OT: NFL draft lottery to stop tanking?

[sb1]

Link:
NFL could stop tanking with a draft lottery

There's a lot of laughably awful things the NFL could do to kill their product and this would be right up near the top.

Also ask the Colts how tanking for Luck worked out.

 

[XLIX]

This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Football doesn't need it like basketball does.

 

[sb1]

This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Football doesn't need it like basketball does.

And tanking still exists in the NBA. Mark Cuban even admitted his team did it.

Football is the ultimate team sport. Basketball and hockey teams can be carried by one individual so there's a better reason to tank. Unless the guy at the top of the draft is a sure fire future superstar (and we heard Luck was - so far he has been a few notches below that level) what's the point of tanking?

 

[sb1]

I love one of the comments in that link. If the NFL really was stupid enough to give all non playoff teams an equal chance at the #1 pick... then I can't wait till a 10-win non playoff team gets #1 and a 1-15 team gets #19.

 

[Froob]

It really doesn't seem to be an issue, the Colts thing was overblown in my opinion. They wouldn't have started Kerry Collins if they were tanking from the get go and they eventually replaced Painter with Orlovsky. Only case I can really think of was the Bucs-Saints finale a year or two ago.

I could see them doing this solely to add another event to put on TV.

 

[Ring 6]

Link:
NFL could stop tanking with a draft lottery

There's a lot of laughably awful things the NFL could do to kill their product and this would be right up near the top.

Also ask the Colts how tanking for Luck worked out.

Not sure why this would hurt the product.

I think this is a good idea but I would add that the names get pulled out of the hat AT THE DRAFT while teams are in the clock.
That would make the draft must see.

 

[BTTA]

The entire system of giving losing teams better position in the draft actually encourages them to be losing teams. The draft encourages instant gratification among a bunch of emotionally stunted owners.

They should simply have a rotational system where your draft position moves up one slot every year until you get the #1 pick, then you drop down to #32 the next year and resume the yearly climb. That will force teams to pay more attention to other ways of building winning rosters, which are more predictable and sustainable that the draft.

Of course, that would probably cause a number of teams to get smarter and be more competitive with the Pats, so as a Pats fan I don't want it to happen.

 

[Froob]

The entire system of giving losing teams better position in the draft actually encourages them to be losing teams. The draft encourages instant gratification among a bunch of emotionally stunted owners.

They should simply have a rotational system where your draft position moves up one slot every year until you get the #1 pick, then you drop down to #32 the next year and resume the yearly climb. That will force teams to pay more attention to other ways of building winning rosters, which are more predictable and sustainable that the draft.

Of course, that would probably cause a number of teams to get smarter and be more competitive with the Pats, so as a Pats fan I don't want it to happen.

Seems like a solution to a non existent problem. I'd rather the bad teams get a shot at those top prospects first. The draft is soooo soo deep compared to the NBA. You really don't need to tank. And the pressure to win and make the playoffs is so much different in the NFL that you can't be mediocre for so long like you can in the NBA. Just making the playoffs in the NFL alone gets you a dark horse shot at the title, while that isn't the case in the NBA.

 

[sb1]

Not sure why this would hurt the product.

I think this is a good idea but I would add that the names get pulled out of the hat AT THE DRAFT while teams are in the clock.
That would make the draft must see.

Nah I can't see teams suddenly put on the clock like that with no preparation meaning they only have 10 minutes to evaluate players available to them. Won't work very well imo.

Would hurt the product because there would be a much better chance crap teams would stay crap teams for longer. Plus do you trust Roger Goodell and his stooges in the NFL front office to conduct a lottery with #integrity? I certainly don't.

 

[Joey007]

I DO NOT trust the NFL in doing a lottery fairly. Indy and New York would get the top picks every year.

 

[NormZauchin]

An awful team not playing to win in its last game isn't sufficient justification to change the NFL draft. As other posters have pointed out, it is rare in the NFL that any one player can change the fortunes of a franchise, not so in the NBA. And when that football franchise changer comes along, (Unitas, Montana, Brady) there's a good chance he won't be recognized.

 

[primetime]

There are so few games in the NFL. The difference between a top-5 or top-10 pick and a playoff team is often 4 games, say 5-11 versus 9-7.

And, as mentioned above, the first pick in the draft is rarely a franchise changer. Since 1980, the list of franchise changing 1st overall picks is pretty low (player has to have changed their original franchise to count, so Elway doesn't make the list):

Bruce Smith
Troy Aikman
Drew Bledsoe
Orlando Pace
Peyton Manning
Michael Vick
Eli Manning
Cam Newton
Andrew Luck

And even some of those are very arguable in that they probably required other pieces (Aikman, Pace, Smith, Manning) or merely changed a franchise from a basement-dweller to an up-and-down playoff team (Bledsoe, Vick, Newton, Luck). Of them, only Peyton Manning really had a truly transformative impact, and that's not surprising because he's one of the greatest QBs of all-time. But even that required Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Edgerrin James, Dallas Clark, Dwight Freeney, Bob Sanders, and so on.

Even if we expand it to top 5 overall picks in that time period, the number of franchise changers (not good players, so there are Hall of Famers who are not here, but players who appear to have legitimately changed their franchise's fortunes in the years after they were drafted) is relatively small:

Anthony Munoz
Lawrence Taylor
Eric ****erson
Derrick Thomas
Steve McNair
Jon Ogden
Donovan McNabb
Ladainian Tomlinson
Julius Peppers
Larry Fitzgerald
Philip Rivers
Von Miller
Khalil Mack
Zeke Elliot

That's maybe 23 players total out of 185 top-5 selections since 1980, and many of these are very borderline (a stricter definition would probably remove many of the non-QBs and RBs; for instance, Rivers and Tomlinson probably shouldn't both be on here, I'd choose the latter above the former in terms of impact). The list does slightly favor number 1 selections, which are a fifth of the total and nearly a third of the "franchise changers," but not remarkably so and only because quarterbacks tend to be drafted at #1.

In any case, choosing to tank requires it to be a season-long strategy rather than something you can implement halfway through since there are so few games in the NFL. Nor does it seem that there's much to be gained by it.

 

[sb1]

I DO NOT trust the NFL in doing a lottery fairly. Indy and New York would get the top picks every year.

Or Dallas.

 

[dafoe2016]

All one has to do is look at the NBA as a case study to conclude that the draft lottery is a major failure. Teams still tank. All it does is keep the the teams that need help the most from getting the picks they should get. It is a large contributory factor in franchises remaining irrelevant for decades. Think about how devastating it was for the Celtics when Tim Duncan was stolen from us by a team that already had an elite big. Or when we were poised to draft Durant and our pick was given to Seattle instead.

The only thing a draft lottery would accomplish is give control of the draft order to the league office. Before you throw your hands up and proclaim me to be paranoid, think about the integrity of the man running the NFL. Do you really think he is above manipulating the draft, assuming he had the power to do so? If so, you are beyond gullible. Maybe you could make the argument, based on his track record, that he is too incompetent to pull it off successfully, but what about the next guy, or the next guy? just the possibility makes me uncomfortable. Trust goes out the window when billions of dollars are involved. Ethics along with it.

The draft lottery has proven to be an inferior system. Keep it the way it is. The idiom "If it's not broken, don't fix it." comes to mind.

 

[Ring 6]

Nah I can't see teams suddenly put on the clock like that with no preparation meaning they only have 10 minutes to evaluate players available to them. Won't work very well imo.

Well they wouldn't have ten minutes to evaluate they would have months. Just ten minutes to decide.

Would hurt the product because there would be a much better chance crap teams would stay crap teams for longer. Plus do you trust Roger Goodell and his stooges in the NFL front office to conduct a lottery with #integrity? I certainly don't.

I don't think it would really change a lot. Crapvteams tend to stay crap until they make organizational changes. Teams are rarely fixed by the draft and if they are making his draft choices it doesn't matter a lot if they are drafting 4 or 11 for example.
Plus why does parity make the product better?

 

[Ring 6]

There are so few games in the NFL. The difference between a top-5 or top-10 pick and a playoff team is often 4 games, say 5-11 versus 9-7.

And, as mentioned above, the first pick in the draft is rarely a franchise changer. Since 1980, the list of franchise changing 1st overall picks is pretty low (player has to have changed their original franchise to count, so Elway doesn't make the list):

Bruce Smith
Troy Aikman
Drew Bledsoe
Orlando Pace
Peyton Manning
Michael Vick
Eli Manning
Cam Newton
Andrew Luck

And even some of those are very arguable in that they probably required other pieces (Aikman, Pace, Smith, Manning) or merely changed a franchise from a basement-dweller to an up-and-down playoff team (Bledsoe, Vick, Newton, Luck). Of them, only Peyton Manning really had a truly transformative impact, and that's not surprising because he's one of the greatest QBs of all-time. But even that required Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Edgerrin James, Dallas Clark, Dwight Freeney, Bob Sanders, and so on.

Even if we expand it to top 5 overall picks in that time period, the number of franchise changers (not good players, so there are Hall of Famers who are not here, but players who appear to have legitimately changed their franchise's fortunes in the years after they were drafted) is relatively small:

Anthony Munoz
Lawrence Taylor
Eric ****erson
Derrick Thomas
Steve McNair
Jon Ogden
Donovan McNabb
Ladainian Tomlinson
Julius Peppers
Larry Fitzgerald
Philip Rivers
Von Miller
Khalil Mack
Zeke Elliot

That's maybe 23 players total out of 185 top-5 selections since 1980, and many of these are very borderline (a stricter definition would probably remove many of the non-QBs and RBs; for instance, Rivers and Tomlinson probably shouldn't both be on here, I'd choose the latter above the former in terms of impact). The list does slightly favor number 1 selections, which are a fifth of the total and nearly a third of the "franchise changers," but not remarkably so and only because quarterbacks tend to be drafted at #1.

In any case, choosing to tank requires it to be a season-long strategy rather than something you can implement halfway through since there are so few games in the NFL. Nor does it seem that there's much to be gained by it.

I don't know if I believe any of those players changed their franchises. Certainly none did it anywhere close to alone, and i think 16 of the 23 never won a SB.
I also think that just about every franchise turnaround can be attributed to coaching or organizational changes more so than a single player.

 

[FCB02062]

Surprised the NFL hasnt instituted a relegation type playoff, but for the #1 pick and take bottom 2 or 4 teams and play single elimination style... Winner gets #1, 2nd place gets #2, and so on.... Think of the $ that would generate

 

[BobDigital]

The lottery doesn't stop teams from tanking though. If they want to stop teams from tanking they need to do a hard cap or go uncapped with harsh luxury penalties. However then we get less super teams and might have a finals without top NBA stars and we can't have that.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The only change I'd make is, instead of the Pro Bowl, force #1 and #2 to play a game for the #1 seed in the draft (winner gets it). You could call it the Toilet Bowl.

 

[JetFan79]

Great idea. It should start in 2019.