Should The Commissioner "Correct" For This Instance Of Tanking?

[turcorox911]

TLDR: Someone tanked to get a higher draft spot because he was already out of playoff contention and there was no rule against tanking. He asked the commissioner beforehand and it seemed like the owner had approval to do so. There was a misunderstanding, so when the tanking was caught, the tanking owner offered to change his lineup. A few games where he did tank were already in the books though. This irritated the commissioner, so after collecting dues for the upcoming season, he changed the method for calculating the draft order right before the draft. There are rules in place that said the commish needed to disclose all rule changes on the league's internal board, but he did not do that. Should the Commish have made the change immediately? Should he have made any changes on a proactive basis only?

More Detailed Version Of Events:
Let's say the commissioner of a dynasty league discovered that someone tanked during a few games at the end of the season (Year 2 of the league) to get a better draft pick in this year's upcoming rookie draft. There aren't any explicit anti-tanking rules and the way the rookie draft order is calculated for the upcoming draft has been posted since the league started (i.e. it has been posted and disclosed to the owners for over two years). The owner that tanked has a screenshot of a text message where he and the commissioner discussed starting inactive (bye week, injured, suspended, free agent, retired) players. The tanking owner asked if it was something he could do, and the commissioner said that "if you don't have anybody else to start, then yes, but if you just don't want to, then I don't know." The tanking owner then pointed out that the site did not prevent someone from starting inactive players, to which the commish responded "Cool. Yeah." The tanking owner understood this as a grant of permission to start such inactive players, and a pro-tanking position in general. The commissioner claims that the owner never explicitly asked about tanking, and as it turns out, the commish is actually strongly against tanking (something that was not known until now).

The commissioner has already collected dues for the upcoming season (the season for which the rookie draft will take place), but he does not like the fact that somebody tanked. On the other hand, the tanking owner has a screenshot of conversation where the commissioner says that the order of the draft "must" be the way that it is currently posted in the league's bylaws. However, the commissioner is still seriously thinking about changing the draft order regardless because he is really anti-tanking.

For what it is worth, the tanking owner has played in leagues where tanking has occurred, specifically, leagues where teams were allowed to bench their star players in order to lose a game (to get themselves a better matchup in the first round, a better draft pick, etc.), or to bench players in order to secure a win (prevent someone from scoring negative points). However, the commissioner has never seen this tactic in 10+ years of playing. The tanking owner also believes that tanking happens in real life, but the commissioner is of the firm opinion that it does not. On top of that, the tanking owner has hard evidence that tanking happened in Year 1 of the league, but the commissioner is unaware of this.

It is also worth noting that in the final game of the season, the commissioner did spot the tanking and after a brief exchange, the tanking owner agreed to set a new lineup because, although he thought it was fair game, he just didn't want to "start any drama" among the league members. During this exchange, the tanking owner showed the commissioner the text message exchange they had about starting inactive players. After receiving the message, the commissioner said that he was fine with people starting weak lineups, just not inactive players. So maybe the commish is more anti-inactive players than he is anti-tanking. Many league members complained about the tanking owner during the last week of the season because it either affected their chances of securing a top draft slot, or their playoff hopes. Some owners are upset that it wasn't caught earlier, because other games where the owner tanked are now in the books.

The commish and vice-commish apparently agreed to create different tie-breakers for this coming season, but never updated the rulebook or disclosed such a change to the rest of the league. Even so, the commish still thinks he is perfectly within his rights to implement that order now. He is really concerned with the integrity of the league.

But as of right now, there is no rule against tanking, the league has never discussed tanking, and the tanking owner thought it was fine based off of previous experiences and his own self-interest.

Considering all of this, what should the commissioner do? Should the commissioner implement any "corrective" measures? If so, then what and how?

[kamihamster]

There is an incentive for tanking. We all know this but we're all supposed to take the high road. Tanking is hard to prove. "I sat OBJ because he was matched up against (insert best CB here) and decided to start Albert Wilson," is a legit explanation, but probably just an excuse. Take the incentive away. If draft order is determined by points possible (best ball) then an owner has no reason to submit a non-optimal lineup. Be proactive. The only way a PP draft order can be tanked is if an owner dropped all their good players which would be very apparent.

[turcorox911]

There is an incentive for tanking. We all know this but we're all supposed to take the high road. Tanking is hard to prove. "I sat OBJ because he was matched up against (insert best CB here) and decided to start Albert Wilson," is a legit explanation, but probably just an excuse. Take the incentive away. If draft order is determined by points possible (best ball) then an owner has no reason to submit a non-optimal lineup. Be proactive. The only way a PP draft order can be tanked is if an owner dropped all their good players which would be very apparent.

That's true. If you have a few inactive players out there, you can still win. Just making it tough to do so.

[skip]

Tanking comes up here periodically and rather than go down the road of the "tanking vs. no tanking" argument is pointless as you are going to get 2 positions: a) it is a "strategy" and b) it is completely wrong. I am on the side of "b" and it is generally easy to prove (unlike collusion) and leagues where I've commissioned I would issue one warning. After that they get the boot.

Your situation, however, is not a "tanking vs. no tanking" one, it is rather than the commissioner screwed up (your first full paragraph). He gave that owner carte blanche to whatever he wanted to with his lineup, including starting inactive players. There is nothing that should be done to this owner as he followed the direction of the commissioner. It is a horrible precedent (not to mention a bad commissioner). Moving forward if the league wants to prevent tanking you need rules about the very things he was waffling about.

[BelichekYourSelf]

You can't punish someone for tanking when their is no rule against it. Especially since it seems like it has happened before with no punishment. If people in the league don't want people to tank than implement the rules now and enforce from this point on.

[BigBawseRoss]

im of the belief if you pay your dues you can run your team how you want, nfl teams try for higher picks to improve going forward...the part i dont like about when someone throws game is how it may affect the rest of the league (team A and team B are neck and neck for final playoff spot but team A plays a tanking team and team B plays another team still in the hunt...those are the situations i really hate but what can you do?)

i agree with the above poster that the best way to set draft order and eliminate tanking is by going off of potential points (who had an actually bad team or actually good team and not just who sat or didnt sit the right players week to week)

another way to do it is to have a losers bracket and make the winning spot of that get their buy in back (or any real incentive to keep trying)

[pierson242]

You can't punish someone for tanking when their is no rule against it. Especially since it seems like it has happened before with no punishment. If people in the league don't want people to tank than implement the rules now and enforce from this point on.

x2

[DLF3000]

Commissioner conflict of interest as a team owner, trade fleecing and tanking: the triumvirate of Impossible Dynasty Situations.

Maybe the perfect league has a non-owner commish, zero trades allowed, and a strong incentive to score as many points as possible every week regardless of record or standings?

[Shoreline Steamers]

If this is the same league as "Should the Commissioner have Nixed this Deal?" then I think some rule revision, or possibly a new commissioner is in order.

In this latest thread, the commissioner is apparently anti-tanking, but did not take a strong stance on the issue one way or the other so the offending parties actions were not forbidden. Hence, no punishment retroactively. If as a league you feel that this type of behavior is contrary to the way you want the league run, then change the bylaws to thwart tanking and move forward.

But just as the trade from the above mentioned thread should not be reversed at this time, the tanking owner cannot now be punished for breaking a "rule" that didn't exist at the time he was in "violation".

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

The commissioner told the owner via text that there was no rule against it. The 2018 rookie draft should stand as is. In legal terms, this is called "ex post facto". This owner cannot be punished on a retroactive basis.

However, assuming most of the league isn't happy with this, there should be a vote to put anti-tanking rules in place for the 2018 season and beyond.

[jaykay22]

The commissioner told the owner via text that there was no rule against it. The 2018 rookie draft should stand as is. In legal terms, this is called "ex post facto". This owner cannot be punished on a retroactive basis.

However, assuming most of the league isn't happy with this, there should be a vote to put anti-tanking rules in place for the 2018 season and beyond.

Pretty much this. If there was no well-defined bylaws warning against tanking and all of it encompasses, or at the very least against people starting inactive players, then you can't retroactively rectify it/hand out punishment/alter the rookie draft order.

It is now too late.

As a commissioner there is no such thing as making things too clear or too specific, so your commissioner needs to make things very clear about how the league will proceed going forward with things such as starting injured players, or not setting lineups from week to week, or owners benching their best players in hopes of losing.

The past is now the past.

[_yeti]

I was the "other, specify below" response. This league again? You have two of these threads at once?! This league needs to be purged from the internet. It is beyond repair. That's my answer. End the league and everyone go think about what you have done lol

I like threads like these, they help the forum come together. Against something, but together.

[turcorox911]

Commissioner conflict of interest as a team owner, trade fleecing and tanking: the triumvirate of Impossible Dynasty Situations.

Maybe the perfect league has a non-owner commish, zero trades allowed, and a strong incentive to score as many points as possible every week regardless of record or standings?

Maybe the NFL has a strong model after all.

[turcorox911]

I was the "other, specify below" response. This league again? You have two of these threads at once?! This league needs to be purged from the internet. It is beyond repair. That's my answer. End the league and everyone go think about what you have done lol

I like threads like these, they help the forum come together. Against something, but together.

As long as it isn't against me, lol.
I'm just the type that likes to ask these questions though, because it's good to get advice.
Thanks for your help.

[meineymoe]

You can't punish someone for tanking when their is no rule against it. Especially since it seems like it has happened before with no punishment. If people in the league don't want people to tank than implement the rules now and enforce from this point on.

x2

x3.
I said "No" because, other than as an example of what tanking is for future reference if you do make a rule about it, this should not affect this owner or this year's draft.

it just floors me that the commish claims to be anti-tanking, yet when presented with an example of it by an honest, open owner, he was fine with it. yikes.

-oo-