Bench Starters? (Already in playoffs)

[Prison_Mike]

Stuff like this gradually ruins a league.

This is probably my take as well. It could snowball as it influences others to do similar things down the line. And who knows where those shenanigans stop (collusion?)

I think there's some legitimate strategy to your thinking, and I'd be tempted to do the same. Ultimately, I'd probably end up playing it as a normal week and putting forth my best lineup

[moishetreats]

For me, this is entirely league dependent.

In of my leagues with a bunch of friends, this would kill it. Tick people off (understandably). But no one would likely do it, and they'd probably be kicked out of the league if they tried.

In another one, it would be celebrated and go down in league lore (and then voted on the next year). Case in point: A number of years ago, when eliminated from the playoffs, a Dolphins fan in our league dropped all players that weren't Dolphins and only picked up Dolphins players (redraft). In the off-season, we created the LJK rule to limit the number of position players you could have on a team. Another year, an elimited team already had three players with the last name of Johnson on his team. So, you guessed it, he stocked his teams with players named Johnson. That, too, also became known as LJK rule. And this is a long-time league of college buddies who enjoy when someone gets screwed as much as when someone wins. In THIS league, OP's move would go down in lore -- and then voted on the next year.

FWIW, I wouldn't do it personally. But if OP's league is anything like the second league I mentioned, while I would hate it, I'd be telling the tale forever.

[mild]

Just tapping back in here...

If this was SOLELY to improve your picks / tanking position, then I think there would be more of a moral quandary here.

But per the Poll - this team that he could potentially knock out is also "a powerhouse". That's just playing the game well. Why let a team into the playoffs that can beat you, if you have a path to controlling that?

The fact that there are no bylaws + you've asked for them + he's been a d--kbag as well just puts the cherry on top, really.

[Prison_Mike]

Just tapping back in here...

If this was SOLELY to improve your picks / tanking position, then I think there would be more of a moral quandary here.

But per the Poll - this team that he could potentially knock out is also "a powerhouse". That's just playing the game well. Why let a team into the playoffs that can beat you, if you have a path to controlling that?

The fact that there are no bylaws + you've asked for them + he's been a d--kbag as well just puts the cherry on top, really.

Well said, mild

bleep it I’m back in! Sit ‘em all!

[wickerkat1212]

Stuff like this gradually ruins a league.

Yep. That's why I keep trying to put things in place to discourage tanking—VPs, potential points, etc.

[cazzie33]

Stuff like this gradually ruins a league.

Yep. That's why I keep trying to put things in place to discourage tanking—VPs, potential points, etc.

Those are all well & good but wouldn’t stop this scenario. This is a tit for tat , two wrongs to make a right maneuver. OP knows what the right thing to do is, question is why should he have to be the better man. And I understand that too. Have succumbed to the temptation myself a time or two to “prove” a point. Usually ends causing hard feelings over a game that’s supposed to be fun. Wish I had just walked away or maybe just asked for lg discussion on the subject. Unfortunately from my experiences I’m the outlier that finds using loopholes & bylaws as legit ways of intentionally not putting out their best lineups underhanded or not of good intent. Basically I think I owe it to the others competing to try and beat my opponent as it has implications on playoffs or draft pick positions. Not fair to team A that I played week 2 w/ our best lineup then week 13 / 14 giving a victory to team B so they can make playoffs ahead of team A .

Purposely trying to lose should never be allowed. Personally don’t like leagues where teams want to be 2-12 and while understanding the strategy they still should play the best players even if rookies. Not a fan of taxi squads.

Now him throwing out a PSA to make you overpay for a QB is a bit of douchery but is nowhere near the same as throwing a game. He just did in public what guys do in private all the time. To me it’s almost collusion if you don’t extract more from a GM in the weaker position. You’re bailing him out for essentially free sends up flares . Take it as a Badge of Honor that he fears your team enough to send out a rally cry to stick it to you . I highly doubt he has as much sway as to get everyone to follow his plan. Make a fair enough offer to benefit your trade partner and you will get a qb despite his intentions. If everyone gets on board w/ said plan then perhaps that says more about your standing amongst lg mates or maybe need to consider finding another lg

[CGW]

Just tapping back in here...

If this was SOLELY to improve your picks / tanking position, then I think there would be more of a moral quandary here.

But per the Poll - this team that he could potentially knock out is also "a powerhouse". That's just playing the game well. Why let a team into the playoffs that can beat you, if you have a path to controlling that?

The fact that there are no bylaws + you've asked for them + he's been a d--kbag as well just puts the cherry on top, really.

I've done this in redraft leagues before where I controlled the playoff picture. Love the strategy here. It's a bit different in dynasty, where pick placement is involved. But then again...if you don't want others manipulating your draft pick, maybe don't trade your draft pick away.

[M-Dub]

My initial thought was no way should you ever do something like this, but this league is pretty clearly not a very serious league if you’ve already made it eight years without even having a constitution/bylaws. Just know that you are raising the stakes pretty significantly. Simply pointing out in a group chat that you need a QB and other owners should make you pay up for one is annoying, but not collusion, and it doesn’t even compare to what you’re planning to do here.

You’ve already acknowledged that this will have ramifications beyond just you and this guy you’re trying to screw over. I see this going one of two ways: either it lights a fire under your collective butts to actually get serious and write a constitution that explicitly outlaws crap like this, or it just sends a message to the rest of the league that all bets are off and pretty much anything goes, league integrity be damned.

Ultimately, if you’re not breaking any rules, you don’t really care that much about the long-term health of your league, and you genuinely dislike this guy, then have at it, I guess. Just understand that this goes WAY beyond “getting even.” What you’re planning to do is exponentially shadier than him just pointing out that you need a QB.

[TheTroll]

My initial thought was no way should you ever do something like this, but this league is pretty clearly not a very serious league if you’ve already made it eight years without even having a constitution/bylaws. Just know that you are raising the stakes pretty significantly. Simply pointing out in a group chat that you need a QB and other owners should make you pay up for one is annoying, but not collusion, and it doesn’t even compare to what you’re planning to do here.

You’ve already acknowledged that this will have ramifications beyond just you and this guy you’re trying to screw over. I see this going one of two ways: either it lights a fire under your collective butts to actually get serious and write a constitution that explicitly outlaws crap like this, or it just sends a message to the rest of the league that all bets are off and pretty much anything goes, league integrity be damned.

Ultimately, if you’re not breaking any rules, you don’t really care that much about the long-term health of your league, and you genuinely dislike this guy, then have at it, I guess. Just understand that this goes WAY beyond “getting even.” What you’re planning to do is exponentially shadier than him just pointing out that you need a QB.

Yep…all can be solved with a clear Charter/Constitution. Water under the bridge now but the sooner one is implemented, the past can be forgotten and the league can move forward. I guess the silver lining in all this mess, is that you guys have real world examples to solve and clarify for your new Charter.

[CGW]

My initial thought was no way should you ever do something like this, but this league is pretty clearly not a very serious league if you’ve already made it eight years without even having a constitution/bylaws. Just know that you are raising the stakes pretty significantly. Simply pointing out in a group chat that you need a QB and other owners should make you pay up for one is annoying, but not collusion, and it doesn’t even compare to what you’re planning to do here.

I have 5 leagues and only two have official bylaws. It's the two that are completely random strangers that do have the documents, which I appreciate since I don't know the other owners. All of the "friends" leagues have rules, but there's nothing written anywhere. Very rarely have problems and if we do, we just know that we vote on changes in the off-season and move along. I agree that the bylaws are useful if you have a group of people that likes the bicker and argue and bend every rule possible, but I don't think it's necessary either.

All of these "friends" leagues are fairly high stakes, and very serious leagues that have been around for around a decade each. Honestly, I'd consider them significantly better than the rando leagues I joined that do have the bylaws. So, I don't think not having a charter document/bylaws has much impact on a league being serious...it's more about the owners in the league.

[abloom]

so our 12th team is playing a team with playoff implications... my bye week secured team is playing the 11th rated team. a win by team 12 and a loss by team 11 would hand the 1.01 to team 11. should i rest my starters against team 11 which would give team 12 the 1.01 regardless of their outcome? also, team 12 is my significant other.

That would be collusion

[81-]

so our 12th team is playing a team with playoff implications... my bye week secured team is playing the 11th rated team. a win by team 12 and a loss by team 11 would hand the 1.01 to team 11. should i rest my starters against team 11 which would give team 12 the 1.01 regardless of their outcome? also, team 12 is my significant other.

That would be collusion

I know. It's why we rarely deal. And when we do deal it's minor.

The real issue is, she doesn't subscribe to my draft strategy which has me with a playoff bye and her fighting for 1.01

[Bronco Billy]

so our 12th team is playing a team with playoff implications... my bye week secured team is playing the 11th rated team. a win by team 12 and a loss by team 11 would hand the 1.01 to team 11. should i rest my starters against team 11 which would give team 12 the 1.01 regardless of their outcome? also, team 12 is my significant other.

That would be collusion

I know. It's why we rarely deal. And when we do deal it's minor.

The real issue is, she doesn't subscribe to my draft strategy which has me with a playoff bye and her fighting for 1.01

What’s her strategy? Draft crappy players and develop them?

[81-]

That would be collusion

I know. It's why we rarely deal. And when we do deal it's minor.

The real issue is, she doesn't subscribe to my draft strategy which has me with a playoff bye and her fighting for 1.01

What’s her strategy? Draft crappy players and develop them?

Over draft players. She takes way too many a round earlier than I think she should.

Last year it was chase brown at 15th overall. The year before is Zamir White in the middle of the 1st.

Could have a great rb room next year.

[81-]

I texted the current 11 team and told him I was taking a dive.