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

[JTJet]

12 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

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

He was not "instructed" to do so. Even he never said as much. 

So they lose their last game and move up 1 maybe 2 slots? For who? They were at 6 in the next draft. Who were they tanking that last game for? 

The highest they could have went was pick 4. For who? They going to tank for Kyle Pitts? 

[Barry McCockinner]

2 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

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. 

You can make that argument but I don't think NFL teams would agree. All things being equal, they would choose to pick first over 5th or 10th or 15th every time.

Why wouldn't they?

Rewarding losing with that privilege is weak sauce.

[Scott Dierking]

2 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

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.  

The biggest thing is the NFL has a small degree of of uncertainty regarding perceived balance of competition. 

If you poll football fans, you will have a small percentage of fans that say games are "fixed".

If you poll certain football fans, you will have a slightly larger percentage that say teams "tank" for picks.

With  bed that the NFL is laying in with gambling sites, this becomes a major problem for them.

I am just trying to help an NFL image problem here.

BUT, as son as you do go to a lottery, there will be people that say the lottery is fixed. So there is that.

[TuscanyTile2]

34 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

I'd like to see a lottery system for the draft order. Random order for all the non-playoff teams would be simple and prevent any sort of tanking IMO.

Use the same ordering they do today for the playoff teams.

They can have Yolanda Vega pull the order on a national broadcast.

Literally LOL'd.

[Scott Dierking]

2 minutes ago, JTJet said:

He was not "instructed" to do so. Even he never said as much. 

So they lose their last game and move up 1 maybe 2 slots? For who? They were at 6 in the next draft. Who were they tanking that last game for? 

The highest they could have went was pick 4. For who? They going to tank for Kyle Pitts? 

They cost the Redskins a playoff spot by that "tank".  Yeah, Pederson said that. <wink,wink>. He will want another job in the NFL.

[section314]

24 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Veering into completely arbitrary territory here.

Who makes that detemination? 

I hope it's Jets twitter.  

The JN mock draft mods. Would only lock up to 3 spots. 

 

 

[Peace Frog]

8 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

The biggest thing is the NFL has a small degree of of uncertainty regarding perceived balance of competition. 

If you poll football fans, you will have a small percentage of fans that say games are "fixed".

If you poll certain football fans, you will have a slightly larger percentage that say teams "tank" for picks.

With  bed that the NFL is laying in with gambling sites, this becomes a major problem for them.

I am just trying to help an NFL image problem here.

BUT, as son as you do go to a lottery, there will be people that say the lottery is fixed. So there is that.

I don't bet and I really don't care what fans think.

Players don't tank.  Coaching staffs don't tank--unless an unscrupulous owner pays the coach to do so.  Having said that, coaching staffs and players do not care about next year's golden child, they care about themselves and making money and they don't do that by slacking off.  

I think "tanking" is a figment of fan's imaginations.

And again, I don't care what fans think.  If the NFL feels the pressure, by all means but they would just be adding an arbitrary process to something IMHO works.  

[Barry McCockinner]

22 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

I don't bet and I really don't care what fans think.

Players don't tank.  Coaching staffs don't tank--unless an unscrupulous owner pays the coach to do so.  Having said that, coaching staffs and players do not care about next year's golden child, they care about themselves and making money and they don't do that by slacking off.  

I think "tanking" is a figment of fan's imaginations.

And again, I don't care what fans think.  If the NFL feels the pressure, by all means but they would just be adding an arbitrary process to something IMHO works.  

guy who doesn't care what fans think has over 8000 posts on JetNation.com since joining in 2019.

[bla bla bla]

1 hour 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.

I would guess we get a lottery eventually especially with the tanking talk in the Flores suit. If I had to maybe the bottom 3 or 5 teams

[Barry McCockinner]

Just now, bla bla bla said:

I would guess we get a lottery eventually especially with the tanking talk in the Flores suit. If I had to maybe the bottom 3 or 5 teams

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3404409/likely-billionaire-hue-jackson-says-he-was-offered-extra-money-to-lose-games-by-the-browns-owner

[Beerfish]

It's a tough call, it does help anti tanking to an extent but it can also be a tad unfair to teams that are bad long term, it also lends the spectre of tampering with the draft lottery itself.

[Warfish]

I'm going to be honest, I don't care if a team tries to lose for better draft position.  As long as they do it in a way that at least appears to be in their best interest (i.e. playing rookies/younger players with a future there) I'm find with "tanking" of bad teams for draft slot.

Honestly, the reason the NFL cares about it is gambling.  Just gambling.  Not integrity.  Gambling.  And IMO Gamblers can f' right off.

If a team want to do something in their best interests at the end of a bad losing season, more power to them.  If that helps their opponents, cheers to them for the good luck of the schedule, it's not different from any other piece of good luck.  Teams should act in their own explicit best interests, period.  

Again, I do prefer they do it right, play the game for reals but just play younger or backup players to get them experience for the future, bench stars that won't be in the team's future, ext.  

But otherwise, no sh*ts given by me, I think the whole whining about tanking is mostly melodrama.  

[Peace Frog]

14 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

guy who doesn't care what fans think has over 8000 posts on JetNation.com since joining in 2019.

Lol I enjoy discussing my Jets.  And my disdain for the Pats.  

[Scott Dierking]

6 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I'm going to be honest, I don't care if a team tries to lose for better draft position.  As long as they do it in a way that at least appears to be in their best interest (i.e. playing rookies/younger players with a future there) I'm find with "tanking" of bad teams for draft slot.

Honestly, the reason the NFL cares about it is gambling.  Just gambling.  Not integrity.  Gambling.  And IMO Gamblers can f' right off.

If a team want to do something in their best interests at the end of a bad losing season, more power to them.  If that helps their opponents, cheers to them for the good luck of the schedule, it's not different from any other piece of good luck.  Teams should act in their own explicit best interests, period.  

Again, I do prefer they do it right, play the game for reals but just play younger or backup players to get them experience for the future, bench stars that won't be in the team's future, ext.  

But otherwise, no sh*ts given by me, I think the whole whining about tanking is mostly melodrama.  

How do you feel about ownership supposedly telling coaches to purposely lose games?

[Peace Frog]

3 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

How do you feel about ownership supposedly telling coaches to purposely lose games?

No one ever said that was a good thing.  

[Warfish]

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

How do you feel about ownership supposedly telling coaches to purposely lose games?

No problem with it, if that is truly what Ownership thinks is best for the future of their organization.

As noted, I prefer they do it "right" as I see it, in a way that isn't truly "tanking" but is instead focused on developing younger players and backups/depth for their future, but ultimately if a team wants to lose, they're going to lose.  No rule or laughable draft lottery will change it.

Who is hurt by this?  The Fans?  They know better than most if their teams are tanking, and they themselves are often 100% for it (just look at the literal thousands of "Jets must lose for X" posts here at JN!

Opponents?  Nope, they just get a lucky break.  Like they get with opponents injuries, bad weather at home and dozens of other factors.  And most opponents who care would beat a team considering tanking anyway.

Gamblers get hurt.  And fantasy football obsessives maybe.

[slimjasi]

1 hour 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? 

I've been saying this forever. The draft is too much of a crapshoot to obsess over tanking. 

If I were a head coach, you'd have to play me a lot more than 100K per game to seriously consider throwing games. Your W/L record stays with you forever. 

[Scott Dierking]

6 minutes ago, Warfish said:

No problem with it, if that is truly what Ownership thinks is best for the future of their organization.

As noted, I prefer they do it "right" as I see it, in a way that isn't truly "tanking" but is instead focused on developing younger players and backups/depth for their future, but ultimately if a team wants to lose, they're going to lose.  No rule or laughable draft lottery will change it.

Who is hurt by this?  The Fans?  They know better than most if their teams are tanking, and they themselves are often 100% for it (just look at the literal thousands of "Jets must lose for X" posts here at JN!

Opponents?  Nope, they just get a lucky break.  Like they get with opponents injuries, bad weather at home and dozens of other factors.  And most opponents who care would beat a team considering tanking anyway.

Gamblers get hurt.  And fantasy football obsessives maybe.

Let me rephrase it this way, your favorite football team has a chance for playoffs. They must win and another team has to lose for them to get in simultaneously. The team that must lose is facing a squad that has been told to "lose". 

You ok with that and feel it is fair?

[Fantasy Island]

1 hour 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. 

 

Pornhub?

[bla bla bla]

35 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3404409/likely-billionaire-hue-jackson-says-he-was-offered-extra-money-to-lose-games-by-the-browns-owner

Oo yea, I have a video that is converting now on Jackson and Flores. Lottery at least eliminates some of the tanking.

[Warfish]

6 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Let me rephrase it this way, your favorite football team has a chance for playoffs. They must win and another team has to lose for them to get in simultaneously. The team that must lose is facing a squad that has been told to "lose". 

You ok with that and feel it is fair?

Yes, I am ok with it.  Yes, it's fair.

Let me offer an alternative scenario:  Your favorite football team has a chance at the playoffs.  They must win and another team must lose for them to get in simultaneously.  The team that must lose is playing at home in horrible icy cold snowy weather against a 1-15 team from south Florida.  Your team just lost it's QB to a personal foul caused injury.

You ok with that and feel it is all "fair"?  

You play the schedule you're given, for better or worse.  In your scenario, the tanking team likely sucks anyway which is why they're tanking late in the season.  A playoff team is very likely to defeat them anyway no matter how hard they try.

The team needing another team to win had numerous opportunities to themselves win more so as not to need "help" getting in.  Teams who need help have no room to complain.

[Scott Dierking]

10 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Yes, I am ok with it.  Yes, it's fair.

Let me offer an alternative scenario:  Your favorite football team has a chance at the playoffs.  They must win and another team must lose for them to get in simultaneously.  The team that must lose is playing at home in horrible icy cold snowy weather against a 1-15 team from south Florida.  Your team just lost it's QB to a personal foul caused injury.

You ok with that and feel it is all "fair"?  

You play the schedule you're given, for better or worse.  In your scenario, the tanking team likely sucks anyway which is why they're tanking late in the season.  A playoff team is very likely to defeat them anyway no matter how hard they try.

The team needing another team to win had numerous opportunities to themselves win more so as not to need "help" getting in.  Teams who need help have no room to complain.

Respect what you are saying, but your scenarios do not equate with each other. One is by happenstance. The other is by someone already pre-directing the decision.

It is a matter of competitive integrity.

[Warfish]

2 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Respect what you are saying, but your scenarios do not equate with each other. One is by happenstance. The other is by someone already pre-directing the decision.

It is a matter of competitive integrity.

I don't see it as an integrity issue.  Nor do I think any possible rule or lottery system is going to stop it.  99 times out of 100 the team that might "tank" also is inherently horrible, and would lose anyway.

Look at the NBA.  They've had a lottery for quite some time, and teams in that league still tank and tank obviously.

I keep coming back to it:  Teams should be operated independently, not "for the betterment of the league as a whole", and should do what is in their OWN perceived best interests.  

[Bronxville Jets Fan]

2 hours 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. 

I have to disagree with this because I feel tanking has been pretty obvious.  Last year the Eagles pulled Hurts in the middle of the game they were winning and then lost, which helped them secure the 6th pick.  Sal Paolantonio was screaming the next week about how it was intentional the team should have to forfeit that pick.  Two years ago the Dolphins (w/ Flores) attempted a ridiculous WR screen on a 2 pt conversion attempt to win the game at the end of the game and the play never stood a chance.  The same season the Dolphins were beating the Steelers in the first half and decided to employ a zero coverage defense on the last play of the half, which allowed the Steelers to get back in the game with a quick TD.  The Bucs pulled their starters in the last game of the year that they ended up with the first pick and got Jameis.  

So, yeah, it happens.  

[Scott Dierking]

10 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I don't see it as an integrity issue.  Nor do I think any possible rule or lottery system is going to stop it.  99 times out of 100 the team that might "tank" also is inherently horrible, and would lose anyway.

 

Why even play the games then. Just let computer simulation happen.

[Scott Dierking]

Welp, this topic was moved to the baseball forum, for some unknown reason. It is now a dead topic.

[Barry McCockinner]

23 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Welp, this topic was moved to the baseball forum, for some unknown reason. It is now a dead topic.

change the thread title and offer @The Crusher some hors d'oeuvres.

[The Crusher]

2 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

change the thread title and offer @The Crusher some hors d'oeuvres.

done

[The Crusher]

27 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Welp, this topic was moved to the baseball forum, for some unknown reason. It is now a dead topic.

Other than it's a baseball topic? LOL

[Scott Dierking]

3 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

Other than it's a baseball topic? LOL

My bad in that I did a poor job creating the topic title. The subject is about the NFL though. I defer.

[The Crusher]

2 hours 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 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

You are totally correct. But just think how fun it will be discussing how the Pats won the lottery the last 6 out of 7 times here. 

[JoJoTownsell1]

We haven't gotten a marginal pass interference call in 2 decades but you guys think a draft "lottery" independently audited by the Accounting Firm of Belichick, Belichick and Brady is a good idea? 

[slimjasi]

4 hours ago, #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. 

[#27TheDominator]

20 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

I know it's not popular to like guys like Mayfield or Winston as picks.  Compare them to the other candidates and I think things come off a bit different.  Jackson and Allen were guys that not ever team would gamble on.  Of the top prospects it boiled down to Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold.  He looks a bit better against them.  Just as Winston looks better compared to Mariota.  The top pick is no guarantee, but it is an asset with a ton of value.  According to the chart the difference between #1 overall and #2 is a mid-2nd.  One overall is worth two #6 overalls.  As long as that is true, teams will consider tanking if it moves them up a spot or two.

[LockeJET]

I’d like to see a lottery system for the playoffs. All teams are in the lottery who didn’t make it.  Keep everything the same but there’s a lottery in each league and whoever wins it in each league makes the playoffs.