Combating Tanking - How Draft Order Should be Determined

[Mark80]

In my opinion, there is something fundamentally wrong with tanking in sports. The whole purpose of sports is to win games and, in turn, championships. However, this worst teams gets best pick (or best chance for best pick in some sports) system fosters teams trying to lose to potentially get better players to be better down the road. This is no fun for anyone. What fans want to watch their team intentionally being terrible? What networks want to show these teams getting blown out game after game?

 

To me, it's a simple solution. Just do the draft slotting this way (NFL as an example)

 

Pick 1: Team 13 (best team not making playoffs)

Pick 2: Team 14

Pick 3: Team 15

...

Pick 20: Team 32 (worst team in league)

Picks 21-32 same playoff team breakdown we have today.

 

This would foster competition throughout the league for the entire season. Now WINNING as many games as possible is always the goal (save for the savy GM who realizes it may be better to just miss the playoffs in a year than to make it and lose round 1. I would think that case would be the exception more than the rule). No longer will teams strive to win 1 or 2 games a year for the top pick, they would be picking 20th instead.

 

Just my thoughts on it in light of the Jets, 49ers, Browns obviously striving to lose...again. Interested on thoughts, have at it.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Mark80

[LeGOATski]

Trying to win for a better pick is definitely a more favorable scenario. Teams may still try to throw a game at the end of the season, but that's no different than some teams do now when they know they won't make the playoffs.

 

Better for the draft picks, too, when a higher pick knows he's not destined for a crappy team.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

In the NBA/NHL i always liked the idea that the day you become mathematically eliminated you get a new set of standings. The team with the most points (2 for a win 1 for a OTL in hockey, or just wins in the NBA) from that point on gets pick 1 and so forth. If you're eliminated on the last day of the year you pick highest of non-playoff teams. it adds some stakes to late season games for bad teams.

 

In the NFL they could just add a lottery, but a single player isn't always the game changer in the NFL that it is in the NBA/NHL.

[Royale with Cheese]

It's a good topic and I can see your point.

 

At the same time, there are just bad teams who aren't trying to go 3-13 and they are just bad. They need a few seasons just to get the difference makers in place to be competitive again. It's far more likely to find a difference maker with a top 3 pick than #20.

 

If this plan goes into work, I think there should be maybe a sliding cap space plan for the worst team....like a certain % more they can spend in FA or give them extra 2nd round picks.

 

No fan wants to watch their team go 3-13 in a tanking season but also they don't want to see their team struggle for many, many years because they aren't getting difference makers because they're picking #20.

[LeGOATski]

It's a good topic and I can see your point.

 

At the same time, there are just bad teams who aren't trying to go 3-13 and they are just bad. They need a few seasons just to get the difference makers in place to be competitive again. It's far more likely to find a difference maker with a top 3 pick than #20.

 

If this plan goes into work, I think there should be maybe a sliding cap space plan for the worst team....like a certain % more they can spend in FA or give them extra 2nd round picks.

 

No fan wants to watch their team go 3-13 in a tanking season but also they don't want to see their team struggle for many, many years because they aren't getting difference makers because they're picking #20.

They can always trade up. Trades would happen a lot.

 

Otherwise, it just means they have to draft better, coach smarter, and play harder....take more risks? Not a bad thing for the fans.

[Mark80]

It's a good topic and I can see your point.

 

At the same time, there are just bad teams who aren't trying to go 3-13 and they are just bad. They need a few seasons just to get the difference makers in place to be competitive again. It's far more likely to find a difference maker with a top 3 pick than #20.

 

If this plan goes into work, I think there should be maybe a sliding cap space plan for the worst team....like a certain % more they can spend in FA or give them extra 2nd round picks.

 

No fan wants to watch their team go 3-13 in a tanking season but also they don't want to see their team struggle for many, many years because they aren't getting difference makers because they're picking #20.

 

I thought of this aspect as well and agree it could make things more fair / interesting too.

They can always trade up. Trades would happen a lot.

 

Otherwise, it just means they have to draft better, coach smarter, and play harder....take more risks? Not a bad thing for the fans.

 

I agree. I think there would definitely be an increase in trading in this scenario.

[Bills_Chick]

i think the league still needs to help bad teams become good. weighted lotto is the way to go imo. sort of prevents tanking, but helps bad teams become good (good for competitive balance).

[LI_Bills]

Has there been a team that tanked and became a perennial contender as a result?

 

The Colts tried to and got Luck, but how far has that taken them? I don't remember tank jobs resulting in a dominant team with Brady, Rodgers, Ben,...

 

Maybe Peyton, but I don't recall talk about that being a tank job.

 

No matter what system you come up with there will be some team trying to game it.

 

With that said, the weighted lotto makes the most sense to me...up until a top 4 team lands a top 4 pick.

[Royale with Cheese]

They can always trade up. Trades would happen a lot.

 

Otherwise, it just means they have to draft better, coach smarter, and play harder....take more risks? Not a bad thing for the fans.

 

They can yes but a team that bad would need to retain more draft picks than lose them.

Yes they can get that difference maker but good teams generally have multiple.

 

Good topic OP.

[SoCal Deek]

Simple. Any team that finishes 7-9 picks first!

[row_33]

An article from a few years back for the NBA tanking epidemic...

 

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel/

 

[in short, all 30 teams will pick in each of the 30 positions over the next 30 years, weighted for smoothness]

 

 

 

 

shouldn't going roughly 6-10 for 20 straight years get a sympathy #1?

 

You know how HARD it is to do in the NFL this without rising or capsizing over 2 decades? Especially in a league dedicated to parity and rewarded the worst team with the top pick???

Edited July 26, 2017 by row_33

[Fan in San Diego]

I like your concept but don't like the model presented.

Maybe Playoff teams go from pick 32 and so on up. The remaining teams go into a lottery. The worse your record the more lottery tickets you get. Then draw lottery style for picks 1 thru 20. When your number is drawn your remaining tickets are removed and the slots are filled. So the worse team statistically has the best chance to draw #1 but not guaranteed. The 19th ranked team could draw first.

[MAJBobby]

Lottery is the way to go IMO. And if ANY league can turn a Lottery Show into something entertaining and make a ton of money off it wiuld be the NFL

[Mark80]

I just don't think a lottery system does anything, really, to curtail the tanking problem. Teams would still tank in order to realize the best odds at winning the lottery, no? Especially if only the first 2 or 3 picks are the ones up for lottery (like the NBA and NHL currently). The lottery system, with all slots available in the lottery is better than the current system though, no doubt about it.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Mark80

[LI_Bills]

I like your concept but don't like the model presented.

Maybe Playoff teams go from pick 32 and so on up. The remaining teams go into a lottery. The worse your record the more lottery tickets you get. Then draw lottery style for picks 1 thru 20. When your number is drawn your remaining tickets are removed and the slots are filled. So the worse team statistically has the best chance to draw #1 but not guaranteed. The 19th ranked team could draw first.

 

That's pretty good.

 

Would a team tank the season if they knew that coming in last only game them a 50% chance at the #1? I wonder what the threshold would be.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

No. Just no.

 

The controls you are suggesting are in place in the NBA, and what that did for the Sixers was encourage them to tank three years in a row and pull their best players at the first sign of injury year four.

 

They were "punished" by being pressured to fire the GM who set it up. Now they are being rewarded with a roster full of very talented young picks and bountiful cap space.

 

In the NFL, the point of tanking is to get a QB. Winston, Mariota, Goff and Wentz were 1 and 2 overall picks and none of them have made the playoffs. Goff looks like a total bust. You take your chances.

[MikeSpeed]

I guess I'm in the minority. I think tanking is just as good a strategy as any other way to make yourself better. If done properly you can improve your team dramatically. It's the only way to keep the NFL from becoming MLB where the same teams win every year.

[LI_Bills]

I guess I'm in the minority. I think tanking is just as good a strategy as any other way to make yourself better. If done properly you can improve your team dramatically. It's the only way to keep the NFL from becoming MLB where the same teams win every year.

 

Which teams have tanked and become a juggernaut?

[Samwell Tarly]

The only way to prevent tanking would be if like soccer the bottom teams were demoted to a lower league and replaced with another team. That would punish absentee and dysfunctional owners and would put a premium on effort for the entire organization. However, no minors in the NFL...

[Mark80]

I guess I'm in the minority. I think tanking is just as good a strategy as any other way to make yourself better. If done properly you can improve your team dramatically. It's the only way to keep the NFL from becoming MLB where the same teams win every year.

 

This is a pretty ridiculous statement. In MLB in the last 10 years only one team has won the Championship more than once. This year looks to continue that trend as the Dodgers and Astros seem poised to win. Dodgers haven't won since Kirk Gibson and the Astros have never won. Teams like the Twins, Brewers, Rockies, are all making playoff pushes for the first time in years and seemingly out of nowhere. In the last 10 years the Phillies, Royals, and Cubs have all won their first championships in over 30 years.

 

However, the NFL has the same teams winning over and over and over again. Patriots, Packers, Steelers, Ravens, Giants, Broncos. I would argue that after baseketball, the NFL is the worst at having different teams win.

The only way to prevent tanking would be if like soccer the bottom teams were demoted to a lower league and replaced with another team. That would punish absentee and dysfunctional owners and would put a premium on effort for the entire organization. However, no minors in the NFL...

 

I do love the soccer system. Obviously not possible here though. Please tell me though, how would my proposal not combat tanking? It may not be the most fair system, having better teams draft ahead of worse ones, but it would prevent tanking.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Mark80

[plenzmd1]

I will get crushed for this, but with a hard cap and no max contracts, why even have a draft?

 

You want Darnold next year..give him $200M over 6 years..people will follow the money.

Edited July 27, 2017 by plenzmd1

[Mark80]

No. Just no.

 

The controls you are suggesting are in place in the NBA, and what that did for the Sixers was encourage them to tank three years in a row and pull their best players at the first sign of injury year four.

 

They were "punished" by being pressured to fire the GM who set it up. Now they are being rewarded with a roster full of very talented young picks and bountiful cap space.

 

In the NFL, the point of tanking is to get a QB. Winston, Mariota, Goff and Wentz were 1 and 2 overall picks and none of them have made the playoffs. Goff looks like a total bust. You take your chances.

 

What are you talking about? The NBA does a lottery system, not even close to what I am suggesting. And the Sixers have been in tank mode for over 5 years. How is that good for competitive spirit? How is that good for their sponsers and tv deals? Most importantly, how is that possibly good for their fan base....because maybe, MAYBE after 8 years they can have a playoff team (and I'll believe that when I see it)?

I will get crushed for this, but with a hard cap and no max contracts, why even have a draft?

 

You want the Darnold next year..give him $200M over 8 years..people will follow the money.

 

Yeah. To me, this another way to do it as well.

 

Sports should always be about trying to win, every game, every time IMO. Encouraging losing by rewarding tanking, is just wrong IMO.

[ALF]

 

This is a pretty ridiculous statement. In MLB in the last 10 years only one team has won the Championship more than once. This year looks to continue that trend as the Dodgers and Astros seem poised to win. Dodgers haven't won since Kirk Gibson and the Astros have never won. Teams like the Twins, Brewers, Rockies, are all making playoff pushes for the first time in years and seemingly out of nowhere. In the last 10 years the Phillies, Royals, and Cubs have all won their first championships in over 30 years.

 

However, the NFL has the same teams winning over and over and over again. Patriots, Packers, Steelers, Ravens, Giants, Broncos. I would argue that after baseketball, the NFL is the worst at having different teams win.

 

 

 

The present draft order is still the most fair imo. A team gets desperate to find a franchise QB will tank or trade up.

 

I prefer to trade up rather then tank and have a long rebuild. We will see how the Browns and Jets are after there rebuild.

[BarleyNY]

i think the league still needs to help bad teams become good. weighted lotto is the way to go imo. sort of prevents tanking, but helps bad teams become good (good for competitive balance).

I'd be good with a weighted lotto, but the downside is that so many fans will distrust it. Every time a big market or other favored team beats the odds for a top pick fans will lose their s$&t. Still, if fairly executed, it'd be the best way to go.