Here's my idea to prevent teams from tanking in professional sports for picks

• Fly4Fun

  

  In the NBA and NFL there is always talk about teams intentionally tanking to get the #1 pick or highest chance at best picks... instead of rewarding complete and utter failure (aka being the worst team) I have a proposal. I haven't heard of it before, but this is what I suggest.
  
  If a team misses the post-season... then the team with the best record of the non-postseason teams gets the highest pick, 2nd best 2nd pick and so on.
  
  This way is discourages teams from completely being okay with being bad. In the rest of America we reward excellence and succeeding... why do we accept for our professional sports a system that rewards being terrible?
  
  What are your thoughts?
• ytownfootball

  

  What does that do to improve the bottom feeders that actually aren't tanking?
  
  What proof exsists that any team has actually tanked?
• LJ

  

  ytownfootball wrote: What does that do to improve the bottom feeders that actually aren't tanking?
  
  What proof exsists that any team has actually tanked?

  I think the only tanking you see actually taking place is by teams that are already shitty bottom feeders.
• se-alum

  

  I don't think it happens in the NFL, because no team really wants to pay #1 pick money to anyone. That may change w/ the new CBA though.
• Fly4Fun

  

  ytownfootball wrote: What does that do to improve the bottom feeders that actually aren't tanking?
  
  What proof exsists that any team has actually tanked?

  The really bottom teams will still be getting better picks that the post-season teams... so if they can't improve then they need to get in new personnel (coaches/GM's) that aren't terrible.
  
  Is the current system really working? Not really, the bottom teams are the bottom teams... look at the Browns.
  
  And there never is definitive proof that teams are tanking. But there are definitely questionable situations that have made everyone go "hmmm" throughout the years.
  
  This will quit rewarding teams with poor set ups. It will require the owners to hold their GM's and coaches more accountable because a terrible season won't be rewarded with a good pick.
• Upper90

  I think the Clippers should never be allowed a #1 pick.
  
  They should just be locked in at like #8 every year. Or something.
• UA5straightin2008

  

  Fly4Fun wrote:

  ytownfootball wrote: What does that do to improve the bottom feeders that actually aren't tanking?
  
  What proof exsists that any team has actually tanked?

  The really bottom teams will still be getting better picks that the post-season teams... so if they can't improve then they need to get in new personnel (coaches/GM's) that aren't terrible.
  
  Is the current system really working? Not really, the bottom teams are the bottom teams... look at the Browns.
  
  And there never is definitive proof that teams are tanking. But there are definitely questionable situations that have made everyone go "hmmm" throughout the years.
  
  This will quit rewarding teams with poor set ups. It will require the owners to hold their GM's and coaches more accountable because a terrible season won't be rewarded with a good pick.

  what about the dolphins who went 1-15 in 2007 and then made the playoffs next year
  
  what about the jets who were 4-12 in 2005, made the playoffs in 2006, were 4-12 in 2007 and then had 2 9-7 seasons in a row, making the playoffs this year
  
  or the saints who were 3-13 in 2005, made the playoffs the next year at 10-6, had a losing season in 2007, and then dominated this year
  
  yes some teams are bad, but they eventually get better because of these picks, just give them time...
  
  
  and maybe if the browns didnt make such stupid picks (brady quinn, tim couch) then they would get somewhere..thats not on the players, but on the management
• mallymal614

  With free agency these days, there isn't any excuse not to be good. So I'm all for fly4fun's suggestion. If I team isn't good enough to make a playoff push, they will just have to find the best available player on the market.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I agree with se-alum, I don't see any evidence that tanking by bottom-feeders is an issue with the NFL. There isn't much gain in going up a spot or 2, besides most NFL teams draft for need rather than taking the best player which may or may not work out. Think about the Niners a few years ago when they took Smith at #1 and gave him a HUGH contract when a lot of people commented that Ware was the best player (I think he may have slipped out of the top 10). I really doubt Detroit and St. Louis were out to outsuck each other to get the #1 pick, they are just bad teams.
• 2kool4skool

  

  I'm all for relegation like the European soccer leagues. All of a sudden, it makes a March game between Minnesota and Golden State REALLY important to both teams.
• Fly4Fun

  

  UA5straightin2008 wrote:

  Fly4Fun wrote:

  ytownfootball wrote: What does that do to improve the bottom feeders that actually aren't tanking?
  
  What proof exsists that any team has actually tanked?

  The really bottom teams will still be getting better picks that the post-season teams... so if they can't improve then they need to get in new personnel (coaches/GM's) that aren't terrible.
  
  Is the current system really working? Not really, the bottom teams are the bottom teams... look at the Browns.
  
  And there never is definitive proof that teams are tanking. But there are definitely questionable situations that have made everyone go "hmmm" throughout the years.
  
  This will quit rewarding teams with poor set ups. It will require the owners to hold their GM's and coaches more accountable because a terrible season won't be rewarded with a good pick.

  what about the dolphins who went 1-15 in 2007 and then made the playoffs next year
  
  what about the jets who were 4-12 in 2005, made the playoffs in 2006, were 4-12 in 2007 and then had 2 9-7 seasons in a row, making the playoffs this year
  
  or the saints who were 3-13 in 2005, made the playoffs the next year at 10-6, had a losing season in 2007, and then dominated this year
  
  yes some teams are bad, but they eventually get better because of these picks, just give them time...
  
  
  and maybe if the browns didnt make such stupid picks (brady quinn, tim couch) then they would get somewhere..thats not on the players, but on the management

  
  Now tell me, did those teams turn it around because of the draft? Or because they got new management/coaching?
  
  So why reward teams for doing poorly?
  
  This would encourage more competition especially at the bottom of the league.
  
  Imagine late season games where teams have nothing to play for but pride now have better draft position to play for... how would this not be better?
• UA5straightin2008

  

  all im sayin, if it aint broke dont fix it
  
  and i dont think its "broke"
• Fly4Fun

  

  UA5straightin2008 wrote: all im sayin, if it aint broke dont fix it
  
  and i dont think its "broke"

  Well I do think it's broke, and other people agree.
  
  I'm not sure how professional sports were able to convince the American public that rewarding complete and udder failure is a good thing.
• UA5straightin2008

  

  if i played on an nfl team and was a retired player and i were looking back on my career i would rather say:
  
  "man, it was great winning to be part of a super bowl team, how rewarding"
  
  than say:
  
  "hey remember that year we sucked, but hey we got the first draft pick the next year, how rewardinig"
  
  i dont think getting the first draft pick is necessary a reward, but a means to try to balance out the league and help the bad teams get better, its not rewarding failure
• Glory Days

  

  i think the only way to be even close to fair would be to pay teams for every win they get. that way you reward the bottom feeders for winning at the end of the season and the teams at the top who are thinking about resting their players once they clinch.
• Fly4Fun

  

  UA5straightin2008 wrote: if i played on an nfl team and was a retired player and i were looking back on my career i would rather say:
  
  "man, it was great winning to be part of a super bowl team, how rewarding"
  
  than say:
  
  "hey remember that year we sucked, but hey we got the first draft pick the next year, how rewardinig"
  
  i dont think getting the first draft pick is necessary a reward, but a means to try to balance out the league and help the bad teams get better, its not rewarding failure

  It's not necessarily the players who are tanking... owners/front office might trade away their good players and pretty much sabotage the team in hopes off getting better draft picks along with the picks they pick up from the trade. No one would ever admit to it, but we've all seen it happen.
• ytownfootball

  

  I'm more indifferent on the subject, but playing the advocate role here.
  
  But you have teams like the Cav's who with that one pick has launched to the front of the league standings. Doing, what for all intents and purposes the league intended, creating parity throughout. Isn't that the way things are supposed to happen? What other rules that have the intent of creating parity would/should be changed? Or do you think not having parity and seeing the same teams winning it all year in and year out is good for all leagues as a whole?
• UA5straightin2008

  

  i'm pretty sure the trade deadline is in the 6th week of the season...i'd say thats a little early to call it quits...dont see many people trading away there best players to get the first draft pick in october...not sure i follow your logic..6 weeks into the season is EARLY..look at the giants who were 5 and 1 at week 6 and many thought would definitely make the playoffs...and ended up 8 and 8 without a playoff birth...and look at the titans who were 0-6 at the end of week 6...did they trade away there players? give up? no they made some changes to the depth chart and vince young finally got over his little hissy fit and played some good football...and they ended 8-8 and had some shot at the playoffs at the end of the year...
• Fly4Fun

  

  ytownfootball wrote: I'm more indifferent on the subject, but playing the advocate role here.
  
  But you have teams like the Cav's who with that one pick has launched to the front of the league standings. Doing, what for all intents and purposes the league intended, creating parity throughout. Isn't that the way things are supposed to happen? What other rules that have the intent of creating parity would/should be changed? Or do you think not having parity and seeing the same teams winning it all year in and year out is good for all leagues as a whole?

  The Cavs are more the exception than the rule... look at teams like the Clippers... an excellent example of rewarding failure (and no one from the front office really takes the fall). Encourage teams to better themselves by rewarding better play/management with the better picks.
• Fly4Fun

  

  UA5straightin2008 wrote: i'm pretty sure the trade deadline is in the 6th week of the season...i'd say thats a little early to call it quits...dont see many people trading away there best players to get the first draft pick in october...not sure i follow your logic..6 weeks into the season is EARLY..look at the giants who were 5 and 1 at week 6 and many thought would definitely make the playoffs...and ended up 8 and 8 without a playoff birth...and look at the titans who were 0-6 at the end of week 6...did they trade away there players? give up? no they made some changes to the depth chart and vince young finally got over his little hissy fit and played some good football...and they ended 8-8 and had some shot at the playoffs at the end of the year...

  I'm speaking for both NBA and NFL.... yes the NFL is a little different with trading... but they still do it. Honestly, after the first few weeks it was obvious the Browns weren't going anywhere... this year the Browns really weren't planning on being competitive... they had no offensive weapons to speak of. They traded away their WR and TE.
  
  The point for the NFL is that it would also make the late season games much more meaningful for teams out of the play-off hunt. Each game would still matter.
  
  The trading this was more in regards to the NBA... but it would also have the meaningful impact for them as well.
• ytownfootball

  

  Encourage better management? Doesn't that assume that management's number one priority is winning?
• DeyDurkie5

  

  Relegation would be awesome, it's just there isn't enough leagues below the NFL that would allow this to happen.
  
  I do like fly4fun's idea though
• ytownfootball

  

  Fly4Fun wrote:The Cavs are more the exception than the rule... look at teams like the Clippers... an excellent example of rewarding failure (and no one from the front office really takes the fall). Encourage teams to better themselves by rewarding better play/management with the better picks.

  The Patriots did a pretty nice job of building their team through the draft and had a good run also. They managed their picks well and is a perfect example of using them correctly.
  
  But I'm still interested to know if you're assuming managements #1 priority is winning?
• darbypitcher22

  

  its very tough to prove a team tanked it on purpose. You're never going to get someone on the team or in the front office to admit to it if they did. I like the theory but very tough to prove
• NNN

  

  The draft exists to maintain competitive balance, not to reward ineptitude.
  
  I think the NHL has a good lottery system. The non-playoff teams are thrown into the lottery, and the team that wins moves up a maximum of four spots. It's possible for a team to tank and still not get the top pick.