Unethical or good strategy?

[flotsamnjetsam]

I'm done also, but there's one HUGE difference. The Colts still tried to WIN. They didn't sit there starters because they WANTED to lose. They sat their starters so that they wouldn't get hurt in a game that didn't matter. You are purposely trying to lose so that another team that you're afraid of doesn't make the playoffs & kick your butt. Good luck with that.

[Patchell]

I thought the Colts "rested their starters" a couple of years ago so they could face the Broncos (the same team the rested their starters against) the very next week?

[flotsamnjetsam]

I thought the Colts "rested their starters" a couple of years ago so they could face the Broncos (the same team the rested their starters against) the very next week?

You really think that Dungy told Sorgi & the rest of the team to lose on purpose so that they could face Denver? I don't think so. They rested their starters because they had their seed locked up, the game didn't matter, and they didn't want any of their starters to get hurt in a meaningless game. The players that actually did play tried to win the game.

[dgan]

I didn't read every post, but here's a thought I didn't see anyone make yet:

It's more satisfying to beat the best. I'm going to get much more satisfaction beating my nemesis who is REALLY hot right now. I hope we both win our first round games so we can play each other.

I guess it depends on whether you're playing for the money or playing for the -- omg...can't believe I'm saying this -- for the love of the game. If you just want the cash, do what you gotta do and screw everything else. After all, part of it is to use every advantage you can gain to try to win it all. If you didn't have the #1 seed locked up, you wouldn't have this option so it is kind of a reward for having a good season.

On the flip side, as I say, I would much rather beat the best. Sure, I am reducing my chances to get the big payout, but am I really playing fantasy football for the money? Or for the bragging rights?

I think we know what Herm Edwards would say...

[pangbones]

Looks like I caught the tail end of this but heres my 2 cents on it.

I would never try to lose on purpose. It is wrong. The whole point of fantasy football is to win each week. But beyond just the ethics of it, it could just as easily bite you in the butt, as the team you "helped" could end up beating you in the playoffs.

I play to win each week, regardless of other circumstances. If your team is good enough, you'll have a good chance of winning the league. I wouldn't mess around with trying to dictate your matchups, or who makes it and who doesn't.

If that happened in my league I would kick the culprit out of the league. I've been in leagues in the past where an owner doesn't change his lineup for like a month, and everyone gets freebies. That is bad enough right there, but to lose intentionally, is just wrong, and is as bad as cheating IMO.

[spodog]

Unless you can convince your league that resting your starters is somehow valuable, you need to play your best team.

In our league, pride and long held league records mean a lot.

If you are 9-1, with a shot at going 10-1, this should mean something.

[Budman_ffc]

I'm done also, but there's one HUGE difference. The Colts still tried to WIN. They didn't sit there starters because they WANTED to lose. They sat their starters so that they wouldn't get hurt in a game that didn't matter. You are purposely trying to lose so that another team that you're afraid of doesn't make the playoffs & kick your butt. Good luck with that.

How can the Colts say they tried to win? You try to win by playing your best players and the Colts obviously didn't. They took advantage of their superior record to help themselves in playoffs....period. Fact is they knew they greatly reduced their chances to win those games vs quality opponents before they ever did it. You think there weren't some other teams that still had achance to get in the playoffs that the Colts two losses didn't directly affect? How is that different?

Same scenario goes for me. I would be taking advantage of my superior record to help myself in the playoffs. If I did this I know I would be greatly reducing my chances to win this weeks before I ever did it.

Have you ever seen a team grab up the best available players at a certain position because their opponent that week desperately needs one? I have seen this tactic done many, many times in my twelve years of FF. Is that cheating too? Most would say it's not.

Btw I am not "afraid" to play him as I've beaten the team in question twice already and one of them was in the middle of his hot streak. I've already proven twice that my team is the better one, But every dog has it's day and it's tough to beat a good team three times in a row, so why take the chance?

[Matthias]

Fact is when you talk about the Colts you have real players who could really get injured if they play. Whether or not you put Tomlinson into your active lineup is not going to actually affect him one little bit.

Their motivation was to protect their players. Your motivation is to simply throw the game to exclude someone else from the playoffs. You have zero honor.

[Budman_ffc]

My final synopsis....

Is it unethical? Probably

Is it illegal? Absolutely not

Is it an acceptable practice? The field is split 50/50 so make your own decision should you ever be fortunate enough to be in this position.

For the record here is my starting lineup:

Kitna
KJ
Westy
Smith
Holt
Gates
Vinatieri
Ravens D

Gotta admit though that it was fun to play the devils advocate on this.

OK, this thread is done.

[Budman_ffc]

Their motivation was to protect their players. Your motivation is to simply throw the game to exclude someone else from the playoffs. You have zero honor.

You have no idea if that was the Colts ONLY motivation for sitting their players, but that's what they said, it made sense and so you chose it accept it at point blank value.

As for my honor you have absolutely no clue. In playing the controversial part in all of this I've made it a point to not personally attack anyone at anytime throughout this thread. I'd suggest in the future you do the same. This was merely an idea that came to my head yesterday that I knew would be an interesting and much debated topic so I brought it up. It was fun and interesting to see the different points of view. To be quite honest I was quite suprised to see it end up at 50/50....I'd have bet it would have been more in your favor.