NFL anti-tanking proposal

[bileever]

Diana Russini recently wrote an article in the Athletic about an anti-tanking rule that was discussed by Dan Katz and Eric Sollenberger on Pardon My Take. The rule would say that you have to win at least three games in order to get the first pick in the draft, so a team that purposely tried to tank and lost all its games would be out of luck.

Russini surveyed various people in the NFL about the proposal, and got these comments:

• “Wowwwwwwwww. I love that. No tanking!” — AFC executive
• “They won’t do that. They should.” — NFL owner
• “Zero chance that ever happens. The league loves parity.” — NFC team president
• “December would be nuts. We’d be starting injured veterans just to scrape out a third win, so we don’t lose our shot at a franchise QB.” — NFC head coach
• “You think coaches get fired fast now? Imagine if this became a thing?” — Super Bowl-winning veteran

I love the idea. What do you all think? Keep in my mind this is just something a couple of talking heads came up with, not a serious proposal being considered by the NFL.

 

[sutz]

Not a fan. Sounds silly. They already have sanctions for teams that obviously tank games. Check Miami a few years back.

 

[Chapow]

So if a team is so bad that they legitimately can't even win more than a game or two, they're not eligible for the #1 pick? I'm not a fan of this idea either.

1. I don't think tanking is really very common in the NFL. In fact, I think it's pretty rare. Lots of jobs on the line for every team every season. Especially if the team is really bad.

2. Tanking is risky. It's far from a guarantee that you're going to get a franchise changing player even with the #1 overall pick. If a team wants to take the risk of losing on purpose for a higher draft pick, go for it, imo. High draft picks bust, or otherwise don't work out, all the time.

3. The only teams that would genuinely lose on purpose are teams that were already going to be really bad anyway. No team that has a chance to have a good season is going to tank an entire season just for a higher draft pick.

Ultimately, this seems like an idea to fix a problem that isn't really a problem, imo, and is much more likely to punish teams that are legitimately very bad than to fix any perceived problem.

 

[Crizilla]

Teams would win 3 games then not win anymore.
Also it's not the biggest deal in the world to not have the number 1 overall pick.

 

[Hollandhawk]

Also it's not the biggest deal in the world to not have the number 1 overall pick.

This is actually a good point. Looking back at all the nr1 picks there were a LOT of misses and average NFL players. Sure there are some HOFers too, but the hit rate doesn't seem worth tanking for.

 

[Frank12]

WTF?... Players, play to earn money. Coaches, coach to earn money, The practice squad practices to earn money.... I work to earn money, why would I not work so some young punk could come in to steal my job?.... This BS has been around when I was a baby and it's crap

 

[Frank12]

I love the idea. What do you all think? Keep in my mind this is just something a couple of talking heads came up with, not a serious proposal being considered by the NFL.

Yuck. let's get a lottery draft going, and play flag fooball...

 

[cymatica]

What moron actually thinks this is a good idea? Winning less than 3 games isn't proof of tanking

 

[James in PA]

Just do what the NBA does: have a draft lottery for the non-playoff teams. You increase your chances the worse your record is, but there's certainly no guarantee of the top pick for the worst record.

 

[Cyrus12]

Draft lotteries are scripted...

 

[NoGain]

Yeah, why not just go the lottery route. There's all sorts of different ways to craft it to heavily weigh it towards the losers, but also serve purpose of not making it a race to the bottom for an Elway or Luck. And besides, it would be yet another way for the NFL to hog the spotlight. NFL LOTTERY NIGHT!!! Mark your calendar.

 

[flv2]

I'm also pro-lottery for the top 10 or so picks. I'd run it differently so there were only 5 teams in the 'hat' for each pick, but yeah...I hate the idea of another 'suck for Luck'. You won't stop teams intentionally losing their last game - as the Eagles once did to move up from #9 to #6 but the NFL can disincentivise it.

 

[bileever]

What you would hate to see in the final week is Team A needing Team B to lose in order to get into the playoffs and Team B playing a team that is trying to lose that game.

 

[FrodosFinger]

Everything is incentive based these days it’s already kinda hard to tank on purpose. There’s a competition committee in place as is and the league would easily heavily penalize a team for tanking on purpose. Nobody worth tanking for although in 27’ Maiava could be a good pick, USC QB. Diana Russini is low key sexy tho

 

[94Smith]

Take a look at the overall number ones over the last thirty years. When was the last time a number one overall actually changed the fortunes of a franchise ? maybe Peyton manning in 98? Myles Garrett and Matt Stafford are probably hof as well but did not change the franchise

For this reason I like the rule. It just does not seem there are can not miss hof players any more that flip a franchise

This is an area where I am baffled that analytics has not caught up. You have to spend a fortune in draft capital to move up to number one

 

[SNDavidson]

the week between end of playoffs and the superbowl have the bottom two teams play for first pick (in europe?)

 

[onanygivensunday]

The need for change does not exist.

 

[cymatica]

The need for change does not exist.

This. There is no perfect system, but any changes to the current one only adds new problems

 

[Sperrydogg]

Teams would win 3 games then not win anymore.
Also it's not the biggest deal in the world to not have the number 1 overall pick.

16 way tie for the number 1 pick

 

[Kamcussionator]

I like the 'concept' of tanking. It's a salve to a dismal season that gives the hapless football fan something to talk about.

Now, 'actual' tanking is stupid. There's been more busts than allstars taken #1, so playing down doesn't actually buy your weak-ass franchise anything but higher expectations -- and therefore more chance to fail.