Manager Purposely Tanking

[dickiethon]

Tanking isnt right, but don't penalize success as a commish. That's one of the dumbest rules i have ever heard of. You basically told the expansion teams that if you do too well in year one, then you have to pay for it.

[thewhyterabbit]

I'd give a warning.

Then, change your rules to strict guidelines on this issue this off season.

i agree, live and learn.. change the rules to stipulate tanking..

maybe hes tight on cash, knows he cant win, so hes tanking.. imo, pretty sorry, but iv seen worse....

id just express to him that its pretty disappointing hes tanking, but are you sure hes not playing the matchups..? iv started devin thomas in a few leagues where im pressed for a WR...

[meineymoe]

I'd give a warning.

Then, change your rules to strict guidelines on this issue this off season.

i agree, live and learn.. change the rules to stipulate tanking..

maybe hes tight on cash, knows he cant win, so hes tanking.. imo, pretty sorry, but iv seen worse....

id just express to him that its pretty disappointing hes tanking, but are you sure hes not playing the matchups..? iv started devin thomas in a few leagues where im pressed for a WR...

only someone who was tanking would do this!

[thewhyterabbit]

I'd give a warning.

Then, change your rules to strict guidelines on this issue this off season.

i agree, live and learn.. change the rules to stipulate tanking..

maybe hes tight on cash, knows he cant win, so hes tanking.. imo, pretty sorry, but iv seen worse....

id just express to him that its pretty disappointing hes tanking, but are you sure hes not playing the matchups..? iv started devin thomas in a few leagues where im pressed for a WR...

only someone who was tanking would do this!

haha come onnn he had a good game 2 weeks ago!!!

[tra151]

we ran into this in our league this year. for the first time in the 6 years, we had two teams battling out for the #1 pick. one team actually tanked two games in a row to get himself into contention, only to start a legit roster and win week 12. the tanking had huge playoff implecations, as this season seems to be very close in most leagues. it actually cost the owner he beat $350 and gave the owner he played the week before the money.

ive been thinking about it, but how do you word a rule that insures an owner starts his best lineup? i'm not sure it can be done. i feel like the only good way to do it is to have a review, like in trades, to decide if the guy is tanking or not. and is it really something that should be enforced? trying to aquire the best possible draft pick for a team that is out of the hunt is actually an attempt to make thier team better. i guess thats good.

i hate tanking, and i dont think it should ever be a part of the deal, i just dont know how to eliminate it. maybe giving the best team that doesnt make the playoffs the #1 pick would be the deal.

[thewhyterabbit]

we ran into this in our league this year. for the first time in the 6 years, we had two teams battling out for the #1 pick. one team actually tanked two games in a row to get himself into contention, only to start a legit roster and win week 12. the tanking had huge playoff implecations, as this season seems to be very close in most leagues. it actually cost the owner he beat $350 and gave the owner he played the week before the money.

ive been thinking about it, but how do you word a rule that insures an owner starts his best lineup? i'm not sure it can be done. i feel like the only good way to do it is to have a review, like in trades, to decide if the guy is tanking or not. and is it really something that should be enforced? trying to aquire the best possible draft pick for a team that is out of the hunt is actually an attempt to make thier team better. i guess thats good.

i hate tanking, and i dont think it should ever be a part of the deal, i just dont know how to eliminate it. maybe giving the best team that doesnt make the playoffs the #1 pick would be the deal.

honestly i trust my drafting enough that i would never tank... iv put best lineups out there that score worse than someone whos trying to tank. sometimes its just bad luck. unless someone is starting a bench player over a stud i wouldnt look at it as tanking... fred jackson stared for the bills, but lynch scored more points.... sometimes trying to tank actually brings you MORE points.

[tra151]

i know, thats my point. is there any real way to govern tanking, or do you just have to deal with it/kick people out?
i rarely ever start the the best lineup i can, but i'm obviously not tanking. we had a guy that was obviously tanking for three weeks, but how can you impose anything. if he says that he thinks thats his best lineup, how do you say hes wrong?

[hosler427]

i know, thats my point. is there any real way to govern tanking, or do you just have to deal with it/kick people out?
i rarely ever start the the best lineup i can, but i'm obviously not tanking. we had a guy that was obviously tanking for three weeks, but how can you impose anything. if he says that he thinks thats his best lineup, how do you say hes wrong?

If he is starting Jabar Gaffney over Fitz than it is obvious tanking. Situations of obvious tanking it is up to the commish to warn him if he gets caught again he will be out. I have also seen commissioner's move a tanking team's first round pick to the bottom of the round.

[Misfit74]

i know, thats my point. is there any real way to govern tanking, or do you just have to deal with it/kick people out?
i rarely ever start the the best lineup i can, but i'm obviously not tanking. we had a guy that was obviously tanking for three weeks, but how can you impose anything. if he says that he thinks thats his best lineup, how do you say hes wrong?

If he is starting Jabar Gaffney over Fitz than it is obvious tanking. Situations of obvious tanking it is up to the commish to warn him if he gets caught again he will be out. I have also seen commissioner's move a tanking team's first round pick to the bottom of the round.

I could also see a scenario that you add 1 in the W column instead of the L for the week tanked AFTER determining the playoff seeding. This could be done for each week tanked if your league didn't have a solid rule in place. This simply would be fair punishment if there is suspect team management to gain an advantage. This would cancel that advantage and put the owner on notice. I personally think this kind of thing warrants removal from the league, depending on the situation and all the factors involved.

One of my league had an owner blatantly tank the first week (starting all scrubs over regular starters) and the league's members created a poll and were actively voting him out as he resigned from the league. (true story, week 1 this year).

[princevincexoxo]

this is how it should be determined

whatever teams didnt make the playoffs....have a consolation bracket to play for the pick...best option available IMO. That keeps ANYBODY from tanking, and keeps EVERYONE competitive.

You want to encourage competition more than you want to punish tanking.

[thewhyterabbit]

this is how it should be determined

whatever teams didnt make the playoffs....have a consolation bracket to play for the pick...best option available IMO. That keeps ANYBODY from tanking, and keeps EVERYONE competitive.

You want to encourage competition more than you want to punish tanking.

but the poorest team doesnt always get the best pick... get owners in your league that are stand up guys and they will try and win regardless...

[princevincexoxo]

this is how it should be determined

whatever teams didnt make the playoffs....have a consolation bracket to play for the pick...best option available IMO. That keeps ANYBODY from tanking, and keeps EVERYONE competitive.

You want to encourage competition more than you want to punish tanking.

but the poorest team doesnt always get the best pick... get owners in your league that are stand up guys and they will try and win regardless...

OK well how about of all the teams who didnt make the playoffs...get their entire teams (starters and bench) points totaled and the team with the lowest combined point total gets the pick....That HAS TO BE the fairest way. Until someone says otherwise

[meineymoe]

this is how it should be determined

whatever teams didnt make the playoffs....have a consolation bracket to play for the pick...best option available IMO. That keeps ANYBODY from tanking, and keeps EVERYONE competitive.

You want to encourage competition more than you want to punish tanking.

but the poorest team doesnt always get the best pick... get owners in your league that are stand up guys and they will try and win regardless...

we do a tourney in my local leagues of the teams that don't make the playoffs - prize is top draft pick. But I agree - upstanding owners, and a strong commish who is good at filling in the cracks that the constitution doesn't cover.

[thewhyterabbit]

this is how it should be determined

whatever teams didnt make the playoffs....have a consolation bracket to play for the pick...best option available IMO. That keeps ANYBODY from tanking, and keeps EVERYONE competitive.

You want to encourage competition more than you want to punish tanking.

but the poorest team doesnt always get the best pick... get owners in your league that are stand up guys and they will try and win regardless...

OK well how about of all the teams who didnt make the playoffs...get their entire teams (starters and bench) points totaled and the team with the lowest combined point total gets the pick....That HAS TO BE the fairest way. Until someone says otherwise [/quote

i guess everything isnt fair, because then owner error wouldnt be factored into which lineups they submitted... :S i guess im senile and think everyone will submit their best lineup regardless...

[princevincexoxo]

but the poorest team doesnt always get the best pick... get owners in your league that are stand up guys and they will try and win regardless...

OK well how about of all the teams who didnt make the playoffs...get their entire teams (starters and bench) points totaled and the team with the lowest combined point total gets the pick....That HAS TO BE the fairest way. Until someone says otherwise [/quote

i guess everything isnt fair, because then owner error wouldnt be factored into which lineups they submitted... :S i guess im senile and think everyone will submit their best lineup regardless...

there is nothing wrong with thinking that....but then the question becomes how do you police it. You mentioned that you want the poorest TEAM to get the best pick....not the poorest MANAGER....so total points would be a perfect solution to the concern you were sharing with me