Is It Unethical To Tank In Fantasy Football?

[babyatemydingo]

Tanking can be done ethically, but often is not.
TAKE RITALIN NOW.

I've been in leagues with all sorts of penalties and obstacles in place and leagues with nothing.

The one league was a redraft league with a three strikes and you're banished rule for infractions like ... not starting a replacement for a guy who was declared inactive at the last minute.
This was even enforced in superfluous playoff games (like the No. 9 team vs. the No. 10 team for 9th place).
It was too much.  I'd rather have no rules.

However, this sort of thing goes on in redraft league when there is a charge for moves.
For example a 2-9 team does not pick up a kicker for one with a week 12 bye to avoid paying $5.
But, there are two 8-3 teams vying for their own byes and he is playing one of them.
I am OK with a penalty, like a $10 fine.
But, once you get into money it gets dicey.

In keeper leagues everyone has the right to rebuild.
Collusion is another story.
There's a fine line between being able to prove collusion and just a rebuild.

A good owner, particularly a new one to the league can successfully rebuild a team.
You can't deny him that opportunity.
Therein lies the problem with the veto rule.
Owners likely to be impacted negatively by the trade are also likely to veto on selfish interests, not what is right or wrong.
I had a trade vetoed on those premises once and vetoed every other trade for the rest of the year.
I am petty jerk like that.
Similarly, I am in a position now where the commissioner had to be given all of the veto power and we rely on his discretion for the reason above.
(Fortunately, he's 0-6 and has no vested interest in the action of any other team unless it is unethical.)

When I look at the scenario above, I see an owner who doesn't understand the value of draft picks.
He is either overrating the picks or his own ability to draft.
I mean, you even said it, he was lucky, not good.
He continues to be not good.
He should have gotten more from each trade.
But, would you have been OK with that?
Let's say Julio Jones and Pringle for Diggs, Williams and a 2 ..... and JJSS and Conley for Tate, Anderson and a 3.
That trade may not provide a better keeper than the ones you listed.
But, it is more equitable in the short term.
His decision that it doesn't matter to net those other players is short-sighted from an aesthetic perspective, but he's right in that it doesn't matter.
I'd rather have a steak dinner than Anderson and Williams.  (Make sure he's not getting any steak dinners out of this.)
If you can catch him at the steak house or with the bottle of bourbon, it's collusion and he should be censured.
But, short of that, he just looks like a weak link of an owner.

At the end of the day, there is ethical "tanking" and unethical "tanking."
Rebuilding is not a crime.
Also, making a great trade on one side and a terrible one on the other is part of the fun if you are on the right side of things.
You can't hate on that.
Anyone who colludes should be made to suffer, so long as it doesn't cost a good friendship.
It is only fantasy football after all.
 

[the lone star]

If tanking is in self-interest, then ionno if it's unethical. It's not like tanking physically harms anyone.

And some people would argue that rules are what define the ethics, morals, and values of the league, so in the absence of a rule, then I know those people would argue it's not necessarily unethical, if, again, it is in self-interest or some other legitimate reason.

I once benched all my players in the last week of the season to make sure I lost, gave my opponent a win, and thereby set myself up for an easier matchup in week 1 of the playoffs. By giving my opponent the W, it eliminated a team from the playoffs, and while he was upset, he didn't lodge a formal complaint because he knew that what I did was just smart strategy. It's like when the Spurs used to rest players towards the end of the season so that they would be better prepared for the playoffs.