Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Popes
So to summarize: "Yes, I'm intentionally tanking (cheating, if you like), but you're a jerk for pointing it out."
Why the co-manager of the league (I don't know Brian's official title, but it seems to me that he and Mike run this thing) can't bring problems to light when he sees them is beyond me. To suggest that him pointing out you tanking is worse than you tanking is, frankly, ridiculous.
To intentionally throw games is very lame, IMO. And yes, when you do the following, you are intentionally tanking:
1. Start Garrard over Manning
2. Bench Parker (17.6 PPG) and Graham (16.6 PPG, and 21.9 PPG since becoming the starter) in order to start Lamont Jordon, who lost his starting job in week 7, got completely benched for two weeks in weeks 10 and 11, and returned in week 12 to have 3 carries (opposed to starter Fargas' 22). You benched two STUD RBs for a non-starter and absolute non-factor in Oakland. All Brian did was point out the obvious - you didn't even try to disguise your intentions by playing arguably plausible players.
The fact that some teams (beyond the team that does it) think this is fine is a bad sign.
|
I'm majorly against tanking, but rather get into a battle, would prefer we come up with a system to encourage teams to go for the win each and every week of the regular season.
I like Brian's isea of using a lottery system, starting with a base amount of chances that will vary from 1-4), and awarding additional chances in the draw for each win after November 1st. It encourages teams to never give up, encourages competition, and might even move teams into the playoff hunt that never would have expected it.
You just never know how a season is going to turn out, but giveing incentives for all teams to always go for the win is a big plus in my book. Especially when you consder there are already incentives to losing late in the season if your team is stuggling (a higher draft pick is an incentive to tank) and disincentives to make moves (the soft cap hit).