I don't like the draft lottery. I still think the worse teams should get the first picks for new talent. Both in the draft and clearing wavers. Maybe the NFL competition committee can mandate that teams out of the PO hunt MUST use bench/non-starters on 40% of the snaps over the last 4 games of the season? Teams do this anyway as a way to see what they have for next season, so this would provide cover. And maybe give non-PO teams an extra $1M in cap space for every victory over the last 4 games? So Jets woulda picked up an extra $2M for their 2 wins. Give teams and GMs something to play for VS 'only' playing out the string and for draft position.
I agree...lotteries are just lazy ways to try and deal with an issue that the league doesn't want to deal with. But they can easily find out if a team has actually tanked and then punish them for it, they just choose not to to avoid responsibility. I do think that you idea of rewarding non-playoff teams more in cap space to help them rebuild is a much more effective approach.
Great ideas! I really like the first one of teams having to use bench/non-starters on 40% of the snaps over the last 4 games. That's only fair for those players who bust their asses every year, but often never get to play, or only get to play if a starter goes down. I understand that TV networks and fans probably wouldn't like it, so doubt it would ever get approved, but I think it would be a great thing for player morale, for keeping players healthy, perhaps even for extending careers for some players by saving some wear and tear on them. It could also lead to some teams discovering that they have a better player or a few better players than they realized because some players play better in games than they do in practice. The $1M in cap space for every victory over the last 4 games for non-PO teams could help keep teams from tanking, but I doubt it if there's a great QB or Edge slated to be the #1 pick. Way to go with the creative or "out of the box" thinking!
The problem is that you can't prove even Pederson tanked. You need to find some text messages showing that there was an intent by someone to lose games on purpose. Like a text message from owner to coach asking to lose. Or some testimony. Similarly to how they found actual proof Brady wanted to deflate his balls. Otherwise how the heck do you PROVE Pederson wanted to lose the game. He claimed he wanted to see a guy play all along to evaluate him, which is part of coaching. Everyone knows he clearly tanked, but you can't prove it. In absence of that if more people start doing this in the light of day you may need to come up with an actual rule that addresses this, which is not going to be perfect either, because of pieces of shit like Pederson.
Agree 100% at 6-10, you have no place in the playoffs so just shut up and win your own games so you don’t have to rely on a 4 win team winning a game to get you in the playoffs pretty simple That being said, I’m not a huge fan of how the playoff games are set. I get winning your division gets you in, but if it were my call, I would add that you have to at least be a .500 team. I would have it so that if you win your division but have a losing record, you forfeit your playoff spot and it goes to the next best wildcard team that has a winning record. and then on top of it, I would only have the division win get you into the playoffs. Once you have all 7 teams in the conference, I would seed on record regardless of division win...I just don’t think it’s right that a 9-7 division winner would get the benefit of hosting an 11-5 wildcard team. I’m more passionate about that first point....it sucks that Washington has a losing record but gets in because they happen to be in a shit division this year, while a better team like the 8-8 Cardinals don’t make it because they happened to play in a division with the Seahawks and Rams. finally, as to the tanking discussion....it’s just not an issue to me. Yeah, the Eagles playing to not win is bad, but it is what it is....the Giants have no reason to complain...had they won one more game, they would have been in. furthermore, the concept of a lottery doesn’t make a hell of a difference. I don’t see how it solves the problems, nor do I think it is a fair solution anyway. But if the lottery is weighted so that the worst team has a slightly better chance than the second worst team, and the second worst team has a slightly better chance than the third win team, and so on...how does that discourage tanking anyway? If I’m in that position, I’d still prefer to be the in the best position to luck into that first pick, so I’d still be looking to tank anyway. It’s a stupid idea and I do t think it works anyway. football is a bit unique in that there are only 16 games, and it’s such a physical game, that I don’t think tanking is as big a deal....guys are literally putting their bodies on the line...not like basketball where there is little risk of really serious injuries and guys can go through the motions more. I would hate a lottery...the system as it is sets up a level playing field such that the worst teams have the path to get better. How well they navigate that path by virtue of their decisions on. Who to draft and what coach to hire is all on the team, but the system itself is pretty well laid out.
man that’s an interesting concept that I hadn’t even thought of! I kind of like that extra cap space idea...it does serve to incentivize the eliminated teams to have something to play for...I like that a lot actually!
I've said the same about division winners not being automatic top 4 seeding. The counter is a really tight division with a 9-7 winner might actually produce a stronger team than a division with a 12-4 winner. One team shares its divisional games 3-3 and the other beats up a weak division 6-0. There isn't a truly fair solution for all eventualities. Perhaps winning a division gets you a 2 win bonus and then seed on record from there.
Ur right that a true FQB will always get teams to think about tanking. But take the Eagles last week...they tanked just to move up from 9 to 6. Can't blame them, but still...
A problem with your first idea is that the NFLPA would rightly never agree to it, since it would hurt players who have incentives in their contracts. I like the idea of an extra $1 million in cap space for every win a team gets in any game of the last four games where they had been eliminated from playoff contention going into that week. It wouldn't stop all tanking, of course, but I think incentives, rather than either punishment or randomness, are the way to go.
It is a big jump though, puts them in a position to do lots of things. They yank a QB playing shit for a QB that they knew would play shit, KC didn't play Mahomes from the off, there is no difference to me, in fact, the 2nd example is worse imo and they got beat as well.
If Eagles had announced PREGAME they 'might' play non-starters, then fans who bet on the game would have had a heads up. Now that gambling on the games has gone legal and mainstream, you're gonna see fans start calling their congress ppl and demand something be done. Especially after what the Eagles just did...without any warning/heads-up. Edit: Look at how strict the NFL is with teams being forced to make public the health/injury of all players, with different categories. This is ALL for the betting public to make informed bets on the games. If you bet on the Eagles, you do so knowing which QB will be playing. Now, if the QB gets injured, that's the risk of betting. But if a healthy QB gets benched for a bu QB with no in-game experience this season, then a LOT of ppl are going to be pissed.
Do you think the first idea would pass if players with incentives in their contracts were exempted? I get it that other players would have a bearing on those players achieving their incentives, but it could even out. For example a RB or WR who is trying to get to 1,000 yards. If he is exempted and plays, he still has a chance, and there could be a number of defensive starters on the opposing team(s) who sit out plays here and there that would help enable that RB or WR to get his 1,000 yards.
I think that that is only making the issue even more complicated for what is pretty straightforward - encouraging teams to want to win, while still encouraging competitive balance in the league. I just think carrots, rather than sticks, are the way to go.
good thread. alotta things i mighta said done been said already, so i wont repeat. imho, i dont like losing on purpose/tanking. lose on purpose for a "reward" ? doesn't sit with me. competitive sport and sony losing money on ps5 is a shit analogy. good/interesting idea on tryna make losing teams still play hard, tho its not realistic for already stated reasons. further exploration needed. i like the way euro soccer works first league and second league. every year there is promotion/demotion. gives losing teams incentive to "stay up" in the 1st league. top teams in 2nd leagie get promoted. in the NFL i'd say 20 1st league 12 in the 2nd. it'd make the draft pretty complex but...?? no way a losing team should be in the playoffs. that division hasnt earned the right to a post season slot. coffee is for closers only.
