Legit Rebuild versus tanking tactics

[Rasorin]

Another discussion got me thinking about the spectrum of opinions on what is legal tanking versus unethical tanking. For the point of this exercise we are assuming nothing if stated here is against the bylaws, so this is an FF ethical tolerance pool.

Rebuilding teams does the following. Rate and support your opinion:

Rating scale 1-4 (1 totally unethical, 2 sketchy, 3 a plan to win, 4 I would totally do that!). No one gets to be on the fence with these rankings.

Scenarios for rebuild team:

1 claiming FAs who aren’t high producer this year due to early in career or injury. There are other FA who are routinely producing higher pointss

2. Deciding not to rotate defenses to go other what would seem the highest possible points

3. Playing a bottom half defenses every week. U only carry one defense.

4 streaming the worst defense every week to have the lowest point total. U have no other defenses on your roster.

Would love to know how everyone feels. Feel free to pose other legal plays that might be some shade of ethical grey.

[lukkynumber13]

None of what you listed is unethical.

Frankly, I don't believe any sort of tanking is "unethical". If a rebuilding team sits AB because they're going for the 1.01, is that annoying? Yup. Could it lead to a league breakdown and owners leaving? I guess, although I wouldn't leave a league simply because an owner tanked deliberately. It's not unethical tho - we are paying owners, gunning for money at the end of the year. Run your team how you see fit.

[alex33]

None of what you listed is unethical.

Frankly, I don't believe any sort of tanking is "unethical". If a rebuilding team sits AB because they're going for the 1.01, is that annoying? Yup. Could it lead to a league breakdown and owners leaving? I guess, although I wouldn't leave a league simply because an owner tanked deliberately. It's not unethical tho - we are paying owners, gunning for money at the end of the year. Run your team how you see fit.

what if its in a free league?

[Rasorin]

None of what you listed is unethical.

Frankly, I don't believe any sort of tanking is "unethical". If a rebuilding team sits AB because they're going for the 1.01, is that annoying? Yup. Could it lead to a league breakdown and owners leaving? I guess, although I wouldn't leave a league simply because an owner tanked deliberately. It's not unethical tho - we are paying owners, gunning for money at the end of the year. Run your team how you see fit.

So...
4
4
4
4?

[TheRookiePro]

Frankly, I don't believe any sort of tanking is "unethical". If a rebuilding team sits AB because they're going for the 1.01, is that annoying? Yup. Could it lead to a league breakdown and owners leaving? I guess, although I wouldn't leave a league simply because an owner tanked deliberately. It's not unethical tho - we are paying owners, gunning for money at the end of the year. Run your team how you see fit.

That's not tanking. That's purposely losing. Tanking teams DON'T have star players. That's why they tank.

A true tanking team would trade a star player like AB in order to create a roster filled of lesser talent with a few sleepers and young hopefuls mixed in.

If a team wants to trade all of their legit veteran starters in order to gain picks and some youth while in the process of making a lesser team for that year. Fine with me. However, you can't have it both ways by taking the unethical approach of benching legit starters.

[JDogil12]

None of those are unethical but I would say number 4 is somewhere in between 2 and 3.
Not to mention, the first 2 examples you use are relatively subjective

[TheRookiePro]

4 streaming the worst defense every week to have the lowest point total. U have no other defenses on your roster.

In my league it costs an owner $5 to make a waiver addition.
So I'd be very happy if a tanking team put up (14 regular season weeks x $5) $70 additionally to their yearly buy-in.

[Rasorin]

4 streaming the worst defense every week to have the lowest point total. U have no other defenses on your roster.

In my league it costs an owner $5 to make a waiver addition.
So I'd be very happy if a tanking team put up (14 regular season weeks x $5) $70 additionally to their yearly buy-in.

Lets assume the cost is $0. Focus on theme versus discrepancies for particular games.

[lukkynumber13]

Frankly, I don't believe any sort of tanking is "unethical". If a rebuilding team sits AB because they're going for the 1.01, is that annoying? Yup. Could it lead to a league breakdown and owners leaving? I guess, although I wouldn't leave a league simply because an owner tanked deliberately. It's not unethical tho - we are paying owners, gunning for money at the end of the year. Run your team how you see fit.

That's not tanking. That's purposely losing. Tanking teams DON'T have star players. That's why they tank.

A true tanking team would trade a star player like AB in order to create a roster filled of lesser talent with a few sleepers and young hopefuls mixed in.

If a team wants to trade all of their legit veteran starters in order to gain picks and some youth while in the process of making a lesser team for that year. Fine with me. However, you can't have it both ways by taking the unethical approach of benching legit starters.

Good point. You are correct.

I still don't see that as unethical at all tho, in either case. If a team wants to sell AB for a couple late Firsts in order to rebuild, so be it. Bad trades happen all the time. And if a team sits a stud because they're going for the 1.01, so be it.

[lukkynumber13]

None of what you listed is unethical.

Frankly, I don't believe any sort of tanking is "unethical". If a rebuilding team sits AB because they're going for the 1.01, is that annoying? Yup. Could it lead to a league breakdown and owners leaving? I guess, although I wouldn't leave a league simply because an owner tanked deliberately. It's not unethical tho - we are paying owners, gunning for money at the end of the year. Run your team how you see fit.

what if its in a free league?

My view wouldn't change, but that tanking team sure seems like they're run by a loser in that case.

My time is too valuable for me to waste an entire season just in the hopes of gaining a specific pick, if I don't even have a money carrot at the end of it.

[Rosenbluu]

I don’t know how anyone would say not starting AB isn’t unethical. The only reason I wouldn’t start him is if I was a complete trash team or orphan and nobody was willing to pay half a decent price for him than I would understand the reasoning somewhat.

[cazzie33]

None of what you listed is unethical.

Frankly, I don't believe any sort of tanking is "unethical". If a rebuilding team sits AB because they're going for the 1.01, is that annoying? Yup. Could it lead to a league breakdown and owners leaving? I guess, although I wouldn't leave a league simply because an owner tanked deliberately. It's not unethical tho - we are paying owners, gunning for money at the end of the year. Run your team how you see fit.

So your ethics are for sale ?

[millworkguy]

Good owners don't. Free leagues enable bad owners as there is no incentive. This problem takes care of itself with a barrier to entry ($)

[Irbir]

Being provocative here, but tanking is clearly part of professional sports now. Why shouldn’t it be tolerated in fantasy??

[cazzie33]

It's the world we've in today. Civic responsibility is an antiquated thought for most now. I guess

In my way I was raised you have a responsibility to those around you. You are not in a vacuum where your actions don't have a ripple effect. Do things in a fair , decent manner. You can build for the future while putting out your best lineup every week that is on your roster.

You don't have an obligation to mess up your long term goals chasing the best streamer of the week. Unless you have open roster spots I wouldn't drop a DeAngelo Henderson to get a Darren Sproles just because Sproles is likely to score more this week / year.

Dropping Jags D to the bench to pick up & play the Browns is an unethical move as someone is trying to beat your opponent out for a better playoff spot. Sure, you may not even be trying to make the postseason but your throwing games effects others.

Nobody should expect you to drop Adam Sheehan to get B. Watson as you are in a rebuild. But neither should you be starting Adam Sheehan.

Here is a real scenario that I was tempted to do to a guy who thought all was fair in love, war & Fantasy football. He tanked for a couple of years bad to get top picks. Out & out blatant B.S. moves. Commish did nothing. This year he finally is a contender going for the playoffs with his young studs ( Zeke and a couple others) but he needs me to beat my opponent week 13 to get in.

So early in the week I yank all my starters and have a lineup of guys that won't even see the field. Guess who complains to high heavens Which is just what I wanted to happen. My explanation was I think our chances of winning the title are better if I let my week 13 opponent in. I use his own words that I have " no obligation to try to win" to help out another team. I paid my money so I have every right to do whatever gives me the best chance of winning.

Of course I didn't follow through with the sham, just wanted to show him that he wouldn't like it if others did his tactics to him. He didn't stick around long after that.

Money shouldn't matter , stick to the Golden Rule. Do unto others ... But nowadays it seems as long as the bottom line is you get what you want it doesn't matter how you got there. Lack of respect for others doesn't seem to cost a moment's sleep.

I can't make any owner change his mind but I can & will call him out for tanking in obvious instances. I don't suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, I won't go quietly into the night. But I won't convert to the modern day Trump Syndrome of disrespecting whomever as long it gets me what I want.