Playoff secured - opinions on tanking to improve chances?

[moishetreats]

Here's your workaround:

The highest seed playing each week gets to pick their opponent. (In some leagues that I have, you cannot pick the second-highest seeded opponent.) That way, there is no incentive to tank to improve your matchup.

[prinefan]

Tanking for any reason is a douche move.

[killer_of_giants]

"Tanking" got the Cubs a world series and made the Astros one of the most dominant teams the past 3 seasons or so. "The Process" has made the 76ers a playoff team. The Browns have a lot of talent they wouldn't have otherwise.

if it didn't work, there would be no need to forbid it... (not that it's working all that well for the browns, but well... they're the browns...)


i'm against willingly benching studs, if you don't want their points, fair enough, but you trade them away.
otherwise it just sucks, after a few weeks you have half the league going for it and the other half tanking making most of the regular season useful only for playoffs seeding, half of the good players would be sat on a weekly basis and trades would be harder to do. bit shite if you ask me.

[MrUbuto]

I think it's ok if there is no rule against it. Don't lots of NFL teams rest players week 17.

Resting your fantasy football players doesn't mean anything. They still play the actual game.

I wouldn't do it. While you think you know who you'd prefer to see in the playoffs of the other teams, odds are good you'll pick wrong. And there's a good chance that you'll raise the ire of others in the league as losing on purpose by setting less than your best lineup is a very touchy issue.

While it's not tanking so you get a better draft pick, it's the same idea.

Has anyone else benched a star player that wasn't playing particularly well to send a message?

But to answer your question tanking like that is not cool. It could potentially cause a team to make the playoffs thst shouldn't therefore knocking someone else out

[purplepride28]

Usually the way tanking works in our (salary cap) league is the tankers sell off all their assets so that they won’t score. It’s not that big of a deal when it’s a 600$ buy in and they are most likely gonna be rebuilding for a few years after their tear down wasting 600$ a year for however many years. But most of them don’t put complete lineups in because they’ve sold them all.

[jordanzs]

Here's your workaround:

The highest seed playing each week gets to pick their opponent. (In some leagues that I have, you cannot pick the second-highest seeded opponent.) That way, there is no incentive to tank to improve your matchup.

I keep trying to get this voted in for our leagues, but we always seem to have enough half-wits in the leagues to vote against it. Very frustrating. If I ever start or join a new league, I will make sure this rule is in place before I play. It's a brilliant rule.

[jordanzs]

As for the tanking to improve your playoff scenarios, I would carefully analyze your matchup and everyone else's matchup, as there are 2 scenarios to consider:

A) Your loss will only alter the playoff seeding, but it won't block someone from getting into the playoffs and/or allow an undeserving team into the playoffs

B) Your loss will alter who makes the playoffs & who doesn't

I literally have a week 13 game in 1 of my leagues where my team is undefeated, and I will be playing against another undefeated team this weekend (what are the chances of that?!?!?!). We will definitely be the 1 & 2 seed and have 1st round byes. The 3 and 6 seed teams are much weaker than the 4 & 5 seeded teams. So whoever gets to play the winner of the 3-versus-6 matchup will have a much easier week 15 matchup. As much as I would love to submit a lesser lineup to be the 2 seed (and try to play the 3 seed in week 15), I know that if I do this, karma will screw me over by giving the 6seed the win in week 14. So I'll play my studs.

[Pac_Eddy]

Usually the way tanking works in our (salary cap) league is the tankers sell off all their assets so that they won’t score. It’s not that big of a deal when it’s a 600$ buy in and they are most likely gonna be rebuilding for a few years after their tear down wasting 600$ a year for however many years. But most of them don’t put complete lineups in because they’ve sold them all.

This is where a lot of people are getting terms mixed up.

For me, tanking = not starting your best lineup with intention to lose.

What you're describing is rebuilding, or tearing it all down by selling players for picks and/or upside players. That's a legit strategy.

[Portsmouth Spartans]

Don't anger the Fake Football Gods

^

[ebsteelers]

Don't anger the Fake Football Gods

^

100%


good chance it doesnt work out the way you want it to.

[Dynasty_Analyst]

All the leagues I'm in have anti-tanking laws. Usually applies to bad teams but you must always TRY and put your best lineup forward. Tanking to play what you deem to be an easier matchup in the playoffs should apply here as well. If you want to swap out similar guys and put in the one in the worse matchup I guess that's fine because who can tell you otherwise but you shouldn't be allowed to bench OBVIOUS starters

[killer_of_giants]

Usually the way tanking works in our (salary cap) league is the tankers sell off all their assets so that they won’t score. It’s not that big of a deal when it’s a 600$ buy in and they are most likely gonna be rebuilding for a few years after their tear down wasting 600$ a year for however many years. But most of them don’t put complete lineups in because they’ve sold them all.

This is where a lot of people are getting terms mixed up.

For me, tanking = not starting your best lineup with intention to lose.

the dolphins sent a lot of players away, and we call that tanking.
tanking is tanking. not putting up your best line up is just being a bit of a cuntstain.

[Pac_Eddy]

Usually the way tanking works in our (salary cap) league is the tankers sell off all their assets so that they won’t score. It’s not that big of a deal when it’s a 600$ buy in and they are most likely gonna be rebuilding for a few years after their tear down wasting 600$ a year for however many years. But most of them don’t put complete lineups in because they’ve sold them all.

This is where a lot of people are getting terms mixed up.

For me, tanking = not starting your best lineup with intention to lose.

the dolphins sent a lot of players away, and we call that tanking.
tanking is tanking. not putting up your best line up is just being a bit of a cuntstain.

Many leagues have anti-tanking rules. That doesn't mean you can't sell off your older player for picks though. I think tanking means lineup fraud more than how you define it.

[killer_of_giants]

the dolphins sent a lot of players away, and we call that tanking.
tanking is tanking. not putting up your best line up is just being a bit of a cuntstain.

Many leagues have anti-tanking rules. That doesn't mean you can't sell off your older player for picks though. I think tanking means lineup fraud more than how you define it.

yep, that's my whole point, they're improperly called "anti-tanking".
i get that "anti-being a bit of a cuntstain" may not be that agile in day-to-day usage (though it has a nice ring to it!) so no problem with the "improper" use.

however, "tanking" in the way real life nfl teams "tank" is legal in most leagues. sitting studs and being cunts isn't as accepted.

[abajaba]

Had a chance to do this last year, decided against it to not piss off the fantasy football gods... won the championship. To each their own.