Benching All Players In Redraft To Get An Easier Matchup In Playoffs

[the lone star 3]

So in my redraft league I have clinched the #1 spot and playoffs start in week 15 (4 team playoffs). I play the #5 team this week and can let him into playoffs if he wins and the #4 team loses. So would it be wrong for me to bench all of my players to make sure the #5 team wins? If it helps, the league doesn't have any rules against such a tactic.

 

Please let me know what you think.

[jimaveli 119]

Head to head sucks. There are lots of reasonable reasons why this is my stance. The fact that you tanking to rig the playoffs is an option is just another one. The main one is that it makes a game that is random enough as it is even more random in an obviously unfair way. Ie: one team can win with 87 points in the same league in the same week where another team loses with 138 points if the matchups fall a certain way. For what a fantasy football league actually is to me, I find it ridiculous that anyone would want that for anyone in any week..especially when there is dinero on the line. It is randomized injustice. And it is super duper silly in a game filled with enough silly things already. Ahem...carried away!

 

Now, to answer: you should be called an a-hole in writing and to your face if you do tank it up, but go ahead and do it anyway. No one can stop you from being an a-hole if that is what you want to do. Maybe your league will use this as an excuse to throw head to head only in the trash and move to something else. And, the gawds of fantasy will probably stricken you in some way as a result anyway. And you will deserve it. Because you are an a-hole for doing this.

 

So, to be clear for the TLDR crowd, you are an ahole for doing it, head to head only sux, but do it if that is what you want to do. Maybe your league will benefit from it long-term.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

Maybe your leagues need a rule that bans lone star, specifically, from being a total douche nozzle? That may alleviate the issues you bring up.

[SexyRexy 60]

stop making threads.

[sderk 1,040]

Finally you bring up a good topic. Do anything legal to increase your chances to win in the end.

 

Professional football teams often times rest their starters when they are locked into the playoffs. Why not in fantasy?

[SexyRexy 60]

Finally you bring up a good topic. Do anything legal to increase your chances to win in the end.

 

Professional football teams often times rest their starters when they are locked into the playoffs. Why not in fantasy?

 

while i dont disagree with the merit of doing this in fantasy (i believe owners should do what is in the best interest of their seasons as long as they field a full lineup), resting players in actual football is not comparable to resting players in fantasy football.

[weepaws 2,451]

Lol at resting ff players.

[SexyRexy 60]

Lol at resting ff players.

 

I mean of all the reasons to come up with....

[sderk 1,040]

while i dont disagree with the merit of doing this in fantasy (i believe owners should do what is in the best interest of their seasons as long as they field a full lineup), resting players in actual football is not comparable to resting players in fantasy football.

Noone in fantasy is resting players. It's just meant as a joke term is all. But not playing them to better your chances to win is smart if you truly think it helps.

[SexyRexy 60]

if the original question by this OP entails not fielding a team at all, the answer is absolutely not.

[sderk 1,040]

if the original question by this OP entails not fielding a team at all, the answer is absolutely ###### not.

I think he is talking about just playing backups. Like maybe putting in Corey Clement over Todd Gurley or something like that.

[SexyRexy 60]

I think he is talking about just playing backups. Like maybe putting in Corey Clement over Todd Gurley or something like that.

 

I personally think thats fine. If it's in your best interest to lose, as it would be your best interest to win and in this case losing = winning, then why not? As long as you field a complete team, I don't personally take issue with this.

[TheUsualSuspect 207]

Within the rules, so sure you can do it but I advise against it. Call me old-fashioned, but imma may the best team win kinda guy; However,

 

If Im the Commish, you are not welcome back next season.

 

If Im not the Commish, Im out and will take my talents elsewhere.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,492]

Who is this lone star guy coming up with some imaginary league issue to post every 4 hours? Who plays in a league with this much fake drama? And who would want to play in a league with this whiner in it?

[weepaws 2,451]

I understand where the op is coming from, and the op feels he has a better shot at the currently 5th team in the playoffs.

 

But I just don’t like the wording helping that team win.

 

There is no rule against it then you can do it, but helping someone else’s wins seems wrong to me.

 

Just play the game and see what happens.

 

And I do understand winning is the number one factor, and I would seem that if team 5 beats out team 4 the op feels he can beat team five. And win at all cost I guess makes since, but to help a team win just seems cheap to me.

[phillygrrl08 139]

On FBG forums, one has the option to block annoying/stupid posters. Is there such an option here?

[boilerddd 62]

I understand where the op is coming from, and the op feels he has a better shot at the currently 5th team in the playoffs.

 

But I just don’t like the wording helping that team win.

 

There is no rule against it then you can do it, but helping someone else’s wins seems wrong to me.

 

Just play the game and see what happens.

 

And I do understand winning is the number one factor, and I would seem that if team 5 beats out team 4 the op feels he can beat team five. And win at all cost I guess makes since, but to help a team win just seems cheap to me.

Agree with weepaws on this.

I will also add that it will be poetic and awesome when the said "weaker" opponent you set yourself up to plays has a stellar day and lights your ass up in the playoffs.

[Bills04 45]

Why not? Tampa Bay did this, to secure they'd get J. Winston / the overall #1 pick, a few years ago. Otherwise:

 

"I will also add that it will be poetic and awesome when the said "weaker" opponent you set yourself up to plays has a stellar day and lights your ass up in the playoffs."

 

Years ago - I think I did what the OP is considering doing. And, yes - fate bit me in the -ass, and the "weaker" team beat me..

[jgcrawfish 232]

i'm not for benching the team, but i don't think it's all that wrong to play a lesser lineup. But competitive spirit should always prevail, and throwing out no lineup isn't in line with competitive spirit.

[the lone star 3]

Yeah, maybe I could play a lesser lineup, but who knows how that goes. Could actually win, lol.

[easilyscan 553]

Head to head sucks. There are lots of reasonable reasons why this is my stance. The fact that you tanking to rig the playoffs is an option is just another one. The main one is that it makes a game that is random enough as it is even more random in an obviously unfair way. Ie: one team can win with 87 points in the same league in the same week where another team loses with 138 points if the matchups fall a certain way. For what a fantasy football league actually is to me, I find it ridiculous that anyone would want that for anyone in any week..especially when there is dinero on the line. It is randomized injustice. And it is super duper silly in a game filled with enough silly things already. Ahem...carried away!

 

Now, to answer: you should be called an a-hole in writing and to your face if you do tank it up, but go ahead and do it anyway. No one can stop you from being an a-hole if that is what you want to do. Maybe your league will use this as an excuse to throw head to head only in the trash and move to something else. And, the gawds of fantasy will probably stricken you in some way as a result anyway. And you will deserve it. Because you are an a-hole for doing this.

 

So, to be clear for the TLDR crowd, you are an ahole for doing it, head to head only sux, but do it if that is what you want to do. Maybe your league will benefit from it long-term.

You're an island of reality, in an ocean of diarrhea.

Bonus points if you can tell me what movie that line is from ?

In paragraph one, line 2, you stated perfectly the biggest problem with head to head, & one that anyone that isn't developmentally disabled, can understand.

"one team can win with 87 points in the same league in the same week where another team loses with 138 points"

 

If that scenario takes place week 1, a clearly superior team is 0-1, & tied for last, while a clearly inferior team, (at least after one week) is tied for 1st.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Yeah, maybe I could play a lesser lineup, but who knows how that goes. Could actually win, lol.

Karma always catches guys who test it. Playing a lesser lineup is the better of your choices.

[jgcrawfish 232]

You're an island of reality, in an ocean of diarrhea.

Bonus points if you can tell me what movie that line is from ?

In paragraph one, line 2, you stated perfectly the biggest problem with head to head, & one that anyone that isn't developmentally disabled, can understand.

"one team can win with 87 points in the same league in the same week where another team loses with 138 points"

 

If that scenario takes place week 1, a clearly superior team is 0-1, & tied for last, while a clearly inferior team, (at least after one week) is tied for 1st.

for all the sense it makes, people like the idea of playing one person. they like the smack talk that goes with it. NFL teams don't win based on points scored...they win based on beating another team, regardless of score. the Rams shouldn't get more wins for beating the Chiefs two weeks ago 54-51 than the Jags do for beating the Colts 6-0 this past week. There's good and bad to both, but actually playing someone is what generates the water-cooler talk.

[jimaveli 119]

In some leagues, yep. In most leagues, most owners tend to hide in corners saying nothing until a weird trade happens or after the whole thing is decided. Aka one on one weekly trash talk is a dying thing in lots of leagues...especially in some longer running ones. And still, giving wins each week to half the league based on random matchups is a recipe for potential disaster.

 

I played in a league for a decade with that system in place and several folks got jobbed out of playoff spots and/or championships based on matchup shenanigans. A guy took a few zeroes to try rig the playoff seeds one year too. After all of that, weekly 50/50 surprisingly won out in a vote one year and it has been a better thing to most of the league owners ever since.

[easilyscan 553]

for all the sense it makes, people like the idea of playing one person. they like the smack talk that goes with it. NFL teams don't win based on points scored...they win based on beating another team, regardless of score. the Rams shouldn't get more wins for beating the Chiefs two weeks ago 54-51 than the Jags do for beating the Colts 6-0 this past week. There's good and bad to both, but actually playing someone is what generates the water-cooler talk.

Yeah, I understand the smack talk attraction.

[thePRO 78]

I thought of this, but didn't. H2H does suck. I'm currently the #1 seed at 12-1.

 

3 divisions

 

The 3rd division team is average. 7-6.

 

The 4th and 5th seed after that are 2nd and 3rd in their divisions. Their record is 9-4 and their 2nd and 3rd in points behind me.

 

Well after week 1 in the playoffs, I'll face one of the 9-4 teams.

 

The 2nd place team will either play the weak 3rd seed or the sucky 6th seed.

 

I'd kill to be 2nd seed.

[kilroy69 993]

Go ahead. You won't be invited back next year. My league has a hermit Edwards clause. You play to win the game.

[Showboat 143]

It's fair game if you are a total D-bag. Half the time when I've seen this done, the "easy" opponent ends up winning.

[SenatorRock 708]

It's fair game if you are a total D-bag. Half the time when I've seen this done, the "easy" opponent ends up winning.

 

I had a situation similar to this a few years back and overanalyzed the hell out of it.

 

Ended up playing my best lineup each week because you can't control if that "easier" seed has some WR2 go off for 50 points and end your season. When my season ends I want to know that I did everything I could to score as many points each and every week. Then leave it up to the fantasy gods.

[the lone star 3]

It's fair game if you are a total D-bag. Half the time when I've seen this done, the "easy" opponent ends up winning.

 

So the other half the team that benched wins. 50/50....it could be worse.

[sderk 1,040]

 

I had a situation similar to this a few years back and overanalyzed the hell out of it.

 

Ended up playing my best lineup each week because you can't control if that "easier" seed has some WR2 go off for 50 points and end your season. When my season ends I want to know that I did everything I could to score as many points each and every week. Then leave it up to the fantasy gods.

Playoffs are fun in FF mostly for who get's the trophy and bragging rights, extra cash, etc. But as far as full $$ distribution to the teams, I think total points at the end of the regular season should determine who gets the biggest cut when all is said and done. But still each team gets cuts of the $$ based on their points total. So last place gets less than second to last place and etc up the ladder. Keeps teams competitive all year for the most part.