Is It Unethical To Tank In Fantasy Football?

[the lone star]

Is It Unethical To Tank In Fantasy Football?

[The Gnat]

I personally think there is a level of good will expected in a league versus king making. You're there to play, and even in a dynasty or keeper league, it's unethical. Re-draft most certainly because that is pure king making, but if you have a poor team, you're probably going to lose most of your games anyways in dynasty or keeper, so keep the competitive balance of the league there.

[the lone star]

21 hours ago, The Gnat said:

I personally think there is a level of good will expected in a league versus king making. You're there to play, and even in a dynasty or keeper league, it's unethical. Re-draft most certainly because that is pure king making, but if you have a poor team, you're probably going to lose most of your games anyways in dynasty or keeper, so keep the competitive balance of the league there.

Yeah, I see that, but I also think of it like, well, if I tank, then someone else can tank. If someone else tanks, then I should tank. I understand how that argument can go against what I'm saying, but the way I see it, if it's not addressed by the rules, then it's a legitimate strategy. Gotta act in my best interest. Also, if it's something that we all could be doing, then it's fair game, so not unethical in that sense.

I am a bit wishy-washy on it though. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is 100% ethical. That's a bit too extreme.

[The Gnat]

Yeah, I can see that, and I think without the defined expectation of the league, for me the biggest spot it becomes questionable is when there is money involved. If you were to tank in a league run on this site and there are no rules in place, then I don't think it's as big a deal, if the other owners have issues with it, because it seems like it wasn't done in good faith, the rules can be adjusted, but if I'm in a league where people know each other, there's nothing to say that someone isn't tanking to get a buddy into the playoffs with the understanding that if they win money, the other person gets a cut. I doubt it happens all that often, but when money is involved I think it changes in terms of tanking and ethics.

[JonStark]

I don't see any logical reason that someone can say it's not unethical.

If you tank, the team you are playing gets a free win that someone who played you early in the season did not get. It's not fair for all and can drastically affect the seeding of the teams still in the hunt.

[the lone star]

3 hours ago, The Gnat said:

Yeah, I can see that, and I think without the defined expectation of the league, for me the biggest spot it becomes questionable is when there is money involved. If you were to tank in a league run on this site and there are no rules in place, then I don't think it's as big a deal, if the other owners have issues with it, because it seems like it wasn't done in good faith, the rules can be adjusted, but if I'm in a league where people know each other, there's nothing to say that someone isn't tanking to get a buddy into the playoffs with the understanding that if they win money, the other person gets a cut. I doubt it happens all that often, but when money is involved I think it changes in terms of tanking and ethics.

Ah, interesting. I've never seen that happen in the leagues I have been in, but maybe it has happened behind closed doors and such.

[the lone star]

2 hours ago, JonStark said:

I don't see any logical reason that someone can say it's not unethical.

If you tank, the team you are playing gets a free win that someone who played you early in the season did not get. It's not fair for all and can drastically affect the seeding of the teams still in the hunt.

You could make the argument that if it's a money league, then someone is paying to tank. If it's not against the rules, has never been addressed by the league, and other signs would indicate that it is OK, then you could argue that someone is entitled to do what he wants with his money.

[the lone star]

2 hours ago, JonStark said:

I don't see any logical reason that someone can say it's not unethical.

If you tank, the team you are playing gets a free win that someone who played you early in the season did not get. It's not fair for all and can drastically affect the seeding of the teams still in the hunt.

You could also say that it's not guaranteed that the tanking team will lose. Sometimes crazy stuff happens. I had Asiata go off for 3 TDs and guys like Paea, Ryan Mundy, and Mark Sanchez all had decent performances too.

[JonStark]

1 minute ago, the lone star said:

You could make the argument that if it's a money league, then someone is paying to tank. If it's not against the rules, has never been addressed by the league, and other signs would indicate that it is OK, then you could argue that someone is entitled to do what he wants with his money.

If it was not addressed by the league (first off, that league needs to get it's act together), then yes it is allowed. But the question was if it was ethical or not.

Whether or not it's a money league or not, you are playing to win the championship. If the guy you are battling it out with for a first round bye with gets to face a tanker in week 13, that's not fair. Purposely throwing a game and giving another team a free win is not ethical.

[the lone star]

4 minutes ago, JonStark said:

If it was not addressed by the league (first off, that league needs to get it's act together), then yes it is allowed. But the question was if it was ethical or not.

Whether or not it's a money league or not, you are playing to win the championship. If the guy you are battling it out with for a first round bye with gets to face a tanker in week 13, that's not fair. Purposely throwing a game and giving another team a free win is not ethical.

That's a good analysis, but things do change for some teams after a few weeks, injuries, suspensions, etc.. So sometimes people are no longer playing for a championship, they are just playing for a better draft spot next year.

I really like how you are focusing on it being ethical though. I posted something similar on reddit and it went down a totally different path then I thought it would.

[JonStark]

Just now, the lone star said:

That's a good analysis, but things do change for some teams after a few weeks, injuries, suspensions, etc.. So sometimes people are no longer playing for a championship, they are just playing for a better draft spot next year.

I really like how you are focusing on it being ethical though. I posted something similar on reddit and it went down a totally different path then I thought it would.

No problem. I agree that tanking from the 'tankee' can make sense in leagues where there is a next season to prepare for, but it still affects other teams in the league for the current season. I can't imagine missing out on a playoff spot because someone else get a free win in the last week of the regular season.

Because of the fact that people can benefit in the future from tanking, rules should be in place before the season begins. If the rules aren't in place, your right that you can't penalize someone for doing it however I still don't see any way it can be ethical for that person to knowingly do it.

[the lone star]

27 minutes ago, JonStark said:

No problem. I agree that tanking from the 'tankee' can make sense in leagues where there is a next season to prepare for, but it still affects other teams in the league for the current season. I can't imagine missing out on a playoff spot because someone else get a free win in the last week of the regular season.

Because of the fact that people can benefit in the future from tanking, rules should be in place before the season begins. If the rules aren't in place, your right that you can't penalize someone for doing it however I still don't see any way it can be ethical for that person to knowingly do it.

Do you feel like tanking happens in the NFL?

[JonStark]

1 hour ago, the lone star said:

Do you feel like tanking happens in the NFL?

I don't think so. The players are the ones that are in the game and I doubt they would choose to lose a game, especially with incentives and future contracts depending on their performance.

The coaches also need to be able to show competence for future opportunities. If they are in the position of tanking, their job may be on the line, and I can't see a potential employer looking at that game and saying "that's our guy". They may choose to throw in another younger QB to see what they have, but I doubt they would go into it hoping to lose the game.

Sure the owner's may secretly hope that the team loses out so they get a premium draft pick, but the players and coaches are the ones on the field and they have more of a reason to go out and win the game than to throw it.

[the lone star]

On 4/17/2018 at 1:10 PM, JonStark said:

I don't think so. The players are the ones that are in the game and I doubt they would choose to lose a game, especially with incentives and future contracts depending on their performance.

The coaches also need to be able to show competence for future opportunities. If they are in the position of tanking, their job may be on the line, and I can't see a potential employer looking at that game and saying "that's our guy". They may choose to throw in another younger QB to see what they have, but I doubt they would go into it hoping to lose the game.

Sure the owner's may secretly hope that the team loses out so they get a premium draft pick, but the players and coaches are the ones on the field and they have more of a reason to go out and win the game than to throw it.

That's fair. I think tanking happens from a front office perspective though. They sign relatively weak players, forcing the coaches to play them. But then of course, you have a team like the Browns who are keeping their coach, despite losing a ton of games with him. Maybe there's an agreement under the table or something that the coach keeps his job, so long as the team loses, gets good draft picks, and then makes savvy signings in free agency. That's speculation, but I feel like that just might happen.

Signing weak players is one thing, but I wonder if franchises intentionally sign less competent coaches to improve their odds of tanking. Or maybe just restrict the playbook a lot, and justify it by saying "we need to simplify and get these things right, then we can innovate." Again, that's just speculation, but I wouldn't put it past a front office trying to place some pressure on the coaching staff that way.

In the NBA, the Mavs were clearly tanking this year. But Rick Carlisle's job is safe, so all the more reason to tank. He can quickly turn the ship around that way.

But again, I think tanking is more of a front-office thing. Just signing weak players, maybe weak personnel too, and eventually making changes once they get a good core.

[JonStark]

5 hours ago, the lone star said:

That's fair. I think tanking happens from a front office perspective though. They sign relatively weak players, forcing the coaches to play them. But then of course, you have a team like the Browns who are keeping their coach, despite losing a ton of games with him. Maybe there's an agreement under the table or something that the coach keeps his job, so long as the team loses, gets good draft picks, and then makes savvy signings in free agency. That's speculation, but I feel like that just might happen.

Signing weak players is one thing, but I wonder if franchises intentionally sign less competent coaches to improve their odds of tanking. Or maybe just restrict the playbook a lot, and justify it by saying "we need to simplify and get these things right, then we can innovate." Again, that's just speculation, but I wouldn't put it past a front office trying to place some pressure on the coaching staff that way.

In the NBA, the Mavs were clearly tanking this year. But Rick Carlisle's job is safe, so all the more reason to tank. He can quickly turn the ship around that way.

But again, I think tanking is more of a front-office thing. Just signing week players, maybe week personnel too, and eventually making changes once they get a good core.

I think saying that front offices sign less competent coaches is a bit of a reach. They are in it to make money now, and while they want to be competitive for the long haul, I'm sure every owner's ideal scenario would be to get a Peterson or Mcvay which turns your team into a contender right away.

But yes, tanking is definitely more of a front office thing. However I don't believe that they actually bring in a lesser quality of personnel to achieve it. I think the line ends at playing a weaker starting lineup towards the end of a season.

Another thing to consider is the fanbase. Sure, some fans would be all for tanking to get a better pick, but if the fans that bought tickets to the game found out that the team wasn't trying to win it, that would harm the team much more than anything else. Future attendance would be down, merchandise sales would be down, and maybe even a few lawsuits from the fans who purchased tickets to that specific game.