.

 

So is it correct to retroactively clean up tanking?

[the lone star 3]

Homies and mishes and herd cats, oh my. Great input. ABIDE!!

GOAT post.

[seafoam1 1,878]

 

So is it correct to retroactively clean up tanking?

No way should that be done. Start out clean with new incentives that always encourage teams to want to win each week and/or finish ahead of the team in front of them. Even if they are in last place.

 

It sucks being in a league where when teams become eliminated they have nothing to play for but last place. May as well join the NBA.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

 

So is it fine for other rules to have retroactive effects then?

Depends on the rule. In this case the commish (who I think everyone should agree, is in charge to a point and needs to have power to make certain decisions) made a midstream rule about tanking for draft picks. Can we all also agree that tanking for draft picks doesn't need a league vote to be outlawed? He implemented an excellent solution (albeit not perfect, nothing is) that would certainly favor the weaker teams. The whole thing was handled in the best way possible IMO.

[Bills04 45]

I don't agree with changing the rules after the season. I *do* like the idea of last place buys food and drink for the following year's draft night. But, again - you have to put that in place so the owners know.

 

I agree that professional teams "tank." TB played their third-stringers and special teamers in the last game of the season before they took Winston #1 overall. And, Indy's "suck for Luck" campaign. Etc.

[seafoam1 1,878]

I don't agree with changing the rules after the season. I *do* like the idea of last place buys food and drink for the following year's draft night. But, again - you have to put that in place so the owners know.

 

 

Yeah, it's like $150 bucks or whatever. You can even spread that over the bottom 3 teams. Last place $75, 2nd to last $45, 3rd to last $30. At least it's a start to address a problem. Then let the league grow into the perfect solution over time having everyone vote on what they like or not prior to each years draft. This gives everyone a desire to stay in a league. They get to have input in the rules.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

I agree that professional teams "tank." TB played their third-stringers and special teamers in the last game of the season before they took Winston #1 overall. And, Indy's "suck for Luck" campaign. Etc.

I doubt you'll see injured and inactives on the field. Putting in a bad lineup is far different than putting in an inactive lineup.

[seafoam1 1,878]

I doubt you'll see injured and inactives on the field. Putting in a bad lineup is far different than putting in an inactive lineup.

Yep. I won my league last year and could have easily been in last place if I played my active bench players. My league has both head to head and against averge every week, but some of the money pool goes to each head to head win. So each week 6 teams will win an extra $20 each for the head to head win. The head to head losers get nothing extra for that week. It encourages wanting to win even when out of the playoffs.

 

Doesn't happen like this in the NFL as the prize is the better draft pick.

[cousinal111 57]

Our non playoff teams have their own tournament to determine the following year's draft order. It's resolved any tanking issues.

[the lone star 3]

Our non playoff teams have their own tournament to determine the following year's draft order. It's resolved any tanking issues.

 

So do some teams continue to suck, or do you all also achieve good parity?

[cousinal111 57]

 

So do some teams continue to suck, or do you all also achieve good parity?

I won't say the bottom teams don't suck. They do however stay active with their lineups and on the waiver wire which is all you can ask from an Owner of a team that's 2-8 after Week 10.

[The PosterFormerlyKnownAs 61]

The change should have been announced and made before the fees were collected for the new season. That way the asshat that purposely tanked and is trying to blackmail the commissioner with text screenshots and gathering public opinion data on a fantasy football board could have had time to gracefully drop out or be kicked out by a vote of the actual people impacted by the tanking. Im sorry youre caught up in all this ... you seem a pretty above board person.

[redsrback 30]

The fact your commish said you were allowed to start weak line-ups means he has no business running a league. Thats tanking, just somebody trying to not look obvious about it. He sat on the fence just to see if it benefitted himself is all.

[seafoam1 1,878]

 

So is it correct to retroactively clean up tanking?

Nope.

[mobb_deep 917]

That trade is pretty unbalanced. I'd be forced to veto it as well. Your commish did the right thing.

[the lone star 3]

That trade is pretty unbalanced. I'd be forced to veto it as well. Your commish did the right thing.

 

Wait, what trade?

[mobb_deep 917]

 

Wait, what trade?

You did the right thing.

 

To use an analogy, if you trade away $10 and get $10 back, you are cool if it happens, and cool if it doesn't. It's when you are giving away $5 and getting back $10 that you'll be pissed if the trade doesn't go through.

[polecatt 399]

It's crazy that no rules were made to address such things beforehand but the commish sounds like he has no spine.

Of course the commissioner should be able to implement rules during the season. That's what he's there for.

You should never just assume that every possibility of stuff that could wrong will be covered in the preseason write up of the rules or whatever.

There will often be stuff that comes up that somebody didn't think of or where the rules are somewhat vague as to how it should be handled.

That's where the commish needs to step in and make a ruling that he thinks is fair and best for the league. He should be sure to communicate this clearly to everyone in the league and discuss as needed. Then he needs to stick to his guns.

If he does that then he will gain the respect of the league. LEague members will then gain an insight into how the commish thinks and will react in future controversies.

I have had stuff like this come up numerous times as commish. Just act with honesty and integrity and put the well being of the league above all else.

If you do this then it will be okay. Somebody may not be happy about it some times but if the majority of the league backs you then they will get over it or need to be removed.

 

As for the specific situation. If the commish didn't inform the rest of the league then you need a new commish. Communication is vital to being a good commish.

Learn from it and move on.

[the lone star 3]

You did the right thing.

 

To use an analogy, if you trade away $10 and get $10 back, you are cool if it happens, and cool if it doesn't. It's when you are giving away $5 and getting back $10 that you'll be pissed if the trade doesn't go through.

 

Are you referring to my other thread?

[redsrback 30]

It's crazy that no rules were made to address such things beforehand but the commish sounds like he has no spine.

Of course the commissioner should be able to implement rules during the season. That's what he's there for.

You should never just assume that every possibility of stuff that could wrong will be covered in the preseason write up of the rules or whatever.

There will often be stuff that comes up that somebody didn't think of or where the rules are somewhat vague as to how it should be handled.

That's where the commish needs to step in and make a ruling that he thinks is fair and best for the league. He should be sure to communicate this clearly to everyone in the league and discuss as needed. Then he needs to stick to his guns.

If he does that then he will gain the respect of the league. LEague members will then gain an insight into how the commish thinks and will react in future controversies.

I have had stuff like this come up numerous times as commish. Just act with honesty and integrity and put the well being of the league above all else.

If you do this then it will be okay. Somebody may not be happy about it some times but if the majority of the league backs you then they will get over it or need to be removed.

 

As for the specific situation. If the commish didn't inform the rest of the league then you need a new commish. Communication is vital to being a good commish.

Learn from it and move on.

I agree in some aspect, but there are a few things to bring up. First off it was there first year, they will undoubtedly have a few hiccups even with the knowledge we have passed on. Second, now and then you will have the unforeseen happen and will be impossible to be a right decision for a group of people. Looking back on things the 1 that sticks with me was Kordell Stewart. It was in the rules you start a guy which he was listed as, which was a Running Back, but he played QB. Reason at the time he received the points was because player like Eric Metcalf was given individual points for kick returns which was where fantasy football was at the time before special teams was added onto defense. I wanted to stay strictly to the rules to prevent people from saying I made them up as I went on, but pressure from 10 other people made me change them. I have tried it all, grown adults will complain about witnessed coin flips when they cant be around, I even went into picking up people with more then 1 on my mind just to give another person his player. Few other things I could bring up, but over-all I refuse to be commish and stand by the person who took over the headaches and scars I have endured.

[listen2me 23 1,529]

I am in a long standing (maybe 15 years) IDP Dynasty league. Very deep benches.

 

You should have zero problem finding guys to start that are not hurt or on a bye. The commish reviews lineups each week. If he sees someone openly tanking (bye weeks, injuries, starting a bum over your top guys for no real reason) he will send them a warning. 2nd time loss of I think 3rd round pick. 3rd time loss of 1st round pick.

 

You have to do some obvious tanking for him to warn you.

 

We have 14 solid owners. If we get a goofball we end up weeding them out. So this rarely has been a problem over all these years.

 

If you have a bunch of d bags in your league I could see where other actions would be needed. Like lotto the non playoff teams. But that would suck.

[redsrback 30]

I am in a long standing (maybe 15 years) IDP Dynasty league. Very deep benches.

 

You should have zero problem finding guys to start that are not hurt or on a bye. The commish reviews lineups each week. If he sees someone openly tanking (bye weeks, injuries, starting a bum over your top guys for no real reason) he will send them a warning. 2nd time loss of I think 3rd round pick. 3rd time loss of 1st round pick.

 

You have to do some obvious tanking for him to warn you.

 

We have 14 solid owners. If we get a goofball we end up weeding them out. So this rarely has been a problem over all these years.

 

If you have a bunch of d bags in your league I could see where other actions would be needed. Like lotto the non playoff teams. But that would suck.

I agree much easier in the last 15 years, but think I started around 90 and the rules weren't as define, you had to run things from a newspaper. But I have played a couple of years in 1 league where we met every 4 weeks and did trades. Trades really didn't get over ruled because that caused even bigger problems. Everyone is gonna have an opinion on trades, and I watched a weak player get attacked by everyone to do a trade.