Jump to content

MLB is considering a draft lottery (should the NFL?)


Recommended Posts

MLB is considering a draft lottery for a certain tier of losing teams (let's say the bottom 15) so that they can maintain integrity of the sport, enhance competition, and eliminate so called tanking.

It is well past the time for the NFL to consider a similar. Losing should not be rewarded, and the integrity of the sport (hahahaha) is at stake. Now is the time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say this, but baseball and basketball are dying sports.

Edited:

Baseball should reduce the game to 7 innings. Boxing reduced from 15 rounds to 12 for health reasons. Baseball should reduce it for our mental health and less boredom.

Basketball has become too vanilla. We need the 90s mentality to salvage it.

  • Upvote 2
  • WTF? 3
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

MLB is considering a draft lottery for a certain tier of losing teams (let's say the bottom 15) so that they can maintain integrity of the sport, enhance competition, and eliminate so called tanking.

It is well past the time for the NFL to consider a similar. Losing should not be rewarded, and the integrity of the sport (hahahaha) is at stake. Now is the time.

As if that worked out so well for the NBA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

And it is working out so well for the NFL right now.

It has been. One accusation of tanking does not make it an inherent problem. 

If it was a wide spread problem, you would see some pretty obvious shenanigans near the end of the season every year. You may see some stuff here or there, but nothing that seems egregious thus far. 

How many times have we been JUST outside of the 1 spot, but won meaningless games to prevent it? A handful of times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JTJet said:

It has been. One accusation of tanking does not make it an inherent problem. 

If it was a wide spread problem, you would see some pretty obvious shenanigans near the end of the season every year. You may see some stuff here or there, but nothing that seems egregious thus far. 

How many times have we been JUST outside of the 1 spot, but won meaningless games to prevent it? A handful of times. 

Just because the Jets don't do it doesn't mean the other 31 teams don't.  The Jets also hired three minority HCs in the past 20 years but that doesn't mean the league doesn't have an issue there.  

Oh and are we absolutely sure the Gregg Williams call that got him fired was totally clean?  I have to believe so, given that he actually got fired because of it, but it was certainly suspicious looking at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Am I crazy if I don't think tanking is a big deal?

Peyton, Luck, Burrow - are there any other players outside of these three that were worth tanking? 

Yeah who's risking a tank for Aidan Hutchinson or Kayvon Thibodaux?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JTJet said:

 

If it was a wide spread problem, you would see some pretty obvious shenanigans near the end of the season every year.

You mean like Philly giving in their last game last year?

You mean like the Jets and the Jags trying to outdo each other last year?

You mean like the Browns obviously trying to roster build and accumulate early picks 4-5 years ago?

The current system absolutely does disincentivize teams of performing at their supposed best, week in, week out. Heck, there is a website tracking this stuff. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Am I crazy if I don't think tanking is a big deal?

Peyton, Luck, Burrow - are there any other players outside of these three that were worth tanking? 

Off the top of my head, Elway and Bledsoe certainly look much better than the guys taken next.  Probably Mayfield too for that matter.

More importantly, it isn't whether it is worth tanking that is important. It is the issue that tanking presents for the league.  If it happens it is optically hideous and not too great having empty seats and fans with paper bags on their heads in the stands. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want a surefire way to keep bad NFL teams bad for a long time, go to a lottery format. Here’s exactly what will happen-Terrible teams almost always need a QB. #1 pick is likely a QB, but team rank 14 in the lottery wins the pick and already has a QB. They trade the pick to the worst team that otherwise would’ve had the #1 overall for a huge haul of future picks so that team now has their QB and a massive number of picks to develop with, and the worst team has a QB pick and no resources to help him.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Am I crazy if I don't think tanking is a big deal?

Peyton, Luck, Burrow - are there any other players outside of these three that were worth tanking? 

All you have to do is look at the clamor that naturally surrounds the number 1 overall pick. Just look at its value from the draft slot trade chart. of course it is valuable. Whether you wind up getting a franchise player or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

You mean like Philly giving in their last game last year?

You mean like the Jets and the Jags trying to outdo each other last year?

You mean like the Browns obviously trying to roster build and accumulate early picks 4-5 years ago?

The current system absolutely does disincentivize teams of performing at their supposed best, week in, week out. Heck, there is a website tracking this stuff. 

 

None of those indicate tank jobs. Bad decisions by sh*tty coaches and players? Yes. Tank jobs? No. 

And even IF the Philly thing was, Pederson got canned because of the game, so there goes that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Snell41 said:

You want a surefire way to keep bad NFL teams bad for a long time, go to a lottery format. Here’s exactly what will happen-Terrible teams almost always need a QB. #1 pick is likely a QB, but team rank 14 in the lottery wins the pick and already has a QB. They trade the pick to the worst team for a huge haul of picks so that team now has their QB and a massive number of picks to develop with, and the worst team has a QB pick and no resources to help him.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Would hate a lottery.  A 9-8 team with injuries just misses out on the playoffs and they get the number 1 pick over a 1-17 team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Snell41 said:

You want a surefire way to keep bad NFL teams bad for a long time, go to a lottery format. Here’s exactly what will happen-Terrible teams almost always need a QB. #1 pick is likely a QB, but team rank 14 in the lottery wins the pick and already has a QB. They trade the pick to the worst team for a huge haul of picks so that team now has their QB and a massive number of picks to develop with, and the worst team has a QB pick and no resources to help him.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

You probably only go bottom 10 teams. And like the NBA system, you create a weighted lottery. Something along the lines of one of the bottom 3 teams has a 75% chance of getting number 1.  And after the top 3 picks are netted out, everything falls into typical order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

Off the top of my head, Elway and Bledsoe certainly look much better than the guys taken next.  Probably Mayfield too for that matter.

More importantly, it isn't whether it is worth tanking that is important. It is the issue that tanking presents for the league.  If it happens it is optically hideous and not too great having empty seats and fans with paper bags on their heads in the stands. 

Elway, sure. That's before my time but I think that makes sense.

Mayfield? I mean Allen & Lamar are better than Mayfield - and I don't think it's even close.

I get the optics argument but I guess my argument here is that teams generally can look at history and say "yea, since (and including) Elway, there's maybe been three or four quarterbacks worth tanking to acquire" and come to the conclusion that it's a poor strategy.

That being the case, I'd say it's just a bad a move four players since the 80's were actually worth that strategy. And looking back, Luck probably wasn't worth it in the long run and Burrow probably wasn't on the #1 overall radar until say November of that year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JTJet said:

None of those indicate tank jobs. Bad decisions by sh*tty coaches and players? Yes. Tank jobs? No. 

And even IF the Philly thing was, Pederson got canned because of the game, so there goes that. 

Well, you are wrong. Pederson was instructed to remove his qb. You are having quite a day here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Am I crazy if I don't think tanking is a big deal?

Peyton, Luck, Burrow - are there any other players outside of these three that were worth tanking? 

Even if it's not, which I agree that maybe it's not, I have a problem with rewarding bad. It kind of goes against everything we know about competition. I get they want to try and increase parity, but I don't know that rewarding poor performance is the best approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

You mean like Philly giving in their last game last year?

You mean like the Jets and the Jags trying to outdo each other last year?

You mean like the Browns obviously trying to roster build and accumulate early picks 4-5 years ago?

The current system absolutely does disincentivize teams of performing at their supposed best, week in, week out. Heck, there is a website tracking this stuff. 

 

Here's a thought, and you can call it either off the wall or outside the box thinking. If you have up to 3 teams that are just horrible like the Texans, Jags and Jets have been, and it may look like they are not putting forth their best efforts, to be kind, then after week 14, lock in the draft order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it would be weighted.


How many times were the Knicks the worst team in the NBA and didn’t get the #1? It’s different because the NFL is so heavily weighted towards one position (QB) for having success in the NFL. Bad teams in the NFL 99% of the time are bad because they don’t have a good QB. So you’re reducing even further their chances of getting one, while overtly enriching any team that has a QB and wins the draft lottery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

You probably only go bottom 10 teams. And like the NBA system, you create a weighted lottery. Something along the lines of one of the bottom 3 teams has a 75% chance of getting number 1.  And after the top 3 picks are netted out, everything falls into typical order. 

Why only the bottom 10? 18 teams don't make the playoffs. What if there are 6 teams tied at number 10? SOS determines who's in the lottery and who's not? Seems arbitrary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TokyoJetsFan said:

I think the the NFL should hold a special event every year, like the scouting combine, for the 5 worst teams and their GMs compete for draft order.  ESPN could televise it.  Maybe have a bunch of different events like Beer Chug, Pass, Punt, and Kick, Wonderlic, Madden NFL, etc...

Introducing the new jets GM

the mountain hbo GIF by Game of Thrones

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Snell41 said:

 


How many times were the Knicks the worst team in the NBA and didn’t get the #1? It’s different because the NFL is so heavily weighted towards one position (QB) for having success in the NFL. Bad teams in the NFL 99% of the time are bad because they don’t have a good QB. So you’re reducing even further their chances of getting one, while overtly enriching any team that has a QB and wins the draft lottery.

 

You can wight the system as heavily as you want that equates fairness. Maybe it only is that the worst that the #1 team falls is to the #3 overall slot.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, section314 said:

Here's a thought, and you can call it either off the wall or outside the box thinking. If you have up to 3 teams that are just horrible like the Texans, Jags and Jets have been, and it may look like they are not putting forth their best efforts, to be kind, then after week 14, lock in the draft order. 

Veering into completely arbitrary territory here.

Who makes that detemination? 

I hope it's Jets twitter.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Why only the bottom 10? 18 teams don't make the playoffs. What if there are 6 teams tied at number 10? SOS determines who's in the lottery and who's not? Seems arbitrary.

 

Because I don't really think teams are "tanking" for slots 11-15.  SOS determines lottery slots now for ties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Even if it's not, which I agree that maybe it's not, I have a problem with rewarding bad. It kind of goes against everything we know about competition. I get they want to try and increase parity, but I don't know that reward poor performance is the best approach.

Yea I hear that, but I'm saying this doesn't actually look much like a reward when you look at the history?

And while @Scott Dierking has a fair point about the value of the pick as a trade asset - those trades rarely happen, and a have a fairly poor history as well - probably the best is the Orlando Pace move or the Eli move (and Eli forced the Chargers hand).

Either way, none of this is exactly a ringing endorsement for having, trading, or tanking-for, the #1 overall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Because I don't really think teams are "tanking" for slots 11-15.  SOS determines lottery slots now for ties.

I get that but you're adding an arbitrary level of confusion to the process.  And penalizing some teams and not others that are similarly situated.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...