An owner within GWL has called for a league vote to determine if the Masons 2 has been tanking over the past few weeks.

---------
For the last two weeks Randy Moss has been on his bench and this week when the tight end he started has been injured and declared out for the past two weeks he left him as the started while he had Winslow on the bench. Before this past week it didn't make a difference in the result. This past week it did. do not expect him to drop players to pick up a replacement QB but he should be starting the best line-up possible.
------------

According to Section 12 of the rules, if it is suspected that an owner has started a lineup with the intention of allowing his opponent to win (tanking) the league will vote on the suspected lineup. If six owners (out of 11 remaining) feel that the owner intentionally lost on the week in question, the offending owner will be put on probation. The outcome of the week in question will stand. If an owner is found guilty of this action a second time, their team will be taken over by the Commissioner.

Question:
Has the Masons 2 team been intentionally tanking over the past few weeks?

Choices:
Yes
No

 

I didn't realize that Davis was hurt. I had seen where Winslow was a possible in the New England game though. That was my thought process on that case. Reggie Wayne starting over Moss isn't exactly tanking IMO. In fact he outscored Moss this past week. My question is why would you bring me up when if I started Winslow and Moss over Wayne and Davis there would have been no point difference what so ever. Now if the Villans started Ward over Betts, who he has outscored every week, he would have had 9 more points added to his team. How is this even fair?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Zacharyj53,

Not starting a TE is not tanking. We purposely excluded TEs from the tanking rule for a reason.

Also, not starting Randy Moss isn't tanking. Who are we to say that he has to start Moss? For the reasons stated this is not tanking. IMO.

Thanks Snotbubbles. Also, Villians I wasn't trying to throw you under the bus I was just pointing out what you did was no different. I don't consider what you did to be tanking.

Okay then what do you define as tanking. Not starting the best WR in fantasy football in consecutive weeks seems like tanking to me. Nobody says it has to Moss or Wayne. I'd start both and throw Jones to the bench. Honestly, I probably would not have ever said anything had it not been for his comments before the season see the attached .pdf .

Re__Quarterback.pdf (11 KB, 60 downloads)

Yea that is true, I did say that. After that though I talked with Scott and we cleared all of that up. I haven't been tanking and if you changed Moss for any of my players last week you either make my score worse or it remains the same. This isn't fair one bit and people could say you are tanking for not picking up a TE or making the trades that you did.

I guess everyone has a different definition of tanking. The rule says "All owners are expected to start the best lineup available to them each week. " I have no issue with you not picking up a QB because you don't have years but not fielding your best available lineup based on who is on team is a different issue.

All of my players outscored him that week. They were playing the Browns. I fully expected them to go up early and run the clock out. Go look for yourself.

Now here are some questions for you...You have years and money, so why don't you go pick up a TE in place of the injured one you play? Why do you not go pickup some players who are actually scoring right now instead of people getting 2 touches a game? Why didn't you bring the Villians up on this when he didn't start Ward? Basically why are you making it at me when you and others are doing just as bad as me?

And if you aren't trying to tank...Tell you what I will offer you Moss, Wayne, Portis for your 1st rounder next year, Chad, Rebuen, and Jennings...I will even add money to that.

Zachary, please leave the Villains out of your little dispute. I traded away my first round pick for MJD, so I have no reason to tank, unless you think I would throw away my season for 2 or 3 amoebas. That seems stupid to me, I'm only in this for a little fun, and it's more fun for me to try to win every week. I benched Ward because Jacobs was back starting. Comparing my mediocre guys to Randy Moss just doesn't cut it, man. Besides, I've been in two different leagues with you over the last three seasons, and I've never once commented on how you run your team. You could probably show me the same courtesy. Thanks.

Mike (Head Villain, Bullfighter, Nimrod)

I don't have a problem with what you did. I am pretty sure I said that in one of my posts. I was just showing that you not having Ward in was a bigger point difference than the way I chose to start my lineup. Now if you voted yes on this I do have a problem with your lineup as you did basically the samething.

I could give a frog's fat *** whether you have a problem with anything I did. I just asked you politely to stop talking about my team. If you do have a problem, go through the official channels. If not, go fight your little battle without dragging the Villains into it. Can I be any clearer?

I am pretty sure I was clear with what I said. I have no problem with what you did but it is basically the samething I did.

BJ--

I don't think that starting one player over another is tanking. Especially when we're talking about starting say, Julius Jones or Marion Barber over Randy Moss. As long as the player he is starting over Moss is not on a BYE I wouldn't call that tanking. The TE thing, yeah he should have put in Winslow, but I think that was more of an oversight then tanking.

But to answer your question, really what does "All owners are expected to start the best lineup available to them each week" mean? What is the definition of "available". Does available mean "on their current roster" or does available mean "all players not currently taken."

To me not playing a QB and taking a 0 each week at what is probably the highest scoring position is tanking. Tanking to me is taking a 0 at a position when you know you could get points by starting or getting another player. I have leniency when we're talking about BYE weeks. If you only want to roster 1 QB and he has a BYE that week ok. But to purposly take a 0 at a position each and every week is tanking. You can call it strategy or whatever, it's still tanking.

So honestly I don't think starting player X over player Y is tanking, but I do think that the Masons should have to sign a QB. There's plenty out there Derek Anderson, Brian Griese, Cleo Lemon, Damon Huard any of those would add 10 to 15 points to his score each week. I mean, if he would have just picked up Griese he would have won the last two weeks. So if you don't have a problem with him taking a 0 at a position each week, I don't understand making a big fuss over starting one player over another.

You know, I really can't fault the Mason's either. The system is set up to HEAVILY favor teams that don't do well. If the system was changed to where everyone got the same amoebas and the non-playoff teams played for the #1 pick, it really wouldn't benefit people to tank and you wouldn't run into these problems.

Mike,
I disagree. Decisions on who you start and who rides the pine can absolutely be a mechanism for tanking.
I understand your QB argument and I agree that except during bye week everyone should have a valid starting QB.
As far as the system being heavily favored toward teams that don't do well. I don't think is heavily favored but it does provide more benefits to teams that do not do well. It should!!! Without the opportunity to restore some balance to the league or for a new owner who picks up a team in poor shape to rebuild the leagues would die. I for one would have never picked up my current team if I did not feel like I could to rebuild the team through the draft and by catching up on the amoebabucks. But I guess when you’re on top with a large amount of amoebabucks you would want changes to help make sure you stay on top.