Losing on purpose

[Houston Texans 10]

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

 

However, I don't think my points are wrong.

I think your points are valid, I just think the way they were presented was not, necessarily. I know that the Colts rested their players to avoid (or rest up from) injuries. That's (IMO) indisputable. However, the previous poster made the point that the Colts did so, in order to give themselves the best chance of achieving their main goal, winning the SB. He compared it to a FF owner tanking a game, to (theoretically) give himself an easier playoff match-up, thereby enabling him to achieve his main goal, winning his FF championship. So the comparison that he made (not fielding the best lineups b/c it gave the Colts and his FF team a better chance of achieving their larger goal) was accurate.

 

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.

But there is an argument to be made, you just don't think it's a good one. If sitting your starters in a regular season game guarantees you an easier playoff game, that's the argument. You don't think it's a good argument (and I'd agree with you), but IT IS an argument that could be made for sitting your starters. As to whether it's ethical or not, that depends on your definition of the word. If you think unethical merely means breaking the rules, then I'd argue that it is not unethical, unless there are rules against tanking for this reason. If you contend that unethical means dishonorable or immoral behavior, then I'd have to agree with you (although I don't take FF so seriously as to consider anything done in a FF league to be immoral, dishonorable, or unethical).

 

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.

I agree with you, it's wrong. However, his points were valid points, and his comparison was a valid one. That doesn't make the decision to tank games right, though. If you feel that I (to borrow your phrase) went "a little over the top," I apologize.

 

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.

I didn't comment previously, at all, about the part of your post that said we can't get in the face of under-performing players. I didn't comment, because that was completely accurate.

 

What I did comment on was this:

"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."

You suggested that the Steelers didn't reach the playoffs b/c the Colts and Bengals laid down for the Jets, but since the Steelers had made their own mistakes, they couldn't complain (another point I agree with, BTW). Your comment "Fantasy Football lacks that," suggests that in FF, teams don't have any control over their own fate. This is definitely a generalization, and an incorrect one. FF owners do have control over many parts of their fate. Does luck play a part? Absolutely, but to suggest that FF owners don't have anything to do with whether they win/lose/reach the playoffs? That's completely false.

 

I think we both went a little over the top, because I think we both have the same opinion about the subject of tanking, which is that it shouldn't be done. We appear to be arguing over minor details, when we actually agree on the main subject of this thread.

 

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?

Yes, it is. I looked at how you spelled quandary, and I thought it was wrong, so when I quoted you, I used [sic] to indicate that. Since I was posting from my iphone, I didn't feel like using a spell check. Sorry about that.

[RoadLizard 73]

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.

 

Very slippery slope. Its one thing to make rules that forbid starting players on bye weeks or that are seriously injured but there is a very grey area of who to start, especially when you get past the obvious #1 tier players at their respective positions. If a team has Andre Johnson and hes playing the Jets - would that be an OK benching? What if the teams game didnt mean anything? What if it did? Like it was said: Slippery slope. Its best to stay out of it unless they are starting players obviously out like Romo or something like that.

[chroniciguana 13]

The more I think about this, the more improbable it seems. When the OP posed the question, there were two weeks left in most leagues' regular season. You would have to be a mystic to accurately weed your way through all the potential outcomes to conclude that tanking a game would pit you against a certain opponent in the playoffs. Or knock another team out. There are just too many variables.

 

In our league, for instance, the team with high points last week (mine) is likely to earn low points this week. A team with just two wins just knocked off the division leader. How do you predict this stuff?

 

Intentionally losing to engineer a better playoff spot only works if the rest of your league cooperates. And this seldom happens. It can, and has, happened in the real world, but the FF universe is way too random.

 

And the odds of this situation presenting itself are so microscopic that it's not worthy of any kind of consideration. If an owner thinks he can make it happen, let him. Chances are it will backfire.

[Redstone 0]

Doesnt happen in our league. A seperate total points race runs all the way to our championship and it's a good chunck of change.

[sketch27 1]

Seems like the kind of move that results in

A: 4 sliced tires and a coat of spray paint on his car

B: Not playing with him next year.

[kilroy69 1,221]

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?

 

I dont give a sh!t what anyone else says. Its a legit tactic. Its fantasy football theres no focking crying in fantasy football. Its your job to win your league and as long as you are starting players that are going to be starting and gaining points it cant really be considered "throwing the game" so to speak. Even so unless there is some sort of "Best player starts rule" the dude needs to quithisbitching

[crackills 19]

I agree that it's a legit tactic as long as there are no rules against it.. much like picking up all the waiver wire QBs knowing that your opponent needs a qb this week for example.

 

Fantasy football is not even close to real football team management.. it's a game of it's own. While you will not win yourself many friends doing this.. there is no reason why you cant, assuming there is no collusion.

 

There is so much luck in fant football that keeping one guy from making it in to the playoffs does not guarantee you win... because there is always a chance that the guy with a "worse" in your eyes team blows and beats your ass. How much of a fool will you feel like then?