Losing on purpose

[GreatGray 2]

Let's say you are in 1st place and you have the chance to impact who you play in the first round of the playoffs by losing on purpose during the last week of the regular season. Is this generally considered an acceptable strategy so long as you are not playing injured players--even if it's blatantly obvious that you are trying to lose?

 

My feeling is that it's a strategic move and that as long as it's being done for the benefit of the team in question (i.e. not losing on purpose to help a buddy make the playoffs when it doesn't matter to you whether you win or lose or something like that, which would be collusion), then it's all part of the game.

 

The guy in 5th place in our league is basically getting locked out of the playoffs by the guy in 1st losing on purpose and he's making a bit of a stink about it...but seems to me that it's a legit tactic and that I'd consider doing the same (in this case most would agree the 5th place team is much tougher to beat than the team currently in 4th; the 4th place team is up against the 1st place team this week...a tied ranking would go to the team currently in 5th, which is currently 1 game back and in an easy matchup).

 

Anyone have rules against this or have you had a league controversy over this issue in the past? Or is it generally accepted that there's nothing unethical with losing intentionally for our own long-term advantage?

[PRuggs 0]

Without getting too detailed... it's a bush league move. No rule against it but it ruins the integrity of the league and the spirit of fair play.

 

I am a Commish of a league, if I noticed someone doing that I would tell them go ahead but if you do you will not be playing in my league next year.

[mont71 2]

Without getting too detailed... it's a bush league move. No rule against it but it ruins the integrity of the league and the spirit of fair play.

 

I am a Commish of a league, if I noticed someone doing that I would tell them go ahead but if you do you will not be playing in my league next year.

 

 

This

[GreatGray 2]

To me it seems that you should be free to make your own lineup decisions and it's a slippery slope getting into deciding about what another team should do or what their intentions are. Beyond that, it's up to you to make good decisions (plus have good enough luck) to make the playoffs and if you're in this kind of position in the last week then you haven't done good enough. It sucks, but how is losing on purpose different than resting your starters in the NFL when the week doesn't matter--a lot of real NFL teams wouldn't think twice about losing on purpose (or at least playing their scrubs) to face a worse team in the playoffs if given the chance during the last week. That's my thinking anyhow. It's kinda shady but it doesn't seem to warrant getting kicked out of the league.

 

It may indeed be "bush league" but I'd like to hear the detailed logic behind the fantasy ethics here. This must be a fairly common issue.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

What? Why would the first place guy have to play a game to let the 5th place guy in? It doesn't make sense. If the 1st place guy wants to lose intentially, and he doesn't have to say he is, he can do it. And do it with honor. He's trying to win the league, not lose it to the 5th place guy. If the 5th place guy is putting up a stink, tell him he should play better next year. It's not fair play to give the 5th place guy a free pass by playing your regular lineup. I've intentially drew a game in the 1st round of a chess tournament just to try to get a better pairing in the next round. I still got killed, but I tried it. Who's to say that the 5th place guy has the better team come week 15? I say it's your team and you play it the way you want. YOU EARNED IT!

[Atlien120882 0]

How is it a bush league move for the first place team to do what they think is in their best interest? You have the right to start/sit whoever you want at that point. Like the other poster said it's not different than resting your starters. How did the Jets get into the playoffs last year? Did the NFL take action against the colts? No.

 

I think some players need to realize this is competition and you do what it takes to win so long as it's not collusion. It's not little league where everyone gets a trophy just for participating.

[steel827 2]

I wouldn't do it. Just not in my bones to not put my best lineup out there. Besides, FF karma will get you when you play that team you want and he goes off that week.

 

Just my two pennies

[DEEZNUTS 18]

Without getting too detailed... it's a bush league move. No rule against it but it ruins the integrity of the league and the spirit of fair play.

 

I am a Commish of a league, if I noticed someone doing that I would tell them go ahead but if you do you will not be playing in my league next year.

 

 

that

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

sandbagging is for pussies.

[PRuggs 0]

To me it seems that you should be free to make your own lineup decisions and it's a slippery slope getting into deciding about what another team should do or what their intentions are. Beyond that, it's up to you to make good decisions (plus have good enough luck) to make the playoffs and if you're in this kind of position in the last week then you haven't done good enough. It sucks, but how is losing on purpose different than resting your starters in the NFL when the week doesn't matter--a lot of real NFL teams wouldn't think twice about losing on purpose (or at least playing their scrubs) to face a worse team in the playoffs if given the chance during the last week. That's my thinking anyhow. It's kinda shady but it's a matter of style and doesn't seem to warrant getting kicked out of the league.

 

It may indeed be "bush league" but I'd like to hear the detailed logic behind the fantasy ethics here. This must be a fairly common issue.

 

Comparing teams who rest starters week 17 in the NFL is much different. They rest their starters to avoid injury and be fresh in the playoffs. Your players cannot get hurt or worn down by starting them in fantasy football. All NFL teams are still trying to win, and are also giving backups quality playing time that can make the team better in the long run. I have never heard of an NFL team ever trying to lose a game on purpose... ever.

 

 

like I said before, in my league it wouldn't fly. But our league has been around for 8 years and everyone knows each other, we have enough respect for each other to try to put the best team out each week no matter if you are in first or last.

 

Every other team played you this year with your best squad. It's not fair to the rest of the league that you are giving somebody a free 100% win.

 

I would also say that this is just as bad as an uneven trade or collusion. It breaks the spirit of fair play.

 

If your league will let it happen then do whatever you think is right, but don't expect most people to think it's OK.

 

At the end of the day it's Fantasy football, we all play to have fun. What's fun about trying to screw another team over who is also just trying to enjoy fantasy football.

[GridironGuzzlers 3]

It is never fair to the rest of the league to tank. If a last place team gave up and didn't try, possibly affecting playoff matchups, you would boot him and/or take over lineup responsibilities for him. Treat a first place team the same way. and how can you predict what an easier matchup is? You never can tell. I've had weeks when I was projected to win by 40 but lost by more than 40. This year in my league we have 1 team that is 2-9 - his 2 wins are against te current 1 & 3 seeds. He should try to field his best lineup every week to maintain fairness in the league. Be careful what you wish for

[PATSSOX 22]

Its a horse sh!t move. We ran into this in one of my leagues last year. A guy had discussed doing it with me and i told him it was wrong and you should not do it. He gave me all the arguments the people who support it in this thread did.

 

What makes it wrong is it doesnt just effect the person who is throwing the game it effects atleast 2 maybe 3 other teams.

 

If anyone is thinking about doing it ask yourself this...If your team was fighting for a playoff spot and someone who already had clinched a spot threw his/hers game and the result of that thrown game would make you miss the playoffs how would you like it??

 

You would be very very pissed. So dont do it

[TimHauck 2,642]

Unethical, maybe, but I wouldn't call it bush league. No, an NFL team isn't going to admit "losing on purpose," but I'd bet it's happened before in order to try to get a better matchup or keep a certain team out of the playoffs. Yeah, resting their starters is a little different, but the point is that they're not putting the best team out on the field, which is basically what would be happening in this FF situation.

 

That said, to the OP, you do know it's only week 11 right? Either the guy in 1st place must have a huge lead, or he's going to risk losing that 1st place spot if he's already starting to lose on purpose. I can really only see a situation like this happening in the final week of the season. In that case, yeah the guy that misses out of the playoffs is going to be pissed, but it's his fault if he has to rely on someone else losing in order to make the playoffs in the final week of the season.

 

I think I've done something like this before, but I honestly don't remember how it turned out. But that's a whole nother conversation...

[PATSSOX 22]

Its about as BUSH LEAGUE as you can get. Some jerk throwing a game that could screw 2 or 3 other people. Thats pretty bush league if you ask me.

[Dan 62]

Let's discuss briefly the "speific logical ethical issue" with this.

 

Let's suppose that Teams D & E are close, but D is the better team. Team D beats team E, but loses to team A in week 2. Team A has a heck of a team and is storming through the league. Team D now sits after week 11 at 6-5 with two very winnable games left, and is thinking that everything being equal, he will finish at 8-5, and be the 4th best team, the toughest part of his schedule behind him. Team E caught Team C with major bye week issues, and pulled off a game they normally lose. The result is that they are 7-4 after week 11, and one of the games on their schedule is Team A, whom they have yet to play, simply because of scheduling.

 

Team A realizes that Team E is lucky to be in contention and decides that tanking against Team E will allow him to finish a game ahead of Team D, the clearly more dangerous team.

 

The problem is Team D has been evaluated all season long to test his mettle. Team E, by luck of the schedule, caught a better team with byes, and another who manipulated the game.

 

For the poster who wanted to compare it to the NFL benching players, I have a question for you . . . how many players do NFL teams lose to bye weeks?This comparison is loose at best.

 

And this move is bush league . . . and that's being kind. We would boot a guy for garbage like this.

[jgcrawfish 232]

i've given thought to the same thing in one of my leagues. I'm in 2nd place currently and a little worried about the guy in 4th place. His team started off slow and he cleaned up on the waiver wire and suddenly he's the 2nd highest scoring team over the last 5 weeks or so. I'm likely to win this weekend (playing the lowest scoring team in the league) and the 1st place team is playing the highest scoring team in the league, meaning I'll probably end up tied for 1st with one game left. I've given throwing one of my last two games some pause to let the 2nd and 3rd highest scoring teams (1st place and 4th place) battle in the 1st round of the playoffs so I can have an easier road. Relying on Vincent Jackson and Sidney Rice, I also figured one extra week of games is one more game for them to get back into the flow. Plus, might be one more game to help Miles Austin (by Romo returning). It would cost me $50 buck between 2nd and 1st, but the payoff at the end of the of the season is what I'm looking for.

[Cstriker 2]

A team pulled this stunt last year in our league, and the league decided to allow it. Personally, i think thats a ###### move, and should not have been allowed.

 

 

Karma is a ######, and the team that did that lost in the first round off the playoffs against a team they helped get through.

[Adam 0]

I've been commish of a league for 12 years and never once seen this come up. If it came up, though, I would equate it with collusion. The offending team would have their roster picked by me. If I were catching it after the fact I would put in the previous week's line-up regardless of injury or match-ups and call it good enough.

[TimHauck 2,642]

Its about as BUSH LEAGUE as you can get. Some jerk throwing a game that could screw 2 or 3 other people. Thats pretty bush league if you ask me.

 

It doesn't matter if you're screwing other people because of it. It's their fault if they're relying on you to lose just to get in the playoffs. You do what gives you the best chance to win in the end. If you think playing a certain team gives you the best chance to win, then I really don't see anything wrong with this. Yes, sometimes karma comes back to bite you, but you're still trying to play the odds.

[LunaTick 30]

Its Bush League.

 

It is the NFL.

 

Sometimes even in the NFL it backfires on a team. See Colts in 2009. Jets should not have made the playoffs.

 

Just be certain you are starting healthy active players.

For the integrity, be certain they are also relevant.

[PATSSOX 22]

It doesn't matter if you're screwing other people because of it. It's their fault if they're relying on you to lose just to get in the playoffs. You do what gives you the best chance to win in the end. If you think playing a certain team gives you the best chance to win, then I really don't see anything wrong with this. Yes, sometimes karma comes back to bite you, but you're still trying to play the odds.

 

YEAH real good justification of it Im sure you would say the same thing if one year someone does that sh!t and it causes you to miss the playoffs.

[TimHauck 2,642]

YEAH real good justification of it Im sure you would say the same thing if one year someone does that sh!t and it causes you to miss the playoffs.

 

Yes, I would. Of course I'd be mad, but it'd just be sour grapes. I can't really fault someone for doing something they think will help them in the long run.

[PATSSOX 22]

Yes, I would. Of course I'd be mad, but it'd just be sour grapes. I can't really fault someone for doing something they think will help them in the long run.

 

 

Its may be legal but that does not mean it should be done. In baseball that kind of BS would get you drilled in the back with 90+ and youd wouldnt do it again.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

The reason the Colts sat their starters last season, was because they valued the Superbowl more than the "undefeated season". I thought it was natural for them to do it, but some of my buddies didn't. They thought the Colts should fight to win with their best lineup. I didn't. I thought the Colts should do whatever is in their best interests to reach their goal, not somebody else's goal. Yes, this scenerio can be used to compare with this situation in fantasy football. Why should the 1st place guy be forced to play for the 5th place guy? It doesn't make sense. Anybody that has played in any legitmate tournaments knows that sandbagging is part of the game. For example, in tennis, you'll have player losing set 1 by a score of 4-0 and decides to conserve energy for the 2nd set. This means he doesn't play to his full potential on the remainder of set one. Why should he burn out in set one when he can even the score and possibly win the match in sets 2 and 3.

 

If you're playing dictator, as commissioner, and you force somebody to play a lineup they don't choose, you better be prepared to show them where it states that in the rules. Or else be prepared to pony up some dollars.

[el_duderino 0]

I'm interested in this topic....I think it comes down to the stakes.

 

Lets consider two scenario's.

 

1st - you're in a league with friends for bragging rights or a small amount of $ at stake.

 

2nd - you're in a high stakes league with potentially thousands of $ on the line.

 

In the 1st example I don't think I would consider tanking a game. Friendship and not being a smelly doosh would keep me in line.

 

But, like most questions of ethics, what if there was a high amount of $ on the line? What if it could be career changing? Lets say, for the sake of example, you were competing for the title of one of the national leagues like the WCOFF or NFFC? It would become a little muddier. I don't know what I'd do TBH.

[Matthew's Berry's 0]

We had this issue come up in one league, really put tension in the league and it got personal.

 

Solution: The top seeded team picks the 1st round matchup it wants. People balked at it at first, but it works! Teams change so much during the year (waivers, trades) that the hottest team might be #6 ... so this gives the #3 seed a choice (#1 and #2 on bye) of who they play (6 or 5). Then the next week #1 picks which winner they want to face and #2 gets other matchup.

 

Its actually a great system empowering instead of tanking.

[chroniciguana 13]

Solution: The top seeded team picks the 1st round matchup it wants. People balked at it at first, but it works! Teams change so much during the year (waivers, trades) that the hottest team might be #6 ... so this gives the #3 seed a choice (#1 and #2 on bye) of who they play (6 or 5). Then the next week #1 picks which winner they want to face and #2 gets other matchup.

 

What he said. Works. Eliminates the two "best" teams facing off in the semis and gets some trash talk going.

[Dan 62]

The reason the Colts sat their starters last season, was because they valued the Superbowl more than the "undefeated season". I thought it was natural for them to do it, but some of my buddies didn't. They thought the Colts should fight to win with their best lineup. I didn't. I thought the Colts should do whatever is in their best interests to reach their goal, not somebody else's goal. Yes, this scenerio can be used to compare with this situation in fantasy football.

 

Forgive me. Where is the comparison? How are you "keeping your team healthy for the playoffs" by not starting a viable lineup? Honestly? This argument is pathetic and scrambling.

 

Why should the 1st place guy be forced to play for the 5th place guy? It doesn't make sense.

 

Perhaps for the same reason that you suffer through bye weeks. There are arbitrary factors in Fantasy Football that don't affect the NFL. Yes, they deal with injuries. So do we. But we struggle with byes. And we work with limited rosters. And we can't "get in the face" of an underperforming player. We cannot motivate them to play better.

The luck factor alone is enough to make this kind of a move total garbage. Luck of the schedule hurts, and now I've got to deal with some idiot in the league that isn't going to play my opponent as well as he played me. Tough crap if you have to face me. I'm the fourth best team; I deserve to be there, and it wasn't because my team "lost focus" that cost me.

 

NFL example: Last year, the Steelers were hurt by the Colts and Bengals being dumb. BUT, the Steelers had so much to do with their own quandary that there could be no complaint.

Fantasy Football lacks that. My team has performed just as well throughout the year, and even done better than the team in question, but TOTAL LUCK has put me in a position to get screwed by you. Not skill; not poor drafting. Luck. The move is bush.

 

 

Anybody that has played in any legitmate tournaments knows that sandbagging is part of the game. For example, in tennis, you'll have player losing set 1 by a score of 4-0 and decides to conserve energy for the 2nd set. This means he doesn't play to his full potential on the remainder of set one. Why should he burn out in set one when he can even the score and possibly win the match in sets 2 and 3.

 

Ths is totally different, and if you don't see it, then it's because you don't want to. Same player, same MATCH you're talking about . . . there's not even a concession by the player. This is the equivalent of running out of the clock at the end of the first half down by 10, because you decide to regroup. Totally, 100% different.

 

If you're playing dictator, as commissioner, and you force somebody to play a lineup they don't choose, you better be prepared to show them where it states that in the rules. Or else be prepared to pony up some dollars.

 

I concur with this. The better way is to address the ensuing ramifications.

[PATSSOX 22]

We had this issue come up in one league, really put tension in the league and it got personal.

 

Solution: The top seeded team picks the 1st round matchup it wants. People balked at it at first, but it works! Teams change so much during the year (waivers, trades) that the hottest team might be #6 ... so this gives the #3 seed a choice (#1 and #2 on bye) of who they play (6 or 5). Then the next week #1 picks which winner they want to face and #2 gets other matchup.

 

Its actually a great system empowering instead of tanking.

 

We do the same thing in my league. Its 12 team and the top 8 make playoffs. #1 seed picks who he wants to play between the #6, #7 and #8 team. Then the #2 seed picks between the 2 remaining seeds and the #3 gets who is left. The #4 and #5 dont get to pick they are stuck with each other.

 

I like this because it rewards the top seeds and dont like bye's. Bye's are no fun

[Dan 62]

We had this issue come up in one league, really put tension in the league and it got personal.

 

Solution: The top seeded team picks the 1st round matchup it wants. People balked at it at first, but it works! Teams change so much during the year (waivers, trades) that the hottest team might be #6 ... so this gives the #3 seed a choice (#1 and #2 on bye) of who they play (6 or 5). Then the next week #1 picks which winner they want to face and #2 gets other matchup.

 

Its actually a great system empowering instead of tanking.

 

I like this; it's one that we've been discussing in our dynasty, and I see it happening in the not-too-distant future.

[GreatGray 2]

To add complexity to the original question at hand, the team in 5th place (which is likely getting locked out of the playoffs) is the team owned by the commissioner. There's not a rule in play to explicitly prevent this sandbagging from happening and it's not as if the team in first is fielding an empty roster--basically just playing bench-type backup players over those that are normally starters (i.e. it's not always clear which guys to put in their place if you do take over the roster). It puts the commissioner is a tough position with a biased decision to make about whether to make a roster change or kick a guy out next year.

 

From reading these reviews this seems to be a very controversial topic, to say the least. Thanks for the input everyone. Sounds like the best solution is to be found in updating the rules to prevent this from happening in the future--and perhaps customizing the playoff seeding system (which might be difficult without paying more for a new host website). As for the decision this year, I guess it's his call to make. I'm sitting comfortably in 3rd place and will respect whatever he decides.

[vroompac 2]

My main money league I have made the playoffs the last 4 years. I have had the chance to sandbag games for better playoff matchups but in the end I didnt do it. I think about how pissed I would be if someone did that to me. And karma will come back. In the end won 3 out of the 4.

[RSersen 0]

How is it a bush league move for the first place team to do what they think is in their best interest? You have the right to start/sit whoever you want at that point. Like the other poster said it's not different than resting your starters. How did the Jets get into the playoffs last year? Did the NFL take action against the colts? No.

 

I think some players need to realize this is competition and you do what it takes to win so long as it's not collusion. It's not little league where everyone gets a trophy just for participating.

 

I agree. I think if you've won enough games to be in this position, you should have every chance to help shape the rest of the playoff field to benefit you.

 

Personally, I'm not sure I would do this, because as others have said, I just can't help but put my best guys out there every week. But I can clinch my division and a bye week if I win today, and if I do, I'm certainly going to crunch the numbers to see what I could do in Week 13, and will seriously think about it if sitting players benefits me in the long run.

[Houston Texans 10]

The reason the Colts sat their starters last season, was because they valued the Superbowl more than the "undefeated season". I thought it was natural for them to do it, but some of my buddies didn't. They thought the Colts should fight to win with their best lineup. I didn't. I thought the Colts should do whatever is in their best interests to reach their goal, not somebody else's goal. Yes, this scenerio can be used to compare with this situation in fantasy football.

Forgive me. Where is the comparison? How are you "keeping your team healthy for the playoffs" by not starting a viable lineup? Honestly? This argument is pathetic and scrambling.

While I don't necessarily agree with what he is saying, he's got a point, and you are dead wrong by saying his "argument is pathetic and scrambling."

 

He never said a FF team would be "keeping his team healthy fro the playoffs." What he said is that when the Colts sat their starters, they did so because they valued winning the Superbowl over and undefeated season. They clearly felt that resting their starters would benefit their chances of winning the Superbowl, at the expense of possibly losing the opportunity for the undefeated season.

 

If a FF owner starts an inferior lineup because he values winning in the playoffs over winning another regular season game, and he feels that doing so (starting an inferior lineup) would benefit his chances of winning in the playoffs, then the comparison is dead-on accurate. I don't agree with the idea of tanking, but you shouldn't make disparaging comments, just because you aren't able to understand what he is saying.

 

Perhaps for the same reason that you suffer through bye weeks. There are arbitrary factors in Fantasy Football that don't affect the NFL. Yes, they deal with injuries. So do we. But we struggle with byes. And we work with limited rosters. And we can't "get in the face" of an underperforming player. We cannot motivate them to play better.

The luck factor alone is enough to make this kind of a move total garbage. Luck of the schedule hurts, and now I've got to deal with some idiot in the league that isn't going to play my opponent as well as he played me. Tough crap if you have to face me. I'm the fourth best team; I deserve to be there, and it wasn't because my team "lost focus" that cost me.

 

NFL example: Last year, the Steelers were hurt by the Colts and Bengals being dumb. BUT, the Steelers had so much to do with their own quandary that there could be no complaint.

Fantasy Football lacks that.

Dead wrong again.

 

Heres a FF example: Three weeks ago, many FF owners started Dan Carpenter, who put up zero points. They may have left on their bench (or waiver wire) PKs like Graham Gano, Olindo Mare, Phil Dawson, etc who could have put up more points for them. That difference in points could have been the difference between winning and losing.

 

Another example. Two weeks ago, Matt Cassel threw for over 400 yards and 4 TDs. It's very possible that his FF owners had him on the bench, but started guys like Shaun Hill, Carson Palmer, Donovan McNabb, Josh Freeman, etc who could have put up more points for them. The difference in points could have been the difference between winning and losing.

 

A third example. Three weeks ago, Seyi Ajirotutu was a hot WW pickup because of injuries to Gates, Floyd, and Naanee. Some FF owners might have picked him up, but sat him for "better" options like Colston, Boldin, Andre Johnson, etc who could have put up more points for them. The difference in points could have been the difference between winning and losing.

 

So, that's three examples in the last three weeks of FF owner having a major impact on winning/losing, or "having everything to do with his own quandary[sic]," (as you put it) something that you claim FF lacks.

 

You shouldn't make generalizations, especially when they're wrong.

 

My team has performed just as well throughout the year, and even done better than the team in question, but TOTAL LUCK has put me in a position to get screwed by you. Not skill; not poor drafting. Luck. The move is bush.

If your league is a head to head league, and not total points, then you haven't done better. If they have a better W/L record, then they've done better. It doesn't matter if you put up more points, or if your team is playing better now. In a head to head league, if you don't have a better record, you haven't done better. It doesn't matter if they played what turned out to be an "easier schedule," they won more games. If you don't like that, then you should play in a total points league.

 

Now, all that being said, I don't agree with tanking games, because you don't know what players/FF teams will blow up on given weeks, so trying to get a certain team guarantees nothing.

[TimHauck 2,642]

He never said a FF team would be "keeping his team healthy fro the playoffs." What he said is that when the Colts sat their starters, they did so because they valued winning the Superbowl over and undefeated season. They clearly felt that resting their starters would benefit their chances of winning the Superbowl, at the expense of possibly losing the opportunity for the undefeated season.

 

 

This is exactly what I was going to say. GridironAssassin didn't say anything about "keeping his team healthy." He was just comparing the two because they were doing what was in their best interest in the long run, even if it meant not putting your best team on the field (or in your FF lineup). No, the Colts were not "losing on purpose," but playing Curtis Painter over Peyton Manning is not giving your team the best chance to win.

[Apollo Creed 9]

If actual NFL teams rest players.. You can as well.. But u must start a full roster

[PATSSOX 22]

I wish i could throw my games this week. In my hardest league we play 3 divisions of 4 teams each. The top 2 teams from each league make playoffs along with 2 wild cards. Currently i am in 1st in my division and will get the #2 seed because i can not catch the #1 seed.

 

The way the playoffs work is the #1 overall seed picks between the 2 wild cards and the #2 overall seed gets the other wild card. The BIG problem is one of the teams that is going to be a wild card has Vick and Djax and a loaded team and has been killing everyone and he is in my division.

 

The only way to avoid playing him is if i lose this week. But im not going to throw my games because i think its BS also one of my 2 matchups is vs a guy we have a $50 side bet of who ends up with better record and im currently up 1 game.

 

basically im screwed

[Me_2006 14]

If you're in the position to do this, stop being a woman and face whoever is in front of you. Your team should be the best anyway or you wouldn't have this option.

[Dan 62]

While I don't necessarily agree with what he is saying, he's got a point, and you are dead wrong by saying his "argument is pathetic and scrambling."

 

He never said a FF team would be "keeping his team healthy fro the playoffs." What he said is that when the Colts sat their starters, they did so because they valued winning the Superbowl over and undefeated season. They clearly felt that resting their starters would benefit their chances of winning the Superbowl, at the expense of possibly losing the opportunity for the undefeated season.

 

If a FF owner starts an inferior lineup because he values winning in the playoffs over winning another regular season game, and he feels that doing so (starting an inferior lineup) would benefit his chances of winning in the playoffs, then the comparison is dead-on accurate. I don't agree with the idea of tanking, but you shouldn't make disparaging comments, just because you aren't able to understand what he is saying.

 

 

Dead wrong again.

 

Heres a FF example: Three weeks ago, many FF owners started Dan Carpenter, who put up zero points. They may have left on their bench (or waiver wire) PKs like Graham Gano, Olindo Mare, Phil Dawson, etc who could have put up more points for them. That difference in points could have been the difference between winning and losing.

 

Another example. Two weeks ago, Matt Cassel threw for over 400 yards and 4 TDs. It's very possible that his FF owners had him on the bench, but started guys like Shaun Hill, Carson Palmer, Donovan McNabb, Josh Freeman, etc who could have put up more points for them. The difference in points could have been the difference between winning and losing.

 

A third example. Three weeks ago, Seyi Ajirotutu was a hot WW pickup because of injuries to Gates, Floyd, and Naanee. Some FF owners might have picked him up, but sat him for "better" options like Colston, Boldin, Andre Johnson, etc who could have put up more points for them. The difference in points could have been the difference between winning and losing.

 

So, that's three examples in the last three weeks of FF owner having a major impact on winning/losing, or "having everything to do with his own quandary[sic]," (as you put it) something that you claim FF lacks.

 

You shouldn't make generalizations, especially when they're wrong.

 

 

If your league is a head to head league, and not total points, then you haven't done better. If they have a better W/L record, then they've done better. It doesn't matter if you put up more points, or if your team is playing better now. In a head to head league, if you don't have a better record, you haven't done better. It doesn't matter if they played what turned out to be an "easier schedule," they won more games. If you don't like that, then you should play in a total points league.

 

Now, all that being said, I don't agree with tanking games, because you don't know what players/FF teams will blow up on given weeks, so trying to get a certain team guarantees nothing.

 

Reading through that again, I think I was in a very bad mood.

 

However, I don't think my points are wrong. The Colts sat starters to avoid injury. They made decisions for the sake of their team, the health of the squad that they hoped to put in the playoffs. This was the reason for sitting the players. NOT so that the Steelers or Texans didn't make the playoffs. That frustrates us as fans, but we have to accept it as what it is. In fantasy, there isn't an argument to be made for helping your own team by sitting your starters. It's manipulation, pure and simple, and it's unethical. The Celtics and another team tanked games for a better draft selection several years back, and though it wasn't "provable", the NBA thought enough of it to return the manipulation in the lottery. No, I don't buy that it just "happened that way." Stern spins and lies too much. But . . . he's right in calling it what it was. Dressing up the exact quote from the Colts' organization sounds like spin, HT. Their intent was health. Not sure how you get around that. And I repeat, where is the comparison? I know exactly what he's trying to say and do, and I believe it's wrong. Sorry. My previous comment may have been a little over the top, but not nearly so much as your denunciation of it suggests. I trust you understand what I am saying.

 

Completely get that there is skill involved in Fantasy Football, and decisions to be made that affect the outcome. Absolutely true. BUT . . . there is also a significant luck factor that plays into the game, and you know it. You're a smart guy, and while you choose the anomalies that throw us, if you have Roddy White on your roster, you're not benching him, even though he blew chunks against the Packers. I suppose I could text him and tell him to get his act together, because I need him for the playoffs . . . but the reality is that I don't have control over the game plan or lack of execution of an elite player.

Not generalizations, and not wrong. Just not speaking to every detail of what we do.

 

 

 

Totally unrelated . . . curious about your notations with my syntax. I'm guessing you didn't like my contextual usage, but (sic) is typically used for spelling. No?

[PATSSOX 22]

If you're in the position to do this, stop being a woman and face whoever is in front of you. Your team should be the best anyway or you wouldn't have this option.

 

Im in position to do it but no way in hell i throw game. Ive clinched playoff spot and would only benifit from losing but hell if i win the other teams can still lose so im not going to be a puss and throw my games.