Should the NFL have a lottery system for the draft?

1. To whoever recommended the idea of a "playoff" between the two worse teams for the number 1 pick, the NFLPA and the players would never go for that. Good luck convincing guys like Matt stafford and megatron to go out there and play hard in a 17th game so that the team has a better chance of drafting your replacement. The players don't care about what pick their team gets in the draft


2. The draft is essential for parity. You can't give college players the right to just pick where they want to go. Small market teams would literally die.

3. Draft lotteries are just dumb. Every once in a while you do have some "suck for luck" scenarios, but for the most part the teams that pick at the top are truly the worst teams and need the most help. As pats fans, we all hate Indy, but if it was some random NFC team that sucked for luck in 2011 and got top pick, would we all be as annoyed by it? I don't think so. Even if you include only non playoff teams in the lottery (NHL just started doing this in their 2015 draft), your gonna get some good teams that maybe just had a lot of bad luck in a season (like injuries for example) and they win a lottery. Like for example let's say Seattle just misses the playoffs this year by 1 game, and they win the lottery, do you really think they deserve and/or need the number 1 overall pick more than Detroit does? That would be absurd


This is sort of off topic kinda, but I have no idea why Ryan grigsons seat isn't as hot as chuck pagano's. The national perception in the past year is that pagano is on the hot seat, and while grigson may also be on thin ice, we don't hear as many reports of him being possibly fired, when he is just as big a problem for them

Other than lucking into an absolute slam dunk of a draft pick, what has that guy done? Nothing at all. As much as we all rag on luck, take luck off the 2012-present colts, and that is a consistent 5-11 team. But it's always pagano that we hear about being on the hot seat but wow what a terrible GM too. That team is a joke

Deus Irae said:

The only way any league should have a lottery is if all teams are included, and there is very little, to no, weighting of the odds. In the era of free agency, a weighted lottery system is even more of an abomination than a straight draft, which essentially rewards incompetence.

Click to expand...

How would a weighted lottery reward incompetence more than the current system does? At worst it would still reward incompetence, just less than is currently the case.

To be honest, the biggest argument against a lottery that I can think of is that I don't trust the league office not to rig it. It would be really fun seeing how many times in a row the Jets could get incredibly lucky picks before people got suspicious.

Observer said:

I just cannot support a system where the players have no choice of where they want to play, but are instead just placed in a line and handed out like cattle. They should be free agents from the get-go and the salary cap should determine "parity".

Click to expand...

I was going to say that all sports should have a non-weighted draft (sucking shouldn't get you a better chance at a draft choice. It's America, a free market economy. We don't want that commie ********!). Everyone gets an equal shot at draft position. THAT is what parity means, right? Equal opportunity...

But I actually do like the idea of just making the "draft" a separate free agency process. The cap would likely need to be adjusted, but why not allow both teams and player to make the decision.

Rob0729 said:

I think the NBA lottery is crap. I guess you need it because teams purposely tank it to try to get a higher draft pick in the NBA far more than the NFL.

I like the way the NFL does their system. The worst teams should have the highest picks. The thing is many of the bad teams can't draft well even with top 5 picks every year.

Click to expand...

I think the biggest issue is that in NFL even picking last still gives you a genuine shot to draft at least 2 players who have a decent chance to turn into stars, and you can win with those guys. Because there's 53 guys on the roster, it's totally plausible to construct a championship-contending team with nobody who was drafted in the top 10.

NBA's way different, mostly because of how few players are in the league. There are basically 10 players who are worth a damn that enter the league every year, give or take a couple. If you're constantly drafting outside the top 10, your chances of drafting a superstar--which is pretty much a prerequisite for championship contention--are vanishingly small.

In the NBA, there's basically three stages your franchise can be in, in descending order:
1. Championship contender: you already have your team built out, stars included, and you're in championship contention right now.

2. Bottoming out: if you don't have a superstar, there is no way for you to contend for a title. And if you're not New York, LA, Miami, or maybe Chicago, you're almost certainly not attracting one in free agency either. So the only option left is to tank until you get into the range where you might get lucky and have a shot at drafting one.

3. The middle: this is the worst place to be. You aren't contending for a title, and without the opportunity to draft a superstar that's not going to change in the foreseeable future. The 76ers have been the worst team in the league for like 5 straight years, and because of that their future looks a lot brighter than, say, the Suns.

Since most of the NBA has caught on, they're going to do whatever they have to do within the rules to maximize their shot at eventually being able to draft a star. They're tanking out of desperation and necessity, and because of that I think the NBA needs to radically reinvent how it handles draft picks. I don't see why it should be a bad thing if good teams occasionally get a blue chip prospects. Does anyone really think the league is a worse place for Kawhi Leonard on the Spurs instead of some ****ty team like the Kings?

It's not as big of a problem in the NFL because NFL GMs know it's at least possibly to build without tanking, but the Colts showed that teams will do it if the incentive is as high as it is in the NBA. It's still a problem, though, and one that I take issue with. The NFL already punishes success enough by giving successful teams more difficult schedules year in and year out. There's no need to punish it even more by making sure the worst teams get the first shot at ruining all the best prospects, just like they ruined they previous best prospects which resulted in them being bad enough to get the #1 pick again in the first place.

Foxyboro said:

2. The draft is essential for parity. You can't give college players the right to just pick where they want to go. Small market teams would literally die.

Click to expand...

I don't buy it. There are plenty of leagues around the world that support small market teams without a draft and without a salary cap. Only in the land of the free can a system that is so blatantly unfair to the players be championed as the most appropriate solution. I simply cannot fathom how this came to pass in such a pro individualistic society.

Observer said:

I don't buy it. There are plenty of leagues around the world that support small market teams without a draft and without a salary cap. Only in the land of the free can a system that is so blatantly unfair to the players be championed as the most appropriate solution. I simply cannot fathom how this came to pass in such a pro individualistic society.

Click to expand...

Then you'd end up with a college football model in which some teams are always going to be powerhouses and some teams are always going to be cellar dwellers.

Without a draft, how would a team like Jacksonville that goes 3-13 ever improve? How would they attract any good college players?


Besides, now a days, rookie contracts usually max out at 4 years, so it's not like your committed to the team that drafted you forever

Good God where have you been this past year?

You want a lottery system for the NFL? That means the Jets and Colts will "somehow" get the #1 pick every other year.

Hammer of Thor said:

Sounds like a solution in need of a problem. However, if we are concerned about potential suck for Luck scenarios, here is a simpler solution - snake draft. Still gives bad teams access to the top talent, but balances out the rest of the rounds and I think would create an increase in intriguing trades.

Imagine the Pats consistently having picks 28-32 and 33-37.....

Click to expand...

Fascinating Discussion, Gents.

I don't think I'll ever embrace a Salary Cap, because it creates Forced Attrition, where one's Depth of Talent is constantly beset by relentless Erosion & Entropy simply because one isn't permitted to pay every Player his Market Value, due to the constraints and limitations imposed by The Infernal Salary Cap.

Having said that, I acknowledge that its Value is obvious: It pancakes the Playing Field, thus giving every one of the 32 Teams, regardless of Market Size, an equal Chance of Winning It All.

It dictates that Skill, as opposed to Deep Pockets, will be the largest Determinant of Success.

I'd prefer to see the Salary Cap tweaked in a way that would introduce Exceptions that would allow Teams to go above and beyond its Limitations in order to retain Talent, but I'm not sure how that could be done.

And of course that would give a big Advantage right back to the Owners with Deep Pockets.

As a Libertarian, I dislike Price Controls, yet in this case they actually produce a far purer Meritocracy.

But I do miss the Pre-Cap Days, because TurnOver was far less relentless, Team Chemistries developed, and you really got to know your Foes over the Years. It rendered the Rivalries far richer, I think.

On a purely selfish level, as long as we have Belichick it benefits us to have these leveling mechanisms in place as he's more likely to correctly value assets than 31 other teams. Just look at the work he does gaming the compensatory pick market. Offering Revis a contract specifically designed to net a high comp pick when we predictably walks. Trading for guys in the last years of their contract like Ayers and Casillas who will sign elsewhere and get picks. It's literally free money and 2/3 of the league doesn't even realize it. Big market teams throwing big money at players to paper over personnel mistakes and succeeding would be the worst.

Abolishing the cap and draft would probably have the NFL looking like elite soccer leagues in Europe, where there are traditional powers and then another class of teams just hoping to avoid relegation. My impression is that there's very little movement amongst the traditionally superior teams. People can correct me if I'm wrong.

My modest, weird proposal for true parity in the league recognizes the impact that having a great QB will have on a franchise. Having a young Brady or Manning in 2001 would guarantee a franchise of 10 years of being elite unless something catastrophic happened. Therefore, we implement term limits of 6 years for starting QBs, after which the team must either trade the QB or let the QB go to a supplemental draft before the rookie draft that uses the same draft order. If a team drafts the veteran QB, the drafting team forfeits that round's pick in the upcoming rookie draft to the QB's former team. So after 2007 if the Patriots let Brady go to the supplemental draft and the team holding the #1 overall pick selects Brady, the Pats get the #1 overall pick. If someone spends a 7th round pick on Mark Sanchez after Sanchez QBs the Jets for 6 hilarious years, that team would send their 7th round pick to the Jets. If some team wants to they can offer the Pats a better package for Brady than a single pick before that supplementary draft.

Thus the great QBs are shared among the league's franchises but the teams that developed them are not left empty handed for their efforts. And maybe the few franchises which are good at developing QBs can develop more of them.

We can implement this system right after Brady retires.

Keep the salary cap, get rid of the draft and get rid of the franchise tag.

Foxyboro said:

2. The draft is essential for parity. You can't give college players the right to just pick where they want to go. Small market teams would literally die.

Click to expand...

Interesting concept when you think about that. Coming out of high school where most kids are 18 and thus considered legally "adults", they have the right to choose which college they go to. This essentially monopolizes a few schools ability to have the greatest advantage. Imagine if there were a draft for college football. You could be the highest rated recruit in the country and hail from Florida, but, say, the Arkansas St. Red Wolves finished last in the Sun Belt conf. and ranked dead last in a 128-team FBS ranking, giving them the #1 overall pick. Hmmmm....

Or how about this. Let's say you can declare eligibility after finishing your degree in business management. A pool of companies have a selected order based on earnings with an oportunity to draft you. If your drafted by that company they own your rights for the next 5 years and you can't work for any other company in your field until they decide to trade you, cut (fire) you or you become a "free-agent". You cannot just quit the company you work for to go work for another company in the same industy.

My point is is if it were any other entity besides a profesional sports team (or the military), that wouldn't fly in this society. Think about that for a second.

slam said:

...we implement term limits of 6 years for starting QBs, after which the team must either trade the QB or let the QB go to a supplemental draft

Click to expand...

This might be the worst idea I've ever heard.

But I did want to say I'd love to peek into an alternate universe where the draft order has been been reversed the last 15 years and the Pats consistently picked at the top of the draft. They'd lose a game, what, every couple of years?

I never believed in the concept of amateur drafts in the first place. Players should go wherever they want

I'm actually a fan of an NFL snake draft format.

Lets the bad teams restock with the very best in top-tier talent and actually reward the Play Off/Super Bowl contenders with the best of the 2nd round.

I don't know why there is a notion that grabbing a franchise changing QB at #1 rarely happens. Just over the last five years, Andrew Luck and Cam Newton come to mind as clear cut #1 picks with a huge gap between them and anyone else. Jameis Winston is young and unproven but could be another.

Then you have guys like Sam Bradford and Matt Stafford, where, had their circumstances been different, such as better coaching or less injuries, had the talent to make a big dent in the league for 10+ years.

It's not like the NBA produces a LeBron James every year either...but they still smartly realize there is almost no downside to a lottery in order to prevent tanking for higher picks or at least minimize its impact.

By the way, the reason I started this thread was because I saw an article to see which team would earn the number one pick.

Off The Grid said:

Fascinating Discussion, Gents.


Having said that, I acknowledge that its Value is obvious: It pancakes the Playing Field, thus giving every one of the 32 Teams, regardless of Market Size, an equal Chance of Winning It All.

It dictates that Skill, as opposed to Deep Pockets, will be the largest Determinant of Success.

I'd prefer to see the Salary Cap tweaked in a way that would introduce Exceptions that would allow Teams to go above and beyond its Limitations in order to retain Talent, but I'm not sure how that could be done.

And of course that would give a big Advantage right back to the Owners with Deep Pockets.

As a Libertarian, I dislike Price Controls, yet in this case they actually produce a far purer Meritocracy.

But I do miss the Pre-Cap Days, because TurnOver was far less relentless, Team Chemistries developed, and you really got to know your Foes over the Years. It rendered the Rivalries far richer, I think.

Click to expand...

Very interesting post Grid. But this comment stood out

I don't think I'll ever embrace a Salary Cap, because it creates Forced Attrition, where one's Depth of Talent is constantly beset by relentless Erosion & Entropy simply because one isn't permitted to pay every Player his Market Value, due to the constraints and limitations imposed by The Infernal Salary Cap.

Click to expand...

It stood out because I immediately thought of this. Hasn't 20+ years of the hard cap, proven to all of us that there is a distinct difference between "market value" and "production value" Isn't it the truth that of the hundreds of high end 'market value" contracts, only a small percentage were matched by the production on the field. I hope I'm articulating this clearly

In other words just how many of all those "market value" contracts, did the team get their true money's worth. I think it would be a lot lower than 50% of the time. Sometimes it was an injury factor. For example if a player signs a big money 4 year contract, and gets hurt one year, even if he is every thing you hoped for the other 3 seasons, the team didn't get true value. Sometimes it was a skills factor, and sometimes the contract is so high, it is impossible for the player to live up to it.

BTW- there already exists a mechanism that allows teams to keep players longer. The franchise tag. Of course the players HATE the franchise tag because it limits a chance to make money they might not have earn. As a Libertarian, I would suspect you love the Franchise tag. It no doubt give the player a fair salary for the year he gets tagged. Not only that he knows that after every year he is guaranteed a substantial raise if he's tagged again. The only negative for the player is that in order to get that money he has to EARN it with continued on field production. What would you say about an expansion of the Franchise/transition tag system?

In fact the more I think about it, the most meritorious system would be a hard cap, with a 90% floor, that the teams would have to spend. Then limit the contract term to one year deals. THEN players who perform will get paid. Everyone is a FA at the end of the year. Keep the minimum wage where it is, and the players percentage of the money.

Would that satisfy the libertarian in you?

Ivan said:

Non, but the order should be reversed. No more rewarding teams for sucking. Super Bowl champ picks first etc. the best teams already have to deal with the cap ramifications of being good, that's enough parity for me.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense. The NFL was built on this parity model and it has been successful doing so. Having a top pick keeps fans of bottom dwelling teams interested. This is a business that depends on brand loyalty.

Most fans need one of two things to remain interested in their team: A track record of recent success, or the hope that a bout of success is soon incoming. That's why it's important for the worst teams to draft the highest. It doesn't matter how far away they might be, or how many high picks they've blown, fans will always get excited about a team that's drafted "the next big thing".

Now juxtapose that with a reality where the top teams get the top picks, and the Patriots are on a run like they've had the last 15 years. The NFL would lose half it's fans, because honestly, what would be the point for 15-20 of the teams out there? Without that sliver of hope, the game would simply cease to be fun.

patfanken said:

Very interesting post Grid. But this comment stood out

It stood out because I immediately thought of this. Hasn't 20+ years of the hard cap, proven to all of us that there is a distinct difference between "market value" and "production value" Isn't it the truth that of the hundreds of high end 'market value" contracts, only a small percentage were matched by the production on the field. I hope I'm articulating this clearly

In other words just how many of all those "market value" contracts, did the team get their true money's worth. I think it would be a lot lower than 50% of the time. Sometimes it was an injury factor. For example if a player signs a big money 4 year contract, and gets hurt one year, even if he is every thing you hoped for the other 3 seasons, the team didn't get true value. Sometimes it was a skills factor, and sometimes the contract is so high, it is impossible for the player to live up to it.

BTW- there already exists a mechanism that allows teams to keep players longer. The franchise tag. Of course the players HATE the franchise tag because it limits a chance to make money they might not have earn. As a Libertarian, I would suspect you love the Franchise tag. It no doubt give the player a fair salary for the year he gets tagged. Not only that he knows that after every year he is guaranteed a substantial raise if he's tagged again. The only negative for the player is that in order to get that money he has to EARN it with continued on field production. What would you say about an expansion of the Franchise/transition tag system?

In fact the more I think about it, the most meritorious system would be a hard cap, with a 90% floor, that the teams would have to spend. Then limit the contract term to one year deals. THEN players who perform will get paid. Everyone is a FA at the end of the year. Keep the minimum wage where it is, and the players percentage of the money.

Would that satisfy the libertarian in you?

Click to expand...

01 ~ In your opening, it appears that you're addressing the notion of spending Big Money in Free Agency, but if so, I'm afraid that that has absolutely no bearing on what you were responding to, which spoke to retaining the Depth of Talent already on one's Roster. Signing Big Ticket Free Agents is something that I've always expressed a complete and dramatic lack of Interest in doing.

02 ~ But if your point included retaining Big Ticket Players, then we're on the same subject, there, but we would disagree: I would certainly go on a case by case basis, and would in fact aggressively shop the Trade Market with pending Free Agents who I didn't believe warranted their expected Market Value, but taken as an whole, I believe that Home Grown Big Ticket Players tend to dramatically outperform Imports.

03 ~ As a Libertarian, I of course have no Problem whatsoever with the suggestions that you and others are making about transforming professional Sports to a classic Free Market System.

04 ~ But I would append that the less control the Owners have over Players, the more Mercenary the LandScape becomes, to the Detriment of the Sport, and that your particular suggestion of 1 Year Contracts would play to its substantial Detriment and indeed to its Decline and Decay: As trite as it will probably sound to some, I believe that the most powerful Aspect of any Sport is its capacity to enable the Fan to connect with the Players on a personal basis. That, above all, is what I believe makes this Patriots Empire so magnificent: Mad Bill and his Crew of Merry Men are the embodiment of every cheesy Sports Cliche about TeamWork and Sacrifice that's ever been proclaimed, and they are Living Proof that every single syllable of those worn out Cliches has always been 1000% True. I simply don't have the Words to express the deep Inspiration, Pride, and Honor those men have gifted me as a Fan of theirs, ere these 15 Years, and that is only possible because of the personal Connection I feel with them. Were the League to transform into mandated 1 Year Maximum Contracts, I fear that a great deal of that Connection would be lost, much as BaseBall lost it in 1993.

04 ~ But I would append that the less control the Owners have over Players, the more Mercenary the LandScape becomes, to the Detriment of the Sport, and that your particular suggestion of 1 Year Contracts would play to its substantial Detriment and indeed to its Decline and Decay: As trite as it will probably sound to some, I believe that the most powerful Aspect of any Sport is its capacity to enable the Fan to connect with the Players on a personal basis. That, above all, is what I believe makes this Patriots Empire so magnificent: Mad Bill and his Crew of Merry Men are the embodiment of every cheesy Sports Cliche about TeamWork and Sacrifice that's ever been proclaimed, and they are Living Proof that every single syllable of those worn out Cliches has always been 1000% True. I simply don't have the Words to express the deep Inspiration, Pride, and Honor those men have gifted me as a Fan of theirs, ere these 15 Years, and that is only possible because of the personal Connection I feel with them. Were the League to transform into mandated 1 Year Maximum Contracts, I fear that a great deal of that Connection would be lost, much as BaseBall lost it in 1993.

Click to expand...

Actually I was thinking that if you have created the kind of climate of winning, hard work, teamwork and self sacrifice as Bill has done here, it would be a HUGE advantage every year when it came time to renew player's contracts. This is the place where players come to improve and win. You watch the locker room and sideline clips, who wouldn't want to play here given the option. Anyone who wouldn't is likely to be someone you didn't want in the first place.

But I get your point and you are right. Part of the success of the game is how the fans connect with the players, and certain level of continuity is important. However I would point out that fans currently are dealing with a 20-25% annual turnover rate and coping with it. And I don't think players will want to move every year with their families so my guess is something over 50% of players would likely stay with their teams. Would that be enough continuity for you.

Or here's an idea off the top of my head. How about all rookies coming into the league get 5 year contracts with the team that drafts them. The good news is after that 5th year, they can become FA's. The bad news is after that 5th year all contracts are one year deals. In true libertarian practice, they would literally have to perform to get paid.

Perhaps that will provide you with the player connection time you are looking for, then add the free market system advantages I was looking for with your veteran players. (or something like that)