How to address tanking

[FFleming5]

What have different leagues done to address tanking and competitiveness? Once a manager is eliminated from contention they have a disincentive to remain competitive whatsoever - would be better off not starting a single skater.... this obviously can affect the top of the standings with some teams having more weeks h2h with a tanker

[hockeyrobot]

What have different leagues done to address tanking and competitiveness? Once a manager is eliminated from contention they have a disincentive to remain competitive whatsoever - would be better off not starting a single skater.... this obviously can affect the top of the standings with some teams having more weeks h2h with a tanker

We implemented a rule where if they don't set their lineup X amount of times throughout the year, they lose pick X. I can't remember the details but it's something like:

5 misses = 3rd round
7 misses = 1st round pick goes to the end of the round

I know these seems steep but it shouldn't be hard to click a button to set your whole lineup. This just helps especially because in a 12 team league not everyone plays every team twice.

But now we've run into the issue where the team will set a full lineup....but bench their studs. Which I mean.....I really don't see an option to curb that.

To top it all off....this also means someone has to be aware and look into a team to even realize that this is happening. Im going with the approach of hoping that one of the 10 other guys will tell me or I will see it myself. That's the best I got.

[SergeP]

In my leagues we have by-laws which state that a manager is expected to set the line-up which can *reasonably* be expected to produce the most points on a given night. We expand a bit on that but it's pretty clear. Any violations are basically left up to the commish to deal with.

In the past when a GM for a bottom team has failed to set their lineup I've tacked the missed points back onto their total and let them know they get one warning. GMs have also been warned that they could lose their pick or have it bumped down the draft order if they continue to fail to set their lineups but, honestly, I think I'd just remove them from the league the following season. Who wants to have guys who are constantly trying to circumvent the rules or "game the system" in their leagues? It's more fun to just play with guys who have integrity.

[hockeyrobot]

In my leagues we have by-laws which state that a manager is expected to set the line-up which can *reasonably* be expected to produce the most points on a given night. We expand a bit on that but it's pretty clear. Any violations are basically left up to the commish to deal with.

In the past when a GM for a bottom team has failed to set their lineup I've tacked the missed points back onto their total and let them know they get one warning. GMs have also been warned that they could lose their pick or have it bumped down the draft order if they continue to fail to set their lineups but, honestly, I think I'd just remove them from the league the following season. Who wants to have guys who are constantly trying to circumvent the rules or "game the system" in their leagues? It's more fun to just play with guys who have integrity.

Sounds very similar to our approach.

[ericdaoust]

Unfortunately there's no catch-all rule that works in every situation. I like HR's idea. One of my leagues has a minimum season GP limit for non-playoff teams to be eligible for the draft lottery, although they botched it by setting the limit too low. Teams can get there even when they're extremely negligent with their roster.

Put a simple disclaimer in your rules stating tanking is not permitted and all teams are expected to ice their best possible roster. All GMs and their activities are evaluated by the commissioner(s) and any activity going against the spirit of the league rules (even outside the written rules) will result in the GM being booted from the league.

Tankers will get creative, so you make it clear it's not just about the written rules, but about the global idea that tanking is wrong. If they try tanking they won't be around to draft the player they're targeting. Simple as that.

[als_revenge]

What have different leagues done to address tanking and competitiveness? Once a manager is eliminated from contention they have a disincentive to remain competitive whatsoever - would be better off not starting a single skater.... this obviously can affect the top of the standings with some teams having more weeks h2h with a tanker

Eric is right; it doesn't matter how many rules you put in place, managers will always game the system. The reason your question is so difficult to answer is because I don't have a sense of just how "bad" tanking is (i.e. one team or several teams? tanking is bad the last week of the season or the last two months?) The "solution" might be different depending on the activity in your league. (Of course, new anti-tanking rules may just encourage GM's to tank differently).

The most interesting part of your post (to me) is the line that a team has a "disincentive" to compete once they are out of the playoff race. Something you can consider is forbidding the last place team from getting the top pick (or the bottom x teams from getting the top y picks). This certainly eliminate the incentive for heavy tanking - falling too far hurts your draft position. But the draw back is that it may punish a "full rebuilder" team and/or it could be seen as overly harsh from the perspective of promoting league parity.

[stevegamer]

The easiest ways are:

1. Mandatory lineups. You need to set penalties for failing to set lineups reasonably often, with exceptions for extenuating circumstances, and of course teams that just roll the same competitive lineup weekly. (I rarely change my lineup in my main league, barring injuries.)

2. Have a second tier playoff for draft pick order lottery odds. Winner of playoff has best odds.

[als_revenge]

The easiest ways are:

1. Mandatory lineups. You need to set penalties for failing to set lineups reasonably often, with exceptions for extenuating circumstances, and of course teams that just roll the same competitive lineup weekly. (I rarely change my lineup in my main league, barring injuries.)

2. Have a second tier playoff for draft pick order lottery odds. Winner of playoff has best odds.

Option 2 doesn't seem to address the OP. I think his concern is tanking during the regular season, which impacts playoff seeding (or, even worse, which teams make the playoffs and which teams don't).

[hockeyrobot]

While I understand the concept behind the second tier of playoffs, I don't love it because it actually just hinders rebuilding at the same time. A team may want to go full fledged rebuild and obviously has a weaker team, so how do they win the second tier to get the highest picks in order to accommodate that rebuild?

[ericdaoust]

Yeah I'm also not a fan of tier 2 playoffs. The teams at the bottom actually need help. What needs to be addressed is WHY the bottom teams are there.

[GretzkysMullet]

Yeah I'm also not a fan of tier 2 playoffs. The teams at the bottom actually need help. What needs to be addressed is WHY the bottom teams are there.

This doesn't work in dynasty leagues, but it actually works pretty well in limited keepers in which rebuilds are never necessary.

[chuckcouples]

What's the downside to teams tanking?

I understand the concern that teams facing them will have easier weeks but the teams they played earlier in the season already beat them or they would not be tanking. If a team wants to lose intentionally then that's the choice they make. I don't know why leagues try to make rules that prevent tanking. Let GMs run their teams how they see is best for the long-term viability of their franchise. If you don't think they are capable GMs, then get rid of them.

[MZac]

What's the downside to teams tanking?

I understand the concern that teams facing them will have easier weeks but the teams they played earlier in the season already beat them or they would not be tanking. If a team wants to lose intentionally then that's the choice they make. I don't know why leagues try to make rules that prevent tanking. Let GMs run their teams how they see is best for the long-term viability of their franchise. If you don't think they are capable GMs, then get rid of them.

It's a huge concern in H2H and I believe rightly so. Head to head tankers give competitive teams easy wins and tanking can directly result in championships being won because someone had a lucky back end schedule and ran into 3 or 4 tanking teams. Where earlier in the season, when those teams weren't tanking they may have beat the lucky teams competitors here and there. Nothing worse than watching a competitive team get a guaranteed win in a close battle for a money spot.

In roto leagues or point accumulation leagues I get your point as them tanking doesn't affect the outcome of others as much. But in H2H leagues it can ruin the league.

[stevegamer]

Option 2 doesn't seem to address the OP. I think his concern is tanking during the regular season, which impacts playoff seeding (or, even worse, which teams make the playoffs and which teams don't).

It does, because the first team eliminated doesn't make the playoffs can't simply roll out crap lineups and coast to the #1 overall pick. Note that I'm not saying to make the playoff winner the #1 pick, but to simply give them the best lottery odds. I know it may not be popular with dynasty leagues where the total teardown occurs.

[butch]

in my leagues to qualify for a lotto pick (bottom 5) you have to play 80% of the leagues average games played per team as well as a lottery for 1st ov using the nhl's results .