There's a lot of strong dynasty analysis out there, especially when compared to five or ten years ago. But most of it is so dang practical-- Player X is undervalued, Player Y's workload is troubling, the market at this position is irrational, and take this specific action to win your league. Dynasty, in Theory is meant as a corrective, offering insights and takeaways into the strategic and structural nature of the game that might not lead to an immediate benefit but which should help us become better players over time.
Is Competing Good?
Peter Thiel once famously wrote that "competition is for losers". That's been in my head since I saw the following tweet this morning:
Two Players Benched their lineups to forced a tie so they could make the playoffs.
— Dave Heilman NFL (@DynastyDorks) December 13, 2024
Blocked playoffs for another team
Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/5nDsZ0rC3c
Two teams were in a position where a tie or a win guaranteed them a playoff spot, while a loss would eliminate them. Those teams happened to be playing each other, so they agreed to bench all of their players and both score zero points for the week, guaranteeing them both a trip to the postseason (at the expense of a third manager, who otherwise would have taken the place of whichever of these teams lost).
Many asked whether this was smart; one rogue manager could start one player seconds before kickoff on Monday Night Football to guarantee an easy win. It's not quite a classic prisoner's dilemma because there's no additional reward for defecting, but it doesn't need to be a classic prisoner's dilemma for a manager to defect, it only requires one of the managers to think it's a classic prisoner's dilemma. (Judging by the replies, enough people think it's a classic prisoner's dilemma to make me nervous.)
Many others opined on whether it was legal. If it's a basic, out-of-the-box ESPN league, it probably is (or at least there's unlikely any specific rule against it). If there are any rules or constitution whatsoever beyond the default settings, it's almost certainly not; this is a fairly cut-and-dried case of collusion, which is always the First Great Evil of fantasy football.
Finally, many opined on whether this was bad. Manager A wants to make the playoffs and this agreement gives him or her the best chance of getting there. Manager B wants to make the playoffs, and this also maximizes his or her chances. Manager C gets left out in the cold, but that's not their problem-- their only job is to manage their own teams.
And that's right, insofar as it goes. We shouldn't have to rely on the scruples of random managers to maintain the competitive integrity of the league. That's what we have rules for.
What Are Rules For?
I want to make the playoffs. Making the playoffs will make me happy. Presumably, my leaguemates want to make the playoffs, too; presumably, a playoff berth will also make them happy. Because there are only six playoff berths and more than six managers who want them, each manager's happiness must necessarily come at the expense of another's.
This is known as a "zero-sum game" because all losses and wins perfectly offset, summing to zero. And a lot of aspects of fantasy football are zero-sum. Every team's win is another team's loss, and every team's tie is another team's tie. Every playoff berth earned results in someone else's season ending early. Every title won comes at the expense of every other team that wanted it. Waiver claims are zero-sum. Draft order is zero-sum.
For zero-sum competitions, one winner is as good as another. If you're going to end up with one happy manager and eleven sad ones no matter what, why should the league care whether the one happy manager is David or Sarah?
But there are a lot of aspects of fantasy football that are not zero-sum. Meeting with my friends before the season for a draft party makes me happy... but it also makes my friends happy. There are no tradeoffs, everyone is better off. This is known as a "positive-sum" interaction.
This is why we have rules: to maximize the value of positive-sum opportunities. If your league finds trading fun, rules that encourage trading make everyone better off. If your league finds that too much luck ruins the fun, your league can easily switch to a total points or all-play format to minimize the number of "bad beats", which will make everyone better off.
Why do dynasty leagues award the best rookie pick to the worst team? Draft order is zero-sum, so the league doesn't fundamentally care whether the best pick goes to the worst team, the best team, or the team with the longest name. But it's fundamentally unfun when you have a terrible team and no meaningful path to improvement; building in parity mechanics makes the league more fun overall.
Is Competition Fun?
Getting back to the scenario above: nearly everyone will agree that fantasy football is more fun when outcomes are in doubt than when they are predetermined. Nobody plays Fantasy Alphabeticalness, where two teams meet every week and the winner is whoever's name comes first alphabetically. That wouldn't be fun.
For the managers in question, the net gains in fun from making the playoffs outweigh the net losses in fun from reducing uncertainty. But the "playoff fun" is zero-sum and the "uncertainty fun" is not, so everyone else in the league has to deal with the reduction in fun from missing the playoffs and the reduction in fun from removing uncertainty.
And even for the managers in question, the gains from a guaranteed playoff berth are a one-time benefit, while the losses from "playing in a league where managers sometimes don't try to win" are ongoing. This year, they're the ones doing the screwing; next year, they're the ones getting screwed. The whole league becomes worse off on net, which is why the whole league should have rules to prevent this sort of thing.
What sort of rules? I strongly favor a "sportsmanship" rule. Here's the one from my "home league":
– Owners must make a good-faith effort to field the most competitive lineup they are capable of fielding on any given week.
– Owners must refrain from any activities that could be construed as “poor sportsmanship”. These activities include, but are not limited to: “renting” or “loaning” players, intentionally losing games to get a favorable matchup, whining excessively about any league rulings, intentionally picking up/dropping players you have no interest in just to put them on the 24-hour waivers, intentionally destroying the competitive balance of the league (such as by cutting your best players), and being an annoying rules lawyer.
(With any rule, you'll need to give it teeth; my league goes with "issues will be resolved in whatever way the commissioner deems most fair", though this requires a good amount of trust in the commissioner not to abuse such broad leeway. For other leagues, it might make the most sense to spell the consequences out. Though remember that a fine is just a price, and if the price is set too low managers might decide the benefit is worth the cost.)
I find this sportsmanship rule serves as a useful catch-all. I don't need to anticipate every form of antisocial behavior and legislate against it all individually. I can simply add a rule against being a jerk. We're all adults, we all know what it looks like when someone's being a jerk.
But I find merely framing it in terms of sportsmanship reminds managers why we have rules in the first place. They can (and should!) compete as hard as they like in the zero-sum layer, but they must never let that competition creep into the positive-sum layer and make things worse off for everyone. One must always "be a good sport".
Of course, just because I like this rule doesn't mean it's right for you or your league. In fact, if your league thinks these sorts of roster games are fun, you shouldn't legislate against them at all. I know many people who love the idea of a cutthroat, "anything goes" style league. If that's positive-sum for y'all, lean into it.
But it's good to remember the purpose of rules in the first place so we can evaluate whether or not they're serving that purpose.
