Should there be an NFL Lottery?

[RyanC883]

10 hours ago, papazoid said:

tanking is not worth it !!

 

take the browns....they tanked at least two years in a row.....resulting in them getting the #1 overall pick twice

 

how'd that work out for them ???  NOT  SO  GOOD !!....lol

 

i am absolutely against a draft lottery.....it hinders PARITY

 

the advantages of parity far outweigh the possible disadvantages of tanking

 

one of the main reasons the NFL is so great is PARITY

 

the NBA & NHL have a draft lottery......do they have parity ??.....heck NO

 

in fact, an argument can be made that a draft lottery would make tanking worse by incentivizing even more teams to have a shot at the #1 overall pick. the current set up involves maybe 2-3 teams with a chance.....a draft lottery gives all 18 non playoff a chance at #1

 

nhl has decent parity.  

[mead107]

Nope

 

[bubba2018]

A lottery would be fun but imagine going 0-17 and getting the fifth pick.

[Zerovoltz]

I have a solution to this.

 

The draft order would still be the same for teams that made the playoffs...so pick 32 is SB cham, pick 31 is SB runner up...and so on.

 

The NON playoff teams would pick in REVERSE.

 

So the team that had the best record but missed the playoffs, would pick first.  Then the second best team to miss the playoffs would would pick 2nd. and so on.

 

This would reward teams for trying to win.

 

It would give teams incentive to play the best they could through the entire schedule

 

It would be a complete disincentive to tank...losing just gets you a worse draft pick, not better one.

 

 

 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

No. Worst gets first. How many times did the Sabres get screwed out of the top pick. Somehow i dont think we trade Connor McDavid and the the other top picks we didnt get ( coaching is another matter with this team)

 

 

12 hours ago, st pete gogolak said:

It's going to happen.  The Flores lawsuit guarantees it.

 

doubt it, NFL doesnt like being told what to do and they wont, especially considering how successful and popular the whole draft process is.

 

 

[dave mcbride]

12 hours ago, papazoid said:

tanking is not worth it !!

 

take the browns....they tanked at least two years in a row.....resulting in them getting the #1 overall pick twice

 

how'd that work out for them ???  NOT  SO  GOOD !!....lol

 

i am absolutely against a draft lottery.....it hinders PARITY

 

the advantages of parity far outweigh the possible disadvantages of tanking

 

one of the main reasons the NFL is so great is PARITY

 

the NBA & NHL have a draft lottery......do they have parity ??.....heck NO

 

in fact, an argument can be made that a draft lottery would make tanking worse by incentivizing even more teams to have a shot at the #1 overall pick. the current set up involves maybe 2-3 teams with a chance.....a draft lottery gives all 18 non playoff a chance at #1

Simple solution: no weighting, and the bottom seven teams have an equal chance at the number one pick. It won’t solve inequality — some teams are simply going to be better than others, and I think you’r emisunderstanding parity anyway — but if you are the worst team in week 15 and have a 43 percent chance to be drafting in the 5-7 slot, then you might prioritize getting your team to learn how to win rather than resting starters and making weak calls—i.e.,  tanking. Tanking, which clearly happens, is a bad sporting event. I’d rather watch public access television at 3 am.

2 hours ago, recovery96 said:

A lottery would be fun but imagine going 0-17 and getting the fifth pick.

That’s a good thing,  Don’t signal that you’re going to fully reward abject failure.

11 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I am 100% against a lottery.

I’ve never disagreed with you more strongly! The current system is terrible. It’s also not going to last, fwiw. I’d bet money on it. I feel like the status quo bias preference is very, very strong in this thread. 

Edited February 6, 2022 by dave mcbride

[Buffalo Barbarian]

5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Simple solution: no weighting, and the bottom seven teams have an equal chance at the number one pick. It won’t solve inequality — some teams are simply going to be better than others, and I think you’r emisunderstanding parity anyway — but if you are the worst team in week 15 and have a 43 percent chance to be drafting in the 5-7 slot, then you might prioritize getting your team to learn how to win rather than resting starters and making weak calls—i.e.,  tanking. Tanking, which clearly happens, is a bad sporting event. I’d rather watch public access television at 3 am.

That’s a good thing,  Don’t reward abject failure.

I’ve never disagreed with you more strongly! The current system is terrible. It’s also not going to last, fwiw. I’d bet money on it.

 

Based on what?

 

No one has really complained about the NFL draft order even with the current debacle going on.  It's been this way for decades and they aren't changing it because a coach said he was told to lose games.

 

This will be a bump in the road and the NFL juggernaut rolls on.

[dave mcbride]

1 minute ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

Based on what?

 

No one has really complained about the NFL draft order even with the current debacle going on.  It's been this way for decades and they aren't changing it because a coach said he was told to lose games.

 

This will be a bump in the road and the NFL juggernaut rolls on.

Because every year tanking becomes a story, and a) it’s boring and b) it involves teams moving away from competing. It’s tedious, bad entertainment, and bad sports. I’ve felt this way for decades. Good sports is about fierce competition, which is why we’re entertained.

Edited February 6, 2022 by dave mcbride

[Buffalo Barbarian]

13 hours ago, papazoid said:

tanking is not worth it !!

 

take the browns....they tanked at least two years in a row.....resulting in them getting the #1 overall pick twice

 

how'd that work out for them ???  NOT  SO  GOOD !!....lol

 

i am absolutely against a draft lottery.....it hinders PARITY

 

the advantages of parity far outweigh the possible disadvantages of tanking

 

one of the main reasons the NFL is so great is PARITY

 

the NBA & NHL have a draft lottery......do they have parity ??.....heck NO

 

in fact, an argument can be made that a draft lottery would make tanking worse by incentivizing even more teams to have a shot at the #1 overall pick. the current set up involves maybe 2-3 teams with a chance.....a draft lottery gives all 18 non playoff a chance at #1

 

I hate lotteries, if you are the worst team you deserve the top pick, most dont tank anyway for the reasons you said.

 

 

[dave mcbride]

1 minute ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

I hate lotteries, if you are the worst team you deserve the top pick, most dont tank anyway for the reasons you said.

 

 

Tanking happens all of the time. Maybe not this year — largely because there is no top qb or even a consensus number one pick — but there are tons of instances of it.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

Because every year tanking becomes a story, and a) it’s boring and b) it involves teams moving away from competing. It’s tedious, bad entertainment, and bad sports. I’ve felt this way for decades. Good sports is about fierce competition, which is why we’re entertained.

 

Tanking rarely happens in the NFL and teams that do it dont come out ahead anyway. NFL is is just fine the way it is and its one of the biggest events in NFL every year, they arent changing anything.

 

 

[dave mcbride]

Just now, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

Tanking rarely happens in the NFL and teams that do it dont come out ahead anyway. NFL is is just fine the way it is and its one of the biggest events in NFL every year, they arent changing anything.

 

 

Give me time and I am quit sure I could find a dozen instances of it for you. How do you think the Colts ended up with Luck?

Edited February 6, 2022 by dave mcbride

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Just now, dave mcbride said:

Tanking happens all of the time. Maybe not this year — largely because there is no top qb or even a consensus number one pick — but there are tons of instances of it.

 

So who tanked and how did that work out for them ??

 

 

Just now, dave mcbride said:

Give me time and I am quit sure I could find a dozen instances of it for you. 

 

Go for it, and they probably still suck

 

 

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

Give me time and I am quit sure I could find a dozen instances of it for you. How do you think the Colts ended up with Luck?

 

That team was trash without Peyton manning, they didn't jettison players to get worse.

 

 

[dave mcbride]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

So who tanked and how did that work out for them ??

 

 

Worked out great for the Colts with Luck — multiple playoff appearances and no losing records. The 2010 Panthers are another example—totally non-competitive down the stretch (tons of blowouts) and they end up with Newton.

Edited February 6, 2022 by dave mcbride

[Buffalo Barbarian]

2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Worked out great for the Colts with Luck — multiple playoff appearances and no losing records. 

 

They didn't tank

 

Manning got hurt

 

 

[dave mcbride]

Just now, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

They didn't tank

 

Manning got hurt

 

 

It’s like you didn’t even follow that team that year. They never worked to replace Manning with even a moderately decent backup. They knew a generational talent was coming out and rolled with a truly terrible QB. This is actually common knowledge.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

4 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

It’s like you didn’t even follow that team that year. They never worked to replace Manning with even a moderately decent backup. They knew a generational talent was coming out and rolled with a truly terrible QB. This is actually common knowledge.

 

Yeah because great QBs are readily available. Even if they did tank the NFL isnt changing anything.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

4 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

 

I’ve never disagreed with you more strongly! The current system is terrible. It’s also not going to last, fwiw. I’d bet money on it. I feel like the status quo bias preference is very, very strong in this thread. 

 

Firstly I don't think that deliberate tanking by coaches and players does actually happen that much in the NFL. Even in the current story the premise is the owner was the one who wanted to tank and was concerned that the coach and players were trying too hard. The same happened this year where the two teams vying for the number 1 pick both won week 18, including the Jags knocking off a potential playoff team. 

 

Secondly I hate the idea of voluntarily adding randomness. There is enough luck and randomness in sport in the games. Don't unnecessarily manufacture it in the structures too. A lottery isn't based on anything. Would be absolutely the wrong call to my mind. 

[May Day 10]

Luck is an interesting case.  His career was very short and had injury issues.  They really never got rolling/realized his potential.  Had some good seasons and a decent playoff run to lose to the Pats in the AFCC

 

What if they chose to clear cap that tank season and give manning the tools to win?  Manning and the broncos got more done the next 4 seasons than luck and the Colts did his entire career.

[Ya Digg?]

9 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Worked out great for the Colts with Luck — multiple playoff appearances and no losing records. The 2010 Panthers are another example—totally non-competitive down the stretch (tons of blowouts) and they end up with Newton.

Carolina didn’t tank for Newton-leading up to that draft Newton wasn’t even considered the top pick until shortly before the draft happened. That was also a LOADED draft, no reason to rank in that one…the colts getting Luck doesn’t exactly pass the smell test, but other than that I don’t believe you will come up with a team where the players and coaches purposefully tanked. Why would they, too much in the line for all of them to not try their hardest