Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

[Phaded]

The solution shouldn't be using potential points, it should be removing that owner if you are looking to implement consequences.

[Pac_Eddy]

The solution shouldn't be using potential points, it should be removing that owner if you are looking to implement consequences.

Man, you really hate potential points.

I think it's a great solution. In my back & forth with you, you've said that only egregious cases of tanking are addressed. Potential points addresses both egregious and more subtle versions. It's just a simple solution.

[badbuddah]

We had an owner who won the championship the year before, start slow and have a couple injuries, well he went full tank and landed Barkley as a result. Thanks to him we had to switch to a "best ball" or points system to determine draft order since standings are too easy to manipulate.

Why would the league change the rules because someone drafted a certain player? Thats like changing because of a trade...not sure i understand here. Did the league have other teams trying to "not win"? If so, whats the difference?

It wasn't specifically that one player, it was because two people left and EVERYONE else was mad how he blatantly tanked so it had to be addressed. Of course the league voted on the measure and it had to pass a 8/12ths vote.

[Phaded]

The solution shouldn't be using potential points, it should be removing that owner if you are looking to implement consequences.

Man, you really hate potential points.

I think it's a great solution. In my back & forth with you, you've said that only egregious cases of tanking are addressed. Potential points addresses both egregious and more subtle versions. It's just a simple solution.

Without getting into it too much as we already discussed it..

I feel like it's a workaround to tanking without actually addressing the ethics of that owner or the cultural impact on the league. I feel like leagues would be better off disposing of those owners rather than coddling them.

I don't like potential points, but I dislike catering to those owners even more.

[brward]

There are more benefits to potential points than just as an anti-tanking measure. I think it benefits teams that are truly bad and need a higher pick rather than the teams that are strong and simply had bad luck with their schedule or are bad at setting a lineup.

[ckrumm24]

There are more benefits to potential points than just as an anti-tanking measure. I think it benefits teams that are truly bad and need a higher pick rather than the teams that are strong and simply had bad luck with their schedule or are bad at setting a lineup.

This. But I haven’t been able to convince my league to switch.

[Lumps]

The solution shouldn't be using potential points, it should be removing that owner if you are looking to implement consequences.

Man, you really hate potential points.

I think it's a great solution. In my back & forth with you, you've said that only egregious cases of tanking are addressed. Potential points addresses both egregious and more subtle versions. It's just a simple solution.

Without getting into it too much as we already discussed it..

I feel like it's a workaround to tanking without actually addressing the ethics of that owner or the cultural impact on the league. I feel like leagues would be better off disposing of those owners rather than coddling them.

I don't like potential points, but I dislike catering to those owners even more.

I side with Phaded on this one. Potential points is a band-aid to avoid dealing with the problem. The problem is you have a/many shitty owners. If it isn't tanking, it's going to be another issue. Not setting lineups. Leaving injured players in their lineup etc. They need to be removed. Allowing the league to continue with a band-aid fix on shitty owners is just asking for problems.

Potential points just has teams maneuvering in different ways. They don't pick up that flier that could turn into something because if that player happens to score 10 points one week it could eff them.

As for what constitutes tanking, aside form that prior post of benching Zeke/Chubb/etc., I submit what happened in our IDP league:

Week 1: Lineup looks fine, unfortunate loss
Week 2: Same
Week 3: Same
Week 4: The 3 highest scoring IDPs are benched. 2 LBs are benched. DL are benched. Jatavis Brown is inserted into the lineup - he was inactive for the first 2 games of the season. He stayed in the lineup until the owner was removed - scoring 0, 4.5, 0, 2, 0, 2, 0, 6, 2. There are plenty of LBs on the WW doing significantly better than this. This is the lineup the owner continued with until he was removed. Also starting Goodwin and Pettis all year.

[John Paul]

A few years ago we had a guy in the playoffs start players on IR and some backup types. He was out of the money spots and called the acting commish before he did it. Problem is, the commish okayed it because he didn't care. It was to provide a higher draft slot, by one position.

So we added a 'Gentlemen's Agreement' to our constitution that basically says compete to the best of your abilities until the end or we find a new GM.

[Hottoddies]

A few years ago we had a guy in the playoffs start players on IR and some backup types. He was out of the money spots and called the acting commish before he did it. Problem is, the commish okayed it because he didn't care. It was to provide a higher draft slot, by one position.

So we added a 'Gentlemen's Agreement' to our constitution that basically says compete to the best of your abilities until the end or we find a new GM.

In the league I comish we solved this problem by awarding the higher of the two picks to the winner of consolation games. It also adds more importance in a game were there is no money to be made.

[Ice]

The solution shouldn't be using potential points, it should be removing that owner if you are looking to implement consequences.

Man, you really hate potential points.

I think it's a great solution. In my back & forth with you, you've said that only egregious cases of tanking are addressed. Potential points addresses both egregious and more subtle versions. It's just a simple solution.

Without getting into it too much as we already discussed it..

I feel like it's a workaround to tanking without actually addressing the ethics of that owner or the cultural impact on the league. I feel like leagues would be better off disposing of those owners rather than coddling them.

I don't like potential points, but I dislike catering to those owners even more.

Tying potential points to tanking exclusively is pretty disingenuous IMO.

We use it in one of my IDP leagues for non playoff teams and it works great.

The overriding goal is to award the weakest teams the higher picks. It's a weighted system much like the NBA lottery.

No system is perfect but given you can have a strong team for 8-10 weeks and suffer a hammy from a couple of players resulting in losses thus improved draft position. Potential points account for this. Potential Points also accounts for bad coaching decisions even with best intentions.

There are multiple reasons to use this system. In the end it is a league decision but overall tanking whether the hard or soft variety does level the playing field and if a league throws out an owner then Potential Points also ensures the new owner is not awarded a higher pick based on the cheater.

Not saying it's for everyone but potential points are used by many leagues way beyond tanking issues.

In one league we have used it for 10 years and our league has no tanking issues. Potential points could be a deterrent but in all honesty the league owners play to win in this league they don't tank for picks.

[snaps06]

I think tanking can be pretty easily defined. It is the act of an owner intentionally playing an inadequate lineup with the objective of losing a weekly matchup in order to secure a higher draft slot. This affects the integrity of the league because it A) Gives that team a potentially higher slot over a more "deserving" team, and B) It gives easy wins during the playoff push that could affect seeding for playoff teams.

Examples of tanking: Submitting a lineup consisting of players on IR or bye weeks, playing backup RBs instead of starting RBs, or benching a stud in favor of a 3rd string player with no adequate justification. Tanking is almost always obvious and easily identifiable.

Not tanking: Trading away older assets to secure more future picks or youth and playing the best lineup you can construct based upon your current roster. This is an example of rebuilding and/or forcing a "productive struggle." This is legal and a legitimate dynasty strategy when a team recognizes they are not good enough to compete for a playoff spot or championship during a given year.

There is no need for potential points or any of that pick removal nonsense in a tanking situation. Dismissal from the league is the only answer because it has affected the integrity of the league.

[snaps06]

Also, here's why potential points is not my cup of tea: last week I started Chris Godwin over James Washington. If we use potential points, I get a 12.1 point penalty for submitting a lineup that, prior to last week, looked like the correct decision? How is that fair?

[Phaded]

Man, you really hate potential points.

I think it's a great solution. In my back & forth with you, you've said that only egregious cases of tanking are addressed. Potential points addresses both egregious and more subtle versions. It's just a simple solution.

Without getting into it too much as we already discussed it..

I feel like it's a workaround to tanking without actually addressing the ethics of that owner or the cultural impact on the league. I feel like leagues would be better off disposing of those owners rather than coddling them.

I don't like potential points, but I dislike catering to those owners even more.

Tying potential points to tanking exclusively is pretty disingenuous IMO.

I never said it was exclusively tied to tanking, but if you notice - every single time tanking gets brought up throughout all the years here, someone brings up using potential points as the solution. It's not the solution to tanking and ignores the underlying issues.

I understand the argument for those that like it but I don't like it and I personally think it's silly. I feel that if you want to do potential points, you may as well go all the way and play best ball or eliminate H2H.

[ckrumm24]

Also, here's why potential points is not my cup of tea: last week I started Chris Godwin over James Washington. If we use potential points, I get a 12.1 point penalty for submitting a lineup that, prior to last week, looked like the correct decision? How is that fair?

I don’t follow this at all - I’m not even sure what your example is arguing for/against. Potential points takes into account your entire teams potential fantasy output over the season and therefore is a more than sufficient gauge of who’s roster top to bottom is better/worse and therefore a fair means of setting a draft order.

So, The argument for PP is that Ideally, poor roster selection or bad luck (play against high scoring teams every week) shouldn’t be the metric for awarding the top pick, it should be the lack of quality/choices across your entire roster.

[Cult of Dionysus]

PPs all but eliminate tanking. I don't understand how you can argue otherwise...

If a team decides not to pickup a prospect for fear he may score PPs on the bench, that is not an instance of tanking. That's a roster management decision, and a short-sighted one at that.