What would you do as commissioner here? (Tanking games) - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

What would you do as commissioner here? (Tanking games)

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby bklik » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:29 pm

Twisted Sister wrote:Tanking is not collusion... it's a legit tactic... unethical... but legit..

ONLY IF IT HELPS YOUR TEAM FOR PLAYOFF MATCHUPS

Tanking to help out a friend is NOT legit.

Personally, I would never do it.


How is this even "unethical"? Because the goal is to win the playoffs, arent you increasing your chances to win by setting yourself up with the favorable matchup in the first round? Unless you have set rules about tanking games when collusion is not an issue, I dont think that the commish has the right to force him into fielding a roster.
TEAM A
LEINART, farve
HOUSH, ROY WILLIAMS, DRIVER, hackett, bennett, marshal
RUDI, BUSH, JORDAN, green
HEAP

TEAM B
PEYTON
WAYNE, BOLDIN, MARSHALL, gonzalez, marshall
PARKER, GREEN, chester, betts
WINSLOW
bklik
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 1147
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: 3 Blocks from the Big House

Postby awwchrist » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:41 pm

tanking is not a legitimate tactic because it's not ethical.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Any team that tanks their roster to improve their chances of getting a worse opponent in the playoffs is taking advantage of the situation and it can hardly be called fair.

Frankly, anyone who does so is a freakin Nancy and here's a selection of purses to match your sandals

Image
Image
________________________________________
26-13
Only 3 leagues this year. No sense in rooting for everyone in the NFL.
awwchrist
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterInnovative MemberSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9433
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: see that 1:hidden? That's me.

Postby bklik » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:15 pm

awwchrist wrote:tanking is not a legitimate tactic because it's not ethical.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Any team that tanks their roster to improve their chances of getting a worse opponent in the playoffs is taking advantage of the situation and it can hardly be called fair.

Frankly, anyone who does so is a freakin Nancy and here's a selection of purses to match your sandals


Whats wrong with taking advantage of the situation? At least you've got a zinger and a .jpg to back up your statement. Id call it an "argument", but you really didnt argue anything.
TEAM A
LEINART, farve
HOUSH, ROY WILLIAMS, DRIVER, hackett, bennett, marshal
RUDI, BUSH, JORDAN, green
HEAP

TEAM B
PEYTON
WAYNE, BOLDIN, MARSHALL, gonzalez, marshall
PARKER, GREEN, chester, betts
WINSLOW
bklik
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 1147
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: 3 Blocks from the Big House

Postby quitesanemax » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:23 pm

BrutallyHuge wrote:
Favre.com wrote:Tanking a game to get a better matchup happens in real NFL all the time.


When does that happen?

I can see teams benching starters so they don't get hurt, but I've never seen an NFL team purposely tank a game.


How about the Patriots, last year, against the Dolphins? Theres no actual proof, but I think most people realize that they purposely lost so that they could face the Jaguars instead of the Steelers.
quitesanemax
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 658
(Past Year: 3)
Joined: 8 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Boston, MA.

Postby awwchrist » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:27 pm

If you're not offering up the same level of competition in week 13 as you are in week 3... then how fair is it that you sandbagged your competition? You're manipulating the playoff seeding.

Winning isn't more important than playing ethically.

That's my arguement. And really, did I need to expound any further? This is something we all learn when we're children.

Or apparently not.
Image
________________________________________
26-13
Only 3 leagues this year. No sense in rooting for everyone in the NFL.
awwchrist
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterInnovative MemberSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9433
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: see that 1:hidden? That's me.

Postby TaDa » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:08 pm

I see where Aww is coming from, but here is my opinion. If you win in week 3, chances are that it has a LOT less impact on your year than if you lose in week 15. I understand how a team getting knocked out of the playoffs can be pissed at missing the playoffs because someone tanked in week 13 or 14, but in all fairness, they had 13 or 14 weeks to get a rock solid chance at the playoffs outside of another team's control. In this situation, a team is getting screwed by not making the playoffs, but if this owner starts his aces and wins, he is screwing himself in the fact that he may get smacked like a red-headed stepchild the following week.

Like I said, I think that this is strategy and absolutely fine. I had a similar situation where I was in 4th place and slated to face the first place team in the first round. I started all of my best players to win this week, but needed another team to lose for me to move to second or third. I just advised another owner on their lineup. Replace this person with this person, etc., I told him I needed him to win, and was not doing anything at all that I thought was unethical (I did not manually adjust the rosters, if they didn't want to listen, that was their choice). Luckily, the team that I advised smacked a team that was ahead of me, and now I'm not facing the best team in the league in the first round. I think that this is completely strategy and not unethical in any way.
Image
TaDa
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 4232
(Past Year: 100)
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby cmurda » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:56 pm

I don't think it's unethical at all.
cmurda
Water Boy
Water Boy

User avatar

Posts: 99
Joined: 2 May 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Azrael » Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:20 pm

http://www.fantasyfootballcafe.com/foru ... p?t=309391

Please see this thread. There is an excellent debate here. Hopefully you can see that "collusion" is not the only form of cheating.

"Tanking" is just slang for "fixing a game". Fixing a game is cheating, pure and simple, whether it has a bearing on someone else or just you.

Whether you blank your lineup or just play scrubs, it's all the same. Playing scrub players or players you wouldn't normally play to candy coat what you are attempting to do doesn't make it better.

Tanking = cheating and shouldn't be allowed.

IMO, if someone attempts to play their scrubs, the commish should just sub in their studs or normal players arbitrarily and then lock the lineup for that week.
Image
Azrael
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 8283
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight

Postby buffalobillsrul2002 » Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:21 pm

I think I come in somewhere in between on this issue. It definitely shouldn't be allowed for someone to take a 0 for the week and simply give the game away to the ohter team. However, if somebody chooses to not start their best lineup yet start a reasonable lineup (i.e. plug in Kitna for Peyton Manning, or put in Greg Jennings for Steve Smith), then I feel it is OK. The difference is that one team is that taking a 0 is completely tanking the week, but if the team starts "reasonable players" (meaning NFL starters or players that have the potential to put up a good score every week), then the other team still has to win the game.
buffalobillsrul2002
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant


Posts: 635
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Azrael » Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:25 pm

buffalobillsrul2002 wrote:I think I come in somewhere in between on this issue. It definitely shouldn't be allowed for someone to take a 0 for the week and simply give the game away to the ohter team. However, if somebody chooses to not start their best lineup yet start a reasonable lineup (i.e. plug in Kitna for Peyton Manning, or put in Greg Jennings for Steve Smith), then I feel it is OK. The difference is that one team is that taking a 0 is completely tanking the week, but if the team starts "reasonable players" (meaning NFL starters or players that have the potential to put up a good score every week), then the other team still has to win the game.


Like I said.

Azrael wrote:Whether you blank your lineup or just play scrubs, it's all the same. Playing scrub players or players you wouldn't normally play to candy coat what you are attempting to do doesn't make it better.
Image
Azrael
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 8283
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 0:02 hours
(and 37 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact