Some of the same comments you listed above can be applied to other questionable moves. Player lending is an easy example. Lending players to an opponent to help beat a division rival would be similar. Free agent churning is another. They have all been used by people with the thought of being "strategy moves". You may still even find leagues that don't prevent it. My guess is that leagues where these moves occur are in the early stages or by inexperienced players who think they just stumbled on a great loophole.
^ This is what it all boils down to. The only reason there isn't a specific rule against this in a lot of leagues is that it just hasn't come up in a way that it's become a widespread issue. It's exactly like the moves FutBol listed above
, it just hasn't been used as widely, and a 1-game tank (especially if you just insert bench depth/a guy "you didn't know" was out for the week, etc.) isn't going to get noticed.
I beg to differ. I understand Futbol was addressing the broken logic in the "strategy moves" argument. But I don't view churning and throwing a game the same way. And I definitely don't put colluding with other owners in the same pile.
I can not articulate exactly why 1 urks me and the other does not. Maybe I think an owner with a locked up playoff spot has sort of earned the ability to do as he pleases. If a team is knocked out because of it, it's tough, but the spurned owner didn't do enough to get in. Honestly, if I was that spurned owner it would not bother me.
Again, I can't say I would actually throw a game--4 pages already on this topic is indicative of the type of response you can expect from a lot of people.
You got me right, Neal. It was more a matter of the "strategy" argument, and exactly why I referred to them as other questionable moves. They all can be viewed as different levels of acceptability or douchery.
I imagine the difference you feel is because only one of them is a move to intentionally hurt yourself (in the short term) where something like churning is to hurt an opponent.