Quote:I understand if a team wants to see younger players, or marginal players, for the purpose of evaluation, and are willing to take losses to do so. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we are talking about is losing on purpose with the goal of securing a high draft pick.
See but that's the thing, you can't tease out the difference between those two. We all know the first sentence happens, but you'd have to be psychic to really know the intentions of the GM doing it. Are they playing young guys for evaluation, with a side effect being they lose and improve draft position? Are they playing young guys to lose for improved draft position, with the side effect of evaluation? Does it even matter?
We're not mind readers, but the bottom line is there are multiple advantages for doing it, and it comes out the same in the wash: you're weakening your team in the short term, for potential longer term gains. You're tanking the current season intentionally if you're not putting the guys on the field who give you the best chance to win the game
this week, regardless of your intentions, which we all can only speculate on. I don't see how the intention behind it changes the fact that they're choosing to put a weaker team on the field, thus increasing the chances of losing.
Playing young players and accepting that there will be losses happens. That is not tanking. Part of that process is knowing that wins will happen.
Quote: I don't see how the intention behind it changes the fact that they're choosing to put a weaker team on the field, thus increasing the chances of losing.
You really don't see a big difference between fielding a young team and attempting to lose on purpose to gain a better draft pick?
Quote:You really don't see a big difference between fielding a young team and attempting to lose on purpose to gain a better draft pick?
If you are playing a worse team intentionally, then you're tanking that season. You have no idea what their reasons are, and they just don't matter. If you have a choice to field a stronger team and choose not to, it really doesn't matter why you do that, the outcome is the same.
For some reason, saying you're playing marginal players over better players for a reason like getting them experience, or for evaluation (etc) is deemed acceptable. Doing the same thing for a better set of draft picks is deemed unacceptable. But the only way to know the difference is to be a mind reader. So obviously if someone wanted to do the latter, they'd still claim they were doing the former. While I won't make a claim as to how often this really happens, I do claim it is not 0% of the time, and thinking it is seems incredibly naive.
Quote:Losing games on purpose is cheating, and probably illegal, and would expose the involved team to a multitude of penalties and legal actions if they were caught.
I understand if a team wants to see younger players, or marginal players, for the purpose of evaluation, and are willing to take losses to do so. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we are talking about is losing on purpose with the goal of securing a high draft pick. If I was an owner, and I thought another team was doing this, I would be extremely angry about it, because it would damage the reputation of the league, probably irreparably, not to mention the fact that the team that finished with the #2 draft pick would have gotten screwed out of the #1 pick by cheating.
As far as the Colts losing games on purpose, so they can get the #1 pick, that would require the coach Jim Caldwell and probably Polian to be in on it, and the fact that they were both fired at the end of the season tells me they were not losing games on purpose.
You know what... I'm disinclined to argue the point. Believe what you want.
Every year a team goes in the toilet. Most years they end up with the first pick. Houston last year, KC the year before. But it's only tanking when a prospect like Luck is the first pick? The Colts didn't tank. They just got really, really, really lucky. Like San Antonio when they got Tim Duncan. Just really good timing.
Some fans seem desperate to want to believe that there is always a conspiracy behind things.
Quote:Every year a team goes in the toilet. Most years they end up with the first pick. Houston last year, KC the year before. But it's only tanking when a prospect like Luck is the first pick? The Colts didn't tank. They just got really, really, really lucky. Like San Antonio when they got Tim Duncan. Just really good timing.
Some fans seem desperate to want to believe that there is always a conspiracy behind things.
Bad analogy since the NBA has a lottery system so even if you have the worst record, you only get a 25% chance of getting he #1 pick. I think the year Duncan went #1 the Sonics and Celtics had the best odds....
I do think some form of tanking happens in sports but no one will ever be able to prove it.
Intentionally losing is for losers. No player is going to lose on purpose so some rookie can take his job. It's just plain ludicrous. Players and coaches alike play for the incentives in their contracts and the next contract.
Regards................the Chiefjag
Worry about the draft after the season. The #1 prospect will change a half of dozen times before the draft anyway. Remember tanking for teddy when he was the #1 prospect? Losing for a better lottery ticket does not make a ton of sense too me. Luck is the first #1 in many years to really play to his potential. Play till the end of the season.
There is no "suck for Luck" in this draft. The payoff for 'tanking' is not that great.
Quote:Bad analogy since the NBA has a lottery system so even if you have the worst record, you only get a 25% chance of getting he #1 pick. I think the year Duncan went #1 the Sonics and Celtics had the best odds....
I do think some form of tanking happens in sports but no one will ever be able to prove it.
It wasn't an analogy. It is a comparison. And some people believe the Spurs tanked that year. They had the second best odds to get Duncan after Boston. And they got lucky. Just like the Colts got lucky when they got Luck the year they were terrible. The Chiefs were unlucky because the year they were the worst team they got Eric Fisher.
The NFL could get rid of the possibility of teams tanking short term by revising the draft ordering rules.
Base it on the team's record over the last 2 or 3 seasons instead of just the one immediately preceding and suddenly the "suck for Luck" stuff loses any viability.
It would also stop teams from being punished for playing hard at the end of lost seasons since one or two meaningless wins would have much less impact on draft position.
We don't tank... we stankl!!!!
The league got rid of tanking, well actually sitting starters at the end of the season, by scheduling division opponents the final weeks.
Regards...................the Chiefjag
Quote:The league got rid of tanking, well actually sitting starters at the end of the season, by scheduling division opponents the final weeks.
Regards...................the Chiefjag
Which has nothing to do with tanking for draft position.
Quote:Intentionally losing is for losers. No player is going to lose on purpose so some rookie can take his job. It's just plain ludicrous. Players and coaches alike play for the incentives in their contracts and the next contract.
Regards................the Chiefjag
this is not a hard concept to understand, chief. No one "intentionally loses". the management is, though, playing tons of young players knowing that they will lose in the short term due to inexperience and lack of talent, in hope of long term gains. Do you consider that tanking?
If you watch basketball, are the 76ers tanking?